NZ First Shouldn’t Flag Hindi-Language Voters

41
11

This flag debate continues to throw up sad and sorry surprises. Fresh from evidence that pro-change campaigners are pilfering ballots in a literal attempt to steal the referendum result coming to light … we have bold allegations from NZ First MP Mahesh Bindra that the Government has deliberately mistranslated the voting instructions in order to attempt to con Hindi-language voters into supporting flag-change.

Despite what the Electoral Commission might say, the charge appears to have merit. My knowledge of Hindi is limited to what I’ve managed to pick up from attempting (haltingly) to master ecclesiastical Sanskrit, but even I know that “Naya” (the highlighted word in the image of the voting instructions below) means “new”.

1457565335063

While it could be queried just how much of an influence or impact one additional word might have on prospective voters’ decision-making, the fact remains that consistency is a core and integral value to our democratic process.

However you choose to slice it, there does appear to be a bit of an issue here – and one which the Government is willfully seeking to obfuscate.

But something which has caused me additional concern is New Zealand First’s proposed solution to this issue: disallowing the ballots of “Hindi speaking voters”.

This seems somewhat extreme.

I might be missing something here, but I’m not entirely sure how NZF proposes to single out “Hindi-speaking voters” who’ve used the deficient voting instructions (rather than, say, the perfectly clear English ones – which most of them will also understand) in order to make their decision.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Unless I’m mistaken, voting papers have not gone out in a multitude of languages – just the voting instructions pamphlet which accompanies them. Short of the sort of highly dubious racial profiling Labour used to identify the ethnicities of Auckland house buyers last year, it would seem pretty difficult to isolate and identify which voters – and therefore which ballot papers – we’re talking about here.

New Zealand First has done some serious hard work in recent years to reach out to Indian voters. It is a mark of genuine pride that when I go into a Mandir, people almost invariably know who Mahesh is and have respect for him. That strong and burgeoning relationship is, no doubt, why members of the Indian community came to Mahesh with the information he used to support the allegation in the first place. Because they trust him – as do I.

It would be an inordinate shame if the message the Indian community took away from this particular imbroglio was that New Zealand First didn’t want them to vote.

41 COMMENTS

  1. Pilfering ballots as you describe is the best reason not to have postal voting.
    Postal voting should never be used for general elections, local body elections or national referenda.
    It has few safeguards against manipulation and outright fraud.
    It should be dropped.

  2. Well what do you expect from a pm who is determined to get his own way.
    If you have evidence of ballot pilfering send info to law enforcment and electoral commission, Huuuum ! i think ! hopefully they will stop it.

    Overwhelmingly the people have shown they dont want change,if it comes in favour of the fishbone flag we know we have been cheated AGAIN .
    The new flag is appearing on what appears to be official sites.

    When if the new flag is claimed to have won,this govt wont care how much we protest,they will call us bad losers ,sour grapes, anything but acknowledge their cheating ,Why do we put up with this nonsense?

    • Hi ELLE – you say –

      “When if the new flag is claimed to have won,this govt wont care how much we protest,they will call us bad losers ,sour grapes, anything but acknowledge their cheating ,Why do we put up with this nonsense?”

      I have no idea why we put up with it. We’ve already tried legal, passive means of trying to stop FJK and his scoundrels in arms, through peaceful protests etc. But it doesn’t work does it? They simply won’t listen to what we are saying.

      Perhaps the time has come, we Kiwis need to be more assertive than we have been in the past in getting our message across. We might have to play hardball. Something which will make FJK’s bunch of crooks shake and quiver in their boots and run for their lives in fear and desperation.

      I’ve come to the conclusion now, nothing short of storming Parliament with a combination of fire in our bellies, armed with very sharp pitchforks, will stop this lot of crooks!

      • Well said Elle and Mary_ A. The key government has completely corrupted the electoral commission. I have no faith in it anymore.

    • The electoral commission is always very fair on counting the vote. Nobody has ever had any problems with them on this fact, and given how contentious politics get (and other issues of electoral law) you’d be forgiven for thinking that someone must have complained about them one time or another. So I’m not sure how they’d cheat you there, so you should really stop this BS about how the government is going to steal the election. They only ever try to advertise their way to a win, they’ve never resorted to actual electoral fraud to anyone’s knowledge.

      You may not have liked the two-phase process, (which I can understand, although I think that it would be even more unfair to reverse the questions and ask people to vote on whether to change before they had any idea what change could be to- because a lot of people will simply conclude it would be to their least preferred option) but it hasn’t done anything to sway voters, (if anything, it has generated significant backlash after the panel process was so badly screwed up) it’s just allowed this second phase to be a completely fair head-to-head vote.

      If there’s anything wrong with the Hindi instructions, I honestly don’t see the additional of an extra “new” swaying anyone. Confusing them slightly, perhaps, although they’ll likely vote correctly regardless. If anything people tend to resist anything they feel is an outright attempt to manipulate them, so I expect this would help the 1902 flag if it has any effect. Were the language actually pushing anyone in a given direction it’d certainly be a huge blow to the referendum system in general.

      You’re right it’s atrocious that anybody has even been talking about taking ballots out of other people’s mail. That’s two separate crimes if they actually did it, and really unacceptable. But one dumbass does not represent everyone who wants a new flag- just like the worst KOF arguments don’t represent everyone who likes the 1902 flag.

  3. I understand the concern here, and I hope the Hindi-speaking community that received Hindi voting papers don’t feel marginalized.

    The New Zealand First position as I understand it, is to can the referendum process altogether, as the difference in wording/mistranslation on any affected voting paper should not be accepted.

    As I understand it, there has been an inquiry into checking all other translations of voting papers as well. Ending the whole referendum process may be a bit far, but what is the solution here?

    Extend the referendum period, reprint Hindi voting papers and resend them out?

    Require Hindi voting paper recipients to fill out an english language one?

    In any other situation would we have felt comfortable with a portion of an english language voting paper to be different to the rest of them??

    Does anyone know of a precedence in this case?

    The electoral commission is going to be providing Bill ENglish with a recommendation to alleviate this error.

    • Can you provide citations to “As I understand it, there has been an inquiry into checking all other translations of voting papers as well” please.

  4. But the point being is that Mahesh Bindra is correct in what he has said. The Hindi translation does read ” tick the flag of New Zealand which you want to be the new flag” That would confuse people and make them think they will have to tick Lockwood’s design. Winston Peters is absolutely correct in his assertions, and that this amounts to rigging the vote in John key’s favour.

    The Hindi translation is very different from the Punjabi translation which reads “tick the flag which you want to be the New Zealand flag”

    How many other nationalities have been incorrectly translated with incorrect misleading wording?

    • I think we have to assume Hindi speaking voters are as smart as the rest of us, and can figure out for themselves that the referendum is choice between two flags, regardless of ambiguous wording. To be honest, this whole controversy seems to be a bit of a storm in a teacup.

      • Don’t be so patronizing and condescending. You can assume whatever you like, the wording in the Hindi translation is still misleading, and that isn’t acceptable or right in a voting process. I have pointed out that the Punjabi translation is correct. Hindi and Punjabi are very similar. What you can say in Punjabi can say in Hindi, both translations should have been the same. There was no need to insert the word “new” at the end of the Hindi translation.

        • Yeah. I second that. Referendums (just like investing) are a one way street. You either do things properly or you end up very untalented in very important positions.

        • I agree that the addition of the word “new” was a mistake. What I’m saying is that you would have to be a bit thick to interpret that as meaning that you have to vote for only one of the two referendum options. Assuming that Hindi speaking voters are that thick is patronizing and condescending, not to mention a bit racist.

          • So you agree that the inclusion of the word “new” is a “mistake” therefore it does invalidate the voting referendum, does it not? How do you know it was a “mistake” when the Punjabi translation was correct? Both Punjabi and Hindi translations should have been the same. Regardless, the mistake as you put it, still means that the Hindi translation is still misleading and can be easily misconstrued and that has nothing to do with racism or whether someone is bright or not. Trying to turn it back on me was pathetic on your part. But using your line of thinking, one could easily say then that National and the electoral commission were being racist and dishonest by trying to dupe people whose first language was not English.

            • No, it doesn’t invalidate anything. It’s a minor translation gaff in a minority-language voting pamphlet – not even on the voting paper – that people may not even read before voting. If the majority of people vote for the current flag, it will then be the “new flag”. I agree the phrase a little bit ambiguous, but it’s still perfectly accurate.

              I don’t know that including the word “new” in the Hindi translation was an innocent mistake, but it seems like a reasonable supposition. Unless you have some evidence that it was a deliberate mistranslation designed to skew the referendum result?

              • It’s not a minor translation gaff, the translation is not accurate, it is misleading and can be easily misconstrued as I have pointed out in previous posts. Trying to minimize it like you are doing, doesn’t make it right.

                Why would you assume people wouldnt read the instruction in their own language?

                If the current flag wins, it is not the “new” flag. That’s a stupid and desperate statement for you to make.

                Like you said you don’t know and it may not have been just an innocent mistake, it could have been made deliberately to trick people whose first language is not English. On the other hand, you don’t have any evidence to show that it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to skew the referendum result either, do you?

            • …how would one slightly confusing mistake in the instructions for one language invalidate the whole referendum? It’s arguably no longer perfectly neutral wording, but I think Hindi-speaking voters are smart enough to realise that someone probably just put in an extra word by mistake.

              • Echoing Daniel’s view doesn’t wash, as it has nothing to do with whether someone is smart or not. Didn’t you read all of the posts on here? Hindi is not the only misleading translation. The Russian translation is also misleading, pointed out by E-Clectic on here and by Winston Peters in the media yesterday as well.

                How many other languages have been incorrectly translated?

                I wonder why people like you and Daniel are trying to minimize and be so dismissive of inaccuracies that are not acceptable or right in a voting process.

                • Oh, it’s important to get it right, I agree. The electoral commission should have quality controls in place for its translations so that it’s signed off by both a translator with the foreign language background and a translator with an English language background as a good translation.

                  That said this is a simple FPP poll between two options. Most voters don’t need instructions on how to vote in that kind of election, they already know to tick just one box. In fact this is the simplest vote I’ve been involved in in my life. I’d want VOTERS coming forward saying they were confused by the foreign language instructions before I feel that this is an issue with the actual election, as opposed to merely an issue with the translation of the instructions.

                  This isn’t something like the MMP threshold being set deliberately high so party votes don’t get counted that you can evidentially point to people’s votes not counting. (Which, btw, I post about after most elections because I *do* take issues with voter disenfranchisement seriously)

                  The reason I don’t really care so much here is because you’re honestly making a mountain out of a molehill. Nobody has come forward saying this influenced the way they voted. The minute even one person does, THEN the commission is in deep trouble.

                  • But it’s not about you is it? You are not an immigrant with possibly very little English skills are you? So you think having a dodgy process is acceptable in a voting referendum? But to say otherwise is making a mountain out of a molehill? John key, Bill English knew this was an extremely contentious and controversial subject, one would have thought they would gave taken extra care to avoid any issues that have been raised. You are just assuming that no one needs to read the instructions, then why did National have the instructions translated in various languages, albeit incorrectly then? you also assume that no one has come forward, the commission is not being honest are they? The fact that it has been raised means there are issues, and someone who has been influenced may not feel comfortable about coming forward either.

                    • You are the one who was attacking me rather than discussing the issue, so yes, I do have to talk about where my opinions come on this because you’ve stopped purely playing the ball rather than the man.

                      If we have hindi-speakers saying the instructions caused them to vote in a way they didn’t intend, THEN we have a big issue. If we don’t then we have a poor translation that shouldn’t be repeated. There is a big difference.

                      I am not assuming anything. I am saying nobody has come forward to say they voted in a way they didn’t intend, as we would expect to happen if the instructions were as confusing as you claim.

                    • Also, “National” doesn’t translate the instructions. The Electoral Commission does it as part of their job, and they’re generally a very non-partisan organisation. They can get things wrong, for sure, but we’ve never had any issue of outright favouritism from them before. They go out of their way to be fair and not to make political insinuations, which is why I am quite confident it wasn’t a result of the National Government leaning on them. They’re always careful that all of their examples and instructions use completely unleading language and symbols.

                      This is an honest screw-up, and probably just an error that got through both the translator and the quality-check.

                    • @Matthrew Whitehead. What a load of rubbish, I just said it’s not about you, and I did address the issues in detail, and all you have done is now repeat what you said earlier which I have already responded to. How do you know it was an “honest screw up”? it’s not the only error, so it may be intentional for all you know. You just assume it to be otherwise, but you don’t know for sure. The electoral commission is not as non-partisan as you would like to think, its been corrupted by the Key National government, and I no longer have any faith in it, they even changed their rules for Peter Dunne.

    • I am told by a Russian speaker that the Russian version translates as:

      Put a tick next to the flag which in your opinion has to become the flag of New Zealand.

      Note: not “be the flag of New Zealand” but “become”

      At best sloppy, at worst dodgy.

      • Good to know, and it is another example that proves the point that it is indeed dodgy. Thanks for that E-Clectic.

    • Why was there no Norwegian, Swedish, Finnish and German translation, I ask? Or are all migrants of European origin meant to be totally fluent in English? And then, if English language is a requirement to be accepted as a permanent resident and a citizen, why do we get all these other translations?

      I presume it is just again more political correctness gone mad in little ol Aotearoa NZ.

      Voting papers should only be in the two official languages, same the instructions, I dare to consider. Those are Maori and English, as far as I can remember.

  5. Wouldn’t the electoral commission know which ballot paper belongs to whom? Pretty sure that they do. The flag referendum is not only flawed, it has been corrupted, and the results therefore cannot be trusted. John Key’s vanity for a corporate logo legacy has been a complete waste of time and money.

    • The referendum, is neither flawed nor corrupted. The process of selecting an alternative flag was inept, but there is no evidence that the referendum, itself is anything other than democratic.

  6. Looks like the Electoral Commission isn’t the only one have the votes tampered with. TDB might want to do another check for right wing infiltration on this blog. The thumbs up and thumbs down votes don’t tally with how this blog normally runs…

    • Exactly @JSB. Not so long ago there were only about 3 on a daily shift, now there are at least 4 of them. Far better to just do away with the thumbs completely.

    • Or perhaps the flag vote doesn’t split as cleanly between left and right as you’d been assuming, which means the audience of the blog is a bit more split than usual. 😉 Remember, flag change USED to be a policy championed by Labour and the Greens, but was only recently supported by National, and those with an extra-strong hate for the current flag for various reasons might be okay even with an imperfect replacement.

      No judgement of course if your mileage varies. This isn’t exactly a life-or-death issue, and I imagine we’ll totally have another go at it if we don’t change but later decide to become a republic. If the vote does come back as “No,” hopefully by then we’re ready for a better option and we can all be a bit happier about it.

  7. I would be interested to know what it reads in other languages as well, since the pamphlet is awash with subtle visual cues veering toward the Lockwood flag. To start with it is not usual to put the contender first – it is a contender, and should follow the existing flag. Even mixing them up so that different flags were put first in different voting papers would be OK. And with the Lockwood flag first and the arrow pointing down to the voting section, it is all but an instruction to vote for that one. Then there is the pamphlet, with the Lockwood flag symmetrical, the NZ flag asymmetrical. In the picture of the house, the guttering is showing through the NZ flag but not the Lockwood one. And then there is the woman with the flags on her face, with the more flattering, slightly-more-to-the-side shot for the Lockwood flag. It is typical of everything associated with John Key – take as much of an edge as you can short of getting the referendum declared invalid.

    • True, and the description of the lockwood flag waxing lyrical about multicultural Aotearoa ………..and our sporting teams where the existing flag description is staid and boring about links to our colonial past. Reading them the lockwood flag comes across as something fresh and amazing where the existing flag sounds like a shitter. Coincidence or petty tinkering by Key grasping at anything to get his own way?

    • My thoughts exactly. In all the ads and on the ballot paper its Lockwood’s flag that’s slighter larger and has been put first above and before our current flag, which is designed to manipulate voters in voting for John key’s corporate logo by ticking the first flag on the list.

      The key National government have corrupted the electoral commission. I have no faith in it.

      So stuff John key and his bullshit corruption, I’m voting to keep the current flag.

  8. J S BARK says:
    MARCH 11, 2016 AT 12:28 PM
    Looks like the Electoral Commission isn’t the only one have the votes tampered with. TDB might want to do another check for right wing infiltration on this blog. The thumbs up and thumbs down votes don’t tally with how this blog normally runs…
    – See more at: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2016/03/11/nz-first-shouldnt-flag-hindi-language-voters/#sthash.84Sk538M.dpuf

    You mean J S Bark you want censorship of opinion ? You want to sit in your festering little swamp of socialism without interruption /? Jesus Christ I don’t think so

    • @Paul. Would using the thumbs down function in an attempt to shut down and discredit someone’s point of view be considered an “opinion”? Because that’s what trolls and right wingers like you do.

Comments are closed.