- INTELLIGENT RESISTANCE -
Free. Fair. Fearless. Intelligentsiya is made up of Fiji Islanders who are libertarians in their own way and who cherish the free flow of news, ideas and information and will peacefully resist any attempts by the country's military rulers to stifle free speech. intelligentsiya will also bear witness, report and discuss human rights abuses by the authorities.
June 28, 2012
Fiji to host world-class iron sands mine
By Jemima Garrett
Updated June 28, 2012 15:30:17
Fiji's Ba river delta is the next mining site for companies trying to keep up with China's demand for raw materials.
Australian mining company Amex Resources has been granted a 21-year mining lease to extract iron sands from 120 square kilometres of shallow water in and around the Ba River delta.
Managing director Matthew Collard says the project will employ around 300 people.
He says Amex has not asked for tax concessions and will pay the standard royalties and corporate taxes to the Fiji Government.
"There is a 3 per cent export royalty that the company must pay once we are exporting the product and then, at this moment in time, we are obligated to the 20 per cent corporate tax, as every other entity," he said.
"We haven't proceeded into any incentives, or tax incentives at this stage. We've just been focussed on getting all our approvals through so that we can get into the construction phase."
Mr Collard says extracting the iron sand will be a very simple operation.
"We are a dredging operation, so very similar to previous exercises around Fiji when they have used it for flood mitigation in the river systems," he said.
"We'll be dredging up the sand and the only difference is that we will have a floating concentrator behind our dredge.
"That dredge will be extracting the iron minerals and once we've extracted the iron minerals, we'll be depositing the remaining sand back into the sea floor and then transporting the iron in a transport barge 30 kilometres to the Lautoka Port, where it will be stockpiled and loaded onto a handimax vessel, more likely to be destined for China."
Mr Collard says Amex will follow the New Zealand model for iron sand mining.
"I think the benchmark for iron sands production is definitely New Zealand. They have been doing it for many decades now and have set the standard," he said.
"They are a high quality iron sands producer. Ba delta, once we have the project up and running, the scheduled production rates are not too dissimilar to New Zealand's operation at the moment so it will place the Fijian operation up there as one of the larger iron sands producers."
Mr Collard says it has obtained environmental approval for the mining project to start.
"The river system and managing it, and making sure we do not cause any further damage to the reef is important to us.
"We have engaged a local environmental consultant who is highly regarded in Fiji and he will be responsible for the continued monitoring of the mining operation."
Ambassador of Fiji presents credential to ASEAN sec-gen
Wednesday 27th of June 2012
JAKARTA, Indonesia, June 27 -- Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Fiji to Indonesia Seremaia Tui Cavuilati presented his Letter of Credence on Tuesday, June 26 to Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) secretary-general Surin Pitsuwan.
Surin commended the growth of the tourism sector in Fiji and also encouraged Ambassador Cavuilati to further explore cooperation in areas of competence and interests to both ASEAN and Fiji, according to a press release by ASEAN.
ASEAN said Surin encouraged Fiji to play a greater role in enhancing cooperation between ASEAN and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), of which Fiji is one of the member-states.
In his conversation with Surin, Ambassador Cavuilati said that his accreditation reflected Fiji’s high interest to cooperate closer with the region. The Ambassador also informed Surin that Fiji looks forward to creating more effective relationship with ASEAN and to strengthening the bonds of friendship and cooperation between the two sides.
The Ambassador further introduced some potential areas of cooperation with ASEAN, such as sugar industry, mineral resources, manufacturing, forestry, fisheries, climate change, technology, health pandemics and tourism, ASEAN said.
ASEAN reported that the two officials also discussed the political and economic developments in the region and ways to strengthen the ASEAN-Fiji cooperation. (ASEAN)
UP cane farmers team to visit Australia, Fiji and Mauritus
Wednesday, June 27th 2012, 07:17 PM
Lucknow, June 27 — A 25-member delegation of farmers from Uttar Pradesh would soon be visiting countries like Australia, Fiji and Mauritius to study the use of advanced technology to better sugar cane harvest, it was announced Wednesday.
The directives were issued to officials by Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Akhilesh Yadav when a delegation of sugar cane growers met him here.
Asking officials to ensure that modern technology was intergrated in various projects being undertaken to enhance sugar cane production, Akhilesh Yadav directed them to send a farmer delegation to foreign countries so that they can be educated and informed of the new techniques.
The chief minister also directed officials to clear the dues of cane farmers on priority for the crushing season of 2011-12 and to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court on the matter.
He also warned officials that any laxity on this front would not be tolerated.
-- Indo-Asian News Service
md/vd
IANS
June 14, 2012
Prof Wadan Narsey: Dodgy Australians and Kiwis abroad
Whatever the merits of the Australian Government’s
failed attempt to charge Julian Motifor “Child Sex Offences outside Australia”,
that incident raises a wider legal question regarding Australian and NZcitizens
who commit,or aid and abet other crimes in foreign countries.
Under the Australian Criminal Code
Act 1995 (Division 272 and 273), Australian citizens,
residents and corporations may be charged for Child Sex Offences or child pornography or child abuse material, even if committed outside
Australia.The offences also include “benefiting from,
encouraging or preparing for sexual offences against children outside Australia”.
The principle behind this legislation is undeniable:
being a citizen (or Permanent Resident) of Australia not only gives the person
privileges and protections in Australia and abroad, but it also imposes
responsibilities on the citizen, when abroad,to follow the laws of the host
country, and not bring disrepute to Australia.
The child sex legislation is also predicated on the
principle that Australian citizens should not be engaging in child sex activities
abroad which would be considered to be criminal under Australian laws, if
perpetrated within Australia or NZ.
So why does Australia not have comparable legislation
for other activities abroad, which would also be considered criminal, if
committed in Australia and abroad as
well?
Is the over-throw of a lawful government, support of
an illegal Regime which denies its citizens' basic human rights as defined by
United Nations, not as serious as child sex or international terrorism
activities?
Specifically in the case of Fiji, when would Australian
and NZ citizens'support for the Military Regime amount to clear support of "unlawful"
activities, which the Australian and NZ governments would like to discourage?
I suggest that April 2009 would be the watershed date
to separate out the legally safe "do-gooders", from those who can be
said to knowingly disregard the rule of law and courts in Fiji.
Overthrow of
a lawful government is serious
Clearly, the Australian and NZ governments had the
view from 2006 that the overthrow of Fiji’s lawfully elected government by the
Fiji Military Forces was unlawful and totally unacceptable to them. Despite the expulsion of their High
Commissioners from Fiji, they have steadfastly maintained their stance for the
last five years.
Also sharing and supporting this stance have been
Forum Secretariat, the Commonwealth, and the EU, which are solid regional and
international organizations, and extremely valuable part of Fiji's historical
external alliances.
Those Australian and NZ citizens who put up their
hands to support the Regime after 2006 may have had some legal legitimacy with
the Gates, Pathik and Byrne 2008 judgment that the coup was "legal".
That semblance of legality ended when the 2009 Court
of Appeal judged that Gates, Pathik and Byrne were wrong in their judgment. Iloilo and Bainimarama put a stamp on their
illegality by purporting to abrogate the 1997 Constitution the day after.
Since then, the Regime followed that up with a large
number of Military Decrees, which all additionally state that their actions
cannot be challenged in court -- i.e. no Fiji court or rule of law would be
allowed to apply to these Military Decrees.
The Military
Regime continues to deny its citizens a whole range of basic human rights
such as freedom of speech, media freedom, freedom of assembly, freedom to form
unions and engage in collective bargaining, protection of private property,
accountability for the use of tax-payers funds, and most importantly, the
right to take one’s grievances to an independent court for resolution.
All these rights are taken for granted in Australia
and NZ, by those very people who actively support and defend the Military
Regime in Fiji, some pathetically claiming with paternal condescension that it
is OK for some of the these rights in Fiji to be eroded for some "greater
good" yet to be seen.
What about
Australian and NZ citizens?
Given the official Australian and NZ government
stance, it is strange that there have been many Australian and NZ citizens and
Permanent Residents who have been directly and indirectly, supporting the Fiji
Military Regime, even after the 2009 Court of Appeal judgment.
As in the legislation on child sex offences outside
Australia, a legal case can clearly be made that since 2009, they have been “benefiting from,
encouraging or preparing for" the over-throw of a lawfully elected
government.
If they perpetrated
or supported similar activities in Australia or NZ, they would be prosecuted by the Australian and NZ states,
and condemned by society at large.
But there appear to be no Australian and NZ laws which
discourage their citizens, residents and corporations from aiding and
abettingmilitary coups and unlawful regimes abroad, whether for money or
personal satisfaction.
Indeed, it is a total contradiction that Australia and
NZ allow their citizens to return home to enjoy all the basic human rights there,
that they directly or indirectly,help to deny others in foreign countries.
What is more contradictory is that Australia and NZ
impose sanctions on ordinary Fiji soldiers' relatives (such as rugby and
netball players), thereby denying their basic human rights: by no stretch of
the imagination could they be held responsible for the actions of their
relatives.
The case of
FNPF's foreign consultants
Look at the strange media statementput out by two foreign consultants
to the FNPF.
One consultant was from a prominent Australian firm,
hired by FNPF to provide technical assistance on
the reforms of the FNPF Act) and other from a NZ university, hired by
FNPF to develop actuarial and data analysis
capacity.
It would have been quite acceptable if these consultants'
role had been only to offer consultancy services to help FNPF's sustainability
over the long run, through lawful means allowed in the FNPF Act and Fiji laws.
But their media statements effectively justified
Military Decrees whose very legality was being challenged in the High Court
through the Burness/Shameem case.
These two consultants wrote a Fiji Times article
purporting to counter 10 alleged “myths” about the FNPF reform. Read it here
(and look at the faces of the pensioners in the photo).
They footnoted their article with a strange
statement "Disclaimer: The opinions
expressed are the authors' own and are not intended as legal or financial
advice".
There is no need to rebut their arguments on the
alleged 10 Myths, as my own detailed submission for the Burness/Shameem legal
case (censored from the Fiji media) implicitly did that. A reader-friendly
version may be read here.
The consultants' allegation on Myth 2 however claimed
that the FNPF reforms did not involve FNPF
“breaking contracts with pensioners”; they claimed that the FNPF was
paying the pensioners an annuity not because they had a contract, but because
the “Minister” decided what annuity they should receive under the “old Act”,
and when the “old Act” was “abolished” by the 2012 Military Decree, then the
pensioners' entitlement also vanished, ipso facto.
The consultants boldly stated “The
legal correctness of this analysis has been confirmed by the Solicitor General”.
Really? "Confirmed"?
The issue is not whether this interpretation was
correct or whether the David Burness/Shameem case would have been successful
(as the pensioners' lawyer and I thought).
The real issue is that these foreign consultants were
making a statement clearly in contempt of the Fiji High Court, which had
already accepted that case and set a date for the hearingto decide that very
issue.
Would they be allowed to peddle such
a view in Australia or NZ that it was acceptable
for the Australian Solicitor General and the Attorney General, who were named
parties in a legal case to become judges,
jury and executioners in their own case.
Burness (and all the adversely
affected pensioners) could of course ask the consultant: "if the Attorney
General and Solicitor General were so
sure of the correctness of this analysis, why did their Military Decree state that
the Registrar of Courts must throw out any related case already in court"?Why
not let the allegedly independent judiciary decide on the case?
[Bored readers should read these expert consultants'
views on their "Myth 3" claiming that the contributors to FNPF and
the pensioners do not own FNPF, but the Board does. What a gem.What horrendous
implications for the accountability of anything owned by taxpayers in Fiji].
Consultants'
employers and rogue multinationals abroad
There is a much broader issue here
for the Australian and NZ governments whose companies operate under illegal
regimes abroad, whether in Fiji or elsewhere.
Globally, multinational corporations,
try to ensure that they receive favorable treatment in royalties, taxes, labor
legislation and environmental regulations covering their investments in
minerals, oils or major commodities.
They have shown themselves to have no
scruples about helping in the overthrow of lawfully elected governments in
order to install puppet governments (hence the term “Banana Republics”describing
countries in Latin America who were totally subservient to the American banana
multinationals).
Thankfully, multinationals are being
increasingly taken to task by international watch-dogs for unlawful or bad
corporate practices that lead to bad governance and often devastating political
instability in Third World countries.
Multinationals have to be also on
guard that their employees in foreign countries, do notaid or abet illegal
practices there. Some, like Nike, have had to clean up their employment
practices in Third World countries such as China, which are not illegal per se,
but just considered unfair in their home countries where the products are sold.
The
Australian consultant for FNPF worked for a global company with offices all
over the world, and whose website prides itself on "unparalleled
regulatory credibility and insight".
Presumably this company is also glad to operate in a world where
independent judiciaries could always be counted upon as the bastion of last
recourse to any disagreements they might have, with either governments or other
corporate entities.
This
Australian consultant had also worked for World Bank, Asian Development Bank
and AusAID -- which would ordinarily be expected to give her professional
credibility.
While the two consultants stated in
the Fiji Times article that their views were personal, they did not explicitly
state, as is usually the case in the Fiji Times articles, that the article did
not represent the views of their
employers in Australia and NZ.
These questions may very legitimately be put to them:
- As Australian an NZ citizens, were they justifying the Regime’s illegal Military Decrees in Fiji which broke the pensioners contracts and eroded their basic human rights, especially to personal property?
- Were they implicitly justifying the Military Decree which removed the pensioners' legal case already before the High Court, thereby denying their basic human right to take their just grievances to court, as well as compromising the independence of the judiciary and the High Court judge concerned?
- Were their respective employers in Australia and NZ supporting their statement in the media?
- Were they knowingly taking part in this media propaganda, while being aware that all opposing statements by the pensioners' lawyer (Dr Shameem), opinion pieces by academics, and even letters from aggrieved pensioners, all Fiji citizens, were being totally censored in the Fiji media?
The pensioners’ lawyer (Dr Shameem) was reported on the
Fiji Pensioners' Website as being "certain
that neither (the consultants) nor indeed the Solicitor General ... would be
allowed to get away with this type of blatant abuse of power in their own
countries, namely Australia and New Zealand".
And that "The NZ Law Society has
already commented on Decree No 51 as purposely interfering with the power of a
judge to decide a case already in the High Court."
While Dr Shameem described the foreign FNPF consultants
as “carpet-baggers from Australia and NZ” (I would not, as they probably did
give some valuable technical advice), the real question is,why Australia and NZ
do not have laws to discourage unethical behavior by their owncitizens' abroad,
as they do with respect to child sex offenders?
Unfortunately for Fiji, such undesirable activities by
Australian and NZ citizens are not isolated cases, and they may be expected to
continue in the future.
Other Coup
Supporters
Australia and NZ urgently need to examine what should
be their laws regarding dozens of their citizens who are,or who have been
aiding and abetting illegal activities,infringing on basic human rights in
Fiji, especially after the 2009 Court of Appeal judgment.
One FNPF board member is enjoying his safe property
rights and other basic human rights in NZ, while helping the FNPF Board and the
Military Regime to deny them to Fiji citizens. (The Chairman of FNPF is a Sri
Lankan).
Two former ADB employees and NZ citizens rapidly
touched down in Fiji to help the post 2006 coup Regime, allegedly because of
their great love for Fiji, their former home. (Except that when these former
Fiji citizens retired from their lucrative international jobs, they invested
all their savings and pensions in NZ, where they enjoy all the human rights and
property protections of the law, that are denied to Fiji citizens by the very
Military Regime they supported).
One of them was the driver of the "Charter"
exercise which has been one ideological justification used by the Regime to
hold on to power, and he kept the Regime powered till 2009 (he also he helped to
push out another star, while another star was born, shining on till today).
This paid consultant has said nothing publicly (and
neither has the Head of the Catholic Church, the Co-Chair of the NCBBF which
allegedly approved the Charter), when the Constitution was abrogated in 2009,
although the first paragraph of the Charter stated that Fiji would be guided
bythe 1997 Constitution (no doubt an important factor in many people putting
their signatures in support of the Charter).
[Quite strangely the Regime mouthpieces keep parroting
that the Yash Ghai Commission will not
be allowed to revisit the 1997 Constitution, and in the same breath, their Leader
keeps saying the Charter will be their guiding document for Fiji. How terribly sad
that an entire country accepts this charade, day after day].
In this paid Charter consultant's most recent
interview, he even accused the Australian and NZ governments of cynicism
towards the Fiji Regime!
Many of the Australian and NZ citizens who have taken
up key employment positions in the judiciary, civil service, statutory
corporationsand boards, may be excused if they took up these posts before April
2009.
But many have remained there even after the 2009 Court
of Appeal judgment, when all doubt was removed about the Regime's illegality.
Some help to implement the draconian media censorship
(which censors the views of citizens, while shamelessly giving prominence to
Regime supporters); some assist with the judicial applications of illegal
military decrees; some continue to provide ideological justification of the
coups, shutting their eyes to all the abuses.
Of course, it would be difficult to prove in a court
of law that they are "aiding and abetting an illegal Military Regime"
and that their behavior is "criminal" in some clear way.
Of course, some may still be genuine in their views
especially those who are clearly not benefiting personally: "we were just
helping to return Fiji to lawful democratic rule" and to "make sure
that the ordinary people do not suffer" and "anyway, look,
Bainimarama is really popular amongst many Fiji citizens".
But as current Chief Justice Anthony Gates correctly stated
in 2001, constitutionality and law and order are not about popularity:
"For the courts cannot pronounce lawfulness based
simply on the will of the majority. Nor
can lawfulness be accorded to the tyranny of the mob.... Such tyranny lacks universal morality and the
courts will not assist usurpers simply because they are numerous, powerful, or
even popular."
It is sad for Fiji, that not only is the post-2009
Regime an unlawful government undermining basic human rights of Fiji citizens,
but the end result after five and a half years of rule, is economic stagnation
and increasing poverty, which the public cannot read about because of the
continuing media censorship.
It is indicative that even die-hard pro-Regime
supporters (to this day) like Father Kevin Barr, have had to resort to
international blog-sites to get his views to the Fiji public, while his Wages
Councils which have been trying to help the poorest workers in Fiji for the
last five years, have been thoroughly hamstrung and effectively trashed by this
Regime.
But that matters little to the elite pro-Regime
supporters in Fiji and abroad.
"Arc of
instability" for Australia and NZ
When the first 1987 coup took place in Fiji, Australia
and NZ tended to laugh it off as a bit of blimp in the South Pacific paradise.
But in the last twenty years, there have been more
Fiji coups,and civil disturbances in other Pacific countries like Solomon
Islands, Tonga and PNG, and the totally ignored West Papua.
For the last year or so, there have been bitter
political struggles to take control of the PNG government, with the lure of making
personal fortunes from dealing with the global corporations involved in the
massive natural resource boom in liquid natural gas and mining.
In the recent crises, the police and the military in
PNG may have remained marginally neutral, although there was a special police
unit which had to be disarmed as their loyalty was in question.
I suspect that a hundred professionally trained Fijian
soldiers could have easily done a coup in PNG, for any group of disaffected
politicians with the money.
There is a very real possibility that in future,
political groups may begin to hire mercenaries among former army personnel from
Australia, NZ and Fiji, with experience in the Middle East, Iraq and
Afghanistan, to provide backup to their political maneuverings.
Military coups cannot be ruled out, with many
Melanesian leaders admiring and echoing the words of Rabuka, Speight and
Bainimarama.
Ominously, the PNG judiciary, which is supposed to be
the final arbiter in political stand-offs, has also had a murky role in recent
weeks.
There is no guarantee that for their own financial
gain, Australian and NZ nationals will not get involved in the kinds of
activities that they have engaged in, in Fiji, supporting the Regime through
civil service and other roles.
It is also unfortunately true that to the western world, white faces prominent
in illegal regimes still imply "oh
perhaps, they are OK", whatever their actual capabilities.
Which is why illegal Third World regimes hire them.
Also a
matter of legal justice for Fiji victims
Many of the Military Regime’s actions are unlawfully
harming property interests in Fiji of not just citizens,but foreigners.
Currently, most of these victims have no recourse to
the judiciary in Fiji, as the Fiji courts are explicitly prevented by the
Military Decrees from hearing their cases.
Paradoxically, some of the active coup supporters have
their own homes and private personal assets safe and sound in Australia and NZ,happily
protected by the laws of these two countries, while they support a Regime which erodes the same rights of Fiji
citizens.
However, should any of these Australian citizens,
Permanent Residents, and corporations be convicted in Australiafor
"crimes"against people abroad, thenit is possible that the victims abroad
may be able to sue them and their assets in Australia and NZ.
However hard it may be to implement such laws in
reality, their mere existence would discourageAustralian and NZ citizens who
currently and with impunity, assist in the breaching of basic human rights
abroad, as in Fiji.
For certain, Australia and NZ need to bring in new
legislation that will discourage their own citizens from aiding and abetting
activities abroad, especially if they help to worsenthe "arc of
instability" around Australia and NZ.
June 13, 2012
Australia Network News: Call to criminilise Australians who support Fiji regime
Last Updated: 18 hours 2 minutes ago
There has been a call for Australia and New Zealand to make it illegal for its citizens to work overseas in support of undemocratic regimes.
The call comes from prominent Fiji academic, Professor Wadan Narsey, who says several Australians and and New Zealanders are working in prominent positions in the coup installed military government in Fiji.
Professor Narsey told Radio Australia's Pacific Beat program that both countries already criminalise their citizens who travel offshore to engage in paedophilia or terrorist activities, and supporting what he says are illegal governments should be treated the same way.
"I mean I have no problems with those people who are trying to do positive and constructive things, you know, to try and get the country back to a lawful and democratic government," he said.
"But where I have a problem is where quite a few people have gone there and justified illegal things such as the overthrow of a lawful government, or they have taken part in processes which have compromised the judiciary or have compromised the ministerial portfolios."
"If somebody goes and engages in paedophilia or engages in activities which encourage terrorism, such as what happened in September 11, you have laws over here which allows the Australian and New Zealand Governments to prosecute them," said Professor Narsey.
"There is no laws which they can use to discredit this unlawful behaviour abroad, and to me this strikes me as double standards."
He says the lack of legislation available to prosecute such actions is a double standard, made more glaring by the fact that Australia has imposed travel bans on not only those taking part in the coup in Fiji, but their relatives as well.
"That infringes on their basic human rights," he said.
"I mean you are not responsible for your relatives, you are responsible for your own actions."
Professor Narsey says that with huge financial interests at play in areas like PNG and East Timor, there is the very real danger that the assistance of well-trained New Zealanders and Australians can be used to further weaken the fragile political and judicial institutions in these places.
June 12, 2012
Pacific Freedom Forum: Fiji regime's license threat condemned
MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2012
PFF, Rarotonga, COOK ISLANDS -- A threat from the Fiji regime that coverage of people it brands as "opposition" will cost Fiji TV its broadcast license, has been strongly condemned by regional media watchdog the Pacific Freedom Forum, PFF.
The order not to broadcast comments or pictures of a regime list of "opposition" people including Laisenia Qarase, Mahendra Chaudhry, and Felix Anthony came from Fiji's Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum two weeks ag, just days after a Fiji TV news bulletin carried a story that had interviews with the deposed prime minister, Laisenia Qarase, and the Fiji Labour party leader, Mahendra Chaudhry. Both were responding to an earlier story in which constitution commissioner,Taufa Vakatale, had blamed politicians of the past for what she said was Fiji's current state.
Shared with management early last week, the editorial crackdown on what is perceived as 'anti-regime' coverage has put the station on notice that all content in June will be 'monitored' and will influence whether or not Fiji TV's 12-year license will be renewed at the end of this month.
"PFF condemns this demoralising and shameful action by the regime forcing journalists to ditch their ethics and professional integrity when they report for duty, and calls for its immediate retraction," says PFF co chair Titi Gabi, of Papua New Guinea.
"The criteria for meeting broadcast requirements should not rely on whether the leaders of the day are weeding out right of reply or balance to their own views. This episode clearly shows that the regime censors may be out of the newsrooms, but their work of keeping journalists gagged by fear for their families, intimidation and self-censorship continues."
PFF co chair Monica Miller says Fiji's journalists are already gagged by the Media Decree and operating in a climate where media leaders are called into 'private' meetings with the Attorney General on a whim whenever he takes exception to news content.
"If the attorney General cannot use his own Media Decree and the regime's media authority to complain about perceived imbalance in reporting, he should revoke it. In the meantime, we stand in solidarity with those colleagues already seeking other jobs because it is becoming impossible to uphold ethics at this time Sadly, we are aware that the Fiji TV meeting has not been the only one in recent weeks and will continue to monitor the regime campaign to stamp out free speech and media in Fiji."
-- ENDS
CONTACT:
PFF Chair
Titi Gabi | Freelance Journalist | Papua New Guinea Mail: PO Box 7776, Boroko, NCD, Papua New Guinea | Mob: (675) 7314 3929 | Email: titi.gabipng@gmail.com
PFF co-Chair
Monica Miller | KHJ Radio | American Samoa Mob 684 258-4197 | Office 684 633-7793 | Email: monica@khjradio.com
The Pacific Freedom Forum are a regional and global online network of Pacific media colleagues, with the specific intent of raising awareness and advocacy of the right of Pacific people to enjoy freedom of expression and be served by a free and independent media. We believe in the critical and basic link between these freedoms, and the vision of democratic and participatory governance pledged by our leaders in their endorsement of the Pacific Plan and other commitments to good governance. In support of the above, our key focus is monitoring threats to media freedom and bringing issues of concern to the attention of the wider regional and international community.
Desert News: BYU student attacked in Fiji says ordeal could have been prevented
By Jared Page, Deseret News
Published: Sunday, June 10 2012 6:25 p.m. MDT
PROVO — It's been a week since Hilary has had a good night's sleep.
It came after a full day of serving the people of Lautoka, Fiji, where she'd been living since May with a dozen other college-age volunteers.
Like Hilary, many of them were BYU students who volunteered with Provo-based HELP International, a nonprofit group focused on fighting global poverty. The trip was not sponsored by BYU nor is BYU directly affiliated with HELP.
Hilary, 22, spent most days teaching physical education at Fijian schools. She also was working with the World Health Organization and the Ministry of Health on a book about diabetes to be published and distributed throughout the island nation.
"It was a great experience, going (to Fiji) for a good purpose that could have been tremendous," she said, "but it was ruined."
Hilary, 22, asked that her last name not be published as she detailed the events of June 3, the night she said she was attacked in a residential area, dragged to a nearby field and nearly raped before she was able to escape.
The nearly hour-long ordeal is what keeps her up at night.
"I'm not able to sleep fully," she said Sunday in a telephone interview from her home in Colorado. "I scream in my sleep. … I lie awake at night."
Hilary said she doesn't want the incident to define her or the time she spent in the service of the Fijian people. But she felt she needed to make her story known, she said, in hopes of preventing something similar from happening to others.
She said she believes her attack could have been prevented if HELP International had followed through on its promises of providing volunteers with safety training. In addition, an investigation is under way into reports of threats made against the group earlier that day, though the student volunteers were not told about them until after the woman was attacked.
"I still love Fiji," Hilary said. "Most of the people you meet down there are the humblest, kindest people you've ever met. I still loved the service experiences I had. I met some wonderful people.
"At the same time, my experience is changed forever."
Just before 8 p.m. Monday, Hilary was walking from an Internet cafe to the rental home she had been sharing with 10 other students and two HELP International country directors.
It's about a three-minute walk that Hilary says she had made several times before. The students used the Internet cafe to email friends and family or catch up with them on Facebook, she said.
It was dark outside, she said, but there were streetlights along the road and the homes along the street also were lit.
"I noticed two men behind me," Hilary recalled.
She had been keeping an eye on the men, she said, regularly looking over her shoulder at them, wanting them to know she was aware they were following her.
But she didn't see the third man until he'd grabbed her, covered her mouth with one hand and pressed something sharp — "I think it was a knife," she said — against her back with his other hand.
The other two men started to run toward her, she recalled, and the three of them dragged her away into a nearby field.
"The next thing I knew, I was fighting," Hilary said.
The men kept her in the field for between 45 minutes to an hour, she said. Hilary spent much of that time fighting, she said, though she was weak from a recent illness and may have passed out during the ordeal.
The top of her dress was ripped open, and one of the men attempted to rape her, she said, before "a rush of panic" hit and she found her strength.
"I panicked and got my strength back, and I kicked the guy," she said. "He went off of me, and I ran as fast as I could."
Though disoriented at first, Hilary made it back to the house where she had been staying. HELP leaders had been searching for the woman and already had involved the police.
The U.S. Embassy coordinated medical treatment for Hilary and also were looking into reports that the group had been threatened by a landlord after learning HELP wanted to move out of the house, she said.
"The embassy told me at the time they believe my attack was connected to a threat that had happened earlier that day that I had not been informed of," Hilary said.
HELP leaders had found another house in a different neighborhood that better fit the group's needs, she said, but the landlord "went crazy" when he was informed the group planned to move out.
Hilary said the landlord threatened one of the group's directors, saying, "I'm going to get you."
"So I was not informed that there was a threat that same afternoon I was attacked," she said. "I feel like it could have been prevented."
Matthew Colling, HELP's executive director, said "every possible safety precaution" has been taken to keep student volunteers safe.
"I just feel so awful that she had to go through something like that," Colling said, "and I'm sorry for any pain and suffering that it's caused."
He said such an attack is "incredibly rare for Fiji and especially the town in which our team was located."
Colling says safety trainings were provided to the group, before the volunteers left for Fiji and after they arrived. Students also receive safety handbooks that they're supposed to read before they leave.
"One of the things in the handbook is that you're supposed to follow the buddy system," he said. "You're always supposed to be with someone."
Colling says Hilary should not have gone to the Internet cafe alone and was in violation of the code of conduct she signed before leaving by doing so.
"Whenever you're going overseas, you do always run the risk of finding yourself in a compromising safety situation," he said.
HELP International has offered to pay for counseling for Hilary, though Colling says he hadn't spoken with the woman as of Sunday afternoon.
Hilary said she believes HELP International "stands for a great purpose" and "can do great things."
But volunteers aren't given all the information they need about their safety prior to agreeing to join the group, she said.
Hilary, who is taking one correspondence course at BYU this summer, says she plans to return to Utah in the fall to pursue a masters degree at the University of Utah.
Contributing: Sandra Yi and Ashley Kewish
E-mail: jpage@desnews.com
Prof Wadan Narsey: Issues of electoral fraud, and voter registration and turnout targets
This Submission
addresses two areas that the Ghai Commission could usefully examine and comment
on.
First is the
continued Regime allegations that there was electoral fraud in the 2006
elections.
Second, some advice
based on international experience, on what might be appropriateand
cost-effective targets for voter registration and voter turnouts in a rurally
dispersed electorate such as Fiji
The Regime selectively quotes the EU Report,
pointing to disenfranchisement of certain voter groups (not stated who exactly),
flawed registration processes, lack of integrity in the electoral roll, old traditional wooden ballot boxes being
used with some political parties claiming that "the boxes had sufficient
gaps beneath the lids to allow ballot papers to be inserted after the boxes
were sealed", no recount of some close votes, a 101 percent. voter turnout
in one constituency; and electoral officials favouring the SDL.
These are the serious allegations of possible
electoral fraud that the Ghai Commission must examine objectively using the
facts, and either accept or reject these allegations once and for all.
There have been other allegations which even
the Yash Ghai Commission would know to be merely inefficiencies which are
undesirable but little to do with possible electoral fraud: such as, inappropriate allocation of polling stations
and ballot boxes; high levels of invalid votes (bad electoral system); Electoral Commission lacking funding, lack of
institutional knowledge due to the downsizing of the Office of the Supervisor
of Elections; the main voter roll not ready on time for public scrutiny which
resulted in about 20,000 corrections; and the strange Regime reference to "only
12% of polling stations were being headed by women".
This submission
tries to assist the Ghai Commission with an analysis of the "big picture"allegation
of electoral fraud by the Fijian SDL (presumably against the Indo-Fijian FLP)
using the 2007 Census data produced by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics.
On the issue of
appropriate registration and voter turnout targets, a key statistical point
that the Ghai Commission might wish to consider is that having another 10% or
even 5% of potential voters registering to vote, or voting, would have been
extremely unlikely to have made any difference whatsoever, to the elections
outcome- either in the past, or in the future.
[A qualification: Let me state at the outset that I
hold no brief for the SDL, FLP,or any other political party, although I have
been accurately described in the media as a former NFP Parliamentarian (which I
was between 1996 and 1999). Following the 1999 elections, however, I ceased my
political affiliation, although I still
have friends from many of the political parties during my three years in
Parliament. I was able to assist the Electoral Office during the 2006
elections, as well as all the political
parties that attended my voter education workshops throughout Fiji in 2005 and
early 2006.
I now focus on the
substance of this Submission.
What could be indicators of electoral fraud?
I suggest to the
Yash Ghai Commission that if there is any substance at all to allegations of
widespread electoral fraud by the Fijian SDL against Indo-Fijian voters and
parties, then
(a) the numbers of
Fijian voters registered as a
proportion of the actual population aged 21 and over, would tend to be
systematically higher than the similar proportions for Indo-Fijians, both in
individual constituencies and in aggregate; and
(b) the numbers of
Fijians voting as a proportion of those registered to vote, would tend
to be higher than the similar proportion for Indo-Fijians, both in individual
constituencies and in aggregate.
The facts in Annex 1,
Annex 2 and Annex 3, to this submission suggest completely the opposite.
The 2007 Census data
The elections were
held in 2006 and the Census was unfortunately postponed to 2007.
[This was much to
the unhappiness of the Fiji Bureau of Statistics demographers and the few of us
who understand how critical it was to not break the hundred year old cycle of
the ten year gap between censuses.
For political purposes, it would have been far more sensible and cost
effective to have the census first, so that the electoral boundaries could be
more easily established, given the requirements of the 1997 Constitution. In
the end, the costs were wastefully duplicated.]
Regardless of that, anyone
can go to the Fiji Bureau of Statistics website and download all the 2007 Fiji
Census data, by single years.
[My considered
opinion is that, contrary to blog allegations, there has been no political
interference with any FBS data for the last six years, despite the recently
retired Government Statistician being the older brother of Commodore
Bainimarama].
Add up the 2007 numbers
of potential voters (aged 21 and over) for Fijians, Indo-Fijians and Others in
2007.
To estimate the
numbers of potential voters for 2006, reduce the Fijian number by 1.9% (that is
the annual growth rate of Fijian voters).
And reduce the
Indo-Fijian number by a much smaller 0.1%, the growth rate of Indo-Fijian
voters around 2007 (but note that the growth rate of Indo-Fijian voters has
been negative for the last five years- expect fewer Indo-Fijian voters at the
next election in 2014).
You will get the
following interesting table for 2006:
Table 1
|
Fijians
|
Indo-Fijians
|
Registered voters in 2006
|
256014
|
204470
|
Estimated Number Of Voting age in 2006
|
261876
|
205723
|
Percentage registered
|
98%
|
99%
|
The last row indicates
that 98% of eligible Fijian voters were
actually registered to vote in 2006.
But that was lower
than the 99% of Indo-Fijian voters who registered.
There is little
possibility of hordes of non-existent Fijian voters being registered twice by
the SDL or any Fijian political party.
And what percentage
of those registered voters actually voted?
The last row of Table
2 tells you that 87% of registered Fijian voters actually voted, compared to a
higher 89% of registered Indo-Fijians who voted.
Table 2
|
Fijians
|
Indo-Fijians
|
Registered voters in 2006
|
256014
|
204470
|
Actually voting
|
222660
|
182476
|
Percentage voting:
|
87
|
89
|
Nationally, a higher
proportion of potential Indo-Fijian voters were registered than Fijians.
AND a higher proportion of registered Indo-Fijian voters
actually voted, than Fijians.
Whatever happened in
that one Cakaudrove East constituency, certainly was not replicated throughout
the constituencies in aggregate (see Annex 3) nor in individual constituencies
(see Annex 2).
Annex 2 shows that
the Cakaudrove East result (of more voters than registered) was just one
constituency out of 46, and only in 2006.
There was no such result in either 1999 or 2001, when Fijian parties
were also in control of the election processes. i.e. 1 anomaly out of 138 communal constituencies
(and I show below that even that was trivial).
The Yash Ghai
Commission should insist on hard evidence from anyone who keeps alleging that
there was widespread electoral fraud in the 2006 elections.
If it wants to
satisfy itself, the Yash Ghai Commission can commission similar analysis at the
division and the province level. Just
request and please pay for assistance from the last few remaining
demographersat the Fiji Bureau of Statistics (before they emigrate to better
paying jobs at regional organisations and elsewhere).
To get the Ghai
Commission started, I present Annexes 1, 2 and 3 at the bottom of the paper, of some analysis I
did three years ago, to see if there was any evidence to support the allegations
of electoral fraud in any of the
constituencies.
Annex B suggests
that these allegations of electoral fraud are not substantiated by these
numbers.
Annex 3 shows that
for all three elections (1999, 2010, and
2006) a higher proportion of Indo-Fijians registered, actually voted than did
Fijians.
What of the anomaly
in Cakaudrove East, where there was indeed a 101% voter turn-out.
What of the Cakaudrove East anomaly?
Of course, you
cannot have 1% more voters than the number supposedly registered.
But was this clear
evidence of electoral fraud by the SDL, perhaps with their hand-picked
electoral officials secretly stuffing the ballot boxes with extra votes for
SDL, through gaps below the lids of wooden boxes?
If you examine this
anomaly closely, you find that not only was Cakaudrove East a small rural constituency
(with only 7639 voters), but the "extra" 1% voters amounted to a mere
52 votes (that is right, fifty two).
Right alongside was
another Fijian constituency, Cakaudrove West, where a much larger 1987
registered voters did not vote.
I would not be
surprised to find that some voters registered in the Cakaudrove West mistakenly
voted in Cakaudrove East.
The Ghai Commission
should also note that the SDL won Cakaudrove East with 6120 votes, and a
massive margin of 5353 votes over all the others combined.52 extra votes was a
drop in that big bucket.
I doubt if any one
from the SDL would have bothered to cheat in that constituency, even if some
political parties alleged that "the boxes had sufficient gaps beneath the
lids to allow ballot papers to be inserted after the boxes were sealed").
The Ghai Commission
should note that the FLP had one year in the Interim Government, and the
Military Regime has had more than five years, to find any evidence of electoral
fraud. They have not found any.
Continued repetition
of allegations of electoral without an iota of evidence should be rejected by
the Ghai Commission, and seen for what they are: a refusal by political parties
to abide by the "rules of the game" when the game goes against them,
and other agenda.
The other flimsy excuses
Extremely strange are
the Regime allegations that "only 12% of polling stations were being
headed by women", as if that amounts to electoral fraud.
The women members of
the Ghai Commission would know that most female civil servants (and civil
servants are usually the polling officers) will not want to be working at odd hours
in polling stations, with their families worried about their safety, or
probably more likely male family members clamouring at home: "who is going
to cook the dinner?".
Such a complaint is
indeed strange coming from an all-powerful dictatorial Regime which has
appointed only 1 female Minister in an otherwise all male Government,
especially when one Superman is allegedly looking after 7 ministries of his
own, and probably another 6 as well for the Boss. (Goodness me. The Ghai Commission could even recommend that
the Fiji Cabinet can do with just 2 Ministers - one Superman, and one
Super Woman - to have gender balance! But paid one salary each, of course.)
The allegation that
the composition of the polling staff did not reflect the balance of Fiji
If the Regime is to be consistent about the
issue of ethnic balance in electoral officers, the Ghai Commission might record
in their Report that if the Regime continues to use the Fiji Military to
conduct the bulk of the voter registration exercise, that will also reflect the
99% indigenous Fijian balance in the military while Fiji's ethnic balance would
require 33% of these officers to be Indo-Fijian.
Why do most Indo-Fijians still believe the allegations of SDL electoral
fraud?
I have little doubt that if the Ghai
Commission were to ask a large number of Indo-Fijians if they believed that
there was electoral fraud by the SDL in 2006 or 2001, I suspect the majority
would say "yes".
Most Indo-Fijians believed the FLP's
allegations of electoral fraud in 2001 and 2006, and these allegations have not
been retracted to this day.
In Australia
It is important for the Ghai Commission to
understand the reasons for this continued but misplaced belief.
The harsh reality is that the Indo-Fijian
community have not forgotten the 1987 and 2000 coups which removed their
political leaders from control of government, and all the associated random and
targeted violence against them.
Those wounds have not healed and the few racist
political statements since the 2000 coup have not helped either.
Such violence has never been targeted against
the general indigenous Fijians population even after the 2006 coup, although
many have suffered violence at the hands of the military.
It should be noted that while the elected
Fijian leaders may have been deposed by the 2006 coup, they have been replaced
by another set of Fijian leaders, albeit from the military.
Two Indo-Fijian swallows in the Bainimarama
Cabinet do not make for an Indian summer, however prominent one may be in the
media.
It is to be hoped that the current
rapprochement between all the political parties such as SDL, FLP, NFP, and UPP
will result in genuine reconciliation between all the parties, most of whom
have by now made the mistake of supportingone military coup or another.
[NAP, SVT, PANU, BLV, MV etc.may surface one
of these days- in one form or another, once they understand the likely
advantages to themselves, should a proportional electoral system come into
being for the 2014 elections.]
What are sensible targets for voter registration and voter turnout?
There is currently a frenzy of spending of
tax-payers funds, on electronic methods of voter registration, with the
objectives of improving the proportions
of voter registration, and voter turnout.
These are theoretically good objectives in themselves.
But the Yash Ghai Commission should note that
Fiji
Have a look at the international comparisons here.
This sensible article points out that voter
turnout depends on "trust in government, degree
of partisanship among the population, interest in politics, and belief in the
efficacy of voting.
For Fiji
But even in 2001, the Fiji
Note also, that the voter turnout in 2006
returned to the much higher levels of around 89% of 2006, indicating that the
vast majority of voters were once more engaging with the electoral process.
I submit that the Ghai Commission should note
the following four aspects of voter turnout rates and voting effectiveness in
the Fiji
First, the proportions of invalid votes in
future will almost certainly be drastically reduced by the likely changes in
the electoral system and the simplification of the ballot papers.
Secondly, for many voters who live far from
the polling stations, especially rural indigenous Fijians, the logistics and
costs of getting to the polling stations far outweighs any benefits of voting
for their party of choice.
(Regardless of other benefits that the two
former Fiji parliamentarians on the Ghai Commission will remember, with mixed
feelings no doubt, such as the free transport of voters, food, grog, and jovial
company that usually awaits voters at polling stations, often merrily enjoyed
without necessarily giving the bribing political aspirants, their vote, in the
secrecy of the polling booth).
The third point is that some 5% of potential
voters in Fiji
But the fourth and probably the most
important point to consider is a statistical one, related to the ultimate
objective of all elections, which is to identify accurately and fairly
"who the people want to govern the nation" in their, and the public
interest.
How big a voter turnout do you really need?
Every good statistician and Bureau of
Statistics knows that if a proper random sample is taken of the entire
country of voters, then a mere 5% (I repeat, a mere five percent.) would
tell you quite accurately which party is likely to be the winner (don't take my
word for it, go and ask a good statistician at the FBS or USP).
This great statistical result is what
household surveys by bureaus of statistics, good "opinion polls" or
"exit polls" rely on,in the developed world.
Nobody questions that a "sample"or
"voter turnout rate" as large as 48% (which is apparently the voter
turnout rate in US) or 58% (in the world's largest democracy, India ) or 75% (in UK
The Ghai Commission should consider that
increases of voter registration beyond 90% or voter turnout beyond 90% is
extremely unlikely to change the result of any election: why would the last 10%
of potential voters be any different in political views than the first 90% who
have already voted?)
All accountable and resource-scarce countries
in the world understand that once you have reached the 85% mark (as Fiji
already has) then the "marginal costs" of increasing both the
registration rate and the voter turnout rate
will result in negligible marginal benefits in identifying winning
parties, while imposing great cost to tax-payers- as we may end up doing
currently.
The Ghai Commission should guard against
costly and un-necessarily high targets for voter registration or voter turnout,
especially when there are many more urgent needs for the use of taxpayers'
funds, such as in poverty alleviation, health, education or rural development.
All political parties would similarly gain,
if they mutually agreed to not provide all the incredibly costly
"bribes" that voters have come to expect from aspiring candidates,
often discouraging poor candidates from standing.
While this is something that cannot be
enforced (even though there is absolutely no evidence that in Fiji such
electoral "bribes" actually work), the Yash Ghai Commission might
wish to make a recommendation on this issue, and the political parties might
wish to come to some agreement on this (to reduce their own expenditures). Let
the voters vote, based on their commitment.
Conclusion
I urge the Yash Ghai Commission to ensure
that they do not repeat or give any credibility to any allegations of alleged electoral
fraud in either 2001 or 2006, without definitive and objective evidence.
It is accepted that the Regime's new
arrangements for electronic electoral registration, individual voter cardsmay be
improvements on the past systems and should be welcomed by all the political
parties- provided they are not too costly and they not suffer from glitches
(have a look at the FBS disastrous belated attempt to use electronic scanners
for the 2007 Census forms).
However, I submit to the Yash Ghai Commission
that they keep in mind that such minor improvements in the logistics of the
electoral processes are extremely unlikely to make any great difference to the
eventual election outcomes, or confer any significant benefits to the
tax-payers and the nation.
Far more useful for the country's improvement
of electoral processes would be a genuine dialogue, rapprochement and the
building of goodwill, between the political parties and the Military Regime,
with independent NGOs as facilitating intermediaries.
Annex Tables
Annex 1
|
Voters Listed
|
Numbers Voting
|
||||||
No
|
Constituency
|
Type
|
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
1
|
Bua Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
6357
|
6972
|
6749
|
5966
|
6050
|
6245
|
2
|
Kadavu Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
5845
|
6540
|
6089
|
5371
|
5328
|
5476
|
3
|
Lau Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
6807
|
7536
|
6612
|
6343
|
6197
|
5943
|
4
|
Lomaiviti Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
8131
|
8743
|
7650
|
7265
|
7009
|
6906
|
5
|
Macuata Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
9377
|
9964
|
9823
|
8545
|
8076
|
8956
|
6
|
Nadroga/Navosa Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
16051
|
17415
|
19044
|
14718
|
13672
|
16704
|
7
|
Naitasiri Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
11449
|
12488
|
12067
|
10511
|
10214
|
10874
|
8
|
Namosi Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
2856
|
3053
|
3340
|
2658
|
2531
|
3066
|
9
|
Ra Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
9570
|
10589
|
10880
|
8831
|
8586
|
9590
|
10
|
Rewa Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
6289
|
6832
|
7341
|
5798
|
5636
|
6675
|
11
|
Serua Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
3903
|
4065
|
4473
|
3630
|
3423
|
4112
|
12
|
Ba East Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
10019
|
11115
|
11836
|
9201
|
8955
|
10215
|
13
|
Ba West Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
12435
|
13141
|
15348
|
11076
|
10077
|
12650
|
14
|
Tailevu North Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
8946
|
9534
|
9682
|
8407
|
7838
|
8687
|
15
|
Tailevu South Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
8738
|
9635
|
10303
|
7938
|
7934
|
9389
|
16
|
Cakaudrove East Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
8054
|
8808
|
7587
|
7120
|
6923
|
7639
|
17
|
Cakaudrove West Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
9062
|
9855
|
11609
|
8426
|
8328
|
9622
|
18
|
North East Fijian
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
13234
|
14477
|
17155
|
10785
|
10618
|
14560
|
19
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
15307
|
16306
|
18864
|
12965
|
11531
|
15550
|
|
20
|
South West Fijian
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
12070
|
13215
|
15093
|
10174
|
9728
|
12518
|
21
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
11653
|
12663
|
12707
|
9914
|
9337
|
10435
|
|
22
|
Tamavua/LaucalaFijan
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
12573
|
13701
|
16068
|
10801
|
10139
|
13491
|
23
|
Nasinu Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
11538
|
12417
|
15694
|
9857
|
8980
|
13357
|
24
|
General
|
3772
|
4107
|
3523
|
3231
|
2956
|
2896
|
|
25
|
North Eastern General
|
General
|
4556
|
4894
|
4701
|
3860
|
3694
|
4042
|
26
|
Western/Central General
|
General
|
5701
|
5942
|
5593
|
4890
|
4328
|
4657
|
27
|
Vitilevu East/Maritime Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
7760
|
8230
|
7256
|
7324
|
7006
|
6621
|
28
|
Tavua Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
8477
|
9197
|
8536
|
8070
|
7873
|
7912
|
29
|
Ba East Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
10049
|
10487
|
8203
|
9394
|
8912
|
7532
|
30
|
Ba West Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
10188
|
11240
|
11538
|
9450
|
9149
|
10155
|
31
|
Lautoka Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
9667
|
10253
|
11200
|
9104
|
8304
|
9841
|
32
|
Ind.Comm.
|
11849
|
12356
|
12308
|
10806
|
9285
|
10634
|
|
33
|
Vuda Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
11286
|
11584
|
10526
|
10413
|
9316
|
9239
|
34
|
Nadi Urban Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
12336
|
13019
|
13081
|
11437
|
10088
|
11453
|
35
|
Nadi Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
9678
|
10160
|
11467
|
9079
|
8629
|
10394
|
36
|
Nadroga Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
11179
|
11833
|
11240
|
10552
|
9879
|
10350
|
37
|
Vitilevu South/Kadavu Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
7839
|
8290
|
8407
|
7222
|
6623
|
7586
|
38
|
Ind.Comm.
|
13280
|
14435
|
12568
|
11837
|
10055
|
10618
|
|
39
|
Vanualevu West Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
8839
|
9186
|
7754
|
8200
|
7612
|
7193
|
40
|
Laucala Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
14453
|
15343
|
18610
|
13171
|
11374
|
15983
|
41
|
Nasinu Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
12090
|
13075
|
14789
|
11218
|
10393
|
13327
|
42
|
Tailevu/Rewa Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
10875
|
11519
|
11641
|
10257
|
9108
|
10525
|
43
|
Labasa Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
9668
|
9996
|
10248
|
8793
|
8148
|
8986
|
44
|
Labasa Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
9775
|
10113
|
7416
|
8806
|
8568
|
7012
|
45
|
Macuata East/Cakaudrove Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
8332
|
8721
|
7682
|
7641
|
7203
|
7115
|
46
|
Rotuma
|
Rotuman Comm.
|
5232
|
5567
|
5373
|
4682
|
4255
|
4737
|
Annex 2
|
Percent. Voting
|
Percent. Not Voting
|
||||||
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
|||
1
|
Bua Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
94
|
87
|
93
|
6
|
13
|
7
|
2
|
Kadavu Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
81
|
90
|
8
|
19
|
10
|
3
|
Lau Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
93
|
82
|
90
|
7
|
18
|
10
|
4
|
Lomaiviti Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
89
|
80
|
90
|
11
|
20
|
10
|
5
|
Macuata Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
91
|
81
|
91
|
9
|
19
|
9
|
6
|
Nadroga/Navosa Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
79
|
88
|
8
|
21
|
12
|
7
|
Naitasiri Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
82
|
90
|
8
|
18
|
10
|
8
|
Namosi Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
93
|
83
|
92
|
7
|
17
|
8
|
9
|
Ra Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
81
|
88
|
8
|
19
|
12
|
10
|
Rewa Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
82
|
91
|
8
|
18
|
9
|
11
|
Serua Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
93
|
84
|
92
|
7
|
16
|
8
|
12
|
Ba East Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
92
|
81
|
86
|
8
|
19
|
14
|
13
|
Ba West Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
89
|
77
|
82
|
11
|
23
|
18
|
14
|
Tailevu North Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
94
|
82
|
90
|
6
|
18
|
10
|
15
|
Tailevu South Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
91
|
82
|
91
|
9
|
18
|
9
|
16
|
Cakaudrove
East Fijian
|
Fijian
Comm.
|
88
|
79
|
101
|
12
|
21
|
-1
|
17
|
Cakaudrove West Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
93
|
85
|
83
|
7
|
15
|
17
|
18
|
North East Fijian
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
81
|
73
|
85
|
19
|
27
|
15
|
19
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
85
|
71
|
82
|
15
|
29
|
18
|
|
20
|
South West Fijian
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
84
|
74
|
83
|
16
|
26
|
17
|
21
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
85
|
74
|
82
|
15
|
26
|
18
|
|
22
|
Tamavua/Laucala Fijan
|
Fijian Com.Urban
|
86
|
74
|
84
|
14
|
26
|
16
|
23
|
Nasinu Fijian
|
Fijian Comm.
|
85
|
72
|
85
|
15
|
28
|
15
|
24
|
General
|
86
|
72
|
82
|
14
|
28
|
18
|
|
25
|
North Eastern General
|
General
|
85
|
75
|
86
|
15
|
25
|
14
|
26
|
Western/Central General
|
General
|
86
|
73
|
83
|
14
|
27
|
17
|
27
|
Vitilevu East/Maritime Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
85
|
91
|
6
|
15
|
9
|
28
|
Tavua Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
95
|
86
|
93
|
5
|
14
|
7
|
29
|
Ba East Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
85
|
92
|
7
|
15
|
8
|
30
|
Ba West Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
81
|
88
|
7
|
19
|
12
|
31
|
Lautoka Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
81
|
88
|
6
|
19
|
12
|
32
|
Ind.Comm.
|
91
|
75
|
86
|
9
|
25
|
14
|
|
33
|
Vuda Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
92
|
80
|
88
|
8
|
20
|
12
|
34
|
Nadi Urban Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
77
|
88
|
7
|
23
|
12
|
35
|
Nadi Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
85
|
91
|
6
|
15
|
9
|
36
|
Nadroga Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
83
|
92
|
6
|
17
|
8
|
37
|
Vitilevu South/Kadavu Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
92
|
80
|
90
|
8
|
20
|
10
|
38
|
Ind.Comm.
|
89
|
70
|
84
|
11
|
30
|
16
|
|
39
|
Vanualevu West Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
83
|
93
|
7
|
17
|
7
|
40
|
Laucala Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
91
|
74
|
86
|
9
|
26
|
14
|
41
|
Nasinu Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
93
|
79
|
90
|
7
|
21
|
10
|
42
|
Tailevu/Rewa Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
94
|
79
|
90
|
6
|
21
|
10
|
43
|
Labasa Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
91
|
82
|
88
|
9
|
18
|
12
|
44
|
Labasa Rural Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
90
|
85
|
95
|
10
|
15
|
5
|
45
|
Macuata East/Cakaudrove Indian
|
Ind.Comm.
|
92
|
83
|
93
|
8
|
17
|
7
|
46
|
Rotuma
|
Rotuman Comm.
|
89
|
76
|
88
|
11
|
24
|
12
|
Annex 3
|
Percentage voting in elections of
|
Percentage Not Voting in elections of
|
||||||
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
1999
|
2001
|
2006
|
|||
Fijian Communal
|
89
|
78
|
87
|
11
|
22
|
13
|
||
Indian Communal
|
92
|
80
|
89
|
8
|
20
|
11
|
||
General Communal
|
85
|
73
|
84
|
15
|
27
|
16
|
||
Rotuman
|
89
|
76
|
88
|
11
|
24
|
12
|
||
Percentage Change
|
||||||||
1999 to 01
|
2001 to 06
|
|||||||
Fijian Communal
|
-12
|
11
|
||||||
Indian Communal
|
-13
|
11
|
||||||
General Communal
|
-14
|
14
|
||||||
Rotuman
|
-15
|
15
|
||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)