Aug 06

Democracy needs reform—The cruelty of poll driven politics in Australia

Written by guest on Friday, August 6th, 2010 at 4:09 am
Filed under:-guest-posts, Opinion, politics | Tags:, ,
Add comments

I wrote this article on 28 June 2010, I decided to publish with Fool’s Mountain now is because I believe that, the research will help some Chinese readers to understand the concept of democracy in theory and in practice. This article ended with a quote using a Chinese leader statement about democracy.

Just a bit of my background, I was born in Singapore, and my father was born in Indonesia, China is not my country and there is no issue of being a patriotic Chinese national. I spent 3 years in Eastern Europe (1991 – 1994)when the Communist collapsed. I witnessed first hand the kind of suffering when a system is overthrown overnight. After 20 years of having democratic government in Eastern Europe, a recent survey by the American based PEW found the following outcome:

End of Communism Cheered but Now with More Reservations: http://pewglobal.org/2009/11/02/end-of-communism-cheered-but-now-with-more-reservations/

I have been living in Australia for almost 20 years now, also witnessing first hand democracy in practice in a developed country. I decided to produce a series of articles on this issue not because I don’t like the concept of democracy but hoping that people from China should objectively assess the merit of a political system and seek to make improvement based on their current foundation.

Below is the content of my article on Democracy Needs Reform – The Cruelty of Poll Driven Politics in Australia:

After a series of sudden and drastic moved initiated by a handful of people within some fractions of the Australia Labor Party on Wednesday evening, Australians woke up the next morning (24 June 2010) watching their elected Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd) cried in front of the TV screen after he was told by the dozens of his colleagues he was finished as prime minister. (Herald Sun, 25 June 2010)

The cause of his down fall was mainly due to the fact that his popularity has plunged dramatically over the last 6 months. This in part was the direct result of the mining companies $100 million advertising campaign against his government intention to imposed a Super Mining Tax in 2012 to give the average Australians a fairer share of the profit from the resources digging out from Australian soil and seabed. The opposition has sided the miners over the Super Mining Tax and benefited from a huge amount of political donation.

As a result, the first thing our (unelected) new prime minister (Julie Gillard) did was to offer a truce to the miners by withdrawing the government $38 million counter-miner-advertising-campaign and promised to “talk to the industry without pre-conditions,” (The Australian, 25 June 2010 – ‘Miners accept new Prime Minister’s offer of a truce’). BHP Billiton being the first miner to suspend its TV advertising campaign and our humble new government reacted immediately by showing appreciation: ‘Gillard thanks BHP for scrapping ads’ (Herald Sun, 25 June 2010).

However, after a mere few hours of excitement, some miners have again decided to continue their relenting advertising campaign: ‘Miners continue working on mining tax ads despite truce’ (News Limited, 25 June 2010). Mining Chief, Keith De Lacy then pressed on the federal government to take the $12 billion revenue from a resource super-profits tax out of the budget’s forward estimates. (The Australian, 26 June 2010).

A Sad Day For Democracy

Democracy is supposed to be a system base on the concept of ‘One People One Vote’. However, in this instant, it has became (as a friend of mine put it): an “One Dollar One Vote” system. The reality now are:

1) An elected Prime Minister can be replaced over night by the decision of a few dozens of privilege people within a political party.

2) A mostly foreign owe multi-national corporations like BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto together with a couple of local billionaires are able to influence a nation political process, overthrown an elected Prime Minister, and humble the new government by simply throwing their money around.

It would be fair for one to ask:

a) Have our current form of “democratic” system of government function in accordance to the wish of the people on the street?; Or

b) Have it became a system that favour the wishes of a handful of very rich people and multi-national corporations?

No Need To Feel Sorry For Kevin Rudd

During the last 2 and a half years as Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd has been very much a hated figure among his staffers with “262 ministerial staff – from a total of 444 positions departed since Labor came to office”. However, when a single tear ran down his face as he delivered an emotional farewell to the nation on the TV screen, some of his staffers apparently weep with him. Frankly speaking, when I watched the scene on TV, I do feel sorry for him as I can sense the kind of humiliation and betrayal he had to endure from his own comrades within the party. Their action were sweep, brutal and ruthless.

However, when we put in context Kevin Rudd own ruthless poll driven policies over the last few months, we can only ask ourselves, is this the sub-culture of the current form of democracy? What can we do to make the system more humane, ethical, responsible and civilise?

The Cruelty Of Poll Driven Politics

Example 1: A Sudden change to the ‘In demand’ Skill Migration List

Former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd has always been an enthusiastic supporter of a bigger Australia:

According to a new Immigration Department report on skilled arrivals in 2009, “the Rudd Government has admitted it wants to bring in up to 230,000 migrants annually over the next 40 years,” (Herald Sun, 3 September 2009 – ’Federal Government set to maintain record high immigration levels’).

A month later, in an interview with the 7.30 report, Kevin Rudd unambiguously spoke of the merit of a bigger population. This is what he said: “I actually believe in a big Australia. I make no apology for that,” “I actually think it’s good news that our population is growing,” and “I think it is good for us, it’s good for our national security long term, it’s good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation.” (The Age, 23 Oct 2009)

Merely another 3 months later, Kevin Rudd in his speech to mark the 2010 Australia Day Celebration by again spoken about our aging population and the need for Australia to increase its population from 22 million to 36 million by 2050 to maintain our current standard of living. (‘Kevin Rudd’s speech in full’- News Limited, 20 Jan 2010)

However, when the media begin to publish a series of anti-immigration articles and speeches by the oppositions, activists, and right wingers with strong anti-immigrant sentiment and the public opinion indicated that “Two-thirds of respondents – 66 per cent – think the Federal Government should cap immigration rates” (News Limited, 24 Jan 2010). This is how the Rudd government begin to reverse his immigration policy in a sudden, brutal, ruthless, unethical, inhumane, racist manner with immediate effect:

Creating an ’In demand’ Skill Migration List to attract overseas students

Before the Rudd government won the last election (2007), the previous Australian governments have been using the creation of a list of ’In damand’ skill migration program and knowing that many migration and education agencies have been actively using that ‘favourable list’ as a marketing tools to attract foreign students.

As a result, our education sector has become our 3rd largest export industry with an annual revenue of $17 billion.

Despite the fact that there are many unscrupulous and dodgy colleges over the years collecting huge amount of tuition fees from overseas students and not offering any proper educational services, for examples,

· ABC Four Corners (27 July 2009) – ‘Holy Cash Cows’:

“Last year more than 70,000 Indian students came here to buy an education. Egged on by immigration and education agents, many were told if they enrolled in cooking, hairdressing and accounting courses they would not only get a diploma but they could also qualify for permanent residency in Australia.”

“Four Corners investigation reveals that foreign students in this country have been targeted by unscrupulous businessmen, who have set up training schools that supply qualifications that sometimes aren’t worth the paper they are written on.”

“We all know that they have sardine type cooking classes where there’s sixteen students to a frypan.” (Corruption investigator)

“If a student wants to apply for permanent residency they must pass an English language test. Four Corners has found clear evidence that unscrupulous immigration and education agents are offering English language tests for a price. In some cases the exam paper is worth up to $5,000.

“Another requirement for students in vocational courses, seeking residency in Australia, is a work experience certificate. Each student is required to undertake up to 900 hours of on the job training. Some work for nothing creating a source of cheap labour. Others are offered an alternative. Four Corners reveals an immigration agent was prepared to help procure a fake work experience certificate for students if they were prepared to pay between three and four thousand dollars. This practice clearly makes a joke of the vocational qualification and the integrity of the immigration system.”

· The Age (23 July 2009) – ‘College in gross breach of standards’:

“A CONFIDENTIAL report on a Melbourne private college has uncovered big education breaches, painting a picture of shambolic practices that failed to meet the most basic educational standards”

“The audit also found:

* Marketing of education and training services was unprofessional

* Students were not provided with information on emergency and health services

* There were no proper checks on overseas education agents

* Students’ course progress was not monitored

* Classes were overcrowded”

· The Australian (29 July 2009) – ‘UNE accused of allowing plagiarists to graduate’:

“MORE than 100 overseas students graduated from the University of New England with copied masters theses, creating one of Australia’s biggest plagiarism scandals after an academic whistleblower tried to raise the alert.”

The problem with the Australian government is that, they don’t really care as long as the money keep coming in.

· Time of India (23 Jan 2010) – ‘Australian govt ignores advice on Indian students: Report’:

“A top body that represents Australia’s universities has accused both state and federal governments of ignoring warnings issued by it on problems faced by overseas students, including Indians, in the country. “

“Universities Australia, which represents 39 universities, said it had alerted governments to problems relating to student safety, poor-quality colleges, lack of concessions on public transport and immigration matters for two years ago.”

“It (Universities Australia) passed on to Australian authorities warnings from officials in China and India relating to student safety. It also conveyed to governments student disenchantment resulting from a perception they were being treated like cash cows,”

“However, Universities Australia Chief Executive Glenn Withers said that he was disappointed as state and federal governments did not treat the problems as a priority when they were told about them two years ago but acted with urgency only when violent attacks on Indian students attracted intense media attention.”

Sudden withdrawal of the favourable Skill migration list

However, when the poll indicated that the Government “Big Australia” policy was unpopular in an election year. This is how the new policy work:

Only 19 days after Kevin Rudd delivered his Australia Day speech about increasing our population to 36 million by 2050, his government suddenly decided to have a ‘Migration U-turn’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 8 Feb 2010), by calling it a ‘Crackdown on skilled migrants’ (WA Today, 7 February), and immediately ‘rejects 20,000 migrants’ (Brisbane Time, 8 Feb 2010). These are the detail:

1) “The changes to be unveiled today will see 20,000 current applications binned”

2) “The cancelled applications apply to all offshore general skilled migration claims lodged before September 2007. Refunding 20,000 visa applications will cost taxpayers about $14 million.”

3) “Given the changes could have a significant impact on many foreign students already in Australia, the government will introduce transitional arrangements to apply until 2012.”

4) Foreign students who have a qualification for an occupation no longer considered in demand will get to apply for a temporary 18-month visa, allowing them to gain work experience

5) The 18 months will also give a foreign graduate time in which to find an employer willing to sponsor their application as a skilled migrant.

It’s all about money for Australia –Where is the Human Right of those Students who have no voting right?

The only thing the opposition concerned over the government sudden policy’s U-turn is still about money. This is how the Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said:

“there would be big transition costs associated with the changes, which would hit the international education sector hard”, “This is because there are many foreign students already taking courses on the in-demand list, whose study might no longer improve their chances of permanent migration.”.”There’ll be many students who’ll be caught between a rock and a hard place,” “It addition … there’ll be a lot of pressure on those colleges [catering to overseas students] and I suspect many will fail” “That will obviously have impacts for jobs.” (Sydney Morning Herald, 8 Feb 2010).

Again, an opinion piece article published by the Sydney Morning Herald two months later (13 April 2010) – ‘When Indian students suffer, Australia risks being scarred for life’ with the main focus still about money. For examples,

“The country has suffered real reputational damage, real economic cost, and real diplomatic disadvantage,”

“The economic cost? Higher education is Australia’s third-biggest export sector, worth $17 billion a year. For Victoria, education is the number one source of foreign income at $4.5 billion a year.”

“So far, the known effect of the assaults has been twofold. First, the total number of Indians studying here is down by 5 per cent this year compared to last, about 1500 students, when the numbers from other major source countries are up. With the total average economic benefit to Australia of about $34,000 per student per year, this means an annual cost of about $50 million.”

“Second, there is the loss of potential student numbers. The number of new Indian enrolments is down this year by 40 per cent compared to last. But the potential cost is much bigger than this suggests.”

The reality to these international students are, they have already invested their time and a huge amount of money in Australia believing in the government ‘in-demand list’. Some have borrowed those money as an investment hoping for a better future. However, if you are not a voters or if you are not the “mainstream” voters , you have no right in this country. This is how Australia, a self claimed “Civilised” country behave against migrants and minorities citizens in virtually each and every election.

Why can’t the government introduce their U-turn policy in a more humane and considerate manner by honouring their ‘in-demand list’ to those students who already completed the courses, half-way through the courses or already enrolled in those courses, and set a later date as a cut off point? Why it has to do in such a hurry to cancel all applications lodged prior to September 2007 with immediate effect?

The very few people I came across over the last few months that speak for the students and was published by the media is in this news heading: ‘New migrant list will hit business’ (The Age, 18 May 2010):

Andrew Smith, the Chief executive of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training have the following fair comment in favour of the students:

“We have to be absolutely honest about what Australia has done over a number of years now, and that was to link immigration and education,” “Students invested tens of thousands of dollars on the basis of a clear government policy. It’s unfair to them that the rules have changed during their courses.”

However, at the back of the above statement that published by the mainstream media, it is still all about money and our selfish national interest. For examples,

“Some restaurants would go out of business and others be forced to shorten their trading hours without migrant labour.”

“…the industry was already 3000 cooks short before the federal government halved the number of places for which independent skilled migrants could apply.”

“Private educators, however, predicted more college closures, thousands of job losses and a flight of international students to other countries.”

“Just a 5 per cent slump in student numbers would lead to more than 6000 job losses and $700 million in lost revenue.”

Remark: So, when is Australia going to stop encouraging overseas migrants on the one hand to solve its own money, skill shortage and employment problem, while one the other hand, continue to abuse its migrant population as and when an election is on the agenda?

Example 2: asylum seeker policy U-Turn

During the Howard era, Australia asylum seeker policy has been widely condemned as racist and inhumane. Amnesty International at that time accused Australia of violating the 1951 UN Refugee Convention. (RTE News, 29 August 2001).

In order to help restore Australia’s international reputation after the “shameful” Howard years, the new Rudd government decided to ‘soften Australia asylum seeker laws’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 29 July 2008)

However, when the media begin to run a series of creative news against the arrival of boats people and migrants such as:

‘Warning on Australian immigration border control’ (ABC Radio, 14 Oct 2009)

‘Taxpayer bill for Oceanic Viking refugees is set to soar’ (News Limited, 10 Nov 2009)

‘Australia to take bulk of refugees’ (Adelaide Now, 13 Nov 2009)

‘Immigration ‘will fuel greenhouse gas growth’ (Herald Sun, 20 Jan 2010)

‘Mass immigration kills Aussie culture, says demographer Bob Birrell’ (Adelaide Now, 24 March 2010)

‘Coalition wants Aussie babies, but fewer migrants’ (Brisbane Time, 7 April 2010).

Again, this is how our Rudd’s government introducing an ‘U-turn policy’ with the characteristics of sudden, brutal, ruthless, unethical, inhumane and racist. The impact is immediate:

For example, “The federal government has toughened its policy on asylum seekers by immediately suspending the processing of all new refugee claims by Sri Lankans and Afghanis.” (SBS, 9 Apr 2010 – ‘Sri Lankan, Afghan asylum visas suspended’). The immediate outcome is ‘Asylum seekers face years of detention’.

The director of the advocacy group the Edmund Rice Centre, Phil Glendinning is right to point out that the policies are “an appeal to fear and racism” and that “both sides of politics are attacking asylum seekers in the lead-up to the federal election.” (ABC, 28 May 2010 – ‘Asylum seeker policy ‘an appeal to fear and racism’).

There is an article with detail research and analysis about the suffering of Asylum seekers during the Howard’s era. For the benefit of those who are interested to know more. I hereby attached the link (‘Asylum seekers, Australia’s retraumatisation policy, and healthcare ally work’) for you to read as I believe that it is still applicable to the suffering of the asylum seekers now as a result of the Rudd’s government ‘U-turn’ policy.

Conclusion: Democracy needs reform

There are too may of this kind of creative news against migrants and asylum seekers in Australia over the years. It is meaningless to flood this article with such links. I would like to list just a few more examples as follows before writing my conclusion:

‘Aust legal system may face challenges over migrant attitudes to women’ (ABC, 16 April 2010)

‘Australian-born families will be minority in 15 years’ (News Limited, 18 April 2010)

‘Sexist migrants create legal problem’ (Sydney Morning Herald, 16 April 2010)

‘Majority oppose population growth: survey’ – (The Age, 14 Apr 2010)

Australia is the only developed country whose government has been condemned as racist by the United Nations on 13 Oct 2000. Unfortunately, I believe that 10 years on, the above UN assessment is till accurate.

If democracy produce racism, then it need to reform to overcome such human right violation as a result of the racist behaviour during each and every election. How? I believe that we can look to Singapore model as an example. Its education system and government policy in favour of racial interaction, and also the legal frame work against racism by public figures, individuals, religious leaders, etc. I will write a separate article about Singapore model sometime in the future.

Again, if democracy resulted in the reality and effect of ‘One Dollar One Vote’, its also need reform. How? I believe that, we can analyse it from the perspective of our education system, media culture, anti-lobbyist laws and regulations, political donation, the personal quality and integrity of our leaders and bureaucrats, and our political process as a whole. Again, I will write a separate article on that sometime in the future.

Democracy is a very good ideas, but our current form of democracy is definitely far from perfect. China leader is right to point out in March 2009 that: “China would draw on the achievements of all cultures but would not “simply copy” the West.”

Let’s the world learn from each other achievement and experience of success to improve on our own. Let’s stop demonising another countries or culture simply because they are different from us.

Confucius says: “三人行,必有我 师” – Where 3 people got together, I will find a teacher.

——End of article—-

If you wish to read this article with hyperlink to the sources of my research, please visit my personal website: http://www.outcastjournalist.com/index_democracy_need_reform_the_cruelty_of_poll_driven_politics.htm

Written on 28 June 2010 by Outcast Journalist in Australia

There are currently no comments highlighted.

6 Responses to “Democracy needs reform—The cruelty of poll driven politics in Australia”

  1. pug_ster Says:

    Ummm…. Is this a topic about China?

    On the other hand, I do feel sorry for the guy. This is an aspiring journalist who got rejected because he does not follow the government’s line. Sounds like China:)

    If it is any comfort, they did the same crap to Helen Thomas because he said something pro-Palestinian.

  2. S. K. Cheung Says:

    This piece was far more rambling and less coherent than your first effort. Your first article had its share of laundry lists, but they were well organized and in a logical fashion. Here, you seem to have offered the equivalent of an unedited laundry list.

    Where to start? “If democracy produce racism, then it need to reform…” — certainly, but only if you establish that democracy does in fact produce racism. I’m not sure you’ve done that. And even then, you’d still only be talking about the Australian version thereof. I didn’t see that the migration list restrictions cited a place of origin. If any potential migrant of any race/religion/creed are subjected to the same restrictions, where is the racism?

    “It’s all about money for Australia –Where is the Human Right of those Students who have no voting right?”
    — is migration to Australia a “human right” enshrined by Australian law? Were those foreign students studying in Australia guaranteed immigrant status upon completion of their studies? There’s a reason why it’s called a “student visa”, and not a “student green card” or “student permanent resident/landed immigrant”.

    In the first half of your piece, you seem to decry poll-driven politics. There’s the example of Rudd living by the polls, and dying by the polls. I think there’s a role for polls, but it needn’t and shouldn’t be the be all and end all. That said, how is it a sad day for democracy when a government actually listens to her people via these polls? The influence and lobbying you cite at the outset, IMO, does require reform. But if this lobbying sways public opinion, and public opinion is against what the government is doing, and the government listens and changes course, how is that undemocratic? In fact, that to me is as democratic as it gets. However, the reason why most democracies are representative democracies and not direct democracies, is that nothing would get done if you asked the people about every single decision every single time. So no, China shouldn’t go the route of direct democracy either, I’d imagine.

    The first half of your article seems more about “special interests”/influence than about democracy itself. I certainly agree that those issues need reform within the democratic system. But to me, this article provides nothing towards the premise that there is something the matter with democracy itself.

    And as Pugster suggests, you’ve posted an article whose tenuous link to China is manifested by 2 tiny paragraphs at the very end. Those two paragraphs did not justify all that came before them, nor did they benefit from that which came before them.

  3. Steve Says:

    I don’t know much about Australian politics so I’ll take your word for it that reforms are needed but as SKC wrote, those reforms have nothing to do with the concept of democracy but rather in how the constitution and laws of the country allow for change and reform, or allow for just the opposite. Lobbying and advertising are the bane of all democracies, just as corruption, bribery, nepotism and paying your way into a government position are the bane of all autocratic governments. They are pretty much two sides of the same coin.

    I do take issue with your opinion about immigration into Australia. Each and every country can set up its immigration rates at whatever level they choose. If you look at net migration rate per thousand, Australia has a rate of 6.34 migrants per thousand which is one of the highest in the world and highest of the larger countries. Canada and the USA aren’t far behind. Most Asian countries actually have low net migration rates. Fault can be found with how immigration is administered in Australia but the overall policy is very generous. Singapore is a city/state and in my opinion is not comparable with larger nations in terms of administration issues. It is very easy to maintain control over a relatively small geographic area but very, very difficult to do so over a large one. Because of its vast size, Australia is better compared to such countries as the USA, China, Canada, India and Brazil.

    In my personal experience, I’m in the process of getting visa status in Taiwan that allows me to stay for up to one year at a time. Just obtaining this status is very difficult, involves a lot of paperwork and a few decent sized fees. It’s not a permanent resident status so it surprised me that it takes such an effort, considering I’ve been married to a Taiwan citizen for almost 20 years.

    As pug_ster and SKC both remarked, I also don’t see what any of this has to do with China. Shouldn’t it be posted on an Australian forum? This topic has little to do with democracy but much to do with Australian law and culture.

  4. No99 Says:

    Yeah, immigration and resident status is pretty complicated. Sometimes, I don’t know what theme this blog is running considering the wide variety of topics people dwell on.

  5. Raj Says:

    Steve I thought you were running the blog now. Why can’t you move this into the letters section? If there’s no control over what’s posted then maybe I’ll spam the blog with articles on why democracy is lovely in Norway and Switzerland…….

  6. Steve Says:

    Raj, I just post like everyone else and am no longer an editor here. Where the articles go is up to admin.

Leave a Reply