After Six Decades of Independence, Broken Bridges and Broken Promises

This article elicited a huge and interesting debate and at the same time, a very surprising gem of history, regarding the "true" architect of the Istiqal Mosque in Jakarta, Ir. Johannes Henri van Schaik. Someone should look into his son's claim.

---
After Six Decades of Independence, Broken Bridges and Broken Promises
Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | December 01, 2011

Last weekend’s collapse of a bridge in East Kalimantan raised a lot of eyebrows. People immediately compared the quality of the 10-year-old bridge with Dutch-built infrastructure here that remains standing after decades. There are discussions of how much effort it took to demolish a single Dutch dam, in contrast to many Indonesian-made dams that only lasted for a few years before rupturing in floods.

All these discussions show how much different is the development mind-set of the Dutch compared with Indonesians.

While it is true that Dutch interests in Indonesia were mainly exploitative, to cart off Indonesia’s riches back to the Netherlands, the Dutch also realized that they could not exploit Indonesia effectively without building a strong infrastructure. Without strong dams, bridges, railroads and roads, highly efficient and profitable plantations would not have been possible. As a result, by the time the Dutch recognized Indonesian independence in 1949, they had left Indonesia with a legacy of infrastructure that would provide a strong foundation for Indonesian economic growth.

The professionalism of the Dutch administration in running Indonesia was emulated by Indonesia’s founding fathers. Understanding that the Dutch had viewed Indonesians as lazy, unprofessional and clueless in managing the country, the founding fathers set out to prove otherwise.

In the Volksraad , an advisory body established by the colonial government in the 1910s, people like Haji Agus Salim and Jahja Datoek Kajo showed their wits in advocating Indonesian interests. Both also contributed heavily in making Bahasa Indonesia the official language of the Volksraad. Even though the Volksraad was seen as a rubber-stamp body, the fact that both elders managed to persuade the Dutch-dominated body showed how professional and skillful they were.

During the economic hardship of the war for independence, our founding fathers also won respect from the Americans and even their Dutch adversaries thanks to their skill in managing the ragtag republic. The late George Kahin, a leading American expert on Indonesia, once recalled that when he met Mohammad Natsir in 1948, the latter was shabbily dressed. Even then, however, Kahin was highly impressed with Natsir’s skills and ability as a communication minister.

The post-independence era provided the opportunities for great minds like Mohammad Hatta and Sjafruddin Prawiranegara to shine and to create a better society. But unfortunately, independence also brought out the worst in society: people whose goals were simply power and money. It brought to power many who were and are just as venal as the Dutch in exploiting the country, with the difference being that they are not very efficient at it.

The statistics on civil servants provide a useful snapshot for the crassness of their rapacity. By early 1952 the number of civil servants in Indonesia was 571,243, compared with 144,974 in the Dutch East Indies in 1930, leading to Sjafruddin’s lamentation that government service had become a charitable institution.

The struggle between people who wished to build Indonesia into a modern society and people who demanded political power and economic wealth has continued to the present day. Even today the government seems incapable of providing an infrastructure to support the population, too distracted as it is with maintaining an outmoded feudalism whose intention is to protect dynastic wealth and privilege at the expense of social progress.

This attitude has no place in the 21st century, just as the former colonialism no longer has a place in Indonesia or in any accountable, transparent, liberal society run by professionals who recognize that the foundation of any society lies in the equality of all men and women and their right to share in the common wealth of a prosperous and just economy.

Yet today, if we pause and reflect, we can acknowledge, for all the time-conditioned faults and the unacceptable mentality of a bygone era, under the Dutch we did get roads that did what roads were meant to do. We also got thousands of well-managed plantations, the Bosscha Observatory, dams, impressive and tasteful public buildings and palaces, an efficient and clean railroad system, canals that worked, a disciplined army, an education system worthy of the name and a legal system administered in courts free of corruption. Under the Dutch we also had a fair proportion of politicians who knew what they were talking about, even if they were talking about the wrong things by today’s standards. Still, not bad.

While clearly the centuries of Dutch occupation and colonial administration, with all the concomitant injustices, were not a form of therapy for the Indonesian people, it is fair to ask: What exactly did we learn from that experience?

Building bridges that stay up is obviously not one of them. And that is indicative of other things we failed to make better than the Dutch. Perhaps deep down some Indonesians are no better than our past colonial masters. Perhaps they haven’t really learned anything. If that is the case, our overlords are now our own brothers and sisters. And that is a far worse, more humiliating occupation.

Perhaps it’s time to ask the Dutch back. At least then we knew where we were, even if we were in the wrong place. Most of us are still at the bottom of the pile. Some of us are even at the bottom of the river. But the government tells us we never had it so good and would have us believe how lucky we are to have them. Is that so?

----

DrDez

6:03am Dec 2, 2011

Yohanes
A nice tongue in check poke at the administration.
First comment - sadly the nationalists take commentaries like this and chest beatings will occur - possibly the best distraction tool they have after a sex scandal
Second - 66 years and we are in a deep hole I feel with no obvious way out of the corruption, sectarian violence, rising wealth gap, rising unemployment, rising labour violence, rising military violence, growing separatism, disintegrating infrastructure blah blah blah that those with half a brain can see
Even the progress that has without been made is increasingly being challenged - I think of education as the most obvious. The standard of education of the 18 - 21 year old's we interviewed for our apprenticeship scheme this year meant that fpr the first time in 25 years we have not taken 10 on. Similarly the post grad studies we fund - usually we do 5 this year 1.
Meanwhile the elite get richer and more and more are exposed almost daily for what they are

Comello

7:25am Dec 2, 2011

Food for thought here.
Good luck with the trolls and/or knee-jerk nationalists on this forum...

trueblue

2:43pm Dec 2, 2011

Australia was fortunate to avoid the curse of Dutch colonialism, who actually first founded Oz. Guys, nothing could be so bad that the heavy hand of the Dutch Reformed Church could be the magic wand for Indonesia. Salaiman/Turnbull for some reason justify the obvious need for small, lean, and accountable government by comparing the growth of the civil servants from Dutch 1930 to an independent Indonesia of 1952. But they have conveniently been Irvinesqe with there revisionist history. From 1929 onwards the world had the Great Depression, the rise of Japan and Germany, World War 2 which saw Indonesia again pillaged by the Japanese! Of course by 1952 Pak Karno would have needed a large civil service to get on with the job of nation building. Yes "civil service" has become a global growth industry, but Indonesia does not need Dutch number crunchers.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

2:59pm Dec 2, 2011

@DrDez: I think the real problem here is identified by Mr. Sjafruddin Prawiranegara back in 1952, that the government service had become a charitable institution. With so many civil servants (your nepotism at work), the salary will have to decrease and thus the quality of the civil servants. Of course, this in turn drives away good teacher, and combined with massive graft and corruption within the education department, it is only a matter of time before the quality of education suffers. In essence, we are reaping the fruit of all these corruption and nepotism that started in 1950s.

DrDez

3:13pm Dec 2, 2011

Yohanes
Yes. But here today, right now. After 43 years in this land I think it is the worst time I have ever known for wanton corruption. It exists at every level of our society, it is ingrained and seems almost genetic in nature. It saddens me to say I see no short term solution and with that curse everything else darkens. add to this a boat load of religious issues and growing separatist calls countered by increased nationalism - yikes.. Not a pretty time ahead

Yohanes-Sulaiman

3:25pm Dec 2, 2011

@trueblue: We wanted to put in the recession of 1930s, but then we will give the editor the nightmare of trying to cut this piece down to 1000 words max.

Here's some data that I did not include in this piece: In February 1950, Sukarno gave the approximate figure of 180,000 federal civil servants and 240,000 Republican civil servants. The budget for 1950 envisaged a deficit of f. 1.5 billion, approximately 17% of the total budget. In 1952 the number of civil servants was 571,243: why would a nation need an increase of 150,000 civil servants in just two years?

Considering the relatively low education of Indonesians back then, let me spell you the reason: NEPOTISM.

If you don't believe me quoting Sjafruddin complaining about the massive increase in the numbers of civil servants, you can also read Bung Hatta's own memoir to find out that he was not that all happy with the ballooning of the numbers of civil servants (and military personnel) that eat up the government's budget.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

3:35pm Dec 2, 2011

@trueblue: food for thought: if you are correct that Sukarno needed civil servants to build the nation, why both Sjafruddin Prawiranegara and Bung Hatta complained about that? Could it be that they actually saw the drastic increase as uneccessary, that these people just do nothing but fattening the layers of bureaucracy, leading to more inefficiencies and corruptions?

@DrDez: thus our tongue-in-cheek ending, asking whether it is the time to bring the Dutch back, though it seems that someone didn't get the joke.

Duck

4:33pm Dec 2, 2011

Just want to chime in and say I enjoyed reading this piece.

"What exactly did we learn from that experience?"

I would actually be quite interested to read about an answer to this question.

DrDez

5:19pm Dec 2, 2011

The post independence govt was made up of crooks/gang bosses/mafia call them what you want who took pay back for helping the revolution. The President was even kidnapped prior to independence and held several days by a gang boss who surprisingly became ministers... The start was crooked and it just developed from there - The icing on the cake seems to have been the election of an ineffectual pantomime horse as president

trueblue

5:57pm Dec 2, 2011

Yohannes-Sulaiman has provided historical data that I accept with respect to the ballooning civil servants "employed" in 1952. With respect to joking about ones inability to accept cute jokes referencing Dutch oppressors appears to smack of selective political correctness. But the tick given to Bung Hatta was curious, and the historical evidence does not portray Hatta as a champion of the orang kecil. Unlike Ibu Kartini who to this day is a champion of female emancipatation, Bung Hatta does not appear on the social security radar for the general populance. Prior to being the first Vice President, he spent eleven years in Holland gaing an upper class education. Not surprisingly he specialsed in Foreign Policy, and by 1960 he and Pak Karno were to put it nicely "not close". Now let's answer, or pose a reply to your capalised NEPOTISM. To this day Social Security in the Australian concept really only operates to serving/retired civil servants, with pensions, health cover. Thank Pak Karno.

Comello

12:08pm Dec 3, 2011

@trueblue
I hope you understand the relevance of your last post regarding the issue at hand - I did not.

DrDez

2:11pm Dec 3, 2011

I'm with you Comello - I look forward to a reply from Yohanes

MikeOfAston

3:26pm Dec 3, 2011

Sorry for a contrarian (and another tongue in cheek) view. Other than Singapore and Hong Kong, and even then probably because they are small and full of resourceful immigrant Chinese, I can't think of any other ex-colony progressing well to become developed economies decades after independence. Perhaps "independence" was contrived consciously or unconsciously by its proponents to gain power they couldn't get otherwise, replacing colonial masters with not necessarily better local ones ?

MikeOfAston

4:05pm Dec 3, 2011

To add further, original scholarly research too dwindles post independent. The research and writing by the Dutch and the British during the colonial era - on local history and culture, flora and fauna, tropical diseases and the like have not been bettered. Raffles' "History of Java" for example remains a classic in the field.

padt

4:40pm Dec 3, 2011

MikeOf Aston, the colony of Van Diemans Land (Tasmania) and the island to the north of it, the former colony of New South Wales,later to be called Australia (formerly New Holland) - are looking pretty healthy.

Re 'trueblue's' last comment, Dr Dez and Comello, - I admit to being a bit mistified also. Lost in the erudition. I am reminded of the words of of an apprentice who said of his boss: "He stopped by this morning for a couple of words. I did not understand either of them."
But I am sure what trueblue has to say is correct, up to a point, so to speak, kind of. Like others I await further enlightenment and clarification from both Yohanes Sulaiman and trueblue.

Valkyrie

6:06pm Dec 3, 2011

Mike....

It's the Legal system they inherited from the English.

I would also like to add that tertiary education was made available especially for Singapore and many went to universities like Oxford, and Cambridge.

Among others that they inherited, I believe the above were prime movers for their success.

The parting of ways with Malaysia was a stroke of genius by LKY. I know he showed despair and disappointment when Abdul Rahman decided to "kick" Singapore out. It was good politics at that time. I remember it very well.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

6:20pm Dec 3, 2011

Sorry for being late in replying. Lots of works to do.

@trueblue: dunno which book you read, but I am pretty sure Bung Hatta was a champion in his own rights. True that Sukarno was a champion, but in my humble opinion, Sukarno was more of talk while Bung Hatta was the doer: pushing for the creation of cooperatives, etc - in essence, he talked very little but did a lot. You also have to look at the 1950s "as a whole," where Bung Hatta's authority was very constrained and actually he broke apart with Sukarno because he saw Sukarno as wasting to abuse his position as prez by playing politics at the expense of technocrats for his cliques in PNI's gains - which Hatta abhorred.

Hatta was trying to empower the society by trying to give them tools to succeed, not babyfeed them through bloated social security called civil service.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

6:24pm Dec 3, 2011

@Mike: it depends on the leaders. In Singapore's case (not knowing well enough on HK to comment), LKY realized that he had to manage the state professionally because he afraid of Malaysia and Indo trying to absorb it should it not strong enough. More importantly back in 1950s the commies and labor union were on rise and he had to show Singaporeans he knew what he was doing otherwise he'd lose election and "strung on a lamppost" by the commies.

Fear of death was a great motivator to behave responsibly.

Valkyrie

9:12pm Dec 3, 2011

Yohanes....

You should not forget that LKY was associated in some form with the "commies" and he allied himself with labor kingpin Devan Nair. His nemesis at that time was Lim Chin Siong who fled, ironically to the UK.
Once again, I must say with some reservations, that LKY was a political genius and played his cards well, albeit in a dangerous manner.
The presence of ANZUK forces after gaining independence for both Malaysia and Singapore ensured a win-win solution. It was commonly called the five power arrangement.

If I am not wrong, LKY was actually in fear of MAPHILINDO, an integrated Malay-race formation in this region. Although it was non political, it was 'something' he recognized as threatening.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:46pm Dec 3, 2011

@Valkyrie: I am not an expert on Singapore, so I might be wrong here and I really need to re-read all these diplomatic telegrams again after quite a while. It was among these telegrams that LKY told Lord Selkirk, then the British High Commissioner, of his fear that the commie was in ascendancy - that should he did a real election, the leftist part of PAP would be in power and he would be thrown out and strung on the lamppost. Whether he wanted to use the Commie-mongering is up to debate, though don't think that it was a coincidence when we realize the fact that Indonesia back then had the third largest commie party in the world. I don't think what I wrote about Indo-Malay threat is contradictory with what you asserted - regardless whether he was afraid of Malay supremacy movement or not, it is clear that Singapore is a "little red dot" and the need to survive (especially for him) was paramount.

trueblue

5:44am Dec 4, 2011

@Yohannes-Sulaiman. Thank you for your lucid and measured response. My efforts as an Opinion dentist have not been in vain! It can be an arduous and painful procedure. The wisdom tooth has been extracted for DrDez, Comello, padt, and others who enjoy your contributions

DrDez

9:08am Dec 4, 2011

I can see lucidity comes easy to you TB along with measured animadversion perhaps
Good luck with your new found profession - we are short of good extractions here as testified by the excessively high numbers of young unemployed.

hvschaik

6:44am Dec 5, 2011

The famous Istiqlal Mesjid in Jakarta is not build by only Indonesian.
In the 1950's nobody could build the greatest Mosque (in that time), because nobody knows how to make such a great building in a country where earthquake which was sensitive for buildings. And such a great building was never build anywhere.
There was only one man who could calculate the construction of the Mosque and that was my father: Ir. Johannes Henri van Schaik, a Dutch engineer. But the president Soekarno had forbidden that his name was mention anywhere. So the president gave an Indonesian engineer the honour...
My father Ir. J.H. van Schaik worked by the Dutch construction contractor company named: "De Kondor" with their office at Jl. Nusantara no 39, Jakarta, in the neighbourhood of the presidential palace.
This famous Istiqlal Mesjid still exist! Thanks to my dad.
When my father was ready with his calculations (given to the President), Soekarno, he threw my father and his family out of the country in 1958.

DrDez

10:00am Dec 5, 2011

HVS
Nice story - thank you for sharing. One day when Indonesia stops blaming everyone and revisits its history perhaps your father will get his place in history. I hope so

hvschaik

3:23am Dec 6, 2011

Thank you DrDez,
I hope there is a historian, who may checked all I wrote. But I am affraid that it will be impossible, because it was top-secret.
I do not know (my father is passed away in May 2000) if the documents of the calculations still exist or maybe already destroyed. I hope that the documents are still somewhere. It could be on several places: by the presidential archives or by the archives of the several builders of the Mosque.

hvschaik

6:51am Dec 6, 2011

I saw that Jl Nusantara now is named: jalan Insinyur Hadji Juanda.
In the 1950's it was named Jalan Nusantara. The parallel road was named Jl Veteran. Why and when the street name was changed, I do not know.
We lived in the neighbourhood: Jl. Tanah Abang tiga, so I know the surround neighbourhood very good...
DrDez or others, please use these information.
(I found the new name by google maps).

The Humility China Once Knew

It is funny how the submitted version of this article made a mistake of substituting the name "Parker" for "Pauker." Guy J. Pauker's name, while today is rarely mentioned, back in the 1950s was considered as one of the experts on Indonesia. I enjoy reading his reports and writings. He seems to have a very acerbic and cynical point of view, unlike other Indonesian experts.


--
The Humility China Once Knew
Yohanes Sulaiman | November 25, 2011

In 1955, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru promoted the Asian-African Conference in Bandung as a coming-out party for Communist China, hoping that China would be encouraged to come to terms with its neighbors and develop a diplomatic approach independent of the Soviet Union.

While the conference is seen today as a diplomatic triumph for Indonesia, Guy J. Pauker, an expert on Indonesia and onetime consultant to the US National Security Council, noted that back then it was also a diplomatic triumph for Nehru and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai.

For Nehru, bringing Communist China to the conference was an affirmation of India’s status as a harbinger of global peace, and Zhou did not disappoint his patron. Pauker noted that after the Iraqi delegate said communism was the major cause of global unrest, Zhou replied that China came to seek unity and not to quarrel. After admitting his belief in communism, he stressed that China was attending the conference to seek common ground and unity and that the meeting should not be used to promote the ideology and political system of any country.

Zhou noted that China did not raise the issue of its seat in the United Nations — which at that stage was filled by a Taiwan representative — “because otherwise our conference would be dragged into disputes about all these problems without any solutions.”

A few years later, Nehru would regret his decision to bring China to the conference, as India would be on the losing end of war with China. President Sukarno, however, was impressed enough with Zhou that a close bilateral relationship began between Indonesia and China.

In contrast, the major rebuke of China’s regional foreign policy at last week’s Asean and East Asia Summits in Bali should give the decision makers in Beijing reason for pause. Almost every member of Asean expressed concerns on maritime security in the South China Sea, in spite of China’s desire to settle the maritime disputes bilaterally with individual claimants.

The discussions on the South China Sea were just the tip of the iceberg. It seems that every pent-up grievance against China, from China’s military posturing to unfair economic practices, exploded in that moment.

Whether Beijing is aware of it or not, China is experiencing the growing pains of being a superpower — that regardless of whether its intentions are benign or not, its actions will have large impacts on its neighbors.

While China had power in the 1960s and 1970s, it could get away with many things because its power paled in comparison with the United States and the Soviet Union. But today, China is seen by its neighbors as an 800-pound panda next door with ferocious appetite for the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and Spratly Islands and a desire to extend its influence in Cambodia, Thailand, Laos, Pakistan, Burma and East Timor.

At the same time, the United States, previously viewed with suspicion by many states in the region, scored a series of diplomatic triumphs: repairing a shattered relationship with Burma, garnering diplomatic support for deploying its marines in Australia (a first step to transforming Darwin into a logistics hub for US operations in the region) and to insert itself as an ally of Southeast Asian nations by defending their interests in the South China Sea.

Adding to the sense of irony is the fact that Vietnam and the Philippines — the former having ejected the United States in 1975 after decades of war and the latter having forced the United States to close its Clark and Subic bases in 1991 — this time strived to bring America back to the region to balance China.

The United States is able to take advantage of the situation as there seems to be no regional or global alternative to confront China’s suzerainty. The European Union is reeling from financial crisis. Russia is preoccupied with its own matters and its presence has been declining since the end of the Cold War. India is rising as a power, but has a limited ability to project its power abroad as it remains preoccupied with Pakistan. Japan’s power is declining as its economy remains at a standstill. Australia is rising but is considered an isolationist nation with no deep connection to other countries, and has no desire to confront China. There is also no candidate within Asean strong enough to balance China on its own.

Thus, instead of being able to take advantage of the region’s weaknesses, China united many countries in the region and brought the United States closer to its doorstep.

China should look back at history and take the heed from Zhou’s masterful performance in the 1955 conference. Instead of responding to US maneuvering with indignation, China should accept the fact it is seen as a common threat due to its diplomatic missteps and try to strike the right tone.

Nobody disputes the fact that China is rising economically and militarily. This century may be “China’s Century,” but China should make sure that its rise to power is peaceful by signaling its willingness to be a good neighbor.

Years ago, Zhou’s excellent performance and his diplomatic smoothness to guarantee the Asian-African Conference’s success generated goodwill among delegates toward China. Pauker put it succinctly, saying Zhou “was personally successful largely because he did not behave like the representative of a great power.”

It is time for China to channel the spirit of the wise old statesman.

America and Asean: It’s Complicated

Another collaborative article. Check our sister-blog at http://centerforworldconflictandpeace.blogspot.com/

---
America and Asean: It’s Complicated
Brad Nelson & Yohanes Sulaiman | November 14, 2011

Barring any last-minute change, US President Barack Obama will attend the end of the Asean summit in Bali this week. His trip will come under the cloud of the ongoing economic crisis in Europe, where the fate of the euro and the unity of the European Union itself is in doubt as never before.

With America’s economy in disarray, Europe is now forced to ask China for economic assistance. Indeed, the prognosis for the US economy remains bad, with doubts growing globally that the United States can do anything to lead the world out of its economic doldrums.

Underlining the gravity of the situation, there will also be an Asean Plus Three (Japan, China and South Korea) meeting at the same time as the Asean-US gathering, meaning Obama is going to be put directly in the path of the Chinese economic steamroller.

There is some good news for the United States, such as the growing resentment of several Southeast Asian nations, including the rising giant India, toward the 800-ton Chinese panda. But the message implicit in the arrangement of the double summit is clear: Obama cannot take his eyes off the ball in Asia.

It is true that China itself is experiencing some economic problems of its own. While China’s economic growth still sets the bar worldwide, it’s predicted to decline by 0.5 percent this year and by the same margin again in 2012. Some economists fear a rapid economic slowdown as early as 2013.

China’s real estate market is on the downswing. Global demand for Chinese goods is slowing, and to make the situation worse, Chinese consumers are unable to replace declining exports.

Yet, what is important here is the perception among Asian countries that China, regardless of its economic troubles, is still on the rise while the United States is declining both in economic and military terms.

Regardless of Beijing’s insistence that its actions are benign and that it has no designs in the region, some Southeast Asian nations see the situation differently. To them, China’s growing influence will negatively impact the region, from its involvement — whether real or imagined — in the internal politics of countries such as Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma and Thailand to its growing assertiveness in the South China Sea.

While Washington has stepped up its engagement with Asia over the last year, questions about American leadership exist. Facing a perceived existential threat from China, the region wants America’s undivided attention. The problem is that they perceive Obama as constantly distracted by other events, including his domestic battles with a hostile Congress. The health care debate, for instance, derailed his much-anticipated visit to Indonesia in March 2010 and drowned out much public discussion of other important issues for months.

Additionally, even though some pundits with inside knowledge of the White House, such as journalist Fareed Zakaria, have claimed that Obama wanted to focus on Asia right from the beginning of his term, it took more than two years for him to begin to shift his attention this way. Granted, he had to attend to two wars in the Middle East, but that’s not really an excuse. As time passed, and as the United States remained bogged down in the Middle East, events continued in Asia. And China continued its rise.

Arguably, it is this concern, as much as any deliberate intentions by Obama, that triggered the White House to shift its attention toward Asia. Obama has dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and, most recently, Gates’s successor, Leon Panetta, largely to reassure wary Asian countries of America’s commitment to the region.

Moreover, Obama’s doctrine of “leading from behind” in Libya creates further confusion about America’s commitment to Asia. Specifically, will the United States apply this foreign policy approach to Asia? Will it try to get other friendly countries to take up its current roles here? By delegating military and economic support to one or several surrogates, the United States could reduce its overseas burdens. For those who are tired of US imperialism, this might sound like a good thing.

But here lies a major problem. On the one hand, for many countries in Asia, the United States is seen as a fickle partner that displays knee-jerk reactions to any perceived human rights abuses.

Take the example of Indonesia, which was on the United States’ side during the cold war. It found itself in the figurative doghouse with an embargo imposed on its armed forces after the Dili Massacre in 1991. The embargo itself was lifted recently, but the lingering effect remains. With troubles currently brewing in West Papua, Indonesia is wary that any misstep will be perceived as systemic human rights abuses, triggering another embargo. Not surprisingly, the military and political elites in Indonesia are very distrustful of US intentions.

On the other hand, Indonesia, like other countries in the region, recognizes that it needs America’s political, economic and security presence to balance against China if necessary. Like it or not, the United States plays a crucial role in the stability of Asia. In the absence of a strong US presence, there’s no one country or group of countries to take its place, which will leave already nervous countries even more worried about their standing in the changing geopolitical order.

An Asian Euro?

This article is memorable because it led to a very funny back-and-forth discussion between me and my editor on the context of the term "ugly girl" and how to tweak the ending to make it better. Unfortunately, that ending ended up jettisonned.

Ben: In your article you say that Lasker disliked the imperial system, implying that the "ugly girl" is the system. From a very quick search online, I take it that the ugly girl isn't the system, but Bavaria -- seen then by Lasker and many others as backward and quaint. Thus, the ugly girl today is profligate states, not the EU. Sound about right?

Me: Actually, I got my quote from George G. Windell, "The Bismarckian Empire as a Federal State, 1866–1880: A Chronicle of Failure," Central European History, Vol. 2, No. 4, Dec 1969. Page 381:

Many liberals in the North German Reichstag bitterly criticized Bismarck's further appeasement of particularism. Some indeed would have preferred to meet the issuehead-on in the Reichstag itself, but in the end they could not bring themselves to vote against the treateis, and thereby assume responsibility for what others would have regarded as sabotage of naitonal cause. The great National-Liberal Eduard Lasker, stated their viewpoint most succinctly in the phrase, "The Girl is ugly, but we must marry her anyway."

ON second look, probably you are right. I haven't read this article in ages, but I still remembered that quote, so I might have forgotten the context. Dunno why, but I cannot find the full article now, had to rely on google. I really miss my university's subscription of JSTOR.

Ben: Mm.. it would appear here that they were opposed to "particularism." Whether that means Bavaria or imperialism, I can't say...

Me: I really hate it when I forgot the context of a quote. I've been trying to find the original paper, thought I had it on my hard drive (I downloaded TONS of academic papers when I graduated) but I could not find it. I think we better go with your first interpretation, though the first and final paragraph would probably need a bit tweakings.

Ben: I tweaked things a bit and I think it looks OK. The biggest thing was recognizing that the marriage had already taken place, and so this is a decision to remain committed to it -- rather than a decision to marry.

Me: That's case for the European Union, but ASEAN has not tied the "knots" yet. Whether it will be the knot on the neck depends on how prepared they will be, which I really pessimistic, because they are all not that forthcoming to each other.

BTW: I really appreciate you trying to track down the quote to make sure it is still in context. From what I rememberd, Lasker disliked the imperial system, so that might be what threw me off.

Ben: That's right. The only other things was that I liked the sound of the final paragraph, but I couldn't quite make sense of it. The girl can wait (the Bavaria-like nations), but the groom must be ready (the "superior nations"). In fact, though, the girl has to have her fiscal house in order before the groom can accept her... so it could actually be that the groom has to wait for the girl to be ready. (Or it could be as you wrote it: look before you leap.)

Trying saying that ten times really fast.


Me: A middle ground will be that the ugly girl needs to get her house in order or learn how to cook well (the girl is ugly, but at least she can cook), and the groom needs to accept her unconditionally till death do them part.  Gosh, I just realize it, but don't we sound very sexist tonight? LoL

Don't tempt me to say that 10 times....


Ben: Yes. All we can say is that the metaphor wasn't ours. Although it would appear we're taking ownership quite well.


----
An Asian Euro?
Yohanes Sulaiman | November 11, 2011

Facing the prospect of a united German empire under Kaiser Wilhelm I in the late 1860s, the northern lawmaker Eduard Lasker, who supported a united Germany but disliked the ways of the Bavarian south said something to the effect of “The girl is ugly, but we must marry her anyway.”

That seems to be the feeling nowadays in Berlin and Paris. Both German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy have been frustrated and angered by the unwillingness of both Greece and Italy to pursue economic reforms.

This long-running drama holds several lessons for Southeast Asia — in particular the member states of Asean as they embark on the road toward greater economic integration.

For Greece and Italy, the political costs of reform are great. Their labor unions oppose cuts and threats to their privileges. People are protesting the harsh austerity policies call into question the future of sacred social welfare perks. Politicians, after spending decades hiding the true cost of the welfare state, are afraid to push for reform.

Patience is wearing thin in Berlin and Paris. Last month, both Merkel and Sarkozy demanded that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi get his country’s economy in order. Last week, they told Greek Prime Minister Papandreou, after he had announced a referendum to decide whether Greece would accept the austerity policy, that the question should be “Do you want to stay in the euro zone or not?”

Both Merkel and Sarkozy knew they had to act vigorously, as the taxpayers of France and Germany — not to mention other wealthy Northern European countries ­— were angry, unwilling to support what they saw as profligate countries of Southern Europe spending their hard-earned tax money. In essence, both were afraid that the European currency would collapse, and with it, the European Union.

Thus the paradox: On one hand, they disliked what they believed to be irresponsible behaviors of Italy and Greece. On the other, they had to stay married to the “ugly girls” in order to save the union. The problem is that the market today no longer believes that the rich Northern European countries are committed to the marriage.

Asean should take warning from the EU’s dilemma. Unlike the EU, Asean does not have a single currency. Its institution is not as strong as the EU, since it remains content with working relationships in various sectors, notably the economy and social issues.

At the same time, there is a desire for stronger economic integration in order to boost regional economic growth, with the final goal of a single currency. Already there are plans to integrate regional economy by 2015.

The question is whether the commitment will remain strong when bad times arrive. There is still much distrust among Asean countries, with conflicts flaring up regularly along borders. Because of Asean’s ineffective arbitration systems, countries like Malaysia have resorted to taking cases to the International Court of Justice instead of trying to solve problems bilaterally or regionally.

There are also still questions of whether members are honest in their bookkeeping and in reporting their economic indicators. The root of the European crisis was because Greece had been cooking its books, misstating its economic indicators and in turn misrepresenting its budget deficit. Can Asean countries be trusted in their bookkeeping, especially when many of its governments remain unaccountable to their people?

Moreover, there is the question of whether Asean could act decisively in time of crisis. The Asean bureaucracy grinds slowly and there is potential for a crisis of confidence in crucial times. Powerhouses France and Germany display economic leadership in times of crises that is clearly accepted by the EU members, but Asean has no such members than can step up to the plate.

These problems are not deal-breakers for Asean, but they should be considered as it pursues its path to greater economic integration. Rather than aiming for an unrealistic target with a short time frame, Asean should instead first strengthen itself as an institution, giving it power to solve problems when troubles arise.

The devil is always in the details, and Asean should take care to find any skeletons that might be hiding in its closets. Otherwise any effort to increase Asean economic integration is doomed from the beginning

Indonesian Politics: Advice for the Unknown Candidate

The ending of this article was changed. The original ending was giving a tongue-in-cheek advice, telling the candidate either to marry an actress or to get a star part in a  soap, since it would have been the best way to increase one's exposure to the soap-loving community of Indonesia.

Instead, in this ending, it seemed to tell the candidate to marry an actress or to star in a soap should his bid fail to get traction.

Probably just a minor sticking point.

----
Indonesian Politics: Advice for the Unknown Candidate
Yohanes Sulaiman | November 05, 2011

With President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono bleeding support in a rash of recent public opinion surveys, it’s no surprise that the political sharks smell blood and are circling for opportunity.

Proposing oneself as a credible alternative candidate, even as early as this year, is very tempting, given that the movement to bring down Yudhoyono seems to be gaining steam lately thanks to the president’s latest blunders.

The most significant of these, of course, is the recent reshuffling of the cabinet. While the market breathed a sigh of relief with the reappointment of highly respected Finance Minister Agus Martowardojo, there were complaints that Yudhoyono did not take corruption seriously, given the reappointment of several ministers that are currently embroiled in scandals.

Eyebrows were also raised over Yudhoyono’s pick of Jero Wacik as the new energy minister, which is seen as a way to ensure that the money from Indonesia’s lucrative energy sector will remain controlled by the Democratic Party. Disappointment at seeing another opportunity wasted adds momentum to a movement to undermine the administration.

Another significant test for the administration hinges on the success of the upcoming Southeast Asian Games, which have been riddled with delays and procurement scandals.

A political insider recently told me that many believe 2012 is a critical year. If Yudhoyono can weather the political storm in the coming year, he will be able to finish his term in 2014. Otherwise, an impeachment is looming on the horizon.

Not surprisingly, anyone with any political ambition is coming out of the woodwork to declare their electability. This explains the recent proliferation of surveys preemptively declaring the winner of the next presidential election.

The Indonesian Voting Network (JSI) put Megawati Sukarnoputri in first place, with 24 percent support, far ahead of Gen. Prabowo Subianto, her former running mate, with 18 percent. Aside from Aburizal Bakrie, who took third place in the survey with a respectable showing of 14 percent, the rest of the field is littered with potential candidates showing support ratings of less than 5 percent.

In another survey, Soegeng Sarjadi Syndicate showed Prabowo the clear winner with 28 percent support, far ahead of Constitutional Court Justice Mahfud MD at 11 percent. While former Minister of Finance Sri Mulyani managed to get 7.4 percent, just ahead of Bakrie’s 6.8 percent, the surprising loser in the survey was Megawati at less than 1 percent.

In a Reform Institute poll, Bakrie was the clear winner with 14 percent. Prabowo placed second with a respectable 9 percent, followed by former Vice President Jusuf Kalla at 7 percent.

The three vastly differing results bring into question the reliability of these surveys. How did three surveys done at almost the same time manage to place different winners with vastly different percentage results?

The knee-jerk answer to this question is that the surveys were sponsored by interested parties that wanted to ensure their names would be on top.

Such an answer, however, ignores one less obvious, and yet very important take-home point of these surveys — that the clear winner of the next presidential election is “Don’t Know,” with a support rating of 30 percent.

In fact, choosing Indonesia’s next president is more of a Jakarta parlor game.

At this point, so far removed from the 2014 election, the majority of the public simply has not made a choice concerning the next election.

They simply have more pressing issues to pursue in their daily lives, and have very little interest (or most likely, they are politically apathetic) in discussing something that will not take place for another three years. Faced with a buffet of names, most of whom they don’t even recognize, they simply chose the most familiar names on the menu or shrugged and expressed the fact that they had no idea whom they would choose.

This also explains the result of the survey by the Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI). While the LSI was correct in stressing that there is very low trust in young politicians in Indonesia, the reason is simply the fact that people have very low trust in politicians in general thanks to a succession of scandals.

Therefore, here’s some assurance for anybody with a shred of presidential aspiration out there: The field is still wide open. Ignore the results of these surveys and go for it.

That said, the paradox is that a successful campaign will require lots and lots of money, and unfortunately the wealthy backers will not open their wallets until they know the sure winner.

If the election season draws nearer and you’re not among the top three candidates, don’t despair. If past campaigns are any indication, there are still options for a candidate with a limited budget to get a star part in a popular TV soap or marry a popular actress.

As the surveys indicate, nothing is yet set in stone.

When Government Corruption Becomes Part of the Scenery, Beware

To be honest, I don't like this article. I wrote this when I was having a bad cold and thus this is not a great finished product. I was surprised that it was put as the leading opinion article. Ben admitted that he also didn't think it was a good article, but they already made a good illustration out of it, before he found out how bad the article was, so I guess it worked out well in the end.

---
When Government Corruption Becomes Part of the Scenery, Beware
Yohanes Sulaiman | October 28, 2011

On Monday, Nyoman Minta became Indonesia’s most famous gardener after he managed to bypass three security perimeters and walk within five meters of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono with his vintage bicycle and a bag full of coconuts.

Even though many found it perplexing and a bit amusing that such a major breach of security could occur at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Fair, it is doubtful that the soldiers and police officers present lacked training or diligence. Instead, it was likely due to the ubiquity of gardeners themselves. The more common a sight, the less we tend to pay attention to it.

Our society is replete with examples of people getting used to something that ultimately can present itself in a dangerous form. Corruption, for example, is so common in Indonesia that people did not even feign surprise when Yudhoyono declared that a massive robbery on the state budget had occurred.

People were more surprised that Yudhoyono had the temerity to declare his outrage over the waste, considering that it is an open secret that it often takes a lot “grease money” to get anything done in Indonesia. It was also an open secret that graft remains rife regardless of all the election slogans of “saying no to corruption.” In fact, considering how many scandal-tainted ministers still retain their posts in the reshuffled cabinet, many people are simply resigned to the idea that corruption eradication has never been a top priority of this administration.

It is not that people no longer care about corruption. They despise it, especially when it comes in the form of blatant misconduct tinged with arrogance. The public uproar over the construction of a new legislative building — and the graft seen as part and parcel of its planning — ultimately forced its cancelation. Now people are demanding an accounting on what happened with the Rp 118 billion ($13 million) spent on the project — money that House Speaker Marzuki Alie has declared non-refundable.

The problem is that the major cases that attracted public attention are only just a drop in a bucket compared with the systemic corruption that occurs within the bureaucracy. In fact, systemic corruption is so prevalent in Indonesia that many people have given up fighting it and joined the bacchanal. In good times, the private sector could shrug off the cost of corruption as just another way to grease the wheel. It was just another cost of business in Indonesia.

At the same time, left unchecked, corruption has the potential to bankrupt and plunge the country into chaos. In tough times, when every rupiah matters, corruption will prevent economic recovery and plunge the country further into the abyss of chaos. Witness the turmoil in Greece, Italy and various other states, including Indonesia itself back in 1998, which was caused by economic meltdown thanks to the highly inefficient and corrupt state bureaucracy that strangled economic growth.

Recent violence in Papua was the canary in the coal mine, the five-meter perimeter that Minta passed in his misadventure. Corruption is a major cause of poverty and violence in Papua. In April, Tempo reported that Priyo Budi Santoso, a Golkar Party legislator, estimated that trillions of rupiahs were siphoned from the budgets for education, health, and infrastructure.

With most of this money ending up in the pockets of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, it is no wonder that resentment grows among local Papuans toward what they see as unjust exploitation. With local troublemakers stirring for independence and the overreaction by the police force to the minuscule pro-independence demonstration, the scene was set for recent violence in Papua.

There are many ways to pacify Papua. The government could send more police officers to Papua. It could provide better training to the officers to prevent another public relations disaster, such as police brutality on a peaceful demonstration. It could raise the level of alertness of the province to the military emergency in order to bring in the military personnel to quash the separatist movement. I don’t doubt that the Indonesian military is capable of pulling it off to again impose order and secure peace in Papua. I know they can do it if the government orders them to pacify the entire island.

Still, without tackling the root of the problems, which is the pervasiveness of corruption among Papuan politicians and bureaucrats, any peace will only be temporary. The government would not be able to pacify the land in a long run. Papua will remain a troubled province should Yudhoyono’s government remain hesitant in completely quashing corruption in Papua.

Today Indonesia celebrates the anniversary of the “Youth Pledge” of 1928 that declared the unity of Indonesia. Maybe we should devote the day to fighting corruption too.

----

exbrit

10:33am Oct 28, 2011

How can the country hope to fight corruption when the corrupters are making the anti corruption laws?

jchay

10:39am Oct 28, 2011

Corruption is not only a common sight, but the hopelessness of people to eradicate or even eliminate it has also become a more common sight. That, to me, is the real killer.

DrDez

11:06am Oct 28, 2011

Sadly JC and Ex both comments are 100% true.
Regarding the law and its enforcement how high does the root go? One can only wonder and as far as it is a common sight I tend to agree. It is infact so normal that it has become I believe more open and is despite some advances worse now than I can ever recall. The worst thing is that we (the people) had such high expectations only to see them dashed.

What Is the President Trying to Do? Maybe the History Books Can Help

Nothing new under the sun. Instead of streamlining the bureaucracy (thus making sure the buck stops on his desk), Indonesian rulers tend to blur the lines, creating infighting and thus making himself to be crucial to the workings of the bureaucracy.


---
What Is the President Trying to Do? Maybe the History Books Can Help
Yohanes Sulaiman | October 19, 2011

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono appointed Nasaruddin Umar as deputy religious affairs minister (center), Denny Indrayana as deputy justice minister (right) and Widjajono Partowidagdo as deputy minister for energy and mineral resources. (Antara Photo/Widodo S. Jusuf)

Anyone wondering why the president would add so many deputy ministers to his cabinet might look to Indonesia’s history, starting from the Dutch’s involvement in Java.

Theoretically the kings of Java were very powerful. In reality, however, their power was circumscribed by the difficult terrain of Java itself. Ruling a realm full of jungles and surrounded by sea, with roads barely passable during the rainy season, the Javanese kings were hard-pressed to impose control over a huge, unwieldy swath of territory. It was thus in their best interest to keep the nobles happy, which meant involving them in any decision-making processes. So if there was a rebellion, it would be met by a united front.

The arrival of the Dutch upended the existing order. The king was no longer the source of power, and the Dutch habitually influenced political outcomes by throwing their weight around in disputes among the Javanese. In one instance, they got involved when Sultan Amangkurat I, the successor of the mighty Sultan Agung, asked for assistance in putting down the Trunajaya rebellion. Following that, the Dutch intervened on the side of the king in a number of civil wars.

The Dutch, however, found this policy to be expensive and unprofitable. For the Dutch East India Company (VOC), the main goal was profit, not costly wars of attrition that would sap its energy and manpower. Thus, the Dutch hoped to set up some sort of balance of power among the Javanese, which would stabilize politics and make it easier for them to do business there. They went about this by playing royal claimants against one another.

The kingdoms of Surakarta and Yogyakarta were formed on this principle. The Dutch would act as arbiters of peace, promising to join with any kingdom to fight military aggression by another. Surakarta and Yogyakarta were roughly equal in power, so Dutch involvement on one side would have granted a decisive superiority. In turn, should both kingdoms be wiling to maintain peace, the Dutch would guarantee the successions of each of their kingships.

This systemized strategy of pitting more-or-less equally strong competitors against one another had a long life, as it is still being used in Indonesia today to ensure that no one has too much power.

During the Guided Democracy, President Sukarno established what late journalist Rosihan Anwar called a triangle of power between himself, the Army and the Communist Party. Back then, the Army had no legitimate grounds for political involvement, unless through the declaration of a state of emergency, which was eventually provided by President Sukarno. In the face of an Army crackdown, the Communist Party needed Sukarno’s protection to survive.

At the same time, Sukarno needed the mass organization that only the Communist Party could provide and the Army to keep the communists in check. For good measure, Sukarno tried to split the Army by attempting to balance the powerful Gen. Abdul Haris Nasution against the rising Gen. Achmad Yani.

The entire effigy, however, came crashing down after the infamous September 30 Movement, which triggered the murky, still-disputed chain of events that culminated in the downfall of Sukarno.

When Gen. Suharto rose to the presidency in 1967, he too played power games. In the 1970s, Suharto used the same system as Sukarno to ensure that nobody within the armed forces could gain enough power to rise up and threaten him.

First, he balanced Gen. Sumitro with Gen. Ali Murtopo. Then, after Murtopo became too strong, Suharto promoted Benny Murdani and purged the bureaucracy of pro-Ali elements. In the 1990s, the country was riveted by the rise of the Indonesian Muslim Intellectuals Association (ICMI) and the dynamics between the Green ABRI, a faction of the military, and the Red ABRI.

With Suharto’s fall in 1998, the Army left politics for good, and government once again became the domain of politicians and their parties. But with no presidential election ever providing any one of them a decisive, absolute victory, Indonesian presidents, in order to ensure they remain at the top of the food chain, have had incentive to act like the Javanese kings. For Yudhoyono in the recent reshuffle, that meant including at least one representative from every major political party in his cabinet.

On one hand, this guarantees the stability of the presidency. On the other, it comes at the expense of professionalism and efficiency and makes for a bloated cabinet. Moreover, it pushes ministries toward becoming treasure chests for political parties, with the president unable to interfere lest he incur the parties’ wrath. Their treasuries flush from their cabinet representatives’ ministry projects, political parties can live to fight another day.

Yudhoyono seems to be trying to recreate this historical dualism in his cabinet in order to attain the control that has so far eluded him. I once speculated that the president might have believed he could cement his rule through high popularity ratings; the recent steep drop in that popularity must have spooked him into looking for other ways to assert control. The president is surely looking to tighten his grip over the emboldened coalition parties, especially Golkar, which has outmaneuvered him through a number of scandals, including the recent Bank Century scandal.

While it seems certain that the next cabinet will include mostly politicians and not professionals, it looks like Yudhoyono is hoping that by adding deputy ministers he can heighten his own power by weakening ministers from other parties, especially those who have the potential to be his strongest rivals, such as Golkar. He could be calculating that by creating new deputy ministers, the bureaucrats will instinctively figure out who really wears the pants. At the very least he might be trying to cause confusion, damaging the political parties’ hold on their ministries.

Of course, the million dollar question is, where will Yudhoyono go from here? Will the president use this opportunity to truly purge the bureaucracy of corruption, nepotism and collusion, creating a much-needed legacy for Indonesia’s future? Or will this just be another flash in the frying pan, all ending up with nothing more than a lot of groaning from people who see opportunities being squandered?

For Indonesia’s sake, I hope Yudhoyono is making the right choice.
---------

devine

6:09pm Oct 19, 2011

"For Indonesia’s sake, I hope Yudhoyono is making the right choice"... yes that is what we were hoping over and over again... it just never happened and I strongly doubt why things should suddenly change for the better now... he is simply not living up to the expectiations of the people.

DrDez

8:13pm Oct 19, 2011

Yohanes - an instructive article.
As we have discussed previously SBY is failing the nations poorest and most vulnerable - This changes not one thing - if anything it makes it worse because of his pretence... We are bound to give him a chance.
The last thing - It totally pisses me off that in a democracy over 45% of the executive board have not been elected

BilboBaggins

9:13pm Oct 19, 2011

He's trying to cover something, can't think what that is though?

Yohanes-Sulaiman

11:19pm Oct 19, 2011

@devine: Agree, but it is an obligatory ending for this kind of op-ed. :D

@DrDez: The 45% number is not an accident. It is a way to create layers and layers of bureaucracy that will absorb many of the disgruntled people and at the same time, muddling things up. In such a confused bureaucracy, you have lots and lots of possibilities to do and approve things that may not possible in a democratic state with strong bureaucracy.

@BilboBaggins: I think Aunt Mavis got it right. There are some others, but thanks to Tommy's successful lawsuit on Tempo, nobody is going to try to spell it in this kind of newspaper.

justapasserby

3:03am Oct 20, 2011

this is a complete white wash of dutch colonialist history. does yohanes sulaiman imply that the kingdom of surakarta and jogjakarta was somehow independent of the dutch? that the dutch was only an ally of one side against the other? I think not. The dutch considers all those kingdoms a substate within their empire.. up to this time, actually, in holland they still think and teach that Indonesia was rightfully theirs, and that the war in 1945 was a rebellion against the rightful owner of the land. Italy paid 5 billion usd as a "we're sorry" for their few years in desert libya.. I wonder how much the dutch would have to pay for their 350 years plundering this land of milk and honey..

Valkyrie

4:14am Oct 20, 2011

Bilbo,

He's beginning to be conscious that many are aware he's the King with new clothes.

Yohanes-Sulaiman

8:48am Oct 20, 2011

@justapasserby: I advised you to read great books authored by M.C. Ricklefs to have a fuller picture on the dilemmas and problems that the Dutch and the Royal houses faced during this period. Try to make a distinction between the Dutch Colonial Empire that started approximately from 1799 after the collapse of the VOC and the Dutch VOC Empire. VOC was a great power, but not that great and powerful to be able to conquer and pacify an island as rugged as Java. Until the fall of the VOC, we could consider the kingdoms of Surakarta and Jogjakarta to be independent of the Dutch. Heck, the only reason why the Dutch loved the partition was because they could not beat Mangkubumi and Mas Said in the battlefield.

Plus there's something called malaria that killed many of the European officers that arrived in Indonesia.

@Valkyrie: I think he'd be content to be left in peace composing his new theme songs.

DrDez

9:29am Oct 20, 2011

Yohanes
Yes - that is a fact and many people realise it - but where is the outcry?? My analysis is that there will be not change save a few high profile cases that are a distraction from greed and selfishness
Re Justypasserby - he/she I am afraid wants to blame the West and the Dutch for everything, is never willing to see that Indonesia or Islam is at fault, has some weird opinions on divorce etc etc - I am wondering if he/she is purebred reincarnate..

Yohanes-Sulaiman

10:59am Oct 20, 2011

@DrDez: I think aside of a few academics and people who really pay attention to bureaucracies, the majority of Indonesians were simply unaware of how bloated and useless the bureaucracy is. Well, let me rephrase it. People know of how inefficient the bureaucracy is, based on their regular interactions with the usual state apparatchik on the bottom of the food chain, e.g. license procurements, but they were unaware of all these high-level structure, e.g. all these national committees, coordinating bodies, special teams, etc. Most of them fly under the radar thus people are simply unaware - or probably taking the usual approach of "see, hear, say no evil."

DrDez

2:08pm Oct 20, 2011

Yohanes
It saddens me to agree with you.

Trust Issues

This is my first article in Tempo English Magazine. There was a miscommuncation regarding this article, I thought I was asked to write this by Asiaview Magazine, but apaprently it was Tempo English Edition on October.

As a result, I don't have a hard copy of this article.

--

Trust Issues
October 12, 2011

 THERE is both good and bad news in analyzing the recent religious clashes in Ambon and the suicide bombing that hit a Christian church in Solo.

First, the good news. The incidents show that by and large the issue of religious conflict is no longer popular, society has matured and is now more skeptical than ever before.

Unlike in the early days of Reformasi, when religious clashes in Ambon were met with intensive and uncritical media coverage and politicians jumped onto the bandwagon of religious indignation, demanding to defend the faith, this time everyone called for restraint, demanding the government restore order.

It was probably a blessing in disguise that the last conflict was so bloody and so traumatic to Indonesians’ psyche that this time politicians and mainstream organizations were more mature in handling the incidents. Provocative SMS and Tweets were immediately denounced. The mainstream mass media showed more restraint in covering the incident and people actually criticized coverage that was seen as too provocative. The Ambon incident was able to stay localized.

The same pattern happened in reaction to the Solo bombing. There was an outpouring of condemnation for the act of terror and sympathy for the victims. Rather than being seen as hero or a syahid, the suicide bomber was widely condemned and ostracized.

At the same time, the government did some right things. This time, the government immediately jumped into the fray by sending both police and military reinforcements to the troublespots, thus preventing the conflict from spiraling out of control. By having a large number of forces in Ambon, the government signaled that this time it would not be caught with its pants down and would deter anyone trying to take advantage of the situation.

In the Solo case, the police actually did take the threat of attack seriously and had already sent an officer to guard the church. To be fair, it was more due to an unfortunate personal lapse of judgment than to institutional or intelligence failure that the suicide bomber managed to fulfill his grisly quest.

Yet, at the same time, the two incidents showed some troubling facts. First, religious harmony in many locales is still very fragile. Even though national figures are united in condemning the acts of terror, there remain local officials playing religious issues for political gain, such as most recently the act of the Bogor mayor in closing the GKI Yasmin Church, which has the necessary permits.

With the government unwilling or unable to rein in flagrant abuses of law, this encourages the growth of local-based radical groups. This in turn creates fertile recruitment grounds for homegrown terror groups that fly below the radar, such as the Cirebon group that has twice launched suicide bombings.

Lack of local initiatives due to local politicking also causes the Malino agreement, which ended the Ambon conflict, to be less effective. By and large, the conflict was settled as both sides were virtually exhausted, unable and unwilling to fight anymore, thus the situation was ripe for peace. Yet after the accord, there was no lasting follow-up process to reintegrate the society. The government seemed to only be interested in calming the conflict, rather than creating conditions for lasting peace. Thus, the reconciliation process was slow and haphazard, without extensive official support. The recent conflict showed that tensions between the communities remains high and only the painful memory of previous conflict managed to prevent this incident from exploding out of control as before.

Another thing is that while people can no more be easily provoked, they distrust the government too. This is not out of the blue but a gradual decline that was started by revelations of corruption scandals, official misconduct in the ministries, national and local bureaucracies, parliament, the courts, and law enforcement. Add to the mix the aforementioned religious politicking and it’s not surprising that public trust in the government has steadily eroded.

The distrust accelerated after disclosures that law enforcement agencies may have a direct hand in coordinating the conduct of widely reviled militant groups. As a result, the government is no longer seen as benign and protective. It is now an object of suspicion, its actions open to doubt, and people see it as a possible source of mischief.

So many people have casually speculated that the Ambon incident was provoked by elements within the police, the military or even local politicians. There was even a false rumor that the Ambon incident was too convenient, supposedly coming on the heels of a KPK visit to investigate local corruption. The Solo bombing also sparked allegations that it was just another attempt to distract the public from the swirling corruption scandals currently hitting President Yudhoyono’s cabinet.

Finally, the two incidents show the lack of public trust in the police force itself. In Ambon, the memory of the past clash, where police were seen as taking sides rather than acting impartially, created distrust of the police. Thus when the police were unable to ascertain the sender of the provocative SMS or the real cause of the death of the Muslim motorcycle taxi driver that sparked the current clash, it created the perception that the police were not serious in dealing with the crisis, or worse, on the other side of the fence. Small wonder that the government had to make a show of force by bringing in thousands of police and military personnel to show they were truly interested in maintaining peace and being impartial.

In contrast, Joko Widodo, the popular Solo mayor, who is seen as honest, just and evenhanded, managed to calm the situation by immediately meeting with the local mass and religious organizations to prevent more misunderstanding and suspicions. His leadership is widely praised as helping to defuse tensions and quickly restore conditions to normalcy.

Both incidents show that public trust in the government is essential to maintain lasting peace. In Ambon it took a lot of personnel to maintain peace in places where public trust in the government had been broken. In Solo, however, the situation quickly returned to normal thanks to a strong leadership that is able to maintain popular trust.

Tough Going for an Indonesian Steve Jobs

This article is inspired by Antonio Menna's blog post on how if Steve Jobs were born in Napoli, Italy, instead of Naples, California. I was basically floored and then thought what if I also put Steve Jobs in Indonesia.
What I found in my thought-experiment was very interesting, that I figured out that it would be easy for a middle class to rise from like bottom-middle to upper-middle class. To move further ahead to the upper class, however, was daunting. As a result, only those politically connected could actually get filthy rich in Indonesia.

Anyhow, I would like to add like a "special thanks" to people who contributed and sent me criticisms during the development of this piece: Hendry Jahja, Jo Irwan, Mario Irwan Tan, and Ong Wie Liong. This piece is not based on their experience, but they all significantly contributed to it.

One last thing. Due to the limit of the length of the article, some of the jokes were cut off from the final version. The original version could be found at the end of this article.

After that original version, the Google-English translation of Antonio Menna's Italian version can be found in the end.

--------------
Tough Going for an Indonesian Steve Jobs
Yohanes Sulaiman | October 12, 2011

Last week the world lost one of its greatest innovators in Steve Jobs. In Indonesia, where his creations were as sought after as they were anywhere in the world, his passing gives us the occasion to pose an interesting question: Had Jobs been born in Indonesia, would he have been able to create a company like Apple?

Let us assume that the Indonesian Jobs’s background is similar to that of his real counterpart. He comes from a middle-class family, finds he has a knack for technology and starts up a computer company with a friend. In order to raise capital, he sells his van and uses his family’s connections to raise enough money to manufacture a few innovative, skillfully-designed computers in his garage.

To sell his computers, our Jobs then hires or asks members of his family to help out. They start to visit stores, peddling the computers, and since they have great products, the computers sell like hotcakes. Soon Indonesian Apple computers are common sights in Glodok and other electronic outlets.

Our Jobs decides to expand his manufacturing capacity and build a factory. He checks the zoning laws and finds a good piece of property for the right price. Having bought the property, though, he finds that he needs to get permission from his neighbors, regardless of the fact that the property was zoned as “industrial.” But he finds that permission is not forthcoming unless he is prepared to spend some money “to help the community,” such as by building a house of worship and paving the local road. He also has to pledge to only hire local people as workers in his factory.

These permissions in hand, he then has to get permits from the local village and the district to get a license to run his business, which will need to be renewed annually. Since issuing permits takes time, he is advised discreetly to send gifts through connected people to speed up the process. Needless to say, the creaky wheel of bureaucracy suddenly turns once he does so.

All permits secured, our Jobs starts building his factory. During construction, local toughs “politely” ask him to buy materials from them at “slightly” higher prices than normal. There are also security fees to pay these toughs to ensure smooth running during construction.

The factory is halfway done when suddenly our innovator receives a court order to halt construction. Apparently the land is in dispute, and the seller was just one of several claimants to the land.

After quite some time and much money spent to settle the claims, the factory is finally done. Jobs goes to hire his workers, but to his dismay, the local workers are badly trained and unqualified to work in such a delicate sector as the tech industry. The search for better human resources, perhaps at distant universities, takes some time. And while many his college-graduated employees had great grades on paper, their real-life performance lags. After being taught under a rote system all their lives, they have difficulty trying to innovate and improve on the existing product. As a result, Jobs finds himself spending more and more time checking their work.

If he can deal with the labor problems, he will then find to his consternation that the electric supply is unreliable. The voltage is often below threshold, and power outages occur during working hours, damaging machinery and halting production.

Transportation is another issue. Floods and massive traffic jams add delays in shipping. He complains to the local government all the time, but to no avail.

And then there are the unwanted visitors. Fly-by-night NGOs protest capitalism’s exploitation of Indonesia’s poor. Local officials visit and find many made-up violations, threatening to shut down production. They leave after receiving “gifts.”

Thus, any “Indonesian Steve Jobs” faces many dilemmas: fuzzy law enforcement, troublesome bureaucracy, difficulty in satisfying local populations, daily shakedowns, shipment delays and unreliable electric supply. All of it increases the cost of production and stifles innovation.

A Steve Jobs might exist in Indonesia. But he has limited opportunity to create a world-class multinational company like today’s Apple due to the difficulties of innovation in Indonesia. Innovation can only occur when people have the ability and possibility to invent and innovate, rather than spending all their time working on basic matters of production.

Even though many multinational companies are interested in investing in Indonesia thanks to its economic growth potential — Panasonic, Sharp and Honda, to name a few — it’s worth pointing out that these many are merely low-technology manufacturing jobs.

To foster innovation, Indonesia must create a better atmosphere for any business to prosper. The government must guarantee the sanctity of law and enforce it, streamline the bureaucracy and improve the local infrastructure to stimulate further economic growth. Otherwise, companies that rely on innovation to grow — like Research In Motion, Google and Microsoft — will continue to make places like Malaysia their first choice for regional investment.



------
ORIGINAL VERSION:

The factory was halfway done when suddenly he received the court order to halt the
construction. Apparently the land was in dispute, that the seller was just one of several claimants to the land. It was the cousin of the brother-in-law of the already deceased original landowner, who demanded the injunction, declaring that it was the late landowner's wish that the entire land should have never been sold and must be donated as a common land to the local village. Mr. Jobs then had to settle every single claim to the land before he could proceed.

After quite some time and much money spent to settle the claims, the factory was finally done. Mr. Jobs then started hiring his workers. To his dismay, the quality of the local workers was low. They were badly trained and not that qualified to work in such a delicate sector like a computer industry. He settled this problem by hiring several local toughs as his security officers, whom he paid above minimum wage to ensure that there would be no trouble going on.

Having dealt with the labor problems, he then found to his consternation that the electric supply was not that reliable. The voltage was often below threshold. Worse, power outages happened during working hours, damaging machineries and causing production stoppage. Even when the power returned, it took a while to restart the production line, costing the factory precious hours in productions.

While he was dealing with production problems, he also had troubles with the quality of the software. While many of the college graduates that Mr. Jobs hired had great grades on paper, their real life performances were below what he expected. Having taught using rote system all their life, they had difficulties in trying to innovate, improving on the existing product. As a result, Mr. Jobs found himself spending more and more time checking his subordinates' works. Add to the mix, the need to ensure that nobody pirated his products.
He also had troubles with transporting his finished products. While in the beginning the street going to his factory was in great shape, the quality deteriorated soon afterwards and by the rainy season, it flooded daily, causing massive traffic jams and adding delays on the shipment. He complained to the local government all the time, without avails.
The final straw was he had to deal with unwanted visitors. Fly-by-night NGOs, calling themselves names such as "popular front for local betterment" did daily demonstration protesting the exploitation of capitalism on Indonesian poor. Local officials also did a daily visit, finding many made-up violations, threatening to shut down production. These visitors would usually leave after some coffees and "gifts."

Thus the dilemma for any Indonesian "Steve Jobs": fuzzy law enforcements, troublesome bureaucracy, difficult to satisfy local populations, and daily shakedowns, not to mention the shipment delays and unreliable electric supplies quickly increased the cost of production and stifled innovations as it took the wind out of any sail of any innovators.

---------
If Steve was born in the province of Naples
By Antonio Menna

Steve Jobs is raised in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California. Here, with his friend Steve Wozniak founded Apple Computer, April 1, 1976. To borrow, Jobs sold his Volkswagen van and Wozniak his calculator. The first seat of the new company was the garage of the parents worked here their first computer, the Apple I. We sell someone on paper only on the basis of the idea, the Homebrew Computer Club members with a commitment to purchase, obtain credit from suppliers and assemble computers, delivering on time. Then bring the idea to the industry, Mike Markkula, who pays, without warranties, into the coffers of the company the sum of $ 250,000, in exchange for one third of Apple. With that money, Jobs and Wozniak launch the product. The sales touching one million dollars. Four years later, Apple goes public.

Let's say that Steve Jobs was born in the province of Naples. His name is Stephen's work. Do not go to college, is a geek. He has a friend named Stephen Vozzini. There are two technology enthusiasts, someone is calling them queer because they are always together. The two have an idea. An innovative computer. But I do not have the money to buy the pieces and assemble it. Put them in the garage and think about how to do. Stephen's work says, try to sell products without them again. With these orders we buy the pieces.

They put an ad, flyers attack, seek buyers. No one shows up. Knocking on companies "want to experience a new computer?". Anyone is interested: "bring it to me, I pay more than ninety days." "Really do not have one yet, we need your written order." The paper does not make an order on letterhead. You never know. With that order, they go to buy the pieces, I want to give them as collateral for credit. Retailers throw them out. "Without money you do not sing the harvest". What to do? Vendiamoci the motor. With that money, manage to assemble the first computer, make a single delivery, earn something. Make another one. The thing seems to go.

But we want to take off more capital. "We ask for a loan." They go to the bank. "Send me your parents, do not do credit to those who have nothing," says the branch manager. The two back in the garage. How do? While we think they are knocking at the door. They are the traffic cops. "They told us that here you are doing a business. We can see the documents? ". "What papers? We're just experimenting. " "We understand that you have sold the computers."

Firefighters were called to a shop which is opposite. The kids do not have documents, the garage is not up to standard, there is no electrical circuit breakers, there are no toilets, no VAT activity. The record is salty. But if they take out some money to bribe, it was felt all over. The gain and give the first apparatus.

But the next day comes the Finance. Finance must also appear. And then the Inspectorate of Labour. And the office hygiene. The initial nest egg flew away. They left early gains. Meanwhile, the idea is there. The first excited buyers call, the computer is great. We must make others at whatever cost. But where to get the money?
There are European funds, incentives all'autoimpresa. There is a accountant in Naples he can do very well these practices. "You're right, you have a wonderful idea. Sure we can have a forgivable loan of at least 100 thousand euros. " The boys think it is made. "But the money will arrive in accounting, you first have to bear the costs. Equipped laboratory, starting with the activities, and then you will get the refund. And then only to ask the question we have to open the VAT, record status by the notary, security positions open, open a practice by the accountant, the accounting books stamped by, a bank account, which you do not open, you owe it payable to your parent. Put him in company with you. Then something about the practice, my fee. And then it takes something money to oil the mechanism to the region. There is a friend to whom we must make a gift otherwise I'll forget the financing. " "But we do not we have this money." "Not even something for the practice? And where do you start? ".

The two boys decide to seek help from parents. They sell the other motor, a collection of comic books. They put something together. Make the documents have VAT, INPS, books, and bank account. They are a company. They have fixed costs. The accountant to pay. The head office is in the garage, not up to standard, if you come back the fighters, or finance, or INPS, or the Labour Inspectorate, or the technical department of the City, or health alert, have more money . Avoid putting the sign outside the door to look inconspicuous. Inside the garage working hard: assemble computers with pieces of luck, a little 'bought used a little' on credit. Makes ten new computers, they can sell them. This seems to go.
But one day knock on the garage. And 'the Camorra. We know that you are earning, you have to make a gift to children who are in jail. "What?". "Pay is better for you."
If they pay, the money and end up close. If you do not pay, make him blow up the garage. If you go to the police and get sued, they should just go because they ran out of living. If you do not get sued and they find it, go to jail, too.
Pagano. But they no longer have the money to continue operations. The funding does not come from the region, the books are expensive, must pay the taxes, pay taxes on what they sold, the accountant press, the pieces are finished, assemble computers in this way becomes impossible, the father of Stephen's work the taken aside and tells him "guagliò, free this garage, there fictitious parking spaces, which is better."
The two boys look and decide to abandon their dream. Become garage mechanics.

The Apple in the province of Naples would not be born, because we are hungry and mad as well, but if you are born in the wrong place, stay with hunger and insanity, and nothing more.