Challenges for the Lady Ratih Hardjono   ;   The writer, a former journalist, is secretary-general of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID). She was a recipient of the Nieman Fellowship for journalism at Harvard University in the class of 1994

JAKARTA POST,  04 Februari 2014

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                      

The pressure on Aung San Suu Kyi as the sole symbol of the Myanmar democratic movement showed itself last December when at a news conference she was reported to have said: “Please don’t forget that I started out as the leader of a political party. I cannot think of anything more political than that.” She also obliquely referred to her image in the West, saying that the “icon was a depiction that was imposed on me by other people”. It has been a long and painful journey for Myanmar’s democratization, headed by Suu Kyi. For two decades The Lady, as she is often called, has been the center of the democratic movement in Myanmar.  The struggle has been very painful personally, resulting in her sacrificing her family life.  In April 2012, Suu Kyi and her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won a historic by-election, and 43 members of the NLD joined the Myanmar parliament. The vote took place amid a series of political reforms initiated by the military-backed government.  Since then, Suu Kyi has begun to participate officially in public policy formulation. Although her voice is heard in small ways, it is no longer illegitimate. While this is obviously a huge victory for democratization in Myanmar, the next stage of the democratization battle will be just as hard and just as painful.  There are no guide books for this, despite the many titles detailing the issue of democratic transitions. What’s more, every country democratizes in its own way.  There is a certain image held among Western democratic countries about democratization in developing countries, which places very high expectations on leaders of these democratic movements.  Leaders such as Suu Kyi are crucial for democratization; they are the symbols that the people of Myanmar cling to and follow, just as former Indonesian president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid was a symbol for the democratic movement during the Soeharto years.  Once the Suu Kyis and Gus Durs become a legitimate part of the ruling elite, the voices in the West that gave oxygen to the democratic movements in developing countries cease to be important.  The different political stakeholders in the country take charge and are forced to deal with one another. The political discourse becomes local as negotiations take place to ensure that all political stakeholders have a seat at the table.  At this stage of democratization, the symbolism of these leaders proves insufficient, as the implementation of democratization becomes a practical matter, dealing with issues such as elections, strengthening political parties’ internal mechanisms, the widening of public participation in politics and so on. This transition period is one of the most vulnerable points in the democratization time line. It is an intense, highly emotional and often treacherous period. The chaotic reorganization of political alliances, complex political and economic maneuverings and a new political discourse take place and become dominant.  In the practical negotiations between the old and new guards, these democratic leaders must be strong enough to hold their ground. At the same time, they must be skillful in negotiating with the old guard. There will be demands on leaders by everyone in the country, including those who do not support the struggle. This is the time when the resilience of such leaders is tested.  Suu Kyi’s stand on the Rohingya and other ethnic minorities in Myanmar is a case in point.  She has been resisting calls to exert her moral authority on behalf of the Rohingya, a Muslim minority that faces discrimination and has suffered attacks by extremist Buddhists in the country.  Voices of disappointment are emanating from Myanmar’s Muslims and other ethnic minorities, such as the largely Christian Kachin population. Democracy and democratic principles are for everyone —  including the military.  With the greatest respect to Suu Kyi and her years of struggle for the people of Myanmar, she needs to change gears from being just a symbol and a lone fighter to widening her support base through educating the young and those at the grassroots level on democracy.  She needs to start tilling the soil now so that democratization can take root and grow in order for it to be harvested by present and future generations. ●

The 1945 struggle for independence : Whose version?

The 1945 struggle for independence : Whose version? Ratih Hardjono ;   The writer, A Former Journalist based in Australia, is Secretary-General of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID) JAKARTA POST, 20 Agustus 2013

I grew up struggling to reconcile my own family’s version of the 1945 struggle for independence and the official Indonesian version. My late father’s involvement in the 1945 struggle for independence was the core of his existence until the day he died. Every event in his life was interpreted through the prism of the 1945 struggle. When I was a kid, it drove me crazy! 

The existence of two different versions of one event reflects the power of history over our lives. The history of mankind has been about the domination of one version of history and the ability to spin this version of history to tailor the needs of one group or individual. Whoever manages to push his version of history, and make it the dominant one, will gain political authority and all the advantages that come with it.

My late father joined a student army known as the TRIP in East Java in 1945 at the tender age of 15. He lied about his age and got away with it because he was tall. Back then the TRIP was part of Brigade 17 of the Indonesian military. I listened to many stories of the TRIP and on several occasions, my father and I visited some of the sites where TRIP actions took place. 

One particular event happened in 1947 on the outskirts of the town of Blitar in East Java. Five boys aged between 15 and 18 years had been feasting on roasted corn and were resting when Dutch tanks appeared. Three of the boys were killed instantly. 

Then there was the problem among us Indonesians of the Madiun Affair in September 1948. It was by all accounts a challenge by communists against the newly established republic. Not much can be found in our history books about this chapter of our history, however, as our history books have been rewritten and sanitized. 

My father’s version was not about facts, as he was too young to understand the politics of the time. Instead it was about emotions. Imprinted on his soul was his task at the time of taking down the names of people being brought into Madiun to be jailed and, in many cases, executed. One villager brought in said to my father: “I am not sure about all this, but I am concerned about my cow. Who will feed it and take care of it if I am not there?” 

Months before my father passed away, this experience was still with him and his main concern was that there was no clear, accurate system to distinguish between those who were communists and those who were not. He was still worried about the family of the villager who owned the cow. Ann Swift’s account in The Road to Madiun: The Indonesian Communist Uprising of 1948 gives many details and facts, about the history of that time, making it clear that there was a serious challenge to the new republic.

Then there is an extremely fascinating account by Robert Cribb in his book Gangsters and Revolutionaries describing the role of preman (thugs) in the fight for independence in Jakarta. One crucial point Cribb makes is that ordinary people in Jakarta were not equipped to fight the Dutch whereas the preman were. Many of them had both weapons and supporters as well as the fighting skills to take on the Dutch. 

In Yogyakarta Sri Sultan Hamengkubuwono IX officially joined Indonesia and donated six million Dutch guilders to the new republic. What would have happened if the Yogyakarta sultanate had sided with the Dutch? There was also the Islamic leader from Jombang in East Java, Wahab Hasbullah, who brought Nahdatul Ulama into the newly born Republic of Indonesia and led the fight against the Dutch by forming a group known as the Laskar Mujahidin. 

The official Indonesian version of the 1945 struggle is that of a people’s revolution. There are strong images in our history books of the Indonesians with bamboo spears led by the newly established Indonesian Army fighting the Dutch colonial forces and gaining independence. This version is very simple and comforting but it omits the complexities and diversity of the events that actually took place. 

Most worrying is that this version marginalizes other versions, and so automatically marginalizes the people involved in that particular struggle. This kind of approach will fragment society as it disregards many of those who were involved in the 1945 struggle. Yet a history which manages to acknowledge everyone’s version is an important tool in consolidating the nation state. 

In my father’s case he felt that the TRIP version of history had been taken over by a group of people, thus marginalizing him and other members of the TRIP. For many years his group met regularly for lunch. Today there are no more than three living members left. 

These meetings were almost like rituals in which they reinforced each other’s existence, which was bound by their experience of 1945. At these meetings they all sat wearing their black uniforms with the logo of the TRIP and Brigade 17 and celebrating the times they had together more than fifty years previously. They retold old war jokes and called each other by their wartime nicknames and reminded each other of their former comrades who had fallen. 

They ate the same kind of food they had back then when they were boys, although many of them had to struggle as their jaws had shrunk due to missing teeth. They clung tightly to their version of TRIP history because this was the foundation of their existence. 

Make no mistake, history is not static; rather it evolves. If the Indonesian nation state is to continue to grow and consolidate, our leaders must learn to be inclusive and not exclusive in their interpretation of history. 

The next president elected in 2014 must be able to embrace everyone’s history in order to create an increased sense of ownership of this country, especially among young people. This will serve to deepen and widen Indonesian nationalism so that it will not be reduced to a slogan only but a vehicle for Indonesia to move forward and face the challenges ahead. ● 

Educating future Indonesians

Educating future Indonesians Ratih Hardjono  ;   A Former Journalist, Secretary-General of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID); She was a recipient of the Nieman Fellowship for Journalism at Harvard University, in the class of 1994

JAKARTA POST, 16 Juli 2013

A nation’s future of sustained economic growth depends very much on the quality of its human resources, and this is determined by the quality of education. 

Studies have also shown that education is a crucial factor in reducing income inequality, as can be seen in many Latin American countries. Investment in a nation’s education takes 10 to 15 years for a country to reap the benefits.

Since 2008, thanks to a constitutional amendment, spending on education has been set at 20 percent of the total budget. 

The budget for education in 2013 is nearly U$6 billion, which makes education one of the top seven recipients of state budget funds. Currently, there are approximately 59 million students, 3 million teachers and 330,000 schools.

So what does the Education and Culture Ministry do with a whopping $6 billion? Education and Culture Minister Mohammad Nuh, said in February this year that in 2007, 80 percent of the children who entered primary school graduated, but out of this number only 61 percent continued on to junior high. 

The minister went on to say that, of those who did enter junior high school, only 48 percent completed this stage of schooling and of this number only 21 percent continued to senior high. 

Of this 21 percent, only 10 percent graduated. Of the 10 percent who graduated, only 1.4 percent undertook tertiary education.

It was safe for the minister to talk about numbers in 2007, it was six years ago and a long time before he became education and culture minister. 

During the last decade, primary education enrolment rates have been impressive.

There is, however, more to education than just enrolment! Has the proportion of drop-outs also decreased dramatically since 2007?

Given that we are entering a demographic bonus, where there will be a large number of youths, which should be able to fuel our economic growth, have the enrolments produced a workforce that is now developing our economy?

A report released by the World Bank in March this year entitled Spending More or Spending Better: Improving Education Financing in Indonesia finds that, despite the large increase in education spending, the quality has not improved. 

According to the report, Indonesia’s performance in international tests has been disappointing; in fact, the country’s general scores were at the bottom of international assessments of learning achievements.

Apparently, when eighth grade Indonesian students were tested through Trends in International Mathematics and Science Studies (TIMSS), which is an international benchmark for mathematics and science, they performed significantly worse than students from Thailand and Malaysia.

The TIMSS test showed that not only are average scores low but that the share of students achieving the highest levels of performance is also very small, with only the top 20 percent of performers in Indonesia achieving at least an intermediate score. 

Only 3 percent achieved scores at the highest level and no students scored at the advanced level. In contrast, almost 50 percent of students in Thailand and Malaysia achieved at least the intermediate level, while 10 percent achieved high benchmarks and 1 percent achieved advanced levels.

The results show that average scores in 2003 and 2009 are not statistically very different in mathematics and science. Only reading scores improved. Even more worrying is the fact that, when researchers broke down results by socio-economic deciles, the inequality in access to quality education was glaringly obvious.

There was a significant difference in performance between the richest and poorest students in mathematics. Poor students performed significantly worse than rich students, and this difference has not improved since 2003.

So, where did all the money go? The same report found that a large share of the massive increase went to pay teachers’ salaries and teachers’ certification allowances. 

The increase in spending on salaries was driven by a fast increase in the total number of teachers, which continues to increase despite Indonesia already having one of the lowest student-teacher ratios in the world.

The teacher certification program almost doubled the pay of certified teachers through an allowance equivalent to a teacher’s basic pay. This allowance absorbed more than 2 percent of the state budget in 2009, even though only 30 percent of teachers were certified.

It is convenient to blame decentralization. One intrinsic problem is the attitude of our bureaucracy to the notion of public service. There is even rejection among much of the bureaucracy of the basic principle that the main task of civil servants is to serve the community that pays their wages.

Bureaucrats have been smart in serving whoever their masters are, so that their privileges as civil servants remain intact. With this framework of thinking, it is easy to see how budgets are used mainly for operational costs rather than servicing the community.

Political elites must agree to stop playing politics with education and to take education out of the political horse trading that takes place when new cabinets are formed. 

The minister in charge needs to be competent and not politically well connected just because a political party was promised the job for agreeing to be in the government’s coalition. This approach has cost us dearly!

We have a Master Plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesian Economic Development (MP3EI), so why not have a Master Plan for Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesian Educational Development? 

Indonesia needs bridges and roads, but if we are to develop our economy, we desperately need skilled human resources. If we can plan infrastructure building for the next 15 years, why can we not do it for education when so much depends on it? 

If not, we will be importing doctors and engineers and continuing to export migrant workers (TKI). ●

Australia-Indonesia bilateral ties : Challenges ahead

Australia-Indonesia bilateral ties : Challenges ahead Ratih Hardjono ;  A Former Journalist based in Australia, Now she is Secretary-General of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID)

JAKARTA POST, 30 April 2013

This month, the bilateral relationship between Indonesia and Australia received a boost with the second annual 2+2 dialogue, which saw the two countries’ respective foreign ministers and defense ministers sitting down and discussing a variety of issues of common concern. 

The Indonesia-Australia bilateral relationship began in 1945, with Australia assisting Indonesia in its attempt to obtain international recognition as an independent nation. Some great Australian names, like that of diplomat MacMahon Ball, were followed by the names of equally great scholars on Indonesia, like Herbert Feith. 

The main challenge in the bilateral relationship has been the internal working of politics in both Indonesia and Australia. Australia has been a democracy for more than 100 years, while Indonesia’s democracy is only 14-years-old. 

Australia is to have an election this year and Indonesia next year. Elections can be odd times with political promises made to electorates, often at the cost of existing bilateral relationships.

The first major test of the bilateral relationship was David Jenkins’ article in The Sydney Morning Herald in 1986 and it occurred at a time when Indonesia was still under Soeharto’s authoritarian regime and the media were not free. 

As a consequence, Jenkins was banned from entering Indonesia and eight years passed before he was able to visit the country again. 

There was nothing inaccurate in Jenkins’ report and, in fact, Indonesian historians studying the country’s economic history probably view this as an important article because it reflected Soeharto’s authoritarian approach. 

In the 1990s, the East Timor independence struggle dominated the bilateral relationship. In 1999, following the United Nations-sponsored self-determination, Indonesia relinquished its control of East Timor (now Timor Leste). 

It was a messy undertaking and, as one of the major tests in the bilateral relationship, it remains one that politicians and diplomats on both sides would rather forget. 

The year 1999 also marked the birth of Indonesia’s democracy and former president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid was at the helm of this first democratic government. Sadly, Gus Dur and his team, which included me, were not prepared for this crucial event in our history. 

Indonesian civil society was extremely weak and much too fragmented to meet the enormous challenges of democratization. 

Everything that could have gone wrong in the Indonesia-Australia bilateral relationship did! Which is why the second annual 2+2 dialogue this year is so important, marking as it does the attainment of major progress. 

There are two crucial questions in the future Indonesia-Australia bilateral relationship. One is Papua and the other is the 2014 Indonesian election. The demand for Papuan independence is an issue with Papuan youths emulating the approach adopted by the East Timorese to gain independence, although the historical context is very different. 

The main problem in Papua is that the current Indonesian government has not managed to bring about a better life for Papuans, despite special autonomy that has been in place since 2001. 

As happened with East Timor in the 1990s, Australia has become one of the political bases from which Papuans seeking independence are campaigning. 

Even so, to some Indonesian political elites, their campaign is seen as a mere pebble in the shoe of the bilateral relationship. 

The second question is the extent to which Australia has considered the possibility of Indonesia’s next president being Prabowo Subianto, a former Army general linked to past human rights violations. The various political polls about the level of his popularity may be wrong, but his being democratically elected remains a possibility. 

There are 67 million new voters out of the total 175 million Indonesians entitled to vote in the 2014 election. These new voters have no political baggage about Prabowo and the events of 1998, as they were mostly below the age of 5 when reformasi began. 

These first-time voters have, instead, grown up in the 10-year period of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration and have serious misgivings about the latter. Just look at the recent fiasco of the national examinations involving our young people, which points to the fact that President SBY has not really focused on education or youth employment.

Life is tough for the average 19-year-old Indonesian. Prabowo, on the other hand, has started to campaign on the distribution of Indonesia’s economic growth. More importantly, whether we like it or not, he has managed to give hope to many young Indonesians. 

At this stage, however, these are mere words and he still needs to prove himself. 

How well do we understand each other? Are we ready to move ahead, given that over the past 10 years there has been a 40 percent drop in the number of Australian students studying the Indonesian language?

Yet, there are approximately 20,000 Indonesians studying in Australian universities (The Jakarta Post, March 19). Is there enough public understanding in Australia of the problems with democratization in Indonesia? 

Do Australians realize that we Indonesians still have a long journey ahead of us in ensuring that the democratization process continues? 

Anything can happen in the 2014 Indonesian election; as it did in 1999, when Gus Dur was elected president to the surprise of many, including some in Australia. 

The question that people from both sides of the Arafura Sea need to consider is the extent to which the bilateral relationship is sustainable in the face of the political earthquakes that could disturb it. 

At this stage, in view of the valuable progress already made, let us keep both feet on the ground. ●

What’s wrong with corruption?

What’s wrong with corruption? Ratih Hardjono  ;  A Former Journalist, Secretary-General of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID)

JAKARTA POST, 27 Maret 2013

  

One can’t help but be imaginative watching the foyer of the Corruption Eradication Commission’s (KPK) building becoming a fashion catwalk of beautiful people entering the building on charges of corruption.  The rat-a-tat-tat sound of stiletto heels and the scent of perfume wafts through the room before the beautiful people enter and then linger in the KPK’s interrogation rooms. Could this have an influence? Aren’t we all human?  Photos of convicted Angelina Sondakh in the embrace of KPK investigator Raden Brotoseno are widely viewed on the Internet. Make no mistake, corruption is being committed by men and women, but I can’t help feel that all this corrupt glamour on parade is perhaps being perceived by the public as one way of getting rich quickly. What is most disturbing is the confidence these people have even after they are charged with and convicted of corruption. They show no grief or regret.  Occasionally there are tears, but not for long. One local woman in my lower middle-class neighborhood said to me: “Life is so tough, everything is expensive. I wouldn’t mind going to jail for six years but still get to keep the tens of millions of dollars in my bank account. I could send my kids to university overseas and live a comfortable life ever after. Jail can’t be that bad, they still look good in court.” Even more disturbing is the lack of fundamental understanding among ordinary Indonesians as to why corruption is evil. This is despite the media coverage and the public campaigns run by NGOs and the KPK.  The glamorous pictures of the handsome Muhammad Nazaruddin and the elegant Miranda Goeltom are actually in direct opposition to the public anticorruption drive by the KPK.  It would be different if the pictures show Nazaruddin in a KPK detainee shirt and Miranda Goeltom turning up to the hearings with her hair uncoiffed.  “Perception is everything”. Words alone are not enough! An image is being projected through the media that does not show that embezzlers are being punished. The current case of Djoko Susilo and his young beautiful wives looking innocent serves to reinforce this problem.  The scale of corruption in Indonesia is making Indonesia poorer. As noted economist Thee Kian Wie points out, no country with such a high degree of corruption has been able to become truly prosperous, democratic and equitable. This is because an enormous amount of funds are accumulated by corrupt officials; funds that should be invested in sectors of the economy that could aid Indonesia’s development, such as health and education.  The KPK announced in December 2012 that there were 1,408 cases of corruption between 2004 and 2011 involving Rp 39.3 trillion (US$4 billion). This amount of money could have been used to build 393,000 basic homes or create 3.9 million university graduates (Kompas, Dec. 5, 2012). What about the embezzlers who have not been caught and the money they siphoned off? How much money did we lose?  According to the KPK, 332 people have been charged with corruption, 41 percent of whom were civil servants, 19 percent House of Representatives members and 20 percent businesspeople.  The involvement of civil servants is prominent because as individuals they have access to power and financial resources. The poor lack opportunity and access to power and don’t even know where the money is! This perhaps explains why the catwalk at the KPK building is dominated by beautiful people who are not poor but just simply greedy. These embezzlers have no shame and hide behind the façade that they are innocent and that they are there because of political circumstances rather than graft. The concept of corruption among traditional communities is still a blurred grey area because there is a lack of clear separation between public and private spaces. If one is the head of a traditional community, an adat leader, there are numerous demands and responsibilities that they must fulfill. The fact is that most adat leaders are richer than their followers. Their role as head of a community is inherited and gives them access to power at the village and subdistrict levels, but whatever financial gain the adat leader obtains, much of it gets dispersed within the community.  There are serious problems with this, especially with Indonesia’s economy modernizing, where there must be a clear separation between public and private spaces. This also points to the fact that we have not managed to accommodate our adat leaders and our adat laws in a modernizing Indonesia.  When it comes to corruption, there is a difference between adat leaders and the beautiful people that the KPK deals with. The adat leaders have to fulfill the demands of their community, otherwise their role fades away and the communal structure of the village starts to disintegrate.  Corrupt civil servants and lawmakers are corrupt for personal gain and want to remain in power and become rich by bribing whoever needs to be bribed in order for them to obtain this personal goal.  One crucial element lacking in our judicial system is the absence of a mechanism to recover stolen assets because our laws do not specifically regulate the definition of asset recovery.  Yet, Article 51 of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) makes is very clear that asset recovery is a fundamental principle. As my neighbor said, what is the problem with corruption? You still get to keep the money.  There are talks of a government bill on asset recovery being in the pipeline. The question is: How is it that the KPK was established in 2003 and it was not equipped with such a law? It’s like having a tiger with no teeth.  Could it be that the Indonesian elites who could have made this happen deliberately did not do so in order to use the KPK as a political threat to their opposition and to erect another political stage? ●

The urgency of economic democratization

The urgency of economic democratization Ratih Hardjono  ;  The writer, A Former Journalist, is Secretary-General of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID)

JAKARTA POST, 25 Februari 2013

One only hopes that Indonesian economic policy makers were listening carefully to the speech of Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International monetary Fund (IMF), at the World Economic Forum held in Davos in January 2013. Lagarde did not mince her words in the excellent speech she delivered on why policymakers must start addressing economic inequality.  “I believe that the economics profession and the policy community have downplayed inequality for too long,” she said, adding that “surely we have all learned by now that it is no longer enough to focus on growth alone. We need all people to share in rising prosperity.”  Lagarde went on to say that “a more equal distribution of income allows for greater economic stability, more sustained growth and healthier societies with stronger bonds of cohesion and trust.” At the same time, she pointed out that youth and women play a crucial role in economic growth.  Lagarde’s approach is certainly different from that of Michel Camdessus, who was IMF director in the days of former president Soeharto, when the latter was accused of being recalcitrant. Things have changed at the IMF. One way to measure economic inequality is to use the gini ratio. In 2011, Indonesia’s gini ratio was 0.41, which means that 1 percent of the population held 41 percent of Indonesia’s total wealth.  The number looks even worse if the household gini ratio is considered; the ratio of 0.65 means that 1 percent of Indonesia’s households control 65 percent of the wealth of Indonesia’s households (Kompas, Oct. 30, 2012).  In 2011, an Indonesian NGO calculated that, based on a gini ratio of 0.41, the wealth of the 40 richest Indonesians is equal to that of 77 million Indonesians. The thinking that economic growth without equality leads to instability is not new. As early as 1910, president Roosevelt was already concerned about economic inequality when he declared that the US federal government had a responsibility to promote equality of opportunity and to attack special privileges and vested interests.  Perhaps the book written last year by Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, entitled The Price of Inequality, spurred on discussion of this crucial issue, which so many had been avoiding.  In Davos this year, Stiglitz told an elite audience that the richest 1 percent of Americans now hold 25 percent of the country’s wealth and that this was causing all sorts of social problems, especially among young people, in the US.  An in-depth and well-researched report by the weekly The Economist last year focused on economic inequality. Its 25-page coverage on the issue investigated the widening gap between rich and poor and found that inequality was one of the most serious social, economic and political problems that the world was facing.  The Economist quoted the Asian Development Bank, which has argued that if income distribution in emerging Asia had not worsened over the past 20 years, the region’s rapid growth would have lifted an extra 240 million people out of extreme poverty.  This is something for all of us Asians to think about! The Economist stated that the close links between politicians and plutocrats or government by the wealthy meant that cronyism was established and that this was the most obvious way in which Asian governments have made inequality worse.  This was because businessmen who are politicians have insider access to land and natural resources and to government contracts. The Economist pointed out that cronyism must be curbed, particularly in emerging markets, as a freer financial sector with market-driven interest rates will remove a potent source of income concentration and economic distortion.  Education is a crucial factor in reducing income inequality, as can be seen in Latin American countries. Government spending on secondary education has led to an increase in the literate and schooled workforce, which is then able to work in a modern economy that is very much driven by technological innovation.  The Indonesian government is still fixated on economic growth. This kind of thinking is reflected in a 2012 publication by the McKinsey Global Institute called The Archipelago Economy: Unleashing Indonesia’s Potential.  The McKinsey Institute has been a consultant to the Indonesian government and claims that it helped the government “to better fulfill [its] mission to the public” (McKinsey website). The focus of the report has been economic growth and the ways in which to ensure further growth to attract investment.  The McKinsey publication states that Indonesia today is the 16th largest economy in the world. There is a smattering of discussion on inequality in the publication but not much; instead, the focus is on economic opportunity and on the fact that Indonesia has a young population, which will be powering future growth in incomes.  This is true. Indonesia today is also the fourth-most populous country in the world and 44 percent of its 240 million people are under 24 years of age.  A tsunami consisting of a large youth bulge is about to arrive in our employment sector. As Lagarde pointed out in her speech, “Inclusive growth must also be job-rich growth,” in which a strong dimension is youth employment.  Indonesia is in the grip of large-scale corruption that is eating into our economy and can be likened to a cancerous growth.  As for the 20 percent compulsory government spending on education, which directly affects our youth, how much of this spending really goes into powering knowledge and skills among our young people and how much of it  becomes operational costs for our bureaucrats?  The Indonesian government can get the McKinseys of this world to give advice and help plan greater efficiency and effectiveness, but the crucial test lies in implementation. Let’s stop all the image building, spinning of statistics and political pitching.  Just get on with it and implement plans properly and effectively, because this in itself would be a major achievement. ●

Australia’s long journey to multiculturalism

Australia’s long journey to multiculturalism Ratih Hardjono ; The writer, a former journalist, is secretary-general of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID)

JAKARTA POST, 30 Januari 2013

I remember arriving at Kingsford Smith Airport in Sydney 30 years ago amid hysterical Italian-Australian women dressed in black, who were waiting for the arrival of a relative and yelling out “Maria, Maria!” There was hardly an Asian face in the crowd.  Back then, one was conscious of the segregation of those of English and Irish descent and those of Mediterranean origin.  When I visited Sydney last December, the wave of Mediterranean immigrants had well and truly left its imprint on everyday Australian life. When visitors step out of the arrival hall, the smell of brewing coffee from the coffee stall fills the air.  At the same time there are now many more Asian faces, not just as visitors but also in the crowds, awaiting the arrival of friends and relatives. In the 1970s only Mediterranean people drank coffee in Australia. The first wave of Australian settlers, the English and Irish, had drunk tea.  Another influence brought about by the Mediterranean culture has been the use of garlic. The traditionally baked dinners of the English and Irish back then were devoid of garlic.  For someone like me, coming from the Indonesian culinary tradition, eating without garlic was like just swallowing a meal and not worrying about taste. Yet today, looking at the vast number of restaurants and food stalls around Sydney, it seems that garlic farmers are the pulse of culinary Sydney. On a recent trip I watched a little blond girl standing in front of a Japanese food stall at Bondi Junction in Sydney. She was explaining to her elderly Anglo Saxon grandmother that it was safe to eat sushi. Her grandmother replied: “But it is raw fish and you will get a stomachache.”  The little girl answered: “No, grandma, the whole of Japan eats sushi and they are all OK.” Old grandma shook her head and said: “It really needs to be cooked!” Nevertheless she pulled out a AUS$20 note to pay the Japanese seller. In a way this little girl sums up Australia’s historical multicultural journey.  The tolerant, multicultural Australia has not always been there. The White Australia policy, which permitted only people from England and some European countries to remain in Australia, was revoked only in 1966. It was first implemented in 1850 when Australian miners clashed violently with Chinese rivals in Victoria and New South Wales.  In 1901, the Australian government passed the Immigration Restriction Act, while former prime minister Curtin in 1941, during World War II, pronounced the philosophy of the White Australia policy. The Australian Census of 2011 shows that 26 percent of Australia’s people were born overseas and that they originated from more than 25 countries. Asians, as the last wave of immigrants, still account for only 9 percent of Australia’s population.  Asian immigration remains a sore point with some as there are still a small number of conservative Australians who are worried about the threat of the so-called “yellow peril” from the north of Australia. Most of Southeast Asia, however, is also grappling with the growth of China up north as a superpower and with its economic domination in the region. It is not a uniquely Australian problem.  There have always been Australian leaders who have stood fast, determined that Australia must be a tolerant country and insisting that the White Australia policy must not return. Australia does, however, still face challenges with its indigenous population, the Aborigines. Multicultural Australia has not managed to absorb them. Indonesia on the other hand, known to be multicultural and tolerant for centuries, is going through a stage in which this long tradition of tolerance is being tested. It was this tolerance that produced the national motto “Unity in Diversity”. Yet it also produced a diversity in unity, a crucial part of the consolidation of Indonesia in 1945 when the Republic of Indonesia was declared.  It is ironic that it was the authoritarian New Order period that insisted we all be tolerant of each other, respecting our differences in culture, language and religion. It is worrying that incidents of intolerance, many leading to conflict, have been on the increase in Indonesia recently.  I for one, having been based in Australia for 16 years as a Kompas correspondent, never thought I would find myself acknowledging the presence of a strong tradition of tolerance within Australian society. The reason for the change is simple. Australian leadership has been forced throughout the years to take a stand and advocate tolerance; those who advocated otherwise have lost in elections.  There are still many issues that need to be addressed between Australia and its Asian neighbors. Perhaps the quality of political communication still needs fine tuning. A change of government in Australia usually means that the incoming government needs time to get acquainted with the right “Asia literate” language. It does not come naturally.  But people-to-people relations between Australia and its Asian neighbors have been going from strength to strength. An important sign was the way in which Australians and Balinese dealt with the tragedy of the Bali bombing. It was an important learning process for both Australia and Indonesia as it acknowledged that the threat of terrorism was a global problem and a threat to mankind everywhere. Sane and peaceful people should always band together, no matter what their race or religion might be. ●

Our village leaders : ‘Adat’ encounters democracy

Our village leaders : ‘Adat’ encounters democracy Ratih Hardjono ;   The writer, A Former Journalist, is Secretary-General of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID). She was a recipient of the Nieman Fellowship for Journalism at Harvard University — class of 1994

JAKARTA POST, 28 Desember 2012

On Dec. 14, 2012 an estimated 7,000 Indonesian village heads visited the House of Representatives and delivered a strong message, demanding that the government take better care of them. This was the culmination of a series of similar demonstrations that had been taking place in Central and East Java, Kalimantan and Sumatra throughout the year. Jakarta forgets that the 76,000 village heads across Indonesia are the crucial and final link in the hierarchy of the official government administration. They can be likened to the base of a pyramid in which the Jakarta government is at the pinnacle; without them, there is neither pyramid nor pinnacle. The large demonstration that took place on Dec. 14 masked serious challenges that, since Reformasi in 1998, have not been given attention by successive governments. Today’s democratic election of village heads is regulated in Law No. 32/2004. This is in line with Article 21 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that democratic elections are a basic human right.  The social and political transformations taking place at the village level as a consequence of the democratic election of village heads have concealed the serious changes and challenges that our villages are  experiencing. It is at this level that adat law and Indonesian state law collide. Their meeting often results in direct and indirect tensions among villagers. This applies to all aspects of village life, not just to village head elections. This kind of encounter is no longer an issue in cities but still is in rural areas where villagers, who were not allowed to participate in Indonesian political life during the New Order period, were suddenly handed their democratic rights through Law No. 32/2004. During the New Order period, village heads were appointed by the government. Today villagers elect their own leaders. But how are villagers managing this change, considering that adat has been the basis of village life for centuries? Make no mistake about it: Democracy is the only way forward for Indonesia and there are no other choices. There is something about democracy which is instinctive and to which Indonesians have responded, as seen with Reformasi. However, the process of democratization cannot take place overnight, especially when it involves pushing aside the old established elites. The presence of democratically elected village heads is one of the crucial foundations of democracy in Indonesia. In many villages adat leaders are pitted directly against younger village leaders. The adat leaders are usually much older and, having lived through the New Order period, are not strongly critical of that period. Many even say that village life was much better because villages received more attention from the government. At the moment the demographic structure of Indonesia is such that there is a “tsunami” of young people, known as the youth bulge, coming through. It is not unusual to find that people aged 19 to 40 years account for around 45 percent to 50 percent of the village population. This leaves the old adat leaders in the minority and yet ironically, despite their old-fashioned ways of thinking, their experience has taught them wisdom, awareness and knowledge, a combination which, more often than not, produces the decisions that are best for the village. The older adat leaders have stayed in the village during good and bad times. Villagers still come to them to seek their advice about daily matters ranging from marriages to deaths. These traditional leaders have special “in-built” radars that can detect possible conflicts within the village, way ahead of the majority of villagers. They also see village leaders as the keepers of tradition and the managers of equilibrium in village life. Most importantly they are the keepers of history in the village and in the case of land ownership they know accurately who owns which piece of land in the village area. They do not see the role of village head as a source of employment or a paid job. In the past some village heads were in this position for more than twenty years; the problem was that there were no democratic elections for village heads. The village head was sometimes designated by his birthright as the adat leader and in some cases he was appointed by the government. Those natural adat leaders not appointed by the government still retain the status of village leader, but in many cases it is in these villages that conflict takes place and strong anti-government sentiments are found. The young village leaders who have been elected with the implementation of Law No. 32/2004 are a new breed. Many of them left their village but have deliberately returned just to take part in village elections in the hope of becoming village head.  This kind of village head is problematic. Many of them were unemployed while some were cultivating someone else’s land as paid laborers. They see the position of village head as a form of employment and a path to upward social mobility.  Today village heads of this kind tend to be found in villages where there are large-scale commercial undertakings like mining, oil and gas projects as well as factories and similar concerns. Very rarely do young men return home and seek to become village leaders if the village offers no economic opportunities. These village heads also become active politically and are unable to act neutrally. Furthermore, they have a tendency to be easily bought by political parties. The villages led by these village heads experience turbulent change and are often polarized because of this kind of leadership. Our main challenge today is to retain and manage the elements of adat that contain wisdom and providence while also ensuring that democracy takes root and grows stronger in our villages. Perhaps the official appointment of the adat leader known as damang acknowledging their role in the province of Central Kalimantan alongside democratically elected village heads is one option. Much more thought needs to be put into this. We can not afford to lose the elements of wisdom in our adat way of life. ●

Indonesia spreads a virus called ‘democracy’

Indonesia spreads a virus called ‘democracy’ Ratih Hardjono ;  The writer, a former journalist, is secretary-general of the Indonesian Community for Democracy (KID). She was a recipient of the Nieman Fellowship for journalism at Harvard University — class of 1994

JAKARTA POST, 01 November 2012

At Batumi Airport, Georgia, immigration procedures are managed by police officers. My Georgian immigration officer looks at my Indonesian passport, throws his hands up in the air, and says some beautiful-sounding Georgian words.  I had heard this expression before when I was a foreign correspondent and it means “Wooow, you’re from Indonesia? What am I to do with your passport?” I smile and he panics. Not long afterward, six of his fellow immigration officers appear bringing a book that lists all the countries in the world and the sort of visa that is required. They find Indonesia but cannot locate Mozambique, and my colleague from Mozambique is dismayed. People from Burundi, Mozambique, Egypt, Tunisia, Georgia, Guatemala and Indonesia had come together in Batumi to talk about Sekolah Demokrasi (Democracy Schools). The idea of the Sekolah Demokrasi began in Indonesia and the first school started operating here in 2006.  Five years later the Sekolah Demokrasi has been replicated in the countries mentioned above, except Egypt, where it will begin next year. Batumi, with its 180,000 inhabitants, is a lovely little town located on the eastern seaboard of the Black Sea and surrounded by beautiful mountains. It is said that Batumi is one of the oldest towns on earth. Georgia was certainly the right place to talk about democracy. It may be a small country but it has seen it all!  It once belonged to the Roman Empire, but the Persians, Arabs, Turks and Mongols all took their turn in occupying the place.  Finally, in 1918, the Russian Empire took its turn and then, after the Russian Revolution in 1921, Georgia became part of the Soviet Union. It gained its independence in 1991 with the break-up of the Soviet Union.  Not surprisingly, one major theme that runs through the many layers of Georgian history is resilience. Perhaps a glimpse of the history of democratization of Georgia is reflected in the life of one of its most famous politicians, Eduard Shevardnadze, who was born in Georgia in 1928, just seven years after the Soviet Union invasion.  Being born under Soviet rule meant that, if he wanted to get anywhere, he had to become part of the Soviet Communist Party. Shevardnadze rose to be a player in the global arena from 1985 to 1991, when he was the Soviet foreign minister. He began his career with Georgia’s komsomol central committee and rose steadily, becoming a member of the central committee of the Communist Party in 1976 and a candidate member of the politburo in 1978. A fresh wind blew across the Soviet Union in 1985, when president Mikhail S. Gorbachev came to power, promoted Shevardnadze to full membership in the ruling politburo and named him minister for foreign affairs. Most probably unbeknown to Shevardnadze himself at the time, his period as foreign minister marked the start of reform within the Soviet Union and the end of the political supremacy of the Communist Party. Mikhail S. Gorbachev introduced glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring). Shevardnadze was one of Gorbachev’s closest colleagues and one of the most effective advocates of the Soviet reform policies of glasnost and perestroika at the time. The break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991 came after the fall of the Berlin Wall, which had been preceded by the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989. The global political landscape changed. Shevardnadze played a role in the fact that he was influential as the first card of the dominoes to fall. Once reform and democratization commence, it is difficult to halt them, as Shevardnadze learned. He went on to become the president of Georgia in 1995.  In 2003 Georgia held a parliamentary election that was widely denounced as unfair by international election observers, as well as by the UN. There were demonstrations in which protesters broke into parliament. Shevardnadze was forced to resign and protesters called the event the Rose Revolution.  It was ironic that the strong proponent of glasnost and perestroika was pushed out because of allegations of non glasnost behavior. The point here is that democracy allows the public to participate in how they are to be managed, which is chiefly through direct elections.  Once democratization begins, it cannot be stopped. Oppressive and closed systems, coupled with poverty, will lead to change; it is just a matter of time.  The challenge remains for democratization, if it is to be effective, to ensure the establishment of an open and fair political, economic and social system. Political reform without economic or social reforms will lead to lop-sided democratization, with a strong possibility of the rich hijacking the process and establishing a “money politics” culture in which money rules. This becomes a serious obstacle to the maturing and deepening of democracy. Hence, legal reforms and the implementation of the rule of law are crucial from the start of democratization. The discussion in Batumi about the Sekolah Demokrasi was an important step for the countries present, all of which had been experiencing democratization.  Some have been more turbulent than others. The exchange of the experiences of people who were operating Sekolah Demokrasi in these countries and teaching democracy at the grassroots level was inspiring.  Two themes came out of the exchange. One, democratization is not just a difficult process but also a painful one. Two, regardless of their culture, language and educational levels, people instinctively take to democracy because it offers something universal that human beings need. ●

Corruption and interpretations of ‘reformasi’

Corruption and interpretations of ‘reformasi’

Ratih Hardjono ; A Former Journalist, Secretary-General of The Indonesian Community For Democracy (KID), A Recipient of The Nieman Fellowship for Journalism at Harvard University — Class Of 1994

JAKARTA POST, 16 Agustus 2012

Gayus Tambunan, 33, Muhammad Nazaruddin, 33 and Angelina Sondakh, 34, all have three things in common: they are in their early 30s, they are involved in large scale corruption and they are all being investigated by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). 

Another commonality is that they appear to be lacking remorse or even shame for allegedly being involved in corruption.

It is interesting is to try and fathom what these young people understand about the concept of corruption, bearing in mind that when reformasi took place in 1998, they were barely 20 years old. 

They were born, and experienced their formative years, during the New Order period. This observation begs the question: Is there a generation gap in the perception of corruption these days?

Reformasi in 1998 was a crucial rite of passage for many Indonesians, but not for everyone. It was mainly experienced by those old enough to know and understand their history. 

For those who were 25 years old and above, reformasi was a decisive moment in their lives. It brought about dramatic changes in their daily lives. They were suddenly part of the Indonesian political arena. The most powerful political figure in their lives suddenly fell from grace, pushed aside by a deep economic crisis. Before this, they were a passive audience to a staged political arena.

For these older Indonesians, reformasi was about transforming Indonesia into a more open, participatory and democratic society. A fairer economic distribution of the high economic growth Indonesia had been experiencing was expected to follow. This was a basic assumption. 

However, no one asked whether Indonesia’s economic structure was ready for this demand of fairer economic distribution, which in turn would create a larger Indonesian middle class, and bring prosperity to the country.

For those younger Indonesians in their early 20s in 1998, reformasi was experienced through theirparent’s point of view. 

Their parents were born before former president Soeharto’s rise to power, and they experienced the golden period of the New Order era. This included optimism and hope, but was followed by gradual disappointment and despair.

Parents expected that the prosperity they were experiencing would continue. Instead, in January 1998, they were shocked by photos in the media which showed Soeharto signing an International Monetary Fund (IMF) package of structural reforms, with Michel Camdessus, the then director of IMF, standing aloof with arms folded, looking down on Soeharto. Many ordinary Indonesians did not understand the financial details, but they knew instinctively that Indonesia’s economy was in crisis. The photo said it all.

Due to the lack of freedom of press and information prior to 1998, the photo of Soeharto and Michel Camdessus took on a larger-than-life meaning. 

Until that time, public information and the press had been very much curtailed. The photos that did appear were pictures of Soeharto reigning supreme and very much in control of Indonesia.

The Camdessus photo must have had an impact on ordinary Indonesians. It was then that psychologically, ordinary Indonesians started a mental journey, preparing for changes in anticipation of the new Indonesia, which back then, was unchartered territory. 

In 1998, the ire of ordinary Indonesians, and the parents of 20-year-olds, was based on the fact that they were witnessing a very small group of Indonesian elites obtaining economic privileges and becoming millionaires, while they had started to experience an economic downturn. 

The anger started to build, and a realization started to sink in that they were imprisoned by the tacit acceptance of no freedom of speech and a lack of political participation, and that this was in fact a major disadvantage to them. Reformasi then took place.

For Gayus Tambunan, Muhammad Nazaruddin and Angelina Sondakh, and many other Indonesians under 20 years of age in 1998, reformasi is probably a blurry part of history, with violence being the focus of their experience — but they never had the historical knowledge to understand why the violence took place.

Could it be that parents, back in 1998, told their young children to: “Take all the opportunities you can! We now have freedom. Make money and be rich!” As a result, these young people went for economic opportunity, and did so at any cost, knocking over ethical and moral values in their wake.

In 2009, Angelina Sondakh actually campaigned on anticorruption in order to be elected to parliament. It appears that the issue of corruption was only a public relations vehicle to get her elected, with no ethical meaning for her at all. 

For this generation, perhaps reformasi is not about democratization, but rather about getting rich quickly. Could it be that these are the lost generations of Indonesia? Of course there are exceptions.

Reconciliation at the moment is focused on human rights abuses, which is important. However, for Indonesia to move forward as a nation, a greater scope of reconciliation needs to take place which involves all aspects of social, political and economical issues. 

As a nation, we still live in boxes determined by reformasi. Just look at the political parties of today: The PKS (Prosperous Justice Party) is post-reformasi and part of the New Indonesia, while Golkar is pre-reformasi and existed in the Old Indonesia. In many ways, reformasi is still divisive.

Today Indonesia celebrates its 67th birthday. We need to start bridging the reformasi period and turn the experience into a valuable part of our history, with lessons learnt for all Indonesians. 

We must come to an agreement spiritually and psychologically on Indonesia’s future, and more importantly, how we will get there. ●

The new Indonesia: 67 million first-time voters in 2014

The new Indonesia: 67 million first-time voters in 2014

Ratih Hardjono, A FORMER JOURNALIST, IS SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR THE INDONESIAN COMMUNITY FOR DEMOCRACY (KID) SHE WAS A RECIPIENT OF THE NIEMAN FELLOWSHIP FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CLASS 1994

Sumber : JAKARTA POST, 19 Januari 2012

With so much political jockeying going on among the elites in Jakarta ahead of the 2014 presidential election, the fact that 67 million first-time voters across the archipelago will be exercising their right to vote in 2014 has been largely overlooked. These young people did not experience reformasi or life during the New Order period, and probably only generally know that a man by the name of Soeharto led the country for a long period.

These first-time voters for 2014 were only small children when the reformasi movement took place in 1998. They have grown up in a different Indonesia than those who were 12 years old in 1998, who still experienced the turbulence of that historical year.

These voters have never had to struggle for democracy and have had democracy delivered to them. They take democracy and the freedoms they enjoy today for granted. They do not realize this nor do they seem to care.

They have a different world view than the reformasi generation or the generation of democratic activists pushing for change during the last days of the Soeharto period. Their focus of life is not about democracy anymore, but equality, fair distribution of economic growth and access to the much talked about economic growth.

Statistician Kresnayana Yahya from the November 10 Institute of Technology (ITS) analyzed the 2010 census results and found out that there would be 175 million potential voters in 2014. He added that 10-12 million youths who are under 18 years of age will be married and therefore eligible to vote. This brings the total potential of eligible voters to a whopping 187 million out of the total population of 250 million Indonesians.

The fact is that these 67 million new voters, which will be approximately 35 percent of the total number of voters in 2014, will be determining the future political landscape of Indonesia through their votes. No matter what sort of political discourse is taking place today among the political elites in Jakarta, the fact remains that there will be new voters who are not listening to the current political discourse in Jakarta. These new voters have their own dreams they are chasing.

These first-time voters will be swing voters, those who will have no allegiance to any political party and whose unpredictable decisions can swing the outcome of an election one way or the other. The current political elites in Jakarta will have no pull with new voters unless the elites start developing some capability to understand and embrace this emerging group of Indonesians.

More than 10 years after the inception of regional autonomy, population growth has been a catalyst to further allow regional voices to be broadcast, and demographic factors become a vehicle for the young all over Indonesia to demand a better life.

From my conversations with many of these youths all over Indonesia, these young people want a better life than their parents’. They also want to know why between June 2010 and June 2011, the total net worth of Indonesia’s top 150 tycoons rose by nearly 75 percent to US$107.9 billion (Globe Asia June 2011) and why during this same period Indonesia’s rank in the Human Development Index by the United Nations Development Program dropped significantly from 108 in 2010 to 124 in 2011. Stagnant and poor education and health indicators contributed to this decline.

Gone are the days where communities across Indonesia lived in isolation with no access to modernization. Television has brought isolated villagers in touch with modernization and has progressively increased their expectations of what modern life in Indonesia is all about.

Never mind that these expectations are unrealistic, the fact is that these isolated villagers and the young living in these places see the wealth on their televisions. Whose wealth? It’s not important who owns the wealth; the point is that they want access to it! This is only natural human behavior.

The rate of urbanization is also on the increase. The 2010 national census found that 120 million people or 49 percent of Indonesians live in cities and this number will continue to grow with the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) estimating Indonesia will reach a 68 percent urbanization rate by 2025. This means that people, mainly young people are leaving their villages and living in cities to seek a better life.

They believe that if they want to own a cellular phone or even a motorbike, they are not going to be able to buy it by being a farmer like their parents; instead, they must go and work in the big cities where they will have easier access to cash.

Even more forceful are the expectations of the first-time voters living in urbanized areas across Indonesia. Greater Jakarta (Jakarta, Bogor, Depok, Tangerang and Bekasi), which has a population of 29 million people, has an estimated 35 percent of new voters. This means that more than 10 million new voters are currently living around the Greater Jakarta area. They don’t see wealth only on television, but see it in real life just by visiting the malls in Central Jakarta, or by merely riding public transportation and ogling the beautiful and expensive cars driving around Jakarta.

Democracy must start delivering a better quality of life for all Indonesians, not just politically but socially and economically. Otherwise these 67 million first-time voters will start searching for other alternatives to replace democracy. ●