Keiko Fujimori: "We are working on making a well-done referendum" Trade politics

After two and a half years since our last interview there is much to ask. We warn you that the interview will take a long time. We agreed – because this meeting took place on Wednesday – that if something were to happen that deserves an update, we would communicate in writing. And that was with the open condemnation of the prosecutor of the nation, Pedro Chávarry, and the mentions of presumed encounters between fujimoristas and white necks. At the end of the interview Keiko FujimoriWe have included three answers that you have sent to us in writing.

– If I had another meeting with President Martín Vizcarra, what could be the agenda?
My exit in networks and interviews obeys a constructive critique of the direction and final decisions of President Vizcarra that I deem wrong. A dialogue with us and other forces should focus on pressing issues, but not on important ones. Urgent as the reform of justice, the reconstruction of the north, the fight against corruption, education. Political reforms can also be included.
– But what is urgent and important, can be separated by sections.
The most important thing is to know how to prioritize. An agenda for election reform has continued in Congress; but in the light of the crisis, the reform of the legal system is given priority. When there was a meeting in Government Palace [en el gobierno pasado], Mr. Vizcarra and Mr. [José] Chlimper and they talked about that.

– To conclude the report of his meetings with President Vizcarra, there was one in 2015 when he was planning his campaign, right?
I had the opportunity to talk effectively with various former governors. He said that we were talking about a reform of the CNM in that meeting in the palace, we were working on a prediction, but there was no other will of the other parties. A reform of this nature implies consensus. But this crisis is an opportunity.

– And that consensus can not lead to a referendum in December?
Hopefully we have met the deadlines, which depend on the will of all groups.

– A hope on his lips can be perceived, as the first political force in Congress, as if they are going to boycott.
It is his interpretation.

-It is a popular perception.
I have commented on the decisions announced by Rosa Bartra, chairman of the Constitution Commission: the session will take place in double time, representatives of the various institutions will be convened. With these decisions we hope to reach an early referendum. However, all this also depends on the other forces in Congress […]. We are working to get a referendum done right, with detailed proposals and not improvised, as they come from the executive.

– Do you think that the ideas of the referendum on political reforms are populist?
It is populist if it is thought that this reform of the elections, and I do not mean that of justice, would only be effective in 2021, that is to say that it will not produce an immediate result.

– Populism in the form, but not in the background?

– But he said he agreed. If it sounds like a good bet from the rival, why not improve it?
The debate is important to give priority to the national agenda. We believe that priority should be given to the reform of the legal system.

– What are we left over? Do they support the referendum and supervise the rest?
Priority should be given to an opinion on the CNM, which has been suspended. Within the FP bank there are 33 legislative proposals on the reform of justice and next week a package will be delivered. And I agree to debate political election reform. Much progress has been made and we will continue on that path.

– He has a historic majority in Congress. What would you like your estate to be when the government ends?
Various reforms have been implemented, for example strengthening the auditor's office, initiatives of the judiciary, raising the pensions for our armed forces, and working on important laws for the modernization of the state, combating corruption. Things that have been discussed for years are now approved.

-It has congressmen representing interests that conflict with important reforms required in health, education. How has this dilemma been solved?
[Pide ejemplos, ponemos el caso de Miguel Torres y las cooperativas, y el de Lucio Ávila y las universidades] Congressman Torres was always transparent. If there is someone expert in cooperation issues, it is him. Congressman Avila is no longer in our group. It was proposed to all conference members not to be part of the committees [relacionadas a su rubro de interés]. They contributed to the debate from that experience, but not to benefit.

– The governor of Ica, Fernando Cillóniz, complains about corruption and that his congressmen do not help him.
He was upset because the congressmen were going to inspect it, but it is the duty of the congressmen regardless of the political color.

-For cases like these, an observer from Fujimorismo, Carlos Meléndez, says that you are more concerned with representation, that is to say, the interests represented by your congressmen than with governability.
The congressmen do not accept the budget. The explanation they have given is that they have performed an audit and found irregularities. How can you criticize conference members who are part of an audit work?

– How can we support major reforms that evoke resistance among congressmen representing diverse interests, some informally, some, we have seen, even unauthorized?
I answer with the facts and the votes of FP. In the PPK government we were absurdly accused of obstruction. In the beginning, a vote of confidence was given, faculties, including the possibility to reduce 1% of the VAT.

– We have, together with your spokespeople, done that virtuous list several times. But how many are the interpellations, right? Have you hesitated to censor Jaime Saavedra?
At the time of the analysis it was considered that the responsibility of the Congress is to make, represent and control laws. A media reported corruption for amounts up to S / 200 million. The answers were not satisfactory for FP and congressmen of other parties. I met Mr. Jaime Saavedra when I visited the World Bank. He is a good coach, but there was a serious mistake.

– The case of Saavedra leads to another point. Is the gender approach, not the ideology, valid in education?
We live in a conservative and traditional society and I am a defender of the family. I believe that gender ideology should not be in school books, but the gender approach, that approach that defends equal opportunities between men and women. As a mother of two girls, I defend him naturally.

– Do not you think it is a conservative agenda when you, as a leader, can take firm steps towards modernity?
In most countries we are traditional, pro-life and pro-family; but we also have representatives who defend the rights of minorities.

– Return to the present, do not you feel like you are stealing your candidate candidates for directors and mayors?
The campaign is still cold, the main candidate in Lima has 13% to 15%. We believe that it is the first debate that marks the beginning, I trust Diethell Columbus.

– Do you agree with an autonomous transport authority for Lima and Callao?
Yes of course. It is a pending issue, but there was no consensus from the competent authorities.

– There can be no collisions for this consensus like this week.
One precision: I do not see a confrontation. When they asked me if there were meetings with President Vizcarra, I said yes. Then the president pointed out that there was a confidentiality pact, that is incorrect. Moreover, when it was leaked by a report from Juan Carlos Tafur, I asked Congressman Salaverry, and Congressman Galarreta is there to call the Prime Minister and say that if they asked us, we would not go against the truth. They knew that if they asked me, I would not lie. I was surprised by the lack of tolerance on the part of the president.

– Why should politicians meet when they talk about topics that interest us all?
That question should be put to President Vizcarra. The dialogues are constructive and on our side there is a willingness to talk. What I said to the President, and I repeat, is that we want him to make a good government, complete his mandate, and that we are prepared to support the reforms that he is proposing.

– Did you say it & # 39; no longer & # 39; of the Minister of Health proposed for the subject of the Octagons.
That information is incorrect. I never asked for someone to resign, nor did I suggest anyone.

– But he does not like octagons, is that right?
I conveyed the concern that was in the bank, because an agreed opinion was being worked on in which both the octagons and the traffic light were taken into account. In that work meeting [aparte del encuentro con Vizcarra], participated in the Prime Minister, the Minister of Health, Congressman Miguel Castro, who chaired the Consumer Protection Commission, and Daniel Salaverry as project author. [del semáforo]. They reached an agreement, but then, surprisingly, the publication [contraviniendo el acuerdo].

– It will not be that you thought that while following the process of succession, it was necessary that they pay attention to them?
No, the Congress worked productively from the different committees to continue.

– Because you're not lying about your encounters, did you have a meeting with prosecutor Pedro Chávarry?

– With Judge César Hinostroza, why do not you admit it?
I never had a meeting alone with Hinostroza or a chief judge. With whom I have ever spoken, Judge César is San Martín. I have Mr. Camayo never asked for a meeting.

– Who knows.
Yes, I greeted him, I know him, but I have never been in his house. I have never been invited or helped.

– You have not seen that he is one of those businessmen looking for the proximity of politicians?
I know that he is a friend of my brother Kenji and I knew that he was working with Miki Torres on entrepreneurship, but I never asked him for a meeting.

– There is always the temptation to use the power to make account adjustments. Mulder's law was given; Now the Lava Jato committee is talking about the possibility of including many journalistic companies.
[Sobre la Ley Mulder] We will carefully wait for the decision of the TC […]. Faced with the rumors, members of the committee, including Congressman Rosa Bartra, pointed out that they are false. It should be noted that only two of the six members are FP, Rosa Bartra and Karina Beteta.

-The politicians have many judgments, partly because of the resources they spend on campaigns.
It is legally established and there is a law of financing of parties, against the possibility that there was money from a dubious company.

– Possibility? There are cases, as it happened to you. The money that Jaime Yoshiyama would have received is still under investigation.
With regard to this subject, Marcelo Odebrecht said that he does not know me, Barata has said that he does not know me, that I am cold and aloof.

– That's why I called Yoshiyama directly.
With regard to him and Augusto Bedoya they have denied that possibility and I believe them. There is a process of investigation, we will have to wait with caution.

– Why no law of public funding for campaigns?
Recently, the group had a meeting sponsored by Idea International and Percy Medina told us about this possibility, not just through the election strip. We found that interesting. I want to mention one thing: I have been examined and I am still being examined for 18 years, my father has been in jail for 12 years, my brothers who are not politicians, Hiro and Sachie, they also investigate. I wonder: what happened to Mr. Toledo and Peru Posible, with Mr. Kuczynski? Did they rob their matches?

– What message, so that the citizens do not see the politicians under that sieve of suspicion and disapproval and that their & # 39; but this is the urgent and not the most important & # 39; not conceived as a boycott of their ambitions?
Do you realize that by pointing to what is urgent and important, you make an acidic criticism?

– It is the popular perceptions and the politicians work with her.
Being in politics forces me to say what I think, to contribute my beliefs and to suggest where to walk. I do not trade with political calculation. Being in politics is not a sympathetic contest.

* Yesterday, Keiko Fujimori answered us in writing with three questions to update this interview on Wednesday.

– What does he say about the continuity after the complaint that the prosecutor of the nation, Pedro Chávarry, contains?
It is being processed in Congress and I am sure that the FP Congressmen will act with determination and a sense of justice. There can be no doubt about it.

– What comment provokes the disclosure on a meeting between Miki Torres and Hinostroza?
He has been clear and transparent with regard to the statement made by Congressman Torres. He knows Mr. Camayo because of his interest in promoting SME's, which is public. And he coincided with Dr. Hinostroza in his house together. On that occasion, he took the opportunity to ask him some legal questions. There is no indication of anything inappropriate.

– New accusations, do not you think they are demanding new gestures of cooperation with the judiciary and with the reform of the legal system?
I confirm my commitment to a justice system that is equal for everyone, fast, blind and straight. Nobody like us knows what persecution and unjust treatment is, so I do not accept accusations of favorable treatment as others do.

Source link

Leave a Reply