The Fiji Times (FT)Editorial of Thursday May 10th is a shining example of a conviction, clouded by a certain mania of sorts; the type one usually associates with an acute refraction of the facts, a by-product of truth suppression.
This is an excerpt of the FT Editorial:
Valid figures, not hot air, please
Thursday, May 10, 2007
INTERIM Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry has done his best to shock the nation with claims of massive electoral fraud and mismanagement.
There were, he said, more than 650,000 unused ballot papers missing after the May 2006 general election, which meant there had been a direct attempt to "interfere with and manipulate the results ...".
That a large number of ballot papers were printed and never used proves absolutely nothing, and is in no way relevant to the outcome of the election. At worst it may show up some wastage of money and a lack of some proper procedures within the Electoral Office.
It is totally irrelevant how many ballot papers were printed and how many were unused or even if they were destroyed or not. Once the election was over they were nothing more than waste paper.
What is important is how many votes were cast in each seat compared to the number of people on the electoral roll and those essential facts seem to be missing from this so-called'audit'.
An election is nothing more than simple mathematics. There are a certain number of people entitled to vote in each seat. Over the course of polling a number of them will vote and a number of them will not, for various reasons. At the end of polling the votes are counted and obviously the number of votes cast should never exceed the number of people enrolled.
The number of votes cast should also match the number of names crossed off the electoral rolls by the polling booth staff.
In every election far more ballot papers are printed than there are registered voters for the simple reason that, as people are allowed to vote at any of a number of polling stations, each has to have sufficient papers to cater for however many people may turn up.
For instance, how many Rotumans could be expected to vote in Suva and at which polling booths? It is almost impossible to know.
Complicating this even further is the lack of a recent census. Using the Rotuman example again, how could the Elections Office possibly know how many Rotumans lived in Suva and at which polling stations they would vote? Because those facts were not, and could never be fully known beforehand, the Elections Office had to ensure there were enough ballot papers available at every polling station on a "be prepared" basis.
It is difficult to believe a seasoned politician such as Mr Chaudhry does not know all this. Let us also not forget that the election was overseen by a number of independent teams, including the European Union, the Commonwealth, the US and even a local contingent from the University of the South Pacific.
They all gave the thumbs up, acknowledging that while the election was not perfect, the mistakes had no bearing on the outcome. Were these teams incompetent or corrupt? It is difficult impossible, in fact to believe so.
Mr Chaudhry now needs to provide proof that his audit team knew what they were doing. He needs to provide the real figures that are needed the number of electors registered in each seat, compared to the number of votes cast.
If they show significant differences, he may then have some hope of convincing the public the election was rigged. Until then, it is all just more political hot air.
(Above: Video on the conversations by Navitalai Naisoro, a former civil servant and SDL confident, alleging the act of ballot rigging during the 2006 elections)
These allegations pointing to the unforgivable offence of vote rigging, was derived from the Auditor General's report, which some circles have obviously denied outright. Was it not the same AG report who revealed the layer of corruption within Fiji Sports Council or the abuse of the Affirmative action programs?
The cruel realities on hand, may have prompted a furious defense by entrenched SDL apologists, who attempted to fight off these inexcusable actions by the Election Office Supervisor, Semesa Karavaki; who just months before the 2006 elections was on study leave in Australia.
FT Editor said
"That a large number of ballot papers were printed and never used proves absolutely nothing, and is in no way relevant to the outcome of the election. At worst it may show up some wastage of money and a lack of some proper procedures within the Electoral Office".
It is quite regrettable for the Fiji Times Editor to downplay such serious and willful breeches of authority that, raise serious clouds of suspicions over the electoral process, giving probable cause to further investigations and convictions by the new Anti-Corruption Commission.
Although, the Editor raised an important detail, albeit portrayed through rose colored glasses:
"It is totally irrelevant how many ballot papers were printed and how many were unused or even if they were destroyed or not. Once the election was over they were nothing more than waste paper".
To print out an excessive amount of ballot papers and then later incinerate them without use; defeats the purpose of having an accurate count of voters in the first place.
It is unfortunate for the FT Editor to categorize the unused, untracked and unaccounted ballot papers as mere 'waste paper' destined for the incinerator; before ascertaining their worth. It is also blatantly reprehensible of the Editorial to trivialize these departures in electoral procedures and other irregularities, by questionably classifying these abuses, as a simple case of public resource wastage.
Fiji Times editorial unapologetically uses slanted language, underscoring the lack of proportionality used by the editor; akin to labeling genocide, as nothing more than serial murders.
The Editor further over simplifies the enormity of these questions that point to the unprecedented malfeasance. One must be appraised of the Latin term: 'Modus vivendi'-Or the acceptance of a continuing and fundamental disagreement, held in abeyance; in order to successfully filter through these iconic misrepresentations.
The FT Editor may have forgotten the existing Public Service Commission regulations forbidding the destruction of official documents. Undoubtedly, voting ballots is an official government document as it gets and their hurried incineration, fitted the uncanny label of hiding evidence. Without verifiable documents underlining the approval of Electoral Commission in this act of capital destruction, perhaps done under the cover of the night, raises further alarming and embarrassing questions on the lack of oversight.
Paper trails serve an important function in national elections and this issue has created some controversy in the last U.S elections, regarding electronic voting machines; which was also susceptible to hacking. These machines were manufactured by Diebold Inc, a loyal contributor to Republican Party and the end result forced several American states to abandon those machines; favoring paper trails used by conventional ballot cards.
All paper ballots themselves are not without scrutiny, as the Fiji allegations of vote rigging prove.
The equivocation (WAX) of the British High Commissioner was quoted in Fiji Village article, along with other stove-piping pundits who pointed out that, the E.U observation teams did sign off declaring the 2006 Fiji elections as free and fair.
Regrettably, this echo chamber defense was raised also by the Fiji Times Editor and seemed to have a bizarre similarity to talking points press releases, made by the SDL party members:
"Let us also not forget that the election was overseen by a number of independent teams, including the European Union, the Commonwealth, the US and even a local contingent from the University of the South Pacific. They all gave the thumbs up, acknowledging that while the election was not perfect, the mistakes had no bearing on the outcome. Were these teams incompetent or corrupt? It is difficult impossible, in fact to believe so". (sic)
Of course, those with difficulty in comprehending the possibility of vote rigging; may be divided into to two groups. The first group being highly deficient in thinking 'out of the box' and the second group possessing a superior political bias.
The 2006 election reports, did acknowledge some irregularities in the election process and recommended the remapping of electoral boundaries in Fiji. It might be accurate to factor in, the undeniable reasons of contamination regarding the locations of observer teams.
One should understand that, there are only a finite number of observers and none of them could ever defy the laws of physics, even if they tried their hardest to be omnipresent during the 2006 elections. This astounding fact does have a direct bearing on the election outcome, despite the appeals to ignorance floated by the FT Editor.
The transport of ballot boxes from the voting booths to the counting centers were not observed 100%. Therefore, it is plausible to deduce that, the observers may have scrutinized the voting booths, but the deduction also begs the questions: Did any of the observers physically escort 100% of election boxes in transition?
There were several articles(none published by Fiji Times) pointing to complaints raised by several political parties after the closure of voting centers, pointing to the detour of vehicles(transporting the ballot boxes) to strategic locations, then reappearing at the counting centers without anyone really questioning or scrutinizing this lapse of time or route deviation?
Equally disturbing was the media reported incidents highlighting, last minute changes to the locations of voting centers by the Election Office officials; who took the time to inform the SDL party but not other participants. Other discrepancies regarding the integrity of the Elections Office is seen in this 2001 Fiji Sun webpage.
This is the excerpt of IFES Election Guide on Fiji's 2006 elections:
Police investigating opposition claims against election administration
Posted: 05/11/2006
On Wednesday the Prime Minster downplayed the police investigation of opposition parties' claims against the ongoing parliamentary elections. The opposition alleges, among other things, that around 13,000 some of its supporters were not included on the roll. Historically there have been many tensions between ethnic Indians and indigenous Fijians, who are currently in power. Elections to the country's 71-seat parliament started on Monday, May 8, and will continue through Saturday, May 12. The vote count will begin on May 14 and results are due to be announced four days later.
Source: ElectionGuide
Confident Fiji PM brushes off election complaints
Posted: 05/10/2006
SUVA, Fiji (Reuters) - Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase brushed aside on Wednesday complaints about Fiji's chaotic election, which police are investigating, and said he was confident of returning to office.
Source: Reuters: International
Wansolwara online corroborates the 2001 election rigging complaints.
The ugly fact reported in the Auditor General's report stated that, voting center officials did not have any idea of the number of actual ballot papers, simply because there were no accounting checks and balances nor documents quantifying or accurately tracking the ballot papers. This reflects gross ineptitude by the Supervisor of Elections, who repeatedly showed contempt for the public interest and transparent accountability, demonstrated in a Fiji Times article defending his incompetence. If anyone owes anyone an apology for this debacle, it is the Supervisor of Elections.
Irrefutably, there is an ubiquitous and offensive odor of spoiled meat, now emanating from the bowels of the Election Office with regards to the 2006 elections. The same execrable stench which some personalities have feebly attempted to neutralize. The aftermath of the Kunatuba case and the Agricultural Scam case proves the existence of a multi-agency vote buying scheme which arrogantly abused affirmative action programs. Ostensibly the abuse directed any culpability and public opinion to the SDL Government.
It is not counter intuitive for the public to closely re-examine those realities, without being confused with other Red Herrings and cloudy judgments raised by individuals holding a political bias.
It has been proven by independent media analysts that, the Fiji Times led a repulsive defamation campaign against the 1999 Prime Minister and now Interim Finance Minister; this campaign eventually paved the way for the 2000 putsch. Other observations include some Fiji Time Correspondents, who blurred the line between journalism and subject, by closely associating themselves with the perpetrators of the 2000 coup and maligning their very independence as well as staining their integrity.
A similar type of bias is reflected in the tone of FT Editor who chooses a cynical view :
"There are a certain number of people entitled to vote in each seat. Over the course of polling a number of them will vote and a number of them will not, for various reasons".and simultaneously the FT editorial diminishes the importance of a non-partisan electoral system, without even raising the issue of unaccountability, let alone mention deterrents to voter fraud.
Whilst, the editor hastily points out a juvenile correlation between voting and mathematics:
"An election is nothing more than simple mathematics"
A fact ignored by the FT editorial is that, numbers require an accurate and verifiable source before one gives credence to its value. A hasty conclusion of the editorial:
[...]At the end of polling the votes are counted and obviously the number of votes cast should never exceed the number of people enrolled[...]
What is quite concerning regarding the question of numbers, is that the amount of printed ballot papers should never exceed the number of registered voters by such great percentage, as seen in the 2006 elections.
This argument by Fiji Times Editor holds true only if, the number of registered voters is derived from an accurate population count known commonly as the national census. It was this census that was avoided like the plague by the SDL Government, blaming an acute shortage of State funds in not exercising this basic role of good governance.
Fiji's national population is certainly not an arbitrary number which the Election Supervisor or the FT Editor can pluck out of thin air. In addition to this myopia, the electoral boundaries were exceedingly antiquated and should have been remapped subsequently to the scheduled census. In fact, Fiji has hardly remapped the current boundaries since its independence.
Arguably, the 2006 elections were far less free and fair, if these basic fundamentals of governance were conveniently sidelined by the SDL Government; which the Fiji Times Editor and International Observer teams unreasonably swept under the rug.
The reactions to the allegations of vote rigging are coming in fast and furious, as seen in Fiji Times website.
Ousted PM
IT is surprising that the ousted PM uses the term "democratically-elected government" in almost all his comments.
May I ask the ousted PM why, if he wants the people to support a democratically-elected government, did he accept the post of interim PM when the Labour government was toppled in 2000?
Ronald Jeet
Ba
Ballot papers
YOUR editorial (FT 10/5) on the missing unused ballot papers shows an unfortunate lack of understanding of issues involved, particularly the enormity of the fact that more than 600,000 unused ballot papers cannot be accounted for.
Equally surprising is the fact that an issue which your paper thought was important enough to hit the front page (FT 9/5) should hours later become merely "hot air".
It says a lot about the credibility of your editorial team, than that of the Finance Ministry's audit team.
The issue at stake here is not just one of about 600,000 unused ballot papers, although that is worrying enough. The main concern is 665,256 missing unused ballot papers.
The Electoral Act makes absolutely stringent provisions for the accountability of every printed ballot paper, issued or otherwise.
And rightly so, because the integrity of any general election hinges on such accountability.
Sections 85, 86 and 87 lay down very specific instructions for the handling of and responsibility for all ballot papers used, unused or spoilt.
The ultimate responsibility for the safety and accountability of ballot papers lie with the Supervisor of Elections. He stands accountable under the law.
He must tell the nation what happened to the 600,000-plus ballot papers.
That they were used to stuff ballot boxes cannot be easily discounted.
This is why the matter is with the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption for further investigation.
The Finance audit team found discrepancies which must be thoroughly investigated.
The fact that the Supervisor of Elections failed in his duty to keep a master record, failed in his duty to ensure every Returning Officer filed returns as required under the law, made it impossible for the audit team to probe further. FICAC will now look into these and other issues that have come to light. Let the Supervisor of Elections and others of his ilk answer to the investigating team.
There are a number of other highly disturbing features of the 2006 and 2001 general elections that need to be fully investigated.
Indeed, there is enough compelling evidence to warrant the setting up of an independent commission of inquiry into the conduct of the 2006 election.
In the past, such complaints were brushed under the carpet. Complaints regarding irregularities and electoral malpractices were lodged after the 2001 election but no action was taken by those in authority people who were part of Laisenia Qarase's gravy train.
When police started their investigations under Commissioner Andrew Hughes, it was found that relevant records could not be found. We must prevent records being destroyed this time.
The accountability and integrity of the electoral system is a must, otherwise the exercise becomes a mockery and a farce.
Needless to say, an alert, impartial and informed media, in its capacity as the public watchdog, has an important role to play in this respect.
Mahendra Chaudhry
Interim Minister for Finance
National Planning
Sugar
Sour grapes
MAHENDRA Chaudhry is again trying to discredit the result of the 2006 election by instigating an audit by his boys to raise queries on its credibility.
Instead of trying to move the country forward and using government resources to get the country back on the road to democracy, he has chosen to create doubts on the result of the election when his party lost.
He must note that no matter what his audit team comes up with, the military coup has happened and nothing that he says or does will reverse the election result. It is a mere waste of time and money. He maintains that surplus ballot papers were printed which were not accounted for. This does not prove anything. It proves nothing.
If there were discrepancies in the number of voters crossed-off in the rolls at polling stations, when reconciled against the ballot papers that were used for voting, there should be ground for further investigation.
It appears to me as a case of sour grapes. He should rise above petty issues and take positive steps to move Fiji forward.
James Bolavucu
Wales
Club Em Designs
