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

Fiji TV Statement





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:

  1. 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?
  2. 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?
  3. Were their respective employers in Australia and NZ supporting their statement in the media?
  4. 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’s ethnic communities may have some substance- but I suspect simply reflecting whoever volunteered for these tasks and perhaps some insensitivity of the SDL government to this issue- hardly any evidence per se of attempted electoral fraud by them.
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 and NZ, there are also powerful media propaganda machines which keep peddling these views internationally, despite the lack of any hard evidence, and indeed despite any evidence to the contrary.

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's registration rate and voting rates are already incredibly high by international standards.

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, Annex 3 shows that the voter turnout rate declined for ALL ethnic communities between 1999 and 2001, not just for Indo-Fijians: why bother voting when the resulting government is going to be removed at gun-point?

But even in 2001, the Fiji voter turnout rates were among the highest in the world.

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 case.

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 are currently aged 70 years and over, and this proportion is going to rise rapidly in the future given our demographic trends.  A large fraction of this elderly group may have no wish to vote, or would find it physically onerous to travel long distances to vote.  That would leave a mere 5% of potential voters who do not vote for whatever reason- cost, illness on the day, or even very legitimate personal inclination such as total mistrust and dislike of all political parties and politicians.

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 origins of the Westminister system) would give you statistically reliable results, accepted by wining and losing parties alike.

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
North West Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
15307
16306
18864
12965
11531
15550
20
South West Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
12070
13215
15093
10174
9728
12518
21
Suva City Fijian
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
Suva City General
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
Lautoka City Indian
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
Suva City Indian
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
North West Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
85
71
82
15
29
18
20
South West Fijian
Fijian Com.Urban
84
74
83
16
26
17
21
Suva City Fijian
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
Suva City General
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
Lautoka City Indian
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
Suva City Indian
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