Xenophobic MP sours race debate in Australia

By Rob Goodfellow and M. Dwi Marianto

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Perhaps it is appropriate that Pauline Hanson, a controversial member of the Australian Parliament, should be the ex-proprietor of a fish and chip shop. Like the declining popularity of the once popular "fast food", Ms. Hanson's views are out of step with a changing Australia and a changing world. Like the nutritional value of fish and chips, Hanson's beliefs about Australian society are unwholesome.

Australia is in fact "peppered" with different cultures, traditions, languages and of course foods. It has become one of the world's most successful multicultural nations, which also means that it is one of the planet's greatest places to eat.

A healthy preoccupation with food is of course not uniquely Australian. The Celts, for instance, have been complaining about their food for thousands of years. This is a relevant fact because at least one third of all Australians are of Irish extraction, descended from either bread-stealing Dublin peasants, hungry Fenian political prisoners, economic refugees from the great potato famine or just free settlers looking for something decent to eat.

Unfortunately Hanson's views have got nothing to do with food. She in fact wouldn't know a garlic prawn, glazed with honey and ginger, if it jumped up and bit her. Her views are more symptomatic of fear. A fear that she might not like the next course on the menu, even before she has a chance to try it.

But Hanson has inadvertently highlighted one of the enduring strengths of our culture -- freedom of speech. Basically, a freedom to complain about the lousy food. This tradition predates Western-style parliamentary democracy and even Christianity. It is philosophically central to the way we do things. And while Anglo-Saxon-Celt cuisine may appear a little bland against the color and variety of Indonesian or Chinese food, we do at least have a lot of experience in how to manage a free, fair and open society.

This actually distinguishes Australia as something of "an odd man out" in Southeast Asia. Although, if the truth be known, most Australians, particularly the younger generation, who see themselves as part of the Asia-Pacific, would actually like our neighbors to consider us, in the words of Gareth Evans, "the odd man in".

One example of our "odd man out" nature is the Australian tradition of speaking out, publicly, even if our views are strongly opposed by other groups or individuals within our own community. Hanson, for example, is perfectly entitled to her views. So are, however, those who reject her anti-Asian vision. In the end sanity must prevail. Significantly, this vigorous exchange of ideas is the means by which we grow as a society.

In Australia it is considered virtuous to speak the truth, at least as it is perceived, in a direct and uncompromising fashion. If we don't like the food, we say so. In Java for instance, one might rather say: "I really love your food", (meaning, I can't stand it) "but I would rather try something else", (meaning, I can't wait to get out of here and I'm never coming back). In both examples the message does gets across. It is the manner, however, which differs.

This is at the root of almost all regional diplomatic misunderstandings. And these errors frequently sour relationships between Australia and, in particular, Indonesia and Malaysia. It always comes back to a cultural perspective and we are constantly reminded of how different we are and how much we have to learn from each other.

In the West the truth is important, so much so that it must be debated openly, often passionately. In the East the truth is important too. In fact the truth is so important, in Indonesia for instance, that it must only be discussed in private and then only considered in the most oblique and unoffending manner possible. Indonesians find the way we "carelessly" treat sensitive topics as kasar, or rough, crude, uncultured, unsophisticated and unbalanced. Australians find the way Indonesians treat sensitive topics as a "big cover up".

Of course our particular system of free speech does carry with it the twin burden of responsibility and truth. Truth, even in our open society is a subjective phenomenon. Hanson probably does believe her own crazy, "half-baked" ideas. She probably really does like fish and chips. In fact it is interesting that in the current debate about where Australia sees itself in the region, no one is suggesting that Hansen and her supporters are not sincere, only that they are sincerely wrong.

Hanson has also drawn our attention to another cherished Western tradition, which is the child of free speech: dissent. Like other countries Australia is experiencing a protracted period of rapid social and economic change. We are also responding to the challenges of globalization and adjusting to the uncertainly of life in the late 20th Century.

However, one of the very positive aspects about our society is that our particular "human pressure cooker" does have a highly developed system of social safety valves. These valves allow and indeed encourage people, particularly young people, to "let off steam", to actively and vigorously dissent and then channel their frustration into a constructive and rational search for a solution.

Australia is and probably always will be a deeply conservative society. Like others we don't really like change. But we've been driven to it. The food was that bad. But, the food analogy aside, Hanson's political party, One Nation, is made up of well-meaning, although misdirected and confused people who long to return to an imagined past of peace, prosperity and predicability. A past that never really existed. Fear of the relatively unknown is understandable but not justified.

Contrary to the ill-informed assertions of One Nation, Australia is in fact a highly successful multicultural society and a model of cultural harmony and political openness. And it is the very openness of Australian society which guarantees that upon hearing the xenophobic stridency of Hanson, Australians will begin to debate the rights and wrongs of her message.

Significantly, our policies have not yet been swayed by ill- educated rhetoric, but reaffirmed through rational debate in time-honored fashion. And at the end of the day, unlike other countries in the region with racial and communal problems of their own, as Australians, we will have our cake and eat it too.

Rob Goodfellow, a PhD candidate from the University of Wollongong, is doing a research in Yogyakarta. M. Dwi Marianto,a graduate of the University of Wollongong, is head of the research center at the Indonesian Art Institute of Yogyakarta.