Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Friday, March 1, 2019

How do conservative Muslims see Indonesia’s presidential hopefuls?


1 Mar 2019
INDONESIA’s 2019 presidential election is a face-off between two old rivals: incumbent President Joko Widodo (Jokowi) and his challenger Prabowo Subianto.
While some electoral issues are identical to the 2014 election when they first clashed, such as the economy and nationalism, others are new. The so-called ‘conservative turn’ heralded by a massive peaceful Islamist protest in December 2016, dubbed the 212 movement, could be a game changer.
The movement mounted a successful campaign to oust former Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (Ahok), landing him in prison for two years on blasphemy charges. The conservative groups that comprise the 212 movement are now aiming to replace President Jokowi in this April’s presidential election. They are overwhelmingly backing Jokowi’s opponent Prabowo and his vice-presidential nominee Sandiaga Uno (Sandi) as the ideal Muslim candidates.
Since the Ahok campaign, the 212 movement has become an influential phenomenon in Indonesian politics. It is not only encouraging Muslims to express their social, economic and political views and preferences but also making both presidential candidates shift their politics to accommodate Islamic concerns.
Jokowi is attempting to burnish his Islamic credentials. He is now more routinely seen performing Friday prayers and visiting Islamic boarding schools. The appointment of Indonesian Ulama Council chairman Ma’ruf Amin as his vice-presidential running mate is part of this strategy.
While he was raised in a secular family, Prabowo is now developing his network with conservative Islamic activists and groups that endorsed his candidacy. He has amassed backings from conservative activists such as Habib Rizieq Shihab, founder of the Islamic Defenders Front, and Amien Rais, a Muhammadiyah leader and founder of the National Mandate Party.
Prabowo’s running mate Sandi portrays himself as a young and pious Muslim entrepreneur. The Prosperous Justice Party — an Islamist party that also backs Prabowo — describes Sandi as ‘a new santri (devout Muslim) of post-Islamism’.
Conservative Muslims in West Sumatra, North Sumatra, South Sulawesi and North Sulawesi perceive the presidential candidate pairs differently. They consider Jokowi’s effort to enhance his Islamic credentials as ‘too little too late’, having previously criminalised some ulamas (Islamic scholars) who opposed him. While Prabowo is also not considered a good santri, he is closer to these conservatives’ aspirations.
000_1DO9LQ
Indonesian President Joko Widodo (R) and his wife Iriana Widodo (L) leave the National University Hospital in Singapore on February 21, 2019. Source: ROSLAN RAHMAN / AFP
Jokowi’s appointment of Ma’ruf Amin is not enough to convince them. Some prominent clerics in Wajo, South Sulawesi, for example, said they prefer to drink a cup of ‘black coffee with a little sugar’ than ‘milk coffee blended with tea’. The message is that Ma’ruf Amin’s selection does not sufficiently burnish Jokowi’s Islamic credentials. They would rather vote for a young entrepreneur with little political experience like Sandi, even though he is a black coffee with a little sugar (little Islamic credentials).
Members of organisations such as Persatuan Tarbiyah Islamiyah, Wahdah Islamiyah, Darul Istiqamah and Muhammadiyah in West Sumatra and South Sulawesi have similar discontent with Jokowi–Ma’ruf. They perceive Jokowi’s policies as ineffective in dealing with the massive debts and socio-political injustices that poor Muslims suffer from. They also dislike Jokowi’s neo-liberal economic policy that courts foreign investors. He is perceived as a weak president who does not support Muslim aspirations.
For conservatives, defeating Jokowi–Ma’ruf and orchestrating a win for Prabowo–Sandi is an Islamic obligation. They believe that voting for Prabowo is both a spiritual and religious duty, as it is in accordance with the ulama’s political fatwa based on the September 2018 consensus from the Second Ijtima Ulama (Grand Gathering of Ulama).
Rahmat Surya, a local scholar and businessman who pledged an oath to Habib Rizieq, emphasised this during an interview: ‘If I wrongly chose Prabowo–Sandi, my sin is the ulama’s responsibility. However, if I incorrectly choose Jokowi–Ma’ruf, then no one bears my sin, because the ulama did not support them’.
The Prabowo–Sandi pair are not only viewed as best able to address Indonesia’s developmental challenges, but also to pave the way for deeper Islamisation. To aid that cause, they exhort Islamic doctrines such as al-ukhuwah al-Islamiyah (Islamic solidarity) and da’wah (religious preaching) to motivate all Muslims to support Prabowo–Sandi.
000_19B35V
President candidate Prabowo (C), vice president candidate Sandiaga Uno (R) and son of former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Agus Harimukti Yudhoyono (L), pose before the draw for 2019 presidential election at election commission office in Jakarta, on September 21, 2018. Source: BAY ISMOYO / AFP
Two months ahead of the 2019 presidential election, it is hard to forecast accurately who will win ‘the hearts and minds’ of the people. Some reputable pollsters consistently predict Jokowi–Ma’ruf to be ahead of Prabowo–Sandi by a margin of 20–30 percent. But for his die-hard supporters, Prabowo’s victory is inevitable unless there is electoral cheating.
Islamic conservatism is becoming more apparent in Indonesia after the 212 movement. These groups constitute not just a socio-religious driving force but also a political one that is changing Indonesia’s political landscape. The case of the Jakarta gubernatorial election and the 2018 regional elections are excellent illustrations of the growing political significance of the 212 movement.
Regardless of who wins the election, the growing tide of Islamic piety (or conservatism to others) in Indonesia will not be a one-off phenomenon. It is having a considerable impact on Indonesian Muslims’ narratives and their political behaviour during the ongoing presidential election. And it may have considerable influence in shaping Indonesia’s public policy well into the future, regardless of who is elected president in April 2019.
Republished from East Asia Forum under a Creative Commons license.
Andar Nubowo is an Associate Research Fellow, Indonesia Programme, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
A version of this article originally appeared here on RSIS.

India And Pakistan Must Show Restraint To Defuse Military Tensions: The Elders

Heightened tensions and resort to military force are leading India and Pakistan towards a course that threatens regional peace
 
 
The Elders today called on the leaders of India and Pakistan to take urgent steps to defuse military and political tensions that have developed over the past few days and to refrain from further bellicose rhetoric and pursue a path of meaningful dialogue.
 
They warned that any escalation of military exchanges between the two nuclear-armed states could pose a risk to peace and security throughout South Asia and the wider world.
 
Mary Robinson, Chair of The Elders and former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said:
 
“I am deeply alarmed by the escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. The leaders of these two nuclear-armed states have a responsibility to show restraint, in the interests of their peoples and the wider world. I urge Prime Ministers Modi and Khan to talk directly to resolve this crisis, and to engage in broader multilateral efforts to pursue nuclear disarmament.”
 
The Elders encouraged political and military leaders in India and Pakistan to develop more robust and coordinated channels of communication to avoid confusion, misunderstandings and miscalculations at times of crisis. They further called on the international community to make appropriate efforts to facilitate this dialogue and focus its support on de-escalating the situation.
 
Coming as nuclear talks between US President Donald Trump and Chairman Kim Jong-un of North Korea in Hanoi ended inconclusively, The Elders reaffirmed their belief that only credible multilateral negotiations can effectively deliver global nuclear disarmament.
 
They also urged both sides in India and Pakistan to refrain from provocative actions and statements driven by domestic political considerations, which risk emboldening extremist groups within Kashmir and beyond.
 
Hina Jilani, Elder and Pakistani human rights advocate, said:
 
“Heightened tensions and resort to military force are leading India and Pakistan towards a course that threatens regional peace. It is vital that authorities in both countries demonstrate restraint and take immediate action to de-escalate tensions. There are no issues that cannot be resolved through dialogue. The world must stand in solidarity with the thousands of voices in India and Pakistan and of the Kashmiri people who ‘say no to war’, and pressure leaders to deliver peace, security and justice for all.”

Theresa May’s former joint chief of staff on Brexit and his alleged ‘reign of terror’

-1 Mar 2019Political Editor
On Channel 4 News’ ‘Politics: Where Next’ podcast, and in his first broadcast interview since losing his job, Theresa May’s former joint chief of staff Nick Timothy discusses Brexit, his alleged ‘reign of terror’ – and the mistakes around the 2017 snap election that ultimately cost him his job.

EXCLUSIVE: Sudanese spy chief 'met head of Mossad to discuss Bashir succession plan'

Munich meeting between Salah Gosh and Yossi Cohen took place with Saudi Arabia and allies seeking to install 'their man' in power in Khartoum, army source tells MEE
Salah Gosh, pictured at home in Khartoum in 2013 after he was released from prison and pardoned over his alleged role in a coup plot (AFP)
Sudanese intelligence chief Salah Gosh held secret talks with the head of Mossad in Germany last month as part of a plot hatched by Israel's Gulf allies to elevate him to the presidency when Omar al-Bashir is toppled from power, a senior Sudanese military source has told Middle East Eye.
Gosh, the head of Sudan's National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS), met Yossi Cohen on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in a meeting arranged by Egyptian intermediaries with the backing of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the source said.
Sudanese protesters remain defiant despite increased government crackdown
Read More »
The Saudis, the Emiratis and the Egyptians see Gosh as “their man”, the source said, in a behind-the-scenes power struggle now taking place in Khartoum after months of anti-government protests that many now see as the beginning of the end of Bashir's three-decade rule.
“There is a consensus that Bashir will go within the ruling party and the army. The battle is about who is coming after,” said the source.
“Gosh has strong links with the Saudis, the Emiratis and the Egyptians. They want Bashir out, and they want their man in his place.”
A spokesperson for the Munich Security Conference confirmed that both Gosh and Cohen had attended this year’s event which took place 15-17 February. Another diplomatic source spoken to by MEE corroborated details of the meeting.
Gosh also met European intelligence chiefs, the head of the Common Media Center, which is close to the Sudanese government, told MEE. 

Why are Sudanese protesting against their government?

+ Show
According to the source, Bashir was unaware of the “unprecedented” meeting between Gosh and Cohen in Munich. Its purpose was to highlight Gosh as his potential successor and to bring Israel onboard to secure US support for the plan.
“The Israelis are seen as their ally, the one they can depend on to open doors in Washington,” he said.
The Mossad, Israel's national intelligence, has played the role of foreign ministry in dealing with officials of countries that do not have a peace treaty with Israel, according to Israeli media.
"The Mossad is being used as a foreign ministry in ties with all the states that do not have diplomatic ties with Israel," an Israeli official told Channel 13 in a report on normalising ties between Israel and Bahrain.

CIA's man in Khartoum

Gosh is well known in Washington where he earned a reputation during the 2000s as a spy chief with whom the CIA could work in the “war on terror” against al-Qaeda, even visiting the US in 2005 when, as now, Sudan was listed by the State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.
A report by the Africa Intelligence website last month also said that the CIA had identified Gosh as its preferred successor to Bashir if the Sudanese President’s position became untenable.
Citing a report by a Gulf state embassy in Washington, the website said that the CIA was not working to bring about regime change because the Sudanese government was providing valuable intelligence on al-Shabaab in Somalia, in Libya, and on the Muslim Brotherhood.
But the embassy report said the CIA would work to ensure that Gosh replaced Bashir if the protests could not be contained.
Omar Bashir
Omar al-Bashir (C, bottom row) is pictured with state governors sworn in on Monday (Reuters)
Bashir has sought to assert his authority in recent days by promoting army officers to senior positions and introducing sweeping new emergency powers by presidential decree in an effort to halt the countrywide protests.
The government reshuffle came soon after Gosh had told reporters in Khartoum on Friday that Bashir would step down as leader of the ruling National Congress Party and would not contest presidential elections in 2020.
Bashir named his defence minister, General Awad Ibnou, as first vice-president, and appointed 16 army officers and two NISS officers as governors of the country's 18 provinces.
On Thursday night, he handed over leadership of the NCP to his newly appointed deputy, Ahmed Harun. The NCP said in a statement that Harun would serve as acting chief until a new president was elected at the party’s next convention.

'Militarisation' of the state

Analysts in Khartoum told MEE this week that Bashir appeared to be moving towards the “full militarisation” of the state and elimination of all opposition within the ruling party.
But MEE's source said that the army remained wary of Gosh and Saudi and Emirati influence in the country. He pointed to sympathetic coverage of the protests in Saudi-backed media usually opposed to “popular change”.
“The media are very interested in these protests. That would not happen without a green light,” he said.
ANALYSIS: Bashir turns to 'old guard' enforcer to quell rising threats in Sudan
Read More »
Gosh headed NISS between 2004 and 2009, when Bashir appointed him as his national security adviser. He was sacked in 2011 and later arrested on suspicion of involvement in a coup plot, but was released with a presidential pardon in 2013.
He was reappointed as the head of NISS in February 2018. His return was seen as a move by Bashir to crack down on dissent as the country faced worsening economic problems and anti-austerity protests, and also to build bridges once again with the US following the lifting of sanctions in late 2017.
According to MEE's source, Gosh's return to NISS was also sweetened by Saudi promises of financial support for the ailing Sudanese economy.
In January, Saudi Minister of Commerce and Investment Majid Al-Qasabi said during a visit to Khartoum that Riyadh had provided 8 billion riyals ($2.1 billion) to Sudan over the past four years.

'Fickle friend'

But Bashir has also sought to play the Saudis and the Emiratis off against regional rivals Qatar and Turkey, which also have strategic interests in Khartoum, costing him goodwill on all sides, according to a regional analyst quoted by the Africa Confidential website.
“Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, as well as Doha, have regarded Bashir as a fickle friend because of his tendency to play both ends against the middle,” the unnamed analyst said.
“He has pledged allegiance in the past in return for subsidies and then gone his own way.”
MEE understands that American and British diplomats are also working to persuade Bashir to step down in return for a promise of immunity from prosecution at the International Criminal Court where he was charged with war crimes in 2009 over alleged atrocities committed by government forces and pro-government militias in Darfur.
Peace or justice? Sudan's opposition is split about Bashir 'soft exit' offer
Read More »
Bashir is also reported to have discussed possible immunity with United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on the sidelines of last month’s African Union summit in Ethiopia.
Elements of the Sudanese political opposition, most notably its figurehead, Sadiq al-Mahdi, have long proposed freezing the ICC indictment in return for Bashir stepping down as a possible way forward.
However, rebel groups in Darfur, some of whose leaders have handed themselves into ICC custody after also being charged with war crimes, have said they would reject any such move and would abandon peace talks as a result.
The Munich Security Conference has long provided a Bavarian backdrop for discreet encounters between geopolitical antagonists and intelligence chiefs, with Cohen a regular attendee at the event.
This year’s speakers included Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Qatari Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani.

Failure in Hanoi Doesn’t Mean Peace Is Dead

The foundations need to be laid for a long, hard route ahead.

A man wearing a Make Korea Great Again hat stands near conservative pro-U.S. demonstrators during a rally denouncing government policies toward North Korea in Seoul on March 1. (Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images)
A man wearing a Make Korea Great Again hat stands near conservative pro-U.S. demonstrators during a rally denouncing government policies toward North Korea in Seoul on March 1. (Ed Jones/AFP/Getty Images)

No photo description available.
BY 
 |  This week, U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un walked away from Hanoi empty-handed. Their failure to sign a deal was shocking, given most of the speculation before the summit had focused on what would be in the deal, not on whether one would be signed. The failed summit has undeniably made negotiations more difficult going forward. But the silver lining is that the two sides now have the time to step back and lay the foundations for a sustainable diplomatic track, which is essential given the long road ahead.

The Hanoi summit, according to Trump, ultimately collapsed because the North Koreans wanted all existing sanctions lifted in exchange for dismantling the Yongbyon test site. A few hours later, Ri Yong Ho, the North Korean minister of foreign affairs, held a news conference and countered that his side had only asked for partial, not full, sanctions relief. He specified that out of the 11 total U.N. sanctions, they wanted the five imposed between 2016 and 2017—especially the parts that have an impact on “peoples’ livelihood” and the “civilian economy”—to be lifted.

Although Ri’s account is technically accurate, in reality the five sanctions he specified are at the heart of the economic pressure campaign on North Korea. These sanctions include measures to cap North Korea’s crude oil and refined petroleum imports; a ban on the export of coal, iron, lead, seafood, textiles, and joint ventures with North Korean partners; and a ban on North Korean laborers from working abroad.

It’s unclear why Kim thought Trump would be willing to accept such a maximalist demand, especially given the Trump administration’s political vulnerabilities at home. But Kim clearly lost face after taking a big political gamble and failing to win any economic concessions. As a result, he will likely have less flexibility going forward for two reasons.

First, the failed summit is likely to strengthen hard-liners in Pyongyang who are uncomfortable with Kim’s strategic pivot toward economic development and outreach to the outside world. They can now point to what happened at Hanoi to reinforce the argument that, regardless of Trump’s proclaimed friendship with Kim, the United States and other foreign powers should not be trusted.

Kim will also be constrained by his own words. Only two months ago, he declared in his New Year’s address that if the United States continued to impose sanctions in a “miscalculation of our people’s patience,” he would “find a new way” to defend “the supreme interests” of his state. Having publicly made such a vow to his people, and after being burned in Hanoi, it’s quite likely that Kim will find it politically difficult to return to the negotiating table with a moderated position. In fact, Ri ended his press conference by declaring that North Korea’s “principled position” would never change, even in subsequent negotiations.

In addition, there was no indication in Hanoi that the two sides had agreed on next steps or dates for working-level meetings. With such a wide gap in negotiating positions and no pressing deadlines like a summit to work up to, it’s highly possible that talks will stall. In fact, negotiations stalled even after the previous summit when North Korea won significant concessions—including the first-ever summit with a sitting U.S. president and the suspension in U.S.-South Korean military exercises—for vaguely committing to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and agreeing to return the remains of U.S. soldiers killed during the Korean War.

Obviously, the biggest risk post-Hanoi is that if subsequent working-level talks continue to hit dead ends, both sides will lose patience and goodwill. North Korea could resume nuclear or missile tests or engage in some flagrant behavior to make a statement. In that case, it’s not unrealistic to see a return to, in Trump’s words, “fire and fury.”

Yet Trump, at least thus far, has insisted that he and Kim still have a good relationship and a deal could be struck in the future. Other key players in the region will also expend efforts to ensure the situation doesn’t deteriorate to such a point. South Korean President Moon Jae-in will continue to mediate between Pyongyang and Washington, and Beijing will also continue to push for a diplomatic solution.

But there are some silver linings to the breakdown. The first is that a failed deal is better than a bad deal. And there were many different possible bad deals that could have been signed, such as one that only addressed intercontinental ballistic missiles while leaving U.S. allies vulnerable to shorter-range missiles or one that left a completely open-ended timeline for actual denuclearization, amounting to the recognition of North Korea as a de facto nuclear power.

And by not rushing a deal, the United States now has more time to hold extensive discussions with its Asian allies—especially South Korea—about the difficult questions that will arise on the future purpose and operation of the U.S.-South Korean alliance and the larger U.S.-led alliance network in Asia if and when an end of war declaration is signed.

These kinds of conversations take time and are not just topics for the respective defense departments. Broad discussions among leaders at all levels and across all bureaus, and eventually between leaders and their citizens, are necessary to create a shared vision for how Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo will work together to sustain peace not just on the Korean Peninsula but in the larger region.

The final silver lining is that Washington and Pyongyang now have an opportunity to return to the working level, notwithstanding the challenges discussed above, and set the foundations for a sustainable, long-term diplomatic process.

Two priority items should include: first, hammering out a clearly defined, time-bound road map that ends with a denuclearized North Korea, even if this end state is set many years from now. A final deadline is imperative for reassuring allies that the United States will not allow North Korea to remain a de facto nuclear power indefinitely and for upholding global nonproliferation norms.

Second, an institutionalized mechanism should be created so that when future negotiations stall or fail, there’s a normalized and face-saving way all of the parties can return back to the negotiating table. Without such baseline understandings in place, it will be difficult to sustain momentum in what will be a long journey ahead. And by failing to properly prepare, the United States risks repeating the history of the 1990s and 2000s, when it seemed as if an agreement was around the corner, only to have these efforts fall apart and a worse situation emerge each time.
 
Patricia M. Kim is a Senior Policy Analyst with the China Program at the U.S. Institute of Peace.

Washington ups pressure on Venezuela as Guaido tours South America

Opposition leader Juan Guaido, who many nations have recognised as the country's rightful interim ruler makes declarations during a joint press conference with Paraguay's President Mario Abdo Benitez at the Lopez Palace in Asuncion, Paraguay, March 1, 2019. REUTERS/Jorge Adorno

Lesley WroughtonDaniela Desantis-MARCH 1, 2019 

WASHINGTON/ASUNCION (Reuters) - The United States on Friday ramped up its attempt to dislodge Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power, imposing new sanctions and revoking visas of senior officials, while opposition leader Juan Guaido toured South America to drum up support.

Venezuelan military officials last weekend blocked an opposition-backed effort to bring food into the country via its borders with Colombia and Brazil, leaving two aid trucks in flames and five people dead.

Guaido, who is recognised by most Western nations as Venezuela’s rightful leader, visited Paraguay on Friday and was due to then travel to Argentina to shore up Latin American support for a transition government for the crisis-stricken nation.

Guaido’s international backers are using a mix of sanctions and diplomacy to try to put pressure to bear on Maduro. But Maduro retains control of state institutions and the support of the armed forces, and military intervention is seen as unlikely.

“We are sanctioning members of Maduro’s security forces in response to the reprehensible violence, tragic deaths, and unconscionable torching of food and medicine destined for sick and starving Venezuelans,” U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement.

The United States “will continue to target Maduro loyalists prolonging the suffering of the victims of this man-made humanitarian crisis.”

The list includes National Guard Commander Richard Lopez and five other police and military officials based near the Colombian or Brazilian borders.

The U.S. State Department later said it had revoked the travel visas of 49 people as it cracked down on “individuals responsible for undermining Venezuela’s democracy.”
Venezuela’s Information Ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

DEFIANCE

Speaking with Paraguayan President Mario Abdo, Guaido said that 600 members of Venezuela’s military had abandoned Maduro’s government following the clashes over the aid.

Guaido is scheduled to meet with Argentine President Mauricio Macri later on Friday and to travel to Ecuador on Saturday to meet with President Lenin Moreno.

Guaido slipped out of Venezuela last week, in violation of a Supreme Court order not to leave the country, to join the aid convoys in Colombia. There, he met with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and other regional leaders and later travelled to Brazil.


Slideshow (4 Images)

He has promised to return to Venezuela by Monday, seen as a form of direct defiance to Maduro, who has said Guaido will eventually “face justice.”

Governments around the region have called on Maduro to let aid in as inflation above 2 million percent per year and chronic shortages of food have left some eating from garbage bins in order to ward off malnutrition.

Maduro has called the U.S.-backed humanitarian aid effort a veiled invasion meant to push him from power, and has insisted that there is no crisis in the country.

Russia has accused the United States of preparing to intervene militarily in Venezuela and, along with China, blocked a U.S. bid this week to get the United Nations Security Council to take action on Venezuela.

Reporting by Lesley Wroughton and Daniela Desantis, additional reporting by Doina Chiacu and Lisa Lambert in Washington, Mayela Armas in Caracas, and Alexandria Valencia in Quito, writing by Brian Ellsworth and Hugh Bronstein, editing by Rosalba O'Brien

Only six countries in the world give women and men equal legal work rights

Sweden and France among states found by the World Bank to enshrine gender equality in laws, but implementation haphazard

 Sub-Saharan Africa has improved its laws to bolster gender equality over the past 10 years. Half the changes were related to work and marriage. Photograph: Alamy


If you’re a woman and want to be on an equal footing with men, it’s best to live and work in Belgium, Denmark, France, Latvia, Luxembourg or Sweden. The World Bank, which has tracked legal changes for the past decade, found these were the only countries in the world to enshrine gender equality in laws affecting work.

The bank’s women, business and the law 2019 report, published this week, measured gender discrimination in 187 countries. It found that, a decade ago, no country gave women and men equal legal rights.

The index assessed eight indicators that influence economic decisions women make during their working lives – from freedom of movement to getting a pension – tracking legal blocks to either employment or entrepreneurship. Each country was scored and ranked, with a score of 100 indicating the most equal. Only six were given full marks.

Research found that, globally, average scores had risen from 70 to 75. Of the 39 countries with scores of 90 or above, 26 were high-income. Eight were in Europe, including the UK, and central Asia, where parental leave was a key trend. Two, Paraguay and Peru, were in Latin America and the Caribbean. Taiwan was also among them.

South Asia had the biggest improvement in average regional score, recording a figure of 58.36 – up from 50 a decade ago. Sub-Saharan Africa increased from 64.04 to 69.63 over the same period, led by progress in Mauritius. Half the changes were related to work and marriage.

Countries in the Middle East and North Africa made the least progress, with an average increase of just 2.86, to 47.37.

The report was launched by the bank’s interim president, Kristalina Georgieva, who took over from Jim Yong Kim.

“Gender equality is a critical component of economic growth,” she said. “Women are half of the world’s population and we have our role to play in creating a more prosperous world. But we won’t succeed in playing it if the laws are holding us back.”

The report found that women’s rights advocacy groups had played a key role in driving reforms.

While the report noted significant progress overall, there remained much to be done to level the playing field. Instituting legal reforms did not necessarily lead to changes on the ground, and a score of 100 did not automatically mean 100% equality. Unequal pay is a major stumbling block. Women in Sweden earn 5% less than their male peers (in the UK they earn 8% less).

This represents a missed opportunity, said Georgieva. The global economy could be enriched by about $160tn (£120tn) if women earned as much as men.

“It is clear that giving space to women leads to richer societies,” she says.
Our culture of overtime is costing us dearly


About 13% of Australian worker are working 50 hours or more a week, putting themselves, and others, at greater risk. Shutterstock


The Conversation-February 24, 2019
The story of Yumiko Kadota, whose gruelling schedule as a Sydney hospital registrar included clocking up more than 100 hours of overtime in her first month, has highlighted the punishing work schedules required in the medical profession.
Research indicates working more than 48 hours a week is associated with significant declines in productivity, more mistakes and more mental health problems. Yet the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons reckonsworking up to 65 hours a week “is appropriate for trainees to gain the knowledge and experience required”.
It’s an attitude that explains why a 2017 audit found more than 70% of surgeons in public hospitals were working unsafe hours. And it’s symptomatic of many areas where pushing the hours envelope is seen as part of the job.


Last month, for example, a study by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau found almost one in four long-haul pilots reported working on less than five hours of sleep in the previous 24 hours – putting them in the risk zone where fatigue leads to impaired performance.
Meanwhile, two of Australia’s largest law firms are being investigated for overworking staff. At King & Wood Mallesons in Melbourne, lawyers working on the banking royal commission were reportedly sleeping in their offices overnight, too tired to go home. At Gilbert + Tobin Lawyers in Sydney, it is alleged lawyers were resorting to drugs and other supplements to cope with fatigue.
Other areas in which long hours are common are in mining, farming and construction. All up about 13% of the workforce – 19% of men and 6% of women – are working 50 hours or more, putting themselves, and others, at risk.

What’s the damage

After a century of “scientific management” you might think that more attention would be paid to the scientific studies on working long hours.
The relationship between work hours and productivity follows the economic law of diminishing returns. Productivity peaks at a certain point and then declines. Work too long and you get to the point where you’re achieving nothing; or are even doing damage.
Diminishing returns: author Mark Manson decided to chart his productivity over hours in the day in this fashion. The Observer
This is what the research literature tells us:
  • After working 39 hours a week, mental health tends to decline.
  • After 48 hours, job performance begins to rapidly decrease. There are more signs of depression and anxiety, and worse sleep quality associated with long-term health risks such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer.
  • Working more than 10 hours a day increases the risk of workplace injury by 40%, and more than 12 hours a day doubles it.
  • Longer working hours harm relationships, erode job satisfaction and contribute to depression, including increased suicidal thoughts.

A rule made to be broken

All of this research shows there’s good sense in Australia’s federal Fair Work Act (s. 62) capping the standard work week at a maximum of 38 hours.
But that maximum is easy to flout. The act also says an employer can require an employee to work “reasonable” extra hours. Determining whether they are unreasonable depends on 10 factors, including a risk to health and safety, family circumstances, the needs of the business, compensation, the usual patterns of work in the industry and “any other relevant matter”.
The law says an employee can refuse to work more than 38 hours a week, but in practice that rarely happens.
You may be happy to put in more hours because you are compensated. You may even do it “voluntarily”, because you see it as a path to promotion, or the way to keep your job. You may be enmeshed in a “first in, last out” culture, where it’s a competition to show your devotion to your job through the number of hours you work.
As a result, Australians work an average six hours of unpaid overtime a week.

Gaming the system

Management practices can promote an overtime culture without explicitly flouting the law.
One way is to scrutinise an employee’s working hours, such as using a billable hours system. This is common in law firms and other professional services. Clients are charged by the hour (or six-minute increments, as is the case in law firms) for the time an employee spends working on a matter. It puts pressure on a conscientious employee to do any work not related to a client in their own time. An employee may also under-report hours so as not look slow or unproductive to a manager.


Another way is through using casual or contract workers. Such employment can result in workers doing more hours than what they are paid for, either because they have underquoted to get the job, or are working on a fixed contract where the employer has defined how long it should take, or they feel the need to prove their worth to ensure they get more work.

Changing attitudes

State and federal government agencies, including Safe Work Australiaand the Fair Work Ombudsman, have broad powers to develop policy or investigate worker health and safety (including overtime).
But for those powers to make a difference, these agencies need more resources to actually do investigations and greater powers to issue fines and corrective measures to companies where overtime is endemic. There’s no reason hours auditing couldn’t be a more routine procedure, much like food health and safety regulators inspect restaurants.
But more than that we need a change in the cultural attitudes that promote long hours as necessary, acceptable or heroic – even when someone doing their job while overtired and fatigued, such as a surgeon or pilot, is downright scary.