Xenophobic MP sours race debate in Australia

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.