Protesting in Jakarta

I read with interest that the "opinion" piece in the Jakarta Post today was about responsible protesting and the fact that protesters no longer seemed to care about the people that their protesting would affect. This now seems to be standard fodder for many editorialists and opinion writers. It is a line that has been trotted out before and one I have commented on elsewhere in my blog. It is also something that has been trotted out by Globe Media in their flag bearing publication "Globe Asia".

The gist of the argument is that street demonstrations and protests cause traffic jams, traffic jams make people late for work and negatively impacts on business, these negative impacts cost money, and money lost means investors are likely to rethink whether or not to invest in Indonesia. Yeah, right! Pull the other chain in plays Dixie!

The whole point of protesting is to exercise a democratic right to do so and to hold your government accountable. Can it be inconvenient, yes. Should it be inconvenient, yes! The reality is that the only time some of us might ever think about an issue is if it directly impacts upon us. Being caught in a traffic jam and being late impacts upon us. But instead of being angry at the protesters, perhaps this anger should be directed towards the government that allowed conditions to get to a point where people felt that their only recourse was to demonstrate and protest.

So, the protesters threw some Molotov cocktails. This is hardly a reason to ban protests altogether! It is an excuse though to stifle the democratic rights of the masses. Those that break the law by perpetrating violence threw such methods as the destruction of property must be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent permissible under the law. Peaceful demonstrations no matter how inconvenient must be permitted. These demonstrations and protests are legitimate means of expression and calling the government to account.

The Jakarta Post singles out the recent actions relating to the proposed and now happened fuel price hike. The protesters have legitimate concerns here as to their ability to live without additional government assistance and the proportional impact of the price rise on the poor compared to the more affluent.

I have not seen the Jakarta Post jumping up and down about the inconvenience caused by protests staged by the PKS in support of Palestine! This is also a worthy cause, but if we are going to characterize the argument into one of convenience, then any protest in support of any aim that results in a traffic jam should be frowned upon. Once again this clearly misses the point of protesting and taking your demands to the street.

The Jakarta Post's solution to this problem is to restrict protests and demonstrations to public parks such as in and around Monas. Why not go the whole nine yards and allocated special days for protests to be held in the out-of-the-way surrounds of the Ragunan Zoo. The Jakarta Post then goes even further with this gem:

"It is high time for Indonesians to avoid such past practices for changing the state leadership to the more modern, constitutional means: the five-yearly democratic election."

This I am guessing is a suggestion that protests and demonstrations should be banned altogether and the only permissible protest by the community must come at the ballot box and only every five years. Maybe the Jakarta Post should be telling Zimbabweans that the best way forward is not street protests but accepting your fate and then voting the office holders out at the next election.

If the Jakarta Post is not in the mood to go that far, why not editorialize something much closer to home such as the inept generals of the Burmese regime, who in their citizens' moment of most critical need they are ummmming and ahhhing about whether or not to let foreign aid workers in. Maybe street protests, although sometimes violent and violently suppressed by authorities are the best way to bring attention to one's plight.

The right to protest is a democratic right and this must not be curtailed for reasons of convenience. Maybe if we all paid a little more attention and demanded a lot more of our elected governments then protests would occur a whole lot less frequently! The photograph is courtesy of the Jakarta Post and photographer Ricky Yudhistira.

Travel Warnings for Jakarta

The United States has lifted its eight year old travel warning for Indonesia. The US Ambassador to Indonesia, Cameron Hume, cited an improved security situation, the lack of recent bombings, and a weakened Jemaah Islamiyya.

I would reckon that this is more than just a case of Indonesia making a request to lift the travel warning. My guess is that the US would have independent intelligence that indicates that there is in fact an improved and continuing to improve security climate in Indonesia.

Hopefully this does not breed complacency.

The picture of the US Ambassador was borrowed from the US Embassy in Jakarta website.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama

This is a picture that I found on the blog of a colleague (Rima Fauzi of "A Chocoholic's Piece of Mind" fame) and I am not sure where she found it. However, in light of the previous post on context and intent, I post the picture here.

Is a combination like this really the best of both worlds; a dream ticket?

Never work...neither wants to play second fiddle to the other!

Hillary Clinton and RFK...

It seems that the mere mention of a former assassinated presidential contender is news worthy for its offensiveness when it is uttered by Hillary Clinton albeit the people who should most likely be offended by it have gone on the record to say that they are not. Yet, the campaign of the other side looks to try and draw some political advantage from the comment that was clearly not intended to offend.

What is interesting here is the undercurrent that is not being spoken. Perhaps, Barack Obama's camp took umbrage to the remark because Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June 1968 after claiming the California Primary and it seemed perhaps he had turned the corner and was on the way to the nomination himself. Maybe Obama's camp thinks that this comment will bring out all the nut jobs looking to assassinate another presidential contender and this would some how justify Clinton's decision to fight for this thing tooth and nail to the end.

This is bizarre logic and stupid! The context and the intent is clearly not that but any suggestion that it is, is in fact something that is offensive.

Obama, as do Clinton and McCain, has secret service protection. Not that this is a guarantee or anything, but it does make it conceivably much more difficult for those wanting their 15 minutes of fame by trying to assassinate a contender. To be fair Ronald Reagan had secret service protection and that did not stop a near successful attempt on his life while he was President.

But back to the comment and the context. Here is what Clinton said:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it"

I just do not see how this is offensive and I do not see it to say anything other than; I am still in this race because I think it is important, I still think I can win, and the race is not over.

However, this is what Obama had to say:

"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Sen. Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here. Sen. Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."

This though is an attempt at political point scoring because it was not such a careless statement but rather an opportunity to twist the context with a view to gaining some kind of political advantage.

The reality here is that people want Clinton to quit sooner rather than later and this is an opportunity to up the ante on that call. Let's face it these remarks have been uttered before in a slightly different form back in March.

The difference between March and now is that it seems like Obama has wrapped this primary election process up. Although there might be a mathematical possibility for Clinton to win with the support of super delegates, no one really considers this to be likely.

However, the family of RFK released a statement via RFK Jr. that went like this:

"I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard-fought through June" and "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Surely politicians have more important issues to debate and rake over the coals than this. What about some serious discussion of the issues that define the candidates, their policies,and their respective visions of the future. Now, that would be an issue worthy of some quality press coverage.

Art or Child Porn -- Some More Thoughts

The art vs. porn debate is likely to rage on for a while and then perhaps disappear until the next time someone wants to run an exhibition with provocative images. However, I have been following this debate because of the legal implications and because I enjoy looking at how the debate is characterized considering art is such a subjective area of study.

I was forwarded a link to a discussion thread at a place called "net-model" which has some interesting stuff about Bill Henson and others who have produced similar images in the name of art over the years.

Nevertheless, I do want to throw something else into the fray here, and that is; assuming that Henson did all the right things and asked for and was granted the consent of the parents for the photographs, then where should the blame be apportioned in this case?

If these images are in fact classified as pornography then why is no one talking about the parents who allowed these photos to be taken? Has the child been removed from the family home because she is at risk from sexual exploitation by her parents?

When is too young for nude modelling work? Not a question I can or want to answer at this point in time or one that I need to answer. However, before a child reaches legal age to make decisions for themselves (legal capacity) then these decisions are made by the parent(s) and as such the parents must also be responsible for the consequences of the decisions made on behalf of their child.

Will these images do any irreparable psychological harm to the teen models that are the subject of these pictures, who knows? Only time will tell, won't it?

I wonder would we be having this debate if the pictures in question were the happy snappies from the family album and included photographs of kids in the bath, frolicking on the lawn or at the beach, or doing any other myriad of things that kids do and that their parents photograph them doing? What would be the arbitrary line in the sand that we as a community would draw to determine when a naked picture has a sexual context and when it is nothing more than an innocent family happy snappy?

Art is such a subjective thing and I guess this is why this debate had to happen...one person's art is another person's porn!

More to follow...

Army Boots

Keeping with the military theme of the last post, here is one of those "are you kidding me" moments also known as a "WTF" moments. It bothers me that this is a story originating out of Australia. Not least because of its stupidity but because I have a brother who serves in Australia's armed services and I would think that my tax payer dollars that have been taken over the years have been spent on worthwhile things like comfortable and fit for purpose clothing for those people that serve our country while we wrap ourselves in the warm blanket of freedom!

The story goes like this! Australia's armed forces have said that soldiers serving in combat zones such as Iraq, Afghanistan, or Timor Leste are permitted to buy their own combat boots from one of four approved providers in the event that the army issue combat boots are not suitable. The army has recognized that the current issue boot is no longer fit for purpose, particularly in the demanding combat zones that Australian troops find themselves in, and are developing a new boot.

In the interim, the army has said that soldiers may by their own boots and a good pair of boots could cost upwards of AUD 600, which seems like a small investment for what could conceivably be the difference between life and death, literally. Unfortunately, soldiers who do this will not be reimbursed for the cost of the boots they buy.

The Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Defence, Greg Combet, stated that the government's position is that the current issued boots are suitable. By the sounds of it he needs to get out a little more and talk to some people down at the Department of Defence because if these boots are so good then there seems to be no need to develop a new and improved pair!

For me, here is the cold hard reality, we are asking these young men and women to lay their lives on the line for us every single day they are in a combat zone and we are debating whether or not the government should reimburse these brave young men and women for a pair of boots, stupid! If you're not going to reimburse them directly then one would hope that a special provision within the tax law would allow these boots to be claimed back through the tax system.

I am definitely anti-war but I am pro-people. If we are going to send people into the line of fire then we have a responsibility to ensure that they are fully equipped and the equipment is fit for purpose. If not, then we must not send them into that danger, for me there are no ifs, buts, or maybes on this one!

What Price on Valour?

The sale of war memorabilia, particularly medals has raised its head again with a second Victoria Cross (the Commonwealth's highest award for valour in the face of the enemy) going to auction within the last two weeks. Some people might be dismayed that a monetary value can be placed on bravery at the highest level and others might take a more pragmatic approach to the collectables being offered for sale. Simply, everything has a price and ultimately through the process adopted we determine that value.

When it is all said and done, war medals are awarded to the individual and not to the broader community. They are private property and can be bought and sold. If this offends people then those people need to rethink the process in awarding medals for valour. If medals are public property that cannot be bought and sold then there needs to be a caveat in the awarding of the medals in the first place that states that the medal is to be displayed in a public place for the viewing pleasure of the masses.

Personally, I would hope that medals such as the Victoria Cross which is awarded for "... most conspicuous bravery, or some daring or pre-eminent act of valour or self-sacrifice, or extreme devotion to duty in the presence of the enemy" would be displayed in a public place like a museum so that all people can learn about the bravest of the brave, those who have laid everything on the line not for a shot at fame or glory or riches, but rather in the defence of freedom and democracy as we know it or simply to save the life of a mate in battle. That said, I cannot see a valid reason why a museum should not buy the medals themselves.

If the museum cannot afford to purchase the medals then they either need a special fund provided by the government for this purpose or work together with wealthy benefactors in the purchase of this memorabilia.

The reality is a simple one in that there would be no sale if there was no demand. Simple economics tells us that this is all about supply and demand. The demand is there and if you can supply something to fill that demand and get a price you are willing to accept into the bargain, then why not?

Let's face it, if you can sell a war medal, or an Olympic gold medal, or something similar for 500 thousand dollars and that would set you up in terms of paying for something that you need then who should prevent you from ding that. It has been reported that Shirley Strickland, one of Australia's greatest Olympians, sold her Gold medals to pay for her grand children's education.

Patrick Swayze

I am sure people are somewhat confused when they drop by this blog and see that it is a little about nothing and a lot about all things. This was the point in starting the blog in the first place; somewhere to store random thoughts and musings about anything in my sphere of existence that interested or intrigued me.

Patrick Swayze was diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer at the beginning of this year. Any sentence that includes cancer and advanced is not a sentence you want to hear. At the time, news reports were suggesting that the actor had mere weeks to live. However, as we head towards the end of May the bloke is battling on. The prognosis is still not good apparently, but as with anything else and irrespective of whether you are sick or not, you take each day as it comes and live that day.

Swayze is always likely to be most remembered for his starring roles in the film Ghost and Dirty Dancing. However, I always remember him in the mini-series North and South which was the film adaption of John Jakes' book (actually a trilogy). This is probably because I am into historical fiction and have a fascination with the US Civil War (that is another post though).

Anyway, Swayze and his wife, Lisa Niemi are scheduled to celebrate their 33rd wedding anniversary on 12 June. Here is hoping that he makes it to then. Nevertheless, friends of Swayze are reportedly saying that there is not much time left in this world for him and that doctors are saying that despite the treatment regime, once the cancer reaches his brain he has just two weeks to live.

Keep fighting on!

The Problem With Bureaucracy + Law

This is out of the UK, specifically the Greater Manchester area. The story involves a lost cat, a woman trying to help, and an ordinance on posters.

A little cat had lost its way and ended up in the garden of Joy Tracey whimpering and obviously lost. Now, Joy, perhaps living up to her name wanted nothing more than to give the little moggy some joy and reunite it with its owners, who were probably as distraught as the cat was and wondering where their little feline family member had disappeared to.

So, Joy tried all of the things she could think of in this personal quest to reunite the cat with its family including trips to the RSPCA, animal shelters, pet shops, and advertisements in the local paper. For me this sounds like the woman was really going above and beyond in trying to get the cat back to its owners. Most people would have either booted the cat to the next yard or taken it to the pound and dumped it there.

However, in a last ditch desperate effort, Joy decided she would print up some posters and hang them on local lamp posts in the belief that maybe someone will either recognize the cat or know a family who has lost a cat. It is worth noting that there were just 12 posters involved; a very targeted campaign indeed.

This is where the bureaucracy become bureaucrazy and the law an ass! The ordinance is one designed to stop what some consider an eyesore, namely: the unfettered postering of walls and lamp posts with advertisements and other things. Now it seems that the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, Clauses A, B and F prohibits posters from being postered on lamp posts and the council was determined that the ordinance must be enforced to the letter of the law. Postering apparently attracts a heavy fine.

Lucky for the council, the posters included Joy's phone number so they were able to call her and tell her to remove the posters or risk the fine.

The question here is the ordinance intended for this purpose. The poster was in essence a public service announcement. The council's over-bureaucratic approach suggests that they were not necessarily acting in accordance with the spirit or intent of the law but rather with the mentality of; poster, prohibited, fine!

For as long as I can remember lost pets were almost universally photographed and made into posters and hung on light posts, telegraph poles, and anything else in the public domain by either the person who lost the pet or by those who had found it.

The cat was eventually reunited with its loving family.