Page 1201

UN human rights chief to send mission to investigate abuses in Papua

By Sheany in Jakarta

The United Nations High Commission for Human Rights plans to send a mission to Indonesia’s easternmost province of Papua following reports of abuses against its indigenous population.

“I am also concerned about reports of excessive use of force by security forces, harassment, arbitrary arrests and detentions in Papua,” UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein told reporters during his three-day visit to Indonesia.

He added that the Indonesian government had extended an invitation to the UN to visit Papua — the country’s poorest region.

READ MORE: UN rights chief warns ‘intolerance’ and political extremism making inroads in Indonesia

“I think it’s important for us to go and see ourselves what is happening there … and I hope we can do this as soon as possible,” Al-Hussein said.

Accounts of rights violations in Papua have prompted concerns from activists and the larger international community.

The government was earlier accused of restricting access for foreign correspondents to the region.

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s administration has prioritised development in Papua through massive infrastructure projects aimed at boosting the province’s economic growth.

More recently, dozens of Papuans – mostly children – died from malnutrition-related diseases in the province’s Asmat district.

The health crisis has led to allegations that the government’s focus on development in the region does not serve the welfare of its population.

“They [the UN] can visit Papua. I told them that if they find faults, we will take action [to address them],” Coordinating Maritime Affairs Minister Luhut Pandjaitan said after his meeting with Al-Hussein.

The UN human rights chief also warned of the “dark clouds” of political extremism and intolerance that are building over Indonesia.

Al-Hussein highlighted the blasphemy laws that were used to imprison Jakarta’s governor last year, and planned new legislation that will criminalise gay sex.

“If Muslim societies expect others to fight against Islamophobia, we should be prepared to end discrimination at home too,” said al-Hussein, who is Muslim.

Sheany is a journalist with the Jakarta Globe.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Philippine mining company wins Bougainville search licence

By Franklin Kolma

The Autonomous Bougainville Government has granted its second mining exploration licence to a Philippine company in a low-key event at Tunania, the seaside home of Bougainville crisis commander of rebel forces Sam Kauona.

The event was set against the sombre double backdrop of the bloody crisis which had begun as a protest against mining giant Bougainville Copper in 1989 and a desperate race against time to get some serious investment on the ground before the referendum next June to decide the question of independence for the Autonomous Region.

Bougainville Exploration Licence No. 5 covering a 183 sq km area was launched by Bougainville President Dr John Momis with a plea to stand “united” and “strong”.

The echoes of the crisis were palpable here and brought a sombre note to an occasion that speaker, after speaker suggested, was “the turning point”, “a special milestone”, “a breakthrough”, and a fresh start”.

The silence and the people’s reactions spoke more forcefully than the speeches.

The people gathered in small silent groups under the shade of trees and coconut palms, more observers than participants, while the representatives of Philippine company, SR Metals Inc. battled it out in the clearing under the blazing sun, appearing to all like a graduating class of foreigners in some Bougainville initiation ceremony.

The chiefs of nine affected clans were first called out and they gave their blessing and permission for the forests to be disturbed in the interest of all during the exploration period.

Leap of faith
Then each speaker coaxed the people to leave their fears behind and take a leap of faith.

Sam Kauona said: “I fought for this 28 years ago. After going through many years of sacrifice and pain, we deserve to see the benefit of what we fought for. I as your general assure you. Do not be afraid. Let us move forward.”

Bougainville President Dr John Momis said: “Bougainville now stands at the threshold of a new social, economic, political, and moral order.

“Independence is imminent, just round the corner. But independence will not just happen.

“We dream dreams and we want to be free. We want to be free agents of development. We want to break away from the syndrome of dependency and economic exploitation and manipulation by those who have money because we treasure our people and their resources.

“But we need resources ourselves to do this. That is why Mr Gutierrez [manager of SR Metals], we are so grateful that you could have listened to my plea to have come to Bougainville.”

Bougainville South MP and Deputy Opposition Leader Timothy Masiu said: “This is a breakthrough. This is the day that our former leaders and our people have dreamt of and fought for. The wheels of change are starting now.”

Call for trust
“Masiu called on the people to trust in the leadership of the ABG and be responsible partners in all undertakings if there was to be real meaningful development.

“These people (mining company) have the expertise. They have the experience. They have the money. They will teach us how to do mining but only if we respect them and look after them.”

The SR Metals Inc Managing Director Eric Gutierrez said his people were ready but would mobilise only if the company was invited by the government and the people.

Mrs Kauona, representing women, said: “We mothers bore the burden of the mining industry here in Bougainville. 20,000 people have died because of this industry, because of Panguna mine.

“Our children have bathed this island with their blood. Today we celebrate because this new deal has been forged out of the expensive and fresh blood of our children.

“Papua New Guinea was sustained by Bougainville. We are doing the same thing. History has come around again. We are going to sustain the independence and livelihood of Bougainville.”

Frank Kolma is a senior journalist with the PNG Post-Courier.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

RSF condemns new gagging threats to outspoken Philippine media outlets

]]>

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) is now organising regular “Black Friday” demonstrations in support of media outlets that have been the victims of government hostility. Image: RSF

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Kodao Productions, a Philippine alternative news website, is still down after being the target of a cyber-attack six days ago and Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has condemned this new assault on media freedom in the Philippines.

The Paris-based media freedom watchdog is worried about this latest blow to media freedom, which comes against a backdrop of government hostility towards critical media outlets, including Catholic Church radio stations.

“Site currently not available” was the error message seen when trying to access the Kodao website.

READ MORE: UN critics join global outrage over Duterte’s Rappler ‘free press’ attack

But Pacific Media Watch reports that Kodao Productions now has a “defend press freedom” message posted on the page while the website’s news coverage still cannot be accessed.

As a result of a cyber-attack consisting of a malicious code injection at around midnight on February 1, the site is no longer able to post new content and readers cannot access past content.

-Partners-

The attack has come amid mounting tension between allies of President Rodrigo Duterte and media outlets of various ideological tendencies whose common feature is a readiness to criticise the quick-tempered president’s policies.

54 radio stations at risk
Concern is growing about the fate of Catholic Media Network, a nationwide network of 54 Catholic Church-run radio stations whose 25-year licence expired on 4 August 2017.

The licence renewal application was submitted on 24 January 2017 but has been blocked ever since in the House of Representatives, where it has yet to be put on the agenda of the relevant committee.

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, which runs the network, now fears that the 54 radio stations could be shut down at any time.

“We urge Philippine parliamentarians to address the Catholic Media Network application so that this licence can finally be renewed,” said Daniel Bastard, head of RSF’s Asia-Pacific desk.

“It should be a mere formality, nothing more than a stamp on a four-page document. Given the Catholic Church’s criticism of the Duterte administration, this refusal to renew clearly seems to be politically motivated,” he said.

“Meanwhile, as Kodao is well known for its uncompromising criticism of the authorities, its suspension also has all the hallmarks of a reprisal against the free press.”

‘Dutertards’
The cyber-attack on Kodao could have been the work of President Duterte’s army of trolls, also known as “Dutertards”. According to a recent University of Oxford study, the president spent $200,000 on recruiting them.

Founded in 2000, Kodao Productions is known for its coverage of human rights, the environment and the decades-old, on-off peace talks between successive governments and the Maoist left.

Catholic Media Network, for its part, has often referred to the extrajudicial killings linked to the “war on drugs” waged by Duterte, which has already had an estimated death toll of more than 7000, according to Philippine media freedom monitoring groups.

On January 15, a government spokesman announced the withdrawal of the licence of Rappler, the country’s leading news website, which has appealed against the decision.

RSF referred the licence withdrawal to the United Nations, which responded 10 days later by expressing deep concern about this violation of media freedom.

The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines is now organising regular “Black Friday” demonstrations in support of media outlets that have been the victims of government hostility.

The Philippines is ranked 127th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2017 World Press Freedom Index.

Cyber-attacked … Kodao Propductions and its #defendpressfreedom message. Image: PMC
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

A timely climate media strategy to empower citizens

BOOKS: By David Robie, editor of Pacific Journalism Review

At the time of reviewing this important and timely book, Hurricane Irma had just ripped a trail of unprecedented destruction from Antigua, Barbuda and Saint Barthélemy in the eastern Caribbean to Florida with at least 81 deaths.

Florida involved one of the largest mass evacuations in US history, with nearly 7 million people being warned to seek shelter elsewhere. Seventy percent of Miami lost electricity at the height of the storm.

And Irma in turn had followed on the heels of Hurricane Harvey, which devastated a large swathe of Texas. This was the first major hurricane to hit US soil in more than a dozen years.

Seventy-one fatalities and more than US$70 billion in damage. Two wrecking storms of such destructive force hitting the US mainland in less than a fortnight. Unsurprisingly, President Donald Trump dismissed any link between climate change and the two hurricanes.

“We’ve had bigger storms than this,” he snorted, even though earlier he had “marvelled” at their historic size.

The catastrophic category 5 Hurricane Irma sparked an analysis of media responses by Carbon Brief and a forensic examination of the science of climate and Atlantic hurricanes. Citing three climate specialists in particular, the website concluded: ‘The strongest hurricanes have gotten stronger because of global warming’ (Multiple authors, 2017).

-Partners-

Florida’s global warming denier governor Rick Scott weathered criticism after the devastation to his state by still refusing to say—as he had done for seven years since he was first elected in 2010—if he believes man-made climate change is real (Caputo, 2017).

Rather ironic
This is all rather ironic given that at the time of completing Journalism and Climate Crisis: Public Engagement, Media Alternatives, the co-authors were writing in the context of massive wildfire ravages in the Canadian city of Fort McMurray—epicentre of one of the world’s most controversial energy mega-projects, the Alberta tar sands—and, on the other side of the globe, aggressive wildfires were savaging Australia with sharply increasing frequency and intensity.

Just a few years earlier, in 2009, 173 people had perished in the “Black Saturday” bushfires that engulfed the community of Kinglake in the state of Victoria. Disturbing coral bleaching was also damaging Australia’s popular tourist attraction Great Barrier Reef off the Queensland coast.

Noting that the reality of anthropogenic climate challenge can no longer be ignored, this book warns that neither can the “responsibility of journalism to inform, motivate and empower citizens to engage with the problem” (p. 2)

Journalism and Climate Crisis seeks to disrupt the status quo of the way climate change is reported in much of the world, especially Anglo countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, and to offer strategies for community empowerment, action and hope in the digital age.

While much of the mainstream media, compromised as they are through their declining commercial models, offer little scope for change, the co-authors offer many examples of active communication success, mostly through alternative media.

The four co-authors are uniquely qualified for this collaborative volume. Robert A. Hackett is professor of communication at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, and as a co-founder of NewsWatch Canada, and has been a leading writer on environmental and peace journalism models. He also contributed an issue-defining article in the July 2017 edition of Pacific Journalism Review on climate change and critical media models.

Susan Forde is director of the Griffith Centre for Social and Cultural Research and associate professor of journalism at Griffith University, Australia, and whose books include Challenging the News on alternative media. Shane Gunster is a colleague of Hackett at Simon Fraser University, where he is an associate professor in the School of Communication. Kerrie Foxwell-Norton is senior lecturer in journalism and media studies at Griffith University and a co-author of Developing Dialogue.

‘Normative touchstones’
The book is divided into seven chapters as well as an introduction to journalism models for climate crisis and a conclusion written by the co-authors. The first chapter is on Democracy, Climate Crisis and Journalism, looking at “normative touchstones”, followed by a chapter on Engaging Climate Communication, which examines audiences, frames, values and norms. The third chapter deals with Environmental Protest, Politics and Media Interactions.

Chapter four From Frames to Paradigms offers an in-depth comparative analysis of civic (or public) journalism, peace journalism and alternative media. This is followed by a British Columbia case study on Contesting Conflict with an examination of advocacy and alternative media in that province.

Chapter six analyses Australian independent news media and climate change in the context of COP21 when the historic Paris Agreement was forged. The final chapter looks at a Guardian Australia case study to demonstrate alternative approaches to environmental coverage. The conclusion offers a strategy for ‘media reform for climate action’.

Writing about “ordinary journalism in extraordinary times”, the authors argue that the conglomerates that “increasingly dominate media ownership are maximising short-term profits, stripping assets and disinvesting in news and thus have declining capacity and inclination to face up to the challenges of climate crisis”. Mirroring the arguments of McChesney and Nichols, for example, the authors state:

Working journalists are faced with tighter deadlines, heavier workloads, multiplatform demands, a 24/7 news hole to fill and a broader palette of topics to report. The result is predictable: fewer beat [rounds] reporters with specialised expertise, less investigative or accountability journalism, more pressure to act like stenographers, reporting competing claims rather than assessing their respective validity (p. 4).

However, the problem does not end there. It goes beyond the “crisis of journalism’s business model—Climate Crisis journalism faces additional barriers of institutional structure, class power and ideology”. Citing Naomi Klein’s argument for taking climate change seriously, they reaffirm the need for a positive role for government, a strengthened public sector and collective action—which is precisely why conservative political forces, especially in North America and Australia, prefer not to take it seriously.

The co-authors argue that journalism needs to rethink its mission to cover urgent political issues such as climate change. The problem is less about the informed citizen, and much more about empowering the public to be engaged. They are highly critical of how “elite media” in Australia and the US, for example, have privileged denialist opinion and vested interests, blaming them for widespread misinformation and disengagement. This is contrasted with Western Europe’s “vibrant and pluralistic” media systems.

The co-authors draw from the Christians et al. (2009) model of four normative democratic roles for journalism in their search for answers. While they critique the limited effectiveness of the traditional monitoring and the watchdog function of the media (and institutional biases of “objectivity”), they propose the facilitative role seeking to improve the quality of public life and the radical role foregrounding social injustice and abuses of power as being more helpful for climate crisis strategies. They give less emphasis to the collaborative role “in support for broader and dominant social purposes”, but this latter category is important in many developing countries, such as in the Pacific.

Their concluding and positive message is that global media reformers and environmentalists have a strong basis for common ground in seeking public support for alternative media and independent journalism as key pillars of democracy and climate communication.

Journalism and Climate Crisis: Public Engagement, Media Alternatives, edited by Robert A. Hackett, Susan Forde, Shane Gunster and Kerrie Foxwell-Norton. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. 2017. 204 pages. ISBN 978-1-1389-5039-9. This review was first published by Pacific Journalism Review.

Full references

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

‘We prayed with them until they died’ – stories of Kiribati ferry survival

]]>

Coming ashore … seven ferry disaster survivors reach Kiribati and tell their stories. Image: TVNZ video clip

By Barbara Dreaver, TVNZ’s Pacific correspondent

With 93 people still missing, the first reports of survival – and loss – are starting to emerge from the sunken ferry MV Butiraoi in Kiribati.

In the first interview with Radio Kiribati, one of only seven survivors Temake Ioane told how he had to watch his two children dying over several days.

Ioane said there were three explosions on the 17m catamaran and the third broke it in two.

LISTEN: Radio Kiribati Online

Many did not survive the sinking, but those who did managed to clamber on to three boats.

-Partners-

However, Ioane said the rubber boat was so overloaded it split in half, leaving only two small dinghies.

The father of two said he managed to get his two children on board one of them – along with more than 20 others who either were on board on clinging to the side.

Only seven survivors have been found and family members have attended a church service in Auckland.

Clinging to boat for 6 days
Speaking in I-Kiribati, Ioane, who himself was clinging to the side of the boat for six days, said the ones that floated alongside the boats were the first to die “we prayed with them until they died”.

It was on the sixth day, without food and water, that the old women and children on board the boat started to die.

The first was his three-year-old son Tauti Temwake and then his eight-year-old daughter Remwati. Others were delirious from lack of water and jumped off the dinghy thinking they were going to buy food, he said.

On the January 28, 10 days after the ferry set sail from the island of Nonouti, only seven survivors including Ioane were found by the NZ Air force P3 Orion.

Ioane said he last saw the other remaining dinghy with the captain on board and other survivors drifting towards land after the ferry sank.

They have not been found.

Barbara Dreaver is TVNZ’s 1 News Pacific correspondent. This article is republished with permission.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Crown breached Crimes Act over ‘depoliticising’ Treaty of Waitangi

]]>

Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840 … a “historical deception” that the British Crown gained sovereignty over New Zealand. Image: Steve Edwards

OPINION: By Steve Edwards

The New Zealand government’s ongoing failure to acknowledge that the British Crown did not gain sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840 is a breach of the Crimes Act.

In October 2014, this historical deception was made emphatically clear by the Waitangi Tribunal, which found that Māori did not sign away sovereignty when 512 chiefs, or rangatira, signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840.

LISTEN: PM says treaty must be treated as a ‘living document’ – Radio Waatea

Instead of the Crown spelling out to New Zealanders these essential truths since late 2014, it has deceitfully left intact this country’s fairy-tale creation myth that a cession of sovereignty occurred at Waitangi in those flaggy scenes of 1840.

Therefore, the Crown has breached section 240 of the Crimes Act, which covers deception to gain ownership or possession or control over property, or privilege, or to benefit economically, or cause loss to others.

Moreover, since the Waitangi Tribunal’s widely publicised investigation into the United Tribes’ 1835 Declaration of Independence and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Crown has pursued a deceptive strategy to avoid admitting that it has no legitimate claim to sovereign authority.

-Partners-

Steve Edwards is Pākehā, a television editor, and blogs on Snoopman News.

Māori land loss … These five maps show progressive structural dispossession in 1860, 1890, 1910, 1939 and 2000 over the North Island. Māori land is shaded in blue. Montage: NZ History
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

The Daily Blog: Jacinda’s Waitangi Day 2018 aroha creating a Māori legacy relationship

]]>

Cartoon: © Malcolm Evans/The Daily Blog

OPINION: By Martyn Bradbury, editor of The Daily Blog

Waitangi Day 2018 smells different doesn’t it?

It tastes different too.

No bitter “Māori privilege” nonsense from Don Brash and his shallow racism.

No spiteful “Let’s have a NZ day so we don’t have to feel guilty about the Treaty” whining from newspaper editorials.

READ MORE: PM Jacinda Ardern makes historic speech at Waitangi

No constant media barking up of predictions of aggression and protest.

-Partners-

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s desire to show Waitangi Day the respect it deserves with a 5-day tour visiting every marae large and small alongside ministers meekly lined up to do the BBQ cooking for Waitangi Breakfast is building a movement of aroha among Māori which will create a legacy relationship that is going to dominate Māori politics.

The electricity when she visits marae is palpable and extraordinary. Her incredible ability to connect emotionally with people has generated a rapport among those packed marae she has visited in a way that will earn her devotion among voters while forgiving any shortcomings.

Political lifetime
If she makes this 5-day tour an annual event she will build a following that will see Māori voting Labour because of their relationship with Jacinda for her entire political lifetime.

Her being pregnant is just the emotional icing, Māori in Northland have taken to Jacinda with nothing short of joy and her visiting everywhere has conjured up an excitement that will bind.

They will speak about Jacinda passing through for decades to come.

This personal relationship is going to cement Labour Party dominance of the Māori electorates leaving any resurgent Māori Party under a new leader like Dr Lance O’Sullivan with only the right for political movement because Labour will totally dominate the Māori vote on the general roll and the Māori roll.

With Jacinda building a huge reservoir of Māori voter support and the Māori faction inside Labour now one of the most powerful factions inside Labour, this puts the Iwi Leaders Forum, the Māori King and the Public Service all in a troubling position.

Many Māori live in urban areas and are not tribe affiliated. Their needs for better social services, jobs and the legacy issues created by colonialism trump Treaty deals which is offside to the goals of the Māori King or the Iwi Leaders Forum. With urban Māori having a far more powerful voice inside the new government, those movements will need to see any extra resources making a dynamic impact on the poorest.

But there’s another segment who are about to face an existential threat – the Public Service.

Building of fiefdoms
Māori know first hand the structural racism of the social service providers who care more about the building of fiefdoms than the actual welfare of Māori. Already the Public Service is strangling ministers with ministerial suffocation but the new Māori faction aren’t going to accept that.

Māori social service providers offer a wealth of cultural initiatives that bring a holistic view to caring about people and the Public Service will either need to adapt to those new initiatives or they’ll face an ongoing battle with a Māori faction that knows damn well how the Public Service denigrate their people.

The crowds thronging Jacinda on every marae suggest it’s a fight the Public Service are going to lose.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

United ULMWP executive confident of O’Neill’s West Papua support

]]>

New ULMWP executive endorsed in Port Vila … pleas for more European Union and ACP bloc support. Image: Vanuatu Daily Post

By Len Garae in Port Vila

The executive of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) has complied with Papua New Guinean Prime Minister Peter O’Neill’s request to unite and is confident he will vote to support West Papua’s application to become a full member of the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

O’Neill is chairman of the MSG in Port Moresby which is meeting next week.

ULMWP spokesman Jacob Rumbiak said its week-long meeting in Port Vila had resulted in the spirit for West Papua to be more determined, organised and unified than ever before to end the alleged genocide by Indonesia of their people in West Papua.

READ MORE: Asian rights body calls for more action over Papua health crisis

In its meeting, ULMWP has made changes in its leadership, structure, bylaws as well as membership.

Rumbiak said the executive produced clear job descriptions, agenda, action plan, tactics and and strategy.

-Partners-

“The agenda was submitted by the executive committee, endorsed by the legislative committee and approved by its judicial committee,” Rumbiak said.

While the ULMWP executive is attending the MSG meeting in Port Moresby next week, Rumbiak said Papuans were still dying at the hands of the colonial power Indonesia.

Poisoning incident
For example, last week yesterday a young leader of the National Parliament of West Papua, Wendi Wenda, 20, died in a suspected poisoning incident, Rumbiak said, translating from an international report.

Speaking for the Vanuatu Free West Papua Association executive committee and Vanuatu Christian Council, Job Dalesa called on all churches in Vanuatu to pray for West Papua.

“If West Papua is a global issue, then it also requires active global engagement as well,” Dalesa said.

“Australia also has to rethink its foreign policy regarding its bilateral defence cooperation with Indonesia when we speak of global engagement because, indirectly, Australia seems to be contributing towards reports of longstanding atrocities in West Papua.”

Dalesa also challenged PNG and Fiji to recognise the positions they had taken regarding West Papua.

In PNG, Dalesa said he believed the PNG Council of Churches would now adopt a more pro-active role to support West Papua.

At the European Union (EU) and the Africa Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) bloc in Brussels, Dalesa called on the government to keep the momentum going by appointing an “aggressive voice” in the absence of the former Ambassador to the EU, Roy Micky Joy, to “keep knocking and voicing West Papua’s plight” globally through the EU and ACP.

He reminded the government that the people of Vanuatu could do as much as they wanted at home and in the region, but that without concrete support from EU and ACP in Brussels, the West Papua issue would not advance internationally as fast and as effectively.

Len Garae is a senior journalist of the Vanuatu Daily Post. Daily Post articles are republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Asian rights body calls for more action by Jakarta over Papuan health crisis

]]>

Al Jazeera’s Step Vaessen was given exclusive access to report on the measles outbreak from Asatat, in Indonesia’s Papua province.

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has called for more action about the health crisis facing Asmat regency in Indonesian-ruled Papua.

The commission has blamed the Indonesian government “for this considerable loss of life”.

“The current efforts to address the problem are simply too little, too late,” it said in a statement from Hongkong.

So far, 68 children have died from measles and serious malnutrition in Asmat.

As reported by national media in Indonesia, the measles and malnutrition epidemic has affected 11 districts of Asmat regency: Swator, Aswi, Akat, Fayit, Pulau Tiga, Kolf Branza, Jetsy, Pantai Kasuari, Safan, Unirsarau, and Siret.

-Partners-

“Being the most remote areas of Asmat regency, victims in these districts have faced serious difficulties in obtaining access to medical facilities,” the AHRC statement said.

“Even in the regency’s capital, Agats, the Agats General Hospital (RSUD) is not equipped to deal with all the patients of measles and malnutrition.”

Patients in church
A category D hospital with limited facilities, paramedics and doctors, the hospital at present needed more medicine due to limited stock, and due to limited space, some patients have been hospitalised in the nearest church building, the AHRC statement said.

This circumstance showed how Papua had been left behind in terms of health facilities, infrastructure and development.

In Jakarta, Java island or other islands such as Sumatra and Bali, there were numerous public and private hospitals of type B and A, easy to access, the statement said.

Papua mostly has public hospitals of type D, especially in remote areas. There is a category A hospital in Jayapura city, the capital of Papua, but it is quite far from Agats and to reach Jayapura from Agats is not easy due to the lack of infrastructure.

“This situation clearly highlights how neither the central government of Indonesia in Jakarta, nor the local government in Papua province and Asmat regency have been able to develop an early warning system to prevent measles and malnutrition.”

Screen shots from an Al Jazeera report by Step Vaessen on the measles outbreak in Papua. Image: PMC

The AHRC said it was concerned that the epidemic could easily spread to other places in Papua, particularly in remote areas lacking in health facilities.

Since Papua was integrated into the Republic of Indonesia in 1969, Papua has remained the poorest and least developed province.

Citizens’ rights
As a state party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Indonesia was obligated to:

  • ensure its citizens’ rights to be free from hunger;
  • address the prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases; and
  • create conditions which would assure medical attention to all.

Similarly, national laws such as Law No. 36 of 2009 guaranteed the right to equal health access for all citizens, the AHRC said.

The commission said it viewed the current lack of health access and facilities in Papua – and the deaths of 68 children – as a clear violation of the Indonesian government’s responsibility towards its citizens.

“By not developing equal health care in Papua, the government is to blame for this considerable loss of life. The current efforts to address the problem are simply too little, too late,” the statement said.

The AHRC said the government should immediately announce a health emergency in Papua and open access for medical aid, including international medical support. It should also allow access to the media to ensure accountability and to monitor the eradication of the epidemic.

The government also needed an affirmative action policy to boost development of health access in Papua.

Priority for Papua
The assistance from the central government should not merely be limited to eradicating disease in Asmat regency, but should ensure that remote areas in Papua received priority in development of health access, facilities and infrastructure, the statement said.

The National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), the Minister of Health and Ombudsman of Republic of Indonesia, the House of Representatives, in particular Commission IX which concerns health, food and medicines, should take initiatives to monitor, evaluate and ensure the implementation of such policies, the AHRC said.

Local government should also open access for NGOs and media to monitor the recovery and development in remote areas.

The AHRC also urged the government to comprehensively ensure that all children, including pregnant mothers in Papua, particularly in Asmat regency, were given enough nutrition, food, and vaccines to prevent disease.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Coups, globalisation and tough questions for Fiji’s future

]]>

Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific.

The General’s Goose – three decades of Fiji “coup culture”. And what now with the second
post-coup election due this year?
REVIEW: By David Robie of Café Pacific
Author Dr Robbie Robertson … challenges “misconceptions”
about the Bainimarama regime and previous coups, and asks
fundamental questions about Fiji’s future.

When Commodore (now rear admiral retired and an elected prime minister) Voreqe Bainimarama staged Fiji’s fourth “coup to end all coups” on 5 December 2006, it was widely misunderstood, misinterpreted and misrepresented by a legion of politicians, foreign affairs officials, journalists and even some historians.

A chorus of voices continually argued for the restoration of “democracy” – not only the flawed version of democracy that had persisted in various forms since independence from colonial Britain in 1970, but specifically the arguably illegal and unconstitutional government of merchant banker Laisenia Qarase that had been installed on the coattails of the third (attempted) coup in 2000.

Yet in spite of superficial appearances, Bainimarama’s 2006 coup contrasted sharply with its predecessors.

Bainimarama attempted to dodge the mistakes made by Sitiveni Rabuka after he carried out both of Fiji’s first two coups in 1987 while retaining the structures of power.

Instead, notes New Zealand historian Robbie Robertson who lived in Fiji for many years, Bainimarama “began to transform elements of Fiji: Taukei deference to tradition, the provision of golden eggs to sustain the old [chiefly] elite, the power enjoyed by the media and judiciary, rural neglect and infrastructural inertia” (p. 314). But that wasn’t all.

[H]e brazenly navigated international hostility to his illegal regime. Then, having accepted an independent process for developing a new constitution, he rejected its outcome, fearing it threatened his hold on power and would restore much of what he had undone. (Ibid.)

Bainimarama reset electoral rules, abolished communalism in order to pull the rug from under the old chiefly elite, and provided the first non-communal foundation for voting in Fiji.

Landslide victory
Then he was voted in as legal prime minister of Fiji with an overwhelming personal majority and a landslide victory for his fledgling FijiFirst Party in September 2014. He left his critics in Australia and New Zealand floundering in his wake.

Robertson is well-qualified to write this well-timed book, The General’s Goose: Fiji’s Tale of Contemporary Misadventure, with Bainimarama due to be tested again this year with another election. He is a former history lecturer at the Suva-based regional University of the South Pacific at the time of Rabuka’s original coups (when I first met him).

He and his journalist wife Akosita Tamanisau wrote a definitive account of the 1987 events and the ousting of Dr Timoci Bavadra’s visionary and multiracial Fiji Labour Party-led government, Fiji: Shattered Coups (1988), ultimately leading to his expulsion from Fiji by the Rabuka regime. He also followed this up with Government by the Gun (2001) on the 2000 coup, and other titles.

Robertson later returned to Fiji as professor of Development Studies at USP and he has also been professor and head of Arts and Social Sciences at James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland, as well as holding posts at La Trobe University, the Australian National University and the University of Otago.

He has published widely on globalisation. He is thus able to bring a unique perspective on Fiji over three decades and is currently professor and dean of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.

Since 2006, Fiji has slipped steadily away from Australian and New Zealand influence, as outlined by Robertson. However, this is a state of affairs blamed by Bainimarama on Canberra and Wellington for their failed and blind policies.

Even since the 2014 election, Bainimarama has maintained a “hardline” on the Pacific’s political architecture through his Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF) alternative to the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), and on the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus trade deal.

‘Turned their backs’
While in Brisbane for an international conference in 2015, Bainimarama took the opportunity to remind his audience that Australia and New Zealand “as traditional friends had turned their backs on Fiji”. He added:

How much sooner we might have been able to return Fiji to parliamentary rule if we hadn’t expended so much effort on simply surviving … defending the status quo in Fiji was indefensible, intellectually and morally (p. 294).

For the first time in Fiji’s history, Bainimarama steered the country closer to a “standard model of liberal democracy” and away from the British colonial and race-based legacy.

“Government still remained the familiar goose,” writes Robertson, “but this time, its golden eggs were distributed more evenly than before”. The author attributes this to “bypassing chiefly hands” for tribal land lease monies, through welfare and educational programmes no longer race-bound, and through bold rural public road, water and electrification projects.

Fiji’s cast of coup leaders. Image: Coup 4.5
Admittedly, argues Robertson, like Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara (Fiji’s prime minister at independence and later president), Rabuka and Qarase, “Bainimarama had cronies and the military continues to benefit excessively from his ascendancy”. Nevertheless, Bainimarama’s “outstanding controversial achievement remains undoubtedly his rebooting of Fiji’s operating system in 2013”.

Robertson’s scholarship is meticulous and drawn from an impressive range of sources, including his own work over more than three decades. One of the features of his latest book are his analysis of former British SAS Warrant Officer Lisoni Ligairi and the role of the First Meridian Squadron (renamed in 1999 from the “coup proof” Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit – CRWU), and the “public face” of Coup 3, businessman George Speight, now serving a life sentence in prison for treason.

His reflections on and interpretations of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Board of Inquiry (known as BoI) into the May 2000 coup are also extremely valuable. Much of this has never before been available in an annotated and tested published form, although it is available as full transcripts on the “Truth for Fiji” website.

‘Overlapping conspiracies’
As Robertson recalls, by mid-May, “there were many overlapping conspiracies afoot … Within the kava-infused wheels within wheels, coup whispers gained volume”. Ligairi’s role was pivotal but BoI put most of the blame for the coup on the RFMF for “allowing” one man so much power, especially one it considered ill-equipped to be a director and planner’ (p. 140).

The BoI testimony about the November 2000 CRWU mutiny before Bainimarama escaped with his life through a cassava patch, also fed into Robertson’s account, although he admits Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka’s ANU doctoral thesis is the best account on the topic, “Sacred King and Warrior Chief:The role of the military in Fiji politics”.

It was a bloody and confused affair, led by the once loyal [Captain Shane] Stevens, 40 CRWU soldiers, many reportedly intoxicated, seized weapons and took over the Officers Mess, Bainimarama’s office and administration complex, the national operations centre and the armoury in the early afternoon. They wanted hostages; above all they wanted Bainimarama. (p. 164)

The book is divided into four lengthy chapters plus an Introduction and Conclusion – 1. The Challenge of Inheritance about the flawed colonial legacy, 2. The Great Turning on Rabuka’s 1987 coups and the Taukei indigenous supremacy constitution, 3. Redux: The Season for Coups on Speight’s attempted (and partially successful) 2000 coup, and 4. Plus ça Change …? on Bainimarama’s political “reset”. (The Bainimarama success in outflanking his Pacific critics is perhaps best represented by his diplomatic success in co-hosting the “Pacific” global climate change summit in Bonn in 2017.)

One drawback from a journalism perspective is the less than compelling assessment of the role of the media over the period, considering the various controversies that dogged each coup, especially the Speight one when accusations were made against some journalists as having been too close to the coup makers.

One of Fiji’s best journalists and editors, arguably the outstanding investigative reporter of his era, Jo Nata, publisher of the Weekender, sided with Speight as a “media minder” and was jailed for treason.

However, while Robertson in several places acknowledges Nata’s place in Fiji as a journalist, there is no real examination of his role as journalist-turned-coup-propagandist. This ought to be a case study.

Robertson noted how Nata’s Weekender exposed “morality issues” in Rabuka’s cabinet in 1994 without naming names. The Review news and business magazine followed up with a full report in the April edition that year, naming a prominent female journalist who was sleeping with the post-coup prime minister, produced a love child and who still works for The Fiji Times today (p. 118).

Nata then promised a special issue on the 21 women Rabuka had had affairs with since stepping down from the military. However, after Police Commissioner Isikia Savua spoke to him, the issue never appeared. (A full account is in Pacific Journalism ReviewThe Review, 1994).

Fiji Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama (right) with his Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum … facing an
uncertain challenge for their FijiFirst Party in this year’s election. Image: PMC
NBF debacle
Elsewhere in the book is an outline of the National Bank of Fiji (NBF) debacle that erupted when an audit was leaked to the media: “In fact, the press, particularly The Fiji Times and The Review, were pivotal in exposing the scandal.” Robertson added:

The Review had earlier been threatened with deregistration over its publication of Rabuka’s affair[s] in 1994; now both papers were threatened with Malaysian-style licensing laws to ensure that they remained respectful of Pacific cultural sensitivities and did not denigrate Fijian business acumen. (p. 121)

The bank collapsed in late 1995 owing more than $220 million or nearly 9 percent of Fiji’s GDP – an example of the nepotism, corruption and poor public administration that worsened in Fiji after Rabuka’s coups.

On Coup 1, Robertson recalls how apart from Rabuka’s masked soldiers inside Parliament, “other teams fanned out across the city to seize control of telecommunication power authorities, media outlets and the Government Buildings” (p. 65).

But there is little reflective detail about Rabuka’s “seduction” of the Fiji and international journalists, or how after closing down the two daily newspapers, the neocolonial Fiji Times reopened while the original Fiji Sun opted to close down rather than publish under a military-backed regime.

About Coup 3, Robertson recalls “[Speight] was articulate and comfortable with the media – too comfortable, according to some journalists. They felt that this intimate media presence ‘aided the rebel leader’s propaganda fire … gave him political fuel’. They were not alone’ (p. 154) (see Robie, 2001).

On the introduction of the 2010 Fiji Media Industry Development Decree, which still casts a shadow over the country and is mainly responsible for the lowest Pacific “partly free” rankings in the global media freedom indexes, Robertson notes how it was “Singapore-inspired”. The decree “came out in early April 2010 for discussion and mandated that all media organisations had to be 90 percent locally owned. The implication for the News Corporation Fiji Times and for the 51 percent Australian-owned Daily Post were obvious” (p. 254).

The Fiji Times was bought by Mahendra Patel, long-standing director and owner of the Motibhai trading group. (He was later jailed for a year for “abuse of office” while chair of Post Fiji.) The Daily Post was closed down.

Facing a long history of harassment by various post-coup administrations (including a $100,000 fine in January 2009 for publishing a letter describing the judiciary as corrupt, and deportations of publishers), The Fiji Times is heading into this year’s elections facing a trial for alleged “sedition” confronting the newspaper.

In spite of my criticism of limitations on media content, The General’s Goose is an excellent book and should be mandatory background reading for any journalist covering South Pacific affairs, especially those likely to be involved in coverage of this year’s general election in Fiji.

The General’s Goose: Fiji’s Tale of Contemporary Misadventure, by Robbie Robertson. Canberra: Australian National University. 2017. 366 pages. ISBN 9781760461270. This review was first published by Asia Pacific Report.

References
Baledrokadroka, J. (2012). The sacred king and warrior chief: The role of the military in Fiji politics. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Canberra: Australian National University.

Robertson, R., & Sutherland, W. (2001). Government by the gun: The unfinished business of Fiji’s 2000 coup. Sydney & London: Pluto Press & Zed Books.

Robertson, R., & Tamanisau, A. (1988). Fiji: Shattered coups. Sydney: Pluto Press.

Robie, D. (2001). Coup coup land: The press and the putsch in Fiji. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 10, 149-161. See also for an extensive media coverage examination of the 1987 Rabuka coups: Robie, D. (1989). Blood on their banner: Nationalist struggles in the South Pacific. London: Zed Books; 2006 coup and 2014 elections: Robie, D. (2016). ‘Unfree and unfair’?: Media intimidation in Fiji’s 2014 elections. In Ratuva, S., & Lawson, S. (Eds.), The people have spoken: The 2014 elections in Fiji. Canberra: ANU Press.

The Review (1994). Rabuka and the reporter. Pacific Journalism Review, 1(1), 20-22.

This article was first published on Café Pacific.]]>

Latest France rugby crisis sparks sense of deja vu for Les Bleus

]]>

Just as they did in Frédéric Michalak in 2001, France have put faith in a teenager who can act as a shining light at a time when darkness surrounds Les Bleus – Matthieu Jalibert. Image: L’Equipe

By Jack De Menezes in Paris

French rugby is going through a difficult period. The national team lacks direction, the head coach has just departed and has been replaced by a man tasked with triggering a revolution, the team are being given little to no chance of winning the next Rugby World Cup and the hopes of a nation lie on a 19-year-old half-back.

No, this isn’t the present. This is the start of the millennium, but the similarities to the 2018 Six Nations are remarkable.

For Bernard Laporte and Frédéric Michalak all those years ago, now read Jacques Brunel and Matthieu Jalibert.

But while there are a scary number of similarities, the big difference is that Laporte took over a side that had won a Six Nations Grand Slam double in 1997 and 1998, three years before he took the top job.

Brunel arrives with France having not won the title since 2010, and if they fail to cause the biggest of upsets this year, they will match their longest barren run since returning to the championship in 1951.

Despite the job appearing to be a poisoned chalice before his arrival, the vastly successful and experienced Guy Noves was sacked after just two years in the job following a string of “unacceptable” results.

-Partners-

To top things off, the French Rugby Union (FFR) are taking legal action against Noves for alleged “serious misconduct”, and last week their head office was raided by French police investigating Laporte – now the FFR president – regarding an alleged conflict of interest arising from his relationship with Top 14 side Montpellier.

Shining light
To say that French rugby is in a state right now is putting it lightly.

But, as they did in Michalak all those years ago, France have a teenager who can act as a shining light at a time when darkness surrounds Les Bleus.

Since Michalak made his debut in November, 2001, France’s roll call of fly-halves reads as follows: David Skrela, Francis Ntamack, Julien Peyrelongue, Alexandre Peclier, Francois Trinh-Duc, Lionel Beauxis, Thibault Lacroix, Jean-Marc Doussain, Camille Lopez, Remi Tales, Jules Plisson.

No pressure then, Matthieu.

Jalibert arrives on the international stage short on experience but big on potential.

This may be an exercise in blooding Jalibert for bigger challenges in the future given he has just 15 Top 14 appearances to his name, but then they don’t come much bigger than facing the Ireland in Paris in the Six Nations.

France have only lost one of those since 2001, and an expectant Parisian crowd does not anticipate a second tomorrow regardless of the state of the national team.

“We are not favourites but we hope that these two weeks we will have constructed a spirit or state of mind which will permit us to compete well, Brunel said.

“I am very happy that people either think we are not very good, even dreadful or just rank bad, and regarded as the fifth country in the tournament. That suits me very well.”

In other Six Nations games this weekend, Italy plays England in Rome and Wales faces Scotland.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

‘Safe food’ governance in the aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear power plant disaster

Event date and time: 

Tuesday, March 13, 2018 – 16:30 18:00

PMC SEMINAR: Enacting ‘safe food’ through ruling discourse in the aftermath of Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster

Presented by doctoral candidate Karly Burch

With the onset of Tokyo Electric Power Company’s (TEPCO’s) nuclear disaster in March 2011, imperceptible radionuclides re-emerged as objects of concern for many people living throughout the archipelago of Japan and immediately challenged the governance of “food safety” in Japan and around the world. In the days following the onset of the nuclear disaster, the Japanese government and mainstream media outlets began playing an important role in attempting to put “consumers” at ease about ingesting TEPCO’s radionuclides. Based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in the Kansai region of Japan in 2016, this seminar explores how ruling discourses deployed by the Japanese government and mainstream media outlets appear in the everyday lives and lexicons of people living over 600km from the site of the nuclear disaster, providing a language for “correctly” discussing the possible presence of TEPCO’s radionuclides in the food they and their family members ingest.

Karly Burch, MSc
BA, University of California, Santa Barbara, United States, 2006
MSc, Norwegian University of Life Sciences
and Engineering School of Agriculture, Alimentation, Rural Development and Environment (ISARA-Lyon), 2012
PhD candidate at the University of Otago’s Te Whare Wānanga Otāgo
Centre for Sustainability・Kā Rakahau o Te Ao Tūroa
and Department of Sociology, Gender and Social Work・ Te Tari Āhua ā-iwi

When: Tuesday, March 13, 4.30pm-6pm
Where: WG907, Sir Paul Reeves communication precinct, AUT City Campus
Map & Contact Page: 

Contact for more information:
PMC Postdoctoral Researcher Dr Sylvia Frain
 

Report by Pacific Media Centre ]]>

New bill would make Australia worst in free world for criminalising journalism

]]>

Would the ABC’s publication of confidential cabinet documents be in breach of a proposed government bill? Image: Joel Carrett/The Conversation

By Dr Johan Lidberg in Melbourne

Australia is a world leader in passing the most amendments to existing and new anti-terror and security laws in the liberal democratic world. Since September 11, 2001, it has passed 54 laws.

The latest suggested addition is the Turnbull government’s crackdown on foreign interference. The bill has been heavily criticised by Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch, and major media organisations for being too heavy-handed and far-reaching in the limits it would place on freedom of expression and several other civil liberties.

The government’s own intelligence watchdog, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, argues the bill is so widely worded that its own staff could break the law for handling documents they need to access to do their job.

READ MORE: New foreign interference laws will compound risks to whistleblowers and journalists

A case in point is whether the ABC’s publication of confidential and secret cabinet documents would be in breach of the proposed bill. Two filing cabinets full of thousands of confidential cabinet documents were given to the ABC by a source who, astonishingly, had bought them for small change at an op-shop in Canberra.

The ABC made an assessment and chose to publish a very limited number of the documents it deemed in the public interest. The ABC has so far clearly acted responsibly, and no documents that could harm Australia’s national security were in the first publication.

-Partners-

Some of the published documents are embarrassing for both the current and former Coalition and Labor governments, but that should not stop publication – rather, the opposite.

What the bill would mean
The foreign interference bill, in its current form, suggests it should be criminal for anyone to “receive” and “handle” certain national security information. It would seem that by just receiving the filing cabinets and assessing what to publish, the ABC staff would be in breach of the provisions suggested in the bill.

Furthermore, this makes an already heavy-handed whistleblower regime from an international perspective even more draconian. It is sure to lose Australia several places on the Press Freedom Index if implemented as suggested.

The bill is an overreach in many respects. But one of the worst aspects, from a transparency and accountability point of view, is that it seeks to extend the draconian Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.

Section 70 makes it a crime, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside government without permission. The ABC’s publication of the cabinet files clearly illustrates that media organisations with ethical and thorough editorial polices are perfectly capable of assessing what to publish.

The bigger picture is that the current bill is part of a pattern that started after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001.

In our forthcoming book, In The Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism, my colleagues and I assess how the anti-terror laws and mass surveillance technologies in the Five Eyes countries has impacted on in-depth public interest journalism. We also compare the Five Eyes with several BRICS countries and the situation in the European Union.

Fear-driven security
Our main conclusions are that the current fear-driven security environment has made it much harder for investigative journalists to hold governments and security agencies to account. This is partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.

Add to this the truly awesome powers of mass surveillance making it increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to grant anonymity to sources that require it for their own safety, and you end up with a very complex journalist-source situation.

Another important factor in Australia and the UK is that all national security agencies are exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This makes it virtually impossible to independently acquire information from the security branch of government.

The balance between national security and transparency is complex. As citizens, we want to feel safe and know what is being done to keep us safe. In our book, we have labelled this the “trust us” dilemma, meaning governments argue they can’t disclose what they are doing security-wise, lest the “bad guys” find out.

That leaves us needing to trust the government’s security actions and policies. But the problem is, how can we as citizens decide if we trust the government if we don’t have the information on which to base this decision?

There is no easy answer to this question. Political philosopher Giorgio Agamben takes our reasoning one step further when he argues that the liberal democratic world has been in a “state of exception” since September 11. This has granted powers to security agencies that are creeping increasingly closer to those of the totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s.

‘Other’ enemy
Agamben traces various states of exception all the way back to Roman times. The pattern is similar through history: governments point to an “other” – often a hard-to-define enemy – as a reason for increased powers to the security apparatus. They are convinced they are doing the right thing.

The problem is that if we don’t roll back the strengthened security laws in times of lower threat, we start from a high level next time we enter a “state of exception”. This in turn can lead to a never-ending war on real or perceived threats where our cherished democratic civil liberties become part of the collateral damage.

If we allow the “state of exception” to become permanent, we risk allowing the terrorists to win.

Dr Johan Lidberg is an associate professor in the School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. This article was first published by The Conversation on a Creative Commons licence and is republished with the author’s permission.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Politics Newsletter: New Zealand Politics Daily – February 1 2018

Politics Newsletter: New Zealand Politics Daily – February 1 2018 – Today’s content Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage. [caption id="attachment_297" align="aligncenter" width="1600"] The Beehive and Parliament Buildings.[/caption] Below are the links to the items online. The full text of these items are contained in the PDF file (click to download). Newshub-Reid Research poll Anna Bracewell-Worrall: Newshub poll: Labour soars to popularity not seen for a decade Jenna Lynch: Newshub poll: Labour swallows NZ First whole Emma Hurley: Newshub poll: Kiwis unfazed by Prime Minister’s pregnancy Anna Bracewell-Worrall: Newshub poll: Bill English has solid backing as Opposition leader Tracy Watkins (Stuff): Wild political ride in first week back Claire Trevett (Herald): Poll: PM Jacinda Ardern gets big tick, National holds up Henry Cooke (Stuff): National remains ahead in first post-baby poll, but left bloc could govern alone Mike Hosking (Newstalk ZB): Winston Peters and NZ First are a busted flush David Farrar (Kiwiblog): Little baby bump Matthew Whitehead (Standard): Poll Watch: Reid Research Poll 2018-1-31 National Party Gordon Campbell (Werewolf): On National’s leadership rumbles Craig McCulloch (RNZ): English remains confident of leadership Barry Soper (Newstalk ZB): Proof of guilt is denial, and there are denials all around inside National  Audrey Young (Herald): Lose talk will ultimately destabilise English’s leadership Audrey Young (Herald): National leadership speculation reveals MPs unhappy with Steven Joyce Claire Trevett (Herald):  Bill English sentenced to leaving On His Own Terms Richard Harman (Politik): The Nats – does no news mean there is no news? Sam Sachdeva (Newsroom): Numbers don’t stack up for National spill Jane Patterson (RNZ): Frank conversations on National’s leaders Tim Watkin (Pundit): Predictable polls and bye-bye Bill Ben Thomas (Spinoff): The next National leader likely to fall? Not English, but his deputy Liam Hehir: Ben Thomas is right about this… Toby Manhire (Spinoff): The unstoppable ticking sound begins for Bill English and Paula Bennett Mark Sainsbury (Newshub): Ardern factor nudging National towards a leadership reboot Bryan Gould: The battle for National’s leadership Claire Trevett (Herald): National leader Bill English says leadership talk ‘rubbish’ Newstalk ZB: Bill English insists he is staying on as leader despite reports Derek Cheng (Herald): Bill English insists his National Party leadership not on the line Sam Sachdeva and Bernard Hickey (Newsroom): Bill English brushes off National leadership rumblings Stacey Kirk (Stuff): Bill English’s warning to Government overshadowed by leadership rumours RNZ: Bill English says leadership speculation ‘gossip’ Hamish Rutherford (Stuff): National’s problem may soon become how well the economy is performing Andy Fyers, Megan Fattey and Brad Flahive (Stuff): Truth or fable: Fact-checking Bill English’s big speech Derek Cheng (Herald): Bill English warns of downturn in job growth in State of Nation speech Herald: National leader Bill English delivers state of the nation speech Jason Walls (Interest): It was meant to be Bill English’s day, but the National leader’s State of the Nation speech was overshadowed by retirement speculation Newshub: Battle to replace Bill English: ‘It’s all on’ Tracy Watkins (Stuff): No surprise over National’s rumblings Tracy Watkins (Stuff): National knives are out over election loss TVNZ: MPs backs confident Bill English as leadership speculation spreads TVNZ: Nikki Kaye denies she’ll challenge Bill English but another National MP admits there’s been ‘some talk’ Government and child welfare Toby Manhire (Spinoff): No room for doubt that I can do this’: the Spinoff meets Jacinda Ardern TVNZ: Jacinda Ardern wants to ‘leave a legacy of a stronger, fairer, kinder New Zealand’ Newstalk ZB: Mike Hosking rates Ardern’s first 100 days Steve Maharey (Pundit): “Do it for all of us”. Can Labour save social democracy? Gordon Campbell (Werewolf): On the child poverty targets Dominion Post Editorial: It’s time for a bipartisan war against child poverty in New Zealand Herald Editorial: Child poverty targets may be too broad Audrey Young (Herald): Jacinda Ardern announces targets with plan to halve child poverty within 10 years RNZ: Ardern aims to halve child poverty in 10 years Tracy Watkins (Stuff): Government sets targets for reducing child poverty Emma Hurley (Newshub): Govt will halve child poverty within a decade – Prime Minister Jessica Tyson (Māori TV): Mixed reactions following PM’s Child Poverty Bill announcement Stacey Kirk (Stuff): Children’s Minister Tracey Martin says her mother was abandoned at age 2 RNZ: State abuse survivors on what they want out of inquiry: ‘He admitted it … I thought there would be consequences’ Medicinal cannabis legislation Benedict Collins (RNZ): Chloe Swarbrick: MPs out of touch over medicinal marijuana Derek Cheng (Herald): Green Party bill to provide greater access to medicinal cannabis falls short Kate Fitzgerald (Newshub): Greens medicinal cannabis Bill fails at first reading Liam Hehir: NZF to Greens: Thanks for betraying your principles on waka-jumping. Now drop dead. David Farrar (Kiwiblog): Swarbrick bill fails Susan Strongman (The Wireless): What you need to know about Parliament’s medicinal cannabis debate Henry Cooke (Stuff): Controversial medicinal cannabis bill expected to come down to the wire David Farrar: Government Medicinal Cannabis passes first reading without dissent Health Warwick Brunton (Newsroom): Doing mental health differently Richard McLeod (Evening Report): Make our voices known against the euthanasia bill Natalie Akoorie (Herald): Nigel Murray expenses scandal has prompted Canterbury DHB to audit spending Ruby Nyika (Stuff): Waikato DHB’s $21 million budget hole Education RNZ: Racism in schools: ‘We need to face up to that’ Simon Collins (Herald): ‘Racism exists, we feel little and bad’ – school student Stuff: How many New Zealand children are homeschooled? Economy and trade Bernard Hickey (Newsroom): Jacinda and Grant’s new Budget goalposts Richard Harman (Politik): The pressure is mounting Laura Walters (Stuff): NZ Government to lead world in measuring success with wellbeing measures Pattrick Smellie (BusinessDesk): Grant Robertson to deliver first Budget on May 17 Michael Reddell (Croaking Cassandra): Brian Easton and trade agreements Journalism and media RNZ: Veteran journalist Pat Booth dies, aged 88 Phil Taylor (Herald): Journalist Pat Booth dies aged 88 Harrison Christian (Auckland Now): Auckland journalist Pat Booth dies aged 87 Newshub: Pioneering investigative journalist Pat Booth dies, aged 87 Brian Edwards: On the Death of Pat Booth James Croot (Stuff): Seven Sharp: Is TVNZ1’s audience ready for Newsboy? Stuff: Six things you need to know about Jeremy Wells Stuff: Hilary Barry’s Seven Sharp co-presenter will be Jeremy Wells Tom Pullar-Strecker (Stuff): Stuff to push hard into digital markets after rebrand Stuff: Stuff’s journey from newspaper pioneer to website to ‘portfolio’ business Environment Mike Watson and Blanton Smith (Stuff): Greenpeace activists jump on Amazon Warrior support vessel as it arrives at Port Taranaki RNZ: Four Greenpeace protesters remain chained to a pole on the tender vessel Mermaid Searcher in Port Taranaki. Hawke’s Bay Today: Consent for Te Mata peak track criticised for ignoring cultural value Hawke’s Bay Today: Review critical of council processes around consenting Te Mata Peak track Victoria White (Herald): Ambitious path outlined for ‘carbon-neutral’ Hawke’s Bay Housing Ryan Dunlop (Herald): House prices cool off but not in provinces Interest: ANZ economists say even though house prices look ‘out of whack’ with incomes, they can’t see a sharp downward correction Anne Gibson (Herald): Lawyers fear $20k fines if foreign house-buyer ban passes Lorde’s Tel Aviv cancellation  Tia Goldenberg (Stuff): Israeli group suing New Zealanders who urged Lorde not to play Tel Aviv Herald: New Zealanders face legal action for allegedly causing cancellation of Lorde Israel concert Susan Strongman (The Wireless): Israeli Lorde fans are suing two New Zealand activists Oliver Holmes (Guardian): Lorde: Israeli fans sue activists over tour cancellation Other Gyles Beckford (RNZ): NZ’s financial transparency ranking improves Joanne Carroll (Press): Pike River Recovery Agency launching in Greymouth David Rankin (Herald): Treaty settlement still beyond Ngapuhi’s reach Belinda Feek (Herald): ‘Pretty bloody dumb’: Agriculture Minister Damien O’Connor’s reaction to Montana Wines Australian move Megan Gattey (Stuff): There’s no room for bigotry in sport, so why is harassment still rife? Madison Reidy (Stuff): All-weather racing track promised by Winston Peters Tamsyn Parker (Herald): KiwiSavers set for ‘ huge wake up’ over fees]]>

Bryce Edwards’ Political Roundup: Parliament’s conservatism on cannabis

Green Party member of Parliament, Chloe Swarbrick.

Political Roundup: Parliament’s conservatism on cannabis – Analysis by Dr Bryce Edwards.

[caption id="attachment_14974" align="aligncenter" width="2000"] Green Party MP Choe Swarbrick. Image: Courtesy of chloeswarbrick.co.nz.[/caption] [caption id="attachment_13635" align="alignright" width="150"] Dr Bryce Edwards.[/caption] New Zealand’s politicians are not very liberal on the issue of medical cannabis. That’s the main conclusion to be drawn from the heavy defeat last night of Green MP Chloe Swarbrick’s private members bill which would have produced a significant change to cannabis laws. The bill was defeated by 73 votes to 47 – a much wider margin than many were forecasting. Swarbrick is being reported this morning as saying “politicians have demonstrated how out of touch they are” by voting down her medicinal marijuana bill – see Benedict Collins’ Chloe Swarbrick: MPs out of touch over medicinal marijuana. She went further last night, saying “I think what’s been demonstrated in the House today is it is not a House of Representatives.” She added, “It was voted down today by quite a majority – so the National Party as well have really proved themselves to be quite conservative on that.” She might have added that many of her Government colleagues are also “conservative” on the issue – all nine New Zealand First MPs voted against her bill, as well as eight Labour MPs. Last night’s vote was an interesting test of how liberal the new Parliament is. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had already said that the vote on Swarbrick’s bill was going to be a useful test of the Parliament’s liberalism on the issue, comparing it to her own official Government bill which is a more moderate version: “Chloe Swarbrick’s goes a step further and we want to test whether there’s an appetite in Parliament to do that” – see the Herald’s PM Jacinda Ardern to support Green MP medicinal cannabis bill. But the conservativism of Parliament may be lessening. Henry Cooke notes that when a similar bill to Swarbrick’s was introduced by Metiria Turei in 2009, “it failed at its first reading 86-34” – see: Green Party’s medicinal marijuana bill gains Grey Power support, vote likely this week. Nonetheless, there is now an argument to be made that many other countries are leaving New Zealand behind in the area of drug law reform. And earlier this week, Nina Hindmarsh reported on public opinion, expert medical advice on reform, and how other countries are moving faster than us – see: Cannabis campaigners say New Zealand is lagging behind the rest of the world. Crucial to the heavy defeat of the Swarbrick bill was the fact that the Labour-led Government has introduced a different bill to Parliament which also concerns the supply of medical cannabis products. This passed unanimously the day before, with every party voting in favour. The Government’s success in gaining 120 votes for its bill is a testament to the legislation’s much more moderate nature. Thomas Coughlan explains the differences between the bills in his Newsroom article, Two paths to cannabis reform. Coughlan explains that the main differences are that the official government legislation will only pertain to those who are terminally ill – not those suffering chronic pain – and it would not allow patients to grow their own cannabis (with a doctor’s permission). Labour’s official bill therefore only amounts to a moderate adjustment to the status quo, which leaves many medical cannabis campaigners dissatisfied. A number of voices were critical of it being too “watered down”. Even Grey Power has criticised that bill for excluding those with chronic pain – see TVNZ’s Government’s medicinal cannabis bill too weak, GPs should be able to prescribe to anyone who needs it – Grey Power. Some Labour supporters have also challenged how progressive the legislation really is. Greg Presland, for example, says it’s too timid – see: National’s drug conscience. Conservative Christian lobby group Family First NZ has spoken out in favour of Labour’s bill, with spokesperson Bob McCoskrie praising it as “cautious and researched”, and complaining that Swarbrick’s bill amounted to “a grow-your-own-dope bill”, and should therefore be “chucked in the bin” – see Craig McCulloch’s MPs to vote on medicinal cannabis bills. McCulloch’s article also clarifies Grey Power’s very interesting political position: “Senior advocate group Grey Power is in the odd position of disagreeing with aspects of both bills, but still hoping they pass. Grey Power president Tom O’Connor said the government’s bill was too restrictive and had too many hoops to jump through. But he said the Greens’ effort went too far.” It also goes into the differences between the two bills. And it highlights the concerns of medical cannabis campaigners that politicians and the public would be confused by the existence of the two bills, leading to only the more conservative version being adopted. Medicinal cannabis user and campaigner Rebecca Reider is quoted: “I hope that MPs don’t get confused by the fact that two are coming up at once … we actually need them both. They do pretty different things.” This raises the question of whether Swarbrick’s bill would have been more successful had Labour not introduced their conservative bill, which had been watered-down in order to gain the support of coalition partner New Zealand First. Essentially this rival bill meant that many MPs who wanted to see some progress on medical cannabis liberalisation – and who otherwise might have supported the Swarbrick bill – were able to opt for the less contentious version, thereby being able to claim they were helping fix the problem without receiving any opprobrium from conservative opponents. Certainly, some MPs pointed to their support for the Government’s bill in justifying their vote against Swarbrick’s. Derek Cheng reports, for example, that “National MP Chris Bishop, who had earlier indicated support for the [Swarbrick] bill, was unmoved. He opposed it in the hope that the Government bill would be improved at select committee” – see: Green Party bill to provide greater access to medicinal cannabis falls short. Similarly, according to this article, National’s Nikki Kaye “said she would not vote for the bill, but pledged to work with the bill’s supporters to expand access in the Government bill to include those suffering from chronic pain”. She is also quoted as saying that “It’s one of the toughest political decisions I’ve ever had to make” and that she had never been so “deeply conflicted” about a bill. For more on why Bishop and Kaye voted against the Swarbrick bill (after earlier reports that they would support it), see Henry Cooke’s Chloe Swarbrick’s medicinal cannabis bill fails at first reading . Of course, there is now an expectation that the Government bill can be made much more progressive in the select committee process. And Thomas Coughlan suggests in his article on the two bills: “Eventually they’ll morph together” – see: Two paths to cannabis reform. He elaborates: “The Government’s bill will also mandate a review to take place in two years after the law commences to test its effectiveness and recommend further changes. That could mean the cannabis regime in put in place by the Government ends up being similar to what Swarbrick proposes within a few years.” In this regard, cannabis campaigner Chris Fowlie noted last week “a silvery-green lining even if the Greens’ Bill fails to pass” saying that the defeat of the Swarbrick bill “will flush out opponent’s arguments and provide a measure of where Parliament is at ahead of the vote on the Government’s own Bill. If it fails to pass that will increase pressure on the Govt to make substantial changes to their own lacklustre Bill” – see: MPs to vote on the Greens’ Medicinal Cannabis Bill next Wednesday 31st Jan. Finally, in case you think that all National Party supporters – or even the wider public – are against a liberal approach to medical cannabis reform, it’s well-worth reading David Farrar’s two blog posts on the matter. In his post, Grey Power backs Swarbrick bill, Farrar reports his own polling company’s research which shows overwhelming public support – including from National Party voters – for a more liberal cannabis laws. In a second blog post today, Farrar laments that no National Party MPs voted in favour, but also outlines how he thinks the Greens could have got the Swarbrick bill passed – see: Swarbrick bill fails.]]>

Pacific knowledge, smart media used to tackle mosquito-borne diseases

]]>

TechCamp in action … technology training and capacity-building workshops for Pacific health professionals. Image: US Embassy

By Dr Sylvia C. Frain of the Pacific Media Centre

An international TechCamp event, funded by the US Embassy in New Zealand and organised by the University of Otago’s Health Science division, has brought together public health professionals from across the Pacific to participate in technology training and capacity-building workshops.

Participants from Fiji, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Sāmoa, Solomon Islands and Tonga worked on developing local strategies to address mosquito-borne diseases and implement vector control on January 25-26.

Forty Pacific health communicators were trained in new media technologies to foster innovation and develop solutions to combat diseases such as zika and dengue fever.

The participants collaborated with other Pacific health workers to foster timely and accurate information to their communities, regional policy makers, and international funding bodies.

Smart phone strategies
One workshop, led by Mina Vilayleck of the French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (Institut de Recherche pour le Développement), introduced smart phone interviewing techniques to health communicators from Aotearoa, Fiji, Hawai‘i and Palau.

As the communication adviser for the ePOP (e-Participatory Observers Project),  Vilayleck trains community members in photographic, video, and radio technologies to create impactful content to present to local, regional, and international communities and media outlets.

-Partners-

Based from New Caledonia, ePOP links science, society, and media, creating a platform to raise awareness, publicise online activities, and support action plans.

ePOP …. health storytelling with smartphones. Image: Sylvia Frain/PMC

ePOP is country-specific and flexible depending on the situation and context.

The project creates a community of observers who gather information to share, assists with creating an editorial narrative, and helps with new media production.

Local observers use smartphones to interview and document and gather comments to create content.

If needed, they send the raw visual data to ePOP which assists with the development of a storyline which includes bilingual text and local dialects.

This enables the communities to share with other intertropical countries facing similar challenges and enables them to exchange their experiences.

Training future trainers
In addition, ePOP conducts 3-day trainings in-country with the aim of “training future trainers” in the community.

The course covers how to create a storyboard and narrative before you film, how to use a smartphone and to always shoot horizontally, the importance of sound and ensuring that the light is behind you, video capturing basics of remaining stable and slow with your movements, asking the interviewee to remove their glasses and to wait three seconds before responding to making editing later easier, and editing and post-production.

The current Pilot Site 1, includes documentation points in New Caledonia, Fiji, Vanuatu, and Aotearoa New Zealand.

Specifically, for issues surrounding climate change, she emphasises the necessity of including local and indigenous knowledge along with new technologies to document the emotions and observations from the communities experiencing the changing environment.

The short videos communicate to the media and policy makers the resiliency of Pacific communities and highlights their perspectives and voices within climate change circles.

Vilayleck spoke of how receptive the youth are to this form of data collection and storytelling and adaptable to new technologies.

For her, the goal is to share the knowledge and ePOP is committed to community participatory approaches.

She encourages those working in the Pacific, and specifically in the Pilot 1 sites, to get in touch with her if interested in collaborating.

Dr Sylvia C. Frain is a postdoctoral research fellow with Auckland University of Technology’s Pacific Media Centre.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

The ‘Girls of Revolution Street’ protest over Iran’s compulsory hijab laws

]]>

Women in hijab protest on Monday in Tehran on Monday. Images: Mashup of #دختران_خیابان_انقلاب from Omid Memarian’s Twitter post.

By Mahsa Alimardani of Global Voices

A spate of defiant Iranian women have taken to the streets of Tehran to protest against compulsory veiling.

Photos of their demonstrations have been widely circulated online under the hashtag #دختران_خیابان_انقلاب (translated to #Girls_of_Enghelab_Street). At least two women (of the six women appearing in the photos above) have been arrested.

The protests come on the heels of a similar move by an Iranian woman named Vida Movahed, who was arrested on December 27, 2017, after a photo of her silently waving her hijab above her unveiled head on Tehran’s Enghelab Street (“enghelab” means “revolution” in English) went viral.

Movahed was released from prison on January 27.

Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the hijab became compulsory in various stages. The law was first introduced in March 1979; Iranian women, initially in support of the revolution against the monarchy, came out in the hundreds of thousands to rally against it.

The following year it became mandatory in government and public offices until 1983, when it became mandatory for all women.

-Partners-

The photo of Movahed’s hijab protest, standing atop an electrical box on Enghelab Street, went viral in the context of a wave of anti-government protests that swept the country beginning on December 28, 2017.

But Movahed’s defiance was in fact a mistaken icon for the nationwide protests. She had in fact performed the act as part of her own singular protest on December 27, 2017, for the White Wednesday campaign, in which Iranian women posted photos online of themselves wearing white while discarding their headscarves with the hashtag #whitewednesday. This was part of the My Stealthy Freedom movement founded by exiled journalist Masih Alinejad against mandatory hijab for women.

Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International started to advocate for Movahed’s release after it became known she was arrested shortly after her stand on Enghelab Street’s electrical post. By January 28, Nasrin Sotoudeh, a human rights lawyer inside of Iran, known (and often persecuted) for defending activists and opposition members, announced on her Facebook page that Movahed had been released the previous day:

Translation Original Quote:

The girl from revolution street has been freed.

When I returned to the prosecutor’s office to follow up on the case of the girl of Enghelab Street, the head of the prosecutor’s office told me she was released. I am happy to hear that she returned home yesterday. I hope this judicial case will not be used to harass her for taking up her rights. She has done nothing to justify prosecution. Please do not lay your hands on her [directed at authorities].

A day after the news of Movahed’s release, several women emulated Movahed, standing on electrical posts on Engheblab Street (top right in mash up image).

An informed source told the Campaign for Human Rights in Iran that Narges Hosseini, one of the protesters on Enghelab street, was was arrested on January 29. #girls_ofRevolution

Other women took similar stands, taking off their hijabs on different streets in Tehran, and in one instance in Isfahan, a city in central Iran, according to crowd source reports on Nariman Gharib’s www.enghelabgirls.com. However, the symbolism of the initial protests taking place on Enghelab Street, translated into “Revolution Street”, was not lost on those following the events.

By the afternoon of January 30, several more women were spotted in Tehran taking off their veils, in addition to a man.

My Stealthy Freedom, which organised White Wednesday, the campaign that Movahed was participating in with her original act of defiance, was founded by Masih Alinejad. Alinejad and her movement are controversial in Iran, and sometimes subjected to smear campaigns by Iranian media, and associated with opposition activism inside of the country.

On the “My Stealthy Freedom” Facebook page, Alinejad welcomed those who had previously attacked her campaign but are now engaged in discussing and opposing compulsory hijab in light of the #girls_of_Enghelab_street:

Our #WhiteWednesdays campaign has been making an unstoppable impact and we are more than overjoyed. We are gratified to realize that the compulsory veil is no longer something than can be easily dismissed. It has always been an important issue as it relates to women’s freedom of choice. It is our most basic right. Our campaign has come a long way. We have also realized that people who attacked us yesterday are now onboard supporting our struggle. We warmly welcome them. We at my #StealthyFreedom do not judge people; our campaign is based on mutual respect.

One notable female voice on Iranian social media, Zahra Safyari, declared her support for the #Girls_of_Enghelab_Street and the right of Iranian women to choose to wear or not wear the hijab:

I am a chadori [wearer of a full-body-length cloak called a chador]. I have chosen for myself to be veiled, not for the force of my family, nor for my environment or conditions of my work. I am very happy with my choice but I am against mandatory hijab and I support the #Girls_of_Enghelab_Street. With religion and hijab there should be no force.

Safyari made a point to distance the protests from Masih Alinejad or any opposition movement aiming at overthrowing the Iranian establishment:

#Girls_of_Enghelab_Street are neither overthrowers, followers of Masih Alinejad, or the recipients of any money. They are the girls of this Iranian land who are following their basic rights.

Mahsa Alimardani is the Iran editor for Global Voices as well as an Iranian-Canadian internet researcher. Her focus is on the intersection of technology and human rights, especially as it pertains to freedom of expression and access to information inside Iran.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Keith Rankin Analysis: Chart for this Month – 2020 Election – Change or No Change?

Who's the winner? (Chart by Keith Rankin).

Keith Rankin Analysis: Chart for this Month – 2020 Election – Change or No Change?

With the political season having started already, and speculation already rife about the Opposition leadership, it’s timely to check out this distinctly possible scenario for the next election, in 2020.

The chart shows the total percentage vote for the governing parties, alongside the opposition percentage. The scenario is that the percentage vote for each bloc will be exactly the same in 2020 as in 2017. However, as a result of the ‘Jacinda effect’, and in light of the past electoral history of government support parties, I am suggesting there will be a small flow of votes from New Zealand First and Green in favour of Labour; enough to reduce the support parties’ support to four-point-something percent.

It means that increased support for Labour would propel National to a comfortable victory, in a Parliament with only National, Labour and Act.

Unless.

To avert this scenario, and to avert the suggestion of underhand political deals in the winter of 2020, Labour publicly commit this year to the following (and sensibly National would make a similar commitment).

Labour should commit to not standing a candidate against two ministers of any parties that hold multiple ministerial positions in a Labour-led government. (Where a support party has just one minister, then Labour would commit to not standing against him or her.)

In practice, it would mean for 2020 that Grant Robertson, Ruth Dyson and Willow-Jean Prime would contest as list-only MPs; and Labour would stand no candidate in Wairarapa. By facilitating James Shaw, Eugenie Sage, Winston Peters and Ron Mark to becoming electorate MPs, the result shown – with significantly more votes for the present government than the present opposition – would lead to no change of government.

PMC’s chair Camille Nakhid’s research bolsters migrant communities

When School of Social Sciences Associate Professor Camille Nakhid at Auckland University of Technology was asked by the E Tū Whānau Project to assist in a research project to evaluate its domestic violence programme, she didn’t hesitate as she was aware of the prevalence of domestic violence among migrant and refugee communities.

Dr Nakhid, who is also chair of the PMC Pacific Media Centre’s Advisory Board, recognised that domestic violence impacted on people from a range of cultural and religious backgrounds, and sought the experiences of a diverse group.

She spoke with young African Muslim men and women, and Middle Eastern women based in Auckland as well as a group of Latin American mothers, among others.

“One common thread that was evident was a ‘culture of silence’ that stopped women in particular from speaking out due to the shame and stigma,” Dr Nakhid said.

“There is also the perception for men from migrant and refugee communities that their status is undermined, due to being a minority in New Zealand.”

In her research on these issues, Dr Nakhid found that the E Tū Whānau programme’s exploration of Kaupapa Māori was beneficial to addressing the issue of domestic violence in these communities.

“Many migrant and refugee communities share similar values to Māori,” Camille said. “Māori values of aroha, community and family are very much aligned with Latin American and Muslim communities – much more so than European values.”

“Looking at what Māori were doing to address domestic violence in their communities, from a Māori perspective, the E Tū Whānau movement, whose kaupapa is inclusive and quick to embrace refugee and migrant communities was invaluable to the migrant and refugee communities.”

“A big part of E Tū Whānau’s philosophy is strengths-based. There is a shift in focus from the largely negative messaging associated with domestic violence awareness campaigns, to a more positive one.” Dr Nakhid said.

She was recognised for services to ethnic communities and education in the 2018 New Years Honours List, becoming a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3

Report by Pacific Media Centre ]]>

Richard McLeod: Make our voices known against the euthanasia bill

]]>

OPINION: By Richard McLeod

Two years ago, the Parliamentary Health Select Committee investigating public attitudes to euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand received a total of 21,000 submissions, 16,000 (80 percent) of which were opposed to their introduction into New Zealand law. Last December, however, our Parliament voted through ACT Party leader David Seymour’s End Of Life Choice Bill at its first reading, 76-44. Seymour’s Bill is now before another Select Committee, which has called for public submissions to be filed no later than February 20. What is Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill? The Bill seeks to legalise in NZ the killings by doctors of patients, if a patient requests it (euthanasia). It will also legalise doctors helping their patients to commit suicide (assisted suicide), or, as Seymour calls it, “assisted dying”). Both of these acts have been crimes under New Zealand law for as long as we have been a country – the crimes of murder and of aiding and abetting a suicide. If passed into law, the End of Life Choice Bill will allow any New Zealander who is diagnosed with a terminal illness likely to cause their death within 6 months to ask to be killed by a doctor or to be given medication enabling them to take their own life. This “terminal illness” criterion is the one that we hear most about in the media, but it’s not the only criterion in the proposed law. Another criterion Another criterion exists for other medical conditions. The Bill also allows euthanasia and assisted suicide for people with physical and intellectual disabilities, mental illness (likely to include depression and schizophrenia), and even physical injuries. If you lost your arm or leg in a car crash you could be eligible. Who decides eligibility? The doctor, assisted by the patient. What are the “safeguards” against abuse? The Bill promises many but delivers few. What are the protections against coercion, or pressure from family? Effectively none. What will happen if doctors misdiagnose, or euthanise someone who might not have fit these vague criteria? Nothing – they won’t be prosecuted under the proposed law if they act in “good faith”. Under the Seymour Bill, death certificates will be falsified to conceal the true cause of death. And doctors who refuse to comply with their obligations under the new law could be prosecuted, even imprisoned. The “conscientious objection” clause, which Seymour promises will protect those countless doctors who wish to play no part in the facilitation of state-sanctioned killings or suicides (the NZ Medical Association has opposed the law), does not require a doctor to do anything to which they have a “conscientious objection”, but nevertheless requires that doctor to play a part in the euthanasia or suicide process by referring a requesting patient on to a group that can arrange their death. Right soon becomes ‘duty’ Seymour claims his Bill will give eligible New Zealanders “choice”, and a “right to die”. But experience in other countries shows that a right to die for a few soon becomes a duty to die for many. That’s why in the Netherlands, the first country to introduce euthanasia in 2002, the numbers of deaths started low, but from 2008 onwards suddenly began accelerating in alarming numbers. Now it’s at over 7000 deaths each year, and the promised “safeguards” are falling away dramatically. Last year in the Netherlands, more than 400 patients were euthanised “involuntarily” – without their consent. Children can be euthanised if their parents give consent. Have these developments satisfied those who campaigned for the law change in the Netherlands? No – now they’re clamouring to bring a new law change that would enable everyone over 65 years of age to access euthanasia or assisted suicide if they are “tired of living”. Some slopes truly are slippery. The problem with a law like this is that once we legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide for some, there’s no logical reason why it shouldn’t become available to others too – the “genie is out of the bottle” and it can’t be put it back in. Risk for vulnerable That is why increasing numbers of New Zealanders are deeply concerned about what Seymour’s Bill could, if passed into law, mean for many vulnerable New Zealanders – our elderly, our sick, our disabled, and our mentally unwell. At a time when our country is reeling from record numbers of suicides each year, we are also now suddenly facing the prospect of a disturbing double-standard: the notion that suicide is acceptable for some New Zealanders but not others. New Zealanders have the opportunity to write to the Select Committee to express their views on this Bill. It’s time to make our voices heard. Richard McLeod is an Auckland lawyer and a commentator on euthanasia issues.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz]]>

Indonesian leader meets Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, vows support

]]>

Jakarta will continue its support for efforts to resolve the Rohingya crisis, says President Joko Widodo.

By Mahmut Atanur in Jakarta

Indonesian President Joko Widodo visited Rohingya refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, southwestern district of Bangladesh, as part of his official visit to Bangladesh at the weekend.

During his visit on Sunday, Widodo said his country would continue to support Rohingya Muslims fleeing state persecution in Myanmar.

Earlier in the day, Widodo met Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in the capital Dhaka to discuss bilateral relations and the Rohingya issue.

During his meeting with Hasina, the leader of the largest Muslim populated country said Jakarta would continue its support to resolve the Rohingya crisis.

Indonesia’s attitude towards the solution of the Rohingya crisis in the United Nations and the UN Commission on Human Rights will continue in the international arena in the same manner, Widodo said.

He stressed a peaceful and swift solution of the issue on the basis of bilateral ties between Bangladeshi and Myanmar government.

-Partners-

Five agreements
During his visit, both countries signed five agreements in different sectors, including fishing, trade, diplomacy and energy.

Another agreement was signed between Bangladeshi oil company PetroBanla and Indonesian oil and gas company Pertamina, envisaging import of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Indonesia.

More than 700,000 refugees, mostly children and women, have fled Myanmar since August 25, 2017, when Myanmar forces launched a bloody crackdown.

The Rohingya, described by the UN as the world’s most persecuted people, have faced heightened fears of attack since dozens were killed in communal violence in 2012.

At least 9000 Rohingya were killed in Rakhine state from August 25 to September 24, according to the medical charity Doctors Without Borders.

In a report published on December 12, 2017, the global humanitarian organisation said the deaths of 71.7 percent or 6700 Rohingya were caused by violence. They include 730 children below the age of 5.

The UN has documented mass gang rapes, killings — including of infants and young children — brutal beatings and disappearances committed by security personnel. In a report, UN investigators said such violations may have constituted crimes against humanity.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

OP-ED TURKEY: America Has Chosen the Wrong Partner

]]>

TURKEY: America Has Chosen the Wrong Partner Opinion by Mevlut Cavusoglu EDITOR’S NOTE: Mevlut Cavusoglu is Turkey’s minister of foreign affairs.

NATO.

ANKARA, Turkey — The United States is bound to the Middle East by interests, but Turkey shares about 800 miles of border with Syria and Iraq alone. In this geography and beyond, Turkey and the United States share the goal of defeating terrorist organizations that threaten our nations.

Daesh (or the so-called Islamic State) has been our common enemy, and the victory against the group could not have been possible without Turkey’s active contributions. Those contributions continue even though the group has been defeated militarily in both Iraq and Syria.

The Turkish military was crucial in the liberation of the northern Syrian city of Jarabulus from Daesh in 2016. Turkey detained more than 10,000 members of Daesh and Qaeda affiliates, and deported around 5,800 terrorists while denying entry to more than 4,000 suspicious travelers. Daesh has lost territorial control in Syria and Iraq, but it still retains the capacity to inflict horrors. Turkish authorities recently carried out operations against Daesh cells and damaged its efforts to reorganize.

American officials have told us that the United States wants to remain engaged and needs boots on the ground in Syria to prevent the remnants of Daesh from regrouping. But fighting Daesh cannot and should not mean that we will not fight other terrorist groups in our region that which threaten our country and the security of our citizens.

An impasse has been created between us by the United States’ choice of local partner in this war: a group that the American government itself recognizes as a terrorist organization. The so-called People’s Protection Units, or Y.P.G., is simply the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party terrorist organization by another name.

The groups have adopted different names and developed convoluted structures, but that does not cloak their reality. They are led by the same cadres, train in the same camps, share organizational and military structures, and use the same propaganda tools and financial resources.

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., directs the Y.P.G., and the P.K.K.’s suicide bombers are trained in Y.P.G. camps in Syria. To our dismay, the Y.P.G./P.K.K. terrorists across our borders in Iraq and Syria are using weapons and training provided by the United States.

The weapons confiscated by our security forces from P.K.K. terrorists have also been significantly increasing in both numbers and sophistication. A NATO ally arming a terrorist organization that is attacking another NATO ally is a fundamental breach of everything that NATO stands for. It is a policy anomaly that needs to be corrected. We have no doubt that the United States will see the damage this policy is inflicting on the credibility of the NATO alliance and correct its policy by putting its allies and long-term interests first again.

American reliance on the People’s Protection Units is a self-inflicted error when the United States already has a capable partner in Turkey. Turkey, however, cannot afford to wait for eventual and inevitable course corrections. Paying lip service to understanding Turkey’s security concerns does not remove those threats and dangers.

In the recent weeks, Turkish authorities have documented an increase in threats posed by the Y.P.G. and Daesh encampments in Syria. Terrorists in the Afrin region in Syria were menacing the lives and property of both the people of the region and Turks along the border. We had to act, and so Turkey has launched Operation Olive Branch against the terrorists in Afrin.

The operation has a clear objective: to ensure the security of our borders and neutralize the terrorists in Afrin. It is carried out on the basis of international law, in accordance with our right to self-defense.

The targets are the terrorists, their shelters, their weapons and related infrastructure. The Turkish Army is acting with utmost precaution to avoid harming civilians. We have already intensified our humanitarian efforts substantially, setting up camps to help the civilians fleeing Afrin.

We are already hosting over three million Syrians, and Turkish humanitarian agencies are helping those who need our support. Turkey will continue the mission until terrorists are wiped out.

Turkey will not consent to the creation of separatist enclaves or terrorist safe havens that threaten its national security and are against the will of the Syrian people.

Turkey has already been active in every political process that seeks a solution to the quagmire in Syria. Maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria is key to the peace efforts. Clearing terrorists means opening space for peace. We strive for a future that is free of terrorist entities, imploding neighbors, wars and humanitarian calamities in our region. Turkey deserves the respect and support of the United States in this essential fight.

Michael Powles: ‘Recolonising’ the Pacific would stir security backlash

]]>

Australian Foreign Policy White Paper … “Opportunity, Security, Strength” but a step too far for New Zealand. Image: Aust govt

ANALYSIS: By Michael Powles with Anna Powles

Australia’s recent Foreign Policy White Paper says that Australia’s approach in the region will focus on “helping to integrate Pacific countries in the Australian and New Zealand economies and our security institutions”. Does this mean effectively a recolonisation of parts of the Pacific?

Terence O’Brien (Money, military keys to Australian foreign policy, December 15) refers to the Australian emphasis on the need for United States/Australian co-operation “to shape order” in the Asia Pacific.

O’Brien comments that the current aberrant behaviour of the Trump administration seems to be assumed by the White Paper to be a temporary phenomenon – “essentially bumps in the road on the highway of enlightened American-led progress”.

Few in New Zealand would agree the Trump administration is likely to change its ways. Recent presidential tweets suggest a determination to plumb new depths.

Many New Zealanders are puzzled by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s avowal that Australia and the Trump Administration are “joined at the hip” for security purposes.

Now, Australia is proposing changes which would have a profound impact on our own Pacific neighbourhood and on fundamental New Zealand interests.

-Partners-

“Integrating” Pacific countries into Australian and New Zealand institutions: to achieve anything, this would have to involve surrender of at least some sovereignty. It would be seen by many in the region as a form of recolonisation, a modern version of the way Britain colonised Fiji, New Zealand and others in the 19th century.

Compact-style arrangements
Australian analysts suggest this integration should be achieved by establishing arrangements with Nauru, Tuvalu and Kiribati along the lines of Compacts which the United States has with its former Trust Territories in the Pacific, Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.

In return for significant aid, these Pacific countries agree to deny access to their countries for all nations except the United States. The arrangements between New Zealand and the Cook Islands and Niue have also been mentioned.

But all these arrangements were negotiated by the United States and New Zealand respectively before the Pacific countries became independent or self-governing. For them to move to a more limited form of independence would be seen by many as a step backwards towards their colonial pasts; and at a time when the focus in the Pacific is on increased self-determination for Pacific Island countries, not less.

An experienced Australian commentator, Nic Maclellan, has suggested, however, that it’s folly to believe that Pacific countries would allow Australia to set the security agenda: “That horse has already bolted”.

One of the authors of this piece knows very well Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu, having visited many times. They are proud of their independence and to suggest in this 21st century that that should now be qualified or restricted is simply remarkable. There would be strong opposition.

Pacific leaders have become increasingly outspoken pursuing or defending their own interests.
Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama of Fiji has developed his reputation for this over several years.

Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi of Samoa, current chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, has reacted angrily to the Australian government’s criticism of Chinese aid in the Pacific (“useless buildings” and “roads to nowhere”). The Prime Minister said these comments were “insulting to Pacific island leaders”.

Diminishing influence
The Australian initiative would hasten a trend which is already diminishing Australian and New Zealand influence in the region. Pacific island perceptions that the two countries are becoming less supportive of Pacific aspirations over recent years have already resulted in a significant backlash.

Climate change is understandably given a much higher priority by island countries than by Australia and New Zealand. Trenchant positions by these two countries have prevented the Pacific Islands Forum taking positions fully reflecting island countries’ intense concern about the potentially catastrophic impact of climate change on several Forum members.

A consequence has been an emphasis on island country roles outside the Pacific Islands Forum. This has given impetus to other regional groupings and there has been much talk of this “New Pacific Diplomacy”.

Without a change by Australia and New Zealand to more responsive reactions to island countries, giving them greater agency within the Pacific Islands Forum, this longstanding regional body is likely to continue to diminish in relative importance.

The new Australian policy, aimed at securing control of aspects of foreign policy in several island countries, will be seen as another, larger, step away from support for Pacific self-determination and agency.

The case against New Zealand supporting this latest Australian move is strong:

New Zealand support for national and regional self-determination in the Pacific, or “Pacific agency” as some call it, has been fundamental to its foreign policy for decades.

Significant break
Supporting this new initiative would be a significant break with this longstanding policy and would be deeply unpopular both in the region and overseas.

New Zealand’s relationships and influence in the Pacific would suffer from such a change, affecting also our influence on security issues – ironically the proposed policy is justified on security grounds.

New Zealand’s global reputation and influence, depending in part on our reputation and standing in our home region, would also suffer.

There is no evidence that interventions in the Pacific as proposed in the Australian Foreign Policy White Paper are actually necessary to preserve or ensure regional security, which is best served by effective collaborative diplomacy with Pacific partners.

Our Australian relationship is our most important and we should seek common policies where we can. This initiative, however, would be against fundamental New Zealand interests in our own neighbourhood. It would be a step too far.

Michael Powles, a former NZ diplomat, is a senior fellow of the Centre for Strategic Studies, Victoria University of Wellington. Dr Anna Powles is a senior lecturer at the Centre for Defence and Security Studies, Massey University, Wellington. They are currently writing a book about New Zealand’s role in the Pacific. This article was first published in The Dominion Post and has been republished by Asia Pacific Report with the permission of the authors.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Indonesia prone to cyber attacks up to the 2025, says digital expert

]]>

Anonymous Indonesia … cybersecurity in the country is regarded as being “in its infancy”. Image: Tech In Asia

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Indonesia is predicted to be prone to cyber attacks from this year until 2025, says a media communication and technology consultant.

A.T. Kearney’s media communication and technology researcher Germaine Hoe Yen Yi says ASEAN countries, especially Indonesia, face this problem because of the shortage of digital experts.

“The low policy supervision, the lack of experts in the digital field, high susceptibility and low investments,” said Yen Yi during the Southeast Asia emergency security presentation in Jakarta last week.

A.T. Kearney is a global management consulting firm with offices in more than 40 countries.

From 10 ASEAN countries, only Singapore and Malaysia are considered among the most digitally advanced countries.

However, Philippines and Thailand are in their “development stage” regarding cybersecurity.

-Partners-

Indonesia’s cybersecurity is considered to be in its infancy, which includes its regulations, national strategy development, governance, and international partnership.

“Malaysia is expected to need more than 4000 cybersecurity experts by the year 2020 to fight against cybersecurity issues,” said Yen Yi.

Meanwhile, in investments, ASEAN countries still provides limited funding for cyber securities with an average of 0.07 percent from their gross domestic product.

Yen Yi said the number must be increased to 0.35 percent and 0.61 percent compared to their GDP in 2025.

Cisco ASEAN president Naveen Menon said that a county’s success in digitisation depended on its ability to resist cyber attack threats. He also urged stakeholders to unite and help build cybersecurity abilities.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Bougainville autonomy ‘positive’ but improvements needed, says poll report

]]>

PNG’s NRI researchers present Bougainville referendum reports. Video: EMTV News

By Meriba Tulo in Port Moresby

The autonomous arrangements for Bougainville have been described as positive.

However, there is also room for improvement – among these, the need for the effective use of knowledge, capacity and time.

These were points highlighted this week during a presentation of two draft research reports into Bougainville’s referendum for next year.

The research has been conducted by Papua New Guinea’s National Research Institute (NRI) through its Bougainville Referendum Research Project.

According to PNGNRI Director Dr Osborne Sanida, these reports highlight some issues that the institute believes need to be considered by stakeholders from PNG as well as from the Autonomous Region of Bougainville.

-Partners-

The report on fiscal autonomy was spearheaded by Professor Satish Chand.

Professor Chand said an immediate need for Bougainville was to increase the capacity to fund its own budget – regardless of the level of autonomy it has now, or may have following the referendum.

Broader tax options
He said developmental taxation should be an option to consider in an effort to broaden the tax base for Bougainville.

Professor Chand said that given mining was still a controversial issue on the island – and that mining revenue might take a decade – the Autonomous Region should consider fisheries or agriculture as an alternative in increasing internal revenue.

Also released was a Draft Report on Political Autonomy presented by Martina Trettel.

This report considers the various forms of autonomy that are present in other jurisdictions, and compares these to the Bougainville experience.

According to Trettel, there is an imminent need for both the national government and the ABG to work an arrangement which may be beneficial for the island region in the immediate future, as well as post-referendum.

The report has highlighted the need for both governments to share the responsibilities of autonomy.

The research team has been presenting their findings to the Autonomous Bougainville Government this week.

Meriba Tulo is a senior reporter and presenter with EMTV and currently anchors Resource PNG and the daily National News. Asia Pacific Report republishes EMTV news reports with permission.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Duterte vs Rappler: Declaration of war against Philippine media?

]]>

On The Listening Post this week: Rappler battles with authorities plus climate sceptics and the media platforms they get. Video: Al Jazeera

As Rappler, a popular Manila news website, battles with authorities, news media in the Philippines are feeling the chill.

Rappler has long been a thorn in the side of President Rodrigo Duterte because of its critical reporting.

Duterte has repeatedly accused Rappler of being run by Americans, which is illegal under Filipino law.

Now the site is facing a possible shut down over that allegation.

Duterte has made many thinly veiled threats against journalists since 2016, but does this official move against Rappler amount to the Duterte government issuing a formal declaration of war against the Filipino media?

Contributors:
Maria Ressa, CEO, Rappler
Marichu Lambino, lawyer and assistant professor, University of the Philippines
Harry Roque, Filipino president’s spokesperson
Nonoy Espina, journalist and National Union of Journalists (NUJ) board member

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Coups, globalisation and Fiji’s reset structures of ‘democracy’

]]>

BOOKS: David Robie, editor of Pacific Journalism Review

When Commodore (now rear admiral retired and an elected prime minister) Voreqe Bainimarama staged Fiji’s fourth “coup to end all coups” on 5 December 2006, it was widely misunderstood, misinterpreted and misrepresented by a legion of politicians, foreign affairs officials, journalists and even some historians.

A chorus of voices continually argued for the restoration of “democracy” – not only the flawed version of democracy that had persisted in various forms since independence from colonial Britain in 1970, but specifically the arguably illegal and unconstitutional government of merchant banker Laisenia Qarase that had been installed on the coattails of the third (attempted) coup in 2000.

Yet in spite of superficial appearances, Bainimarama’s 2006 coup contrasted sharply with its predecessors.

Bainimarama attempted to dodge the mistakes made by Sitiveni Rabuka after he carried out both of Fiji’s first two coups in 1987 while retaining the structures of power.

Instead, notes New Zealand historian Robbie Robertson who lived in Fiji for many years, Bainimarama “began to transform elements of Fiji: Taukei deference to tradition, the provision of golden eggs to sustain the old [chiefly] elite, the power enjoyed by the media and judiciary, rural neglect and infrastructural inertia” (p. 314). But that wasn’t all.

[H]e brazenly navigated international hostility to his illegal regime. Then, having accepted an independent process for developing a new constitution, he rejected its outcome, fearing it threatened his hold on power and would restore much of what he had undone. (Ibid.)

-Partners-

Bainimarama reset electoral rules, abolished communalism in order to pull the rug from under the old chiefly elite, and provided the first non-communal foundation for voting in Fiji.

Landslide victory
Then he was voted in as legal prime minister of Fiji with an overwhelming personal majority and a landslide victory for his fledgling FijiFirst Party in September 2014. He left his critics in Australia and New Zealand floundering in his wake.

Robertson is well-qualified to write this well-timed book with Bainimarama due to be tested again this year with another election. He is a former history lecturer at the Suva-based regional University of the South Pacific at the time of Rabuka’s original coups (when I first met him).

He and his journalist wife Akosita Tamanisau wrote a definitive account of the 1987 events and the ousting of Dr Timoci Bavadra’s visionary and multiracial Fiji Labour Party-led government, Fiji: Shattered Coups (1988), ultimately leading to his expulsion from Fiji by the Rabuka regime. He also followed this up with Government by the Gun (2001) on the 2000 coup, and other titles.

Robertson later returned to Fiji as professor of Development Studies at USP and he has also been professor and head of Arts and Social Sciences at James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland, as well as holding posts at La Trobe University, the Australian National University and the University of Otago.

He has published widely on globalisation. He is thus able to bring a unique perspective on Fiji over three decades and is currently professor and dean of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne.

Since 2006, Fiji has slipped steadily away from Australian and New Zealand influence, as outlined by Robertson. However, this is a state of affairs blamed by Bainimarama on Canberra and Wellington for their failed and blind policies.

Even since the 2014 election, Bainimarama has maintained a “hardline” on the Pacific’s political architecture through his Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF) alternative to the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), and on the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus trade deal.

‘Turned their backs’
While in Brisbane for an international conference in 2015, Bainimarama took the opportunity to remind his audience that Australia and New Zealand “as traditional friends had turned their backs on Fiji”. He added:

How much sooner we might have been able to return Fiji to parliamentary rule if we hadn’t expended so much effort on simply surviving … defending the status quo in Fiji was indefensible, intellectually and morally (p. 294).

For the first time in Fiji’s history, Bainimarama steered the country closer to a “standard model of liberal democracy” and away from the British colonial and race-based legacy.

“Government still remained the familiar goose,” writes Robertson, “but this time, its golden eggs were distributed more evenly than before”. The author attributes this to “bypassing chiefly hands” for tribal land lease monies, through welfare and educational programmes no longer race-bound, and through bold rural public road, water and electrification projects.

Admittedly, argues Robertson, like Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara (Fiji’s prime minister at independence and later president), Rabuka and Qarase, “Bainimarama had cronies and the military continues to benefit excessively from his ascendancy”. Nevertheless, Bainimarama’s “outstanding controversial achievement remains undoubtedly his rebooting of Fiji’s operating system in 2013”.

Coup 3 front man George Speight … jailed for treason. Image: Mai Life

Robertson’s scholarship is meticulous and drawn from an impressive range of sources, including his own work over more than three decades. One of the features of his latest book are his analysis of former British SAS Warrant Officer Lisoni Ligairi and the role of the First Meridian Squadron (renamed in 1999 from the “coup proof” Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit – CRWU), and the “public face” of Coup 3, businessman George Speight, now serving a life sentence in prison for treason.

His reflections on and interpretations of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces Board of Inquiry (known as BoL) into the May 2000 coup are also extremely valuable. Much of this has never before been available in an annotated and tested published form, although it is available as full transcripts on the “Truth for Fiji” website.

‘Overlapping conspiracies’
As Robertson recalls, by mid-May, “there were many overlapping conspiracies afoot … Within the kava-infused wheels within wheels, coup whispers gained volume”. Ligairi’s role was pivotal but BoL put most of the blame for the coup on the RFMF for “allowing” one man so much power, especially one it considered ill-equipped to be a director and planner’ (p. 140).

The BoL testimony about the November 2000 CRWU mutiny before Bainimarama escaped with his life through a cassava patch, also fed into Robertson’s account, although he admits Colonel Jone Baledrokadroka’s ANU doctoral thesis is the best account on the topic, “Sacred King and Warrior Chief:The role of the military in Fiji politics”.

It was a bloody and confused affair, led by the once loyal [Captain Shane] Stevens, 40 CRWU soldiers, many reportedly intoxicated, seized weapons and took over the Officers Mess, Bainimarama’s office and administration complex, the national operations centre and the armoury in the early afternoon. They wanted hostages; above all they wanted Bainimarama. (p. 164)

The book is divided into four lengthy chapters plus an Introduction and Conclusion – 1. The Challenge of Inheritance about the flawed colonial legacy, 2. The Great Turning on Rabuka’s 1987 coups and the Taukei indigenous supremacy constitution, 3. Redux: The Season for Coups on Speight’s attempted (and partially successful) 2000 coup, and 4. Plus ça Change …? on Bainimarama’s political “reset”. (The Bainimarama success in outflanking his Pacific critics is perhaps best represented by his diplomatic success in co-hosting the “Pacific” global climate change summit in Bonn in 2017.)

One drawback from a journalism perspective is the less than compelling assessment of the role of the media over the period, considering the various controversies that dogged each coup, especially the Speight one when accusations were made against some journalists as having been too close to the coup makers.

One of Fiji’s best journalists and editors, arguably the outstanding investigative reporter of his era, Jo Nata, publisher of the Weekender, sided with Speight as a “media minder” and was jailed for treason.

However, while Robertson in several places acknowledges Nata’s place in Fiji as a journalist, there is no real examination of his role as journalist-turned-coup-propagandist. This ought to be a case study.

Robertson noted how Nata’s Weekender exposed “morality issues” in Rabuka’s cabinet in 1994 without naming names. The Review news and business magazine followed up with a full report in the April edition that year, naming a prominent female journalist who was sleeping with the post-coup prime minister, produced a love child and who still works for The Fiji Times today (p. 118).

Nata then promised a special issue on the 21 women Rabuka had had affairs with since stepping down from the military. However, after Police Commissioner Isikia Savua spoke to him, the issue never appeared. (A full account is in Pacific Journalism ReviewThe Review, 1994).

NBF debacle
Elsewhere in the book is an outline of the National Bank of Fiji (NBF) debacle that erupted when an audit was leaked to the media: “In fact, the press, particularly The Fiji Times and The Review, were pivotal in exposing the scandal.” Robertson added:

The Review had earlier been threatened with deregistration over its publication of Rabuka’s affair[s] in 1994; now both papers were threatened with Malaysian-style licensing laws to ensure that they remained respectful of Pacific cultural sensitivities and did not denigrate Fijian business acumen. (p. 121)

The bank collapsed in late 1995 owing more than $220 million or nearly 9 percent of Fiji’s GDP – an example of the nepotism, corruption and poor public administration that worsened in Fiji after Rabuka’s coups.

On Coup 1, Robertson recalls how apart from Rabuka’s masked soldiers inside Parliament, “other teams fanned out across the city to seize control of telecommunication power authorities, media outlets and the Government Buildings” (p. 65).

The 1987 Fiji military coups leader Sitiveni Rabuka as he was back then. Image: Matthew McKee/Pacific Journalism Review

But there is little reflective detail about Rabuka’s “seduction” of the Fiji and international journalists, or how after closing down the two daily newspapers, the neocolonial Fiji Times reopened while the original Fiji Sun opted to close down rather than publish under a military-backed regime.

About Coup 3, Robertson recalls “[Speight] was articulate and comfortable with the media – too comfortable, according to some journalists. They felt that this intimate media presence ‘aided the rebel leader’s propaganda fire … gave him political fuel’. They were not alone’ (p. 154) (see Robie, 2001).

On the introduction of the 2010 Fiji Media Industry Development Decree, which still casts a shadow over the country and is mainly responsible for the lowest Pacific “partly free” rankings in the global media freedom indexes, Robertson notes how it was “Singapore-inspired”. The decree “came out in early April 2010 for discussion and mandated that all media organisations had to be 90 percent locally owned. The implication for the News Corporation Fiji Times and for the 51 percent Australian-owned Daily Post were obvious” (p. 254).

The Fiji Times was bought by Mahendra Patel, long-standing director and owner of the Motibhai trading group. (He was later jailed for a year for “abuse of office” while chair of Post Fiji.) The Daily Post was closed down.

Facing a long history of harassment by various post-coup administrations (including a $100,000 fine in January 2009 for publishing a letter describing the judiciary as corrupt, and deportations of publishers), The Fiji Times is heading into this year’s elections facing a trial for alleged “sedition” confronting the newspaper.

In spite of my criticism of limitations on media content, The General’s Goose is an excellent book and should be mandatory background reading for any journalist covering South Pacific affairs, especially those likely to be involved in coverage of this year’s general election.

The General’s Goose: Fiji’s Tale of Contemporary Misadventure, by Robbie Robertson. Canberra: Australian National University. 2017. 366 pages. ISBN 9781760461270.

References
Baledrokadroka, J. (2012). The sacred king and warrior chief: The role of the military in Fiji politics. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Canberra: Australian National University.

Robertson, R., & Sutherland, W. (2001). Government by the gun: The unfinished business of Fiji’s 2000 coup. Sydney & London: Pluto Press & Zed Books.

Robertson, R., & Tamanisau, A. (1988). Fiji: Shattered coups. Sydney: Pluto Press.

Robie, D. (2001). Coup coup land: The press and the putsch in Fiji. Asia Pacific Media Educator, 10, 149-161. See also for an extensive media coverage examination of the 1987 Rabuka coups: Robie, D. (1989). Blood on their banner: Nationalist struggles in the South Pacific. London: Zed Books; 2006 coup and 2014 elections: Robie, D. (2016). ‘Unfree and unfair’?: Media intimidation in Fiji’s 2014 elections. In Ratuva, S., & Lawson, S. (Eds.), The people have spoken: The 2014 elections in Fiji. Canberra: ANU Press.

The Review (1994). Rabuka and the reporter. Pacific Journalism Review, 1(1), 20-22.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Poor Vanuatu pay ruling risks negative impact on security, say upset police

]]>

Vanuatu police in the Manaro rescue operation last year on Ambae. Image: Richard Nanua/Vanuatu Daily Post

By Richard M. Nanua in Port Vila

Some Vanuatu police officers have raised dissatisfaction on the implementation of the Government Remuneration Tribunal (GRT) ruling taking effect today, claiming it might negatively impact on security in the country.

After receiving a letter from the Police Commissioner, Albert Nalpini this week, police officers (lower ranking officers who did not want their names revealed) said they had all entitlements – such as detective, driver, prosecutor and sergeant allowances – removed with an increase that did not make any difference in their wages.

The unhappy police officers said that in their letters from the Commissioner, he had said the GRT report made a major determination that covered sworn police officers (Determination 15 of 2017).

The result of Determination 15 would be an overall increase in salary of VPF members to reflect market rates and to recognise the complexities and unique nature of policing work, they were told.

The determination also required that job-related allowances (JRAs) and take-home entitlements be incorporated into salary and no longer paid as a separate entitlement.

The GRT determination established that any salary adjustment would be in accordance with performance guidelines and budget availability.

-Partners-

The review of the salary increments would occur every three years rather than annually as in the previous situation.

‘Take-home pay’
The police force allowances that GRT has decided to remove are job-related allowances and other “take-home pay entitlements” that are to be absorbed into the revised salary rates.

But some police officers said that according to the new structure, the job related allowances – including the detective allowance, drivers allowance, instructor allowance, musician allowance, prosecutors allowance, tradesmen’s allowance, traffic examiners allowance, and sergeant allowance – had been wiped out from their entitlements.

They said that the take-home pay entitlements that were also taken from them are child allowances and housing allowances.

They are concerned that some of them will be affected with the change, especially the lowest paid in the force.

They said the senior police officers would benefit from the new structure but it was “a disaster” for police constables and the lowest ranks within the VPF.

Some of the police said that they had “put their lives on the line” every day for citizens.

They said that they were risking their lives for civilians who they did not even know they were attending dangerous situations.

Drug, murder cases
They deal with drug cases and burglars, rapists and murderers.

They get assaulted by criminals in what was a hard and dangerous job.

When the Daily Post gauged the view of some members of the public in town for their view, they appealed for a significant increase on the police wages.

Meanwhile, Internal Affairs Minister Andrew Napuat said he had reminded Commissioner Nalpini more than three times and Commander South, Jackson Noal, of any issue that may arise on the beginning of GRT pay that commences today.

The minister said he welcomed comments and anyone who was affected by the GRT, claiming if there was any dissatisfaction caused by that new structure then it was a top priority to deal with it.

He encouraged the unhappy police officers to talk to their superiors or to step into his office.

School teachers told the Daily Post yesterday that they were also affected.

They said that GRT was likely to affect teaching not only in Port Vila but Vanuatu as a whole.

The teachers said none of them were happy with this new structure that was only benefitting senior officers.

They appealed to the government to revisit or “hold” GRT pending a wider consultation.

Richard M. Nanua is a Vanuatu Daily Post journalist. Asia Pacific Report republishes VDP stories with permission.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

UN critics join global outrage over Duterte’s Rappler ‘free press’ attack

]]>

Rappler’s CEO and executive editor Maria Ressa says that the Philippine government spends a lot of effort to turn journalism into a crime which shouldn’t be the case. Video: Rappler

BACKGROUNDER: By David Robie

Three United Nations special rapporteurs have added their voice to the global protests this month over the President Rodrigo Durterte government bureaucracy’s attack on the independent online news website Rappler and a free press in the Philippines.

Rappler has been the latest media target for the administration’s wrath over a tenacious public interest watchdog that has been relentless in its coverage of the republic’s so-called “war on drugs” and state disinformation.

Some media freedom advocates claim that the Philippines is facing its worst free expression and security crisis since the Marcos dictatorship, with The New York Times denouncing the “ruthlessness” and “viciousness” of Duterte’s disdain for democracy.

The death toll in the extrajudicial spate of killings range between 3993 (official) and more than 7000 or even double that figure since Duterte took office on June 30, 2016, according to human rights agencies.

Headlined “After killing spree, is a free press Mr Duterte’s next victim”, the NY Times editorial said: “Even among that cast of illiberal leaders who rouse mobs with their ruthless policies and disdain for democratic protections, President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines stands out for his viciousness.

-Partners-

“He has effectively declared open season on those he and his minions accuse of being drug users and dealers … Exposing such brazen abuse of power is a hallowed mission of a free press, so it should come as no surprise that authoritarians like Mr Duterte usually go after independent media.”

The NY Times described Rappler as a “tenacious critic of the president’s vicious crackdown” and this had led to the government announcing on January 15 it was revoking the online news site’s licence.

No hard evidence
Media freedom watchdogs say the Philippine Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has produced no hard evidence to support its “foreign ownership” in breach of the constitution accusations against Rappler and the company that owns it, Rappler Holding Corp. Rappler is challenging this SEC ruling through the courts.

Philippine Ambassador to the US Jose Manuel “Babe” Romualdez denied any “political motivation” behind the SEC ruling on Rappler.

In a letter to the editor published by the Times on January 24 in response to the editorial, Romualdez described SEC chairperson Teresita Herbosa as “a person of unimpeachable character”.

Rappler chief executive Maria Ressa (right) speaking to colleagues at the Black Friday for press freedom rally in Quezon City, Philippines. With her is Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) executive director Malou Mangahas, who also spoke at the rally. Mangahas was recently in New Zealand for the Pacific Media Centre 10th anniversary celebration. Image: Rappler

Rappler and many supporting news groups staged “Black Friday” demonstrations across the Philippines on January 19 when chief executive Maria Ressa declared her organisation would “ hold the line” on press freedom, insisting journalism was “not a crime”.

“We’re doing journalism. We’re speaking truth to power. We’re not afraid and we won’t be intimidated,” she said.

Ressa has joined a group of courageous, outspoken and defiant women opposed to Duterte who are “being marginalised, silenced, or worse”, according to The Diplomat.

They include Vice-President Leni Robredo (effectively gagged and whose office will be eliminated under Duterte’s controversial “federalism” plans) and Senator Leila De Lima, a human rights advocate (jailed for the past year on trumped up charges that have yet to be tried).

Highly successful and innovative website
Ressa founded Rappler in 2011, originally on Facebook, after being CNN’s leading Asia investigative journalist for several years. It has been a highly successful and innovative online and “citizen journalism” website, with an Indonesian edition.

Rappler also currently faces a “cyber libel” complaint that is seen as highly dangerous for the media.

Duterte has also threatened to block renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise – the largest and most influential television network in the Philippines and publicly criticised the Philippines Daily Inquirer for its alleged “slanted reporting”. (A Duterte crony, San Miguel beer baron Ramon Ang, then seized a majority ownership stake in the company).

University of the Philippines journalism professor Daniel Arao said the President’s criticism echoed the martial law era, when then dictator Ferdinand Marcos ordered the shutdown of media outlets that were critical of his regime.

“The Duterte administration is being creative in terms of harassing and intimidating the media, but there is also the brutality, the bullying and the crassness,” Dr Arao said.

“Right now, he might even end up worse than Marcos.”

Other media freedom advocates have also warned that the Philippines is sliding into its “darkest chapter” of Philippine history between 1972 and 1986.

‘Flagrant’ violation
Describing the government’s stance as a “flagrant” violation of press freedom, the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders watchdog announced it had asked the United Nations, UNESCO and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to take a stand.

“The decision to close Rappler is fraught with danger, hence the urgency of referring it to these international bodies,” RSF deputy director-general Antoine Bernard said. “We are very concerned about the safety of its journalists and the protection of their sources, especially as Rappler is well known for the quality of its investigative reporting.”

The watchdog’s Asia-Pacific director Daniel Bastard added: “For more than a year, Duterte’s notorious troll army has been spreading the rumour that Rappler is 100 percent foreign-owned.”

In a joint statement on Thursday, the three UN special rapporteurs said they were “gravely concerned” about the government moves to revoke Rappler’s licence.

“Rappler’s work rests on its own freedom to impart information, and more importantly its vast readership to have access to public interest reporting,” said the rapporteurs.

“As a matter of human rights law, there is no basis to block it from operating. Rappler and other independent outlets need particular protection because of the essential role they play in ensuring robust public debate.”

The rapporteurs are: David Kaye (Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression), Agnes Callamard (Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions), and Michael Forst (Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders).

‘Dangerous, risk of murder’
Writing in The Diplomat, University of Portsmouth academic Dr Tom Smith warned that journalism in the Philippines “has long been a dangerous trade, one that carries a very real risk of murder with little likelihood of accountability”.

He reminded readers of the 2009 Maguindanao massacre when 58 people, including 32 journalists, were “hacked to death, allegedly by members of the Ampatuan clan”. There had been no justice so far for the victims so far in a flawed prosecution case that has crawled over the past decade.

“Yet it is vitally important that Filipinos have a robust critical press to question a government up to its neck in human rights abuses.”

This is why so many people were despairing with the news that Duterte’s administration is trying to ban Rappler.

Dr David Robie is editor of Asia Pacific Report, published by the Pacific Media Centre.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Indonesian court convicts mining protester over ‘communist’ symbol

]]>

Protesters gather in front of Banyuwangi District Court in Indonesia’s East Java province, this week in the freedom of expression case. Image: Yovinus Guntur/BenarNews

By Yovinus Guntur in Banyuwangi, Indonesia

An Indonesian court has convicted and sentenced an environmentalist to 10 months in prison on a charge of spreading communism by carrying a hammer-and-sickle banner at a protest last year.

The prosecutor at the Banyuwangi District Court, in East Java province, had sought a seven-year sentence for defendant 37-year-old Hari Budiawan (alias Budi Pego).

Communism has been outlawed in the country since the mid-1960s, when a bloody purge against suspected members of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) occurred.

A panel of judges ruled on Tuesday that Budi was guilty of a charge against “those who publicly commit crimes verbally, written, or through other media, spread or develop communism, Marxism, Leninism in any attempt”.

“The prosecution proved convincingly that the defendant committed a criminal offence against the state,” chief judge Putu Endru Sonata ruled. “Therefore he must serve 10 months in prison.”

On September 4, 2017, Budi was taken into custody and charged with carrying a banner that displayed communist symbols during an anti-mining protest in East Java in April 2017, causing public unrest.

-Partners-

The court ruled on the lesser sentence because the defendant had never been involved in criminal acts.

Important evidence
The banner’s hammer and sickle logo – the symbol of the liquidated PKI – was important evidence leading to the conviction, Putu told BenarNews.

Budi expressed disappointment.

“I am innocent and cannot accept the verdict,” he said.

Lawyer Ahmad Rifai said the picture showing what looks like the PKI symbol on the banner could not be called a symbol of communism, adding that “the verdict has threatened democracy in Banyuwangi”.

Budi has seven days to decide if he will appeal.

Herlambang P. Wiratraman, the chief of the Centre for Human Rights Law Studies at Airlangga University in Surabaya, agreed with Rifai.

“The stigma of communism became the easiest tool to stop activists who resisted mining in Banyuwangi,” he said.

‘Judicial repression’
Amnesty International (AI) Indonesia also condemned the verdict, calling Budi a prisoner of conscience.

“This is a form of judicial repression against the constitutional rights of citizens to have opinions.

“A higher judicial authority” should immediately release Budi because he had “fought for the preservation of the environment and the rights of the people around Tumpang Pitu Mountain Protected Forest,” AI Indonesia director Usman Hamid said in a written statement.

“The judge should protect fundamental rights, namely the right of expression guaranteed by the constitution” by releasing Budi, Usman said.

In September, after Budi was arrested, fellow activist Agnes Dave questioned the authenticity of the banner.

“Local police and residents were also there. If the activists made such a banner displaying the hammer and sickle, they would have been aware. Police could have stopped the protest and arrested anyone joining in,” she said at the time.

Protesters gathered
While Budi was inside the courtroom learning his fate, hundreds of his supporters and anti-communist protesters gathered outside as police officers armed with a water cannon watched over them.

Members of the Anti-Communist Revival Movement (GAKK) said they supported the guilty verdict and sentencing.

“This is a proof that in Banyuwangi there is indeed a new style of communist revival,” said H. Abdillah Rafsanjani, an organiser of the GAKK protests.

Communism was declared illegal in Indonesia after PKI sympathizers allegedly killed 62 members of Ansor, the youth wing of the largest Indonesian Muslim organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama, on October 18, 1965.

Human rights organisations estimate that between 500,000 and 1 million Indonesians died during nationwide killings that targeted suspected PKI members in 1965 and 1966.

Hari Budiawan (alias Budi Pego – in white shirt) is sentenced to 10 months in prison at the Banyuwangi District Court in East Java, Indonesia, on Tuesday after being found guilty of a charge of spreading communism. Image: Yovinus Guntur/BenarNews
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Indonesian soldiers drink snake blood, smash bricks for US Defence Secretary

]]>

Elite Indonesian troops drink blood from decapitated snakes during a demonstration for US Defence Secretary James Mattis in Jakarta. Image: PMC still from Washington Post video

United States Defence Secretary James Mattis has watched Indonesian special forces smash concrete blocks with their heads, walk barefoot across a flaming log, and drink blood from still-slithering bodies of snakes, reports New York Magazine.

The demonstration came at the end of a three-day visit to Indonesia this week that was part of Mattis’s Southeast Asian tour.

His next stop is Vietnam, where authorities will have trouble following this act, writes Adam K. Raymond.

After several days of meetings, Mattis was apparently ready for the show yesterday.

“The snakes! Did you see them tire them out and then grab them? The way they were whipping them around — a snake gets tired very quickly,” the man known as “Mad Dog” told reporters.

‘Mission Impossible’
The press traveling with the retired US Marine Corps general was only expecting a hostage rescue drill, Reuters reports, but the Indonesians delivered much more:

Wearing a hood to blind him, one knife-wielding Indonesian soldier slashed away at a cucumber sticking out of his colleague’s mouth, coming just inches from striking his nose with the long blade. …

-Partners-

At the end of the demonstration, to the tune of the movie “Mission Impossible,” the Indonesian forces carried out a hostage rescue operation, deploying stealthily from helicopters – with police dogs. The dogs intercepted the gunman.

“Even the dogs coming out of those helicopters knew what to do,” Mattis said after the show.


A Washington Post video clip of the Indonesian special forces event.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Nothing can stop Duterte extending Philippine martial law, says legal chief

]]>

Martial law … Solicitor-General Jose Calida Calida says further extensions are possible “for as long as the Congress believes that the invasion or rebellion continues to exist.” Image: Ben Nabong/Rappler

By Lian Buan in Manila

Philippine Solicitor-General Jose Calida says nothing – not the Supreme Court (SC) and not even the Constitution – can stop President Rodrigo Duterte and Congress from further extending martial law.

“The Court cannot, in the absence of any express or implied prohibition in the 1987 Constitution, prevent the Congress from granting further extensions of the proclamation or suspension,” Calida said in his 99-page memorandum sent to the Supreme Court yesterday.

Calida said further extensions were possible “for as long as the Congress believes that the invasion or rebellion continues to exist, and the public safety requires it”.

READ MORE: Justice pushes for ‘broader criteria’ for declaring martial law

This is what the House minority bloc warned against.

In their petition seeking to nullify the re-extension of martial law in the southern island of Mindanao to the end of 2018, the lawmakers said the Philippines was heading towards a “martial law in perpetuity.”

-Partners-

Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said there was no need to fear this because the Constitution did not allow a perpetual martial law.

Calida does not share the same opinion.

“The period for which the Congress can extend the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a matter that the august body can itself define, unshackled by any predetermined length of time, contrary to the petitioners’ erroneous submission,” the Solicitor-General said.

If Calida’s line of argument is to be upheld, Edre Olalia of the National Union of People’s Lawyers (NUPL) said: “Congress can extend martial law until kingdom come and the SC cannot do anything but to genuflect and grovel. Preposterous!”

Supreme Court’s power of judicial review
Calida also insists in his memorandum that extending martial law is not within the Court’s power of judicial review.

“The determination of the length of the extension is a power vested only in the Congress. It involves the exercise of its wisdom. The issue is a political question that judicial review cannot delve into,” Calida said.

But oddly enough, when it came to addressing the fear of a perpetual martial law, Calida changed tone and said one of the constitutional safeguards against abuse of the executive was that the Supreme Court can always step in.

“The extension is subject to judicial scrutiny upon the exercise of any citizen of his or her right to question the sufficiency of its factual basis, as exemplified by the very action now before this Honourable Court,” Calida said.

The paragraph above contradicts Calida’s many statements within the same memorandum that insists SC does not enjoy that power.

For example, one of Calida’s main arguments is that “the extension may not be impugned on the ground of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction”.

In fact, that argument is contained in his very first pleading to the SC, saying that proclamation is different from extension. SC had already ruled that it has the power to review martial law proclamations.

Political question
Petitioners said that one of the grounds to nullify the extension was that the Congress leadership approved it in undue haste.

In response, Calida said that the Congress’ approval is a perfect example of a political question. The doctrine of political question is invoked when the executive and the legislative resist being reviewed by the judiciary.

“The Congress has full discretionary authority to decide how to go about the debates and the voting. In other words, the issues that the petitioners raise are political and non-justiciable. The questions presented essentially go into the wisdom of the Congressional action,” Calida said.

Calida dedicated 3 pages of his memorandum to stressing that the judiciary cannot interfere in the business of the executive and legislative branches, if the business is a political question.

“This despite the fact that political question limitation has already been debunked and abandoned by Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution,” Olalia said.

Olalia was referring to the constitutional power given to the judiciary to review whether the two other branches of government exercised grave abuse of discretion.

A sub-committee at the House of Representatives is proposing to delete that provision once and for all, something that retired Supreme Court justice Vicente Mendoza warned against.

“It needs serious study because deletion of this phrase mght be used to render SC powerless,” Mendoza said.

  • Pacific Media Centre reports: President Duterte placed Mindanao and its nearby islands under martial law on 23 May 2017 in response to the Battle of Marawi against Islamic State (ISIL), including Maute and Abu Sayyaf Salafi jihadist groupsNon-Muslim indigenous Lumad people of Mindanao have opposed martial rule and many human rights violations have been recorded by independent human rights organisations.Duterte has threatened to extend martial law across the whole country. The Philippine Congress on 17 December 2017 endorsed Duterte’s request to extend martial law until the end of 2018.

Lian Buan is a journalist writing for Rappler.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

‘This isn’t the time to be silent,’ say writers defending Rappler

]]>

Rappler media freedom issue … several Filipino literary writers groups have spoken up after the Securities and Exchange Commission’s decision to revoke Rappler’s licence to operate. Graphic: Rappler

By Jee Y. Geronimo in Manila

After the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) decision to revoke Rappler’s licence to operate in a blow to press freedom in the Philippines last week, several literary writers groups have expressed their support for press freedom.

On January 18 – 3 days after the decision was made public – the Unyon ng Mga Manunulat sa Pilipinas (UMPIL) described the move to revoke Rappler’s licence as the “worst attack on the media” by the Duterte administration.

“Ito na ang pinakamatinding pag-atake sa midya ng administrasyong unti-unting lumalabas ang tunay na awtokratikong kulay. Ibig lámang nitong marinig ang ibig marinig. Higit pang masamâ, ibig din nitong matakot at tumiklop ang lahat ng nagmamahal sa demokrasya,” UMPIL said in a statement posted on their Facebook page.

(This is the worst attack on media by an administration whose true, autocratic colors are slowly showing. It only wants to hear what it wants to hear. What’s worse, it also wants everyone who loves democracy to be afraid and to back down.)

READ MORE: Stand with Rappler for media freedom

According to the SEC, Rappler is violating the Constitution because of a clause in its Philippine Depositary Receipt (PDR) contract with Omidyar Network that allegedly gives it control over the company, a claim denied by Rappler.

-Partners-

The Constitution says that media companies should be 100 percent Filipino-owned.

Rappler has said it is 100 percent Filipino-owned and that it has not given nor sold control to Omidyar. The media company will appeal the decision before the courts.

Solidarity against harassment
UMPIL expressed solidarity with journalists and agencies that experience different forms of harassment. It also considers defending press freedom as its sacred duty.

“Hindi ito oras ng pananahimik. Hindi kailanman mananahimik at matatahimik ang Unyon ng mga Manunulat sa Pilipinas sa ganitong kalakaran. Naninindigan ang UMPIL para sa kabanalan ng karapatan sa pamamahayag, at sa pagtatanggol sa halaga ng pangmadlang midya bílang ikaapat na estado ng isang demokratikong lipunan,” they added.

(This is not the time to be silent. The Unyon ng mga Manunulat sa Pilipinas will never be silent. UMPIL stands for freedom of the press, and for defending the value of mass media as the 4th estate in a democratic society.)

UMPIL also urged all writers and those who champion the arts to not stay silent and to oppose the suppression of press freedom.

‘Time to speak truth to power’

The Philippine Center of International PEN (Poets, Playwrights, Essayists, Novelists) also condemned the SEC’s decision, saying it sees the revocation of Rappler’s licence as “part of the continuing shakedown by the administration of Rodrigo Duterte of the independent press which is critical of his abuses and depredations”.

In a statement this week, the group called the decision “another assault on press freedom,” adding that it violates Filipinos’ right “to seek and receive information and opinion through digital journalism”.

‘Intolerance of dissent’
“The Duterte government, by targeting Rappler and the free press, undermines the universal right to freedom of expression. The SEC order against Rappler betrays once more the Duterte administration’s despotism and its intolerance of dissent and contrary views,” the Philippine PEN added.

More recently, several writers from southern Philippines wanted to “dispel the notion that all writers from the South, particularly Mindanao, support the Duterte regime” by encouraging people to “rally against those who seek to impede the pursuit of truth and justice.”

“In the guise of citing the ‘unconstitutionality’ of Rappler’s issuance of Philippine Depositary Receipts (PDRs) – which are legal financial instruments likewise issued by other media companies – fascist enablers seek to silence those who criticise Duterte and his policies, further upholding political hegemony,” at least 53 writers said in a statement posted on the literary website Payag Habagatan.

They added: “Let us all stand as one: when freedom falls to tyranny, when truth is twisted to be a tool for political hegemony, when democracy crumbles under complicity, this is the time to speak truth to power. This is the time to unite against the subversion of the common good.”

Jee Y. Geronimo is a journalist writing for Rappler.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>

Matt Robson’s Eulogy for former deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton – Sacred Heart Church Christchurch

]]>

Matt Robson’s Eulogy for Jim Anderton

Sacred Heart Church Christchurch

11 January 2018

[caption id="attachment_15742" align="aligncenter" width="800"] Former deputy Prime Minister, Jim Anderton, NZOM.[/caption] Ka tangi te titi, Ka tangi hoki ahau, Tihei Mauri Ora. Te whare tapu e tu ne, Nga iwi e tau nei, Tena Kotou katoa. Jim Anderton was my, and so many others, political leader and teacher. He was also our friend. We thank his companion and wife Carole and her family for permitting a public funeral to allow all of us to share in the commemoration of Jim’s life. The tributes to him this week reflect the political giant he was, and will remain. Today as Jim was carried in you heard Chariots of Fire. A stirring theme of passion and determination to struggle against all odds. It was Jim’s song and he had it played at every single street corner meeting, and there were thousands over 27 years. I am reliably told that his Christchurch organisers after it was played on the nth occasion did beg for a change. Margaret Thatcher would have admired Jim just on this issue as he was not for turning. In the hall next to this church was the election day nerve centre that Jim used for so many of his successful campaigns from 1984 to 2011 when he retired after serving the people of this electorate and New Zealand for 27 years. That is why this church is an important marker in his life and his Christchurch Party colleagues are also honoured by Jim choosing this venue. His induction as a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit this year was recognition by all New Zealanders and many beyond our shores, for his dedication to public service. Helen Clark, who is in the USA and cannot be here today, was at the that ceremony to honour her colleague and deputy Prime Minister. Her Labour successor as Prime Minister, Jacinda Adern, is present today and has this week in, so many interviews and statements, paid fulsome tribute to the person that Jim was, his achievements and his political and personal influence on her and others in her ranks. Tony Holman, Jim’s friend of 60 years and a long time Auckland area local body politician, sitting in the front row, summed Jim up to a tee in a recent tribute : My wife, Dinah and I, and our family have so admired and loved Jim for his resolute desire to help as many individuals as he could, to seek fairness and justice however and wherever he could for all the people of this country as well as for the many who approached him with their individual problems. He was a true humanitarian with high political aims embodying the principles of the earlier Labour Party, and people generally believed that he would do his utmost to achieve whatever he said needed to be done and that he would keep to the promise, no matter what the obstacles. Jim has spent his life trying to improve the lot of people at large and to strengthen this country. In his work he has been hugely supported by his wife, Carole, who has patiently and lovingly taken care of his welfare in so many ways. I believe that Jim could not have achieved as much as he did without the unwavering support and care of Carole. We too pay tribute to Carole who has been there through all the hard years, served on the Christchurch Council and in Party bodies and campaigned along with Jeanette Lawrence and the team in every election while keeping home and hearth together. As my mother would have said: if you want a man for the job get a woman. Carole accompanied Jim on many political trips and met many foreign dignitaries and luminaries. I am certain that if either Donald Trump or Harvey Weinstein had been one of them that they would have been anxious to avoid the occasion a second time. My first acquaintance Every single person here today knows Jim in their own way. I can only provide what I hope is a further insight into the man and the leader. On turning on the radio in 1980, just returned from overseas, I heard an unfamiliar voice. The voice outlined that the Labour Party would campaign vigorously against apartheid and for a society of fairness and equality and that the speaker and his Labour Party colleagues were building a party machine to do just that. It was one of those annoying interviews where you come in part way through and Kim Hill does not tell you for 20 minutes or so who is the interviewee. Finally, when informed the speaker was Jim Anderton and he was President of the Labour Party, I just about fell off my chair. I probably did. I had attended Labour Party conferences in the past and the presidents, if I could remember their names at all, gave platitudinous speeches, never mentioned policies, the sacred territory of MPs, and announced the time for morning tea. This was a different political beast. I asked Helen Clark, soon to be Labour MP for Mt Albert and a fellow student when at university, if Jim was the genuine article. As his close colleague and Labour Party activist Helen assured me he was. I immediately joined the Labour Party. With the thousands who were now joining a revitalised Labour led by Jim, Helen and Margaret Wilson, we campaigned vigorously in 1981 with Bill Rowling as leader and Jim by his side as President. That was the year of an all-white Springbok tour. Jim with a few brave Labour MPs around Helen defied a caucus ban to be on the mass marches. So, began a more than 30-year friendship with Jim and the privilege in joining in government the man whose achievements and leadership have been recounted all this week and here today. Apart from Helen and a small group of MPs including Opposition Leader Bill Rowling, there was no welcome mat from the Labour Caucus for President Jim with his plans to revitalise the organisation and involve the membership in developing progressive policies. They thought they seen the back of him after driving him out of the 1967 Conference where he had made an unsuccessful attempt to break the power of Union grandees ,who had rubber stamped conservative policies and conservative selections in concert with the Caucus. Now, over a decade later he was back, as President and supporting policies from the base for progressive taxation to reduce disparities in wealth, using state resources to develop the mixed economy, severely limiting user pay provisions in health and education and a progressive and an independent internationalist policy which would also make New Zealand nuclear weapon free. For old and new Labour members alike in the refashioned mass party, Jim provided a clear set of principles based on recognition that wealth was created collectively and should be used for the collective good and based on that old fashioned socialist and Christian ideal of national and international solidarity of the peoples. His political experience spanned his years from 1965 as young Auckland City Councillor with the chutzpah to challenge that Auckland mayoral colossus ,Dove Meyer Robinson, becoming Labour President in 1979 , leading the formulation of the 1984 Labour policy platform programme , expelled in 1989 from the Labour caucus for opposition to state asset sales to being the leader of the New Labour Party, then the Alliance and deputy PM and senior cabinet minister in the coalition government led by Helen Clark. In these years Jim would use the telling analogy of opposition to the American war in Vietnam, in which millions of Vietnamese died, to show that principle will win out in politics. At the beginning of that war, and during the Cold War, Labour MPs were nervous of outright condemnation of the War and New Zealand’s military commitment from 1965. Their nervousness became panic when they lost the 1969 election and attributed that to opposition to the war. They became even more invisible than usual on the subject. Then as the truth about the war emerged a clear majority of New Zealanders supported an immediate end to New Zealand’s involvement. Labour 1972 victory was boosted by joining that demand. Jim used this example to demonstrate that it was crucial to take the right moral and political position even when public opinion was not on your side. When the truth emerged, he would say, people will remember those who took the principled stand and gave leadership. And taking the principled stand was his hallmark. He would tell us – do what is right, not what is politically expedient. The watershed years The campaigning enthusiasm of 1981 carried over into 1984. President Jim became Sydenham’s Labour MP. But the Labour election manifesto was side-lined by the new cabinet. The new government did not have a mandate to lower taxes on the wealthiest and begin the programme of public asset sales. It did not have a mandate to pull the state out of the market and on the side of ordinary New Zealanders. But it did all of those things. Jim rallied the Labour ranks against these policies. At the 1988 Labour conference he came close to winning the presidency. If he had, history would have been different. Jim stood by the policies that Labour had gone to the electorate on even when it meant no cabinet post, no committee chairs, no overseas trips and famously expulsion from the Labour caucus in 1989. He led the formation of the New Labour Party and fought the 1990 elections without the material resources of a large party but with the respect and admiration and support of thousands who turned their back on a bitterly divided Labour Party. It is hard to encapsulate in any pithy way those heady days when droves of the activists of the Labour Party turned to the new Party. At the 1990 election Jim retained his Sydenham seat, against any historical precedent, and the fledgling New Labour Party was launched as a political force. Many of the original Sydenham NLP organisers are here today. National too was to lose the trust of New Zealanders when after their 1990 landslide election win they continued asset sales and placed the greatest burdens on the least well off. It was the combined mistrust of Labour and National which probably tipped the balance for MMP in the 1993 referendum, a cause Jim campaigned for enthusiastically. Former Prime Minister Jim Bolger, here today, is now on record as saying: No one in politics now believes in the extreme free market approach that led Anderton to quit Labour in 1989. It takes courage to admit mistakes. In 1991 the New Labour Party, under Jim’s guidance, joined with 4 other small parties, the Greens, Liberals, Democrats and Mana Motuhake, in 1991, to form an Alliance around a common programme. In the last First Past the Post election in 1993, and with 18 % of the popular vote for the Alliance, Sandra Lee leader of Mana Motuhake defeated Labour heavyweight Richard Prebble in Auckland Central and joined Jim in Parliament. Now we were two. Jim always paid tribute to Sandra’s role at his side in the good times and the bad times. Alliance policies for progressive taxation, regional and economic development, an end to asset sales, return to free public health and education, greater resourcing of the Waitangi Tribunal, strong environmental measures and an independent foreign policy and of course Kiwibank, Paid Parental Leave and Four Weeks Annual Leave became our hallmark. The 1996 manifesto set these polices out with each one costed down to the last cent. Jim’s imprint was evident. Jim refused to go to an election with vague promise designed to catch votes but without saying where the money would come from. He wanted the Alliance to do the right thing by the public. The result in the first MMP election – 9 more Alliance MPs to join Jim and Sandra. In that 1996 election I well remember that Jim drew line in the sand against using migrants as a punching bag to gain votes. The anti-immigrant campaign blaming, in particular Chinese immigrants, for every social ill possible (there is nothing new under the sun!) caused our high polling vote to drop dramatically. I was the immigration spokesperson.There was pressure to put arbitrary numbers on immigration figures from within the Alliance. I refused to blame our contributing migrant community for the country’s woes. Jim backed me 100 percent. It was not the right thing to do, votes or no votes, so we were not doing it. That was that. Alliance with Labour But although neither Labour nor the Alliance was in government in 1996, the Alliance had arrived. Then in 1998 Jim showed his political vision and commitment to achieving the implementation of progressive policies by joining with Helen Clark and Labour to campaign for a Labour- Alliance government in 1999. Not without a lot of grumbling from many of us who were not so quick to see that it was time to leave our separate camps and strike at the political enemy together. Jim, older than most of us, was quicker off the mark. Helen Clark showed her political leadership as well and both rose above any of the political friction that had gone before and put the needs to rebuild a fairer and more just New Zealand above anything else. Labour- Alliance in government 1999 -2002 The rest, as someone famously said, is history, and the Labour-Alliance government was formed in 1999. Many Alliance key policies were implemented. But Michael Cullen has pointed out that although the KIwibank is rightly credited to Jim and the Alliance it was Jim’s determination to have a ministry for economic, industry and regional development that was perhaps his most remarkable achievement. This helped to underpin economic growth for every single region in New Zealand. and the retreat from extreme market policies. Jim was also, as Michael has attested this week, a co-architect of the Kiwi Saver policy. And later the Fast Forward Fund for the primary industry sector. This was no tax and spend socialist politician who neglected sustainable economic growth. The 2002-2005 Labour -Progressive government Between 2002 and 2005 Jim and I were the only surviving MPs from the Alliance. But not to despair. Jim was a glass half full man. This was 100 percent more than he had between 1990 until Sandra joined him in 1993. Be of good cheer. There is work to complete. He worked even harder, if that was possible, to complete the Alliance programme. I campaigned with him for measures to reduce alcohol harm and introduced, as a backbencher. the eventually successful bill for 4 weeks annual leave. Some of our audience could probably come today because of it. He was unremitting in his advocacy of effective measures for suicide prevention and resources for mental health. Yes, we were down to 2 MPs. That just meant that we had to work harder. Man Alone – 2005 to 2011. Now he was back to a one-man party ,but still in coalition. As Number 3 in the cabinet he was placed in the hot seat as Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Biosecurity. It was his responsibility to put the farming sector back at the centre of government economic strategy. He created the Fast Forward Fund for the primary industry sector which saw a $700 million research and development fund, planned to grow to 2000 million dollars fund over 10 years .Jim regretted the axing of this important initiative for our most important industry by the incoming Key government. Back in opposition 2008 to 2011 Whether you can keep a good man down or not you certainly couldn’t squash the spirit of Jim.

During this last term in Opposition 2008 – 2011, he developed a workable model for affordable dental treatment for all New Zealanders and campaigned on the reform of our alcohol legislation.

Retirement from Parliament – Look out Christchurch

In retirement from Parliament in 2011, he continued with voluntary work in post-earthquake Christchurch campaigning for the conservation of the Christchurch Cathedral with the Greater Christchurch Building Trust, fundraising for the new AMI Sports Stadium and chairing the stadium committee and was on the board of the low-cost housing group, Habitat for Humanity NZ. Oh and of course apart from that little episode of an earthquake in his beloved Christchurch 1n 2010, before his retirement from Parliament, he would have added Mayor of this city to his CV. His Christchurch years after Parliament were not your normal retirement set of activities. Working with Jim- or at least running to try and catch up He stressed Organisation, organisation, organisation. Detail, detail, detail. Do sweat the small stuff or the big stuff will fall on you. Get the scaffolding right. Did Jim feel political pressure from the ever present daily crises of politics and personal issues? Of course. But he would breathe deeply focus on what is to be done and do it. He liked to get things in perspective and would have loved the advice of Australian cricket great and World War Two bomber pilot Keith Miller who when asked about pressure in an Ashes test replied: Pressure! What pressure? Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your arse. I spoke at a farewell from Parliament for Jim and said that Jim would now have time to write a book. But unlike Richard Prebble’s title “I’ve been thinking” Jim’s would be called “I’ve been knowing”. That is because when, and you only did it once, you rushed into him with a bright idea and blurted out that you thought such and such was true and should be shouted from the rooftops, Jim would lift his head and growl “don’t think, know”. He was a hard taskmaster. But he never asked more of us then he would give himself. He would point to the hours of voluntary work put in for our movement and our policies by our members and the sacrifices that they made. They deserved not sloppiness from those of us paid to be in politics but 100 percent, and more, of effort. He was at his desk early and left late. When he offered to call after 7.00 a.m. you had to be prepared for the call to come at 10 seconds after the appointed hour. And you did not get away with it being Sunday and thinking surely not! It was no good leaving the phone off the hook and claiming that Helen had rung you- he would send a fax with the simple words- call me, now. His “To Do “list was always in front of him with each task accomplished crossed out. And then more were added. (And I am pretty sure that somewhere he is making up a fresh To Do List on which he has requested urgency on progressive tax reform to ensure that is wealthy is more evenly distributed . And if he is I would request him to add to it removing the immigration requirement that the skilled Cambodian baker in our neighbourhood now has to have university entrance English to be a New Zealander and to get more resources for Radio New Staff to learn Maori even if just to annoy Don Brash.) Many of us were a little anxious if we spied our names on the list with a line through! Meetings were to start on time and an agenda meticulously prepared. When we felt like giving up or despaired or were hurt by insults hurled, not a rare occurrence in politics unsurprisingly, Jim would simply tell us to harden up. Was this evidence of unremitting ruthlessness? No, it was the best advice I ever got in politics. Because he knew you would not survive if you did not. If the Opposition did not kill you your own party comrades might. He did it to arm us. He once gave me the image of putting on a suit of armour when going into political battles so that the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune did not have to be suffered. I use that image to this day. I often wanted to quote Shakespeare’s Henry V to him , but knew he would think the compariuson too grandiloquent , at a battle that all , except Henry, thought he would lose: We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he today that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition: And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks That fought with us upon St, Crispin’s day. But all was not just hard nosed with Jim. If genuine adversity struck, Jim was the first to be by your side and offer you his hand. He would not let us sink into a pit of despair if a political crisis hit- and as all involved in politics know we can be the toast of the town one day and plain old burnt toast the next. To inspire us when politically we might be on the ropes Jim would pull out his favourite cricket analogy- New Zealand 9 wickets down having to score 400 against Australia, not an unusual situation ,on the last day and sticking it out with dogged determination and a straight bat. And as a diligent constituent MP, both in opposition and as a Minister with heavy responsibilities, he had few equals. He ordered his staff to make time for his constituency work even if it meant evening appointments. Those who could not get their own busy MPs to help were not turned away by Jim. To this day he is praised by people well away from Christchurch who sought his help and got it. Jeanette Lawrence his Christchurch secretary along with Alan Hayward, has a prized letter in her possession from an Aucklander who gained his house by Jim’s intervention. He Is one among many. He cared for everyone who walked through his door. He looked at their need as human beings before he asked if they had a visa or were in his constituency. The appropriate Minister’s door would be knocked on if necessary and Jim would only leave when he had got justice. We Alliance MPs learned this from him. No political science textbook on the role of an MP could teach you this. He valued all his loyal and hard-working staff in Christchurch and in Parliament and the many volunteers who worked with him in the interests of the people he served as a public servant. He valued his secretaries in and out of Parliament as close colleagues , friends and advisers -Sally Mitchell, Cathy Casey, Sally Griffin , Jeanette Lawrence and Alan Hayward. He appreciated and worked closely with his MPs , a number who are here today- Sandra Lee, John Wright, Grant Gillon and Kevin Campbell. This was the man whose favourite saying was: lay your footpaths where the people walk. In 1998 I went to London. I sought out Tony Benn, the legendary Labour MP who laid the groundwork for the revitalisation of British Labour under Jeremy Corbyn. He generously gave me 3 hours of his time at his home. I showed him a book of speeches of the Alliance MPs and the Alliance policy booklet and explained Jim’s political history. He took from his bookshelf a work complied by him on the roots of English radicalism and inscribed in it: To Matt, comrade to comrade, we have shared it all. He asked me to show that to Jim. He had recognised a kindred spirit. I recently looked at Tony Benn’s book “Arguments for Socialism” and I believe that Jim would agree with the following sentiments: The real history of any popular movement is made by those, almost always anonymously, who throughout history have fought for what they believe in, organised others to join them, and have done so against immense odds and with nothing to gain for themselves, learning from their experience and leaving others to distil that experience and to use it again to advance the cause. Now we say good bye to a remarkable New Zealand figure who truly built his footpaths where the people walked. In recent conversations with Jim during the making of the documentary on his political leadership he expressed his hope that trust in the political system would be rebuilt. He was optimistic that the movements in the world against austerity policies, would be successful and would be influential in New Zealand. Jim would want us to evaluate his life and contribution to New Zealand warts and all and not elevate him to sainthood and embalm him in a mausoleum. Jim, in these last years continued to be as active as his health permitted and probably expended more energy than he should have. He continued to help people. And to be involved in the affairs of Christchurch. He had an unfinished biography and followed the progress of the documentary on his life, in which he gave a 6-hour interview, to the end. He followed politics with a critical and insightful eye. In 1999 Jim authored a book of 12 essays on remarkable and undervalued New Zealanders called “Unsung Heroes”. It is time for Jim to join Colonel Malone in that book. But we should retain the living, breathing fighting spirit of Jim Anderton who would have repeated to us the immortal words of union leader Joe Hill: Do not mourn, organise! Haere ra e rangitira Haere ra e hoa Moe mai, Moe mai, Moe mai.]]>

Politics Newsletter: New Zealand Politics Daily – 8 January 2018 – Today’s content

]]>

Politics Newsletter: New Zealand Politics Daily – 8 January 2018 – Today’s content Editor’s Note: Here below is a list of the main issues currently under discussion in New Zealand and links to media coverage. [caption id="attachment_15742" align="aligncenter" width="800"] Former Prime Minister, Jim Anderton, NZOM.[/caption] Below are the links to the items online. The full text of these items are contained in the PDF file (click to download). Jim Anderton John-Michael Swannix and Lloyd Burr (Newshub): Jim Anderton ‘saved’ the Labour Party, NZ – Matt McCarten Chris Trotter (Stuff): Jim Anderton: An unlikely left-wing hero Herald: Bolger: Anderton’s social justice principles will endure NZ Herald editorial: Jim Anderton might have been PM but for timing Laila Harre (Herald): Jim Anderton champion of the most basic Labour values Herald: Jim Anderton remembered as champion of MMP, Kiwibank, paid parental leave Simon Collins (Herald): Jim Anderton’s last message: Let’s rebuild trust in governments Thomas Coughlan (Newsroom): Anderton’s Shakespearean legacy John Gibb (ODT): Policies seen as Anderton’s legacy Tracy Watkins (Stuff): Anderton’s lasting legacy Piripi Taylor (Maori TV): A freedom fighter for our people – Sandra Lee-Vercoe Chris Trotter (Bowalley Road): James Patrick Anderton 1938 – 2018 Simon Collins (Herald): Feisty to the end: Jim Anderton’s final days Michael Wright (Stuff): The legacy of Jim Anderton: Former Deputy Prime Minister hailed ‘one of the most highly-principled and idealistic’ politicians Herald: Helen Clark’s tribute to ‘diligent, kind’ Jim Anderton Julian Lee and Nick Truebridge (Stuff): Former Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton dies in Christchurch 1News: ‘Jim stood for a kinder, fairer, better New Zealand’ – Helen Clark pays tribute to Jim Anderton 1News: Former Deputy Prime Minister, Jim Anderton has died Newshub: Jim Anderton dies aged 79 1News: Jim Anderton remembered as a man ‘who stood strongly for what he believed in’ Newstalk ZB: Jim Bolger’s tribute to former political foe: Anderton was ‘a man of principle’ RNZ: Jim Anderton a ‘towering figure’ – PM Stuff: Tributes flow for former deputy PM Jim Anderton, who has died aged 79 Evening Report: Former New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister Jim Anderton Dies Herald: Former deputy PM Jim Anderton dies Newstalk ZB: Mike Williams, Don Brash on Jim Anderton Gender issues Kristin Hall (The Spinoff): When will New Zealand finally grow up about boobs? Alison Mau (Stuff): Don’t waste your breath excusing the Rhythm and Vines groper Stephanie Rodgers (Boots theory): What did she expect? Graham Cameron (First we take Manhattan): Hey, saw you grab her breast at Rhythm & Vines. Come on bro, it’s time to apologise Tamsyn Parker (Herald): Nearly 60pc of Kiwi women earn less than their partners Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Does anyone really want anti-abortion death cult booties used for political grand standing? 1News: Women’s refuge experiencing busiest period of the year with services stretched Sarah Harris (Herald): Gender diverse Kiwis are increasingly changing identification to match Offensive politics Heather du Plessis-Allan (Herald): A resolution for the world – park the outrage Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): 2017 – The year of Trumpism, resentment kulture & climate change Herald: Kush Coffee gets push to remove ‘joke’ about women in wheelchairs Stuff: Golliwogs not harmless, never have been – Human Rights Commission Herald: Waiheke Island gift shop owner won’t stop selling golliwog dolls Environment Bob Kerridge (Stuff): The abhorrence of killing in the name of conservation Herald: Poll reveals lake, river pollution key concern of Kiwis Leith Huffadine (Stuff): How climate change could send your insurance costs soaring Dominion Post: Editorial: China’s refusal to take our rubbish should make us greener Newshub: Pollution will ‘kill your pets’ – Fish and Game Lorde not playing in Israel The Guardian: Lorde’s artistic right to cancel gig in Tel Aviv Stuff: Over 100 artists sign pledge supporting Lorde’s Israel decision David Cohen (RNZ): ‘Lorde deserves some sympathy’ Current and former MPs Herald: Meet the backbencher: Chris Penk on siblings, kauri dieback and cricket legends Herald: Shane Jones gets married in Rarotonga Kelly Makiha (Herald): Te Ururoa Flavell reveals new business venture Rexine Hawes (Stuff): Former Waikato MP humbled by Queen’s Service Order Other Paul Buchanan (Kiwipolitico): Plus ca change, or, does Labour have a foreign policy? Audrey Malone (Stuff): Roads of National Significance partly to blame for death toll on our roads: Genter Graham Adams (North & South): Why should we respect religion? John Farrow (ODT): Still questions about Whittall’s $3.41m Pike deal Tom Peters (World socialist website): New Zealand government seeks to contain outrage over Pike River mine disaster Matthew Theunissen (Herald): ‘Dramatic’ shake-up for NZ workplaces in 2018: experts David Williams (Newsroom): The future of newspapers Catherine Harris (Stuff): Ethical dilemma for lawyers forced by new rules to disclose dodgy dealings Tom Hunt (Stuff): Super ghosts: Pensions paid to thousands already in their graves Graeme Edgeler (Public address): If Australia Jumped off a Cliff…; or How not to waste millions of taxpayer dollars 1News: Government announces new, more lenient pet policy for state houses Brennan McDonald: Can regional economic development really happen? Liam Dann (Herald): Why is Graeme Hart so rich? Michael Reddell (Croaking Cassandra): OIA obstructionism – yet more evidence for RB reform Richard Swainson (Stuff): Honours: You’re either with them or against them Brian Easton (Pundit): Celebrating New Zealand’s Independent Republics. Sam Price (World socialist website): New Zealand government prepares attack on foreign students Alastair Paulin (Stuff): The public has a right to know what gifts doctors get from drug companies Martyn Bradbury (Daily Blog): Isn’t it time to reflect on fanatical anti-tobacco crusade? RNZ: Outspoken – Young Voters Victoria University of Wellington (Newsroom): Ending child poverty can’t be partisan pursuit John Tamihere: Tax cuts are the wrong approach]]>

Asia-Pacific Journalism Studies

]]>

Asia-Pacific Journalism Studies

Postgraduate Asia-Pacific Research Degrees

Bachelor of Communication Studies

Graduate Diploma in Pacific Journalism

Bachelor of Communication Studies

The media, communications and creative industries reach into every corner of society. Careers in this fast-growing field offer huge potential for graduates with the right training. AUT University’s Bachelor of Communication Studies (BCS) is New Zealand’s most sought after professional communications qualification. This degree gives students theoretical and practical experience over a wide range of communication fields.
More information

Graduate Diploma in Pacific Journalism
The Graduate Diploma in Pacific Journalism addresses the shortage of Pasifika journalists in Aotearoa/New Zealand. It is suitable for people wishing to enter the media industry from another career or those already in the industry desiring a qualification. It will also appeal to students from the Pacific region as well as those in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The programme is enriched by Pasifika and Māori and other media elective papers.

Students take core papers within the Bachelor of Communication Studies in Journalism, which provide the necessary skills to prepare the student for professional journalism work. In addition, they take Pasifika media papers and are able to choose other electives that reflect particular interests in the Asia-Pacific region. The core papers include a media industry internship and study of a Pacific language.
More information

Postgraduate degrees
General
Bachelor of Communication Studies (Honours)
Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies
Master of Communication Studies
Master of Philosophy
Doctor of Philosophy

Supervision staff

Examples of current and recent postgraduate research in the PMC

Postgraduate Pacific journalism papers
JOUR801 Asia-Pacific Journalism Studies

JOUR810 International Journalism Project (on application)

Course publishing outlet
Asia Pacific Report is a new regional “hub” partnership venture between AUT University’s Pacific Media Centre and the independent news portal Evening Report.
Asia Pacific Report editorial profile

More information on Communications and Journalism studies
AUT website communications study area

Report by Pacific Media Centre ]]>

Sano Malifa: Criminal libel and PM Tuilaepa’s ‘gift’ from American Samoa

]]>

OPINION: Samoa Observer editorial by Gatoaitele Savea Sano Malifa

Let’s face it. For every beginning there is an end. And for every end there is a reward to be extended, the quality of which would depend entirely on how keenly persevering the attempt would be.

Still, now that Christmas is behind us, and another New Year is moving along steadily as we all knew it would, perhaps the time is right to get back to that rather eager grindstone, and let’s start hacking away at those fretful scruples, one more time.

So let’s begin with the story titled “Parliament brings back Criminal Libel” which Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, had for months been agonising over to the point where he literarily ended up making a fool of himself, to the delight of virtually everyone else.

Published in the Samoa Observer on 20 December 2017, the story said: “Parliament yesterday endorsed the government’s plan to re-introduce the Criminal Libel Act into the law books of Samoa.

“Abolished by the ruling Human Rights Protection Party in 2013, Members of Parliament unanimously agreed to bring back the law, when Parliament reconvened for the last time this year at Tuana’imato yesterday, 21 December 2017.”

Amazing!

-Partners-

The story went on to say: “The bill passed the first, second and third reading, within less than an hour.”

Wonderful!

‘Ghost writers’
It continued: “Prime Minister, Tuilaepa Sa’ilele Mailielegaoi, has been instrumental in bringing back the law, as part of a government-driven effort to clamp down on ‘ghost writers’ such as ‘Ole Palemia’ and others who use fake social media pages, to attack members of the public.”

Now let’s wait a second. Who were these so-called ‘ghost writers’ that Prime Minister Tuilaepa was talking about back there? Indeed, who is the chap called ‘Ole Palemia.’”

It appears that neither Prime Minister Tuilaepa nor anyone else knows!

In fact, the story doesn’t say.

All it says is that: “The Speaker of Parliament, Leaupepe Tole’afoa Fa’afisi, said the re-introduction of the law was expedited due to the urgent nature of the issues it sets out to deal with.”

Urgent? How urgent?

If the re-introduction of the law was urgent, why is it that the entire police force had not been activated with the idea of turning every stone upside down – pardon the pun – to ensure that this joker named ‘O le Palemia’ whom it seems everyone is afraid of, is found and be thrown in jail where he rightly belongs?

Now wait.

Joining the circus
We’ve got the Minister of Justice and the Courts Administration, Fa’aolesa Katopau Ainuu, joining the circus.

As the joker who introduced the Criminal Libel Bill in Parliament, he said: “The law is not new. This amendment is in relation to defamation.”

He went on to explain: “Currently, there is a clause to have this case before the Court for a civil claim. The amendment today is to add on the criminal prosecution for defamation.”

“People have asked as to why we need to reinstate the criminal libel when the matter can be dealt with through civil.”

Fa’aolesa also said: “In a civil claim, there is a need for lawyers to represent your case and most of our people cannot afford a lawyer; whereas (with) Criminal Libel the matter can be prosecuted by the police and you would not need a lawyer.”

Now isn’t that wonderful!

Is he saying that if you were ‘O le Palemia’, you could go on and accuse Samoa’s political leaders of all sorts of alleged criminal activities including being corrupt and fraudulent, and you would still not be prosecuted for doing so by the police?

Legal opinions
According to the Minister of Justice Fa’aolesa, the Law of Criminal Libel was “abolished back in 2013 based on legal opinions of some lawyers.”

“However, the government sees the need to reinstate this law following requests by members of the public who want to pursue cases before the court, but cannot afford a legal counsel.”

He said: “The Bill amends the Crimes Act 2013 with introduction of a new Part 9A for crimes against a person’s reputation.”

“This Part is ‘False statement causing harm to a person’s reputation.”

“The rationale for introducing the offence is to address harm done to a person’s reputation by another person who publishes false information about that person.”

“This is similar to defamatory libel and although civil proceedings for defamation are available to the public, the reality is, not all Samoans have access to these proceedings as not all are able to afford legal services required for such proceedings.”

He’s probably right.

Criminal complaint
Later still, on 8 May 2008, the Attorney General of the government of American Samoa, Fepulea’i Authur Ripley, filed a claim in the District Court of American Samoa naming Katopau Ainu’u, as the defendant in a criminal complaint.

Katopau was accused of having committed two crimes, one of Embezzlement and the other of Criminal Fraud. On the charge of Embezzlement, court documents showed that “on 3 November 2006, the Defendant knowingly misappropriated funds which had been entrusted to him in violation of ASCA 46.4104, a class C felony punishable by imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine of up to double the amount gained by the crime, or both.”

On the charge of Criminal Fraud, court documents showed that “on 3 November 2006, the Defendant knowingly and wilfully obtained money by the use of a scheme to defraud by false pretences.”

To that extent, the Defendant agreed to represent the victims(s) as an attorney, in a matai case; on that day, Defendant took payment from victim(s) as payment to represent victim(s) in a count case, while at the same time knowing that the Defendant was moving off-shore …”

Now 10 years later, in March 2016, Samoa held its general elections and the defendant, Katopau Ainu’u, who was now holding the matai title of Fa’aolesa, ran for Parliament and he was elected.

What’s undisputed though is that Fa’aolesa Katopau Ainu’u had worked as a lawyer in American Samoa at one point in time. Later when he moved to Samoa, he entered Parliament and became the Minister of Justice.

Ghosts of the past
Later, when Prime Minister Tuilapea chose his cabinet, he named Fa’aolesa the Minister of Justice, and shortly afterwards the ghosts of the past, having stirred into life, emerged to give both Fa’aolesa and Tuilaepa a hard time.

Asked for a comment on the reports, Tuilaepa said he was “shocked” by them. “I have spoken with the Minister (concerned) who is (also) shocked (by them).”

Tuilaepa revealed that Fa’aolesa “has contacted his lawyer in American Samoa who is also shocked about it, and (from what he’s been told) the matter had been resolved a long time ago but it has been dug up again.”

Shocked?

The editorial that was published in the Samoa Observer at the time was titled: Prime Minister Tuilaepa’s gift from American Samoa.

What is the meaning of the word “shock” these two are talking about here? Please don’t ask me to try and explain anything.

All I can say is that when this newspaper asked Fa’aolesa for a comment, he said he was unaware about the warrant; he then asked for a copy so that he could look at it before he could comment.

Copies of the “warrant” were sent to him but by press time that night he had not responded.

Investigation
Over there in American Samoa at the time, the current Attorney-General, Talauega Eleasalo Ale, said his office was conducting an investigation into the matter.

“This is something that happened before I came into office,” he said. “(We) are definitely looking into it.”

He also said all he knew was that “the matter is still valid and apparently it’s still in the books of the Court, and therefore it is still outstanding.”

“It’s a matter that’s up to the law enforcement and the Police to enforce if the person is in our jurisdiction.”

“(As for) the background and reasons for the warrant, those facts are still out there. I don’t know what happened.”

He explained: “The warrant is valid and if he is in American Samoan jurisdiction he can be arrested by the Police in pursuant to the Court’s warrant.”

Here in Samoa on the other hand, it appears that the embattled Minister of Justice, Courts and Administration, Fa’aolesa Katopau Ainu’u, is a worried man.

He is apparently seeking to quash the outstanding warrant of arrest made against him in American Samoa with the aid of his American Samoan lawyer, he revealed in a telephone interview.

“My lawyer will make a motion to quash the warrant,” he said. “The delay is because they are trying to find the affidavit to support the warrant.”

“There was nothing at the Attorney-General’s office and they are also looking for a copy from the Court.”

Asked if he was going to American Samoa when the matter would be heard in Court, Fa’aolesa said no. “It’s being done by my lawyer,” he said.

“Once I get the results I’ll call you for my official response. In the meantime, I cannot say anything more that might compromise my lawyer’s work.”

No call
To date, Fa’aolesa has not called.

As for Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi, is it possible that he would one day soon, turn his back on his gift, from American Samoa.

Indeed, can the law of Criminal Libel be used to prosecute government officials, who are alleged to have committed fraud and embezzlement, in corrupt ridden Samoa?

Just a thought!

Have a peaceful Sunday Samoa. God bless!

Editorial republished from the Samoa Observer via Pacific Media Watch.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

]]>