This US naval blockade is meant to strangle the Iranian economy by preventing it from exporting oil — the economic lifeline of Iran. It will do nothing of the sort.

Please study the infographics below. Before the war started, Iran was furiously loading tankers with oil at 3 times the normal rate and sending them off to the Far East, with the ultimate destination being China.

China buys 90 percent of Iranian oil, with many of its private refineries — known colloquially as “tea pot” refineries — depending on Iranian crude.

• READ MORE: Trump claims Iran wants a deal ‘very badly’ as US blockade begins in Hormuz
• Iran threatens retaliation over Gulf ‘piracy’ in Trump’s naval blockade
• Global Sumud Flotilla heads from Barcelona to break Gaza blockade
• Other US-Israel war on Iran reports

There are presently at least 158 million barrels of Iranian oil sitting in some 96 tankers anchored near the Malaysian state of Johor. There, ship-to-ship transfers take place, before the shipments go off to their final destinations in China.

So this naval blockade will cost the Americans billions of dollars to maintain, but the only thing it will achieve is to make countries dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf such as Australia, Britain, Europe, Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh cry.

American voters will get mad at Trump for the surging prices at the pump and give the Republicans a shellacking in the mid-terms.

Iran rolling in cash
Iran will be rolling in cash from the sale of these 158 million barrels of oil already at sea and far away from any naval blockade, and the Iranians will be laughing at the stupidity of the Americans.

Isn’t this the classic illustration of the saying  “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”?

Let us see how long Trump can afford to keep up with this charade.

You would think that American intelligence would have the wherewithal to better advise their President what a harebrained idea his naval blockade is.

Lim Tean is a Singaporean lawyer, politician and commentator. He is the founder of the political party People’s Voice and a co-founder of the political alliance People’s Alliance for Reform.

One day in October 2023 I was walking down the supermarket aisle when I saw greenwashing in plain sight.

Fonterra’s Anchor butter was sitting in the chiller with a prominent claim on the packaging that it was Grass Fed.

I knew that Fonterra cows were fed on millions of tonnes of palm kernel. So I decided to do something about it. And today we finally won that battle.

• READ MORE: Fonterra settles activists’ misleading packaging lawsuit for ‘100 percent NZ grass-fed’ claims

Today, after Greenpeace sued Fonterra under the Fair Trading Act, Fonterra has published a statement admitting its “100% New Zealand Grass Fed” claim breached section 9 of the Act.

Section 9 makes it illegal to “engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.” Fonterra has undertaken to not use this label again.

Thus Fonterra, New Zealand’s largest company, a multinational with $26 billion a year in turnover, was today forced to admit it has been deceiving its customers about a key claim it makes about its products — “100% New Zealand Grass Fed”.

Fonterra’s deception
While Fonterra was telling its customers that its Anchor brand butter was “100% New Zealand Grass Fed”, they were telling their milk suppliers that they could feed their dairy cows up to 3kg of palm kernel every day.

That works out at around 20 percent of all the food that a dairy cow eats. In practice dairy producers are probably on average providing about 6 percent to 8 percent of a New Zealand dairy cow’s diet from palm kernel, though it could be up to 20 percent in individual cases.

Palm kernel is one of the products of the palm industry in Malaysia and Indonesia — yes, the same palm industry that is destroying the last of the Southeast Asian tropical rainforests.

A million tonne deception
So on the one hand Fonterra was telling New Zealanders that they should buy Fonterra products because they are natural, 100 percent from New Zealand grass, while at the same time it was giving the green light to its milk suppliers to feed dairy cattle palm kernel from offshore.

And not just a little bit, I mean millions of tonnes of palm kernel.

In fact, Fonterra’s milk suppliers are using so much palm kernel that New Zealand is the world’s largest importer of palm kernel, at around two million tonnes per year, most of which is fed to dairy cattle.

During the period when Fonterra used the “100% New Zealand Grass Fed” label (they state from December 2023 to April 2025), New Zealand imported around three million tonnes of palm kernel, at a cost of around $800 million. Of this, around two and a quarter million tonnes went to Fonterra suppliers.

So not only was Fonterra deceiving their customers that their butter was “100% New Zealand Grass Fed”, but they were doing it on a massive scale. 

It looked like a huge lie in plain sight by New Zealand’s largest company. Someone had to do something.

Off to the Commerce Commission
So standing in the chiller aisle of the supermarket I had an idea — I should complain to the Commerce Commission, as it was a breach of the Fair Trading Act. It was deceptive and misleading advertising.

The Commerce Commission is responsible for the Fair Trading Act so surely they would care that New Zealand’s largest company was misleading millions of New Zealanders about a key claim of their products.

So I sent off my complaint in November 2023, received an automated acknowledgement, and then I waited. And waited.

Finally in June 2024 I chased them up and in July 2024 managed to get a zoom meeting with the relevant Commission investigator. The investigator explained that they had done some kind of investigation and had connected with Fonterra but they were planning to take zero enforcement action. Nothing.

So eight months after my original complaint, with zero effort by the Commerce Commission to contact me, I discovered they planned to do nothing about it.

I was pretty annoyed so I decided to make an Official Information Act (OIA) request to the Commerce Commission to find out what they had done.

Commission wrote Fonterra a letter, Fonterra carried on
And this is where it starts to get pretty interesting. The OIA showed that Commerce Commission investigators had actually done some investigating. Moreover, they had concluded that the label was likely to mislead consumers.

The Commerce Commission wrote to Fonterra in March 2024 stating that the label “may lead consumers to form an overall impression that the cow’s diet comprises of [sic] 100% grass… A reasonable consumer… may not … be aware that up to 8% of a cow’s diet may consist of supplemental non-grass feed… the use of PKE may not be clear to a reasonable consumer.”

If the Commerce Commission found the label was misleading, hence in breach of the Fair Trading Act, what would they do?

The Commission letter to Fonterra stated that “we do not intend to further investigate the complaint made against you at this time”.

So… the Commission wrote them the letter, and nothing else.

Fonterra received the Commerce Commission letter in March 2024 giving the commission’s opinion that the label was likely to be misleading but stating that the commission would take no further action.

And what did Fonterra do? Fonterra just kept using the label.

Greenpeace takes legal action against Fonterra
In late September 2024, we had had enough of the greenwashing by Fonterra and the failure of the Commerce Commission to take action and we initiated legal action ourselves.

Aside from the deceptive advertising issue, Greenpeace has campaigned on palm kernel for years. Palm kernel is driving tropical rainforest destruction in Southeast Asia as well as providing the feed for intensive dairy agribusiness in New Zealand, which is polluting fresh water and producing climate emissions.

We want the dairy industry to cut out palm kernel, and we want New Zealand consumers to know that Fonterra’s dairy products are driving rainforest destruction.

We sued them under the Fair Trading Act, doing the work that the Commerce Commission had failed to do.

This is no small matter for a New Zealand NGO to take on a $26 billion a year multinational corporation. Fonterra employed the law firm Chapman Tripp against us, the biggest law firm in the country.

If we were to lose the case and have costs awarded against us, it could have been disastrous, as both sides knew.

Fonterra stops using the deceptive label
And guess what? In April 2025, six months after we lodged our legal action, Fonterra quietly stopped using the deceptive and misleading “100% New Zealand Grass Fed” label.

And then finally in March 2026, as the court hearing date approached, Fonterra agreed to an out of court settlement in which they admitted they had breached section 9 of the Fair Trading Act by engaging in deceptive and misleading advertising. And they agreed not to use the label again.

We finally made Fonterra admit that they were using tonnes of palm kernel and that their milk is most certainly not 100 percent New Zealand Grass Fed.

Fonterra has a choice about how its milk is produced. It chooses to accept milk produced with palm kernel, chooses to accept destroying rainforests, killing orangutans and birds of paradise.

Multinational corporations are just machines for making money – we need to regulate them
Fonterra deliberately chose to use that misleading label back in December 2023. Presumably they did this to sell more of their products, to maximise profits.

Fonterra chose to keep using the label even after the Commerce Commission told them they thought it was likely to mislead consumers. It was only when Greenpeace took legal action against them that they were forced to change.

Fonterra spouts a lot of nonsense about how it cares for the environment or New Zealanders or whatever. But they are just a machine for making money for their shareholders. The practical benefit of all the corporate talk about “caring” is to avoid proper government regulation.

If we want to align the activities of multinational corporations with society’s values then we have to regulate them, as they will not do it themselves. By design, large corporations do not have “values”. They are just machines for making money, and whether they make money by destroying nature, or not, only depends on the laws under which they operate and whether those laws are enforced.

The Commerce Commission let the biggest corporation in the country get away with deceiving consumers – a deception that was millions of tonnes in size and repeated weekly to every New Zealander who walked down a supermarket aisle. And so that corporation just carried on doing it.

Greenpeace stood up and we won. But it shouldn’t have been up to us.

The role of the government is to act in our collective interest by regulating corporations, not only to make sure they don’t deceive consumers, but to protect a stable climate, to protect the biodiversity of our planet, and indeed to protect life on Earth.

Dr Russel Norman is executive director of Greenpeace Aotearoa. Republished from Greenpeace Aotearoa with permission.

• Petition: Stop Fonterra using Palm Kernel

Papua New Guinea’s largest resource development has reached a milestone more than a decade in the making.

The PNG Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Project has fully retired its bank-financed project debt, closing one of the most complex financing arrangements in the country’s economic history.

The debt, raised in the late 2000s to fund construction of onshore and offshore infrastructure, totalled about US$16 billion, including interest.

• READ MORE: Other PNG LNG Project reports

Although liquefied natural gas exports began in 2014, repayments continued for more than a decade, limiting how much revenue flowed to equity holders, including the state through Kumul Petroleum Holdings, which holds a 19.4 percent stake.

In December 2025, joint venture partners accelerated the final repayment, clearing the facility around six months ahead of schedule. Sustained production, disciplined cost control and favourable global LNG prices helped bring forward the close, removing a long-standing financial constraint from the project.

Prime Minister James Marape described the milestone as a national achievement during a site visit to the LNG facilities.

“PNG LNG is now debt-free. It is a free-standing, world-class asset for the country,” he said, linking the early repayment to Papua New Guinea’s credibility as a destination for large-scale global investment.

The Prime Minister has pointed to the project’s long delivery arc — from financing during the global financial crisis to more than a decade of continuous operations — as evidence that PNG can sustain projects of international scale.

What changes now
With the project finance facility closed, PNG LNG’s future revenues will no longer be directed first to servicing debt. After operating costs, cash will flow directly to shareholders, including Kumul Petroleum and, by extension, the state.

That reshapes the project’s financial profile. It does not create an immediate budget windfall, but it improves long-term income prospects and balance-sheet flexibility for PNG’s national oil company.

Kumul Petroleum chairman Gerea Aopi said the timing was strategically important as PNG prepares for its next major gas development.

“Our increased income will strategically flow into and assist us to put together the necessary finance for PNG to take up its mandated 22.5 percent equity in the forthcoming Papua LNG Project, especially during its four-to-five-year construction period,” he said.

Aopi cautioned the announcement should not be read as a sudden cash surplus, noting future income remains exposed to global petroleum prices and largely committed to upcoming obligations.

Malaysia centralised its hydrocarbons industry under Petronas, a commercially run national oil company with broad autonomy. Profits were reinvested domestically over decades, helping fund infrastructure, education and industrial diversification while reducing reliance on raw commodity exports.

Indonesia followed a hybrid approach through Pertamina, operating alongside international partners under production-sharing contracts. While governance challenges persisted, the model allowed the state to retain resource ownership while building domestic capability over time.

Papua New Guinea entered the LNG era later and adopted a project-finance joint-venture model, anchored by foreign operators and lenders. The state participates primarily as an equity partner through Kumul Petroleum rather than as an operator or sector-wide manager.

Large upfront borrowing was repaid from future LNG revenues, meaning debt servicing took priority over dividends for much of PNG LNG’s life.

The retirement of PNG LNG’s debt narrows the gap with regional peers, but it does not change the underlying model PNG follows — one reliant on project-by-project financing rather than a fully integrated national oil company structure.

That distinction now shapes decisions around Papua LNG and P’nyang, where the question is not only how much equity PNG holds, but how revenues are managed once construction and financing pressures return.

From one mega-project to the next
With PNG LNG’s debt chapter closed, attention turns to the next phase of the gas industry. Projects such as Papua LNG and P’nyang are intended to extend exports well into the 2030s, but they bring fresh financing needs, risks and negotiations.

Supporters argue that retiring PNG LNG’s debt early strengthens investor confidence and shows PNG can honour long-term agreements. Each new project, however, will reopen familiar debates over equity, landowner benefits and the balance between fiscal returns and long-term development.

The early retirement of PNG LNG’s project debt closes a significant chapter in Papua New Guinea’s resource history.

Whether it marks a decisive shift in how resource wealth supports long-term development — or simply resets the cycle ahead of the next mega-project — will depend on the choices that follow.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Ellie Aben in Manila and Sheany Yasuko Lai in Jakarta

Asia-Pacific activists are preparing to set sail with the Global Sumud Flotilla, an international fleet from 44 countries aiming to reach Gaza by sea to break Israel’s blockade of food and medical aid.

They have banded together under the Sumud Nusantara initiative, a coalition of activists from Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Maldives, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Pakistan, to join the global flotilla movement that will begin launching convoys from August 31.

Sumud Nusantara is part of the GSF, a coordinated, nonviolent fleet comprising mostly small vessels carrying humanitarian aid, which will first leave Spanish ports for the Gaza Strip, followed by more convoys from Tunisia and other countries in early September.

• READ MORE: More about the Global Sumud Flotilla
• More about the Gaza Flotilla Coalition
• NZ’s Kia Ora Gaza reports
• Other Gaza freedom flotilla reports

The international coalition is set to become the largest coordinated civilian maritime mission ever undertaken to Gaza.

“This movement comes at a very crucial time, as we know how things are in Gaza with the lack of food entering the strip that they are not only suffering from the impacts of war but also from starvation,” Indonesian journalist Nurhadis said ahead of his trip.

“Israel is using starvation as a weapon to wipe out Palestinians in Gaza. This is why we continue to state that what Israel is doing is genocide.”

Since October 2023, Israel has killed more than 62,000 Palestinians and injured over 157,000 more.

Gaza famine declared
As Tel Aviv continued to systematically obstruct food and aid from entering the enclave, a UN-backed global hunger monitor — the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification — declared famine in Gaza on Friday, estimating that more than 514,000 people are suffering from it.

Nurhadis is part of a group of activists from across Indonesia joining the GSF, which aims to “break Israel’s illegal blockade and draw attention to international complicity in the face of the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people.”

“We continue to try through this Global Sumud Flotilla action, hoping that the entire world, whether it’s governments or the people and other members of society, will pressure Israel to open its blockade in Palestine,” he said.

“This is just beyond the threshold of humanity. Israel is not treating Palestinians in Gaza as human beings and the world must not keep silent. This is what we are trying to highlight with this global convoy.”

The GSF is a people-powered movement that aims to help end the genocide in Gaza, said Rifa Berliana Arifin, Indonesia country director for the Sumud Nusantara initiative and executive committee member of the Jakarta-based Aqsa Working Group.

“Indonesia is participating because this is a huge movement. A movement that aspires to resolve and end the blockade through non-traditional means.

“We’ve seen how ineffective diplomatic, political approaches have been, because the genocide in Gaza has yet to end.

‘People power’ movement
“This people-power movement is aimed at putting an end to that,” Arifin said.

“This is a non-violent mission . . .  Even though they are headed to Gaza, they are boarding boats that have no weapons . . .  They are simply bringing themselves . . .  for the world to see.”

As the Sumud Nusantara initiative is led by Malaysia, activists were gathering this weekend in Kuala Lumpur, where a ceremonial send-off for the regional convoy is scheduled to take place on Sunday, led by Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

One of them is Philippine activist Drieza Lininding, leader of civil society group Moro Consensus Group, who is hoping that the Global Sumud Flotilla will inspire others in the Catholic-majority nation to show their support for Palestine.

“We are appealing to all our Filipino brothers and sisters, Muslims or Christians, to support the Palestinian cause because this issue is not only about religion, but also about humanity. Gaza has now become the moral compass of the world,” he said.

“Everybody is seeing the genocide and the starvation happening in Gaza, and you don’t need to be a Muslim to side with the Palestinians.

“It is very clear: if you want to be on the right side of history, support all programmes and activities to free Palestine . . .  It is very important that as Filipinos we show our solidarity.”

The former head of BenarNews’ Pacific bureau says a United States court ruling this week ordering the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) to release congressionally approved funding to Radio Free Asia and its subsidiaries “makes us very happy”.

However, Stefan Armbruster, who has played a key role in expanding the news agency’s presence in the region, acknowledged, “there’s also more to do”.

On March 14, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to defund USAGM outlets Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks, including placing more than 1300 Voice of America employees on leave.

• READ MORE: Victory for US press freedom and workers — court grants injunction in VOA media case
• Victory for US press freedom and workers – court grants injunction in VOA media case

“This order continues the reduction in the elements of the Federal bureaucracy that the President has determined are unnecessary,” the executive order states.

Armbruster told RNZ Pacific Waves that the ruling found the Trump administration failed to provide evidence to support their actions.

“[Judge Royce Lamberth] is basically saying that the actions of the Trump administration [are] likely to have been illegal and unconstitutional in taking away the money from these organisations,” he said.

Order to restore funding
“The judgments are saying that the US administration should return funding to its overseas broadcasters, which include Voice of America [and] Radio Free Asia.”

He said that in America, they can lay people off without a loss, and they can still remain employees. But these conditions did not apply for overseas employees.

“Basically, all the overseas staff have been staff let go, except a very small number in the US who are on visas, dependent on their employment, and they have spoken out about this publicly.

“They have got 60 days to find a job, a new sponsor for them, or they could face deportation to places like China, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

“So for the former employees, at the moment, we are just waiting to see how this all plays out.”

Armbruster said there were hints that a Trump administration could take such action during the election campaign, when the Trump team had flagged issues about the media.

Speed ‘totally unexpected’
However, he added the speed at which this has happened “was totally unexpected”.

“And the judge ruled on that. He said that it is hard to fathom a more straightforward display of arbitrary, capricious action, basically, random and unexplained.

“In short, the defendants had no method or approach towards shutting down USAGM that this Court could discern.”

Armbruster said the US Congress funds the USAGM, and the agency has a responsibility to disburse that funding to Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, and Radio Free Asia.

The judge ruled that the President does not have the authority to withhold that funding, he said.

“We were funded through till September to the end of the financial year in the US.

“In terms of how quickly [the executive order] came, it was a big surprise to all of us. Not totally unexpected that this would be happening, but not this way, not this hard.”

BenarNews ‘gave a voice’
The BenarNews Pacific bureau was initially set up two-and-a-half years ago but evolved into a fully-fledged bureau only 12 months ago. It had three fulltime staff based in Australia and about 15 stringers and commentators across the region.

“We built up this fantastic network of people, and the response has been fantastic, just like Radio New Zealand [Pacific],” Armbruster said.

“We were doing a really good thing and having some really amazing stories on our pages, and big successes. It gave a voice to a whole lot of Pacific journalists and commentators to tell stories from perspectives that were not being presented in other forums.

“It is hard to say if we will come back because there has been a lot of court orders issued recently under this current US administration, and they sometimes are not complied with, or are very slowly complied with, which is why we are still in the process.”

However, Armbruster remains hopeful there will be “some interesting news” next week.

“The judgment also has a little bit of a kicker in the tail, because it is not just an order to do [restore funding].

“It is an order to turn up on the first day of each month, and to appraise the court of what action is [the USAGM] taking to disburse the funds.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

In the aftermath of Palestinian group Hamas’ terror attack inside Israel on October 7 and the Israeli state’s even more terrifying attacks on Palestinian urban neighbourhoods in Gaza, the media across many parts of Asia tend to take a more neutral stand in comparison with their Western counterparts.

A lot of sympathy is expressed for the plight of the Palestinians who have been under frequent attacks by Israeli forces for decades and have faced ever trauma since the Nakba in 1948 when Zionist militia forced some 750,000 refugees to leave their homeland.

Even India, which has been getting closer to Israel in recent years, and one of Israel’s closest Asian allies, Singapore, have taken a cautious attitude to the latest chapter in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

• READ MORE:  Israel-Gaza crisis: NZ must condemn atrocities but keep pushing for a two-state solution
• Big Auckland rally shows solidarity with Palestine over ‘genocidal’ war
• 7 journalists killed since beginning of Israeli aggression on Gaza
• Jakarta workers protest outside US Embassy, call for end to Hamas-Israeli war
• Other Hamas-Israel conflict reports
• Al Jazeera live news blog on the Hamas-Israel conflict

Soon after the Hamas attacks in Israel, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted that he was “deeply shocked by the news of terrorist attacks”.

He added: “We stand in solidarity with Israel at this difficult hour.” But, soon after, his Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) sought to strike a balance.

Addressing a media briefing on October 12, MEA spokesperson Arindam Bagchi reiterated New Delhi’s “long-standing and consistent” position on the issue, telling reporters that “India has always advocated the resumption of direct negotiations towards establishing a sovereign, independent and viable state of Palestine” living in peace with Israel.

Singapore has also reiterated its support for a two-state solution, with Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam telling Today Daily that it was possible to deplore how Palestinians had been treated over the years while still unequivocally condemning the terrorist attacks carried out in Israel by Hamas.

“These atrocities cannot be justified by any rationale whatsoever, whether of fundamental problems or historical grievances,” he said.

“I think it’s fair to say that any response has to be consistent with international law and international rules of war”.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi has blamed the rapidly worsening conflict in the Middle East on a lack of justice for the Palestinian people.

Lack of justice for Palestinians
“The crux of the issue lies in the fact that justice has not been done to the Palestinian people,” Beijing’s top diplomat said in a phone call with Brazil’s Celso Amorim, a special adviser to Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, according to Japan’s Nikkei Asia.

The call came just ahead of an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on October 13 to discuss the Israel-Hamas war. Brazil, a non-permanent member, is chairing the council this month.

Indonesian President Jokowi Widodo called for an end to the region’s bloodletting cycle and pro-Palestinian protests have been held in Jakarta.

“Indonesia calls for the war and violence to be stopped immediately to avoid further human casualties and destruction of property because the escalation of the conflict can cause greater humanitarian impact,” he said.

“The root cause of the conflict, which is the occupation of Palestinian land by Israel, must be resolved immediately in accordance with the parameters that have been agreed upon by the UN.”

Indonesia, which is home to the world’s largest Muslim population, has supported Palestinian self-determination for a long time and does not have diplomatic relations with Israel.

But, Indonesia’s foreign ministry said 275 Indonesians were working in Israel and were making plans to evacuate them.

Sympathy for the Palestinians
Meanwhile, Thailand said that 18 of their citizens have been killed by the terror attacks and 11 abducted.

In the Philippines, Foreign Affairs Secretary Enrique Manalo said on October 10 that the safety of thousands of Filipinos living and working in Israel remained a priority for the government.

There are approximately 40,000 Filipinos in Israel, but only 25,000 are legally documented, according to labour and migrant groups, says Benar News, a US-funded Asian news portal.

According to India’s MEA spokesperson Bagchi, there are 18,000 Indians in Israel and about a dozen in the Palestinian territories. India is trying to bring them home, and a first flight evacuating 230 Indians was expected to take place at the weekend, according to the Hindu newspaper.

It is unclear what such large numbers of Asians are doing in Israel. Yet, from media reports in the region, there is deep concern about the plight of civilians caught up in the clashes.

Benar News reported that Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has spoken with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan about resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict according to UN-agreed parameters.

Also this week, the Malaysian government announced it would allocate 1 million ringgit (US$211,423) in humanitarian aid for Palestinians.

Western view questioned
Sympathy for the Palestinian cause is reflected widely in the Asian media, both in Muslim-majority and non-Muslim countries. The Western unequivocal support for Israel, particularly by Anglo-American media, has been questioned across Asia.

Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post’s regular columnist Alex Lo challenged Hamas’ “unprovoked” terror attack in Israel, a narrative commonly used in Western media reporting of the latest flare-up.

“It must be pointed out that what Hamas has done is terrorism pure and simple,” notes Lo.

“But such horrors and atrocities are not being committed by Palestinian militants without a background and a context. They did not come out of nowhere as unadulterated and uncaused evil”.

Thus Lo argues, that to claim that the latest terror attacks were “unprovoked” is to whitewash the background and context that constitute the very history of this unending conflict in Palestine.

US media’s ‘morally reprehensible propaganda’
“It’s morally reprehensible propaganda of the worst kind that the mainstream Anglo-American media culture has been guilty of for decades,” he says.

“But the real problem with that is not only with morality but also with the very practical politics of searching for a viable peace settlement”.

He is concerned that “with their unconditional and uncritical support of Israel, the West and the United States in particular have essentially made such a peace impossible”.

Writing in India’s Hindu newspaper, Denmark-based Indian professor of literature Dr Tabish Khair points out that historically, Palestinians have had to indulge in drastic and violent acts to draw attention to their plight and the oppressive policies of Israel.

“The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), under Yasser Arafat’s leadership, used such ‘terrorist’ acts to focus world attention on the Palestinian problem, and without such actions, the West would have looked the other way while the Palestinians were slowly airbrushed out of history,” he argues.

While the PLO fought a secular Palestinian battle for nationhood, which was largely ignored by Western powers, this lead to political Islam’s development in the later part of the 1970s, and Hamas is a product of that.

“Today, we live in a world where political Islam is associated almost entirely with Islam — and almost all Muslims,” he notes.

Palestinian cause still resonates
But, the Palestinian cause still resonates beyond the Muslim communities, as the reactions in Asia reflect.

Indian historian and journalist Vijay Prashad, writing in Bangladesh’s Daily Star, notes the savagery of the impending war against the Palestinian people will be noted by the global community.

He points out that Hamas was never allowed to function as a voice for the Palestinian people, even after they won a landslide democratic election in Gaza in January 2006.

“The victory of Hamas was condemned by the Israelis and the West, who decided to use armed force to overthrow the election result,” he points out.

“Gaza was never allowed a political process, in fact never allowed to shape any kind of political authority to speak for the people”.

Prashad points out that when the Palestinians conducted a non-violent march in 2019 for their rights to nationhood, they were met with Israeli bombs that killed 200 people.

“When non-violent protest is met with force, it becomes difficult to convince people to remain on that path and not take up arms,” he argues.

Prashad disputes the Western media’s argument that Israel has a “right to defend itself” because the Palestinians are people under occupation. Under the Geneva Convention, Israel has an obligation to protect them.

Under the Geneva Convention, Prashad argues that the Israeli government’s “collective punishment” strategy is a war crime.

“The International Criminal Court opened an investigation into Israeli war crimes in 2021 but it was not able to move forward even to collect information”.

Kalinga Seneviratne is a correspondent for IDN-InDepthNews, the flagship agency of the non-profit International Press Syndicate (IPS). Republished under a Creative Commons licence.

A new media monitoring watchdog, Muslim Media Watch, published its first edition today featuring a cover story alleging that a Malaysian cult leader who was reportedly now in New Zealand could “create social unrest”.

Named as Suhaini bin Mohammad, he was allegedly posing as a Muslim religious leader and was said to be wanted by the authorities in Malaysia for “false teachings” that contradict Islam.

His cult ideology was identified by MMW as SiHulk, which was banned by the Johor State Religious Department (JAINJ) in 2021.

• READ MORE: Media, the courts, and terrorism: Lessons from the Christchurch mosque attacks – Gavin Ellis, Pacific Journalism Review
• Islam in the media: By the numbers

In an editorial, the 16-page publlcation said a need for “such a news outlet” as MMW had been shown after the mass shootings at two Christchurch mosques on 15 March 2019 and the Royal Commission inquiry that followed.

Fifty one people killed in the twin attacks were all Muslims attending the Islamic Friday prayer — “they were targeted solely because they were Muslims”.

The editorial noted “the shooter was motivated largely by online material. His last words before carrying out the shootings were: ‘Remember lads, subscribe to PewDiePie.'”

“It is therefore disappointing that, while acknowledging the role of the media in the shootings, none of the 44 recommendations in the government’s response to the [Royal Commission] relate to holding media to account for irresponsible reporting, or even mention media; the word does not appear in any recommendation,” writes editor Adam Brown.

Often not neutral
“Indeed, the word Muslim appears only once, in ‘Muslim Community Reference Group’.
It has long been acknowledged that media reporting of Muslims and Islam is often not neutral.”

The editorial cited an Australian example, a survey by OnePath Network Australia which tallied the number, percentage and tone of articles about Islam in Australian media in 2017, in particular newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp: The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, The Herald Sun, The Courier Mail and The Advertiser.

“Over the year, the report found that 2891 negative articles ran in those five newspapers, where Islam and Muslims were mentioned alongside words like violence, extremism, terrorism and radical. This equates to over eight articles per day for the whole year; 152 of those articles ran on the front page,” said the MMW editorial.

“The percentage of their opinion pieces that were Islamophobic ranged from 19 percent
to 64 percent.

“The average was 31 percent, nearly a third, with one writer reaching almost two thirds. Also, as OnePath comment, ‘Even though they are stated to be “opinion” pieces, they are often written as fact.'”

Editor Brown said the situation in New Zealand had not improved since the shootings.

“Biased and unfair reporting on Muslim matters continues, and retractions are not always forthcoming,” he wrote.

Examples highlighted
The editorial said that the purpose of MMW was to highlight examples of media reporting — in New Zealand and overseas — that contained information about Islam that was not
accurate, or that was not neutrally reported.

It would also model ethical journalism and responsible reporting following Islamic practices and tradition.

MMW offered to conduct training sessions and to act as a resource for other media outlets.

On other pages, MMW reported about misrepresentation of Islam “being nothing new”, a challenge over a Listener article misrepresentation about girls’ education in Afghanistan, an emerging global culture of mass Iftar events, an offensive reference in a Ministry of Education textbook, and the ministry “acknowledges bias in teacher recruiting”, an article headlined “when are religious extremists not religious extremists”, and other issues.

Research on climate crisis as the new target for disinformation peddlers, governance and the media, China’s growing communication influence, and journalism training strategies feature strongly in the latest Pacific Journalism Review.

Byron C. Clark, author of the recent controversial book Fear: New Zealand’s Hostile Underworld of Extremists, and Canterbury University postgraduate researcher Emanuel Stokes, have produced a case study about climate crisis as the new pandemic disinformation arena with the warning that “climate change or public health emergencies can be seized upon by alternative media and conspiracist influencers” to “elicit outrage and protest”.

The authors argue that journalists need a “high degree of journalistic ethics and professionalism to avoid amplifying hateful, dehumanising narratives”.

• READ MORE: The July 2023 PJR table of contents
• Other PJR editions

PJR editor Dr Philip Cass adds an article unpacking the role of Pacific churches, both positive and negative, in public information activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Several articles deal with media freedom in the Pacific in the wake of the pandemic, including a four-country examination by some of the region’s leading journalists and facilitated by Dr Amanda Watson of Australian National University and associate professor Shailendra Singh of the University of the South Pacific.

They conclude that the pandemic “has been a stark reminder about the link between media freedom and the financial viability of media of organisations, especially in the Pacific”.

Dr Ann Auman, a specialist in crosscultural and global media ethics from the University of Hawai’i, analyses challenges facing the region through a workshop at the newly established Pacific Media Institute in Majuro, Marshall Islands.

Repeal of draconian Fiji law
The ousting of the Voreqe Bainimarama establishment that had been in power in Fiji in both military and “democratic” forms since the 2006 coup opened the door to greater media freedom and the repeal of the draconian Fiji Media Law. Two articles examine the implications of this change for the region.

An Indonesian researcher, Justito Adiprasetio of Universitas Padjadjaran, dissects the impact of Jakarta’s 2021 “terrorist” branding of the Free West Papua movement on six national online news media groups.

In Aotearoa New Zealand, media analyst Dr Gavin Ellis discusses “denying oxygen” to those who create propaganda for terrorists in the light of his recent research with Dr Denis Muller of Melbourne University and how Australia might benefit from New Zealand media initiatives, while RNZ executive editor Jeremy Rees reflects on a historical media industry view of training, drawing from Commonwealth Press Union reviews of the period 1979-2002.

Across the Tasman, Griffith University communication and journalism programme director Dr Kasun Ubayasiri presents a powerful human rights Photoessay documenting how the Meanjin (Brisbane) local community rallied around to secure the release of 120 medevaced refugee men locked up in an urban motel.

Monash University associate professor Johan Lidberg led a team partnering in International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) studies about “the world according to China”, the global media influence strategies of a superpower.

The Frontline section features founding editor Dr David Robie’s case study about the Pacific Media Centre which was originally published by Japan’s Okinawan Journal of Island Studies.

A strong Obituary section featuring two personalities involved in investigating the 1975 Balibo Five journalist assassination by Indonesian special forces in East Timor and a founder of the Pacific Media Centre plus nine Reviews round off the edition.

Pacific Journalism Review, founded at the University of Papua New Guinea, is now in its 29th year and is New Zealand’s oldest journalism research publication and the highest ranked communication journal in the country.

It is published by the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) Incorporated educational nonprofit.

Fifteen artists have been selected as the inaugural beneficiaries of NZ On Air’s New Music Pan-Asian funding.

The initiative, the first of its kind, aims to support the Asian music community in New Zealand.

The fund was established due to a lack of equitable representation of Asian musicians in the country’s music sector, says Teresa Patterson, head of music at NZ On Air.

• READ MORE: Other Blessen Tom articles

“Our Music Diversity Report clearly showed the under-representation of Pan-Asian New Zealand musicians in the Aotearoa music sector,” she said.

“This is reflected in the number of funding applications we received for this focus round.”

The funding provides musicians with up to $10,000 for recording, mixing and mastering a single, some of which can be set aside for the promotion and creation of visual content to accompany the song’s release.

“We received 107 applications for 15 grants, which is outstanding,” Patterson said.

‘Wonderful range’
“The range of genre, gender and ethnicity among the applicants was wonderful. We received applications from artists who identify as Chinese, Indian, Filipino, South Korean, Japanese, Indonesian, Sri Lankan, Malaysian, Thai and Iraqi.

“The genres varied from alternative/indie and pop to hip-hop/RnB, dance/electro and folk/country.”

Six of the 15 songs that secured funding are bilingual, featuring Asian languages such as Cantonese, Korean, Japanese, Malay and Punjabi.

Patterson believed this variety would “really help to reflect the many voices of Aotearoa New Zealand” and add to the vibrant cultural music mix experienced by local audiences.

Swap Gomez, a drummer, visual director and academic lecturer, was one of the panel members responsible for selecting the musicians for the funding. He emphasised the challenges faced by Asian musicians in New Zealand.

“What was awesome to see was so many Pan-Asian artists applying; artists we had never heard of coming out of the woodwork now that a space has been created to celebrate their work,” Gomez said.

“This is the time we can celebrate those Pan-Asian artists who have previously felt overlooked by the wider industry.

“Now there is an environment and sector where they can feel appreciated for their success in music. As a multicultural industry, developing initiatives such as this one is more crucial than ever.”

NZ On Air has announced that funding opportunities for Asian musicians will continue in the next financial year.

“The response we have had to this inaugural NZ On Air New Music Pan-Asian focus funding round has been phenomenal,” Patterson said.

“It tells us that there is a real need, so NZ On Air is excited to confirm that it will return in the new financial year.”

The full NZ On Air’s Pan-Asian New Music recipient list:

• Amol; cool asf
• Charlotte Avery; just before you go
• Crystal Chen; love letter
• hanbee; deeper
• Hans.; Porcelain
• Hugo Chan; bite
• Julius Black; After You
• LA FELIX; Waiting
• Lauren Gin; Don’t Stop
• Memory Foam; Moon Power
• Phoebe Rings; 아스라이
• RESHMA; Kuih Lapis (Layer Cake)
• tei.; sabre
• Terrible Sons; Thank You, Thank You
• Valere; Lily’s March

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Journalists and journalism are waging a global struggle for survival and for “truth” against fake news and alternative facts, say two Asia-Pacific media commentators.

“Without journalists who will tell it like it is no matter the consequences, the future will continue to be one of alternate facts and manipulated opinions,” Rappler executive editor Glenda Gloria told about 135 media scholars, journalists and researchers at the opening of the Asian Congress for Media and Communication (ACMC) in Auckland today.

“As we’ve experienced at Rappler, the battle to save journalism cannot be fought by journalists alone, and cannot be fought from our laptops alone. The battle for truth is a battle we must share — and fight — with other groups and citizens.

• READ MORE: Rappler chief editor and Asia-Pacific media keynotes at ‘pandemic’ forum
• ‘No stranger to media freedom threats’, but hope at communication forum
• Professor David Robie’s keynote speech at ACMC – video
• The ACMC 2021 conference

“Each time our freedoms are threatened, we should have no qualms engaging other democracy frontliners and participating in collective efforts to resist authoritarianism.”

However, she told the virtual conference hosted at Auckland University of Technology (AUT) she believed that journalists had the motivation and enough understanding now to “stop the tide of disinformation” that fuelled the spread of authoritarianism.

“In this environment, make no doubt: Journalism is activism,” added the award-winning investigative journalist and author who heads the digital website that has repeatedly angered Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte with its exposés.

Another keynote speaker, Dr David Robie, founding director of the Pacific Media Centre and retired professor of Pacific journalism at AUT, condemned a “surge of global information pollution”.

Disinformation damaging democracy
He outlined how disinformation was damaging democracy and encouraging authoritarianism across the Pacific, singling out Fiji and Papua New Guinea for particular criticism.

Professor David Robie’s keynote speech. Video: Café Pacific

Dr Robie cited how authorities in PNG had been forced to abandon mobile health clinics and teams of health workers carrying out covid-19 vaccination and awareness programmes because of the increasingly risky attacks against them.

He said much of the content used by anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists which framed the covid-19 response as a fight between the individual and the allegedly “treacherous” state had been repackaged from US and Australia vested interests.

Dr Robie said universities could do far more in the fight against disinformation and praised initiatives such as the RMIT fact-checking collaboration with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), The Conversation news and academia project, The Juncture journalism school website, and the new Monash University backed 360info wire news service.

“The challenge confronting many communication programmes and journalism schools located in universities or tertiary institutions is what to do about authoritarianism, how to tackle the strain of an ever-changing health and science agenda, the deluge of disinformation and the more rapid than predicted escalation of climate catastrophe,” he said.

“One of the answers is greater specialisation and advanced programmes rather than just relying on generalist strategies and expecting graduates to fit neatly into already configured newsroom boxes.

“The more that universities can do to equip graduates with advanced problem-solving skills, the more adept they will be at developing advanced ways of reporting on the pandemic – and other likely pandemics of the future – contesting the merchants of disinformation and reporting on the climate crisis.”

Dr Robie, who was awarded the 2015 AMIC Asian Communications prize, pioneered several student journalist projects in the region such as intensive coverage of the 2000 Fiji coup and the 2011 Pacific Islands Forum, and more recently the 2016-2018 Bearing Witness and 2020 Climate and Covid project in partnership with Internews.

Journalism Nobel Peace Prize
Glenda Gloria said her entire editorial team had been delighted when their chief executive Maria Ressa was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize – along with Russian editor Dmitry Muratov. Ressa was the first Filipino Nobel laureate and “some of us started calling our office the Nobel newsroom”.

“This immense pride that we feel isn’t just because Maria is our CEO, it is that the prize went to two journalists who have faced the toughest challenges imposed by authoritarian states,” Gloria said.

“More than that, the Nobel prize puts a global spotlight on the extraordinary dangers that we journalists face today.

“To many of us in the Global South, journalism has always been considered a dangerous profession long before media watchdogs started ranking countries around the world according to the freedoms enjoyed by their press.

“And yet, despite all that we have seen and experienced, it’s no exaggeration to say that this is the most challenging period for journalism.

“At stake today is our very existence, our relevance, and our ability to speak truth to power.”

The conference was opened following a traditional mihi by AUT’s acting dean of the Faculty of Design and Communication Technologies, Professor Felix Tan, and ACMC president Professor Azman Azwan Azamati of Malaysia.

Master of ceremonies duties are being shared by AUT’s Khairiah A. Rahman, the chief conference organiser, and Dino Cantal of Trinity University of Asia.

More than 40 media and communication research papers are being presented over three days with the conference ending on Saturday afternoon.

The next ACMC conference is being hosted in Sri Lanka in 2022.

• The ACMC conference programme

The Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom (AJF) has called on the Malaysian government to desist its current investigation of Al Jazeera English as the current methods of investigation are an attack on free, independent journalism.

If the Malaysian government takes issue with Al Jazeera’s work – or any reporting – there were appropriate complaint mechanisms within a democracy to pursue this, the AJF said in a statement.

The government could complain to the network itself, demand a right of reply, publicly criticise (as had already been done) or go through domestic complaints processes.

READ MORE: Malaysian police raid Al Jazeera’s office, seize computers

To regard this report as an act of sedition or criminal defamation, however, without providing any supporting evidence, and to then send the police in to the AJE offices, was a misguided attack on Malaysia’s democracy, said the statement.

“Investigating the report as an act of sedition is absurd. As far as we can see there was and has been no attempt by these journalists to overthrow the government,” said Professor Peter Greste, AJF spokesperson and director.

“Most viewers saw a report that turned out to be critical of government policy. In a democracy, this can be the outcome of a free press.

“It is in the best interests of the entire region to maintain support of institutions fundamental to democracy. A free and independent media is one of these key institutions.

Journalism in public interest
“We see this mistake time and time again. There is a marked difference between acts of sedition and journalistic work in the public interest and that may be critical of government policy. To conflate them is simply dangerous.”

The Auckland-based Pacific Media Centre also condemned the latest raid on Al Jazeera’s Malaysian office, saying it was “unacceptable harassment and a violation of media freedom”.

Malaysian police raided Al Jazeera’s Kuala Lumpur office on Tuesday and seized two computers, the news network said, describing the incident as a “troubling escalation” in the government’s crackdown on press freedoms.

The raid came after authorities in Malaysia announced they were investigating Al Jazeera for sedition, defamation and violation of the country’s Communications and Multimedia Act.

The probe relates to a 101 East programme that aired on July 3 and examined the Malaysian government’s treatment of undocumented migrant workers during the coronavirus pandemic.

Giles Trendle, managing director of Al Jazeera English, said the network was “gravely concerned” by the raid and called on the Malaysian government to cease its criminal investigation against the network’s journalists immediately.

Controversial Papua New Guinea citizen Joe Chan has been arrested in Malaysia – this time under the name Djoko Soegiarto Tjandra.

And also this time as an Indonesian, a wanted and convicted fugitive and graft convict, reports the PNG Post-Courier.

He has been on the run for 11 years. Last Thursday he was brought back to Indonesia.

READ MORE: Indonesia brings graft fugitive Djoko Tjandra back from Malaysia

Guarded by personnel from the police’s Criminal Investigation Unit (Bareskrim), Tjandra landed at Halim Perdanakusuma International Airport in East Jakarta last Thursday evening.

Tjandra was first arrested in September 1999 for his involvement in the high-profile Bank Bali corruption case. He was acquitted by the South Jakarta District Court in 2000.

After the Attorney-General’s Office filed a request for review, the Supreme Court sentenced Tjandra to two years jail in 2009 and ordered him to pay Rp 546 billion (US$54 million) in restitution.

However, Tjandra fled to Papua New Guinea a day before the court ruling and had remained at large ever since.

PNG citizenship sparked inquiry
Controversially, Tjandra was granted PNG citizenship, which sparked criticism and prompted the Ombudsman Commission to launch an inquiry into the matter.

Bareskrim head Listyo Sigit Prabowo said the arrest had been made possible through cooperation between Indonesian police and their Malaysian counterparts.

“The National Police chief sent a letter to the Malaysian police to help with searching the fugitive and, Alhamdulillah [thank God], we managed to locate him [on Thursday] afternoon,” he said in a televised statement after arriving at the airport.

“This is also the answer to public doubts as to whether the police could catch [the fugitive], and today we have [delivered on] our commitment to arrest Djoko Tjandra,” Listyo said as he thanked the Malaysian police for cooperating with the arrest.

Following his arrival, Tjandra was immediately taken to the Bareskrim headquarters for further questioning.

Returned to Indonesia undetected
Tjandra recently made headlines as he managed to return to the country undetected and request a case review over his conviction with the South Jakarta District Court in early June.

He reportedly filed his plea after obtaining a new electronic ID card and passport, in addition to having his Interpol red notice status lifted.

The court, however, dropped his case review plea on Tuesday after Tjandra, who was reported to be residing in Malaysia, failed to show up for the hearing four times.

Tjandra’s legal team said that the fugitive was not able to attend trial due to his poor health.

ANALYSIS: By Ross Tapsell, of the Australian National University

The recent police interrogations of six Al Jazeera journalists in Malaysia – five of whom are Australian – was not about shaping international reportage or a diplomatic rift.

Rather, it was part of a troubling pattern of crackdowns on the media and freedom of speech in the country, driven by the domestic concerns of an insecure government highly sensitive to criticism.

While the previous government led by former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad was by no means consistent or perfect, Malaysia was hailed just last year as an example of a country improving on press freedom.

READ MORE: Malaysia takes a turn to the right, and many of its people are worried

This started to change in March, however, as Muhyiddin Yassin’s new government came to power. Tolerance for criticism and dissent has since been in short supply.

Pattern of repression
The Al Jazeera journalists have been accused of sedition and defamation over a documentary about the government’s treatment of migrant workers during the covid-19 pandemic. Malaysian officials and national television claim the documentary was inaccurate, misleading and unfair.

But these journalists are hardly the only ones to be targeted by the new government.

Steven Gan, chief editor of the trusted online news portal Malaysiakini, is facing contempt of court charges and could be sent to jail over reader comments briefly published on the news site that were apparently critical of the judiciary. Gan’s lawyer warned the case could have a “chilling effect”.

South China Morning Post journalist Tashny Sukamaran has been investigated for reporting on police raids of migrant workers and refugees.

Another journalist, Boo Su-Lyn, is being investigated for publishing the findings of an inquiry into a fire at a hospital in 2016 that left six dead.

A book featuring articles by political analysts and journalists has been banned over the artwork on the cover that allegedly insulted the national coat of arms. Sukamaran and journalists from Malaysiakini have been questioned by police about their involvement.

Opposition politicians have also been questioned by police for tweets and comments they made in the media prior to the new government taking power.

Whistle-blowers are included in this, too. For example, the government this week cancelled the work permit of the migrant worker who was featured in the Al Jazeera documentary.

Why the recent crackdown?
Malaysia’s current coalition government – Perikatan Nasional – was controversially formed earlier this year. The alliance came to power via backdoor politicking and support from the Malaysian king as Mahathir’s dysfunctional coalition imploded.

The new government coalition includes the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the party voted out of power in 2018 following a massive corruption scandal. This was the first time Malaysia had changed government in its 60-year history.

With UMNO now back in government, it is perhaps no surprise there are again more crackdowns on the media, as their previous rule saw regular attacks on journalists, activists and opposition figures.

Malaysia has also become known for its “cybertroopers” – social media commentators similar to “trolls” – who drive heated nationalistic and race-related agendas, and target government critics.

After the Al Jazeera documentary, these cyber-troopers provided fervent support for the government’s actions, arguing it had every right to round up migrants and evict them if it sees fit. Al Jazeera said its journalists were also targeted by cyber-troopers, saying they

faced abuse online, including death threats and disclosure of their personal details over social media.

Shaky government looking to firm up support
There’s another reason for the return of media crackdowns and online-driven activity beyond just the government’s desire to control the media.

It is also tactical as it allows government ministers to respond with firm statements asking security forces to intervene – enabling them to look strong, coherent and nationalistic.

Muhyiddin’s coalition is on shaky ground. It holds a slim majority in parliament and internal party factions have come to dominate political debate, with “party-hopping” becoming increasingly common. Malaysiakini even has a rolling news page regularly updated to track politicians’ changing alliances.

Malaysia’s parliament also finally resumed this week after a long and unstable hiatus, and was described as a “circus”. Politicians shouted over one another, with some trading racist and sexist remarks.

The house speaker, who was part of Mahathir’s administration, was also
controversially replaced. There has been consistent talk of snap polls.

In this environment, politicians who don’t respond forcefully enough in the “culture wars” over documentaries and controversial artwork on book covers, or conform with the online mob on immigration, risk looking weak.

A ‘new normal’ settling in
A snap election won’t necessarily help Muyhiddin strengthen his position, as parties within the coalition can become rivals during a campaign for certain seats.

But no matter who rules Malaysia in the coming months, the result will likely be a government that is fragile, insecure and worried about its legitimacy. For Malaysians, this is their “new normal”.

The risk for journalists in this “new normal” is further repression and harassment of independent media. As we have seen elsewhere in Southeast Asia, as well as in Australia, the state seems increasingly willing to use legal and regulatory pressure to make sure journalists and whistle-blowers are afraid to speak up.

Dr Ross Tapsell is senior lecturer in the School of Culture, History and Language, College of Asia and the Pacific., Australian National University.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Pacific Media Watch Newsdesk

Malaysian police summoned six Al Jazeera media workers today for questioning relating to an investigation for defamation and violation of Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA), reports IFJ Asia-Pacific.

The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and its Australian affiliate the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA) have called on authorities to drop the case against Al Jazeera immediately.

The IFJ received reports that six media workers were called to Malaysia Central Police Headquarter in Bukit Aman about 8:50 am (GMT+8) on July 10.

They include senior producer and correspondent Drew Ambrose, producer Jenni Henderson, and the network’s bureau chief, executive producer, cameraman, and digital crew.

According to MEAA, five of the six media workers are Australian. The investigation relates to allegations against Al Jazeera for “sedition, defamation and violation of the country’s Communications and Multimedia Act” after airing Al Jazeera’s 101 East documentary Locked Up in Malaysia’s Lockdown that investigated why the covid-19 pandemic has forced migrant workers into hiding.

In its statement, Al Jazeera “strongly refutes” the charges, which criticised the documentary as being inaccurate, misleading and unfair.

The network “stands by the professionalism, quality and impartiality of its journalism”.

Al Jazeera emphasised the episode does not contain the personal opinions of any its staff, stating the network repeatedly requested and was denied interviews with several senior government ministers and officials.

Malaysia’s CMA is routinely abused targetting journalists despite the Communication and Multimedia minister’s commitment to review the act’s restrictions on press freedom.

Since March 2020, the IFJ has recovered 19 instances of authorities enforcing the CMA to intimidate media workers and freedom of expression advocates.

MEAA wrote to the High Commission of Malaysia in Australia noting: “Malaysia’s obligations under UN General Assembly resolution 74/157 The Safety of journalist and the issue of impunity adopted on December 18 2019 that states Malaysia, as a UN member state, should do its ‘utmost to prevent, violence, threats and attacks targeting journalists and media workers.’ MEAA calls on you to fulfil that obligation towards our colleagues.”

The IFJ said: “The IFJ deeply regrets Malaysian authorities abusing the Communications and Multimedia Act to silence and intimidate journalists. There has been a distinct pattern under the Covid-19 crisis of media workers targeted under Malaysia’s Communications and Multimedia Act and Penal Code for simply doing their job. It is urgent for Malaysia during the Covid-19 pandemic to prioritise the public’s right to know and for the media to be able to report freely and fairly without the threat of persecution.”

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has called on Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s government to end the “absurd situation” in which Australian investigative journalist Mary Ann Jolley is banned from visiting New Zealand because she was deported from Malaysia in 2015 in connection with her reporting.

“I’m basically regarded by New Zealand as a criminal,” Mary Ann Jolley said after New Zealand Immigration last week prevented her from boarding a flight from Sydney to Auckland, where she wanted to go for personal reasons, reports RSF.

The ban is the result of a very literal interpretation of Section 15 of New Zealand’s Immigration Act, which prohibits the entry of a person “who has, at any time, been removed, excluded, or deported from another country”.

READ MORE: NZ bars Australian investigative journalist

Jolley’s deportation from Malaysia in 2015 was a result of her investigative reporting in Kuala Lumpur for Al Jazeera on a corruption scandal involving the sale of French submarines and a related political murder, in which then Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak was allegedly implicated.

She has since returned many times to Malaysia.

When she contacted New Zealand’s consulate in Sydney, she was told that she would have to request a “special direction” every time she wanted to visit New Zealand.

Kafkaesque situation
“As Australian citizens can travel freely to New Zealand, it is unacceptable that Mary Ann Jolley is being penalised in this way for her reporting in a third country five years ago,” said Asia-Pacific director Daniel Bastard.

“We call on immigration minister Iain Lees-Galloway to intervene immediately on her behalf in order to end this utterly Kafkaesque situation.”

When travelling, Jolley always carries Malaysian government documents explaining the reason for her deportation in 2015 and certifying that she committed no crime.

It is the height of absurdity that she is now banned although she was allowed into New Zealand with no problem last year to cover the Christchurch mosque shootings.

New Zealand is ranked 7th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2019 World Press Freedom Index.

• Earlier Pacific Media Watch report

An award-winning journalist whose reporting on a murder and corruption investigation got her deported from Malaysia has been prevented from boarding a flight to New Zealand, even though she has been back to Malaysia since, reports Newsroom.

Immigration authorities barred Australian journalist Mary Ann Jolley working for Al Jazeera from entering New Zealand because of her work uncovering a corruption scandal in Malaysia.

Jolley was deported from Malaysia in 2015 after she investigated a corruption scandal and murder linked to former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak, according to Newsroom political reporter Dileepa Fonseka.

READ MORE: Altantuya’s Murder resurfaces–East Asia journalist, Mary Ann Jolley deported

Jolley’s deportation notice did not prevent her from visiting the United Kingdom, the United States or Malaysia itself, but it was a no-go for New Zealand Immigration who barred her from boarding a Qantas flight in Sydney last week, Newsroom reported.

Jolley had planned to attend a friend’s birthday party in Auckland.

“I was not allowed to board a flight to New Zealand and I tried every which way with the New Zealand Immigration to say, ‘what’s this about? Last time you let me in the country I showed you the documentation. Why am I being barred?” Jolley said, according to Newsroom.

The journalist’s 2015 deportation by the Malaysian government was televised in an Al Jazeera 101 East documentary on the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

‘On a “bad list”‘
“I’ve just been told I’m on a ‘bad list’,” Jolley said to-camera during the documentary. She reported that Malaysian authorities had told her she had not committed any crime, but would be deported.

“I’m basically regarded in New Zealand as a criminal,”  she told Newsroom.

Jolley followed up her case for entry into New Zealand with a frantic series of emails and phone calls to immigration and consular officials at Sydney airport as her plane readied for departure last week.

The final word came from the office of Associate Minister of Immigration Poto Williams who redirected Jolley’s query to INZ, reported Newsroom.

“I am advised that, in order to resolve your situation you would have to apply to Immigration New Zealand for a special direction for future travel to New Zealand, and attach all relevant documents for assessment by Immigration Officials,” a staffer for Williams wrote in an email to Jolley.

‘Special direction’
Nicola Hogg, general manager border and visa operations for INZ, said Jolley was granted a “special direction” at the border last year, but was told then that she would need to obtain one before she entered New Zealand next time.

Jolley had no memory of any such warning from INZ, Newsroom reported.

Under New Zealand law, the Malaysian government’s deportation of Jolley will have long-term consequences for how she enters the country.

Section 15 of the Immigration Act does not allow the entry of a person “who has, at any time, been removed, excluded, or deported from another country”.

• Mary Ann Jolley’s report for Al Jazeera
• Other Mary Ann Jolley reports

Mary Ann Jolley’s Malaysian report on 101 East on 10 September 2015. Video: Al Jazeera

A journalist has been taken in for police questioning while documenting the land struggles of Temiar Orang Asli, an indigenous community in Kampung Sungai Papan, Malaysia, reports the Malay Mail.

Alexandra Radu from Romania said she was taken to the Gerik district police station yesterday morning after talking to the indigenous villagers about the blockade they had set up to prevent loggers from felling trees on their customary land.

“First the police told me that they are arresting me, but later they said that they only took me to the police station for documentation purposes,” she said.

READ MORE: Precarious politics pose threats to world’s three biggest rainforests

“I’m still here at the police station,” she told Malay Mail when contacted yesterday.

A journalist for Japanese news organisation The Diplomat, Radu said she went to Temiar village on her own and not at the invitation of anyone.

“I went there to cover the life of the Orang Asli there and their blockade issue,” she said.

According to online news site Malaysiakini, loggers and forestry officials destroyed the blockade yesterday which was blocking access to 42 hectares of Orang Asli customary land.

Speaking about the incident, the Organisation for the Preservation of Natural Heritage Malaysia (Peka Malaysia) said: “We regret that the state authorities and loggers are adamant and continuously encroaching upon their (Temiar) customary lands, despite numerous police reports and complaints being lodged with the relevant authorities and ongoing investigations.

“We hope there should not be any attempt to curb any media’s right of information and the public’s right to know any matters pertaining to Orang Asli in this regard.”

Alexandra Radu has since been released. Police have told media that she was not arrested, only brought in to record her statement as a witness to the demolition of the blockade.

While the local government approved logging in the area last year, it has been met with dogged resistance with three Orang Asli villages arrested in mid-July for impeding logging activity.

The Orang Asli are the indigenous people and the oldest inhabitants of peninsula Malaysia and have a powerful connection with the land.

According to Al Jazeera, much of their customary land and its biodiversity is being lost to palm oil plantations which are expanding rapidly throughout Malaysia.

]]> https://asiapacificreport.nz/2018/09/21/japanese-development-aid-funding-splits-pacific-unity-on-key-who-post/ Fri, 21 Sep 2018 01:30:42 +0000 https://asiapacificreport.nz/?p=32320 The Western Pacific post for the World Health Organisation is a vitally important role for the region. However, reports Sri Krishnamurthi for Asia Pacific Journalism, the earlier unity over a strong Pacific candidate has slipped.

All the headlines at the recent Pacific Islands Forum in Nauru were political so the upcoming nomination for the election next month for the key role of World Health Organisation regional director for the Western Pacific went largely unnoticed.

The Pacific’s endorsement of Colin Tukuitonga, a New Zealander of Niuean descent and proposed by New Zealand, was resounding and support for his nomination from all countries had seemed to be a fait accompli.

He along with three others – Dr Narimah Awin, proposed by Malaysia; Dr Takeshi Kasai, proposed by Japan; Dr Susan Mercado, proposed by the Philippines – were then in the running for the nomination which will take place during the 69th session of the Regional Committee for the Western Pacific in Manila, Philippines, on October 8-13.

READ MORE: Building healthy communities on the Pacific

“Yes, all health ministers agreed and endorsed me at the WHO Regional Committee Meeting held in Brisbane in October 2017.

“They agreed to have one candidate and five ministers approached me to stand,” Tukuitonga told Asia-Pacific Report.

At the forum in Nauru he learned that the endorsement from the Pacific Island states was not as united as first thought.

“Since then, we are aware that Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands have expressed public support for the Japanese candidate [Dr Kasai],” he says.

Most of Pacific supportive
“We understand that this is in exchange for Japan paying for developments in country. We also understand that Vanuatu has made the same decision.”

“We understand that all other Pacific nations remain supportive, including New Zealand and Australia as well as other nations.”

The Director-General of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community says it is a positive for the role being at the PIF, it provided an opportunity to network with the leaders.

“All regional agencies – the council for regional organisations in the Pacific (CROP) decisions and priorities are influenced by forum leaders decisions. It is also a good opportunity to meet Pacific leaders and others.

“PIF presents a lot of opportunities to meet bilaterally with donors and those that are present. It also a critical forum”.

He does have a view on the 120 children in the detention camps on Nauru and their mental state but does not want to air it publicly.

But he is happy to voice his concerns about the health of Pacific people.

Diabetes, heart disease major problem
“Non-communicable diseases (NCD) such as diabetes and heart disease are the major cause of death and disease,” says the former chief executive of NZ’s Ministry for Pacific Island Affairs.

“NCDs are fuelled by poor diets, low levels of physical activity, high rates of smoking and high prevalence of obesity.

“In some Pacific nations, child health diseases remain high due to lack of clean water and sanitation. All Pacific health systems are fragile and underfunded leading to high preventable deaths and disabilities.

“Continuing high fertility rates putting pressure on government services in all Pacific countries. PNG also has high rates of HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria,” says Dr Tukuitonga.

Making matters worse for the people of the Pacific is the very realistic issue of climate change.

“A clear and present danger for all Island nations, threatening lives and livelihoods, we have five of the 15 countries most vulnerable to disasters are in Pacific,’’ he says.

“Climate change causes less dramatic impacts such as ocean acidification, causing coral bleaching and threatening the food chain and it provides 80 percent of the protein source for Pacific communities which come from fish and seafood.

Big deal
“Threats on food security is a big deal for the Pacific. Significant negative health impacts such as spread of mosquito-borne dengue fever and other diseases.

“Climate change aggravates existing problems, so preparedness is key for example, outbreaks post disaster is the result of existing organisms, not new organisms.”

He has worked for WHO before and finds it “challenging” but not a mission impossible.

Sri Krishnamurthi is a journalist and Postgraduate Diploma in Communication Studies student at Auckland University of Technology. He is attached to the University of the South Pacific’s Journalism Programme, filing for USP’s Wansolwara News and the AUT Pacific Media Centre’s Asia Pacific Report.

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad have met for a bilateral talk, exploring issues ranging from education for Indonesian children in Malaysia to border negotiations.

Jokowi welcomed Mahathir at the Bogor Palace on Friday. This marked the first foreign visit of Mahathir, the world’s oldest elected leader, to an ASEAN country since he was sworn in as prime minister for the sixth time on May 10.

The two leaders held a tete-a-tete followed by a closed meeting between Indonesian and Malaysian delegations, during which they discussed various issues, such as strengthening bilateral relations.

Speaking in a joint statement, Jokowi said Indonesia and Malaysia shared the same commitment to promoting good governance and combating corruption.

They both agreed on the importance of connectivity and the settlement of unresolved border problems.

“[Indonesia] in particular called for the protection of Indonesian migrant workers in Malaysia, as well as the development of schools for Indonesian children in Malaysia,” Jokowi said.

Almost 2 million Indonesian migrant workers currently work in Malaysia.

Mahathir acknowledged the need for the children of Indonesian migrant workers in Malaysia to have their rights to education fulfilled. A number of schools had been established in Peninsular Malaysia, though more were needed, he said.

“However, schools for Indonesian children are not yet established in Sabah and Serawak and, therefore, we will improve this [situation],” Mahathir said, adding that his government was committed to working with Jakarta to resolve border issues.

Marguerite Afra Sapiie is a journalist with the Jakarta Post.

Pacific Media Centre Newsdesk

Malaysia’s former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has been released from prison after receiving a full pardon from the king yesterday, reports Al Jazeera.

Speaking at a news conference after being freed following the royal pardon, he thanked the Malaysian people for standing by “the principles of democracy and freedom”.

“Now there is a new dawn for Malaysia. I must thank the people of Malaysia. Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans, Iban; the entire spectrum of our Malaysians, regardless of race and religion …

“They demand change and it is our duty now to ensure that this mandate given to Pakatan Harapan [political alliance] will honour this commitment,” the politician added.

READ MORE: Anwar Ibrahim’s dramatic rise and fall – and rise again

Anwar, who was initially scheduled to be released on Tuesday, walked out of the Cheras Rehabilitation Hospital, where he was temporarily confined after surgery, and later arrived at the residence of the king, Yang di-Pertuan Agong Sultan Muhammad V.

An image published by the Malaysian news agency Bernama showed Anwar, 70, greeting newly elected Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, his ally-turned-foe-turned-ally.

Another image showed the king welcoming Anwar and his wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, the deputy prime minister-designate.

Earlier, Mahathir arrived at the royal palace for the royal pardons board meeting to discuss Anwar’s release.

Future role
The question for Malaysia now is how Anwar will get along with Mahathir and what role he will play in the new government.

Anwar’s party, PKR, holds 48 seats of the 113 seats won by the Pakatan Harapan alliance on Wednesday, and he is widely tipped to succeed Mahathir once he steps down from office.

In 2015, Anwar was jailed for five years after being accused of sodomy, a charge he described as a politically motivated attempt by then Prime Minister Najib Razak to end his career.

Sodomy is illegal in Muslim-majority Malaysia, where the offence carries a jail term of up to 20 years.

Under Malaysian law, unless he is pardoned by the king, Anwar would be disqualified for five years from running for office after his release.

Anwar was also imprisoned for six years after being overthrown as Mahathir’s deputy prime minister in 1998 on earlier charges of sodomising his former family driver and abusing his power.

He was freed in 2004 after Malaysia’s top court quashed that sodomy conviction.

Falling out
Anwar previously had a falling out with Mahathir after he criticised some of his policies.

But his party eventually formed an alliance with Mahathir to take on Najib’s United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) for the election on Wednesday.

In recent weeks, Mahathir acknowledged the suffering of Anwar and his family.

“I know how Anwar feels. It was during my administration that he was sent to [prison]. It is not easy for him to accept me and shake my hand,” The Malaysia Insight quoted Mahathir as saying.

“And it’s not just Anwar but his family as well who felt pressure when he was jailed. They suffered for 20 years.”

• More Malaysia stories

In a truly historic vote, Malaysia for the first time since independence has fallen to the opposition coalition.

“The Palace has contacted us to tell us that we have achieved an unofficial majority,” opposition leader Dr Mahathir Mohamad told reporters at a press conference in Petaling Jaya.

“PKR (People’s Justice Party) achieved a simple majority a long time before the official announcement, but if you add the 14 from Warisan (Sabah Heritage Party), Pakatan Harapan now has a ‘substantial majority.’”

READ ALSO: Malaysia decides today in ‘Mother of all elections’

Pakatan Harapan (PH), the victorious coalition, is made up of several political parties forming an alliance – People’s Justice Party (PKR), Democratic Action Party (DAP), Amanah, Warisan, and Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia, known as Bersatu.

It is expected Mahathir will be sworn in as the new prime minister of Malaysia later today.

Dr Mahathir said the party would work on acquiring a pardon for PKR’s official leader Anwar Ibrahim who is currently in prison on sodomy charges. He will require a royal pardon to be eligible to take the position of prime minister, as PH plan.

As polls opened at 8am on Wednesday, the mood was hopeful for change, but few expected it to come.

Spoilt ballot allegations
Allegations of spoilt ballots flooded social media, but that was not enough to hold back the wave of support for the opposition coalition.

After a close run race that had the nation on tenterhooks, the outcome started to take form when Barisan Nasional lost a number of key seats. Several party leaders lost their seats, including MIC president Dr S Subramaniam for the Segamat seat, MCA president Liow Tiong Lai in Bentong, and Gerakan president Mah Siew Keong in Teluk Intan.

Then the states started to fall. Negeri Sembilan and Johor – a frontline state and birthplace of Prime Minister Najib Razak’s own party – fell to PH, and Terrenganu was lost to Pan-Islamic Party (PAS).

For the first time in 60 years, it looked like the mighty BN may fall.

The night took a dramatic turn when Dr Mahathir called a press conference just before midnight to announce an unofficial victory for PH.

Accusing the Election Commission of dragging their feet on signing off seats, he claimed PH had already reached the 112 parliamentary constituencies needed to form government.

While Mahathir was just falling short of a victory lap, Najib was showing signs of retreat, cancelling a long-awaited press conference to address the incoming results.

At 2.50am today, the Election Commission announced the 112nd seat in favour of PH, making it official – Barisan Nasional was out, Pakatan Harapan was in.

Dr Mahathir Mohamad will once again take his place as the prime minister of Malaysia, 15 years after he stepped down.

Najib’s future uncertain
This leaves Najib’s future uncertain. Plagued with corruption allegations and embroiled in the 1MDB scandal, people have been calling for the former PM to be investigated and charged.

“We are not seeking revenge,” said DrvMahathir when asked whether he would pursue charges against Najib.

“All we want is to restore the rule of law.”

The significance of today’s result for the country cannot be understated.

“Both the system and the society will be shaken up,” head of political studies at the Penang Institute Wong Chin Huat said when asked what can be expected from a PH victory.

“Voters will believe that their vote matters. Bureaucrats and police will ditch partisanship towards professionalism. Corruption will be curbed not least because the old rascals will get kicked out.”

Emma Richards is a journalist with Asian Correspondent. This article is republished with permission.

• More Malaysian stories

Cambodia’s last independent newspaper has had its editorial team gutted after its managing editor, web editor and two senior journalists resigned following a demand from the Phnom Penh Post’s new owner to take down an article reporting on the sale of the paper over the weekend.

The Post’s editor-in-chief Kay Kimsong was then sacked for his role in the article’s publication.

“I got fired by the new owner…because I’m the editor-in-chief and I allowed the printing of the independent story based on journalistic integrity,” Kimsong told Southeast Asia Globe shortly after he was dismissed.

“I trust my reporters and my editors and I think that being journalists, we made the right decision. But it’s their business and they said, ‘Kimsong, you’re the editor-in-chief – and you made a big mistake.’”

The article, which was published on Sunday evening, confirmed that Sivakumar S. Ganapathy, chief executive and managing director of Malaysia-based public relations firm Asia PR, was the new owner of the newspaper, which has been the nation’s paper of record since 1992.

Outgoing publisher Bill Clough announced the sale in a press release on Saturday, welcoming Sivakumar – also known as Siva – to the role and praising his credentials.

“Siva is a well respected newspaper man, with a [sic] experienced journalist background, and represents a strong investment group from Malaysia,” said Clough, an Australian mining magnate who has be in charge of the paper since 2008.

Doubts over future independence
But journalists and media watchdogs across the region have raised doubts about the paper’s future independence due to a number of concerning links between the Post’s new owner and the Cambodian and Malaysian governments.

Asia PR’s website lists “Cambodia and [Prime Minister] Hun Sen’s entry into the government seat” as one of its previous clients. More worryingly, Sivakumar’s personal description maintains that he currently “leads the Asia PR team in managing ‘covert operations’ for our clients.”

Phil Robertson, the deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, described the deal as “a staggering blow to press freedom in Cambodia”.

The Phnom Penh Post had been the subject of a US$3.9 million tax bill, which drew widespread parallels with the circumstances surrounding the shuttering of former English-language publication the Cambodia Daily.

The newspaper, which frequently published stories criticising the government, was shut down last September after being hit with a $6.3 million tax bill widely believed to be politically motivated.

The Post has also been dogged by an ongoing legal action launched by former chief executive Chris Dawe for wrongful dismissal during his tenure at the paper. Clough stated that the Post’s tax bill had been settled as part of the sale.

Post office plunged into chaos
Emotions ran high in the hallways and offices of the Post on Monday afternoon after the new ownership tussled with editors over the story.

Managing editor Stuart White, who has worked for the Post for six years, was the first staff member to refuse to remove the article.

“I was asked to take down the story about the sale by a colleague, who characterised it as a direct order from the new management,” White said. “I didn’t feel like I could do that in good conscience, so I resigned immediately.”

The order was passed through the ranks, with each editor refusing to take down the story.

Web editor Jenni Reid then refused and resigned, followed by the co-authors of the piece, business editor Brendan O’Byrne and senior journalist Ananth Baliga. Chief ececutive Marcus Holmes was the last to tender his resignation.

A senior Cambodian staffer who requested anonymity said that local reporters had pleaded with the new management not to put the paper’s long-running record of independent journalism at risk.

“The rest of the Khmer staff just stayed in the meeting to say, ‘Can you run a second story?’ ‘Do not pull [the original] down…run a second article, correction, make a clarification,’” the staffer said. Management refused, and Kimsong was fired shortly after.

Editors targeted by Sivakumar
Kimsong, O’Byrne and Baliga were all targeted by Sivakumar in an internal memo savaging the Post’s coverage of the newspaper’s sale, with the new owner calling on all three staff members to be “terminated”.

Although a press release from the paper’s new owners announcing the sale maintained that Sivakumar was “fully committed to upholding the paper’s 26-year-old legacy and editorial principles/independence without infringing any relevant laws and regulations of the Kingdom of Cambodia,” the memo – which was published earlier today by local news site AEC News – served up a stinging rebuke to the article, claiming that the piece did not meet the “high caliber” [sic] that the new owners expected from the paper.

Sivakumar called the piece “a disgrace and an insult to the independence claim of the newspaper” and said it “borders on internal sabotage”.

Today it is clear that the editorial independence of Cambodia’s last true independent media is at threat

Among Sivakumar’s complaints against the article were that the reporters forgot to publish his middle initial and that they identified him as “an executive”and “executive director” of Asia PRrather than CEO and managing director.

In the past year, Cambodia’s shrinking independent press has come under fire as the country gears up for a national election in July, with former Khmer Rouge commander Hun Sen the clear favourite to continue his 33-year reign.

The last gasp of the free press
Daniel Bastard, head of the Asia-Pacific desk of Reporters Without Borders, expressed his solidarity with the Post’s journalists.

“Rumours about pressures from Hun Sen’s government to try and muzzle the Phnom Penh Post have spread for a few months,” he said. “Today it is clear that the editorial independence of Cambodia’s last true independent media is at threat.

“The removal of the Post’s editor and the censorship on articles detailing the journal’s sale are dreadful signs that journalists will no longer be able to do their work freely.”

More than 30 radio stations known to be critical of Hun Sen’s rule were silenced by the government last year, including Radio Free Asia and Voice of America.

Cambodia plunged ten places in the 2018 Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index to number 142 out of 180 countries.

Since launching in January 2007, the Cambodia-based Southeast Asia Globe has sought to “engage our readers through reports that dig deeper and stories that inspire”.

• More Cambodian stories

Basic rights for refugee children is an issue troubling some South-East Asian nations. In Indonesia, more than 800 asylum seekers have been identified as children, while in Malaysia, close to 300 children out of the country’s 12,000 asylum seekers are seeking refuge. Jihee Junn looks into the issue for Asia Pacific Report.

With hundreds of children currently in detention in the Asia-Pacific region, a panel of experts has said that ending child detention could be the starting point to help the refugee crisis.

In a discussion hosted by the Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network (APRRN) in Auckland this week, the global campaign to help end child detention was introduced, as well as alternatives to current detention practices in the region.

The End Immigration Detention of Children campaign advocates for support in New Zealand, calling for all refugee, asylum seeker, and irregular migrant children to have basic rights such as the right to be looked after and to be with their parents.

The issue is most prevalent in South-East Asian nations. In Indonesia, more than 800 asylum seekers have been identified as children, while in Malaysia, close to 300 children out of the country’s 12,000 asylum seekers are seeking refuge.

“If you look at the numbers, they’re not massive so we do feel it’s something that is manageable and it could really be a first positive step in advancing refugee protection in South-East Asia,” says Julia Mayerhof, executive officer of the refugee rights network.

Speaking in the context of New Zealand’s potential role in the issue, the chair of APRRN’s Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Working Group, Paul Power, says that the country could use its unique regional position to help with funding or expertise.

“Child detention in the region is a really strategic way to start that conversation [about resettlement]. No one thinks children should be detained and it’s a great starting point for these complex issues.”

Appalling conditions
Speaking from Melbourne where he is now resettled, 26-year old Habib from Afghanistan recalls his experiences in an Indonesian detention centre where he shared the same facilities as many families and children also seeking asylum.

“I think detention of children in Indonesia is not the right thing. It was very overcrowded and it was not actually the right place for them to be.

“We had to bear all kinds of arguments and conflicts because people were sitting together having discussions … I was feeling very sorry for families. For me, I could tolerate some of the arguments, but for the families I think it was very difficult.”

Julia Mayerhof says that such circumstances for children are not unusual.  Children are often faced with poor sanitation, insufficient food, and health issues such as skin diseases and tuberculosis.

“People are sometimes allowed to go outside, while in some detention centres there’s no way to go outside at all so they would never see the daylight,” says Mayerhof.

“No sports, no access to education, so everything that a normal child should have to grow up in a normal way, it doesn’t happen in a detention centre. This is bad for adults but for children it’s even worse.”

Unaccompanied minors
Unaccompanied minors — those travelling without a parent or adult — would often face similar circumstances to what Habib witnessed, although there are exceptions.

“There are a lot of countries where they’d be detained in the same environment as adults,” says Dr Robyn Sampson, senior adviser and research coordinator at the International Detention Coalition (IDC).

“But there are some great examples of countries that do not detain unaccompanied minors because they would be so vulnerable, and the Philippines is a good example. They actually place these children in the mainstream child protection system that they have set up for their own children who don’t have parents or adults to look after them.

“In my opinion, one of the ideal outcomes for these young people is to go into the mainstream protection system that might involve foster care,” says Dr Sampson.

“Another example is when they go into shelters, and that can be good because they are with other young people who have had the same kinds of experiences and may even speak the same language.”

But despite these alternatives, lack of capacity has become a recurring issue, which Dr Sampson cites as one of the main problems with the case management programme in Malaysia.

“This programme is helping to keep these children from being placed in detention in the first place and it’s something that could be expanded in the future.”

“But at this stage, the resources are too low. So although they’re managing to keep children out of detention, they’re not managing to get children who are in detention to be released because they don’t have the capacity.”

Seeking alternatives
In addition to the global number of designated refugees passing the 20 million mark, there are also around 2 million asylum seekers and more than 40 million internally displaced people.

Paul Power says that because of the issue’s scale and complexity, there is simply no single set of solutions. Instead, national, regional, and subregional answers should be sought on particular issues.

“A big problem that the world faces is the tradition of durable solutions for refugees. Voluntary safe return after a conflict has ended and integration in a country of asylum and resettlement are in such short supply,” he says.

“Around 100,000 out of 20 million refugees were resettled. So if you’re waiting on resettlement as the answer to your displacement, you’re going to be waiting two centuries at the back of the mythical queue that many Australian politicians believe.”

Asia and the Middle East stand out as the two regions in the world where most countries have not signed the refugee convention, and with 76 percent of refugees living outside of camps in Asia, the international community must look beyond simply ending detention.

“The situation of refugees in camps is of critical importance and lack of support for people living in these camps is a major factor in the misery of people who’ve sought refuge” says Power.

“But that’s not where most refugees around the world are at. They’re trying to survive in urban settings and most of the international support does not actually take account of that.”

Jihee Junn is a postgraduate student journalist at Auckland University of Technology and is on the Pacific Media Centre’s 2016 Asia-Pacific Journalism Studies course.

On March 2, 1962, General Ne Win led a coup in Myanmar (then known as Burma) and established a military dictatorship which lasted until 2010.

Slightly more than a decade later, on September 21, 1972, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law which allowed him to remain in power until 1986.

And just a few years before that, on September 30, 1965, a mutiny led to the killing of some generals which provoked the Indonesian military to retaliate by arresting and killing communists and suspected sympathisers of communist groups across the country.

In Myanmar, the Philippines, and Indonesia, these were historic events which made a lasting political impact. For local scholars and activists, these were the days when democracy died in their countries.

The 1962 coup in Burma gave the military absolute power to rule over the whole country. While it didn’t end the ethnic civil wars which are still raging up to this day, it made the junta the most powerful political force in the country.

A student uprising in 1988 challenged the junta but it was violently suppressed. Elections were held in 1990 but the junta ignored the results and arrested leaders of the winning party, the National League for Democracy (NLD).

It was only in 2010 when significant political reforms were instituted which led to the release of political prisoners, the lifting of media censorship, and the holding of an and open and free election.

Major defeat
The military is still influential in the bureaucracy but its party experienced a major defeat in last year’s election, which saw the NLD win a supermajority. Some observers noted that after 54 years, democracy was restored in Myanmar when the NLD assumed control of the government.

While there are various reasons why Myanmar remained an underdeveloped nation in the past half century, many are blaming the “death of democracy” in 1962 as the crucial turning point in the country’s history.

Historian Thant Myint-U, who is also executive director of Yangon Heritage Trust, wrote a Facebook post which quickly became popular about the significance of the 1962 coup. The historian wrote:

“Burma was then one of the better off countries in the region, with a per capita income three times greater than Indonesia, twice that of Thailand and nearly equal to South Korea. Over the coming decades, the Burmese people would receive little in return for having to surrender their basic freedoms.”

This argument is also invoked by pro-democracy forces when they accuse the junta of subverting not only Myanmar’s democracy but also the country’s development.

Interestingly, Filipinos also attribute the country’s lack of development to the brutal reign of a military-backed government. Marcos placed the country under military administration in 1972, purportedly to thwart a communist takeover.

But his political rivals believed it was only a ruse to extend his term which was supposed to end in 1973. During martial law, opposition leaders were detained, media censorship was enforced, and the people’s civil liberties were taken away.

‘Sick man of Asia’
When Marcos was ousted by a peaceful uprising in 1986, the Philippines was already known as the “sick man of Asia” because of widespread poverty in the country. Marcos and his cronies were accused of plundering the nation’s coffers while the majority of Filipinos lived a life of penury.

Marcos declared September 21 as National Thanksgiving Day. But for most Filipinos, it was the day when democracy died in the Philippines. A presidential and legislative election is due this year on May 9.

The events that led to the communist purge in Indonesia are not widely known and discussed because the government is unwilling to determine what really happened during those critical months when almost a million people died across the country. What is clear is that it led to the rise of General Suharto, who went on to rule Indonesia until 1998 when he was ousted.

Suharto is often compared to Marcos because both relied on the military for political support, both were accused of taking part in unprecedented corruption and committing human rights abuses during their term; both were unseated by a mass uprising.

It was only after Suharto’s fall from power when survivors and other witnesses were able to testify about the 1965 mass killings. Indonesia’s democracy suffered during the reign of Suharto and the collapse began during the failed coup attempt on September 30, 1965.

Remembering the day when democracy died proved useful in mobilizing the people to take action in order to expel or challenge the anti-democratic elements in society. It is also an effective information campaign to keep the democratic struggle relevant.

In the case of Myanmar, it sustains the narrative to push the country’s transition to modern democracy. In the Philippines, it is once more a potent political issue because the son of Marcos is running for vice president in the May 2016 elections. In Indonesia, survivors and relatives of the 1965 anti-communist hysteria continue to seek justice and apology from the state.

Ruling parties accused
Elsewhere in the region, civil society groups are accusing the incumbent ruling parties of killing democracy as part of a campaign to build a strong political movement. Thai activists are calling for the restoration of civilian rule after the army grabbed power in May 2014.

In Malaysia, various groups formed a coalition to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Razak who is battling corruption charges. Najib is also accused of stifling the people’s right to free speech.

Democracy has died several times in Southeast Asia and its death has often inspired many people to join forces in order to bring it back to life. At times, it has taken many years and decades before democracy has been restored. But what is important is that the democratic ideal has become the true, unifying goal in the region.

Mong Palatino is a regular blogger and Global Voices regional editor for Southeast Asia and Oceania. This article was first published in The Diplomat and is republished here with permission.

• The Philippines faces presidential and legislative elections on May 9.

Reporter Linton Besser and cameraman Louie Eroglu had questioned Najib during a public event in Kuching over a corruption scandal, and police had claimed they had crossed a security cordon — an allegation they deny.

Last night, Besser and Eroglu were told they would likely be charged with obstructing a public servant in the discharge of their duties. If they were found guilty of the charge they could have faced two years in prison.

But three hours after the pair were given the order to appear in court on Tuesday morning, their lawyer was called by police and told no charges would be filed and they may be able to leave the country today after some paperwork.

Yesterday the lawyer for the ABC pair, Albert Tang, said he received a call from Ng Ahlek, the superintendent of police for Malaysia’s Padawan District, telling him to bring his clients to court at 8:30am (local time) so they could be charged.

“When asked who made the decision to institute the charge against my clients, he said it was the Attorney-General who made the decision,” Tang said.

Tang said normally those decisions were made by a local deputy public prosecutor.

Change unclear
ABC South East Asia correspondent Adam Harvey said it was not clear why there had been a change of heart.

“The lawyer was called in the middle of the night and told it’s all off you don’t have to go to the court,” he said.

“What you’ll need to do is bring the ABC team to a police station here where we’ll do some paperwork and hopefully a few hours after that they’ll be able to leave Malaysia, which was just not looking like happening any time soon just a few hours ago.”

Najib, 62, has been under fire for a year over allegations concerning as much as $1.4 billion being deposited into his personal bank account. He has denied any wrongdoing.

The pair were arrested after Besser questioned Najib as he walked into a mosque on Saturday night, asking the Prime Minister why hundreds of millions of dollars had been deposited into his bank account.

ABC News director Gaven Morris has previously denied the allegations that were made about the behaviour of Besser and Eroglu at the event in Kuching.

“I can tell you that at no time did our journalists obstruct or intend to obstruct any public servants in performance of their duties,” Morris said in a statement yesterday.

“They did not see a police line and do not believe they crossed one. They stopped filming and left the event as soon as they were asked. They fully cooperated with the police before and after their arrest.”

Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop has said Australia’s High Commissioner in Malaysia was in contact with the pair.

Earlier story

Reporter Linton Besser and camera operator Louie Eroglu were arrested in the city of Kuching on Saturday night, after approaching Razak on the street.

Both were released without charge on Sunday, but have been told not to leave the country.

Their passports were initially seized but have since been returned.

A police statement obtained by the AFP news agency said they were held after they crossed a “security line and aggressively tried to approach the prime minister”.

“Both of them were subsequently arrested for failing to comply with police instructions not to cross the security line,” the statement said.

The programme’s executive producer, Sally Neighbour, said on Twitter the arrest was related to the crew’s reporting of corruption allegations involving Razak.

The Malay Mail Online media outlet said police were investigating the incident under Section 186 of the Penal Code, which relates to obstructing a public servant.

‘No breach’
But Neighbour tweeted that the team was “doing what journalists do in countries with a free press”.

“There was no breach. In a democracy, journalists asking the PM questions is routine,” she wrote.

Malaysian news agency Bernama quoted national police chief Khalid Abu Bakar as saying officials would “discuss with the Attorney-General’s Chambers [whether] to charge them”.

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi said local and foreign media would not be sanctioned for covering events but “must perform their duties according to the journalism ethics”, AFP reported.

Earlier this month, leaders from across Malaysia’s political spectrum joined forces to call for the removal of the scandal-hit Prime Minister.

Najib, 62, has been under fire for a year over allegations as much as $1.4 billion was deposited into his personal bank account. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Aceh fishermen are nominated to receive the 2016 Nansen Refugee Award from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR) for rescuing hundreds of migrants from Myanmar and Bangladesh in Indonesian waters.

Geutanyoe Foundation international director Lilianne Fan said the organisation had submitted the fishermen as candidates to receive the award in recognition of their services to save many lives of those who were stranded at sea.

“If they hadn’t been rescued by the Aceh fishermen, the lives of the children and the Rohingnya people and Bangladeshis may not have been saved,” Fan said, according to the news agency Antara.

According to a statement on its website, the UNCHR once a year awards the Nansen Refugee Award to an individual, group of people or an organisation to honor extraordinary service to refugees and outstanding work on behalf of the forcibly displaced.

The UN body focuses on giving assistance to refugees as well as providing education for the children of the displaced in various countries.

Fan said the Aceh fishermen exemplified concrete humanitarian action in saving the lives of the refugees without exhibiting racial or ethnic bias.

The number of Rohingya refugees currently residing in the Aceh province has reportedly fallen to be 350 from the initial 1,010 people.

The refugees currently live in shelters located in Kuala Langsa harbor, in the town of Langsa, and also camps in Bayeun village in East Aceh and Blang Ado village in North Aceh.

The Geutanyoe Foundation is an Aceh-based NGO that focuses on humanitarian issues.

The foundation has been working with the fishermen and focuses on helping the refugees improve their living conditions and create social and livelihood programs in their camps in Aceh.

Ministries are pooling their efforts to save 126 Indonesian migrant workers facing the death penalty in Malaysia for drug-related offences, say Indonesian officials.

The government has used consultations, legal aid and a diplomatic approach to try to save the workers, director for the protection of Indonesians and legal aid at the Foreign Affairs Ministry Lalu Muhammad Iqbal said.

All the defendants are currently undergoing legal proceedings in Malaysian courts.

“We are still looking for the right method for addressing this issue,” Iqbal said in Ponorogo regency, East Java, as quoted by tempo.co.

The ministry has long cooperated with the Manpower Ministry and non-governmental organisations to try to save migrant workers who faced the death penalty abroad.

That synergy has resulted in 282 Indonesian migrant workers being saved from the death penalty in Malaysia from 2013 to 2015, Iqbal added.

Domestic problems
Meanwhile, Migrant Institute executive director Adi Candra Utama said the drug cases of the migrant workers were caused by domestic problems.

The Migrant Institute reports that such problems included manipulation of the workers’ personal data like their ages.

“The [problems at the] grassroots level should be first resolved, so that we can ensure the [protection of] migrant workers,” Adi said, adding that internal factors accounted for 80 percent of the causes of migrant workers’ problems.

There are 429,872 Indonesian migrant workers abroad with the highest number, 127,827 people, working in Malaysia according to the Agency for the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers (BNP2TKI) in 2014.

One of the biggest and most controversial trade deals in history has been signed by ministers from the Asia-Pacific region and the Americas, as tens of thousands of protesters hit the streets to denounce it.

Security was stepped up across Auckland for representatives who travelled here to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) – a deal involving 12 economies worth about $28 trillion.

Prime Minister John Key said the deal would benefit everybody.

“The opening of our markets will enhance the lives of our people. The TPP will make new trade opportunities. It is overwhelmingly in the best interests of our countries and our citizens,” Key said.

The TPP is a free trade agreement promising to liberalise trade and investment between the 12 nations, which make up about 36 percent of the world’s GDP.

The deal – which will cut tariffs, improve access to markets and sets common ground on labour and environmental standards and intellectual property protections – was finally reached in October after five years of negotiations.

It includes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the US, and Vietnam.

Cheaper access
The TPP is supposed to ensure everyone from Vietnamese shrimpers to New Zealand dairy farmers get cheaper access to markets and bring in economic benefits.

Ministers received a traditional Māori welcome from members of the Ngati Whatua tribe – including a hongi, which involves the pressing of noses and exchange of breath.

But the welcome wasn’t as warm in downtown Auckland where thousands of protesters from different groups blockaded the inner city in a rally against the deal.

Many carried flags and banners and chanted outside the SkyCity convention centre where the signing took place.

Protest organisers estimated the crowd to be more than 20,000 – it was one of the biggest protests seen in New Zealand since the 1981 Springbok tour.

‘No balance of interests’
Rowan Brooks, a protest organiser, said he was concerned about the power the agreement would give to big corporations.

“Basically it eats away at New Zealand’s sovereignty and the whole process was undemocratic… The agreement gives power to corporations and takes it away from the people,” Brooks said.

Jane Kelsey, a law professor at the University of Auckland, is one of the agreement’s fiercest critics.

She said she was concerned about how the deal could be used by the US to counter China’s influence in the region.

“It’s kind of a Cold War by proxy of trade and investment agreements,” Kelsey said. “And that’s a real worry because not only do the corporations who have special insights and input to this agreement get to be centre stage but there is no balance of interests.”

The deal has not only triggered protests in New Zealand but has also drawn international criticism.

Former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz said it “may turn out to be the worst trade agreement in decades”.

Investors’ right to sue
In an opinion piece for the Guardian, Stiglitz wrote: “It gives foreign investors the right to sue governments in private international tribunals when they believe government regulations contravene the TPP’s terms.

“In 2016, we should hope for the TPP’s defeat and the beginning of a new trade era of agreements that don’t reward the powerful and punish the weak.”

The TPP is expected to come into force within two years, once countries have completed their domestic legislative procedures.

Questions have been raised over the ratification process as it coincides with the buildup to this year’s US presidential election. But US trade representative Michael Froman is confident it will be passed by the US Congress.

“We all have our domestic processes to go through and ours is clearly laid out… I believe at the end of the day… We will have the necessary bipartisan support for it to be approved,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Al Jazeera.

Earlier story, video and more images

By Dyna Rochmyaningsih in Jakarta

Scientists in South-East Asia and the United Kingdom’s Met Office have teamed up to develop a model that predicts how the climate in the region will be like in the next 100 years.

According to the model, the region will be generally 2-4 degrees Celsius warmer by 2060 and continue to heat up around 3-5 degrees Celsius until 2100.

The strongest warming will occur in mainland South-East Asia. Extreme rainfall events will occur in the northern part of the region, which covers northern Vietnam, Laos, parts of Thailand and northern Philippines.

From June to August, the region will face significant reduction in rainfall. From September to November, rainfall rates will increase. In the archipelago, the difference between wet and dry seasons will be more pronounced.

The project, called Southeast Asia Climate Analysis and Modelling (SEACAM), was initiated by the Centre for Climate Research Singapore (CCRS) in collaboration with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre. Scientists from Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam were involved.

SEACAM and the Met Office have put up a climate change tool website for South-East Asia based on a climate modelling system dubbed PRECIS, which stands for Providing Regional Climate for Impacts Studies.

“One of the main aims of the SEACAM project is to enhance collaboration and capacity-building among South-East Asian countries in climate research,” says Raizan Rahmat, CCRS project coordinator and senior research scientist.

Climate scenarios
He adds that prior to SEACAM, there had been limited collaborative research in South-East Asia to create climate scenarios in the region.

“Given the geography of South-East Asia, with its complex terrain and maritime characteristics, it was necessary to generate more detailed climate simulation at a higher resolution than that provided by global climate models used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports,” he says.

Unlike global climate models, PRECIS has a higher resolution that can more accurately predict the future climate of the region. Several climate parameters such as temperature and rainfall have been analysed.

Developed by the Met Office, PRECIS is beneficial for smaller islands in South-East Asia because the climate model shows these islands as land masses rather than ocean points. Lands respond to climate change differently from the ocean.

David Hein, a software engineer from the Met Office, says the model is user-friendly. Scientists can simulate regional climate parameters with a mouse click.

“PRECIS allows anyone with a desktop or a PC to be able to run a climate model. It is simply a matter of clicking ‘Run PRECIS’ and PRECIS will produce data which can be used to study possible climate change in the region,” he says.

This article was produced by SciDev.Net’s South-East Asia and Pacific desk.

By Jonathan Pearlman in Perth

Australia has adopted some of the world’s toughest policies against refugees in recent years and will not relent despite criticisms over measures such as towing boats back to Indonesia and transferring all arrivals by sea to remote Pacific Island detention centres

The controversial approach has been aimed at preventing the flow of asylum seekers who attempt the risky voyage to Australia from transit camps in Indonesia.

In a heavy-handed approach that has damaged relations between Canberra and Jakarta, the federal government has warned that “any people smuggling boat … will be detected, intercepted and safely removed”.

“(Australia) will continue to stop anyone who attempts to come illegally by boat – regardless of where they are from,” Australia’s Department of Immigration said in a recent publication on its website.

Australia’s Navy and Customs vessels seek to intercept boats carrying asylum seekers before they reach Australian waters and force them to turn back, sometimes providing fresh lifeboats.

Australian officials have allegedly paid some people smuggling crews to head back to Indonesia – a move that experts say is illegal under international law. Canberra has refused to comment on the allegations.

Those migrants who make it to Australia by boat are transferred to remote island detention centres in the Pacific island nation of Nauru, or on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea. As of the end of last October, there were 621 detainees in Nauru, including 95 children, and 929 on Manus Island.

Failed deals
Australia has attempted to strike various deals with nations across the region to accept these detainees but the efforts have largely failed.

Cambodia agreed to take refugees from Nauru in return for about A$40 million from Canberra in increased aid. But just five migrants took up the offer to move to Cambodia and one of them – a Myanmar Muslim – reportedly ended up moving back to Myanmar.

Numerous other countries across the region have been proposed as possible venues for resettlement, including Malaysia and East Timor. The latest discussions have apparently focused on the Philippines.

Australia’s controversial approach has been heavily criticised as unlawful and cruel by the United Nations and human rights groups but has proven brutally effective.

Following the adoption of the harsh tow-back policies by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott after he was elected in September 2013, the flow of asylum seekers all but stopped. There were 17,204 arrivals by boat in 2012, 20,587 in 2013 but none in 2014.

Current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has insisted he will follow Mr Abbott’s tough approach but acknowledged that the consequences of the policy were “harsh”.

‘Harsh policy’
“We do have a tough border protection policy, you could say it’s a harsh policy, but it has worked,” he said after becoming leader in September.

“It is tough, but the fact is we cannot take a backward step on this issue.”

Canberra has insisted its tough approach was aimed at ending deaths at sea following numerous tragedies in which rickety boats sank while attempting the passage from Indonesia to Australia.

Responding to criticisms last year, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the government could not “stand idly by in the face of these repeated tragedies”.

“Our policies are lawful. They are safe. And they work,” he said in a statement in September.

“They save lives. They reduce the risks run by our border protection personnel. And they have stopped the evil people smuggling trade to Australia.”

During a session of the UN Human Rights Council in November, Australia’s approach came under heavy criticism from numerous countries.

Security ally
Australia’s closest security ally, the United States, urged Canberra to promote “humane treatment and respect for the human rights of asylum seekers”, including those processed offshore in Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

Despite its hardline approach to boat people, Australia accepts large numbers of refugees under its humanitarian programme.

The government has agreed to take 12,000 refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq this year, in addition to its current annual intake of 13,750 people.

By Kai Ping Lew

When Alistar Kata first asked if I would take part in this mini doco, The PMC Project, I was really excited for the opportunity. The Pacific Media Centre has added so much to my learning curve as a journalist and I was more than happy to have a way to give back to it.

It’s a crucial support system for anyone who wants to report on the Asia-Pacific region, and Alistar’s video gives a little insight into the work they do, the team there, and why it matters.

Most people who want to become a journalist get told that they won’t get paid a lot of money. They get told that the media industry is driven by commercial values, that the large media corporations are owned by a few people who drive the agenda and nothing of real importance that harms their interests will never make it into mainstream news.

They get told that governments and societal elites will shut them down if they ever try to cover anything that paints them in a bad light.

These things are more or less true to a certain extent, varying from country to country, but an aspiring journalist plods on anyway because we are idealistic.

We dream of a more equal society and hope that we will have some small part in making that happen.

We dream of exposing corruption at the highest level, of giving voice to those who do not have the means or the access to make themselves heard, of improving peoples’ lives by giving them information that can help inform their choices.

Media industry challenges
This dream can sometimes seem childish and naïve in the face of the derision of others and the challenges facing the media industry today. Many industry professionals who have been in journalism long enough have become jaded and speak of their battles with tones tinged with cynicism.

It’s easy to be cynical. It’s harder to stand by your intangible, nebulous dream and fight for it.

It’s harder to know that the road is long, the battles will be tough, and you will have to face Goliath armed with a pen and your wits, and jump into the fray anyway.

David Robie is one of the people who has been in journalism for as long as he has who continues to burn with passion and idealism.

Under him, the Pacific Media Centre has grown as a resource, a media outlet, and a haven where like-minded journalists can find their purpose anchored, their small struggles appreciated, and a word of advice to spur them on when all they see are roadblocks ahead.

It is a place that nurtures idealism when the fire is dwindling. It is an outlet for the unheard voices of the Pacific, to give greater prominence to their issues.

“Making a difference” is a lofty ideal to aim for, and us aspiring journalists need all the help we can get to reach it.

To that end, I am grateful for the opportunities and knowledge I have gained through the Pacific Media Centre and hope I can continue doing so, wherever I am in my career.

—

As 190 nations grapple with the world’s future at the global climate summit in Paris, forest fires in Indonesia have been continuing to rage since July 2015.

Emissions from this year’s fires have reached 1.62 billion metric tons of CO2, bumping Indonesia up from sixth largest to fourth largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter in the world, surpassing Russia in a matter of six weeks and the entire US economy in just 38 days. [1]

Global Forest Watch Fires detected at least 127,000 fires across Indonesia this year, the worst since 1997. These fires were mostly caused by the clearing of forested peat lands to plant palms for oil.

The fires have produced toxic smog smothering Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and as far away as Thailand and the Philippines. The haze closed schools, disabled airports and caused more than 500,000 cases of respiratory illnesses in South-East Asia. More than 40 million Indonesians have been affected.

In preparation for the Paris climate summit, 190 countries that are party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change were asked to submit their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) to control carbon emissions. [2]

The UN has received 120 INDCs, which will be used to draft a new international climate agreement towards a “low-carbon and climate-resilient future”.

Eight of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have submitted their INDCs before the 1 October deadline. Only Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia have yet to make submissions.

Conditional target
Cambodia committed to reduce GHG emissions by 27 per cent by 2030, which will be taken from the energy, manufacturing and transport sectors, aside from other industries. But this target is “conditional” on international support. Cambodia also plans to increase its forest cover to 60 per cent of its land area by 2030.

Laos plans to increase its forest cover to 70 per cent of its total land area by the year 2020, with trees and forests serving as GHG sinks. The government also commits to increase the share of renewable energy to 30 per cent of its energy consumption by 2025.

Myanmar has the largest tropical forest area in mainland South-East Asia, so it is already a net GHG sink, its INDC said. But it will need international assistance in its socio-economic development.

The Philippines promised to reduce its carbon emissions by 70 per cent by the year 2030, which will be taken from the energy, transport, waste, forestry and industry sectors. But like Cambodia, the target is “conditional” on assistance from the international community.

Singapore, the first ASEAN country to submit its INDC, said it will unconditionally reduce emissions intensity by 36 per cent by 2030 in energy, industry, agriculture, land use, land-use change, forestry and waste.

Thailand, which is one of 16 countries considered most vulnerable to future climate change impacts in the next 30 years, placed adaptation as top priority and pledged to reduce its GHG emissions by 20 per cent by 2030.

Vietnam promises to unconditionally reduce its GHG emissions by 8 per cent by the year 2030, but the rate could reach 25 per cent with international support. Vietnam has intensified its efforts in forest protection, afforestation and reforestation.

For Indonesia, its INDC pledged to reduce deforestation and cut annual emissions by 29 percent by 2030 is unlikely to be met, however, if it does not put out the forest fires permanently.

Core issues
Observers note that the UN-sponsored climate talks start with countries submitting their INDCs to the planned climate change agreement. That these INDCs, focusing mainly on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, are “nationally determined” suggests that the agreement will have a strong bottom-up approach.

The summit will try to merge the INDCs with “top-down” elements to forge a compromise that assures broad participation and stronger direction. The task, however, will not be easy. Four core issues remain intractable. [3]

Differentiation – Developed countries do not want to have binding emissions targets for developed nations only, which they contend should be for all. Developing nations want the onus to be on the big emitters.

Finance – Developing countries want developed countries to make good on their commitment to mobilise US$100 billion a year in public and private finance by 2020 to establish a Green Climate Fund to finance mitigation and adaptation projects. Developed nations want to have more donor countries so the burden is not entirely on them.

Legal character ­– While the agreement will have “legal force”, there is no consensus on precisely what form it will take. While the United States, for example, is ready for binding procedural commitments, it opposes binding emission targets.

Transparency – Existing requirements for the reporting of country efforts are two-tiered, with a more rigorous system for developed countries than for developing ones. Developed countries are pushing for a common framework for all parties.

But there is hope that intractable positions in the past might change this time around, in view of undeniable evidence that global warming and climate change are here.

The United States and China have announced that both want a deal. The European Union also has set its target, which accounts for more than half of the world’s emissions. India has begun devoting more attention to climate change.

If only Indonesia can put out its fires and two big Asian economies, Japan and Korea, join the bandwagon, and political will strengthens among the big economies, Paris 2015 could be a landmark for the struggle to mitigate global warming and climate change.

Crispin Maslog is a former journalist and now science journalism professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and director of the Silliman School of Journalism, Philippines. He is a consultant of the Asian Institute of Journalism and Communication and board chairperson of the Asian Media Information and Communication Centre, both based in Manila. This piece was produced by SciDev.Net’s South-East Asia & Pacific desk.

References
[1] Nancy Harris et al. With latest fires crisis, Indonesia surpasses Russia as world’s fourth-largest emitter (World Resources Institute, 29 October 2015)
[2] Center for Climate and Energy Solutions Submitted Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) (Accessed 14 November 2015)
[3] Elliot Diringer The core issues in the Paris climate talks (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2 November 2015)

Source: Pacific Media Watch 9508