Showing posts with label CONSPIRACY. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CONSPIRACY. Show all posts

Tuesday, 8 November 2022

TY & CHARLENE BOLLYNGER PROPAGANDA EXPOSED UNCENSORED - GOVERNMENT, BIO WEAPONS, BIG TECH & BIG PHARMA.

 SOS - My blog is being tampered with for posting this???


Join over 2,000,000 People as We Continue to Share The Truth About Cancer.

Subscribe to Our Newsletter and Get Your FREE eBook Today.

Docu-series “Propaganda Exposed [UNCENSORED]” Blows the Lid off Collusion, Corruption, and Conspiracy between Government, Tech & Pharma

TTAC is experiencing heavy censorship on many social media channels since we’ve been targeted by the mainstream media sellouts, social media bullies, and political turncoats.  Be sure to get the TRUTH by subscribing to our email list.  It’s free.

divider1

Throughout the course of human history, healers have been revered and even worshiped. From Hippocrates, “The Father of Modern Medicine,” in 400 B.C., to Anton van Leeuwenhoek, who first discovered blood cells in 1670, to Sir Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin in 1928, physicians have still been hailed as pioneers and champions of healing.

Becoming a doctor is widely considered one of the most noble professions; the respect that a white lab coat and stethoscope can command is comparable to that of a cassock or war medal. It is one of the only professions in which its members demand that their title be used in everyday life. 

This praise and admiration is not without merit. Doctors save lives. The amount of cumulative knowledge that it takes to repair an artery, replace a joint, or arrive at a seemingly impossible diagnosis requires a lifetime of dedication that is hard to manufacture. Each generation of healers stands upon the shoulders of the last, and the human race has benefited tremendously. 

Furthermore, these healers have benefited greatly from breakthroughs in science and technology that have led to the creation and discovery of numerous drugs, therapies, and surgical interventions. These healing modalities have undoubtedly saved the lives of millions of Americans. 

After all, where would we be without penicillin or appendectomies? Even our ability to sterilize wounds and prevent infection has drastically increased the average lifespan. But not all treatments are created equal. For every breakthrough, lifesaving discovery, dozens more turn out to be harmful, ineffective, or even deadly.

The Truth About Modern Medicine

For nearly as long as modern medicine has existed, so have egregious ethical violations. When you hear the term “medical experimentation,” your mind may recall the horrendous experiments conducted in Nazi Germany on Jews, communists, homosexuals, and an assortment of other “undesirables” under the Third Reich. While these experiments were undoubtedly appalling, they were neither the first nor the last of their kind. 

In fact, the history of unethical experiments in the United States and abroad is long and harrowing. Children, soldiers, minorities, prisoners, and even entire cities have been forcibly or unknowingly subjected to dangerous, cruel, and often lethal experiments… all in the name of science. 

The doctors and scientists responsible for the development and administration of these drugs are both trained and constrained by the corrupt system that now controls them. Western medicine as we now know it exists in orbit around the pharmaceutical industry. Medical schools teach doctors how to match symptoms with prescriptions, hospitals negotiate with insurance companies based on the cost of drugs, and the race is ongoing to create the latest and greatest drug that will cure what ails ya. 

The healers of today are no longer the heroes of old. The healers of today are trained, funded, and accountable to the pharmaceutical industry. That corruption is largely enabled by a system of governmental oversight that is nothing more than an instrument used by the medical industrial complex to approve and sell their products while limiting their liability. 

Worse, these governmental puppets are now using the private tech and media industries to ensure that only the official narrative is put forth; those with dissenting opinions or contradicting data are silenced, censored, and calumniated. 

This was once considered to be a conspiracy theory. To insinuate that these institutions could be involved in a global conspiracy that has cost tens of millions of lives and undermined the very foundations of our democracy was tantamount to blasphemy. 

Until now…

The Emperor is Naked

Over the past few weeks, shocking evidence has emerged that demonstrates a rigorous effort by tech industry, medical corporations, media outlets, and government agencies to silence dissenting opinions, attack specific people and organizations, and control what information you can access.

On August 31, 2022, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry filed a lawsuit alleging that at least 45 federal officials across multiple agencies within the Biden administration colluded with Facebook and Twitter to adjust their algorithms to “censor freedom of speech” on a number of topics, including the COVID-19 pandemic (Google, LinkedIn, and others are also implicated in the petition).

The following is an excerpt from that document, which you can read in its entirety here:

Under the First Amendment, the federal Government should have no role in policing private speech or picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is what federal officials are doing, on a massive scale – a scale whose full scope and impact is yet to be determined.

Secretary Mayorkas of DHS commented that the federal Government’s efforts to police private speech on social media are occurring “across the federal enterprise.” It turns out that this statement is true, on a scale beyond what Plaintiffs could ever have anticipated. 

The limited discovery produced so far provides a tantalizing snapshot into a massive, sprawling federal “Censorship Enterprise,” which includes dozens of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies and components identified so far, who communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and the suppression of private speech on social media—all with the intent and effect of pressuring social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech that federal officials disfavor. 

This shocking discovery was followed by a damning report published by The Intercept that sheds further light on just how far this conspiracy goes. In particular, the DHS sub-agency CISA, or the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, has been most active in efforts to combat “mis-, dis-, and mal- information,” or what it abbreviates as “MDM.” 

The report makes use of recently leaked or unsealed internal documents, giving a view into the kinds of conversations corporate executives and government officials have had over how to handle potentially harmful online narratives and sensitive topics.

In the March meeting, Laura Dehmlow, an FBI official, warned that the threat of subversive information on social media could undermine support for the U.S. government. Dehmlow, according to notes of the discussion attended by senior executives from Twitter and JPMorgan Chase, stressed that “we need a media infrastructure that is held accountable.”

It’s been treated as a crime against humanity to question any of the ‘COVID measures’ forced on all humanity by governments worldwide — especially COVID vaccination, which is itself a crime against humanity — and yet it’s dangerous to say as much.

But history has shown that these suspicions are not unfounded. In fact, there is an extensive and well-documented history of corruption and unethical practices by the same pharmaceutical companies and government agencies that we’re told to trust. 

Pfizer’s Criminal Track Record

In 2009, Pfizer (and its subsidiary Pharmacia & Upjohn Company) paid $2.3 BILLION to settle criminal and civil liabilities for illegal promotion of their pharmaceutical products. The amount included payment of more than $102 million in civil settlement to six whistleblowers of the company’s fraudulent practices.

Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug that was withdrawn from the market in 2005 due to safety concerns, was marketed by the company for various off-label uses. The company also illegally promoted several other drugs, including antipsychotic drug Geodon, antibiotic Zyvox, and anti-epileptic drug Lyrica. Healthcare providers received payments for prescribing these drugs to patients for off-label use… literally bribing doctors to prescribe untested and unapproved drugs to patients.

False claims were submitted to government healthcare programs, allowing them to bypass the insurance programs. Pfizer had to pay approximately $1 BILLION to Medicare, Medicaid, and other government insurance programs under the settlement. 

And those are just a few examples. 

In 1993, anti-seizure drug gabapentin was widely prescribed for off-label uses such as treatment of pain and psychiatric conditions. Courts ruled that Pfizer utilized propaganda campaigns, paid for favorable research and coverage, and suppressed unfavorable research regarding the drug. Several regulatory bodies found the drug ineffective for the associated ailments, and Pfizer paid $430 million in one of the largest settlements to resolve criminal and civil health care liability charges.

A “whistleblower suit” was filed in 2005 against Wyeth, which was acquired by Pfizer in 2009, alleging that the company illegally marketed sirolimus (Rapamune) for off-label uses, targeted specific doctors and medical facilities to increase sales of Rapamune, tried to get transplant patients to change from their transplant drugs to Rapamune, and specifically targeted African-Americans. 

According to the whistleblowers, Wyeth also provided doctors and hospitals that prescribed the drug with kickbacks such as grants, donations, and other money. In 2013, the company pleaded guilty to criminal mis-branding violations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. By August 2014, it had paid $491 million in civil and criminal penalties related to Rapamune.

In June 2010, health insurance network Blue Cross Blue Shield filed a lawsuit against Pfizer for allegedly illegally marketing drugs Bextra, Geodon, and Lyrica. Blue Cross alleged that Pfizer used kickbacks and wrongly persuaded doctors to prescribe the drugs. According to the lawsuit, Pfizer handed out ‘misleading’ materials on off-label uses, sent over 5,000 doctors on trips to the Caribbean or around the United States, and paid them $2,000 honoraria in return for listening to lectures about Bextra.

An internal marketing plan revealed that Pfizer intended to train physicians “to serve as public relations spokespeople.” The case was settled in 2014 for $325 million. Fearing that Pfizer was “too big to fail” (and that prosecuting the company would result in disruptions to Medicare and Medicaid), federal prosecutors instead charged a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Pfizer, shielding them from virtually all financial responsibility.

In 2013, Pfizer agreed to a $964 million settlement for selling insulation laden with asbestos. 

That same year, Pfizer withdrew “between $400,000 and a million dollars” worth of ads from Harper’s Magazine following an unflattering article on their depression medication.

In 1994, Pfizer agreed to pay $10.75 million to settle claims by the United States Department of Justice that the company lied to get approval for defective heart valves that killed roughly 500 people.

In 1996, an outbreak of measles, cholera, and bacterial meningitis occurred in Nigeria. Pfizer representatives and personnel set up a clinical trial and administered an experimental antibiotic, trovafloxacin, to approximately 200 children. Local officials reported that more than fifty children (over 25%) died in the experiment, while many others developed mental and physical deformities.

Bribing Doctors

Sadly, this unethical (and often criminal) behavior extends beyond corporations to the very men and women we trust with our health and wellbeing. It’s important to mention that the overwhelming majority of doctors are kind, honest, hardworking folks who have a genuine desire to help their fellow man.

But many have been captured by the medical industrial complex.

Most doctors receive gifts from Big Pharma in one form or another. A 2018 survey published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that nearly three out of four doctors have financial ties to Big Pharma. The vast majority of these relationships were with representatives of prescription drug or medical device manufacturers. Gifts included drug samples, meals, and payment for consulting or advisory roles.

Since 2013, federal law has required that payments to doctors by medical device and pharmaceutical companies be publicly reported. The database (which you can access here) has published over 78 million records from 2015 to 2021, reflecting $63.23 billion in gifts and payments.

Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and lead author of the survey, says this may be influencing doctors’ behavior. According to the study, “Free samples are used as a marketing tool and have been linked to prescribing of high-cost, brand-name drugs over lower-cost generic alternatives.” He suggests that money paid for public speaking and consulting engagements may have an even more acute impact on doctor behavior. “Social scientists will tell you that any amount of money will influence people, but I think larger sums can influence behavior more,” Dr. Kesselheim said

We trust our physicians to make the best recommendations for our health, but the majority of these doctors are receiving gifts from Big Pharma that may influence the treatments they recommend. For example, an orthopedic surgeon in Manhattan received almost $2,000,000 from companies that manufacture hip and knee replacement products between 2015 and 2017. Not coincidentally, the surgeon, Dr. Geoffrey Westrich, performs hundreds of hip and knee replacements each year. In 2017, this doctor received $870,573.39 in general payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies, including $448,000 for “consulting fees”, $28,580 for non-educational speaking engagements, and over $23,000 in travel and lodging.

The Most Important Documentary of Our Lifetime [Except for the parts about "NAZIS"! BAFS]

It’s time for the world to learn the truth, and that’s why Ty and Charlene Bollinger created their groundbreaking new docu-series: Propaganda Exposed [UNCENSORED] which seeks to uncover the lies of the mainstream media and medical industry and educate viewers on the truth about how we are slowly losing our freedoms, as well as what we can do to take them back. 

Propaganda Exposed [UNCENSORED] shares the story of Big Pharma corruption, conflicts of interest, and explains why current medical interventions are so heavily skewed toward patented drugs. The docu-series also covers the sordid history of medical experimentation in the USA in an attempt to help the viewer understand how we got here, why we are now losing our health freedom, what we can do about it, and so much more. 

Some notable experts featured in the 9-episode docu-series include Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Dr. Robert Malone, Dr. Judy Mikovits, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Omar Hamada, Del Bigtree, Dr. Bryan Ardis, Mike Adams, Dr. Russell Blaylock, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, Zach Vorhies, John Schneider, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, Dr. Carrie Madej, Sayer Ji, Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Irvin Sahni, and many others. 

This docu-series will cover everything from cancer and cannabis to fluoride and the Federal Reserve. Most importantly, it will expose the TRUTH about COVID, vaccines, and the real-life conspiracies that are actively underway RIGHT NOW. 

Here’s a breakdown of all 9 episodes:

In total, over 60 doctors, scientists, health experts, and freedom fighters are featured in this eye-opening docu-series which will change lives, influence friends and family, and quite possibly “wake up” enough people to create a “tipping point” for truth and liberty.

“Throughout human history, those who tell inconvenient and uncomfortable truths have been ostracized, demonized, and attacked by those in power. What we have experienced in the past two years is no exception to that rule. I am not surprised that history is once again repeating itself. However, Ty and I feel that it is important to continue exposing these schemes meant to silence us all into submission.” 

—Charlene Bollinger. 

The global release of Propaganda Exposed [UNCENSORED] is November 9th and is free to the world. To reserve your spot, please visit www.Propaganda-Exposed.com.

divider1Ty and Charlene have been on this mission together to reach as many people around the world with the truth that saves lives as they can, and they need your help! As you know, they are being censored with many other truth tellers.Please support their mission by sharing this article! Next, you can support them by going to www.thetruthaboutcancer.com and signing up for their FREE Newsletter!Also, join Ty & Charlene on Alt Social Media platforms where the TRUTH is allowed and join the discussion there!

Follow, Subscribe, & SHARE:

1. Telegram: https://t.me/TheTruthAboutCancer_Vaccines

2. GAB: https://gab.com/TyCharleneBollinger

3. GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/cancertruth

4. TruthSocial: https://truthsocial.com/@TheTruthAboutCancer

5. CloutHub: https://app.clouthub.com/#/users/u/TheTruthAboutCancer

6. Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/vX3lcHH4Dvp0/

7. Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheTruthAboutCancerOfficial

8. Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/thetruthaboutcancer

divider1

Our doctors, our news, our political leaders, our educational institutions… all of them have been corrupted. Each day, you’re likely to hear more lies than truths. To discover why, be sure to tune in to PROPAGANDA EXPOSED [UNCENSORED], the 9-part docuseries that exposes the truth about our modern medical system and the evil practices that have defined it.

 

Uh-oh, Basheer, did you miss Episode 1 last night❓ Good News!
Yahoo/Inbox
Ty & Charlene @ TTAC <info@thetruthaboutcancer.com>Unsubscribe
To:bafremauxsoormally
Thu, 10 Nov at 14:54

 

Basheer,

Wow! The world premiere of Propaganda Exposed! [UNCENSORED] was last night! …and the initial feedback has been off the charts! laugh

 

Thank you for all the kind words of support!

 

Here are a few things we cover in Episode 1:

  • We’ll take a “bird’s eye view” of the past century of suppression and censorship to lay the groundwork for the next 7 episodes of the documentary
  • Hear from the “founding fathers” as they discussed medical freedom
  • Discover how the 2012 NDAA (signed by Obama) officially legalized “propaganda”
  • Get the facts about multiple FDA raids on doctors who were using “unapproved” supplements
  • Learn the shocking truth about the sordid history of medical experimentation in the USA
  • Discover how Congress appropriated $1 billion U.S. tax dollars for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to spend on activities to “strengthen vaccine confidence in the United States” 
  • Discover how many current world leaders seem to be using the “Nazi Playbook”
  • See first hand how most “anchors” on the TV news are nothing more than teleprompter readers
  • Watch Fauci “flip flop” on masks, vaccines, and other “mandates”
  • Discover ways to detoxify from the covid-19 vaxx and mitigate long-term damage
  • Learn how an answer to cancer was known in 1946 but was buried for political reasons
  • And so much more …

If you haven’t watched yet, you owe it to yourself to set aside a couple of hours and go watch it today before we take it down later this evening. 

 

We’ll see you later tonight for Episode 2: SOME WARS AREN’T MEANT TO BE WON - Cancer & Cannabis | Germ Hunters | Medical Experiments.” 

 

Once you watch episode 1, then take a few minutes to watch a brief “sneak peek” of Episode 2 (just click on the image below). 

 

 

It’s time to expose the propaganda and lies! It’s time to unite to fight back the forces of evil and censorship. If we don’t stand up for health freedom and liberty now, then we may lose it forever. 

Propaganda Exposed! [UNCENSORED] will provide you with the information you need. 

 

We'll see you tonight for Episode 2.

 

 

© Copyright 2022, TTAC Publishing LLC. All Rights Reserved.

This email was sent to bafremauxsoormally
by info@thetruthaboutcancer.com

PO Box 530, Portland, TN 37148
Edit Profile | Manage Subscriptions | Report Spam

 

Sunday, 14 October 2012

CHURCH CONSPIRACY AGAINST MINORITY PROTECTION SYSTEM IN MAURITIUS



CHURCH CONSPIRACY AGAINST MINORITY PROTECTION SYSTEM IN MAURITIUS

Conspiracy against the BLS Minority-Protection System?

The majority has no right to remove any minority-protection system simply because minority protection is an inherent right of each individual minority and does not depend on the will of the majority or of a particular racist Lobby. Rama Sithanen, and Pr Singfat Chu by extension, may have the backing of the Church but the truth, as rightly pointed out by Me Yousuf Mohamed, Senior Counsel, is that any removal of minority protection for any minority community does have the potential to create social unrest in the country.  The minority-protecting Best Loser System (BLS) is the bedrock of our independence and stability.


Rama Sithanen, Archbishop Piat, Singfat Chu and Me Yousuf Mohamed

The Mauritian First Past The Post (FPTP) system does not yield just results, given that the population is not homogeneous, as it favours the majority community. The religious configuration of the Mauritian population is as follows : Hindus (49%), Christians (32%), Muslims (17%), Others 2%, while ethnically, the population is made up of Indian-Mauritians (68%), African-Mauritians (29%), Sino-Mauritians (2%), Euro-Mauritians (1%). Percentages are approximations.

The population is not evenly distributed and candidates are not elected by national votes but rather by votes at constituency levels, of which there are 20 (returning 3 candidates in each constituency) in Mauritius and 1 constituency in Rodrigues (returning 2 candidates). Moreover, there is no law which can decide what criteria a voter should use when casting his/her vote. A voter may decide to vote out of personal preference irrespective of the programme presented or vice versa. A voter may vote because the candidate is a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, an Indo-Mauritian, an Afro-Mauritian, etc. A voter may also vote because the candidate is black or white, man or woman.

Hindu majority and Independence
In general, therefore, FPTP yields skewed results in favour of the Hindu majority in that there tend to be more Hindu MPs compared to their percentage of the population. Strictly, Hindus have every right not to accept any form or reform which would dilute their majority even by one candidate.  They can easily argue that even though they are Hindus, there is nothing which prevents them from looking after the interests of all Mauritians, irrespective of religion and ethnicity. In fact, it would be unlawful to discriminate against anyone. PM Dr Ramgoolam may be a Hindu, but he is the PM of all Mauritians. The idea to add an arbitrary 20 MPs selected from unelected candidates in Party Lists, which favour large parties, allegedly on a PR basis to dilute the Hindu majority and to attack Muslims who justly regard themselves as a minority protected under the BLS is preposterous and should be rejected outright.

Before independence, based on the demands made by various communities in Mauritius, politicians trashed out and adopted a minority-protection system in London, called the Best Loser System (BLS), which can be said to have been a condition for independence, based on the Banwell recommendations as modified by Stonehouse and agreed upon by the three main political leaders Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam, Gaëtan Duval and Abdool Razack Mohamed. Most Muslims voted with most Hindus in favour of independence. For this system to operate, a candidate is required under the law to declare his/her community by way of life (Hindu, Muslim or Sino-Mauritian), or select the residual category General Population where the way of life does not apply. No minority-protection system can operate if the majority and minorities are not identified both in the population and amongst the candidates upon nominations. This is why a reasonably up to date census is important since it provides valuable demographic data. All modern countries use censuses to maintain social and political stability amongst their people. The BLS only allows the nominations of 8 unelected candidates from under-represented minorities, and it has been working well since independence in 1968. This system can also be extended to include women. BLS runs adjacent to FPTP. BLS is a reforming system in itself as it makes up where democracy as expressed via FPTP fails.

Rama Sithanen’s and Singfat Chu’s campaign against BLS
However, there has been a consistent campaign in a section of the population as well as in a section of the press against the fact that the Mauritian PM always tends to be a Hindu and, for some obscure reason, they tend to believe that the reforming BLS is at fault rather than the FPTP beast. People like former Finance Minister Rama Sithanen (January 2012 electoral reform report) and his acolyte Assoc. Pr Singfat Chu (Decisions Sciences) of the University of Singapore Business School want to respectively « subsume » and abolish the reforming BLS and replace it with a Proportional Representation system which will not touch the FPTP beast, but nominate an arbitrary extra 20 candidates amongst the unelected as MPs per the wishes of the leaders of large parties. Refer to Pr Chu’s articles published in Mauritius Times of 5th & 12th October 2012. This is the most ridiculous suggestion which anyone can propose, not to mention all the corruption which such a system carries in its entrails. It is beyond reason how any government could even entertain such suggestions.

The flaws in Rama Sithanen’s January 2012 report have been highlighted in the press. In several comments, Pr Chu’s, who Sithanen mentions in his report, has been trying to support Sithanen flawed analyses and formulae but was unable to convince people. Now that electoral reform seems to have been put on the back burner, Pr Chu comes out with his guns blazing in Mauritius Times against BLS in an attempt to revive the anti-BLS campaign. In his article « We do not need BLS » (Mauritius Times 5 Oct 2012), Pr Singfat Chu begins by attacking Me Yousuf Mohamed, Senior Counsel, son of the late Sir Abdool Razack Mohamed who negotiated BLS prior to independence to protect Muslims’ representation, for stating that the removal of the BLS minority protecting system would provoke social unrest in the country.

While Sithanen uses a French title « Initiative Citoyenne pour une réforme électorale réalisable à Maurice » for his report in English, without explaining what he means by « initiative citoyenne », which is a French political concept emanating from the French discriminatory politics of laïcité, Pr Chu speaks of « Mauritianism », translated from the original French term « Mauricianisme » (like « Créolisme »), again without explaining what this means. « Initiative citoyenne » and « Mauricianisme » are two sides of the same coin. If Indo-Mauritians decide to remove the Dutch name Mauritius and replace it with CHOTA BHARAT, where would ‘mauricianisme’ go?

Flaws in Sithanen’s report
The flaws in Sithanen’s January 2012 report are summarised below:

1. Sithanen selected no sample and carried no survey of the Mauritian population for whose benefit his report is supposed to be dedicated. He was more concerned with « political actors », his own « PhD thesis », some people and organisations of « good background », ranging from PM Dr Ramgoolam, Chief Justice Bernard Sik Yuen to Lindsey Collen of Lalit and Cehl Meeah, MP and leader of FSM, and Pr Singfat Chu. Sithanen is projected as an ‘expert’ on electoral reform when his PhD was in Politics and only his student thesis was on electoral reform. As an Economist myself, well-versed in Politics, Sociology, Finance, Statistical Methods, my student thesis was on banking; this would hardly make me an ‘expert’ in banking!

2. While complaining that the Carcassonne Report is « too radical a departure », Rama Sithanen wastes a lot of time on past history, constituency boundaries and electoral systems in other countries, such as Spain, the UK and Lesotho. He demonstrates his obsession with the Sachs & Carcassonne Reports. Sithanen criticises Carcassone for using the Spanish model, saying that « Electoral systems that are successful in almost homogeneous societies like Spain might not necessarily work in plural countries like Mauritius » (p.3), but then goes on to look at the « Outcome of elections in Spain 1979-2011 » and says « The same phenomenon  could very well happen in Mauritius » (pp.12-3).

3. While Christian parties exist in many of the countries Sithanen refers to, he wants the Mauritian government to « avoid communal parties » (p.27), which I suppose he means community-based parties as he confuses them with communes. But the Mauritian Constitution guarantees freedom of association. How can Sithanen prevent, for example, the Fédération des Créoles Mauricien (FCM) of Jocelyn Grégoire from registering as a political party and putting forward candidates for election? Perhaps, he is targeting some other community!

4. Sithanen says « One of the important issues facing democratic plural societies is the inclusion of diverse racial, ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural groups in the political process » (p.36), but makes no recommendation to create a Christian constitutional category since General Population is a mere residual category « regarded » as a fourth community. Perhaps, at around 33% of the population, Christians do not consider themselves a ‘minority’, but rather as a « second majority », a view effectively shared by Rama Sithanen, hence the implicit backing of his recommendations by Archbishop Maurice Piat (ref. Maurice Piat’s Pastoral speech on Ash Wednesday 22nd Feb 2012 in which he backed the abolition of the BLS).

5. Rama Sithanen admits that the FPTP system is defective, yet he uses its defective electoral results to carry out simulations upon which he relies (pp.86-95). In fact, he is relying on amplified defective results to make his recommendations which do not even flow logically as those recommendations could have been made without those results anyway.

6. Rama Sithanen proceeds to measure « unfairness in electoral systems » (p.81) through the use of what he calls the Least Squares Index (LSq) formula which looks similar to a Standard Deviation formula, with a mysterious ½ inside the root, without quoting any reference where he got the formula from. His thinking is very linear. Electoral models are non-linear and any minimization (of anomalies) must be done by using iterative numerical algorithms which he has not used. He has not identified either the dependent or the independent variable in each case. He has not used multiple regression analysis nor used environmental control variables which are vital in electoral calculations and forecasts.

7. In his appendix (p.101), using the d’Hondt’s highest average method formula (which favours large parties), Rama Sithanen produces a table allegedly showing how PR seats are allocated in ‘compensatory’ mode. Under d’Hondt’s method, each party’s total number of votes are repeatedly divided by a fixed series of numbers : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and so on. The party which returns the highest figure at each stage of the exercise is entitled to a seat. But Sithanen applies the formula wrongly.  He uses the percentage of votes (rather than the actual votes) which he divides by the number of seats (rather than a fixed series of numbers) plus one (p.102). Also, why plus one?

8. Although Sithanen produced six pages of bibliography, he formulates no function, makes no assumptions about a fair and representative electoral system and tested none, for which he would have had to use the Lagrangean formula to test for any contradiction.


Like Sithanen, Pr Singfat Chu also carried out simulations on defective FPTP data. But, as Sithanen has been challenged on his wrong analyses and misuse of formulae, Pr Chu now tries to mop up the mess by ignoring Sithanen’s alleged mysterious OLS measure of « unfairness in electoral systems », which is central to his analyses, and by referring to some dubious « online d’Hondt PR calculator », instead of the one wrongly defined by Sithanen.

Conclusion
The BLS system is a minority protection system designed to repair the inherent anomalies in the results of FPTP. Why attack BLS? Candidates who dislike the system should be allowed to opt out. No minority-protection system can exist if the minorities it is designed to protect are not identified and compared with the majority community. The majority has no right to remove any minority-protection system simply because minority protection is an inherent right of each individual minority and does not depend on the will of the majority. BLS is the bedrock of our independence and stability. However, Hindus cannot be blamed for being the majority in order to make way, for example, for Christians like Paul Bérenger, often wrongly described as a ‘non-Hindu’. Rama Sithanen, and Pr Singfat Chu by extension, may have the backing of the Church through Archbishop Piat but the truth, as rightly pointed out by Me Yousuf Mohamed SC, is that any removal of minority protection for any minority community does have the potential to create social unrest in the country.

M Rafic Soormally
London
14th October 2012

Mauritius Times



----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Rafic Soormally <rsoormally@yahoo.com>
To: Mauritius Times <mtimes@intnet.mu>
Cc: "bizchucl@nus.edu.sg" <bizchucl@nus.edu.sg>; "hrnam@nus.edu.sg" <hrnam@nus.edu.sg>; "bizdean@nus.edu.sg" <bizdean@nus.edu.sg>; "bizvd5@nus.edu.sg" <bizvd5@nus.edu.sg>
Sent: Sunday, 21 October 2012, 15:36
Subject: Fw: Conspiracy against the BLS Minority-Protection System?

Mr Madhukar Ramlallah

Again, you have boycotted my response to the flawed and inciting articles you have published in Mauritius Times in which attacks against Muslims have become commonplace.

This time, it concerns my response to Assoc. Prof. Singfat Chu of the University of Singapore. You published his pieces against the Mauritian Best Loser System for which mainly the Muslim minority has been fighting for the preservation of this minority-protection system, as it was a condition for the independence of Mauritius. Since you are a Hindu, and Mauritius Times is regarded as a Hindu weekly paper, you have been splashing various articles against Muslims, written by the likes of Dev Virhsawmy and Surendra Bissoondoyal. Now, we find Pr Singfat Chu joining the fray to effectively make a case against the protection of the Muslim minority within the BLS system with the backing of the Mauritian Catholic Church and given that at around 32% of the population, Christians do not really consider themselves as a minority but rather as a « 2nd majority » desperate for power.

In Pr Chu’s very first article « We do not need BLS », Mauritius Times of 5th October 2012, he begins by attacking the Muslim Barrister Me Yusouf Mohamed, former politician whose late father Sir Abdool Razack Mohamed fought for and secured the protection of the Muslim Minority via the BLS before independence, who rightly stated that the removal of the BLS minority-protection system could cause social unrest in the country. You prepared the scene in order to publish the following Friday, 12th October 2012, Pr Singfat Chu’s very inaccurate and misleading 2,027-word article « Which electoral system for Mauritius? » in which he resorted to flawed calculations based on corrupt data in order to support the equally flawed calculations of Rama Sithanen, former Minister of Finance of Mauritius.

Because Mauritius Times is a Hindu paper, Pr Singfat Chu probably felt that it was an appropriate platform to influence the Hindu majority. The fact that you have boycotted my attached reply « Conspiracy against the BLS Minority-Protection System? » emailed to you on 14th October 2012, is clear indication that you are biased and offering the columns of your Mauritius Times for a continuous campaign against Muslims.

You should not continue to use the name « Mauritius » in « Mauritius Times » because your paper does not represent the views of Mauritians generally. You should rename it, perhaps as « Ramlallah’s Times », « Hindu Times » or « Anti-Muslim Times ». Maybe you should merge with an anti-Muslim daily. You are giving anti-Muslim campaigners a licence in the columns of your paper while boycotting rights of reply. But rest assured that it will not be long before I file an objection against your use of the name « Mauritius » in « Mauritius Times ». As a Mauritian, I have every right to file such complaint. However, although you are boycotting my rights of reply, you have no right to do so. You are a shame to independent journalism.

Yours sincerely

M Rafic Soormally
London
UK

cc.        Assoc. Pr Singfat Chu, University of Singapore, Email : bizchucl@nus.edu.sg
            Ms Normah A Majid, HR Management Unit, UoS, Email : hrnam@nus.edu.sg
            Prof Bernard Yeung, Dean, UoS, Email : bizdean@nus.edu.sg
            Assoc. Prof Krishnan Trishi, Vice-Dean, UoS, Email : bizvd5@nus.edu.sg

Attached
  1. Articles of Pr Singfat Chu published in Mauritius Times of 5th & 12th October 2012
  2. My boycotted reply « Conspiracy against the BLS Minority-Protection System? » emailed to Mr Ramlallah on 14th October 2012.

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Rafic Soormally <rsoormally@yahoo.com>
To: Mauritius Times <mtimes@intnet.mu>
Sent: Sunday, 14 October 2012, 14:15
Subject: Conspiracy against the BLS Minority-Protection System?

Mr Ramlallah

Please find attached my reply to Pr Singfat Chu's misleading, inaccurate and flawed articles against the BLS published in MTimes edition of 5th & 12th Oct 12.

Regards

Mr M Rafic Soormally



COWARDLY ATTACKS OF RACIST HINDU WEEKLY "MAURITIUS TIMES" AGAINST MUSLIM BARRISTER AND POLITICAL FIGURE ME YOUSOUF MOHAMED!  

We* do not need BLS

Sino-Mauritian** Professor Singfat Chu

Professor Singfat Chu PDF Print E-mail

With the government having to decide on the fate of the BLS before the expiry of the 180-days deadline granted by the United Nations Human Rights Commission, we need to contribute objectively to the debate. 

Sadly, Mr Yousuf Mohamed made several emotional and factually incorrect statements in the interview published last Friday (Sep 28). I condone anyone who makes statements like, “… Si vous voulez abolir, allez y, mais attention! Ce sera la pagaille, il y aura des bagarres… ». Not only is this emotional and a deterrent to any serious debate, but it is vacuous unless Mr Mohamed has a crystal ball which allows him to see the future. Could he be looking at the wrong side of the rainbow? 

Has BLS made a significant difference to the representation of communities in our National Assembly? Let’s examine the statistics. In the 10 general elections held between 1967 and 2010, the communal split among the 620 (=10 x 62) “First Past the Post” elects has been 368 : 156 : 85 : 11. After the application of BLS which brought in another 67 elects, the respective split became 371 : 203 : 102 : 11. Clearly, one community has never obtained any BLS seat but Mr Mohamed incorrectly states that it is among the two that have benefitted the most from BLS! 

The above splits which translate into 59.4% : 25.2% : 13.7% : 1.8% pre-BLS and 54.1% : 29.4% : 14.8% : 1.6% post-BLS indicates that BLS has hardly made a significant difference in the representation of communities. Beyond statistics, has BLS ever made a difference in the deliberations in the National Assembly? Has anyone dissented from party stand and voted along community line? The fact is BLS has benefited individuals rather than communities! And it is these very individuals who are now unsurprisingly among the most vocal to maintain it.

I concur that BLS provided assurance at the time of Independence but in 44 years of existence, it has yet to make any significant difference to the representation of communities or in the articulation of “communal” opinions at the National Assembly. There is no little reason to fear its retirement. Moreover, some constituencies are deliberately carved to favour the election of minorities. I submit that there is greater shortfall potential in the representation of communities in “equalizing” constituencies across the country than in removing BLS. 
 
If an electoral reform takes place in the form of a mixed Proportional system comprising FPTP*** and Party List elects, fair and even enhanced minority representation will take place as long as parties place say 6 minority candidates in the top 8-10 positions in their party lists. Beyond fair community representation, party lists can bring in more women and representatives of interest groups e.g. handicapped, unions, etc.

In conclusion, I concur with Mr Yousuf Mohamed that, “…Nous sommes tous des Mauriciens malgré le Best Loser System.” But I invite him to reflect and just envision how Mauritianism****, which we have been striving for since Independence, can leapfrog without BLS. 

 
*           Who is "We"?

**      Sino-Mauritians are usually Catholics or Buddhists or both!  They attend Church and benefit from its privileges and worship Buddha at home!

***        First Past The Post
****      Catholic Church Nationalist Black Creole ethnic centered ideology
 

 
 l'express.mu
Sur la défensive



Modifier la taille du texte:A | A

Imprimer


Envoyer


Commentaires


Sauvegarder


Noter l'article




Partager et classer cet article


Par:-  Lindsay Rivière

On 14/10/2012

Alors que les évolutions semblaient se préciser rapidement en 2012 pour un large « rethinking » du système électoral et du futur modèle de république, un fl ou pesant se réinstalle. Les deux acteurs déterminants du jeu, le Premier ministre et le leader de l’opposition, peu à peu

se retrouvent tous deux étonnamment sur la défensive, leur capacité à entraîner leurs parties respectifs dans leurs projets compromise, leurs stratégies politiques sur ces questions mises en doute dans leurs propres camps, les tactiques adoptées pour parvenir à leurs fins discrètement questionnées, autant en interne qu’en externe. Les choses se compliquent pour Navin Ramgoolam et Paul Bérenger.

Cette situation est relativement inedited pour les deux hommes, habitués à canaliser le débat et à remporter l’argument sans grande diffi culté. Elle pourrait bien, à terme, paralyser le jeu politique. De quoi s’agit-il ?
Pour la première fois, cette semaine, Navin Ramgoolam a fait valoir les vigoureuses oppositions internes au Parti travailliste (PTr) contre ses positions personnelles, à la fois sur la représentation proportionnelle (source de suspicion depuis 1963 en milieu hindou travailliste), sur le « Best Loser System » (sujet sensible en milieu musulman) et sur le modèle de présidence exécutive proposé. Ramgoolam n’a pas pour habitude de communiquer les frustrations de son entourage. Soit il le fait aujourd’hui pour se donner devant Bérenger une justifi cation pour traîner la jambe et diluer éventuellement les réformes. Soit il veut convaincre l’opinion publique de sa détermination à imposer la modernité aux récalcitrants. Ou alors, le PM est vraiment face à un os dur à faire avaler au PTr et joue donc son autorité.

 Il y a plusieurs raisons pour lesquelles le PTr pourrait ne pas s’enthousiasmer des propositions de réforme électorale et de nouvelle république de son leader. C’est la peur (davantage que le désir de justice) qui motive le plus tout changement de comportement politique. Or, le PTr aujourd’hui n’a pas peur de l’opposition MMM. Sauf en cas de lourde défaite (mais, valeur du jour, improbable), comme en 1982 et 2000, le PTr n’a aucun intérêt direct à favoriser un Parlement élargi qui rééquilibrerait le jeu, au profi t de l’opposition. Avec les circonscriptions actuelles, le PTr se coule (comme dans un gant) dans un système électoral FPTP qui lui convient parfaitement. Il encourage donc le PM à « ne pas prendre de risques ».
Le parti est tout aussi conscient que la proposition de présidence exécutive de Ramgoolam fait peut-être l’affaire personnelle de celui-ci mais ne fait pas forcément l’affaire de l’ensemble du Parti travailliste. Président exécutif au Réduit, travaillant à sa gloire personnelle, faisant les alliances qu’il souhaiterait dans ce but, Ramgoolam échapperait peu à peu au PTr. Ses liens actuels avec celui-ci se relâcheraient. Tout le « networking » sociopolitique du régime en place serait compromis et beaucoup de parasites en souffriraient.
L’une des raisons (moins connues du grand public) qui motivent Ramgoolam dans sa quête d’un pouvoir légitimé directement par le peuple est qu’il en a plus qu’assez d’avoir à personnellement s’esquinter à 65 ans pour faire en permanence campagne aux quatre coins de l’île pour faire élire une majorité de députés rouges/bleus (souvent des nonvaleurs et des candidats médiocres avec pour seule qualifi cation leur « profi l » sociologique) sur lesquels reposera son pouvoir et dont il dépendra pour gouverner. Navin Ramgoolam se sert du parti mais le parti se sert tout autant de lui et chaque élu rouge exploite à fond l’image populaire du PM. L’idée d’un Ramgoolam président, prenant de la hauteur dans une deuxième République, cajolant en permanence Bérenger, s’éloignant par la force des choses du parti, abandonnant le BLS, exaspérant les musulmans et laissant les rouges se battre sans la locomotive Ramgoolam dans leurs régions, terrorise certains au PTr. Lesréticences pourraient donc s’amplifi er au fil des mois.

En face, Paul Bérenger est également « on the back foot ». Aux yeux d’une bonne partie de l’opinion publique, le « remake » avec un MSM qu’il accusait hier de tous les péchés de la terre, est un « non-starter ». Ses tactiques de louvoiement permanent face aux enjeux ont exaspéré. Son manque d’engagement dans des causes chères à la jeunesse et ses propositions équivoques ont largement déçu. Sa crédibilité publique n’a peut-être jamais été autant entamée. Seule la crainte qu’il inspire le sauve de sévères critiques publiques de ses propres amis. Face à la mauvaise humeur populaire, Bérenger a choisi de se faire plus discret. Mais a-t-il encore l’autorité politique susceptible d’entraîner l’ensemble de l’opinionpublique MMM dans ses calculs ?

Pour véritablement reprendre la main, et Navin Ramgoolam et Paul Bérenger ont besoin de frapper les esprits par une grande victoire électorale aux municipales. En y allant crânement, le PM tuerait dans l’oeuf toute velléité de contestation interne et établirait une autorité sans faille lui permettant d’imposer ses propositions. Bérenger, lui, soulignerait que, malgré ses déboires, il demeure incontournable, peut se faire tout pardoner et établirait au grand jour que sa stratégie de « remake » tant critiquée est une vraie option jouable et gagnable. Peut-être est-ce là, dans l’affi rmation de nouveaux rapports de force, davantage que dans le strict respect des échéances, que le pays retrouvera ses meilleures chances d’électionsmunicipales et régionales en décembre.

 Lindsay Rivière

On 14/10/2012