Write on: Letters to the editor
Reform or revolution
Re. "How do you change society?" (GLW, 18/11/98) by Keara Courtney about the ineffectiveness of reform: When we talk of "revolution", many people think immediately of the romanticised images from 1917 Russia and the overthrow of the Czar by the Bolshevik party, or the victory of Castro in Cuba during the early 1950s.
The problem is putting "revolution" and "Australia" together. Many Australians can whinge about the state of Australia's welfare, health and housing, but are Australians willing to take up arms and fight other people? Are people willing enough to stop talking, stop writing and start killing?
History has shown repeatedly that revolution or civil war are the cruellest forms of struggle; they pit family members against family members, friends against friends, workers against workers.
Revolution does not just require guts and determination, it requires a ruthlessness beyond measure, the ability to forgo family commitments for a full-bodied uprising.
If a revolution is to be seriously considered, an optimal commitment is expected, organisation needs to be primary. A revolution needs to be motivated at the ripest possible moment, or it is premature and the fullest backing of the working class would not be implemented.
There is a threshold: when is the right time for revolution? When are people fed up with their conditions to the extent that they are willing to revolt? I believe that conditions have to be reasonably unfair, before the masses become active against oppression. Even then, history has shown that complacency and fear can push the idea aside.
Cambridge England
[Abridged.]
Habibie and Pinochet
Invite President Habibie to Australia in 1999 — what a master stroke by our born again prime minister!
Never a mention about human rights at APEC or anywhere else so that Habibie will be lulled into a false sense of security and then, once in Australia, arrested a la Pinochet for complicity in genocide.
Who knows, the next arrest warrant might have Gareth Evans' name on it.
O'Connor ACT
Vehicle safety
When it was announced that a large number of Hyundai Excel vehicles could be affected by poor build quality, a large number of people were extremely concerned.
The actual problem occurring in either an accident or through wear and tear could cause a right-hand suspension arm mount to detach from the rest of the vehicle, leading to loss of steering and braking effort and, in extreme situations, the drive shaft detaching from the transmission and jamming the whole front hub assembly in the wheel arch. The results of this at any speed would be catastrophic.
A proper repair would involve the removal of the engine and transmission assembly, and rewelding the sub-frame, costing Hyundai an estimated $1200 per car.
The company resisted recalling all affected vehicles until the last possible minute. Now, it has made an agreement with the government's Federal Office of Road Safety to a half-hour repair involving 16 rivets to supplement the existing spot-welds. It is not proven how much strain these rivets will take and what effect they will have on a faulty vehicle. No crash tests have been conducted to gauge whether it is safe.
What involvement has the government had in agreeing to Hyundai's pathetic repair program? Why didn't the minister force the company to repair all vehicles to original strength specifications?
The company stands condemned for its failure to keep the safety of the public in mind. The federal government should come clean on its role in this affair and would stand condemned if it has compromised public safety in order to let one company off the hook cheaply.
Enmore NSW
[Abridged.]
Silencing dissent
For more than 20 years, Australian government departments have been using "hired gun" psychiatrists to get rid of employees who rock the boat. Because the employees are capable workers, the departments send secret allegations to Comcare, or HealthQuest in NSW, who "assess" the employee.
These agencies state the "opinion" that the unsuspecting employee is mad, and suddenly apply a non-removable psychiatric label to them. The government agency then informs the employee that they are "medically retired".
Whistleblowers Australia's on-going survey into this has shown that internal witnesses in the Department of Education and Training, Community Services, and Police services are particularly targeted.
The victims have said that their lives have been wrecked overnight, and they were not told why. They report that they had informed the government of and asked it to investigate what appeared to be abuse of children, and possibly paedophilia; racial discrimination; maladministration and/or substantial waste of public funds; victimisation of disabled clients, students and staff; sexual harassment; etc.
The actions by the government officials constitute breaches of Universal Human Rights (employees were not informed of the charges); procedural fairness (the employees were not given a chance to refute the secret charges before decisions were announced); s337 of the Crimes Act (the victims report that the allegations are wilfully false and horrific); the Industrial Relations Act (the victim is summarily excluded from work); the Occupational Health and Safety Act (the employer wilfully inflicts physical and psychological damage on the targeted employee); and privacy legislation, among others.
The authorities are not attempting to fix the problem for the (ex) employees. Current employees are now afraid to be identified regarding the issues.
More documents are generated in avoiding the issues than would be needed if the employer had properly investigated and fixed any problem.
Naturally the employees have taken court actions against the departments for the damages to them personally. The government wastes public money by fighting the employees as long and as high as possible, using the crown barristers to argue through appeals processes — even when it appears that the government officials have wilfully acted outside their duties of office and the law.
If something like this is happening to you, contact Whistleblowers Australia on (02) 9810 9468 or Val on (02) 9518 5390.
Leichardt NSW
[Abridged.]
Mahathir and Anwar
Dr Mahathir's dictatorial rule seemed unshakable at the turn of the '90s. This was because of the booming economy of the region. Local and foreign capitalists propped his conservative dictatorship up.
The immigrant-origin Chinese and Indian groups played safe, putting their vote with the money-makers. Class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness was and is lacking. Mahathir's policy was, and is, to divide and rule the races. Now the upward economy is history.
When Anwar became Deputy PM in 1993 he asked for a lot of contracts for his family members. Mahathir was unwilling to give them too much since he had other cronies. Mahathir gradually worked to reduce Anwar's influence in the government and ruling New United Malay National Organisation (New UMNO) party.
He used anti-corruption to rally the members, but that failed since Mahathir's close allies were such too. Anwar used religious consciousness to rally the members. His support base extends beyond the party into the religious institutions. He is a former preacher.
Though Mahathir loyalists predominated in the party, Anwar's support in New UMNO was good enough for him to challenge the PM in 1999 party polls. Thus, Mahathir sacked Anwar.
Many Malays have joined the group of Anwar allies removed from New UMNO with him. It could end up as a strong opposition party if it were registered by the government.
Though Anwar is a Mahathir man and his religious views are not progressive, the liberal opposition parties have decided to make an alliance with his reformasi group.
The united opposition of 1990 and 1995 failed. Whether they will win in 1999 is yet to be seen — the bearish economy is to their advantage.
[Abridged.]
Iraq
Once again we are being conditioned by radio, television and newspaper reports to accept that the only way to deal with Saddam Hussein is to submit the Iraqi people to intensive air strikes.
Can one of the exceedingly brilliant diplomats presently considering this action please explain how killing Iraqi men, women and children quickly with high explosives will produce a better result than the current method of slow murder by sanctions?
It has been my experience over a long life that slaughter of any kind has never been a satisfactory form of conflict resolution for the long term.
Australian Peace Committee (SA)
Adelaide
Transgender feminism
Wake up. For heavens sake do your research. What a load of undisciplined fuzzy thinking. Where's your politics, GL? Not with women, I suspect.
Maybe I expected more informed journalism from Green Left. Certainly better analysis of the real issues, and a bit more depth and understanding of what women think about trannies in the fold.
You better cast your net wider. Run a good story on the real issues involved. Get broader opinions and then I might feel a bit more enthused about taking out a sub.
Melissa Fennessy, Kilburn SA
[Editor's note: GLW's offers to various feminist activists to print their pro-exclusion side of this debate about the participation of transgender women in the women's liberation movement have been refused.]
Democracy
I wonder if it's dodgy laws or just dodgy pollies which only allow for any kind of independent inquiry into the government's tax reform package after an election — probing for model assumptions that wouldn't consider other than conservative world-view approaches to planning for social health.
How is it that the people continue with their unquestioning faith in the leaders who perpetuate worldwide trends of increasing gaps in "well-being" and of more money flowing from poor to rich hands?!
This kind of status quo protection and exclusion of less conventional and less powerful opinions, values and beliefs should hardly surprise us, given the recent mass media revelation of un-implemented freedom of religion legislation in this country. Evidently, in this farce of a democratia (people's rule) a diversity of community representation and transparent negotiations is too much to ask for!!
The case of Pinochet demonstrates how even in the most extreme of cases, it is legitimate for the elite to protect themselves from being held accountable for crimes against humanity.
Epping NSW