Don’t trust your poll lead: how public opinion changes during referendum campaigns

Politicians call (or call for) referendums with increasing frequency. But how can they know they will win? Looking at the polls is not enough: opinion during referendum campaigns is often volatile. But this chapter shows that there are nevertheless some recurring patterns that allow us to make reasonable predictions in most cases.

Vox Populi, Vox Dei? A closer look at the ‘public opinion’ argument for retention

The Japanese government’s justification for retaining the death penalty is that abolition would erode the legitimacy of and public trust in the criminal justice system, leading to victims’ families taking justice into their own hands. This justification is based on the results of a regularly administered public opinion survey, which is said to show strong public support for the death penalty. However, a close analysis of the results of the 2014 survey fails to validate this claim. Just over a third of respondents were committed to retaining the death penalty at all costs, while the rest accepted the possibility of future abolition, with some of them seeing this as contingent on the introduction of life imprisonment without parole as an alternative sentence. These findings hardly describe a society that expects the strict application of the death penalty and whose trust in justice depends on the government’s commitment to retaining it. My reading of the 2014 survey is that the Japanese public is ready to embrace abolition. Japan, after all, is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which calls on states not to delay or prevent abolition, so this should be welcome news for the Japanese government!

世論という神話―望むのは「死刑」ですか？’ (Public opinion myth: is ‘death’ what we really want?)

This paper summarises Mai Sato's recent report on public attitudes to the death penalty in Japan.

A preliminary examination of public opinion in Australia on the use of biometric devices or identifiers in everyday life

Since the September 11,2001 terrorist attacks in New York City, many countries including Australia have been able to justify the use of biometric devices for identification and surveillance of their own citizens and others in the name of national security.

This paper reports on the preliminary findings of a survey that examined Australians' views and experiences with the use of biometric devices in everyday situations in the context of their potential to serve as a 'Panopticon' to keep the nation's citizenry under surveillance. It discusses the adoption of the new communication technology from the point of view of the Justification model that sees technology choice as social
gambling and the pluralist view of technology that sees technology as neutral in itself but as having negative or positive effects on society based on how It is used.

The paper proposes the need for Australian society to balance citizens' right to privacy and civil liberties with the right to stay alive and safe from terrorism and how it may be done with the necessary legal and regulator)' safeguards.

Southeast Asia: a community of diversity

The region known as the Southeast provides the basis for a broad political community characterized by cultural and ethnic diversity, disparities in economic performance, and differences in regime and constitutional foundations. In recent years, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) group of nations has made strides toward building a community based on respect for these differences. Despite a growing acceptance for democratic processes and human rights, the influence of these values over existing institutions and state behavior remains incomplete. The future development of the ASEAN region, and the nations that comprise it, is likely to be based on the strength and character of the relationships these states forge with one another and with more powerful external actors.

Interest, nations, and the state in development: Instability in archipelic Southeast Asia

The Southeast Asian archipelago has become marked by divisions
within existing states, placing significant local constraints upon
the process of ‘development’. These divisions include ‘vertical’
challenges to the state, i.e. they have the capacity to split the state
into geographic divisions based on proto-nationalist identity, and
‘horizontal’ challenges to the state, defined by ethnic and
communal rivalry and conflict. This brief paper will canvas some
issues in such divisions.