Student profile — Haitao
Degree: Juris Doctor
Country: China
Why did you choose the Melbourne JD program? I had just obtained for a MBA degree prior to starting the Melbourne JD. I thought the combination of MBA and a law degree would be very attractive in terms of career opportunities either in law or other industries. Giving the reputation of Melbourne Law School and the course structure, I decided to choose the Melbourne JD.
What were the highlights? The learning curve was very steep for me when I started JD without enough experience of the legal system of Australia. The first and second semesters were very challenging. I felt much comfortable and confident after the initial two semesters. I even managed to win the ABL Corporations Law award and complete the GDLP program with ANU during my second year of JD.
How have you applied your skills and learning from the JD program? I have been working with Mallesons Stephen Jaques as a Merger & Acquisition lawyer after graduation. Three sets of skills learned or developed in the JD programs are commonly used during my practice. They are:
legal technical skill — the skill to identify issues and advice on solutions is the key skill for any lawyer in any transactions;
drafting skill — there were drafting exercises in the JD program (eg Trust and Commercial Law). I need to apply (and improve) this skill almost every day; and
team work skill — this is essential for any M&A transaction which tends to involve colleagues from various practice areas (and regional offices) including Intellectual Property, Tax and Environment. Working with other team members effectively and efficiently is essential for the success of any M&A transaction.
What advice would you give prospective students thinking about applying for the Melbourne JD? I think a prospective student should first understand the legal career and make sure he or she really wants to become a lawyer. This can be achieved by talking to lawyers or doing some casual work in a law firm.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The Double-Edged Fourth Estate?
The Foreign Ministry of the Government of Afghanistan has issued a statement, calling on domestic and foreign media to avoid reporting any poll-related violence in the country on the day of the elections. The statement reads;
All domestic and international media agencies are requested to refrain from broadcasting any incident of violence during the election process from 6am to 8pm on 20 August.
The media have also been asked to stay away from any scene of ‘terrorist incident’ so as to avoid ‘destruction of initial evidence for investigation’. The statement issued by the Government comes in the light of repeated threats by the Taliban to disrupt the polls, some of which have been followed by sporadic violence in Kabul and other parts of the country.
From the Government’s perspective, the move is an attempt to control the ‘negative influence’ of the media (as stated by President Karzai’s spokesperson) to prevent exaggeration of election-day violence, and consequently, fear-mongering among Afghan citizens. However, media entities and rights organizations have been unanimous in condemning the statement; the Government’s call has been cited as an attempt to curtail press freedom, and prevent citizens from knowing about real, and potent security threats on the day of election.
The announcement is but one of the many intriguing aspects of the election process in Afghanistan, which will culminate in the voting session tomorrow. The international community, particularly the US, is extremely concerned about the state of affairs in the country, and the growing influence of the Taliban. Thursday’s election is widely tipped to be in favour of the incumbent Hamid Karzai, whose relations with the US have been favourable, though pocked with inconsistencies. (Karzai, for his part, has appealed to the broad spectrum of ethnic groups in Afghan provinces to ensure his re-election.)
Many countries which hold strategic interest in their relations with Afghanistan, including India and the US, will sleep better if Karzai’s Government is re-elected to another term. While there has been growing discontent against the presence of international troops on Afghan soil and the inconsistent ‘drone attacks’ that have claimed many a civilian’s life, there can be no better, immediate solution to stabilized nation-building than to have back Karzai in power. Again, as most countries acknowledge, this is not because of an unflinching trust in the incumbent’s capabilities, but because of the sheer control he holds over the provinces, in sharp contrast to his poll opponents.
The Taliban threat is still high, and the events in Pakistan bear testimony to its growing potential (notwithstanding reports of Beitullah Mesud’s death) in the region. A nascent Government will be immediately pulled into chaos, especially if it is in the nature of a coalition, allowing the Taliban to regain its footing in key areas of Afghanistan. That the West is keen to see Karzai back in power is clearly evident from the conspicuous absence of official international comment on the misgivings during the campaigning and poll process.
Recently, the BBC claimed to have unearthed a ‘Votes-for-Money’ scandal, where a huge number of voting cards could be bought for a considerable payment. The Afghan Independent Election Commission that oversees the poll has also been accused of not doing enough to prevent abuses. Despite these shortcomings, Western officials maintain that it is better to have a problem-riddled election than not having one at all (Mark Sedwill – British Ambassador to Afghanistan). Add to this, the constant threats from the Taliban to chop off the ‘inked-finger’ of any Afghani who goes to the voting booth.
It is a stand, not many nations can disagree with, considering Afghanistan’s role in any attempt to curb widespread terrorism. Therefore, the move to keep media agencies away from poll-related violence, in as much as it goes against established democratic norms, is likely to be met with little or no resistance by key foreign players.
All domestic and international media agencies are requested to refrain from broadcasting any incident of violence during the election process from 6am to 8pm on 20 August.
The media have also been asked to stay away from any scene of ‘terrorist incident’ so as to avoid ‘destruction of initial evidence for investigation’. The statement issued by the Government comes in the light of repeated threats by the Taliban to disrupt the polls, some of which have been followed by sporadic violence in Kabul and other parts of the country.
From the Government’s perspective, the move is an attempt to control the ‘negative influence’ of the media (as stated by President Karzai’s spokesperson) to prevent exaggeration of election-day violence, and consequently, fear-mongering among Afghan citizens. However, media entities and rights organizations have been unanimous in condemning the statement; the Government’s call has been cited as an attempt to curtail press freedom, and prevent citizens from knowing about real, and potent security threats on the day of election.
The announcement is but one of the many intriguing aspects of the election process in Afghanistan, which will culminate in the voting session tomorrow. The international community, particularly the US, is extremely concerned about the state of affairs in the country, and the growing influence of the Taliban. Thursday’s election is widely tipped to be in favour of the incumbent Hamid Karzai, whose relations with the US have been favourable, though pocked with inconsistencies. (Karzai, for his part, has appealed to the broad spectrum of ethnic groups in Afghan provinces to ensure his re-election.)
Many countries which hold strategic interest in their relations with Afghanistan, including India and the US, will sleep better if Karzai’s Government is re-elected to another term. While there has been growing discontent against the presence of international troops on Afghan soil and the inconsistent ‘drone attacks’ that have claimed many a civilian’s life, there can be no better, immediate solution to stabilized nation-building than to have back Karzai in power. Again, as most countries acknowledge, this is not because of an unflinching trust in the incumbent’s capabilities, but because of the sheer control he holds over the provinces, in sharp contrast to his poll opponents.
The Taliban threat is still high, and the events in Pakistan bear testimony to its growing potential (notwithstanding reports of Beitullah Mesud’s death) in the region. A nascent Government will be immediately pulled into chaos, especially if it is in the nature of a coalition, allowing the Taliban to regain its footing in key areas of Afghanistan. That the West is keen to see Karzai back in power is clearly evident from the conspicuous absence of official international comment on the misgivings during the campaigning and poll process.
Recently, the BBC claimed to have unearthed a ‘Votes-for-Money’ scandal, where a huge number of voting cards could be bought for a considerable payment. The Afghan Independent Election Commission that oversees the poll has also been accused of not doing enough to prevent abuses. Despite these shortcomings, Western officials maintain that it is better to have a problem-riddled election than not having one at all (Mark Sedwill – British Ambassador to Afghanistan). Add to this, the constant threats from the Taliban to chop off the ‘inked-finger’ of any Afghani who goes to the voting booth.
It is a stand, not many nations can disagree with, considering Afghanistan’s role in any attempt to curb widespread terrorism. Therefore, the move to keep media agencies away from poll-related violence, in as much as it goes against established democratic norms, is likely to be met with little or no resistance by key foreign players.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
