Whislt I agree that the overwhelming number of Australians remain racists. I dont agree that the reaction of Schapelle Corby's mother to the verdict is indicative of this. In fact the Corby family has more ties to Indonesia than most Australians and Schapelle herself has shown almost saint like restraint during her ordeal. It is extremely cold hearted to cast judegment on anything Schapelles family said or did in those dreadful minutes following the verdict regardless of their daughters and sisters innocence.

The mass show of support was a remarkable sociological phenomenon equal only to the reaction to the Lindy Chamberlain who was villified by the public. (she was neither asian nor foreign).
Nevertheless to use this case as evidence of racisms is lazy, it bears no academic scrutiny and appears to reflect the authors biase more clearly than the populations

"Deep down in our national psyche, we are still the superior white, and they, the Asiatics, are still inferior and to be exploited. Yes, they are also exotic, eager to please, and can be corrupted - the remains of our 19th century Orientalist outlook."

Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black - old English expression

I can think of another one - people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

I suggest Chek Ling is exercising a double standard in his criticism of "Australians" - more particular if he bothered to read back over posts made by myself and many other "Australians" he will find that, whilst some may exercise what he claims as a "double standard", many of us do not think their is anything wrong with the "Indonesian Justice" being handed out to this drug peddling individual and would sooner see the severity of sentencing as delivered by some Asian countries adopted here for similar offences.

Likewise, I remain unsure whether Chek Ling is speaking as an "Australian" or an "Asiatic" – not that it matters to me but being an "Australian" first (and "Anglo Saxon" second) I find his focus on "ethnic origin" less than attractive and more like plain old "racism", as it features in his article.

Further, the Australian Government response is always to sit silently outside the public debate which may surround any overseas prosecution – rather than be criticised for trying to interfer in what is a "foreign" process beyond the ambit of Australina sovereign authority – that means "interfering" for the benefit or to the detriment of either side. Thus Mr Howard’s silence over the prosecution of an Australian National by Indonesia and his silence regarding the lampoonish behaviour of the accused’s family was entirely appropriate.

I get this strange feeling, that Chek Ling is attempting to disguise his own racist attitudes towards whites by sneering at the supposed racism exhibited by whites. I guess hailing from the former British colony of Malaysia would make him sensitive about his standing among white people, just like that bitter (racist)old man Mohammed Mahatir.

Before we condemn 'racists', we should understand that it is just a label. Kind of like schizophrenic, sounds big and scary but in reality,just ordinary people.

As a Chinese-Malaysian now living in Australia, are you suffering an identity crisis?

As a far from uneducated Australian, I’m happy to side myself with the Corby-is-(most-likely)-innocent mass. And as commenter Marianne notes, this does not make me a racist.

For the record, I don’t endorse the views of, or even listen to, radio shock jocks, period. (Hint to Chek Ling: you only have to listen a shock jock for a few minutes on *any* given day to hear a variant of the judges-are-“monkeys” slander repeated against some other grouping, like “dole bludgers”. In other words, what’s new?). I also specifically condemn the actions of the white-powder mailers.

I am puzzled, though, as to why Chek Ling seems happy to accept that Corby is unquestionably guilty in the circumstances. (For my views on why she probably is not, see: http://larvatusprodeo.redrag.net/2005/05/25/the-politics-of-schapelle-corby-ii/ (comments thread))

Chek Ling’s views here are even more surprising when he compares Indonesia’s conviction of Corby with that of 19 year-old Japanese tourist “Miko”. I assume that he means 36 year-old Japanese tourist Chika Honda. Yes, Honda and the other four were almost certainly set up in KL by the Malaysian-Chinese “Charlie”, and so their 1992 trial and conviction was and is a disgrace to Australia’s legal system. Furthermore, it was and is a disgrace to Malaysia’s legal system (a country supposedly ultra-tough on drugs, but one which seems eternally hapless at catching the Mr Bigs). Malaysian co-operation during the 1992 Australian trial seems to have been minimal at best. Given that Malaysia is Chek Ling’s country of birth, and that “Charlie” is his ethnic compatriot to boot, sheeting blame for this travesty of justice on Australia alone is rich indeed.

(Cont'd)

In the Corby case, admittedly, the roles have been reversed from 1992 – this time it is Australia’s government playing the “We don’t want to get involved, even though the drugs came from our jurisdiction” card. I’m happy, then for Australia’s government to be condemned on this basis (which incidentally makes Chek Ling’s “Hanson – the Sequel” theory of John Howard’s actions a complete red herring). Accordingly, much of the grass-roots anger at Indonesia’s judicial/government system is misdirected, in my opinion.

This doesn’t mean, however, that the grass-roots anger over the Corby verdict is without foundation. At bottom, the Corby and Japanese Five cases both smell of government, cross-border complacency, or worse, to organised crime’s Mr Bigs. Chek Ling should at least acknowledge this reality, and the understandable bitter powerlessness (“Corby could so easily have been me!”) ordinary, honest citizens feel in the face of it.

undoubtedly the race card has been played in this corby debarcle but its been disguised behind a gush of emotional bleeting that is disregarding of facts such as differing legal systems and processes.

one only has to read a newspaper headline or women's magazines speil to see the overplay on emotional bleeting. phrases like 'run down prison', 'hellhole', 'please dont forget me' all play into the pulling of emotional strings in order to garner support. and on top of that there are the barbed phrases which seem to infer that the indonesian side is lax and of course not as superior - 'flambouyant lawyer', 'bizare tactics' and bribery allegation by those perth qc's.

all the emotional bleeting in the world wont prove corby innocent, in fact it does little good at all, except to incite dislike and disdain for indonesia, bali and asians in general.

the calls of give me back my tsunami donation is again a part of the race card dressed as emotion and totally unnecessary unless you're looking for revenge of some sort. i gave you this and look what you did to our girl so now you can give back what i gave to you.

it is of no surprise to me to find other readers on this site in contention with chek's article. its called denial.

as a black skinned aboriginal australian i am only too aware of the fact that racism is alive and well in this country and that the white australia policy is still very much at the heart of our institutions and socialisation patterns.