Picture courtesy of Portside.org
The Senate inquiry into exploitation of workers has concluded its investigation and published its report titled

“A National Disgrace: The Exploitation of the Temporary Work Visa Holders”.
Reading about the report has filled me with horror at some of the practices deployed by Australian employers. The report has identified two suspect groups namely labour hire contractors and franchises particularly 7-Eleven. 
An example of the exploitative practices is a survey of 200 international students, that found 25 per cent were receiving $10 or less an hour and 60 percent were earning less than the national minimum wage.
One worker spoke about his 60 – 70 hour working week, dangerous conditions, gross underpayment of wages and overcrowded accommodation. Employers crammed 6 men into one bedroom and others into a shipping container. They then deducted $250 each week for accommodation costs. 
This worker was the victim of a labour hire company exploiting workers on a 457 visa (business sponsorship). He then said that when they were no longer required they were dismissed and pushed out of their accommodation (with police help) without receiving any notice. 
A typical 417 visa scam (working holiday visa) involved workers at a meat processing plant who did a six week training course without pay. Once training was complete they worked up to 18 hours a day, six days a week. They were frequently denied breaks and often forced to work despite sustaining workplace injuries. 
I can’t believe this is happening in Australia. For what?
Does 7-Eleven pass on cheaper products to consumers? I don’t think so. It suggests that this exploitation is directed at improving corporate profits.  I’m not saying that there can be any excuse or justification for such practices. 
There are 1.3 million foreign workers in Australia, that’ s ten percent of our workforce. 
Australians would condemn slavery. But we effectively have slavery occurring under our noses. We benefit every time we walk into a 7- Eleven store or buy processed meat? 
What consequences will these corporate fat cats suffer? Probably none. Those caught mistreating animals feel the brunt of the law. Those mistreating foreign workers will face increased regulation. 
Go figure. 
Why does corporate Australia believe it is okay to exploit people in this manner? Should we be surprised when our Federal government and opposition display a similar disregard for human rights and common decency towards refugees?

  
Picture courtesy of theinformistnews.wordpress.com
The Last Supper
The story of the Last Supper, which is remembered the Thursday preceding Good Friday, has always resonated with me. 
It is a story about a group of friends dining together in keeping with the Jewish Passover tradition.  
It reminds us that Christianity and Judaism are inextricably connected. In fact, the three major religions Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have Abrahamic traditions. One would not know they shared a common history, given their attitude to one another today. Aren’t humans short-sighted, particularly when their perspective is distorted by religion?
The Last Supper has dramatic undertones as friends gather for the final time with their leader on the eve of his death.
I think it is one of the rare times in the New Testament that we see Jesus and his band of disciples together and interacting with one another. And what do we see? We see dysfunctionality and disharmony. It is a quintessentially human scene. 
We tend to idealise the Last Supper scene but when you examine it more closely, nothing could be further from the truth. For example, we find out early in the dinner that there is a traitor in their midst. Who? “Surely not I Lord,” each of them says. 
The traitor is Judas Iscariot. Many commentators have speculated on the cause of his disillusionism. Some say he was disappointed by Jesus’s passivity. Judas was expecting Jesus to use his undoubted power to defeat their Roman overlords. He was the long awaited Messiah after all! But this was not Jesus’s agenda. The Roman Empire would eventually collapse (but not before embracing Christianity in and around 320). History is rich with irony. 
Some think that Judas wanted to create an incident that would force Jesus to demonstrate his power, to create a crisis or confrontation that would force Jesus to act.
Ultimately, Judas is seen as a tragic character who is so overwrought by his treachery that he takes his own life. Judas is a broken man. 
So the dinner proceeds under a veil of intrigue. 
Another example of dysfunctionality. We know that after dinner Jesus seeks solace in the Garden of Gethsemane. He takes his friends with him ……. but they cannot stay awake. Jesus implores them to pray with him, to support him. But they cannot do it. Perhaps too much drink at dinner? We cannot help but see the weakness of the apostles …..and probably the weakness within ourselves. How many times have we said that it’s too hard or that it can wait until tomorrow or that someone else will take care of it or that I’m too tired. 
These are the people with whom Jesus chose to share his Ministry. 
Another example of dysfunctionality is the scene where Peter refuses to have his feet washed. He doesn’t get it. More on feet washing later. But Peter’s slowness is encouraging for the rest of us. Jesus chose Peter to lead his followers after he had left them. Would you hire Peter as your next CEO?
This was the same guy, who when confronted, denied knowing Jesus. “But I am sure I saw you with him,” they said. “Not me” said Peter. “You must be mistaken”. He denied knowing Jesus, not once but three times. 
Hours earlier Peter was declaring his devotion and pledging to lay down his life for Jesus. So fickle so human. 
At least Peter stuck around. The others fled for their lives once they saw their leader, helpless in the arms of the Roman constabulary. 
Remember these people were handpicked by Jesus. 
It is telling that Jesus has chosen “ordinary Joes” to carry his message and continue his mission. Jesus is interested in our weaknesses and failings. Judas is a traitor, Peter is slow and impetuous and the others are frightened, lazy, doubting and lacking in resolve. Jesus chose these people to share his final meal. 
He has come for the poor, the imprisoned, the homeless, the vulnerable, the dispossessed, the oppressed and the needy……not only in fact, but in spirit. It is telling that this message has been passed down to us through the centuries. Human history is written by the victors and it is a story of triumph and victory. The Jesus story stands in stark contrast to the rest of history. 
The Last Supper is filled with themes and messages. Always remember that throughout this time, Jesus is feeling intense pain. He is about to die. He is a prisoner on death row. He will be tortured. His death will be slow and excruciatingly difficult as he suffocates under the weight of his own body. He was scared. 
I am also taken with what they eat – bread and wine. Bread is the staple of human civilisation. It takes us back to the very first river civilisations of Mesopotamia and Egypt. The rivers provided fertile soils and soils allowed the cultivation of wheat and other grains. Importantly, these grains could be stored and consumed in lean times. 
Wine came much later. Wine has brought joy, mirth and good times since its inception. It has been the party drink of choice for thousands of years. The Ancient Greeks dedicated one of their gods to the drink. 
The presence of wine tells us this was to be a light hearted occasion despite the gravity of the situation. 
One thing that wine and bread have in common is the process by which they are made. Wheat is ground into powder before it is combined with other ingredients to make bread. Grapes are crushed into juice to make wine. The process is the same for us. All of us are ground and crushed in some way. Life can be harsh at times. We are the product of many influences and pressures. Some make us stronger others damage us. Jesus accepts all of us. 
The dinner has its macabre undertones. It is a drama evoking a wide range of emotions much like a Shakespearean play. Jesus tells his followers that the bread and wine they are about to consume is his body and blood. Come again?
Jesus is alluding to his imminent death. His body is soon to be broken and his blood spilled. He will die for his friends and for us. We are reminded that there is no greater sacrifice to be made than someone laying down their life for you. We ask ourselves, “”Why would you do that for me?”  
There are examples of people making the ultimate sacrifice, parents for their children, police and firemen for their communities, soldiers for their country. In every case there is a dedication, a devotion, dare I say it, a love for the beneficiary. 
The Jesus message is a message of love. It should not surprise us that it concludes with an act of love. 
But the meal is purposefully intended to be a memorial. Jesus says every time you share bread and wine with each other I want you to remember me. How great is that! Jesus as God wants us to remember him with a simple meal. 
He is not interested in parades or shows of strength or sacrifices or elaborate rituals. This is not his scene. Just break bread and drink wine in my name. 
Even if you don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus or don’t believe in God at all, you still have to think it’s pretty cool that this leader and philosopher in the moments before his death, would ask his friends to remember him with a meal. 
However, the highlight for me is what happens during the dinner. Jesus picks up a towel and basin, gets down on his haunches and washes the feet of his followers. This would not have been a straightforward act. These were grown men, in the dusty Middle East who travelled by foot on well worn sandals. Their feet would have been a real mess. 
Jesus chose to wash their feet, Not their hands or their heads. He chose to clean the dirtiest part of their bodies.  Here was a person with significant power telling us that it is not about power or strength or might. 
Ever since I was a child this scene has always moved me. 
Again, whether you believe in God or not, the idea of a leader humbling himself before his followers by washing their feet is quite profound. 
In humility there is power. Pacificism gives you strength. 
For me this is the takeaway message. 
How many leaders believe in service, in serving the people. How many believe in putting themselves last, how many believe in raising the lowly and downtrodden?
It may be an idealistic (if not unrealistic) principle on which to organise a country. But it should not be too difficult a principle to follow for the church that bears Jesus’s name. 
It is disappointing that the church that purports to represent Jesus has strayed so far from his message. Recent events have taught us that the church has been prepared to put itself first, even in circumstances when basic human decency and most moral codes would have told any Christian that this is plain wrong. 
Far from protecting the lowly and the helpless the church has hurt them, causing much heartbreak and damage to victims and their families. The vulnerable have been exploited.  
 The church has shunned humility and instead pursued policies of self preservation and perpetuation of evil. Underlying all these activities is an undercurrent of deceit and betrayal. 
The many profound messages of the Last Supper have been lost on the church. 
Shame. Shame. Shame. 

http://m.theage.com.au/comment/for-better-and-worse-drugs-need-to-be-appreciated-and-handled-with-the-respect-they-deserve-20160309-gnf3yj.html

  
Picture courtesy of Medical Daily
I am currently reading Malcolm Gladwell’s David and Goliath. Gladwell in his inimitable way explores the world of the underdog. What better place to start than this epic tale of the little guy triumphing over a giant. 
I have read one other Gladwell book Blink and while I find him thought provoking I am never sure about the imperical accuracy of his assertions. But it is a very interesting read. 
The story of David and Goliath is found in the book of Samuel in the Old Testament. Permit me to quote the relevant passages.
” 1 The Philistines mustered their troops for war; they assembled at Socoh in Judah and pitched camp between Socoh and Azekah, in Ephes-Dammim.

17:2 Saul and the Israelites also mustered, pitching camp in the Valley of the Terebinth, and drew up their battle-line opposite the Philistines.

17:3 The Philistines occupied the high ground on one side and the Israelites occupied the high ground on the other side, with the valley between them.

17:4 A champion stepped out from the Philistine ranks; his name was Goliath, from Gath; he was six cubits and one span tall.

17:5 On his head was a bronze helmet and he wore a breastplate of scale-armour; the breastplate weighed five thousand shekels of bronze.

17:6 He had bronze greaves on his legs and a bronze scimitar slung across his shoulders.

17:7 The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and the head of his spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron. A shield-bearer walked in front of him.

17:8 Taking position in front of the Israelite lines, he shouted, ‘Why have you come out to range yourselves for battle? Am I not a Philistine and are you not Saul’s lackeys? Choose a man and let him come down to me.

17:9 If he can fight it out with me and kill me, we will be your servants; but if I can beat him and kill him, you become our servants and serve us
………..
17:32 David said to Saul, ‘Let no one be discouraged on his account; your servant will go and fight this Philistine.’

17:33 Saul said to David, ‘You cannot go and fight the Philistine; you are only a boy and he has been a warrior since his youth.’

17:34 David said to Saul, ‘Your servant used to look after the sheep for his father and whenever a lion or a bear came and took a sheep from the flock,

17:35 I used to follow it up, lay into it and snatch the sheep out of its jaws. If it turned on me, I would seize it by the beard and batter it to death.

17:36 Your servant has killed both lion and bear, and this uncircumcised Philistine will end up like one of them for having challenged the armies of the living God.’

17:37 ‘Yahweh,’ David went on, ‘who delivered me from the claws of lion and bear, will deliver me from the clutches of this Philistine.’ Then Saul said to David, ‘Go, and Yahweh be with you!’

17:38 Saul dressed David in his own armour; he put a bronze helmet on his head, dressed him in a breastplate

17:39 and buckled his own sword over David’s armour. David tried to walk but, not being used to them, said to Saul, ‘I cannot walk in these; I am not used to them.’ So they took them off again.

17:40 He took his stick in his hand, selected five smooth stones from the river bed and put them in his shepherd’s bag, in his pouch; then, sling in hand, he walked towards the Philistine.

17:41 The Philistine, preceded by his shield-bearer, came nearer and nearer to David.

17:42 When the Philistine looked David up and down, what he saw filled him with scorn, because David was only a lad, with ruddy cheeks and an attractive appearance.

17:43 The Philistine said to David, ‘Am I a dog for you to come after me with sticks?’ And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

17:44 The Philistine said to David, ‘Come over here and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and the wild beasts!’
……..
17:48 No sooner had the Philistine started forward to confront David than David darted out of the lines and ran to meet the Philistine.

17:49 Putting his hand in his bag, he took out a stone, slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead; the stone penetrated his forehead and he fell face downwards on the ground.

17:50 Thus David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; he hit the Philistine and killed him, though he had no sword in his hand.

17:51 David ran and stood over the Philistine, seized his sword, pulled it from the scabbard, despatched him and cut off his head. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.
We all know the story or think we know the story. Let’s look at it more closely. Goliath was obviously quite confronting. In modern measurements he stood 6foot 9inches tall. He was covered in armour. His breastplate weighed 45 kg. 
The first anomaly is that he had a shield bearer accompany him to the fighting ground. Why? Archers who have their hands busy with bow and arrow normally required a shield bearer to protect them. But an infantry man would normally carry his own shield. 
Second anomaly. Goliath on seeing the young and unsoldierlike David says “Am I a dog for you to come after me with sticks”. Why does Goliath see sticks (plural) when David was only carrying one stick?
Third point of interest is that Goliath then invites David to “…come over here”. He obviously wants to engage in hand to hand combat where Goliath has the distinct advantage. But it is suggested there may be another reason for this invitation. 
We have all heard of gigantism in children. It is caused by a tumour in the vicinity of the pituitary gland causing the overproduction of growth hormone. In adults this condition is called acromegaly. The symptoms of acromegaly are not only large hands and feet and significant height. In some cases the tumour also compresses the nerves between the eyes and the brain causing blurred and double vision. 
Commentators believe that Goliath suffered from acromegaly with reduced eyesight. His poor eyesight explains the need for a shield bearer walking in front of him. Not so much to protect him but to show him the way. He sees sticks in David’s hand because of his double vision. He beckons David to come closer not only to fight him at close quarters but to see him better. 
So we have an intimidating soldier of superhuman proportions. He is carrying heavy armour and is visually impaired. 
He is confronted by a stone slinger who is light and moves quickly and freely across the field of battle. Stone slingers in those times were quite lethal. Their accuracy was frightening. The speed they generated before launching their projectile was staggering. Writers at that time tell us that once stones were embedded in a victim’s skull they could not be easily removed. The Romans developed a tool resembling steel tongs that were used to remove such projectiles. 
Remember David had slain bears and lions to protect his sheep. 
Another important factor is that David was not prepared to fight Goliath on his terms. He was a shepherd not a soldier. He was a member of the artillery brigade not an infantryman. 
So in effect the story is about the slow and visually impaired soldier confronting a young and agile shepherd carrying the equivalent of a 45 Colt pistol. 
So when we compare the two who was the underdog?
When we look closely at the circumstances David had all the advantages. His disadvantages were his advantages. Goliath’s advantages were his disadvantages. 
Gladwell uses the story to drive home an important point. Studies show that underdogs rarely win when they fight on the terms that are confronting them – 10 – 15%. However when they change the terms and surprise their opponent their chances improve to a staggering 65%!!!

Today I look at another object that is discussed in Neil MacGregor’s book The History of the World in 100 Objects. The object is pictured above. It looks like a broken plate but it is in fact a crystal depicting a noteable biblical scene. This scene deals with the universal issue of Justice of wrong being made right. 
The story goes that one day Susanna, wife of a wealthy merchant was bathing in a nearby river. Some men happened upon her and seeing her naked were entranced by her beauty. They approached her and demanded she have sex with them. She protested and her cries attracted the household servants who saw the men handling Susanna in a rough manner. 
The men were exposed and angry, if not a little frustrated. They pulled away from Susanna and alleged that they had caught her committing adultery with another man. This was a serious allegation from elderly and respected gentlemen. Susanna’s husband was most upset and ordered that his wife stand trial. 
Susanna protested her innocence but in her heart knew her fate was sealed as women were rarely exonerated through such trials. She received no sympathy from her husband. She faced certain death by stoning. 
Then arrived Daniel. He wished to question the gentlemen. Only one question each. He asked them separately under what tree did they find Susanna committing adultery? Each man gave a different answer and the deceit was exposed. Susanna was pardoned and the two men sentenced to death by stoning. 
To the left of the middle of the crystal you can see the men on the ground as others hurl stones at them. 
Who commissioned this crystal and why?
The crystal is an exquisite piece of work. Carved from a single crystal it relates the biblical story in eight separate scenes. The crystal is incredibly tough and cannot be chiselled, so the images were made over several painstaking months of grinding the crystal with sand. Inscribed on the crystal in Latin is “King Lothair caused me to be made”
The time is about 860 and we are in Western Europe. Many decades earlier Charlemagne, King of The Franks had created an impressive empire covering most of Western Europe. It stretched from northern Italy and covered modern France and Germany. 
At the time our crystal was made, Charlemagne had long died and his empire was in tatters. It had broken into essentially three parts. To the west was a kingdom situated where modern day France is located. To the east another large kingdom where Germany is now found and between them a smaller kingdom of Lotharingia belonging to King Lothair.  
King Lothair faced many challenges. Firstly, his uncles to either side were constantly threatening to overrun his kingdom and seize his land. Secondly, and more relevantly to our story of the crystal, King Lothair had difficulty conceiving a son to his wife,Theutberga. In fact, she bore him no children at all. No son, no heir. No heir, no kingdom. 
So King Lothair was faced with a problem not far removed from the one faced by Henry VIII some seven centuries later. 
As happens in human affairs, King Lothair had married the “wrong” woman. At the time of his wedding he had a long and enduring relationship with his mistress Waldrada who had borne him a son and a daughter. He wanted to divorce Theutberga and marry Waldrada. 
King Lothair needed a divorce in a Catholic Europe that did not readily accede to such requests. So he ordered his two bishops to annul the marriage on the grounds that Theutberga had committed incest with her brother. 
The bishops were equal to the task and managed to extract a confession from the Queen, no doubt through torture. But the wronged “Susanna” in our story appealed to the Pope who after a brief investigation exonerated her. 
We do not know the precise circumstances of the making of the crystal other than it was commissioned by King Lothair at the time of his unsuccessful royal divorce. Perhaps it was a peace offering to his wife. 
Interestingly, in the centre of the crystal there is an inscription beginning “Lotharius Rex…..” and meaning “King Lothair sits in judgment.” 
And this is the appeal of the crystal to me. It portrays the King sitting as a judge. It depicts a leader acting contrary to his own personal agenda and favouring the interests of justice, protecting the innocent that he himself perfected. It depicts the rule of law which all good leaders should uphold. 
The Lothair Crystal is perhaps the first depiction of the rule of law in continental Europe.  
Our own legal system has its origins as a King’s court where subjects appeared seeking equity and justice. Some of these historical origins remain with “Her Majesty’s Judges” and “Queen’s Counsel”
And what happened to King Lothair and his kingdom Lotharingia?
The King died in 869 without an heir. His greedy uncles to the east and west divided his land between themselves. All that remains of Lotharingia today, is Lorraine, which up until the Second World War was bitterly fought over by France to the west and Germany to the east. 

The brain and the progress of history 

I am currently engrossed in Neil MacGregor’s The History of the World in 100 Objects. The book tells the history of the world through 100 objects currently on display at the British Museum. 
Today I want to talk about the oldest object at the Museum and the first one discussed in the book. It is the Olduvai stone chopping tool. It is between 1.8 to 2 million years old. It was discovered by Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge in the north of Tanzania. It was among a range of items representing some of the oldest things ever found. 
The tool is pictured above. It has a sharp edge formed by chips taken out of the rock presumably by another rock. The top of the tool is rounded and fits comfortably in the palm of the hand. This simple tool tells us so much. 
First it shows humans making things to assist with everyday tasks. This in itself set us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom and represented a first step in the production of things of greater complexity, beauty, utility etc. 
The tool has 5 chips in one side and 3 on the other to give a sharp edge. One an imagine the thought processes that led someone to think that 2 chips were better that one and 3 were better than 2 and so on.
Hand in hand with the creation of things is the desire to improve them, to make them better. 
The tool would have been used to chop flesh from a carcass, to debark a tree, to cut roots and even to break bones and extract marrow. 
Importantly one advancement leads to others. And so humans progress. 
This brings me to the point of this blog. I think it was Churchill who that we shape our buildings and thereafter they shape us. Similarly we make our tools and our tools make us. 
The last book that enthralled me to the same degree was Norman Doidge’s The Brain that changes Itself. The premise of the book is that the brain is always changing and adapting. The book documents the recovery and rehabilitation of brain injury patients. Their transformation is due to the brain’s ability to change its own structure and to compensate after significant injury. The book takes us into the fascinating world of neuroplasticity. 
For centuries physicians and scientists alike thought that the brain was a fixed and unchanging mass and people sustaining injury to parts of their brain therefore had no scope for repair or rehabilitation or recovery. The book describes the amazing recovery of a number of brain injured patients who have “trained” their brains to overcome their injury. 
In short the brain is dynamic not a fixed and unchanging mass. 
I believe this dynamism is responsible for our progress as human beings, more so than evolution, if what I am talking about is not evolution. 
Take the human who fashioned the Olduvai stone chopping tool. One week they are using the tool to remove skin from a carcass. The next week they are using it to cut up cooked food. The next week they develop an axe to chop wood. The following week they discover that a sharp edged implement can help kill prey. Later they learn that this killing tool can be deployed from a distance, thus increasing the chance of success. 
What I am postulating is that our progress has been the result of our brain interacting with things we make to change the way we interact with our world. 
Take for example an important modern invention such as the automobile. The automobile caused humans to consider how they moved around their environment. In many ways it challenged us. The skills and intuition relevant to commuting by foot or by horse and cart were swept aside as humans developed the eye and hand co-ordination and peripheral vision necessary to operate a motor vehicle.No doubt this involved the brain in developing new neural pathways and activating brain centres in new ways. 

What I am talking about is happening today. How many of us are trading in handwriting and calligraphy skills for keyboard skills? How many of us are moving away from books to screens? How often do we walk down a busy street and see others negotiating human traffic while staring down at their smartphone? Is this is a new way of walking?

 
I believe the things we make, change us as we change them. 
Two million years ago it was a stone chopping tool, today it is a smartphone. Same brain. Sort of. 
 

Martin Flanagan of The Age has again perfectly captured the national mood,
  

  
Picture courtesy of the ABC
George Pell
Last week Australian Catholics watched their Cardinal give evidence (from Rome) in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Abuse. This is not the first time Pell has given evidence to the Royal Commission but it was perhaps the most interesting because the Commmision’s questions covered Pell’s time at Ballarat, during the infamous reign of Father Ridsdale and other pedophile priests. 
Pell was apparently not well enough to travel to Australia for the Royal Commssion. Instead he was interrogated by video from the Vatican. 
The whole week was totally unsatisfactory. Pell stopped short of any genuine apology to the victims, some of whom flew to Rome to witness his testimony first hand. Pell’s performance was also disappointing. His tough and arrogant exterior, which no doubt assisted his rise through Church ranks, did not assist him under the spotlight of the Commssion. For the most part, Pell came across as uncaring and sometimes insensitive. 
This was not only disappointing for the victims but also for the faithful back home who were (desperately) looking for a sign acknowledging the wrongs of the past, a plea for forgiveness and mercy and a beginning to the healing process. 
The following Sunday, our parish priest reflecting on the week’s events expressed regret and frustration at the “betrayal” committed by the Church hierarchy in days gone by. He was so distraught by what he saw being telecast from Rome that he broke down in front of his congregation, abruptly concluding his homily as he collected himself and wiped away his tears. 
For me, I never thought I would see the day when representatives of the Church, even at a parish level, would acknowledge the sins of the past, let alone a priest humble himself in front of his flock. Such must be the depth of feeling among young and honest priests seeking to spread God’s word and grace in these dark times. 
But there is a silver lining, one that Pell may live to regret. His reluctance to leave the Vatican has meant that the Royal Commission has come to the Vatican. As The Age religion writer, Barney Zwartz wrote recently;
“So now the Australian problems have landed in an unwelcome steaming pile on the 

Vatican doorstep, and pressure is mounting on the Pope himself”
Cardinals have to offer their resignation to the Pope when they turn 75. Pell turns 75 in June this year. Most assumed he would stay on to continue his reforms. We now watch with interest.