Higher Education - Reality or Hoax?

Haven’t been writing this blog for quite a while as I was quite dismayed by the political situations in both Australia and Hong Kong. So I thought I would just shut up and stay objective if possible. However, the recent education bill reform in Australia is another extremely disappointing development for Australia and I find it hard to stay quiet.

Education for me is a basic human right. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure that everyone has a fair share of education to be equipped for the world out there. The recent education bill represents a blatant arrogance, ignorance and an unwelcoming elitist agenda presented by the Coalition Government.

The base argument was to save money, which was already admitted by Joe Hockey, the Treasure that a budget emergency does not exist as claimed.  So that was the first lie underpinning the bill. The argument of by deregulating universities fees it increases the competition in the higher education sector and thus warrant better education for students is totally unfounded. At the moment preference for university is already tightly gripped by the Group of Eight. While in the higher education sector there are already talks around merging regional universities to make them more cost efficient, by deregulating the university fees it will not be the Group of Eight that could be affected but the smaller universities or even the so called Gumtree Universities (universities in the second tier). Power will be further consolidated as smaller universities have to close down because they do not have the same money drawing power as the Group of Eight both in terms of financial income from tuitions and philanthropy. There will only be less university places for general Australians who want a tertiary education, thus further driving up the cost because of demand and supply and guess who would be eventually benefited? For me this is never about students but about a bunch of politicians, who themselves had enjoyed a free education wanting to save money for their annual 7% rise in both salary and pay package while courting the Group of Eight to hopefully get something out of that (maybe a free honor or degree?).The people who are going to be worse off in this change will be students who could not pay the price and who live in regional Australia.

The counter argument about more scholarships for students – well we have seen how Tony Abott’s daughter got a full scholarship without going through any competitive process herself. So where is the guarantee that these scholarships would actually go to the students who actually need them? There was no regulation or legislation to determine how these scholarships should be handed out, there are no KPIs set up for universities to provide evidence for transparent reporting that these money actually went to students in need. Are we just creating a false picture that with more scholarships more students in need will be benefited? Also would there be legislation or regulation telling universities how should the money be allocated across disciplines? Without all these control mechanisms, the money could have well gone to restricted “pal-ish” disciplines and the end results could be smaller faculties that do not have the same influential power would fall victim and be closed down. If that happens how could knowledge and culture in Australia be enriched via our tertiary education system?

Another item I personally find extremely disturbing is the funding towards private college. It has long been arguments that by doing so then people have choices. But then if the government wants public universities to take care of themselves because of funding issues, why is it that private colleges that are supposed to be running as private education businesses be subsidised by tax payer money? If they want to run a private business, disregarding the nature of the business, they should always take their own risks and not receive any tax payer money. Tax payer money should always be reserved for public universities who have the duty to provide basic tertiary education. If parents think they want to send their kids to private colleges, it is up their ability to pay the tuition no matter how much it would cost them. Having my tax money allocated to private businesses for their own business interest is, in my opinion, a violation of trust as a tax paying citizen of this country. I do not know how much connection Chris Pyne, Tony Abott or other cohorts of the Coalition government have with the private education business, but this kind of move proposing funding private education businesses using tax payer money does smell rats for me. And the whole scenario of public universities needs to take care of themselves but we are extending funding to private colleges running as private businesses is condescending, contradictory and hypocritical.

I am glad that bill had been voted down but the worry is that Chris Pyne did not see the flaws and hypocrisies in his bill (or maybe he did but doesn’t care) and determines to push forward. Imagine an Australian society that only elitist groups could enjoy tertiary education no matter they are fit for such education or not, what would it be like? It will not be hard to find out once such a self-interested bill is being passed and I hope I would not need to see this within my lifetime. 

Tax, Jets, and Another Week

There is something I sometimes failed to comprehend. When I was living in Hong Kong I paid tax honestly every year. It is not a small amount considering my income but then I was happy to do so as I do think it is the duty of a responsible citizen. Also the great thing was that you know exactly where the tax money went. We got great healthcare system, great infrastructure such as an efficient rail and underground transport system and a great education system. So you know that at the end of the day your citizen duty paid off, not just for yourself but for the rest of the society too. Hong Kong may not be a democratic state but things were done properly in terms of using taxpayers’ money.

Fast-forward to now, I am living in Sydney and continued to fulfill my citizen duties. However, I have never felt as disappointed and lost with my money spent as before. Australia is a great country with great resources and it is a great place to live in. However, sometimes I do think that the democracy that we have is not serving the Australians justice they deserved. I am not saying democracy is bad and I do believe that some of our fellow Australians do think that the current government is a government they want. But then for me what I question is “Is this the government that is suitable for modern Australia?” I keep hoping that the answer would be yes but I do have a hard time to articulate that “y” word from my mouth.

Today we were informed of the Abbott’s government’s intentions of introducing a debt levy on the back of a promise of there will be no new taxes during his office. I was disappointed, not because of the new tax but because of what we have as a government. If there is a real need yes, I do think we should all pull in the weight to support a new tax. However what we saw in the past few months were repeated iteration of cuts in education and healthcare, the threatening of reducing funding for ABC and SBS because there is simply no money. Of course the reason was because of the previous government, as it is never the Liberals’ fault when they could not manage the books. And then last week, it was announced that the government would spend $12.4 billion to acquire some super fighter jets from the States. Abbott claimed it would be good for the economy.

Now personally, I do not see how spending $12.4 billion on fighter jets while claiming no money for education, health and cultural development is “good for the economy” I mean at least at that time. But now I start to understand why – because then they can introduce new tax to finance the spending and turn around saying, “See how good we manage the books”. The thing is this debt levy is for people who earn between $80,000 and $180,000 a year. Most of these people are already the middle group in the society who are actively financing everything in the society. They got penalized with tax extra if they do not have private medical insurance, they represent most of the highest tax rate contributors and they received the least, if not zero, government benefits. What is happening here is that the Liberal bunch of wealthy friends is right outside of these brackets. So they were not being affected while at the same time enjoying other benefits such as a new carbon price subsidy “to encourage the reduction of carbon emission”. If that is good for the economy I certainly failed to see how.

What disappointed me most is that everything sounded so legitimate from the Abbott government’s point of view. Think about that $12.4 billion they are going to spend on fighter jets. Are they necessary? Surely if there is a need to use it but then if someone needs to fly all the way down to the ass of the world to invade Australia, that country must really have nothing to do or must have conquered all other parts of the world and there is nothing left for it. If the levy is going to subsidize schooling and a better healthcare system that’s fine, but for fighter jets? Really? And then you have no money to finance a national broadcasting service when you can spend an amount of money on trophies in a hanger that is sufficient to fund ABC for the next 9 years? I can’t help but think what is wrong with this government?

I might sound angry but I am not. I am just extremely disappointed. There is no point of getting angry with this government because anger could cause health issues that I might not be able to afford to deal with because the government has no money for healthcare. If democracy were actually for the well being of its people, I personally want to see this happening, and I hope it would happen soon.

Freedom - Relative or Absolute?

Have been avoiding writing this blog because the last election result was so disappointing that I was quite sure I would not be able to maintain my neutrality. The last thing I want to see is my blog becoming one condemning piece after another. However there always comes a time that you know you have to start writing again because you are compelled to do so by your good conscience.

With the current Australian government personally I think things have gone from bad to worse. Sometimes it is hard to comprehend that this is what the general Australians think a government we deserved but voila, this is what we got stuck with at least for the next few years.

One of the most disturbing things I feel about is their use of freedom as a relative word. They championed themselves as freedom fighters and it has been deployed as the main reason behind the proposed change of the Racial Discrimination Act. The advocacy of George Brandis saying everyone has the right to be bigotry had raised a lot of people's eye browse. When the proposed changes were announced, my first question was "Why do a bunch of upper middle class White Australians think they understand racial discrimination and thus can change the Act when in their whole life had never been on the receiving end of such acts?" That is something I still have no answers to. The proposed change was to protect the freedom of speech and expression but was it for everyone or just for some?

Surely under such change I should be able to call Tony Abbott and George Brandis upper class trailer trashes who know nothing about the modern Australian society. But then am I really free to do so? I am not quite sure.

Take the recent threats the current government has on ABC about cutting their funding because in more than one occasion Tony Abbott said they should do more for the home team but ABC failed to do so. The fact that the current Government questions the existence of ABC because it is not churning out propagating materials for Tony Abbott and his gang directly contradicts to the basic act of freedom of expression and speech. To think about this if ABC can only survive because they became a propagating machine, what is the difference between the Abbott government and other totalitarian states that they condemned against regularly? Do they still have to rights to hail themselves as freedom fighters?

Another case is the threat of future legal actions on artists who pulled out of the Sydney Biennial Festival because of their political differences on asylum seekers issues. George Brandis said artists should be liable for these actions as they jeopardised the Festival despite their contempt that a guy whose company was running the detention centres chairs the Festival. I do not know how close the relationship of this guy is with George Brandis, and I do not know what legal obligations these artists have with the Festival. What I can assume is that these artists have checked their agreements and knew that it was within their rights to do so before pulling out. Is this good for the Festival? Certainly not. Is it their right to express their contempt? Certainly is. So if that is the case and the government want them to be litigated, is that a violation of the basic right to freedom of speech and expression? I certainly think so.

For me freedom should not be dealt with in a fluid relative term. This is what totalitarian authorities do. Freedom, if you do have the real heart to upkeep should be dealt with in an absolute social term - is it good for the society? If one thinks that people have the absolute right to be bigotry, then people should also have the absolute right to condemn such bigotry, disregarding where it's funding comes from. People should also have the freedom to pull out of events due to differences in political views within their contractual agreements. If freedom is not protected in this way, then it is not real freedom and thus enters an age of true hypocrisy. And in my opinion, this is the age most Australians are living in at the moment.