If anyone was “caught with pants down,” it was the man - Kamal Iyer - who couldn’t read the fine print of a press statement before picking a fight over it.
|  |
By the time the Sugar Industry Tribunal quietly confirmed that the final cane payment for 2024 was $1.20 per tonne, topped up by the Government’s $8.27 per tonne special payment to reach a total of $101.13 per tonne, Kamal Iyer had already done what he does best - overreact loudly, then find himself outflanked by arithmetic.
The National Federation Party general secretary and failed 2018 general election candidate (measly 98 votes), in his latest burst of self-righteousness, accused former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry of being “caught with his pants down,” “lying,” and “deceitful,” after Chaudhry questioned the confusing phrasing of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s Diwali-season cane payment announcement.
Unfortunately for Iyer, the numbers and the syntax have now ganged up against him.
The Statement That Started It All
At the centre of this political storm is one sentence from Prime Minister Rabuka (9 October): “Government will once again provide a further top-up in the final cane payment due before Diwali for the 2024 crop of $8.27, taking the fourth payment to $9.47 per tonne.”
In ordinary English, “a further top-up of $8.27” means exactly what Chaudhry said it did, that $8.27 was additional to the existing cane payment structure, not the total sum. The Sugar Industry Tribunal later confirmed this interpretation word for word: farmers would receive $1.20 per tonne as the final payment from the Fiji Sugar Corporation, plus the Government’s top-up of $8.27, making the fourth payment $9.47 in total and bringing the overall payout for the 2024 crop to $101.13 per tonne.
But in Iyer’s version of events, Chaudhry’s clarification was a “cover-up”, a desperate effort to walk back a supposed blunder.
The Cane Payment Breakdown That Buries the Hysteria
For those who prefer facts to noise, the Tribunal’s verified breakdown is straightforward:
That figure matches precisely what Chaudhry explained, and contradicts the insinuation that he fabricated or distorted the numbers.
In other words, Iyer’s outrage was premature, his indignation misplaced, and his mathematics questionable.
When Political Reflex Beats Reading Comprehension
Kamal Iyer’s problem is not with sugar. It is with syntax.
Instead of pausing to understand the distinction between the final cane payment (from the Tribunal) and the Government’s top-up (a budgetary supplement), he went straight for moral denunciation mode. It’s a familiar pattern for the NFP’s communications team, which has a habit of attacking former Labour Party figures as if every question about financial transparency were an act of heresy.
Chaudhry, who has spent decades in the trenches of cane politics and sugar price negotiations, simply pointed out that the phrasing of Rabuka’s announcement could mislead ordinary farmers, a fair point when the difference between “final payment of $8.27” and “top-up of $8.27” translates into a week’s worth of groceries in the cane belt.
In response, Iyer did not clarify; he caricatured.
The Political Subtext: NFP’s Cane Sensitivities
Behind this quarrel lies a deeper discomfort within the coalition government. The sugar industry is politically sacred in Fiji, and the NFP, traditionally rooted in the cane belt, is eager to control the narrative. Any suggestion that Rabuka or Finance Minister Biman Prasad or Sugar Minister Charan Jeath Singh’s announcements were unclear risks undermining the Government’s claim of delivering record payments.
So when Chaudhry questioned the announcement’s phrasing, Iyer’s instinct was not to check the math but to protect the message. The irony is that the Tribunal’s official figures now vindicate Chaudhry’s reading and make Iyer’s performance look like a tantrum masquerading as commentary.
Cane, Clarity, and Contrition
The episode could have ended with a quiet acknowledgment that the Government’s top-up was, in fact, an addition, and that everyone was arguing over the same arithmetic, just phrased differently.
But that would require humility which is not Iyer’s strongest trait.
Instead, his attack has only highlighted the NFP’s sensitivity to any scrutiny of its sugar rhetoric and its increasing tendency to lash out at critics with the same moral fury once reserved for coup apologists.
If anyone was “caught with pants down,” it was the man who couldn’t read the fine print of a press statement before picking a fight over it
Iyer’s accusation, meanwhile, collapses under the weight of basic arithmetic.
Or, as farmers might put it: the cane doesn’t lie but sometimes the spin does.
Maybe we should consider bringing back caning for those who fail to do right maths?
The National Federation Party general secretary and failed 2018 general election candidate (measly 98 votes), in his latest burst of self-righteousness, accused former Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry of being “caught with his pants down,” “lying,” and “deceitful,” after Chaudhry questioned the confusing phrasing of Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka’s Diwali-season cane payment announcement.
Unfortunately for Iyer, the numbers and the syntax have now ganged up against him.
The Statement That Started It All
At the centre of this political storm is one sentence from Prime Minister Rabuka (9 October): “Government will once again provide a further top-up in the final cane payment due before Diwali for the 2024 crop of $8.27, taking the fourth payment to $9.47 per tonne.”
In ordinary English, “a further top-up of $8.27” means exactly what Chaudhry said it did, that $8.27 was additional to the existing cane payment structure, not the total sum. The Sugar Industry Tribunal later confirmed this interpretation word for word: farmers would receive $1.20 per tonne as the final payment from the Fiji Sugar Corporation, plus the Government’s top-up of $8.27, making the fourth payment $9.47 in total and bringing the overall payout for the 2024 crop to $101.13 per tonne.
But in Iyer’s version of events, Chaudhry’s clarification was a “cover-up”, a desperate effort to walk back a supposed blunder.
The Cane Payment Breakdown That Buries the Hysteria
For those who prefer facts to noise, the Tribunal’s verified breakdown is straightforward:
- Farmers had already received $91.66 per tonne through earlier instalments (delivery, second, and third payments, plus the May 2025 government supplement).
- The Tribunal authorised a $1.20 per tonne final payment.
- The Government added $8.27 per tonne under Rabuka’s “Diwali boost.”
That figure matches precisely what Chaudhry explained, and contradicts the insinuation that he fabricated or distorted the numbers.
In other words, Iyer’s outrage was premature, his indignation misplaced, and his mathematics questionable.
When Political Reflex Beats Reading Comprehension
Kamal Iyer’s problem is not with sugar. It is with syntax.
Instead of pausing to understand the distinction between the final cane payment (from the Tribunal) and the Government’s top-up (a budgetary supplement), he went straight for moral denunciation mode. It’s a familiar pattern for the NFP’s communications team, which has a habit of attacking former Labour Party figures as if every question about financial transparency were an act of heresy.
Chaudhry, who has spent decades in the trenches of cane politics and sugar price negotiations, simply pointed out that the phrasing of Rabuka’s announcement could mislead ordinary farmers, a fair point when the difference between “final payment of $8.27” and “top-up of $8.27” translates into a week’s worth of groceries in the cane belt.
In response, Iyer did not clarify; he caricatured.
The Political Subtext: NFP’s Cane Sensitivities
Behind this quarrel lies a deeper discomfort within the coalition government. The sugar industry is politically sacred in Fiji, and the NFP, traditionally rooted in the cane belt, is eager to control the narrative. Any suggestion that Rabuka or Finance Minister Biman Prasad or Sugar Minister Charan Jeath Singh’s announcements were unclear risks undermining the Government’s claim of delivering record payments.
So when Chaudhry questioned the announcement’s phrasing, Iyer’s instinct was not to check the math but to protect the message. The irony is that the Tribunal’s official figures now vindicate Chaudhry’s reading and make Iyer’s performance look like a tantrum masquerading as commentary.
Cane, Clarity, and Contrition
The episode could have ended with a quiet acknowledgment that the Government’s top-up was, in fact, an addition, and that everyone was arguing over the same arithmetic, just phrased differently.
But that would require humility which is not Iyer’s strongest trait.
Instead, his attack has only highlighted the NFP’s sensitivity to any scrutiny of its sugar rhetoric and its increasing tendency to lash out at critics with the same moral fury once reserved for coup apologists.
If anyone was “caught with pants down,” it was the man who couldn’t read the fine print of a press statement before picking a fight over it
- The Sugar Industry Tribunal’s confirmation leaves no room for creative interpretation:
- Chaudhry’s explanation matches the official payment structure.
- Rabuka’s statement, while technically clear, was susceptible to misreading.
Iyer’s accusation, meanwhile, collapses under the weight of basic arithmetic.
Or, as farmers might put it: the cane doesn’t lie but sometimes the spin does.
Maybe we should consider bringing back caning for those who fail to do right maths?
*When will Sugar Minister and Minister for Multi-Ethnic Affairs focus on multi-ethnic issues where minority races are increasingly marginalised in top government appointments?
NFP General Secretary, Kamal Iyer says Chaudhry finds himself entangled in his own web of lies, deceit and treachery by trying in vain to extricate himself from the diabolical lies he spewed regarding the top-up amount by government of the final cane payment.
He says the FLP leader also claimed that the Prime Minister wasn’t receiving the right advice and stated that it was premature to say he breached the Code of Conduct of the Political Parties Act because this was not a campaign period.
Iyer says Chaudhry, in conformity to his reputation of being a habitual liar, blames Rabuka’s announcement, partially quoting a newspaper’s online report.
He says this is the sign of a desperate politician who is both clutching to straws and at the same time behaving like a cornered rat.
He says the FLP leader also claimed that the Prime Minister wasn’t receiving the right advice and stated that it was premature to say he breached the Code of Conduct of the Political Parties Act because this was not a campaign period.
Iyer says Chaudhry, in conformity to his reputation of being a habitual liar, blames Rabuka’s announcement, partially quoting a newspaper’s online report.
He says this is the sign of a desperate politician who is both clutching to straws and at the same time behaving like a cornered rat.
NFP party leader still on the run after being cornered by FICAC but was let loose by the sacked Ficac Commissioner Malimali from the 'Ficac Mouse Trap'
 Fraud from the Start: How Biman Prasad Concealed His Business Empire, One Omission at a Time   |   |
In politics, timing and truth matter. So does the intent behind silence.
In March 2013, more than a year before he signed his statutory declaration of assets to contest Fiji’s 2014 general election, Biman Prasad - now Coalition's Finance Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) - entered into a series of property and business transactions with his cousin Sunil Chand that would have redefined any honest declaration of wealth.
Prasad did not just forget to declare a car or understate a salary. He concealed an entire property purchase, business partnership, shareholding, and corporate directorship. He continued to conceal these interests for nearly a decade, across multiple election cycles. He misled regulators, voters, and his own party. And the record now shows this was not a momentary lapse. It was a deliberate and sustained act of political fraud.
The Sequence That Reveals Intent
In March 2013, Prasad:
He declared none of it.
He did not declare:
In 2016, Prasad acquired a further 45% stake in Lotus Construction from his cousin for just $4,800. This transaction elevated him to 50% ownership of a real estate development company, then engaged in constructing 28 villas in Nadi using a $1.5 million loan from ANZ Bank and private investor deposits.
Again, he failed to disclose this in any known public declaration.
The Law He Broke, Repeatedly
Under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, political party officials and candidates must declare all assets, liabilities, business interests, and income sources. False or misleading declarations attract criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison, a $50,000 fine, or both.
Prasad’s 2014 declaration, submitted under oath, was not merely incomplete. It was knowingly false. He was a co-director and part-owner of a multi-million-dollar company. He owned real estate. He was involved in financing, development, and sales and all of which should have been disclosed under the law.
Subsequent declarations did not correct or disclose the omitted interests, making this a continuing offence under the Act. Even if he eventually disclosed something about his shares, the undervaluation ($85,000 instead of $210,000) and failure to disclose that the shares were gifted or grossly underpaid for makes such statements false and misleading in substance.
Why This Is Fraud. Not Negligence
Fraudulent intent does not require a written confession. It is proved through patterns of conduct, knowledge of obligations, and deliberate omissions.
In this case, the facts speak for themselves:
Any claim that this was forgotten or misunderstood is implausible. This was a calculated effort to withhold information that would have cast Prasad not as a clean academic outsider, but as a well-connected real estate investor with undisclosed business interests.
No Defence in Silence
It may be asked why the Fiji Elections Office (FEO), which received the declaration in 2014, did not detect the omission. But this is irrelevant. The legal duty is on the declarant, not the regulator. Regulatory failure does not excuse deception.
To suggest, as Prasad might, that “no one caught it at the time” is not a defence. It is an admission that the deception succeeded. This is not just about assets. It is about:
A Fraud from the First Signature
From the moment he filed his July 2014 declaration omitting known and substantial interests, Biman Prasad engaged in an act of political fraud. Every omitted share, every undeclared gift, and every undervalued transaction since has only deepened the offence.
This is not an old paperwork error. It is a pattern. It is deliberate. And it is disqualifying.
If Fiji’s anti-corruption laws are to mean anything, and if voters are to believe in the integrity of democratic institutions, then such acts must carry consequences.
In March 2013, more than a year before he signed his statutory declaration of assets to contest Fiji’s 2014 general election, Biman Prasad - now Coalition's Finance Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the National Federation Party (NFP) - entered into a series of property and business transactions with his cousin Sunil Chand that would have redefined any honest declaration of wealth.
Prasad did not just forget to declare a car or understate a salary. He concealed an entire property purchase, business partnership, shareholding, and corporate directorship. He continued to conceal these interests for nearly a decade, across multiple election cycles. He misled regulators, voters, and his own party. And the record now shows this was not a momentary lapse. It was a deliberate and sustained act of political fraud.
The Sequence That Reveals Intent
In March 2013, Prasad:
- Purchased two off-plan villas for $150,000 each from his cousin, Sunil Chand;
- Formed a private company, Lotus Construction (Fiji) Ltd, with Chand just days later;
- Was appointed co-director and issued 5% of the company’s shares, worth approximately $210,000 based on a contemporaneous $4.2 million valuation.
He declared none of it.
He did not declare:
- The two villas he had already purchased;
- His 5% ownership in a construction firm;
- His role as a company director;
- His financial relationship with his cousin, co-founder, and business partner.
In 2016, Prasad acquired a further 45% stake in Lotus Construction from his cousin for just $4,800. This transaction elevated him to 50% ownership of a real estate development company, then engaged in constructing 28 villas in Nadi using a $1.5 million loan from ANZ Bank and private investor deposits.
Again, he failed to disclose this in any known public declaration.
The Law He Broke, Repeatedly
Under Section 24 of the Political Parties (Registration, Conduct, Funding and Disclosures) Act 2013, political party officials and candidates must declare all assets, liabilities, business interests, and income sources. False or misleading declarations attract criminal penalties of up to 10 years in prison, a $50,000 fine, or both.
Prasad’s 2014 declaration, submitted under oath, was not merely incomplete. It was knowingly false. He was a co-director and part-owner of a multi-million-dollar company. He owned real estate. He was involved in financing, development, and sales and all of which should have been disclosed under the law.
Subsequent declarations did not correct or disclose the omitted interests, making this a continuing offence under the Act. Even if he eventually disclosed something about his shares, the undervaluation ($85,000 instead of $210,000) and failure to disclose that the shares were gifted or grossly underpaid for makes such statements false and misleading in substance.
Why This Is Fraud. Not Negligence
Fraudulent intent does not require a written confession. It is proved through patterns of conduct, knowledge of obligations, and deliberate omissions.
In this case, the facts speak for themselves:
- The assets were already acquired before the 2014 declaration.
- The business was founded with a first cousin - a related party.
- The shares were issued with no recorded payment in 2013, and only $4,800 paid in 2016 for what amounted to a controlling 50% stake.
- The company went on to develop 28 villas - a major real estate project.
Any claim that this was forgotten or misunderstood is implausible. This was a calculated effort to withhold information that would have cast Prasad not as a clean academic outsider, but as a well-connected real estate investor with undisclosed business interests.
No Defence in Silence
It may be asked why the Fiji Elections Office (FEO), which received the declaration in 2014, did not detect the omission. But this is irrelevant. The legal duty is on the declarant, not the regulator. Regulatory failure does not excuse deception.
To suggest, as Prasad might, that “no one caught it at the time” is not a defence. It is an admission that the deception succeeded. This is not just about assets. It is about:
- Gaining and holding public office on false pretences;
- Shielding financial interests that could conflict with parliamentary duties;
- Deceiving voters about financial independence and credibility.
A Fraud from the First Signature
From the moment he filed his July 2014 declaration omitting known and substantial interests, Biman Prasad engaged in an act of political fraud. Every omitted share, every undeclared gift, and every undervalued transaction since has only deepened the offence.
This is not an old paperwork error. It is a pattern. It is deliberate. And it is disqualifying.
If Fiji’s anti-corruption laws are to mean anything, and if voters are to believe in the integrity of democratic institutions, then such acts must carry consequences.
  |  Sunil Chand at the recent NFP conference in Labasa |
