*But we have to admit that the FFP has done the right thing by being firm with the GREEDY 17. Just shocking is their party constitution with no dispute resolution clause. However, it could be amended to deal with the FFP Greedy 17.
*As for the Speaker, since he will be the biggest beneficiary from the pay scandal, we should not expect much from him. A convicted criminal (only served 11 days out of eight months prison sentence for assisting Speight's coup objectives} who failed to make it to Parliament via the front door with Coupist Sitiveni Rabuka and PAP, he has been plonked in the Speaker's chair through the back door.
*Fiji has been rotting to the bone since the 1987 COUPS, and Mick Beddoes' FIRST NATION PEOPLES (means i-Taukei, despite the late Laisenia Qarase revealing that he (Qarase) was of Jewish ancestry, and one of Qarase's deputy at the FDB happened to our Editor's first cousin: I-Taukei and Indo-Fijian mix heritage but who decided to register in the Vola in Kawa) are fast turning Fiji into Dada Idi Amin's Uganda, starting with the Judiciary.
*One of the most high-profile racist from Rabuka's 1987 coups, ISIKELI MATAITOGA, is now sitting as Fiji Court of Appeal judge, and many who fled after the 2006 Bainimarama coup, are back on the Fiji judiciary.

Statement from the President of FijiFirst, Ratu Joji Satakala
To all FijiFirst supporters and all Fijian citizens, please be informed that on the afternoon of Thursday, 30 May 2024, FijiFirst delivered its notification, under section 63 of the Fijian Constitution, to the Honourable Speaker of the Fijian Parliament, copied to the Electoral Commission, that 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀, 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁. 𝗜𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
We also on the same afternoon, sent letters to the 17 individuals informing them of the notification that was sent to the Honourable Speaker. A copy of the notification to the Honourable Speaker was also sent to them.
The notifications are included in this statement.
While we have not heard from the Honourable Speaker as to when the 17 replacement members of FijiFirst will be sworn in, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. We will address the matters raised by the Supervisor of Elections on another occasion.
Since the evening of 30 May 2024, a number of statements have been made by certain individuals from this group of 17 and a handful of their misled supporters. Most of these statements have been personalised and individual attacks have been made, as well as attacks against the Party itself and its mechanisms. Yet, ironically at the same time, they want to continue to be FijiFirst Parliamentarians.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺, 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗣𝗹𝘂𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀, 𝗵𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿𝘀. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰, 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹, 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀, 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱, 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼.
We have seen Prime Minister Rabuka, his party members and the SODELPA leadership justify the pay rise, that is however their thinking, their prerogative. 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
Under the FijiFirst Constitution, we have to have 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲, we have 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀. Our mission is to 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 and aim for a Fiji in which 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 and in all of this 𝗮 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲.
Who we are and what we stand for, our core values and our attributes define us as a political movement and political party. To deviate from these principles and values would spell the end of our political movement. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲. 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿, 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟭𝟴 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱, 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆. 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟱% 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 $𝟮𝟳𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬.𝟬𝟬 𝗮 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮 𝟱% 𝗰𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘆. 𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗚𝗣 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
The increase in company tax and various duties have had a huge impact on business confidence, turnover and investment. Law and order have been deteriorating rapidly including the inability to curb the usage of drugs and its impact on our society. Coupled with this current Government’s inability to make decisive and coherent decisions and to maintain policy stability and consistency at a practical level, these have all led to a slowing down in investor confidence and uptake of investment and even flight of capital. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀. 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲. FijiFirst had said to the current Government last year that there was an exodus of Fijians leaving Fiji, and that this problem and its impact on the economy needed to be urgently addressed. Instead, the Government buried its head in the sand, only to come up for air some weeks ago and acknowledge that is a massive exodus problem. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝟭𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟭𝟮 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. Some weeks ago, the current Government introduced the idea of a possible 5% dividend tax. Again, another blow to investor confidence and uptake. Companies are already paying an increased 5 % corporate tax. Another reason why certain businesses are clamping down and 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶. 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘂𝗽 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗚𝗣 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱. 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗣𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿.
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝟭𝟬𝟬%, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗣𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀? 𝗜𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆. 𝗪𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗣𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲? 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹, 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲? 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗴𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱, 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿. 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗯𝘆 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿? 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗦𝗼, 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗻𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁, 𝟭𝟳 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲.
𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀. 𝗡𝗼 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀, 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗱𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘆, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝗳𝗼𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀.
𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆, 𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗱𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿.
𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵. 𝗪𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹, 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
Ratu Joji Satakala
President
FijiFirst
To all FijiFirst supporters and all Fijian citizens, please be informed that on the afternoon of Thursday, 30 May 2024, FijiFirst delivered its notification, under section 63 of the Fijian Constitution, to the Honourable Speaker of the Fijian Parliament, copied to the Electoral Commission, that 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀, 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗰𝗮𝗻𝘁. 𝗜𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗮𝘁𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
We also on the same afternoon, sent letters to the 17 individuals informing them of the notification that was sent to the Honourable Speaker. A copy of the notification to the Honourable Speaker was also sent to them.
The notifications are included in this statement.
While we have not heard from the Honourable Speaker as to when the 17 replacement members of FijiFirst will be sworn in, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘀𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗘𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗺𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲. We will address the matters raised by the Supervisor of Elections on another occasion.
Since the evening of 30 May 2024, a number of statements have been made by certain individuals from this group of 17 and a handful of their misled supporters. Most of these statements have been personalised and individual attacks have been made, as well as attacks against the Party itself and its mechanisms. Yet, ironically at the same time, they want to continue to be FijiFirst Parliamentarians.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺, 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗹𝘂𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗣𝗹𝘂𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀, 𝗵𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿𝘀. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰, 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹, 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀, 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗚𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗻𝗼 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗱, 𝘂𝗻𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝗹𝗲𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗴𝗼 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼 𝘀𝗼.
We have seen Prime Minister Rabuka, his party members and the SODELPA leadership justify the pay rise, that is however their thinking, their prerogative. 𝗔𝗹𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘄𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗲𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
Under the FijiFirst Constitution, we have to have 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲, we have 𝘁𝗼 𝗳𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵𝘆 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀. Our mission is to 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝗱 𝗮 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 and aim for a Fiji in which 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 and in all of this 𝗮 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗴𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲.
Who we are and what we stand for, our core values and our attributes define us as a political movement and political party. To deviate from these principles and values would spell the end of our political movement. 𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗻𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗱𝘂𝗮𝗹𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲. 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿, 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿, 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝗶𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗱, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗼𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝟭𝟴 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗴𝗼𝗼𝗱𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗼𝗱, 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗼𝘂𝘀𝗹𝘆. 𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗹𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝘁𝗼 𝟭𝟱% 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱, 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 $𝟮𝟳𝟬,𝟬𝟬𝟬.𝟬𝟬 𝗮 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗵𝗮𝗱 𝗮 𝟱% 𝗰𝘂𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘆. 𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗹𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗮𝗳𝗲𝘁𝘆 𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗚𝗣 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗱𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝘃𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗲𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴.
The increase in company tax and various duties have had a huge impact on business confidence, turnover and investment. Law and order have been deteriorating rapidly including the inability to curb the usage of drugs and its impact on our society. Coupled with this current Government’s inability to make decisive and coherent decisions and to maintain policy stability and consistency at a practical level, these have all led to a slowing down in investor confidence and uptake of investment and even flight of capital. 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀. 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗷𝗼𝗯𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝘂𝗹𝗮𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲. FijiFirst had said to the current Government last year that there was an exodus of Fijians leaving Fiji, and that this problem and its impact on the economy needed to be urgently addressed. Instead, the Government buried its head in the sand, only to come up for air some weeks ago and acknowledge that is a massive exodus problem. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝟭𝟬% 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟭𝟮 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗵𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗼-𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺𝘀, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. Some weeks ago, the current Government introduced the idea of a possible 5% dividend tax. Again, another blow to investor confidence and uptake. Companies are already paying an increased 5 % corporate tax. Another reason why certain businesses are clamping down and 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗮 𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸, 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗟𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
𝗧𝗼 𝘁𝗼𝗽 𝗶𝘁 𝗼𝗳𝗳, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘂𝗽 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶. 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗩𝗔𝗧 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘂𝗽 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗱𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗼𝗹 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗚𝗣 𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝗮𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗱. 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗹𝘆, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗮𝗿 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘂𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆, 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗠𝗣𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗔𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗗𝗲𝗽𝘂𝘁𝘆 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗿.
𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗺 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝟭𝟬𝟬%, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗣𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀? 𝗜𝘁 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗮𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗯𝘆 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗷𝗼𝗯 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗹𝗶𝘃𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆. 𝗪𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗣𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗼𝗻𝗲? 𝗔𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗹𝗹, 𝘄𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲? 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗴𝗶𝗴𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻 𝗶𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀.
𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗥𝗲𝗻𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲, 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗱, 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿. 𝗗𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗯𝘆 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗲𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗶𝗿 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿? 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄 𝗶𝗻 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.
𝗦𝗼, 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝗻𝘂𝘁𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝘂𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗮𝘅𝗽𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗶𝗱𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀, 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘃𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁, 𝟭𝟳 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗴𝗼 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲.
𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗶𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱. 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀. 𝗡𝗼 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝘀, 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗖𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗶𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝘄𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁’𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗱𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗵𝘆, 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹, 𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆.
𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻, 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗮𝘁 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝘂𝗽 𝗳𝗼𝗿. 𝗧𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗵𝗼𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝘀.
𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝟭𝟳 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝘂𝘁. 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗿𝘆, 𝘀𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗱𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗼𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿.
𝗪𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳𝗶𝘀𝗵. 𝗪𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗵 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗲𝘁𝗹𝘆, 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗱𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗳𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗮𝗿𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀.
𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲, 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗼, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹, 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗸 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗼𝗳 𝗙𝗶𝗷𝗶𝗶𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗮𝗹𝘄𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗳 𝗶𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗲𝗺𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗳𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁.
Ratu Joji Satakala
President
FijiFirst
DOWN THE BEATEN ROAD: In 2006, Fijileaks founding Editor-in-Chief was instrumental in persuading Government House that MICK BEDDOES must be appointed the Leader of the Opposition! From Fiji Sun archive:

MICK BEDDOES MUST BE APPOINTED LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the [1997] Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.
By VICTOR LAL
The dictates of the [1997] Constitution [s82(2)] and long established democratic convention requires that ‘The President appoints as Leader of the Opposition, the member of the House of Representatives whose appointment as Leader of the Opposition would, in the opinion of the President, be acceptable to the majority of the members in the House of the Opposition party or parties’.
In order to fulfil the constitutional requirement, the President must ask himself only two simple questions: who is the Opposition, and who is the Government?
In the factual matrix of things as it currently stands, the leader of the United Peoples Party (UPP), Mick Beddoes, is in Opposition, and the leaders of the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party (SDL), the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) and the two Independents are in a multi-party Government under subsection 99(3) of the Constitution of Fiji that requires the Prime Minister to establish a multi-party Cabinet in the way set out in that section. The Prime Minister is required by subsection 99(5) to invite all political parties with 10 per cent or more seats in the House of Representatives to be represented in the Cabinet.
Since the leader of the FLP, Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, has voluntarily accepted the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase’s offer for his elected parliamentarians to be in Cabinet, although he himself has deliberately chosen not to be a part of it, the only person now qualified to constitutionally lead the Opposition in Parliament is Mr Beddoes (unless the UPP appoints Bernadette Rounds-Ganilau as its leader). Simply put, neither Mr Chaudhry nor any of his non Cabinet FLP parliamentarians can be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. Their appointment to the post will be a breach of the Constitution and democratic convention. The President, in appointing Mr Beddoes as Opposition leader, must ignore the likelihood of ‘boycotts and high courts’ on the part of the FLP; for this time he will be simply complying in meeting the requirements of Section 82(2). The President will also be complying with the compact and spirit of the Constitution of Fiji.
Chaudhry and Opposition leadership
On 15 October 2002, the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo wrote to Mr Chaudhry appointing him Leader of the Opposition. ‘Acting in my own deliberate judgement, I have this day appointed you to be the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Fiji’. ‘In making this appointment, I am not unaware of the pending court action, which you filed to pursue the rights you claim under Section 99 of the Constitution. I have no doubt that you know what to do when the final outcome of that Court action becomes known’, the letter said.
Mr Chaudhry wrote back on 22 October, after seeking legal advice, declining the appointment. He said he was unable to accept the position because the FLP had exercised its constitutional right to be in the Laisenia Qarase’s SDL-CAM led Coalition Government. Surprisingly, Mr Chaudhry went on to inform the President in the same letter that of the non-FLP members in the House, ‘no one is currently qualified to be credibly appointed as Opposition leader’. As history will attest, two leaders emerged to take up the Opposition leadership: National Federation Party’s Prem Singh and later Mr Beddoes. It was not long before Mr Chaudhry took a swipe at Mr Singh, who in Letters to the Editor had accused the FLP of being tyrants and despots. He described Mr Singh as a one-man band who lacked credibility and legitimacy. Mr Chaudhry said that there were sound reasons for his refusal to accept the office of Opposition leader when the President offered it to him. But Mr Singh was easy meat for he considered not the harmful implications of his acceptance on the Indo-Fijian community.
In March 2003, Mr Chaudhry also criticised the new Opposition leader Mr Beddoes, accusing him of losing objectivity in his (Mr Beddoes) unrelenting but misguided quest to have Ms Ofa Swann of the New Labour Unity Party (NLUP) installed as chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). Mr Beddoes, asked Mr Chaudhry, might want to explain why he declined an offer by FLP for him to chair the PAC? Why this compulsive urges to back Ms Swann? Is it because his own business commitments preclude him from taking up the position? While explaining why he was boycotting the Opposition leadership post, ‘because the Prime Minister seems to have scant regard for the Constitution’, Mr Chauhdry told Beddoes that he would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee.
The Multi-Party Case and FLP
Without going into detail, the Appeals Court ruled in Mr Chaudhry’s favour that he and his FLP were entitled to proportional representation in Cabinet. But when Mr Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry into Cabinet, he turned it down on the grounds that the portfolios allocated to him were petty, and that there was no need to have a bloated Cabinet of 33 when a Government could be effectively run by a Cabinet of no more than 18. ‘Why do you need 33 people to do a job which can be quite effectively done by half that number?’ He said the portfolios were not offered in good faith.
In November 2004, with one eye on the 2006 general election, Mr Chaudhry suddenly announced that he was taking over the Opposition Leader’s job, and Mr Beddoes gracefully stepped down after performing a sterling job. Mr Chaudhry claimed that he nor his party could be a part of a Government that showed no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the laws of the country, harboured within its ranks elements implicated in the 2000 coups and practised blatant discrimination against half the country’s population on account of their ethnicity.
Ironically, last week, he made a 360 degree political somersault, and accepted that his FLP parliamentarians be a part of the largest Cabinet in Fiji’s history; even sharing power with some SDL Cabinet ministers who had served prison terms for their parts in the 2000 crisis. In other words, he and his party are now a part of the multi-party Cabinet for which he persisted for three years, and had stubbornly refused to assume the Opposition leadership role. He, therefore, cannot be considered for the post of the Leader of the Opposition.
Precedents and Chaudhry
As the nation awaits a decision from the President’s Office, Mr Chauhdry now claims that there's nothing in the Constitution to stop him from becoming the Leader of the Opposition. He says the law allows him and his backbenchers to form an opposition. ‘The Constitution is silent on that and the choice is left to the elected representatives. No one can force them into a particular situation,’ he said. His recently graduated lawyer son, who legally represents the FLP, echoes his father’s statement and sentiment. Firstly, if one examines the issue of the conflict of offices, the FLP have persistently highlighted them during the last term of the Parliament.
In May 2005, Mr Chaudhry objected to the continued presence of Government Ministers in the House of Representatives who had forfeited their membership by taking up public offices. Speaking on a point of order in Parliament, he said the former Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa and Trade Minister Tom Veutilovoni had taken up the chair of Rewa and Ra Provincial Councils respectively and under the Constitution had ceased to be Members of Parliament. He said according to Articles 71 (1) b of the Constitution the two by taking up the Provincial appointments had lost their respective places as MPs.
Treating Mr Chauhdry by the same yardstick, and now that his FLP has joined a multi-party Cabinet, Mr Chaudhry cannot be appointed as Leader of the Opposition. We had earlier recalled Mr Chaudhry’s attack on Mr Beddoes over the PAC. In that attack, he had raised an important constitutional issue, which is now directly relevant to his own case. Mr Chaudhry had asserted that Ms Swann was deemed to be an SDL-CAM Coalition Government member by virtue of Kenneth Zinck’s Ministerial position in the SDL government. Ms Swann’s NLUP had not taken any concrete action, he claimed, to have the matter of its legal status in Parliament rectified after it lost its case against Mr Zinck’s purported expulsion from the party. So, Ms Swann, could not be recognised as an Opposition MP, said Mr Chaudhry.
More importantly, both the Constitution and the Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, are clear that a party, which is part of a Government, cannot have members in Opposition. Applying the same test to Mr Chaudhry’s own FLP, he therefore, cannot claim that he is still in the Opposition, and that he is still the Leader of the Opposition. Like Mr Zinck, Mr Chaudhry has voluntarily sent nine of his MPs to be a part of Mr Qarase’s multi-party Cabinet.
The Korolevu Declaration
The Korolevu Declaration, signed after the 1997 Constitution came into force, clearly says that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. In his quest to remain the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chaudhry now says that Qarase rejected that agreement in 2001 when he didn't let Labour into the multi-party Cabinet. Here, Mr Chaudhry and his legal team, however, are clearly being economical with the truth.
On 10 September 2001, the newly elected Prime Minister Qarase invited Mr Chaudhry, as the leader of the second largest party, to join the multi-party Cabinet as required by the Constitution but made it clear that, ‘we think you might be happier in Opposition’. In other words, Mr Qarase wanted Mr Chaudhry to assume the mantle of Opposition leadership. Meanwhile, in response to Qarase’s letter, the FLP accepted Mr Qarase’s offer in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and surprisingly, with that of the Korolevu Declaration (Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999). In a follow-up letter on the same day Mr Chaudhry, while accepting to be in Government, categorically informed Qarase that ‘my party’s participation in Cabinet and in government will be in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and with that of the Korolevu Declaration – Parliamentary Paper No 15 of 1999’.
Mr Chaudhry also reminded Mr Qarase of Clause 4 of the Declaration, notably the manner in which the Cabinet conducts its business. These are (a) Cabinet decision making in Government be on a consensus seeking basis, especially with regard to key issues and policies; (b) Parties represented in the Cabinet may express and record independent views on the Cabinet but Members of the Cabinet must comply with the principles of collective responsibility; (c) Consensus seeking mechanisms in Cabinet should include the formulation of a broadly acceptable framework, the establishment of Cabinet committees to examine any major disagreements on policy issues, and the establishment of flexible rules governing communication by ministers to their respective party caucuses.
Replying, Mr Qarase expressed disappointment that Mr Chaudhry had not expressly accepted the basic condition he had set out in his letter that the policies of his Cabinet would be based fundamentally on the policy manifesto of the SDL. He also pointed out to Mr Chaudhry that the ‘Korolevu Declaration’ was a political and not a constitutional document. It was not an enactment of Parliament. His SDL was not a signatory to this political agreement and was, therefore, not bound by it. In any case, Cabinet procedures are set out in the Manual of Cabinet Procedures. Mr Qarase also reminded Mr Chaudhry of his (Mr Chaudhry’s) statements to the press, in which Mr Chaudhry was reported to have said that ‘the parties’ (FLP and SDL) ideological differences made them unlikely partners’.
In his letter to the President, Mr Chaudhry however insisted that he laid down absolutely no conditions to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation to the FLP to be represented in Cabinet. Similarly, the Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry insisted, could not be interpreted as stipulating a condition to the acceptance of Mr Qarase’s invitation. The procedure for establishing a multi-party Cabinet, he insisted, is laid down in Section 99 of the Constitution. As is to be expected, ‘the Constitution does not provide the finer details of how the proportionate number of Cabinet seats is to be determined, how cabinet portfolios are to be allocated or how significant differences on policy matter are to be resolved in a multi-party government. These are matters for discussion/consultation.’
The Korolevu Declaration, Mr Chaudhry claimed, was subsequently endorsed by Parliament as Parliamentary Paper 15/99. The procedures, practices and recommendations therein were applicable in the event of a dispute or disagreement between the political parties on any subject covered in the Declaration. The fact that the SDL was not a signatory to that document was of no significance in its application. The Korolevu Declaration, he claimed, had established a practice, which was agreed to by all political parties at the time and successfully used in establishing a multi-party government following the 1999 general elections. It, therefore, follows now in 2006 that Mr Chaudhry, who was a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration, must accept that any party, which joins a multi-party Cabinet, cannot be part of the Opposition. By extension, he himself cannot be entitled to be in Cabinet as well as to act as the official Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
In President’s Deliberate Judgment.
In appointing the new Leader of the Opposition, the President Ratu Iloilo must exercise his own deliberate judgment. It is his prerogative at the end of the day. Firstly, one of the contenders, Mr Beddoes has confirmed that he is available for consideration, and most importantly, he has already told the President’s Office that his UPP had declined to join the FLP in the multi-party Government and opted to stay in Opposition.
Secondly, the President must take into account his letter of appointment of 15 October 2002, in which he had unilaterally appointed Mr Chaudhry, but which Mr Chaudhry had declined. He had cited that since he had initiated court proceedings, he was not willing to accept the President’s decision or appointment. Now, in 2006, the FLP has again served notice that it intents to challenge the results of certain seats. The FLP is also calling on the Government to set up a commission of inquiry into irregularities in the recent general elections. Mrs Lavenia Padarath, who narrowly lost the Nausori/Naitasiri Open seat, says it makes her question the credibility of international election observers when they say the elections were free and fair. She says the observers only say that because they did not witness any violence and bloodshed.
The FLP has prepared an eight-page list of what it says were election irregularities and sent it to more than 20 organisations and individuals including foreign diplomatic missions in Suva. The letter alleges that the Elections Office conspired with some returning officers to commit serious acts of election irregularities to ensure an SDL victory. Acting on the following facts, the President would be unwise to reappoint Mr Chaudhry, in the event that he again declines the appointment, on the grounds that as far as the FLP is concerned, the general election was not free and fair, and the matter is before the courts. The President would also be sending a powerful signal to future aspiring political leaders that you couldn’t have your political cake and eat it at the same time.
In this particular instance, it is my considered legal and personal opinion that the only person entitled to be the next Leader of Opposition is Mr Beddoes of the United Peoples Party. He has the constitutional right to occupy the Leader of the Opposition’s office and Opposition leader’s desk in Parliament.
And if the nine FLP Cabinet ministers stage a walkout in support of their political master, they should be welcomed to do so at their own political peril. For the nation had limped on without a multi-party Cabinet for the last five years. And under the Mr Qarase led SDL government. The nation did not miss Mr Chaudhry for three years as Leader of the Opposition. We did not miss him because Mr Beddoes did sterling job, and service, to the nation in her greatest hour of need following the 2000 upheaval.
He is entitled to shine again. To paraphrase Mr Chaudhry’s advice to Mr Beddoes, he ‘would do well to accept facts as they stood rather than try and work around it to push a weak case for his own nominee’. In Mr Chaudhry’s case, his own nomination for the Opposition leader’s job.
In any event, the Prime Minister has not ruled out the possibility of Mr Chaudhry joining the multi party Cabinet in the next five years. He said that Mr Chaudhry made the decision himself that he did not want to be part of the Cabinet. He hopes things will change as the SDL and FLP ministers work together in the multi party Cabinet.
As for the President’s decision, the term ‘In his own deliberate judgment’ means that he is not obliged to take advice from anyone. Regarded the other way, the President is able to select as Leader of Opposition who he wishes to have’.
But in this instance, it has to be Mr Mick Beddoes, constitutionally speaking. For Mr Chaudhry deliberately chose not to enter Cabinet, forfeiting his constitutional right under Section 99 of the Constitution. His party is also a signatory to the Korolevu Declaration.