Media Can Sway Public Opinion, But Not as Effectively as an Underperforming Party

---
Media Can Sway Public Opinion, But Not as Effectively as an Underperforming Party
Yohanes Sulaiman | June 22, 2012

If anyone was wondering why President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono seemed frustrated in his speech during the Democratic Party convention last week, the results of a pair of recent surveys from the Soegeng Sarjadi Syndicate and the Indonesian Survey Circle should help.

Both surveys showed that the Democratic Party’s popularity was declining rapidly. The Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI) noted that support for the Democratic Party had dropped from 13.7 percent in January to 11.3 percent, while the SSS put the Democratic Party’s support at 10.7 percent.

Both surveys ominously predicted that the Democratic Party would become nothing more than another middle-tier party, should the trend continue.

Previously, Yudhoyono acknowledged that the Democratic Party’s popularity had taken a major hit. However, he blamed media bias for this turmoil, declaring that the Democratic Party was much less corrupt than its rivals and yet it received the biggest scrutiny, which in turn dragged the popularity of the party through the mud.

After the surveys were released, Democratic Party officials, notably Nurhayati Ali Assegaf, the recently-appointed chairwoman of the Democratic faction in the legislature, questioned the methodology of the surveys and wondered if the surveys were biased.

Yudhoyono and the Democratic officials might have a case that the media and survey methodologies are biased — but given the Democratic Party is being sullied by the ongoing Muhammad Nazaruddin corruption scandal, it cannot be denied that the party has been helping fuel the negative perceptions.

TVOne and MetroTV, the most influential stations in Indonesia, are owned by the leaders of Golkar and the National Democrat (NasDem) Party, respectively. Neither station is shy about advocating the political views of its owners.

They have the ability to shape public opinion on certain subjects, and their coverage in many cases can be considered hostile to the Democrats and Yudhoyono. MetroTV pretty much enjoys rubbing salt in the wounds of the Democrats by repeating the Democratic Party’s mantra, “Say No to Corruption” on its coverage on the ongoing Nazaruddin corruption scandal.

But even with that influence, neither station has been able to propel their respective owners to the front of the presidential candidacy pack.

The SSS and LSI listed Prabowo Subianto and Megawati Sukarnoputri as the two top vote-getters, respectively, should the presidential election be held today. Surya Paloh (NasDem) and Aburizal Bakrie (Golkar) trail. The Democratic Party could make a strong case that the polling organizations are biased, since it is possible that they were paid by either Prabowo, Megawati or both, in order to provide favorable results.

Pollsters have admitted, privately, that there are occasionally incentives to create favorable results in order to either maintain a business relationship with a candidate, or to perform as a public relations tool. Those polling organizations, however, generally fold after the elections because their predictions strayed too far from the actual results.

On the other hand, the polling results from the LSI and SSS are generally close to the actual numbers. While there are some differences in the results, they are often the result of a variation in sampling methods that generally fall within the margin of error.

There are some external factors influencing the results, notably the fact that the presidential election is still some time away and most of the prospective candidates aren’t that well known. Prabowo and Megawati, however, have been on the ballot several times already.

These surveys were useful for the insight they brought to the table and they essentially confirm each other’s findings. The LSI bluntly stated that Yudhoyono’s passivity hurt the Democratic Party’s prospects. The SSS survey stressed that “decisiveness” was the most popular attribute among voters, meaning that Yudhoyono’s inability to rein in the extremist groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) and to safeguard human rights and the freedom to worship also took its toll.

This could be seen in the results of both surveys, where the biggest beneficiaries of the Democratic Party’s collapse in public support are Megawati’s Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and Golkar, not the religious parties.

The media is important and able to sway public opinion but there is a limit to how much influence it has. It seems more likely that Yudhoyono and the Democratic Party have themselves to blame for these abysmal results.

The media and the surveyors would not have been in a position to do much harm to the president and the Democrats had Yudhoyono acted with vigor and determination in rooting out corruption and cleaning up his party, while acting decisively to stamp out extremist groups and religious intolerance in the country.

----

zerodiversity

1:02pm Jun 22, 2012

I don't trust these surveys especially surveys that place Megawati in top two position. Megawati has not proven much as a President before and her time is over. However, you don't need experts to tell you that the Democrats reputation is free-falling. The President's indecisiveness and leadership problems have been fully exposed as well as the corrupted party members. Add in the fact that high ranking members like Anas and Andi and many others being implicated in corruption and you have a mess of a party. Don't blame the media pak SBY because your party has itself to blame.

Pelan2

1:22pm Jun 22, 2012

@zero - Self destruction seems to be the order of the day. It is indeed unbelievable that a country with roughly 240 mill people are unable to come up with a suitable presidential candidate, but instead keeps pushing forward all the useless "hasbeens" that is hoping for a second chance to make a fool of themselves again...

devine

1:44pm Jun 22, 2012

zerodiversity; correct. And if Mega would have any dignity she would not even consider running again. Bad looser, bad sample for the whole nation. But then, it's Indonesia! OppositeLand...

Pelan2

2:29pm Jun 22, 2012

@devine - careful with the word dignity - you know where we are..

From Indonesia Matters Dec 20th 2008///Megawati was not always quiet when talking to her ministers though, but was generally only roused to speech by matters such as gardening, cooking and food, and shopping, but not affairs of state. On serious issues, she tended to lose her concentration very fast, it is said./// All in a nutshell

Valkyrie

3:22pm Jun 22, 2012

My guess will be that Nasdem will reel in JK and MM. Kingmakers?

Pelan2

4:20pm Jun 22, 2012

Still going with Prabowo if he can surround himself with "clever" people. The Democrats (SBY,Anas, Andi) and Golkar (Ical) has given him enough free ammunition + Mega is largely forgotten. JK has the problem that he is not from Java, but may make a "good" president.

Valkyrie

5:22pm Jun 22, 2012

Pelan2....

Have you observed the presence of JK and MM during many of NasDem gatherings? Isn't it obvious?

I'll go with the Nasdem choice and I'll bet they'll surprise many.

zerodiversity

5:46pm Jun 22, 2012

@Pelan2

Looking at the list of people you mention makes me sad to be Indonesian because after 10-15 years, it's still the same group of people for Presidential candidates. We are approaching oligarchy not democracy. Do we really lack talent and leaders?

Yohanes-Sulaiman

6:22pm Jun 22, 2012

Thank you for your kind comments.

@Zero: I suspect Mega's popularity is due to her high name recognition. Keep in mind that majority of Indonesians (and anyone anywhere) don't follow politics too closely and thus when they are asked these questions, they will just pick the ones they are very familiar with.

I suspect once the field is more established in a year or so, Megawati's popularity will decline. Prabowo, however, could use the momentum from both survey and Jakarta election to propel himself ahead.

Nasdem is an interesting case, where to some degree it stole the votes that supposed go to both Golkar and Democratic Party. IF SP plays his cards right, like some suggested, putting JK and MM as their public faces, it could break the middling rank.

Valkyrie

6:31pm Jun 22, 2012

zero....

No need to be sad. This country is at the bottom of the pit. How deeper can it go?

Go sponsor a poor kid and give him/her a chance. A few of us are currently doing that.

Those tiny drops of water made that mighty ocean.

TalkingEid

7:18pm Jun 22, 2012

Seemingly Indonesian politics has chosen English football club management as its model - fail, and you get invited to do the same trick again.

Not Even SBY Is Above the Law

=====
Not Even SBY Is Above the Law
Yohanes Sulaiman | June 14, 2012

With a national consensus both that rules are made to be broken and that the ends justify the means, there is simply no need to pay close attention to the details’

Earlier this month, the Constitutional Court ruled that the appointments of deputy ministers made last year by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono were illegal because the law used to justify the appointments was unconstitutional.

A presidential decree has since been issued to reappoint the deputy ministers, but the ruling reflects badly on Yudhoyono’s presidency, as it makes one wonder if this administration is truly competent in legal matters.

The ruling also shows that 14 years after the fall of Suharto, Indonesia still has a long way to go in strengthening both the rule of law and the concept of legitimacy in government.

For many Indonesians, it seems that the question of legality is always an afterthought, and not something to be taken seriously. This is a direct result of Indonesians’ daily struggle with red tape; that in order to interact with the government, they have to deal with bureaucratic procedures that make things more difficult rather than easier.

In order to cut through all of the red tape, people turn to bribing officials.

Paying a bribe is so common that a clean and incorruptible official such as Solo Mayor Joko Widodo, currently a candidate for the governorship of Jakarta, is seen as an anomaly. People are genuinely surprised when civil servants refuse to accept bribes.

With a national consensus both that rules are made to be broken and that the ends justify the means, there is simply no need to pay close attention to the details. The law is seen as an afterthought; it is expected that anything can be conveniently swept under the rug with enough improper payments.

The legal travails of Yudhoyono’s government are the symptoms of this national disease. The government has been outwitted a number of times by noted legal scholar Yusril Ihza Mahendra since the beginning of the president’s second term.

When Attorney General Hendarman Supandji first indicted him, Yusril managed to successfully question Hendarman’s legitimacy in his role. That led to the Constitutional Court declaring Hendarman’s position and his decisions void.

Since then, Yusril has become a bit of a legal pest, succeeding in making life difficult for Yudhoyono’s administration. Many people believe that that is the reason why the government stopped its investigation into Yusril’s alleged corruption during his tenure as the justice and human rights minister. Many think that by halting the investigation, Yusril will get off Yudhoyono’s back.

Yudhoyono would have avoided the entire headache had the government been more diligent in researching the legal justifications for its actions. The administration could have trained or recruited more people with strong legal backgrounds. Perhaps more importantly, the administration should have taken legal matters more seriously by tackling many of the Constitution-breaking regulations, notably the proliferation of religious-based local ordinances.

Yudhoyono could have achieved more had he decided to govern based on the letter of the law and not through political expediencies, as Adnan Buyung Nasution, also a noted legal scholar, notes in his new book, “Advice for SBY.”

While some of Adnan’s pieces of advice aren’t politically convenient, like his push to bring late former President Suharto to trial, the book is revealing in that it shows how many of Yudhoyono’s decisions are made very slowly, with the fear of making new enemies, rather than the desire the follow the letter of the law, his main consideration.

This brings us back to the problem of the legality of the appointment of deputy ministers.

As a face-saving measure, the Constitutional Court suggested that Yodhoyono reappoint the deputy ministers by using the presidential decree — which he did. It probably would have been better for the president to go back to the drawing board and ensure that his decisions are backed by the law. This will save him some grief in the long run.

------

zerodiversity

11:45am Jun 14, 2012

I think we all know by now that Pak SBY is more interested in securing favors/benefits for his party rather than doing what is necessary for the country. He is already putting his mind in the upcoming election and how his party can secure power position despite him being done with his 2 terms.

JohnGalt

12:23pm Jun 14, 2012

As you say Yohanes, SBY and the rest of the politicians feel they are not necessarily above the law but that it is theirs to selectively utilize when expedient. Cronyism, fear of upsetting people and just plain avarice is the order of the day with the rule of law coming second or third.

With the national examples set at this level, is it a surprise that mobs take the law into their own hands? that radicals and hard liners rule the streets and that more and more Indonesians are feeling disenfranchised at almost every level and no longer care about the rule of law or the constitution as long as they can get through one more day and prepare for the next?

This government has set the country back so far that it will take decades to repair it, sacrificing the social wellbeing of the people for the supposed economic development of the country that still only benefits a few and leaves the rest battling to survive.

Pelan2

12:35pm Jun 14, 2012

The election is 2 years off. As we know, even 2 days is long in politics.

The only chance that Partai Demokrat can have some credibility during the next campaign is if the President have all of the top figures in the party arrested and jailed, not only Angelina. Not sure if that's going to happen though. Still feel that Prabowo has the best chance of the lot IF he can be perceived as someone who can clean up this mess. Keeping in mind recent surveys on the popularity of current and previous presidents, a certain Mr, Suharto came up tops!!!!! Why? people had jobs, the country had growth, no FPI, no bloody loudspeakers from the mosques. People seem to longing back to those days minus the negatives....

exbrit

5:39pm Jun 14, 2012

What law? The bought and paid for one?

Yohanes-Sulaiman

8:44am Jun 15, 2012

Dear all: thank you for your kind comments. I agree with all your comments, especially Pelan2 is raising a great issue regarding the constant popularity of Suharto. Yet, sadly, under him and Sukarno, the rule of law is undermined as both ruled by fiat, "whatever I want, so it shall be," without setting up the legal basis/foundations -- though the trend, I think, worsened after the fall of Suharto with many of the rules and regulations have to be reexamined.

I think the biggest travesty of the reformation era is in the lack of progress in setting up the proper rule of law that govern the relationship between state and people, central and regional governments, etc. with executive, legislative, and judiciary are more interested in playing politics than govern.

It is not a surprise that people in the end are pining for the good old ordered days of Suharto, regardless how misguided it is.

ambiga

9:00am Jun 15, 2012

wonder if the same circumstances had happened in Malaysia n singapore, would those Mahathir+cronies and Lee/Lee be above the law? answers any one?

Yohanes-Sulaiman

9:36am Jun 15, 2012

@Ambiga: Lee Kwan Yew rules the state autocratically, but at least he knew how to set precedents/rules/regulations that had to be obeyed by everyone. That, I think, is the main reason why Singapore, in spite of its authoritarianism, is a magnet for investment from all over the world. Well, we can make an arguemnt that Singapore has its own self-enriching elite, e.g. on their high salaries, at least though, they tried to have a legal basis/foundation in order to set it. Malaysia, on the other hand, has a stronger legal system compared to Indonesia, but much weaker compared to Singapore, with erratic BN government. Don't think anyone dare to touch the corruption of BN there.

ambiga

9:43am Jun 15, 2012

How about corruption with NKF Scandals in singapore?

Pelan2

10:18am Jun 15, 2012

@ambiga - the big difference is that, in Singapore,no matter how high ranking you are, the law will be applied in full force and everybody knows that. Ref recent cases of the arrests an pressing of charges against the previous heads of CNB & SCDF. If the same principle of law was applied here it would be very good. To be able to charge, prosecute and convict one need to have a good legal system in place and that is sadly lacking here. That is why you end up with people being randomly sentenced to e.g. 3 months for stealing an apple and 6 months for murder.

@Pak Yohanes, thank you for another spot on article. Sad but true, in countries where a few have a lot and many have little, the political winds of change does quite often go from one extreme to another. I believe most Indonesians had high hopes after the summer of 98 and were ready to embark on a new road forward. Today, many are of the opinion that their high hopes have constantly run into road blocks which is the real reason why Pak Harto is topping the Top 6 charts. People want stability, jobs that can make them care for their families, educate their children, remove radicalism on both sides. I therefore believe that even a controversial candidate with a checkered background can emerge as winner in 2014, as long as he can be perceived as one that can clean the house and move the nation forward..

DrDez

10:51am Jun 15, 2012

you just keep in banking off... when will you stop your idiotic posts?

To Reassure Investors, Hard Look at Law Enforcement Is Where to Begin

----
To Reassure Investors, Hard Look at Law Enforcement Is Where to Begin
Yohanes Sulaiman | June 05, 2012


As the euro is teetering on the brink of collapse due to the political paralysis in the European Union and the intransigence of Greek voters, Asian countries are watching with trepidation, fearing that the collapse of the euro could trigger another contagion, not unlike the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and 1998.

The fear is the most acute in Indonesia, which saw its economy shrink by 14 percent during the crisis, resulting in the fall of President Suharto and his New Order regime.

While Indonesia has had its share of bad economic policies, the government often stresses the fact that Indonesia is in much better shape this time around, with the macro-economic figures looking good, making Indonesia better prepared to withstand the expected economic turmoil, should Greece be expelled from the European Union.

Still, what many Indonesian decision-makers often forget is that what destroyed Indonesia in 1997-98 was not so much an economic problem, but rather the political uncertainties and lack of security, caused by the failing health of Suharto and a power struggle among Indonesian elites. This, in turn, contributed to the outbreak of ethno-religious conflicts that further rattled investors. It was not until 2002 that the situation finally stabilized and investors started to return.

As the global economic situation seems to get worse due to political uncertainties in Europe, Indonesia should heed the fact that what is important is the perception of other countries, especially investors, of the real condition in Indonesia, independent of all the lofty rhetoric about Indonesia’s seemingly gravity-defying economic growth in the past few years.

One of the main reasons why Indonesia’s economic growth and investment remain healthy is the perception among investors that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is a good steward of the economy while providing political stability and security at the same time.

Events in the past few months, however, have done grievous harm to Yudhoyono’s credibility. First, the Nazaruddin corruption trial revealed entrenched corruption within the highest ranks of the government. Then, the central government’s impotence in handling the Ahmadiyah killings, the GKI Yasmin case in Bogor, the HKPB Filadelfia Church in Bekasi and various other human rights violations brought into question whether Indonesia was truly committed to upholding the rule of law and protecting religious minorities and human rights.

There are also questions, justly asked, whether the president is truly in control of the situation or whether he is held hostage by vested interests in society and thus is unable to do provide the security and stability craved by domestic and foreign investors.

The cancelation of the planned Lady Gaga concert is just another affirmation in the narrative that the government is paralyzed, unable to rein in extremist groups. While the National Police rejected Lady Gaga’s management’s assertions that the concert was canceled due to security concerns — stressing that they were truly in control of the situation — the fact that the threats of violence had continued unabated, unchecked for weeks, with the Jakarta Police at first denying the permit due to security reasons, belied their claims.

The National Police’s protestation notwithstanding, it is clear the police were unable to credibly assure Lady Gaga’s management that they were in control of the situation. The National Police simply have zero credibility on this matter, having dithered for weeks in the face of opposition from the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI). Had the National Police been serious about the matter, they could have sternly warned the FPI and other groups that were fishing for trouble. They would have spent some constructive time in prison, reflecting on their boorish behavior.

It is not assuring for investors who crave stability and a government that upholds the rule of law that the government and the National Police apparently can be intimidated by violence.

Already, according to the Wall Street Journal, investors have started to pull out from Indonesia and in mid-May they sold off more than half their net purchases of stocks and bonds in the first quarter. While the Wall Street Journal attributed it to the fear of the Greeks exiting the euro, the withdrawal would not be that rapid had investors been assured that the government was truly competent.

It is time for the Yudhoyono government to realize that talk is cheap and what really matters are its deeds. The president is losing his credibility fast and investors are paying very close attention.

-----

Jubal.Harshaw

3:00pm Jun 5, 2012

Good analysis.

Not only is investor confidence being shaken by a government too terrified to upset marauding vigilantes, investors are becoming more aware that the cost of bribes (currently estimated at 17% of operating costs) is seriously impacting their ROI as well. In addition sudden ad hoc policy changes make budgetary planning an exercise in guesswork.

Then there is straight-out extortion by government instrumentalities, such as the Tax Department.

In Bali, for example, it is common practice for officials to regularly arrive at accommodation venues to 'audit' the accounts, then ignore all legitimate records, insist that the place 'should' have had a 60-70% occupancy rate, and demand exorbitant tax payments commensurate with their made-up figures.

All in all, despite the spin from government apologists and the anti-bule crowd, investment in Indonesia is a precarious proposition.

DrDez

4:44pm Jun 5, 2012

Yes Yohanes, yes Jubal. Undeniably the time bomb is ticking.

What amazes me is that in Q1 we declared our best ever investment figures... Another govt lie?

simplesimon14

5:16pm Jun 5, 2012

'...investment in Indonesia is a precarious proposition.'

- Agreed. Best to avoid investing, many large corporations are heading elsewhere - private investors too, just far too risky with the instability in the country.

jchay

5:31pm Jun 5, 2012

Yupe, as I have said status quo is nice 'show' but only when Indonesia is hit where it hurts (economy!) then we will start seeing things done like: corruption, Ahmadiyah case, GKI Yasmin case, HKPB case, FPI banned etc etc.

@DrDez: not lie, just another culture of denial.. SBY's legacy.

Jubal.Harshaw

6:10pm Jun 5, 2012

Good analysis.

Not only is investor confidence being shaken by a government too terrified to upset marauding vigilantes, investors are becoming more aware that the cost of bribes (currently estimated at 17% of operating costs) is seriously impacting their ROI as well. In addition sudden ad hoc policy changes make budgetary planning an exercise in guesswork.

Then there is straight-out extortion by government instrumentalities, such as the Tax Department.

In Bali, for example, it is common practice for officials to regularly arrive at accommodation venues to 'audit' the accounts, then ignore all legitimate records, insist that the place 'should' have had a 60-70% occupancy rate, and demand exorbitant tax payments commensurate with their made-up figures.

All in all, despite the spin from government apologists and the anti-bule crowd, investment in Indonesia is a precarious proposition.

nugwump

10:19pm Jun 5, 2012

It's a well known international fact that the only guaranteed growth industry in Indonesia is that of Government sponsored corruption.

DrDez

5:52am Jun 6, 2012

nug... which is why we are going he wrong way in almost every kpi

When Push Comes to Shove, Indonesia Has to Stand By Asean

You know, I might have too high of an opinion on myself, but I think this article was written in response to what I wrote here, meaning that I have quite an impact. Yay!

---
When Push Comes to Shove, Indonesia Has to Stand By Asean
Yohanes Sulaiman | May 31, 2012

donesia has to actively assume leadership, try to mediate the dispute between China and the Philippines and should the need ultimately arise, be ready to assist the latter.'

While Indonesia remains fixated with the Lady Gaga saga, the Philippines is embroiled in more important things: its conflict with China over territorial claims in the South China Sea.

But such a dispute should be worrisome for Indonesia, too. Not only because both China and the Philippines have close relations with Indonesia. Most importantly, the dispute could undermine the unity of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Indonesia’s own strategic interests.

The goal of Asean when it was formed, to put it bluntly, was to keep the Communists out by improving cooperation among Southeast Asian states and by stimulating mutual economic growth, as it was believed that Communism could expand in poor countries due to its economic appeal to the masses.

But since the end of the Cold War, with the threat from the Communist bloc gone, the goal has subtly changed. Now the aim is to improve relationships among the member nations in order to increase their bargaining power in a more uncertain international environment. Following in the footsteps of the European Union, the Asean nations also believed that operating as one bloc, they could have more influence in international affairs.

Indonesia has a strong interest in strengthening Asean. With Asean strengthened, Indonesia will reap the benefits through an increase in prestige and clout in international affairs, as it is the natural leader of Asean, being the largest and most populous member state.

Thanks to their geostrategic position and combined wealth, Asean nations as a whole have the potential to be an influential power in international affairs.

Not surprisingly, when Indonesia became the chair of Asean last year, most of the key players in the region were in attendance: China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Australia and the United States.

The China-Philippines dispute, however, could threaten the unity of Asean.

The dispute is already escalating, with China holding 12,000 containers of the Philippines’ bananas at its ports, refusing to release them and the Philippines insinuating that it has the United States’ backing.

The Philippines’ move is both understandable and troubling.

It is understandable because the United States is the only power in the region capable of acting as a counterweight to China.

It is true that since 1967 intra-Asean trade has risen drastically. It is true that Asean’s diplomatic strategies have worked in some important cases, most spectacularly in helping to rehabilitate Burma, also known as Myanmar, in the eyes of the international community. It did this through persistent diplomacy, in conjunction with internal developments in Burma itself that allowed the reformers to reap immediate benefits through normalization in its relationship with the United States.

At the same time, however, Asean’s military cooperation remains weak and that is troubling. In times of crisis, apparently the Philippines (and Vietnam) think the United States is far more reliable a partner than the Asean community.

This is not a good indication of the future of Asean, as when push comes to shove, security is the most critical test of a region’s solidarity and unity. Would, in a time of crisis, the Asean community split due to its members’ conflicting interests or would it remain together to create a solution beneficial to everyone?

While Indonesia should maintain good relations with China, the North Asian giant’s own economic and strategic importance means the archipelago must think of the long-term strategic geopolitical situation. This means Indonesia has to stand its ground and assist its fellow Asean members. Indonesia has to actively assume leadership, try to mediate the dispute between China and the Philippines and should the need ultimately arise, be ready to assist the latter.

Otherwise, the unity of Asean will remain in doubt. This does not bode well for Indonesia’s own strategic interests in the region.

Would High-Speed Railways in Indonesia Be a Fast Track to Wasted Money and Disaster?

---

Would High-Speed Railways in Indonesia Be a Fast Track to Wasted Money and Disaster?
Yohanes Sulaiman | May 22, 2012

On Wednesday, the regional government of West Java announced with much fanfare that it was planning to work with the government of Japan to build a high-speed rail network to connect Jakarta and Bandung, and would later expand it to include Cirebon.

This is welcome news. A high-speed rail network is sorely needed in a traffic-choked Java that lacks a fast and reliable transportation system. Similar to Japan and European countries, Java has a very high population density, making it prone to massive traffic jams. So the creation of an efficient rail network would benefit the island greatly.

Yet, at the same time, this project is fraught with perils and, if improperly managed, could end up as a white elephant that will be just another massive waste of taxpayer money and state resources.

First, there are the problems with construction. The huge Rp 56.1 trillion ($6 billion) rail project will invite corruption. Shoddy construction would undermine public trust in the safety of the system and would spell doom for the project from the start.

The experience of China’s high-speed rail network should be taken into consideration. For years, China has been building a vast high-speed rail network, both as a sign of national pride and as a way to open China’s inner regions for investment and to increase economic growth.

The network was hailed as such a major success that when President Barack Obama arrived in the White House, one of his first decisions was to expand the high-speed rail network in the United States.

In 2011, however, cracks both literally and figuratively began to show in China’s rail network, drawing criticism.

Apparently much of the network was built with such haste and without careful scrutiny that parts of it were shoddily constructed by corrupt contractors. There were reports of corruption within the Railway Ministry, leading to the removal of the minister. The Wenzhou train collision was just the tip of the iceberg as reports poured in of poor management and flaws in the design of the railroad system itself.

All these revelations led to the collapse of public trust in the project, leading to a steep decline in riders and forcing China to halt the construction of 10,000 kilometers of tracks and postpone many construction projects in order to address the defects in the system.

The second problem is Indonesia’s ability to maintain such a system — assuming the project is finished on time and is properly constructed.

One of the terrible habits of Indonesia is devoting huge resources to build expensive projects and then spending very little to maintain them, leading the finished infrastructure to fall into disrepair and eventual collapse.

The Mahakam II Bridge collapse is the poster child of this problem. The bridge, finished in 2001 in East Kalimantan at a cost of Rp 150 billion, collapsed in 2011 due to a lack of maintenance, as no money was allocated from the regional budget for upkeep, except once in 2007.

High-speed trains, running at 300 kilometers per hour, would place massive stress on Indonesia’s rail infrastructure, creating a need for careful inspections and regular maintenance, driving up the annual costs and making the railroad system very expensive.

The potential costs of the system were noted by Inaki Barron de Angoiti, director of high-speed rail at the International Union of Railways in Paris, when he was talking about a Spanish high-speed railroad project.

“High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,” he said.

The New York Times further noted that “he reckons that only two routes in the world — between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France — have broken even.”

It is doubtful that the relatively low ticket price of Rp 150,000 would cover all the costs of the system, including the use of electricity, which means Indonesia’s high-speed rail network would require a lot of subsidies in its first years of operation. This would make it tempting for the government to skip maintenance altogether, not unlike the Mahakam II Bridge — and that is just looking for serious trouble.

So while the government’s ambition to build a high-speed rail system is admirable and much welcomed, it would have to ensure a higher than usual amount of discipline in constructing, operating and maintaining the system, lest this simply be a white elephant, or worse still, a disaster in the making.