'Kiss me, Ketut'' is a popular phrase in my
household. It's one of the most popular phrases to come out of advertising in a
long time. Dripping with affectionate irony. It's also a feel-good story about
the relationship between Australians and Indonesians
For the past 2½ years, insurance company AAMI has been
spending millions of dollars on a campaign featuring Mandy McElhinney playing
the loveable, boofy Rhonda and an Indonesian immigrant recruited in Melbourne,
Kadek Mahardika, playing Ketut, the Balinese cocktail waiter. It's been a big
win for AAMI and the ad agency, Badjar Ogilvy Melbourne. The sexual tension
between Rhonda and Ketut culminated recently at Rhonda's high school reunion,
where she falls into the arms of her high school crush, Trent Toogood, while
talking about the benefits of AAMI's safe driver rewards.
In the great tradition of soaps, the last scene had an
ashen-faced Ketut heartbroken in an empty hall. Australian public opinion
rallied to the side of Ketut. Badjar Ogilvy followed up with an ad that
suddenly had the hall full again and Rhonda falling into the arms of Ketut.
Happy ending, as they say.
What the public response to this ad campaign says - along
with the outpouring of support from the Australian government and public in
2004, when more than $1 billion was sent to aid Indonesia after a tsunami
ravaged Sumatra, together with the robust numbers of Indonesian students coming
to Australia and the robust number of Australians travelling to Bali - is that
a natural goodwill exists between the two countries.
Two democracies, neighbours, trading partners, no strategic
tensions, no history of war. Australians had plenty of reasons to forsake Bali
after the bombings there in 2002, the Jakarta Marriott Hotel suicide attack in
2003, the Australian embassy bombing in 2004 and the second Bali bombings in
2005 but they have kept going.
On November 21, I used this column to blast Prime Minister
Tony Abbott over his handling of the Snowden spy revelations, saying he had
been insensitive to Indonesia. On November 25, I blasted him again, saying he
could have made the controversy a diplomatic victory instead of a debacle.
''When Abbott spoke in Parliament I was thinking, 'No, this can't be
happening','' I wrote.
Abbott was wrong then, even though he had nothing to do with
the spying. But he is not wrong now. His government has quickly and
successfully curbed the criminal smuggling operations from Indonesia, for which
he has an emphatic election mandate. In this, the Indonesian navy has been almost
invisible and its military ineffectual. Yet when an Australian navy vessel made
a single, brief, unintended, inconsequential incursion into Indonesian waters,
the Indonesian navy was mobilised as if it were a military threat.
Given all the events I have detailed above, this is towering
hypocrisy. It proves that Jakarta has been largely indifferent to the systemic
breaches of Australian waters by Indonesian boats, with Indonesian crews, from
Indonesians ports. Its decision to militarise the ocean border with Australia
over a minor breach is a triumph of jingoism and cynicism. It is no accident as
Indonesia is in the midst of an election year and the government is still
smarting from the Snowden spying revelations.
Indonesia's claim that Australian navy personnel may have
tortured asylum seekers fits entirely with this cynicism. These claims are
patently dubious given the long history of systematic deceit by those who
employ people smugglers. Most of them have cynically destroyed their documents
after reaching safety in Indonesia. There have been innumerable examples of
self-harm and numerous cases of vessels being scuttled in open sea -
brinkmanship of the highest order. Children have been deliberately placed at
risk.
This latest example of unverifiable claims of torture
follows this pattern. It is a variation on a theme. That the ABC should run
with this story as if these claims of torture were credible is also a variation
on a theme. It was the ABC that chose to damage Australia's relationship with
Indonesia by publishing the Snowden spying leaks. It is the ABC that has a
mother lode of form in portraying document-destroyers and ship-scuttlers as
victims.
My support for the Royal Australian Navy does not, however,
extend to its troubled procurement process. Last Monday, I argued it would be
madness for the government to pursue a proposal left behind by the Rudd
government for the biggest military infrastructure project undertaken in
Australia by building a dozen submarines at a probable cost of more than $30
billion. We gave a right of reply to the chief executive of the Australian
Submarine Corporation, Steve Ludlam, and the Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Ray
Griggs, also weighed in with a formal response. Frankly, I find their responses
more alarming than my criticisms.
The head of ASC said not one word about costs, even though
it was the whole point of the column. Griggs said: ''For most of the last two
years, navy has continuously had four submarines in service.''
That means it took the navy almost 10 years to have four of
its six submarines operational at the same time for extended periods;
submarines delivered, on average, more than two years late, with years of
numerous, well-reported teething problems, at a cost way over their projected
budget.
We should not make this mistake again. We can't afford it.
Eh...bilangin tuh ke PM lu, JGN LEBAY DEEEH...kami kok patroli kok situ ngajakin PERANG...wah parah ni PM lu
ReplyDelete