25/06/2013 Newsnight


In-depth investigation and analysis of the stories behind the day's headlines with Kirsty Wark.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/06/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



junkie economy? Addicted to low- interest rates and printed money.


Where even the prospect of not getting a hit leaves us reeling.


Global markets have been sliding ever since the Americans hinted


about not printing any money. Is it a drug we can give up? Also tonight


the immigration loophole some British citizens are using to get


their relatives into Britain by way of another European country. We are


doing it because we have no other option. We will cheat if it means


we can stay together for the rest of our I have lives. What has


happened? Cambridge have stopped. There is a man swimming between the


boats. The man has been kicked out of Britain for this, he disrupted


the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, and is to be deported for not being


conducive to the public good. Trenton Oldfield is here to explain


why he shouldn't be set packing. graphic new documentary follows the


original Suharto death squads from 60s Indonesia as they delight of


re-enacting the destruction of hundreds of alleged communists. We


will ask why they revelled in recreating their horrific crimes.


Good evening, is it time for an intervention for the good of our


nation's health, for a long time now our dear friend the British


economy has had a problem, we can't ignore it any longer. It is


addicted to cheap money it has been getting from a bloke in


Threadneedle Street. In a week that global markets reacted so badly to


the idea that the US Government would stop their printing programme,


we ask can we go back to the monetary policies of the past, or


are we permanently hooked on cheap cash and low interest rates?


Suddenly the global markets are turbulent again. There is a credit


crunch in China, across the world people are selling off both company


shares and Government bonds. Because Europe is still the weakest


link in the hole, fragile global recovery and we are exposed to it,


there is worry there as well. Last week the boss of the US


Central Bank, Ricardo Berna, gave the long-awaited signal that he's


about to start withdrawing some of the $2 trillion printed under


quantitative easing. Under QE the Fed is currently buying up to 90%


of all US bonds issued each month. That has kept the dollar low and


the effective interest rate the US pays to borrow at below zero.


Quantitative easing works by making it unprofitable to own Government


bonds, and pushing capital into more risky markets, shares,


property, gold and even the virtual currency, Bitcoin. By signals an


end to QE, Bernanke sparked a sell- off in the stock markets. This is


what happened. Here is the S & P, the FTSE and the nick kie. All


falling markedly since the middle of May. Just as the world gets used


to that, there has been a mini- credit crunch in China. For the


past five years the Chinese economy has been run on cheap credit,


created by the Government. Using soft loans China switched from


consumer groups to massive infrastructure projects to help


ride out the global downturn. But this year growth has slowed to 7.7%.


Instead of simply turning the taps on more, China's Central Bank has


tightened credit. This is what has happened to the InterBank lending


rate, the SHIBOR, the Chinese version of LIBOR has spiked, making


it hard for some companies to borrow, some think this is the sign


of something bigger, a Chinese slowdown. What does it all mean


here? On Monday Mark Kearney the new boss of the Bank of England


takes over. Here we have quantitative easing, but unlike in


America we have a long and deep austerity programme under way, and


a weak recovery. So not contend with printing money, the Government


has asked him to do more, ignoring the threat of inflation and pegging


interest rates to zero for years to come. The man he will take over,


Lord Mervyn King, seemed to encourage that today. I think


people have rather jumped the gun in thinking this means an imminent


to normal levels of interest rates, it doesn't. Until markets see in


place policies to bring about that return to normal economic


conditions there is no prospect for sustainable recovery. Without a


prospect for sustainable recovery markets can understand it will not


be sensible to return to normal interest rates. In Britain all this


market shaking matters, because the fear is we become quantitative


easing junkies. This graph shows the effective interest rate the


Government borrows at over ten years. As you can see it has been


falling, in part because we got the deficit down, in part because we


did a lot of quantitative easing, and in part because the world


calmed down. Now at the very end it is starting to tick back up again,


that is a direct reflection of all the problems in the world I have


just described. Lord Mynerss is the Labour peer who


had a career in finance before serving as City Minister in Gordon


Brown's Government. John Redwood is a Conservative MP and chair of the


party's economic affair committee, and George Buckley is the Chief UK


Economist at Deutsche Bank. John Redwood, has cheap money been good


for the country? I think cheap money was a necessary evil to try


to make sure the recession didn't get worse and spiral out of control


after the credit crunch in 2007/08. From the savers' point of view it


has been very bad news. Your natural constituency? You have to


weigh it up, some people gain, those who borrowed a lot of money,


some people lost, the savers, who didn't have overall impact on


spendable income, one lot won and one lot lost. It was also much


easier for the public rather than the private sector. A lot of people


are having to pay higher interest rates than half a per cent as we


are told in the short-term rate. is almost the default position, are


we addicted to it? I think this Government and probably the new


Government and the Bank of England will say they will carry on with


very low official interest rates for longer. They may find that bond


rates, medium-term rates go up a bit because of the world situation,


they may find that banks continue to require higher interest rates in


the private sector, as they have been doing throughout the last two


or three years. I wouldn't adirected, but it is -- addicted,


but it is part of the recovery process put in place. Are we


addicted? We needed quantitative easing, had we not had the amount


that was done we would be in a situation that is a lot worse. The


only good thing about this, this is probably one of the reasons I don't


think we are addicted, is that had we not done QE, and in terms of


people who have taken on loans, we have seen some numbers from the


British Bankers' Association, saying we have had a reasonable


increase in the number of people taking out mortgage debt. Which the


Government has been desperate to have. That is encouraging news, but


there haven't been that many people who have taken out debt at the


exceptionally low interest rates. That is the only good bit of news


we have seen. When you get a hint from Bernake that next year the


quantitative easing will be put back, there is such instability in


the markets they can't take the news? It tells you how effective


quantitative easing has been, it tells you how much interest rates


were brought down by quantitative easing. How much is our response


conditioned to it now? We needed to have this level of interest rate.


Do you think it is a good addiction? I don't think it has


been used properly. It bought time, that time has not been used


productively. From the beginning you didn't think this would happen


down the line? I don't think anybody foresaw that the recession


would last this long. We are now talking about a major part of the


gilt-edged market being owned by the Government. The Government has


issued debt and bought the debt back, it has moved money from the


left to the right pocket. We will have to see from the new governor a


real change in more unconventional policies. Even cancelling out the


two sides of the equation. whole idea, when it was brought in


by a Labour Government that eventually this would kick-start


growth, where is the growth? We have seen growth in America, we


haven't seen it here? We have seen a positive stimulus to the economy,


the Bank of England evidence is very strong. We are seeing further


evidence of that. But fiscal policy has held the economy back. You


can't put all the responsibility for growth on to monetary policy.


What do you think about the Lord Mynerss idea that we should be


writing off some of the debt now? don't agree with that, or that


fiscal policy has been wrong. This Government has increased current


spending in the first three years in office, just as Labour did when


it was in office. The borrowing is still at a very high level. There


is every evidence that there is plenty of fiscal stimulus in the


economy. Where is the growth, you say? Where is the growth?There has


been some growth, and there has also been a very big contraction of


our two big lead sectors of the previous decade, oil and gas has


contracted because the reservoirs are getting old, and banking and


financial services and business services have been very badly


walloped by the credit crunch under the previous Government. When your


two lead sectors are badly damaged, you have to run very fast to catch


up. You can't do much about the first sector, the oil price is so


volatile, but you could have for the second one? The Government


could have introduced supply side reform, and increased capital


expenditure rather than reduce. was your Government that cut it.


One of the problems in Government accounting, this is not a party


political point, is we lump capital expenditure together with revenue


expenditure. The one thing we should be doing when we have excess


comasity in the economy is building roads, -- capacity in the economy,


is building roads, schools and new railways, this Government has been


very slow to do that. You are an economist for the bank, would


capital projects have made a massive difference, they seem to


have in America? We can look at the mull pliers, in terms of what an


increase -- multipliers, in terms of what an increase on current


spending does to the economy and capital spending. When you raise


capital spending it does more to raise GDP than current spending.


Capital spending is very important. This Government has been shy of big


capital spend and projects? I don't think it has at all. The previous


Government made extreme low large cuts in future capital programmes.


This Government has put a little bit of those cut back and wants to


put a lot more and has come up with the National Infrastructure Plan.


Those cuts were in the eye of the storm, not part of a long-term


policy. Set out for the following five years. They were your long-


term policy. They weren't, there wasn't a five-year commitment to


fiscal policy in 2010. There was a rolling plan.


You would have returned to big capital projects? I don't know HS2


would have been brought forward? have only to look at our motorways


and roads to see plenty of holes that need to be filled. This is


precisely what John MaynardCaines says we should be doing. You are


saying that capital projects have huge spending that some other


projects don't? I agree some have that, but there are others which


bring huge revenue losses in the future. That is not a good idea.


The Government isk looing at what will make the most impact,


broadband is a good project that they are encouraging. But if you


want a good railway it takes ten years to go through all the perMiGs


and requirements. Looking ---- permissions and all requirements.


How worried should we be about the latest tremors in China? Interest


rates need to be normalised. They need to be nominal GDP plus one or


two per cent. At the moment they are less than half that level.


they ever get to 5%? It will, that is big issues for people on


interest-only mortgages or fixed rate mortgages. In Japan, 20 years?


I would hope regardless of the mismanagement of the economy by


this Government that we are not set for 20 years of recession.


Seriously what do you think? think it is worth bearing in mind


that at the moment ten-year interest rates are 2.5%. That is


not, even after having risen so much after the last week, it is


still not a number that suggests the market is convinced that this


recovery is serious. 2.5% is not consistent with a strong recovery.


What would convince the market? market would have to raise or see


interest rates higher than that to be convinced. The problem is when


interest rates go up you start to worry that it could have a negative


feedback loop. This is exactly why we are so worried about the speed


in the rise of interest rates we have seen. Ben Bernake will think


about scaling back QE. We did that, we stopped QE on a single day back


in October in 2012, it didn't have this impact on the UK markets. But


the US is so much important and has an im We are living in America's


world? We, because she does more on a bigger scale and in a bigger


economy. Bernake saying to the Chinese that you have lent too much


and you have to stop, that caused the crisis, we have to catch if the


Chinese back off a bit or precipitate a worse situation in


China, that will be bad for the rest of the world. You began the


conversation that this is bad for savers in your constituency, when


will we return to that? He don't see the official rate going up this


parliament, -- I don't see the official rate going up this


parliament. The economy will grow from here but not fast enough to


justify suddenly jacking up official rates. I think official


rates in America will stay longer for longer too. They want to get


unemployment substantially down before they increase them they have


said. The paradox of Government policy in monetary areas is we are


repeating the same mistakes that were made in monetary policy made


by the Bank of England in 2006/07. We are stoking up asset bubbles and


creating uncertainty and risk in the economy. There will be a need


for adjustment, whether it is in the course of the parliament or


beyond is a matter for debate. But interest rates will have to go up


in due course. We're joined but our political


editor, because tomorrow the Chancellor, George Osborne, will


announce his Spending Review. Allegra, damp squib, lots of tweets


have gone out. Do we know much? very much, it is very unusual that


the Treasury doesn't say very much the night before one of these. It


makes me think he might be up to something. But actually all


suggestions are that he would quite like tomorrow to be boring. Because


he has got in trouble in the past with his financial statements. The


thing that is relevant to the contributions by the previous


guests is that they thought that the deficit would have been coming


down, all sorts of things with growth not transpiring, it means


that actually George Osborne had to extend it through to 2018. Which is


a very long time in the future. Tomorrow what we are getting is the


first tranche of how you get on that new trajectory, it is �11.5


billion. It is something, but it is just a dress rehearsal. So we get


cuts tomorrow but to get the target of 2018, into the next parliament,


we will have another �13 billion in 2016/17, and after that yet more.


Tomorrow we learn a little bit about what life will be like in the


next parliament. But not a huge amount. I also sense that it will


be a terrible phrase, "salami slicing", efficiencies here and


backroom savings there. There will be pain, but he wants to stop the


fireworks. The thing about these is that Labour has now moved on to


broadly supporting them. A lot of the politic has gone out of it.


Thank you very much indeed. Well the Government has been trying


to reduce immigration from outside the EU, including restrictions on


language and earnings and relatives trying to enter the country. But


some Britons are finding a way round these obstacles by going and


working in Europe, another country in Europe for a number of months,


so their cases can be considered under EU law not British law. And


so, as BBC Asian Network reporter Katherine Nye explains, it can be


easier for Europeans to get their relatives living outside the EU


into this country than it is for British people. This woman is from


the Czech Republic, married to her husband from Pakistan, and they


live in Leeds. Their daughter chats in Czech, Urdu and English. When I


met my husband, his original visa had already expired, after we got


married in the mosque we applied for his residence as a permanent


member of the EU citizens. decided I will not go back to


Pakistan any more, I will start my life here. Ahmed told me he's


pleased he's married to a European, and he's right to be. If she were


British, on today's rules he wouldn't be able to live here. When


it comes to bringing in family from oversees Europeans have stronger


rights than British citizens. They are not affected by our


Government's tightening immigration rules. Put simply, it is easier for


a French or Polish man, living in London, to bring in his American or


Indian wife than it is for someone British.


This is why. Within the EU, and the wider European Economic Area, or


EEA, each country tries to control the flow of people coming in


through its own immigration rules. But, overriding all of these are


the EEA's overarching rights, which include free movement of workers,


and crucially, their family. These rights kick in when people move


between countries and are economically active. This means


that when Czechs move to the UK for work, it allows her non-European


partner to live in the UK with her. Each year around 20,000 non-


European family members of Europeans, like this man, come to


live in the UK. It may seem very unfair, but if a


British person wants to gain the same rights they can. They can


leave the UK, exercise their treaty rights by working in Europe and


then come back, effectively having made themselves European.


Chris Hall is doing just that. He's an actor and stunt man from


Swindon. He met Sarah, a screenwriter, while working in


Chicago. And they married in December. Some of Chris's acting


work is freelance, so he doesn't officially meet the �18,600 the


Government now says he must earn to have Sarah live with him in the UK.


The couple dramatically fled the UK when they realised Sarah's visa


wouldn't be extended. So activate his treaty rights they have moved


to Paris, and Chris has got a job in a bar.


Sarah was told about this route by a friend. I put a thing on Facebook


that was like I have to leave the country in 48 hours, come say


goodbye to me. Original low I was like I'm going to have to --


original low I was like I will have to fly back to the states, and she


was like go to France and somewhere in the EU, and there is something


called surrender same, she will explain it when I got there she


said. I was like, OK. This method, quitting the UK,


exercising your treaty rights and coming back to be treated like a


European citizen, it is known as the Saringder Singer route, named


after the case that allowed Britons to do that. I talked to her on-line,


when we knew all of the details. It was really, really crazy what we


did. The couple have been in Paris since


February, and will stay another two months while Chris collects proof


that he has been exercising his treaty rights. He will take to the


border, payslips, utility bills and bank details. It feels like the


whole thing is a numbers game, they are always talking about


immigration and how they want to get it down and combat it and make


sure they are doing the job set to do. I'm a British citizen, if we're


in there somewhere you are cracking down on the wrong people.


British citizens can do the route in any country within the European


Economic Area. But a large proportion are choosing Ireland


because it is close by and there is no language barrier when looking


for work. Here in Dublin there is a growing community of people


exercising their treaty rights in order to get a family into the UK.


People like Sunil, an actuary from Reading. She's original low from


Australia, she moved to the UK more than ten years ago and is now a


British citizens. She's bringing her parents in from Australia, and


says she will pay for private healthcare for them. The three of


them are living in a temporary flat in in Dublin.


Sunil has up a group called Brit Sits to show others how to use the


route. Today she is advising a Scottish woman how to bring in her


Russian mother. If you have information on how we can proceed


with this. More than happy to help. New rules brought in last July make


it effectively impossible to bring dependant relatives into the UK


from outside Europe. Why do you feel it is your right to


have your parents in the UK with you, when obviously the Government


is trying to stop so many people bringing in a lot of relatives into


the UK? By definition someone can only have two parents, so there is


no real room for abuse there. My parents aren't coming here to abuse


the system, to claim benefit, but I'm sure if someone just wanted to


be benefit scroungers it would be easier to do it in your country of


citizenship. By my having to go through this EU route, what they


are encouraging people to do is be able to claim benefits. Because if


you go down the EU route you are entitled to claim benefits as is


your non-EU family. And that's what's absolutely bizarre. We will


have people who deliberately go down this route so their non-EU


family can claim benefits. While he was in Dublin another two couples


arrived in Ireland using this route. They didn't want to speak toe me


though, because some people are fearful if the Government knows it


will try to stop them. There is a significant number of people


exploiting this route at the moment. Over the years we have had calls


from migrants, perspective migrants and mostly migrant families wanting


to have a bit of advice on how to get other family members over. Now


we are getting calls from white British people wanting to get one


family member in, their spouse, or perhaps a couple of children. And


there is a lot of anger about that. This is an infringement on British


people's rights, not just about immigrants. The Government already


accept that we can't control immigration from other E United


Statess. But we do work on the assumption that we can control


movement from outside the EU, the family reunion has had to take its


fair share of that. I think the rules that have been introduced,


placing some what more restrictions on it are perfectly fair. To have


those rules about controlling movement into the country from


outside Europe just made fun of by a European regulation is just you


know, it should be stopped. In Oxfordshire, Chris has already


used this route to get his wife, Melissa, in, she is from New


Zealand. They told me how they were received on the border on arrival


from the UK. The response of the immigration officer was to suggest


we were tricking them some how. see what you have done there, that


is really clever. I was so exasperated by that point. They


actually said, oh I see, you can just go and work in Spain or


something as a waiter for a month and bring whoever you want back


into the country with you. I thought well you are making this


out, yes, but that is not illegal, that's not, rather it is not


illegal, it is a stronger rights intitlement than the current family


immigration rules are. It is completely legitimate, it is my


right, it is every European's right. But it does mean that the British


Government can't make rules that mean anything really? Well I would


argue that actually if you are going to make a rule that inhibits


people's capacity to have a family, British citizens to have a family,


that is unjustified and illegitimate in the first place.


The Immigration Minister, Mark Harper denied to be interview,


This does some what contradict the UKBA website which says it does not


matter if the only reason a British national went to another British


state was to exercise an economic treaty right so they could bring


their family into the UK. We are doing it because we have no other


option, we will go ahead with it, if it is a cheat we will cheat if


that means we can stay together for the rest of our lives.


Unless the Government can find a way to close this route, for now


British citizens will continue to scatter themselves all over Europe


and come back with relatives in tow. You can hear that full documentary,


Extreme Immigration by visiting the BBC website.


The Oxford and Cambridge boat race is as qentseingsly English as the


many other things. But not something Trenton Oldfield, an


Australian, likes, last year he jumped in to disrupt the start and


ended up in the clirpbg for six months. Now he's to be kicked out


of the country because he's not conducive to public good.


First a reminder of the kerfuffle. Once they get around because they


are still in their favour. They have stopped. We have stopped


rowing there is a man swimming across between the boats, both


crews have had to swap, all the following boats have had to stop.


There he is, there is the swimmer, the intruder in the water, just by


the blades. I'm joined now by Trenton and his


wife. Trenton, first of all, what were you thinking? Kirsly in the


three days before I jumped in the river the British Government which


as we know is not collected, had passed three. The British


Government is not elected? This one wasn't. This one was elected and


put together as a coalition? It was put together as a coalition, any


way, so in the three days preceding my protest the Queen had had given


Royal Assent to the selling of the NHS and the communications and data


bill had been introduced into the Houses of Parliament, and on the


third day the minister for the Olympics suggested that if your


neighbour, if you thought your neighbour was going to protest at


the Olympics that you should dob them in. All of that after decades


of working on inequality and poverty issues was a real concern


to me. But it was a concern to you so you thought, the boat race,


because that presumably is a kind of totem of all you dislike about


here? It is not so much about disliking here, lived here for 12


years, I have chosen to live here because it is an interesting place,


I have committed my entire working life here to work on issues of


inequality. But the boat race symbolises a lot of issues. But you


misjudged the public mood on the boat race? It seems to have changed


a lot since then. I believe similar things. It changes a lot since the


year last April? I believe so.You didn't tell your wife you were


going to do it? I didn't. Because there is these laws called joint


enterprise which are introduced, which convicts people that might


know about certain crimes or certain things that will happen. I


didn't want that. For the first time you saw it was him on


television or did the police phone you or what happened? We work


together as well, suddenly I was check ago work e-mail and the


indocks was flooded, and I opened one -- inbox was flooded, and I


opened one that said it is did I just see something I thought I saw,


and I clicked the link and there was Trenton in the Thames. If you


think this is an elitist place and pursuing elitist policies,


presumably you would be happier in Australia? As a migrant, you will


know having worked on these programmes for many years, the role


that migrants have contributed to the United Kingdom in terms of


social equality. The place we live in East London. You were the


benefit of a post graduate place at LSE, you might be one of the elite


yourself? I don't understand that argument, other than I have a good


understanding of how these institutions work. What you are


doing is fighting essentially deportation, and you are going to


appeal. Diop your baby was due yesterday, you -- Deepa, your baby


was due yesterday, you might face the prospect of being separated.


Are you now thinking you will have to make some statement of good


behaviour in order to stay, or is it too late for that? We're hoping


that the Home Office, because it is so overstretched with resources.


Lust forget about you, I don't think so? I think, we are hoping


that it may have just been a technical issue. There is a pretty


high-profile case, I doubt that will be the case. You will have to


appeal, on what grounds will you appeal? We are appealing on a


number of grounds, for example there is normally you don't get


referred for even consideration of deportation unless you are sentence


is over a year. It was a peaceful, non-violent protest. It could have


been dangerous, you endangered yourself and might have caused the


health serves out to your aid? is not there. Presumably you are in


a position now where you are about to give birth, and within six weeks


your husband could be out of the country? Yes.What would you say to


people in the end about an act that has benefited neither of you?


is a question around portionality and scale, Trenton was punished, he


served a prison sentence, we are paying off the Crown costs, he was


released on a tag. He didn't break any of those condition. He's


contributed and worked in this country for over a decade. But he


now is a criminal, of course? think the question around the right


to protest and the criminal yietsation of protest needs to be


discussed. -- criminalisation of protests need to be discussed. The


question around migrants and whether migrants have the right to


protest around issues that they feel are unjust. In our


neighbourhood I think Trenton was trying to say things like minimum


wage, minimum working hours, that's all been done through migrants


protesting. It is a interested decisional thing. Are you --It is


traditional thing. Are you going to have to say you are a reformed


character? It is so interesting, when you go to prison nobody could


tell me what the point of prison was. Nobody was able to say through


this process that I would be reformed or rehabilitated or


punished. So I mean...You Are not really rehabilitated again?


imagine, it would seem that is the casek because I was allowed out of


prison without any issues. But the issue at stake here is whether or


not you can protest? And what I'm' dealing with at the moment is I


will be concentrating on my family, I have some books to write, they


are the key issues. People do have the right to protest and not to be


criminalised for that protesting. Are you determined not to go to


Australia, you may have to go? Well it would be he very difficult


because our life is completely entangled here, we live and work


together, everything is involved. We are hoping it was a technical


mistake by the Home Office and we are hoping they will clarify that


it was an oversight. Thank you very much indeed.


Before the end of the programme we have tomorrow's front page, first,


it is very rare to see killers boasting about their crimes. And


certainly not the perpetrators of mass murder. But in a new


documentary feature, The Act Of Killing, which revisits the bloody


aftermath of the coup in Indonesian in 1975, the original


paramilitaries who executed hundreds of thousands of alleged


communists do just that. The film maker, Joshua Oppenheimer, tracked


down the leader of the death squads and they readily agreed to re-enact


several of their murders, delighting in the most bloodthirsty


details. These exerts contain distressing images.


After the 1965 coup anybody opposed to the new military dictatorship


could be accused of being a communist. This included union


members, landless farmers, intellectuals and ethnic Chinese.


In America the attack on communism was seen as a major victory.


Anwar Congo was the loader of the Pancasila Youth paramilitaries,


which still existed today. He enthusiastically demonstrated to


the camera what happened after he had beaten his victims to death,


because the smell and the mess was The killers dress up in outlandish,


garish outfits, making elaborate sets and cajoling Indonesians to


take part in violent re-enactments, oblivious to the fact they are


incriminating themselves in war It was a very multilayered


documentary, including the prp traitors talking to each other --


perpetrators talking about what they did to each other. Joshua


Oppenheimer is with me now. You started off filming with survivors


and then switched to the perpetrators? Every time we filmed


with the survivors the police would and arrest us, and it terrified the


survivors. He went back and asked should we make this and is it too


sensitive still. And everybody said you must make a film, one that


exposes what happened and what has happened to a whole society built


by the killers and is based on the celebration of atrocities as


something herok. I find it extraordinary, in which the killers


move around, act completely with impunity, are still heros in what


you expose of being a very corrupt and brutal society, elements of it?


I think normally when we hear from perpetrators in film, they either


apologise for what they have done or they deny it. That is because by


the time we approach them, they have been removed from power. Here


the killers have won, they are still in power, they have built a


whole society based on celebrating their atrocities, and it gives us


this opportunity to ask a fundamentally human question, which


is, first of all, how do we human beings do this to each other, but


what happens when we build our normality on terror and lies.


is a question you were asking, but that was a question that only came


later to the killers themselves. And I wonder how they saw you?


Because they call you Josh, they trust you, you are behind the


camera a lot of the time. And yet they know you are from Denmark.


That you are looking in on them. It was as if they were so blinded to


the fact that what they did was so appalling, they were happy to tell


you that they started to garotte people because it was too bloody


and smelly to machete them to death. It was one of the most shocking


things I have ever seen I think? The viewers first relationship to


the film is mine as well. Which is my gosh these men feel no remorse.


The curious thing happens during the film is some how they are


boasting about what they have done and celebrating what they have done,


and it turns out to be a symptom perhaps of the fact that they knew


it was wrong to begin with. They are desperately trying to convince


themselves that what they have done was right. And by the end of the


film some how they make scene after scene trying to some how run away


from the meaning of what they have done, only to find themselves


confronted with it. These were the particular death squads you are


talking about just now. But all along the way we have this


paramilitary group still in power, and is very much entrenched and


entwined with the Government. With what you see in the film is


tremendous corruption, brutality, attitudes towards women which are


appalling, and the every day attitudes of some of the regime. So


tell me where is it being shown in Indonesian, and can you ever go


back -- Indonesia and can you ever go back? The film in the country


has censorship, which they ban the film, so it is a crime to show it.


We have held underground to screenings, some of them big, 600


people, as of April there were 500 screenings in 95 cities and it is


growing daily across Indonesia. Handing stuff on or is it done on


social media? It is giving out DVDs, blue-rays, but also cinemas showing


proper cinema seats. But inat this vaigs-only screenings, with 500


people. The film has come like the little child in the Emperor's new


clothes and saying the king is naked and everyone was too afraid


to say it. And now said so powerfully by the killers


themselves, there is no going back. During the course of the film you


reshow some of your footage to the killers and they are contemplative


sometimes, they quite like it. What about some of the people who come


off worse than the killer, what is their response? I assume the


political leaders, whom Anwar recruits into the film, I assume


they feel betrayed. I hope they do, otherwise I haven't done my job.


you still speak to him? I'm still in touch with him, we have been


through a very painful and intimate and powerful journey together. But


the politicians in Indonesia will make it that I could probably get


into Indonesia but I wouldn't get out probably. So in a sense all the


efforts you have made to learn the language and everything, your job


is done? That is a great sadness for me that the community with whom


I made the film they became my family, it was a very dark journey


for me and painful journey. They lit this dark road with their


laughter and support. In the end did you actually like some of the


killers? I think "like" is the wrong word. I think I came to be


less and less, even as I retained my judgment of their acts, I became


less and less willing to judge another human being as an entire


person. I think I feel love for Anwar as a human being, I think


"like" is certainly the wrong word. Thank you very much, The Act Of


Killing is reduced in cinemas at this country, and Josh will be


Apology for the loss of subtitles for 57 seconds


speaking at events around the That is the end of tonight's


Download Subtitles