12/05/2017
Before anything else, I would like to offer my sincere apologies for disappointing my campaigners and supporters. I am so proud of you all. I would also like to apologize for the terrible disruption to my campaign resulting in exclusion - which I still hope will be reversed by the Electoral Arbiter for the USU. For that, I’m so sorry.
As you might have known, the Returning Officer (RO) has excluded me from the ballot by official determination that was released on Tuesday. The determination was based on two separate complaints, both of which resulted in my exclusion. An appeal has been made to the Electoral Arbiter (EA), containing the details of my point of view and relevant evidence. I have now sought advice of SRC Legal Service who advice I should raise further grounds of appeal and make further submissions. Meanwhile, I would like to offer here a different perspective on the relevant issues.
Firstly, described as a case of ‘bribery’ (which is vigorously denied), I would like to address the ‘red packet’ function. The function of putting forward ‘red packet’ is the transfer of electronic money, which has, for years, been a huge phenomenon on China’s most popular instant communication app WeChat. These packets contain a small amount of money (equivalent to few Australian dollars), and when intended for multiple recipients (as in my case), with the amount of each portion randomly determined. With elements of fun, luck and tradition, it has been a social norm for users to send ‘red packets’ in group chats. The administrator of the group ‘SUBS’ (Sydney University Business School’) has dictated a rule, enforced many times over the group which I posted in, which provides that:
‘Whoever advertises in the Group must pay in the form of posting Red Packets in a lump sum’
The rule does not exist to vest in members an interest for the purposes of bribery or other forms of misconduct; it is to ensure that an advertisement made (which would normally be unacceptable without the permission of the administrator) is accompanied by a small fee as a token of sincerity, just like ‘boost your post’ advertising fee on Facebook.
In conformance with this rule, I delivered one ‘red packet’, with the value equivalent to $2 AUD in the group, and 42 members became recipients of the money. I would like to flag that the average amount received is 0.05 AUD. I treated the act as an advertising fee. It was never my intention to bribe or compel group members to vote by receiving money. My lawyer says this is so trifling an amount that the legal principle of de minimis may apply such that there is no real issue to be considered such as alleged bribery.
In my appeal to the EA I have suggested that first, the nature of this is at least contentious as to whether it constitutes an act of bribery, and second, if the determination to exclude me based on this complaint is proportional to the seriousness of breach, as I believe that the judgement was exceedingly harsh, and made without consideration of circumstances.
Secondly, I would address the ‘fake IDs’ and ‘hallucinating drug’ complaint. This is another allegation (again vigorously denied in terms of the complaint made) that simultaneously and independently resulted in my exclusion. There are several points that I would like to clarify on this issue.
1. The allegation contained in the complaint to the RO that I chalked “I (Zhixian) would provide fake IDs and hallucinating drugs that make people sleep if you vote for me and I’m elected” is a complete distortion of facts. The context was always satirical (including the use of “666666”) and for the purpose of engagement of apathetic voters in a voluntary voting system. Apart from the words “fake IDs” and “hallucinating drugs”, I say the terms were taken out of context, and translated in the most disadvantageous way. No one would seriously believe that a candidate for the USU would provide illegal services. This is so preposterous as to be ridiculous. In my view terms were then construed by the RO, in such a way that voters were incapable of understanding obvious satire in context. On the contrary I believe this was a false complaint made to undermine my candidature, and has caused me great personal pain and undeserved disappointment.
2. These terms are used in reference to a rather commonplace phenomenon in China. They are painted over walls as forms of advertisement on residential buildings and lampposts, in similar fashion to the graffiti paintings in Sydney. They are symbols of which people from my culture would understand. The frequent occurrence has become custom, and carries cultural significance as part of our identity as individuals who have observed them back in our hometown. In fact, contemporary artists are now making use of such references in their artwork. My initial intention was none other than to grab attention of voters that are familiar to such references, and I do not accept allegations that I am a ‘drug dealer’. Such allegations are serious criminal allegations, and I reserve my legal rights on this point. In any case to avoid controversy, I removed the chalking immediately after being made aware of the argument.
On the issue of whether they are “misleading or likely to be”, I say they were obvious satire and in any case I removed them very soon after they were chalked so no real confusion or deception was caused.
3. The RO has concluded on the balance of probabilities that I performed what was contained in both complaints. I believe that a balance of probabilities is where the decision maker makes a reasonable inquiry on both sides of a circumstance, and I was not provided with enough consideration, as the majority of the determination was evidence working against me.
Lastly, I hope that USU will be able to learn from this incident, and reform the regulations to better fit and adapt to the needs of international students, regardless of nationality. I call for USU to notice differences among all communities and to perfect the regulations of the campaign. I look forward to a better and brighter USU.
![Question: I forgot to vote yesterday, can I still vote today? Answer: !!!! You can!!!! You can still VOTE [1] today for...](https://img5.unis10.com/777/419/425814677774197.jpg)
![is real when you realised you haven't VOTED [1] for ZhiXian Wang yet !!!!Missed out on pre-polling and voting today? D...](https://img3.unis10.com/446/764/425546844467647.jpg)
![NEWS! We are back!Vote [1] ZhiXian WangWhat doesn't kill you makes you stronger!!! 😄😄😄Don't forget to vote for us on:1...](https://img3.unis10.com/816/984/796865018169845.jpg)
