#header-inner img {margin: 0 auto !important; #header-inner {text-align: Center ;} Fiji Coupfourpointfive: Narsey: electoral fraud, voter registration and turnout targets

Names and pseudonyms encouraged; annonymous posts accepted in interest of debate


Sunday, June 10, 2012

Narsey: electoral fraud, voter registration and turnout targets

Submission 3 to Yash Ghai Commission
By Professor Wadan Narsey

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.
2008 cartoon but still applicable. pic Sacarava
Second, some advice based on international experience, on what might be appropriate and 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 demographers at 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 SuperWoman - 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 supporting one 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 cards may 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.


http://narseyonfiji.wordpress.com/

24 comments:

Paula said...

None better than Narsey when it comes to calling Khaiyum's bluffs. What the good professor does not mention, however, is the fact that the entire process of constitutional development and elections is completely fruitless. Firstly, there are the commissioners. Nobody in this group can be considered neutral or independent. They are known regime supporters and Ghai is an old mate of Khaiyum, the regimes most controversial figure. The same person is also the election minister. Secondly, there are open threads by the military against those critical of its role. The moment the prospect of even discussing the future role of the military, the tugs raise their ugly heads and scream that the role of the military will be expanded and not reduced. Thirdly, there is this obsession with electronic voting. In the old days dictators had to stuff ballot boxes and falsify voting papers in order to achieve the outcomes they desired. These days, Khaiyum will do it with the click of mouse. So while Narsey may keep posting submissions, he should not make us believe that anyone critical of the regime will be able to influence anything by submissions. As all dictatorships the regime understands only one language: The language of pressure, both internally and externally. Only pressure will achieve something.

Anonymous said...

we wasting time on all this .simple follow the court ruling and 1997 constitution full stop.

Anonymous said...

Electronic voting kits arrive next week
Publish date/time: 10/06/2012 [13:12]

Print this page
Email this page

Share
The electronic voting kit for the Electronic Voting Registration will arrive into the country next week from Canada.

Elections Office logistic team leader Major Isoa Loanakadavu confirmed CODE Corporation in Canada would supply the System under the Biometric Voter Registration agreement between the corporation and the government of Fiji.

There are 380 kits bought for a total price of $3.9 million.

This is expected to minimise election fraud and at the same time accelerate the voter identification process.-fiji village

Anonymous said...

How long more are we going to allow this non-entity SOB Khaiyum to trample on our rights and our country using Bai and his goons to keep guard over him. Its getting a bit too much..

Anonymous said...

Waste of time and money..we all calling for the restoration of lawful constitution and all those illegals to face court of law..we have had enough of BS and beating around the bush..simple..

mark manning said...

For as long as the soldiers can make a buck, the coup will continue.
Judas would be proud.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Aiyarse and Ghai are closer than we think. He was Aiyarse's supervisor, so I bet they must have spent lots of nights together....just the two of them.

Anonymous said...

What surprises me is why is the good professor sending submissions to Yash Ghai privately when the Constitutional Commission has not even begun hearing any submissions - Ghai would be right to ignore them on the grounds that he had received them as private e-mails.

I also do not agree with Narsey that there is nothing wrong with military officers being involved in voter registration - we cannot have the military overthrowing a democratically elected government and in the next breath be allowed to go and register voters - there is every possibility of voters fearing that if the results go against the military or military backed party, the military goons will come back to them - so cut the crap Narsey

You either keep them completely away or let them run the whole show - you should wait to make proper submissions if and when the Commission actually meets and calls for submissions - otherwise you are merely exercising your fingers typing wrong notes to Yash Ghai and sending them onto him in his private capacity

As an economist, I would not object to the Military to be used to conduct the voter registration exercise, for three reasons: first, they are likely to be fair (what can they be unfair about?); second, it is a productive use of tax-payers funds currently spent on the military salaries; and third, running around the rural areas where even four-wheel drives cannot reach, might make them physically fitter (but I suspect that this would apply only to the senior officers, some of whose current media sideways profiles suggest that they could do with this exercise).

Anonymous said...

Wadan is asking us to support military doing voter registration - its like asking the foxes to guard the hen houses - the argument then can be made if we allow the to register than we should also let them be involved in other matters as well - Wadan is making his point from economic consideration and not political - why not let the provincial councils then register their people - educated unemployed villagers could get some money when they are suffering financially as a result of the coup

Anonymous said...

Another useful analysis by Prof. Narsey. Vinaka vakalevu.

Like virtually everything else the regime touches, the election will likely be a fraud. Perhaps the ruse will be to claim an unexpected problem with the electronic voting machines and the need to switch back to a manual system at the last minute, the tactic used to defraud the Philippine electorate in 2004. Or perhaps, as voting commissioner, Aiyaz will use physical access to the voting machines to insert inexpensive, readily available electronic components or tamper with the software to add malicious code, altering vote totals to favor regime candidates. How can such abuse be revealed if it occurs? Most private companies that manufacture these machines will not allow public access or review of the machines' source code, saying to do so would compromise proprietary information. 

If the machine requires a smartcard, which I believe those selected by the regime will, election officials like Aiyaz could abuse their administrative access to allow individuals to use fraudulent smart cards to vote multiple times. 

Another possibility, of which I've warned often, is that Bainimarama might render the entire election irrelevant by having broad new powers assigned to the presidency and then having himself named president by the Cabinet, which he controls. The country's preoccupation with holding its first elections in years would help to obscure the basic meaninglessness of it all. President Bainimarama would be empowered to intervene decisively in Fijian politics for the rest of his life.

I believe that that is the scenario for which the regime wants its phony constitutional process to pave the way. 

Unless you want to see Bainimarama become president for life, should speak out now, to challenge the legality of the constitutional review, the legal capacity of the regime, the unfairness of the process, and to uphold the continuing validity of the 1997 Constitution and its mandated institutions -- e.g., the GCC. 

The regime has some non-negotiable positions? Well, I'd like to offer a few non-negotiables of my own. 

First, no negotiations at gunpoint. You want to talk? Return to the barracks. No negotiations with terrorists. 

Second, no amnesty for traitors, full stop. 

Third, no political role for the RFMF. The RFMF must have entirely new leadership. Why? See Non-negotiable Number Two. 

Fourth, Fiji has no moral or legal obligation to assume the debts amassed by illegal governments. Yes, China and India, I mean you.

Fifth, no illegal regime can make changes to Fiji's Constitution. Want changes? Fine, restore constitutional government, and then we'll talk. To advocate extra-constitutional means to such ends is treason.

Sixth, a credible and independent Truth & Reconciliation Commission must convene to set the record straight on all that has happened since Rabuka's first coup and to affix culpability.

Will the regime agree to these terms? Of course not. But it doesn't intend to compromise in its tyranny, so why should we compromise in our justice? Thugs like Bainimarama are driven out by bullets, not by ballots.

Don't get me wrong. My goal is not regime change. If Bainimarama were to win a free and fair and meaningful election, then yes, the ballot would be the proper remedy. But let's not delude ourselves for a moment into thinking that Bainimarama might take such a gamble by allowing such an election, much less win it.

Better not to give to the tyrant that which he plans to take by force. Better just to maintain our principles while he arouses our indignation. Because if we would but screw our courage to the sticking place, we cannot fail to deliver Fiji from his infernal bondage.

s/ Dakuwaqa

Anonymous said...

Ok guys, have some faith, the illegal PM will expire real soon.The poison is working and strokes & heart attacks are hitting his system as we speak in China.I don't think the doctors are going to be of any help to him?
Lets just make sure they keep his carcass in beijing as we don't want any pollution over here?

Anonymous said...

Hehehe. Analysis by Narsey, comment by Dakuwaqa. This is why I turn to C4.5.

But, with all due respect, Dak's list is incomplete.

We should add as non-negotiables that the regime must allow unfettered freedom of speech, with the only limitations being libel and the normal proscription against things like shouting fire in a crowded theatre.

And we should add as non-negotiable the demand that restrictions against peaceful assembly be lifted immediately. The Methodists should be allowed to meet. Political parties should be allowed to caucus and to hold rallies.

The regime wouldn't accept these non-negotiables either, but we should put it in the position of having to explain to Yash Ghai and the other commissioners why not, and in the process expose this constitutional exercise early on for the fraud it is.

So add these to the list, and maybe others have some additional non-negotiables to suggest as well.

Anonymous said...

I suggest you dig into which network they will use for transmitting the voting data over. This network will be where fraud will take place. People will vote but what gets transmitted will be different.

Anonymous said...

Haahaaahaa..Khaiyum is like a little kid that lies and cheats and tries to hide and cover his tracks..one lolly for you or you wont get a lolly if you dont do what I say..Pathetic and very very embarassing to the whole world..

Anonymous said...

Dakuwaqa, when you say your goal is not regime change, I interpret that to mean that your goal is not to rid Fiji of Bainimarama but to restore integrity to Fiji's political processes. So, another way to look at it then is that you're not opposed to regime change, even by force, under the current circumstances, but although you would not vote for Bainimarama, you would accept the people's will were they to vote him into office, God forbid, through free and fair elections. Well, I agree that there's little threat of Bainimarama ever standing in a free and fair election, but it does seem to me that Fiji will never be able to restore integrity to its political processes as long as someone with as little integrity as Bainimarama continues to command Fiji's military. Therefore, as a practical matter, regime change is the only real solution, or rather, the only way to begin to find a solution.

Anonymous said...

Does this mean that LQ's legitmacy as PM is questionable as even Prof Narsey raises about the 2006 elections.

Anonymous said...

Prof Narsey please,lose the Dalit mentality!!!

Anonymous said...

@ anon 2.56am

Everyone can see that the Dalit mentality really belongs to Aiass, Naz, Bano, Aziz and gangsters. The fruits of their hate and ignorance is where they've taken Fiji since their coup of 2006. Very sad.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:14 is right. This regime is turning Fiji into a Dalit country. Its 'government' is unwelcome in the PIF, unwelcome in the Commonwealth, unwelcome at PALM. Bainimarama is shunned by world leaders, and the RFMF are now untouchables. The lowest of the low.

If Hinduism is the true religion, however, only Bainimarama need worry. Khaiyum will probably return as a snake, again, although I hardly know how he could perfect the role any further than he already has. Bainimarama? Well, he'll probably be reincarnated as a grub, which should please Graham Davis, as he won't even need to rename his blog.

Anonymous said...

What is Wadan's real motive behind this facade?..what is the driving force?
Maybe that will surfice soon..one may be drawn to imply that it is propaganda in the current context, which is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Those causes may be to encourage a particular synthesis, deduce emotional rather than rational response, or may further a politicians agenda.
In alligning a school of thought that construe with annuity (finance theory), one may ascertain that future value is the value of an asset at a specific date. It measures the nominal future sum of money that a given sum of money is "worth" at a specified time in the future assuming a certain interest rate, or more generally, rate of return; it is the present value multiplied by the accumulation function.
Hence, is Wadan contemplating to derive any future value?

Kaiviti

Anonymous said...

Kaiviti@ 4:41, please spare us all further pseudo-intellectual drivel. It is devoid of any value, present or future. Vinaka.

Anonymous said...

Mark Manning-if it wasn't for Judas you won't be Saved! At the very least be thankful for his sacrifce of giving up his life for you! Doce!

Anonymous said...

I once wrote that the lad from Toorak needs to get over whats happened to him with regards to the Regime! Too many have gone to an early grave because the bitterness eats away at you, which some just don't understand but it begins to 'hit' you like a drug and you can't stop!

Anonymous said...

Bainimarama reincarnated as a grub? Now, that would be convenient for Graham Davis, wouldn't it? Whenever he needed to revive his flagging readership with another exclusive interview with the commodore, he need only step out to his garden and turn over a rock.