The consequences of judicial murder

Now that the merchants of death in Jakarta have completed their latest round of judicial murders, it is time for Australians to take stock of how to approach and interact with Indonesia — a close neighbour geographically but distant in so many other ways.

Respected commentator and former ABC Jakarta correspondent, Mike Carlton admits that there has always been an undercurrent of mistrust between the two nations, but in the weeks leading up to the execution of convicted drug smugglers, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran (and the six others who faced the firing squad at the same time) Australians have had a piercing insight into the mindset of those who lead and set the agendas in Indonesia.  

Pleas for clemency, reasoned arguments, vigils, even offers to foot the bill for a lifetime sentence for Chan and Sukumaran, fell on deaf ears — as did the overwhelming evidence the pair had been rehabilitated during more than a decade in prison and could continue to do useful pastoral work among their fellow inmates.

It has been claimed that Indonesian President, Joko Widodo needed to project a ‘tough guy’ image after perceptions that his predecessor, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, had been something of a vacillator.

Instead Widodo has come across as a rather weak little man — a prisoner of the mob baying for blood; of the army generals still smarting over real or imagined slights and of  former President Megawati Sukarnoputri, the Madame Defarge of Indonesian politics, whose attitude to the execution of foreigners appears to be only “faster, faster”.

Carlton has said that part of the reason for the failure of Widodo to listen to international calls for mercy is that his country is still stuck in a post-colonial mindset – a we-are-in-charge-now-and-you -can’t-tell- us-what-to-do attitude.

If this is the case it is astonishing after almost 70 years of independence, especially as other countries, India is an example, have long since abandoned these attitudes. It would seem Indonesia still has a way to go to reach maturity as a nation.

Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott has said there will be consequences following the executions. This will involve the recalling of the Australia’s Ambassador in Jakarta and probably the cancellation or postponement of a few Ministerial contacts. It is the normal diplomatic showing of displeasure.

Before long relations will resume and it will be back to normal. Abbott has said as much.

As a lifelong opponent of capital punishment, I believe Australians should go further. My wife and I have both promised never to set foot in Indonesia while capital punishment is routinely carried out. We will not consume any goods or services which originate in Indonesia and we are going to do our best to convince as many people as possible to do the same.

Only days after Australians commemorated the slaughter of young lives in a pointless war; as we grieve over the loss of life in natural disasters and as the parts of the Middle East lapse into murderous barbarism, Indonesia has needlessly, and under the false cloak of judicial authority, added to the toll.

When will we learn that every life is precious and worth celebrating; that every life lost is a tragedy that damages us all?   

 

No more appeasement in border ‘games’

When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visits Beijing next month he will know what to expect – handshakes, smiles, promises of stronger trade ties and investment and lengthy speeches pledging eternal friendship.

He will also expect — or at least he should by now — Chinese forces to move across the disputed border between the two countries known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC),  military stand-offs, perhaps even a re-publication of maps showing the Indian State of Arunachal Pradesh as the Chinese territory of  ‘Southern Tibet’.

It has become a typical Chinese gambit in its relations with India: Wait until some friendly diplomatic event between the two countries is under way then launch a border provocation. What happens then? India could react by heading straight home if it is the visiting party – or kicking its Chinese guests out of the country if they are the visitors.

Either way it is a massive escalation of tensions within the region and the possibility of an all-out border war that India knows it is not strong enough to fight. So the alternative is to grit teeth and carry on, leaving the impression it is not particularly concerned about the territories in dispute.

These tactics were all-too apparent with the visit to New Delhi of Chinese President Xi Jinping last September which coincided with a Chinese intrusion into Chumar, a border region in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Then there was Premier Li Keqiang’s 2013 visit which followed a Chinese encroachment into the Depsang Plains, also in Jammu and Kashmir. This was particularly galling for India as the Plains were the scene of heavy fighting during China’s 1962 invasion, with Bejing’s forces still occupying areas it captured during that conflict.

One of India’s most prominent strategic thinkers, Brahma Chellaney, believes there is a further dimension to China’s tactics. He points out that the Indian-occupied area of Depsang and Chumar have never been part of China’s territorial claims until now.

“With the aid of progressively increasing or recurrent incursions in each coveted area, the strategy aims to create a dispute where no dispute has existed so that China can subsequently demand that it be settled ‘peacefully’ on give-and-take terms,” he says.

Chellaney points out that Modi has quite clearly stated that a final settlement, or at least peace on the border, is a prerequisite to improved India-China relations, but it is time he backed words with actions.

“India’s first line of defence remains a thinly stretched police force. The Home Ministry-administered Indo-Tibetan Border Police is no match for the People’s Liberation Army’s guile and capability. Beefing up its strength alone won’t suffice; it must be placed under the army’s operational command,” he says.

Chellaney is right. Such a move would not automatically lead to armed confrontation, as some doves fear, but would convey a clear message to Beijing that India is tired of its games along the LAC and will not allow its territory to be nibbled away little by little.

Caution is certainly needed in these delicate dealings. Appeasement is not.  

 

 

The proper revenge for India’s Daughter

I have recently seen the documentary film India’s Daughter, dealing with the horrific gang rape and mutilation of medical student Jyoti Singh on a bus in India in 2012, her subsequent death from the internal injuries she suffered, and its aftermath.

The production has been banned in India, but I know for a fact that many high officials, perhaps even Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself, have viewed it.

In some ways I can understand why the Government moved to block distribution of India’s Daughter. It contains a confronting interview with one of the rapists, Mukesh Singh, totally unrepentant and actually blaming his victim for the savage assault.

“A decent girl would not roam the streets at 9pm…housework and housekeeping are for girls, not roaming in discos and bars at night, doing wrong things and wearing wrong clothes,” was his excuse for what he and the others had done, adding that if the girl had not struggled so much she would have been allowed to leave the bus otherwise unharmed.

Worse still was a defence lawyer who supported his client’s attitude and went further saying that even if his own daughter or sister had got herself into a similar situation and was raped, he would pour petrol over her and set her alight.

No matter that Singh was in the company of her boyfriend, who was also badly beaten. No woman should be out at night unless accompanied by her husband, brother, father, grandfather or some other male relative. Fortunately this man is now subject to discipline by the Indian Bar Association.

Obviously this is not the kind of image the Government wants as it seeks to portray a modernising nation preparing to take its place among the world’s great powers. Nor does it constantly want to be reminded of the fact that a rape in India occurs on average every 20 minutes.  

Equally disturbing were the mobs calling for the rapists to be strung up.  Four of the six have been convicted and face the death penalty, a fifth is a juvenile whose maximum sentence can be only three years imprisonment and a sixth was found dead in his cell, a presumed suicide.

To balance this there were the more measured views of a senior female judge, and younger friends of Ms Singh and her boyfriend. While understandably disgusted and bitter at what had taken place, they sensed the real problem lies with the patriarchal nature of Indian society where, in the most conservative areas, women are still treated as possessions – valuable possession perhaps, but possession nonetheless.

The judge was right when she said education was the only effective, long-term cure for this problem. Other contributors were also right in pointing out that the lynch-law mentality has no place in Indian society.

I have been a life-long opponent of the death penalty, or judicial murder as I prefer to call it. The first aim of punishment should be rehabilitation and at this point I cannot help but mention the situation of Australian drug criminals Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran whose rehabilitation in an Indonesian jail has been apparent to all, but who still face imminent execution.

But what of Mukesh Singh, who shows no remorse and actually seeks to portray himself as the victim of what he and the others did?

What greater punishment could there be for him to spend decades in jail while outside Indian society gradually changes (as I believe it must and will) to one of mutual respect and equality among the sexes; watching those with his brutal attitudes die off to be replaced by men and women who have created a more enlightened age.

What greater punishment for him to sit in his prison cell year after year, forgotten, irrelevant?

 

    

Does ICT need a Martin Luther?

Editing some online articles recently I read a report from the Australian Institute of Family Studies which found that older Australians were not the only ones to have difficulty in coming to terms with the information and communication technology (ICT) revolution.

The report found that one in 10 of the under 35s it surveyed also felt they were being left behind by fast-moving advances in the sector.

Commenting on the findings, the Institute’s Assistant Director (Research), Ruth Weston said the volume of information had increased almost beyond comprehension.

“If even these comparatively young Australians feel left behind, that makes the future seem daunting,” Ms Weston said.

Co-author of the paper, Lixia Qu said the increasing reliance on ICT developments to deliver services could make it harder for people of all ages, particularly if it signals the end or near-end of face-to-face services.

The very next story I found, dealing with IT governance, rather proved the Institute’s point. It contained the following paragraph.

“In recognition of the important role Australia plays in the new International Standard for IT governance, Standards Australia runs the secretariat of Sub-Committee 40 of the Joint Technical Committee (JTC 1) of ISO and IEC, JTC1/SC 40 IT Service Management and IT Governance, which was responsible for producing the publication.”

This gobbledegook is obviously quite intelligible to those who work in the field, but I would suggest a large proportion of the population would find it meaningless.

We are fast developing a technological elite to whom the saying, attributed to 13^th century theologian Thomas Aquinas, could be applied: “For those who believe, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.” 

Indeed the growing jargon being produced by ICT professionals is beginning to sound as incomprehensible as the Latin Mass in cathedrals and churches would have sounded to the largely illiterate congregations of Aquinas’ day.

Like those congregations, who would have learnt a few words and phrases parrot-fashion and would know when to say “amen”, those uninitiated in the inner circles of ICT pick up a few terms and processes essential for their day-to-day lives, while leaving more complicated matters to be interpreted by the high priests from the Help Desk.

What we are seeing is definitely not the original promise of ICT to make lives universally easier. The Institute of Family Studies report has found that even some of those who would have been familiar with earlier computers and laptops feel overwhelmed by the pace of developments since.

So what hope for my generation who know Bluetooth better as the Old Norse King of Denmark than anything to do with wireless technology?

Obviously there is no going back, but my fear is that the headlong rush to ever-new concepts (already the Cloud is sooo last decade) is going to produce a substantial proportion of the population frustrated and angry at its inability to comprehend fast-changing and increasingly more complicated technology.

Perhaps ICT needs a Martin Luther to bring things back to basics.

 

    

 

 

Why traditional universities matter

I recently took part in an online debate about the future of tertiary education. I found myself overwhelmed by the enthusiasts who believed that online processes, led by Massive Open Online Courses or MOOCs, would largely replace traditional study at real-world universities in the not-too-distant future.

Speakers queued up to eulogise the many advantages of  studying digitally: It could progress at the student’s pace, not the lecturer’s; work could be done in the comfort of home (or indeed anywhere) when  the student felt like it; they were not shackled to rigid timetables or forced to expend money on transport; it was generally easier and cheaper.

Research was produced to show employers were beginning to recognise the value of online degrees as being equal if not superior to those gained at a traditional university and that the increasing popularity of MOOCs meant that students could have access the world-class lectures rather than having to rely on the quality of the institution they were attending.

One contributor even predicted that by mid-century there would no more than 10 bricks-and-mortar universities left on the planet.

This being an online debate I suppose I should have expected a heavy bias towards online activity, and in fact I agreed with much that was said. MOOCs are and will continue to be of tremendous value to mid-career professionals seeking additional qualifications; to parents looking after children at home and to those whose circumstances meant they missed out or disregarded tertiary study earlier in life and who are trying to catch up.

Yet for those who are able to attend university at the ‘normal’ time of their lives — immediately or shortly after they complete their secondary education — choosing the online path to qualifications will mean they are missing something precious.

Universities are, and always have been, more than just places of learning, more than a pathway to a qualification. My argument goes to the heart of what an education means.

For me and my contemporaries, lectures never ended in the lecture theatre. Often debates continued in someone’s quarters, well into the early hours, usually with the lecturer taking part and occasionally with the contribution of a distinguished guest lecturer — politician, business person, entrepreneur.

On one of these occasions among my fellow students was a future Anglican Bishop, a Member of Parliament, and an individual who spent his career reporting on conflict around the globe

I simply cannot see the cut and thrust; the bouncing of arguments around the room; the interjections, serious, comic and asinine, replicated in online chat rooms regardless of the broadband speed.

Mixing with so many new people from around the country and overseas is a deeply enriching experience, helping to shape opinions and challenge prejudices. These are the days when characters are formed and lifelong friendships cemented.

Several of the friendships I made were with people outside my course of study which I met in pubs or in the various clubs and societies I joined. I know of one individual who changed the direction of his study based on the influence and personality of a fellow student. Years later he confessed he was so grateful for being convinced to change course away from a career he now knew would never have suited him.

This, I believe is what education is all about, and why I passionately hope that online learning and MOOCs are a complement, not a replacement, for the formal university experience.

 

           

Back to the future on public ownership

In a recent interview, the United Kingdom’s Shadow Secretary of State for Transport, Michael Dugher sent shockwaves through the political establishment when he said New Labour was dead, and that the country’s main Opposition Party was returning to its socialist origins.

"This is not like 1997 [when New Labour under Tony Blair won government], that whole deference to markets and the private sector, that’s gone," Dugher said.

If Labour wins the election, scheduled for May — and many observers believe it will — Dugher says he will be pushing for a partial re-nationalisation of the country’s rail system.

He said he was not talking about going back to the days of British Rail which was fully nationalised from the 1940s to 1980s.

“But I think we’ve got to make the starting point that privatisation was a mess, it was botched,” Dugher said.

“The fact remains that privatisation was a disaster for the railways.”

Stagecoach, the privately-run national transport group, also came under attack with Dugher describing the company’s executives as “boneheads” for opposing Labour’s plan to further regulate the bus network.

In taking this stand Labour has latched on to a growing anti-privatisation movement in the United Kingdom and parts of Europe.

Writing on the pro-public ownership website We Own It, Professor of Urban and Regional Political Economy, Andrew Cumbers said that while public ownership remains anathema to the centre-right in Britain, it finds itself increasingly out of step with the times.

“Public ownership is back on the public policy agenda in much of the rest of the world as the failures of three decades of privatisation become increasingly apparent,” Professor Cumbers writes.

“In Germany and France, but also in large swathes of Africa, Latin America and even the United States, new forms of public ownership at local, regional and national levels are being introduced that take whole sectors back into democratic control.”

He does not advocate a return to the monolithic State enterprises set up in Britain during the immediate post-war years, but “as the failings of privatisation and market deregulation policies create more inequalities and tensions in society, we need to develop new arguments and forms of public ownership to shape the progressive politics of the 21^st century”.

He suggests a role for municipal authorities and local cooperatives in public ownership and points to Denmark where one in seven of the population has shares in wind-farm projects.

It now appears that the Conservative-LibDem Coalition Government led by David Cameron may be listening. It recently decided that the State, through Her Majesty’s Prison Service, would run the new ‘super prison’ currently under construction in North Wales.

This follows a report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons into the 1600-inmate facility at Oakwood in Staffordshire, run by security contractor G4S where, the Inspector said “it was easier to get drugs than soap”.

In Australia the debate is still in its infancy, but a wave of privatisation by conservative governments at both State and Federal level is coming under increased scrutiny, while the Opposition Labor Party brought off a stunning victory in the Queensland election largely based on a campaign to stop plans to privatise the State’s ports and power network.

For too long there has been general acceptance of the conservative mantra that the private sector is always the best manager.  As Professor Cumbers says: “We should be open to the possibilities that new and diverse forms of public ownership offer to create a more equal and democratic economy and society”.

  

 

 

 

 

AAP’s Kejriwal still has a way to go

The stunning success of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in the Delhi Legislative Elections is still being digested by most observers in India, but that has not stopped a wave of triumphalism from the group’s supporters.

‘BJP Juggernaut derailed’, ‘Delhi rebuffs Modi’, ‘a message from above’ — just some of the slogans that have been bandied around in the wake of the AAP winning 67 of the Legislative Assembly’s 70 seats against three for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

AAP, or Common Man’s Party, was formed just over two years ago and is led by the charismatic Arvind Kejriwal. It did well in its first electoral test, the Delhi election of 2013 and formed a short-lived minority government in a hung Parliament.

Unable to get his legislative program through Kejriwal resigned, bringing on the latest poll.

In between AAP made little impact in the 2014 national election, winning just four seats as the BJP swept to power.

As commentator Rajdeep Sardesai has pointed out, Delhi is not India and an election for 70 Assembly seats in a city-state cannot be compared to the conquest of the country.

“It would be a grave mistake to expect Kejriwal to become a magnet for anti-Modi forces, or for the AAP to now challenge the BJP in other parts of the country,” Sardesai says.

The AAP must also try to shed the image that it is a one-man band. Beyond Kejriwal it contains few well-known political figures and in the days since the poll newspapers and television channels have constantly referred to “Kejriwal’s victory” mentioning his party almost as an afterthought.

Having said that, a healthy democracy needs an effective Opposition and that is not being mounted by the Congress Party, which Modi and the BJP ousted so comprehensively from Government last May.

As an example, up to the 2013 election Congress was the Government in Delhi. Today it is shut out of the Assembly, failing to win as single seat. As the AAP matures it is clear it will be occupying a centre-left position in Indian politics, once the preserve of Congress.

It is not the BJP that has the most to fear from the emergence of Kejriwal and AAP as a new force on the political scene.