REFUGEE

இந்தோனிசியா கடற்பரப்பில் தடுத்துவைத்துவைத்திருக்கும் தமிழர்கள் மீது இனந்தெரியாத 25 படகுகள் சுற்றிவளைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதாகவும் அந்தபடகில் உள்ளவர்கள் இராணுவ உடை அணிந்துள்ளதாகவும் கப்பலில் இருக்கும் மக்கள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர் தமிழ் அகதிகளின் கப்பலை சுற்றிளைத்தது ஒத்திகை.. இந்தோனேசியக் கடற்பரப்பில் தரித்து நிற்கும் ஈழ அகதிகளின் கப்பலை முற்றுகையிட்டது ஒரு ஒத்திகையாம் என இந்தோனேசிய அரச இணையங்கள் அறிவித்துள்ளன. குழந்தைகளும் பெண்களும் கப்பலில் நீண்ட நாள் தரித்து நிற்பதைக் கூட கருத்தில் கொள்ளாது, நடுச்சாம வேளையில் இவர்களைப் பயமுறுத்தும் விதத்தில் கப்பல் சுற்றி வளைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. இதனை நியாயப்படுத்தும் விதத்தில் இது ஒரு ஒத்திகை என அரசு அறிவித்திருப்பது, கேளிக்கைக்குரிய, மற்றும் கண்டிக்கத்தக்க விடயமாகும். காணொளி இணைப்பு

சில படகுகள் தங்களின் கப்பலுடன் இணைத்து. கயிற்றுடன் சேர்த்து கட்டப்பட்டதாகவும்அந்த படகில் இருந்து கறுப்பு நிற பாடசாலை பை ஒன்றை கப்பலுக்குள் போட முயற்சி செய்தபோதுதாங்கள் அந்த பையை இடைமறித்து அவர்களின் சிறிய படகுக்குள் தள்ளிவிட்ட தாகவும் அவர்கள் துப்பாக்கியை காட்டி மிரட்டிய போது எமது கப்பலில் உள்ளவர்கள் கத்தி குளறிய போது அவர்கள் கப்பலிலிருந்து விலகி சென்று இன்னுமோர் கடற்படை கப்பலுடன் இணந்து சுமார் 500மீட்டர் தொலைவில் தொடர்ந்தும் உள்ளார்கள் என்று கப்பலில் இருக்கும் மக்கள் அச்சத்துடன் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.

பிந்திய இணைப்பு:

தற்போது அந்த படகுகள் திரும்பி சென்றுவிட்டாதகா கப்பலில் இருந்த மக்கள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர் மீண்டும் அந்த படகுகள் திரும்பி வரலாம் என்று மக்கள் அச்சம் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.

<<>

Indonesia says it expects the 78 Tamil asylum seekers who spent almost a month on Australia's Oceanic Viking to start being resettled as early as next week.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah on Friday said Australia and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had almost finished assessing the Tamils' refugee claims.

"The process, I believe, is almost complete," he said.

"Then they will move to the stage to find third countries who can absorb those who are classified as refugees.

"We are still waiting on the announcement to what countries these people will be resettled."

Australia picked up the Sri Lankans in international waters inside Indonesia's search and rescue zone in October and took them to the Indonesian island of Bintan.

But the Tamils refused to leave the Australian vessel and enter Bintan's detention centre, sparking a four week standoff.

The Rudd government finally enticed them ashore with the promise of rapid processing and resettlement in a third country - most likely Australia.

Under the special deal, the government promised that those assessed as refugees would be resettled within four to 12 weeks.

Next Friday marks four weeks since the first of the Tamils stepped ashore.

Asked if Indonesia expected the resettlements to begin as early as next week, Faizasyah said: "We are very much hopeful that we can meet the commitment made earlier."

The head of the detention centre, Sugiyo, said the Tamils were still being kept separate from other detention centre inmates and were all "doing fine".

Ten Sri Lankan women and children who came off the Oceanic Viking yesterday say they are locked up and unable to leave an Australian-funded detention centre in Indonesia.

Holding their young children up to the bars of the facility called a temporary holding room, the women say they are unable to come and go as they please, contradicting claims made by Australian officials.

The Federal Government said there would be a special arrangement for the women and children - that they would not be housed in the detention centre but in a facility nearby.

But the ABC's Indonesia correspondent, Geoff Thompson, says the nearby facility - which has also been referred to as a quarantine area - is no better than the detention centre itself.

Thompson is in Tanjung Pinang and says the women have told him they are sad and want to go to Australia."They are outside the wire in the sense that there is this detention centre, built with Australian help, it's a big building right next to it, obviously part of the same structure, but technically with no razor wire around it," he said.

"There is this holding cell where the women and children are but the same bars are on the windows and I don't believe that the conditions inside are any more luxurious than they are inside the main detention centre."

The Federal Government says the accommodation of the asylum seekers is a matter for Indonesian authorities.

But Thompson says Indonesia's patience with Australia is running out.

"We heard very clearly last night from Dr Sujatmiko - the chief negotiator here - that this is the first time and the last time something like this has happened, and frankly I think Indonesia thinks that these people are now in detention," he said.

"That's where they will be until they say Australia honours its promise to get them out of Indonesia within a month or no longer than three months."

On average, asylum seekers remain in detention in Indonesia for 52 weeks, but Thompson says he has met some who have spent nearly 10 years behind bars.

"I've also met asylum seekers who've spent five or six years and they know people who've been here for nine years before they resettled," he said.

The Indonesian government expects the Oceanic Viking asylum seekers to be out of Indonesia within four to 12 weeks, based on promises made by the Australian Government.

"[The asylum seekers] are very glad to disembark from the vessel, hoping that Australia keep the promise to come to Australia," Dr Sujatmiko said.

"This is their expectation and the Indonesian government expectation.

"[They will go to] Australia or other countries. We'll come back to Australia to keep the promise. After the deadline, out from Indonesia."

But Immigration Minister Chris Evans says there is no guarantee the asylum seekers will come to Australia and it will be up to the UNHCR to decide how many of the group do come.

Ten Sri Lankan women and children who came off the Oceanic Viking yesterday say they are locked up and unable to leave an Australian-funded detention centre in Indonesia.

Holding their young children up to the bars of the facility called a temporary holding room, the women say they are unable to come and go as they please, contradicting claims made by Australian officials.

The Federal Government said there would be a special arrangement for the women and children - that they would not be housed in the detention centre but in a facility nearby.

But the ABC's Indonesia correspondent, Geoff Thompson, says the nearby facility - which has also been referred to as a quarantine area - is no better than the detention centre itself.

Thompson is in Tanjung Pinang and says the women have told him they are sad and want to go to Australia.

"They are outside the wire in the sense that there is this detention centre, built with Australian help, it's a big building right next to it, obviously part of the same structure, but technically with no razor wire around it," he said"There is this holding cell where the women and children are but the same bars are on the windows and I don't believe that the conditions inside are any more luxurious than they are inside the main detention centre."

The Federal Government says the accommodation of the asylum seekers is a matter for Indonesian authorities.

But Thompson says Indonesia's patience with Australia is running out.

"We heard very clearly last night from Dr Sujatmiko - the chief negotiator here - that this is the first time and the last time something like this has happened, and frankly I think Indonesia thinks that these people are now in detention," he said.

"That's where they will be until they say Australia honours its promise to get them out of Indonesia within a month or no longer than three months."

On average, asylum seekers remain in detention in Indonesia for 52 weeks, but Thompson says he has met some who have spent nearly 10 years behind bars.

"I've also met asylum seekers who've spent five or six years and they know people who've been here for nine years before they resettled," he said.

The Indonesian government expects the Oceanic Viking asylum seekers to be out of Indonesia within four to 12 weeks, based on promises made by the Australian Government.

"[The asylum seekers] are very glad to disembark from the vessel, hoping that Australia keep the promise to come to Australia," Dr Sujatmiko said.

"This is their expectation and the Indonesian government expectation.

"[They will go to] Australia or other countries. We'll come back to Australia to keep the promise. After the deadline, out from Indonesia."

But Immigration Minister Chris Evans says there is no guarantee the asylum seekers will come to Australia and it will be up to the UNHCR to decide how many of the group do come.

UP to 20 Sri Lankan asylum-seekers were last night preparing to leave the Oceanic Viking as early as tomorrow, in the first signs of an end to the standoff that began almost four weeks ago.

While Australian authorities remained hopeful of persuading all 78 of the Tamils to leave the Customs ship tomorrow, when the Oceanic Viking's permission to remain in Indonesian waters ends, there were reports last night that up to 20 of them would submit to health and identity checks today before being taken ashore to the Tanjung Pinang detention centre.

Indonesian Foreign Ministry official Sujatmiko said tonight that, by today, "hopefully some of them are ready to be verified".

The break in the impasse came as Kevin Rudd insisted no protests or threats by protesters would divert him from his policy on border security, even as Australian authorities confirmed they had offered to give the 78 Sri Lankans preferential treatment if they left the Oceanic Viking.
Speaking in New Delhi, Mr Rudd said he had not been briefed on the offer to the asylum-seekers but expected "normal resettlement processes consistent with the UNHCR" would apply.

A written offer guaranteeing resettlement was presented to the 78 boatpeople earlier this week.

Published under Department of Immigration letterhead and signed by Australian diplomat Jim O'Callaghan, it promised those already declared refugees would be resettled within four to six weeks.

Those whose claims were subsequently successful would be resettled within 12 weeks.

The letter does not promise a particular country but sources close to the negotiations said the bulk - if not all - would end up in Australia.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans acknowledged Australia would take a "sizeable amount of the load".

He denied that the offer - which would see declared refugees processed well within the 90 days that those on Christmas Island must wait - amounted to special treatment.

But he did acknowledge that other refugees detained in Indonesia often had to wait much longer for resettlement.

A flood of Sri Lankans have sought refuge in Australia in recent months Senior Australian and Sri Lankan officials are set to meet to seek ways to halt the flow of boat people heading to Australia. Stephen Smith, the Australian foreign minister, and his Sri Lankan counterpart, Rohitha Bogollagama, are set to meet in Colombo on Monday. Smith, who is travelling with Australia's newly appointed special representative to Sri Lanka, John McCarthy, is also expected to meet Mahinda Rajapaksa, the Sri Lankan president, to discuss new joint maritime security measures. Monday's meetings come as new opinion polls increased pressure on the Australian prime minister to take a tougher stance on asylum-seekers, with nearly half of those polled saying that Kevin Rudd was being too soft on the issue. Opinion polls A poll published in The Australian newspaper on Monday indicated that the asylum-seeker issue had damaged Rudd's standing, with 53 per cent of respondents saying he was doing a bad job on the policy and 46 per cent saying his approach was too soft. Only 16 per cent of respondents said he was too tough on the issue while 29 per cent agreed with his handling of the situation. A separate Nielsen poll on Monday, published in The Age and Sydney Morning Heraldnewspapers, indicated Rudd's disapproval rating was up five points in a month to 28 per cent and 44 per cent of Australians thought his asylum-seeker policy was too soft. Nielsen pollster John Stirton said "approval of Mr Rudd's handling of the asylum-seeker issue is 23 points lower than his overall approval as prime minister", but added that it was only "a small negative" for the government. "He still has one of the highest prime ministerial approval ratings that we have seen," Stirton pointed out. The asylum-seeker issue reached crisis point last week after a boat carrying 39 Sri Lankans sank off the Cocos Islands, drowning a suspected 12 asylum-seekers. Seventy-eight Sri Lankans were rescued from a sinking boat in Indonesian waters last month. They have insisted on remaining on the Australian customs ship that picked them up, refusing to disembark in Indonesia. Australia and Indonesia have ruled out the use of force to remove the Sri Lankans from the ship, and both nations are keen to resolve the standoff by the end of the week. The two countries were close to finalising a deal to end the standoff, with Australia offering to fast-track resettlement for those who were found to be genuine refugees, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corp. Canberra is also continuing attempts to get another boatload of about 255 Sri Lankans moored at the Indonesian port of Merak, to disembark. Rudd says the surge of asylum-seekers is a result of internal factors in war-torn Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, not any softening of Australia's immigration policies.

COLOMBO — The leader of a boat of Sri Lankan asylum seekers held in Indonesia on their way to Australia is a known people smuggler previously deported from Canada, the government here said Friday.
Alex, who emerged as the spokesman for the 255 Sri Lankans whose boat was detained last month, is Kulaendrarajah Sanjeev, a 28-year-old who worked out of a base in India, the foreign ministry said in a statement.
The man, who led an abortive hunger strike demanding that those on board be granted refugee status, was expelled from Canada in 2003, the statement said.
"Alex had been involved in human smuggling for a long time and it is believed that his office is based in India," the statement said.
"His brother who is now in Canada is also involved in human smuggling" and is being sought by Canadian police, the statement added.
The ministry did not give further details.
Alex, or Sanjeev, had told AFP in Indonesia that he acquired his north American accent while working at a call centre.
An ethnic Tamil, he had told reporters the asylum seekers were in danger in Sri Lanka in the wake of the government's defeat of Tamil Tiger rebels earlier this year, although he denies they were rebel separatists.
The Australian government has said another known smuggler, Abraham Lauhenaspessy, known as "Captain Bram", was found on the boat.

SENIOR Indonesian officials have rejected outright a claim by Kevin Rudd that women and children asylum-seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking could be accommodated in regular housing, rather than behind razor wire in an Australian-funded detention centre.

"We've already got a detention centre (at Tanjung Pinang) and in it we already separate men and women," the Foreign Ministry's most senior official for international security, Sujatmiko, told The Australian.

"Indonesia does not need to be directed how to act. We've gotten the detention centre ready and we've already helped Australia for humanitarian reasons.

"There is commitment from both sides, and Indonesia has the commitment, but Indonesia is not your country."

A spokesman for Mr Rudd said last night that the Prime Minister stood by his earlier comments.

On Wednesday, Mr Rudd told parliament: "The Indonesian authorities have advised the government that women and children will be offered the option of staying in a house near the Tanjung Pinang detention facility.

women and children will be offered the option of staying in a house near the Tanjung Pinang detention facility."
The Prime Minister's office did not respond to Dr Sujatmiko's comment last night.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's most senior adviser on international affairs, Dino Patti Djalal, also refused to confirm claims made by Mr Rudd in parliament that the women and children among the 78 Sri Lankans would be housed separately.

After a brief silence in response to the question yesterday, Mr Djalal said simply: "I couldn't comment on that. We're waiting for Australian officials to go on board later today and convince them to come off, because that's all they can do.

"They're on Australian territory so we can't do anything about it. We just hope Australia can get them off the boat."

Mr Rudd's "Indonesia solution" is facing growing opposition from Jakarta, with senior Indonesian officials saying they will not allow their country to become a processing site for Australia-bound boatpeople.

As officials continued to negotiate an end to the standoff with the 78 Sri Lankans aboard the Oceanic Viking, now in its 12th day, there were fresh signs the impasse was taking its toll on relations between Australia and Indonesia.

Yesterday, Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah said talk of an "Indonesia solution" to intercept the boats had become a sore in Indonesia.

"We don't want to be caught in the domestic issues in Australia," Mr Faizasyah told The Australian.

"We don't want to be the object of insults from your dynamic, political dynamic, in your country."

Mr Faizasyah said Indonesia has a "bigger picture" when it came to bilateral relations.

"This will certainly irritate Indonesia to be associated with a new form of policy which in your country itself is still being debated," he said.

Asked if it was likely Jakarta would agree to intercept and process more boats, Mr Faizasyah replied: "I don't think so. We are not a country to process refugees because more importantly we are not parties to the refugee convention, so what we are doing (is) only based on our humanitarian perspective."

But Dr Sujatmiko said Indonesian officials had responded promptly to Australian requests to supply food, water and other necessities to the Oceanic Viking, and in facilitating visa arrangements for an expected crew change aboard the vessel.

"We have helped with everything (possible) but we are not going to force (the asylum-seekers) to come off the boat," he said.

Indonesian officials also revealed privately they were furious at the inactivity from Sri Lanka through the crisis, and were talking privately about making Colombo directly responsible for repatriating the next boat load of Tamils they intercept. Strategists in Jakarta believe this would send "one of the strongest signals ... if next time one of these boats is picked up, it just gets sent straight back to Sri Lanka".

Mr Djalal suggested that the move "should give some discouragement to them (asylum-seekers), after making all that effort to get here".

Late yesterday afternoon the Sri Lankan ambassador to Indonesia agreed to visit the 78 Tamils on board the Oceanic Viking and make an offer of repatriation.

"If even half or a quarter of them could be repatriated, that would be a great thing," Mr Djalal said.

Security on the Oceanic Viking was ramped up yesterday, with the Sri Lankans herded behind fluorescent tape and kept under guard by armed Customs officials.

The Customs officers confirmed they had been directed to prevent any communication between journalists and the Sri Lankans.

Fellow Tamil refugee "Alex", on board the Jaya Lestari 5, a wooden cargo boat moored with 251 asylum-seekers at the port of Merak in western Java, said he could confirm that those on board the Oceanic Viking had had "at least one telephone communication with the outside world".

"However, I can tell you that contact is waiting for a follow-up call, so whether it came from one person on board who had a phone but no longer does, I couldn't say."

The Sri Lankans appeared relaxed yesterday, washing on the top deck where they were being guarded early in the morning and then retreating under tarpaulins and below deck when a violent thunderstorm struck in the middle of the day.

Indonesia - The Sri Lankan asylum seekers at the centre of a fiery immigration row in Australia are pleading for rich nations to protect them from the threat of persecution, kidnapping and death at home.

Members of the group of 255 ethnic Tamils intercepted off Indonesia last week described harrowing weeks in the jungle and at sea in a bid to get to Australia.


But they said they had no interest in staying in Indonesia, where they have refused to leave their overcrowded boat for almost two weeks, unless they are allowed to speak to the UN refugee agency.

"This country cannot promise my children education, this country can't give us any future. What will we find in this country?" a spokesman for the group, who identified himself as Alex, told AFP on their peeling wooden boat in the Indonesian port town of Merak.

The migrants have gone on a brief hunger strike and threatened to torch their boat in order to draw attention to their plight.

The UN refugee agency says it has not received the necessary invitation from the Indonesian government to interview the migrants, so the standoff continues and the Sri Lankans' asylum claims have not been assessed.

"We are being tortured, our women are being raped, our children are being killed, our parents are being kidnapped..." Alex said of their migrants' lives in Sri Lanka.

"Just for the sake that we are Tamils they just believe we are all terrorists, we are all Tigers," he said, referring to the defeated insurgent group known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.

The Sri Lankans have touched off a testy political debate in Australia over border protection amid a sharp increase in the number of asylum seekers arriving illegally by boat in the country's sparsely populated north.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono agreed in Jakarta this week to come up with a "framework" for dealing with undocumented migrants who take to the seas in unseaworthy boats.

Indonesia is a springboard for such trips, which are usually arranged by people smugglers for thousands of dollars per person.

Standing on the packed and peeling boat in the midday sun, the Sri Lankan migrants said returning home was not an option.

Rights groups have condemned Sri Lanka's detention of 250,000 minority ethnic Tamil civilians in military-run camps since the end of the country's bloody decades-long civil war earlier this year.

"We are rich people in my country, we all have big houses and farms, but we have no life there," said 35-year-old teacher Kalla, as her two young sons gathered about her legs.

Alex, a former English teacher with an American twang thanks to a previous job in a call centre, said the migrants each paid 15,000 dollars to people smugglers and flew in groups from Sri Lanka to Malaysia.

Then they spent a month living in a makeshift camp in the jungle, with little food and water, before boarding their boat to Australia.

Tossed by waves and battered by rain in their bid to reach Australia's remote Christmas Island, the group was left in fearful limbo when the boat's engine sputtered out.

They drifted for five days in the Indian Ocean before it was fixed.

"The ship was shaking, the waves were big, everyone was vomiting, some fell unconscious," said a 32-year-old woman who gave her name as Shanthi.

Five hours from Christmas Island, Alex said the boat did an about-face and set a course for Java island after a smaller boat failed to show up to whisk the captain safely back to Indonesia.

Alleged people smuggling kingpin Abraham Lauhenaspessy was found on board and arrested after the boat had been escorted into port by the Indonesian navy.

ONE of the most important policy considerations to emerge out of the illegal immigration controversies of the past two weeks is the absolute centrality to us of Indonesia.

If we can solve the illegal immigration problem, it will only be through Indonesia's good offices. But just imagine for a second what an Indonesia predisposed to causing Australia trouble would be like. If Jakarta simply declined to take enforcement measures to stop people using its archipelago as a transit or launch point for travelling illegally to Australia, this would throw our nation intoconvulsions.

Indonesia, however, also offers the Rudd government a chance to remedy its failures in illegal immigration policy. The Rudd government is essentially identical to the Howard government in its policy intent, morality and even its broad methodology in dealing with illegal immigrants.

How can this be, when the government makes so much of its ending of the Pacific solution, its abolition of long-term detention camps, its abolition of temporary protection visas and the like? These things, though marginal, have encouraged people-smugglers, but this is the reverse of the government's intent.

In this area, there is only one question that counts. Can a people-smuggler get his clients - illegal immigrants - to Australian waters and ultimate residency?

If they can, then people-smuggling will flourish. If they can't, it will wither, because no one will pay a people-smuggler $15,000 if there is no realistic chance of getting to Australia. It's that simple.

The Howard government tried to make sure people were intercepted before they got to Australia and then they ended up either in Indonesia, Nauru or Manus Island.

The Rudd government is determined that people will be intercepted and end up in Indonesia. Australia puts enormous amounts of money, federal police and intelligence effort into making sure this happens.

A commentator at the weekend said the Indonesian solution could only work if processing time for asylum-seekers was speeded up so that people didn't have to spend 10 years waiting for resettlement in a Western country. In fact, exactly the reverse is the truth.

The Indonesian solution only works if there is indeed a 10-year delay in Indonesia. Illegal immigrants will be happy to wait for a considerable time in Indonesia, but 10 years is too long. If that is the delay, people-smuggling will wither. If the delay is only a few months, then it will flourish. And in flourishing it will undermine the broader immigration program, take places away from people who go through due process, and remove our control of our borders.

There are hard truths in this debate. Let me confess my own sins. When the Howard government introduced the Pacific solution, I was virulently opposed to it. I thought it was inhumane and wouldn't work. In fact, it did work. It also became clear to me the vast majority of people intercepted were not refugees but illegal immigrants.

In saying that, I make no moral criticism of the illegal immigrants. If I were living in Sri Lanka or Afghanistan and I could pay a people-smuggler $15,000 to get me to Australia, to enjoy everything from law and order and good weather to Medicare, Centrelink and good schools, I would make that effort.

But that understandable motivation does not make a person a refugee. I think Sri Lankans generally make excellent migrants to Australia. I have always favoured a larger immigration program and a larger refugee intake, but I want Australia to choose who it takes and to do so in an orderly way.

Just being a Tamil does not make you a refugee. Moreover, if you are fleeing persecution as a Tamil in Sri Lanka, why wouldn't you go and live in Tamil Nadu, the giant Tamil state of India, just next door to Sri Lanka? India does not persecute people for being Tamils.

The reason you would prefer Australia is because life is much better in Australia. But this is not then a question of fleeing persecution. This is an immigration aspiration that should go through the normal processes Australia applies to everyone who comes lawfully through our big and successful immigration program.

My esteemed colleague Paul Kelly argues in his The March of Patriots that there is a bargain between the Australian people and their governments. The Australian people accept a big, diverse and in many respects generous immigration program, so long as it is orderly and well controlled by the government. In this bargain neither the Australian people nor their governments are racist, bigoted or narrow minded, despite the vain moral posturing of most commentators in the past couple of weeks.

I have been writing about refugees for 30 years and one thing that has become clear to me is that the classification of someone as a refugee is a hugely subjective process. It often comes down to whether you believe someone's claims or not, necessarily without evidence. The choice is entirely yours.

When I first got involved with this issue, with the Vietnamese boatpeople 30 years ago, I was convinced many Vietnamese were rejected as refugees who really were refugees, really were persecuted by their government. Now, administrative convenience means that almost anyone who gets to Australia and claims refugee status will be given it.

Since the Rudd government came to office, only 10 asylum-seekers who have got to Australian jurisdiction have been returned to their homeland. They were 10 Sri Lankan Catholics. Yet the majority of boatpeople will be Afghans, some Iraqis and other Muslims. On the whole, their countries won't easily take these people back. Administrative convenience means that most such people will become permanent residents.

Last week The Australian reported allegations that two Iraqi members of the Shia Mahdi Army, who had been involved in kidnapping and torture, came to Australia as illegal immigrants and got permanent residence. It is not paranoia to be worried about such cases. If the Rudd Government does not get on top of the illegal immigration problem, the nearly 2000 who have come in little over a year will become many more thousands. This would be a disaster for Australia.

Rudd is absolutely right to take a tough line against illegal immigration. Those who criticise him for doing so and saying so, such as the normally sound Labor MP Michael Danby, or those who cannot bring themselves to embrace the Prime Minister's language, such as Foreign Minister Stephen Smith in a remarkably evasive and feeble performance on Lateline, merely show how much better, shrewder and braver than the Labor Party Rudd is.

There is a reason this government is so dominated by its PM.

by Alex Whisson
On last night's Indymedia Radical Radio Show, Alex, spokesperson for the 260 Tamil asylum seekers on board the ship moored at Merak port in West Java, revealed that a woman falsely claiming to be a representative of the Australian government had gained access to the boat.
Alex told Indymedia, "There was an Australian woman who falsely claimed herself to be a representative of the Australian Embassy and she was the first [person] the Indonesian police brought on board the vessel...however, she was unable to provide us with any ID and the lady did confirm later on that she was not a representative of the Australian Embassy. The Indonesian police should [investigate] to find out what's going on."

The revelation is potentially explosive and raises a whole series of questions: why did the Indonesian authorities allow the woman to board the vessel without official identification? Who was she? What business did she have boarding the ship? Is there a possibility she was acting covertly on behalf of the Australian Federal Police or the Australian Secret Intelligence Service?

This information has not been revealed in any other media outlet and demands an immediate investigation given the distinct possibility the woman in question was spying on the asylum seekers on behalf of the Australian government.

Alex further revealed that no officials from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees have yet boarded the boat, but did inform Indymedia the international agency had sent the group an email "With regard to the group in Merak, [the] UNHCR is ready to go register them and assess their international protection needs if requested to do so [by the Indonesian government]. However, we have not yet received such a request."

The full interview can be listened to at the following address (click on the link for Monday October 19th and scroll through to the first interview): http://www.rtrfm.com.au/shows/indymedia

PEOPLE-smuggling networks are moving to bring out thousands more Tamils from war-ravaged northern Sri Lanka, according to the leader of 254 Tamil asylum seekers who have refused to leave their boat moored at an Indonesian port for eight days.

''Alex'' said the networks, operating in Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Britain and Switzerland, were targeting camps in northern Sri Lanka, where fighting trapped 250,000 Tamils earlier this year.

''Every one of those Tamils believe they have no future and want to leave the country at the earliest opportunity,'' he said by telephone from the boat where the asylum seekers are demanding assurances from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees about their future.

But a UNHCR spokesman said last night that the organisation that processes claims for refugee status had not yet received a request from the Indonesian Government to speak with those on board.

Alex said a network of six smugglers to whom the asylum seekers on his boat agreed to pay $US4 million ($A4.3 million) was continuing to telephone people on board and influence their actions.

''They are saying, 'Don't worry, we will help you','' he said.

Alex said the highly organised people-smuggling networks had several ''sub-agents'' in Sri Lanka who had listed people wanting to leave Sri Lanka and who could pay.

The Tamils he is with flew to Singapore or Kuala Lumpur in small groups or alone before smugglers gathered them in a jungle camp to wait for the boat's departure.

While at the camp, the smugglers pressured many of the asylum seekers who had not paid the full $US15,000 for the trip.

The asylum seekers had to pay or be left behind.

Alex insisted the asylum seekers would not leave the boat until they had met the UNHCR and were satisfied they would not have to languish in Indonesia for years before resettlement in Australia or another country.

The UNHCR's spokesman in Canberra said it was ''ready to go and register the asylum seekers and assess their international protection needs if requested to do so by the Government. However, we have not yet received such a request''.

Indonesian immigration and navy officials are trying to convince the asylum seekers to leave the boat peacefully. They ended a 52-hour hunger strike at the weekend.

As an Australian of Sri Lanka origin I can confidently state that the man and the young girl on the boat detained in Indonesia shown on TV on Thursday are not direct arrivals from Sri Lanka. They do not have a Tamil accent nor do their English and the manner of speech resemble the northerners of Sri Lanka.

They are well fed, possibly Western-educated Tamil Tiger operatives. They certainly have well-rehearsed their act and cleverly stage managed the event to elicit sympathy from Australians.

If the Tamil asylum seekers in the boat are genuine refugees from Sri Lanka, why should they bypass Tamil Nadu, which is only 30 km across the Palk Strait? After all, Tamil Nadu of India is the homeland for 60 million Tamils. They come all the way to Australia because they have the network here to support them, raise funds and funnel trouble again in Sri Lanka, while enjoying the good life of Australia.

Australia should heed the warning given by the Sri Lankan authorities that thousands of Tamil Tiger terrorists who escaped the military offensive of the Sri Lankan forces are now heading to Australia. With twenty five years of experience in people smuggling and drug peddling, Tamil Tigers are masters of deceit. To Canada, England and Europe they have smuggled tens of thousands of bogus refugees over the years.

Published in ‘The West Australian’ Saturday 17^th October 2009.

Nice try, Hendry Wan (Letters, October 17-18), but there is not one but a number of queues which those coming by boat seek to circumvent.

First, those waiting patiently in refugee camps with the hope of being accepted under our refugee quota will now miss out because of those who paid people smugglers.

The next queue is to do with processing. Immigration staff must give priority to those who arrive illegally by boat. Those waiting in offshore centres get pushed further down the list while the impatient and the impetuous take their place.

Then there is the waiting list for public housing, which will be ignored in favour of immediate support of illegal arrivals.

As far as I know, none of those who wait in these queues threaten to blow up boats or go on hunger strike should they not be immediately attended to. One wonders at the cornucopia of legal and ethical options available to those with the means to pay people smugglers tens of thousands of dollars. Is the ability to seek out shady characters and avail oneself of their illicit services a skill we need in this country?

Peter Maresch Lane Cove

The asylum seekers from Sri Lanka who have travelled halfway around the world, and paid a lot of money to people smugglers to do so, claim they did this as the only way to "escape persecution".

These people are Tamils, and not 100 kilometres from where they set off is the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, their traditional homeland and birthplace of their kin. Hardly much risk of being persecuted there.

Surely if escaping persecution was their only intent, they could have achieved it much more easily, safely and cheaply than by the perilous route they chose.

Andrew Gee Castlecrag

Not all Tamils were engaged in a "murderous terrorist conflict" with the Sri Lankan Government as David Knowles says (Letters, October 17-18), least of all nine-year-old children, well-trained or not. Many Tamil civilians were equally terrorised by the Tamil Tigers and now face even worse abuses by the Sri Lankan Government, including forced eviction, internment in concentration camps and summary execution – simply because they are Tamil.

The fighting may be over but innocent people are still paying the price, just as Czechs and Hungarians did after their revolutions were crushed.

To suggest all Tamils were involved in the extreme actions of a hardcore minority and now must pay for that extremist group’s defeat is like saying all Australians are insensitive, uncaring and ignorant on the basis of one letter.

Sunil Badami Rozelle

I am not sure of the precise legal status in Australia of the United Nations conventions our governments signed. But I am sure that in addition to the rule of law, keeping our word is equally a "bedrock of Australian law and politics" ("Refugee lobby’s 10 commandments", October 16).

Is Paul Sheehan suggesting we should make a habit of breaking our word? It is a difficult issue, especially for the refugees, but Australia has much bigger opportunities and problems to deal with than the processing of a few hundred (or even thousand in some years) escaping persecution and attempting to find safety and security here.

The asylum seekers who arrived by boat this year are about 1 per cent of our total immigrant intake. Most are found to be refugees, and our experience shows they become model citizens. We need some perspective.

David Hind Neutral Bay

Remember the law on refugees
Your editorial ''Boat people far from an open or shut case'' (October 17-18) was sloppy, confused and incorrect. You refer to asylum seekers as illegal immigrants. Under Australian law they are not.

Australia incorporated key elements of the UN Convention on Refugees into the Migration Act and these provisions have not been repealed. People arriving by boat or by plane and making a claim for protection as a refugee are to be treated as such until it has been demonstrated otherwise through established legal procedures. If you want the law to be suspended on this issue, do not complain when your right to publish is withdrawn.

What has border security to do with the claims of refugees? You imply a concern about the security of coastal landings, but mention nothing about the security found wanting at airports. You confuse Australia's immigration program with the need for protection of refugees. Under Australian law they are not interchangeable.

Finally, no information or understanding is conveyed about the plight of Tamil people in Sri Lanka to assist the reader to put your editorial into context.

Bruce Haigh former diplomat and member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, Mudgee

Sack the NRMA's board, not its front-line staff
What a disgrace that the board of the NRMA proposes to solve its financial mismanagement problems by reducing services to members and especially by reducing front-line staff (''NRMA to slash services, workers'', October 17-18). The people who should be sacked are the board members whose failed investment strategies have led to the current situation.

Members should also reflect on the actions of past boards, who with the assistance of paid ''consultants'', convinced members of the wisdom of selling NRMA Insurance, which was the best investment the NRMA ever made on behalf of its members. It not only provided cheap insurance but also substantially subsidised the operation of the NRMA as a whole.

John Chippendale Marsfield

The NRMA board members have ensured their re-election at next month's annual general meeting by spending $12,500 in ''prizes'' in a draw to encourage members to send in proxy votes. How many members will know the name of a dissenter who will be at the meeting? How many mug voters will allot their proxy votes to the chairman to be eligible for one of the $500 prizes?

To me this sounds a little like bribery - and with our money.

Malcolm Darroch Tura Beach

How does the NRMA explain a $60 million loss when it no longer has to support Ross Turnbull's dining habits?

Bill Carpenter Bowral

Protect children from assault
With the exception of military or police force, corporal punishment against children is the only accepted physical attack that is used to exact compliance through a unilateral use of force (''You've got to be cruel to be kind, says PM'', October 17-18).

Kevin Rudd's comments, and the cited research, illustrate that the practice of smacking children has a strong cultural legacy and still receives wide public support. Undoubtedly, opposition to it is in the minority in Australia.

But many studies, legislative bodies and courts internationally have found corporal punishment not to be a benign necessity of parenting. Its use as a disciplinary technique contradicts key legal principles that protect bodily integrity, disregards international obligations and neglects the expanding field of children's rights.

Joe Tucci is right to question the assumptions of harmlessness made by Mr Rudd, and Australia should not be so quick to disregard a potential change in law to protect children from unwarranted assault.

Sallie McLean Leichhardt

Classrooms, not wards, for pupils
Dalwood Assessment Centre and Palm Avenue School provide intensive one-on-one assessment and assistance for students from rural and remote NSW with severe learning difficulties (''State closes book on literacy help for rural children'', October 17-18).

Until now these students have been able to receive a holistic assessment, with all the professionals on site at Seaforth. Relocation to the Children's Hospital at Westmead will mean a fragmented approach to dealing with learning difficulties. These students need a classroom, not a hospital ward.

The Isolated Children's Parents Association (NSW) has met the Government annually since its foundation in 1971. This week the association is in Sydney on an annual deputation, but neither the Education Minister nor the Health Minister is available. The association would like to be consulted on the Government's plans for our children with learning difficulties.

David Cameron President, Isolated Children's Parents Association (NSW), Rowena

In June, the British Government accepted all recommendations of a report on children with dyslexia and literacy difficulties, and immediately made available £10 million to train 4000 teachers in specialist dyslexic teaching.

Its author, Sir Jim Rose, who visited Australia last month, is helping to draft a report to the federal parliamentary secretary for disabilities and children's services, Bill Shorten, on the shortfall in services for people with dyslexia.

It is inexplicable that the NSW Government, having passed an act last year to support children with significant learning difficulties, is shutting the only school in Australia that supports such children from rural and regional areas, while casually stating that there is no alternative provision for the students and families affected.

Emma Anderson Cremorne

Eastern ascendancy
Les MacDonald (Letters, October 17-18) makes the outrageous argument that ''Eastern'' economies have shunned ''Western'' economic thought and this has contributed to their rise, while the West has been ''in decline''.

Notwithstanding the various shortcomings of neo-liberalism, the West has grown significantly overall since the 1980s. It has declined only compared with the growth of Asian nations, whose economic miracles have come mostly from the adoption of the economic ideologies that stemmed from Britain and the US and thereafter engulfed the world.

These economies would have remained frail without the capital inflows, technological innovations and organisational strategies that occurred as a direct result of foreign investment from the practitioners of ''dry, dusty, and useless economics''.

Nick Kenny North Ryde

Afghan support
My home-town newspaper, the Asheville Citizen-Times, reprinted your editorial ''Time for a chance to succeed'' (October 6). It commented on General Stanley McChrystal's request for an additional 40,000 American soldiers and urged the US not to abandon Afghanistan. What I did not read was an urging for the commitment of a substantial number of Australian soldiers.

Asheville has sent a number of her sons and daughters to Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan to keep al-Qaeda at bay. Americans would welcome a meaningful commitment from the rest of the world for support in the form of troops and money, in addition to editorials.

Philip Carson Asheville, North Carolina

Beijing investors
You assert that "a long list of Chinese investments in Australia have been delayed, discouraged or rejected by the Australian Government" (''How BHP scuppered China Inc'', October 15). This is incorrect. I have approved 99 foreign investment applications, four of which were subject to conditions or undertakings to protect the national interest. Not one Chinese application has been rejected.

The article draws heavily on the views of a former Treasury official and Peter Costello staff member, Stephen Joske, which are described as "the first insider's confirmation of problems with the investment policy process".

Mr Joske left his Treasury post in Beijing in early 2007, before this Government was elected. He was not privy to Treasury's advice to me. His assertion that Treasury failed to brief me on the usual pros and cons of foreign investment is wrong.

His claims that lobbyists unduly influence the foreign investment decision-making process, and specifically the Chinalco matter, are unsubstantiated.

Wayne Swan Treasurer, Canberra

No conspiracy in Anglican funding

Averil Treloar (Letters, October 17) misreads the funding outcomes from the financial losses to the Sydney Anglican Diocese. There is no reason to think women's ministry funding is not being given equality with men.

The special funding for women's ministry is being maintained, but women also benefit equally from funding for recruitment and training. Indeed, there is a good and growing number of women at Moore Theological College and Youth Works, the two Anglican colleges, who are looking forward to ministry in the Sydney Diocese.

The positions of one bishop and all regional archdeacons have been lost (all men), but the archdeacon for women's ministry remains, who happens to be a woman. Final funding outcomes will be decided this week by the synod, of which I am one of many women members.

By all means criticise us for the financial losses, but there is no patriarchal conspiracy in the funding decisions.

Claire Smith Roseville

Tax break vital for low-paid staff
Your story about the benefits of salary packaging for health employees overlooks one important fact (''Dining out on NSW a tax dodge'', October 17-18). It is because of these benefits that it is possible to eke out a meagre existence on the pay levels of many health employees.

Cleaners, porters, security staff, catering staff and others have hourly pay rates just a dollar or two above the legal minimum. Managers in the health system still take home less then average weekly earnings, despite their considerable responsibilities.

Without salary packaging it would be very difficult to recruit and retain staff and, as the story points out, some of the money goes back into hospital revenue.

Uno Grevberg Health Services Union local branch, War Memorial Hospital, Waverley

Bargain silk
Enough, already. Will you please stop the ''silks on $7000 a day'' nonsense (Letters, October 17-18). There may be silks who charge such fees, but most work for much less.

Almost all spend some of their time doing free and legal aid work. Others, such as the Solicitor-General, the state and federal directors of public prosecutions and the senior crown prosecutors, work for government or prosecution agencies. They are well paid,

but receive nothing like the figure quoted.

Three of the most recently appointed silks are public defenders. They may be worth $7000 a day, but their services are provided free to anyone who qualifies for legal aid.

Andrew Haesler, SC Sydney

Master peace
So, there were 28,000 Masters Games competitors in Sydney. It seems there were no reports of bad behaviour such as streakers in the motel hallways, skinny dippers or brawling parties. But my bet is that these oldies were not so knackered that they went straight home to bed. Good on you all for showing how you can have a good time without inconveniencing others.

Milton Battaglini Carindale

Shared opinion
In Saturday's Herald readers' poll, in response to the question on the preferred dinner guest out of Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott, 51.8 per cent voted ''None of the above''. Exactly the same percentage opined that Australia was losing its humour. Coincidence? I think not. I even reckon they were the same people.

Gary Sullivan Sans Souci

Sorry start
Kevin Rudd should say sorry for his overuse of the opener, ''I make no apology for …''

A PEOPLE-SMUGGLING kingpin has been found among Tamils on a boat they are refusing to leave at an Indonesian port, potentially bolstering efforts to disrupt a wave of illegal arrivals in Australia.

Abraham Lauhenapessy, known as Captain Bram, has brought more than 1500 asylum seekers to Australia since he emerged as a pivotal organiser of Indonesia's people-smuggling operations in 1999.

Lauhenapessy duped the Tamils, who paid a total of $US4 million ($A4.3 million) to be taken to Australia's Christmas Island, apparently because he wanted to avoid arrest in Australian territory where he would face up to 20 years in jail.

News of his presence on the boat came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd prepared to leave for Jakarta today and two more boats suspected of heading for Australia ran into distress on their way from Malaysia and Indonesia.

Mr Rudd is seeking a solution with the Indonesian Government to stem the influx of asylum seekers into Australian waters.

A spokesman for the 254 Tamils on the boat, Alex, said Lauhenapessy turned the boat around five hours' sailing time from Christmas Island because he missed a rendezvous with a smaller boat that was to pick him up.

''It was in the night and we were sleeping and we didn't know what was happening,'' Alex said by phone from the boat tied up at a wharf in West Java.

''There was a mix-up in the location for him to get off. If Bram had not turned the boat around, we would have been at Christmas Island in five hours,'' he said. ''We are very upset this happened.''

The wooden boat was intercepted by an Indonesian Navy vessel heading away from Christmas Island on October 11.

Indonesian police, navy and immigration officials confirmed to The Age that Lauhenapessy was being detained on a navy ship moored next to the boat.

In interviews with Indonesian officials, Lauhenapessy, aged about 60, has portrayed himself as being one of six Indonesian crew on the boat.

The crew claimed they thought they would be transporting only local cargo and were surprised when a large group of men, women and children began arriving at the boat off the Malaysian city of Johore Baru.

But the asylum seekers said Lauhenapessy was a key organiser of the Indonesian boat and that he liaised with people-smugglers in Malaysia, which they left on October 1.

Lauhenapessy, an Ambonese with strong links to a criminal network at Jakarta's main port, had been a top-priority target for Australian Federal Police for more than five years.

''He was too slippery. We couldn't catch him,'' an AFP agent said last night.

After eluding a number of elaborate ''sting'' operations by Australian and Indonesian police, including one in Cambodia in 2001, Lauhenapessy was eventually arrested in Jakarta in June 2007 following a long-term joint operation between the AFP and Indonesian police.

That he is now back attempting to smuggle more people to Australia only two years after the arrest highlights the differences in penalties for the crime in Australia and Indonesia.

An Indonesian court sentenced Lauhenapessy to two years' jail and fined him the equivalent of $A3110 in December 2007 on charges of hiding, protecting, harbouring or providing a livelihood to people known to have entered Indonesia illegally. The charges related to the arrival of 83 Sri Lankan asylum seekers in international waters off Australia in early 2007.

Australia's then foreign minister Alexander Downer and immigration minister Kevin Andrews described his arrest as an ''outstanding outcome''.

They issued a joint statement saying the arrest followed months of close co-operation between Australian and Indonesian agencies and ''represents a major blow to people smuggling networks in our region''.

Lauhenapessy's speciality over a decade has been smuggling Sri Lankans, particularly Tamils. Some of the Tamils on the boat had been waiting in Malaysia for years. Alex told The Age he would be prepared to reveal all the details about the man he knows as ''Bram'' when the tense week-long stand-off at the boat is resolved.

The Tamils at first threatened to cause an explosion on the boat if they were not immediately resettled in Australia or another country.

But as conditions continued to deteriorate, they ended a 52-hour hunger strike at the weekend and softened their demands, saying they would be prepared to come ashore if they received assurances from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Alex has been told to expect a visit from a UNHCR representative on Wednesday.

''We can see some light. We hope we can receive the assurances about our future that will allow us to resolve the situation,'' said Alex, whose wife has just given birth to their third child in Sri Lanka. As well as the 254 Tamils there is one Burmese man aboard the boat, which has only one toilet.

Those on board each paid people smugglers $US15,000. Parents even paid the full amount for newborn babies and young children.

Meanwhile, an Australian naval ship was taking part in rescue efforts yesterday after two boats carrying suspected asylum seekers sent out distress messages from Indonesian and Malaysian territorial waters.

Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said HMAS Armidale had made contact with one of the distressed vessels and established that the people on board were safe.

A spate of boat arrivals in recent weeks has reignited debate over border protection.

A spokesman for the Minister for Home Affairs, Brendan O'Connor, said the intentions of the people aboard the new vessels were not known.

The spokesman said Australian authorities had been advised by phone calls about the two vessels and had notified search and rescue agencies in Indonesia and Malaysia.

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority had asked the navy to assist and the Armidale had contacted one vessel about 300 nautical miles from Christmas Island and 120 nautical miles from Sumatra.

On October 15, almost 260 Tamil refugees were stranded at an Indonesian port in west Java. They were refusing to disembark from the boat that had carried them from Malaysia and pleaded for the Australian government to hear their case. That evening they declared a hunger strike.

Alex,a spokesperson for the group, told the media: “We decided on the strike to let the whole world know that we need their assistance as soon as possible. We need somebody to consider our case.”

The hunger strike was ended on October 17, although the refugees still refuse to leave their boats.

The boat had been moored at Merak after it was caught sailing toward Australian waters. The Indonesian navy took it to the port.

The move was at the specific request of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who had phoned his Indonesian counterpart and fed “top-level intelligence detailing the whereabouts of the boat”, the West Australian said on October 13.

The information had come from Australian border security based in Indonesia.

Alex told Green Left Weekly by phone that the refugees are escaping government-driven genocide in Sri Lanka.

“We have run away from a war, a 26-year war against our people and we are fleeing genocide”, he said.

Tamils are victims of war crimes in Sri Lanka. Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka have released reports of widespread abductions and executions at the behest of Sri Lankan officials.

Three hundred thousand Tamils remain imprisoned in government concentration camps. Alex told ABC journalists, “there is not the opportunity for Tamils to survive in Sri Lanka”.

He told GLW the asylum seekers were devastated by Australia's actions.

“When people are fleeing war and genocide, how can a country think protecting themselves is more important than helping these people?” he told GLW. “The world is for all of humankind, we are just like you except we do not have a country.”

The October 16 Age said two of the refugees on hunger strike were taken to hospital in a “critical condition”.

These refugees escaped, risked everything, got out by boat, spent one month hiding in a Malaysian jungle and then made it close enough to Australian waters to prompt the PM himself to intervene and turn them away.

Despite their clear fear and desperation, no Australian authority, government or border protection personnel, have approached or talked to them.
In fact, since Rudd's phone call, they've been completely dismissed. On October 15, deputy PM Julia Gillard declared the refugees were Indonesia's problem.

The event has fuelled government and media panic about the rise in boatloads of people from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and, increasingly, Sri Lanka.

But this concern is steeped in racist nationalism. The opposition has repeatedly declared Rudd's refugee policy “soft” and an “invitation” to asylum seekers. The federal government says it has a “tough line” on border control and remains preoccupied with a farcical war on so-called people smugglers.

The mainstream media continue to label the arrival of boats a “surge” and stir fear. Christmas Island is at capacity and the boats keep coming. One of the government's “solutions” is to house arriving refugees in fitted shipping containers that were originally commissioned for the Northern Territory intervention as temporary Indigenous “housing”.

Eighty-one of these “dongas” are being taken to Christmas Island, ABC Online said on October 15. But in November last year, some were found to contain the noxious gas formaldehyde. It is unclear whether the containers planned for asylum seekers have been assessed for this carcinogenic chemical.

All asylum seekers who try to reach Australia by boat are taken to Christmas Island and locked up. Mandatory detention is an arbitrary and cruel system the Australian government uses to maintain hostility to refugees and squash public sympathy for their plight.

It is not the fault of the people housed in the inhumane facility. No one is illegal, least of all people seeking safety and protection.

Despite this, Rudd remains “unapologetic” and unsympathetic.

“We have a clear cut policy for dealing with it”, he said on 5AA Radio on October 15. “Make no apologies for a tough approach to border protection, make no apologies for the retention of mandatory detention on Christmas Island.”

With the crowding of Christmas Island a growing problem, the government is now looking beyond its borders to stem the tide.

The government is putting more pressure on regional nations and pledges to fund detention centres in Indonesia. The October 16 Sydney Morning Herald said: “Australia is preparing to provide police assistance to Sri Lanka to help combat people smuggling, including training for local officers. The government is also paying Indonesia to hold more asylum seekers in Indonesia.”

Australian navy surveillance roves the waters of Indonesia and Malaysia, and monitors boats around Sri Lanka. The operations are not in place to rescue passengers if their hazardous journey turns deadly, but to “disrupt” and “repel” their passage to Australia.

As the tension escalated onboard the vessel in Merak, the media released reports that “Australian authorities are tracking about six asylum boats suspected to be on their way to Australia”, the Australian said on October 15.

Rudd claimed his policy was “tough” on border protection, but “humane” when dealing with people. Yet actively tracking dangerous boat journeys simply to prevent them from landing on Australian shores is outright hypocrisy. The real policy is border control at all costs, including the lives of anyone onboard.

With each new boat that is “intercepted”, Rudd sounds more and more like the former Coalition government of John Howard.
In fact, he’s taking the “tough” approach one step further, playing the role of regional bully to try to “stem the tide”.

The fact is there has been a significant rise in refugees around the world. The UNHCR recognises not only 16 million refugees worldwide, but also 26 million “internally displaced persons” — people unable to stay in their country.

Exploiting an unfounded fear of “boat people” will lead only to more deaths and more tragedies. It will do nothing to prevent people boarding boats.
In all the media and political hysteria about the rising number of boat arrivals, there has been no mention of why people come in boats in the first place.

Asylum seekers aren’t irrational risk-takers who put their children’s lives in jeopardy for fun. Those fleeing torture, war and persecution long for a safe, quiet place to call home more than anything else.

If Australia’s refugee policy were genuinely “humane”, more people could seek refuge by safer means, knowing they’d be welcomed and given the protection to which they’re entitled. They would be given the resources and support they need to recover from their trauma and build new lives.

“People-smuggling” would be eradicated, as human lives would no longer seen as contraband to be “illegally” shifted around the globe.

“We are refugees and we want to get away from genocide”, Alex said. “There are women and children on board here. And we are not animals, we are people, but we are being treated inhumanely.”

Fewer than 2000 people have reached Australian waters in the past year. It is true this is small compared with the millions of refugees worldwide. Yet, it is too many people forced into a risky passage of last resort.

After the refugee boat SIEV 36 exploded off Ashmore Reef in April, Australian journalist and long-time writer on refugee issues David Marr said there should be no boats.

“They sink — another nine died in a boat that sank off West Timor in January — they explode, some simply disappear on a largely empty sea”, he wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald on April 18.

The resources the government pours into atrocious practices of maritime intervention and regional lockdown should instead be used to bring people safely to Australia and settle them quickly into the community.

This is what a humane and just refugee policy would look like.

It is hard to see why we won't take these Tamils. They are fugitives from a lost civil war, recent massacres and the threat of genocide. They are beautiful, intelligent and English-speaking. There are no Tamil triads menacing western Sydney. There are few Tamils in our gaols. One of our most successful citizens is a Tamil. His name is Kamahl.

Yet we think it better they starve to death rather than come here. We have subjected them to rendition in a country that does not recognise their rights under the Geneva Convention. We treat them as the English treated fugitive Jews in 1941. Just go away, they said, go away. Go back to Germany. Go now.

It is certain that if processed here they would be admitted. It is certain that their cause is just. So with Kafka logic they must not be admitted, lest their just cause bring them just reward. Philip Ruddock could not have expressed it better.

It is said that their journey is 'illegal' though it is not. Anyone fleeing persecution can flee anywhere to avoid it, under international law. It is said they are 'economic migrants' but it is hard to say which migrants are not. All seek a better life for their children. How is this contemptible, or even unusual? Why does it merit the death penalty?

It is said that 'people smugglers' are 'the scum of the earth' and 'they should rot in hell'. How, if they bring good citizens here, can they be this, any more than Qantas pilots? Rick in Casablanca, I wearily repeat, was a people smuggler; Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind; Sidney Carton in A Tale of Two Cities; the Scarlet Pimpernel; Oscar Schindler; Moses; the Kentish fishermen who came in their tiny boats to Dunkirk; and those scum of the earth who smuggled the Holy Family into Egypt in another time of massacre, flight and rescue.

It is said they are 'only in it for the money'. Since most of them end in gaol doing twenty years while their boats are burned on the beach by Australian authorities, they are very poor businessmen, it seems to me. Most of them opt to do this so their children may prosper while they grow old in prison. They sound pretty saintly to me. But the Prime Minister says they are scum, and the Prime Minister is an honourable man.

What we are doing is a form of kidnap, torment and piracy; rendition, persecution, and child abuse. If we do not want these beautiful people (and what harm would they do us?) we should pay their air fares to Canada, where they will be welcome, or Obama's America, if he will have them. Or New Zealand. Or Madagascar. Or Sweden. If we opt instead to shell out millions for what now must be called the Arafura Solution, we will worsen our already smirched image as racist tormentors of desperate children before the civilised world.

"We are Sri Lankan refugees, please take us to your country, we can't live in Sri Lanka," cries nine-year-old Brindah.

"Please help us and save our lives.

"We are your children. Please think of us."

Brindah is one of about 250 Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers crammed on to the bow of a rickety wooden cargo boat moored alongside an Indonesian navy ship in Merak, western Java.

They are sitting shoulder to shoulder, as if posing for a giant class photo.

The navy, which apprehended the Tamils - who were en route to Australia - before bringing them to Merak, has let a small group of journalists on board the vessel to meet the asylum seekers.

The group have been trying to reach Australia for months. They spent a month in the Malaysian jungle before joining the boat, which they have now been aboard for two weeks.

Their spokesman, Alex, says they can endure much more: they will stay on board until they are offered asylum in a Western country such as Australia.

"If you come see the situation in Sri Lanka, where most Tamils live ... you can see it's a lot worse than living on this ship," he says.

"So most of these people are used to a life like this.

"We're comfortable in a life like this.

"So I can guarantee you, we can go on for months."

Alex says they are fleeing genocide in Sri Lanka. They just want to reach a place that can offer them a future.

To return to Sri Lanka would mean certain death, he says. To stay in Indonesia would mean years in limbo while they wait for a third country to accept them as refugees.

"We don't want to be stuck in a situation like that," he says. "We are staying on this boat until the international community comes together and makes a decision on finding a way to get us out of this country."

The Tamils set sail for Australia believing it would accept them and grant them refuge, Alex says.

It was, therefore, hard to accept that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had asked Indonesia to stop the boat before it could reach Australian waters.

"If you had no home to go to, if you had no county to live in ... what would you do?" Alex says.

"We're not animals, we're not dogs, we're not stray dogs. We're just people without a country to live in."

The Tamils did threaten to blow themselves up if forced ashore but Alex now says the threat was made when they feared they would be sent back to Sri Lanka.

They have now backed down on the threat and surrendered their gas canisters and diesel fuel to the navy.

"We did not come this far to die. We came this far to live, to find a life," he says.

The navy is trying to coax the Sri Lankans off the boat without violence. Authorities intend to send them to a detention facility in Sumatra if and when they do finally step ashore.