The Uluṟu Statement Of The Heart

[ism22]

30 million of taxpayers money for a song to brainwash the masses into voting yes? I'm outraged!!!!!

Thing is-its not true. Not even close to being true. It was bullshit that circulated on Facebook....and it doesn't take a genius to work out that social media has brainwashed you.

Youre the Voice is owned by Sony and Farnham....who actually waived the $100,000 royalty they would gain for the use of the song.

The irony of you, the resident village idiot, accusing others of knowing nothing!

For balance, the budget it ~$500 billion. For a national media campaign (which they've gotta run if there's a referendum) it's par for the course. I didn't see you complaining about any Liberal/National pork barrelling in its last few budgets (or our deficit, noticing Labor's pulling a surplus). Just saying, you're hardly attached to some sorta 'middle ground'... your political leaning is clear.

That's okay but I dunno. IMO this is an opportunity to give indigenous Australians recognition and operationalise it through the voice. I think it will be a pity if FUD campaigns prevent us from getting this over the line while the iron's hot.

Let's just see how it goes. I don't think anything I say can change anybody's mind on either side of the fence. This has been demonstrated when I made the following (serious) corrections to FUD in this thread:

- It wouldn't lead to high court decisions being overturned by the Voice.

- The executive is a separate arm of government from the judiciary (somebody was saying they're the same, which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how our system works).

- The size of the Uluru Statement is a single page. Also Credlin did not 'leak' anything, she (rather farcically) did an FOI on a separate (publicly available) document that included 25 pages that summarise other unrelated discussions that didn't make it into the statement. Doesn't bother Andy W that he was wrong on this.

I can only spend so much time correcting misinformation when people are just gonna respond with 'I don't give a fark that I was wrong... my opinion isn't gonna change'. That's fine, but don't do so and then pretend you're sitting on the fence.

FWIW I'm not sitting on the fence. I'm voting yes with confidence. My mind is not cluttered with faux reasoning to try and spread to others. I'm a progressive and recognition of indigenous Australians has been important to me for some time. Like I have... I encourage people to ask their indigenous friends/colleagues what THEY think and use that to shape your opinions. If you don't have any indigenous friends/colleagues or you don't give a fark what they think then don't pretend you're voting no having deeply considered voting yes.

It's okay to have an opinion and you don't have to justify your opinion to others (even if it's based on complete bollocks). That's how democracy works. I'm comfortable that my opinion reflects what the indigenous people who are close to me want. That's the framework I've used and I encourage others to do it... noting that if Jacinta Price, Lidia Thorpe, Peta Credlin and Peter Dutton are close to your world views then it's okay to vote no. Personally I don't rate their opinions, so would probably never vote with them on anything - I hope I'm being pretty upfront about this.

[mightyrooster]

OMG Paddo. Thanks so much for the condescending lecture and regurgitation of history and information I learnt in Political Science 1. FYI, I am leaning towards yes. What I don’t understand is how after 200+ years, indigenous people are still so far behind on a range of social, health and education issues. What I want is a system that actually works, that will actually help to close that gap. I want to be sure that this change will actually achieve that.

[Paddo Colt 61]

[QUOTE=mightyrooster; OMG Paddo. Thanks so much for the condescending lecture and regurgitation of history and information I learnt in Political Science 1. FYI, I am leaning towards yes. What I dont understand is how after 200+ years, indigenous people are still so far behind on a range of social, health and education issues. What I want is a system that actually works, that will actually help to close that gap. I want to be sure that this change will actually achieve that.

Whether you know it or not you are an influential moderate voice on this site. You are long term member and your posts are considered and not given to exaggeration or emotion. People respect them so for you to be on the fence is not helpful.

Your reservations are those of most ordinary people - why can't the buggers grasp the opportunities offered to them, but what really are those opportunities? They're not overwhelming and even if they were, they would probably be rejected because they are not trusted, being seen mostly as having been offered by the people who have oppressed them and their culture in the past. They are as alienated from us as they have ever been and with good reason - the actions of Winmar and Goodes shows us graphically just how alienated and insecure they are. Let's give them this direct access to the Parliament which they have never had previously, it is an essential element in a reconciliation process that needs to happen.

Knocking them back for base party political reasons will only harm us as a people. At best it will indicate that we lack confidence as a Nation. At worst, that we are gormless and easily led at one end and deeply racist at the other.

[Jacks Fur Coat]

An interesting read from an Asian perspective by an Australian citizen. They parallel the proposed Voice with what happened in Malaysia and a very similar Article 153 of their Constitution. Some food for thought.


On October 14, 2023, Australians will go to the polls to vote on enshrining the Indigenous Voice to Parliament in our Constitution. There will be many perspectives articulated on the issue from both sides of the debate from now until then, but I have yet to see an Asian perspective on the subject matter, even though Asians make up just under 18 per cent of the Australian population according to a 2021 census.

One thing is clear: there is a universal consensus among Australians, irrespective of race, that more needs to be done to uplift the Indigenous community, especially in regional and remote areas. It is a terrible stain on the soul of the nation to see our fellow Australians of Indigenous descent living in the horrible conditions that they are currently experiencing.

A country’s Constitution is a set of principles which the country is founded upon. The issue here isn’t about recognising Indigenous people in our Constitution, which many people would not have a problem with, instead it is the request to enshrine the body known as ‘The Voice’ in our Constitution, which is essentially enshrining special rights to people based on their ethnicity in perpetuity. Once enshrined, there is no point of return. In the 4,000 years or so of recorded history of humanity, countries that have implemented special rights based on race and or religion have a poor track record of success and most inevitably fail. This is the reason why I am voting ‘No’ to The Voice and I am guided by the fact that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the First Prime Minister of Singapore and one of the greatest nation builders in history, would have done the same.

On August 31, 1957, the Federation of Malay States (Malaya) was granted independence from the British Empire. Soon thereafter, on September 16, 1963, the four British territories Malaya, North Borneo, Singapore, and Sarawak federated to form the country now known as Malaysia. In less than two years, on August 9, 1965, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia. There were many reasons why Singapore was expelled from the Federation, chief among them was the disagreement on the inclusion and adoption of Article 153 within the Malaysian Constitution between the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and the Leader of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution notes the special position of the Malays in Malaysia and their entitlement to special rights under the guise of affirmative action policies. The Malay community, post-independence, was mainly uneducated, poor, and living in regional areas compared to the better-educated, wealthy Chinese and Indian communities, which were urbanised, had greater wealth, and controlled a significant portion of the economy of Malaysia.

The intent of Article 153 was to close the gap and uplift the Malay community, as well as give them a greater share of the economy. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had vociferously opposed the inclusion of Article 153 in the Malaysian Constitution and advocated for a Malaysian Malaysia, where meritocracy rules and all races are treated equally under the Constitution. Mr Lee was adamant and proven right many years later that Article 153 would divide the nation and create a parallel class of citizenship based on race. It is worth noting the near identical similarities between ‘The Voice’ being proposed by the Albanese government and Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution.

In an article in Foreign Affairs magazine published on July 1, 1965, Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman proudly proclaimed that Malaysia had the second highest living standards in the East, compared only to Japan and its economy was sound and stable.

Today, the country is more divided along racial and religious lines than ever before, living, and educational standards have dropped significantly, and the economy is on shaky ground when compared to other countries within the ASEAN region. Meritocracy is non-existent and corruption is endemic in day-to-day life. Most urban and educated non-Malay families, like my own, have emigrated abroad to seek a better life and many more will do so in the coming years.

The majority of the Malay community is still poor and poorly educated, albeit for a few ultra-wealthy, foreign-educated Malay families who now control a significant portion of the economy. Article 153 has been an abysmal failure and to this day, Malaysia is still grappling with its legacy more than 60 years later.

There is an ancient saying that goes, ‘When an elder dies, an entire library burns to the ground.’ Mr Lee Kuan Yew may no longer be with us, but his prescient foresight, knowledge, and legacy still live on with many of those who grew up in Malaysia. For me to vote anything other than a ‘No’ would be utterly ignorant of my history and the sacrifices made by those before me.

The choice is yours to vote on in this referendum. You can choose to learn the wisdom imparted by one of the greatest leaders of our time, or you can choose to wilfully ignore it, but please do understand the repercussions of your decision should you decide to vote ‘Yes’, and always remember it was a Labor government that adopted a White Australia policy in 1905, and now it is trying to implement an Indigenous-only Australia. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme; so, said the famous American author, Mark Twain.

[Andrew Walker]

An interesting read from an Asian perspective by an Australian citizen. They parallel the proposed Voice with what happened in Malaysia and a very similar Article 153 of their Constitution. Some food for thought.


On October 14, 2023, Australians will go to the polls to vote on enshrining the Indigenous Voice to Parliament in our Constitution. There will be many perspectives articulated on the issue from both sides of the debate from now until then, but I have yet to see an Asian perspective on the subject matter, even though Asians make up just under 18 per cent of the Australian population according to a 2021 census.

One thing is clear: there is a universal consensus among Australians, irrespective of race, that more needs to be done to uplift the Indigenous community, especially in regional and remote areas. It is a terrible stain on the soul of the nation to see our fellow Australians of Indigenous descent living in the horrible conditions that they are currently experiencing.

A country’s Constitution is a set of principles which the country is founded upon. The issue here isn’t about recognising Indigenous people in our Constitution, which many people would not have a problem with, instead it is the request to enshrine the body known as ‘The Voice’ in our Constitution, which is essentially enshrining special rights to people based on their ethnicity in perpetuity. Once enshrined, there is no point of return. In the 4,000 years or so of recorded history of humanity, countries that have implemented special rights based on race and or religion have a poor track record of success and most inevitably fail. This is the reason why I am voting ‘No’ to The Voice and I am guided by the fact that Mr Lee Kuan Yew, the First Prime Minister of Singapore and one of the greatest nation builders in history, would have done the same.

On August 31, 1957, the Federation of Malay States (Malaya) was granted independence from the British Empire. Soon thereafter, on September 16, 1963, the four British territories Malaya, North Borneo, Singapore, and Sarawak federated to form the country now known as Malaysia. In less than two years, on August 9, 1965, Singapore was expelled from Malaysia. There were many reasons why Singapore was expelled from the Federation, chief among them was the disagreement on the inclusion and adoption of Article 153 within the Malaysian Constitution between the then Prime Minister of Malaysia, Tunku Abdul Rahman, and the Leader of Singapore, Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution notes the special position of the Malays in Malaysia and their entitlement to special rights under the guise of affirmative action policies. The Malay community, post-independence, was mainly uneducated, poor, and living in regional areas compared to the better-educated, wealthy Chinese and Indian communities, which were urbanised, had greater wealth, and controlled a significant portion of the economy of Malaysia.

The intent of Article 153 was to close the gap and uplift the Malay community, as well as give them a greater share of the economy. Mr Lee Kuan Yew had vociferously opposed the inclusion of Article 153 in the Malaysian Constitution and advocated for a Malaysian Malaysia, where meritocracy rules and all races are treated equally under the Constitution. Mr Lee was adamant and proven right many years later that Article 153 would divide the nation and create a parallel class of citizenship based on race. It is worth noting the near identical similarities between ‘The Voice’ being proposed by the Albanese government and Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution.

In an article in Foreign Affairs magazine published on July 1, 1965, Malaysian Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman proudly proclaimed that Malaysia had the second highest living standards in the East, compared only to Japan and its economy was sound and stable.

Today, the country is more divided along racial and religious lines than ever before, living, and educational standards have dropped significantly, and the economy is on shaky ground when compared to other countries within the ASEAN region. Meritocracy is non-existent and corruption is endemic in day-to-day life. Most urban and educated non-Malay families, like my own, have emigrated abroad to seek a better life and many more will do so in the coming years.

The majority of the Malay community is still poor and poorly educated, albeit for a few ultra-wealthy, foreign-educated Malay families who now control a significant portion of the economy. Article 153 has been an abysmal failure and to this day, Malaysia is still grappling with its legacy more than 60 years later.

There is an ancient saying that goes, ‘When an elder dies, an entire library burns to the ground.’ Mr Lee Kuan Yew may no longer be with us, but his prescient foresight, knowledge, and legacy still live on with many of those who grew up in Malaysia. For me to vote anything other than a ‘No’ would be utterly ignorant of my history and the sacrifices made by those before me.

The choice is yours to vote on in this referendum. You can choose to learn the wisdom imparted by one of the greatest leaders of our time, or you can choose to wilfully ignore it, but please do understand the repercussions of your decision should you decide to vote ‘Yes’, and always remember it was a Labor government that adopted a White Australia policy in 1905, and now it is trying to implement an Indigenous-only Australia. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme; so, said the famous American author, Mark Twain.

Another interesting piece you have brought to the table Jaxxx. My eldest Brother who is a leftie/socialist, now spends a lot of time in Malaysia and is well versed in Asian political history and political affairs ( has some sort of degree on the subject ) Whilst he will end up voting Yes ( I know him too well) he is not sold on this and has doubts and mentioned what this Malaysian has said above to me as being a major reason

[Jacks Fur Coat]

Another interesting piece you have brought to the table Jaxxx. My eldest Brother who is a leftie/socialist, now spends a lot of time in Malaysia and is well versed in Asian political history and political affairs ( has some sort of degree on the subject ) Whilst he will end up voting Yes ( I know him too well) he is not sold on this and has doubts and mentioned what this Malaysian has said above to me as being a major reason

Victor the Inflictor?

[Paddo Colt 61]

Jax's article is written from a Chinese or Indian perspective, both minorities having suffered terrible Malay pogroms in the past, persecutions that have had official links. There is a deep hostility toward immigrant groups by the indigenous Malays which has been encouraged by successive ethnocentric politicians. The situation is, therefore, not analogous to Australia where our indigenous have posed no threat to us immigrants, quite the opposite. We've been an existential threat to them and we have a responsibility for their parlous predicament in a social organisation that they don't feel part of.

[Andrew Walker]

Jax's article is written from a Chinese or Indian perspective, both minorities having suffered terrible Malay pogroms in the past, persecutions that have had official links. There is a deep hostility toward immigrant groups by the indigenous Malays which has been encouraged by successive ethnocentric politicians. The situation is, therefore, not analogous to Australia where our indigenous have posed no threat to us immigrants, quite the opposite. We've been an existential threat to them and we have a responsibility for their parlous predicament in a social organisation that they don't feel part of.

With due respect PC I’d listen more carefully to the points raised by someone who has a degree in matters relating to the politics and history there before I’d listen to a retired public school teacher

[Andrew Walker]

Victor the Inflictor?

No my eldest Brother. A Bulldogs supporter

[Jacks Fur Coat]

No my eldest Brother. A Bulldogs supporter

A Socialist and a Bulldogs supporter. We may need an intervention.

[Andrew Walker]

[QUOTE=Jacks Fur Coat;n1029695]

A Socialist and a Bulldogs supporter. We may need an intervention. [/QUOTE

Influenced by my Uncle who when I was very young was friends with the late Canterbury fullback Gary Dowling

[Paddo Colt 61]

[QUOTE=Andrew Walker; With due respect PC I'd listen more carefully to the points raised by someone who has a degree in matters relating to the politics and history there before I'd listen to a retired public school teacher.

Did you understand what I said? The article referred to favoured constitutional status being given to a majority group (Malays) which still applies there. The Chinese/ Indian minorities oppose it. It is nothing like the Voice.

Can you refer me to a post where you have set out your objection to the Voice?

Interesting how common ground is emerging on this thread - you and Jax. Izzy and me. Who woulda thought? The American philosopher Will Rogers famously said " I never met a man I couldn't like".

Gary Dowling was a very good Fullback in his time. Was he decapitated in a car smash back then?

[Andrew Walker]

[QUOTE=Paddo Colt 61;n1029706][QUOTE=Andrew Walker; With due respect PC I'd listen more carefully to the points raised by someone who has a degree in matters relating to the politics and history there before I'd listen to a retired public school teacher.

Did you understand what I said? The article referred to favoured constitutional status being given to a majority group (Malays) which still applies there. The Chinese/ Indian minorities oppose it. It is nothing like the Voice.

Can you refer me to a post where you have set out your objection to the Voice?

Interesting how common ground is emerging on this thread - you and Jax. Izzy and me. Who woulda thought? The American philosopher Will Rogers famously said " I never met a man I couldn't like".

Gary Dowling was a very good Fullback in his time. Was he decapitated in a car smash back then?

[/QUOTE]

In answer to your first question You seemed a bit all over the place with what you said. Now I could explain what my Brother was alluding to with his comments but that would potentially open another can of worms that I’m not really prepared to get involved in

Just like if I RE read what have said that I’m commenting on above I’m sure you would find it if you looked hard enough. But is it really that important ? I side with our dear limoncello guzzling friend Izzy in that im not fussed who, or why one votes yes or no. It is a democracy and whatever the result is I will accept it.

Myself I find that agreeing on some things and disagreeing on many others with a person happens a bit. I think it is because I come from a family where politics world affairs was often discussed but people had differing views. When I was young I’d hear the debates and was exposed to differing pints of views and got to chose my own conclusions based on those

Yes he was killed in a car crash and whilst I cannot recall the specific details from memory it was pretty gruesome

[zac]

OMG Paddo. Thanks so much for the condescending lecture and regurgitation of history and information I learnt in Political Science 1. FYI, I am leaning towards yes. What I don’t understand is how after 200+ years, indigenous people are still so far behind on a range of social, health and education issues. What I want is a system that actually works, that will actually help to close that gap. I want to be sure that this change will actually achieve that.

i don't think anyone can guarantee that this change will achieve that. the voice is toothless and is dependent on a) giving good advice, and b) that advice being taken into account by governments.
on the plus side, given the big gap between indigenous people and non-indigenous people you mention something needs to be done and this proposal, made by aborigines themselves, might help

[zac]

from what i can make of section 153 of the malaysian constitution -

1. It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to safeguard the special position of the Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interests of other communities in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

it's got nothing to do with the voice proposal which only has the power to make representations, to give advice, to government and parliament