Tag: International

• Not Being Brown Enough

  April 12, 2021 5:40 pm Comments Off on Not Being Brown Enough

  “You’re Indian, right?”
   “No, I am Sri Lankan!” 
  “Yeah, same thing.”
   
  So, where is Sri Lanka, you may be wondering? Well according to Google, Sri Lanka is located 65km off the coast of South-East India. Sri Lanka has its own distinct culture and geography; hence it is not India. Please stop saying so for future reference. Thank you. 
  The first six years of my life were spent in this beautiful country. I have fond memories of eating malu paan (fish bun) and chocolate pineapple gateau in my Montessori. With bakeries found on every corner and street, I can guarantee the best-baked goods probably come from Sri Lanka!
  But like all good things, my time in Sri Lanka ended when my parents decided to immigrate to Australia. As soon as we arrived, we were taken aback by Australia’s weather, as winter was unheard of in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, it is either hot, wet, humid or all of them. While we waited in the airport, we pondered how technologically advanced Australia would be, considering we had just come from what the World Bank considers a ‘developing’ country into a ‘developed’ one. As we roamed Sydney the days following our arrival, the once futuristic vision I had of Australia with flying drones and cloud-touching skyscrapers was shattered. From what I could see, it was pretty much Colombo, except with not as much traffic or cows on the roads. I learnt that Australians like to keep their cows in paddocks near the roads. 
  But weirdly, I was never homesick since we found a little, quaint Sri Lankan community in Sydney and from my experience, most Australians welcomed us with open hearts and minds.  But the real kicker to my sense of self came when my parents decided to move out of Sydney into Canberra, Australia’s National Capital. Here I was, naively thinking that Sydney was the capital. As we drove into Canberra, I remember thinking that there were a lot of trees for a capital. Little did I know that the abundance of trees was trying to make up for the lack of people in Canberra. The first thing I noticed when I arrived in Canberra was that it was run like a country town.  Everything was so far away, which was a stark difference to how things operated in Colombo and Sydney, where everything was within walking distance, or at the very least a ten minute bus ride away. 
  I finally became aware of my surroundings and myself. I quickly noticed that I didn’t have as easy an access to the delicious Sri Lankan food I had been consuming my whole life. To add to this dilemma, my neighbourhood was quite boring, to say the least. Growing up in Sri Lanka, there was always some grand and colourful festivity happening down the street. Fun Fact! Sri Lanka has the second-highest number of public holidays in the world, so you know they know how to celebrate! Anyway, I found it hard relating to kids my age as a diet of Kollywood and Bollywood made me numb to things that kids my age would normally squirm at. Honey, that spider doesn’t scare me! I have seen a man’s head get chopped off on-screen at the age of five. 
  A couple of years later, panic set in for my parents as they realised that both of their children had forgotten the little Tamil and Sinhalese we knew. In their last attempt to connect us to the motherland, they enrolled us in Tamil school. At first, both my sister and I were not happy as who would want to go to school on the weekends?! But in hindsight, I am forever grateful for that period in my life as not only did I get a little taste of Sri Lanka, but I found friends that understood the struggle of not being brown enough. 
  When parents of South-Asian descent migrate from their homeland, they generally take an idyllic view of the ideals and values they practised in their country and set this as the standard for how their children should be brought up in the new country. This cultural and generational gap becomes a great breeding ground for an identity crisis (sparkle emoji), creating a disconnect for their children between what’s considered their environment and home. This further leads to feelings of duality, where the children cultivate different personalities to assimilate into their environment, hence feeling like they don’t belong anywhere, i.e. feeling not brown enough. 
  The thing with trying to conform in such a way is that you tire yourself out rather easily, succumbing to your own negative emotions. But, I have realised that the point was never to fit in, but rather learn from our respective cultures. Both cultures have so much to offer and can live in unison to help you grow into a better version of yourself. For example, through my Sri Lankan heritage, I have learnt the importance of family and spiritual connection as we value the time with loved ones and that we always have faith. This is complemented by the values I have learnt from living in Australia, where the power of camaraderie has shown me how to live a more fulfilling life.

  Anojni Skanthan

• Some Personal Reflections on the Uyghur Situation

  April 9, 2021 2:31 pm Comments Off on Some Personal Reflections on the Uyghur Situation

  As a politics student, I’m fully aware that one day I would encounter this issue, but I never thought it would be so soon.
  Growing up in Urumqi and holding Uyghur heritage as well as Chinese heritage, I feel I’m quite knowledgeable when it comes to this topic: Uyghurs. Many of the more politically inclined readers may already be familiar with this topic, but a brief and proper introduction is important nonetheless.
  The conflicts between the Uyghur community and the vast majority of the combined Chinese community is actually a controversy between states (nation-states) and nations (ethnic minorities). China contains nations like the majority Han, Mongolian, Tibetan, Kazakhs, Uyghur etc. In other words, the inconsistency between the nation and the state it belongs to, is possibly the main cause of the issues.
  I have never been a patriotic person, quite unfortunately. I don’t like China one bit. I am never proud of my nationality and instead, I often see it as a motive that constantly drives me to work hard and leave as soon as possible (thanks to ScoMO’s harsh migration policies, that may be some time away). I hate almost every policy implemented by my government, except for the COVID-19 policies — it saved my life and got me vaccinated in the very first round. Growing up in a multicultural environment and attending an international high school, I have been very much exposed to different cultures, not just the Western world. Frankly, everything I believe in is the exact opposite of the so-called standard moral beliefs in China nowadays. I always feel like an outsider in my own country, a girl without a nationality. I don’t know what is true and what is not, so I am here to share some of my beliefs. Whether you agree is up to you.
  I have to stress that there is a huge difference in the ideologies between the West and the East. Western ideology often identifies conflicts between a nation and a state that is striving for independence. Chinese ideology, on the other hand, chooses to ignore their differences no matter how trivial or significant, and aims to achieve a peaceful position in between. For example, Scotland and Catalonia have been fighting for their respective independence for decades. However, in China you rarely see ethnic groups seeking independence. To put it more simply, people in the East tend to surrender to their governments or authorities. They seek peace and quiet instead of freedom and so-called democracy. That’s probably the reason why countries in Asia are more successful during this pandemic. Even though some people (i.e. me) have their doubts about government policy, when it’s a matter of life and death, they end up reluctantly following government directives. Nonetheless, there were some Uyghur and Tibetan people who tried to gain independence from China, but undoubtedly failed and ended up escaping to the USA.
  The 90’s are referred to as ‘the Golden Times’. Almost everywhere in the world people were experiencing an all-time high in prosperity in every aspect of life. Uyghur people at that time were also experiencing freedom, especially in the form of artistic expression. People of different nationalities (ethnic groups)  in China created magnificent art during the 90s, because they were free back then. Nowadays everything is under a strict censorship.
  In the 21st-century, the Uyghur community continued to grow. Before President Xi took office in 2013, we were living like a little kingdom inside a super country. People inside this little kingdom had achieved autonomy to the level of independence. When Xi was in charge, he came to realise that this little kingdom must come to an end or it would no longer be HIS little kingdom. Consequently, he did something that all of us considered cruel. He knew that when you want to erase a nation you must forbid its people to speak their own language. So he gradually closed all bilingual schools and forced ethnic children to learn only Mandarin Chinese. This lasted for some years. When I was young I saw some bilingual schools but from 2019 onwards, they ceased to exist.  
  Meanwhile, President Xi forced all television and radio shows to be broadcasted only in Mandarin Chinese. He sent a group of our great leaders, thinkers, authors to be ‘re-educated’, some of whom were never seen again. I have seen my people in great pain during the first few years of Xi’s movement. I have once been to the prison where those great minds were re-educated — it is too painful to describe what I’ve seen. Many Uyghur people escaped overseas to countries like Australia and Canada, but their relatives left in China remain under strict censorship. Passports have been taken away by the government, and hotels in other cities of China won’t accept Uyghur guests. Local shops were closed, everything written in Mandarin — ethnic languages were forbidden to be spoken even occasionally.
  But in late 2018, Xi stopped and gave freedom back to those tragic people. Uyghur languages were seen again in the street. Radios and televisions could speak Uyghur or other ethnic languages as well. Passports were given back, some re-educated people released from prison and people were able to contact their relatives overseas. Everything seemed to back the way it used to be. But it wasn’t. It may have seemed okay, but the impacts of Xi’s political strategy were devastating, especially towards my generation. An increasing number of youth are claiming Mandarin as their mother tongue. Only approximately 25 percent of them can write in Uyghur. Cultural prosperity will never be seen again, we don’t have famous poets or philosophers or even artists. Our most famous works are now in Mandarin. 
  Even though Uyghur people have regained their freedom, their culture has been harshly damaged. As for the damage to the Islamic culture itself, sadly the last two generations in my family identify with their heritage before their religion. We don’t combine them together, and tend to explain our habits associated with Islamic culture as more of a ‘tradition’. For example, I don’t eat pork simply because ‘I just don’t’. Many people won’t follow a strict rule of ‘halal’, they’ll eat anything as long as there is no pork. They even get red packets resembling those from the Lunar New Year at Eid al-Adha. 
  There are also rumours about genocide and inhumane actions administered by the Chinese government. I personally don’t believe in that. It is brutal, but I have decided to keep an open mind about this until I find evidence of my own.
  Last but not least, despite so many unfortunate things that have happened in the past, my generation are more and more accepted by the general Chinese public. Uyghur students are given a 50 points bonus in the most fiercely competitive Chinese gaokao (National College Entrance Exam) which enables us to more easily access the top universities in China. People now recognise us as a beautiful and mysterious ethnic group and you can see outstanding Uyghur people in every field within China. It’s true that we are under a lot of censorship here, but who isn’t? It’s China. I can’t even log onto Facebook without the help of a VPN.
  We are living in a peaceful and free environment now, and all those fears are gone. This new generation is doing everything possible to spread our unique culture. It isn’t lost, and it never will be! I do not want my generation to be filled with hatred towards our country, all we ever wanted was peace and love. Like I said, I don’t like China one bit but I LOVE the cities and associated cultures I am living in, or have lived in – specifically Nanjing and Urumqi.
  I hope this is the last time I talk about this issue. We should always have our own judgement and choose our own path.
   
   

  Think your name would look good in print? Woroni is always open for submissions. Email write@woroni.com.au with a pitch or draft. You can find more info on submitting here.

  Anonymous

• Love Languages

  April 23, 2020 11:18 am Comments Off on Love Languages

  CONTENT WARNING: Brief Mentions of Depression and Mental Health
  When I was little, my parents were routinely away from home for work. My brother was abroad in boarding school, and most of my time was spent at home with my nanny, Yulis. We were privately educated, lived in spacious homes, and were provided with pretty much anything we wanted. My parents talked about their willingness to fund the family’s comfortable lifestyle as an obligation. At the dinner table, they frequently talked about “wanting the best for us” which was why they “worked hard to put us through an international school.” Mum casually buying my brother the latest video game console, or the latest designer kid clothes was just part of regular family living expenses.
  Giving us a high standard of living and material items was my parents’ method of showing that they cared. Back then, I didn’t think too much about Mum and Dad working hard to provide for all of this. In Hong Kong, all my friends at school were decked out in the latest designer gear, it was normal and expected. My classmates had Gucci backpacks in Grade 4, and Burberry bucket hats were the norm. My parents were travelling so much that I had a closer bond to Yulis, who became my primary caregiver.
  After migrating to Australia with my family when I was 11, I spent my formative years surrounded by peers who had a strong emotional connection with their families. I was surprised and jealous that they could talk to their parents about their fears, hopes and feelings. At this point, Yulis was no longer my nanny, and the majority of my conversation with my parents revolved around my grades and what we were having for dinner.
  This was when I began to resent my parents for ‘not caring about me.’ They continued to pay for an ex- pensive education, splash out on lavish presents and fulfill every material desire I wanted, but the relation- ship felt increasingly transactional. The lack of open conversation between my parents and I contributed to a widening emotional gap between us. When I suffered from bouts of depression in high school, the gap seemed even wider. I did not want to discuss my mental health with them, nor did I want them to talk to me. I was angry at my parents for a while for not being emotionally present. All of my friends feel comfortable talking to their parents about sex, struggles and successes, meanwhile I’m left to internalise all of that on my own.
  At one point I was convinced that my parents did not love me, and during my resistant teenage years, I was convinced that they didn’t care about me.
  After I moved to college, I learned that not everyone receives a high level of financial support from their family. Suddenly, I began to question, well why are my parents so generous with their money? I work a part- time job and earn enough money to support myself, yet they still insist on giving me an ‘allowance’.
  I began to interrogate their psyche and traced my parents’ behaviour to their upbringing. My parents are generous with their money because, when they were growing up, having money was like a security blanket. My grandparents were poor farmers in 1950s

  China, who could barely provide three meals a day for their five children. When Grandad rewarded Dad with one boiled sweet after a day of doing hard labour in the rice fields, my dad would be utterly overjoyed as a child. When Dad won a scholarship to go to university, he did not have the $18 RMB ($3 AUD) to catch the train from Guangdong Province to Beijing. My grand- mother had to sell all the food in the house to scrape together his train fare.
  That was the greatest demonstration of love he could ever imagine from his parents.
  This was why Dad worked so hard to earn money. He wanted to break the cycle of poverty for us and saw spending copious amounts of money as a genuine demonstration of his love.
  Making that connection opened up a new way of thinking for me. It was the first time I considered how they were giving love, rather than just how I was feel- ing. Spending my formative years in Australia whilst having Asian parents challenged my understanding of how love is expressed. I realised that I was judging my Asian parents on a ‘white’ parent metric and that it was incredibly unfair that they were subjected to a standard they were unfamiliar with. Parents from different cultural backgrounds each have their unique method of expressing love. Just like how different countries speak different languages, the language of parental love also differs. Asking my Chinese parents to demonstrate their love like Western parents do is unreasonable and inauthentic.
  After recognising the source of their love language, I began to understand their behaviour and appreciate their love for what it is. I let go of my misconception that my parents didn’t love me. My parents adore me, it’s just that they show it with gifts, rather than with words, because that is how their parents showed their care. My grandparents were too poverty-stricken to care about building emotional connections when having food on the table was already a struggle.
  Because of this revelation, I no longer feel bitterness towards my parents, and I am actively working on be- coming the daughter I want to be. I don’t want to be an ungrateful daughter who resents her parents just because they don’t speak the same love language. I want to be the daughter who appreciates all the sacrifices her parents have made for her and can interpret their way of saying ‘I love you’. I accept that it’s going to take time before my parents and I can have open conversations, at least now I am certain that they love me.

  Anonymous

• Want To Write For Edition 2? Check Out These Prompts!

  February 19, 2020 4:00 am Comments Off on Want To Write For Edition 2? Check Out These Prompts!

  Woroni is looking for YOU to write for our second edition of the magazine! You can write about pretty much anything, but here are some prompts to get your creative juices flowing (hint: the theme of this edition will be SEX!). First drafts are now due next Tuesday (25/2).
  International:

  What is considered ‘appropriate’ when it comes to sex? How does it differ between cultures?
  Are standards of sexual attractiveness different in different cultures? Do you think we can all be sexy? 
  Talk about STIs – why is there a stigma surrounding it when it happens to so many people?

  Reviews:

  Parasite
  Tame Impala’s new album
  Literally anything else!

  Arts:

  How can sex and bodies be used as protest? Think the #freethenipple, sex strikes etc. Do they work?
  How do you feel when you see your body naked? Are you liberated, or embarrassed, and why is this?
  How has the tv show Sex Education brought sexual wisdom to a mainstream audience?
  Talk about a sexual experience that has had a lasting impact on you, positive or negative. What was it about this experience that made it so memorable?

  Multilingual (for foreign language speakers):

  Talk about sex and social media! Think about sexting, online dating etc. and the impacts they’ve had on you.
  Talk about the presence of sex in the films you’ve watched and the music you’ve listened to! Who are the people who engage in this, and does it matter?
  How has your mental health affected your sex life? (can be anonymous)

  Creative:

  Poetry
  Fiction
  Photography
  Painting and drawing
  Scripts
  Satire

  Science

  Talk about fat-shaming! How can we have productive discussions about health without implying blame?
  Apparently, giraffes express sexual attraction through drinking each other’s pee! What are some examples of animal sexual practices that put humans to shame?
  Are ageing and death as inevitable as we thought? Are they even preventable?
  Turns out, some people don’t have an inner monologue! Do you have one? How does having a rich inner life or the lack thereof impact on your life?
  Have you ever had imposter syndrome in a sexual relationship? Why was this? 
  According to several studies, our generation is having a lot less sex than previous generations. Why do you think this is? Why are these studies so important?
  How do you really feel about your body? Tell us openly and honestly (and anonymously, if you like).

  Business and Economics

  Porn is a multimillion dollar industry! Why is porn so popular, and why, despite its popularity, is it still stigmatised?
  Talk about sex work! Is sex work inherently oppressive? Should we legalise it?
  Do you own any sex toys? Talk about them! Why are they important to you, and why don’t people really talk about them?
  Give an overview of online dating. Talk about some of the various websites, how popular they are and what purposes they serve.

   

  Woroni Editor

• Justice Forfeit

  November 13, 2019 5:02 pm Comments Off on Justice Forfeit

  CONTENT WARNING: Suicide
  On August 10, financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein died in the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York. Under investigation for allegedly running an underage sex trafficking ring, Epstein was housed in Manhattan in a prison referred to as the Guantanamo of New York. The prison is notorious for holding terrorists, drug kingpins and gang members as they await trial. In good company, it is officially reported that Epstein committed suicide by hanging himself in his prison cell. This was his second attempt at suicide at the same facility. 
  Outrage at Epstein’s suicide was almost immediate. United States Attorney General William Barr vowed ‘accountability’, while senior Texas Republican Ted Cruz voiced his indignation that prison authorities had allowed Epstein “to take the coward’s way out.” Cruz added that Epstein deserved the ninth circle of hell, a reference to the frozen subterranean wasteland in Dante’s Inferno. Cruz’s hyperbolic discourse successfully conveyed his contempt for Epstein. It also inadvertently demonstrated the contrasts between past and modern Western conceptions of justice. In particular, it highlighted the issue of posthumous justice within modern justice.
  Posthumous justice has not always been an issue. The Medieval Catholic Christian perception of justice contained strong views on the issue. Cruz unconsciously channeled this view in his reference to Inferno. Cruz’s chosen destination for Epstein, the ninth circle of hell, is reserved for perpetrators of treachery: in Epstein’s case, treachery in the special relationships between adult and child. The average person would not find it unreasonable to expect that, if the ninth circle were a destination in which one could end up, Epstein would be in the frozen lake in the company of Satan, Judas and Brutus. 
  The key feature of this dark fantasy is that Epstein’s hellish punishment is posthumous. Criminals in the past were imprisoned while still alive, but it was believed that the real punishment awaited them in the afterlife. In the Abrahamic world, death was thought of as little consolation for perpetrators. In the Middle Ages, Epstein’s suicide would have been of little relevance given the eternal damnation that lies ahead of him. 
  This is in stark contrast to modern secular conceptions of justice. In the western world, criminal justice centers upon the idea of material punishment and restorative justice. Common punishments include prison time, community service and financial penalties. The most important part of these approaches is that they require the subject be alive to experience their punishment.
  This brings us to why Cruz was so outraged about Epstein’s suicide. It removed the ability of the US legal system to hold him responsible for his alleged crimes, and limited solutions for his victims. Epstein’s move to place nearly all his assets in a trust two days before the suicide suggests that Epstein knew this as well. Estates make it difficult for victims to gain access to damages, and lawyers estimate that it will take years for an outcome. Epstein took full advantage of the limitations of modern justice, ensuring that justice would no longer be properly administered. 
  Epstein’s case makes it obvious that modern conceptions of justice have an issue with posthumous justice. Without a person to punish and with the legal difficulty of suing estates, the modern legal system finds itself at an impasse in respect to furthering justice. On the other hand, past conceptions have little difficulty with creating the perception that justice has been served.
  It should be made clear that this isn’t an argument for past conceptions. Perceptions of justice remain merely perceptions. Modern conceptions are also more coherent and just. However, reflecting upon the past has highlighted the current issue with posthumous justice. Given the difficulties with bringing Epstein’s victims justice, it is obvious that more effort needs to be directed into posthumous justice. These could be reforms to estate legislation, posthumous trials and better suicide prevention to prevent posthumous justice being an issue at all. Small actions like these could prevent individuals like Epstein from short-circuiting modern justice, abrogating responsibility and furthering injustice.

  Eammon Gumley

• Is ScoMo Taking the PIS-ific?

  August 23, 2019 2:27 pm Comments Off on Is ScoMo Taking the PIS-ific?

  Let’s get real about climate change – and not Scott Morrison real. Real as in better solutions to climate change than fruit picking. Real as in real accountability for those at risk of losing their livelihood, culture and country due to processes to which they contribute very little. Real as in prioritising the human life of our closest neighbours over the growth of the Australian economy.
  Last week Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison joined leaders of the Pacific at the Pacific Islands Forum to talk all things Pacific. Meeting in Funafuti, the capital of Tuvalu, the leaders’ retreat showcased all the good parts of Pacific hospitality: food, song and dance. The purpose being, “to show the world what would be lost, apart from land, if Tuvalu were to disappear”.
  This was entirely lost on Morrison, who made himself very unpopular by taking a hard stance on climate change. Or rather, a hard stance on the role of coal and its place on the table. Morrison ensured Australia’s official communiqué watered down commitments to respond to the climate emergency pressed by the others. Morrison’s stance on red-lining some of the language around commitments to coal, limiting warming to under 1.5 degrees Celsius and setting a plan for zero-net emissions by 2050 caused a fierce 12-hour debate which almost broke down twice.
  Now you can probably tell by my language so far that I’m not thrilled by the efforts of Mr Morrison. In fact, I’m pretty bloody disappointed. Not only is this bad for our relationship with the Pacific, it’s bad for the people who live there. Not to mention, it demonstrates to the rest of the world how clearly inept we are at any form of regional leadership. The Prime Minister of Tuvalu, Enele Sopoaga, summarised this sentiment perfectly, stating, “You are trying to save your economy, I am trying to save my people.”
  The Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, was so disappointed with Morrison’s performance that despite being a “Wallabies fan from a long way back”, he announced that he would be cheering on the All Blacks in the 2019 Bledisloe Cup.

  What is more concerning than the Bledisloe affiliations is the message this sends to the rest of the word – namely, China. Before the forum, Australia promised $500 million in aid to the Pacific for the sole purpose of tackling climate change. It is important to note that this was redirected from existing programs and is not new money. However, it was intended to demonstrate a continued effort showing that Australia is on side.
  Morrison dislodged this dialogue in one foul swoop.
  Data sourced by the Lowy Institute’s Chinese Aid in the Pacific shows that an increasing aid budget of $2.5 billion across 218 projects is being funnelled into the Pacific by China. Projects like the Navua Hospital in Fiji have been welcomed with open arms, which cannot be said for our leader.
          “China never insults the Pacific. You say it as if there’s a competition between Australia and China. There’s no competition, except to say the Chinese don’t insult us … They’re good people, definitely better than Morrison, I can tell you that.”
  – Quote from Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimaram.
  According to another Lowy study, at this point in time 10 per cent of Australians say, “until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs.” Either Mr Morrison is blinded by the surging current of political donations that are given by the Rineharts of Australia, or he’s just straight-up ignorant. And in a situation as critical as climate change, the latter is incredibly dangerous.
  Not only does the communiqué pushed by our leader not represent the opinion of the Australian population – 62 per cent of whom believe that climate change is the top ranked threat Australia faces today – but it fundamentally impeaches on the lives of those most vulnerable to the effects of our own greenhouse gas emissions.
  In case the importance of all of this hasn’t landed, here it is. Our ScoMo has severely damaged our relationship with our closest neighbours who will now increasingly be looking towards China for support, a situation which could be problematic for Australian security. He is representing a position of blind and wilful incompetence with which only 10 per cent of Australians align. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, he has insulted and compromised our friendship with the nations of the Pacific – nations who shouldn’t have to mop up our mess.
  Photo credit: The Guardian (top and bottom), AAP (middle)

  Ruben Steffens

• Our Silence on Hong Kong Shames Us All

  August 21, 2019 3:25 pm Comments Off on Our Silence on Hong Kong Shames Us All

  CONTENT WARNING: Violence, Discrimination, War
  Right now, an entire people are peacefully struggling for democracy and civil rights. They have marched in their millions over this summer for a better future. They fight for the same things we have and continue to aspire to protect – democracy, liberty, the rule of law, a fair and impartial judicial system, a brighter future for them and their children. 
  They struggle against the world’s most powerful totalitarian state. A dictatorship that currently imprisons somewhere between one-point-five to three million people in concentration camps in Xinjiang alone. A state that ruthlessly suppresses religious, ethnic, sexual and political minorities, where the court system is a political creature, and opposition is occasionally literally massacred. An oligarchy of incredible inequality where political and economic power is concentrated in the power of a new aristocracy, where citizens are divided into castes by the Hukou system of residency permits. 
  A digital police state sustained by the most comprehensive system of coercion, censorship, and surveillance that has ever been implemented. Censorship so extreme that it reaches all the way to private messages between citizens. Every aspect of a person’s life – their biometric data, their movements, their browsing history, every word they speak, almost every thought – is captured and considered. A social credit system that will penalise thought, expression and activity contrary to the will of the state without any human input needed at all. 
  Orwell could not have imagined the horrifying potential of big data and machine learning bent to the service of oppression. The sophistication and elegance of the modern Chinese systems of social control make East Germany and The Soviet Union look amateurish and clumsy by comparison. 
  We all know this about China. We know about the oppression that stands behind the gilded facade of economic growth. We know what drives millions of Hong Kongers to the streets to prevent. And we are silent about it. 
  The silence of our governments is to be expected. China is the world’s largest economy and has always used its economic heft as a diplomatic bludgeon. Any nation that speaks out against the abuses of the Chinese State imperils their trading relationship and Chinese investment in their local economy. Chinese money buys votes in the United Nations and in the international community. Speaking out strongly on Hong Kong risks making a powerful enemy that few other countries can afford. 
  But I did not expect to be silent. I did not expect the plight of Hong Kong to be met with the muted apathy that it has. I did not expect that as Hong Kong struggles to preserve the dying light of their liberties, the citizens of the free world would turn a deaf ear. 
  Maybe it’s a lack of confidence. With liberal democracy facing its own crisis of identity and morality in the United States and elsewhere, it’s easy to fall into a muted cynicism whereby the imperfections of our own democracy create a false sense of equivalence with dictatorship. After the failures of American attempts to spread democracy by force, it’s easy to doubt the morality of advocating the advance global liberty and democracy. 
  Perhaps it’s the perceived personal costs of speaking out on Hong Kong, even as an Australian citizen. This is not a one-sided debate. Wealthy Chinese nationals with a large stake in the current regime make up a large number of international students in Australia. Many of us know and count as friends people who will be vocal defenders of the regime, and to speak out is to risk those friendships. 
  Or maybe we fear that the Chinese surveillance state will reach out and touch us too. That our words and actions will be recorded in some database somewhere to be counted as an enemy of the Chinese state and used against us – perhaps if we apply for a visa or a Chinese state-sponsored scholarship. That we will feel even the barest hint of the coercion that Chinese citizens feel every day. 
  Maybe it’s the sense of futility of Hong Kong’s plight. That the slow corrosion of Hong Kong’s autonomy is inevitable, that Beijing will win one way or the other, and that there is nothing that can be done. That resistance is a foregone conclusion that risks a repeat of the events of Tiananmen Square on an enormous scale. 
  Maybe it’s a combination of all the above that deadens our tongues. Maybe. Either way, our silence is shameful. It speaks to a distinct lack of courage and a failure in our moral duty we owe to the rest of the world to advocate for a better and brighter future for all of humanity. Even as we stumble, we remain that shining city on a hill.
  For all of its flaws, liberal democracy remains the best performing and most moral form of government yet devised. On every continent, the relationship between the Human Development Index and the Democracy Index scores of states is stark. Mauritius, Botswana, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Taiwan, Estonia…all of these are states that are more democratic, more free, and as a result are better educated, healthier, richer and safer than their neighbours. 
  Under the aegis of liberal democracy, all the other flowers of civilisation bloom. If the great challenges of the 21st century are to be met – climate change, nuclear war, mass automation, antibiotic resistance –they will be met best by a world that is as democratic and as free as possible. Dictatorships will not end nuclear proliferation. Oligarchies will not take effective action on climate change. 
  Democracy is, therefore, a necessary precondition for action on climate change, or for economic inequality, or for any other such challenge. Policies that benefit all of the people will only be taken by governments whose interests are aligned with all the people, accountable and responsive by way of fair electoral systems under universal suffrage, with strong civil liberties under the rule of law and an independent judiciary. To attempt to address such challenges without democracy is to build a house on a foundation of quicksand. It is only by the strenuous pursuit of a more free and democratic world both at home and abroad that a brighter future for all of humanity can be secured. 
  As always, the struggle between political ideologies is global. How could we imagine otherwise? For all of human history, from the Peloponnesian War to the French Revolution, to World War II and the Cold War, states have sought to promote their forms of government elsewhere. Authoritarian regimes will always support likeminded regimes and attempt to undermine the integrity of their rivals. We see it in the alliance between Saudi Arabia, China and Russia on all manners of human rights violations in UN voting chambers. We see it in Russian attempts to undermine the integrity of elections in the United States and elsewhere. 
  Distance is no barrier in a digital age. The existence of free, prosperous and healthy democracies is an existential threat to the long-term rule of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in China, of the House of Saud in Saudi Arabia and of Putin in Russia. So long as the example of a better life and form of government exists, then the risk of revolution or reform will never vanish. 
  Let us be clear. The CCP has a vested interest in the corrosion and corruption of democracy globally, and to normalise state oppression and a restriction of civil liberties. Most of us accept already that the reason China cannot tolerate a democratic Hong Kong is because of the example it would set to the rest of China. But it doesn’t stop there. A democratic Hong Kong is a challenge to the CCP’s rule. But so is a democratic Taiwan, or Vietnam, or South Korea, America or Australia. The only difference is one of cultural and geographic proximity, and the world is shrinking. 
  Oppression of democracy anywhere then is an attack on democracy everywhere. We need to call out the justification of oppression in the name of cultural relativism for what it is: a fig-leaf for authoritarianism. Silent passivity is no longer an option. 
  This duty weighs most heavily on the students and alumni of this university. The rare privilege of our tertiary education comes with it the obligation that our education be used in the pursuit of a better world. To be trained in the law comes with it a duty to improve and uphold the law. To be a scientist entails an ethical duty to employ science in a way that benefits humanity. To be an economist, a political scientist, a sociologist or anthropologist comes with it the duty of our disciplines to create a better, fairer society and government. To us much has been given, and from us much should be expected. 
  For those with the knowledge and ability to speak, silence is a betrayal of the voiceless. For years we’ve avoided facing the elephant on China, and it’s time to stop. If we believe in the principles and promise of democracy, then we must stand with Hong Kong.

  Howard Maclean

• The Mediterranean Crisis: Whose Cross is it To Bear?

  July 26, 2019 12:09 pm Comments Off on The Mediterranean Crisis: Whose Cross is it To Bear?

   
  On the 6 May 2019, power was cut to one of Rome’s state-owned apartment precincts, leaving the 430 occupants without lighting, refrigeration or hot water for almost two weeks. The power outage came in the wake of a collective €300,000 electricity bill that the tenants, predominantly consisting of migrant families, had been unable to pay. In response to this, Pope Francis sent Cardinal Konrad Krajewski to visit the apartment block to offer food, medical and humanitarian assistance to the struggling families living in the dark. What the residents were probably not expecting was for the Cardinal himself to climb down the building’s manhole and reconnect the power to the main line. When asked who would pay the bill, he responded with “I’ll pay it, no problem.” The cardinal’s compassionate yet seemingly political act drew the attention of Italy’s deputy prime-minister and leader of the right-wing Lega Nord Party, Matteo Salvini. In a Twitter post, Salvini blasted the Cardinal’s action as “illegal,” and asked when he would start “helping the Italians who respect the law.”
  Krajewski and Salvini’s spat echoed the rising tensions between Italy’s populist government’s response to European migration and that of the Catholic Church’s. The Mediterranean Immigration Crisis, which has been exacerbated since 2009 by the lack of a globalised response and ineffective UN Peace-Keeping missions, was at the apex of the 2018 national Italian elections. Italy has taken the brunt of crisis, having received over 650,000 illegally arrived refugees from Africa and the Middle East since 2014. Cripplingly high levels of unemployment coupled with growing fears against foreign communities has provided right-wing parties with the perfect opportunity to elicit support from Italian nationals. A joint parliament was formed on 1 June 2018 between Salvini’s Lega Nord and the anti-establishment Movimento Cinque Stelle two months after the general election was held.
  An interesting aspect of Salvini’s campaign in particular was his continual referral to migrants as “profughi” which translates more closely to “boat people” than to “migrants.” While both terms can be interchangeable in this situation, “profughi” carries with it a certain racist connotation, which Salvini subtly exploited to further his anti-foreign rhetoric. Even major news outlets began to adopt this mannerism as Salvini used it
  It has been little over a year since Salvini’s ascension to parliament, and he has already vowed to instigate a variety of counter-measures to reduce the number of migrants entering Italy’s southern borders. The most contentious of these measures was his ban on EU and NATO-sponsored naval ships having undertaken search-and-rescue missions in the Mediterranean from docking in Italian ports. The parliament’s decision left two rescue ships carrying a combined 340 migrants stranded at sea for almost a week before they were allowed to dock in neighbouring countries.
  However, Salvini didn’t wait for the end of the election to pick a fight with the Vatican. Throughout his campaign, he directly appealed to Italy’s Catholic majority by envisioning himself as ‘chosen’ to lead Italy’s parliament. He has kissed rosary beads, invoked the names of patron Saints and prayed live on national T.V. during press conferences. He has no theological diction, nor self-dedication to religion. However, his reliance on vulnerable traditional Catholics scared by Pope Francis’ liberal approach to doctrine has glorified his façade of a religious leader. Given the rigorous anti-immigration sentiment he has adopted, it’s no surprise that the Vatican has rebuked Salvini for his appropriation of Christian symbols. Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin condemned Salvini’s actions, calling it ‘dangerous’ to invoke religion for his own political gain.
  Contrary to Salvini, the unreserved welcoming of migrants has been a central and reccurring theme of Pope Francis’ pontificate. He has provided over USD $500,000 to construct housing for migrants on the Mexico-US border, and has strongly advocated for more lenient border laws in countries on the forefront of the people movement. He has also played a prominent role in the Mediterranean crisis. Following a shipwreck that killed over 360 African migrants off the Italian Coast, the Pope has continuously begged European governments to provide incoming migrants with a ‘dignified welcome.’ 
  The theme for the 2019 World Day of Migrants and Refugees was recently released at the end of May by the Pope as Non si tratta solo di migranti – It is not just about migrants. The day aims to shift the focus from the victimisation of migrants onto ourselves. More specifically, the Pope drags into the spotlight the temptations of developed nations to foster an increasingly visible trend of individualism to demonise migration. It is a subtle yet direct strike against the rise of anti-immigration parties in Europe, such as that of Italy’s new government.
  It is difficult to guess the extent to which Salvini and the Church’s feud will fester. On a global scale, the Church’s influence in the political sphere is deteriorating, and the allure of right-wing populism is on the rise. Despite what these governments try to propagate, migratory movements in the 21st century should not be symbolised as a new phenomenon. Since the beginning of mankind, migration has sown the seeds for the creation and integration of new communities and cultures in all corners of the world. It is when these fluxes are forced that a collective international acknowledgment is required. The Mediterranean Crisis and the unprecedented number of refugees in the hands of human traffickers reflect the failure of this response.

  Cahill Di Donato

• Stargazing In Canberra: Bringing Science To The People

  May 24, 2019 2:53 am Comments Off on Stargazing In Canberra: Bringing Science To The People

  As an international student studying Economics, I always try my best to ‘go the extra mile’ to appreciate disciplines outside of my area of interest. What better way to do this than by exploring what lies beyond the ANU campus? Exploring the differences between Jakarta and Canberra is one of my favourite past times. Not only is it a fun thing to do, it can prove rather pleasant, especially during the warmer (autumn) seasons!
  One of the differences I enjoy seeing is how ANU and Canberra often work together, facilitating linkages between an episteme community and the broader community when it comes to holding public events. One example of this collaboration between the episteme (in this case, scientific) community and the broader public was a public astronomy night at Mount Stromlo. Although public transportation is not readily available here in the evening, this fact alone would not discourage me from attending the event. Thankfully, I had friends who were willing to give me a ride.
  From Mount Stromlo, one can see the skies in its unadulterated glory, without the glare of city lights or skyscrapers. ANU College of Science had set up 12 telescopes in the outdoors, and volunteers helped explain what we were gazing at through each telescope. Sadly, it was a cloudy night, so there were not many stars I could train my gaze upon. However, I did get my eyes on Jupiter. While the quality of my stargazing experience, contingent upon the weather, could have been better, I cannot deny: it was truly a dazzling and astonishing astronomical experience!
  Not only did the event provide us with the chance to marvel at the wonders of the galaxy, we also learned about astronomy and astrophysics. I was lucky to have had the chance to enjoy a lecture from Professor Paul Francis of the ANU Research School of Astronomy & Astrophysics. His topic was ‘What we Didn’t Know About the Universe’. Covering topics like the universe expanding, dark matter, and dark energy – Professor Francis shared how there is much debate, even among scientists, about the concept of ‘dark’! It was delivered in a language that was accessible even to the layman.
  I went home feeling satisfied. My journey to Mount Stromlo that night was something I had never experienced before. Coming from a country where academic dissemination to the public on such topics is limited to magazines and newspapers, Mount Stromlo Public Astronomy Night was very enlightening. It certainly helped me gain a deeper respect for the universe. And it was also child friendly, which I am sure must have inspired some future generations of astronomers and astrophysicists!
  The event led me to start thinking about whether I’d had such an opportunity back home in Jakarta.
  In Jakarta, I work five days a week. I live on the outskirts of Jakarta and have to travel for long hours to get to work in the city, with barely any time to do anything when I arrive home. In the mornings, I leave for work very early to avoid a fraction of traffic. This is one major reason why I rarely have the time or energy to attend events like these, even when the opportunity arises.
  I live in Depok, very close to Universitas Indonesia (University of Indonesia), one of the finest public universities in Indonesia. To the best of my knowledge, I have never come across any event in Jakarta where scientists hold public lectures like this and share knowledge with the broader community. Of course, Jakarta and Depok lack mountains, therefore making it difficult to stargaze, but I quite like the idea of having a city and a university rally their resources together to provide the public with the opportunity to gain a better appreciation of the world from a scientific perspective.
  Some food for thought here. When I return to Jakarta after completing my studies at the ANU, I might have the chance to organise something similar. Sadly, I am neither an astronomer nor an astrophysicist. Alas, I wonder – would this be a good enough reason for me to make a switch in the choice of my PhD career?
  Imed Krisna Wisnu Gupta is a PhD candidate at the ANU.

  I quite like the idea of having a city and a university rally their resources together to provide the public with the opportunity to gain a better appreciation of the world from a scientific perspective.

  Imed Krisna Wisnu

• 國際學生需要被融合嗎？

  May 17, 2019 1:48 pm Comments Off on 國際學生需要被融合嗎？

  To read the English version, see ‘Do International Students Need Integration?‘

  對少數族群代表度 (minority representation) 做出建設性的討 論很難。 這就是為什麼 Kai Clark 的文章 “There is No Such Thing as an ‘International’ Student” (發表於上一期的Woroni)讓人耳目一新。文章提供了許多有價值的見解和真誠的建 議。作者倡議改善國際學生的代表度， 譴責同化不同群體， 也 反對仇外心理。當然，我對這篇文章有很多不同意的觀點，我 想首先指出這篇文章中可圈可點的地方。
  即使顯而易見，我也需要再多做一些解釋。改變社會的提案 (proposals for change) 經常受到非常苛刻的審查 (scrutiny)。除 了一些必要的顧慮之外，有些人之所以有時過度批判某個提案 是因為他們期望維持現狀 (a desire to preserve the status quo) 。例如，那些反對平權法案 (affirmative action) 的人士，他們 常常會說這樣的提案不是解決不公正 (address injustice) 最有效 的方式。但是這些人大多也不會支持其他解決不公正的提案。 再比如那些反對工人組成工會的人，他們說他們反對工會是因 為工會傷害了工人的利益。但這些反對的人也大多不會支持 其他的改善工人福利的措施，譬如大規模的資源重分配 (mass redistribution)。所以，儘管我和Clark 有很多不同的觀點，我 覺得他的文章對關於少數族群代表度的討論還是做出了建設性 的貢獻。
  我已經做了足夠的鋪墊。 Clark 文章的主要論點是國際學生 不是一個同質 (homogenous) 的群體。正如標題所說的， “我 們所謂的國際學生並不存在” (“There is No Such Thing as an ‘International’ Student”)。不過，我的顧慮是Clark 將對一個群 體的過度概括 (over-generalisation) 替換成了另一種形式上的過 度概括。 Clark 不經意地將國際學生描繪成一個個不同的小圈 子，每一個圈子內卻仍然還是同質的。
  Clark 說， “國際學生的身份認同就是這樣:他們覺得自己就 是自己祖國的公民。” Clark 說， “他們更傾向於同來自他們自 己國家的人打交道，而不是同其他的國際學生來往。” Clark 說， “這個就是為什麼以國籍或文化為界線的學生組織(cultural and country-specific clubs) 非常流行。這是因為這些學生組織 給國際學生提供了一個競選學生領袖的機會。” 我覺得這樣的 描述令人擔憂。它們要不就是很不準確， 或者就過分的依賴 刻板印象 (stereotypes)。這樣的言論也有令人反感的規範性意 味 (normative connotations)。我們被告知，我們需要的“制度 變革” (“institutional change”) 只是“學生領袖”和住宿員工理解 國際學生面臨的“法律，文化和社會上的經濟障礙”。我不禁在 想，Clark 所謂的制度變革會帶來什麼樣的 “理解”。
  平心而論，Clark是有提到“即使有些詞彙— 譬如說 ”來自中國大 陸，台灣，香港和新加坡的學生“— 常常會隱藏這些地方的複雜 性 (complexities) 和矛盾 (contradictions)”。但我不知道當Clark 提到， “同質化群體譬如中國的 ‘新富人’ (‘new rich’) 和崛起的中 產階級”， 背後隱藏的或許不僅僅是一個地方的複雜性和矛盾。
  當然，從大學制度政策的層面來看，某種程度的概括 (general- isation) 是不可避免的。我們需要問的是針對某些群體的概括是 不是不公平和不成比例的 (unfairly and disproportionately)。

  事實上，作為一名國際學生，我覺得令人費解的是為什麼一篇發 表在校報的文章，像我這樣的國際學生幾乎總是被稱作 “他們”。 或許作者只是想用正確的英文語法，這我不得而知。然而，我覺 得在Clark的描述中，我看不到國際學生有任何的主權 (agency) 。國際學生似乎只是“包容” (“inclusion”) 和“支持” (“support”) 的 被動接受者— 似乎像我這樣的國際學生只能”被融合”， 只能被“ 學生領袖” 和其他學校員工幫助。
  當然，如何理解弱勢群體 (disadvantaged groups) 的主權是 一個複雜的問題。這是一個歷史學家，社會學家和哲學家都有 廣泛討論的議題。譬如說，我們不希望僅僅通過受害者的視角 (the lens of victimhood) 來看待原住民 (indigenous peoples)。 我們也不希望僅僅著眼於原住民慷慨激昂的抗爭 (triumphant resistance)。所以我的觀點不是Clark沒有解決這個如此複雜的 問題。相反，我只是非常好奇為什麼國際學生會被單獨挑選出 來談論。畢竟，很多學生都有遇到適應新環境困難。也有很多 學生，如Clark所說的， “希望融合但不知道要怎麼做。”
  即便是文章中提到的一些看似具體的問題也不是國際學生所獨 有的。Clark說， “例如，餃子製作活動可能僅僅會吸引東亞的 學生。大多的南亞學生並不會太感興趣。” Clark 接著說， “這 樣的情況快速的惡化當你感覺大多的活動都像是在為某些特定 群體量身定做。” 我再次對這點感到疑惑。難道這不就是民主制 度 (democratic institutions) 中常見的問題嗎?就是說，難道大 多的民主制度不都會遇到如何顧全少數群體的權益的問題嗎? 這和，譬如說，某些學生派系 (factions) 主宰某些在校內的學生 社團有什麼區別呢?
  或許我有些偏見。毫無疑問，僅僅因為某些問題具有廣泛性並 不意味著它不重要。同樣，上面提到的許多問題，例如某些國 際學生群體沒有足夠的代表度，都是非常確切的。但關鍵的是 我們應該如何處理這些問題。我不知道為什麼我們要說， “為陷 入困境的國際學生提供服務和支持”， 而不是， “為所有陷入困 境的學生提供服務和支持”。當Clark 說， “在我們談論國際學生 的時候，我們要注意我們的用語。” 我完全同意。這就是為什麼 我覺得我們不應該將國際學生僅僅定位成無能為力的受害者。 Clark 還說， “國際學生應該被尊重因為他們的人性 (humanity) 和文化多樣性 (cultural diversity)”。我同意。但為什麼不僅僅著 眼於人性呢?
  當然，國際學生確實有自己獨特的困境。或許正如Clark所講 的， 國際學生遇到與英語語言技能和文化差異相關的問題。但 對我來說，正如我在其他地方寫到的，我覺得對我身份的過度 刻板印象和(善意的)假設 比缺乏任何來自學校的支持或服務 更令人煩心。譬如說，我常常被問及，“喔，所以你學哲學喔。 。 不是。。 金融學?”
  我應該承認不同學生確實有不同的需求和利益。 ANU也應該為 學生提供更好的支持和服務。 (我曾經要為一個心理諮商的會 面(counselling session) 等三個星期。很多其他學生也有類似的 經歷。)但這也正說明了為什麼我們不應該一概而論— 特別是 當我們討論那些已經被一概而論了很久的群體。
  或許，我終究和Clark有著同樣的觀點。或許，正如Clark所講 的， “所謂的國際學生並不存在”。但我們更應該記住的是，所 謂的什麼問題都沒有的模範學生也並不存在吧。
   

   

  Kida Lin