We are supporting Australian Republican Movement

Sydney, NSW

25th Feb, 2016

Our friend, and Chair of the Australian Republican Movement, Peter FitzSimons, wrote to me, exhorting Australians of Indian heritage, to join and support Australian Republican Movement.

I am a staunch Republican, and know, from my interactions & discussions, that a great majority of members from Indian Australian community are Republicans too.

You can start showing your support with signing this petition. https://www.change.org/p/australia-deserves-an-australian-head-of-state

Remember that India opted for one of its own to become the President of India, instead of having the British Monarch as the Head of the nation at the time of its independence on 15th August, 1947.

It’s about time!

Yadu Singh

—————————————————————————

Peter FitzSimons wrote;

I write to you now as Chair of the Australian Republican Movement, though some call us “BUTTER” because we are on a “ROLL!”

 

But I digress . . .

 

We Australian republicans received some wonderful news over the weekend with Newspoll indicating that support for an Australian Head of State had jumped to 51 per cent! 
 
A majority of Australians now support the historic move toward a republic and we’ve barely even started campaigning yet. You beauty!
 
There is, of course, plenty of work still to be done. One area in particular that the Australian Republican Movement is looking to improve upon is in the diversity of our support.
 
One of the best arguments we have going for us is the fact that our system of government should, in every facet, reflect the multicultural, cosmopolitan nation we have become. To make this case even more powerful – we need to ensure that the ARM’s own supporter base reflects Australia in all its brilliant diversity.
 
This is where you come in.
 
Anecdotally, we know that the Indian community is one of the most, if not the most, proudly republican  communities in the country. And why wouldn’t you be? With a thriving democratic tradition, borne of one of the world’s most famous and successful independence movements, India has become the kind of mature and free-standing republic that we  can all be rightly proud of. 
 
It is exactly this kind of success story that we are trying to emulate now. I often like to say that to win their republics, the French had to storm the Bastille and the Americans had to forge the Delaware River to take on the Brits. I should add to this the fact that Gandhi and his followers had to march 400 kilometres from Ahmedabad to Dandi and endure many other privations . . .
 
We Australians only have to get up off the couch and get involved! 
 
And this is what I am asking of you today. If you really believe in the injustice of hereditary rule, if you really believe that a nation can only be truly great with one of its own as Head of State, then JOIN US at https://goo.gl/jVwReA.
 
Let’s show our fellow Australians that the republican cause derives its supports from all corners of this wide, brown land and from all backgrounds and walks of life.
Thank You

Peter FitzSimons AM
Sydney

———————————————————————-

Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

India should not be used by anyone as a launch pad for sea voyage to Australia!

Sydney, 29th July, 2014

Boat people Boat people2 Indian Flag

I am perturbed with some commentary whereby some people including Senator Sarah Hanson-Young are casting indirect aspersion on how India treats refugees. (http://tinyurl.com/k239hsrPoints are being made that India is not a signatory county to UN Refugees Convention. Some of them have mentioned even terrorist group ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and A-Sham) in the same paragraph. ISIS executes people in cold-blood, and is hurting and subjugating people from religions other than their Sunni sect of Islam. This, even indirect aspersion, is inappropriate and offensive. India is not ISIS and can not even be remotely equated with it.

India is a vibrant and the biggest democracy of the world. It has rule of law with free judiciary and totally free media. It has refugees from Sri Lanka, Burma, Bangladesh, China and many other countries. It has a proud and long history of welcoming persecuted people from all corners of the world. Parsis (Zoroastrians) left Persia because they were persecuted. Dalai Lama and thousands of Tibetans exiles have lived in India for several decades without any persecution or troubles. India treats refugees humanly and with care. India may not be a signatory to UN Refugees convention, but its treatment of those who claim refuge is exemplary. UNHCR (United Nation’s High Commission for Refugees) itself has said this about  India many times. India lets UNHCR do the assessment about people’s refugee status, which is fair,  appropriate and prudent.

Raising concerns about India’s credentials as a caring society is objectionable.

Coming to the current issue of 157 boat people (all likely to be Sri Lankan Tamils) who were intercepted by Australian Navy just outside its Maritime zone about a month ago, it is clear that the Boat has come from Indian Shores. From all the information, it is clear that they are all Sri Lankan Tamils, who were in a refugee camp near Pondicherry, South India. India is affected in multiple ways and is a concerned party. Its shores were used as the launching pad for this boat to Australia. India needs to know who these people are and how did they use Indian shores for launching  the voyage to Australia.

It is a security issue for India. India has an ongoing issue with Pakistan, from where terrorists enter Indian territories to perpetrate terrorist attacks in India. I am not saying that the boat in question is carrying terrorists, but not being concerned and alarmed with this type of voyage will render India a hypocrite. India has a right to figure out who these people are and what is the exact composition of these people.

Australia and India are friendly countries, and have strategic relations. I am pleased that Australian Minister for Immigration & Border Control, Scott Morrison, visited India recently and had a discussion with Indian Foreign Affairs Minister, Smt Sushma Swaraj. He was able to get an undertaking from Indian Govt that it will take back these people if they are Indian citizens and residents. That is a huge achievement for Australia.

India will not, and should not, allow its territories to be used as the launch pad for things which are against any other nation. In this case, it is the stated policy of Australia that they do not want to entertain illegal maritime arrivals. Current Federal Govt took the policy of “Stop the boats” to people during 2013 election and received a mandate. Previous Govt led by Julia Gillard/Kevin Rudd too had this policy. Offshore processing of illegal maritime arrivals has been the policy of Govts of both political persuasions.

Australia can not afford to have the repetition of 5000 people arriving every month, claiming refugee status. We do not have the money to afford their accommodation, food, health and education. Our national Budget is in deficit and our economy is in stress. We have to look after our elderly, homeless and less fortunate people first. We have to look after our disadvantaged people first.

Australia should accept its fair share of refugees, but there is no way it can afford an unlimited number of people who want to come to our shores with refugee claim. Australia is a caring and generous society, but there is a limit to it.

I am concerned that some people decide to come to Australia from countries where they were not facing persecution. India is definitely one such country. There is no persecution programme for anyone in India. Indians generally, free Indian  media and independent judiciary will not let this happen either.

About the people in the Boat, who have now been brought to Curtin Detention Centre, I am not sure that they faced any persecution in India. Based on the prevalent governance and political system, it is unlikely they faced any persecution in India. They were living in the area ie Tamil Nadu, which is the homeland of Tamils in India.

This fact alone makes it likely that they are economic refugees, not genuine refugees.

If there is any Indian national in this group of people, then they should be sent back to India without any delay, because their claim for refugee status will be bogus, preposterous and baseless.

Australia has all the rights to refuse to accept economic refugees. Australia has all the sovereign rights to control flow of illegal maritime arrivals. Australia in fact has an undeniable responsibility to look after its disadvantaged people before allocating billions on people who are not Australia’s primary responsibility.

I see no problem in Australia working with India to figure out who these people are, where they have come from and why have they come to our shores in this manner.

Australia has full rights to send them to the country from where they have come from if they are not genuine refugees.

Australia has a well-stated and bipartisan policy of offshore processing and not settling illegal maritime arrivals in Australia. Australia does not encourage illegal maritime arrivals. It has been working with nations in the region to stop the illegal maritime arrivals. This is the first boat which has been allowed to land on our shores in over 7 months, presumably to allow sufficient time to Indian officials to process information and cross-check it.

Australia is within its rights to work with nations in our region to achieve the stated policy goals. I am in full support of these goals. I know many others, in fact a majority of Australians, are in support of these goals.

Finally, India should not allow anyone, under any circumstance, to use its shores or territories as a launch pad for voyage as “illegal maritime arrival” to Australia or any other country!

Dr Yadu Singh

dryadusingh@gmail.com

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

 

 

 

 

 

Views of Tim Wilson, Australian Human Rights Commissioner, on section 18c of Racial Discrimination Act!

Sydney, 19th June, 2014

I met Tim Wilson, Commissioner, Australian Human Rights Commission, at an event to celebrate Israel’s 66th Independence Day recently. Our brief chat was focused on Section 18c of Racial Discrimination Act. He has some views in regards to this and its impact on Freedom of Speech. When informed that I have a Blog and have written a post (http://tinyurl.com/pqfv8ct) which has also been published by many newspapers (http://tinyurl.com/qcs2gvv, http://tinyurl.com/ldnwkar, http://tinyurl.com/qd6xjjv) with my views arguing why Section 18c should not be repealed, he expressed his interest to write his views on my Blog. I agreed to have his views as a “Guest Blogger”.

Here are Tim Wilson’s views, which have been reproduced without any changes.Tim Wilson Australian Human Rights Commissioner

———————————————————————————————————————————–
It is not in anyone’s interests, especially minorities, to undermine Australia’s liberal democratic values, impose censorship or encourage inequality before the law.

Australia is a great country. Like all countries it is on a long journey to become a more perfect society.

People come to Australia from across the world because it offers a liberal democracy and respects the human rights of individuals to stand up, speak out and seek out opportunities. It doesn’t matter who you are, or where you came from.

Everyone in Australia is expected to treat others equally and with respect, and that includes treating everyone equally under the law.

Equality before the law is a basic human right. It is also an important principle for minorities. Inequality before the law rarely favours minorities.

If there is anything that is likely to lead to resentment between different sections of multicultural Australia, it is that laws treat some more favourably than others.

Yet, that is precisely what the current wording of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act does.

Coupled with the importance of free speech, that is why so many people support changes to the law. Supporters range from academics, to politicians, newspaper columnists, to representatives of minority communities and civil rights activists.

The current Racial Discrimination Act has always been controversial.

It was preceded by three significant national inquiries that dealt with tackling racism. None of the three recommended that Section 18C should exist in its current form. The then Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission expressly recommended against laws of this kind.

Under Section 18C it is unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person on the basis of their race.

The current laws go much further than hate speech laws in India which focus on the promotion of disharmony between groups in the community.

Australia’s laws have a chilling effect on free speech and can lead to censorship.

The debate is not about if we should change the law, it is about how the law should be changed.

The Attorney-General, George Brandis QC, has put forward an exposure draft of a possible reform.

The proposal is not final. Feedback from members of the general community is being considered for inclusion to improve its current wording and identify shortcomings.

The principle objective of the Attorney-General’s proposal is to shift the focus from stopping speech that people simply do not like, toward outlawing vilification and abuse.

Australia’s law sets an incredibly low bar on restricting free speech. The bar is set so low the standard in the law is based on the emotional response that people have to speech they don’t like.

Free speech is a basic human right. It is afforded to everyone. From a human rights perspective, the basis of limiting free speech is when it comes into conflict with other core human rights. No one likes hearing things they find offensive. But there is no right to not hear offensive speech.

By comparison, we know that censorship is dangerous. Censorship is rarely used as a tool against the majority, its axe normally falls on minorities.

But the problem with the law isn’t just about the type of speech that is censored, it is also how it is censored.

The test to see whether speech offends, insults, humiliates or intimidates is highly subjective. It is not based on the standard of a reasonable Australian based on all of the circumstances.

The test is based on the attitudes of a person within the group mentioned. That means the test shifts depending on what is said. That is not fair.

That is why the Australian Human Rights Commission accepted the proposal of the Attorney-General in his exposure draft to amend the Racial Discrimination Act that the test should be based on the attitudes of an average Australian.

So long as the test takes regard of all of the circumstances, the Attorney-General’s revised test is much fairer than the current law. It would also make the Racial Discrimination Act more consistent with other anti-discrimination laws.

The Racial Discrimination Act does not operate like any other anti-discrimination laws. For example, the Sex Discrimination Act does not have a test like 18C. The Sex Discrimination Act does not restrict public speech on the basis of gender or sexuality that is offensive or insulting.

The Sex Discrimination Act targets harassment in the workplace where one person clearly has  a power relationship over another. The definition of harassment under he Sex Discrimination Act can just as easily apply to men as it can to women.

Ironically, the Racial Discrimination Act doesn’t have a specific measure targeting workplace harassment.

Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act is also highly ineffective in targeting the sort of behaviour that we all want to wipe out.

Racism can have real and harmful impact on people. That is not in dispute.

The question is not if we end racism, it is how?

We cannot legislate racism out of existence. If we could we would have done so already.

Racism can only be ended through cultural change. Cultural change is not aided by having the law treat people unequally. It is aided by having a culture that expects people to stand up against racism.

As Sydney Football Star and Australian of the Year, Adam Goodes, said recently “what we want people to do is self-regulate. That’s what we want all of us to do in the community, is self-regulate when we see something we don’t agree with”.

He continued “we all have core values, and when we see people go outside those core values, we should feel the right to say something and call that person out”.

The law is an incredibly ineffective way to stop racism. It provides for a long and drawn out process. Creating a culture where people are held to account for their conduct by their peers is more effective.

A cultural response is quick, immediate and others know what other Australians think of their conduct.

Importantly it doesn’t require inequality before the law, censorship or undermine the liberal democratic values that are central to why so many people came to Australia in the first place.

Tim Wilson is Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner. tim.wilson@humanrights.gov.au

Tim Wilson
Human Rights Commissioner
Australian Human Rights Commission

Level 3, 175 Pitt Street, Sydney NSW 2000
GPO Box 5218, Sydney NSW 2001

What Indians in Australia expect from the Modi Govt

 

 
 
 

The new government should be proactive in considering the interests and welfare of the Indian community down under.

It is not a hyperbole to say that a new era has dawned in India with the swearing-in of the Modi Government on Monday, 26 May, 2014.

A decisive, “can do” leader, Sri Narendra Modi, is the Prime Minister. Indians, not just in India but around the world, are confident that things will change for the better and the Indian economy will grow rapidly.

People have expectations from the new government. While people have a wide variety of expectations, which they want the Modi Govt to deliver, there are some common themes in their expectations. Based on my interactions with many Indians in Australia, and based on my own thinking, there are a few things that people expect the new government to consider.

Prime Minister’s visit to Australia: There has not been any state visit by an Indian PM to Australia after the late Shri Rajiv Gandhi’s visit in 1980s. PM Modi should accept the invitation from Australia to schedule a state visit to Australia this year itself. Several Australian PMs have already visited India, but a reciprocal visit by an Indian PM is yet to happen. There should be time for the PM to interact with the community in at least one, but preferably two, major cities. The G20 summit is scheduled to happen in Brisbane on November 15 and 16, 2014. This will be a perfect opportunity for the Indian PM’s long overdue official visit to Australia too.

Genuine dual citizenship: This has been discussed and debated for long. There is an almost universal demand that overseas Indians be given a right to hold genuine dual citizenship with voting and property rights, if the country of their citizenship has no issue with this and if there are no security issues with granting dual citizenship to any particular overseas Indian. After all, Australia, USA, UK, NZ and many other developed as well as developing countries already offer this facility.

Visa on arrival for Australian citizens: Australian citizens, like many others including New Zealanders, should get the same visa-free arrival facilities in India. If this is not the case at present, it should be implemented without further delay.

Black money in overseas banks: Genuine, proactive and effective steps should be taken to tackle this menace and bring the money back to India within 12 months. No favour should be given to anyone irrespective of who they are or what connections they have. The decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for this purpose is good.

Effective anti-corruption body: A group of 10-15 people from civil society including judges, eminent jurists and overseas Indians (if possible) should be asked to review the Lok Pal Act, passed by the Lok Sabha earlier in the year, and suggest steps to rectify weakness to make it an effective corruption fighting body. This should be completed in the next 12 months.

The PM’s global Overseas Indians Advisory body: The PM should revamp his Global Advisory Body, constituted by the previous PM. People in it should be those who have significant presence and influence in their countries. The habit of Indian diplomats recommending non-descript and non-influential people for this body should eliminated.

Country specific Overseas Indian Advisory body: Countries with significant overseas Indian population (Australia is certainly one such country) should have an advisory body of not more than 10 people, which can be used for consultations and other advisory purposes, not only by the local GOI authorities/agencies, but also the relevant authorities/agencies in India.

Annual dialogue between Indian and Australian leaders: PMs, Foreign Affairs Ministers and Defence Ministers should hold annual meeting/dialogue, with venues for such meeting/dialogue alternating between India and Australia.

Free Trade Agreement (FTA): The pace of the discussions and negotiations should be accelerated so that FTA can be concluded by the end of 2015.

Bilateral Nuclear Trade negotiations: The pace of the discussions and negotiations should be accelerated with the goal to conclude it by the 30 June, 2015.

Bilateral and multi-lateral defence exercises between India and Australia: India and Australia should work actively to enhance their defence & strategic relations bilaterally and multilaterally in the pattern agreed prior to the 2007 Rudd Govt in Australia.

Hindi teachings in Australian Universities: To increase India’s soft power and increase the numbers of India-literate Australians, India should consider funding such teaching courses in some select Universities in Australia.

Facilitations of Australian Universities and TAFE to have campuses in India: Many Australian institutions are ranked quite highly in various world Universities ranking systems. Collaborations in this field should be actively facilitated and encouraged, following a pragmatic and win-win module.

Indian Consulate in Brisbane: Queensland is an important state for Indian investment. Indian business houses like the Adani group have an important and a significant presence in this state. It is important to have an Indian Consulate in Brisbane.

India House or Indian Cultural Centre in major capital cities: The Indian community has grown significantly in Australia. It is increasingly felt that such centres are required, at least in Sydney and Melbourne. While some funding will be raised locally, a significant part of the funds should come from Indian Govt. Govt of India (GOI) Funds, if any, allocated for something of this nature to be established in the Indian Consulate premises in Sydney CBD should be reviewed and re-allocated for a centre of this nature in areas like Parramatta or Blacktown, where the Indian community has a substantial presence. Sydney CBD is not a practical or appropriate site for an Indian Cultural Centre.

Overseas Indians’ property in India: Many overseas Indians are seeing that their properties are illegally occupied and face threats to their safety when they visit India. Court cases go on for extended periods of time. IPC should be amended to tackle this menace.

Interactions between GOI agencies and Indian Australian community: It is often felt that GOI authorities in Australia do not interact with people sufficiently, thus leading to a communication gap. It is a common experience that there is a significant gap between what we expect and what is delivered. Steps should be implemented to improve the situation.

Minister for Overseas Indian Affairs visit to Australia: With approx. 500,000 people of Indian heritage in Australia, a biennial visit of Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs (The Hon Sushma Swaraj) or her deputy, The Hon Gen (Retd) V K Singh, should be included in the official GOI travel calendar. This will help facilitate interactions with the community and facilitate Overseas Indians’ investment in India.

Streamlined grievance redressal mechanism for Overseas Indians: Overseas Indian Affairs ministry has often not been very helpful and help has often not come in a timely fashion due to excessive bureaucratic influences. This should be reviewed and streamlined.

Exchanges between Academicians and civil Society leaders: We need regular bilateral exchange visits of academics, journalists, leaders and civil society leaders. This will help improve relations between the two countries. The scope and numbers should be increased.

This is our wish list, which we believe is doable, not difficult and will provide multiple benefits to various stake-holders, including India.

Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/13th June, 2014

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

au.linkedin.com/in/dryadusingh/

======================================================================================================= 

This was originally published in Indian Sun News magazine, Sydney on 10th June, 2014.  http://www.theindiansun.com.au/top-story/indians-australia-expect-modi-govt/

=======================================================================================================

 

India should make Seat belts compulsory!

On 3rd June, 2014, Sri Gopinath Munde, Indian Union Minister for Rural Development, died at a Delhi intersection when a Tata Indica car hit his Maruti Suzuki SX4 car on the side where he was sitting in a back seat. Union Health Minister, Dr Harsh Vardhan said that Mr Munde was not wearing a seat belt. Seat belts are compulsory in India only for drivers and front passengers, not for back-seat passengers.

Due to the impact, Mr Munde sustained Cervical Cord injury and Liver rupture, leading to acute hemorrhagic shock. This caused Heart attack, followed by death. Mr Munde was taken to the nearby hospital, but could not be revived.

This tragic death has opened a debate. Many are demanding that seat belts should be made compulsory for all passengers in a car. Hefty fines should be imposed for those who do not follow the rule.

With the unwelcome statistics (quoted below), there is no doubt that India needs to lift its game in regards to roadside safety.

India should work hard, and speedily, to change the undesirable statistics of its roadside loss of lives.

India contributes 12% of total worldwide Traffic fatalities.

In 2012, 1.4 Lacs (140,000) people lost their lives due to road/traffic accidents in India. One could assume that quite a significant numbers would be those who were passengers in vehicles and were not wearing seat belts.

In the same year, 26 Lacs (2.6 million) people sustained serious injuries on the Roads.

These numbers may well be an under-estimate because of less than standard documentation and record-keeping at least outside metropolitan cities and particularly in regional/rural areas.

It is known that speeding, drink-driving, poor compliance in following traffic rules, as well as pathetic state of Indian roads are responsible for such bad statistics.

This should change, and change soon.

Indian Government should initiate the process, while working with relevant stake-holders including State Governments, to make it compulsory for all passengers to wear seat belts, just like it is in all of Western World. In Australia and many other countries, there is hefty fines for the driver if any passenger is found to be not using seat belts.

It is known that;
1. seat belts reduce the risk of death and serious injuries by approx. 50%,
2. there is 30 times more risk of ejection out of car if a seat belt was not used,
3. three out of four (75%) end up in fatalities if they are ejected from a car.

An education programme to make people aware of traffic safety rules is required, and enforcement of these rules must be stepped up.

While at it, it is crucial that state of Indian roads must be improved so that they do not continue to act as death-traps.

Nobody can argue against the need of Roads and traffic safety in India receiving urgent attention.

Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/6th June, 2014
http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh
http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh
au.linkedin.com/in/dryadusingh/

Diversity is a reality, not a dirty word in Australia!

I was a member  of the panel to discuss a major research presentation, conducted by Pollinate Group (CEO Howard Parry-Husbands) on behalf of SBS, as part of Vivid Sydney programme on Wednesday, 28th May, 2014, at Museum of Contemporary Arts (MCA).

Other panelists were Prof Ian Buchanan, University of Wollongong and Dr Eman Sharobeem, Immigrant Women’s Health Service and Human Rights Campaigner.

It was attended by more than 150 key people from various segments including opinion leaders, media and businesses. SBS Managing Director, Micheal Ebeid, was there too. Ricardo Goncalves, SBS News Presenter was the MC. 

The key points of the research were:

  • The representative sample had fair distribution of age, gender, location, income and language spoken at home.
  • Australians recognise the key Australian traits of Optimism & positivity, Give it a go, Fair Go, Can do, Easy connections, Expressive nature with not much deferential language.
  • Australians believe in seeing good side of things, rather than dwelling too much on what went wrong or whinging.
  • They are concerned about immigrants coming in and not buying into our way of life, threat to work life balance and threat around shrinking space in the neighbourhood.
  • They recognise that identity of Australia has changed significantly over the last 20 years.
  • Australian identity has shifted towards a more complex, progressive and cosmopolitan identity.
  • Peoples current behaviour follows more indivisual path, being more active and seeking new experiences.
  • Australians are seeking meaningful connections on shared passions and interests.
  • There is a steep rise in materialism accompanied by more creative, open-minded mindset, but also some increase in being social. This follows the pervasive consumer model with a shift to things rather than people, from relationship values (‘us’) to indivisual traits (‘I’).
  • Australia becoming more diverse and yet more conservative because immigrants bring conservative values.
  • Those closest ie family and close friends are the most trusted.
  • People are certain of one thing: the future will be even more multicultural.
  • Australians are divided on their views of future prosperity: over a third think their lives will improve and over a quarter think it will deteriorate.
  • Australians are most concerned about economic cost of living and housing, deterioration of healthcare and job/employment security.
  • Australians are also concerned about quality of Government/politicians.
  • Most Australians believe immigrants should adopt our values and also agree that we are all immigrants.
  • The overall theme is that Australia is a young nation of immigrants with a great lifestyle who should all adopt the same values and traditions.
  • Recent immigrants often bring more conservative values with them and may in fact reinforce a more conservative mindset.
  • People of non-English background have higher perceptions of arts and culture and have higher beliefs on “Can do/Lucky country/Land of opportunity” values of Australia.
  • There appear to be 3 views of Australia: Cosmopolitan (embrace change and see opportunity), Open-minded ( Open to change as long as it does not conflict with my values) and Conservatives (reject change and react to changes as a threat).
  • A more multicultural future is viewed with either “horror” or “wonder” depending on whether you fear diversity or welcome it.
  • ABC and SBS have the highest trust and credibility from the media, followed by Seven and Nine.
  • Diversity in programming is highest in SBS. ABC and others are far lower in this regard.

With approx. 25% Australians born overseas and approx. 50% of Australians having at least one parent born overseas, diversity is something which is undeniable and not invisible.

Despite this, diversity is however not visible in Media, debates on policies, views, marketing and advertising. This is neither smart nor right.

It is about time that this sad, regressive and disappointing reality in Australia is addressed effectively. Media houses like Fairfax, News Corps, ABC, Chanel 7, Chanel 9, Chanel 10 and Radio stations should review this and act positively.

Diversity is not a dirty word. It is existing in Australian population, and is needed and in fact overdue in many spheres of Australia including Media and politics.

Advertisers can not only be the harbingers of change but will also do a great favour to themselves if they stop ignoring this significant segment of our society when allocating money for marketing and advertisement.

After all, multicultural community is neither invisible nor stays away from spending money and buying (consuming) things.
 
Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/6th June, 2014

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh
http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh
au.linkedin.com/in/dryadusingh/

Gold Coast City’s Goodwill ambassador to India:My views in Gold Coast Bulletin!

Gold Coast Mayor, Tom Tate, has chosen Aiysha Saagar as a Goodwill ambassador to India. Aiysha has a few topless pics which she posted in her website. This has created a controversy. Aiysha is of Indian heritage. She is hoping to be a Bollywood actor and lives in Mumbai as well as Gold Coast. The Gold Coast Bulletin published a column named, FaceOff, which covered it. I was asked to give my views. Here is the link. Faceoff-opinion-GCBulletin What do you think?

Faceoff-opinion-GCBulletin

Yadu Singh/Sydney/3rd July, 2012

www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

www.facebook.com/dryadusingh