Under changes announced in Labor’s overhaul of the migration system, designed to weed out applicants using the student visa scheme as a backdoor to gain work rights, foreign students will no longer be penalised for revealing a desire to emigrate to Australia in their visa application.

In a document sent to the international education sector on Friday outlining details of the reforms, the Department of Home Affairs informed industry leaders that the transition from the Genuine Temporary Entrant requirement to a new Genuine Student Test will take place on March 23.

The test will ask international students direct questions about their links to Australia, for an “explanation of their choice of course” and the benefits the course will provide them, replacing a requirement to write a 300-word statement. Students will also be asked for details on the visa type they currently hold, their reasons for applying for a student visa, and their study history.

The change comes as the sector’s peak bodies prepare to meet on Wednesday to discuss the impacts of a raft of integrity reforms targeting the sector, as part of a push from the Albanese government to halve net migration in the next two years. 

Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia chief executive Troy Williams has criticised the government for introducing the changes with just over a week’s notice, accusing Labor of introducing “punitive regulations”.

“ITECA members were informed of this implementation date on March 15, an eight-day period in which to get ready for implementation of one of the most significant changes to the student visa framework in more than eight years,” he said.

Mr Williams said the change, which was one of a suite of reforms announced under the Migration Strategy in December, was an attempt by the government to address the “regulatory failure” after it allowed a record number of international students to enter the country to address crippling labour shortages in the wake of the pandemic.

“To deal with this regulatory failure, the government is implementing additional and more punitive regulations,” he said. “Red tape sales must be going through the roof in Canberra.”

Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil has sought to bring down the number of temporary migrants by tackling integrity issues with the international student visa by cracking down on students whose main reason for coming to Australia was not study, known as “non-genuine students”.

“A sector-appointed special working group was set up months ago to advise on these changes, which involved broader consultation across the sector,” a spokesman for Ms O’Neil said.

“We make no apology for working with the sector to end rorts and reintroduce integrity to our higher education system.”

International Education Association of Australia CEO Phil Honeywood said he was broadly supportive of the reforms, which would boost the government’s efforts to attract high-quality international students by no longer penalising those who reveal a desire to emigrate.

“However, the key concern is that the implementation date of March 23 is very early for education providers and their agents to have the requirements systems in place,” he said.

Increasing public sector employment is a priority for the 2023-24 spending, and will see teaching, nursing and trade courses at university and TAFE incentivised.

Infrastructure spending

To support an improvement in healthcare, university campuses will see investment for new-and-improved facilities.

All universities in NSW and the ACT will share in a $70.2 million investment for new laboratories and pre-clinical trial spaces to facilitate early-stage drug developments for human and animal diseases.

The University of Sydney (USYD) will receive $149.3 million for their co-funded partnership with the Sydney Local Health District to build a biomedical research complex spanning the university campus and the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.

Macquarie University will be funded with an $81.4 million expenditure to improve their bus interchange and transport precinct, connecting the university to the Macquarie centre, business park and surrounding residential and commercial areas.

Meadowbank's Institute of Applied Technology – Digital facility was completed with a $128.9 million investment to deliver practical learning courses in partnership with TAFE , Microsoft, the University of Technology Sydney and Macquarie.

Men in care jobs

The government is targeting gender-bias in jobs such as nursing and care by decreasing study costs at universities and VET (vocational education and training) facilities, attempting to increase the number of men in these workforces.

The budget states only 18.3 per cent of VET courses and 13.6 per cent of university commencements in nursing are male students, resulting in the 10.2 per cent of men that make up Australia's midwifery and nursing workforce.

Scholarships

Gender-bias has encouraged investment into scholarships and study relief for healthcare workers at university, which the government said will result in better quality care for patients.

Study subsidies will be given to 12,000 healthcare students at a cost of $121.9 million over five years, including a $4,000 scholarship for each year of study, with existing students receiving a one-off payment of $8,000 to boost the healthcare workforces.

Early childhood education workers will also receive a $22 million investment into their professional development and university costs.

Increase in fee-free vocational training

Vocational education, such as TAFE, will receive a 'thorough review' and $112 million to meet its funding shortfall, along with supported fee concessions for people with welfare beneficiaries or a disability when undertaking Certificate IV and below qualifications through the Smart and Skilled program. 

In-demand skills in industries will be met with 1,000 extra apprentices by 2026 at a cost of $93.5 million, and fee-free training for formal components of apprenticeships and traineeships.

A recent labour market update reported professions that require a skill level of two to four, where vocational education and training (VET) qualifications are the primary pathway, accounted for over half of total employment growth over the year to May 2023.

NSW treasurer Daniel Mookhey announced the budget in parliament, explaining how the $3.6 billion Essential Services Fund will enable the government to negotiate workplace changes and improve these services.

"I would much prefer to be able to spend money on the state’s essential services and essential workers, rather than have to write big cheques to the state’s bondholders," the treasurer said during his announcement.

"This is an investment New South Wales must make to deliver vital public services to the standard people expect."

The budget's $13 billion in cuts and savings and the tax increases on big multinationals will fund the promised $3.6 billion in pay rises for public sector workers such as nurses and teachers.

"If we want a world-class health system, we have to train, recruit and retain enough health workers to staff our hospitals," he said.

"The government will work to rebuild essential services by working to fill labour shortages.

“The Essential Services Fund will give them certainty and help bolster their ranks to ensure essential services workers are supported to deliver the best outcome for the people of New South Wales.”

NSW's overall debt is climbing and will reach $188.2 billion by 2026, exacerbated by rising interest rates.

However, the government forecasts there will be a $844 million surplus for 2024-25 thanks to this year's modest spending.

One of the university’s priorities is to bolster the strength of the current nuclear workforce.

“For more than 70 years, ANU has trained the nation and the world’s nuclear scientists and experts and is the only university in Australia providing comprehensive training in nuclear physics from the undergraduate to postdoctoral level,” the university said. 

“ANU also runs the country’s highest energy heavy ion accelerator – the only facility in Australia dedicated to nuclear physics research which enables hands-on training.”

Head of the ANU Department of Nuclear Physics, Professor Andrew Stuchbery, said the historic deal opened up exciting opportunities for nuclear science in the country, “which until now had limited workforce needs in the field”.

“This deal changes everything when it comes to nuclear science in Australia,” Stuchbery said. “It ushers in a new era for the nation.

“In the past, Australia’s nuclear technology workforce needs have been minimal and a lot of talented and trained people from across nuclear science have headed overseas.

“So it is absolutely vital we build sovereign capability in nuclear science. That’s exactly what we do every day at ANU.”

The nuclear physics scientist said ANU’s undergraduate and postgraduate programs in this field cover the gamut of nuclear science, such as reactor science, nuclear fuel cycles, and ensuring “policy debates on nuclear issues are informed by science and best practice”.

“For decades we’ve been training the nuclear experts Australia needs to safely deploy nuclear energy and technologies, including intensive courses with the Department of Defence,” Stuchbery said.

“We look forward to training the future generations of practitioners Australia will now need and who will help build, deploy and manage these new technologies as a consequence of this historic security deal.”

Professor Mahananda Dasgupta, director of the ANU Heavy Ion Accelerator Facility (HIAF), said the facility is the only one in the country dedicated to “fundamental nuclear research” and also has the support of the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Fund.

“With Australia now taking on nuclear-powered subs, it is vital that the workforce understands the underpinning science and gets hands-on training in handling sophisticated instruments. That’s what the HIAF enables,” Dasgupta said.

“It drives new knowledge on fundamental nuclear processes, including nuclear reactions, nuclear structure, and highly sensitive detection methods to enable environmental monitoring at world-best levels.

“We also provide a lab environment for training personnel from Defence, ANSTO, ASIO, ONA, DFAT and Customs to learn and develop a hands-on understanding of nuclear science."

Professor Tim Senden, director of the ANU Research School of Physics, said ANU was equipped and prepared to spearhead Australia’s development in this area and “serve the nation”. “It is no different when it comes to the vital field of nuclear science,” he said.

“Australia will need talented, well-trained and knowledgeable experts in nuclear science. At ANU we have the capability, the will and the desire to deliver the experts our nation needs.

“There is no better place than ANU when it comes to harnessing the latest nuclear science research and teaching.” 

Senden also invited anyone with a passion for working in this area to join the university’s activities. 

International reactions to the AUKAS alliance

While Prime Minister Scott Morrison believes the higher-tech nuclear-powered submarines are essential in maintaining stability in the Indo-Pacific with rising Chinese influence, French leaders are livid with the dumping of the deal.

French Foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Dria, who was instrumental in brokering the original deal in 2016, told French radio: “This brutal, unilateral and unpredictable decision reminds me a lot of what Mr Trump used to do. I am angry and bitter. 

“It’s really a stab in the back. We built a relationship of trust with Australia, and this trust was betrayed. This is not the end of the story."

It is widely understood that the French government will demand compensation for the broken deal. However, it’s also worth noting that Australia’s deal with a French shipbuilder to replace our current Collins Class with 12 new French submarines that run on conventional diesel-electric has been plagued by delays and blowouts over the last 10 years. 

Meanwhile, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian also expressed his disappointment with the new deal, stating that it "gravely undermines regional peace and stability," and "aggravates" the arms race.

Zhao also warned Australia that the latest deal would "only end up hurting their own interests" if they continued to engage in a "cold war mentality".

On Sunday, following France's recalling of its ambassadors to Australia and the US, the new Prime Minister of Malaysia, Ismail Sabri Yaakob, released a statement raising concerns the new deal could heighten military tensions in the Indo-Pacific region.

"[The deal] will provoke other powers to take more aggressive action in this region, especially in the South China Sea," he said.

John Blaxland, professor at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU, wrote in The Conversation that the decision will "more tightly enmesh Australia into the US orbit".

"Technologically and militarily, it means if the US goes into a conflict in the Indo-Pacific region, it would be much more difficult for Australia not to be directly and almost automatically involved," he said.

"The other side of argument is this is a good thing because it will at least incrementally add to the deterrence against China.

"Chinese strategists and leaders will have to weigh up the risk and presumably be less likely to decide that crossing the threshold of war is something they are prepared to do. The hope is that added deterrence will make the stakes higher for the Chinese and the prospects of success lower."

Domestic anxieties

While Australia currently does not have much nuclear capability, AUKUS partners the US and the UK will collaborate with Australia during the next 18 months to decide how the plan will be realised, as well as how the nuclear-propelled submarines will be refuelled. 

And while defence department secretary Greg Moriarty said that “the management of waste, the disposal of the submarine at the end of its life, all of those are issues where we will be engaging with our US and UK partners,” other politicians aren’t convinced.

Greens leader Adam Bandt, for example, has called the nuclear submarines "floating Chernobyls", adding his party would vigorously oppose the new agreement.

Concerns have also been raised by Naval Group employees, who are based in South Australia and had been working on the new French submarines. A Naval Group worker told the ABC they knew little about what their futures would hold.

"It's very fresh so we don't know," he said.

"I'm not really sure how to react at the moment.

"We were not expecting this."

However, while finance minister Simon Birmingham said there was a "firm commitment" to helping them transition into new roles, he could not guarantee that all of Naval Group's employees would retain their jobs.

This story was updated at 8.51am on 20 September 2021.

One academic who is being detained in China is Yuan Keqin, both a Chinese national and a history professor at Hokkaido University of Education in Japan, Times Higher Education (THE) reported. 

THE reported that, in 2019, Chinese authorities detained Keqin while he was there to attend a family member’s funeral. The academic was incommunicado for close to two years, until the Chinese government finally indicted him. 

In June, Keqin’s father appealed for his 65-year-old son to be released. 

However, the experience of Keqin in China is becoming far from an anomaly for visiting diplomats, academics and other experts, despite his interminable detention..

Another academic at Hokkaido University, Naomi Chi, an associate professor of public policy, reported to THE “six Japan-based scholars had been detained in China since 2013”. Chi and other Japanese scholars have been lucky, however, as Keqin is the only one still in detention.

“The reasons for their detainment are vague, but mostly concerning national security,” Chi said. 

“Many scholars who conduct research on China or have relations with Chinese scholars or universities have mentioned that they are afraid of travelling to China even post-Covid.”

An Australian national who researches modern Confucianism at Kyushu University, Associate Professor Shaun O’Dwyer, has also declined invitations to travel to China for conferences “out of personal concerns for security”.

“I would say that for academics in Japan, the chill definitely began with the arrests of Nobu Iwatani and Yuan Keqin in 2019,” he stated.

With diplomatic incidents like this occurring, it’s no surprise contributors to publications such as China File “felt unease about returning to the country”. More than half of the publication's contributors are academics, writers and diplomats, with the majority being sinologists, a recent survey found. 

One-hundred and twenty-one participants responded to the China File survey, with 56 per cent stating they would “probably not”, “definitely not” or were “unsure” about returning to China. Many respondents cited the death sentences of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor as influencing their decisions.

As founding director of Indiana University’s China office, and currently the senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Scott Kennedy visited China regularly between 1988 and 2019. When asked by THE whether he would return once borders reopened, he said he has “absolutely no idea”.

“The political situation has changed significantly in the past few years,” he said. 

“It’s a huge dilemma for people who genuinely care about China, good scholarship and the people we interact with.”

Law Professor at Seton Hall University in the US echoed the concerns of the others, adding she was “extremely doubtful, though still a bit uncertain, whether I would get on a plane for China even if given an unexpected green light to do so … I will not jeopardise my ability to be there for my kids.”

University council members made the decision yesterday.

Reflecting on the decision, Jeans said: “I am committed to leading the University of Newcastle to ensure continuity and to maintain the strong momentum in the execution of our strategic plan ‘Looking Ahead’. I look forward to working with our communities, in particular our staff and students, to take our university forward.”

The decision to reappoint Jeans to the chancellorship comes after Mark Vaile, chair of Whitehaven Coal, turned down the offer, citing an “unjust” campaign against him despite being appointed unopposed at the time. 

University of Newcastle staff and alumni aired concerns when it emerged earlier this month that Vaile – former Nationals leader and deputy prime minister to John Howard between 2005 and 2007 – had connections with a major mining company. This was viewed as a conflict of interest by his critics, given the university’s wish to make the university carbon neutral by 2025. 

Before deciding not to take up the appointment, a wave of anger and disappointment rolled across the university, with an academic resigning from the university council and 16 philanthropists stating they would blacklist the university from any new funding if the appointment went ahead. 

Philanthropists also published a full-page advertisement in The Newcastle Herald, with the backing of signatories including entrepreneur Alan Schwartz, former Australian rugby captain David Pocock and philanthropist Sue McKinnon.

"Mr Vaile has played an important role in Australian politics and business, but that role has included questioning the science of climate change and its links to drought," the letter said.

"As significant donors we write this letter to make clear to the university that we, and many like-minded others, will not support a university who would choose as their leader someone who is determined to build new coal mines when most of the world is determined to reduce fossil fuel use."

Last Friday the University of Newcastle Students’ Association (UNSA) also aired its fury over the appointment, with more than 50 students, alumni and staff present. The ABC reported that the union would not support Vaile as chancellor unless he resigned as chair of Whitehaven Coal and publicly acknowledged the need to support climate action. 

Vaile: two roles ‘don’t present a conflict of interest’ 

Vaile told the ABC that it was wrong to assume that his dual roles presented a conflict of interest.

"I see the different roles as not necessarily being absolutely compatible in everybody's minds, but they're not mutually exclusive," he said. 

He also told the national broadcaster there would be no change to the strategic direction of the university under his chancellorship.  

"One of the first things when I was approached to consider this position was to go and read the current annual report of the university and its values, and particularly the strategic plan and the very strong focus it has on becoming carbon neutral by 2025," he said.

"If I couldn't support that, and if I couldn't commit to achieving that with everybody else in the broader university community, then I wouldn't consider it."

Before deciding to walk away from the role on Monday, Vaile took aim at what he saw as “a dangerous style of activism” spearheaded by several climate action groups. 

“This has been a very difficult decision for me but has become necessary given the unjustified campaign against the appointment led by minority groups placing ideology before proper governance and what is in the best interests of the University of Newcastle and the communities it serves,” Vaile said.

Vaile said the fierce backlash included “all the hallmarks of the worst intolerance of the self-righteous”.

“It is based on emotion and not fact and demands conformity before understanding. It is an approach that corrodes respectful civic debate. It represents everything a university should not be and diminishes all who are associated with it,” the Sydney Morning Herald reported.

Greens education spokesperson and senator Mehreen Farqui was also one of many who welcomed the news Vaile would not be taking up the position at the University of Newcastle, given the “climate emergency” we face.

“This is a huge win for the university staff and students who fought this terrible appointment, and for the Hunter community. Coal bosses have no place in university leadership. The university community spoke out, organised and knocked this appointment on its head,” she said. 

“The next chancellor should be appointed in consultation with the university community and reflect their demands for a university that leads on the big problems we face.

“We are in the middle of a climate emergency and communities are demanding leadership that will tackle this crisis with the urgency it demands.

“We need to build and nurture universities that are democratic, equitable and sustainable. There is no time to delay.”

How Vaile's appointment came about and how it was met

Before stepping away from the role on Monday, current chancellor Paul Jeans posted a defence of Vaile on the University of Newcastle’s staff intranet. This followed the resignations of two council members over the decisions – Jennifer Martin and Eileen Doyle – as well as a donations ban, and staff and student protests. 

Jeans affirmed in the post that Vaile was the best of the 36 candidates considered for the position, and that the Whitehaven Coal chair had supported the university’s aim to become carbon neutral by 2025. Jeans added that the council would be stronger with a more diverse set of backgrounds, views and skills. 

“The council believes that Mr Vaile will provide the leadership and advocacy our university needs to deliver against its strategy and respond to the challenges ahead,” Jeans said.

The Australian Financial Review reported that most of the comments posted under Jeans’ statement were “vitriolic”. 

“The university seems determined to see the community push-back against the proposed appointment of Mr Vaile as a communications problem that can be rectified if they keep massaging the message. It’s not: the problem is the decision [is],” said one post.

“Mind-boggling that someone so diametrically opposed to the university’s values and with a public record of being in opposition to those values especially around equity and sustainability made it on to the list at all,” another posted.

However, not all posts made under Jeans' statement were as rancorous.

“Wondering how much of the outrage expressed here is actually hatred of Mr Vaile’s brand of politics rather than his links to coal,” another posted.

Federal education minister Alan Tudge also weighed into the argument yesterday, calling the university's decision to revoke Vaile's appointment an example of "cancel culture".

“At a time when we are trying to promote and enforce free speech and academic freedom on campus, we should not have a very competent person forced out of an important job because of this cancel culture,” he said on Tuesday.

The fact that ASEAN invited Min Aung Hlaing despite the many pleas and protests from Burmese, Indonesian, ASEAN and other non-governmental organisations not to do so is a strong (that just falls short of being a conclusive) (implied) statement by this regional body that it does ‘recognise’ the SAC regime as the government in control (‘legal’ government) of Myanmar.

The writer uses the word ‘implied’ (recognition) of the SAC above. For a few decades now (see below) it is the usual (although not invariable) practice of countries around the world that when a new regime comes to power through unconstitutional, revolutionary or through a military takeover they will not, generally, issue a formal statement indicating that they recognise or do not recognise the new regime(s).

A constitutional change of government does not require in international law and practice the issuance of statements concerning recognition or for that matter non-recognition of the new government which succeeded the previous one in the constitutional or usual mode. For example, in the United States when President Biden was sworn in on 20 January 2021 and the posts in the new administration filled in thereafter, there was no statement by any government around the world that they formally recognise or not recognise the new Biden administration. In contrast when Mao Ze Dong established the new government in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in October 1949 it took the United Kingdom (perhaps) some months before it formally recognised the new (revolutionary) government and it took about two decades for an implied recognition from the United States of the then no-longer new PRC government.

Plethora of recognitions for Revolutionary Council and subsequent regimes of Burma/Myanmar

Coming back to Burma (as it was then officially called), a military coup took place on 2 March 1962 when then military Chief of Staff General Ne Win (6 July 1910?-5 December 2002) and a group of Army officers overthrew the democratically-elected government of the late Prime Minister U Nu (25 May 1907-14 February 1995). At the time of the Ne Win coup in 1962, Min Aung Hlaing and his top cohorts were toddlers; some were not even born then. 

To paraphrase, with bitter irony, a sentence from Ecclesiastes, in Burma/Myanmar "one after another [Burmese] military generations cometh, another and yet another succeeding, indeed (they) abideth (for a very long time)". Within days of the 1962 Ne Win coup many countries, including (but not limited to) the United States, the then Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, India and the United Kingdom had issued formal statements that they recognised the new Revolutionary Council and Revolutionary government as the new ‘legal’ government of Burma.

Fast forward from March 1962 to September 1988. After crushing a nation-wide uprising which started and continued sporadically from March and which intensified in August and September 1988, a new generation of military officers took over. They brutally crushed what is now known as the ‘Four Eights 8888 Uprising’. They formed the State Law and Order Restoration (SLORC) regime. In contrast to March 1962, no governments issued formal statements that they recognised the SLORC. The then Malaysian Ambassador to Burma (still the official name of the country) presented his credentials within a few weeks of the SLORC takeover and that indeed was the implied and also de jure (as a matter of both ‘law’ and fact) recognition of SLORC. The rest is (or was) history. The SLORC and from November 1997 its successor State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) were the legal governments of Burma/Myanmar based on the plethora of implied recognitions (again please see below) these regimes had received. 

A revived ‘Estrada Doctrine’ regarding not formally issuing recognition (or) non-recognition of new regimes

Genaro Estrada (2 July 1887-29 September 1937) was the Foreign Minister of Mexico in the 1930s. As a Foreign Minister Estrada made a statement on 27 September 1930 that the government of Mexico will not formally issue statements when, in foreign countries, a new government (or) regime came into power through rebellion, revolution or a military takeover. Mexico would continue to have diplomatic missions in other States where new regimes came into power through revolutions or coups and (in a sense) other countries have to ‘infer’ or ‘draw their own conclusions’ as to whether Mexico recognise or not the new regimes.

Simplistically put, that would seem to be the gist of the Estrada doctrine. The name ‘Estrada doctrine’ is the ‘recognition’ (in a difference sense than that stated above and below) of the person who ‘formulated’ this doctrine.

The explicit and official statements of recognition that were issued in March 1962 by quite a few other governments regarding Ne Win’s new ‘revolutionary’ (or more appropriately ‘coup’) government indicated that more than 30 years after its formulation in 1930 governments – at least on that occasion – did not fully adhere to or practice the Estrada doctrine.

Fast forward to May 1979 and to the country of Uganda. The dictator Idi Amin (1925-16 August 2003) who took over in a coup in February 1971 was overthrown mainly as a result of Tanzanian troops invading Uganda and (to use a current cliché in some circles) ‘cancelling’ his regime. Quite a few governments did issue statements formally recognising the new government of Uganda ‘after Amin’.

Just a few months before May 1979 the December 1978/early January 1979 Vietnamese invasion of then ‘Democratic Kampuchea’ resulted in the overthrow of the Khmer Rouge regime which was, in many senses, worse and was an even more atrocious regime than that of Idi Amin. Unlike Amin, the Khmer Rouge were able to consolidate their remnant forces mainly along the Cambodian-Thai border controlling around 5 to 10 per cent of Cambodian territory from 1979 to the early 1980s. ‘Parallel’ and explicit statements of recognition and non-recognition of both the Vietnamese-installed regime and the remnant Khmer Rouge regime issued forth from many governments around the world. Thirty to 50 years after the Estrada doctrine was adopted by the then government of Mexico events in the early 1960s in Burma, late 1970s in Democratic  Kampuchea (Cambodia) and Uganda attested to the fact that it was not always put into practice.

But since the 1980s the Estrada doctrine continue to have a revival, perhaps with slight adjustments or emendations, in the practice of quite a few governments. The United States, United Kingdom, Australia and other governments had made announcements to the effect that they would essentially adopt and practice the Estrada doctrine. Australia announced to that effect in January 1988. The adoption of the Estrada doctrine by Australia was mainly due to the fact that its previous decision in 1987 not to recognise the coup regime in the country of Fiji did not bring any fruitful results (so to speak) and was apparently – in retrospect – not in Australia’s national interest.

In the early to mid-1990s an Australian Ambassador to Burma in response to a query (or protest, if you will) as to why the then Australian government continued to have relations with the then SLORC regime and hence indirectly supporting it, replied that "Australia do not recognise new governments (or regimes) it only recognises new States". So in a sense ‘back to Estrada’ and ‘back to the future’.

The ‘then future’ has now become the present. Among others, ASEAN’s invitation to Min Aung Hlaing indicates that though no ASEAN or for that matter other governments have formally announced that they do recognise or (for that matter) do not recognise the State Administration Council. In a sense actions speak louder than words or statements. 

To repeat what is stated at the outset of the article about the Estrada (doctrine), ASEAN and others do recognise – perhaps only with a few equivocations – the SAC as the ‘legal’ government and competent authority of (and in) Myanmar. (Note that the word ‘legitimate’ which arguably contains moral, ethical elements is eschewed and the more – in a not so complimentary sense of the word – legalistic ‘competent’, ‘legal’ is used).

ASEAN and other governments’ implicit recognition of SAC can be said to be based on ‘external factors’ leading to surmises of external validity of the regime. As regards the internal validity or otherwise (note again the word legitimacy is eschewed) of the SAC a reference to, a brief explanation and application of another jurist and scholar’s work needs to be made.

H L A Hart’s ‘Rule of recognition’ and gauging internal validity

Herbert Lionel Adolphus (H.L.A) Hart (18 July 1907-19 December 1992) was a very influential British jurist of the mid to late 20^th century. In his book The Concept of Law (first edition 1961, posthumous revised edition 1994) among many other jurisprudential discussions and stipulations he laid down the "rule of recognition" to, in part, assess or gauge the ‘internal validity’ of laws within a society. Unlike the Estrada doctrine which, in a few senses, is easier to explain, Hart’s rule of recognition is more complicated and in the course of a general article can only be (in a sense) ‘over-simplified’ and presented summarily. Suffice to state that the word ‘recognition’ in Hart’s ‘rule of recognition’ does not have international law and international relations connotations as such but mainly deals with domestic or internal jurisprudence.

A ‘debate’ Hart had with American jurist Lon Fuller (15 June 1902-8 April 1978) in two articles authored by Hart and Fuller respectively in the 1958 Harvard Law Review would be briefly discussed vis-à-vis the issue of ‘rule of recognition’. Both jurists referred to a particular set of Nazi laws where in elaborate legalese the Nazi laws criminalised public criticisms of the Third Reich and its leaders. In one particular law, the punishments for such Nazi-stipulated crimes as public criticisms of the Third Reich leaders ranged from one day’s imprisonment to the death penalty.

In so few words Hart fully acknowledged the outrageous and morally condemnable nature of the Nazi laws. Hart, however and in effect argued that (at least at the time) these laws were generally practised, implemented and enforced during the Nazi era (between 1934 to early 1945) they were valid laws. Nazi courts, Nazi officials, the German public were aware of the laws, did not openly contest or at least ‘defeat’ the laws, even if some of the people and even a few Nazi judges and officials did not (in their private capacities) approve of or ‘like’ the laws they did (generally) accept, implement and enforce them.

In further elaboration in The Concept of Law Professor Hart wrote that Courts, officials and private persons ‘accept[ing] and employ[ing] [the laws] in the general operation of a system’ (The Concept of Law, revised edition, 1994, page 108) may be one criteria to judge the efficacy of the rule of recognition in a particular society. Hart further wrote that the rule of recognition can (in part) be verified ‘by reference to actual practice to the way in which courts identify what is to count as law, or to the general acceptance of or acquiescence in these identifications’ (Ibid).

Now, the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) in Myanmar conducted in opposition to the SAC’s takeover, actions and laws has attracted the attention and admiration of quite a few countries from South Korea to the United Kingdom. A group of Norwegian scholars eligible to nominate Nobel peace prize candidates have nominated the Myanmar CDM to be the recipient of the 2022 Nobel peace prize.

On the other hand, and sadly, a significant majority of judges from the lower courts to the Supreme Court (where the SAC had stacked the Supreme Court dismissing the judges appointed by the previous National League for Democracy government which it had overthrown) do ‘identify’, in not so many words, what the SAC did was ‘lawful’ and to use Professor Hart’s words above not only ‘acquiesce’ but obsequiously do so. True, quite a few brave lawyers are in the forefront supporting the struggle at great personal risk to themselves.

Still, the total control of the judiciary by successive military regimes during the past several decades continues to have a bearing on the present (and indeed the future) judiciary. The current Myanmar judiciary and the executive officials including but not limited to the police, prosecutors and judges are largely enforcing the actions and laws of the current military regime. These personnel would consider that SAC’s decrees and actions "count as laws" and are ‘"lawful".

If H.L.A Hart were to ‘come back’ would he have stated in effect that there is a ‘rule of recognition’ which seems to be followed, generally recognised and implemented by the executive and judicial officials in Myanmar or not?

At the time of the Hart-Fuller debate (discussed in relation to particular Nazi laws in a few pages of the 1958 Harvard Law Review) the Nazi regime had been history for more than a dozen years. That was why both Hart and Fuller were able to express their views a posteriori (‘after the event’). (It needs to be pointed out though that ostensibly during the Nazi era there apparently was no Civil Disobedience Movement in Nazi Germany to the same or comparable extent as in contemporary Myanmar). In contrast the current Myanmar situation (as of late April 2021) is a ‘live’, ongoing event.

It is indicated above that both the international relations and contemporary international law and practice regarding Estrada doctrine and the ‘internal’ application of an aspect of the H.L.A Hart’s rule of recognition sort of or even largely favour Myanmar’s State and Administration Council regime.

Predicament continues unabated

After referring to and trying to apply the doctrines and theories of a politician-scholar Genaro Estrada and jurist and scholar H.L.A Hart perhaps a statement of philosopher George Santayana (16 December 1863-26 September 1952) is pertinent here. Santayana said: "Life is not a spectacle or a feast, it is a predicament." As one watches the ‘spectacle’ of ASEAN, a few complicit powers both governmentally and individually mouthing mere pretensions of ‘concern’ on the one hand and the clichéd, hypocritical ‘non-interference in internal matters’ on the other, the predicament of a significant majority of the Burmese people continues unabated.

Htaw Mi Ta is a pseudonym for a researcher and scholar interested in Myanmar affairs

An article published in the journal Science, which draws together data from both surveys and studies, concludes that the “pandemic has exacerbated existing disparities and created additional challenges for women, especially those with children, struggling to maintain their research productivity”.

Such inequities were predicted in an opinion piece by radiation oncologist Reshma Jagso at the University of Michigan in March 2020, but “skeptical journal editors” overlooked the issue and did not publish it. 

And, according to a worldwide survey of 20,000 PhD holders conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research and published as a working paper last month, the disparities between mothers and fathers are significant. The survey, which ran between May and July last year, illuminated substantial differences in terms of hours spent on research, child care, housework and other tasks. 

For instance, while both mothers and fathers spent less time on research after the pandemic took hold, mothers spent 33 per cent less time researching than fathers. At the same time, the survey found that mothers were spending nearly three more hours a day on childcare, compared to fathers, who registered a change of just under two hours per day.

The number of hours spent on household duties, too, changed during the pandemic, with both mothers and fathers spending nearly an hour more than usual on such tasks. 

In February of 2020, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) provided funding for COVID-19 research, and scientists were afforded just eight days to submit their proposals – a timeline some female researchers felt would disproportionately affect the number of female proposals.

Despite Canada not being in lockdown at the time, female academics accounted for only 29 per cent of the proposals, roughly 7 percentage points lower when “compared with previous comparable funding opportunities”. 

Cara Tannenbaum, scientific director of the Institute of Gender and Health at CIHR, reflected on the disappointment felt at the time: 

“As soon as we got the numbers we went, ‘Oh my goodness, we did something wrong,’” she said. 

Two months later the agency offered a second round of COVID-19 funding, this time extending the deadline to 19 days and reducing paperwork requirements. The new strategy worked, with proposals written by women jumping to a healthier 39 per cent, Tannenbaum and her co-authors describe in their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The logic behind the increase in proposals by women is aptly expressed by Holly Witteman, a health researcher at Laval University.

“I looked at the 8-day deadline and I just thought, ‘There's no way,’” Witteman said, who has two children. 

“I can't just cram in extra work by staying up late to write another grant.” 

Witteman’s proposal was ultimately funded, which she attributes primarily to the deadline extension. However, the researcher is concerned about gender disparity repercussions flowing from the first round, in which the success rate was much higher for males than females (44 per cent versus 9 per cent). 

“When you have funding, you get to do studies, and then you get to publish them, and then when you apply for more funding … you're in a much better position; it's this cumulative advantage snowball that just keeps rolling,” she said.

Robin Nelson, an anthropologist at Santa Clara University, asserts that the pandemic has made existing inequalities in many areas (including gender) “stark”. The anthropologist had her work hours cut by more than 50 per cent last year when her children were required to stay home. 

“Some people are just simply working against more obstacles than other people,” she said.

In levelling the research ‘playing field’, so to speak, Nelson says “we are going to have to finally start questioning business as usual in the way that we administer grants … time to tenure, all of these policies.”

A meritorious idea to address this has been proffered by Robinson Fulweiler, an ecologist at Boston University. She believes funding agencies and universities should allow scientists the opportunity to to submit a COVID-19 impact statement, and that employers could be more proactive in providing the researchers with access to affordable child care. 

The recommendations of Fulweiler and other scientist-mothers appeared in an opinion piece in PLOS Biology.

“Now is the time to act,” she and her co-authors write. 

“Rather than rebuilding what we once knew, let us be the architects of a new world.”

Nelson concurs. 

“I hope that COVID has … given us some space to actually think critically about what we expect of faculty and whether we can make space for faculty [staff] to have full lives that might involve disabilities, chronic illness, care taking of any sorts – just anything outside of work,” she said. 

“Academe has really privileged people who can get other people to do all of that labor for them. And so we need to really start thinking about what does a sustainable academic environment with a healthy faculty look like and how can we make space for that without thinking that we're compromising rigor.”

January 26.

Depending on one’s background and ideological stance, it’s known as Australia Day, Invasion Day, Survival Day or simply January 26, as Cricket Australia decided this year for the Big Bash League, much to Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s chagrin.

But, as academics expressed in a Monash Lens article, the day, which is supposed to be a celebration of national unity, has created a schism in our society that provokes contradictory emotions of patriotic pride and deep hurt and resentment.

For Monash University’s vice-chancellor Professor Margaret Gardner, Australia Day is a “problem that needs to be addressed”.

“Australia Day is a comparatively recent construct and is contentious because of course it celebrates when Europeans settled Australia and that, not surprisingly, represents displacement and invasion for many Indigenous Australians,” she said.

“I think we have an issue there that needs to be solved because the day means something to Indigenous peoples which causes great sadness and regret at its minimum. We can’t choose a day to be symbolically about who we are as a nation unless we’re all reasonably happy about what those symbols are.

“So I think we need to find another symbolic day that speaks to something that we collectively agree is important to all of us, one that speaks to all the threads of who we are; from the 60,000 years of Indigenous history, through European settlement and through to the many peoples who have come here and made Australia what it is today.”

But not all Australians are on board with the change of date. 

For instance, an Ipsos poll conducted by The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald and Nine News showed that fewer than one-third of respondents were supportive of a date change and, unsurprisingly, poll responses largely ran along generational, geographic and political lines. To illustrate the generational divide, close to 50 per cent of respondents aged 18 to 24 backed a change of date, contrasting sharply to only 19 per cent of those in the over-55 age bracket. 

But despite their own opinions on changing the date, the majority of the 1222 respondents believed the day would inevitably change within a decade. 

For Monash University’s pro vice-chancellor of Indigenous Issues Professor Jacinda Elston, it is the “celebratory tone” of the day that leaves many First Nations peoples insulted and hurt. 

“We as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, we actually want to celebrate being Australian, we want to celebrate Australia Day, but that’s not the right day for us to do it,” she said.

“For us, January 26, 1788 was the beginning of a process of invasion. When Captain Arthur Phillip placed the British flag on Gadigal land that morning, that represents our land being stolen from us.”

However, for Elston, simply changing the date will not resolve the myriad emotions and thoughts First Nations people have towards Australia Day. 

Instead, the pro vice-chancellor (Indigenous Issues) proposed that the day could be reframed, or reimagined, as a day more of remembrance and respect, rather than unbridled celebration. 

“The tone that is set around Anzac Day, that context of remembrance, remembering the legacy of those who fought in the wars, that’s exactly the same type of tone that many of us in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community would like to set for January 26.” 

Until such changes occur, Elston contends, tension between non-Indigenous and Indigeous Australians will remain over the date. 

“Lots of people say to me: ‘Why don’t Aboriginal people just get over these things’? Well, why doesn’t non-Indigenous Australia just get over it and actually start to do the thing that they can do, which is acknowledge us and help us all move on together.

“Why do we have to be the ones who get over it? Why can’t we get over it together?”

Elston believes the issues surrounding January 26 leaves First Nations peoples “treading water in a place of pain”. 

“We need our country, our leaders of the country, our government and our politicians to actually take us on a journey that takes us through this into a place of healing.”

Australians are known for their colourful language; indeed, it’s been called part of our national identity. But why, generally, are we considered a nation that loves swear words and where does this come from?

To discuss these issues, Campus Review is talking to the Australian National Dictionary's chief editor, Dr Amanda Laugesen. Her new book, Rooted, an Australian History of Bad Language is out now and charts the history of swearing in Australia.

Laugesen contends colonial Australia provided fertile ground for a whole host of swear words to be created to describe the harsh environments in which convicts found themselves, even though they were generally frowned upon by upper society.

By the end of the 19th century, however, a shift in the attitudes and types of swear words used reflected not only Australia’s involvement in war, but the country’s love of the bush ranger and the bullock driver, working long and hard hours. It was at that time, “that bad language became more justifiable”.

During the second-wave feminist movement swear words were seen as ways of “defying authority” and reclaiming such words for their own needs.

Finally, while people swear for a variety of reasons – emotion, anger, emphasis and abuse – they can be equally used to foster friendships and become part of a group. For instance, the generally frowned-upon ‘c-word’ now features in compounds such as ‘Mad-c’ as more of term of affection than abuse among friends. This is what Laugesen calls “a process of amelioration”, subverting the power of the word through combining it with other words or modifiers.

Although little credibility has been given to US President Donald Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was a fraud, he obstinately holds on to office, delaying the transition of power.

But, given the president’s penchant for litigation and the denials flying around in the Republican camp, can we be sure Trump will finally get his marching orders and move on?

To answer this important question and more, Campus Review spoke to journalist and Professor of Australian Studies at ANU, Mark Kenny, about this transfer of power, as well as the accuracy and complexity of polling in the 2020 election. He also discussed President-elect Joe Biden’s likely domestic and international policies, as well as how a Biden administration will approach an increasingly aggressive China.

Kenny said that, based on all reports, “there is no systemised voter fraud that has been going on”. While he conceded that some errors may have occurred, the journalist stated that this is not uncommon in elections around the world.

“All the evidence seems to point to these attempts by the Trump administration to cling on as just the kind of desperation that has come to characterise Trump’s rhetoric for a long time,” Kenny said.

The ANU professor also believes a Biden presidency heralds a return to a more global and less isolationist America, keen to rebuild alliances and commitments to a rules-based order.

Kenny predicts that America’s fraught relationship with China at the moment will be better managed by a Biden administration, but whether that will result in a less aggressive, more reasonable China on issues of trade, the South China Sea and foreign interference is difficult to predict.