Better Religious Studies Classes Are What We Need, Not More Pancasila

This is another post that led to interesting debates within the Jakarta Globe site. I wrote this as a reaction to the reactions from the government and various talkingheads who demanded an increase in Pancasila study in response to this survey.

Aside of many comments, my article also led to an interesting blog post by Ben K. C. Laksana. Here's his main thesis:

The answers to this are incredibly complex and it would do no justice what so ever to pinpoint one single answer. Yet seeing the many conflicts that has happened in Indonesia between religious groups and between ethnic groups we can say that the problem lies not merely on radical interpretations of the holy books or the envies of the economic disparities among the society but perhaps it is also due to the single thing that unites us Indonesians, the Pancasila, has become almost non-existent in our society. It is still a symbol of Indonesia’s unity but nonetheless it is but merely a symbol.

I think Mr. Laksana missed the points of my articles. My point is why would anyone study Pancasila when politicians don't pay any attention to its proper implementation? They simply give a lips service on how wonderful Pancasila is, then go back to their merry ways of plundering the country through corruption, collusion, and nepotism, and using divisive religious issues anytime they are in trouble. Not to mention, the inability of the central government to deal with many dangerous fundamentalists masquerading as responsible government officials such as the current Mayor of Bogor.

Plus, the teaching of Pancasila in Indonesia is simply horrendeously bad. It is all full of rote memorization. Students literally fall asleep, finding nothing relevant between the discipline and real-world situation.

Moreover, with the alienation of the current youth generation from Pancasila and the rise of their religiosity, would they actually be willing to sit down for hours of lectures of Pancasila? Like what happened during the Suharto's era: students would sit down, but they won't listen. Instead, with today's proliferation of blackberries, iPads, iPhones, and other various smart electronic devices, they'd use the lecture time to play "Angry Birds" and to tend their farms in "Farmville."

Rather than making this entire issue to be Pancasila vs. Religion, what I propose here is a reformation of how religion is being taught in schools. Thus, the emphasis is not simply on learning own's rituals and doctrines, but on understanding other religions, that by the end of the day, all religions strive for a peaceful coexistence in Indonesia - thus making "religious classes" into "comparative studies on religions."

YS
----------------------


Better Religious Studies Classes Are What We Need, Not More Pancasila
Yohanes Sulaiman | May 03, 2011

The results of a recent survey on the degree of radicalism in public and private schools in Jakarta have left many people floored.

According to the Institute for Islamic and Peace Studies (LaKIP) survey, 48.9 percent of the students and 28.2 percent of the teachers in the field of Islamic studies are willing to be involved in religiously or morally motivated violence; 41.1 percent of the students and 22.7 percent of the teachers are willing to be involved in closing down and vandalizing other religions’ houses of worship; and 84.8 percent of the students and 76.2 percent of the teachers are in favor of implementing Shariah law in Indonesia.

Of course it would be a mistake to accept the results of the survey at face value. For instance, Shariah is a very fuzzy term. People can interpret it in vastly different ways. Some say it merely means having to pray five times a day while others maintain it goes as far as forbidding the mingling of men and women in public life (which may not be popular among hormone-laden teenagers) and chopping off the hands of convicted thieves (which may be heavily supported by youths who relish such garish conduct, but not that appealing to responsible adults).

There is also the issue of the neutrality of the questions and the researchers themselves. Depending on where and under what conditions a question is asked, peer pressure can be very influential — for instance causing youths to brag about their piety. There are many more external and internal factors that can skew results and one must be wary about that when reading such surveys.

Still, regardless of how a person looks at it, the results remain troubling. That a significant part of the student population is apparently willing to break laws and, even worse, that a significant number of their teachers are condoning such behavior is outrageous. Moreover, as the state is supposed to pay the salaries of these teachers, one should ask whether it is even ethical for them to remain on the public payroll, as the majority of taxpayers abhor such despicable actions.

The usual, politically correct response is that Indonesia needs to strengthen the idea of tolerance, strengthening the teaching of Pancasila in schools, making students understand the true meaning of the state ideology. Unfortunately, there is simply no evidence that by teaching Pancasila, radicalism can be eliminated.

The easiest example of this is the fact that the suicide bombers of recent years were born during the Suharto era, when the teaching of the “Guidelines for the Appreciation and Implementation of Pancasila” was strictly enforced.

Everybody growing up in the Suharto era must be familiar with the lessons in morality derived from the ideology. Yet, some of them still became extremists, willing to commit mass violence against their own brethren, such as by committing a suicide bombing inside a mosque, as we saw in Cirebon last month.

Of course, anyone who had the opportunity to experience the Pancasila classes firsthand could testify that they were useless. Many of the teachers were ineffective or, to be blunt, very boring. The propagated ideals were too lofty to have any relevance in real life, especially because at the same time we were confronted with the lamentable conduct of leaders at every level of society — from personal misbehavior to discrimination against other religions via the implementation of religious-based laws.

So, what are we supposed to do to counter the reprehensible attitude of many in our schools? First, the government must reform religious education in schools. Instead of just teaching the tenets of a particular religion, we must also shed light on the basics of other religions. For instance, Christian students should learn about why Muslims are praying five times a day. At the same time, Muslim students should learn about the variety of Christian denominations and why the role of a church in a Christian community is different from the role of a mosque in the Muslim community.

Those kinds of things may look very mundane and trivial, but surprisingly, most religious conflicts arise because of misconceptions and misunderstandings over other religions’ practices. Many Muslims are not aware of the variety within Christian denominations and wonder why Christians need so many different churches. For Christians, a church is a place of worship for people of the same denomination. Thus, a Christian may travel several kilometers to visit a specific church because that is the closest place to worship for his denomination.

On the other hand, for most Muslims, a mosque ideally is like a local community hall, where everyone is welcome, regardless of whether the worshipper is a Salafist, a Sufi, a liberal, a traditionalist or what. As a result, building a church within a Muslim-majority community can be misconstrued as a signal that there apparently is a significant number of Christians in that specific area, even though the Christian worshippers may actually come from outside.

There are many more differences between religions, from the role of preachers and imams to the more technical issues regarding religious philosophy. Still, a proper religious studies class must first and foremost focus on the relationship between religions and foster an understanding of what other religions are about. This does not mean, however, that we should teach Christians how to pray five times a day or Muslims how to receive the sacrament, as that would only create more misunderstanding and fear of “Islamization” or “Christianization.”

The second thing schools need, besides an overhaul of their religious studies program, are better teachers. A curriculum may look good on paper, but at the end of the day, the quality of instruction matters most and teachers must develop students’ critical minds.

While there are some benefits to rote learning, students trained in that tradition tend to accept everything literally, especially when it comes to religion. People believe radical teachings because they have been raised with the idea that teachers or other figures of authority are always right and that their own opinion never matters. Thus, he or she never develops the ability to think critically. Once such a person is exposed to someone who is charismatic and has interesting (dangerous) ideas, he or she cannot reflect on it without a critical mind.

It should not be a problem to have students asking critical, difficult questions about their own religion. A good teacher will be able to guide them to the correct path, rather than immediately punishing them for being “blasphemous,” forcing them to dogmatically accept certain beliefs and thus creating an intolerant community.

If the government is serious about combating radicalism in schools, then it should forgo the easy way out. Just imposing more education about Pancasila, especially when the political and religious elite are unable to provide a good example, will not make a difference. In fact, students’ growing rejection of Pancasila as a national ideology is a reflection of growing dissatisfaction toward political elites who behave outrageously and enrich themselves at the expense of the poor. This only leads students to search for alternative ideologies.

The government has two choices: it must either root out corruption and other irresponsible behavior or start teaching people to understand and to respect the differences in society. The first option is perhaps too utopian, considering the lack of seriousness in punishing even those convicted of corruption. I suggest we start with the second option.
--------------------------

padt

9:13am May 3, 2011

The topic of radicalism and violence in Islam is going to be 'discussed' (anything but) or talked about (better) until the end of the world and nothing, NOTHING, will be positively achieved. It is a topic that is talked about and goes around and around and around in circles and goes no where.

Why?

Because the use of violence is perfectly legitimate in Islam according to its own teachings.

The discussion that needs to take place - the discussion that few are prepared to have - some are willing to have but are fightened to have for fear of being denouced as false Muslims - the discussion that for some is beyond understanding - is this:

The claim of Islam that its teachings are the result of the descending of an uncreated revelation upon the Prophet (Blessings and peace be upon him) and that what eventually came to be written as the definitive Koran a generation or so after the Prophet's death - can be read in the light of Reason - and that, some verses which may have been applicable in the Arabic world of the 6th century, no longer apply in a world that has a different understanding of human beings. Quite simply put - some verses don't apply now because they reflect the culture and mentality of a different stage in civilization and reflect a limited understanding of God's purposes.

After much experience, Muslims decided ( who? and with what authority?) in an unwritten decree in the 12th Century to suspend the use of Reason in interpreting and understanding the Koran. This is still the case today.
Therefore , for Muslims worldwide, the Koran is virtually a 'dictated, word for word, literal' text of what is guarded and exists in heaven, expressing completely the will of God - including the use of violence in order to both spread the message of Islam and oppose those who do not accept Ismlam.

This is the crux of the problem. Not the only aspect of it - but this is at the heart of the problem.

And this is the discussion that needs to take place.

And I suggest to readers of this column, this is the discussion that no one will have - because most Muslims cannot even slightly envision the idea that the text of the Koran just might - just might - be time bound - and that what might have been acceptable in the 6th century - is not acceptable today in terms of human rights, human dignity and what constitutes acceptable or barbaric behaviour - even if it is claimed to be the will of God.
I cannot imagine that Islam is either ready or capable of having this 'discussion' anytime in the future. Mainly because there is no centralised body of religious authority to authorise it.

Again, as a result, everyone or anyone one who reads the Koran and the problematic passges refereing to the use of violence, can interpret them anyway they like. And there are plenty who wish to interpret them literally and use violence - because, while reason is excluded - the text allows them to do so. They will say, with justification according to their beliefs (which I disagree with) - this is what God wants us to do - kill people.It is written in our Book. It cannot be questioned. And if you do question it - you are the enemy and deserve the treatment due to the enemies of Islam.

It is very difficult to discuss the topic under those circumstances - because it is a dead end topic.
Nevertheless, avoiding the crux of the problem, the issue will go around and around and around until the end of time.

Roland

9:20am May 3, 2011

The results of this survey, as flawed it may be, makes me scared and actually I did NOT enjoy my morning coffee anymore. But - it is a terrible reality wea re facing now and I personally believe that any kind of religious "education" in schools should be either completely abandoned, which would be the ideal solution, as it would prevent the spread of radical ideas by certain religious teachers - but I assume with such a pious society very hard to implement, or, alternatively, strictly controlled, kept to the utmost minimum, audited and sharp guidelines given what can and what cannot be taught in the first place.

11:33am May 3, 2011

Guys

Bad poll results - hot on the heels of the education minister telling us that exam results have worsened The correlation between increased islamic teaching and academic achievement is clear - yet the response here is a standard moslem one of increased religious teaching and probably building more places of worship. This strategy has clearly worked with figures like 85% want Shariah Law man this place is doomed - Discount the non muslims in the poll and thats probably a 100% sucess rate...

The contradictory theme seems that in many Western places Christian religious schools actually provide a better education than the state counterparts - here it seems all schools just get you a dose of radicalisation
I can only guess that your govt actually support a caliphate then...


KZ - I look forward to your take on this gem

BrahmaPutra

6:03pm May 3, 2011

Padt your point is indeed the crux of the matter and what no righteous muslim will ever debate !
So is that a dead end then , because if it is and Islam still stays in the pause position with their interpretation lodged firmly in the 12 century i have little hope for the world at large, let alone Indonesia.
ps why don't you blog a little more about your point ? your writing and reasoning are both impressive.

BrahmaPutra

8:11pm May 3, 2011

These poll numbers combined with the comments made from NU and MUI paints quite a scary picture of the current mind set in Indonesia. For the government to have allowed this creeping Sharia colonization to go unchecked even encouraged it is just *&*^%^&%&* - i actually have no words for what i feel about that.

I have a feeling the next step in this process is quite short coming. 85 percent in favor of Sharia law my god. do you thing MG has been right all along ? that Indonesia is truly lost to fanaticism and bigotry ?

If it is then i guess its time to say bye bye, pack up, empty the bank accounts (if Melinda left anything...) and head out. I sure as hell am not going to sit here and wait for the mobs to turn up on my doorstep .

TGIF

10:15pm May 3, 2011

Let's put it simply: A parent with bad communication skills, bad behavior would eventually set bad examples to their growing children. A parent is the mirror of the children. Therefore it isn't so much different from a government setting examples to their citizens.


If religion studies cannot set examples then who can...corruption and radicalism of any sort remain the biggest enemies in this country.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:59pm May 3, 2011

It seems that my piece here touches people's raw nerves. Oh well.

@padt: While the use of violence can be legitimate according to Qur'an, keep in mind that if you read the Qur'an carefully, there are only few cases when the use of violence is seen as legitimate. The fact that these students, and unfortunately the teachers, think that you an use violence to close down others' houses of worship show that they simply don't understand it and reflects the poor state of Indonesian education in both secular and religious matters.


I agree with your comments that there should be a discussion on how people intrepert Qur'an, but such push should come from within Islam itself. I think sooner or later it will appear, especially when the autocrats in the Middle East that rely on fanatics to keep them in power starting to fall. Moreover, the abuses of power done by the clerics, mullahs, and various other so-called "religious defenders" will only create backlash. Remember that the Christian Reformation appeared when there's a fatigue among the Christians themselves on how the Papacy abused its temporal power, lived in luxury while the masses were oppressed and fleeced by these letters of indulgence.


@Roland: it is simply impossible to get rid of religious education in schools. There's just so much vested interest going on and not to ention this may create backlash from the ignorant society. Actually, I agree with the idea of the government to put some guideline on the teaching of religious studies, making it more of a comparative religion class. Unfortunately though, I doubt these buereaucrats really understand about good ways to educate children.


@DIB: The govt doesn't support caliphate. The problem here is the lack of will. On Shariah: read again my oped. I noted there that the definition of Shariah is very fuzzy. It's like asking Christians whether we support Ten Commandments. You will find that most Christians support it, even though only a few idiots are willing to go to a Buddhist temple and start destroying the statues there.


@BrahmaPutra: It will stay the same in 12th Century if people keep thinking with their old ways of thinking. That's why reformation in Indonesian education system is desperatedly needed.


Plus, don't start packing up yet. The chance of you to be hit by a car or a motorcycle and die on your way to hospital is astronomically higher than the chance of a pitchfork-carrying mob attacking your house and lynching you to death.

KneecZar

6:43am May 4, 2011

I owed DD & DIB a response on an earlier article when I saw this one.


I cannot tell you how appaled I am at the results of the survey. While it states it cannot be taken at face value, I certain agree with that, it is disturbing. Many factors should be taken into account, such as sample population (proportionality between public and private schools), the sample demographics, sample size, etc. It would be interesting to include the relevance between the students views and their parents as well, to paint a more complete picture. With so many distorted, skewed and twisted versions of the Islamic teachings around these days, and also available on the Internet, both teacher and student may well are confused in how to interpret and apply them.

The problem is teaching the correct fundamentals, and building upon them and how they apply in everyday life. Pancasila is indeed boring almost meaningless if we look at what is happening all around us, the government, the public officials, and the state apparatus in general, do not reflect a way of life that is Pancasilaistic. Focus of Pancasila studies should be more to nationalistic identity and pride, the cultural heritage and civic responsibility.


As for teaching religion, for a Muslim a very important part of Quran studies is Tafsir - the interpretation. It is the study of each verse, the understanding of behind the metaphors, how they relate to each other, determining laws and rulings within them and, most importantly, reconciling conflicting verses. As we all know, there are many schools of thought, many interpretations. Some Islamic scholars and jurists, even hundreds of years ago, have stated that many verses are not applicable anymore. Their interpretation should be considered, say, based on historical context; how, when, what the circumstances and where these verses were revealed. Another method of interpretation is taking into account the current social and economic environment of the time, how it relates to the present. So, who decides this? Unfortunately, many in the Islamic world claim authority, and the result is an ambigious, multiple set of edicts and rulings which are most often contradictory with each other. For some, yes, they are stuck in 12th century, others somewhere between then and present 21st century.


Some of the things that have been trying to convey since day 1 has been prominently and convincingly laid out by padt, well said! As I mentioned above, there are many schools of thought, but with no centralized authority to issue an authoritative ruling or edict, each Islamic group and sect just carry on with their own sets of interpretation. There are many in the Islamic world who have gone beyond the literal text of the Quran, and made justifiable interpretations which are better suited and applicable in the current society. For example, what is the definition of a Jihad and when is it applicable? I posted a while back the criteria of Jihad and the different forms of it. Even the definition is open to interpretation and has been often misused by many extremists and terrorists to further their own agenda. (WebEd - can you please track this post, can be useful?)


Another example is apostacy. A person commits apostasy (irtidad) or becomes an apostate (murtadd) if he describes himself a Muslim and then at a later time takes one of the following actions in a public way:
1) Converts to another religion, e.g. becomes a Christian or Buddhist or Baha`i etc.
2) Rejects a part of the Qur`an after recognizing it to be a part of the Qur`an.
3) In some cases when the whole ummah (community) agrees that a certain interpretation of some Quranic verses or Hadith is unacceptable, then the person who holds such an interpretation may become an apostate by a decision of the ummah. (Even here it's based on certain interpretation!)

The traditional view is punishable by death, even though there are NO direct revelations prescribing it. The correct view (again depends on whom that follow this course), is to treat them no differently than other kafirs (an Unbeliever of Allah), the degree of friendship or hostility is directly proportional with their view or actions towards Islam and Muslims.


Sorry for the long post WebEd!

ThereIsNoGod

9:25am May 4, 2011

Eh? Believing in a non-existent being is more important than the history of a nation?

DrDez

10:20am May 4, 2011

BP
Im hearing alot of expats saying similar things - The study is almost certainly flawed but it does indicate a swing and also explains why the govt are so reluctant to take any meaningful action - to do so would mean certain vote out. It explains why the general hatred towards all things non muslim is growing and it explains why the mobs are getting more restless and ever more powerful, it explains why some politicains get away with making the most6 inflamatory remarks and likewise radical organisations all with impunity... scary .

BrahmaPutra

8:53am May 5, 2011

Hi KZ thanks for your long and detailed post, problem is i don't see a solution in what you have written. A clarification of the problem as it stands, but no viable solution. So where does this leave us. Some would say up s#$t creek without a paddle!

If this poll is in ANY WAY representative of the peoples will and the hardening of the muslim faith in Indonesia then i think it is curtains unless something fundamental happens to turn the tide.

@Yohanes-Sulaiman
if you knew who i am, where i am and what i do you might change that ratio...

@DrDez serious matters indeed. I tried to explore some of the creeping colonization of the mind in a recent blog entry.

@TING indeed with the future of the nation as a progressive democracy at stake it is unnerving to see the politicians edging towards a Sharia based economically dead society.

KneecZar

11:11am May 5, 2011

BP, thats my point, there is no immediate solution at hand. With even the highest Islamic body saying that the state ideology is not suited to Muslims and barely preaching tolerance, where do we stand as a nation? They are definitely at odds with NU and Muhammadiyah on a variety of issues, hence any dialog at present will not yield fruitful results. The onus is on the government, without their intervention we cannot even start making changes.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

3:32pm May 5, 2011

@all: while I understand the fear of growing radicalism in Indonesia, keep in mind that Indonesia is still very far from becoming into another Pakistan or Middle Eastern countries. True that the survey that I quoted is very disturbing, on the other hand, it is also a mistake to overreact to the survey. Compared to Pakistan, where the killings of a Christian minister and a pluralist governor were celebrated, you actually see major condemnations in Indonesia. The fact that the internet forums, mainstream newspapers, and even the government are still condeming any violence shows that Indonesia is still far from being a fundamentalist society. In Pakistan, the government abstained itself from the funeral and in the Middle East, it took a while before the government and the society even consider Al Qaeda as a threat.


Keep in mind that the violent religious freaks remain a very small sliver of the society and will remain there for sure. The only reason they keep growing for now is because both the government and the parliament are unable to get their act together and to behave as adults.


Moreover, keep in mind that the governments that rely on fundamentalists are usually undemocratic ones thus needing those religious freaks as their cannon fodder. Here, the election may be flawed but it is still democratic.


@BP: I don't know who you are and where you are, but unless you are living in Somalia, Yemen, or other places where you are in the middle of a civil war or genocide and the government really has no legitimacy outside its palace, I will stand by my calculation.


Keep in mind that traffic accidents kill more people than war in the 20th century according to the WHO. Thus, if you are living in places like Jakarta, chances are slim that anyone will start hunting you, unless you do something really stupid, e.g. burning Qur'an.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Asean’s Border Crisis

This is another unpopular article - only diplomats were mentioning this and nobody else. Thus, I am convinced that topics on ASEAN and foreign policy are simply unpopular among Indonesians. Nobody gives a damn about Preah Vihear temple complex dispute since it is seen as so far away, and has limited impact on Indonesians' daily lives.

Asean’s Border Crisis
Yohanes Sulaiman | April 27, 2011

When it rains, it pours. Such is the case for Indonesia, still preoccupied with the Somali pirate hostage crisis even as the border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand over the Preah Vihear temple complex has yet again come to the fore. As this year’s chair of Asean, Indonesia bears the responsibility of trying to find a solution to the conflict.

Should the dispute escalate into war, as it currently threatens to, the entire raison d’etre of Asean could be called into question. If other regional powers, such as China, were to interfere, the bloc’s existence bloc could be in peril.

The rejection of Indonesia’s offer to send observers and mediators reflects badly on the country as a regional power and a key member of Asean. Likewise, the country’s own border problems with its neighbors, notably Malaysia and East Timor, fail to provide reassurance of its ability to diplomatically handle territorial disputes.

Indonesia’s position in the current dispute is not enviable. Even with its leadership role in Asean, it does not hold the power to force a settlement, due to the grouping’s principle of noninterference. There are no mechanisms in place for the regional body to settle disputes among its member nations. Asean’s only possible role in defusing the conflict is to act as an arbitration chamber, trying to help both parties reach an agreement.

The problem is that mediation is only possible when both parties are willing to work together to find a solution. At this point, such a scenario seems highly unlikely, as any evidence of concession from either Cambodia or Thailand could be seen as a sign of weakness, both domestically and internationally.

With nationalistic fervor at its peak in both countries, the governments of both nations are now in a difficult situation. On the one hand, neither can back down from the confrontation without losing face, which would expose the compromised government to domestic criticism. On the other hand, both also realize that going to war is not an option, especially as neither has the resources for an all-out war.

Cambodia maintains that it has a much stronger claim than Thailand to the temple complex. Backed by a 1962 decision by the International Court of Justice, Cambodia has continued to push for international intervention or mediation over the disputed area, believing that, in the end, international pressure will force Thailand to back down.

In the best-case scenario for Cambodia, the international settlement of the disputed area may even grant the country more territory; it might be able to claim more territory based on its “need” to protect and to preserve the temple area. In the worst-case scenario, it would still be left with its recognized claim over the temple complex.

Thailand is aware of these scenarios, and as a result it tries to make the issue a bilateral affair and thus hesitates to accept Indonesia’s offers to send unarmed military observers to the disputed region.

In Thailand, the escalation of the dispute is a consequence of the pressures of domestic politics and the polarized political climate that originated during former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra’s tenure.

In 2008, Thailand’s then-prime minister, Samak Sundaravej, seen as a supporter of Thaksin, agreed not to oppose Cambodia’s World Heritage bid for the site, and the foreign ministers of both countries signed a joint communique over the temple’s registration. The Thai government seemed to decide that cooperation was the most important thing, and besides, Unesco recognition would generate more tourism and provide assistance to preserve the already precarious condition of the temple complex.

Thailand’s Constitutional Court, however, ruled that the government had to submit the joint communique for parliamentary approval. With the opposition declaring that the government was surrendering Thailand’s sovereignty over the area for a business concession — sacrificing national interests for Thaksin’s commercial interests in Cambodia — the government had no desire to subject the matter to debate and so withdrew its support for the registration.

The stakes are high. Indonesia’s failure to settle this problem may further undermine both Asean and Indonesia’s international reputation. Should Indonesia fail to learn from the origins and the intricacy of the issue, it may find itself at the receiving end of future territorial disputes.

Sinar Kudus Hostage Crisis Exposes A Nation Unprepared for Emergency

This article is kinda unpopular probably due to its emphasis on analysis on bureaucratic decision-making process - though this was quoted in a Stimson Research Paper.

I actually got the idea for this paper after I received a call from the Indonesian Navy Headquarters at Cilangkap, asking me some questions regarding the geopolitics and conditions of Somalia. This short article was derived (and a sanitized version) of a much longer policy paper that I submitted upon their requests. In the longer policy paper, the analysis was more scatching and could not be published here due to its contents.

The take home point, however, was that the Indonesian bureaucracy was simply unprepared for global problems. Don't know if it made any impact, well, that's living.

Family members with loved ones aboard the pirate-held Sinar Kudus demand the government do more to free the crew during a demonstration in Jakarta on Monday. (AFP Photo)


Sinar Kudus Hostage Crisis Exposes A Nation Unprepared for Emergency
Yohanes Sulaiman | April 19, 2011

The hijacking of an Indonesian-flagged cargo ship last month — and the crisis that persists to this day — brings to light problems in Indonesia’s decision-making process and foreign policy. The nation’s response has been too slow, unable to adapt to the sudden nature of a hijacking crisis. The insistence on taking the high road of “nonalignment,” too, ensures that when push comes to shove, Indonesia will find itself alone.

The glaring weakness of Indonesian decision-making was evident within hours after the news came that the MV Sinar Kudus had been hijacked off the coast of East Africa on March 16. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had cabinet-level meetings on March 18, 20 and 22 that resulted in two options: support the ransom negotiations or send in the Special Forces to free the crew. Two rescue frigates finally left Indonesia on March 23, had a rendezvous with Special Forces operators in Colombo, and departed from Sri Lanka on the 30th.

During that week of discussion, the pirates did not remain idle. Instead, they used the Sinar Kudus to launch an attack on another vessel 700 kilometers to the northeast of its original position. The attacked ship, MV Emperor, escaped hijacking thanks to its armed guards.

On March 19, the pirate-held Sinar Kudus operated close to the Strait of Hormuz, threatening the shipping lanes there, before moving on and reaching Socotra Island on the 22nd. It later evaded an Australian warship near Oman and reached Hobyo in Somalia where more pirates were picked up.

In other words, instead of going straight to Somalia, the pirates actually moved the ship farther away from Somalia in search of more prey, closing the window of opportunity — had Indonesia had any ship there — to intercept and to launch a rescue mission. In the week that it took Indonesia to reach a decision, the pirates had complete freedom of action, allowing them to use the ship as a springboard for further attacks and to get reinforcements, all of which would make it more difficult to launch any operation to free the ship. By the time the Indonesian warships reached the area, the Sinar Kudus was back in Somalia.

In contrast, Russia, South Korea, the United States and Malaysia have launched successful rescue missions, thanks to their ability to respond rapidly. These nations took only a few hours to react and to shadow the hijacked vessels, preventing pirates from sending reinforcements. When rescue operations were launched, the pirates were exhausted and stressed out, thanks to constant harassment by the rescue warships.

So far, from the Sinar Kudus hijacking we can learn two things about Indonesian decision-making.

First, it is overly centralized. Orders come straight from the president. In contrast, in the United States, the US Navy has freedom of action as mandated by standard operating procedures. When they receive a distress call, any available warship in the area will pursue a pirate-seized vessel and wait for further orders. This kind of directive makes it easy should those higher up in the chain of command, including the president, authorize any action.

Second, Indonesia’s decision-making is agonizingly slow. It took three cabinet-level meetings before it was finally decided to pursue two courses of action. While this was the best way to keep everyone in the political coalition informed and in accord, precious time to launch a rescue mission was wasted. Worse, there was no Indonesian warship in the area. Not surprisingly, Indonesia is now facing equally unpalatable options: agree to the pirates’ ransom demands or launch a rescue mission under very difficult circumstances.

In the first weeks after the hijacking, the Indonesian media was preoccupied with the issue of a new luxury tower for the legislature and Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) lawmaker Arifinto’s porn predicaments. The diversion of attention away from the hijacking gave the government some breathing room. After these issues died down, however, the hijacking came back to the fore with a vengeance and talking heads in the media had a field day in comparing the current situation with how former President Suharto’s government handled the hijacking of Garuda Flight 206 in 1981.

Constantly badgered by media demanding a rescue mission, the president is now in a difficult situation. By paying the ransom, he will be seen as a softie, a weak president who can be pushed around even by a bunch of pirates. Worse, the pirates themselves, seeing the Yudhoyono government is anxious to clean up this affair as soon as possible, will play for time, demanding more and more money, especially when they think it unlikely that Indonesia will find a way to retaliate. There’s a precedent for this: On Friday, pirates kept a number of hostages even after the Indian government had paid a ransom for the release of another seized vessel.

As for the other option, a rescue operation is very difficult to pull off. Unlike in 1981, the hostages are far away and in hostile territory, with no hope for collaboration from an ineffective Somalian government. While a successful operation will give a major boost to the president’s reputation, a failed mission will badly hurt his image and undermine his government further. Worse, people will start comparing his performance to Malaysia’s success in liberating a hijacked ship. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, not surprisingly the government has tried to play down news of the hijacking.

It can be argued that our Navy has only a small number of ships. Combined with the costs involved, any rescue mission outside the country must have approval from the president himself.

Other nations facing sea hijacking threats have found a solution in joining a military alliance, notably with the United States. Under the umbrella of the Combined Maritime Forces, the United States and its allies patrol the seas and provide support to the members of the alliance. While Indonesia has a cordial relationship with the United States, the fact that it is not a part of the US security alliance makes it difficult to gain access to intelligence, let alone military support or assistance in combating piracy. The alliance has no responsibility to provide support to Indonesia.

And even if it did, any association with this alliance, or asking for help from any other country, would be politically problematic back in Indonesia. It would be seen — unfairly — as proof of the incompetence of our Navy, and in turn, Yudhoyono’s government.

While it is impossible to turn back the clock, Indonesia must take heed of these lessons. Indonesia has to streamline its decision-making process, allowing for more freedom of action lower in the chain of command and, at the same time, improve the quality of its Navy.

Without any serious effort from the government to address these issues, Indonesia will find itself in the same predicament should this kind of emergency arise again. Or worse, in time of war, invaders may take advantage of Indonesia’s slow decision-making, with disastrous results.

zerodiversity

12:00pm Apr 19, 2011

I was optimistic when Pak SBY won his 2nd election. However, his term has been consistently marred by indecision and ambiguous positioning on critical issues. I am disappointed because I thought that Pak SBY would be the one to guide our country towards greater things.

gregorfence

6:40am Apr 20, 2011

Have ready 20 condolence cards. Thats not a hard copy paste thing to decide.

Indonesia’s Culture Of Impunity Offers Too Many Excuses

Each time I re-reading this kind of article, I always go back and think, why on earth are we tolerating idiotic conducts of our so-called political elites? Why do they love to put their feet in their mouths?

Then I realize that there are three reasons:
1. They have no shame because they think they are beyond shame since they are the nobles. It is like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes.
2. No punishment for being stupid. Unlike in the US, when any single mistep will immediately be broadcasted in the 6 o'clock news (and YouTube), in Indonesia, there's no accountability at all. I admit that the MetroTV has been skewering many officials lately, but it is not a systematic skewering by entire mass media.
3. In the US, your opponent will use your gaffee in the election campaign to beat you to pulp. Here, these politicians are invulnerable because either (1) the leaders of their political party are their best pals, so that their position in the political party is practically secure, even though they are dragging the entire party through the mud with them or (2) people don't give a damn because they were paid to vote anyway, not to mention later some "winks and nods" with the electoral committee, ensuring that victory is ascertain. Besides, based on the 2009 election, seems that only very few people here in Indonesia had any bloody clue on how to run a proper political campaign anyway.

Okay, did I leave out something?

Jakarta Globe's readers' comments as usual are included.

Indonesia’s Culture Of Impunity Offers Too Many Excuses
Yohanes Sulaiman | April 11, 2011

A scan of recent news offers more evidence, if any were needed, that accountability means little in the upper ranks of politics and business in Indonesia.

Inong Malinda Dee, an employee of Citibank in Jakarta, last week declared that she was not guilty of embezzling millions of dollars from customers’ accounts. A day later, she promised to return the funds, while maintaining that her actions did not cost Citibank a penny. Her excuse for using her clients’ money? They had handed it over for her to manage.

House Speaker Marzuki Alie, when recently faced with heavy public objections over his plan to build a luxurious new building for the legislature, declared that opposing factions were only trying to sully his reputation. This was his latest in a series of gaffes, from his dismissive attitude toward victims of natural disasters in Mentawai — telling island-dwellers “If you’re afraid of waves, don’t live by the shore” — to his declaration that Indonesian migrant workers were hurting the country’s reputation with their bad work ethic and lack of skills (“Some of them can’t iron properly, so it’s natural if the employer ends up landing the hot iron on the migrant worker’s body”).

In refusing to resign from his post as chairman of the Indonesian Football Association (PSSI) this year, Nurdin Halid claimed that special interests and political pressures were working to oust him. He seemed to ignore the fact that under his leadership the PSSI’s reputation had sunk to a new low, dragged down by money politics, manipulation and the inability to control hooliganism at matches.

Arifinto, a Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) lawmaker, was caught on camera watching a pornographic video at a plenary session last week. He feebly claimed that he was checking his e-mail when he accidentally stumbled upon the pornographic material and deleted it immediately. The fact that a Media Indonesia journalist had sufficient time to take several photographs of the lawmaker viewing the material suggests otherwise.

Finally, the hard-line Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) has declared that Ahmadiyah must be disbanded for upsetting social harmony, despite the fact that it is the members of the religious sect who have been harassed, attacked and even killed in past months. Instead of defending the marginalized group, Religious Affairs Minister Suryadharma Ali blamed the Ahmadiyah for being un-Islamic.

In Yiddish English, such an attitude is called chutzpah, the classic tongue-in-cheek definition of which is “killing your parents and then asking the court to have mercy upon you as an orphan.” In Indonesian, it is called tidak tahu diri , or “not knowing oneself.”

Indonesia is not the only country with this kind of problem. The attitude is common throughout the world, from rich countries like Saudi Arabia to poor ones like Zimbabwe, from Western democracies like the United States to the totalitarian regime of North Korea. People say stupid things and deny responsibility for their actions. It’s always somebody else’s fault.

In Indonesia’s case, the difference lies in the frequency and the scale of denial. The more a society demands accountability from elected officials or public figures, the more careful these figures will be. This is generally a feature of mature democracies, where critical citizens demand social equality and competitive elections.

In advanced democracies such as Europe, the United States and Japan, there have been many cases of public officials resigning due to gaffes, inadequate contributions and unethical impropriety. The reason is simple: People hold officials accountable for their conduct, and they wield the power to vote them out.

By contrast, in an authoritarian society, or in nations where elections are not competitive due to the dominance of one political party, massive electoral manipulation or a nationwide coalition, politicians and public figures simply do not see themselves as accountable to the people. The higher their rank, the less accountable they feel.

Indonesia’s electoral system bolsters such a sense of impunity. Under the representative system, each party has the power to decide which of its members will have a seat in the legislature and government. The reason is simple: Citizens choose parties in the elections, not candidates. As a result, a candidate’s ability to rise to power and enjoy its perks is not controlled by the people.

Even when the Constitutional Court forced a mixed-system under which people could choose either a candidate or a party at the polls, electoral manipulation and lack of familiarity among voters — not to mention confusing ballot sheets full of names — meant that many people still ended up picking parties instead of candidates.

At the same time, back-room dealings among political players, coupled with a lack of law enforcement, helped violent groups such as the FPI become important tools for imposing political control.

For people who lack the finesse, familiarity or connections to engage in politics, they can rely on vocal and violent groups to signal to others that they are also key players in politics. Should those in power fail to serve their interests, they can bring out such groups to cause chaos and embarrass the government.

Political backing allows such violent groups to act with impunity, even taking over the regulatory function of the police. Such unchecked erosion in the authority of the police force further fuels the confidence of violent groups, as it signals to them that they are above the law.

With such an attitude of impunity running rampant, it is no wonder that public trust in the government’s ability to maintain order is declining.

There are three main solutions to this problem of accountability.

First, a major overhaul of electoral law is needed, changing the electoral system to purely a district basis of representation. Under this system, politicians will have to compete against each other solely on track records, forcing them to own up to their transgressions.

Second, rule of law must be implemented, under which violent groups will be given no room in the democratic system.

Third, and most important, is constant and insistent public pressure for accountability, demanding the heads of irresponsible public figures.

Such pressures are able to force change, even in China, where the “Tiananmen treatment” toward protesters allows the authoritarian regime to stay in power.

Last October, in China, Li Qiming was arrested for seriously injuring two girls while driving under the influence. One of the victims later died in the hospital. When the police came for him Li Qiming yelled, “Arrest me if you dare. My father is Li Gang” — the deputy director of local police.

Usually, a culture of nepotism would mean the case would be quietly shelved and the victims’ family pressured to drop the charges. This time, however, the Internet was soon buzzing with outrage — enough that in January Li Qimin was arrested and sentenced to six years a prison. It was a relatively light sentence, and yet, considering his position, it could be seen as progress.

Such popular pressures can force a strong authoritarian government to buckle, compelling it to address injustice. In a democratic Indonesia, we should expect this much and more.

xenocross

10:10am Apr 12, 2011

good article

serenityjam

10:51am Apr 12, 2011

I must congratulate Yohanes Sulaiman for a well-written dissertation on our country's propensity to tolerate abusive people from ostentatious display of power and wealth.


There is no excuse, therefore, for us NOT to be able to stop this nonsensical behavior.


Media should, however, begin with this crusade. Some correspondents write more of the personal side of the persons who caused the scandal and make them look like "innocent victims" rather than write about the harm and injury caused on the real victims. Behind the scenes is money flowing to cushion the impact of a scandal and press people should remember their code of ethics. If a few of them receive payola or palm greasing bribe, they should be denounced as well. Media organizations should police their ranks against these people whose impartiality has been tainted.


Educators, parents, and school administrators should now work to teach our youth about social responsibility and public accountability for professions and careers. Ethics and personal conduct when doing work either as a private citizen or public servant are values that need to be taught to our children even in primary levels.


Nice work, Yohanes Sulaiman!

Beware the Sin of Pride in Luxury DPR Tower

Great comments from my readers after this article.

We all know that the plan for the tower was finally cancelled.after much opposition. Still, I am always amazed how tone-deaf Mr. Marzuki Alie is - even today.


The proposed new DPR building. (JG Photo)

 Beware the Sin of Pride in Luxury DPR Tower
Yohanes Sulaiman | April 04, 2011

There is no religion in the world that does not warn of the danger of pride and hubris. Both the Koran and the Bible illustrate the peril of pride in verses about towers.

In the Koran, the Pharaoh’s disbelief of Moses’ god led him to order his official to build a tower because “I want to reach heaven, and take a look at the god of Moses. I believe he is a liar.” In the end, the Pharaoh and his officials were drowned in the Red Sea.

In the Bible, the first descendants of Noah decided to build a tower in Babel “whose top may reach unto heaven, and let us make us a name.” God decided to confound the language of men and thus the project failed and people were scattered all over the world.

So it is ironic that in Indonesia, the legislature, regularly seen as arrogant, imperious and out of touch with people, has declared its intention to build a luxurious new tower to replace its current building.

It is not that the legislature does not need a new building to increase its effectiveness. Putting aside the outrageous argument that the current structure is tilted seven degrees, as someone who has visited it many times I can agree with the other argument that it is very difficult to do anything there. The rooms are small and elevators are slow.

The question, however, is whether such problems justify the need for a Rp 1.3 trillion ($130 million) building (and this amount will surely increase), especially when many Indonesians are still mired in poverty and face problems in accessing proper education and health care, and the military needs new equipment such as destroyers and fast boats to effectively control porous maritime borders.

One can argue that perhaps better building management would be a more effective way to fix the problems, since many of the rooms are not used effectively and four out of six operating elevators are reserved for lawmakers and, as a result, are seldom used.

Still, for the sake of argument, let us agree that the legislature truly needs a new building due to the current building’s tilt and general deterioration. The question then, is what kind of building it needs. Is it really necessary to include a spa, massage parlors, swimming pool and other amenities when there are many hotels and malls nearby — even at walking distance — that provide the same services? Besides, are these amenities to be paid by taxpayers, even though ordinary taxpayers cannot ask for any tax deductions for visiting such places? To add insult to injury, members of the legislature themselves are so richly compensated that even a daily visit to massage parlors won’t dent their wallets.

Not surprisingly, faced with vehement public rejection, House Speaker Marzuki Alie denied that the new building would have massage facilities. But considering the fact that he remains adamantly opposed to making the blueprints of the new building open to public scrutiny, it would not be surprising should such luxuries creep back into the final plan.

This leads to the second question: Do the current members of the legislature really deserve such luxurious accommodation? In a private discussion, one lawmaker from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) sadly told me he believed that only around 50 members of the House were properly qualified for their duties. Several experts in the legislature have angrily noted that many of their colleagues do not understand the issues of their supposed specialization, as many of them were recruited through nepotistic practices.

Not surprisingly, a significant majority of the public believes that lawmakers are arrogant and undeserving of the new building, regardless of whether the need for such a building is justified or not.

It is sad to compare the workings of the Indonesian legislature with those of its counterpart in the United States. I once interned for former US Senator Russel D. Feingold at his home office in Middleton, Wisconsin. Even while Feingold was in Washington, the home office remained busy. He was also very involved with regular happenings back in his home state: He sent congratulation letters to award-winning boy scouts and valedictorians and his office helped people who were having trouble with federal bureaucracy even while the senator himself was busy in Washington.

Many of Feingold’s colleagues also understand that they are there in the legislature to represent people, not to line their pockets and enjoy the perks. Moreover, accommodation in Washington comes directly from their own pockets and not from the government. Due to high housing costs in Washington, dozens of new Republican freshmen decide to sleep on cots in their offices, which range in size from 75 to 100 square meters. At the same time, they also need to accommodate about six staff members for each representative.

In stark contrast, the new Indonesian legislative building will have offices that are 125 square meters each, with lawmakers also enjoying subsidized housing and various other perks.

In short, Feingold and many of his colleagues in the US Senate and House understand that they need to earn every penny of their salaries and every vote they received. They do that by acting like adults, trying to understand what their constituents want and need, and behave humbly as members of Congress.

Sadly, such behavior is seldom seen in Indonesia. No wonder Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid once denounced the legislature as a kindergarten. By planning to build a Pride Tower and denouncing any criticism directed against the project out of hand, lawmakers showed that they simply don’t get it. They don’t seem to understand that they are elected by the people to represent them, not to enrich themselves and relax in luxury at a time when the country is burning with religious intolerance, corruption and abuses of power.

-----------
Comments:

dadeu

6:18pm Apr 4, 2011

The Question is Do They Deserved it ?? What they have given to this country but a bunch of [excrement]
This Greedy Moron will be burnt in hell ( I am writing it in English, because this moron will not understand a bit...)

 

BillWalters99

8:46pm Apr 4, 2011

I have often wondered why everyone thinks Democracy is such a great form of government. It doesn't work that great in the United States either. Washington D.C. is full of towers,too. And Obama had the taxpayer build his own, personal basketball court inside the White House! Now that's hubris.

enakajah

10:05pm Apr 4, 2011

Pak Yohanes, excellent article. You let the cat out the bag with this one. Good stuff.

subrotto

11:10pm Apr 4, 2011

BillWalters998."Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
The Obama's basketball court hadn't been built already cos white men can't jump!

blightyboy

11:37pm Apr 4, 2011

"Beware the Sin of Pride in Luxury"
I think the ship has sailed on this one.

Is this not what well off Indonesians are all about, once you get beyond the millions who spend their lives living in sh*t, with nothing at all and no prospects of any change in the future, isn’t it just all a big fancy facade. All show and no substance.

The flash cars, the oversized tasteless palatial homes, where the bigger and the more grossly ornate means the better. In reality the mock Greek and Roman architectural monstrosities that contain within an exhibition of the ultimate in bad taste, just style-less boxes, full of over ornate, badly made furniture, better suited to a cheap dollar a night bordello than a family home, and TV sets in every room. And of course the obligatory family portrait hanging on the wall, all puffed up, stiff and false like everything else.

Cities that contain no parks, no open spaces, no sidewalks, less and less trees. Where there is no culture, no museums or galleries of any quality, no theatres, and no libraries. Where all of the historical buildings are allowed to rot and crumble. Where the streets are broken, full of potholes and crap and garbage, and are never cleaned, accept when they flood. Where zero planning has created roads that are locked up by the flash oversized, gas guzzling SUV’s, choking the city inhabitants to death. Rivers that are just open sewers, and where the waters are so poisonous that not a living thing can survive in them. And then in comparison there are the endless concrete and glass Malls, full of big haired ladies, short skirted bimbo’s, and the hip phone texting western style-junkies, supplying overpriced luxury, and a million ways to over-indulge the senses, except culturally.

Yeh! This new building for the countries managers is a friggin wonderful idea. It will match everything else the inhabitants promote: all show and no substance.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

12:12am Apr 5, 2011

@Bill&Subrotto: Democracy, were it to run "as intended" provides the safety valve to prevent riots from occuring and at the same time a great mechanism to kick leaders that you hate. Indonesia, unfortunately, has a proportional system that strengthening the power of parties and political elites. Had Indonesia used the district system, each candidate then would have to pay attention to his or her district, because now people have the "face" of someone to hate, not simply a formless entity called "DPR."

On Obama: well, if enough people hates his guts, then he will be out in 2012.

@enakajah: thank you very much for your compliment.

@blightyboy: I agree with you and I dislike someone who loves to show off his/her wealth. Still, I think the well-off has the rights to show off their richess, but as long as they are not paid by taxpayers' money, which currently happens with the planned construction of this tower. It is one thing to show the prestige of an institution - the Capitol and the Westminster Building are good examples of elegant buildings that showing off national prestige, but at the same time, properly funded with only essential features included. In Indonesia's case, the timing is bad and the perks there, such as the spa, is really troubling.


I am surprised that nobody comments on my argument that what makes this plan outrageous is the idea that the taxpayers have to pay for something that is non-essential, such as massage and spa.I'd love to submit my tickets to swimming pools as a tax deduction.

Roland

12:45am Apr 5, 2011

@whoa - blightboy - you got your observations about Indonesian lifestyle for the nouveau riche social class just about on the spot. Couldn't agree more!

TGIF

6:01am Apr 5, 2011

There aren't any words to describe the momentum this country is heading...Hypocrisy in the shadow of a religion. Sadly Gus Dur is long gone, the games have already begun.

Once again a religion is being used to entertain the people in believing that forgiveness on a daily basis may somehow be pardoned. God can't be fooled. The devil can only smile on his triumph.

jetset24

6:24am Apr 5, 2011

Let's all call it a mall in one whole building...

It is doubtful that it will change anything in the way the lawmakers do business in tackling the domestic issues of the day. Perhaps there will be more relaxed time when the building may offer so much entertainment....Wink.

Public Officials’ Sense of Might, Right And Impunity Goes Back a Long Way

This is the first Jakarta Globe article in which I engaged in some discussions with its long-term commenters. Many of them are great, easy to talk to, and in fact, I now have great relationships with some of them, enjoy chatting with them once in a while over lunch.

Oh yeah, also the first article that was inspired by a Twitter feed.

Public Officials’ Sense of Might, Right And Impunity Goes Back a Long Way
Yohanes Sulaiman | March 28, 2011

Early on Saturday, on Twitter, I read the news about how Roy Suryo, Democratic Party lawmaker, managed to delay the 6:15 a.m. flight of Lion Air to Yogyakarta. Even though his ticket was for the 7:45 a.m. flight, he refused to leave the plane, demanding to stay on board, the twitter user said. In the end, Suryo apologized and left the plane, claiming Lion Air was responsible for the mistake.

Coupled with other horror stories on how public officials and lawmakers abused their position to demand unwarranted privileges or commit other conduct unbecoming a public servant, it is not surprising people are asking: “What is wrong with Indonesia?”

It is not far-fetched to argue that the problem originates from the mentality of our public officials.

The “I am never wrong” mentality is due to the fact that throughout history, Indonesian officials have only rarely been held accountable for their conduct. One reason was Indonesian culture holding any high officials in high regard. Another was colonialism.

Of course it is very easy to blame colonialism for everything wrong in Indonesia: from massive poverty, lack of education and disregard to the rule of law, to Indonesia’s backwardness.

On the one hand, it cannot be denied that the Dutch and other imperial powers exploited Indonesia, carting off so much of its wealth to Europe and leaving Indonesia mired in poverty and saddled with huge debts at the 1949 Round Table Conference. But on the other hand, it is clear that local officials also share part of the blame. The Dutch were only able to exploit Indonesia through their cooperation with local officials, the elites that managed to line their pockets at the expense of the masses.

The book “Max Havelaar,” which is set during the implementation of the Cultivation System (Tanam Paksa), noted the wanton abuse of power by local regents and how the Dutch East Indies government protected abusers of power. The Dutch didn’t really care about how the regents exploited the population, as long as they were loyal and the treasury was overflowing with money. Unfortunately, this mechanism turned out to be the biggest colonial legacy in Indonesian politics.

Colonialism taught the Indonesians that the Dutch would keep protecting any official, no matter how bad his conduct, as long as he cooperated with the Dutch government. In essence, it was a lesson in totalitarianism: officials need not be accountable to the people. The only people who matter are your superiors, who can fire you at a moment’s notice. From the colonial days, public officials were not there to serve the people, but to serve the masters that would protect them when things went badly.

The other lesson, related to the first one, was: “might makes right.”

Before the arrival of the Dutch, there was no kingdom that completely ruled Java, let alone a country as big as Indonesia. Even the mighty Sultan Agung of Mataram was unable to completely pacify his kingdom, especially after his defeat at Batavia in the late 1620s. As a result, Javanese kings had to rely on the policy of deliberation to achieve consensus ( musyawarah-mufakat ), to mollify any possible critics of planned policy, as many were capable of launching a rebellion.

This was Indonesian-style democracy: the inability of any ruler to dominate all of his opponents created some sort of safeguard that prevented wanton abuse of power. The Dutch, through their relatively efficient organization and firepower, managed to bypass this barrier and could rule without musyawarah-mufakat. This reinforced the first lesson, that as long as an official was backed by a powerful organization, the chances of him getting overthrown were miniscule.

These lessons were further reinforced during the authoritarian rule of both President Sukarno and President Suharto — during which only those with the necessary connections could achieve a top position — and became ingrained in the Indonesian mind-set.

Not surprisingly, with cronyism as the only qualification required to hold a position, professionalism and the rule of law were totally undermined and became irrelevant. Indonesian officialdom now has the aura of impunity.

This mentality has two major effects. First, there is a huge chasm between public officials and the people they are supposed to serve, leading officials to behave egregiously. Officials consider themselves not mere public servants, but part of the nobility, the elite to be adored and served at a moment’s notice. With this in mind, it is not surprising that so many people complain about public officials and members of parliament being completely out of touch with regular people. They think they live in their own kingdoms.

The second — and most worrisome — effect is that since the rule of law has since long been undermined and easy to bypass, provided that an official believes he or she has enough supporters, he or she can attempt to change rules at will. Never mind using the proper channels.

In Indonesia, might still makes right, so it is important for someone who is seriously interested in running for public office to have recourse to a strong organization that is capable of committing acts of violence or at least threaten political opponents.

We can see the excesses already, such as in the case of violent, religious-based mass organizations that have recently attacked minorities such as the Ahmadiyah sect, with the aim of imposing their will.

Coupled with this, the impeachment discourse being promoted by certain groups is also worrisome. Impeachment, instead of being a last-resort tool to limit presidential abuse of power, is being used to coerce the president into doing things that only a very small part of the population supports.

We should remember that democracy only works when everybody is equal before the law and protected from abuse. That includes abuse by public officials.

---------

 

BrahmaPutra

1:13pm Mar 28, 2011

Interesting article although i would have thought that the present governmentally supported oppression , stealing of rights , human dignity , property and MURDER of Ahmadias would be a more pertinent starting point for such an article ! after all we have a religious affairs minister who is a certified fanatical Muslim who wants to introduce Sharia law here.

SirAnthonyKnown-Bender

1:19pm Mar 28, 2011

Colonialism plays its part for sure and Javanese post-colonial imperialism still thrives. It has been 60 years now though and other factors perhaps hold equal sway. In my view, the arrogance and fatalism of the dominant monotheism (I think we all know to which faith I'm referring ) have combined with the inflexible class structures of the country's previous religion of choice, namely Hinduism, a faith whose attitudes are still embedded deeply in the culture.  

TGIF

3:45pm Mar 28, 2011

The “I am never wrong” mentality is due to the fact that throughout history, Indonesian officials have only rarely been held accountable for their conduct. Even Indonesian parents are all ALIKE...Same difference lah.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

11:57pm Mar 28, 2011

@Brahma: I am focusing more on mundane things , to show how officials' attitudes are internalized, making it evident in daily affairs. Focusing on Ahmadiyah will just distract the article from the main point, which is the behavioral problems of officials.

@SirAnthony: Religion does not necessarily cause unprofessionalism. There are many Moslem professionals and capable Moslem civil servants. Bung Hatta and Gus Dur are just two examples. The problem, I think, is the fact that these abusers of power still have the Feodal mentality, reinforced by the experiences under colonialism and authoritarianism.

@TGIF: Not sure about parents. Singapore has almost the same "respect the elder" sulture as Indonesia, but they manage to create an effective civil service as the rule of law is strictly implemented.

DrDez

6:32am Mar 29, 2011

Just look at the make up of the first RI ministerial line up. Freedom was attained using the support of the Indonesian Underworld - without their local organisation the revolution would not have taken place. this is similarly true for Islamic organisations. For that support many 'bosses' started their new political lives bringing with them the corrupt ethos - Right from the start RI had 'built in' corruption. That has just grown as the bosses expanded empires, new emerge dynastys based on wealth etc. The real sadness is the lost opportunity in 1998 to really take a forward political step. But almost all those in power had much to lose (as today)so in reality we pay lip service and little has changed. Thus real change as always lies in the hands of the people - which is why we are seeing radical Islam taking over. Why? Because they (for all their dangers) are the ones in Indonesia right now who are active, they are stealing the activist ground and with religion once you have created a fervor hate is just a small step. Hate drives mobs - mobs make armies - armies make changes... The connundrum is that because politics are tied in with religious groups mobs also mean votes. Is this the reason for inactivity by the govt? To face the mob who is destroying Indonesia is to face non re-election and the lost oportunity that brings.. Somewhat of an imp arse for the politicians really...Not one I can see a solution to either.

 

BrahmaPutra

7:33am Mar 29, 2011

Ok, Another thing that has puzzled me is the inability for people in any position here to admit any mistakes, no matter if the proof is right in front of their faces, they will not admit to any wrong on their part. You have any idea where that attitude comes from ? Some friends and I have discussed this at length, but a different perspective would be appreciated.

devine

9:09am Mar 29, 2011

BrahmaPutra. We Indonesians are "great" people and therefore can't possibly be wrong. If one thinks we are wrong they just have an other perspective of things.... :-)

 

enakajah

9:33am Mar 29, 2011

I continually see reference to Max Havilaar's book in as an authoritative version of the Dutch in Indonesia. Having read it several time I found it rather superficial and of little real historical benefit. It wasn't even a good read.
With regard to the article's subject matter, it is very easy to blame the Dutch for their colonial excesses. These were documented in excruciating detail by J.J. Stockdales book "The Island of Java" 1811. This documents what the British found when they were fighting the French and subsequently took over in Indonesia. It is easy to blame but not entirely true.


The French defeated and colonized the Dutch and took possession of Indonesia, the British subsequently defeated the French here and set about trying to undo the excesses of the Dutch colonial powers. See the related book "The conquest of Java" which is in fact about beating the French and trying to establish an indonesian system of law and order for the Indonesians. Left to their own devices the British would have installed a legal and parliamentary system similar to the Indian systems and perhaps things would have been different here. Or perhaps not. ( These are simply historic comments…. Please no flaming or screaming and yelling history is fairly clear on these points.)


What is very often forgotten is that before the Dutch arrived in force, the sultanates had been fighting for so long and so desperately that the population had been decimated to less than 14 million. The Island was starving to death because there were not enough people to work the land to feed the population. The Dutch took advantage of the intercine wars and the results we all can read about about from the documented history of the VOC.

This however is not the cause of the attitude of the politicians in this country. It adds to it but prior to Dutch colonialism, this attitude was here for centuries. It is what helped build the Sri Wijaya empire reaching through the whole of Malaysia to Cambodia Thailand and Vietnam. It is what built the Majapahit empire and many others.

The attitude of politicians being leaders and not servants is nothing new and not Indonesian. Almost all countries in Asia have the same cultural attitude. Unlike the west that works on straight line logic, Asia works on concentric circles of harmony. encompassing and absorbing a problems rather than addressing it head on. In turn respect for elders is highly ingrained from family to school to work to politics and as such the politicians do not see themselves as servants but as leaders. This too is encouraged by the population and the cultural mores of Asia. It is not unique.


It is however changing. With the access to information that is available today and the influences of a materialistic world, the newer generations are baulking at this ideology and cultural rigor and wishing to see democracy work as it does in other countries. They wish to see politicians as servants not rulers. But with Democracy being less than 20 years old in this country what can one expect in it's early days?


The only way this can be done is by using the vote and through education. It will take generations to modify as the respect for elders is a deeply ingrained sociological way of life with family as the heart of the culture.

Until this type of attitude is grown out of the population ( the belief that politicians are leaders ) I believe it is here to stay. Unless there are mechanisms installed by solid men and women in power to address these excesses it will be a long time until things change. Being held to account is not what these people expect and they are a lot smarter at making sure it does not happen than one would think. What happened to Sri Mulyani springs to mind. In order to defeat this way of thinking, new solid parties of educated technocrats are required and this will take many years and many brave people to develop.


Lets hope it can be done before the religious parties drag the country into a miasma of islamic laws and back into the dark ages of complete subservience.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

9:37am Mar 29, 2011

@DrDez: Robert Cribb wrote a really great book titled "Gangsters and Revolutionaries." The book argues that many of the "pejuang" in 1945 were local toughs, gangsters, etc. In fact, an analysis of the British reports in 1945-46 noted the prevalence of gangsters/robbers that committed so many crimes under the banner of "perjuangan." That completely undermined Sukarno-Hatta-Sjahrir's efforts to show the Allies that Indonesians were capable to govern the country and bring peace. Not surprisingly, PM Sjahrir, Amir Sjarifuddin, and Urip Sumoharjo. tired of these uncontrolled criminal elements, created the Tentara Keamanan Rakyat to bring some semblance of order. So it is not that they did not care or realize how damaging the "underworld" influence to the state-building. Though by the 1950s, Presiden Sukarno courted the underworld elements, especially to prevent the Masjumi and the PSI from taking over the country. I would love to talk more about this, but this will totally derail our discussion and I think, should Jakarta Globe allow it, I should write an opinion piece on that issue.


@Brahma: If you admit your mistake, it will show weaknesses, that you have a vulnerable point. Also keep in mind that by saying "sorry," you are implicitly acknowledging that the other side is equal to you in status. One striking example happened a few years ago. I am not going to name names here, but the person is a very famous person. He and a colleague met a youth from a certain ethnic group. Usually the famous person was very egalitarian and friendly, but this time he was treating the youth like dirt and the youth was just nodding in silence.

After the youth left, his colleague demanded to know why he treated that youth badly, even though that's the first time they met the youth. The famous person smacked his head and reply, "damn, I still have trouble getting rid of my feudal mentality." Apparently his social status is much higher than the youth, so he automatically treated the youth badly to maintain his prestige of having the higher caste.


@devine: That's a good way to state it.

Comello

9:59am Mar 29, 2011

@Yohanes
I think colonialism took advantage of the existing mindset, it did not create it. A few thousand Europeans were certainly not able to create a mindset favourable to their ends in the heads of millions. Especially when you take into account that real 'colonialism' only started after 1800, when the VOC went belly-up and the Dutch state took over. Before that, it had just been a - cruel - business affair, conducted by the first 'multinational'; the VOC never had any hardcore colonial ambitions. Furthermore, the Dutch state only 'ruled' the Indies for a relatively 'short' time. The Javanese Sultanates were only subjugated after the 1825-1830 Java War and Lombok, Sumbawa, Bali etc. were conquered even later (hardly the '350 years of Dutch etc.' that were rammed into Indonesian schoolkids' heads).

No apologizing for the bad effects of colonialism, but the opportunity - the mindset - was there and I find it hard to believe that the people of the various kingdoms and sultanates would have been much better off if they had continued to enjoy the economic and social policies of their 'enlightened' rulers of the day.

Colonialism did not teach Indonesians anything they did not already believed in or had experienced for ages.

And if the existing mindset was largely responsible for the authority-revering and fatalistic attitude, we have to include the then-present cultural and religious superstitions as the Bender states.

In the current day, the Islamic fascists are just applying the same tactics: enforcing subjugation to a 'higher' power, exploiting the still prevalent mindset.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:26am Mar 29, 2011

@enakajah: I can put another book like the ones you suggested, but I thought "Max Havelaar" is more popular and accessible to most reader (even though I doubt that many people had read it, they just knew that it exist).

You raised lots of good points and I won't deny that you are right: the culture was there way before the Dutch. I think, however, there was a safety valve, the musyawarah-mufakat, that exists thanks to the inability of the kings to completely dominate everyone. In China, robust bureaucracy allowed the creation of centralized totalitarian government. Indonesia, or rather Java, didn't have strong bureaucratic culture.


The musyawarah-mufakat to some degree forced leaders to behave, to take into account nobles' opinion, not unlike the Magna Carta. It was still far from democracy, but it was close, and at least it prevented authoritarianism. Sultans such as Amangkurat I tried to break this system, and resulted in Trunajaya rebellion that ended up with the destruction of Kotagede.


In short, pre-colonial era, power was decentralized. Of course, that didn't prevent stupid rulers from abusing their subjects, doing stupid things, etc., but it would result in their fall from power (thus the old Javanese expression that a keraton only lasts for 100 years). The Dutch, however, destroyed the safety valve, allowing horrid leaders to stay on top.


While India is always touted as the example of the British' success in democratizing its colonies, India also has tons of problems that it needs to solve, from the "Permit Raj" to religious conficts, not to mention horrid treatments on women and lower caste people. There was a great article in the NYT on how the "old India" still exists in their treatment of women.


Of course, just go to Africa and the Middle East to see how the former British colonies are also adept in destroying their own countries, most famously, Zimbabwe.

@Comello: You are right. Without colonialism, the "natives" still did great jobs exploiting people, enslaving and selling many of their own brethens, discriminating, etc. So, in a sense, you are completely correct that colonialism took the advantage of existing mindset.


As I wrote, however, colonialism's biggest impact lies in the fact that you get additional resources from outside, notably the armed backing, allowing you to commit MORE bad stuffs without repercussion. In general, if a leader was really bad, people had the options of either moving out (happened a lot in Imperial China, explaining to some degree, the rapid spread of the Chinese population to the Southeast Asia) or rally to another leader, who while would still do horrid stuffs to you, but at least more acceptable. E.g. the Chinese got rid of the Ming Dynasty and flocked to the Manchus. The colonial powers, however, prevented the "natural changes" to occur, such as maintaining the rules of horrid kings and destroying any possible opposition. Of course, it is not clear if bandits such as Untung Surapati or holymen such as Pangeran Diponegoro, might have done a better job in ruling the country. Still, one fact is clear: there was no possibility that the alternative ruler would exist to replace the really terrible-ruler.


I hope I make my point clear. A self-promotion: you can also visit our facebook at http://www.facebook.com/#!/ConflictandPeace to read some analysis regarding unfolding events in the Middle East.

BrahmaPutra

11:07am Mar 29, 2011

This article and the follow up discussion has been illuminating. Thank you all.

jchay

11:37am Mar 29, 2011

Thanks Yohanes for the article, and the follow up discussion. I think the key here as you have stated: "We should remember that democracy only works when everybody is equal before the law and protected from abuse." When nobody (ie President, FPI, or even the law enforcers themselves) are above the law, order is established and prosperity stays.

enakajah

11:58am Mar 29, 2011

Pak Yohanes, You are definitely right about the Safety vale being taken away. No doubt about it. The British had a long history of leaving an administrations behind rather than a military power. From my dealing with a number of people in India in advocacy they are uniformly say that the one thing the British did leave behind was a legal system that works. They do not say it works well however and of course there are many problems both there and in Africa. But in the end there are legal systems to assit if use properly. Most other left the army in command and the disasters are unfolding today. However the point I was trying to make is that Colonialism is not the heart of the problem. Nor is it is a uniquely Indonesian problem either. I do not believe it is simply the political leaders that create this situation but Asian culture from the very grass roots. Nor do I think it is necessarily all bad either. It is a system that everyone understands and lives day to day.

Respect is given to age from families upwards. All over asia it is the same. It is the family core and people understand it. They live closely entrenched in this culture of family unity and leadership. This in turn it taken on by people with the desire to lead the country and the attitude goes with them that they are senior and to be respected no matter what and that they cannot be held accountable. This is where the respect turns to arrogance.

Today people are much more aware and expect better. This family type attitude is no longer what is required in government. People wish more from their representatives as representatives of the people not as unaccountable leaders and it will take a very long time and some very strong and determined people to change this. It will happen though. It will just take time. Do we have enough though?

By the way you may be surprised by how many very good books are available in the books shops today, not hidden but they are not necessarily on the best sellers section. The recent English edition of Serat Centhini is another example. What a stunning read that is about the coming of age of Java.

enakajah

12:18pm Mar 29, 2011

JCHAY, dead right.... look at the headlines in today's papers to see perfect examples of what Pak Yohanes is saying.....Marzuki saying MGO's should not take action as they are not representative of the people. PDI-P and the statements about Independents running as president with a Mother Daughter dynastic tag team in on the fray. It seems every week there is someone sticking his hand up in government to display the arrogance of their belief they are never wrong and should not be questioned.