Us and Them.

These are two very conflicting, almost contradictory, words. US being me and my family; my cohort; my language speakers; with my skin colour; with my belief system – in other words my “comfort zone”. 

 

But THEM – they are none of the above and are therefore unknown; not to be trusted; possibly dangerous; certainly to be avoided if at all possible.

 

Now I’m sure this has been so since humans formed tribes for protection purposes many, many, millennia in the past. One would hope that the antagonism, hatred, death and destruction that resulted would, by now, be something to look back on with shame.

 

Unfortunately not. Now, far from casting blame I would just draw attention to what I, personally, consider to be some of the underlying “causes” for this very, not to say, dangerous, situation:-

 

Formal religion hasn’t helped. In fact it has, in my view, been the underlying cause of much grief. Think the Crusades – those infamous campaigns to recapture the “Holy City” of Jerusalem that had been taken by the Islamic Sultanates ruling over large swathes of the “Holy Land”. Them – Bad Islamists and Us – Good Christians. 

 

Then there have been the millennia long “antagonism” between various sects of ALL religions – Catholic vs Protestant; Sunni vs Shia. Hindus don’t like Muslims (and visa versa) – so the simmering conflict between India and Pakistan continues. Then of course the Jews – they killed Jesus, you see, so no one likes them!

 

Through the great sweep of history to the present day – South America and the Spanish “conquest” of the Aztecs; the “colonisation” of North America, Africa, Australia, India and many Asian countries has been a, possibly, subconscious example of scapegoating. Then there were the religious wars - Protestant vs Catholicism  - of the 16^th and 17^th centuries and even today with the “differences” in Palestine and Israel, Turkey and Armenia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. 

 

The wall between the state of Israel and the Palestinian territories on the West Bank is a “protection”. As well as being a security fence, it also represents a psychic barrier. The danger is that people come to think that those on the "other side" are irredeemably evil and inhuman.

 

This is similar in intention to the now demolished “Berlin Wall” – the wall built between the Evil Capitalist West and the Good Communist East (the USSR).  

 

Then of course the most horrendous of all “differences”, those charged by Hitler for causing the financial collapse of Germany after the First World War (1914 – 1918) - the millions of Jews, Gypsies and mentally troubled, exterminated at the hands of the Nazis during the 1930s and early 1940s.

 

The list is almost endless.  And what has been achieved?

 

Nothing. Except a retreat to and repositioning of the old standby – the Scapegoat.

 

It’s all YOUR fault. 

Scapegoating: A Chilling Truth About Human Behaviour.

 

When it comes to interpersonal conflict, humans have long preferred to blame other individuals 

or groups rather than look, deeply, at their own behaviour. Scapegoating is when an individual or group selects another person or group to bear the responsibility for any conflict or social dis-function. The person or group that is targeted and blamed is the scapegoat.

 

This can be understood if it is believed that the person who falls into the scapegoat role would typically be a person who is the least like the in-group members who seek cohesion and conformity among each other. After all, one of the functions of conformity and cohesion in groups is survival, and outsiders who demonstrate difference from the group, may be considered a threat.

History is practically written by a narrative of scapegoating. In the Torah (first compiled in about the 6^th Century BCE), it is said that men who engage in homosexual behaviour should be stoned to death. In the late seventeenth century, some locals in colonial Massachusetts didn’t no how to settle political and religious differences, so when a few women started acting on their own, they were labelled as witches and hanged. And of course, survivors of sexual assault are frequently branded at fault by the perpetrators and by systems of power.

Some people wonder how we could be so fatally blind, but the chilling truth is that in each of these examples, the people who blamed the scapegoat genuinely believed the ‘scapegoat’ was wrong and deserved punishment. Invariably, when we hear about these instances, our own reactions are of outrage. “How could someone do such a thing? Surely, we would know better than those people?”

The thing is, our outrage at scapegoating often contains an assumption – that the perpetrators intentionally blamed or targeted the scapegoat. Thus, they are bad, and we are good. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple, and we’re all, subconsciously guilty of similar scapegoating dynamics, however difficult this is to acknowledge.

Only a quick glance at history, as previously mentioned, is needed to reveal the chilling truth that humans prefer to scapegoat and save face, than to sit with and accept their own “stuff”. This doesn’t necessarily make some people “bad” and other people “good,” but scapegoating does illustrate how complex human psychology can be. Ultimately, scapegoating will not cease to exist as long as people continue to have minds that cannot tolerate personal internal conflict or an acceptance of their own shortcomings. We all indulge in the belief that we are good human beings.

It is also a little acknowledged truth that the people we meet tend to be, almost mirrors to see ourselves reflected. What we might not like to see in our reflection, we "transfer" to the "other" as a dislike of THAT person. And so it goes on!

For all the technological progress humans have made, the progress of our social dynamics has not advanced nearly as steadily.

It is still US (good people) and THEM (bad people).

Trust

Trust, a noun, is defined in my two volume Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as: "Faith or confidence in the loyalty, strength, veracity, etc., of a person or thing; reliance on the truth of a statement etc., without examination."

 

Now in the World today, (I almost wrote "dystopian World"), what is it or who is it that we can say truthfully and honestly we REALLY trust? 

 

Governments and the Politicians involved? Surely not.

The banks? I don’t think so. 

Law enforcement? Their image is slipping I believe – so maybe not.

What has been called "Big Pharma" – the giant pharmaceutical companies that control the production and marketing of the products the medical profession prescribe? Again, I don’t think so. 

Big business – those multi-billion dollar companies? Especially those involved in producing what is known as Social Media or in extracting fossil fuels. Once more, I don’t think so.

Religious organisations? Surely not now after all the abuse scandals – at least the ties that used to bind are now broken.

 

So what or who are we left with who are trustworthy?  This is almost impossible to answer. I really don’t know. Most certainly not every person involved with these organisations is untrustworthy; many would hold themselves to the highest levels of integrity.

 

The trouble is that money and the accumulation thereof gets in the way. Company board’s of directors are often pressured to producing ever-higher dividends for shareholders. Such boards are almost obliged to pursue any means, repeat any means, to increase profits – and damn the consequences.

 

Likewise members of parliament are often fixated on holding the "Party Line" and hanging on to their "seats" by satisfying the wishes of a relatively narrow cohort of voters in their electorate.  

 

But then all this doubt leaves us lesser mortals in a state of quandary. Who or what do we trust? We are left, metaphorically, seemingly up a creek, in a canoe, without a paddle.  This is not good for one’s state of mind or for the well-being of Society as a whole. 

 

In such circumstances people may turn to their own interpretation of the news or events and construct conspiracy theories to suite their interpretations. This may provide a version of the "certainty" that many are searching for – however misinformed it may be. Again this is not good for the wellbeing of Society.

 

But this is what I believe is happening.

Wisdom in a time of crisis.

When some leaders start to display dictatorial tendencies, human nature being what it is, it is worthwhile looking at what history has to say. Always it is best to take the long view – a timely distance allows one to make sense of what happened and why. 

Even so, relating to current world leadership, inferences may be drawn from the sayings of some historical figures:-

“Those whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”

No one is quite sure who originated this saying - attributed, possibly to Euripides, but it doesn’t really matter. It is the intent. I believe is quite appropriate today.  By “mad” I don’t think that insanity is implied, rather I believe that what is alluded to is a loss of  “measure” – a term that is no longer fashionable - meaning a loss of proportion; giving to much emphasis on personal gain and aggrandizement and thus ignoring the plight of others.     

Then there is this famous injunction leveled at the English “Rump Parliament” on 20^th April 1653, when Oliver Cromwell harangued the members of that parliament:-

“You have sat here too long for any good that you have been doing lately. Depart I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” 

Also quite apposite today I believe is this saying, attributed to Edmund Burke, the Eighteenth Century Irish author and Statesman:-

 “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”

It saddens me to think that some of todays world leaders have so lost their moral and ethical compasses that they think only of themselves.

Then many people have idols; things they value above all others, even, unfortunately more than they value themselves – their self-worth, their honour or their reputation. As has been said before, poets have the ability to say in a few words what it takes others many words to express. 

There is a very appropriate verse in the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam (Omar was an 11^th Century Persian mathematician, astronomer and poet) - which goes as follows (verse 69): 

                                           Indeed the Idols I have loved so long

                                           Have done my Credit in Men’s Eyes much wrong:

                                              Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow cup,

                                          And sold my Reputation for a Song 

In this context it may also be useful to recall the words of an old nursery rhyme – a cautionary tale stressing the importance of doing things properly. By doing things properly, doing them well, unintended consequences are minimised. This is a tale of the “Horse-shoe Nail”:-

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.

For want of a shoe the horse was lost.

For want of a horse the battle was lost.

For want of a battle the Kingdom was lost,

And all for the want of a horse-shoe nail!

The nail represents the “glue” that binds us together as humans. The main component of this “glue” is trust. This is what holds us together as a society – trust. Trust that those we deal with believe in ethics, morality, virtues and hold to their values and will do what they promise; trust that people are honest and will treat others in the way they would like to be treated. When it comes to organisations – be they Governments, financial organisation, multinational news conglomerates, political parties, police departments or families there is a need to understand, today as never before, what it means to provide a duty of care and its corollary – a fiduciary duty. Anything else will lead to chaos, as has been displayed for all to see over the last few years.

This leads back to the title of this post – wisdom in a time of crisis. When good men do nothing; when leaders love their idols more than their fellow beings; when leaders love their idols (whatever they are) more than they respect the need for honesty and morality, we are in real trouble. The horseshoe was lost years ago and we have already lost the horse; if we now lose the battle as well, the kingdom and all of us will be in grave danger. 

And it’s leaders will have drowned their honour in a shallow cup and sold their reputations for a song.

Lying.

Lets start with the simple question: why do people lie? 

The thing is we all lie. I know that. We tell “white” lies to please someone; we lie to get out of trouble – “it wasn’t me, Sir!” And we may lie to serve whatever cause we are promoting.

Sometimes what was written 3000 years ago still has great relevance today. For instance it is reported that Odysseus (he who devised the Trojan Horse that was instrumental in defeating ancient Troy) when asked the question, “Do you not really think it is disgraceful to tell lies?” answered, “No – if safety is what the lie brings”.

What are we to make of that? And whose safety? Safety for the one who lied? 

No one ever likes being lied to – least of all the liar! And I really don’t believe that a person who consistently lies can ever be at ease – they must know that one day they will be caught out. They, metaphorically, must be constantly looking over their shoulder to see how close behind them is “truth”. Likewise no one wants to be known as a liar. Liars will fight tooth and nail to defend their “integrity” and blame others for any falsehoods that may be exposed. This is why liars hate whistleblowers. Whistleblowers generally expose the truth and shine a light on the liar.

But can one ever trust a liar?  

Surely a Democratic Society can only exist if trust (and honesty) is evident? Without trust in government, in financial institutions, in health care, in the judicial system (and institutional religion), I truly believe that society would collapse and chaos would ensue.  As seems to be evident today, however, many people, who should know better, will lie to gain power, pervert justice and pursue the accumulation of wealth (money) that seems to consume their waking moments. In so doing, I believe that, under their feet, such people prepare for themselves a steep inclined plane which propels them down an ever increasing slippery slope, lower and lower into ever more deplorable activities. And more lies. Lies to counteract the original lies.

No matter what legislation is promulgated, laws will never cure cupidity or ethical and moral shortcomings.

Recall that Confucius had this to say about justice and laws some twenty-five centuries ago: 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

Illinois ex- Governor Blagojevich

Amended 19 February 2020.

As you will see I wrote this quite a time ago – 10yrs to be exact – but the dear ex-governor has now had his prison sentence commuted by President Trump. I’m staggered. But there we are – a good example of “draining the swamp”?

----///----

Okay!  “The governor of Illinois has been arrested on charges of conspiring to sell Barack Obama's recently vacated US Senate seat.

The news that Illinois Governor Blagojevich was taken into custody complicates the matter of filling the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Governor Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were also accused to trying to "induce purge of newspaper editorial writers," critical of him at the Tribune Company, the US attorney's office said in a statement.

"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," US attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement...” (From ‘The Australian’ web site 10 December 2008).

I know that politics is often considered a ‘dirty’ game and I am no great respecter of politicians, of any persuasion. Just because they hold the positions they do does not mean that I respect them – they have to earn my respect. They can say what they like, it is what they do that counts and which may, or may not, earn my respect.

In this case I am just amazed at the audacity of someone like the governor. Does he (or did he) believe that as governor he is (was) above the law? He is just a man of straw – not worthy of the office of governor. He is just a common felon and a con-man to boot. He fooled the electorate of Illinois into electing him. But what staggers me more than anything is the lack of moral understanding; the lack of the appreciation of values and  that any conception of ethics seems to be totally wanting from his psyche, from his understanding as to what it is to be a human being. Maybe he now has an appreciation of the law of cause and effect!

As governor he is obviously not short of money. He has one of only fifty such positions, so he is already in somewhat rarefied atmosphere in American politics – he is head honcho in the state - he has authority, he has power. Very obviously that was not enough.

He must believe that his sole reason for existence is to make money – and the more the better. Now I am the last person to say that having a desire to make money is wrong, because I like money as much as the next person, but not at any cost. Does this bloke actually LIKE himself? When he looks at himself in his bathroom mirror in the morning when he shaves, what does he see? Can he honestly say to himself, if positions were reversed, “ I would like to be governed by me?”

What also alarms me is the is the possible answer to the question, “Is this what unbridled capitalism breeds?” Laws, no matter how tightly enforced will never cover all human failings. There has to be self regulation (self discipline) there has to be trust; there has to be respect not only for yourself but for others. Laws are essential but unless they are applied and followed from the bottom up (and not just enforced from the top down) anarchy will prevail and the ‘rule of law’ will not be worth the paper it’s printed on. 

I am going to watch this one with great interest. I hope and trust that my respect for politicians generally is not reduced any further and that he gets what he deserves.

And this is something wrote a few days later - also in 2008:-

The latest on the Illinois Governor case is that the Illinois House of Representatives has voted to begin an impeachment inquiry into Governor Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell the US Senate seat vacated by president-elect Barack Obama.

The inquiry, approved 113-0, will be placed in the hands of a special committee. 

If it determines that impeachment is warranted, the House would vote on whether to impeach, to be followed by a trial in the state senate.

If convicted at trial the governor could be forced from office.

It seems that no one wants to be seen to ‘like’ this bloke any more!!

Paying the Ferryman

Life is not all doom and gloom. Nor is it always a fun experience. Happiness is elusive. It is necessary to arrive, always, at a balanced position where we are at the very least contented with our lot. 

Helpfulness and co-operation are the cornerstones of any society. We may be individuals each striving for our place in the world and striving to reach our self-determined goals but we can never do this on our own. Even the so called “self-made man” has had help from others along the way – no one can do this in total isolation. 

So what is the cost of ‘life’ to those who strive to reach their self-determined goals? What is the cost of ‘life’ to high achievers? What is the cost of ‘life’ to those people who opt for a career before all else? What is the cost, in lives, of a government’s oppressive or exploitative policies? What is the cost of ignoring the ancient, and very sensible, instruction to always treat others as you would like to be treated?

This proverb still applies: “Take what you want from life says God, take it, and pay!” 

In the present economic climate – even the long “tail” of the Global Financial Crisis is still affecting many people in many countries - it is not surprising that there is widespread concern about employment prospects, wages and financial security. So do not decry or be judgemental about someone’s choice to work as hard as they can to try and secure their financial future by whatever means at hand. That is their call and good luck to them. But they need to be very careful about the methods they use to “secure” their financial future. They must never forget that the Ferryman, who carries us all on our journey through life and across the River Styx to the afterworld, will demand recompense. This payment cannot be avoided and it is always paid in kind – we sow the seeds of the crop we will reap, like it or not. 

We will always have to accept the consequences of our actions and activities (good or bad) – and there are always consequences for every plan, for every activity and all behaviour. It is worth recalling the fate of Lehman Brothers, the ponzi schemes of Bernard Madoff, the greed and unethical behaviour of pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKiline, the corrupt practices and fraud exposed by the Wall Street banks, Barclays Bank in the UK, the LIBOR scandal; the ineptitude and plain bad management of many European banks; the false accusations of “weapons of mass destruction” levelled by various politicians leaders against Iraq and the disastrous subsequent invasion of that country; the rotating leaders of Australia’s political parties and their questionable policies towards Australia’s First People; towards asylum seekers -  the list goes on and on and on... 

No one can ever know the full extent of the effects of any action they may take – we will never find any vantage point high enough from which to view the pattern of our life and how the threads interweave to form the patterns we have made – to see what good we do or what harm we have caused. We can never see the interplay between moral values which results in good and evil; in good or bad outcomes. This is why ethics is so important – it must be the first consideration of any person, company or organisation. By engaging in ethical conduct the welfare of people (staff, customers, patients, clients and voters) will be paramount; will be considered, first, before money, market share, first before shareholders, first before the CEO’s or any politician’s ego.

Remember this – burn it into your brain – without people there would be no business, no commerce, no industry and no money. Never forget that commerce and industry are for the benefits of people; that commerce and industry service the needs of people. People do not and never have serviced the needs of commerce and industry. To assume this is the case is to put the cart before the horse; to assume this is to consider people as tokens on some sort of economic game board - tokens to be moved at the behest of commerce and industry. This train of thought will lead only to business disaster and failure and the collapse of government (recall that Soviet Russia tried this and failed spectacularly); the Chinese are experimenting with this right now, to what end? One wonders at the possible outcome.

By being ethical – or at least being guided by ethical principles – will ensure that any business or personal action or activity is being driven by the best motives. To forget or ignore the undoubted fact that every action has a consequence (good or bad), in other words the “Law” of cause and effect, will itself cause problems. This is why there are ethical concepts such as trust, honesty, justice, kindness and compassion. All human actions and activities will have unexpected consequences but much of the unhappiness, the cruelty, the abuses will be minimised if the welfare and wellbeing of other human beings is considered first; by conducting all business and personal matters with ethics as the FIRST consideration. 

We have to live with ourselves and the results of our actions and behaviour. If ethics is disregarded or ignored to satisfy selfish ends the threads that entangle us all in the web of life will, eventually, trip up and bring down the perpetrators. 

The Ferryman is patient but will, eventually, demand payment, regardless. 

It is still there.

I suppose it will still be there until I too die – one day! My grief that is. I know I have written about this before but we will all, all, at some stage of our life experience the searing knife cut of the parting, of the death of someone close, be it child, partner, sibling or parent. It is just part of life. If there is a beginning there needs also to be an ending. 

But this physical ending of someone close – as anyone who has experienced it will testify, lasts and lasts, and lasts. Of a certainty no one will experience my grief, just as I cannot experience theirs. It’s so personal. 

My way of coping with grief varies from day to day, even hour to hour. Sometimes I go for a longish bicycle ride; sometimes I read, either a book or poetry; other times I write; sometimes I listen to music – I like both classical and country and western. I do, however, with one or two exceptions, find it difficult to talk to others about my grief. They might not understand my way of expressing my grief, and I don’t want to belabor or otherwise impose on their emotions with my, possibly uninvited, feelings.  

I find that poetry, music, of any kind and books, fiction and some non-fiction, all contain sentiments of love and parting, either through death or in other ways. Always love, a meeting and a parting. This is not so strange as love is the most powerful emotion there is, and I don’t just mean the eruption of hormones that all experience at some stage of their life. I mean that unquestioning love, that deep knowledge, that trust, that comfortable companionship that develops with time together.

Of course the passage of this love, this knowledge, this trust, to arrive at the place of comfortable companionship is never smooth! That is not the way it works. We will all stumble on our life’s journey and we will all have misunderstandings. But that just makes the arrival point more worthwhile.

I can testify, with some feeling, that life with my wife, Magucha, was often tempestuous. But it was never dull, never boring. Her quick fire Portuguese temperament and my (relatively) slower and less emotional temperament meant that we both had to work hard at our relationship. I know she found me very frustrating at times and would spare no criticisism. She could do that but no one else was allowed to! She would fire up, almost vibrate with anger in my defense if anyone dared criticise me in her presence! I found that very touching and, in a strange way, deeply moving.

But it was all worth it.  I for one had thirty-six wonderful years with a dear friend; with a loyal companion on our journey through life; with a staunch ally; and with someone who I know loved me, deeply. Just as I loved her, just as she was, deeply loved her. 

I of course, cannot now speak for her, but I believe there was nothing, short of some criminal intent, that we would not have done for each other. I know that I would have defended her to my last breath.

This is why I, for one, have found her death so hard to bear; the apparent severing of the physical bonds, so difficult to come to terms with. I will never believe that her soul – she most definitely had a soul – died with her physical body. It is there somewhere. And I know, just know, that sometime, somewhere, we will reach out and hold hands again. 

Saudades!

Is “Civil"-"isation” in jeopardy?

At this time of year when we wish for “Peace on Earth and goodwill to all”, I ask the question, “Is civilization as we know it in jeopardy?”

Today, December 23, 2018, trust is “missing in action”. Trust has been absent without leave – AWOL - for quite a while and trust is desperately needed. Right now. And trust is such a subjective, fragile thing. It cannot be bought or sold. It has to be earned.

Trust in governments; government trust in the electorate; trust in parliaments; trust in politicians; trust in financial organisations; trust in big business; trust in religious institutions; trust in all these, so vital for the smooth running of societies is no longer there. In consequence no one is considered trustworthy.

Trust evaporates when secrecy prevails, with closed meetings, and when cameras are banned from recording; trust evaporates when money takes precedent over humanity; trust evaporates when greed takes precedent over compassion; trust evaporates when veniality is condoned or simply ignored; trust evaporates when those in positions of power tell lies; trust evaporates when meaningless words -“spin”- take the place of policy action; trust evaporates when there is an attempt to indoctrinate with lifeless words.

People – the populous – citizens (the “civitas”) are not stupid. For any leader to consider them as such is a massive mistake. For any leader, anywhere to ignore the will of the people is to do so at their peril. The old saying, “even the worm turns” is very true.

The answer, in my view, is very simple – just treat people, others, the way you would like to be treated. It is an ethical thing.  That is what a “civil” society is based on. That is what “civilisation” is based on. Being “civil” to each other. No matter what colour or creed the “other” may be. All are Human Beings.  That is why it's called the "Golden Rule". 

Is that so difficult?

Oh! And Merry Christmas.

Voting for a lie and Compulsory Voting.

In relation to the examples of the current crowd of self-serving, venial, crassly stupid politicians in Canberra (in my view) I offer the following for those who may be interested. 

My question: Why am I forced to vote for a lie and liars (on pain of a penalty for NOT voting)? I personally have yet to be convinced that compulsion is comfortably associated with democratic principles. 

As a concerned citizen I regard the impact of certain measures and policies the current Federal Government (the LNP) has outlined since the election that we were not asked to vote for – and I might add this applies also to previous administrations – as unacceptable.

My concerns are about what we are told (promised?) prior to an election but then are told after the election that what was promised were not “core promises” (Re: Tony Abbott in 2014 - what is a “core promise” pray tell?). Why do politicians bother to say something (“read my lips”) but then conveniently forget or ignore or use “weasel words” to deny that it was said at all?  Surely a tax is a tax and promise is a promise in any language?

My concerns are about what are we compelled to vote for – a lie? Is this morally and ethically acceptable? Is this legal? Is this democratic?   

Most people are well aware that trust takes a long time to develop but may be lost in an instant - recall the (Howard era) “Tampa” affair and the “children overboard” allegations; recall the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government “flip flop” on a “mining tax”; recall the lack of transparency, the secrecy, the want of compassion and kindness enveloping the LNP’s activities relating to “illegal” refugees and the events on Manus Island and Nauru, (all done in the name of Australia – i.e. in MY name); note the blatant unfairness of many current budget measures - and so it goes on!! 

To understand what I am getting at it may help to recall what Confucius had to say about morals and justice some twenty-five centuries ago (The Analects – trans. Simon Leys):- 

 “If you govern the people by laws, and keep them in order by penalties, they will avoid the penalties, yet lose their sense of shame. But if you govern them by your moral excellence, and keep them in order by your dutiful conduct, they will retain their sense of shame, and also live up to this standard.” 

In light of the astounding levels of abuse of position, the lying and lack of moral leadership shown by many of this country’s leaders, I truly believe that it is time for every politician to stop, take a step back and really examine their actions to see whether they make any sense. 

As an example, I was told in a letter, (in my possession and dated 9^thJanuary 2014) from Malcolm Turnbull (in reply to my concerns) that (and I quote):- 

“I would like to take this opportunity to assure you the Government does not have any current plans to privatise or reduce the ABC’s funding. The Government understands the significant relationship the ABC has with the Australian public and is committed to maintaining its quality, performance and efficiency.”

In the 2014 Budget (only some four months after this letter) the LNP reduced the ABC’s budget allocation by hundreds of millions of dollars – described as an “efficiency dividend”! They are still doing this – still cutting the ABC’s funding in both the 2017 and 2018 budgets.

And we HAVE to vote? Please!!  

Another curiosity - I notice that in the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) website in the FAQ section the last point in the ‘Arguments in Favour of Compulsory Voting’ states: “The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.”

I find this an astonishing statement – it is of course true, but somewhat defeats the purpose of compulsory voting!

Furthermore I notice that (Federally) informal votes average round about 5 per cent. This, in actual numbers for the 2016 election, equates to about 720 000 people who for various reason “spoiled” their vote. 

There were approximately 630 000 people “missing” from the electoral rolls. That’s a lot.

Now if you add “spoiled” papers to those “missing” this equates to about 1.35 million people who didn’t actually vote out of the about 16.8 million Australians who were eligible to vote or about 8 per cent. That’s also a lot of people.

Also there was a record low level of voter interest in the 2016 federal election, and record low levels of satisfaction with democracy and trust in government. Only 60 per cent of voters were satisfied with democracy in Australia, the lowest level since the 1970s. Apparently.

It appears that about one in five people (20 per cent) believe that politicians who they voted for won’t make any difference, up from 13 per cent in 2007. University research also finds some weakening in the perception that people in government can be trusted to “do the right thing”. Strange that!

There has to be a reason for this and I suggest that “disenchantment” with politicians is the prime cause. If politicians did not have the comfort of knowing that their margin was X% (because of polling data and compulsory voting) they might actually get out on the road and “stump” their electorate and find out what their electorates real concerns are. As an example, I emigrated to Australia in January 1982 – in the intervening years I have lived at five locations in and around Perth (Western Australia) yet no Federal candidate has bothered to call at my house; only in the last few years, since moving to a retirement village, has a candidate’s “flyer” even landed in my mail box! 

If they show that much interest in me, what level of interest should I show in them?

I suggest that the AEC consider recommending that “compulsory” should be removed from the Electoral Act particularly as we are “not compelled to vote for anyone”? The candidates would then “be compelled” to do the rest! 

A possible reversion to the 1911 compulsory enrolment concept (all eligible people were required to enrol as voters) may be a good alternative. Many people may not be aware that France has a highly efficient registration process. At the age of eighteen, all French youth are automatically registered. Similarly, in Nordic countries all citizens and residents are included in the official population register, which is simultaneously a tax list, voter registration, and membership in the universal health system. This is also the system in Germany (but without the membership in the health system) – with an 86% average voter turnout. [I referred to Wikipedia for some of this information].

Compulsory voting in Australia is an unnecessary “impost” on the population.

Such a change, as recommended above, would I believe, still fulfil the AEC’s primary role in ensuring that it delivers a free and fair election.

Such a change would also free up resources wasted on prosecuting those who did not bother (or refused) to cast their vote – for a lie!

Arouse the electorate’s interest and people will vote – the blatant lies, the unfairness, lack of trust, disinterest and boredom, and the crass stupidity of some parliamentarians, are the problem - it is a case of “the same old, same old”. 

And we HAVE to vote??

Bank Ethics (and trust).

I feel that I may (repeat may) possibly have had a small influence in the Australian Banks decision to "allow" a Banking Royal Commission - I'm not boasting mind!! Some weeks ago I wrote to the Australian Bankers Association and I offer this contribution for those interested to read:-

The Chief Executive Officer

Australian Bankers' Association
Level 3, 56 Pitt Street,
Sydney. NSW 2000

Dear Ms Bligh,

Re: Bank Ethics (and trust).

I am sure I need not remind you that it is obvious, not just to me, that the lack of ethics and morals evidenced by banks in Australia needs to be addressed. Banks, ALL banks, direct their activities at preserving and protecting shareholders, their “market position”, their liquidity and their profitability, with SERVICE and the poor old CUSTOMER way down the list of priorities.

We have had, in the recent past, the terrible social effects of the blatant greed and moral shortcomings evidenced by Wall Street banks in 2007-2008, (the GFC); we have had the LIBOR scandal in London; we have seen many billions of dollars in penalties paid by banks world-wide for aiding and abetting questionable financial transactions - now it is the Australian banks falling foul of the regulators, the public and politicians.

So far all four of Australia’s biggest banks have allegedly been guilty of breaching laws and regulations set by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The banks have been variously accused of defrauding customers through questionable investment advice and dodgy insurance cover, rigging the Inter Bank Rate, lacking moral judgment and generally being unethical in their dealing with their customers money.

I will reiterate what I have said before, many times, that without customers (people) there would be no money, no need for banks and therefore by default, no need for shareholders. Money is not “self-emergent” – it is a human construct.

Pursuing the logic of this it would appear to be a “no brainer” that customers (i.e. people), are the vital part of the banking system, not just in Australia but world-wide. It should be a simple case of “look after the customer” first and foremost, legally, ethically and with moral undertaking. Do this and the money will look after itself. And what is of utmost importance, trust in the banking system would be restored and banks would no longer invite opprobrium and be considered “bastards”.

This will require a cultural shift  - the “fiduciary culture” - by all concerned, starting with the boards of directors, chief executive officers and managers. Until all these people conduct themselves with ethical and moral underpinnings nothing will change.

Unfortunately, for all concerned, until there are changes, banks will continue to be mistrusted and reviled.

I will be very interested in any response you may offer.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Campbell-Watt

Revenge and Injustice

NOTE: This post has jumped 6 years - it was originally posted May 14, 2011 hence the comments about bin Laden etc. Very old news. Not sure how or why this came to be "re-dated"!! 

No matter which way you look at it revenge is not a form of justice. Revenge is always personal – normally to seek retribution for some imagined wrong or perceived damage to someone’s ego (“loss of face”). Justice, to be true justice must be provided according to the law and be seen to be done – in other words justice must be a public affair. All trials and judgements must be made in public. No secret trials, no ‘kangaroo courts’, no ‘renditions’ to secret locations, no private ‘extra-judicial’ killings or assassinations.

Take the recent Osama bin Laden event in Pakistan. Whatever his crimes (and they were many), as a human being, he rightfully deserved his day in court. No matter the feelings of anger, hatred or fear and loathing engendered by his name and activities, he was entitled to a fair trial. To believe otherwise is to sink to his level, to a level of barbarism that does not sit well with any professed civilised society.

The law is based on trust and ethics. The great Confucius said some 2500 years ago, “What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others” - (the Bible says this and the Koran also expresses this guiding principle). This common sense principle is the foundation of all laws, of ethics, of compassion and of the general process of living. This is where the trust element resides – in the sure knowledge that you will be treated the same way that you would treat others. Any country that professes to abide by the law but, when convenient, flouts this principle loses all moral authority - read the USA, Sweden, Israel, China, Iran, Australia (and unfortunately many others).

When trust falters and people are unsure about how they will be treated, problems arise. Citizens will either live in fear, or will flout the law with a ‘damned if I do, damned if I don’t’ attitude. Neither bodes well for peace and prosperity in any country.

No matter how much "spin" the Americans use to dress up the killing of bin Laden; no matter how much the Swedes approve their closed trials for sexual crimes; no matter what the Chinese say about their secret trials, imprisonment and execution of people for spurious violations of their laws; no matter what the Israeli’s call their killing of Palestinians; no matter how the USA describes their treatment of prisoners in Abu Graib and Guantanamo Bay; no matter how Australian police justify their treatment of the original inhabitants of Australia, such activities cannot be justified and are wrong – plain and simply wrong.

Think of it like this – if the positions were reversed, the people imposing these penalties would not like to be treated this way, would they? Remember that violence - in any form - is the last resort of the morally bankrupt.