Home Blog Page 73

Viktor Yeimo denounces Jakarta’s ‘systemic racism’ in Papua in his treason case defence

0

Jubi News

A West Papuan leader, defending himself against treason charges, has denounced “systemic racism” by Indonesian authorities in the Melanesian region in a court hearing.

Viktor Yeimo, the international spokesperson of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), presented his defence statement — pledoi — in a hearing at the Jayapura Class 1A District Court in Papua Province last Thursday.

He claimed that the treason charge against him was discriminatory and had political undertones.

Yeimo also argued that the trial conducted at the Jayapura District Court had failed to provide evidence of any wrongdoing or violation of the law — let alone treason — on his part.

The accusation of treason against Yeimo was linked to his alleged involvement in the anti-racism protests in Jayapura City on August 19 and 29, 2019.

These protests were made to condemn derogatory remarks made towards Papuan students at the Kamasan III Student Dormitory in Surabaya on August 16, 2019.

On August 12, 2021, the Jayapura District Court registered the alleged treason case under the case number 376/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Jap. The trial was presided over by chief judge Mathius and member judges Andi Asmuruf and Linn Carol Hamadi.

Witnesses ‘proved innocence’
When reading his defence statement, Yeimo said that all witnesses presented by the prosecutor had actually proven the fact that he did not plan or coordinate the demonstrations against Indonesian racism that took place in Jayapura City.


Video of Viktor Yeimo’s defence presentation.  Video: Jubi TV

“At the August 19, 2019 action, I participated as a participant in the action against racism, and took part in securing the peaceful action at the request of students until it was over,” Yeimo said.

During the hearing, Yeimo argued that the witnesses produced by the prosecutor had actually corroborated his innocence. Their testimony had shown that he did not organise the protests in question.

Yeimo maintained that he had simply participated in the protests as a supporter of the cause and had helped ensure their peaceful conduct.

“During the protest on August 19, 2019, I merely acted as a participant and helped maintain a peaceful demonstration until it ended,” Yeimo said in his defence.

Yeimo highlighted the testimony of Feri Kombo, the former head of the Cenderawasih University student executive board in 2019, who affirmed that Yeimo was not involved in the planning or coordination of the anti-racism protests.

Kombo was summoned as a witness on February 7, 2023, and testified that Yeimo had only given a speech at the event when requested by the protesters, and that the speech was intended to maintain order among them.

Delivered speeches
“I delivered speeches expressing my disappointment with the acts of racism in Surabaya. This aspiration is protected by the country’s laws as a constitutional right,” Yeimo said.

“As stated by the state administration expert witness and the philosophy expert witness, this right has a scientific basis.”

In addition, Yeimo stressed that he had never been involved in participating, let alone planning, in the protest that occurred on August 29, 2019, which was confirmed by all the witnesses presented in the trial.

Yeimo admitted that he had taken photos and videos in front of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) office and the Governor’s Office, but did not join the protest.

Yeimo clarified that he captured photos and videos to share with journalists and the public outside of Papua since the internet network was cut off by the central government at the time.

He added that President Joko Widodo had been found guilty of unlawful acts by a judge in the State Administrative Court in relation to the internet blackout.

Response to racism
Yeimo said that the anti-racism demonstration was a spontaneous action taken by both Papuan and non-Papuan people in response to the racial insults that had been directed at Papuan students in Surabaya.

“The 2019 anti-racism protest that spread throughout Papua was a spontaneous response by Papuans and non-Papuan sympathizers from various backgrounds including private sector workers, students, farmers, military and police, and others.

“Everyone was reacting to the racist remarks in Surabaya. The demonstration in Jayapura was organised by students and the Cipayung group, and there was no planning, conspiracy, or treason as alleged.

“My speech was to represent the Papuan people who felt outraged by the racist insults. I deny all accusations that link me to my organizational background and other activities that have no direct connection to the facts of the anti-racism protest,” Yeimo said.

Yeimo stated that during the protest on August 19, 2019, he spoke about the issue of racism and discrimination in Indonesia. He emphasised that these problems were not merely personal issues but rather systematic problems that were perpetuated for the benefit of the ruling economic powers.

“It is evident that racist views have led to Papuans being treated differently in all aspects of their lives. The negative stigma attached to Papuans is what led the mass organisation and state apparatus to attack the Papuan Student Dormitory in Surabaya.”

In his statement, Yeimo’s arguments revolved around the issue of racial discrimination that Papuans have faced and how it is seen as a normal occurrence that the State tolerates.

Papuans standing up to injustices
He highlighted that when Papuans stood up against these injustices, they were met with accusations of provocation and charged with treason.

“This trial case proves it. Racism really exists in all these accusations and charges. Could the State explain why the Papuan race is a minority, with only 2.9 million people remaining, while in Papua New Guinea there are already 17 million Papuans?” Yeimo asked.

In his pledoi, Yeimo not only defended himself against the treason allegations but also criticised Indonesia’s lack of development in Papua.

He raised questions about why the poverty rate in Papua remained the highest among all provinces in Indonesia and why the Human Development Index in the region had consistently been the lowest.

Yeimo pointed out the contrasting approaches taken by the Indonesian government in resolving the conflict in Aceh and in Papua.

Differences with Aceh
While the Aceh conflict was resolved through peace talks, Papua’s aspirations for independence have been met with violence and imprisonment.

Yeimo questioned why the government treats the two regions so differently.

Yeimo said that although Indonesia had enacted several laws to address issues of discrimination, freedom of expression, and special autonomy for Papua, these laws do not seem to be enforced in Papua, and their implementation did not benefit the indigenous Papuans.

“Isn’t that a structured crime against us Papuans? Can the government answer these questions? Or do the answers have to come from the muzzle of a gun?” asked Yeimo.

“Why is the government avoiding solutions recommended by state institutions such as the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, the National Research and Innovation Agency, and others who present the studies on Papua problems?”

Linguist witness competence in Yeimo’s trial questioned
During the hearing, Viktor Yeimo’s legal team, represented by the Papua Law Enforcement and Human Rights Coalition, presented a defence read by advocate Emanuel Gobay.

Gobay argued that the prosecutor’s conclusion that Yeimo had committed treason relied solely on the testimony of a linguist witness who lacked the necessary expertise to prove the elements of the crime of treason as outlined in Article 106 jo Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code, which Yeimo had been charged with.

“As a matter of fact, during the trial, the prosecutor never presented a criminal expert witness. Instead, the prosecutor relied on a linguist and then concluded that Viktor Yeimo was guilty of treason,” said Gobay.

According to Gobay, Yeimo’s legal team had presented multiple expert witnesses who explained the components of the treason offence, which included the elements of intent, territorial separation, and participation.

“All elements mentioned in Article 106 are not proven based on the testimony of both the prosecutor’s witnesses and the expert witnesses we presented,” Gobay said.

Gobay expressed the hope that the judges would review all the facts presented in Yeimo’s trial.

He asked the judges to re-examine the data provided by legal philosophy expert Tristam Pascal Moeliono, human rights expert Herlambang P Wiratraman, conflict resolution expert in Papua Cahyo Pamungkas, and criminal law expert Amira Paripurna.

Ultimately, Gobay made a plea to the judges to exonerate Viktor Yeimo, stating there was no proof of the alleged offences.

He requested restoration of Yeimo’s reputation and the State to bear the trial costs.

Republished from Jubi News and Asia Pacific Report with permission.

‘Time is right for reconciliation’ – Fiji’s Methodist Church seeks to mend race relations

0
Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma's President Reverend Ili Vunisuwai
Methodist Church in Fiji and Rotuma's President Reverend Ili Vunisuwai (right) with Fiji's Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran in Suva . . . "seeking forgiveness". Image: Methodist Church In Fiji and Rotuma/RNZ Pacific

By Rachael Nath

The Methodist Church of Fiji is seeking forgiveness from the descendants of Indian indentured labourers, or Girmitiyas, for the transgressions of the last 36 years.

The racially motivated violent coups of 1987 and 2000 and the military coup d’état of December 2006 have left a permanent scar on race relations within the country.

The 1987 and 2000 coups were supported by the church’s then-leadership.

But in a historic move, the church is launching a 10-year campaign to heal the wounds of the past — starting with an apology to coincide with the inaugural Girmit Day celebrations next Sunday.

Reverend Ili Vunisuwai is leading the official apology at the national reconciliation service on May 14 as the head of the largest Christian denomination in Fiji.

“The time is right to launch a campaign for national reconciliation and give the people of all races a chance to confess their weaknesses,” Reverend Vunisuwai said.

“Let’s seek forgiveness from those they regard as their enemies. We strongly believe that by confession with pure hearts and humility, our transgression can be forgiven,” he said.

‘Dark days of social upheavals’
“As we look back, the dark days of social upheavals of coups of 1987, 2000 as well as 2006, and then, unfolding events of hatred and discrimination, which resulted in fear and uncertainties, I think there’s a lot to be done by the church to bring the two races together.”

The timing of the event has much significance as the country of under a million people marks 144 years since the arrival of the first of more than 60,000 indentured labourers or Girmitiyas as they later came to be known.

Girmitiyas were brought to Fiji between 1879 to 1916 by British colonial rulers to work in plantations across the island.

As a result of the indentured labour system, Fijians of Indian descent make up the second largest ethnic population in Fiji today — slightly over 34 percent, while the iTaukei or indigenous people comprise 62 percent.

Chair to the Girmit Celebrations, Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran, is calling the apology efforts a start of a peaceful future for the nation.

‘We acknowledge the pain’
‘I’m very humbled, and I’m very, very touched at the strength of the Committee and of the leadership of the Methodist Church,” Kiran told RNZ Pacific.

“They’re willing to look at the problem in the eye and say, ‘Well, let’s talk about it. We apologise, we can’t change the past, but we are sorry for the hurt that we have caused’.”

But while Kiran accepts the apology from the church, she acknowledges that many in the Indo-Fijian community may not be ready.

“Any pain cannot be underrated,” she said. “What people went through was their pain, and it’s their journey so by no means can we judge what people are feeling or going through”

“We acknowledge the pain. We acknowledge the pain of the past,” she added.

Methodist Church of Fiji and Fiji's Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran
Methodist Church of Fiji’s Apisalome Tudreu and Fiji’s Assistant Minister for Women Sashi Kiran . . . “We ask you to please open your hearts and open your inner feelings” plea to Fijians . . . “Let’s work on healing.” Image: Methodist Church In Fiji and Rotuma/RNZ Pacific

However, she admits that events of the past cannot be undone, and the way forward is through healing.

“In the interest of healing the nation, in the interest of future generations that they born into a healed nation…we ask you to please open your hearts and open your inner feelings,” she appealed to Fijians.

“Let’s talk about it [past atrocities], and let’s work on healing and come into that space.”

She said it was also “okay” for those people who still “need time” to heal from the racial troubles, adding “at least we begin to talk about this.”

Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, who has publicly apologised for his actions in 1987 repeatedly, accepts that many will still remember the dark past that made him notorious worldwide.

“The man that we did not want to know about, we shied away from his name, addressed us…and he does not bite, he’s not an angry young man,” Rabuka told the 12th World Hindi Conference in Nadi in February.

“He is just an old man who understands the feelings of the descendants of the Girmitiyas who are now his age, looking at their grandchildren and children growing up in the land they now call home.”

RNZ Pacific asked Reverend Vunisuwai why it has taken the Methodist Church of Fiji 35 years to apologise to the Indo-Fijian community?

“The current government has allowed the celebration of the Girmitiyas, and that’s probably a good time for national reconciliation regarding all the upheavals of the past 30 years or so.”

Rachael Nath is a RNZ Pacific journalist. This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ and Asia Pacific Report.

Why Australia and NZ could become republics – and stay in the Commonwealth

0
King Charles III and Queen Camilla wave from the balcony at Buckingham Palace
King Charles III and Queen Camilla wave from the balcony at Buckingham Palace after the coronation yesterday. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR

ANALYSIS: By James Mehigan

The coronation of King Charles III is an ideal time for Australia and New Zealand to take stock of the British monarchy and its role in national life — including certain myths about what becoming a republic might mean.

In particular, there is a common assumption that both nations must remain monarchies to retain membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. It might sound logical, but it’s entirely wrong.

There is no basis for it in the rules of the Commonwealth or the practice of its members. Australia could ditch the monarchy and stay in the club, and New Zealand can too, whether it has a king or a Kiwi as head of state.

Yet this peculiar myth persists at home and abroad. Students often ask me about it when I’m teaching the structure of government. And just this week a French TV station interpreted the New Zealand prime minister’s opinion that his country would one day ideally become a republic to mean he would like to see it leave the Commonwealth.


The United Kingdom’s first coronation in 70 years. Video: Al Jazeera

What does ‘Commonwealth’ mean?
The implication that breaking from the Commonwealth would be a precursor to, or consequence of, becoming a republic relies on a faulty premise which joins two entirely separate things: the way we pick our head of state, and our membership of the Commonwealth.

It would make just as much sense to ask whether Australia or New Zealand should leave the International Cricket Council and become a republic.

The confusion may derive from the fact that the 15 countries that continue to have the British sovereign as their head of state are known as “Commonwealth Realms”.

What we usually refer to as the Commonwealth, on the other hand, is the organisation founded in 1926 as the British Commonwealth of Nations. This is the body whose membership determines the competing nations of the Commonwealth Games, the highest-profile aspect of the Commonwealth’s work.

King Charles III is the head of state of the 15 Commonwealth Realms and the head of the international governmental organisation that is the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth has 56 members — but only 15 of them continue to have the king as head of state.

Joining the Commonwealth club
To be fair, confusion over who heads the Commonwealth is nothing new. A 2010 poll conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society found that, of the respondents in seven countries, only half knew the then queen was the head of the Commonwealth.

A quarter of Jamaicans believed the organisation was led by the then US president, Barack Obama. One in ten Indians and South Africans thought it was run by former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Given the king’s overlapping leadership roles and the different use of the word in the contexts of Commonwealth Realms and the Commonwealth of Nations, these broad misunderstandings are perhaps understandable.

In fact, it was this ambiguity that allowed for the development of an inclusive Commonwealth during the postwar years of decolonisation.

However the confusion arose, it is also very simple to correct. The Commonwealth relaxed its membership rules regarding republics when India became one in 1950.

According to Philip Murphy, the historian and former director of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, this decision was based on the erroneous idea that India’s huge standing army would underwrite Britain’s great-power status in the postwar world.

From that point on the Commonwealth of Nations no longer comprised only members who admitted to the supremacy of one sovereign. To make the change palatable, a piece of conceptual chicanery was needed. Each country did not need a king, but the king was to be head of the organisation comprising equal members.

Republican protesters who want an elected head of state at the coronation
Republican protesters who want an elected head of state in the United Kingdom at the coronation . . . placards reading “Democracy not monarchy” and “Not my king”. Image: Al Jazeera screenshot APR

Monarchy optional
Since then, the number of Commonwealth members has steadily increased to the 56 we have today.

As early as 1995, membership was extended to countries with no ties to the former British Empire. With the support of Nelson Mandela, Mozambique became a member, joining the six Commonwealth members with which it shared a border.

Rwanda, a former German and then Belgian colony, joined in 2009. It became an enthusiastic member and hosted the biennial meeting of states known as CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting).

The most recent countries to take up Commonwealth membership are the former French colonies of Togo and Gabon.

According to the Commonwealth’s own rules, membership is based on a variety of things, including commitment to democratic processes, human rights and good governance. Being a monarchy is entirely optional.

The new king offers the chance for a broader debate on the advantages of monarchy. But let us do so knowing Commonwealth membership is entirely unaffected by the question of whether or not the country is a republic.The Conversation

Dr James Mehigan, is senior lecturer in law, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Pacific media freedom: The day the Fiji police arrested me at Sunday breakfast

0
Fiji Times journalist Serafina Silaitoga
Fiji Times journalist Serafina Silaitoga with a police officer in a van on their way to the police station on 10 August 2008. Image: The Fiji Times screenshot APR

By Serafina Silaitoga in Labasa, Fiji

It was a typical Sunday morning on August 10, 2008, as I enjoyed breakfast with the family, lots of laughter and jokes hearing stories shared by my children.

Suddenly, there was silence.

My children went quiet as they looked out the window to see three police vehicles drive into our compound at Y-Corner in Labasa.

A team of police personnel got out of the vehicle, walked up the stairs and handed me a warrant to search the house and The Fiji Times office at Labasa Civic Centre.

I was four months pregnant so I didn’t want to create a fuss and let them into the house.

My children aged between two and 12 years old were quiet.

They stared at the officers as they moved around the house carrying out their search.

Children in another room
To ensure they were not disturbed or affected, I told my children to move into one room where they could wait.

The officers entered the rooms and flipped through any papers and books they could find as evidence about an article I had written for The Fiji Times on August 7, 2008, about the then interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.

In that article I had written that Chaudhry, a former prime minister ousted in the May 2000 civilian coup, had been told by the interim government that he was not to make any national decisions on finance and he was to leave office within a month.

Before my Sunday arrest, police officers had approached me at the Grand Eastern Hotel on Saturday night, the day the article was published.

I was at the hotel with our former editor Netani Rika, former chief photographer Asaeli Lave, former Fiji Times journalist Theresa Ralogaivau and our spouses.

When the officers approached they said: “We have come to arrest you on the order of our Police Commissioner, Esala Teleni”.

According to these officers, Teleni had received a directive to arrest me from a senior minister in the government.

I refused to go without our company lawyer.

Police returned
The officers then left, but it didn’t end there because they came home the next morning.

That night Labasa businessman Charan Jeath Singh, now the Minister for Sugar, was arrested by CID officers on the same Sunday night at Nausori Airport in connection with the same story.

After searching the house, the police took me to The Fiji Times office, looked through the drawers and looked through every notebook in search of evidence.

Whatever they found as evidence they took to the Labasa Police Station where I was also questioned.

The officers told me that if I didn’t reveal the source of information for the story they would lock me up in a police cell.

Lawyers reminded police
As I was being interrogated, Fiji Times lawyers Jon Apted and Richard Naidu were making phone calls to the police officers whose tone and expression then changed.

I’m positive that these lawyers reminded the officers of certain laws and policies because after those few phone calls, the police team softened down and there were no more threats.

I spent about four hours in the station.

I was then taken to the Grand Eastern Hotel in the police vehicle where I joined my former bosses, friends and family.

By the time I got into the police vehicle, news about my arrest was already on the radio and generating international interest as well.

Reporters called from around the world asking for updates about my arrest.

The unending support from the media family globally was so encouraging, that despite the circumstances and dictatorship, we never backed down from the truth.

That truth was revealed last year when the former Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, told the media after a few exchanges with Chaudhry that he had personally asked for Chaudhry’s resignation.

He said that he had, on the instructions of former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama, gone personally to Chaudhry’s house one night to ask him to resign because of tax matters they said affected the government.

The truth shall prevail
After 15 years, the truth was finally told.

So The Fiji Times was right all along except that our families, especially our innocent children, had to witness the arrest and for some, torture that the past administration put them through.

The truth will always prevail.

Happy Media Freedom Day!

We have overcome!

Serafina Silaitoga is a Fiji Times reporter. This was first published by The Fiji Times on World Press Freedom Day, 3 May 2023, under the headline “The truth shall prevail” and is republished here with permission.

PNG warns foreigners to respect laws as businessman Pang blacklisted, deported

0
Deported businessman Jamie Pang
Deported businessman Jamie Pang . . . seated between two PNG police officers on a flight before being handing over to Australian authorities yesterday. Image: PNG Post-Courier screenshot APR

By Miriam Zarriga in Port Moresby

Papua New Guinea has deported controversial Australian businessman Jamie Pang.

Surrounded by Immigration and Citizenship Authority officials and police, Pang was taken to Jackson’s International Airport yesterday at 3am and deported.

Chief Migration Officer Stanis Hulahau said that the movement of Pang came about after his acquittal of rape charges on Wednesday afternoon.

“Pang has no legal right to remain in PNG, his visa and work permit have been cancelled, his visa was made void and he is now blacklisted for life,” he said.

“We don’t need people who disregard our laws.”

Pang, 45, was handed over to Australian authorities at about 10am because they have an interest in him for other incidents which they will be interviewing him about under Australian law.

When contacted by the PNG Post-Courier, Hulahau said that the deportation of Pang was a warning to all foreigners who wished to do business in the country to abide by and respect the law, and to also not get involved in illegal activities.

Breached visa conditions
In 2022, Pang was charged for breaching his visa conditions and was ordered by the Waigani Grade-Five District Court to pay a fine of K4000 (NZ$1800).

That year, he was charged under the Migration Act when he was found in a hotel with drugs and firearms.

At the time, Hulahau said that the conditions of his work permit and visa included not getting into any criminal activities.

“Once that was breached he was charged and he paid a fine, from there his visa was marked as void,” Hulahau said.

“This is a warning, there is zero tolerance on such incidents.”

Police Commissioner David Manning said that all foreigners should be aware of Papua New Guinea’s laws and respect the rule of law.

“As guests of this country they are expected to abide by all our laws,” he said.

“If found guilty of breaching our laws and that has been determined under a court of competent jurisdiction they are required to be deported back to their country of origin upon completion of their sentence.”

Caught by surprise
According to sources, Pang was caught by surprise after being acquitted of the rape charge and was on his way out of the Bomana Correctional Services prison when he was served detention orders by Immigration officials at the gate of the Bomana prison.

It is alleged he refused to go with the officials. However, he finally got into a waiting vehicle and was taken to the Bomana Immigration Centre (BIC).

At BIC he was taken early yesterday morning to Jackson International Airport.

He was quickly taken in with Post-Courier on hand to witness Pang walking up the stairs into the boarding lounge at about 5.30am.

The flight he was on left the country at 6am.

“You cannot disrespect our laws and our country and expect to continue to stay here,” Commissioner Manning said.

“This also applies to those expatriates who meddle in matters of national security and sovereignty.

Deemed ‘unfriendly’
“Do not for once think under some preconceived notions that you will not be held accountable.

“You will deemed as acting unfriendly towards our country.”

“I say this because there has been an increase of reports and cases of expatriates who continue to deliberately hold our way of life in contempt, including undermining systems and the authorities, often putting those authorities on a collision course with each other.

“No country in the world would tolerate this behaviour. PNG is no exception.”

Hulahau said that the laws of the country was in place to ensure people followed the laws.

Miriam Zarriga is a senior PNG Post-Courier journalist. Republished with permission from the Post-Courier and Asia Pacific Report.

PNG politician orders police to ‘shoot to kill’ drug runners along border

0
The three alleged gun runners from Hela arrested
The three alleged gun runners from Hela arrested in a PNG police raid on Mepu village on the border with Indonesia. Image: PNG Post-Courier

PNG Post-Courier

North Fly MP James Donald has ordered Papua New Guinean police to shoot to kill drug and gun runners along the Indonesian border.

Donald said this after police in Kiunga had raided Mepu village along the border and arrested and charged three men from Hela for being in possession of 3.4kg of marijuana with a street value of K50,000 (NZ$23,000).

The men have been detained and were expected to appear before Kiunga District Court this week.

Donald called on police to shoot to kill those involved in smuggling drugs to exchange with money and guns along the border with the Indonesian region of Papua.

“I wish to commend the policemen and women for doing a good job,” he said.

“It is not the first time that men from Tari and Upper Highlands, including locals from Nomad, have been involved in smuggling drugs into Kiunga and Tabubil for exchange for money and guns.

“I must warn everyone that those caught involved in smuggling drugs will face the full force of the law.”

‘Destroying society’
He said his orders were for anyone caught with clear possession of drugs to be immediately “shot on the spot to eliminate the bad one” and stop them from “destroying the society”.

“I am going to step up the laws and give such tough penalty directives to men in blue in my electorate to carry out without fear or favour because I am tired of such bad drug issue with the ongoing law and order issues,” he said.

“If you enter Indonesia with a drug you will be shot dead on the spot. Likewise, I will implement the same policy in North Fly. Enough is enough.

“The drugs are smuggled through Iowara Rampsite way and others who fly in by air from Hagen and Telefomin are given caution also.

“This country needs to now be serious and that means we have to step up as law and order issues in PNG have gone to the dogs,” Donald said.

Republished with permission.

How Crikey stared down Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp but media freedom challenges remain

0
Some of Rupert Murdoch’s media businesses have been in the headlines for misinformation
Some of Rupert Murdoch’s media businesses have been in the headlines for misinformation. Image: David Shankbone via Flickr CCBY3.0

By Alexandra Wake

World Press Freedom Day is usually marked by stories of despair — worsening repression of voices, media outlets closed down, journalists locked up, journalists killed. But this year there have been some glimmers of light, especially in Australia, where the lack of diversity in media ownership has been a longstanding issue.

While many independent media outlets around the world face persecution from authorities, in Australia the small independent publisher Crikey stared down a defamation action from a much larger media group: The Rupert Murdoch-owned News Corp.

Crikey, which says it is guided by a deceptively simple, old idea tell the truth and shame the devil” had dared Lachlan Murdoch, son of Rupert, to bring a defamation action against it, after naming the Murdoch family as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 6 January 2021 US Capitol riot.

The news site stood strong until Lachlan Murdoch walked away, just days after his US television network, Fox News, was forced to settle a US defamation lawsuit for making false claims about the 2020 US election.

Crikey’s CEO and chairman Will Hayward was ecstatic: “We are proud of our stand. We are proud to have exposed the hypocrisy and abuse of power of a media billionaire. This is a victory for free speech. We won.”

The price of defeat may well have silenced another independent voice.

In a country where the Murdoch media is so strong that two former prime ministers from different sides of politics have called for a royal commission into Rupert Murdoch’s Australian media empire, there was great celebration.

Won many friends, funds
Crikey’s
campaign had won many friends, and substantial GoFundMe donations for its legal battle, and gave more grist to the growing hate campaign against News Corp publications which has resulted in anti-Murdoch posters and stickers being sold and displayed throughout Australia.

It wasn’t the only good news in Australian media. The government-forced Media Bargaining Code has resulted in 30 agreements between digital platforms (Google and Meta) and a cross section of Australian news businesses.

While the code is being lauded and copied in other countries, some of the smaller Australian publishers have felt aggrieved as they have not always had the power or nous to get good deals. Still, there is money from the code across the news sector.

And the new Labor government halted the previous government’s ongoing attacks against the trusted national broadcaster, the ABC. Labor also made an election promise to provide AU$29 million to support regional, local and community media, including First Nations publications and hyper-local community websites.

It also matched the previous Coalition government’s AU$10 million promise to help offset print costs. While those funds have been flowing through to news organisations, there has not been any announcement to better support journalism students studying at universities, with the cost of their degrees increased by 110 percent by the former government.

Another bright spot for press freedom was the appointment of a news-friendly Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus. The long-time supporter of journalism and journalists has been keen to engage with all in the industry, and invited news organisations large and small to the nation’s capital to discuss proposed changes to Australia’s privacy law.

He also used the opportunity to discuss strengthening Freedom of Information laws to force governments and government departments to be more open to requests from journalists.

No easy answer
Dreyfus does not, however, have an easy answer for who is a journalist in 2023. It remains a vexed question, particularly for those who work for mainstream news outlets who are tired of being lumped in with independent journalists who do not sign up to a code of ethics.

Increasingly, anyone with a comedy career, or a camera, will claim to be a journalist. Until they no longer want to be one.

These bits of good news, however, do not change the fact that trust in journalism continues to fall in Australia and across the world. Overall trust in Australian journalism has dropped further (from 43 percent to 41 percent) in a year. Also, the Public Interest Journalism Initiative continues to map newsroom closures and there is a never-ending supply of stories about closures even in vibrant communities.

Larger newsrooms are also changing. They continue to lose older, higher paid, experienced journalists, while trying to replace them with younger staff from more diverse backgrounds. While there is still much work to be done on diversity, these young journalists must be sharp.

They generally need to present their reporting suitable for all platforms — text, audio, visual, digital and social. They also need to capture the attention of audiences flooded by media that isn’t news-focused.

Australia might have solid levels of literacy, but Australians report low levels of confidence with their media literacy.

Audiences not moved
Getting attention for news is difficult. Talkback radio host for the ABC, Rafael Epstein, recently called on his listeners to discuss if a negative report from the state’s anti-corruption watchdog on the Victorian government would sway voters.

Epstein was hardly overrun with calls. Despite his efforts over a couple of days, he was unable to garner much interest beyond the few normal partisan callers. Epstein’s efforts pointed to a problem with all news media: even with the best reporting, backed by the strongest evidence, audiences are not always moved.

Getting people to pay attention to quality journalism in an information-rich environment remains an ongoing issue.

Despite the efforts of multiple fact-checkers from news organisations across Australia, misinformation and fake news is having very real impacts on communities.

The small Yarra Ranges Council, less than 40km from Australia’s largest city of Melbourne, has been forced to close its art gallery and put its council meetings online because of abuse directed at staff and councillors. The Yarra Ranges has one newspaper servicing the area, but this has not been enough to stop the impact of misinformation online.

The mayor told the ABC that the council was being targeted by people caught up in conspiracy theories about 15-minute cities, 5G mobile phone towers and vaccinations.

The other issue that continues to hang over Australian journalism is the continued detention of Julian Assange in the UK. Assange’s case has had some movement with now planned regular visits from Australia’s UK High Commissioner to the WikiLeaks founder, who is in Belmarsh prison and faces espionage charges in the US.

Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is in Assange’s corner, telling The Guardian: “I have made it clear the Australian government’s position, which is: enough is enough. There’s nothing to be served from ongoing issues being continued.”

But there is still no movement at all in the case of Cheng Lei who has been detained in Beijing for more than two years on spying charges. Her partner asked the Victorian Premier Dan Andrews to push for her freedom during his visit to China earlier this year but to date there is still no word on the fate of the Melbourne journalist and mother of two.

Dr Alexandra Wake is an associate professor of journalism at RMIT University in Melbourne, Victoria, and the elected president of the Journalism Education and Research Association of Australia. She is an active leader, educator and researcher in journalism. Her research, teaching and practice sits at the nexus of journalism practice, journalism education, equality, diversity and mental health. This article was originally published under Creative Commons by 360info™.

Timor-Leste makes top ten in World Press Freedom Index 2023

0

By David Robie

Timor-Leste has topped a stunning rise among Asia-Pacific countries to make it to into the “top ten” countries in this year’s World Press Freedom Index that saw island nations improve their rankings.

The youngest nation in Southeast Asia — which gained independence from Indonesia in 2002 — jumped from 17th last year to 10th as the Paris-based global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF) warned that this year’s survey demonstrated “enormous volatility” because of “growing animosity” towards journalists on social media and in the real world.

The 2023 RSF Index was launched today as Pacific nations marked the 30th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day with editorials, celebrations, seminars and rallies.

RSF's World Press Freedom Index 2023 launching today
RSF’s World Press Freedom Index 2023 launched today . . . tackling “polarisation and distrust.” Image: RSF

Timor-Leste’s success was hailed after the country had survived many challenges and threats to media freedom in the years following independence with Bob Howarth, a former newspaper executive in Papua New Guinea and editorial adviser and trainer in Dili, said it was partially thanks to a “vibrant media” scene.

The RSF report said that Timor-Leste was “one of this year’s surprises . . . a young democracy still under construction [entering] the Index’s top 10.” It previously had a track record of intimidating the media.

New Zealand, which had previously been a regular country in the top ten list slipped from 11th to 13th. Although the Index did not state why, it is believed that the hostile and threatening atmosphere against the media during last year’s anti-vaccination parliamentary protest contributed.

The Index describes NZ as a “regional press freedom model”.

Samoa rose dramatically 26 places to 19th to place it ahead of Australia. This was probably due to the change of government in the Pacific nation with the country’s first woman prime minister, Fiamē Naomi Mataʻafa, and her FAST party having ousted the authoritarian HRPP government of Tuila’epa Sa’ilele Malielegaoi and ushered in a more consultative relationship with the media.

Australia improves
Australia also improved 12 places to 27th, also thanks to a more relaxed media environment coinciding with a change of government and some positive media freedom moves.

Fiji did even better, rising 13 places to 89th, but should expect to significantly improve on this next year after the new coalition government scrapped the draconian Fiji Media Industry Development Act last month. This hated law was originally a decree imposed after the 2006 military coup and “weaponised” by the FijiFirst government and other recent media freedom initiatives.

However, this step along with other promising media freedom developments happened after the Index cut-off assessment period. The autocratic FijiFirst government was ousted in an election last December.

“Today is World Press Freedom Day,” wrote Fiji Times editor Fred Wesley today in an editorial.

“It is perhaps more significant than ever for journalists in Fiji now that we have the draconian piece of legislation, the MIDA Act repealed.”

Papua New Guinea rose three places to 59th in spite of the Index noting that direct political interference often “threatened editorial freedom at leading media outlets”. The report cited EMTV as an example, where the entire newsroom walked out in protest over the suspension of experienced news director Sincha Dimara in February 2022.

Sacked, the journalists started their own online media, Inside PNG, and covered the 2022 general election, which was marred by violence.

Tonga rose five places to 44th although the Index said some political leaders “did not hesitate to go after reporters who embarrass them”.

Journalist José Belo
Flashback to earlier struggles for the Timor-Leste media . . . journalist José Belo wearing a gag at a media law seminar in Dili during 2014. Image: Jornal Independente/Pacific Scoop

Welcoming the elevation of Timor-Leste as an example to the Pacific region, media consultant Bob Howarth, a founding member of the Timorese journalists association AJTL, said there were several contributing factors.

Non-stop training
“The country has been running non-stop training for media with support from UNDP and several donor countries, a vibrant media scene including a huge community radio network and a government easily accessible for local journos — remember the Chinese minister [Wang Yi] who ignored media all over the Pacific but had to front in Dili?

“Plus they now host the Dili Dialogue, an annual gathering of Southeast Asian and some Pacific press councils.

“Not a single murder, assault or threat to local journos. And visiting reporters don’t need special visas like in Papua New Guinea.

“Plus Timor-Leste is free of religious or ethnic biases after 25 years of brutal occupation by Indonesia and it has a very active and united journalists’ association.”

In Paris, RSF noted how Norway had topped the Index for the seventh year running.

“But – unusually – a non-Nordic country is ranked second, namely Ireland (up 4 places at 2nd), ahead of Denmark (down 1 place at 3rd),” said the report.

The Netherlands had risen 22 places to 6th – “recovering the position it had in 2021, before [investigative crime reporter] Peter R. de Vries was murdered.”

Bottom of the scale
At the bottom of the scale, China – “the world’s biggest jailer of journalists and exporters of propaganda” – had dropped four places to 179th, just ahead of North Korea, unsurprisingly bottom at 180th.

According to Christophe Deloire, RSF’s secretary-general, “The World Press Freedom Index shows enormous volatility in situations, with major rises and falls and unprecedented changes, such as Brazil’s 18-place rise and Senegal’s 31-place fall.

“This instability is the result of increased aggressiveness on the part of the authorities in many countries and growing animosity towards journalists on social media and in the physical world.”

He also blamed the volatility on the “growth in the fake content industry, which produces and distributes disinformation and provides the tools for manufacturing it”.

Dr David Robie is convenor of Pacific Media Watch and author of Don’t Spoil My Beautiful Face: Media, Mayhem and Human Rights in the Pacific.

The full RSF World Press Freedom Index

Tahiti’s pro-independence ‘blue wave’ back at helm with decisive win

0
Tahiti's president-to-be Moetai Brotherson
Tahiti's president-to-be Moetai Brotherson . . . ensuring the transition to a younger Tavini Huira'atira generation to run the territory. Image: Polynésie 1ère TV screenshot APR

SPECIAL REPORT: By Ena Manuireva

Mā’ohi Nui’s blue wave of the pro-independence Tavini Huir’atira has won its bet — to be back in the helm of the country alone with this convincing victory.

With such a decisive result, the 57 parliamentary seats in the Territorial Assembly will be distributed as follow: 38 seats (including the majority premium of 19 seats) will be allocated to Oscar Temaru’s Tavini while the autonomist alliance of Tapura-Amuitahira’a will collect 16 seats and the last 3 seats go to A here ia Porinetia.

The second and final round had a participation of nearly 70 percent, higher than the 2018 elections which was around 67 percent. Tavini Huira’atira led its closest challenger by more than 8000 votes in the provisional results.

This win is a political tour de force with noticeable achievements that need to be mentioned.

Firstly, the Tavini Huira’atira has run alone in a voting system intentionally designed for an autonomist victory, and even the last-minute alliance between sworn enemies — the outgoing President Édouard Fritch and former President Gaston Flosse did not sway the electorate this time.

This comfortable majority of 38 seats will put an end to the political “nomadism” that saw previous parliamentarians cross the floor to join the opposition, triggering endless votes of no confidence.

This was the case in 2004 when the Tavini Huira’atira was in power with a coalition partner.

Opposition scaremongering
Secondly, Tavini Huira’atira has communicated during its campaign that the binary political argument instigated by the main opposing party that independence equals poverty while autonomy means more finance from France is pure scaremongering.

By staying away from that argument, Tavini Huira’atira was able to concentrate on its main message — to give back to the Mā’ohi people ownership of their land and the natural resources.

Thirdly, Tavini Huira’atira has well understood that this election was about coming first, whether by 1 vote or 1000 votes and organising relentless electoral campaigns throughout Mā’ohi Nui has paid dividends.

How the French Polynesian elections played out
How the French Polynesian elections played out in the second and final round yesterday with a commanding win for Oscar Temaru’s pro-independence Tavini Huira’atira. Image: Polynésie 1ère TV screenshot APR

Once more Oscar Temaru, despite his age (78), has spearheaded those political meetings and rallies like he did during those antinuclear protests some 50 years ago.

Along with those political engagements, putting Moetai Brotherson forward as the new president has ensured the transition to a younger generation to run the country, but most of all a political figure with no condemnation, a quality upon which the Tavini has run its campaign.

In his final speech from his town hall of Faa’a, Oscar Temaru thanked all the trusted constituents who have shown their support for the past 50 years.

He also said that the good old days were over, signaling to the French administration that the dialogue would be under new terms as equal partners.

Many non-voters
There were more than 210,000 registered voters but only 144,000 actual votes which still shows a high rate of the population did not vote.

Where did it go wrong for the autonomist parties?

As expected, a dejected Tapura-Amuitahira’a party and an ex-president-to-be Édouard Fritch said that this defeat was the price that the autonomist platform was paying for not being united and de facto handing the victory to the independence party.

He acknowledged himself that his alliance with Flosse could have given him around 42 percent of the ballots, but in the end the strategy did not work and they only got 38.5 percent.

Fritch bitterly acknowledged that the population — who he insists are a majority of autonomists — would carry the image of an independent country because Tavini would be in power at the Territorial Assembly.

He said that the future of this country was not independence; it needed to remain with their trusted partner within the French Republic.

His disappointment is without doubt aimed at the other autonomist party of A Here ia Porinetia, which decided to run alone and rejected any alliance with Fritch and Flosse.

Opened the door
Tavini can thank the two leaders of A here ia Porinetia, Nicole Sanquer and Nuihau Laurey, for opening the door to victory and running the country.

The new challenges for Fritch and Flosse will be to rebuild the autonomist platform and be an opposition party that will defeat the independence party in the next elections because Mā’ohi Nui is not ready to be independent.

A mea culpa for unpopular measures and actions that the outgoing government had carried out, especially during the covid-19 pandemic, did not feature as reasons for this defeat.

On the contrary, Fritch doubled down, insisting that the independence party had “lied” to the people regarding their ultimate objective — “get rid of France”.

As for Édouard Fritch’s ally, Gaston Flosse, when interviewed regarding the autonomist defeat, he branded the soon-to-be president Moetai Brotherson “a liar” along with Oscar Temaru, and the next president of the Assembly Antony Geros.

The situation prompted the interviewer to cut short the interview.

The newly created and alternative autonomist platform, A here ia Porinetia, has acknowledged their voters totalled around 25,000 and they will have three representatives in the Territorial Assembly.

Constructive, watchful opposition
They want to be a constructive and watchful opposition that will hold the new local government accountable. Nuihau Laurey has rejected an offer made by Moetai Brotherson to work in his government.

French Overseas Minister Gerald Darmanin has congratulated Oscar Temaru and Moetai Brotherson for their victory and stressed that “the Polynesians have voted for change and the French government is acknowledging this democratic choice”.

Here are the likely next steps following this election:

May 1 is Labour Day in Ma’ohi Nui but the official results of the election will be presented in a round press by the representative of the High Commissioner that will spell out the names of those who will sit in the Assembly from all three parties.

On the May 11 all the Assembly representatives will take their seats as members of Parliament. They will first elect a new president of the Territorial Assembly who is most likely to be Antony Geros, the mayor of Paea, a district that voted overwhelmingly blue.

The autonomist party might present a candidate from their ranks to stand against Antony Geros but this is very unlikely to happen as the opposition party do not have the numbers.

Following the election of the Assembly president (Speaker in the Westminster system), the next most important election to take place will be that of the new President of the territory.

Good for democracy
In this presidential election, Édouard Fritch will likely present himself as the candidate to stand against Moetai Brotherson as it is good for democracy and decorum to have two opposing candidates.

The new President will be elected and will already have formed his new government. He will present the new ministers of his local administration to the public.

It is customary to present the new cabinet either at the actual Presidential Palace in Tarahoi or wherever the new president decides to take residence.

In 2004, Oscar Temaru refused to take residence in the Presidential Palace which he described as an “opulent house made for a dictator” and it was not the house of the people.

Moetai Brotherson has already given some names for his new government and is keen to keep the equality of gender parity but hinted at more women. He also mentioned being interested in taking on the Ministry of New Technologies.

Other likely posts:

  • Eliane Tevahitua will be Vice-President and who could inherit the Culture and Heritage ministry;
  • Vannina Ateo, who was general secretary for Tavini, will inherit the Civil Service ministry;
  • Rony Teriipaia, an academic and expert in the Tahitian language,  will be Education Minister; and
  • Jordy Chan, who has an engineering background, will be Minister for Big Works and Equipment.

A lot of work awaits this new administration, but the Tavini team seems ready to run the country alone.

Ena Manuireva is an Aotearoa New Zealand-based Tahitian doctoral candidate at Auckland University of Technology and a commentator on French politics in Ma’ohi Nui and the Pacific. He contributes to Asia Pacific Report.

Australians should be wary of scare stories about New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal

0
A fragment of the 1840 Tiriti o Waitangi
A fragment of the 1840 Tiriti o Waitangi . . . the Waitangi Tribunal was originally established as a commission of inquiry in 1975, given the power only to make recommendations to government. And so it remains. Image: The Conversation

ANALYSIS: By Michael Belgrave

Australian Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s recent claim that Aotearoa New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal has veto powers over Parliament was met with surprise in New Zealand, especially by the members of the tribunal itself.

That’s because it is just plain wrong.

As the debate around the Voice to Parliament ramps up, we can probably expect similar claims to be made ahead of this year’s referendum. But the issue is so important to Australia’s future that such misinformation should not go unchallenged.

From an Australian perspective, New Zealand may appear ahead of the game in recognising Indigenous voices constitutionally. But that has certainly not extended to granting a parliamentary power of veto to Māori.

The Waitangi Tribunal was originally established as a commission of inquiry in 1975, given the power only to make recommendations to government. And so it remains. The Crown alone appoints tribunal members and many are non-Māori.

As with all commissions of inquiry, it is up to the government of the day to make a political decision about whether or not to implement those recommendations.

Liberal Party's Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price
Country Liberal Party’s Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price . . . her recent claim that New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal has veto powers over Parliament is “just plain wrong”. Image: Senator Price’s FB

Deceptive and wrong
Price’s claim echoed a February article and paper published by the Institute of Public Affairs, aimed at influencing the Voice referendum. Titled “The New Zealand Māori voice to Parliament and what we can expect from Australia”, it was written by the director of the institute’s legal rights program, John Storey.

The paper makes a number of assertions: the Waitangi Tribunal has a veto over the New Zealand parliament’s power to pass certain legislation; the Waitangi Tribunal was established to hear land claims but its brief has expanded to include all aspects of public policy; and the Waitangi Tribunal “shows the Voice will create new Indigenous rights”.

The last of the statements is deceptive and the others are completely wrong. The Waitangi Tribunal’s jurisdiction was largely set in stone by the New Zealand parliament in 1975 when it was established.

Far from investigating land claims, it initially wasn’t able to examine any claims dating from before 1975. Parliament changed the tribunal’s jurisdiction in 1985, giving it retrospective powers back to 1840 (when the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed).

The tribunal then started hearing land claims. But in its first decade, it focused on fisheries, planning issues, the loss of Māori language, government decisions being made at the time and general issues of public policy.

Honouring the Treaty
Honouring the Treaty: New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins at the 2023 Waitangi Day commemorations. Image: Getty Images

Historic grievances
Over the past 38 years, the tribunal has focused on what are called “historical Treaty claims”, covering the period 1840 to 1992. In 1992 a major settlement of fishing claims began an era of negotiation and settlement of these claims, quite separate from the tribunal itself.

With the majority of significant historic claims now settled or in negotiation, that aspect of the tribunal’s work is coming to an end. It has returned to hearing claims about social issues and other more contemporary issues.

Far from expanding its jurisdiction, the tribunal’s powers have been steadily reduced in recent decades. In 1993, it lost the power to make recommendations involving private land — that is, land not owned by the Crown.

In 2008, it lost the power to investigate new historical claims, as the government looked to close off new claims that could undermine current settlements.

There is one area where the tribunal was given the power to force the Crown to return land. The 1984-1990 Labour government set a policy to rid itself of what were seen as surplus Crown assets.

A deal was struck between Māori claimants and the Crown to allow the tribunal to make binding recommendations to return land in very special cases.

This compromise was not created by the tribunal but through ambiguity in legislation, which was resolved in favour of Māori claimants in the Court of Appeal. The ability to return land has almost never been used and is being progressively repealed across the country as Treaty settlements are implemented in legislation.


Wide political support
Storey quotes a number of tribunal reports, which make findings about the Crown’s responsibilities, as if these findings are binding on the Crown or even on Parliament. This is not the case. The Waitangi Tribunal investigates claims that the Crown has acted contrary to the “principles of the Treaty”.

The Waitangi Tribunal establishes what those principles are, but they are binding on neither the courts nor Parliament. Having made findings, the tribunal makes recommendations — not to Parliament, as Storey suggests, but to ministers of the Crown.

Some recommendations are implemented, others are not.

Where there is a dispute between the Crown and Māori, the tribunal has often recommended negotiation rather than make specific recommendations for redress.

Storey has elsewhere referred to the tribunal as a “so-called advisory, now binding, Māori Voice to Parliament” that has “decreed” certain things. In the longer paper he does admit the “tribunal cannot dictate the exact form any redress offered by government must take”.

But he then falls back on the notion of a “moral veto” — that its status is so elevated that parliament is forced, however reluctantly, to do its bidding.

Yet not only does the Crown ignore tribunal recommendations as it chooses, it refuses even to be bound by the tribunal’s expert findings on history in negotiating settlements.

The Waitangi Tribunal will remain a permanent commission of inquiry because there is wide political support for its work. Nor can be it held solely responsible for increasing Māori assertiveness or political engagement with government, even if this was in any way a bad thing.

A larger social shift has taken place in Aotearoa New Zealand over the past few decades. No fiat from the Waitangi Tribunal has eliminated the cultural misappropriation of Māori faces and imagery — something Storey warns could mean “tea towels with a depiction of Uluru/Ayers Rock, or boomerang fridge magnets, would become problematic”.

The Waitangi Tribunal has often done no more than make Māori histories, Māori perspectives and Māori values accessible to a non-Māori majority. It has certainly had no power to control where debates on Indigenous issues fall.The Conversation

Dr Michael Belgrave is professor of history, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation and Asia Pacific Report under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.