 
# The Karma of Culture

by

Raja Arasa Ratnam

Smashwords Edition

Copyright © 2013 by Raja Arasa Ratnam

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, scanned, or distributed in any printed or electronic form without permission.

The contents of this work including, but not limited to, the accuracy of events, people, and places depicted; opinions expressed; permission to use previously published materials included; and any advice given or actions advocated are solely the responsibility of the author, who assumes all liability for said work and indemnifies the publisher against any claims stemming from publication of the work.

Dedicated to:

All the babies

who wiggle their

toes at us

******

"It is wisdom to live in the world

In the way the world lives"

-Tiruvalluvar (Kural 426)

(South Indian Weaver Sage, Circa 200BC)

"Two birds of beautiful plumage, comrades

Inseparable, live on the self same tree.

One bird eats the fruit of pleasure and pain;

The other looks on without eating."

Shvetashvatara Upanishad (4.6)

### Preface

Culture is ubiquitous. Culture is all-pervasive. Many (mainly Asian) immigrants take into white host nations strongly divergent, and historically durable, cultural stances and practices. In the migrant-receiving countries of the Western world, the core issue of a conflict between a sustained attempt by such immigrants to retain their cultures and the osmotic force of equal opportunity offering an earlier and smoother integration into the values and mores of the host people bobs up and down in the seas of social policy. Cultural diversity can therefore be de-stabilising to a hitherto cohesive society. The national identity which had evolved through the merging of culturally compatible tribes and peoples can now be seen to be threatened. Whilst this book is about Australia, the issues raised have relevance for all immigrant-receiving nations.

One's culture provides the template for dealing with life. Its base is laid in childhood, through the values imposed by family and community. The cultural practices of one's tribe reinforce these values and associated perceptions. The impacts of nurture (experience) upon nature (inheritance), as one passes through life, are filtered through this network of cultural values. A conditioned belief among some in the West that a human zygote equates to a human being, contrasting with an older Asian belief that the human soul enters the body of a baby at (or after) birth, is reflective of divergent cultural values.

The need for an immigrant to reconcile inherited cultural values and associated practices with the predominant values and practices of an adopted nation-state can create stresses on both cultures. The issues which arise from this cross-cultural impact are those of : equal opportunity; whether a unified people can arise from widely divergent tribes; whether the individual or the family unit has priority in terms of rights and responsibilities; the definition of family, and its role in society; cultural and political sovereignty in a globalising nation-state; the place of the Creator in modern life; and whether Australia's "fair-go" ethos needs an infusion of Asian values.

### Assessment

"This book provides a thoughtful and fearless approach to some important and highly topical questions. What constitutes Australia's nationhood? What is her role in Asia and in the world? How can, and should, the burgeoning economies of Asia contribute to the development of Australia, not just as foreign investors and trading partners, but in terms of cultural and spiritual values? What is the nature of democracy, and how can democratic ideals be realized in Australia and in its Asian neighbours? What is the meaning of multiculturalism in the Australian context? These questions are raised in an intelligent and thought-provoking way."

"You give us valuable insights into your own experiences as an 'outsider' in a predominantly white 'Western' environment, who has been able to become part of that environment without losing your deepest links with your own culture. And you demonstrate that the influence of Eastern philosophers – to which Australia is uniquely exposed among Western countries – has the potential to counteract the West's slide into materialism and the spiritual impoverishment that provides fertile soil for cultism and fundamentalism in all their forms."

"This is a hard-hitting, insightful book that will appeal to academics, public servants, students, and many members of the general public........."

### Endorsements

" _Writing from the perspective of an Asian Australian, Arasa addresses some of the fundamental questions confronting human kind at the present time. The clash of collectivism and individualism is seen as an East/West issue. Here is available, perhaps for the first time, an insightful 'take' on Australian society written by an 'insider' who, paradoxically, is an 'outsider' as well. ...enormously interesting and not uncontroversial ..."._

\- John Western, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Queensland, Qld.

" _Ratnam's book is a wake-up call for a more independent national policy on immigration and multicultural policy. Coming from a well-informed former migrant, who has embraced this country as his own, his message has particular value. ... Impressed with the depth of (his) analysis"._

\- Professor Bob Birrell, Director, Centre for Population & Urban Research, Monash University, Vic.

" _This is a book that every Australian should read. It provides a unique insight into the society and culture of contemporary Australia from someone who has been both an insider and an outsider in Australia. It has a refreshing honesty in an age in which 'spin' and euphemism too often combine to hide the true nature of things. You may not always agree with what the book says but you will be compelled to sit up and think more deeply about our contemporary world._ _I think that the book has that element of honesty and insight that much of what is currently published does not. I hope that it will be read widely."_

_-_ Associate Professor Greg Melleuish, Head, School of History and Politics, Wollongong University, NSW.

### Introduction

The Trauma of Transplantation

He thought he saw an Elephant

That practised on a fife:

He looked again, and found it was

A letter from his wife.

"At length I realize"; he said,

"The bitterness of life!"

— _Lewis Carroll_

Near the end of my life, I feel compelled to make sense of the totality of my experiences. This, I believe, is not unusual for those of us who have sought meaning in the events and outcomes of daily existence. We ask if there is an identifiable pattern for each of us in the tides of Life, Destiny or Karma; or in God's Will.

Indeed, it is imperative for a Hindu to know if he has assiduously availed himself of the opportunities for learning presented to him in his present sojourn on Earth. More crucially, as said in the Upanishads (the conveyor of the core metaphysics of Hinduism), it is that same deep driving desire directing the way each of us lives that determines what our next life is to be. With possibly thousands of human lives yet to go, and knowing that life on Earth can require some very painful lessons, one does indeed have to be reasonably circumspect about those desires.

After contributing to a very fast-changing Australia for the span of nearly two generations, I am satisfied that I have adapted successfully to Australia's institutions and to its behavioural mores and practices. Yet, I am deeply and sadly aware that many of the cultural values which formed me in Asia are not quite congruent with prevailing Australian cultural values.

At that most crucial point of impact between East and West, where white skin is seemingly affronted by coloured skin, my life is better than it was when I arrived in 1948. Since the Hanson phenomenon in the mid-Nineties, and the Government's stance that personal abuse by a white against a coloured person is only an expression of free speech, some of the prejudice has returned. The underlying reality is that the "old" Aussie's sacred sites, the seats of power, remain securely in his hands.

And I marvel at the continuing sensitivity to skin colour and the derivative disparagement of coloured people by many an 'old'.Aussie. For how long will such people continue to remain unaware that 85% of mankind is indeed coloured, and that skin colour is not relevant in most human relations? I do, however, acknowledge that it is extremely difficult to discard the residues of ignorance resulting from a culturally conditioned but out-dated superiority complex. This complex was borne of a few centuries of dominance, by white colonising Christians, of coloured people professing a plethora of religious beliefs, and with divergent cultural practices.

I can certainly attest, with deeply bruised feelings, to the display of prejudice and discrimination by some in powerful positions when I sought a job in the private sector as a graduate: and, later, when I sought my rightful place in a bureaucracy. In this effort, I was supported by my peer group. I also had an unchallenged track record. Lies, the shifting of goalposts, backroom denigration, and the flexing of tribal muscles, whilst not commonplace, were most effective in ensuring that white superiority, and possibly the hegemony of the associated faith, prevailed. The message I received was that I was not one of them. Indeed, one most senior official told me that my "cultural background" would always be a bar to further career progress! How then did I achieve leadership positions in voluntary community organizations, and become a middle manager with the respected of title of Director?

The Asian's cultural traits can also be deemed to be un-Australian. The most ridiculous manifestation of such prejudice relates to attitudes to study displayed by Asian children. They are accused of studying inordinately hard, and not developing a rounded personality through participation in sport. I concede that a driving will to succeed is indeed an Asia-wide trait, and enforced by parents. The close family cohesion, and social and other obligations within families, and within ethnic communities, from all parts of Asia - from the Mediterranean to the Sea of Japan - are clearly held to be incompatible with the emphasis on individual freedom in the West. It is little wonder that Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysia's Dr Mahathir upset the leaders of the West with their claims about the inherent superiority of Asian values, even in a democratic capitalist milieu. Perhaps it is evolutionary superiority, as time will no doubt tell.

At that important interface between citizens and rulers in an officially secular Australia, the socio-political values of a religious minority have an undue influence. Some social policies in Australia have been allowed to be dominated by the challengeable values of this minority. What is surely required in a culturally and ethnically diverse nation-state is religious tolerance. How else could Australia aspire to be the ideal of a free and responsible society guided by liberal values?

However, the sectarian chasm transplanted from the British Isles has recently been papered over publicly. The hands of descendants of immigrants from the Western border of Europe are now firmly in control of much of the administrative machinery of government. This really does little harm, except that tribal machinations should have no place in an open society. The tectonic movements of the strangely competitive Christian sects indeed bode ill for the full acceptance and integration of peoples of other faiths. In this context, is it not strange also that the majority of Asian immigrants define themselves in the Census as Christian? This influx of Christians occurred in spite of the formal non-discriminatory immigration policy which applied from the Sixties!

Further, the recent official antagonism against fundamentalist Islamic nations (which seem to have lost the moral messages of Mohammed, its founder) have led (through the "war on terrorism" and an implicit "clash of cultures") to the denigration of Muslims in Australia by many ordinary Australians. People brought up in an authoritarian environment in their formative years are unfortunately likely to counter any display of prejudice by retaliation. The arrogant and challenging behaviour in public spaces by Australian-born male youths of Middle Eastern descent might be a reflection of this tendency. What is strange is that ordinary Australians, many of whom are church-going, have expressed views in my company indicating an antipathy to Islam, and a dislike of Muslims. Who is guilty of propagating such prejudice?

But, then, this unwanted and unwarranted tension between Muslims and Christians may be the price my adopted country has to pay for the aim of our military protector to have oil-rich lands under the control of people linked to the major oil interests in the West, and (perhaps) to have the Jewish people residing in the West to be induced to move into their own territory (God-given of course) in the Middle East. This would also give the West (at last) a permanent foot-hold in the Middle East, having lost that bit of Syria named Lebanon which the French had expropriated. The oil and gas fields are getting closer.

My government is, of course, in no position to reject demands placed upon it by its military mentor and much sought after saviour, and by those whose continuing capital injections are vital for my nation-state to survive. We have never been independent financially and ideationally. Militarily, we act freely, but on a wink and a nod. Our relations with other nations are, in essence, effectively determined by the USA. Our Middle East policy is an example. Our enemies are defined for us too. So, we are at risk of being involved in yet another clash of cultures, but a more dangerous one now. In the meanwhile, we hunt suspected terrorists. We do this without respect for those human rights which we normally attempt to shove down the necks of Asian nations. How sanctimonious some of our leaders sound at times. They do not realise that their feet of clay, in relation to the way the Aussie indigene continues to be treated, are so clearly visible to the world at large.

The "white man's burden" of yore is still infused into much of our official and private attitudes, utterances and actions towards our neighbours. Yet, many of these are kindly and intended to assist. The pre-colonial industrial and trading successes of the major cultures and tribes in the Asian region, their valuable and durable religious faiths, and their superb capacity for artistic expression over the millennia are over-shadowed by the retinal after-images of the white colonisers of the relatively recent past. Many "old" Aussies do not seem to realise that that most effective combination of gun and "good book", inflicted over peaceful, settled, and civilised people all over the world for a few centuries, has now been deracinated. Without an adequate appreciation of the great history and viable cultures of near neighbours, can white Aussies be able to relate, with mutual respect, to coloured neighbours?

White Aussies have yet to realise too that the claimed innate superiority of white people was illusory. The "white" man is a mythical artefact, given the deeply buried genes of the Tartars (Mongols) and the Turkic peoples (of Central Asia) in the Anglo-Celt forebears of the Anglo-Celt Aussies. They have yet to learn too that the desert faith of Christianity is no better, metaphysically or spiritually, than the forest faiths of Asia. Increasing numbers of Australians are giving away authoritarian religions for the joys of spirituality. In any event, "whites" will soon represent only 10% (a fall from the current 15%) of the total global population. The hegemony of "white" nations is well on the way out.

When it comes to political freedom (which we have), in spite of a transparent and efficient electoral system, we are powerless in relation to the tweedledum and tweedledee political parties which take turns to rule us. Our elected representatives are not answerable to us. Our leaders often behave in the manner of oriental despots. Yet, they present themselves as ever so humble, and always claim to consult us. I note that "my government" has given way to "I". Our leaders also live very well. Behind the scenes there is the stench of some corruption, but antiquated and undemocratic laws of defamation offer a veil of purity. At worst, however, official corruption in Australia is akin only to petty theft, compared to the grand larceny reported in some Asian and other nations.

It is in these above areas that I have major concerns about the underlying cultural values in our nation.

In other areas, Australia is way ahead of the nation-states of Asia. It is a beacon for the dispossessed, the disadvantaged, and those who seek opportunity for economic success and greater freedom, as well as free money (as welfare). So, all is not black in this still white nation-state. Relations with and between Australia's ethnic communities are good, but the communities may be somewhat mutually exclusive, as in many Asian countries. We are a tolerant people, as long as the new arrival does not flaunt his difference. As some do so exultantly, it is little surprising that other ethnic tribes display a little irritation. The security of public space, the desire for social harmony through a unity in forms of public behaviour, and just good conduct are threatened by some overt assertion (perhaps counter-assertion) of some ethnic cultural right. Those responsible are, however, only a handful of immigrants and their descendants. These clearly see themselves as insistently different from the rest of us.

Multiculturalism is, as expected, already on its way out - except as a description of the cultural diversity we have accumulated. The policy of "managing multiculturalism", code for official attempts to ensure effective equal opportunity, was doomed to failure, because it was a top-down policy.. Education, a bottom-up osmotic and all-pervasive influence, is the only effective means of enhancing fair treatment of all - _by all -_ and not only by the Anglo-Celts. Some leaders of our ethnic communities have tended to behave as if it is only the Anglo-Celt who has to display tolerance and cultural acceptance.

The influx of foreign peoples has been great. In my view, far too great. The variety of imported cultures is also far too great. So say the older Aussies, whether of British, European or Asian descent. Too much change within a single lifetime is terribly threatening. It is a very human reaction. I sympathise with those so affected. But, in this arena of policy, we are ruled by a shopkeeper mentality. And, in truth, we grow economically only through the demands generated by population growth. This is achieved mainly through immigration. The necessary funding is provided by overseas interests, who thereby come to control significant sectors of the economy.

However, the fabric of society is fraying rapidly, as in the other economies of the Ultra-West. This is because of the undue emphasis placed upon the rights of individuals. There is also a rising white under-class. This class is under-educated, under-skilled, under-motivated, and under-employed, but full of rights. It is fed and housed mainly by the middle class, because the wealthy have legal means to pay little tax. (Why so?) Young people can even matriculate without being able to deal proficiently with words and numbers. What are we to do with this class? Will the members of this class afford to form families? As they already do, and up to three generations can be supported by welfare, what sort of society will result? A few offspring of the hard-working white post war immigrants can, surprisingly, be found in this under-achieving under-class. What can members of this under-class contribute to society? What role models are available to the children born into welfare?

The definition of family is currently as varied as are the rights asserted for each concept. Evolutionary logic, like history, is now irrelevant. An army of children suffers from asserted freedoms, with no one officially seemingly concerned about the future of society, or its nature. Instant gratification is all, except for the poor bloody kids. Many of these can expect only an hour of "quality time" per work day from career parents. Many others will go to bed in a home without a father, and without any paternal guidance in life. And, is there any evidence that women accept head-of-household responsibilities within marriage or cohabitation?

Where do the old people fit into the new paradigms? In old people's homes, or on their own. It is their right, OK? It is clear that each generation is increasingly disavowing mutual responsibility. The State can provide. Who funds this largesse? And for how long into the future? What happened to the self-reliance and self-sufficiency which built this and other immigrant nations? And the more one relies on the State, the weaker the bonds of family. And one's community is restricted to the workplace or the club. Reliance on the State also leads to a culture of control by shiny-bottomed bureaucrats.

Further, with a newfound wisdom of some members of the judiciary, not only are the law enforcers' responsibilities thwarted, but all manner of rights, and rewards for irresponsible to criminal conduct, are proliferating. Curiouser and curiouser! Because equal opportunity was always available, it is not surprising that working class values can now permeate academic theories, the educational approaches inflicted on school children, and the preferred policies of welfare deliverers. Yet, I am in wonderment at the development of judicial thinking. Whilst apparently upholding the law, judges find new rights, but fewer responsibilities. Does this not say a lot about the durability of cultural values?

It is against this perspective that I present my overview of the Australian nation-state and its institutions and peoples. In the half-century span of this overview, my core Hindu Asian values remain supreme. These values are based upon freedom, but with responsibility; with mutual obligation to the collective and to one's Creator over-riding satisfaction of self.

### Chapter 1

Be True To Thine Self

There is a tide in the affairs of men

which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life

Is bound in shallows and in miseries.

—Shakespeare

I am an integral part of a nation founded in fear. It lives in fear. While it struts the world stage – for example, as a "wannabe" mediator between two nations with nuclear warheads, or as an effusive preacher on human rights to any Asian or Pacific nation which might listen - it continues to be a little fearful.

At a suburban level, I am told "The Indonesian will attack us one day". What about the bloody Martians, I wonder. Anyway, will the Indonesians ever be able to walk over the intervening seas? The republicans want us to ditch our English monarch immediately. What about our military overlord, I wonder. Were we to become a republic, say the republicans, as they whistle against the wind, we would gain the respect of our Asian neighbours. What a novel ambition! The shopkeepers and their political allies want us to fill up the empty interior of this vast land with foreigners to avoid a military threat from Asia. What about the already extensive ownership of Australian land, farms, and other enterprises by the Japanese and the peripatetic Chinese, I wonder. The Aussies living in the country towns and hamlets (what is left of these after the successes of globalisation, privatisation, de-industrialisation, and such like), however, fear that foreigners might colour their terrain (having previously ensured that it was not blackened) - unless the new arrival is a doctor.

The rising middle class disdains the studiousness and some academic prowess of Asian Aussie students, on the grounds that their indefatigable focus on high marks surely could not develop the rounded personalities so typical of Australia. It seems to fear that the "near enough is good enough" ethos of the Anglo-Celt's forebears will be forever "rooned", ie ruined (in archaic bush Australian lingo). Social researchers tell us that, increasing uncertainty of a kind never experienced before in their lifetime, weighs heavily over the Australian people. This uncertainty might explain the following behaviour - which is surely akin to the instinct of ants to gather food supplies if rain is expected: those at the top end of town causing immense economic and social destruction by seeking to raise shareholder values in their enterprises to yet higher levels; double-income families burying themselves in huge mortgages over palatial homes built not for prestige but for security; single income families lacking security seeking welfare supplements - essentially to offset their heavy tax burden; and the others joining the aged in demanding increasing welfare to compensate for their lack of earned income.

What caused this fear and uncertainty? At the initial occupation of Australia, the harsh sun and land; the strange environment; the isolation, loneliness, and distance from home; the proximity to aliens (some actually within the land); an assumed threat of invasion ( a very natural fear for an invader); the inability to shake off the illnesses and debilitation caused by an alleged debauched lifestyle, lack of hygiene and immoral social practices; and possibly some subconscious guilt at the treatment of the indigene, would have had some part to play. Later, the White Australia policy ethos would have coloured the perception by the Anglo-Celts of their new neighbours, especially after their treatment of the Chinese and the Kanakas. The fear of the "yellow hordes" was strong when I arrived in 1948, when the government did its best to find reds (ie communists) under every bed. Incidentally, my white Aussie father-in-law told me that the communist leaders of the trade unions had done more than the socialist ones to protect the Australian worker from the kind of exploitation which seems now to be seeping back into the economy. Said father-in-law was a political conservative.

Underlying these fears was that fatuous colonial attitude. This seemed to have stained the moral fibre of the whole nation. Every white Aussie, irrespective of educational level, saw himself as a cut above a non-white. I remember, in 1949, a fellow student saying to me "I don't mind you, but I wouldn't like many more like you in the country". Did the Aborigines say something similar to Captain Cook? In the mid-Eighties, a fellow Director in the Department of Immigration complained that there were "too many really black people coming in - no, no, not like you". Even now, I have elderly Aussies tell me about the odd old friend who "was a truly white man"! In this situation I can only assume that I am seen as an honorary white. But I am not affronted. I have often wondered, though, whether the white population, (even those with the "stain" of Aboriginal blood in them) realise that coloured people like me could, through a little miscegenation, lead the nation to become free of that terrible risk of sunburn.

Both racial superiority and its sibling, cultural superiority, were basic ingredients to the white man's burden. Cultural superiority subsumes religious prejudice. Only relatively recently, the Pope forgot his manners when he talked (whilst a guest in India) about converting Indians to his religion \- presumably for their salvation. In Australia, having the country flooded by people who are denying themselves salvation could be a somewhat fearsome experience - and perhaps to be avoided. However, as I recently asked a woman in my district, when she openly displayed a terrible prejudice against the Muslim peoples (yes, the ordinary peoples, not any bully-boy government): "One of these days you are going to have a shock. When you reach the Celestial Abode of the Heavenly Father, you will have to shake hands with all kinds of people - Hindus, Muslims, Caluthumpians, and so on. What will you do then?"

In more recent times, a new kind of fear has been aroused - of being over-run by richer, better educated, sophisticated, and cosmopolitan Asians. There is now no reference to unspeakable habits. This was an excuse used to defend ethnic cleansing by settlers. Of concern now is the way very old mansions in upper class Sydney are being knocked down by wealthy upper-class Asians representing "old money", who then put up a bigger mansion straddling two building blocks. The boongs and blackfellows aside, the wops, wogs, eyeties and dagoes have disappeared. Unwanted or not fully acceptable at first, they proved themselves hardworking. Their offspring are actually doing better, in economic terms (but not in taking up many sacred seats of power) than those of the Anglo-Celt Aussies (and the Brits, their cousins). This is surely not surprising, since the initially despised Irish are now an integral part of the mainstream - hence the term Anglo-Celt, where initially it was Anglo-Saxon.. Even the Mediterranean and West Asian people later followed the same path of acceptance and integration. However, a few academics and ethnic community leaders did whinge for a while about being forced to assimilate, and presumably having to off-load all their essential ethnic or tribal cultural characteristics.

However, I have not yet found an Irishman or any immigrant from Europe who had to give up his core cultural values in those allegedly assimilationist days. These values are: to whom, how, and where he prays; how one brings up family; what language one speaks at home and within the ethnic community; how one dresses, sits, sleeps and eats at home. Yes, in the early days, immigrants had to speak English in public; else, they was most likely to be told, most rudely, "Why don't you speak English, you ......". How quaint! The "old" Anglo-Celt Aussies, by then secure in their new home (although surrounded by a smorgasbord of foreign and somewhat disconcerting cultures, religions, languages, customs, habits and so on), felt threatened because they could not understand what some foreigners were saying to others of their kind on an Aussie street. This is little different from the more recent practice of ripping off a head scarf from a Muslim woman, saying "You can't dress like that in my country". Its all a matter of protecting white Anglo-Celt Aussie public space. Who gave this white guardian the right to defend public space?

If the fear of being over-run, often expressed as anger, is as pervasive as I feel it is, why do Australian governments continue to feed it by accepting large numbers of hitherto unacceptable foreigners? We now know that the British do not have any substantive reason to migrate. Those who fear the blackening and browning of British cities by the descendants of the people from the Caribbean and the Indian sub-continent are an exception. The Europeans would be foolish to emigrate to Australia, given the substantial economic development at home. So, who wants to migrate to Australia? Mainly, only the coloureds – essentially, the unviable, the hopeful, the opportunists, and the criminals amongst them. I say this partly because none of my middle class relatives or their friends are attracted by Australia. Their lifestyle in three Asian countries is far superior to anything they can expect in Australia - unless they are doctors or medical specialists..

Australia's massive post war immigration program began because the country needed able-bodied men - to build all manner of things. And this is what the nation got - the able bodied. The Brits were supplemented by the "reffos" (ie refugees) from Europe. These included some very cultured, educated and skilled displaced people, who were sent, on contract, to work with their bodies. The acceptance by the Australian population of the initial batch of reffos was enhanced by officialdom describing them as beautiful Balts. Many of the women were certainly that. I speak from personal contact with a few. The Balts had to be blonde and blue eyed. So, all manner of Europeans came in as Balts. These included (reportedly) some Nazis, and others of like temperament and occupation.

Since these initially unacceptable European foreigners had made such a contribution to the development of Australia's infrastructure ( such as the tramways) and manufacturing industry, it seemed reasonable that, when the supply from Europe started to dry out, to look for near-whites from the Middle East. I remember a certain discomfort in those immigration officers I helped to interview in the mid-Sixties with this shift in policy. Although these intakes did not add much to the able bodied work-force, Australia learnt that foreign clerks and administrators were employable; and that there can never be too many shopkeepers and traders. All this adds to that consumer and housing demand which now so fascinates the policy wallahs.

We do not, however, have a population policy or a policy for economic and social development. The government denied relatively recently that a population policy is necessary as a template. Without such a policy, there can be no development policy. A fabulous piece of research on population policy by some think tank reached, I understand, the profound conclusion that a population policy should be investigated!

What are our political parties afraid of? In the event, it is easy to continue with immigration and economic development policies which, in any clear thinking and environmentally sensitive nation, would be out of date. The reasons for this inertia are complex.

A major influence is the fear of empty spaces. One must fill up the land as quickly as possible, with people like oneself. Hence the emphasis on whites and those of an appropriate faith. So, Asian entrants initially tended to be East Asian, and predominantly Christian. Refugee, humanitarian and asylum policies also helped to reverse the ratio between the "prods" and the "micks" in the population. It took me a long time to appreciate the political and policy impacts of these terma.

Another significant factor in policy inertia is growth for the sake of growth. Modern nations are stuck on this treadmill. We do not know how to survive without a rising GDP (gross domestic product), which requires buyers. Because we have never been able to find continuing overseas buyers, at stable prices, for most of what we have to export, we need a growing consumer demand within the country. Since our women are not keen to confuse sexual activity with procreation, we need to import the buyers. Indeed, the attraction of the en-suite, and all the other accoutrements of modern housing, did defeat the priests of old and the modern politician. Their admonishments sound suspiciously like "root for Australia", a platform once suggested by a senior official to his Minister..

A key factor in policy lethargy is our relationship with the foreigners who invest heavily in Australia. The national government is also beholden to the USA for military protection - and thereby has to permit American multinational corporations free play in the Australian economy. The economy has always lacked the savings necessary for development; so the foreigner obliges. He exacts a heavy price; he can therefore buy anything he likes in Australia. He does as he pleases, and we will accede to anything he asks. That mechanism for screening foreign takeovers and other foreign investment was ever a smokescreen. I spent eight years in that business. The bottom line in economic policy is that market forces must prevail.

However, modern market ideology can lead to all manner of destruction. For example, the rural sector is devastated societally by big agribusinesses replacing small farms. Where do the small farmers then go? The destruction of centralised marketing of rural products (such as milk) leads to the exposure of small producers to organised buyers. This can also result in higher prices to the consumer. Where is the benefit to the economy? Claimed economic efficiency over-rides consideration of community and humanity. This is why the French Government quarantines its rural sector from the socially destructive impacts of economic efficiency at any cost. Privatisation of public infrastructure also offers questionable benefits, because of a myopic focus by the private sector on short-term profits, matched by governments avoiding the raising of loans to fund necessary expenditure on infrastructure. De-unionisation and de-industrialisation exposes employees to exploiters, and the nation becomes a huge laundromat, with everyone taking in everyone else's washing.

Playing in the dot.com, share trading, and paper shuffling enterprises does not provide the nation with the sort of solid industrial and employment base that small European nations like Sweden have. With limited land, a small population, and no natural resources, Singapore does not compete with Third World countries, as Australia does by relying on its rural and mining industries. Singapore is up there with the high-tech nations, modifying long-term development plans continually. This is why Singapore's per capita income is higher than Australia's. We have no idea how to do this. We are also hamstrung by an unholy reverence by officials for the indescribable beauty of market forces. This faith relieves them of the need to formulate pro-active policies to take the nation into the future.

One might expect that, seeing the destruction of industries and country towns, with the pool of unemployed and under-employed somewhat excessive, and a growing and immobile under-class living on welfare, that there would be a reduction in immigration. Instead of adding to the stocks of surplus workers and welfare dependents, one might educate, train and re-train those in the country. Instead, we focus on a soul-destroying process - for process is all it is. The job seekers are required to look for jobs which do not exist. Those who are not seriously seeking work are not required to move (even with official assistance) to where the jobs are. I and other taxpayers have so many unwanted dependants in our areas of residence.

The major drive behind our immigration policy, is therefore a simplistic reliance on the economic demand generated by the new arrivals. Unfortunately, if they are not employable, because of a lack of English, or needed skills, or motivation, the welfare cost will be very high. If they are employable, but have large families to feed and, through family re-union immigration entry policy, are allowed to bring more unemployable into Australia's welfare system, the net gain to the nation is negative.

Many a taxpayer like myself has argued that the nation should accept only those who will put in more than they will take from the country. The imperatives of immigration policy are clear. Even in a country with little intelligent debate about major policy issues, many ordinary Australians are clearly aware of the limited environmental carrying capacity of the land. Then there is the problem of inadequate infrastructure, such as sewage, roads and railways. There is relative over-crowding in those capital cities which draw the immigrant. Housing estates are planted instead of food crops, thereby wasting productive land. The enveloping air pollution is worsening. Frightening levels of drug taking and associated crime prevail. And so on, and so on. Yet, the odd political leader who looks far into the future (eg. Gorton, Hewson or Keating) soon has no future himself. So, we are like a fellow on an exercise bicycle in a gym going nowhere very fast. But we are busy, looking good, feeling good. Whether all that activity and the associated smug self-satisfaction is damaging to the body politic is something only time will tell. By then, however, all those politicos who should have led the nation to a better future would be enjoying their fat parliamentary pensions, and quite a few on-going perks.

It is fair to acknowledge that the immediate post war immigration policy was relatively sound. The country needed that intake. But, the manufacturing sector that absorbed the influx was, by both definition and in reality, uneconomic and inefficient. High cost production under tariff protection was necessarily limited to the Australian market. It was doomed to failure in an open competitive market. The residues of that industry policy still bedevil the nation. Having worked in the Tariff Board of the Sixties (and accused of being a "free trader"), I wondered at the contribution made by its successors to the developmental direction taken by Australian manufacturing industry. I can only hope that Fate will continue to be kind to us all. I suppose that economic growth of one to two percent per year in _real_ terms (ie after allowing for inflation) is about the best that we can hope to achieve.

When, strangely, yet sensibly, a Labor government started to open up the economy to the real world, did we need all those able-bodied people still coming in? Fortunately, with the shift to immigrants from west and east Asia, we began to receive more educated, more skilled, more business oriented, and more enterprising immigrants. Overall, they were more cosmopolitan than the southern Europeans. Their English was better than that of most the earlier arrivals. The new immigrants may not have been needed as factory fodder and the like, but they were employable.

We got used to people coming in who were even more different than before; to the economy continuing to grow; to all sorts of tongues being heard in public places; and to a growing emphasis on how the nation could begin to help the immigrant settle in. Ethnic vote hunting by the major political parties coincided with ethnic (not necessarily immigrant) academics and community group leaders highlighting the plight of the immigrant. This was the thin edge of the wedge to ethnic empowerment, leading to some ethnic proportionalism and ethnic preference in parts of the public sector. I recall a public service department with four young Greek Australians in a section of five, with the Greek officer in charge not getting along well with his fellow ethnics.

This was a useful lesson for the Anglo-Celts. An "ethnic" does not necessarily favour other ethnics, even his own kind. I also recall a Jewish fellow undermining a highly respected German in ethnic radio, simply because the latter was a German. My then Jewish colleague said that it was to be expected, although both oppressor and oppressed were pre-war immigrants! The Minister would not intervene; neither would the department. It was no different when I was treated badly, through a manifestation of tribal cohesion; no one at the helm was prepared to act.

In this context I can report that in two departments, I seemed to have all the junior ethnics allocated to my Section. My impression was that they were not wanted by my peer group. Why? They were good officers. And I am proud to claim that I guided a Vietnamese, a Pakistani, a Greek, a Hungarian, an Italian, a Latvian, amongst others, to find appropriate career paths. Only the first two were immigrants; yet they were all viewed by my hierarchy as foreigners. Indeed, one CEO (with three degrees) used to refer to an Australian born German Australian as a Hun. He would also not release the Hungarian to a preferred career path. In a similar vein, some school principals were known to have placed Australian children of immigrant parents with immigrant children to whom English was a new language. This was done in order to qualify for additional staff to offer "remedial" education.

By the late Sixties, sensitive to the burgeoning influence of the new nations arising from the colonial territories of Asia, the government wisely eased up on the White Australia policy. Then came the open door policy, which had two curious early results. The majority of Asians came from East Asia. Lighter coloured Asians were obviously preferred. This outcome was achieved simply by having more migrant selection officers in the preferred countries. The majority of Asians selected for entry also claimed to be Christian. I am certain that this helped their selection. Choosing Christian immigrants is quite a good idea. They would be more subject to social control than the others.

Many of the Christian entrants would, of course, have been of mixed ancestry, the distant forebear having blessed his descendants with his European name. Others would have been colonial whites not returning to Britain and other parts of Europe to a relatively bleak life. I have met a few of these. That is, some of the arrivals from Asia were either whites, or those who saw themselves as near-white, and therefore unwilling to be ruled by the fully coloured in their new garb as independent peoples. This is understandable, as the mixed bloods in some of the colonies had enjoyed a privileged position in the administration. However, I found those from India in this category not impressive at all. Indeed, the few ex-colonial all-white officers I came to know through work or socialisation were not that bright either - except for one very brilliant and civilised man (a deputy governor in a British colony and, after retirement, the deputy chancellor of an Australian university).

The immigration open door now seems to be genuinely open. The Asian immigrants are clearly integrated, the Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists with their own houses of prayer. The opposition by some local government authorities to the building of mosques and temples, and the strange claim by a member of the judiciary that a mosque is not a church, are minor hiccups. Yet, they reflect the anxiety of many in the mainstream populace forced to come to terms with an abrupt, and a little disconcerting, invasion of foreign cultures.

In this context, it is a little too easy for some to criticise the receiving populace (with its infusion of earlier generations of ethnics) for not being more accepting of very significant change. For, some of our ethnics are much more racist than the Anglo-Celt. Of course, the professional Muslim who insists on his daily prayer right at his work station, whether a desk or a machine, muddies the waters of acceptance by his arrogance. The recent arrivals from China and Hong Kong stridently asserting their rights, eg saying on tv that "We Chinese will not tolerate (such and such) from the Australian government", or whingeing about discrimination when they themselves will not employ non-Chinese are not clearly sensitive enough to ethnic community relations, or to the imperatives of a liberal society.

However, it was the following two major changes in entry policy which rocked the boats of entry, tolerance and acceptance, and led to questioning by many about the rationale for immigration policy, viz. refugee and humanitarian (R&H) entry, and family reunion.

The most significant refugee policy was the Indo-Chinese policy. There were a few other policies floating around when that came in, but they were of no great consequence. The White Russian policy, introduced to save those fleeing Russia when that country became communist, had somehow hung around. The latest entrant under that policy came after a long and profitable residence in China. The Middle Eastern policy was intended to protect whites in brown Muslim nations. Some of the entrants under that policy were Jews.

Then there was the East Timorese program. Australia took in, apart from those who needed succour, East Timorese living in Portugal, their country of nationality, This was a clear case of corrupting a sound policy. My experience in administering this policy showed sponsors in Australia "shopping" for soft entry at a number of Immigration offices. There were also attempts to bring in unaccompanied minors. These were to become "anchors". An anchor is a young person whose emotional needs for family call for immigration entry to parents, siblings and other close relatives. Although the entrants were coloured, they were safely Catholic.

The Soviet Jew policy enabled entry to Australia of those allowed by the USSR to join close family in Israel, but who wished instead to settle elsewhere. When the Prime Minister of Israel complained about the leakage of up to eighty five per cent of the exodus from the USSR (to mainly the USA), Australia tightened its scrutiny – much to the annoyance of the Australian Jewish community. However, somewhere along the line, we took in Soviet Jews who had entered Israel, did not like it, and left - and then claimed opportunistically to be refugees. Who were these? Mixed couples - a Soviet Jew female married to a non-Jewish male. I was able to help one of these women commence a career in Australia. Personal testimony showed that such couples were not treated by the Israeli government as equal to white both-Jewish couples. Further testimony suggests that coloured Jews in Israel are not equal to white Jews in treatment, with non-Jewish Israelis at the bottom of the pile. This policy stratification was confirmed by a very reliable and close Jewish Australian friend, as well as by that female Soviet Jew colleague I took under my wing. That is, whilst those Soviet Jews who had left Israel were clearly outside our R&H policy, we did take them in. Both the East Timorese and Soviet Jew policies demonstrated the power of the respective lobbies in Australia. Acceptance of the entrants by mainstream Anglo-Celts was obviously not an issue.

An entry policy of short duration covered the Tamils of Sri Lanka. Its scope was reduced by that shortage of Australian staff in those South Asian countries with a brown population. The two migrant selection officers (members of my team) who protested to the head of department about this discriminatory policy were not placed overseas again – and thereafter resigned. Again, preference may have been given to Christians, who are only a small fraction of the Tamil population.

The Middle Eastern policy gave way to a global humanitarian policy (which I re-wrote). This policy was initially focused on the Middle East. The people of interest over there were the Baha'is of Iran. These were the only people in the region known to be subject to _official persecution ._ Yet, eighty percent of the initial entrants were Iranian Muslims from Pakistan. Some migrant selection officials at overseas posts would seem to have had a little difficulty in reading policy circulars. The global humanitarian policy was later expanded to cover individuals facing _discrimination within_ their country of nationality, applying mainly to Poland. Before this change, R&H policies required the applicant to be _outside_ his country of nationality, the refugee to be fearful of persecution, the humanitarian entrant to be fearful of discrimination (by the State).

The Indo-China policy was necessary to relieve the countries of first asylum in South East Asia. It would not have been necessary if the US government had accepted that the Vietnamese only wanted independence. In spite of the highly favoured "domino" theory, even by academia, there was no evidence of a substantive threat of communism to the rest of South East Asia. None of my relatives gave any credit to the "domino" theory. But the West has this lingering colonial policy of attempting to install its kind of government all over the world. It certainly beats globalisation practices and trade wars. The East European policy arose when certain key Liberals reportedly wanted a change in right-wing refugees - white ones. Later, when a powerful key player in the Labor Party reportedly sought, for a change, some left-wing refugees, the Latin American policy was introduced. All these policies would have taken in a large number of economic refugees. A goodly proportion of the Indo- Chinese entrants and almost the whole of the entrants under the other two policies would have been nominally Catholic. Of all the R&H entrants, the Chileans were the most interesting. Cohesive and ultra-nationalistic, they exuded a great and terrible hunger for freedom and fair play.

When I, as Head of R&H entry policy (in the early Eighties), challenged some of our policies, I was asked to close down only the White Russian and East Timorese policies. The lobbies backing the other policies were too powerful.

Refugee policy is an exceedingly complex matter. Illegal entrants are a world-wide phenomenon. Few nations have the luxury of the USA - of being able to use the cheap labour thus available. On a head of host population basis, the US intake is apparently less than that of Australia.

Should a country be required to take in someone knocking on the backdoor asking for (or demanding) asylum, simply because he claims to be a refugee? Through Australia's open immigration door already come people who are not going to make a net contribution to the nation for a long time - having regard for employability and family reunion consequences. We already have generous refugee policies. They are necessarily selective and political, their mainspring being (chiefly) pressure from within the nation.

UNHCR (the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) has piggy-backed upon this process. Its theology is a comfortable one for its highly paid officials; it imposes a "one size suits all tastes" requirement on signatory nations, somewhat like the Eurocrats' definition of a sausage (member nations _must_ conform). No allowance is made for cultural differences, which reflect both history and geography or, more importantly, inter-ethnic community cohesion and power balances.

Its policy on _non-refoulement_ is quite weird, implying that every claim is based on truth. That is how Australia finished up with all those economic refugees, thugs and gangsters from Vietnam, whilst providing succour to those needing it. Yet, in Africa, Pakistan, and sundry other places, the displaced are returned to their territories once the disruption has settled. Should Australia have done this with the Lebanese? I was told by a Lebanese priest that many a known killer had found safety in Australia through our generous overstay policy for visitors, during one of those Lebanese political storms.

The precedent set by the boat people from Vietnam, including that dastardly trick of throwing children, not into the water, but onto unsafe boats, has been copied by illegal entrants from a variety of Asian countries, particularly the Middle East. The children, unaccompanied by their parents, were (and are) intended to act as "anchors"; to force the Australian government to accept their parents, whether or not they could adapt to Australia. The capacity to so adapt is an essential ingredient in immigrant and refugee selection. Such practices by illegal arrivals are causing a turbulence which defeats common sense. But, not everyone in favour of an open door asylum policy is at arm's length in this business. Public posturing and crocodile tear-shedding are mixed with a rent-a-demonstrator mob, hopeful or conniving Aussie relatives of the illegal arrivals (some of whom have themselves come through the refugee door), and some heart-on-sleeves caring people.

Few offer solutions which recognise that assessing asylum claims (using the term asylum to cover R&H entry) is extremely difficult. This is so especially when the applicant has carefully destroyed all identity and travel documents, and chooses an identity and history to suit the claim. I had been told about some of those who had torn up their papers on arrival in Australia. For example, there was a young man wandering around Sydney Airport who, when accosted, asked which country he was in. He had clearly got off a plane, using necessary documents. Then he made a big mistake. He rang his mother to say that he had arrived safely. "Boat people", carrying false documentation, or with no papers, are far more difficult to assess. Should such behaviour be treated as criminal? Anyone who cannot qualify for entry through the very flexible immigration door will pull every trick in the book to get through the asylum backdoor. It must also be recognised that UN obligations upon countries whose borders are being breached are as binding as are the Ten Commandments - unless these are reflected in legislation. Yet, UNHCR _definitions_ need to be adhered to in making decisions about R&H admission.

Our procedures and processes are also extremely generous. Rejected asylum applicants have more access to the courts, at no cost to them, than the ordinary citizen of Australia. The cost of assessing, and then defending the assessment, is quite horrendous. Very few taxpayers consider that the cost to them is warranted. What I hear from everyone is "Get back into the queue". And there are so many Australians patiently waiting for due process to apply with their refugee sponsorships of eligible relatives overseas.

To the supporters of asylum applicants it is all about rights, and yet more rights. What about the nation's rights? It is, of course, quite possible that the striving and cunning asylum seeker is the kind of thrusting future citizen that the nation now needs. However, with jobs for those speaking little or no English not exactly waiting for them, how will these people live? The high public profile proponents of easy asylum entry surely have an obligation to tell us all about the policy and budgetary consequences of their plaint. They might even invite us to a public debate about relevant issues and costs, as well as mutual obligation. Letting asylum applicants loose in the community whilst their claims are being assessed would certainly represent easy permanent entry. Anyway, does Australia need any more welfare recipients? And should not the question of morality be turned back onto the illegal entrants and their Aussie sponsors and supporters?

Even an immigrant-seeking nation should not be forced to accept any applicant for asylum who cannot ultimately make a net contribution to the nation. One who does not speak English, or clearly has no capacity to learn English because of age or non-literacy in his own language, is not going to be readily employed. He will be a permanent burden upon the nation. Are we, as a nation, supposed to feel good about this? What about the applicant's self-esteem when he eventually learns that he is economically unviable? More counselling, with welfare?

Is there a better or fairer alternative? Returning an illegal entrant to the country of nationality or origin, or relocated in a culturally compatible country, would be appropriate. This would be a suitable role for UNHCR, instead of attempting to force Australia to accept the unqualified, the unsuitable, and the bully-boys.

After all, what is fear of persecution or discrimination? From my own experience, I suggest that it is too easy to make such a claim. It has also to be recognised that persecution and discrimination refer to acts by the State - not, as recently decided by a member of the Australian judiciary, by one's relatives. Does a lack of equal opportunity in economic terms; or living under rulers of a foreign faith; or a relative imbalance in the power relationships between one's tribal community and other tribal communities within one's environs; or experiencing a life of hardship normally experienced by millions; or the inability to express freely one's ideology (whether political, theological, social or whatever) – would this constitute persecution or discrimination, or the fear of either? In the event, we are all refugees. From what? From life itself.

What if an asylum applicant had fled from ethnic strife? Would that represent a fear of persecution or discrimination by authority? Or an understandable wish for safety and security? If the applicant's family and relatives continue to reside within the country of nationality whilst the applicant claims a well founded fear of return to his own people? Should also Australia give preferential entry to those who can afford to pay for their travel to Australia, disregarding those in refugee camps, in neighbouring countries, or in another part of the country of origin? Is asylum entry becoming another form of family reunion, especially through a skilful use of media-attracting tactics by those already in Australia?

In reality, how does one reject a claim of a well-founded fear of persecution or discrimination? By and large, an asylum applicant will get the benefit of the doubt, consistent with past flexible and sympathetic decisions. In this context, it would be interesting to ask how many of those given refugee, humanitarian or asylum entry to Australia have returned to their country of origin to live the life they prefer? I have heard that quite a few Vietnamese, Polish, Lebanese, and others who had attracted Australia's sympathy (thereby achieving R&H entry) and largesse had done so.

Due process is the mainstay of good open administration. A nation where whingeing is becoming an art form, especially for the more recent arrivals, has yet to learn this. The government's insistence on due process certainly has the support of all the people I know. I would expect that a substantial majority of the nation's population is on the same wavelength. The issuance of temporary visas has considerable merit.

Cynically, I wonder if the pressure for asylum would abate, were welfare to be denied for the duration of the temporary visa - to be followed by return to the country of _departure_ to Australia (ie not necessarily the country of nationality). The denial of welfare to skilled immigrants in the first two years of residence in Australia is clearly not enough. This policy should apply, in particular, to family reunion entrants. After all, it is their family in Australia who want them here. Their psychic satisfaction should lead them to look after the new arrivals, as they presumably would have back home.

Family reunion entry was sought for years by the Greeks and Italians. A sudden sensitivity by the government to claimed needs by ethnic community leaders led to this new policy. Ethnic community leaders (commonly second or even third generation Aussies - the first generation being the immigrant) need to strengthen their leadership claims by having runs on the board. Government money for the community, advisory positions, policy changes - all are grist to the mill. The government, in turn, hopes to swing votes, _en bloc._ Such a marriage, made in ethno-politic heaven, led to terrible wastes of taxpayer money, a lot of strutting on small stages, and (fortunately) to some assistance to new arrivals. After all, the bigger the ethnic community, the more capable it should be to look after its own. The Jewish community does a beautiful job in this regard.

Initially, in that divide between the professional Australian ethnic and the chauvinistic mainstream Aussie is the issue of terminology covering the Australian-born offspring of immigrants. The term mainstream Aussie includes those immigrants and their descendants who see themselves as an integral part of the nation. Many of those who refer to themselves as ethnics, and a sector of the Australian media, tend to refer to these descendants as second and third generation _immigrants._ This reflects false pride on the part of these ethnics and an unthinking stance by that sector of the media. It is also quite insulting to an Aussie-born to be described as an immigrant. If you are born in Australia, you are an Aussie, except for those whose heart is elsewhere. They can describe themselves as they see fit. New settlers are immigrants. There are no subsequent generations of immigrants springing from the loins of the settlers. Thus, the immigrant is the first generation Aussie. His Australian born children are then second generation Aussies. I notice that more academics are now using this terminology. Perhaps they were influenced by my public protests that referring to my children as immigrants is chauvinistic and patronising.

Ironically, in the first two years of family reunion policy, the majority of entrants were from the UK. The people of Europe were enjoying economic growth and a lifestyle which they wished to preserve, and were therefore reluctant to migrate. The families of the Asian refugees were, however, quick to take advantage of the new policy. But one mature Vietnamese woman preferred "to take a boat" to Thailand rather than wait for two years for processing under family reunion! What happened to all those pirates on the high seas? When she arrived at a country of "first asylum", she was predictably selected as a "refugee". She was then provided with free transport to Australia from the point of selection, and offered short-term accommodation and long-term welfare on arrival. The East Asian population thereby rose rapidly, upsetting all manner of Australians. Were these East Asians employable, any more than the East Timorese, the Chileans, and many of the East Europeans who were accepted as humanitarian entrants? It would be interesting to know, for policy purposes , how many asylum entrants are now on welfare, and the duration of their sojourn in welfare land (ie as my dependants).

The core question is - for whose benefit does a country accept immigrants? To be fair, the benefit has to be mutual. Hence, the entrant has to accept mutual responsibility. There does not seem to be as much of that about. Is this because of the rights - filled era we live in? Two Vietnamese women, in two separate incidents, said to government officials; "You Aussies f...ing stupid". When asked why, both said that the government gave money for nothing. So, they too believed in mutual obligation.

They would soon realise that it was the underpinning of the White Australia policy which allowed entry to those we were told were refugees fleeing persecution by an awful government. The aim of this policy was that Australia would be a nation in which no white person would disdain any kind of work; that equitable treatment by all, of all, would be available; and that the State would support and subsidise the indigent and others in need. Entry to Australia by those accepted as refugees result in their receiving free-flowing cash and generous settlement services, to enable them to create a new life in Australia.

Whilst, in their early years in Australia, some East Asians displayed criminal behaviour (mainly against their own people), in time, like all other new arrivals, these people generally settled down to a productive and peaceful life. However, Australian officials soon learnt that if there was a loophole to be exploited, and a new trick invented to get something for nothing, there would be an East Asian behind it. This was my personal experience too. I then learnt that a wide range of Asian individuals were becoming known for their criminal proclivities. It is the magnitude of criminality by Asian individuals, in terms of proportions of their communities, that should cause concern to us all.

Was our asylum policy responsible for the entry of these criminals? In a comparable vein, one could ask whether a country in communist East Europe had once used Australia's humanitarian policy to empty a couple of mental asylums, or whether a Latin American country had emptied a jail? Clearly, the criminals, whilst reportedly numerous, are not representative of their people. Strangely, however, even criminals can conform to the family and community values which form the core of what is referred to as Asian values.

Asian values are those formerly universal values which are currently upheld best by Asian societies. Regrettably, in Australia, Asian communities find that these values are under threat. Yet, adaptation to Australian modes of conduct, and integration into Australian institutions can leave the core of Asian values intact. But, that is difficult against the cultural onslaughts of American tv, and the upholding of individualism in what I refer to as the ultra-West. This a group of relatively new nations founded by massive immigration. The emphasis placed by school teachers and other educators on inalienable individual rights (exercisable even within families), and the creation of new rights by the judiciary (whose long-gone predecessors could not somehow uphold the rights of the Australian indigene), also exacerbate this difficulty. The visibly large number of Australian-born East Asian Aussie youth involved in the drug trade is indicative of this culture clash.

Asian values involve mutual _obligation_ within the family, respect for one's parents and other elders, a system of hierarchical respect in relation to siblings and other members of the extended family, reciprocal obligation with other members of the broader clan - and also extended to members of the tribe. Mutual respect, obligation and protection also accept traditional roles and responsibilities. The latter have evolved both biologically and culturally ( eg the taboo on incest), They are also premised on obvious biological facts, such as certain differences in gender (its the hen that lays the eggs). And children are not toys or playthings. They carry both family and society into the future.

Asian communities living in Western nations can maintain these values and related traditions. My relatives and their friends are living proof of this. Asian values also involve acceptance of (and respect for) authority, both within the family and within the clan and tribe, and extending to those in official authority.

At a historically universal level, there is nothing new in this. In a Western milieu, Catholic peoples and nations, and others whose religion upholds the importance of family, will share these "Asian" values. The breakdown in the coherence of families is best exemplified in immigrant nations such as the USA and Australia. The US scholar Francis Fukuyama provides the necessary evidence in his book "The Great Disruption", and identifies the causal paths for those who are not yet aware of what is happening around them or to them.

So, what happens to those of us who hold onto these "Asian" values? We cannot subscribe to a regime of unfettered rights. Who would want to see broken families everywhere, with a mountain of children in uncertainty and anguish? Who would deny children their natural father? Who would want to see a continuing stream of fathers suiciding because of alienating decisions by the Family Court? Authority is so denied that governments and politicians are despised, whilst teachers and police have difficulty doing their job. No one can do their job without a strong risk of being sued in the event of a mishap. Mishaps and accidents are perceived by litigants, aided by their lawyers and some members of the judiciary, as negligence. Children are free to their own "thing", eg a child suing his parents. Peer group ignorance and pressure spread freely by psychic osmosis. Officialdom enables a child to leave home for its own reasons, with the parent unable to be told where the child is (because of alleged privacy principles), and so on.

This is not the Australia I came to more than half a century ago. Then, we Asians would have had no quibble on the issue of the place of family, and on relative rights and obligations. Today, Asian families, whether from West Asia or any other part of that large continent, are facing an on-going battle. In this battle, they are joined by many a community from Southern Europe. The media can then highlight the plight of young Aussies attempting vainly to follow the behaviour of their mainstream Anglo-Celt peer group, whilst their parents are passed as villains. Are they truly villains? Or are they in the wrong country?

Whose values will prevail in the long run? One can only guess. Water always goes to the lowest level, does it not?

In the meantime how are those Asian immigrants and their offspring holding to family values viewed by those in Australians in authority? Bureaucrats make all manner of decisions which impinge upon the way we live, eg taxation, child care, health, social and child welfare, etc. They operate by rigid rules. They say, we obey. Their personal cultural values too will prevail. This is what I found out dealing with lowly local government clerks, council ordnance officers, and others with like responsibilities. If immigrants with Asian family values are employed in any bureaucracy, will not their value stances soon deem them as "not one of us"? What would their prospects then be for moving into positions of responsibility and authority? Does mutual obligation under immigration or asylum entry require these Asians to modify their core cultural values? If they do not modify these values to fit the prevailing Aussie ethos, could they be deemed, ever, to have integrated successfully into Australia?

If rejected or kept at arms length's as not one of us, what will happen to their self-esteem? This is a criterion of concern to the feminists, gay people, drug users, and so on. Those groups want greater freedoms or rights, either to discover their inner selves, or to explore the boundaries of their personalities, and to achieve their economic and social potential. Can immigrants and their offspring take their rightful place in society, make a sufficient contribution to the nation, and reap the resulting rewards, if their self-esteem is diminished by a clash of cultures? I have in mind certain religious leaders who want all of us to live by cultural criteria cast in concrete by their churches.

Would it not be a reflection of an open and responsible society if those of us with our own core cultural values are free to live by the codes of conduct flowing from these values, and not penalised for so doing? The "old" Anglo-Celt's time-tested fair-go stance, if cherished as it should be, will then ensure an equal opportunity nation.

### Chapter 2

Unity In Diversity

She tried to found a salon

but only succeeded in opening

a restaurant

—Oscar Wilde

My relatives and friends, whether living in South East Asia, the USA, Britain, or Australia, speak a lot of English at home and in their ethnic community relations. Some have given away the Hindu religious taboo against beef. Some ignore the social taboo against pork. Yet, in almost every way, their life in their countries of residence is governed by their social customs and cultural traditions.

Whilst they are bilingual or trilingual, English is the most commonly used language to cross ethnic boundaries. In what other ways do they adapt to life in these diverse nations? By accepting the institutional structures of government, law, order and justice - all of British origin. And by conforming to the modes of conduct and speech in public places, especially the idioms and social conventions, but with variations appropriate to class, educational level and occupation. Very few belong to the machinery of government, the parliament, the judiciary, or to large bureaucracies. They are naturally inclined to the professions, the quasi-professions, the private sector, or teaching.

They and other members of their tribal communities are well integrated into each nation. As migrants into the countries where they are now found, they were not assisted to settle into their new home in any way by the governments of the receiving countries. They made their way into foreign territory, found work, and adapted to the societies they found there. In each nation they have friends in the other ethnic communities, as most countries these days are composite nation-states. Most nation-states are artificial constructs, reflecting either the often impractical borders established by colonial governments, or the near-final results of shifts in the political or military balance of power brought about by war, invasion or negotiation. Through either process, ethnic tribes are split by artificial borders. Yet, the tribal ethnic communities in these composite nation-states generally adapt to one another and to the host people in the same way as my relatives do, but in time.

Taking a long bow across history, and having regard for the vast movements of peoples through the centuries and across continents, one might reach the conclusion that most (if not all) ethnic tribes are not as genetically pure as some of them might want to claim. Yet, there is a certain distinctiveness and internal coherence within each of the main tribes in the nation-states, bonded in essence by language and faith. A language (say, English) or religion (say Hinduism) overlapping a number of nation-states may not significantly diminish the core ethnic identity of component tribes within each of these states. Indeed, many foreign tribes absorbed into a host nation-state over time do not always modify in any significant fashion the identity of either the host or of themselves (eg North Ireland, Latvia or Germany). This identity is often sustained by a claimed historical memory, including some folklore. It is thus that each tribe has a glorious past, occasionally somewhat distant (eg the Jewish people, the Han Chinese, and others).

Ultimately it is a matter of pride. It is pride that most sustains a culture transferred by migration into new lands. Other culture-retention causes are a sense of identity ( who am I?) and psychological security (to whom do I belong?). Except for the natural loners of the world, social alienation can be destroying. It is therefore good to know that others of one's people are available to assist or merely to provide psychic and social support. Then there is simple prejudice, based on a sense of superiority or simple difference, reflecting a "them and us" dichotomy.

When the British invaded Australia, they apparently paid little attention to the diversity of the tribes already occupying the land. Indeed, had they paid much attention to the ethnic or cultural characteristics of the various tribes they had subjugated in the formation of Great Britain , in their homelands? Since the Australian natives were not interested in the customary trading currency of beads, bangles and mirrors offered initially by most white colonisers, guns and (later) poisoned flour cleared whatever bit of land was wanted by the settlers. For the few natives who remained, the hegemony of British culture was foisted upon them - as happened to the natives in other colonial territories - aided by soul-saving priests and missionaries. The theft of physical property is understandable; the mustering of insubstantial souls is not. Perhaps it was only simple pride in one's culture by simple people. But to claim that these proselytisers were saving souls, whilst in reality they were increasing their power base, was fraudulent behaviour. So, it generally came back to the invaders simply seeking power and control of resources.

Conversely, it is the need to hold onto power and control of resources which substantially explains the initial reception of new settlers (with new cultures) by immigrant-seeking or immigrant-receiving nations. However, this concern did not seem to apply to continuing intakes into Australia of British immigrants. They joined a British people with British institutions and cultural traditions, until the of World War Two. In spite of full assimilation being unachievable initially because of the then virulence of a priest-sustained religious difference, it seems to me that the Irish received equitable treatment. Yet, I was told again and again by many Irish Catholics that the "prods" (including the Masons) discriminated against them – but could provide no evidence of this. This assertion sounded like an inherited mantra. Claimed differences in origins associated with distinctive accents (reflecting a divergent mother tongue from specific regional locations) could not prevent a fusion of the various tribes from the British Isles into a clearly new people, subsequently defining themselves into a new nation-state.

And so a British White Australia arrived in the Indo-Pacific region to stay. I know that when the British anthem was played - only a generation or so ago - before a film was shown or a concert, play or operatic performance commenced, everyone in the audience stood - including those who claimed to be Irish or of some European stock. Diversity of origin and ethnic pride did not deny unity of social conformity.

The early post war European immigrants, once the reffo phase was past, quietly (but with accents unabated) integrated into the nation. There were sufficient numbers of entrants from each national source or ethnic origin to provide community for those who needed it. I knew and socialised with many of these. I shared guest houses and rental properties with some. I went to university, ate out, was hosted by (and returned hospitality) with others. I chased after (or was chased by) very feminine European girls, two of whom had Nazi concentration camp numbers tattooed on their arms. There were days out at the seaside, picnics and barbeques. There was the opera, as well as plays. We blackfellows and wogs, "New Australians" and ethnics (the progression in terminology was indicative of our increasing acceptance) fitted in well, whilst some of us went "beering" and barbequing, or drinking awful tea and eating beautiful cakes, with Anglo-Celts (then commonly referred to as Anglo-Saxons) and Poms (immigrant English).

These early Europeans, their difference audible on public transport, lived quietly, made no demands, and went about their business. Given the circumstances under which they became acceptable immigrants, they could hardly seek any positions of power or influence. That might come if their children and their grandchildren received equal opportunity throughout their lives. From another perspective, the Germans had a bit of a rough time, as though no Australian had ever participated in wartime atrocities. The old Aussie's smug superiority, seemingly about every aspect of humanity, was something the displaced person and immigrant had to ignore. This was because rebuttal or retaliation required an adequate knowledge of the host people's language. But then, is it worth arguing the point with an "ignoramus"?

The Baltic people did express quietly some unhappiness at their new government not fighting strongly for the freedom of the Baltic states. I also received this message officially when representing my Minister at a Baltic people's social function. When the Hungarians and Czechoslovakian refugees arrived, they too, like so many other minority groups escaping nasty governments, quietly integrated themselves into their new home. I must have met a sample of every European nationality (or ethnicity) in Australia - for I tend to collect interesting people. One can have fascinating discussions and some argument, and learn a great deal. And I was surprised at the level of education of some of these early arrivals. These were mainly the displaced persons and other refugees. Some of them had better knowledge about Asian cultures than the Australians I met, even at university.

Then came the Mediterranean peoples. The Sicilians I met were darker than I was then (the Aussie sun has since got to me.) Yet, any mestizo or Anglo-Asian family had to look all white at that time to qualify for entry. Just as the sectarian war was papered over because of the arrival of true foreigners with accents, so the arrival of the southern Europeans made the earlier immigrants much more wanted than they had been when they landed on Australian soil. However, there came a significant fall off in the now sought-after northern immigrants wanting to migrate - the Scandinavians and the Germans. These had also offered substantial trade skills. As said earlier, it was the Greeks and Italians who later pressed for family reunion.

When the shortage of European immigrants began to be felt, Australia went shopping in the Levant. After a little heartburn by the policy makers and immigration officers, in came a goodly number of pure whites and near-whites. They also settled in well, tending to stay within their own communities, as did the Mediterranean arrivals. The ones who had fled Egypt when Colonel Nasser arrived were, however, truly cosmopolitan and multi-ethnic, offering a preview of what a multicultural society might look like. They were wonderful company. Purely as an aside, I had, in that period, interviewed candidates for promotion to senior positions in the Department of Immigration – in the context of promotion appeals.

With the end of the Vietnam war, and the influence of the USA, the recently muted long-standing fear of the yellow hordes actually (and to my great surprise) gave way to the arrival of Indo-Chinese refugees from the countries of first asylum, viz Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. Whereas the Europeans and those from the Middle East had not created any waves, the Vietnamese quickly became politically active and some displayed criminal gang behaviour. This was mostly against their own people. The Victorian police were not amused when a few of them were injured by armed Vietnamese, at the start of the Eighties. These thugs sought to tell us Aussies how to deal with Vietnam. My then official responsibility was to quieten the situation - and to educate the local Vietnamese leaders about democracy, due process, and just good behaviour by guests. I believe that my team was successful.

The mid-Seventies also saw, through the new global non-discriminatory immigration policy, the entry of a large number of Asians and other coloured people. Before that, a trickle of Asians had been accepted. Ministerial discretion accepted Asian spouses of Aussies. Asian doctors just walked in. Since Australia has excellent medical schools, the rationale for these admissions might have been that, if Australia had to take in coloured people, doctors, academics and (later) other professional people would be best. Some of the "Asians" were whites. The statistics only recorded country of departure to Australia. Other "Asians" were of mixed percentage - and these tend to see themselves as belonging to a white community, in spite of their often distant white ancestor representing only a small fraction of their heritage. Reason? Culturally, they had lived as near-Europeans; not pure enough to be white; but not inferior enough to be considered black or coloured. They therefore tended to form their own communities, based on Western social traditions. Any privilege under their white colonial masters could also not be continued after independence.

The initial Asian intake resulted in a higher social class of immigrants. They offered education, professional skills, competence in English, administrative skills, a commercial background and a generally cosmopolitan approach. They therefore represented a significant shift in the quality or profile of immigrants. The influx of many unskilled and unemployable Indo-Chinese refugees diminished somewhat this essentially middle class profile. However, the solidly middle class Vietnamese with education, trading skills, and (seemingly) a lot of gold represented a counter-balance.

I was most impressed with the organising ability and the community spirit of the Vietnamese when I represented the Minister for Immigration at a Moon Festival in Melbourne in the early Eighties. Similarly, the Hmongs (a tiny community) were equally impressive when they too staged a show in Melbourne. I was again the official representative. My presence and role would, I am sure, have given these new arrivals a good impression of their potential future.

There were also Filippino spouses galore - mostly genuine and very likeable. There were also Chinese "students" allegedly learning English - most of them reportedly not genuine. Then followed a trickle of immigrants from every part of the globe, representing every religion, almost every cultural tradition, and every trick in the book. The Aussie crims of yesteryear began to look like babes in the wood.

My response to a former Minister of the Crown had proven correct. He had asked me for a private view as to what might happen were Australia to have a fully open immigration door. My spontaneous reply was "Why would we want to assume that Australia has the best crooks in the world?" (He did say that he liked my reply.)

The absorption of new cultures has been, in spite of a few hiccups, remarkable. I give full credit for this to the Australian fair-go ethic. This is manifest where it matters most - on the streets, in the shops and workplaces, and at official counters. Of course there was (and still is) the usual display of prejudice by ignorant yobbos. For example, in a factory where I worked for a few weeks, one of the yobbos called out to me across the floor: "Hey, Rastus ...". Many of the early European immigrants had similar stories. But, the majority of Anglo-Celt Aussies and many European immigrants who, in my view, were not happy at all with the Vietnamese refugees, and who had some reservations about Asian immigrants, did not generally display their feelings publicly. We were all given a chance to prove ourselves as good settlers, as being willing to accept the Australian ethos, whilst our cultures, and some of our cuisine, remained a little suspect. "Why do you need to use chili and curry powder in your food?" is commonplace with the older generation.

There were also some tremendously good-hearted Anglo-Celts, especially the "Good Neighbour" people. These went out of their way to help those new arrivals who spoke little or no English, to settle in. I do wonder whether any other immigrant-receiving country has ever done this. Governments also preach tolerance. The media soon stopped identifying the former nationality of "New Australians" taken to court. In a church-going era, men of the cloth could bring together in prayer people of diverse origins. As the numbers grew, the immigrants' religious and community leaders also contributed to successful settlement. I was most impressed by a couple of Imams who were bonding Muslims from a number of countries into an Australian community. The men and women were being educated about gender relations in Australia, as well as the social conventions. At that time, these people were not receiving their fair share of government grants directed to providing equitable access to official and community services.

The loners from Europe (some of whom I came to know) were simply glad to start a new life in peace. Whilst most arrivals appeared to be better off in Australia - in economic terms \- many of the displaced people were not. The benefits of resettlement and freedom were partly offset by a reduction in the quality of life.

Migration is a most stressful enterprise, except for the adventurers, who are mostly young. Even the opportunists, seeking a better life through either the immigration door or the asylum door , would experience some initial difficulties. The true refugees (those fearing _state_ persecution) hopefully allow their gratitude to offset any settlement problems. The first requirement for new arrivals is somewhere to put down their heads (and bodies) whilst they went looking for work. When the government provided migrant hostels, this need was met, unless the new arrival had relatives or friends to help. During my time of responsibility for policy on migrant hostels, a most senior officer, but irresponsible republican, ordered: "Get rid of the Brits" (from the hostels). And so it came to pass.

Since policy cannot overtly discriminate against one source group of immigrants, all non-refugee immigrants were inequitably denied hostel accommodation on arrival. Only refugees and humanitarian entrants qualified (no Brits here). However, the East European humanitarian program was effectively a migration scheme, because there was no formal migration policy for these East European communist countries - except Yugoslavia. Almost any East European who turned up in Vienna or Rome could claim humanitarian entry - with free air travel and on-arrival accommodation.

Then a wannabe senior manager looking for ethnic kudos decided to close the migrant hostels, and spend millions of dollars on building attractive flats for the refugees. The Vietnamese, representing the major part of the refugee intake, would not, however, move into the flats. It was suspected that they wanted houses, so that they could accommodate others. So, even refugees can be fussy about what kind of assistance they were prepared to accept from the Australian taxpayer. Our program of settlement indoctrination was most efficient. Even refugees learnt to "stand on their _dig_ " (ie dignity), and shout for their rights, as perceived by their caring welfare counsellors. I was very intrigued, during the time I spent in managing each of the migrant and refugee settlement programs funded by the federal government, by the way English language teachers and welfare advisers in migrant hostels, migrant resource centres, and ethnic community centres were guiding new arrivals into the post-modern ethos of the newly emerging multicultural Australia: ask in hope, then whinge, attack, go political. The squeaky wheel can indeed get greased. Thrusting, adventurous immigrants (the term includes the economic refugees) soon became transformed into aggressive or whingeing mendicants.

So, is it surprising that illegal arrivals, travelling mainly by boat - not all leaky and dangerous; not all subject to attacks by pirates, demand unqualified entry, permanent residence, the full gamut of welfare and legal services, family reunion and comfortable housing? In this effort, they are supported by vociferous, aggressive relatives in Australia, other members of their own communities, and ethnic ginger groups (some violent). They are also assisted by (paid?) migration (and asylum) advisers, (paid?) immigration lawyers, and (quite commendably) many non-ethnic Aussies. The questions which might be asked are: how many of the supporters of the illegal arrivals were themselves admitted to Australia as asylum entrants, and given entry because of judgements which had regard for all manner of legal technicalities; or, in the absence of proof that the claims are legitimate, given the benefit of doubt; or even through political pressure? How many pay tax? Are the high flyers amongst the supporters willing to enter into a reasoned public debate on the implications and long term financial, economic, social and political consequences of their heart-on-sleeve proposals for policy change? That is, if they are not posturing for personal or political purposes.

In my time with R&H policy, I was made aware of the many lurks and perks in the business of seeking easy entry. For, it is evident that those attempting to force Australia's door are not prepared to accept the due-process operation overseas. Seeking R&H entry overseas might also not ensure entry. It is equally evident that illegal arrivals or over-stayers have more access, at no cost to them, to Australia's courts than citizen Joe Blow. Why should this be so? Equitable treatment to all in the country is eminently admirable. So, how do the illegal arrivals have easier access than those who contribute to the nation?

Has the time for a significant policy change arrived? Here are the major issues. The majority of R&H entry claimants seem to be economic refugees, ie seeking an improved life, as of course are the immigration applicants. In reality, very few people would be in genuine danger of persecution by their government. Claiming to be in fear of something or other may have become somewhat fashionable, especially if a higher quality of life beckons. Minority communities (especially small ones) everywhere can face some discrimination, eg non-white citizens of Israel. But such discrimination is not a threat to one's life or freedom. One is only a second class citizen. Humanitarian entry was a new door created mainly for religio-political purposes. It was for giving special entry to certain categories of people, viz. right-wing Catholics in Eastern Europe and East Timor, and left-wing Catholics in Latin America; or to enable the entry of specific categories of applicants who could not satisfy refugee entry criteria , say, Christians and Baha'is in the Middle East, or Jews in the USSR). Australia has taken, on a per capita of host people basis, a greater proportion of R&H entrants than any other country in the world. Such entry is, however, souring the charity of the bulk of the Australian population. It is both costly to the taxpayer and disruptive to community harmony. Is it therefore time to review the basis for evaluating refugee claims? It might also be timely to eliminate humanitarian and asylum entry, given the scope in those policies for political decisions favouring ethnic communities of choice, or of individuals with connections..

The wealthier nations of Europe may support such a review, because they are being flooded with illegal arrivals. Temporarily cheap, casual and illegal labour (as with the Mexicans in the USA) only leads to terrible exploitation. However, it would be difficult to sympathise with those former colonial nations whose chickens come home to roost - like the Algerians in France, and Pakistanis in Britain.

Given that the nations of Europe are at last joining together politically and economically, with free movements of labour and capital within the European Community, it can be expected that border protection against illegal entrants would be strengthened. However, national borders are reportedly decried by the Vatican. It will no doubt want starving Hindu Indians as well as poor Filippinos to have a right to move into a rich country like Australia, land-deficient Javanese to move into Irian Jaya, or Albanians into Italy. Nations and national borders are also challenged by some academics. They support the globalisation thesis, in the interest of economic efficiency. The objective is to reduce the operating costs of business enterprises, but without any regard for the quality of life of the workers, or any issues of economic and community relations management for governments. Nevertheless, it can be expected that existing borders will be held to be sacred - and to be defended. The inability of the Kurds to have their own state is indicative of this perspective.

That refugee camps can exist for half a century in the Middle East, whilst the Indo Chinese in refugee camps in South East Asia were quickly resettled or repatriated, calls into question the policies of UNHCR. What should its role be \- apart from providing accommodation, food, water and other facilities for displaced people? Should it be denied the role of inducing the governments of developed nations to resettle refugee claimants? That is, should its role, in relation to resettlement, be restricted to negotiating with governments the acceptance of those of like cultures or shared traditions? Does not the influx of relatively large numbers of people of a strongly different cultural tradition cause problems of settlement, in terms of harmony in inter-community relations? Fiji is a case in point. Or, Turks in Austria. Australia's experience is also worthy of study, especially in the light of the extent of ethnic criminality. Second generation Australians (ie the offspring of immigrants and refugees) who engage in illegal conduct arouse the distaste by older Australians for those ethnic communities which produced these criminals. Perhaps UNHCR should now focus on providing succour and subsequent repatriation only.

In any event, where lies the distinction between a displaced person and one who calls himself a refugee? Is a displaced person one who is willing, or wants, to return home? Whereas, if a displaced person who wants to live elsewhere calls himself a refugee and claims to be fearful of his return home - which might be for the normal human reasons rather than official persecution - does he have to be resettled? Is it his call? In this context, a claim of fear of discrimination should be, I believe, be disregarded. And the Australian Aborigine would agree with that sentiment I am sure.

In one case I assessed, the applicant claimed to be eligible for refugee status because his government was after him. His stated reason? He had set fire to a university building. So, was he simply a criminal? Or just a member of a warlord gang fighting another warlord gang? Indeed, is it sensible for Australia to provide resettlement for those involved in acts of criminality or brutality against some political faction, ethnic community or tribe in his home country, especially if this is normal conduct? Cynically, one might argue to the contrary - that, since former Nazis and others of that ilk had settled successfully in Australia, providing a safe haven in Australia for ex-killers and criminals from overseas should not really pose any problem.

All agreements in the international arena should, one would expect, be reviewed periodically, in order to be adjusted to prevailing circumstances. With international agencies increasingly eroding the sovereignty of nations, a national government needs to be mindful about how any international agreements entered into are interpreted by high-flying UN bureaucrats. One has to scrutinise introspectively the socio-political theories underlying their one-size-fits-all policies. These are developed by Western theorists paddling in the rough seas of the new eco-colonialism. The currents in these seas are driven by the morality-free imperatives, akin to a ferocious Atlantic storm, of unsheathed capitalism. For instance, the IMF is seen as an agent of US multinational corporations, because its nostrums are comparable to the practices of the more rabid "right-to-lifers" - one kills in order to save "life". The World Bank is seen as useful - but to whom? Commercial banks in the lending nations?

The laudable attempted protection of women and children has an underside. The rights assigned may not allow for roles and responsibilities which have evolved societally - and which may have a bio-evolutionary basis. With the Western world awash with rights, and an alleged total, including biological, gender equality, can there be any recognition of bio-social imperatives, rather than the traditional religo-social authoritarianism or the post-modern and nihilistic individualism? Are there also deeper currents in these and other apparently rights-driven international agency approaches? For instance, there was, relatively recently, an international agreement offered to Australia, reportedly supported by the Treasury. This agreement would have required Australia to offer equal treatment to foreign enterprises wishing to enter, or operate in, Australia. So much for national sovereignty or the need to protect the national interest. Protecting the national interest does not mean subsidising inefficient Aussie-owned enterprises; but then Australia has been protecting foreign-controlled Australian businesses for a very, very long time, has it not?

There was indeed a time not long ago, when the employees of a foreign company re-wrote a section of the Australian Government's policy on screening foreign investment. The revised policy exempted foreign-controlled mining companies in Australia from government intervention in any proposed mergers or acquisitions in specified circumstances. All that the foreign corporations had to do was to classify themselves as "deemed Australian" enterprises, even though they continued to be foreign controlled. To achieve this definition, a company had only to have an all-Australian management, and promise to progressively increase the equity held by Australians. Ah, the power of foreign investors, and the impressive "tickle my tummy" postures of Australia's rulers, and the free market advocates in the bureaucracy.

Indeed, when so many foreign takeover proposals were given conditional approval in my day, ie the takeover could proceed on condition that Australian equity in the foreign offeror achieved a set percentage within a specified period, I was not aware that there was any systematic follow-up to ensure compliance. The more recent availability of dual citizenship, and the near open door to foreign investors and CEOs, presumably in response to the inexorable drive to globalise all resource utilisation, would seem to have debauched Australian sovereignty, the associated concept of commitment to one's nation, and the national interest.

However, the display by the Australian government of its intent to protect the nation's borders against illegal arrivals appears to have the backing of the populace. The claimed trauma-driven, seemingly irrational behaviour of a few macho illegal arrivals, the criminal behaviour of some of their supporters in Australia, and the very vocal and legalistic intervention by a few sympathisers does not seem to have impressed the mainstream Aussie. Neither has UNHCR which, like so many medicos, focuses on moderating symptoms rather than on the treatment of causes.

My fellow Aussies may already be suffering from asylum overload. This is not surprising since, in their own lifetime, the configuration of the population and its ethnic profile, the cultural milieu and national identity, apart from the colour imbalance, have all changed dramatically - and, to them, far too drastically.

Consequently, academics and others have taken to alerting us all about our institutional Anglo-Celt heritage. No one, no ethnic interloper, no republican, no anti-British chauvinist New Australian can ever take away those British institutions which underpin the nation (and that of many a nation in Asia). There has certainly been some effort to down play Australia's heritage. One brave but pathetic effort was the claim that English is not the national language. One can only wonder whether the proponents of dual or multiple national languages had in mind the logical choice of Chinese, as an adjunct to American.

Australia does not have second-class citizens like the other developed Western nations, except the indigene. Examples are the exploited multi-hued under-class of the USA, and the near-white Hispanics at its southern border. In Europe, examples are the off-white, brown or black, citizenship-denied second generation "guest workers", or new arrivals from Eastern Europe, Asia and Africa. Of course, anyone working illegally can be, and will be exploited - especially by their very own people with legal residence. This seems to be happening in Australia too.

The way industrial relations are developing would suggest that Australian policy makers are attempting to take the nation into the Asian mould. The essential characteristics of this mould include dirt-cheap labour, working under a range of conditions, mostly awful to reasonable. The Asian middle class, which contains within it the potential either for social reform or revolution, is paid well enough to have a better lifestyle than its counterpart in Australia. The rulers take obscene levels of remuneration. These are the features that our politicians and company directors are seemingly trying desperately to emulate.

It is against this trend that the proliferating, rights-proselytising proponents of freer entry of illegal arrivals, and the prattling pushers of a policy of increasing immigration into Australia, are joined. The nation already has a substantial under-class of under-employed, equivalent to an estimated twenty five percent or more of the potential work force. How many more kebab retailers does the country need? Will the few white Aussie dwellers in rural towns accept significant members of Asians who speak little English? Will the wannabe refugees be competent to enter the service (especially hospitality), education and IT industries, claimed to be the saviour industries for a glorious new future for Australia? After all, the agricultural and mining bodies do not need able-bodied people. The new manufacturing industries are seemingly skills-based.

What sort of businesses can the unskilled asylum entrants commence? Who will finance them? Who will be their employers - their own people? When Chinese or Indian medical specialists have often to rely on GPs of their own kind for referrals ......! Does Australia then become a nation of co-existing ethnic communities, separated by language and class differences, and waiting for two generations (about fifty years) before the ethnic boundaries can be expected to fall away? Can that happen under current policies?

With the recent official emphasis on multiculturalism, now transformed into ethnic diversity , were not the ethnic communities being invited or encouraged to retain those of their cultural traditions which are not inconsistent with those of Australia's institutions, and ideological and social mores? Retention of ethnic pride can lead to ethnic preferment (ie discrimination) in jobs, and commercial transactions; and prejudice against cross-cultural or cross-ethnic marriages. Just when ethnic or tribal prejudice is breaking down in Australia ......!

Census data apparently show that thirty percent of Australia's population represents a mix of up to eight ethnic origins. Taking out the English, Irish, Scots and (perhaps) Welsh, ie those who created British Australia (once referred to as Anglo-Australian), that leaves only four foreign infusions. I suspect that these four, whatever their origins, do not amount to any significance worth extolling. I have had many, many early acquaintances who proclaimed that, in their background, they had an identifiable Scandinavian or French or German or Danish ancestor - these were the ones to be proud of. More recently, the odd South and East Mediterranean, East European, or Chinese was identified. What happened to the Singhalese, Aboriginal, Afghan, or Melanesian ancestor? Further, some of that ethnic mixture came in already mixed. Australia cannot claim any credit for that.

Yet, there is clear evidence that ethnic delineations are being ignored. This poses no difficulty with marriages within the one religion, depending on whether the mothers of both parties are able to talk to each other. The good news for Australia is that Greeks, Chinese and others not within mainstream faiths are also marrying across ethnic boundaries.

Without the intervention of tribal leaders, ie the priests and politicians, it takes about three generations of living together before inter-ethnic acceptance and marriage become non-controversial. The reality is that, in most nations, ethnic affiliations are persuasive in behaviour. Even in the great migrant-welcoming nations such as the USA, Canada and Australia, ethnicity rules conduct, where culturally linked to religion. So, what are the Australia politicians burbling about when they proudly extol the extent of ethnic diversity in the country?

Crucially, senior politicians tend to highlight the wide range of restaurants and cuisines as a gain. So much for their own ancestral cuisines! Some point to the East Asian businessmen who allegedly brought with them large amounts of capital, together with their business acumen and overseas contacts. How many of these invested in Australia or even stayed in Australia? Other politicians talk about the racial or ethnic tolerance displayed by the new arrival. How so? Unless he came from a tolerant multi-racial or multi-ethnic or multi-religious society, how could he possibly know what effective multiculturalism is?

In fact, some migrants, probably only the uneducated ones, indicate very clearly that they despise not only Australia mores, but also other cultures. To these, Australia is only a place to make a buck, in any way, whilst they live their separate lives. It is the Australian-born young adults from such communities who refer to white fellow-Australians as "you Aussies". Are these fellows (they are usually male) mentally ill? Or is their behaviour only retaliation for the prejudice and discrimination they might have experienced as they grew up?

Official rhetoric now emphases the many languages and national origins found in the country. So what? Well, this shows the world that we are tolerant of difference; that we are not racist; that we have lost the emphasis on whiteness so carefully constructed over a century. Quite correct. So, whose hands are on the levers of political and social control in the nation? (Any ethnics around here, mate?) Essentially a handful of every kind of grain ever known to man spread sparsely over a large of field of wheat changes not that field of wheat, does it? How would Australia like to live with the strikingly diverse ethnic mix of China (where the Han - however ethnically modified by history - is top dog); or of Russia (whose ethnic and cultural diversity transcends that of Australia)?

Still, the Anglo-Celt and the earlier arrivals are learning to live with perceivable difference and diversity. This is really no hard task for those imbued with that fantastic fair-go philosophy. But what about the newcomers? How do they treat others, when they have no experience of living in a mutually tolerant, multi-ethnic society? Or when they deem their culture to be superior to that of the locals - because they have thousands of years of civilisation behind them. Or because they are ethnically or culturally pure. Or because their people beat the pants off somebody or everybody not that long ago, or taught them to rule or defend themselves. Or because they are closer to, or even chosen by, God?

There is some evidence that some of Australia's recent arrivals have little understanding of the imperatives of a free society. Stridently aggressive, they sought and obtained racial vilification legislation. How satisfying to them! How does this legislation protect a coloured Australian child on public transport from a racist yobbo? What effective protection is there from denial of a job, a promotion, or political pre-selection to a coloured adult, because "he is not one of us"? It has to be recognised that anyone, irrespective of ethnicity, can act in a discriminatory manner because of ignorance or prejudice. All that this legislation can do is to correct unwise utterances by silly people, whilst polishing up the complainant's tribal ego, and strengthening unnecessarily Australia's ethnic barriers.

What does preferment for a heavy-handed legislative approach to building ethnic tolerance imply for current and future community relations? Is there not a clear statement of tribal pride and separation here? Indeed, anyone criticising the government of Israel will, almost certainly, be accused of being anti-Semitic. When there was ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, young Aussies took off to fight for their homeland. Some Singhalese attempted to introduce Sri Lanka's ethnic problem into Australia. It requires only an unrepresentative handful of any ethnic community, whose tribal arrogance exceeds their allegiance to Australia, to sour the perception of that community by mainstream Australians (who now include most of us early immigrants). Will mutual co-existence be then the norm long into the future?

How does the nation-state build itself a new kind of Australia in this situation? In any event, can there be any single identity? Granted that national identity is probably a bundle of ideational and imagined identities, how long, if ever, before a new national identity evolves? A meaningful but durable national identity cannot surely be distilled from the platform of ethnic diversity, which is a commonplace in so many parts of the world. Hence, what attributes in the Australian smorgasbord of cultures are deserving of being mythified, to contribute to that bundle of national identity?

Multicultural policy was introduced so that the Anglo-Celt Aussie could move back a little in the national sandpit, to allow the ethnics an improved chance of playing in that pit. In terms of enhancing the broad tolerance which already existed, it was successful. The policy was also intended to encourage each ethnic community to display more tolerance towards the other communities. Initially, this did not happen. It was always them (the Aussie) and us (the migrant). Tolerance and respect for cultural traditions, by all, of all, has some way to go. When that desired tolerance is achieved, will the borders of mutual coexistence become more flexible? One would hope so, if the education system continues to foster the development of a national, not tribal, attitude; and - this is crucial - that the priesthood participates in this nation building. So, no more attempts to change anybody's religion? No further claim to exclusive rights to salvation? I await in hope!

My faith in the future was exhilaratingly strengthened by what I saw in child care centres within migrant hostels. It was fascinating and warming to see little children from Eastern Europe, East Asia, and South America playing together - and the manner in which mostly unqualified but motherly migrant carers related to them. What was incredible was that the carers had a much smaller range of languages between them than did the migrants whose children were at these centres! This was the true foundation of the new Australia. And, since young children do not see colour on skin, or hear any accent, if the ethnic, cultural or religious troglodytes do not intervene, one can joyously hold hopes for a commendable new national identity to evolve, and for true equity and human aspirations to be achieved.

Regretfully one cannot ignore Australia's underbelly when one talks about its cultural future. Whilst the ethnic and mainstream populace continue to improve their maypole dance routines, the Australian Aborigine stands on the sideline, not even able to look in. In the main, he represents a sub-culture that is so exclusive that it is excluded from society, and from equal opportunity. As an imported blackfellow, I am uncomfortable at the way the Aborigine is seen and treated. Will the treatment he receives rub off onto my descendants?

Is the Australian indigene a part of Australian multiculturalism? Apparently not. Not that long ago, a senior official chastised his Jewish and Asian juniors for suggesting that ethnic affairs policy should be inclusive - that it should include the black Australian. The European ethnic chief was focusing instead on ethnic empowerment. Indeed, soon after, ethnic leaders sought plural service delivery ie migrant services managed and delivered by the ethnic communities, at the taxpayers' expense. It was as though officialdom, at all levels, could not learn to provide, or enable, adequate access to services, both public and private, to immigrants through mainstreaming.

Mainstreaming refers to the inclusion of specific migrant settlement assistance services in the normal structures of government services. This would involve having staff who spoke requisite languages at the post office, the immigration sponsorship counter, the welfare office, and so on; as well as a telephone interpreter service and a document translation service. Just for the record, I managed policy on the last two services in the early Eighties, extending them from beyond the capital cities to rural areas. My objective was also to have a twenty four-hour service. Mainstreaming could deliver requisite languages better than the taxpayer funded migrant resource centres, which often relied (as I observed) upon family members to interpret information provided in English to non-English speaking immigrants. How structures change, leaving conduct unchanged And at what taxpayer cost!

Millions of dollars have been spent on migrant settlement assistance. An emphasis on only on-arrival assistance (including temporary accommodation), through mainstreaming, would have cost the taxpayer less - and operating for a lesser period; and with less unachieved and unwarranted ethnic expectations. In contrast, there is a lot less emphasis on assisting the Australian indigene to integrate into the Aussie mainstream and on meeting his education, health and employment needs - no matter where he lives. The indigene is not a homogeneous citizen. The urban ones have different needs relative to the rural ones - most of whom have so much white blood that they must have all-white relatives living close by. The full-blooded ones, or those whose white gene quotient has not diminished their links with the land and its associated Dreamtime, have different needs again. Governments have an undeniable responsibility to provide basic services to all in the nation. Three levels of government stand condemned by history, justice, and international comparisons.

Because the indigenes want as much self-determination as can be achieved, they have fallen into the hands of those whites who yet want the Aborigines to assimilate and to be totally like them, ie to live as the whites do. I do not believe that doing so has helped the Amerindians whose lands were expropriated without recompense. Why on earth should the Australian Aborigines not have their own lifestyle, with sovereignty over whatever land is available? That is, if they can acquire the necessary land; or be compensated for the theft of their land, thus enabling them to buy the land they need.

The issue of sovereignty was, of course, carefully ignored by the High Court when it tipped the bucket on _terra nullius_ , and on all those Aussie jurists of yesteryear who bent international law to suit the squattocracy and other land grabbers. Whilst native title rights have been eroded by a government in apparent debt to its mining and pastoral constituencies, the issues of appropriate compensation for stolen land, "stolen" (ie illegally removed) children, and Aboriginal sovereignty, loom as a future nightmare for both government and High Court. One can only hope that the idealogy of their religious or social beliefs moderates any further bending of international law or turning a blind eye to common law and justice.

The claim by Aboriginal leaders to self-determination has enabled governments to avoid their core responsibilities regarding the provision of basic services. It is as if they say that if the natives want to do their own thing, let them do it - knowing that they do not have the funds to match their ambitions. It will be a long time before the indigenes will sort themselves out. They have an awesome task ahead. They need to overcome historical memories which demean them, and to de-condition themselves from so many destructive practices and attitudes. They need to build up their self-esteem, ego, competence, and ethnic pride _en masse_ ; and to claim their share of the sun and of that traditional fair-go ethos.

Divisions about native title and land rights also cause splits among the Aboriginal people. The sort of tribal tensions and prejudices that are evident in the simpler or less developed Asian or African societies come to mind. Until the indigenes act as a unified people, they are not going to enjoy any sovereign rights or even achieve the services they need in relation to health, education and employment; or for that matter, in the outback, the more basic life-sustaining services like water. Indeed, certain cynics have suggested that successive governments have sought to trade the provision of basic services and equal opportunity for withdrawal of claims for land, compensation, and self-determination.

Until the issue of Aboriginal welfare and progress is settled, Australia cannot hold up its head internationally, except perhaps in the company of the USA - which too has a very black human rights history. If equitable treatment is denied to black Australians, can other coloured Australians expect any different? After all, many blacks are not so readily distinguishable from people from the Indian sub-continent - presumably because of their common Caucasian genetic inheritance. If the Australian indigene is not an early form of Caucasian, (as believed by many scientists in earlier times), the European genes in the mixed-bloods would certainly bring them closer to those Asians with Caucasian forebears. Is the brown Asian any safer from discrimination than the indigene? If not, what is all that pride in ethnic diversity about?

The truth is that Australian society has to consciously blacken itself a little before it can claim to be a tolerant, ethnically diverse nation-state, with its citizens evolving into one people, the new internally-tanned Australian.

### Chapter 3

A Silent Slippage

People will not look forward to posterity, who never look

backward to their ancestors.

-Edmund Burke

Anyone brought up surrounded by what is known as Asian values, in that escalating culture war between East and West, will be quietly despondent about the deterioration in Australian families. What are the changes which have emerged, like a slowly rising volcano from the deep seas of a violently disrupted ocean? When and how did these changes come about? What impacts of these changes are manifest, and what are their consequences?

The most significant change I see is loss of respect. A minor manifestation is the use of first names by everyone (generally the less educated). Some parents actually encourage this. Older relatives, even grandparents, can be addressed by their first names. The children do not know that this practice contradicts the tradition amongst all civilised peoples - of respecting age, status, hierarchy, authority, wisdom, and such like. Yet, it is only an extension of the attempted classless society sought by the descendants of the foundation convict class. This loss of respect does not mean any diminution in our collective capacity to care. Indeed, we ensure greater care than ever - but mainly by that impersonal State, with paid carers.

Does loss of personal respect lead to a reduced capacity to love? I am beginning to think so. For, love is a splendiferous feeling which, when manifest, puts that other (or others) before self. At minimum, love is a superbly enhanced form of mutual obligation. However, in a member state of the Ultra-West, where the individual, with his near-absolute rights, is king, self-adulation is a close cousin of self-identity and self-respect.

A tragic consequence of a diminished capacity to love would then be an erosion of that sense of responsibility which underpins our human and extra-human relations. Responsibility, which implies mutuality, is an attitude. Lose that sense, and you are little more than a member of a pack of animals. You run, hunt and associate with that pack. This provides physical security, but without obligation. Essentially, you do your own "thing", but in company, focusing upon your own needs and wants exclusively.

Such a stance might be evident - and expected -when unattached immigrants set out to create a new life in a new place. Later, mutually supportive groups might evolve. Still later, families might settle down together. I have been advised that this did not happen in any significant fashion in Australia until the 1880s. That family life was the core of social existence was clear when I arrived in 1948. I left an environment in which family and clan were the bedrock of community life and survival - and my near antecedents, like those of most of us in Malaya (except the Malays) were also migrants.

After half a century of an active participatory life in Australia, I, those of my vintage, and the many others I have met who have been affected by the destruction of their families, despair at the erosion of family values so evident \- and confirmed by research studies. Debilitated families in a nation which had offered for decades fair treatment to all (except, of course, the indigene), tear the fabric of society. This has tremendous and wide-spread consequences - from the extent of government and bureaucratic intrusion into the lives of the people, to the economic, social, and spiritual poverty of those caught in the currents of destruction. Only two major social under-currents prevail to stem the destructive forces - a durable civil society, manifest in the voluntary provision of all manner of services to the community at large or to sectors within it; and that almost atmospheric old-Aussie glow of a fair-go ethic which, whilst becoming a little dimmed, yet remains a beacon guiding the people towards the future.

Amongst the very, very poor in Asia, and there are lots and lots of them (even amongst the employed), the women who have to work often have an older person to help look after the children. Sometimes, the older children take on that role. Greedy soul-less employers can, however, employ children under the most terrible exploitative conditions. They can do this because they see human beings as little different from beasts of burden - except for their own family. Thus, they can participate without guilt in ritualistic prayer, seeking more and more from their God or ancestors. Both caste and class differences can, and will be, fully exploited.

For example, in cosmopolitan Singapore, the media reported that a Chinese academic and his wife would not allow their Filippino maid to step on their expensive lounge carpet. Another Chinese, the wife of a very wealthy businessman, allegedly beat their expatriate servant frequently. The latter had to work seven days a week from dawn to nearly midnight, irrespective of the nation's strict labour laws. Yet, both couples would be only two generations away from that peasant who arrived penniless from China, seeking survival. By being heartless (and therefore uncivilised) are such people denying their humble origins? This scenario would apply in all the communities throughout the length and breadth of the Asian continent.

This is because economic development has created an extremely wealthy upper class, which has taken more cream off the top, as did the rulers in earlier times, than their counterparts in Australia know how. A middle class also evolved. It too is rewarded most handsomely. But it has yet to develop that strong civil society which is a measure of the human wealth of the people and their progress up the ladder of the new capitalist-democratic culture. Thus, the two top classes ride most comfortably on the shoulders and backs of those below - who are, of course, grateful for the jobs, the security, and the crumbs which fall off their masters' tables. Because of that vast disparity in wages and other remuneration, servants are most affordable. However, because of full employment, caste distrust, or ethnic superiority, foreign servants (more exploitable) are employed on contract. Strangely, full employment has not lifted the standard of living of those at the bottom level - perhaps because of the lack of a strong trade union movement, and certainly because of authoritarian governments. Yet, in the two Asian nations I know well, there is increasing opportunity for self-betterment through education.

Under the prevailing ("Asian") values, authority is respected, especially if one's leaders are seen to develop the nation and to guide the people. The argument that continuing huge national savings are necessary for on-going economic development, and that social development has to wait, is generally accepted - except by the few educated in Western countries. These can see how a more equitable society can be achieved; and who know how their official and commercial rulers live. To these authoritarian rulers, Australia's equitable society has to be a worry. Almost in tandem, some of Australia's political and business leaders would seem to be working for a society more akin to the Asian ones. In this hope or endeavour, some of Australia's union leaders have made a sufficient contribution, by being over greedy, and with little regard to the national interest.

Yet, no matter how poor the Asian nations are, how underdeveloped, how inequitable, each society is held together by the integrity of the extended family, with its emphasis on mutual obligation and respect. The attempts by American interests to break up any family-controlled giant manufacturing and commercial enterprises in, say, South Korea and Japan, are illustrative of the Ultra-West's belief that individualism fosters economic efficiency. Such overwhelming greed by multinational public corporations represents a vast cultural gulf. It is almost akin to a Lothario wanting to get into the pants of every presentable woman he sees.

Authority within families continues to be respected in Asia. This is visible even amongst those who had migrated to Australia a generation ago. Traditional values and responsibilities remain and are respected - not only by habituation, but also through the recognition (through education) that they have evolved over time, been tested through history, and then endured. Institutions which endure do not automatically imply fossilised minds. Neither do they indicate that they have been hijacked by those holding power. This is not to deny that fundamentalist Christians and Muslims (the most obvious examples) have ridden on the backs of tradition in such a way as to distort history, in order to obtain and maintain undue power, and the control of people's lives. Mind controllers are indubitably the worse kind of jailers.

Young Asians who have studied in the West, and being exposed to other cultures and traditions, return home, and continue with the old traditions and customs. They do not behave as if their higher levels of education or professional or technical training, or their exposure to the environs of their once-superior foreign masters places them above the older generations in some way. In this context, it is worth noting that, before world war two, some young Asians who had married white women whilst in the West, had been accused by their new white relatives of "going native" on their return home. Going native refers to the Asian essentially fitting back into the traditions governing relationships within the family, the food eaten, the clothes worn, and such like. So, when white wifey says to Asian hubby, when they are in his parents' home, "Darling, get me a drink, please", all hell breaks loose if the guy gets up (as he might have done in wifey's home overseas) to get that drink. That she should even make such a request confirms the Asian parents' perception (through their exposure to expatriate colonials) that whites are essentially uncouth, and affirms the unsuitability of the white wife. Thus, even before the West's societal values began to change so drastically, detrimentally and progressively in the second half of the twentieth century, there were already some significant differences between East and West about appropriate social conduct and the underpinning rationale for the respective cultural values.

Contemplating the vast tidal post war changes in Australia, one needs to ask what the triggers were. There was no American tv to influence us then. What changes followed? Many women have told me that when their husbands came home from the war, they had discovered that their "little women" had changed. The women had run the farm or family business, or gone to work, and also managed the household. They did not need to be told how to conduct themselves. And they never lost that relative freedom. Not surprisingly, this set up some tensions. Later, the availability of the contraceptive pill bolstered the wife's rights to increased freedom, whilst hubby would have relished more child-free copulation. Promiscuous girls could also more freely satisfy their libidinal drives without parental interference.

The expansion of manufacturing industry through arrangements between the government and foreign capitalists, and to be protected by high tariffs, produced jobs aplenty. The nation's infrastructure also needed expanding, producing more job opportunities. Families actually had spare money to spend, and children were spoilt - to compensate for the difficult days of the Depression and the deprivations of wartime. Added to the freedom from some traditions and economic freedom was the osmotic pressure for increased social, intellectual and spiritual freedom. I have been told by migrants from Britain, Germany and other Western countries that this was also the experience in their countries of origin after the second world war.

The motive power was something in the air. One can understand intuitively that sense of exhilaration of being freed from an oppressive invader or harsh wartime conditions. The joy of having that heavy cloud of uncertainty removed, and a thrusting expectation that life could only improve, would lead to new expectations. There would be new and expanding horizons offering wonderful vistas. Such optimism can lead to petty social restrictions being kicked aside. Is it surprising that, in freer societies, "flower people" and hippies should surface, wanting to do their "thing", with intellectuals seeking freedom from repressive priesthoods, and the right to read, think and act freely?

All manner of silly restrictions went by the board, in time. One of these was the need to drive twenty miles beyond city limits to buy an alcoholic drink on a Sunday afternoon, ie after church services, which drew fewer and fewer attendees. But there was no limit to the amount a driver could drink. Men's swimming trunks had to have a skirt built onto them. That was another silly requirement.. Censorship of reading material was yet another. The basis of societal restrictions is normally the need to enhance, if not to impose, moral conduct. Since the powerful in any nation have always been free to ignore moral codes, it was the working class whose appetites and behaviour which were to be curbed, with the sober and morally uptight middle class acting as watchdog. Thus it has always been throughout all societies.

But, when the middle class in Australia also took off its customary ideological chains, there were freedoms flowing like over-fed rivers running through a flat plain, continually fed by very heavy rains. The politicians, the judiciary, the common man and woman, then the children, and then the bureaucrats, all participated in the creation of freedom, in the exercise of freedom, and in some flowering of the intellect. All sorts of rights were formulated, claimed and exercised. Judges made law to compensate for any deficiencies by the politicians. Lawyers, feminists, gays, and anyone else who could think up a right had a go, pushing the boundaries even further. There are so many rights about that the lawyers and judiciary would soon have even more fun attempting to balance some of them. But, has anyone remembered the obverse side of the rights coin, ie responsibility?

Then the nation progressed to the financially rewarding approach that someone has to be at fault for any mishap. God, the laws of chance, and nature can not be involved. Neither is personal folly nor carelessness. When there is no public liability insurance cover available, and there are no assets to lose, then only will citizens be safe from those exercising one of these splendiferous new rights - to sue in hope, or with false righteousness. However, it needs to be recognised that some judicial decisions in the past have indeed encouraged the greedy to go fishing, whilst whingeing about the terrible damage to their self-esteem, psychic peace, enjoyment of sex, and other intangible and unprovable symptoms. The pop-psychologists in women's magazines also have a lot to answer for.

So, what are the features of the current Aussie society which bode ill for the future?

A nation's children represent its future, its old the past. The children take their society into the future. The health of the society reflects very substantially the way the children were themselves shaped. The old carry the memories of how they were shaped and what they contributed to their society. They would reflect on what might have been and on what perhaps should be. Between the children and the old is the intermediate generation. It is too often far too busy shaping the present, to reflect on what it is it is doing and on the consequences. Thus their children, who too will have a similar role, are being shaped in a way that is almost atmospheric. This situation will not improve unless their grandparents provide a longer term perspective as to what their families are experiencing, what they should be experiencing, and why.

Should that intermediate generation of parents introduce new paradigms, reflecting new values, thereby moderating and modifying the conditioning it received, then there will be a split between the old and their offspring. The continuity of values and practices throughout the generations will now be broken. It will, indeed, be splintered if the young adults, in an atmosphere extolling individual freedoms and rights, unilaterally claim to know best. The break with the past will be even more dramatic, and possibly drastic, were the young adults and their children to be influenced by foreign cultural values. This can eventuate through foreign-controlled media , eg tv programs and films. If this were to occur, they might not be aware that the new coloniser uses the media, rather than his priests, to acquire cultural and ideological control.

Any effort by young adults to re-invent the wheel would lead to the accumulated knowledge, and some wisdom, and a lot of practical cunning of the older generation, to be wasted. The logic of traditional roles and responsibilities cannot even be transmitted, much less explained. It is already said that mankind is on the road to repeating the mistakes of its grandparents, because the intermediate generation is "up itself" about its vast new wisdom and infallibility. But I demur. I think that it is only that the young bull (and cow), having challenged the old bull (and old cow) with new perspectives, forgot to take full responsibility for ensuring that the paddock is in good shape for the next season.

It is easy to forget ones responsibilities for the future when previous generations are not around to guide. In settled Australian communities, the current generation of young parents born post war, might be the first generation to be so exposed. The "structured rituals" (which also reflect a traditional pattern of intra-familial respect) at regular and frequent gatherings of the extended family can enable a more focussed approach to requisite action. Having regard for the collective will diminish some assertions of individual rights. After all, it was the collective which nurtured the individual. It is the collective which sustains him. One does not exist like a dog in a pack, snarling and fighting for one's rights.

Increasingly, each older generation is being shut out of involvement in what would be a collective consultation, guidance and, possibly, decision making. Any money available from older to younger can, of course, be snapped up. In some instances, this can even deny the parents a home. However, parental love is not like a tap in this scenario. It is the plight of the aged that should be a community concern.

For an Asian, the role and situation of the aged in Australia is deplorable. About a third of the aged live alone, fending for themselves. This is a continuation of a tradition of each family having its own home (surely a universal modern tradition). Each generation has enjoyed its independent lifestyle. But there seems to be an imbalance in reciprocal responsibility. The young, having been nurtured to adulthood, seem to take off without looking back at the needs of their ageing parents.

As one ages, one is beset by all manner of fears, illnesses, and malfunctioning body parts. The superb skills of surgical and medical specialists keep life going, whilst cancer, a failing heart, worn-out joints, and other serious ailments are kept at bay temporarily. The aged are kept alive, because that is the medical ethos - even if it is only for further surgery and life-support machines. This is apparently not a problem, because the aged seem to fear death. What have the priests done to them?

I have seen some terrible instances of the aged fending for themselves in isolation, eg a woman with a walking frame pushing a motorised lawn mower, another struggling up the street daily with her shopping and so on. I was told of an old man patiently sitting in his chair waiting for someone to come into his home to change the video tape, and to help him do everything else. So many just wait, and wait, for the Grim Reaper. What goes through their minds as they wait?

Yet, it must be said that some of the aged, having fiercely insisted on living their own lives when they were in good health, perhaps also to avoid being child minders and to be able to travel, now feel that they cannot back down. Others actually prefer their separate existence (for existence is all it is). In any event, there is this self-centred expectation, stridently asserted by those in need (and their non-supportive adult offspring) that the government should step in to provide whatever is required. Their rationale? They had paid their taxes for years!

This is a reflection of a long-gone era when a social security levy was tacked onto the income tax. Because the levy was subsequently incorporated into the tax, today's elderly claim a right to have all their financial and welfare needs met by government. This logic is, at least, more acceptable than the unceasing whinge, not only by welfare recipients, but also by some agents of delivery, that the welfare cake is not big enough. These agents can include even those senior public servants who are paid to find an appropriate balance between taxpayer rights and welfare needs.

When the aged cannot look after themselves, whether they have lived by themselves or with relatives, they are shunted off to retirement villages and nursing homes. What happened to the bonds of family, to reciprocal responsibility, and to love? Is it only the busy rich who have the greatest difficulty in looking after the frail aged? I can remember from my early days in Australia, that many an enclosed verandah or a tacked-on room in small suburban homes housed grandma (who usually outlasts grandpa). That traditional "Hooroo! Look after yourself", called out by the departing visitors to the retirement home, says it all. Is it also true that the aged are left in isolation or placed in institutions so that they are not disturbed by the chatter of children, and the clatter and clutter of the family home? Such cynicism is, however, not fair to those who are middle aged, and busy, busy, busy with their careers, asset acquisition, and, for some, a yuppie lifestyle.

Although the federal government spends a great deal of money in subsidising nursing homes for the frail aged, apparently a shortage of capital restricts the availability of nursing home accommodation. The richest generation in the history of Australia does not seemingly wish to contribute significant capital to obtain the nursing home accommodation it needs. The reason? The family home might have to be sold. Both the aged and their ageing offspring want to avoid that. The explanation might lie in the fact that, in order to receive as much of the aged pension as possible, financial assets are locked into an over-large "family home" in which the aged rattle round; and this home is intended to be passed onto the next generation.

The irony of this situation is that the hopeful offspring are the "baby boomers", born at, or after, the end of the war. The boomers represent the most spoilt generation in the history of Australia. This generation is likely to spend its inheritance, leaving little to the next. So, those aged, with grandchildren who are not exactly economically viable in the age of globalisation, privatisation, and so on, are starting to worry about having to help their grandchildren. It would seem that, of the three generations involved, only the oldest has that sense of needing to provide for the future. In contrast, their successors would seem to have little respect for the past or the future - only the present.

What a conundrum. It would be quite fascinating to watch developments except that the taxpayer is being fleeced. What is worse is that, like so many of the other government regulatory agencies which seem to have a tendency to sit on their hands, the regulators of nursing homes have been accused of not protecting adequately the frail aged from some unacceptable regimes and practices. As a former public servant, I do not need to wonder what many senior bureaucrats do. They tread water with languid style.

When one sees the way the frail aged exist in retirement villages, one can only wonder why their lives are being prolonged, and at such expense - in pain to the patient, and to the government budget. The sight of a line of old women, just sitting, sitting, is despairing. And the silence as they sit! What are they thinking or feeling? Who cares? Have Western societies forgotten how to deal with the normal progression from life through illness to death? Are the seriously ill aged denied a dignified death - in the belief that life must be preserved at all costs? The longer one lives or is kept alive, the greater the mental and physical deterioration. Further, in an era when self-esteem and psychological well-being are fashionable precepts for living, is Australia's treatment of its aged humane?

If it is true that three generations of family cannot get along together, what happened in earlier, economically harsher times? How do Asian families manage? Is what is happening in Australia a consequence of the feminist ideal - that not only is woman equal to man, but woman is equal to woman. Therefore women from two generations cannot live in the same home? Why? Because traditional roles, responsibilities and status differences do not allow the younger woman equal rights with the older? Is it also because even a modern feminist sees her home as her personal nest? That is, is it the case that the more social paradigms change operationally, the more they remain the same emotionally?

Is the modern woman of the Ultra-West (which would exclude the Catholic nations and those other Western nations still guided by religion-linked traditions of family integrity) being used by the forces of Destiny to destroy peoples who have exchanged faith in a Creator, for faith in their individual ability to achieve the wealth and orgasms they seek? Will the fortresses of material and financial success be undermined by an increasing inability to respect and tolerate others, to accept the restrictions imposed by the dicta of reciprocal responsibility, and to recognise that the needs of children and the imperatives of a stable society do over-ride the _wants_ of the individual?

Claims by two-income families for the taxpayer to subsidise _their_ costs of child care is a case in point. "I want, you give" is their theme. Why? Because the taxpayer is expected to satisfy the material, rather than the maternal, needs of a career woman. If this is to the detriment of the psychic satisfaction of the child, and to society? A tiny baby can also be dumped into childcare for five days a week and for up to ten hours per day, thus depriving it of _maternal_ love. Does this cause any deep emotional concern in the soul of the career woman or the fast acquisitor of assets? Suggestions that the psychological development of the infant might be impaired in some way by this practice, bring forth the most vituperative attacks by the child care industry. The industry is not exactly at arm's length in this business. Single mothers employed mainly by the media and in academia also join in the attack. Are they capable of being objective in any analysis of cause and effect in this arena? The attack can also be joined by other middle class seekers of welfare subsidies, and by those rights-asserting feminists, a few of whom have been accused of thinking with their vaginas and feeling with their wallets.

Any research result which does not support the current ethos will be not only poo-poohed, but also denied and attacked. The ethos that children are the property of the mothers underpins this stance. That the psycho-social needs of early childhood can be met by the husband-less mother alone, even by a career woman working full time, is then asserted. The mother's sense of satisfaction in combining a full time career with a limited part-time mothering apparently offsets any long term psychic alienation of the child. A father is also held to be unnecessary as the child develops. Presumably, the initial provision of a squirt of DNA is unavoidable. In this context, other quaint claims can be noted: that lesbian and gay couples are _entitled_ to have or possess a child by any means; and that parenting requires no prior training or on-going guidance. Clearly, there is no need for the acquired wisdom of the past, there being those women's and new age magazines quoting self-made gurus. Experts will then pontificate about the contrary conclusions that can be drawn from the research results that they deny. In doing so, presumably, they will tap into that feeling in their waters.

Strangely, officialdom accepts _what is_ as the norm. Policies are introduced on this basis to ameliorate the more deleterious symptoms of the malaise, ie to apply band-aid solutions. The consequences? The new value paradigms become entrenched. But the solutions are usually inadequate, either because even newer paradigms are being fashioned, or more serious consequences arise. The slippery slope syndrome (so popular with ethicists defending their church when its nostrums are challenged) then sets in. Can there be a reversal to social stability based on an objective re-evaluation of the causes of the destruction of the family, and the fraying of the fabric of society?

Having spent a few years in the company of the socially "semi-detached" (divorced or maritally separated), and heard so many sad and pathetic and bitter stories, I ask just one simple question. Who looks after the long term needs of the children? Who is responsible for assuring the health requirements of the society in which the children will become the main players? The churches do care, but they cannot reach those who ignore them. Although despatching continues to require the mortal representative of God to officiate, hatching and matching are becoming increasingly private matters. Preparation for despatch not unsurprisingly attracts mainly the old.

One of my semi-detached acquaintances told me about the time he was working, up a telegraph pole, in one of the upper class suburbs. The man of the house went to work. Then about mid-morning, a male visitor arrived. A little later, the lady of the manor and the male visitor were doing what randy couples do - nude, and on the upstairs balcony. This vision, apart from arousing thoughts that were not suitable when one is up a pole, caused him to wonder what all the other home-bound wives might be doing.

A number of issues are linked to this episode : extra-marital sex; the easy availability of divorce; the extent of unsighted cuckoos in the marital nest; the so-called open marriages; divorce and its consequences; the so-called blended families and their impacts; the impacts of the Family Court on rejected fathers and the suicide rate for the latter; the nation's cultural values as manifest through the acceptance and treatment of broken families; and the plight of the children affected by divorce and its consequences.

It has been claimed that one in every four children has not been sired by the mother's husband. This might be like the claim that one in every five of us is a Chinese. Many a divorced father required to support a child in the care of the mother has asked for DNA testing - and been relieved of that responsibility (so we read). This fear of cuckoos in one's nest is one of the sad consequences of the widespread random coupling which appears to have become commonplace. Will any child who looks a little different (perhaps he is a throwback to a grandparent) be viewed askance by the father?

Even if the cuckoo's status was proven, can the husband afford a divorce? When divorce was considered improper, and made difficult, especially by having Catholic divorce judges, guilt of marital infidelity by one of the parties had to be proven in a court of law. Sometimes, this evidence was concocted by consensus - of both husband and wife. Later, a middle class Labor government permitted guilt-free divorce after a period of separation (whether agreed or not), essentially in order to help older couples without family responsibilities to split. It would seem that, in the spirit of the new freedom for women, some of the wives wanted to go their own separate ways. This is understandable. There are many husbands about who are bullies, and they do not care who knows it.

Public opprobrium may have surrounded the divorcee. But there was that "widow's pension", available to any divorced or separated woman. I knew a few women who took this path, even when they had teenagers to look after.

How could the Labor Party, the traditional chariot of political action by the Catholics, contradict the Church's stance on the sanctity of marriage and the integrity of the family? An acquaintance of mine, a Labor supporter, feminist, and Catholic, claimed that her cohorts had begun to influence party policy. They must have been awfully persuasive, because within a decade, couples of all ages, with children, were allowed divorce. And for no reason. What was the rationale? Freedom. What happened to commitment to one's spouse, to family responsibility, and to the rights and needs of the children?

Did the politicians responsible for the decision to grant easy divorces, and the jurists responsible for decisions on the custody of children and in adjudicating on contested settlements, explain their perception of marriage, its relation to family formation and retention, the role of family in society, and the nature of the society they were fostering by their decisions? Further, when judges re-interpret a law in terms of _current community values_ , do they look at justice, ie what is good in the long term for the society they preside over? If not, the lower community values fall (in moral terms, or in terms of justice for the community at large), the lower will morality and the quality of life fall in the community. And only the jurists are responsible, not prevailing community values. If judges, however, claim that they are restricted to only the law, how is it that they take into account current community values in interpreting the law? In this context, could one ask how judges ascertain broad community values?

If the jurists do not protect society from deteriorating community values, who can? In this context, the Family Court was quoted as saying that its decisions are consistent with what the community _expects_. The standard of the lowest common denominator values as a benchmark for justice to families? Ye Gods!

In recent times, in one of the American states, parents are now being given joint custody of the children in a divorce - a most civilised, and indeed, logical approach. Strangely, the divorce rate there has dropped significantly! The implications, in terms of the motivations of the mothers, are surely significant. A few spurious arguments have recently been thrown up in Australia against joint custody. But what is fairer to the children than joint custody? However, Australian policy makers dare not go down the path of joint or shared custody, not with the feminist vote to contend with. So, who is responsible for ensuring that children continue to have the love of both parents?

Then Rome began to grant an increasing number of annulments of marriage. Another acquaintance of mine, who had recently been granted one, began to refer to the woman who had mothered his children. This is incredibly quaint and sad. No divorce, ie no break up of marriage, because there was no marriage. What are the financial rights of the mother? Are the children now deemed to have been born out of wedlock? Are they bastards (in the terminology of the previous generation)? What are their inheritance rights? How are the children to relate, if at all, to their paternal grandparents? What criteria apply in nullifying a marriage which had produced children, and which was durable for many years? The stench of sophistry fills the air - why not allow divorce? Cancelling a sacred marriage would seem blasphemous to the rational.

It appears that the annulment rate has rocketed, presumably to match the divorce rate, now almost one in every two marriages. When one adds up the divorces, the annulments, and the parting of those who cohabited but never formally married, what is the rate of fracture in marriage in all its variant forms? Even when childless couples are excluded, the number of children who have lost their fathers must be horrendous. It has been reported that within five years of separation, half the fathers have gone for good. And the children have no male role model, unless the mother acquires a partner who is accepted by the children as offering the care they had received from their father. What trauma the children must experience! Does anyone, apart from the grandparents, care?

To avoid the suffering inflicted upon the children caught in the middle of divorce, and where either party wants to go fishing in waters other than that approved in marriage, but neither party has any other serious problem with the other, an open marriage may said to be the way to go. Since more harm is caused within the family by acts other than sexual infidelity (but excluding violence), eg verbal abuse, psychological warfare, inability to cope with demanding or ill babies, jealously, conflicting stances on parenting or personal freedom or friends, and such like, discreet sexual escapades may indeed be the solution. Excising sexual behaviour from family maintenance has merit. It is certainly preferable to denying children the love of their natural father.

Reportedly, about a million Australian children are currently being denied the care and love of their natural fathers. There are about half a million fathers denied a normal life with their children. Fathers represent more than 90% of non-custodial parents. What happened to gender equality and the legislation to prevent sex discrimination? The fathers are also said to be suiciding at a horrendous rate. Their unemployment rate is said to be about four times the national rate - for those who choose to remain alive. Decisions of the Family Court are claimed to be destroying the men. The financial burden imposed upon them by the Court, apart from custody decisions which favour the mother, are apparently leading them to give up their jobs and go on welfare. The decisions are also reportedly threatening the survival of the men's new marriages and families, because there is so little money left.

It sounds heartless, inexplicable, and out of touch with that necessary long term perspective about the stability of society as a whole. One also has to question why the responsible authorities do not aim to reduce the gender and related financial war - are they not locked into out-of-date paradigms? These are : that children belong to the mother; that fathers are only financial providers (what sort of fathers did these authorities grow up with?); that guilt-free divorce is equivalent to morality-free conduct in a gender war; that flowing with the sludge-filled community-values tide is responsible conduct for them. Are they also unable to be free, intellectually, of that lawyer's approach to fact finding?

No Australian judge seems to be free to get at the facts of a case before him without that expensive verbal combat involving high fee barristers. Up to three sets of lawyers can argue their respective versions of the truth before the Family Court. It is little wonder that justice can be a distant ideal in English speaking nations. Older societies in Europe do not seem to have the same difficulties in getting at relevant facts, and identifying the pertinent issues, without the judge being almost a non-player in his own court. Will there ever be a day in Australia when obfuscating legal filters have no role to play in fact finding? Watching, worse still, experiencing some of the high cost, time wasting, fishing expeditions (both time-less and seemingly issue-less) by barristers is akin to seeing a child trying to catch a moving object in a projected hologram. I speak from experience.

I have also been told by an experienced barrister that the legal system is often corrupt. A relevant issue is whether years at the bar (practising as barristers, that is) produce a certain mindset in those appointed to the bench. Perhaps there should be a separate career path for judges, with special training geared towards applying the law to achieving justice. Their responsibility should also include ascertaining the facts (ie the truth) and identifying the pertinent issues to be decided – without the adversarial stances of barristers.

Is it not time for legal decision makers to stand back from the current flow of the tide, seek a vision of where society should be led to, and respond to that vision? Were judges to act as guardians of society, ie disregarding prevailing community values and expectations, then the politicians might follow with the necessary changes in the law. As it is, there are some undesirable behavioural changes occurring in the arena of family formation and retention. This leads to a crucial question – are there any non-theological guardians of a demotic society left in the Western world?

Increasing numbers of educated young men are apparently avoiding any long term relationships, as well as fatherhood. Lesbian relationships might be the option for women seeking long term commitment. In fact, there is a lot of it about already. But is it long term? Is the claim by lesbian couples that they have a right to have children intended purely to build in commitment in their relationship? In any event, why should a lesbian relationship be more durable than a heterogenous relationship? Since commitment in relationships does not seem to be enduring for so many, any love asserted by a participant might realistically be seen as transient, lighting up briefly what is likely to be a barren encounter. And that woman who wants a man only for that squirt of DNA, might she prefer it to be hand delivered?

Vocal, if not erudite, career women who are single mothers would have the community accept their limited experience as meaningful, rich, and satisfying; and as an acceptable template for the rest of society. They claim to offer quality time to their child (or children) for the short duration they are together. This is no doubt true. From a dietary standpoint, a vegetarian does have a satisfactory diet. But a meat eater has that extra energy and bulk to do more. One has only to watch young mothers with their babies - the way their bonding is established during the hours they are together, the way the child's eyes light up in its on-going contact with its true love and, as it grows, the questions it asks, the stories it tells, and the joy in shared explorations of all that is strange to the new human. How on earth could career progress, material success, and wealth compensate for the joy of this experience?

Furthermore, it is not difficult for the observer to understand that children denied total early love and care just cannot comprehend what all that fuss is all about when they become parents. Arm's length parenting might continue to produce caring relationships, but can there be that love that enveloped the earlier generations? Is this the basal cause of those self-focussed individuals - who simply know no better? And was that because their parents wanted more and more freedom to live hedonistically - in a manner denied to most earlier generations?

In any event, if commitment to marriage and to one's partner cannot be guaranteed by a career woman, should she, in honesty, use that partner to give her a child? Morally, how could she have an impersonal child care service to look after the child's needs for the greater part of the day? Surely, there can be arrangements made, in the first five years of the child's life, to work part time, if she needs the income, and to go out socially? Child rearing involves sacrifice. All close human relationships involve sacrifice. Relating to the extended family involves sacrifice of some kind. Marriage involves sacrifice. Being a responsible person involves some sacrifice. "All for me, none for you" is not an appropriate way to behave for a responsible person. The bottom line? Feed your ego, but not at the expense of a little human, especially one who carries the history of your ancestors.

The need for continuity of affectionate care by the mother is brought out in this story. A little boy was fobbed off by his mother on her way to work, by a promise to find a little while to play with him after dinner. As she was going through the door, she felt a small hand in her coat pocket. A wistful little voice said, "I put three little whiles in your coat, Mum"! After all, he did grow up in her body. And how pathetic his position.

That commitment is the missing ingredient is suggested by the following : about 75% of the divorces in a recent period were reported to have been initiated by the women. In nearly 50% of these divorces, two reasons were given - did not get along, or not compatible. What do these reasons mean? I want something better? And the children's need for their father? And society's need for children to develop in stable families? Hoe else could they learn about biologically determined gender roles, psychological determinants of personality, and behavioural tendencies. Testes are relevant!

Then there is the issue of violence, physical and sexual. The incidence of violence would appear to be a lot less than claimed by single-mother journalists. Women are the guilty parties in some cases. Faking a threat of violence by the unwanted male is also far too easy. Claim a threat, and an order is issued without any investigation or challenge! A magistrate defended this practice by alleging that speed was of the essence in preventing harm. So, the accused is deemed guilty simply by assertion. By the time the facts are established, the male's job, career prospects, any right to his home, and access to his children are jeopardised or destroyed. According to the men, the whole system favours the aggressive, self-centred woman. The reason? In more than 90% of divorces, she gets the children. Naturally, the family home goes with them. My experience with divorce settlements showed how skewed and corrupt the process is. A married woman going off with a preferred male, and leaving her children behind, can "clean out" her husband's assets and income. Should he contest the claim, he will pay the lawyers for no better result. The reason? Precedent. It is certainly a queer society which rewards the female for morally corrupt conduct.

So, justice is lacking for many men. But what of the children? Unfortunately, they can be merely the product of casual liaisons - by obviously the stupid, or the irresponsible. Yet, contraception is readily accessible and cheap. Then there are those who marry - perhaps for love. No attention is paid to the likelihood of marrying into a family with inherited illnesses - physical, mental or criminal. No attention is paid to core personality differences and to potential conflicts in a free society that imposes no constraints about commitments and long term responsibility. Spirituality and its bed mate, mutual responsibility, are by and large not part of the equation. It is all a matter of love. At the lower socio-economic levels, children can pop out like kittens born to cats living in back lanes. If some time later, the marriage palls,...............!

Not unexpectedly, near-feral or predatory males contribute to this production of societally surplus children. Most political leaders, however, seem to relish these children - for, they add to that population increase they feel that the nation needs. Selfish men or mothers' boys can also walk out of their responsibilities. Smart young women, recognising the wisdom of Asia, which requires the male to be in a position to support a family before marrying, snaffle the married men they fancy. A married woman can walk out of her marriage with her children and "shack up" (as was once said) with the man of her choice. The children are no more than part of her luggage. Whilst feral conduct is multi-directional, there is no social or legal opprobrium or even mild reproach.

The children? Merely the flotsam and jetsam in this murky sea of self adulation and self indulgence - there being no place today for terms denoting moral standards. Surely, they will eventually grow into nation-building consumers!

When, from about the late Sixties, rising middle class families joined the path to family breakdown, the observer children expressed shock. The children in the middle of family splits must have suffered, fearing the loss of their father's love. Where the mother took on an adversarial position, the children would have been, in all probability, used as pawns - being brain-washed to reject their father. Mothers have rather subtle ways to achieve this outcome. The record shows that such mothers often made the agreed, or court-imposed, access by the father to his children most difficult. Why such bitterness? The need for complete control of the children? I know many a "modern" woman who openly says that she needs to control her man. What is this? Pay back time to compensate for domination by Dad? Is that why, often, she too behaves like the tomcat she once might have claimed her husband to be? In fact, as someone said, by the age of forty, many modern women have become the men they intended to marry! I fear that there might be a little confusion by such women about the characteristics and limitations of gender differences.

Soon, the observer children reported that certain of their friends had acquired a new father, often with generally unwanted siblings attached. Some of the blended families are surprisingly successful. Does this happen because the discarded parents have been totally eliminated from the lives of the children (what a tragedy), or because all the parents are accepted, in their new roles, as having both access and participatory rights in relation to their offspring? Yet, reportedly, many of the young members of blended families leave home much earlier than their cohorts in intact families. Some might leave as soon as legally possible. Others, because of stresses or violence within the family, take off anyway. Do they then display delinquent behaviour in frustration and unhappiness? It must be as difficult for a father of a blended family to exercise what authority might exist within families (or to offer guidance) to another ,man's offspring, as it would be for that offspring to pay heed to an imposed father. From my experience with middle class blended families, I would say that the children's peace of mind was sacrificed for the egoistic pleasures of the parents. At lower class levels, it would seem that the physical and mental health of the children are more at risk.

Therefore, can blended families offer any more than fatherless families, in providing guidance to children in their transition from trusting childhood to the turbulence of the teenage years, and from youth to adulthood? With single mother families, how would the boys learn about gender roles, especially in an era when the roles themselves are buffeted by changing values and asserted rights? What markers and transforming rituals would the mother be able to transmit? How would she acquire them if she herself is the product of a fractured family?

More importantly, what values would she impart to her children for their roles in society? Would her son be taught to be ambidextrous (to produce that needed squirt of DNA), since he would be seen as irrelevant in a family? Would she guide her daughter to becoming a lesbian? Or would the daughter learn to accept a more penetrating relationship with a male, on an on-off basis, ie without any long term involvement or commitment? If she did, the outcome would be a girl little different from the hit-and-run men.

If the children broke rank and did marry, would they trust their spouses to stay committed? Would the daughter accept a head of household responsibility were she to be able to earn good money? That is, how far will the gender revolution go? If the daughters of single mothers were to follow in the footsteps of the mothers, what sort of society will we have? "What's done to children, they will do to society", said Karl Menninger.

That the mother-child family unit was not accepted throughout man's history as a societally acceptable kinship unit is reflected, in part, in the traditional social taboo of illegitimacy.

With blended families there is always the risk of that biological imperative that the male would not accept, from his mate, the product of a competing sire. Male lions kill the cubs sired by other males. There can be no cuckoos in their family. Does a dependent young male also instinctively reject his mother's new partner as a potential threat to his love for his natural father? Or, if this love has been destroyed by his mother, to his intuitive, subconscious affinity for his natural father? After all, tribal memories and links, whilst ephemerally intangible, can be most penetratingly intrusive. In any event, among the less educated, or less mature, or psychologically damaged, the level of violence perpetrated by males against the offspring of their (usually temporary) partners is said to be very high.

Instigated by such males, or simply influenced by them in order to hold onto them (what do the feminists have to say about such a need?). the mothers are reportedly abusing their own children - in some cases even sexually. Female violence, whilst denied most noisily by that sisterhood, clearly exists. I can testify to this. It certainly looks like a sick society at the lower socio-economic levels. Indeed, child welfare agencies have been strenuously criticised for not protecting the many children at risk within families at these levels.

In contrast, according to reliable studies, in intact families, displaying the usual levels of minor to moderate stress or conflict (generally temporary or short-term), the children need less psychological help than children whose parents are separated, divorced or re-married. The joint influence of two parents is more than the influence of one parent. So, what's new? Francis Fukuyama's research (refer "The Great Disruption") also shows that it is the intact family structure and family-based cultural traditions which have greater impact on educational outcomes than class sizes, school facilities, or teacher salaries.

As that old English proverb has it: "One father is more than a hundred school masters". As for that fatuous feminist view about the irrelevance of fathers, Goethe reminds us that "There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action".

The feminists, who have hijacked any reasonable dialogue on gender matters, are not the only ones who are ignorant. Many young parents have little idea about parenting. The heads of tiny babies are exposed to a hot midday sun on the streets. Their red faces apparently signify little to the parents. And they do not seem to know anything about the expanded hole in the ozone layer. Reflecting that increasing inter-generational freedom, young children run around in Brownian fashion (ie in an uncontrollable fashion – like the molecules in a liquid medium) in the shopping complexes, or just play up. Middle class parents chastise their offspring in the manner of Kissinger talking to his Russian counterpart about the risks of starting the next world war. The parents at a lower socio-economic level demonstrate a more futile approach - repeated shouting. When older observers display their disapproval of a difficult child, the recalcitrant one might finally be smacked. When the child then puts on an impressive performance about the violation of its human rights, and society's privacy principles, this brings out the freedom fighter in the crowd. She threatens to inform the authorities about the cruelty she observed.

Should the parents decide that their child is uncontrollable, or it is more convenient to pass the buck, medication is seemingly available. The sudden and steep rise in medicated children may simply reflect the incompetence of parents to discipline their children - because they know not how. Where would they learn to control children in this new environment, especially when the child can sue the parent?

Thus is society fractured. But not all parents are foolish enough to fall for that feminist fable - that even consensual sex is violence, if not rape. Quaintly, some women have apparently complained about the disparate benefits of marriage : that the male gets a wife, but the female does not! Testosterone levels in females must be rising! Interestingly, recently a female union leader whinged that men could not bear children.

There was also some very interesting behaviour in earlier days by some women who had publicly asserted gender rights. Wearing a very short skirt and crossing her legs in front of her whilst talking to, say, an Asian leader or a church dignitary on tv is an example. Wearing a very tight, very short skirt, with offsetting shoulders on a jacket a metre wide, stockings, and make-up, with hair coiffured, and bosom uplifted, just to go to work, is another. Why display or emphasise parts of the body which have traditionally been used by women as signifiers of lust or seduction? Why dress in the manner of the female of yesteryear who sought to simply excite, or please, or capture the male of the species? Is it also false advertising where there is no intent to deliver her wares? Do universal moral codes now apply? Or, is it the case that one can dress (or undress) in any way one chooses? If so, could a man freely display, or draw attention to, those parts of his body of potential interest to sexually oriented females?

The core issue arising from the damage to future society through the breakdown of family and family values is the plight of that army of children caught in the maelstrom of divorce. A study of the deterioration of social values in industrialised societies in the late twentieth century linked the rising levels of crime and social distrust to changes in family structure! These were shown to arise from the sexual and feminist revolutions following the end of world war two. The diminishing "radius of trust" socially, arising from the "miniaturising of community" to nuclear and single parent families have been linked to rising crime, social disorder, and poverty. The human capital of future generations is thus diminished. This problem is manifest more in what I refer to as the Ultra-West - which includes Australia.

In a democracy with compulsory voting, the adults can look after themselves. Changes in social policy are in their hands, however difficult it might be to have one's electoral representatives pay attention to the long term; indeed, to pay any attention to community needs. But, the squeaky cart may eventually get greased.

In order to protect the damaged, deprived and denied children, one needs to review what social structures are all about. Roles and responsibilities, ie specialisation in functions, which have grown up over time, and which are based on evolutionary and biological features, can yet be modified by cultural values. Hopefully, the impact of postmodernism, a form of nihilistic vandalism, has now evaporated into the trashcan of history. Human society needs durable values, cultural values derived from a spiritual view of existence. Freedom and individual rights can never - not ever - be absolute. Every individual is created by the collective. Its development is shaped by the collective. It is maintained by the collective. Finally, it returns to the collective (of souls and stardust).

Western societies have lost their way, misled by the success of industrialisation and colonialism, and the wealth thus created. This success was achieved through individual effort and exploitation, and ego-satisfaction derived from an obligation-free materialistic framework. But history will show that the joys of this success are truly transitory. There is a great need for these societies to find their way back. For, even the assertion of individual rights is possible only in an environment sustained by the collective - the modern democratic, simultaneously capitalistic and welfare state.

Ignoring attempts to re-define the family in terms of sexual proclivities or psychiatric needs, one can accept the Asian time-tested, indeed universal, tradition that the family is the basic unit of society. And that family refers to the extended family of, at least, three generations. Further, that the family or clan is an integral part of a tribe linked by blood or genes, history, language and traditions. The kinship ties so derived provide a sense of belonging. There seem to be few Anglo-Celt Australians today who belong in this fashion - or in any other. Belonging, of course, confers obligations. Personal freedom is thus modified, even subjugated, to family and clan responsibilities. Can modern Australia learn this - and re-join the Family of Man?

Marriage is only formal acceptance of the role of the family as the hub of society. And as Kahlil Gibran counselled : "Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself". Far too many of my fellow Australians need to accept this guidance.

Ravi Batra, an American economist, quoted a Hindu philosopher as warning mankind that the leading societies in the West are moving from what he calls the age of the labourer (which is therefore brutish) to the age of the acquisitor (most definitely brutal - as we know). This philosopher counsels that great financial and social disparities and dislocations within a society (especially in the leading nations of the world) contain a strong risk of social and economic disruption. If he is correct, Australia needs to take great care, and not simply drift with the currents in the turbulent seas washing over the Western world.

If the family is to remain the "indissoluble atom of society", and the family and kinfolk are to provide the natural and historically more durable basis for the participation of the individual in society (within the penumbra of citizenship of the nation-state), there is a strong case for lessening personal freedom for more solidarity communally.

### Chapter 4

Keeping The Bastards Honest

All animals are equal but some animals are

more equal than others

-George Orwell

A colonial subject dreams of the day when the hated, arrogant, oppressor has gone. His people will be free to rule themselves. But, before his reluctant departure, the coloniser sets up a new form of government. In doing so, he is quite certain that the people are not yet ready to govern themselves. Has he not been preparing them for that great day when they are able to rule themselves in an acceptable manner? (I was told that this was taught to children in British schools.)

That the people who lived there when the coloniser arrived already had rulers, with appropriate ceremonies, memories, modes of government, trade and commerce, religious practices, and all the hallmarks and ingredients of settled, organised and civilised communities, did not apparently affect him. As he reluctantly moved away, he would look back with nostalgia at the days of his glory and responsibility, ie taking the native towards Western civilisation.

The form of rule he hands down (somewhat in the manner of the apocryphal Moses) is democracy. Naturally, the coloniser cannot be expected to have spent much effort in explaining what democracy means. This was demonstrated clearly when Hong Kong was returned to China. The important issue is that, at its core, democracy gives each adult citizen a vote. Citizens cast their votes to elect their representatives in the parliament, the law making body. Nothing could be simpler.

This arrangement promises to be highly satisfactory to the colonial subjects. But, they has no basis for evaluating what is offered. But they may express a preference for another variant of the democracy presented. This might be based perhaps on observations elsewhere or to achieve an advantageous balance of power within the communities or interests involved. For there were very few, if any, who had experienced the rule which had existed before the white coloniser arrived. In this context, colonial governments seemed put out that those of their subjects who had learned about democracy whilst studying at their universities, and been cross-fertilised intellectually by their fellow students, had then sought freedom for their peoples, in order to practice that democracy.

In any event, in view of the changes which had occurred since foreign control commenced, there would be little prospect of a full return to the traditional structure of rule. Instead of tribal or regional rulers, because nations and national boundaries had been established by the various European nations vying for hegemony, there would be new structures of rule. These structures might not include the descendants of the earlier native rulers. Or, if native sub-structures had been retained by the coloniser, an arrangement would be found to include these rulers. For example, the British generally preferred direct rule, except for the Princely States; whereas the Dutch in the East Indies used indirect rule. Acceptable indigenous rulers, many of whom were placed on a tokenistic throne by the colonising power (by chicanery or force), are always useful for easier control of the people - and for a bit of pageantry.

Since the coloniser had replaced native subsistence farming with a culture or plantation system, ie growing commercial crops (like rubber and opium) to suit the metropolitan economy's manufacturing and trading needs, there had resulted a considerable movement of peoples. This occurred not only within the governed territories. There was also an influx of needed workers and opportunistic immigrants from nearby lands. In time, these new arrivals became part of the new economy and, subsequently, part of the new nation-to-be. Malaya and Fiji are two very significant examples of this development, presenting long term problems for the structures of government after independence.

Because the new immigrant arrivals had brought with them their own significantly different cultures, religious practices and social traditions, what the foreign tourist in future years would see as colourful and exotic would present complex issues requiring sensitive policies. The retiring coloniser would not pay much attention to this. He had come from a sub-continent which had historically formed nations (from about four centuries ago), defined (essentially) tribally. These nations had subsequently become strong and independent, with some variations in borders reflecting invasion or shifts in the balance of power. They had reasonably effective rulers, and a uniform pattern of law observance and enforcement had evolved. Democracy, subsequently built upon a two-party base, had then developed, but only about two centuries ago.

In contrast, the newly independent nations arising from colonial territories had democracy imposed upon them long before stable and effective native or local governments had been achieved, covering both the old and new populations. The onslaught of nationalism had to ignore the often unrealistic borders of the new nations, which split traditional tribes linked by the usual battery of blood, history, language and religion. The nations of Africa are the best examples of this tragedy. Moreover, within the one nation-state, there could remain tribal sensitivities based on religion and ethnicity. These tribes might have simply co-existed under the foreign ruler. In his absence, where should the balance of power between these tribes lie? If this precept is not compatible with the ideology of the West, where lies the path to that "created harmony" of the population, exemplified by (say) India, Australia or Singapore?

In a nation-state with a heterogeneous ethnic population, the barriers of culture and religion, language and ethnic origin, caste and colour, and traditional transactional relationships, ie values and institutions, need to be kept at bay, if not yet broken down. National consolidation would need an "emotional integration" of the people. The retention of a heterogeneity of values, through policies such as that of multiculturalism, or through an on-going contention regarding a balance of tribal power, will surely delay the operation of the West's version of democracy. The latter concept is based upon the status and the rights of the individual, disregarding any imperative about the needs of minority ethnic or tribal or religious constituent communities.

Where there are entrenched inequalities in power within the people, eg the Philippines, where the land is apparently held by virtually a handful of families, and a substantially non-egalitarian social stratification exists, with social monopolies in education, employment, public office, and so on, the masses would find substantial barriers to full participation in public life. This will have a deleterious impact on efforts to introduce effective Western democracy, as other than a superficial structure. The absence of a significant participation in the democratic process by the masses would be akin to the much proclaimed democracy of ancient Athens (or even parts of the modern USA).

How then is the imposed democracy to cope with any plural societies, and the fragmentation of loyalties which survived the attempts by the colonial powers to destroy local customs, ie traditional obligations and responsibilities? How too is the new nation to counter the eco-colonial, who seeks to replace native cultures - whether integrated or plural - with his own? Attempts by American interests to infiltrate India in this fashion are illustrative. There is nothing cavalier about the motive underlying this push - only that of the shopkeeper. American interests simply want to sell, sell; just as the British did in India, and other Europeans elsewhere. What is it about the European mind, which focuses so much on selling, and controlling the means of selling, in its relations with others?

At a deeper level of intercourse, the new nations are still involved in a contest of cultures. Gun and "good book" have been replaced by the media and massive but selective foreign investment. And the foreign owned plantation economy is to be replaced by foreign control of viable local enterprises. These enterprises might have either out-lasted colonialism, or grown out of independence under that wondrous chariot of globalisation. The values of individualism and broad shareholder interests are to replace community and national interests. Sovereignty will be akin to citizenship - there is to be no place for national borders, or nationality. Capitalism will prevail uniformly all over the globe (a broadly uncontentious outcome), enabled by the Ultra-West's preferred version of capitalism. Sell, sell, sell!

Here is the rub. China, Singapore and Malaysia (and perhaps other Asian nations) are demonstrating that there are other ways to be democratic whilst being capitalistic.

It is against this background that I value the gift of democracy to me. Yet I do believe that the taste of the fruit does not match its appearance. Apart from exercising three votes - for three levels of government - I have no say or influence whatsoever in how I am governed. My relatives in Asia are neither better off nor worse off in this regard. Am I participating in an expensive charade?

After years of waiting, I was finally granted the right to a vote - in Australia. I wasted the first opportunity. After a draining day managing a children's Christmas party for a large public service department in Canberra, I took a nap. I planned to cast my vote after that. When I woke up, the ballot had closed. An alert electoral officer fined me five shillings - and that was that. Since then, I have most carefully exercised my right to cast a vote for the three levels of government I have inherited. As a swinging voter, I have contributed to attempts to influence changes in policies by changing governments. On two major occasions, the Australian electorate was on my wavelength (or vice versa).

But changes in government are to little avail. The changes might have replaced a tired government which had lost interest in people. Or one whose interests in the welfare of people ignored economic realities. Or one which sat on its hands. Or one which appeared to toss out the baby with the bath water. Or got too close to Asia. And so on. Ultimately, the major events affecting the nation simply reflect impacts from overseas, for both key bureaucrats and political leaders believe in the glory of market forces. With this belief, there is no need to plan, to be pro-active; just fine tune the economy. Competition for votes leads to increasing freebies all round. The foreigner keeps investing and buying Australian assets. With foreign capital lubricating the economy, we, the people, continue to eat well.

So, the nation drifts - most of the time - whilst its Asian competitors soar ahead developmentally, with new trading and political alignments. They plan and execute, even if occasionally inefficiently. Most seek to be viable in the long term, without being controlled by foreign interests. This is a mighty ambition, considering the impacts of an uncontrolled global financial market. This market is associated with powerful and rapacious speculators in foreign currencies, mineral resources, agricultural products, and what ever else one can gamble on or manipulate. International agencies like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the WTO (World Trade Organisation), whose intervention to "save" economies at risk can also subvert national sovereignty and comfort, whilst reducing the well-being of the populace.

Yet, in Australia, it was not the friend of the "big end of town" which opened up the Australian nation to globalisation. Significant changes, viz. non-discriminatory immigration entry, reduced tariff barriers, a floating dollar, and such like came from that workers' party, the ALP (Australian Labor Party). With the progressive takeover of this party by the middle class, however, the nation's choice soon became one between like and like; perhaps the accents are different. The single-issue minor parties are simply irritants to the major parties, some pretending to "keep the bastards honest". Most independents are ineffective from a national interest point of view, except when doing deals with the government. Some observers claim that this is usually to the detriment of the nation. The native title "ten-point plan" (relating to the rights of Australian indigenes to access to lands previously occupied by them) and the GST (goods and services tax) are two examples. There was, and is, little that is pro-active in the nation's policies, reflecting some major targeted outcomes.

Returning to democracy; a right to vote is theoretically very nice. Yet, what does it _achieve_ if the voter is allowed to select either one of two main candidates (whose pre-selection by their parties seems rarely objective or transparent), and neither of whom has ever asked what the voter wants (not _en masse)_. And, there is the issue of the _quality_ of the candidates. What are their capabilities? Are they just party hacks? Or, related to, or married to, someone influential within the party? Essentially, the voter chooses a party (at federal and state level). The winning party then puts its interests ahead of the interests of the nation or state. The voter is then snowed with propaganda, crafted by spin doctors (but at taxpayer expense). It is exactly the same in Asian nations. Perhaps the Australian voter can change governments more readily. But, how does he tell the difference, except in some marginal area of policy? The major parties simply play musical chairs, after a lot of hollering and thumping of collective chests; and a great deal of taxpayer expense.

Voters who put up a proposal for change in a policy to the appropriate Minister will receive an anodyne - eventually. They will be told kindly how good everything is, and how their suggestion poses difficulties. In the manner of Sir Humphrey in "Yes Minister", (that famous British tv program), the Minister's reply will refer broadly to legislative, administrative, financial, or even conceptual barriers. I have drafted enough of such letters - a pathetic way of earning one's living. Significantly, in one difficult case, because the logic of what was proposed by the voter was sound, the senior responsible officer found a way out. He hid the file in the bottom drawer of his desk.

Further, in this land of overfull voting rights, why is it that most voters have such a low opinion of their elected representatives? Their ranking is just above that of journalists. Both stand very, very close to the ground. It would seem that, in the early years of democracy in Australia, "lots of drunks and demagogues and fixers were elected", ie the "lower orders" gained power. Surprisingly, the adversarial nature of the rhetoric in parliament, the language of confrontation, and the combat of unwanted agreement, continue into the third century of "whitefella" occupation of Australia. What is the value of all that "education", exemplified by the university degrees dangling from their necks, if the parties do not (at least occasionally) act together in the national interest?

In any event, what does the ordinary member of parliament do, day after day, other than forming part of the party's glee club during sitting days in parliament? However, voters are expected to be grateful for being reminded by mail, from time to time, how lucky they are to be represented by their members \- even when the members clearly have no say in policy. To be fair, members of parliament can be expected to bring into the party room any matters of great electoral need or potential threat to re-election prospects. In normal circumstances, however, voters would rarely sight their elected representatives. Often, it is difficult to have one's representative pay much attention to community plaints, unless a batch of votes is involved. This situation applies at all three levels of government.

What is the value of democracy if this is how it works? In contrast stands that durable practice in ancient India of small city-states or village-republics led by their own representatives. The social fabric of the people, based upon the governance of villages, was thus said to have been maintained effectively over the centuries, whilst empires and kings came and went. Perhaps these village communities favoured proven maturity and leadership. These would have been readily evident in tribal structures based primarily on kinship. In Australia, any Tom, Kylie or Cecil can offer for pre-selection, or stand as an independent candidate. Often, they seem to just pop out of the woodwork.

A clever Aussie cartoonist (that breed of insightful political commentators) recently claimed (more in relation to politicians at the national level) that "these days we have second-rate spivs, second-rate charlatans, grandstanders and dilettantes", who meet the basic requirement of being polished liars. In saying this, he cites the bent codes of parliamentary conduct and broken promises by governments (the non-core ones, of course). I demur - he is a little harsh.

What then is true democracy? In the light of the ex-colonial Western world hectoring Asian nations (especially the former subject nations), new Australians from Asia would tend to an idealised version of democracy. We would expect the electorate's views and rights to be reflected in the policies of the elected, would we not? Isn't this what we were promised? We would also expect principled decision making. After all, isn't Australian democracy claimed to be a beacon for all of Asia?

The basis of democracy, as expressed by Abraham Lincoln, is that "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." Yet, in practice, it is a variation of Oscar Wilde's view that prevails largely. He said "Democracy means bludgeoning of the people, by the people, for the people". In reality, democracy can enable the bureaucracy to use elected representatives to achieve what it considers desirable. I have seen some of this manipulation. The bureaucracy's view may, of course, be more sound than those of the politicians, reflecting an independence not available to the latter. Politicians surely have their private agendas and hidden constituencies.

The second tier in Australia's democratic structure is at the state government level. Under the nation's Constitution, it is the state governments, apart from specified national-interest responsibilities (such as defence, external relations and trade, immigration, etc) which have the residual responsibility for governing the people. After all, it was the States which agreed to form the national government, and to give it specified responsibilities. However, having lost to the Commonwealth the right to raise income tax during the second world war, the States now carefully play the role of mendicant in seeking federal moneys to carry out fully their constitutional responsibilities. Imagine a team of elected Oliver Twists at work! Often, there are some very impressive performances.

Since the federal government influences, through its control of the key revenue sources, all major policies affecting the citizenry (even policies like health, education and welfare, which are the responsibility of the States), one can now question the need for state governments. Alternatively, to avoid a major Constitutional change, the federal government might agree to restrict its role to that specified in the Constitution. Now that would be the day!

The third tier of Australia's democratic structure is represented by local government. It is at the local government level that the opprobrium of opportunism, unapproachability and infallibility clouds most the perception by voters of their unavoidable, elected rulers. Without any doubt, there are sincere, community-minded, hard working, indeed, productive and useful people on local councils, working for very little financial advantage (unlike their counterparts at state and federal levels). There are others, however, whose loyalties to the common good do not always impress favourably. Yet, all must be assiduously cultivated from time to time in order to ensure that one's terrain is not totally denuded of trees and parks; that developers (from elsewhere, usually) offering employment opportunities of a limited duration do not wreck the quality of life in the district, before moving on to do the same elsewhere; that foreshores in our locale are not wrecked in the process of improving the views or boating facilities of those landowners who can afford waterfront sites; and that ratepayer funds are not deflected excessively into outlays of dubious value or outcomes. At times, there can be the aroma of stale fish ......but......proof?

It took me seven years of quiet perseverance to have my shire council force all those waterfront residents who had encroached onto a public foreshore between their properties and the sea to remove their possessions. Public access is another matter. A number of the owners of the properties, by clearing the ground adjacent to their properties (thereby creating apparent private space), effectively discouraged the public from attempting to use the foreshore. All the involved State government authorities and the Council have accepted that the Council has a legal responsibility to ensure public access. However, due process, necessary consultations, resource constraints, the exigencies of prioritisation, and the need to manage access, all take time, don't they?. Individually, the councillors I consulted were supportive of achieving public access. So, one can only hope that, when all the processes have been _eventually_ completed, the public's rights will be permanently safeguarded. Or, will they? Who is there to safeguard the citizens' rights?

In contrast, there was a speedy outcome when I sought the help of a Senator in the federal parliament. I asked about the legality of a federal Cabinet decision. This decision allowed a government department to alter the terms of its contract with members of the public. This would be done by the department refusing to carry out an unrelated administrative process unless the other party to the contract agreed that the department could alter a term in the contract. My fifth generation Anglo-Aussie wife deemed this to be blackmail. I asked the Senator how, in a democratic and free country, such an action could be legal. The Senator was most interested, and said he would talk to the Attorney-General. A few months later, he advised me that Cabinet had reversed its decision! One can certainly question the morality of the policy advisers who had put to Cabinet their solution for overcoming the constraints of law. One can only wonder at the legal acumen displayed by the Cabinet Ministers and their parliamentary advisers in the original decision.

Local government in Australia is formally under the control of state governments. Some recent and increasing incursions by the federal government into local government matters, through the provision of direct financial grants has, however, weakened this control. A creeping centralism is yet another nail in the coffin of democracy, say some. In this case, it might represent focussed efficiency. There may be a strong case for making local government part of the federal structure. However, my fellow Aussies are so distrustful of politicians that the necessary Constitutional amendment would be impossible to achieve.

At all three levels, the politicians know that voters do not trust them. But, like a blind man, they will not thank you for a mirror. Unlike the bureaucrats who serve them, they are not required, when offering themselves for election, to offer specified qualifications, skills and experiences, or preferred aptitudes and attitudes. Their decision-making is often confounding \- based, seemingly, upon a feeling in their waters. Was it not Carlyle who said: "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance"?

Politics has indeed become very profitable at the two principal levels for many who might experience difficulty in eating well in the real world. Yet, their rewards in office, claimed to cost the taxpayer more than $1.4 million dollars per head at the federal level alone, are based on the quaint claim that their skills and responsibilities are as valuable as those of senior policy and administrative chiefs in the federal public service.

In order to increase their "take", federal politicians' salaries were first linked to that of senior executive public service salaries (at the bottom level), with no justifiable rationale offered. Then the latter salaries were pumped up by relating them to the private sector's remuneration for its executives. This ignored the obvious - that only the private sector has clear markers for assessing effectiveness in office; and that few of those private sector "equivalents" sitting safely in the public sector have shown any willingness to perform in the open, competitive, outcome-driven market, and to seek great profits for institutional shareholders.

Again, without any rationale based on relative responsibilities, politicians' wages were linked to those of the most senior public service policy chiefs. Policy chiefs cannot afford to sit around for hours at a time, listening to speeches and watching performances. Or, to call out, on cue: "Hear, hear!" or "Shame!" like any other glee club. Furthermore, in the late Nineties, a State parliament passed legislation in the middle of the night, intended to increase further the "take" from the public "trough." This flagrant display of greed was opposed by only one M.P! Dipping into the public trough is now quite open; and the trough cannot be deep enough, obviously.

In order to discourage those who seek office simply because of the high income and increasingly over-generous and challengeable perks, perhaps there should be a rule based on Thomas Dewey's belief that: "No man should be in public office who cannot make more money in private life." This should clear the decks immediately! Ideally, politicians should be paid a pittance, reflecting their wish to benefit the electorate, rather than themselves. Paying a good deal more than peanuts to avoid electing monkeys has only resulted in the voters being treated like chimps (should that be chumps?). By offering "peanuts", voters could see who professes to care for the people! There surely will be no shortage of good quality leaders and decision makers offering to serve the people..

Of note too is that parliamentary sitting days (up to 22 weeks in the year for Federal Parliament) require a lesser input than that required of Aborigines on the work-for-the-dole scheme. The cash remuneration alone is said to be upwards of 20:1 or more (if one allows for the more obvious perks). Is it any wonder that there is so much political party branch stacking and a lot of chicanery with preselections?.

Curiously, in the Eighties, a new government managed to obtain two terms within three years - normally the duration of a single term. Two terms enabled retirement on a very substantial pension, receivable for the rest of life. The voters are naturally jealous, because politicians can manipulate their wages, perks and pensions far better than can the directors of Australia's major companies influence theirs. The rulers of simpler and less democratic societies have, of course, similar freedom to feather their nests.

Perhaps modern democracy is intended to be no more than a superficial structure - to keep the populace complaisant. Therefore, any nation of interest to Australia offering an apparently open electoral system automatically tops the hit parade. But, should we not be asking whether or not every adult there has a vote. Or, whether each vote has equal value. Or, whether voting is compulsory. Without compulsory voting, democracy would be something of a joke – as it is in some of the Western nations. More importantly, would minority parties have equal opportunity in having their candidates elected? This would require that there be no allocation of preferences. Other issues are: whether there is an effective opposition in parliament, and whether there is a house of review.

Where minority groups, cultures or tribes (as found in some nearby nations) might be disadvantaged in the individual-based electoral process, some special arrangements might need to be made. These might enable the socio-political rights of the minority groups to be equi-poised relative to that of the majority. Australia might therefore need to concede that, if ethnic or tribal balance warrants, any such arrangements might not be temporary. The distinction made here is not about differing political philosophies, but about the survival of cultural minorities which object to being swamped.

In Australia, we have no such problem . Our minority political parties are, more often than not, only symbolic of a protest vote. The allocation of preferences diminishes the rights of supporters of minority parties to be represented in parliament. And then, of course, no special arrangements have been made for Australia's indigenes - presumably in the interests of assimilation.

A great weakness in modern democracy is the two-party system. This system had relevance when the dispossessed and disadvantaged sought their place on the stage of political participation. Today, however, the choice facing electors is between long grained and short grained rice. Is there not a case for doing away with political parties, as well as their taxpayer funding? Party membership is certainly declining in established democracies throughout the world. What does this indicate? In Australia, party membership is said to be at an all-time low, with serious allegations about "rorting" in pre-selection battles and in the taxpayer funding of parties at elections. The issue, as ever, is how to get the politicians to take heed of the wishes of the people. The elimination of parties will, without doubt, enable voters to grab the ears of those who offer to represent them.

Fortunately for Australia, compulsory voting reminds the citizenry about their (even limited) rights in the electoral process. Optional voting, as in the USA, allows the political parties to focus upon, and to manipulate, those who wish to believe that their vote means something. From the public record, it would appear that these believers are diminishing in number. The advantages of optional voting to the politicians are so clear that Australia's political parties and their media and financial sponsors are now pushing strongly for it.

The next evolutionary step is to have "first past the post" replace the preference system. The latter is not truly democratic because it favours the major parties. Even without parties, the preference system can eliminate excellent candidates, as is evident in local government elections.

A necessary step forward is to have candidates who meet specified qualifications, experience, aptitudes and attitudes. Ambition, connections, a union background, a law degree, and such like are inadequate for pre-selection. Were political parties to be abolished, and the electoral authorities to monitor whether individual candidates offering for office meet pre-set skill requirements, the voters would have better material to choose from. And, the nation does need better material - lots of it.

Many tertiary trained and risen lower middle class politicians appear relatively ignorant about the real world overseas, and relatively indifferent to major issues within the nation. Leaders are replacing the words "the government" with "I" quite often. In this, they are quaintly aided by sections of the media, who like personalising policies. Single interest parties seem unable (or unwilling) to apprehend broader issues. No long term vision is offered to voters, with durable policies. Hence, why not vote for only independent candidates who, after election, can negotiate with one another (if they wish) in their efforts to reflect their electorates? Too drastic a change? Then, we deserve the governments we get; and to be over-run (in economic terms) by equally small Asian nations driven to success.

What is worrying about Australia is its complacency. It is clearly a beacon for most parts of the world (including key members of the Ultra-West) for its respect for humanity, its capacity to provide succour and welfare, and its fair-go ethos. But is reliance on God's Will, the USA, and Market Forces enough to enable future generations of Australians to survive in an increasingly complex and competitive world? The army of the official unemployed cannot be realistically separated from those under-employed. The latter are officially defined as employed simply because they are able to find work for no more than one hour a week! Fudging the statistics covers the reality of poverty, reliance on welfare, and a future without hope, for ever so many. Indeed, about 30% of Australian households are said to be in receipt of welfare, with three generations in some families supported by the taxpayer.

The major political parties will naturally do everything they can to avoid any change to the structures of democracy, especially the rise of independents and minority party representation in parliament. They assert (with the support of many in the media) that the success of minority parties will lead to coalition governments; and that coalition governments are not stable. That the Liberal Party governs in coalition with the National Party, or that the Labor Party achieves office often through preferences from minority parties, is ignored.

Is it not relevant that coalition governments in Europe seem to work well? And political stability is no measure of responsible government. In terms of policies expected from responsible governments, why is Australia primarily a rural producer (often competing with Third World countries), instead of being a major industrial power (like some of the smaller European nations)? Singapore, with no natural resources, has a larger proportion of its work force in manufacturing. Its focus is always on the future, always seeking to be relevant. And it has over-full employment, based on full time work (not one hour per week). In order to develop into the new industrial world, Australia clearly needs politicians more focussed on where the nation ought to be, rather than where the political parties want to be. Alternatively, a drastic change in the structure of democracy will be necessary; and the lightweights ruling the nation replaced by leaders of the management and educational calibre found in Singapore.

Government policies can also be skewed. Fortunately for Australia, the Senate has moderated any tendency by a government which (in spite of achieving only a minority primary vote) might claim a mandate favouring certain constituents. The inability of recent national governments to control the Senate has led to some interesting reactions, indicating how democratic rights are viewed by some politicians. "Unrepresentative swill" was the epithet used by a former leader when he could not have his way with the Senate. How could it be unrepresentative? In the late Nineties, a team claiming the mantle of Moses made some horrible sounds of anxiety and anger at the Senate denying them their "mandate", ie to lead the nation into unsurveyed lands. That team seemed to view the strictures of the Australian Constitution in much the same way as the modern Aussie upholds the ten biblical commandments, ie to be bent according to personal whim or gain; or as directed by someone holding the reins. Hence, attempts to de-fang the Senate surface from time to time.

Luckily, Australia has a tradition of rejecting government-proposed changes to the Constitution. Consistent with its national heritage, anything offered by someone suspected of being a snake-oil merchant is rejected forthwith. This was proven in the referendum on Australia becoming a republic. Into its third century of occupation, very significant attempts were made to inveigle the people into changing the structures of government before we were ready for them. There were many snake-oil wallahs about. Get rid of the Queen and other symbols of the monarchy, and Australia will be seen by Asian nations (none of whom we seem to respect) as independent. Declaring Australia to be a republic will enhance Australia's international status. How? Do it now, or else Australia will miss the boat, the tide, cosmic benefits, or whatever. Buy now, now, now! (Jeez! What wondrous baubles the people were offered.) Only the vendors, and those aspiring to be the first president, were presumably listening to the sales pitch.

Millions of scarce taxpayers funds were spent on a "gabfest" just to get the republicans to agree on what they want. Naturally the agreed model quickly came under attack from within the reformers, reflecting the traditions of their tribal ancestors. The power plays were certainly worth watching. Whether Australia's problem is a lack of national confidence; and whether there are too many ignorant people in positions of power, is difficult to say. The observable deficit of decorum and dignity in parliament might, however, suggest the latter.

It is in this context that the attempt to replace the Governor-General, as representative of the monarch, by a president has great significance. This move might enable either the quiet removal, or the containment, of the "reserve powers" of the former. These powers, demonstrated in 1975, are there to protect the Australian people from their national government in certain dire circumstances. Such protection is essential if prime ministers are not to act like emperors.

Relevantly, the debate about a republic brought out those who believe that Parliament should appoint the head of state, with the prime minister having the right to get rid of him. How much more despotic might one want to be?. Fortunately for future generations, the majority of the people did not trust their elected representatives enough to accept that view. We want the right to elect our own head of state. We might also want our head of state to be able to get rid of _his (or her)_ prime minister in _specified_ circumstances, in the national interest!

So much of what the public is told is unadulterated crap. The native title ten-point plan and the GST are excellent examples. When the public knows this, it reacts accordingly. We learn to distinguish between "core" and "non-core" promises by government. We also realise that the truth, as presented by Ministers, can come in different shades of grey. However, in the case of the above two policies, the regrettable co-operation by certain individuals in the Senate led to justice, equity, and the popular will being overwhelmed. In the first of these two debacles, the Senator admitted that he "blinked". The other Senator undeniably was awake. The ten-point plan favoured pastoralists and miners because of the government's claimed "compact" with these constituencies. The GST favours the wealthy because it is a regressive tax, penalising those on fixed or low incomes, and the poor. The wealthy already have many tax minimisation laws and other inequitable arrangements, by courtesy of the major political parties! One can only wonder why the Labor Party allows these discriminatory practices (especially the ready availability of corporate veils) to remain.

Another instance of the national government's disregard of that primary democratic principle, viz. the equitable treatment of all sectors of the populace, is the re-defining of the meaning of pastoral leases to suit supporters of the Coalition parties, as well as foreign investors. This was described by researchers as a conversion of leasehold to freehold at bargain prices. This move must have denied or significantly diminished the rights of the Aboriginal people in relation to the land. Approval for mining within Aboriginal settlements is an example of what might be discerned as ethnic bias by government. The admission of East Asians of Chinese descent under a business migration program, which did not then ensure that the entrants invested in Australia or even stayed in the country, represents another example of a discriminatory policy.

Over-riding the Northern Territory Government on the issue of _voluntary_ euthanasia is clearly an example of cultural bias. The decision to over-ride the Northern Territory Government threw up two significant matters: the federal government's obeisance to church-ridden bigots; and the right of politicians during that vote to exercise their conscience, ie to express their religion-derived values in a secular parliament. The reported wishes of up to 75% of Australia's voters were ignored in this display of cultural bias. No one would have been _killed_ (a word loved by the semantically brain-washed) by the legislation, as passed by the Territory Government. There seemed to be adequate safeguards against abuse built into that legislation, crafted after broad consultation and very careful deliberation. The nation continues its downward spiral on the slippery slope of a secular, multicultural, and multi-religious society being dominated by a minority of definition-ruled Christians. The form of democracy might have been maintained, but not its intent. And the nation's leaders dare to criticise other nations for their alleged violations of the tenets of Western democracy!

A most pungent criticism of parliaments comes from Donald Horne, prominent writer and academic. "... In Australia, parliaments are now mainly of ritualistic significance, and the significance of the particularly parliamentary part of Australian democracy is quite slight". A prominent journalist said in the late Nineties: "Political debate is so pathetically debased that any intellectual policy commitment meets only ridicule ... MPs are not expected to be capable of independent thought. Their job is merely to shout crude tribal abuse at each other, like bikie gangs spoiling for a brawl in a beer garden". Most Australian voters would concur.

Yet, there is wisdom in Churchill's "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those forms that have been tried from time to time". It is how democracy is implemented which matters. Whether its structure allows for cultural (therefore historical and situational) differences, as well as for minority views, and whether the policy makers recognise the imperatives of cultural pluralism, will determine its relevance in the future.

On balance, Australia can be seen as offering as pragmatic a compromise between the expression of an adult citizen's political right to participate in government, and the need for the affairs of the nation, state or shire to be conducted in an organised and stable fashion, as is offered elsewhere in the Western world. However, Australian voters, no matter their vintage or origin, unequivocally utter words like "We have no control over these bastards", whenever politicians become the topic of conversation. Although voters have increasingly taken to heart their freedom to challenge authority, whether clerical or political, they expect to be ignored, and lied to. Yet, it is their hard earned money that enables the politicians to live so splendiferously. It is also not nice to know that the latter are simply playing primarily for power, and a little private gain. Indeed, they are akin to the roosters in a fowl pen at the crack of dawn. Like the hens, we voters are generally despondently quiescent in our acceptance of what we cannot shake off.

Yet, in recent years, Australia and the other leading Western nations have preached to Asian nations the necessity for, and the indescribable beauty of, democracy. Undeniably, democracy has the seductive and inescapable attraction of being seen to give every individual an equal say in how he is governed. However, as was said in Britain more that 350 years ago: "Democracy is the power of equal votes for unequal minds" (attributed to Charles the First). Even in the eighteenth century, it was said that if the people were led to believe that they governed, they could be ruled. Or, as was said more cynically in the following century, democracy is when you say what you like and do what you are told.

Democracy in Australia fits all three descriptions concurrently, with a little icing on a somewhat soggy cake through the ability of voters to change governments. Governments pretend to be driven by the socio-political imagery of the ideologically desirable, Yet, it is known that their vital parts are held in the tentacular grasp of powerful interest groups in the real world.

Most Asian nations have had intimate experiences of European colonial powers. Comparable experiences would be that of slave girls in a harem. But, these nations did learn a little about the West's preferred democratic structures and ideals, but usually only near the end of the colonial era, eg Hong Kong in the late Nineties. After long periods of denial of self rule, is it surprising that these nations might now choose forms of government which represent a pragmatic compromise? Do they not need to strike a balance between their religio-cultural heritage and the politico-social circumstances of the post-colonial era, in which the major players of the West operate like the Mafia families of Sicily? Do they not also need a compromise between the preferred structures of those who had exploited them for so long; the requirements of a government strong enough to balance the conflicting aims of often co-existing ethnic communities driven by tribal loyalties; and the newly-obtained individual right of adult citizens to a free vote? Even those nations which were not colonised (eg Thailand) are now subject to the intrusive demands of Western neo-colonists impinging on strong and divergent local forces.

By what right are these intrusions being made? What happened to the ideal of independent nations working together? What is the rationale for Western nations, with the USA in the vanguard - and accompanied by its Indo-Pacific "deputy sheriff" – threatening Asians with economic penalties of one kind or another if the West's nostrums are not adopted? It is all very simple – the prospects of greater economic efficiency, and greater economic growth and modernisation. This, it is claimed by the West, could be achieved only through laissez-faire capitalism linked to universal suffrage. That is, the asserted rationale for interference by the West in the affairs of the East is the greater happiness of the Asian people – through being free of all communitarian commitments. Instant cultural nudity – how wonderful! Strangely, this prospective nirvana does not include the salvation offered by Christian churches. Obviously, the seductive appeal of material gains is expected to overcome any temptation to feed the soul.

Yet, those countries of Europe with stridently separatist tribal communities, e.g. the U.K., France, Spain, Yugoslavia, Russia, Canada, and Macedonia, are illustrations of tribal tensions not satisfied by the relatively long-standing democratic structures within the borders of their nation-states. For example, Scotland and Wales recently achieved autonomous parliaments. Regional ethnicity-based rights to rule is what it is all about.

In order to attract foreign investment (i.e. investors from the colonising collective), Asian nations are urged to adopt a form of government which suits these investors more. They are also encouraged to believe that they can grow only through foreign investment. This is credible, if appropriate new technology is transferred. However, as certain Asian governments have shown, technology can be bought or leased, without loss of control over key industrial assets. As well, some Asian governments have denied uncontrolled entry by European and U.S. investors to all sectors of their economies. The rejected investments may be those which are seen as likely to damage local cultural traditions, as well as more universal moral standards, apart from impacting on some local power structures. Yet, major Western governments can show great flexibility in their acceptance of democratic structures in Asia (and elsewhere) which are not quite congruent with their claimed ideal. It all depends on the degree of freedom available to the foreign investor to invest, speculate, or culturally percolate. Potential profits to the West _can_ over-ride the ideal rights offered to the East!

In dealing with the West, Asian nations would, however, need to be clear on what is meant by the West, viz. the whole complex of nations dominated by the self-titled "white race", or the NATO West, or West Europe only, or the USA with its British, Australian and other "lieutenants". They will have to be aware of the varying democratic practices in the leading nations of the West, eg the bifurcated national leadership in the USA; the denial of citizenship and voting rights in Germany to even second generation "guest workers"; a Mafia-implicated Italian government, and so on. They also cannot afford to ignore the adulterated forms of capitalism found in these Western nations, eg state-subsidised armament industries; banks and hedge funds provided succour by governments to offset their errors of judgement in the market place; rural industries upheld by the State. All these are forms of capitalism that Asian nations are exhorted to deny themselves. Presumably, powerful developed nations can afford lower standards of economic efficiency.

In reality, it is the nostrums of the USA that matter to the Asian nations, and to developing nations elsewhere. This hyper-power is endeavouring to achieve the greatest empire in the history of the human world. It seeks to globalise its political and market practices. Universal suffrage is to be instant, disregarding the religio-social realities pertaining to each nation-state. What is forgotten is that, when some of the economically dispossessed and politically vulnerable people in Asia (and elsewhere) allowed themselves to be clutched to the bosom of Christ, they did not eat any better, and were no freer, or more secure

More pertinently, it is laissez-faire capitalism which is being foisted upon the Asians. They are required to open all borders. Foreign goods, services, capital, and CEOs (chief executive officers) for their business enterprises should have unfettered entry. Major family companies must be "listed" on stock exchanges to enable Western shareholders, and to permit Western market speculators (also known as market forces) free play. Asian leaders, of course, realise that laissez-faire capitalism was rejected by the capitalistic West a long time ago. Progressive taxation (of a limited kind), re-distributive practices relating to wealth, social safety nets, and people-supporting, institution-protecting, enterprise-fostering, and nation-saving regulations are now in place in the West, together with subsidised and protected industries. It took centuries for these structures and practices to evolve. Universal suffrage – one person, one vote – also took centuries to evolve in the West. One also needs a near-homogeneous people for universal suffrage to be immediately equitable – and effective.

Whilst democracy is necessary as a countervailing force against capitalism, Asian nations would surely need to consider whether Western forms of democracy are appropriate for them. The Asian "tiger" economies showed otherwise. The relevant issues are manifold. Are the much-maligned Asian, or even Confucian, values which enabled these economies to enhance their economic development, whilst maintaining stable communities, still relevant? How are any neo-feudal arrangements, tribal loyalties and, most importantly, an imbalance in economic viability (reflecting cultural differences in attitudes to materialistic acquisition), which might have survived colonialism or Western incursions, to be handled for the time being? How is the dominance by minority ethnic communities of the economies of many Asian nations to be countervailed, in the interests of the total population?

Universal suffrage is meaningless where elected authorities enter into capitalistic arrangements with minority ethnic groups to exploit the people. The overseas Chinese network in South East Asia and the non-Chinese governments of Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, and even Malaysia, are excellent examples of ineffective democracy. The benefits of democratic capitalism do not flow onto the welfare and wealth of the majority of the people – not in a fair measure. A major issue of democracy's links to capitalism is how the developing nations are to avoid becoming permanent economic satellites of the West (as in Africa and Central and South America); and their viability (in economic terms) in the long term, should they attempt to be totally independent of the attempted market place globalisation by Western nations, ie control by multinational corporations.

Developing nations should ask leading proponents of globalisation whether it goes beyond the free movements of financial capital, and the acquisition of foreign assets, to the free movements of all tradeable goods and services, as well as of all humans. They should also ask whether Western nations will allow open entry to foreign entrepreneurs by ensuring competition, ie the elimination of monopolies, duopolies, oligopolies, restrictive trade union practices, government controlled or subsidised industries, and other practices which limit free and equitable participation. The inter-relationships between all the above issues make judgements about what is appropriate, where, and when, extremely difficult, especially if those forcing these judgements are like hyenas tracking their prey; or, worse still, are simpletons ruled by single-principle prescriptions, living in a relatively homogeneous society.

In a fast changing Asian environment in which Western perceptions lie atop traditional values and historical memories, the question may be whether the top layer controls the bottom, or whether the bottom layer characteristics prevail. The contrasts may be between the neo-capitalist, ex-communist Chinese with no cloying cultural ballast and the Indians with their surface Western democracy and a relatively indestructible ancient cultural cocoon. The previous command economy of China allows its people to eat well enough now, and to tear along the capitalist path; whereas India's much-vaunted democratic rights (in the largest democracy in the world) leaves millions in dire poverty, with no power or influence to better themselves. Perhaps it is the Indians who need the Confucian Asian values, which require the rulers to look after the ruled. As for Asian democracies underpinned by principles derived from Islam (eg Indonesia) or Christianity (viz the Philippines). neither formal democracy nor capitalism has done much for the bulk of the people. True democracy thrives only where there is a large educated middle class, with both excessive wealth and terrible poverty unavoidably limited to small sectors of the population, and the benefits of economic development spread widely (as in Australia).

In reality, cultural values and traditions need to underpin acceptable and durable structures of government. Indeed, many a leader in the Middle Eastern Islamic nations has asserted that Islam offers, through the Koran, all the laws, rules, codes of conduct, and other guidance that society needs. Religious practices, trade and commerce, and social relations are all encompassed by the faith. As with Buddhists and Hindus, the extended family, and the clan are the mainstay of social relations and obligations. Against such a perspective, the nuclear families of the English speaking Western world represent the attenuated ties of kinship and tribe. The resultant myopic focus of social responsibility by these families has led to the transfer of individual rights, relating to matters both political and social, to transient representatives linked to amorphously fluid political party structures. Both centripetal and centrifugal forces influencing these structures can be shadowy, whilst often impregnable.

Voters in the Western world therefore place their trust in those who are not related to them by blood, marriage or other tribal links other than sectoral religion. How much can they expect from the bonds of mutual obligation? In a number of Asian countries, those voters who are able to choose representatives offering traditional tribal responsibility would surely expect that the strong ties and obligations of tribal shame and honour have not been eroded.

Generalisations about "Asia" do, of course, risk being nonsensical. Yet, at the political level, many post-colonial Asian nations share a serious problem. Many have had their boundaries set by foreign exploiters without regard to tribal delineations. Each nation can therefore contain an unwilling mixture of tribes, each seeking either to avoid becoming submerged, or to dominate. (A tribe covers a number of clans linked by blood and marriage, the over-arching envelope being shaped by culture, faith, language, history and geography). Even where the ties of tribalism have been weakened in Asia by migration, westernisation and wealth, the expectations of the people can continue to bind behaviour to conform coherently to certain communal criteria for conduct, as well as to reciprocal responsibilities.

The structures of government in Asia therefore need realistically to reflect the balance of power between the tribal agglomerations; at least, for the time being.

Nevertheless, even in that desired future, Western representative democracy can be seen as representing essentially the worst kind of maya (or illusion). This maya is full of mirrors oscillating in smoke of varying density, with peas-in-thimble acts to give electors the belief that they are the decision makers in an uncertain world of chance. In this world, there are vast unseen forces, comparable to the tectonic plates below the feet of mankind, and to penetrating and immeasurably insidious influences originating in the cosmos, which are not publicly alluded to - but which the astute can intuit. So, nations and people play the game of picking rulers, and the rulers prance about as if their movements are their own. If this scenario has merit, perhaps the play ought to be entered into with greater mutual respect - and less distrust and disdain.

As said about 2200 years ago by a weaver sage in South India: "Five ornaments adorn a country: good health, abundant harvests, wealth, happiness and safety from invasions"; "Even if a country acquires all these blessings, it is worth nothing if it lacks harmony between the ruler and the ruled."

### Chapter 5

Here Comes The Neighbourhood

Her frocks are built in Paris,

but she wears them with an English accent

-Saki

For more than half a century, I have watched with amazement (and some embarrassment) at the way the official Australian, his media acolyte, and many ordinary citizens, hold, so assiduously, onto that antiquated "whitefella" view of the neighbourhood beyond the nation's shores.

Of course, it is not easy to know what the government, or more relevantly, its responsible Ministers and officials actually think about those coloured people with strange beliefs, customs and practices surrounding the nation. However, the Australian media have a great capacity, in spite of their confusion of reportage with commentary, for allowing some official perceptions to filter into the public arena. However, the viewer/reader needs to be somewhat perspicacious in receiving this largesse. One has first to winnow out the ambitions of the private sector owners of the media. Then the ethno-political stances of the public sector media poobahs, or the personal prejudices of the individual whose wisdom is being bestowed upon the people have to be identified, and factored into one's understanding of the message.

Ordinary citizens, who rely mainly on the t.v. for keeping up with the outside world, are kept safely chained to the traditional stereotypes, by being fed the usual two dimensional snippet of information. This does not allow any knowledge or understanding of relevant background, or the causes of the effects presented as news, or their real world connections. For example, in the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, who supplied the weaponry, to whom; and who funded each side? Or, as reported, why the US government guaranteed loans to the Israel government to build Jewish settlements in the illegally occupied territories. Or why the US government (again reportedly) is providing financial support to the Palestinian Authority. In any event, with the bulk of the daily news about death and destruction (or about anything else), the Australian media do not seem to have any say about what is garnered, and the manner of its presentation.

Significantly, very little of what is presented to the public comes through as official propaganda. Very little can be readily seen as politico-cultural bias or religo-ethnic prejudice. It is all quite subtle; and only what one would expect from purveyors of propaganda who have university degrees in how to massage the message.

A few examples of the shallowness of the media's coverage and of the Nelsonian approaches of officialdom might suffice. Australians were told relatively recently about victimised Chinese Indonesians (seemingly all Christians) who had to flee from rampaging (Malay) Muslim Indonesians, taking their money with them. How did they liquidate their assets so quickly? Was this in the form of cash under their beds? We Australians were also led to an on-going distrust of Malaysia's Muslim leader, because he was presented as anti-Australian. But his genuine efforts to contain fundamentalist Islam, which might camouflage itself in the language of market-manipulating multinational corporations, were rarely aired. Why not? Isn't fundamentalist Islam a threat to all free peoples?

The devaluing of democracy in the Philippines by a small coterie of rich and powerful Spanish-blood infused land owners, and the domination of the economy by a handful of ethnic Chinese, is quietly ignored. The Hindu Tamils of the north of Sri Lanka are defined as terrorists, because they seek equitable treatment by the Buddhist Singhalese of the south. This was a right they had enjoyed under the British. A thousand years of Tamil settlement being negated by religious bigots is ignored because of the use of arms. How then did Australia accept the terrorism inflicted upon the British and the Palestinians by predominantly East European Jews in order to achieve their State of Israel? How did these Jews escape the clutches of Nazism? The fear by ethnic Fijians of becoming politically over-run in their own lands by non-ethnic Fijians did not seem to arouse any understanding. The need for the Malays in Malaysia to remain economically viable against descendants of non-Malay immigrants (including my own relatives) is also ignored.

That Singapore has difficulty in achieving an effective political opposition party is not apparently relevant. Is this a recognition that an opposition party can be of as much value as brakes on a descending parachute? But, the desire of the westernised politicos of Hong Kong to be independent of Beijing had much of the Australian media in tears. The plight of the Uigurs, Tibetans and others under China's yoke matter not at all, but Australia will defend Taiwan's independence to the last American. East Timor had to be instantly freed of Indonesia, as was Russia of communism, before any transitional arrangements were set in place in order to protect the people. What tragedies could have been avoided!

Russia's right to control the Islamic peoples to its south, Israel's right to settle illegally occupied Palestinian lands, colonial outposts in the Pacific and elsewhere held by the USA and certain European nations, are never queried by the Australian media or government.

What is the logic in these stances? As a nation, Australia waffles about democracy, due process and transparency, and human rights in other countries - but what is this all about? Do the cultures, and valuable proven traditions of peoples matter in Australia's dealings with other nations? Or, is individualism expected to replace past institutional structures? Are all the nations of the Asian and Pacific world expected to follow Australia's Pied Piper path? Are they to ignore the obvious \- that this relatively new history-less nation has no durable traditions to respect, other than its inherited Anglo-Saxon politico-social institutions, and the near-unique fair-go philosophy? These nations already share and respect the British-derived institutional structures of government, law, order and justice. But are they to forget that the fair-go ethic applied to whites only in its original intent? Since Australia has a practice of following its mentor (previously the mother country England, now the USA), will it soon give up its individualism wrapped in nanny-state comfort, in favour of the individualism exposed to dinosaur domination of the American kind?

Since, all through history, possession and power are all that has mattered in human relations beyond the family, one can safely believe that there is no place for ethics, or human care, or consistent logic in international relations. Yet, were Australia to seek political justice for the Kurds, Basques, and other minority tribes within existing national borders - in the manner that the Scots and Welsh were recently treated; and were Australia to respect tribal ethnic rights to self-determination in central Asia and elsewhere (as it did in the case of the Czechs and Slovenes); it would only be following the precedents set by the world's political majors. However, were Australia to support the re-drawing of borders to achieve the re-integration of tribes split by competing European colonisers (eg in Asia, in parts of the Pacific, and in Africa), it would certainly lead the world in seeking ethnic justice. But, it would upset the great powers (white and not-so-white) holding onto territories far from home, under various euphemisms (eg French Caledonia).

Regrettably, Australia is not a leader. It is a wonderful follower. It will offer to follow its mentor to hell and back (eg Vietnam, the Boer War, WW1). Since the current mentor has promised (sort of) to defend us militarily, our policies - both towards our neighbours and in the broader international arena - are guided (if not set) by our mentor. This mentor has no better friend, etc, etc. As such, Australia will act as sheriff in the sector allocated to it. This is no conspiracy theory. Australia's psychological well-being depends on the knowledge of the strength of this relationship. Most of us are indeed happy about this - for it protects us, whilst allowing us to preach to the obviously ignorant (as well as inferior). We need to lead these ignoramuses into the light. Most of the Australian people I know agree with this pragmatic approach. My personal view is that Australia should become part of the USA. We would automatically be a republic, would we not? There would be no further need to agonise about how the President of Australia would be chosen – and about the President's powers. The Governor of the State of Australia – what a resounding title to aspire to!

It is against this background of having a protector that Australia's relations with, and attitudes towards, its neighbours, other nations, and the international agencies, should be viewed. We are not a sovereign nation in this regard, any more than we are in relation to the forces of globalisation in capital movements, and in our need for ongoing capital inflows. Were Australia to become part of the USA, we would enjoy all the benefits of that. This would include the protection provided by the American dollar. Our military defence will also be guaranteed. Our authority to guide the neighbouring recalcitrants in relation to democracy and capitalism will also be clear. We will then not need to join any agglomeration of Asian nations - for, our ethnic and cultural affinities will over-ride the temporal temptations of geography. We can also put aside that fear of foreigners with strange ways of thinking which now incites us to seek acceptance by the same foreigners. The rising population of Asian-Australians will, however, enable us to relate more comfortably with their countries of origin. And all will be well.

However utopia is not yet at hand. Australia \- still the white nation - is alone in an ocean of coloured peoples. Whilst the habits and customs of the latter are now not seen as heathen and unclean, their cultural values, their way of living, doing business, and praying, bother us a little. We know that British or American accents, and Western garb and verbiage (intimations of a Western university education) merely overlay (in the manner of a true palimpsest ) traditional views of the Cosmos, the rulers, the family, and human relationships. Whilst the Asians may profess the same shopkeeper attitudes as those prevailing in the Ultra-West, they might (and probably will) choose to conduct their commercial intercourse in diverse ways. And there's the rub for Australia - for, we have a "one size fits all" mentality!

The approach recommended above is not as vacuous as it may appear. The nation was initially intended to be classless, uniformly white and British, with equitable treatment of all, by the all-encompassing State. This is a most desirable heaven, especially for the listless, uneducated and poor. A surface striving for jobs is all that they are currently required to display. They can even choose to reside in a district with no employment prospects, adequately supported by welfare and Medicare. This is also why opportunistic Asians (from west to east of the continent), but willing to work hard if required, try ever so hard to migrate to Australia or to seek "asylum". For example, an illegal entrant I met returned to his south east Asian home, undetected, after saving enough money in Australia to start his own business. Another illegal entrant, subsequently allowed residence, planned to migrate to Canada (because of better opportunities there, he said) after saving enough in Australia. Of course, other Asians, offering professional and practical skills or business expertise with funds attached, choose Australia mainly for a western lifestyle (whilst retaining traditional values). Some came to Australia, to live at a lower standard of comfort, because of easier access to tertiary studies by their offspring.

If this pattern continues, Australia will have a substantial under-skilled, under- motivated, under-employed, white under-class, over-run by hard-working Asians. The Asians, whether resident, or non-resident by choice, tend to sneer at this under-class. I therefore find myself under attack by my relatives and others because of my government's policies in this and similar areas. That is, Australia is not respected for many of its policies, especially in its relationships with neighbours staunchly defending their independence, sovereignty, and cultural values.

The principal area of disaffection, is Australia's preferment for what it calls human rights. No nation with a black record in race relations can afford to strut the stage preaching human rights, especially if it has a long way to go before its own house is in order. It was bad enough in the years after occupation, for the settlers to seek coloured coolies from China, India and other places in the Asia-Pacific region. This was because British blood and nervous system were considered to be not adaptable to the heat, dust, isolation and loneliness of Australia. It was no better with that colonial upstart's "white man's burden" (ye gods, how patronising), described by some clever fellow as a "convenience of ignorance". Looking back, it is amazing that so much rubbish was written by allegedly Christian (ie human loving) and apparently intelligent white men. Did any other people, at any time in history, so fool themselves by such pompous self-flattery? In a similar manner, Christian missionaries used their indomitable ignorance and social prejudices to attack Asian religions in the colonies. Again, what is it about Christianity that it is always on the warpath? And with no just cause? Did the ephemeral Christ require the destruction of competing gods, in the way that the god of the early Jews permitted the destruction of other peoples in order to take the land allegedly given to them, or in the way the present-day mad mullahs of Mohammad seek to destroy the rights of women?

Human rights, as currently proclaimed, has nothing to do with the exploitation of women, children, indigenous people, and other minorities. This is an essential perspective for the official Aussie; else, he would be found wanting in his treatment of his own indigenous people. He therefore myopically restricts his perception of human rights mainly to political rights. It is a lot safer yapping on about this - in spite of the fact that the USA, which introduced this high-sounding principle purely for international political purposes, does not itself display much respect for it. The USA ignores this principle successfully, as any intelligent observer would know, in its own carved-out area of influence (Central and South America); in relation to its own indigene, the Amerindians; in international trade; in electoral matters; in the so-called UN sanctions; and in its disregard for international law. Whilst no nation should be hung for its past, even the recent past, one has to note such matters as the State of Alabama allegedly continuing the banning of marriages between blacks and whites, and the more recent endeavours by the White House for the USA to take the world under its wing.

In Australia's official pursuit of human rights in Asia, as long as every adult in a country has a vote, the threshold right seems to be satisfied. The mechanism for the expression of the vote may, however, be somewhat opaque. As long as the electoral system appears to be functioning without the use of arms, and any incursions or backdoor intrusions by foreign powers, and other interventions are not overly evident, all is well. Even the lack of an effective political opposition can be quietly ignored.

The penthouse requirement of this view of human rights is that commercial, financial, and other key institutions are open to foreign shareholders. Participation by foreign investors in all markets, industries, the major banks, and the major corporations in each nation, and exposure to market forces (including the major institutional investors and other, eg hedge fund, speculators) is claimed to benefit the local people. A further penthouse requirement is that foreign controlled enterprises are treated no differently than local enterprises! So much for local sovereignty, or policies to foster indigenous enterprises! All major family-owned conglomerates must also expose themselves to foreign equity participation (and "market" manipulation?). However, as an old English proverb has it, "When the fox preaches, beware the geese".

An interesting intermediate platform (ie between the threshold and penthouse platforms) in that official Australian human rights perspective is that no Aussie citizen, even if he originated in that foreign country, is to be put to death there for any criminal actions, or incarcerated in gaol there (even after due process has clearly established guilt). Thus, when Malaysia executed an Aussie drug-runner, many in Australia, including senior politicians, started to froth at the mouth. This was not how Australians deal with that problem, they said. So what? the Asians might say. They do not want to share Australia's social problems of drug dealing, drug addiction, and drug-related crime, which reflect a severe fracture in families. Lengthy gaol terms in Thailand for Aussie criminals led to proposals to have them serve their time in comfort in Aussie gaols. It is obviously a denial of human rights to deprive an Aussie drug-runner or dealer of his favourite soapie programs on Aussie t.v. These scum kill people slowly, but they have rights, right? Or, is it that no foreign court is competent to judge an Australian?

Human rights for Australia (as for its mentor, the USA) is a relatively new development. It could not have been otherwise, given their black histories. Since the late Seventies, the USA has been using "human rights" as an instrument of foreign policy. President Carter built up on President Roosevelt's dictum (in 1942) that "Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere". Four freedoms mentioned in that context were: freedom of worship; freedom of speech; freedom from fear; and freedom from want. It was not clear whether the whole of this dictum was also to apply within the "land of the free". And whether indigenous tribal ownership and land rights would be treated equitably. Clearly, human rights, as asserted by the West, are not taken seriously by Asian nations. Neither do they seem that relevant to their conceptual founder.

The USA tends to make lovely resounding policies. Kennedy of Camelot sounded fantastic - but were his feet of clay or concrete? That he was a "serial womaniser", like so many political leaders in both the USA and Australia, is strictly irrelevant. Has the USA lived up to its political utterances, whilst it supported undemocratic practices and corrupt leaders in the poorer countries of interest to it? What happened to freedom from want in the richest nation in the world, consuming so much of the earth's resources in a manner that will never be matched - ever- by any other people? The Monroe Doctrine, whilst keeping the nations of Europe out of the Americas, does not reciprocally apply to the USA in the claimed spheres of interest of the European nations, does it? The USA bumbles from fiasco to failure politically, eg the Vietnam war (and its vaporous domino theory), SEATO and ANZAAS, but is extremely successful as an economic colonial power globally.

It acts unilaterally and brutally in extending its spheres of influence (always for commercial gain) throughout the world, with Japan as Tonto to the USA's Lone Ranger in parts of Asia, Australia as lieutenant elsewhere in Asia and the Pacific, and poor subservient Britain in an equivalent role in Europe and the Middle East. The Europeans are, however, allowed to continue with their games in Africa. Whatever the idiosyncrasies of the US, we need its protection, and its investment, technology, and management ruthlessness. We therefore accept our role; especially as our lifestyle is secure. But, I do wish that our politicians will stop pretending that we are a totally independent nation in relation to foreign and military affairs.

Unfortunately, the USA's economic nostrums nearly destroyed Indonesia recently, via the IMF pipeline; and caused some damage amongst the economic "tigers" of South East Asia. Its political tactics fed undemocratic leaders in South and Central America, at the expense of the terribly poor peasants there. The latter, in spite of being surrounded by all that rhetoric about democracy-with-capitalism and human rights, seem to be no better off than the poor of India. Perhaps the USA has too many policy or talking heads, facing in different directions. Australia does not have that problem. However, as in the USA, the indigenes are marginalised. "Human rights" are thus used as a cudgel in Asia (and elsewhere) by both nations , in exchange for yet more economic control or policy influence! This behaviour is like that of an expanding supermarket complex driving out the small family owned competitors in the neighbourhood. Governments which accept this behaviour (because they are busily kneeling at the altar of the marketplace) would have little respect for the needs of society and of mankind in general.

In Australia, the human rights issue tends to surface publicly mainly in relation to those nations which Australia dislikes, or fears, or is trying to infiltrate, or bully. We seem to have little to say publicly about the lack of human rights in our economic satellite and part-dependency. We seemed to have little effective to say to a near neighbour when a major ethnic community was effectively disfranchised and the democratic process aborted. Do we have anything to say to any neighbours who experience difficulty in achieving an operational opposition in their parliaments? We are silent about a Commonwealth country which maltreats a major ethnic minority; or when an ally remains in illegally-occupied land, ignores UN resolutions, kills stone throwing children, assassinates "terrorists", and makes homeless the women and children of suspected terrorists; or when our powerful friends starve the children and women of a nation whose leaders we now choose to oppose, or bomb a poor African nation for unclear reasons.

How credible can a nation like Australia be when its vision of human rights is a limited one and, worse still, when it is selectively Nelsonian in its responses? It is even less credible when it behaves like a porter running behind his master carrying the heavy baggage of economic-colonialism, whilst shouting at anyone his master points to. The Japanese have an apt proverb: "The crow that mimics the cormorant gets drowned".

This is the nation (my nation too) which, like an octopus, is waving a tentacle towards what it calls Asia, wanting parts of it badly, but only at times; and always only on its own terms. The thought that ASEAN might, by linking up with China, Japan and Korea in some evolving trajectory, eventually create an East Asian regional identity, frightens some Aussie observers. It can't work, says one, because "there has never been a single Asian civilisation or a successful Asian unity outside hegemonic conquest". So? What could one say about a single North American civilisation? Or about a single Western or even European unity in history? And why should history repeat itself - and everywhere in the world?

Asians are different. And, demonstrably, "Asia is one" (as proclaimed by a famous Japanese artist a century or so ago). This is because non-Islamic Asia has common traditions of long duration - essentially in its approach to religion and social organisation, but also in its shared cultures and art. All of Asia is evolving towards economic and political freedom, having shared the same enemy (the incredibly arrogant European who had to destroy in order to place his footprint on alien land), and the same battles and suffering.

A South-East Asian political unity having been established, a South Asian or, at minimum, a part-Muslim Asian solidarity is now possible - reflecting this shared history, both ancient (religio-cultural) and more recent (colonialism). The Indonesian motto "Unity in Diversity" apparently originated with a poet in the Madjapahit era, when Indian influence was strong over most of South and South-east Asia. The recent overt emergence of a war of cultures (however camouflaged by its originators in the Ultra-West) might be an attempted rebuttal of a thrust to unity by Asia's leaders. Or, alternatively, an attempted takeover of those uniting non-Islamic Asian nations by the "wannabe" leader of mankind.

What is it that Australia wants from, and in, Asia? Latterly, it wants to join in the recently-established dialogue between Europe and the Asian nations. How can it be accepted as part of the Asian team, when its political leaders are divided on whether it is part of Asia geo-politically, economically or culturally? Some say that Australia is a European nation in Asia. This raises the problem of having to choose between Australia's history and its geography. A comparison is my marginal position in Australian society, with my Asian values and my contributory adaptation to Australian practices.

Some Aussies deny that Australia is within the Asian geographical region. Some want Australia to be part of Asia only in an economic configuration, accepting that the Asian way of decision making is not congruent with that of the bull-in-china-shop approach of the blunt speaking Aussie. Some want a gradual merging in all essential aspects of intercourse, relying upon the newly-accepted East Asian business immigrant. Some are afraid that merging will result in the loss of the claim to be the local "top dog", essentially in human rights terms. In any event, Asian nations will surely not accept any outpost of Western neo-colonialism, whether economic or religious, as relevant to its future. In the meantime, Australian policy advisers will have to think long and hard about Australia's identity, and the relations we will seek, through consultation with our Western minders.

Since Australia's Asia seems to be essentially north and east Asia (plus the necessary addition of the brown-skinned too-near nations of Indonesia and Malaysia), how would the economic giant of the future, India, the former central Asian satellites of Russia, and the Muslim nations of Asia view Australia's attitudes? On the basis of Australia's behaviour to date, possibly with gross indifference - whilst India builds itself into a naval power, and together with Pakistan and North Korea, into a nuclear power as well.

Is Australia's principal aim in reaching out to Asia then merely to attract the network of overseas Chinese and their money and contacts? Does this explain the preponderance of new citizens who are wealthy, and mainly of Chinese descent, whether they are from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and other neighbouring countries? It certainly looks like it. It would therefore be useful to know what those new arrivals have contributed to developing Australia. Or, is it enough that they establish businesses in their former home nations in the name of Australia? How would Australia benefit if these enterprises retain their funds and other assets overseas? Indeed, if these entrepreneurs live overseas as well, as Australians (and thousands do), what would Australia gain? To many, Australia (allegedly) is no more than a fall-back address.

Perhaps, Australia's long-term strategy is simply that of attempting to join the new economic and military power, China - through the presence on Australian residency lists of a large mass of wealthy South and East Asian Chinese with extensive commercial links with their original ancestral home and with one another. Would this protect Australia, were China to become aggressive politically or militarily? In any event, what does Australia offer China, or the super-rich and exceedingly powerful overseas-Chinese network? Indeed, what is it that Australia has that it can offer to its Asia, other than a temporary safe haven politically for the rich, raw materials in the form of gas, wool, woodchips, minerals, cut flowers and food supplies?

Under the Pacific Rim Strategy (the successor to Japan's failed wartime Co-prosperity Sphere which, as a resident of Japanese-occupied Malaya, I was happy to see fail), Australia was to supply minerals, energy and foodstuffs to a region dominated by the U.S.A. and Japan. More recently, a writer suggested that Australia's attractions to the super-rich Asians were only beautiful beaches, casinos and good oysters! What about our women, I challenge.

Therefore, why should China (and related nations) support Australia's new but equivocal urge to become enmeshed with those parts of that vast Asian continent which it considers relevant for its future?. China will, of course, be important to European nations. As de Gaulle once said, "It will not be any European statesman who will unite Europe: Europe will be united by the Chinese". China will be important to Australia for the same reason, i.e. its military threat.

On a broader front, why should the nations of ASEAN put up with Australia's interference with their right to define the membership of that Association? Why, too, should these nations tolerate Australia's insistence that the U.S.-preferred APEC is what they need, rather than any other arrangement they might care to have from time to time? As it was, APEC did little to moderate the Asian financial crisis of 1997/98. Is APEC the concealed successor to the Pacific Rim Strategy?

Count me in, is Australia's insistent call to Asia. Why? What are you bringing to the table, Bro?, might be a difficult question for Australia to answer convincingly. Of course, certain major Western nations have had their say about matters Asian; perhaps Australia too has to have a say! I am reminded of an uncle who kept two guard dogs (German Shepherds) - because his home was in a neighbourhood which was potentially unfriendly, even dangerous - and a couple of small household pets. Whenever the Shepherds sounded a warning, the yappers followed suit; sometimes they did not seem to know why they were carrying on the way they did!

It was always difficult for Australia to relate to Asia in many areas of intercourse. Diplomatic relations are fine - but this is not what enmeshing with Asia is about. Understanding - indeed, wanting to understand - Asian cultural stances, in all their Asian diversity is probably the biggest hurdle. This applies to decision-making; the nature and means of dialogue; the establishment of trade and commercial channels; the use of Asian languages and non-verbal gestures in all their subtlety; the understanding of the symbolism and cultural values of the very varied Asian ethnic communities; the recognition of authority structures and inter-tribal relations; a necessary humility visible to the Asians (for they have reasons to distrust whites, whether colonial, post-colonial or eco-colonial); sensitivity to religion-derived practices, and modes of conduct and speech; respect for people and things not respected in the West, eg. age, tradition, custom; and being able to turn a blind eye (perhaps only into the immediate future) to certain commercial practices that one might culturally find abhorrent or unacceptable. When in Rome,...!

Corruption is universal, endemic. Corruption in Asia grew from a pre-colonial fee for facilitation (or a gift), to extortion by administrators exercising discretionary power or control. Reportedly, it worsened where direct colonial rule applied (as in the British territories). Having experienced both gifting and extortion, it is wonderful to live in a society which does not require either. Regrettably, there is clear evidence that the newer East Asian immigrants have been able, in places, to purchase such useful rights as driving licences. Yet, the Aussies do not need to learn from Asian immigrants. Whilst efficient and transparent administrative processes are generally successfully enforced at most levels, except perhaps where there is an inadequate inspectorial system or in-built checks and balances, there is some suggestion of corruption at the political level. Strangely low tenders accepted at local government levels, generous gifts of valuable land at a state level, and valuable rights almost gifted at the federal level have been reported by a vigilant media. Not so strangely, as with white collar crime which rarely sees the high fliers in jail or for appropriate periods, political corruption rarely ends up in court.

The Australian media will highlight the corruption in Asian nations, as if garments of purity are the norm for their owners and shareholders, or for Australian governments. Yet, it has to be said that few Australian political leaders and party members make a fortune in office, as reportedly happens in many a neighbouring nation. What keeps them honest? Obviously a relatively open and free society, with a moderately vigilant media. A legal system which has so many technical loopholes, and the defamation laws, however, tend to cloud the clarity that might otherwise be available.

Minimal State (ie official) intervention or controls would reduce corruption in both Australia and elsewhere. An example comes from the tax once imposed by Australia (when it was a colonial power) on the indigenes of Papua New Guinea, in order to force them to work in the plantations established by Aussie expatriates. Incidentally, would both the PNG indigene and the Asians to their north applaud the Australian government were it now to tax, with a similar intent, the _proven_ work-shy in Australia?

Asian nations, sensitive to foreign control, would have a different approach to the policies preferred by the Ultra-West. Just as Japan learned from the West (more than once) and modernised its economy and its military capacity without foreign domination of its core industries and institutions, so will many of the other Asian nations. Initially, however, following political freedom, they did seek to modernise their economies through strategies reflecting Western concepts of economic progress with its stages of growth.

Subsequently, the goal of development based on market-oriented, profit-seeking enterprises (acceptable when apeing the West was the name of the game), might be modified by divergent cultural values, and unavoidable socio-economic stratification, a necessary balance of power between ethnic communities, independence from colonising or otherwise acculturating foreign investors, and such like. For example, community ownership of land (as a form of a corporate ownership), might be seen as appropriate, especially to protect an indigenous asset base, or to protect the economic viability of an ethnic community at risk. A right to buy and sell anything and everything, and seeking to exploit everything that might be saleable, might be appropriate for very poor people living a powerless life, while they call upon their Creator for succour. It is surely not an appropriate reason for living (or a code of conduct) for peoples so well fed and secure that they do not need even to think about a Creator! By and large, Asians continue to have a strong connection with the Creator through rituals or mysticism.

In consequence, Asian governments may not be as grateful to the foreign investor as is Australia. Technology can be bought, and foreign enterprises controlled, to fit in with medium to long term national plans for economic growth and social changes. Further, Malaysia showed that new approaches are now required to protect national interests against so-called market forces. It broke the claimed rules of the financial market by preventing the outflow of _portfolio_ capital (which is not development capital) when the huge market speculators and manipulators of the Ultra-West destabilised the currencies of fast growing Asian economies. Some of these were, indeed, in a healthy state when that happened. In much the same way, the currencies of Hong Kong and Australia, when attacked by manipulators at the end of the millennium, were also sound. Incidentally, when the responsible central bankers successfully countered the manipulation, they were accused of interfering with the free market!

Is it surprising therefore, that, progressively, there will be support for Prof. Klugman (who advised Malaysia), Camdessus (the former head of the IMF) and Soros (who demonstrated how one brings down a major currency) in their advocacy of constraints to financial market conduct, in the interests of the non-financial sectors of an economy. "Market forces" have been one of the mythical constructs of economics (the science of forecasting the past, because few economists can even agree on what is likely to happen in the future, or the policies required to achieve specified outcomes). The concept achieved a mystical status when powerful corporations and other institutions of the capital market realised their capacity to dominate or manipulate an amorphous and unorganised arena of commercial intercourse, through a claimed homage to these allegedly untouchable forces. Comparable mystical status applies to priesthoods intervening between man and his Creator, and to political parties intervening between citizen-voters and their governments in Western democracies. The reason for the constraints sought on financial market conduct or operators is the welfare of ordinary human beings. We have enough trouble coping with the priapic conduct of nature gods, the erratic impacts of planetary gods, the irascibility of more intangible tribal gods, the relative incomprehensibility of (and the apparent competition between) the gods of the major religions, faiths and sects, and the unknowability of the more mystical cosmic god of all mankind.

Mysticism lies at the core of the major Asian religions. Complex metaphysical concepts, evolved over thousands of years, produced that cluster of faiths, which could fairly be described as _forest_ faiths, (as distinct from the three _desert_ faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Most religions have three components - the devotional, the ethical, and the metaphysical. All of mankind experiences a sense of awe at threatening (and destroying), as well as inspiring, natural forces; at the movements of planets and other rocky objects rocketing along in the firmament which have brought either periodic or casual disasters, as well as foretold wondrous futures; and at psychically illuminating extra-sensory experiences. All of mankind has prayed, in one form or other, to these forces or causes - with fear, respect, propitiation or gratitude (as appropriate) and, when the belly is full, for more temporal satisfaction. The intent of prayer is thus universally uniform.

Then comes the effort to explain. All manner of explanations arise. An elderly Jewish anthropologist told me that the people living at or near the coast tended to have similar or comparable attempted explanations or myths; those living on or close to hilltops tend to have comparable myths. The myths and religious systems represent coherent statements about the origin and nature of the cosmos, and of the place of mankind in it. This is the metaphysical aspect of religious belief. At this level commences that competitive spirit, based on ignorance and wishful thinking. Each tribe can claim to have its own special path to God. Significantly, the most competitive faiths are the latter two desert religions. Why?

It is at the intermediate level that a human being can be linked to another human being, through each being connected to a god or the universal Creator. This is the ethical level - which therefore requires respect, or even love, for one's fellow human, the envelope being determined by the defined nature of that god or Creator. Regrettably, not everyone who believes in God accepts the imperatives of this ethic. Silly debates about the rightfulness of one's path to God over-shadow the reality that there is only one God, and that we are all creatures or extensions of that God.

In any event, there is seemingly no place for ethics in the relationships between nations or tribes - so says most of the history of mankind. Differences in metaphysical concepts and belief have also commenced wars, especially if allied to greed. Prayer is fortunately personal.

It is only in the search for a mystic union with a universal Creator, which is (by definition) a one-to-one relationship, that there can be a sense of being bonded spiritually with one's fellow men. At their core, the major religions (perhaps even their doctrinally divided sects) do offer scope for such a spiritual bond. Mystics seem to have existed in all the major religions. Yet, in Australia, increasing numbers are moving away from Christianity towards an atheistic, but essentially humanitarian Buddhism, or to yoga. The latter, separated from the gods and rituals of Hinduism, is yet based on Hindu concepts.

Buddhism is attractive to some Australians because if offers self-direction, as against the priestly influence or external control of their faith of birth. There are Buddhist temples and monasteries to attend; there are also teachers in the community who provide practice in Buddhist meditation, with its emphasis on compassion. My excellent Buddhist meditation teacher was an English lady. She is now a committed nun in a Buddhist Order based in Australia. Those who have experienced freedom, especially the right to think and act for themselves, and with responsibility towards others, will never give up that right.

Others, indeed many others, have taken up yoga. A simple version of yoga is little more than callisthenics, often taught by those who can see a dollar in it. Those paying the dollars are happy to enjoy a form of exercise, less energetic than aerobics, and which also has a touch of the exotic. It is becoming quite fashionable. There are also individuals who teach breath control, exercises for the body, and meditation for the mind. Although these practices originated with yoga, it rarely receives a mention. Women's magazines are increasingly involved with their readers in such matters, again without any reference to yoga principles.

There are also yoga ashrams which conduct classes for the public. These classes, even the residential ones, are very well supported. The teachers are termed swamis, living either in the ashrams or leading ordinary lives most of the time. The majority of the swamis I met at an ashram seem to have been exposed to ashram life, traditions, and practices in India too. Their acceptance into the yoga system and subsequent development are apparently determined by highly respected Indian gurus.

For example, a woman who had been accepted into a yoga Order wanted to meditate in the Himalayas. Instead, her Indian guru asked her to administer one of the ashrams belonging to his Order. She did that successfully and now has a high status in that community, whilst living in Australia as a wife and mother. Another woman was advised to spend a year in silent meditation in a cave which was within an ashram, also in India. She too has high status as a teacher in the Order, again whilst living ordinarily in Australia. I can vouch for the competence of these teachers and guides. And I express my gratitude to them for placing my feet on that universal path which my spiritual ancestors had lit so evocatively. Others, both men and women, have followed more routine paths, both in India and Australia. Most of these men and women would seem to be white Anglo-Celt Australians.

The exposure of these swamis and the teachers amongst them to the simple lifestyle of the Indian ashrams, also sensitises them to a set of cultural values which reject the materialistic world. I was fascinated to see white people of all ages dressed in the traditional saffron robes, and barefoot, display all the behavioural characteristics of the Indian Hindu swamis. I wondered if I was the only one to perceive the irony of a brown-faced Hindu refreshing himself in the culture of his people through the guidance of white-faced converts to the yoga tradition.

Both white swamis and the converts to Buddhism display essentially a humanistic approach to life. They focus on the meditative process, in order to search within themselves. There was, naturally, no reference to a Creator or to any related metaphysics by the Buddhists. What surprised me was that the yoga teachers too made no reference to a Creator or to any metaphysics. Yet, in their chanting and singing, there was reference to Krishna, Rama, Shiva and other Hindu representations of the unknowable Creator. The three yoga groups that I had contact with referred, in particular, to Shiva. Were these people then Hindus? Not the least. There was no reference to Hinduism as a religion. Yoga is thus taught as a path to spirituality, a search for a higher consciousness, through symbolism borrowed from Hinduism.

I concluded that Hindu principles and practices of the highest kind were the basis of the teachings by these yoga groups or Orders, without any effort to convert anyone to the Hindu religion. Indeed, I found that some of the white Australians who had taken to yoga were generally strengthened in their own faith, whether Jewish or Christian. Indeed, it is clear that the yoga teachers do not make any effort to have anyone change their faith (a lesson in tolerance for soul snatching Christians). Therefore, there should be no concern about the spread of yoga by the leaders of any other religion.

So, in modern Australia, both the Chinese and the Indians are continuing their millennia-old tradition of influencing culturally and spiritually those around them. Even in the pre-history of Europe, waves of immigrants from Asia (and Africa) apparently shaped the spiritual and cultural practices of the early Europeans (presumably through trade and some proselytising), as well as their technology. In historical times, the more advanced Asians (and Egyptians) continued with this acculturating influence. A commendable aspect of this migration and settlement was that the new arrivals merged with those already settled. It is a great pity that the colonisers from Europe in the recent past did not adopt this practice in all of the various lands they exploited (except perhaps in Latin America). So, what is Australia's hurry to join Asia? Asia is already within Australia in ways which are truly pervasive.

Yet, Australia has much to offer Asia, especially in terms of the equitable treatment of fellow humans. But, is Australia capable of dealing comfortably with dark people? Perhaps not - until it can look at its indigenes in the eye, and treat them with the respect of equals. There can be no colour sensitivity in dealing with dark people who possess the comfort, if not arrogance, of ancient cultures.

It might also be worth remembering that Indians (and some of their near neighbours) and the Anglo-Celt Aussies (as well as the mixed-blood Aborigine) can probably claim a shared genetic heritage - descent from the so-called Caucasians. Is it not time for Australia to outgrow that antiquated view expressed in an era of ignorance by a politician that "no red-blooded Australian" would want a "chocolate coloured Australia"? On behalf of all the brown and black fellows of the world, my coloured compatriots and I promise not to colour the nation too much, too soon.

If the Australian nation is prepared to cast its eyes back into history, beyond the recent glories of colonial Europe, and the equally transient ambitions of the "wannabe" saviour of the universe across the Pacific, it will find that the artistic and cultural life of Asia dominated the world for centuries at a time. For example, the supremacy of Persian artistic traditions apparently lasted a thousand years. It will also find much that is commendable in the history of the Buddhist nations of Asia, or of the Dravidian peoples of southern India. The latter are credited with having been a naval power, and establishing the durable trading and cultural empires of Annam, Kamboja, Sri Vijaya and Madjapahit. They were also active in trade with peoples to their west. For example, they took large amounts of gold from the Roman empire in exchange for much-wanted Indian fabric and other goods. I await the day that Aussies wake up to the reality of having to share the Indian Ocean and surrounding waters with a powerful Indian navy.

The preservation of ancient traditions in politics, art and religion for more than a thousand years, whilst northern India was infiltrated and changed progressively by various invading tribes and cultures, is also attributed to the southern peoples. Nehru's perception of what happened to northern India has relevance for those interested in cross-cultural impacts. He described the India of his ancestors as: "An ancient palimpsest on which layer and layer of thought and reverie had been inscribed, and yet no succeeding layer had completely hidden or erased what had been written previously". Asia's future influence on matters Australian should therefore not obliterate this country's more commendable origins and formative influences.

Within this framework, the debate on "Asian values" has relevance. Asian values, being historically universal values, are here to stay, possibly indefinitely. Aussie policy makers might perhaps re-evaluate their over-enthusiastic embrace of the kind of extreme individualism that the ultra-West displays publicly. When one is confronted with the great social disruption of Western nations caused by unfettered individualism and the associated values and consequential conduct, one needs to get off one's high horse about human rights based upon individualism over-riding mutual responsibilities within families, and community cohesion within a multi-ethnic nation-state.

"Asian values" do represent an unbridgeable chasm between Asia and the ultra-West, and therefore Australia. When worn by leading Asian leaders as not only a badge of honour but also as a weapon of retaliatory attack in the socio-political arena, the response by the West displays a fascinating combination of both ignorance and intolerance. Leading academic and media commentators can, of course, act as storm troopers to the West's capitalist-harnessed politicos. It is also amazing that so much froth and bubble could be generated in what is effectively a battle for cultural hegemony; although the underlying motivation is, as ever in history, access to (and control of) assets and resources - as well as commercial advantage.

The adoption by the USA (and therefore naturally by Australia) of "human rights", as the latest "star-wars" weaponry in international relations, is just another manifestation of this eco-cultural neo-colonialism. Christianity and the Bible gave way to human rights and international obligations. These obligations are defined in the bibles of international agencies by prophets guided more by first principles than by the First Cause. Their bottom line is that the values of the individualistic ultra-West must prevail universally, indeed, throughout the Cosmos.

However, it may not be so much the family values of mutual responsibility, or the moral values of hard work, education, saving of funds, and restraint in both consumption and self-expression (all components of "Asian values", and manifest throughout Asia, and perhaps in parts of the Mediterranean), that the ultra-West objects to. It may be the respect for, and acceptance of, authority (from head of family, through head of tribe, to head of nation) that seemingly rankles. These latter heads are frequently non-transient. Is that the problem for the "ultras"? Is it also a problem for the ultras that these rulers can also assert moral values (based upon their religious or social beliefs) which are not congruent with market-based axioms? Indeed, is there a moral base for the "market speak" politico-cultural values of the Ultra-West? What ethic upholds the greed-is-good, market forces-based globalisation process which stresses the supremacy of profit taking (and the primacy of shareholder interests) at all costs? Is there also a moral code underpinning the widening range of individual rights asserted in recent times in the West?

Were Australia to be integrated into both East and West, its future could easily fit the following scenario: Japan and the U.S.A. to provide it with necessary capital and technology; highly skilled Asians imported to supplement a highly skilled local technological work force; spiritual guidance to flow increasingly from freedom-granting Asian philosophies (perhaps from India and Taiwan); military security to be granted by China and the USA (with each eye-balling and growling at the other). In economic development and trade, Australia would enmesh with Asian nations. The latter would carry out the low labour cost manufacturing, whilst Australia would provide the communications, technology and financial hub. But what is the nation to do with its under-skilled, under-educated, under-class?

If this scenario is not acceptable, we Australians had better work with the long-lasting Asian nations about becoming truly independent. We need to be eventually free from control by foreigners - spiritually, culturally, financially and politically. By utilising our own multicultural resources, we might build strong co-operative links with all our Asian neighbours, rejecting (at all costs) any desire to dominate these partners. Enmeshing with Asia under a revised paradigm may make this possible.

Could one therefore describe those currently involved in frantic efforts to grapple with Asia as "a mixture of fools and angels as they rush in, _and_ fear to tread, at the same time"? As my father used to say, "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on". The Asian caravan is surely moving on. And as Kissinger advised: "The absence of both an over-riding ideological or strategic threat frees nations to pursue foreign policies based increasingly on their immediate national interest." He also quotes Richelieu: "Man is immortal, his salvation is hereafter. The State has no immortality, its salvation is now or never".

The message for Australia? Stop preaching. The white man was not created to dominate the world. Throw away the new "bibles". Let each nation seek its own path to progress, whilst balancing the counter-claims of its ethnic, religious or language-based communities. Relate to each nation as fairly as possible, seeking to understand, not to condemn, or to act as a hired hand (or mercenary). Mutual respect (now sadly lacking) will follow. And, as said wisely by Sathya Sai Baba, "Do not harbour anger or bitterness against persons who point out your faults; do not retort by pointing out the faults of those persons themselves, but show your gratitude to them."

### Chapter 6

We Are One

"The whistle shrilled and, in a moment, I was chugging out of Grand Central's

dreaming spires, followed only by the anguished cries of relatives who would

have to go to work. I had chugged only a few feet when I realized that I had

left without the train, so I had to run back and wait for it to start."

—S.J.Perelman

In spite of some quibbles and a few strong criticisms, I do aver that Australia is a wonderful nation. It is indeed the nation of the future. We, the people, are a mix of diverse origins living together amicably. As one of the very large influx of post war immigrants, I can say that most of us work very hard to improve ourselves and thus have a positive impact on the nation. Both by choice and by opportunity, I myself have made a small contribution to the direction taken by my nation over the last half century.

Why do I claim that Australia is the nation of the future? Because, in the midst of the Darwinian jungle of mankind in nature, there remains in this country that strange "old Aussie" ethos of the "fair-go". Whilst it arose from the concept of a white nation, as a paradise of equality for Christian people with a colonial cast, this ethos now encompasses a cosmopolitan conglomerate from all over the world. Regrettably, this umbrella does not quite cover the Australian indigene. Worryingly, the seeds planted by the "flower power" generation have grown into sturdy trees. These are now rattling the nation's societal foundations as they are buffeted by the gales of individual rights.

This Anglo-Celt virtue is what makes us unique. This is in spite of governments standing in for the family in many areas of mutual obligation; and in spite of the self-focussed individualism associated with a full to comfortable belly (even when on welfare); and in spite of the radius of trust in the community being progressively diminished by those on top of the economic pile taking up far more of the resources of the nation than is morally seemly. In addition, families are becoming dysfunctional, leading to the slow unravelling of the social fabric.

The escalating access to _positive_ freedoms and asserted rights, for much of which there seems to be an inadequate, if any, rationale in ethical terms, is cybernetically countervailed by the corrosive charms of a progressive shedding of personal commitment. Assertive outspoken behaviour, reflecting an insistence on defending one's self-esteem, is burying mutual respect and manners. Strangely, the fires of moral nudism are being fuelled by some churchmen and welfare merchants. Aboriginal and other coloured people are also not receiving equitable access to positions of power and responsibility. Indeed, they are often seen by some whites as somehow threatening. Overall, indigenous people do not get their fair share of the "sunshine".

Racism is, of course, a mental illness, manifest in response to an intolerable situation. Its origins lie in a schizophrenic belief in the inherent superiority of one's kind. Having one's public spaces filled by previously unacceptable foreigners is bad enough. Now the "white race" is being challenged by the Australian blackfellow wanting to sail his own boat. And coloured foreigners are also chanting, "What about me?" whenever opportunities occur on the ladder of personal progress. (Where will it all end?) However, in the light of the after-image of the savage display of white colonial brutality, I do wonder if the Aussie indigene will ever be able to say "I have a dream".

As part of Western civilisation, Australia lacks that collective life of its foundation period. A collective or communal life is the basal format for peoples who are not industrialised in the fashion of the developed nations. Lacking that collective (or community) life engenders a self-sufficient, self-focussed (and possibly narcissistic) individualism. At its worst, it can result in an inward looking personality, who tends to say (like a 3-year old) "Me, me."

Yet, that Anglo-Celt ethos prevails; as do the political and other structural institutions inherited from Britain. These are accepted without challenge by that army of post war immigrants, not all of whom had much prior exposure to these valuable mechanisms. Just as the diverse tribes from the British Isles formed themselves into the modern Aussie, without significant erosion of core cultural traditions and values, so we immigrants are re-shaping the nation-state and the national identity, to produce a palimpsest. Core characteristics of the Anglo-Celt Aussie inheritance will therefore not be swamped. This outcome is being achieved only by goodwill, by both hosts and new settlers. We settlers recognise and value that which has been made available to us. Many of us understand the anxieties generated in the host people by the relatively sudden huge influx of a very great variety of outsiders. In turn, many of our hosts realise that, while nothing can remain the same, the changes triggered by us will prove to be beneficial in the long term.

At least, some of us have improved the colour of the nation! Through the positive impacts of ethnic and cultural diversity, we are also better equipped to relate to the coloured nations to our north. And we do need to relate to them with mutual respect. And to intrude less into their socio-political structures, and their cultural institutions. Hopefully, we will become less apprehensive about their religious beliefs, as we become better educated.

Overall, we are still relatively class-less as a people, in spite of our leaders' ambitious greed; the poor and future-less increasing in number, whilst they slide slowly down the snakes in the "snakes and ladders" game of economic survival; and in spite of the techno-nerds and the successful speculators in the casinos of the stock exchanges temporarily surfing a yuppie lifestyle. Home ownership is high, with mortgages up to their eyeballs for those temporarily secure in two-income families (and buying ever larger homes). The poor, whether on welfare or in part time jobs offering neither security nor a future, yet live in rent-subsidised comfort. Almost everyone can afford some sort of car. Indeed, in many retirement areas, the elderly own relatively new cars and live in over-large houses, with many cleverly receiving a part age pension (and the associated benefits).

We all speak our own minds, and address one another by first name at first contact We have almost dispensed with the social conventions and manners which, throughout history, have lubricated inter-personal relations. We do not see this as inconsistent with a mature, confident people who, historically, would have acted and spoken with some grace. We do not have an aristocracy, although some of us allow ourselves to be guided by "princes" with diplomatic status and living in splendour. Our erstwhile squattocracy is being partially eclipsed by exceedingly rich East Asians and media moguls, as well as the professional downsizers and the apparently loyal wives of many a take-it-and-run failed corporate chief or forgetful barrister.

Our media flood us assiduously with depictions of every disaster that comes to their attention, wherever it is in the world at large. Our newly discovered uncertainty about the future (whilst we continue to get fatter) is thereby enhanced. Our knowledge of geography is also much improved. But our news readers and sports commentators have not yet learned to pronounce Asian names correctly; nor do they display any interest in doing so!

We are, however, comforted by novel forms of synthesised takeaways, often of a foreign kind. We are enthused, either by replays of clever British humour, or films showing excruciating violence from that land of the consummate consumer. The deadened senses of our couch potatoes are simultaneously stimulated by simulated sexcapades. Fortunately our infotainment industry is a good copyist, except in attempting humour. As a nation, we are incapable of emulating the subtlety of our British forebears; thereby continuing to confirm to the leaders of our founding nation that we remain an inferior species.

The nation grows through the demands generated by population increases, and financed by foreigners, some of whom are the previously feared "yellow hordes". This increase is achieved primarily through immigration, even if the entrants are not employable for a very long time. We are a trading nation, selling primary produce, minerals, education, some scenery, oysters, a wonderful climate, a friendly people, and such like. In return, we import production and (most) military equipment, the bulk of the manufactured consumer goods, financial speculators, exotic prostitutes, lots of ethnically diverse gangsters, relatives, economic refugees, and such like. As a result, we have grown into an interesting, culturally mixed people, full of confidence, and a relaxed and indifferent warmth, living in a colourless nation (the green of the wattle notwithstanding), where mediocrity is queen. (Yes, we have lots of queens.)

We produce beautiful babies who wiggle their toes at us with great cheek and charm as we pass. Our women are healthy, speak their own mind, and reach out for anything that captures their fancy. Our men are fit, learning painfully about gender equality, and hopelessly seeking to accept new roles whose boundaries are somewhat twitchy. We also produce great scholars, sportsmen, artists, dancers, dramatists, and other culturally valuable people. In the arena of a ridiculously high level of unemployment, the middle class (which carries the tax burden of the nation) caringly feeds the unfortunate, and reluctantly supports the lazy and the cunning, some imported.

No one starves except through incompetence or poor management - for everyone in need receives money from governments, with other assistance from charities and lots of kind individuals. The ethos or spirit of the community is maintained by a small but efficient army of volunteer workers. No one is homeless except through temporary mishap, or a permanent inability to manage their own affairs, caused by illness or drugs. This does not stop the perennial whining from someone or other, with the kindly aid of the media, about alleged inadequacies in this or that cash or service flow to the self-defined needy. The most strident of the whingers are those who choose to care for others, but who focus inordinately myopically on their own bailiwick. Like the generally self-appointed guardians of privacy principles, "human rights", a "right to life" (but not of a painless and dignified death), and such like, these caring people are rarely able to see the whole canvas, and thus to offer pragmatically useful and balanced solutions. These people should try living in some other country, even of the Western kind!

Reflecting, in part, the growth of State intervention, and the social alienation introduced by the availability of cheap cars, neighbourhood communities seem to have lost the ability to get together to seek solutions to community problems like drug dealers, unaccountable politicians, inadequate health services, and inefficient schools.

The rip-off merchants are everywhere, some operating within the law. Overall, we are a law abiding people. By and large, as our law keepers do a good job, there is both personal and national security at an acceptable level. The influence of "bent" police does not seem to be significant. Policemen, as a whole, would seem to be frustrated by kindly magistrates and judges, and obfuscating barristers. An inherently deficient legal system places the protection of the accused ahead of justice to the victim and to society. It also has an expensive method of getting to the truth. There is also a shortage of prison cells. Inequitable penalties and quaint judicial procedures favour white collar and wealthy criminals and other defaulters, especially those who glow on the limited social register.

Our judiciary, with its apparent emphasis on the letter of the law and the primacy of individual rights, is a bit of a problem. Justice therefore takes second or third place in the scheme of things. And some members of the judiciary are claimed to accept prevailing community values in interpreting the law. Fortunately, we have some alert and socially conscious media people. Our freedom to speak freely, backing the media, gives us a demotic society not yet available to our Asian neighbours. But we have not yet achieved that level of democratic responsibility promised by the intent of representative democracy. In the meantime, our elected aristocracy empties the trough as fast as it can, whilst pretending to be underfed. But there are junkets aplenty to compensate for their sense of being under-valued.

When we have had enough of the current charade, we will change our political system to represent our views and needs - and to take the nation into the future in a planned, coherent manner. We also need to protect our sovereignty, especially against the globalisation tide, and a scary belief that greed-driven acts in the so-called market place will deliver optimal outcomes for society. The exclusive emphasis on efficiency in the utilisation of economic resources, which continues to devalue the joy of human existence, needs to be countered. We need to accept that humans are not merely resources. The sacrifice of communities of industrial and other workers, as well as of farmers and other producers, needs to be curtailed. Market-speak economists, whose theology cannot allow for non-material joy, and who guide political leaders to rely on God's Will or the wondrous impacts of the market place, also need to be re-educated.

The way we look after everyone (almost) is what makes us unique. This attracts the world's weak, the greedy, the opportunists (because we offer you money as soon as you get residence rights), the hopeful (who are prepared to work hard for a better life), and the ambitious (who know that this is an excellent place to rip everybody off, with little risk of going to gaol if you wear a white collar). It also facilitates the spawning of some bottom-of-the-harbour kind of sludge by those who make a lot of money advising those who prefer to take than to give. When intrepid boat people from all parts of Asia learn from their Australian advisers how to whinge about their "needs", we know that we are progressively becoming a nation of mendicants. Self-reliance and mutual obligation are going to be painful lessons soon. A much needed lesson is for the unemployed to seek work in order to earn an income, instead of something called a job, and a suitable one at that, being presented on a plate.

Although there is no evidence of any long term planning by those in power (except for that minority church), the nation bumbles along on a reasonable keel; hence the misapplied appellation, "the lucky country". The future requires a vision. This cannot be achieved through "spaghetti" diagrams, commissions for the study of this or that, and voluminous reports. What we need are proven planners who can lead us to specified outcomes. Perhaps the Asian nations will lend us some. With a clear view of where we want to go as a nation, planning can be piecemeal in implementation, consistent with the concept of an adaptable open society offering freedom. To have jumped from a closed society to an economic-financial open society in the Seventies without a template was foolish. Foreign purveyors of free market principles have no regard to our welfare. When greed is good, why should they?

No Asian nation will ever afford to look after its people the way Australia does. Life in Asia is tough, very tough - for most of the people. Those with skills and leadership are rewarded most handsomely, some obscenely. This can be done only because they ride on the shoulders of the large numbers of the poor and very poor, a practice certain Australians and imported CEOs are now trying to re-introduce into their own domain. By breaking down some intransigence by our trade unions and by ignoring the basic educational and technical training needs of our young, this outcome may yet be achieved. Whilst Asians everywhere are learning to speak and write good English, many in our media and some educators have been assiduously busy in bringing an expressive language down to the level of the common man's incapacity.

However, unlike Australia, Asian societies have, not the impersonal State, but their families, to provide succour in need. The bonds of family, the clan and the tribe are powerful there, even amongst those who, only two generations ago, were themselves immigrants. This is something that we Aussies do not have, and probably never had, because the State stepped in before the early arrivals could re-clan themselves. Tribal influences can, however, be found in Australia - mainly in the arena of religio-politics. Those who genuflect towards Rome dominate far too much of our social policies. What right has any church to seek to impose its own religious values upon a multicultural, multi-religious people, when its flock is only another minority? Is not Australia an officially secular nation? Why do Australian governments then collude in this takeover?

Domination of Australian society is enabled in part because of the seemingly circumscribed levels of intellectual rigour and the lack of political foresight of our rulers. Allowing a minority religious sect to have the multicultural multi-religious citizenry of an officially secular nation-state conform to its challengeable theology also suggests a moral vacuum amongst these rulers. Far too many of these tug their forelocks a little too subserviently, not only to Rome; but also to the USA, and to anyone else who supports us financially. They do this whilst complaining loudly and emphatically about Asian peoples who are willing to be ruled by authoritarian governments. Indeed, foreign influence, control or rule has always been part of the Aussie environs. Specifically, British colonial rulers and financiers gave way to the American military and industrial complexes, and thence to global financial market speculators and manipulators. The slide of the $A to less than 50cents US in AD2001, which the pundits are unable to explain, is clear evidence of the last influence.

Add to that the combating influences of: that terrible fear of Asians, which has kept the nation hanging on to the apron strings of one far-off protector or other; an inferiority complex engendered by the "stain" of convict origins; and the colonising cult weighed down spiritually by the "white man's burden" . This out dated "burden" is reflected in the bullying of Asian nations about "human rights", or their structures of democracy. It is also manifest in the (white) fox's version of capitalism for flocks of (coloured) geese. Quaintly, the contra-indicating need for further investment in Australia by the Japanese and the overseas Chinese network is accepted without rancour.

We are effectively the newest state of the USA. We are acquiescent, if not quite happy, because we believe that we will be protected militarily. Our policies, both foreign and internal, must naturally suit our protector. And we are to act as "deputy sheriff" in our surrounds. Our role is comparable to that of Britain and Japan - and, in the future, Israel - in their respective allocated spheres of interest. That is, we can switch off all moral considerations in international affairs, whilst wearing that white colonial governor's hat with all those lovely plumes. We certainly do not want to note the obvious - that eunuchs make the best servants. We are thereby secure from the threat of other great powers, as we were from the imagined threats of international communism, tiny Libya, our Asian neighbours, and other home-grown demons. (What about the Martians?)

This allows our major political parties to play musical chairs. Our representative democracy seems to be little different from that in the other Western nations. So, when we and the USA preach the virtues of the ultra-West's preferred form of democracy for Asia, and the advantages of laissez-faire capitalism, we are ignored by those we seek to keep rounded up. Why should this be so? Well, whilst we are seen as nice guys, we are not respected for our independence, or for our vision of the desirable future. We, in turn, do not seem to realise how important it is for those people, who have got rid of the colonising white man, to conduct their affairs as they see fit. In any event, imposing adult suffrage on the Asian nations, without the requisite underpinning of a people unimpaired by tribal loyalties, ignores the evolutionary processes which parent durable change. Laissez-faire capitalism was also rejected by the West in favour of more equitable forms of capitalism. So, why sell it to Asia? To enable greater exploitation by the West?

Financial, trading and commercial considerations are, in the final analysis, the primary determinants in international affairs. Why not stop trying to tell Asian nations what's good for them? We should then be better respected. Indeed, why do we not behave like an equal, especially since our military protector's umbrella also covers our immediate Asian neighbours? Have we not become aware of that yet?

Thus, Asian leaders, many of whom would have difficulty in forgetting the sins of European colonisers, are fast developing their nations as they see fit, or as enabled by inherited complexities. The successful ones are the currently authoritarian ones. These leaders are attempting to balance tribal aspirations within the challengeable borders set by colonial overlords, especially where large immigrant populations threaten to dominate the indigenous people, or small financially powerful, tightly-knit, immigrant communities control the economy. These leaders cannot yet allow concepts of absolute individual rights of the ultra-Western kind to prevail. And they use "Asian values" as a barrier against the re-colonisation of their nations. Are we mature and insightful enough to see this? How long has it taken the peoples of Europe to form themselves into stable nations? How long has it taken these nations to achieve a requisite level of internal cohesion? Are there not tensions within some of these nations still? I refer to the Muslim peoples of the Balkans, the Basques, the Irish, and others who want their share of the political sunlight. Ultimately, given enough time for tribal prejudices and religious fears to dissipate within the European nations and in the new Asian nation-states, and the expected marriages across ethnic boundaries, one can hope to find one people emerging out of ethnic diversity - as we are already doing in Australia.

In the current ethnically diverse Australia, as long as tribal leaders (viz. the priests and politicians) do not seek to keep their people separate, we will progressively produce a revised model of Australian. This will happen because human beings do have a natural (ie innate) instinct to gravitate towards one another. This attribute is readily evidenced by young children of all manner of ethnic origins in child care centres. They see neither colour nor culture. In my time of responsibility for child care policies in migrant hostels, I used to take people to show them the future of Australia in the making.

When the revised model is achieved, since the new will enrich the old, we will not lose the essence of the vintage Aussie. This vintage Aussie continues to extend a helpful friendliness to all, in all manner of transactions, without significant regard for payment or protocol. This attitude is something that many of our immigrants need to emulate. The increasing inter-ethnic marriages, the on-going breakdown of priestly control, and the manner in which successive generations conform to common but evolving patterns of conduct, are testimony to my claim. As we progressively control our politicians, we will begin to offer more equitable treatment in the nation, with colour and cultural differences becoming irrelevant.

Regretfully, as my generation of "old Aussies" also see it, there is a progressive social degeneration in Australia, as in the other ultra-Western nations. This reflects the rule of individual rights, and is no beacon for nations in which the family retains the societal values it has always had. The extended family surrounding and supporting children with two in-residence genetic parents has been the basis of society in the great civilisations of the world, over the millennia. Just as the great waterways require good clean rivers to flow into them, so society requires community minded stable families to convey mankind into the future.

It is now Anglo-Celt Australia which therefore has to change. It needs to rebuild its communities to enable the close inter-relationships between individuals which used to prevail before individualism took over their souls. This is actually being done in some parts of the UK and Canada, in spite of that quaint thatcherite view that there is no such thing as society.

We may obtain the clever and mature leaders that we need for this objective of re-building society by making the political system more democratic. More independents, small special-interest groups, less pay and perks (including less scope for "study tours" and other rorts), and more accountability, is what we need. More significantly, we need our views to be represented in our parliaments; and we want minority party representatives and independents not to be eliminated by the allocation of preferences. We also need mechanisms for our elected representatives to be informed about our views.

That the family, not the hedonistic individual, is the vehicle which takes society into the future needs to be accepted as the fundamental position for the reformation of the nation. The flow of stable life is through co-operative societies. The core units of humanity which enable this are families composed of both sexes, with diverse yet shared roles. It is the children in such families who ensure that mankind survives and progresses. Sacrifice is part of this flow into the future.

More emphasis on mutual obligation in marriage, including the obligation, first to the children, and then to the extended family and to society, is absolutely essential. Marriage should be recognised as between a man and a woman, with the objective of producing children, who will be guided and shaped by the parents into responsible citizens. We should remember Kahlil Gibran's wisdom about our children belonging to Life. They are not the _property_ of individuals, or of any twosome who have chosen to co-habit. They are the carriers of essential nutrients, in the form of moral values and appropriate conduct, for the sake of the societies of the future.

Less State support for "broken" marriages; for drug takers; for those too lazy to move to where work is available or to create paying jobs; and for others who now believe that it is better to receive than to give, would be appropriate. We should aid the dysfunctional to be re-integrated into society. We should therefore treat drug addicts as we treat criminals – to return them to society, after enforced treatment, as participating citizens. We should avoid the on-going production or importation of the weak in will. We need to foster the development of more sturdy, and emotionally and spiritually healthy, people. When striving "adventurous" immigrants and refugees become welfare mendicants soon after arrival, one has to challenge one's leaders. Less cringing to foreign investors and speculators, and to military protectors would also help. In this context, are we really under threat from any Asian nation? Are the Asian nations not too busy attempting to survive the onslaughts of rampant globalised "market forces" and manipulators?

Crucially, are we (as are the Asian nations) not entitled to retain sovereign spaces, sovereign rights, and cultural traditions? The handful of academics and business men who seek an international citizenship without national borders will no doubt emigrate as soon as Australia is threatened militarily or financially. Should not Australian society also be (as are Asian societies) free to pray as we wish? Should we not be free to think and act for ourselves, provided we do this in a responsible manner? Those Aussies who wish to acquire Jewish American accents by avidly watching the sitcoms on commercial tv are already free to do so!

The desirable pathway for us is clearly visible, without further elaboration. Notable Western leaders and learned writers have contributed to defining this pathway. All that we need is a little more maturity, courage, and responsibility from our future leaders; as well as a vision of what we ought to be as a people and as a nation- state.

Such a place and position might be as a sovereign state, relating as an equal to the sovereign states of Asia, without any crap about white multicultural man in the southern hemisphere leading the multi-tribal coloured Asian heathen towards the light. Neither Christianity nor the ultra-West's vision of democracy has a claim to be unique or even durable. There are many paths to our Creator, as the tolerant forest faiths of Asia have demonstrated for more than two millennia. The paths to political freedom have to evolve, not to be imposed. And more equitable treatment of our indigene, with equal opportunity for all coloured people, is a must, lest the Creator finds us wanting!

We might then expect that there will be less divergence from the intent and impact of Asian values as against Australian practices in all spheres of human action. Then we can all claim to be equals, and our babies can continue to wiggle their toes at us with mutual joy.

Of course, there are many "blips" on the screen of life. A sense of tolerance and fair play and a little justice will help us to deal with these in time. Since mankind is what it is, a sense of a renewed "fair-go" in Australia should counter the current societal deterioration, and continue to take our nation-state in the right direction.

Nirvana cannot be found on earth. And life will continue to be a conundrum, with Destiny playing its unpredictable part. In our search for meaning in the Cosmos, we should be free to follow our own paths, for the way to the Celestial Abode above is manifold.

The following extract from a poem by Po Chu-I from the eighth century (publisher not known) provides a perspective for our search:

The Sand and the waves

The sand comes and goes, wave after wave,

The surge dies, another rises.

Stirring and re-forming endlessly,

They level the mountains and seas in time.

The white waves go out into the vast ocean.

The smooth sand stretches away into boundless distance.

Ceaselessly, day and night, never ending

They will make the east ocean into a land of fields.

To journey ten thousand miles over a green grass lake,

I set sail in monsoon rains,

Continually perturbed at the thought of a harbour at night,

Where the winds whistle and sombre waves are lapping.

There will be a day when dust will fly over this sea.

One day, too, the mountains will turn into sand.

Who had thought my love will abandon me here,

Or that the prow of the ship is never turned back?

Following the tides, riding the waves to the horizon,

How many travellers ever returned?

You may search in the city for wealth and power,

But remember always what happened to sand and waves.
