Why Jokowi must repeal ITE law? Ary Hermawan  ;  A staff writer at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 02 September 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                      

At first, it was just another ludicrous Internet story. A woman vented her resentment on social media and unwittingly infuriated an entire population of a centuries-old sultanate. She was harshly bullied and later apologized. This is a story that we know all too well. This happened before to a young lady in Depok who complained about having to give up her precious seat on a train to pregnant women, and to that British banker who referred to affluent Singaporean commuters as “the poor”. Florence Sihombing is not alone, and Yogyakarta is not the only city to have indicted a person in the court of social media. Our typical reaction would be to face-palm and remind ourselves again and again that the Internet is just such a terrible, terrible place. It’s pretty much like high school, but with millions of inconsiderate jerks. We were all hoping that Florence’s apology would be an end to her bad day on the Internet and we all could go back to our lives, until we heard the news that she was detained by the Yogyakarta Police — for doing what each one of us has been doing online long before Facebook, Twitter and Path were invented. Her story then went from the ridiculous to the disturbing. There is no question that what Florence did — calling Yogyakarta “poor”, “stupid” and “uncultured”— is not at all pretty. She should have been more considerate. But what she did is not a crime and should not be criminalized. For the sake of democracy, we must stand up to defend her. This is no longer about the people of Yogyakarta being over-sensitive (come on, folks, Jakarta has been the object of really nasty curses for decades). This is no longer about the cancer of online bullying. Her case has brought to light a serious flaw in our legal system, which threatens each and every one of us. The Gadjah Mada University student is the latest netizen to fall victim to the draconian Electronic Information and Transactions (ITE) Law. According to Florence’s lawyer, she has been charged under Article 27 of the 2008 law, which carries a maximum punishment of six years in prison and a Rp 1 billion (US$85,351) fine. Human rights activists and journalists have repeatedly called on the government to repeal this controversial law, arguing that it hinders freedom of speech and leads to human rights violations. The wording of the articles in the law, they argue, is open to interpretation and can, therefore, easily be abused. The law basically criminalizes “anyone who deliberately distributes or transmits electronic information or documents that contain slanderous and defamatory language”. While it is important to protect the public from slander and defamation, it is often unclear what constitutes slander and defamation on the web, and it is equally difficult to determine whether someone expressing his or her opinion on social media really intended to slander or defame others. In Florence’s case, it is totally preposterous that you can actually charge someone for hating a city and calling it “stupid” and “uncultured”. According to the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), at least 37 people were charged with criminal offenses under the law between 2008 and 2013. Many of them were people criticizing the powers that be or just expressing their personal opinions. Under the ITE regime, Prita Mulyasari, now an elected legislator from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), was sued by the Omni International Hospital in 2009 for defamation after she complained about the hospital’s services via an online mailing list. In 2012, Alexander Aan was accused of insulting Islam and jailed after writing on his Facebook page that God did not exist. More than anyone else, president-elect Joko “Jokowi” Widowo should be deeply concerned about Florence’s arrest and begin thinking of ways to reform our Internet law. This is because the success of his administration will very likely depend on how free and effective social media is in rallying public support for his policies. In other words, Internet freedom is required for his political survival. Jokowi already owes his ascendancy to national leadership to the millions of tweets and articles shared online endorsing his election bid. And now with most of the political parties at the House of Representatives standing against him and one of his coalition partners apparently threatening to leave should it obtain no ministerial posts in his Cabinet, Jokowi will need far greater public support to fend off the onslaughts of a hostile and more powerful legislative body. The 2014 presidential race was a bitter fight for supporters of losing candidate Prabowo Subianto and they are anxiously waiting for payback. The biggest problem is that any revocation of or revisions to the ITE Law lay in the hands of those lawmakers. But Jokowi should not be afraid, as an army of online volunteers will stand behind him for this. We cannot afford to retain the law; not because we want greater freedom to whine about our disappointing lives but because our new democracy — which relies heavily on the participation of online citizens — is at stake. ●

Election or ‘Muslim Idol’ contest Ary Hermawan  ;   A staff writer at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST,  30 Mei 2014

                                                

                                                                                         

                                                      

It has long been the norm that politicians use Islam as electoral bait. But never has it been so intense as in this year’s election, which resembles an idol contest to find the best Muslim president. The media reports that the candidates were challenged to engage in a Koran recital duel has left me flabbergasted. I am not sure whether the challenge was serious or just being sarcastic, but all these rumors about Joko “Jokowi” Widodo and Prabowo Subianto not being Muslim enough to lead the country are getting ridiculous and should be stopped. It was Mufidah Kalla, Jokowi’s running mate Jusuf Kalla’s wife, who told reporters that Jokowi and her husband were fed up with all the negative campaigning thrown against them. “Pak JK [Jusuf Kalla] said, if Jokowi keeps getting accused of [being a non-Muslim], he will hold a Koran recital contest between Jokowi and Prabowo,” she said on the sidelines of an event that was organized by a group known as the Green Hijabers (women in Muslim headscarves) to declare support for the Jokowi-Kalla pair. It is more upsetting that the Muslim leaders, who are also divided over the election, are taking this political farce so seriously. Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsuddin, who obtained his PhD from UCLA in the US, for instance, recently claimed that he once tested Jokowi by allowing him to lead a zuhur prayer. He said he briefly lost focus on his own prayers since he had to ensure that Jokowi got it all right. “Allhamdulillah, everything was correct. There was nothing wrong with [his prayers],” he said. Din might have meant well to reassure anxious voters, but, seriously, knowing how to pray in a correct manner should never be in a presidential resume. Whether or not a president will succeed has nothing to do with how correct or how often they pray. It is downright irrelevant. Prabowo is lucky to have gained the support of all the Islamic parties: the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), the Crescent Star Party (PBB) and the United Development Party (PPP). All he has to do is wear a peci and pray solemnly and observantly at the mosque to get the nod from Muslim voters, just as he did a few days and even hours before registering his candidacy. Pictures of him praying next to the nation’s political bigwigs including PPP leader Suryadharma Ali, now a graft suspect, can easily be found on the Internet. Regardless of whether Prabowo and Suryadharma are really devout Muslims, what they did is political kitsch at its most banal. And this is not going to end anytime soon. With the Islamic fasting month starting two weeks before voting day on July 9, the issue of religiosity will only intensify. During Ramadhan, most Indonesian Muslims try hard to look more devout and observant, and they listen to what the preachers say. Neither camp will waste the chance to bedevil each other from the pulpits. It is hard to fathom who is really to blame for this. Voters, I think, have become more rational and secular in the past few years. Poll results have confirmed that trend. But why then is this happening? I point my finger at a handful of small-minded Muslims and politicians who have never tired of playing this issue to advance their respective causes. They are currently engaged in fear mongering through social media, which is the most effective tool for spreading rumors and creating mass hysteria. Fear is an effective psychological instrument to sway voters during elections. Both camps have been capitalizing on this. Sadly, as of today, there is perhaps nothing more unsettling to many Indonesian voters than knowing that one of the presidential candidates is the enemy of Islam. It is such a shame that this is still happening now. For this is arguably the most interesting presidential election ever with both candidates having hard-core, die-hard supporters. Debates on social media about the pros and cons of the two contenders are so vibrant and intense that people are unfriending friends and even leaving Facebook because of it. It is also worth mentioning that Jokowi and Prabowo are very close to non-Muslims. Jokowi’s current deputy in Jakarta and former deputy in Surakarta are Christians. Prabowo’s mother and brother are also Christians. They should be the first to publicly denounce negative campaigns attacking candidates’ beliefs and should not play along with them by trying to present themselves as better Muslims. The two, I believe, have strong enough electoral power to do that. They could put this folly to rest if they wanted to. It is true that Muslims account for the largest share of the electorate in the country but there is nothing to gain from perpetuating the idea that someone needs to prove he is good Muslim to become a president. This is an election, not a “Muslim Idol” contest. ●

Political amnesia and the roots of the MK scandal

Political amnesia and the roots of the MK scandal Ary Hermawan  ;  A Staff Writer at The Jakarta Post JAKARTA POST, 08 Oktober 2013

Why are we surprised? The fact that our judiciary is riddled with corruption is a foregone conclusion. The recent arrest of Constitutional Court’s (MK) Chief Justice Akil Mochtar on corruption charges was shocking, but it was in fact something that we had known (or hoped) would happen sooner or later.

I am not saying that Akil — a former Golkar Party lawmaker — has always been notoriously corrupt. He is, constitutionally, innocent until proven otherwise. But we know for sure that there is something wrong with our judicial system, for it allows corruption to flourish. 

Akil’s arrest last week on suspicion that he took bribes to rig the results of two regional elections in Banten and South Kalimantan did nothing but confirm our long-held belief. 

The only surprise about the great Akil saga is the political amnesia of former Constitutional Court chiefs and all the politicians who joined the chorus of condemnation against the disgraced justice. His tragic fall from grace has so predictably created a perfect political juncture for attention-seeking politicians ahead of the 2014 general election. We should know that judicial graft is systemic and Akil is most likely not a black sheep. 

Former Constitutional Court chiefs Jimly Asshiddiqie and Mahfud MD were the first to lash out at Akil, with Jimly suggesting that his successor at the court be given the death sentence for tearing the court’s credibility into pieces. 

The only problem is that Jimly could be the person to blame for paving the way for graft in the 
court in the first place, by issuing in 2006 a controversial ruling curtailing the Judicial Commission (KY)’s power to oversee Constitutional Court and Supreme Court justices.

Jimly then presided over the trial of a judicial review request against the 2003 Judicial Commission Law filed by a dozen of the Supreme Court justices who sought to scrap the commission’s authority to oversee them. The Constitutional Court granted the justices’ request and also ruled, without being requested (also known as an ultra petita ruling), that Constitutional Court justices were not subject to Judicial Commission supervision. Jimly argued that the Supreme Court’s and Constitutional Court’s rulings are final and binding, and that no institution should examine them to avoid legal uncertainty. 

The ruling practically gave the Constitutional Court absolute judicial power. It did not take long for the court, which was established in October 2003, to face graft allegations after it began in the 2008 adjudicating local election disputes, which were previously handled by the Supreme Court. 

Under Mahfud’s leadership, the Constitutional Court was hit by two major graft scandals implicating justices Arsyad Sanusi and Akil. Arsyad resigned after being found guilty of an ethics breach, while Akil was cleared by an internal ethics committee. Despite the scandals, Constitutional Court justices continued to work without external oversight. 

The lawmakers have also been loud in blasting Akil. Democratic Party lawmaker I Gede Pasek Suardika, for instance, claimed that the House of Representatives had heard about the graft allegations against Akil since 2010. Ironically, Akil, who served as a lawmaker from 1999 to 2008, was fully endorsed by the House anyway. 

Even the House allowed Akil to extend his term last April without having to undergo a screening test to ensure that his integrity was uncompromised 

The House’s Commission III overseeing legal affairs, of which Akil was once a deputy chairman, then praised the 52-year-old justice, calling him an “old friend”.

Meanwhile, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said that he was deeply concerned by the bribery case, calling Akil’s arrest a “political tragedy”. 

He said that the government would issue a regulation in lieu of law, or Perppu, to improve the mechanism to select justices, which he said was flawed, pointing to the fact that politics often interfere in the process.

That is a commendable move, but we shall not forget that it was the President himself who blatantly disregarded a proper selection process when he appointed former law and human rights minister and former National Mandate Party (PAN) politician, Patrialis Akbar, as Constitutional Court justice. 

Patrialis’ appointment was seen as problematic in so many ways. He is first of all a politician. The selection process to pick him was not transparent and it was bizarre for the President to nominate his former law minister whom he had fired in 2011 for such an important post.

Yudhoyono, however, turned a deaf ear to his critics, who accused of him breaching the law, and inaugurated Patrialis anyway. In what could only be seen as a publicity stunt, Patrialis was the only Constitutional Court justice who came to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) when the agency announced Akil’s arrest. 

Regardless of whether the politicians are using Akil’s misfortune for their own political gains, the House’s and the government’s plan to reform the Constitutional Court, including the reinstatement of the Judicial’s power to oversee the court Commission’s, should be welcomed by all. 

The Constitutional Court is an important institution for our democracy, without which the public would not be able to fight for their constitutional rights. The court will also play a crucial role as the final adjudicator of electoral disputes after the general election next year. It is critical that civil society groups are involved in the making of new legislation to reform the court. 

We cannot afford to let it be controlled by politically wired justices that will again compromise its integrity for their personal interests. 

We are hoping the Akil saga will trigger real reform efforts and will not just be a stage for amnesia and attention-seeking politicians to bash Akil. ●

PKS and the beef scandal : Why be so defensive?

PKS and the beef scandal : Why be so defensive? Ary Hermawan ;  A Staff Writer at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 16 Mei 2013

Supporters of the Muslim-based Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) must hate the Internet right now. The party has long been a target of online mockery for its perceived self-righteousness. But in the past, it always managed to prove its critics wrong, until the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) arrested and detained its former leader, Luthfi Hasan Ishaaq, on corruption charges. 

This is undeniably the hardest time for PKS members. Their leaders are being summoned to the KPK, while gossip shows on TV are linking the nation’s largest Islamic party to the steamy scandals involving Ahmad Fathanah, a friend of Luthfi’s who is also the key suspect in the beef graft scandal.

For its critics, the scandal seems to confirm their long-held suspicions that the party is no different from any other political party. 

It did not take long for the ever-creative online citizens to mock the party as Partai Korupsi Sapi (the Beef Graft Party) when the scandal broke in January. 

I do not intend to bully the PKS. I am against bullying, but I know the way PKS members have been dealing with the scandal is not going to stop the bullies. It does not help that the party has chosen to make a case against the KPK for trying to do its job. Such a move will not only further tarnish the party’s image, it may also expose the flaw in the party’s political ideology.

Since the arrest of Luthfi, party members have been very defensive and airing suspicions that Luthfi and the party have been framed. They believe the graft allegation leveled against their former leader is the work of a conspiracy. Senior PKS politician Hidayat Nurwahid surmised that the Jews might have had a hand in it. 

Meanwhile, another senior PKS politician, Tifatul Sembiring, was busy tweeting about the murky past of Fathanah, who several PKS politicians have alleged is a secret agent assigned to destroy the party.

In short, the party is struggling to distance itself from Fathanah, whom it has repeatedly accused of using Luthfi’s name for his own gains.

Of course, the party has the right to defend Luthfi and it is only natural for its members to defend their former leader. After all, Luthfi is innocent until he is proven guilty in court but a court has not proven Fathanah guilty yet either. Why does the PKS believe Fathanah could be guilty, and not Luthfi?

It is hard to dismiss the impression that PKS members just do not believe their top leaders are capable of committing corruption. Unlike other parties, the PKS claims to carefully select its top leaders through a multi-layered recruitment process to ensure that no bad apples are chosen.

The party’s leadership is officially held by the majlis syura (religious council), some members of which are elected in a general election involving all party members and some others appointed by the elected members. Not all members can run for a seat in this powerful council. Only those who have passed certain recruitment stages are eligible to run.

As a party built by the tarbiyah (educational) movement, PKS members are taught and trained to obey their murabbi (personal patron) and qiyadah (party leadership). This is why the party has the ability to easily mobilize its militant membership at any time. As an Islamist party, PKS members believe that obeying their leaders and the party is a religious duty.

This system may prove effective in ensuring the party’s political machine runs effectively but it surely proves detrimental to nurturing internal democratic values as party members tend to see their leaders as infallible, as ulil amri (power holders) the Koran says must be obeyed.

It is worth noting that not a single top PKS politician has publicly said anything about the need to evaluate the oversight mechanism, if any, of its top leaders in the wake of the scandal. They all seem to take for granted that Luthfi is innocent. No one has criticized him for dealing with Fathanah — who is believed to be a womanizer with a long criminal record — in the first place. 

It is more troubling for the party that Fathanah personally knows Hilmi Aminuddin, who chairs the majlis syura and — along with his predecessor, Salim Segaf Al-Jufri — will serve in the majlis syura for life.

Instead of merely pointing their fingers at Fathanah, should not PKS members begin to ponder why Luthfi could so easily be dragged into Fathanah’s mischief? 

It is revealed that Luthfi and Fathanah were reported to the police in 2005 for a business scam. Luthfi managed to escape charges at the time, but Fathanah was convicted and sentenced to 3.5 years in prison. That was a warning. If Fathanah was known to have a bad track record, should someone within the party not have sounded the alarm when he approached Luthfi?

The problem with political Islam is the inability of those who believe in it to differentiate between the religious (absolute) and the secular (relative). They fail to realize that political leaders are human beings who make mistakes, and that people should be able to confront them when they do.

This is what seems to be happening with the PKS. While the secular parties are beset by cartel politics, the PKS is blinded by its own ideology. It appears that PKS activists are failing to acknowledge that their top leaders are no angels and should be subject to their scrutiny too. 

If that is the case, they could inadvertently protect their corrupt leaders in the name of religious devotion. That, in my view, is worse than whatever Fathanah did. ●

After Cebongan killings, a silent pact with the devil?

After Cebongan killings, a silent pact with the devil? Ary Hermawan ;  A Staff Writer at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 24 April 2013

  

The prison raid in Yogyakarta last month and the recent bombings in Boston are two totally unrelated events. But what transpired following the two incidents is eerily similar: Citizens lionizing the armed forces and willingly compromising their civil rights for the sake of security. It is chilling to see how many Indonesians glorify the 11 Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus) commandos for killing four inmates accused of slaying their former colleague. According to these supporters, the killings were justified because the victims were “murderous thugs”. In their minds, the soldiers were the heroes. Their victims were the bad guys who deserved to die. It is equally unsettling, though much less horrifying, to know that the US government did not read Dzhorkhar Tsarnaev his Miranda rights until a few days after his arrest. Some US citizens, angered by the heinous crimes the man allegedly committed, were supportive of the move, as they lauded the police for their successful mission. In this light, Dzokhar is a terrorist, an enemy of the state (He is actually still a suspect and not declared an “enemy combatant”). This trend is just disturbing. Indonesia and the US are among the world’s largest democracies. But, seeing that the people of both nations are seemingly willing to trade civil rights for security or protection shows that democracy is losing ground. Those who stand behind Kopassus have failed to understand that the four “thugs” accused of killing a soldier of the elite unit had the right to a fair trial. If they were found guilty, they could have been jailed or faced a firing squad. They did not, for whatever reasons, deserve to be shot dead while awaiting trial. This is why the Cebongan killings were by no means justified. The right to a fair trial applies in all countries that respect rule of law, including the US. Dzhokhar, a suspected terrorist, is a US citizen. Despite media reports and testimonies pointing to his involvement in the incident, he has the right to remain silent and have a lawyer defend him during questioning. The four murder suspects allegedly killed by the Kopassus soldiers and Dzhokhar are probably guilty as charged. But they are innocent until proven otherwise. This is what we stand for. This is how any civilized country should treat suspected criminals. But in desperate times, we are so blinded by fear and hatred that rational principles are tossed out the door. In our case, the most cited reason for justifying the Cebongan killings is the failure of the law enforcers to maintain security and uphold justice. Over the past few years, it has become quite common for Indonesians to reminisce about the good old days when Soeharto was still in power. It was safer. There were no thugs. There were no terrorists. The ghost of the iron-fisted leader is again haunting the nation at a time when democracy has been widely perceived as a breeding ground for chaos and insecurity. It is no surprise that in the lead up to the 2014 elections, pollsters have found support for the likes of former Kopassus commander (ret) Gen. Prabowo Subianto— Soeharto’s former son-in-law — is growing. People want stability and security even if it may cost them their rights. I am not saying that we do not need security. But, there is no need to sell our souls to the devil for it. It may be true that we are safer from terrorism and any form of vigilantism if we are living under a totalitarian state. But that is a Faustian bargain that in the end will put us on the losing side. If you approve what the Kopassus soldiers did, do note that your approval could only be seen as an implied license for the armed forces to commit extrajudicial killings. How do you know they will not abuse such power? What if their next victims are innocent? In less than a month after the prison killings, a group of Indonesia Military (TNI) soldiers reportedly attacked the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) headquarters in South Jakarta. The attack was triggered by a fracas involving a student and a soldier over a minor traffic incident. If somebody had been killed during the incident, would you still be defending the TNI? In times of frustration over hard-liners — be they terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda or religious vigilante groups like the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) — totalitarianism offers us an appealing quick fix. The Mephistopheles of our time are handing the government the power to encroach our freedom in return for artificial and temporal security. Writing for Salon.com, Andrew O’Hehir said that US citizens already traded their rights for security after the 9/11 attacks and they ended up getting neither of them. Time will tell whether they will end up trading more of their rights, with lawmakers there planning to use the Boston tragedy as a pretext to pass draconian bills such as CISPA. As a preacher of democracy, the US should know the world is watching how they treat the Boston bombings suspect. The world condemns the bombings and laments the loss of innocent lives, but the accused perpetrator has the right to due process. We are lucky that religious hard-liner groups, in a rare occurrence, were with us in blocking the contentious mass organization bill, which was seen by many as an attempt to bring the New Order back. But the growing support for Kopassus soldiers accused of extrajudicial killings shows that many Indonesians may really hope for the return of Soeharto’s authoritarianism. I am beginning to wonder, in the wake of the Cebongan killings, with people standing behind the rogue Kopassus soldiers, are we silently forging a Faustian deal with the ghost of Soeharto? The future suddenly looks so grim for Indonesia beyond 2014. ●

Jokowi is not the messiah, Jakartans must save their own city

Jokowi is not the messiah, Jakartans must save their own city Ary Hermawan ;  A Staff Writer at The Jakarta Pos

JAKARTA POST, 31 Oktober 2012

Okay, we get it. Jakartans are smitten with their new governor. Joko Widodo, popularly known as Jokowi, is convivial and down-to-earth, the kind of leader who is loved by his people for his common touch. He has been in the news for months, which is quite understandable. It has been a while since the last time the capital saw a leader who is as sympathetic and eccentric as the former Surakarta mayor. Everything he does seems to be unusual, unique and in the eyes of journalists, newsworthy. It is perhaps interesting to know what the governor will wear to work today or what he thinks of Guns N’ Roses. But, alas, there is no time to prolong his honeymoon period. There is a lot to be done for Jakarta. It is premature to expect immediate results from Jokowi. It has only been two weeks, but it is high time for the public to set aside their infatuation for the new governor, and begin scrutinizing what the man in charge is doing and is planning to do to make the Big Durian a more livable place. The governor has a lot of plans. He said he wanted to revive the abandoned monorail project, build low-cost apartments for squatters currently living on the city’s grimy riverbanks, construct an arts center not inferior to the Esplanade, and erect decent buildings for street vendors. He also plans to rejuvenate the city’s nondescript public vehicles, like the Metromini and the Kopaja. In the next days, the administration will begin doling out monthly allowances — in a program called “smart cards” — to students from the low-income families to support their education. This program has been a success in Surakarta and Jokowi wants to replicate it here. That sounds great. But can he do it? If he can, how will he do it? This is not the time to be cynical and reactionary. We know that Jokowi has inspired many a citizen who wants Jakarta to change, and who came to the polling stations on Sept. 20 to make it a reality. But this is by no means a pretext to be less critical of him or even treat him like a messianic figure whose deeds, no matter how incomprehensible they are, will save us all. His plan to build a monorail system, for example, should be scrutinized. Is the monorail the right solution to Jakarta’s chronic traffic woes?  In Australia, the New South Wales government announced earlier this year that it would scrap Sydney’s monorail as it could no longer rationalize its costly upgrades.  In Malaysia, the government had to buy KL Infra, which operated the monorail in Kuala Lumpur, when it declared bankruptcy in 2007.  Can Jakarta afford to have a monorail and the Mass Rapid Transportation (MRT) constructed at the same time? Is it possible for the private sector to operate the monorail without government subsidy? Is it possible to build the MRT without foreign loans? The governor vowed to cut spending and focus on projects that would benefit the people the most. But he has also pledged to build new public utilities that will drain the city’s coffers.  Deputy Governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama surprisingly said he planned to build flyovers and underpasses for every railway crossing in the capital.  According to the Public Works Ministry, the project alone may cost Rp 2.8 trillion (US$246 million) or 6.8 percent of Jakarta’s budget for 2012. How can Jokowi keep his promise to build costly infrastructure while striving to spend much less public money than the previous administration? This year’s budget is Rp 41.3 trillion, up from Rp 31 trillion last year. Jokowi said next year’s budget would be lower than this year’s. I am not saying that Jokowi will be unable to fulfill his pledges. He is known to be a clean official who managed to make several breakthroughs during his six-year term as Surakarta mayor, an achievement that gave him the honor to represent the country in a competition to find the world’s best mayor. If corruption is the only thing that stalls development in the capital, Jokowi has the chance to prove the skeptics wrong. But he won’t be able to do it alone, given the great challenges he is facing to fix Jakarta. Unlike his predecessor, Fauzi Bowo, Jokowi is not “an expert on Jakarta”. What sets him apart from the other mayors and governors is his willingness to listen and to engage the public in devising his policies. In short, Jokowi’s style of leadership allows and requires greater public participation to work. The power of social media that helped Jokowi win the election should therefore go beyond defending him against the onslaught of reactionaries in the City Council or within the bureaucracy.  The fact that Jokowi is open to dialogue and criticism is the reason why being critical of him is a prerequisite for him to succeed in carrying through his tough mission as Jakarta leader. Urban activists have long complained about how they have been sidelined in developing Jakarta. Now is the time for Jakartans to get more involved by ensuring that Jokowi will not be just another politician trying to make money for himself or his political party.  Now is the time when being critical matters. Jokowi is neither the Messiah nor an expert on Jakarta. The future of the Big Durian is in the hands of its own inhabitants. ●