TAFE fees outrage
I refer to the article in the August 4 Sydney Morning Herald which claims that the disadvantaged will be guaranteed free TAFE study.
Unfortunately, this is not yet the case. While students and teachers will be pleased if the minister agrees to multiple fee exemptions, there are thousands of other disadvantaged people who would now have to pay the dramatically increased upfront fee for courses previously fee exempt. Examples of those still having to pay include "youth at risk", "the working poor", spouses of low-paid workers and volunteer tutors.
The NSW government's investment in TAFE has declined by about 25% in real terms per student hour over the last five years, resulting in TAFE funding now being cut by about $400 million per year compared to then.
For a Labor government to try to make disadvantaged and working-class students pay for chronic government underfunding is unconscionable and heartless!
Phil Bradley
assistant general secretary, Post School Education, NSW Teachers Federation
ABC winners will become losers
The ABC Board is unsuccessfully juggling $26.1 million of cuts to ABC programs and services. But it is the federal government, and not the ABC, to which public protest should be directed.
The government has failed to adequately fund the ABC. By seriously undermining its capacity to be a comprehensive broadcaster catering for a diversity of interests in the community, the government is pushing the ABC along a path that will ultimately lead to its demise.
If there continue to be insufficient funds, the ABC's maintenance of some program areas will be at the expense of others. And in the end, the winners will become losers too.
Each time the government imposes further cuts, groups whose interests are not met will see little benefit in the ABC. The existing strong and broad community support for the national broadcaster will drop away as the quality, depth and the breadth of ABC programming is lost.
Even politicians who misrepresent the scrutiny of government as bias should consider carefully what is happening. Australia is in danger of losing a great cultural institution that enriches our lives with quality information and entertainment, and enhances our democracy.
Imagine life without it.
Terry Laidler
President, Friends of the ABC (Victoria)
Israel and peace
To Kimberly James Roachelle (Write On, Green Left Weekly #545), where did you get this strange notion that "all Israel wants is peace"?
Here's a few important facts you seem to have missed:
1) You say Israel has been willingly cut in half several times. Say what please? Israel has been responsible for starting several wars in the name of expanding its country. It suffers the presence of the Palestinians on their land with bad grace, and have tried several times to exterminate them.
2) Where did you get the notion that all people are free to live as they please in Israel? The Palestinians are treated as second-class citizens, forced to live in ghettos and hunted at will by Israeli armed forces. Or did you forget the children that Israel has "accidentally" killed?
3) The Israeli military has been responsible for shooting and killing journalists and peace activists, then providing excuses that conflict utterly with eyewitness reports.
It is true that the actions of Palestinian fundamentalists, such as the Hamas movement, are disgraceful acts. It is also true that as many as 1 million Israelis do truly want peace. But to sum up the entire Middle East situation as "Israel good; Palestine bad" is childish.
The Israeli government, to all indications, does not want peace. It seeks to expand its country by any and all possible means, at the expense of its neighbours. Just as the Palestinians seek a country of their own.
Sam Morrison
Brisbane
A new approach needed
The attack on Jakarta's Marriott Hotel on August 5 only highlights the need for a new approach for dealing with international organisations that are prepared to use violence. Australia, its Western allies, and the media continue to demonise organisations like al Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiah (JI) as terrorists whose only objective is to kill Westerners.
There are two points to be made about how our leaders and the media portray these groups. The first is that our accusations are tainted by our own bloody hands. To use an old legal cliche — our hands aren't clean. Australia actively participated in the illegal invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These unprovoked attacks resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives. In effect, it was simply state-sponsored terrorism.
The second point is that our country's uncompromising approach towards al Qaeda and JI has resulted in the very things that we wish to avoid — namely more attacks. By failing to analyse the reasons for the hostility, we are providing the fertiliser that helps such organisations to germinate. Howard and Bush are obsessed with fighting terrorism, and the organisations that use violence rely on this to bolster their numbers.
Bush, Blair and Howard don't analyse the issues more deeply because they are afraid. They know that their actions, and those of their predecessors, are morally culpable. For example, look at the support the US gave to Saddam Hussein in his first decade in power; the current US support of the Pakistani military junta and Saudi Arabian absolute monarchy.
Look at the hypocrisy and lies regarding weapons of mass destruction and the US expenditure on such weapons. It isn't poverty and economic inequality that is feeding groups like al Qaeda and JI. It is the US's own desire for power, and the commensurate injustice that they and their allies perpetrate, which provides the impetus.
Our salvation won't come from any ongoing battle against terrorism. A beginning might be to open a dialogue with al Qaeda and JI in order to better understand their demands. As with the IRA in Northern Ireland and the PLO in Palestine, we may need to engage with our created nemesis in order to prevent the violence from growing like malignant metastases.
Adam Bonner
Meroo Meadow NSW
Amateur ministers
When responding to the damning reports about NSW Railways' safety and maintenance, transport minister Michael Costa refused to blame predecessor Carl Scully but he did blame senior managers in State Rail.
Amazingly, the Westminster system convention holds that functionally amateur ministers must take final responsibility for the faults of the department. This hardly makes sense. What is really at fault here is the Westminster system itself.
Although much glorified by the British, the requirement that ministers must be in and of the parliament, meaning that they must have been elected, limits the choice for the ministry enormously, even dangerously.
Take note: most other democracies in the world do this quite differently. The party or parties that have won a general election are generally at liberty to select ministers from outside parliament, people who have proven themselves in the functional areas of their portfolio.
Selecting amateur ministers surely is a recipe for incompetent government. In NSW, we have seen examples galore quite recently: DoCS, education and now transport. Westminster may be the political culture but cultures can change
Klaas Woldring
Pearl Beach NSW
More humour
Last night while surfing the web, I typed in the search phrase "Green Left". Your web site was the first search result listed.
I read the Green Left Weekly almost every week until a couple of years ago, so I knew what to expect. Sure enough, I found the content informative, but also predictable and as dry as dust. I read as much of the doom and gloom stories about war, oppression and injustice as I could stomach. Then I yawned, and in a somewhat depressed state turned off the computer and went to bed.
I tossed and turned for hours, wondering what was ailing me. Eventually, the answer entered my by now delirious brain. Michael Moore! Yep, that pudgy little guy was the answer to the question I never new I had asked.
After years of sagging interest in politics, I stumbled on Mike Moore's The Awful Truth on SBS while channel surfing. Here was a comrade not afraid to kick the Right just where it hurts most, the funny bone! This working-class lad had worked out that the best way in today's world to expose the awful truth about capitalism and its right-wing constituency is to poke fun at it. And it works comrades, it surely does!
Mike Moore has become one of the American left's most influential commentators. He has galvanised the faithful, brought disillusioned leftists back to the flock and won converts, especially amongst university students, the working class and minority groups.
This left-wing coup points to a tactic progressives have ignored for too long. The left needs to use humour as a tool to expose the truth about capitalist-liberal democracies. This doesn't mean that presenting information in a hard edged way is no longer effective. It is.
After all, reading Marx, Lenin and papers like the Green Left gave me the tools to understand what is going on around me. However, this alone is not enough. Before the left can again match it with the right in this country, we need to rekindle the energy that existed a generation ago. We must use all ethical methods at our disposal to do this, and that includes laughing at the enemy.
So where do we go from here? Do we kidnap Mike or try to clone him? Well no, I don't think we need to resort to such drastic measures. All we need do use satire and comedy whenever and wherever it is appropriate. Maybe a column or two in Green Left Weekly would be a great start.
Steve Munn
Thornbury Vic
[Abridged.]
Mark Latham
I was astonished to read in GLW (#548 web edition) a letter from William Mark Hardiker promoting Mark Latham as a "revolutionary" and as an antidote to Labor's current woes.
A reading of last weekend's profile on Latham in the Australian should be enough to dispel any such notion. Mark Lat ham is the Tony Blair of the ALP. He wants Labor to abandon any romantic attachment to socialism and pursue an unabashed free market agenda.
Within any free market economy there are conflicting interests. Latham sees Labor's future in championing one set of interests against another. Mark Latham likes to present an image of himself as a class warrior but in reality the policies he espouses will do enormous harm to ordinary working men and women as they did during the Hawke-Keating years of the 1980s.
Mark Latham is not a solution to the problem but very much part of the problem.
Michael Berrell
email
Mahathir Mohamad
Malaysia is coming to the end of the Mahathir Mohamad era. November 1, 2003, or even October 27, 2003, would mark the day the autocratic prime minister hands over power to his liberal deputy, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Mahathir is credited for bringing Malaysia into the industrial era, and his role in nation building is not unlike Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, who is a close friend of his.
Nevertheless, he has proven himself to be the most autocratic ruler Malaysia has had since independence from Britain in 1957.
Between 1957 and 1981, when Mahathir was appointed prime minister, Malaysian prime ministers were more democratic and less corrupt, despite coming from the same conservative United Malay National Organisation (UMNO) party.
This is the party that won British-era pre-independence elections that saw brutal suppression of the socialist People's Party of Malaysia (which has just merged with the Justice Party of Anwar Ibrahim).
True, the British made sure Malaysia's independence in 1957 was accompanied by a 30-year continuation of detention-without-trial laws that the colonial power introduced to stifle the left-wing People's Party and the Maoist Communist Party of Malaysia which led a guerilla revolt from 1948-89.
But repression under the first three premiers was mainly the responsibility of the powerful council of sultans (nine of them), the once-absolute monarchs who were reluctant to see their powers disappear with independence and constitutional monarchy.
It was only when Mahathir assumed the leadership that the sultans agreed to hand over complete power to the premier. This was achieved by Mahathir because of his wife's close personal friendship with the richest and most powerful of the sultans (three out of the nine).
Within UMNO, there have been attempts to kick Mahathir out of power. The first of which was led by liberal-minded cabinet ministers Musa Hitam and Prince Razaleigh Hamzah in 1987.
They paid the price for their revolt by being suspended and for a while, expelled, from the ruling party.
Abdullah, the new premier, also suffered a similar fate for being associated with Musa and Razaleigh.
In 1997, Anwar Ibrahim, former fundamentalist leader turned Mahathir cabinet member, revolted against his boss. While no saint, Anwar was nevertheless made to look like a martyr and victim when Mahathir irrationally locked him up without trial (this usually happens to his opponents) and had him badly beaten up.
Then, after a trial by a kangaroo court, Anwar was sentenced to 15 years' jail for corruption and sodomy.
Mahathir eventually chose to retire, following pressure from the West, which is unhappy with his "anti-imperialist" rhetoric. He was never a genuine anti-imperialist, but a very business-friendly leader. Anti-imperialism was merely an image for Mahathir.
It is hoped that Abdullah will gradually liberalise the country, and release all political prisoners. Detention without trial should be the first policy to go.
The [Australian left] can help the weak and dying Malaysian opposition (due to internal fighting, autocratic leadership and repression) by campaigning for Australians to buy less Malaysian-made cars and not supporting Mahathir's beloved white elephants, the Petronas Towers and the eco-unfriendly Bakun and Selangor River Dams.
Taha Ariffin bin Yassin
Malaysia
United Nations
The United Nations has to be levelled and rebuilt because it is dominated by superpowers.
All countries in the UN should be spared of their veto powers, otherwise a new set of veto countries should emerge.
I would suggest the following countries possess veto powers: Developed world — Australia (because it is the most multi-racial and considerably democratic); developing world — Mauritius (another democratic and multi-racial country); Islamic world — Malaysia (reasonably less repressive than the rest, and multi-racial too); and Communist world — Cuba.
The UN should have the power to intervene in every country that violates human rights, and this should also include developed countries.
The four new veto countries should be given supervisory powers over the countries in their respective spheres.
Raymond Ngau
Sarawak
Malaysia
Saudi Arabia in focus
Saudi Arabia has been the scene of several arduous anti-terrorist operations in recent weeks. A few of Saudi Arabia's security forces have reportedly been killed in these operations.
It seems Saudi officials have received the ultimate message conveyed by the recent US congressional report into the 9/11 events, because they have obviously begun considerable efforts to ease the White House pressure and criticism as much as possible.
Of course, no-one can still foresee how effective these attempts would be to satisfy America's expectations and divert their attention from the traditional Kingdom! None-the-less it is quite predictable that Saudi regime would have difficult days in coming years.
No need to say Saudi officials are indeed facing a full dilemma: constant criticism and vilification levelled by religious extremists inside, and unbearable pressure from the US to arrest al Qaeda members and liberalise the kingdom's social and political institutions, outside. This has dragged the Saudi regime into an unprecedented critical situation.
It should be noted that any attempt to suppress religious groups in a traditional and fanatical society like Saudi Arabia might be misunderstood as a blasphemous action by most of people and lead to massive uprisings.
No doubt, it would be a risky task to play with people's religious feelings in traditional societies in which religion is indisputably a very sensitive social institution.
On the other hand, the White House pressure is much more intolerable than religious extremism. Saudi policy-makers can never be oblivious of the Americans' criticism, because the Saudi regime as a close US ally has always had firm economic and political ties with it. It played a pivotal role in the regional power balance before the collapse of the Soviet Union. It really bore a heavy burden in launching an ideological and political anti-Soviet campaign in the Middle East.
"Should the actors change too or they can take new roles?"
Perhaps, it would be useless to find a clear and definite answer to the above question. However, it is quite evident to everyone that the preservation or removal of the actors depends to a great extent on their own adaptability to new conditions. Simply, more flexibility would exactly mean more chance to live on!
For example, some Arab governments such as Jordan's as well as Morocco's kingdom have apparently grasped the new conditions, for signs of reforms at different levels can clearly be seen in these countries.
Now, one may ask: " To what extent would the Saudis be able to comprehend the world's existing conditions and tolerate similar reforms?"
Of course, it might seem unlikely for a traditional and closed society like Saudi Arabia, in which signs of tribal and feudal relations are still visible everywhere, to conduct vast reforms in social and political spheres. However, it is a vivid fact that the Saudis and other similar regimes all across the world do themselves know well that they have no other choice; only radical reforms can retain them in power for a while!
It should also be mentioned that severe reactions to reforms such as massive uprisings or military mutinies are a main source of concern for many reformists in these countries.
On the whole, there is much historical evidence, which shows that dictatorial regimes are generally unable to realise the specific conditions of the time in right way and at right time. Therefore, they experience the same painful fates.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, despite a large number of similarities to many other dictatorships, the situation is somewhat complicated. Generally speaking, in countries that possess rich natural resources including Saudi Arabia, there is a remarkable gap between economic development and sociopolitical changes.
In these countries, huge natural wealth along with some other ideological and geographical factors have caused a considerable delay in social and political transformations.
As a result, contradictions between modernism and traditionalism in these societies are so dense and acute that they have nearly been turned into " ticking bombs", which might explode at any time.
In short, Saudi officials have to make a very painful choice between bad and worse! In addition, they should be extremely careful not to provoke people's sensational reactions by conducting unplanned and hasty reforms, because they might be engulfed and drowned in their self-created reform waves.
In the meantime, the continuation of the existing situation with regard to the recent developments in the world as well as the US growing pressure is also impossible, for any resistance against sociopolitical reforms as was said before may lead to a huge massive explosion and unpredictable consequences.
As for the Saudis' anti-terrorist activities, it would be extremely optimistic to suppose that the recent operations would lead to the full eradication of terrorism in the kingdom, because the ongoing violence stems from a number of deep-rooted causes.
Generally speaking, in many developing countries, including Saudi Arabia due to the remnants of tribal-feudal relations along with the existence of a powerful traditional petty-bourgeois class, there exists a very fertile ground for the growth of religious extremism and adventurous activities.
It seems that in the long term only, radical changes in the class pyramid as well as economic and sociopolitical infrastructures of the country can curb terrorist activities.
Nasser Frounchi From Green Left Weekly, August 13, 2003.
Lecturer in journalism
Torbat-e-Jaam University
Iran
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.