it was st pat’s day a couple of days ago. sydney opera house turned green celebrating 200 years of st pat’s celebration in australia. took some pics…

weekends… yay!

terje has left for good. i hope he wasnt stranded in Bangkok. i promise that one of these days, i will make my way to Norway or Denmark. Been wanting to backpack around Europe, but $$ and time continue to serve as limitation.

ben visited melbourne and we did a proper catch up. i didnt know many about him prior but really glad to finally get to know him more. will definitely pester his cooking once im in sydney. watch out. p.s. those italian ladies are definitely worth the Soco…. Fed Square Christmas Carol is now officially in my agenda.

and i also attended the MLTAV’s AGM where a formal farewell was organised for me. They gave me a crumpler bag, home for my ferarri…and its BLACK in colour!! i am extremely touched! Thank you everyone especially to Kerry for knowing exactly my taste:

i’m sad to admit that the remainders of the week is dedicated to me breaking my promise. i did not have the heart to continually ‘ignore’ the constant updates from Adrian about Ballarat. Yes, its the dreadful NUS Conference.

Last minute, we made our way through the boring night to Ballarat, only to find ourselves in an unbelievable mess. you can get more details from adrian’s recent post but there are few things that i have to highlight:

• NLS’ (formerly NOLS) bitches do really live up exceeding the expectations. The crocodile-tears 2006 NUS President accessorised by the Welfare officer snub, have delivered the ultimatum: we control the NUS National Exec in 2007. Adrian aptly concluded that never in my experience in student politics, a group of losers can be so cocky. i can only say… BRING IT ON!
• The same cocky group put a price tag of $35k on NLC to rat on the deal. I don’t know where to begin to express my astonishment. The fact that a price tag is put on us or the actual figure itself. We replied that not even $200k can buy us over. Shame!
• It is clear from the way they have shown their ’superiority in numbers’ that there is only one agenda in which they exist in the political spectrum of NUS. That is to engage in a concerted effort in ceasing the existence of the NLC. This is a shared view among the NLS’ elites. So if you are in NLS caucus, think twice of the alleged discussion you have with regards to ‘working’ with the NLC. Unfortunately, little they know that NLC can only grow from strength to strength. Its relevance as an organisation cannot be wound back in a broader context. Don’t get me wrong. I respect numbers. But i will lose that respect at a greater rate than giving credit to because i believe in the process as much as i believe in the final outcome. they have shown that they have failed in every levels miserably
• after 15 years in the role, Student Unity had to admit defeat to a relatively-new Matthew Chuck from WA, a candidate from the Indies, for the Gen Sec. While NLS will continue to put the blame on the NLC, little they remember that the split within its own caucus and overly confidence on their own numbers are the primary reasons to the 40 vote loss. The only real lesson for them to take away is they can no longer take for granted the support of NLC all these years.
• for unity members, i sympathise truly. miscommunication might be a major shortfall in relationships between unity-nlc this year, but you have to take them in stride and promise to work better. the same goes with nlc caucus members
• for the left-block slate, nlc has taken the leap of faith. you can only achieve something greater.

Rudd has been the forefront of Labor’s media attacks and has a likeable face (this might be irrelevant point given that Howard almost always want to make me puke). But for an opposition, it’s always positive to have the TV-face that people can relate to. I tend to switch channel when listening to boring-Beazley and i dont doubt that many Australians do too (even i noticed that major networks tend to cut his explanation short – reduced to an obligatory response allocated to the opposition ).

But it will change soon. Rudd speaks Mandarin (i admire him for this), is a Catholic (always a plus), and is a very determined bastard (his own words). I like his article ‘Faith in Politics’ in The Monthly, where he outlines the importance and the continued relevance of religious values in shaping the political environment.

While Labor Federal MPs might be well known for being ‘out of touch’ with ordinary Australians, i hope common sense will ultimately prevail in the Monday’s ballot!

Vote Rudd for a Labor PM!

Masters, PhD, postgraduate and overseas full-fee (emphasis added) paying students would not be eligible for free public transport in Victoria. Students in a tertiary course of less than ten weeks’ duration are also ineligible.

In this post, I won’t dwell on the ineligibility of masters, PhD, postgraduate or part time students (even though i am one of them) but instead on the continuous discrimination that overseas full-fee paying students have to cope in both Victoria and NSW (even though the NSW anti-discrimination board has ruled that the NSW State Govt clearly discriminates against international students).

I have studied in 4 countries (Indonesia, Singapore, Australia and USA) and in three of those countries they have policies that students are students regardless of their place of residence. In fact, if you are an Australian student traveling in Indonesia, flashing your Australian student card (or any other countries’ student card) would instantly qualify you for any student discounts that students are typically entitled for. I have also heard that many countries around the world are the same.

Only in two states in Australia the policy of the State Govt differs. And there are no logical reasons for this:

Myth 1: International Students are not paying tax.

The argument that international are not paying Australian tax is as old as time. First, whether you are paying tax or not are determined not by the effective tax rate you are paying but by the taxation system in Australia. Fair enough, the effective tax rate for most (not all) international students will be 0% due to the tax refund as they will probably earn below the minimum tax threshold and as such will receive tax refund when the tax return is finally lodged. But so does ordinary australian residences who earn below the threshold or might have other tax credits that offset their taxes payables to the extent that their effective tax rate is zero.

So the only argument that the govt can make is whether international students are tax payers or not? And surprise surprise…international students are residence of Australia for taxation purposes! (source: Australian Taxation Office).

The premise of a tax-payer is not whether you pay above 0% effective tax rate but rather whether you will be taxable by the govt on any income earned. Clearly, international students in Australia are tax payers!

Myth 2: International students are rich and they do not need free transport.

A bit of digression here, the Vic lib govt is no longer advocating for concession but free transport for students which international students are not eligible for. So not only that international students dont get concession when their australian mates do, but international students will still be not eligible for concession (let alone free transport) when their australian mates will be eligible for FREE transport.

Anyway, labeling International students as rich and do not need free transport contain two logical fallacies:

1. You are assuming that all of international students are rich. This argument is self-defeating because you cannot argue that all international students are poor. This point is thus moot in itself. In fact, the majority of international students come from families who earn average income back in their home countries. Loans from banks, families, and decades long of savings are the one financing the students. Majority of international students in Australia are from Asian countries and in these countries, education is valued disproportionately. In fact, they are the utmost priorities for most parents. You can say so about other countries, but trust me, a measure of family status back home is by what their children do and do not. Parents live for their children – a significant contrast to most western families where to some extent, children are responsible for themselves when they are coming of age.

2. Rich people do not need free transport.

Perhaps generally yes. But the point is, if senior citizen whether you are rich or not are entitled for concession, why cant this be applied for international students as well when their counterparts are eligible?

Myth 3: If transport concession is given to international students, Australian taxpayers will be subsidising this.

Again, the argument contains many logical fallacies.

1. Public transportation is public goods. You cannot exempt international students for example to use Victorian roads, Victorian parks, and many others.

2. So the only way is to make it private. And the govt already has except it still is responsible for creating and maintaining the ‘discriminatory’ policy that exists currently. If it were to be abolished i see no reason why private firm will not make a concession applicable to ALL students. Can you imagine Village Cinema, Hoyts, Dendi’s, Nova, or many other local cinemas, theaters, and museums saying to international students: Sorry.. you are a student but you are an international student, so you are not eligible for concession price. I cannot begin to imagine the adverse reaction!

The crux of the matter

The real ball thus lies on the govt’s purposeful intent (whoever it is, Labor or Liberal) to continually pursue this discriminatory policy! The basis of this is simply the fact that international students are not eligible voters.

I dont really buy the argument on itself. I strongly believe that if enough pressures are applied to both governments, whether you are a voter or not will not be as relevant as it is now. International student movement has to be smarter in its approach and actually walk the talk.

What can be done?

1. Inform home countries media on this issue.

2. Call for home governments to retaliate against this by also implementing similar policy but only for Australian students who come from Victoria or New South Wales (well that would be fun, wouldnt it? I can imagine the grin on myself when an Australian student from Vic in Singapore was told by ticket inspector: I’m sorry, you are a student, but you are an australian studying in a victorian university).

3. Distribute flyers in the education exhibition showcase by any victorian/nsw universities back home. Make sure that the staff from the govt and universities realise this so they can relay their feedback first hand (btw, universities support the international student movement in championing this cause).

4. Set up ‘fighting fund’ and buy advertising spot in local media next to victorian/nsw university ads alerting the student about the issue and the high transport cost that they will face.

any more suggestions?

btw, current and future student leaders… forget about writing petition and sending postcards… they are repeatedly ‘ignored’. If they dont want to listen to your plight…. force them to listen by shaping the external environment of the debate rather than secretly hoping that they will change their minds one day.

TGH is axed and will be showing its final episode ever on Nov 29th. Wil Anderson has promised that it will be a gun-blazin show but really, what the hell was ABC thinkin?

Sure it might have bias-perception problem with its frequent bashin on Howard and Bush. But come on, its satirical and anyone who base their political choices on watchin the show is just not a worthy voter.

my black box will officially be decomissioned bar the 1.15am Parliament QT.

one of my must-do-when-im-in-sydney list is to be the studio audience of TGH and now its ruined 4ever. this is an absolute tragedy!

please write to ABC to express your discontent

I’m torn in between the issues. As Indonesians, i could understand the Jakarta’s position. In my humble analysis, by granting those visas, the Australia has formally:

1. acknowledged that political oppression in an Indonesian territory has happened,
2. acknowledged that there are victims as a result of that political oppression are not able to seek recourse from the Indonesian judicial system nor the political system,
3. acknowledged its role to protect the victims as a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees.

In doing so, despite what Howard and Beazley and many other senior Australian politicians said, Australia has made it clear that while it supports the territorial integrity of Indonesia, Australia has ‘the right’ to intervene when it comes to human right issues.

A scan in major Indonesian newspapers’ articles and TV broadcasts will yield condemnation from various Indonesian politicians. The House of Rep supported Jakarta’s decision to recall the ambassador, and in the last meeting before its recess, it urged the government to cut diplomatic relation with Australia! Comments like Australia claiming a moral high ground (typical of any other Western nations), the double standard of Australian foreign policies, Australia’s desire to see the disintegration of Indonesia and many others can be easily found in those news sites.

On the other hand, I have always wondered, who really had betrayed who? Is it the Papuans’ ‘refugees’ who have betrayed their country? Is it Australia who has betrayed Indonesia? Or (which i think is more pragmatic in this instance), the fact that it is Jakarta who has betrayed Papuans, to the extent they have to seek refuge from another country?

Whatever the right question and the right answer should be, this has slapped many Indonesian elites right in the face. Then whatever follow is expected. Mounting with various domestic and economic problems, it is public secret that the only way the government and house of reps can remain popular, is through its nationalistic stance, which sounded well with many ordinary indonesians.

I don’t see Jakarta’s high temper is particularly useful in solving the Papuan issue. Clearly, when your countrymen and women, tried to run away to another country, risking their lives in the seas, in itself is a testament that there is a problem! While you might not want your neighbor to meddle in your internal affair, what can they do, if your household members seek refuge in their house?

After all, it is the Papuans to whom the Jakarta is responsible for and to that extent, all its resources should be channeled to the resolve of such issue.

Being mature politically and accepting what has happened and taking corrective actions acceptable are the only way to move forward. Australia’s reiterative stance on Indonesia’s territorial integrity should be taken at face value and Indonesian politicians and public in general should not try to read between the lines and dwell into unnecessary exercise of figuring Australian’s conspiracy.

Jakarta has to work hard in ensuring that Papuans get what they deserve politically, socially and economically within the territorial framework of NKRI (loose translation: the United Republic of Indonesia).

Otherwise, another East Timor is in the making.

I do not want to argue about her innocence. this is not what this post is about. it is more about the hype that Australian media has tried to generate over the entire case. Especially over the ‘death penalty’ issue. I, myself, do not believe in death penalty, whatever the case is. But it seems to me that Australian public in general, agree and disagree with capital punishment according to their convenience. In this case, they feel that death penalty is immoral, tragic and unwarranted. Few recall the strong stance of Australian public in supporting the death penalty during the trials of Bali bombing. How ironic? It seems to me that it’s ok for indonesians who committed a crime that carries capital punishment to receive death penalty, but its not ok for Australians.

How about being consistent for a change?

Now, the Australian public is going through the same thing with Nguyen’s imminent death sentence in Singapore. I must reiterate, that i do not believe in capital punishment. I think no government has the right to take the life of another, especially using it as a punishment mechanism.

Nothing can summed up my feeling on this better than Tim Lindsey:

“John Howard’s position lacks consistency. We are unconcerned when the death penalty is applied to non-Australian citizens. Yet it is an act of barbarism when it is applied to Australians. Now, the death penalty is either right or wrong. It can’t be right or wrong according to the citizenship of the person. There is a moral and political decision for Australia to take and, so far, we are trying to ignore it.”

Finally…. Paul Kelly has the nerve to bring it out open… kudo to you mate! I cannot concur more than what you have put in your article!

(2) A registered provider does not breach its obligations under this Act or any other Act relating to education by charging overseas students, or intending overseas students, an amount as part of the student’s tuition fee, if the amount is for any action the provider is required to undertake because of this Act or the national code.
Note: The heading to section 18 is replaced by the heading “Payments to registered providers”.

What it’s saying is basically the Government intends to allow the university to charge international students for services required by the Act to be provided to the international students.

The debate around the media has been tied to the local students’ plight to have compulsory union fees which international students pay as well. This debate centers on the idea why international students can pay for those services but local students dont. Obviously while this is discriminatory, the debate misses one crucial fact: International Students have been paying extra for those services!!

The naivety and stupidity of the Government is highlighted by this comment in The Australian:

A spokesman for Dr Nelson said the existing Education Services for Overseas Students Act had always obligated universities to offer these services to full-fee-paying international students.

“These technical changes continue that requirement,” he said.

“Is the Labor Party now seriously suggesting that Australian students and taxpayers should subsidise the services that universities are required to provide to international full-fee paying students?”

Whoever this spokesman is obviously does not understand his own argument. Obviously the most straightforward comparison that any Tom, Dick and Harry can easily do is by looking at the tuition fees charged by universities to international students and their full fee paying local counterparts (these full fee paying students are NOT subsidised by Australian taxpayers, thats why its called FULL FEE). I did a small comparison table on this:

As you can see, there already exists fee differential between the two categories of students. One can only assume that the difference between the two is because of the extra requirements and services that the Universities should/must provide to the overseas students because of the extra duty of care that the universities undertake in recruting overseas student instead of local student.

For this very reason, the legislation that allows universities to charge a SEPARATE fee for those services is naive, stupid and unnecessary because the market place has already sorted that out in the first place – the universities have already built-in those costs into their fee schedules. To legislate for another charge means that it is essentially double charging!!!

However, the onus of proof is reversed, which means Corby and the Bali Nine are presumed guilty and must try to prove their innocence.

In a worst-case scenario, Corby could soon be languishing in a Jakarta prison while a handful or more of her compatriots face execution.

But if you do bother to check the Indonesian Criminal Penal Code (Kitab Undang Undang Hukum Acara Pidana – KUHAP), Article 66, it reads:

Pasal 66

Tersangka atau terdakwa tidak dibebani kewajiban pembuktian.

This translates to:

Article 66

The burden of proof does not lie with the accused or the defendant.

Unfortunately Mr Price, you’ve got it wrong this time! Obviously, in between your tight deadline of submitting this article, you have neglected the basic trust that readers place on journalism. By not doing your research, not only you have misrepresented the entire Indonesian legal system for cheap, populist news article, but in fact you have generated anti-Indonesian sentiments. Your opening line in the article says it all:

If the Australian judicial system is occasionally criticised for being a tightly guarded and closed shop, we can be thankful the farcical transparency of the Indonesian court system was rejected by Australia’s founding fathers.

The Australian legal system is based on a British common law system, which is a minority legal system in the world. The Indonesian legal system is based on European legal system, which by the by, is the most common legal system in the world.

the full privatisation of telstra and the vsu bills are not even remote possibilities this time…..urrghh….

whats wrong with the australian people? arent senate supposed to be the balancing act?? yet they kindly delivered both control to mr johnie….. Mr Johnie, today is the happiest man in australia