Death of a terrorist

Noordin Top, leader of al-Qaeda in the Malay Archipelago, has been shot dead in Indonesia. But there

Just over a month ago, Indonesian police claimed they had shot dead south-east Asia's most notorious terrorist. Unfortunately, it turned out that Noordin Mohammad Top, wanted in connection with both sets of Bali bombings and a further series of bomb blasts in Jakarta, had got away from the house in a village in central Java before the shoot-out. This time, say the police, they really have got their man. The Malaysian-born leader of al-Qaeda in the Malay Archipelago, a splinter group from Jemaah Islamiyah, was caught in a raid in Solo, also on Java. Asked to surrender, he continued firing until he was killed instead.

Islamist terrorist groups in south-east Asia make the news when they are successful in perpetrating outrages: either the bombings of the past decade, or when groups based in the Philippines, such as Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, come into conflict with government forces or engage in kidnapping and beheading.

These incidents often lead western observers to imagine that the region is dangerous (which, apart from the far south-east of the Philippines, it is not) and a hotbed of religious fanaticism. In fact, it has historically been home to a very moderate form of Islam, one that has happily accommodated many of the animist and Hindu traditions that preceded the arrival of Islam between the 12th and 15th centuries.

But this relatively easygoing and tolerant approach is under attack. I have written about "creeping Islamisation" in Malaysia for the New Statesman before, and I recommend this article, "Indonesia drops the ball on radical Islam", from the excellent Asia Sentinel, to read further about what's happening on the other side of the Malacca Straits.

While capturing or killing terrorists like Noordin Mohammad Top is naturally to be welcomed, it is also vital to look at the culture from which he sprung. The vast majority of Muslims in south-east Asia would condemn his actions without reservation. But more fundamentalist Islam is gaining ground, with the result that at the same time as Indonesia and Malaysia slowly become more democratic, the liberal and secular freedoms we associate with democracy are increasingly under threat.

As the region is home to 250 million Muslims, more than in the Arab Middle East, wouldn't it be wise for us to pay it a little more attention?

 

Sholto Byrnes is a Contributing Editor to the New Statesman
Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.