Nilesh Lal, the executive director of Dialogue Fiji, has expressed strong support for the Draft Education Bill 2025, particularly highlighting its decisive stance against corporal punishment in schools. In a recent address to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice, Law, and Human Rights, Lal underscored the necessity for alternative disciplinary measures to be clearly defined, advocating for their consistent application across educational institutions in Fiji.
Lal stated, “Any sanctions applied systematically must have clear definitions,” emphasizing the need for comprehensive guidelines that specify appropriate sanctions for various infractions. This would promote uniformity in the enforcement of discipline across schools, ensuring fairness in how students are treated.
Pooja Dutt, the program manager at Dialogue Fiji, described the Bill as a “consequential reform” that is poised to significantly influence educational governance in Fiji for years to come. She particularly welcomed Section 73, which enforces a complete ban on corporal punishment and extends to prohibit cruel or degrading treatment, including emotional harm. Dutt argued that this aligns Fiji with international child rights standards and called for the section’s retention in its current form.
However, Dutt raised concerns regarding certain provisions that could jeopardize equity and legal clarity within the education system. She criticized Section 76, which allows government and aided schools to impose levies, arguing it may threaten the constitutional guarantee of free education and lead to disparities in access to educational opportunities. “The possibility of this provision could effectively distort the very essence of free education,” she warned, cautioning that it could pave the way for a two-tier public education system, contingent on community financial resources rather than equitable access.
Dialogue Fiji further highlighted the risks associated with excessive reliance on fundraising initiatives, suggesting that continual fundraising efforts could impose undue burdens on families, potentially leading to donor fatigue. Dutt also voiced concerns regarding the implications of mandatory education outlined in Section 10, noting that imposing fines or legal repercussions on parents without clear directives could contradict fundamental legal principles.
The organization also cautioned against the prohibition of school zoning, stating that it may lead to overcrowding in popular schools while under-resourced institutions struggle to enroll students, thus widening educational disparities. Furthermore, concerns were raised regarding Section 67, which lacks guiding principles concerning late admissions, risking inconsistent decision-making.
On a positive note, Dutt commended Section 34, which addresses religious instruction in schools, stating it achieves a balance between religious freedom and secular governance. She also praised regulatory flexibility found in Section 68, which advocates for staggered school start times to help reduce urban congestion and improve student well-being.
Through proactive engagement with these critical issues, Dialogue Fiji remains optimistic that the Draft Education Bill 2025 can pave the way for a more equitable and effective education system for all students in Fiji. This collaborative dialogue reflects a growing commitment to enhancing educational standards and protecting children’s rights within the country.