Asylum seekers

Do asylum seekers have rights?  Are they genuine?  How do we tell the difference between those who try to jump the queue in migration and those who are truly seeking refuge from something in their home country?  What is the rest of the world supposed to do with these asylum seekers?

An open forum was held on this topic, organised by the Golden Key International Honours Society.  It tried to address the issues from an Australian perspective.  Among the many points raised, I gleaned the following to be noteworthy:

• International law deems asylum seeking to be legal, and Australian policies as not legal.
  
• Normally, people need to present valid passport and travel papers at national borders; but the refugee convention understands that refugees need to be exempt from this.  This is because their situation is different enough.  Just like the law says that everybody needs to follow road rules, but makes exceptions for emergency vehicles.
  
• Standards are supposed to be the floor, not the ceiling.  People are allowed to do better than the standards, but not worse.
  
• Tax payers pay more for offshore detention compared to letting people just come in to Australia.
  
• The Australian government is spending the same amount of money to stop people from coming in to the country, compared to UNHCR who spends that much trying to make the lives of asylum seekers easier.
  
• Refugees 45 times less likely to commit crime cf normal Australian,
  
• There is a perception in Australia that refugees should end up in an UNHCR camp and wait for their turn to be processed.  Landing on Australian shores by boat is the wrong way. But why so?  Desperate people resort to desperate means.
  
• Case managers at refugee camps are not trained well for suicide, mental problems that detainees face.  They are only trained for dealing with journalists.
  
• Unlike detained criminals, refugees do not know how long they are detained for.  This stress leads to mental problems and suicide in some cases.
  
• Refugees perceive the detention center workers as their jailers, but that is not what the workers are there for.
  
• People choose to return to their persecution because they lose hope. People shouldn't come to Australia as asylum seekers, but they do because they see us as hope.
  
• Asylum seeking is a global crisis - the displacement globally at a 65 year high.
  
• Wealthy nations reduce access to asylum, whereas middle and low income nations taking in 86% - up from a previous 70%.
  
• Malaysia is taking in refugees, but do not provide them with school, etc.
  
• We have a conundrum.  Australia does not want to take in refugees and treat them nicely, but wants the Asian neighbours to.  In this, Australians are hypocrites.
  
• Australia would seek migrants to do certain jobs when they also have asylum seekers already there waiting to do the same jobs.  Why?  Many asylum seekers have skills and qualifications. Not all are the kind who have nothing to contribute.
  
• Resettlement not really the answer as nations regard themselves as the transit point, not the end point. Not returning people to harm is one issue, not giving them hope is another issue.
  
• Most refugees hope to return when the situations in their home countries improve. Those who don't have lost hope that their countries would improve.
  
• Australia argues for national sovereignty when it comes to choosing who would come to their country, but against it when they wish to tell other nations how to handle policies about customs, police, etc.  This is another hypocrisy.
  
• Terrorists can enter Australia as asylum seekers, but really, there are better ways to get to Australia as terrorist than by boat.

What do you think?  Do you believe what was presented at this forum?

What would you like the world to do for you, if you were an asylum seeker?  What would you do for asylum seekers if it were in your power to do anything?

How do we provide life and hope for asylum seekers?

Does God care?  What would God want us to do?

Time management

How do you manage your time when you have too much on your plate?  How do you prioritise?

Many of us wear different hats; eg. as a parent, a student, a business manager, and to handle numerous chores at home at the same time.  How does one cope with doing this?

Should one value leisure, health, work, or family above the other values?

We often say to put God first, others next, and ourselves last.  However, we need to include God in all aspects of life - home, work, studies, and leisure.  How do we put God first while doing these things?  What would God have us do?

What do you think?

Sex with multiple partners

A contributor to SMH Lifestyle thinks that it has become easier to get laid nowadays.  He then asks if we should be doing it more, and with multiple partners just because it has become easier to.

The contributor said that homosexuality is more acceptable nowadays.  Connecting with sexual partners is also easier, now that phone apps and similar advertising is rampant.  But does it mean that we should do it more just because it has become easier to?

The risk of contracting sexual diseases is still there (even though medical sciences has reduced the risks in some instances).  And then, there is also the risk of being devalued as a person...

In the article's final paragraph, the author said

 "Yet I remain unconvinced. Yes, I agree with freedom of choice. But, ideally, that choice should be informed. Are we properly informed about the long-term consequences of sex with multiple partners in one day? Do we know what will result from this culture when frequent sex with many strangers is easy? Prostitution has a price – what's the cost when the sex comes free and easy?"

What do you think ?  What do you believe?  How would you answer him?

Does morality and ethics have anything to do with this question?  What would God say?

The NSW Opal card

NSW Australia has introduced a stored-value, debit card that is to be used to pay fares on their public transport system.  This card is called the "Opal" card.  It is similar to the MRT pass used in Singapore, and the "myki" used in Melbourne.

The virtues of the Opal card have been debated on news media for months.  The Opal website tells of the positive points, but not the negative ones.  To counterbalance what it says, I shall summarise the negative points I have noticed here:

• While it gives business to newsagents and convenience stores, it lessens business for the CityRail ticket counters now that many paper tickets have been discontinued.  This results in a level of unemployment.
  
• If one does not tap off properly, one will get charged the maximum fare.  Unlike Singapore, though, the maximum fare is expensive.  Sometimes, it is not one's fault that one does not tap off properly.  Eg. if one thinks one has tapped, but actually missed.
  
• When on a train last week, ticket inspectors boarded to check the tickets of the passengers on board.  Most of us checked out okay, but one didn't.  This man said he tapped on at Town Hall.  He did not know why his Opal card did not register that.  Ticket inspectors seemed to have suspected something foul happening, and was giving the man a hard time.
  
• The system apparently gives discounts on individual fares, although possibly, it is more expensive compared to the seasonal tickets that many residents use.
  
• The old system allows passengers to travel for free within the City Circle.  The Opal card doesn't.  But this might be okay, since the system only charges for eight trips/week and subsequent trips become free.
  
• The Opal card system is not friendly to outstation visitors.  Especially to those from other countries.  Such visitors would not be used to the public transport fares of NSW.  This and the uncertainty of their travel plans make it hard to determine how much value to store on their Opal cards.  Then, these visitors cannot get refunds easily.  Refunds come in the form of a cheque or a bank deposit in Australian dollars to an Australian bank account.

What do you think?  Is the Opal card a good system overall?  Do the positive points outweigh the negative ones?

I find that by the ways in which some of the other tickets have been discontinued and the way some of the other discounts have become unavailable, people are being herded onto the Opal card system, even if they do not like it.  Choices are few if one does not choose what the authorities want one to choose.  The customers have choices, but the alternatives are not attractive.

Do you find this to be the case too?  Does this indicate manipulation in a negative sense?  Or do you think it is all positive?

Please share your thoughts.  Thank you.

Second chance

After a crackdown on cheating, it was found that only 25% of the Cambodians who set their leaving High School exams passed.

What does this low statistic tell you?  That most Cambodians are cheats?  That their academic ability is lacking?  That their instructors did not do a good job?

Indeed, it is a struggle for this country.  Teachers try to compensate their low salaries by offering tuition at a price.  When I lived there, I heard that many students even had to pay to get their exams marked.  If such is the environment in which they grew up, it is inevitable that they link academia with extra payments - many people outside the system would consider these "extra payments" as bribery.

Many of the Cambodians I have met are very studious.  They are able to think analytically and are pretty astute with languages and many other areas.  In my opinion, these students would do well academically, even without cheating.  But, the nature of the system in their home country puts them in poor light even though their abilities shine.

The University system would not work well, unless they accept students of the right caliber.  This high failure rate does little to boost confidence in the University qualifications.

The students who failed the recent exams have been offered a second chance.

Will they do better the second time around?  Will they have enough time to prepare, if they have been slack throughout the whole of their High-school life?  Will the second time be as strict against cheating as was the first test?

Was the crackdown on cheating bad?

How can this problem be avoided?

What would you do, if you lived in this situation?  What would you do if you were one of these students who had to do these recent exams?