The Sept. 30, 1965 massacre :  We just don't care Kornelius Purba ;  Senior Managing Editor of The Jakarta Post

                                               JAKARTA POST, 27 September 2015

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                           

“It is difficult to judge the past by the criteria of the present,” Pope Francis said in his address before Congress in Washington on Thursday. He made this remark in reference to the sufferings of Native Americans when immigrants flocked to the continent and treated the people — who had been there long before the arrival of Europeans — in a brutal way. CNN broadcasted live the historic event. When the Pope talked about the difficulty of judgment, I immediately remembered the defensive statements of Indonesian activists who were involved or followed very closely the national tragedy that occurred 50 years ago. In his remark, the Pope also asked all Americans to learn from the oppression of the Native Americans and to make sure that it would not occur again. On Wednesday, Sept. 30, Indonesia will hold the 50th commemoration of the butchering of innocent and guilty victims either because they were members of the now-defunct Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) or because they were assumed to be communists or supporters of the party. Hundreds of thousands — some even speculated millions — were killed throughout the country. We will never know the exact number of people who were jailed without trials or those who were taken by force from their families. Nor will we ever know many of these people’s whereabouts. After 50 years, will we as a nation be willing to reconcile with the past and help heal those who are still suffering from our uncivilized acts as a nation? I am very confident about my answer to that question: Indonesians will never be willing to openly and honestly make peace with the past. It will remain an unresolved case forever! “We only had two choices in 1965: To kill or be killed. Now human rights activists and film makers describe us as perpetrators while our enemies are innocent victims,” that was the common answer coming from activists at that time when asked about the horrors, which lasted several weeks. As a 7-year old boy, I followed what had happened at that time, as I have testified in my previous writings. I still vividly remember how weeks before the tragedy, the communists intimidated my father, an elementary school teacher, simply because he was a devout Catholic. At that time, the communists in my home town were very confident that the PKI would rule Indonesia. Even their children also bullied me and my siblings. But I also still remember the fearful expression of those children when military and anti-communist youths tortured their fathers in front of their houses. Many of my childhood friends could not get a proper education and could not find decent jobs, or they had to let themselves be adopted by other people in order to cover up their true identity. It lasted for 32 years until the fall of President Soeharto in May 1998. Do you need a concrete example? Indonesia’s fifth president Megawati Soekarnoputri is a living witness. She and her siblings had to endure unbearable pains just because their father was Sukarno, the country’s first president. Soeharto’s regime once branded Sukarno as a PKI member or supporter. Fifty years have passed. President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has indicated that he would address the nation about the atrocities. But I am ready to bet that there will not be any meaningful change in our attitude! I will not blame Jokowi, because he has nothing to do with the gross human rights abuses. The President has set up an inter-ministerial team to formulate a kind of reconciliation with the past, but at least until Friday this team failed to make any significant progress. Will the President apologize to the victims on all sides? No. His predecessor Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was very reluctant to touch the issue for several reasons, including the fact that his father-in-law, the late Gen. (ret.) Sarwo Edhie Wibowo, played a key role in crushing the PKI. Megawati also refrained from taking a drastic stance to restore the honor of her father. Yudhoyono even failed to realize his promise to an activist to arrest the person who stabbed him a few years ago. Of all our predecessors, only our fourth president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid proved that he was very willing to reopen the case and try to settle it. Why would I dare say that the crimes against humanity in 1965 will remain a mystery? In our culture, especially Javanese culture, we tend to hide dirt under the mat. We are reluctant to settle embarrassing problems. We prefer to pretend that nothing wrong has happened. There are so many smaller human rights abuses in this country, but most of them remain in the dark not just because of the government’s failure, but we as a nation tend to take on an attitude of self-denial. Soeharto’s regime was also very successful in brainwashing the people through school textbooks. Probably most Indonesians still believe Soeharto’s version of the 1965 tragedy. We believe that communism is still an extremely dangerous threat for Indonesia, while communists in China have chosen the market economy to develop their nation. We are very anti-communist, but very eager to be friendly to the economic superpower. Nothing will happen this Wednesday, because we will pretend to not know or forget about the barbaric acts. ●

Sept. 30, 1965, tragedy : Let bygones be bygones Kornelius Purba  ;   Senior managing editor of The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 17 Mei 2015

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                           

I was a small kid at the time, but I still have some memory of what happened before and after the so-called failed coup attempt by the Indonesia Communist Party (PKI) on Sept. 30, 1965, 50 years ago. My father, a teacher at a Catholic elementary school in Pematang Siantar, a small city in North Sumatra, had to hide for months, especially at nights, before the tragedy that reportedly claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians. He told us that some local PKI leaders threatened to kill him, because of his position as a Catholic activist and as a teacher. We lived in fear and terror. Our teachers ordered the students to dig deep and wide holes in front of our schools. We never knew the purpose at that time. Only later we were told that they were designed for mass burials. My father was not alone. In our village, the PKI had the upper hand. They bullied their political enemies. Their children also informed us that we would lose our father soon and that we would also lose everything when their fathers were in power. My father told my mother that he had lost several friends because they refused to join the communist party. From my childhood memory, I concluded that the communists were responsible for the deaths and missing persons. From the perspective of a small boy, I believed I would become an orphan when the communists ruled the country. After the Sept. 30, 1965, tragedy, the PKI was banned. I still remember many villagers disappearing or going to jail after that. They were treated brutally. Many of them never returned to their families, and only very few were taken to court. Their children became pariahs. They could not continue their education. Even when they had good education, it was impossible for them to become civil servants. They lost nearly everything, including their property, and more importantly, their dignity. But to be honest, I did relish their sufferings. Until now I still remember the true PKI members, and some are still alive. Many villagers were also innocent victims. Farmers often could not buy fertilizer when they refused to be registered as members of the PKI or its affiliated organizations. Free rice and other staple foods were also distributed to party members only. Many illiterate people were forced to put their fingerprints on documents although they knew nothing of the documents’ contents. Many became members without their full consent, just because their village chiefs forced them. In schools, Indonesian children were taught about the brutality of the PKI. We were brainwashed. Our teachers taught us that we should thank Soeharto, because without his heroic bravery, Indonesia would be ruled by the ruthless communists, who would kill anyone following a religion. Religion would be an unforgivable sin. We were also taught that the country’s first president, Sukarno, was the mastermind of the 1965 coup attempt. After Soeharto’s fall in May 1998, there were some attempts to honestly and transparently reassess the history textbooks, and to rehabilitate the victims of the tragedy. When Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid briefly served as the country’s fourth president from October 1999 to July 2001, he boldly adopted major policies to reopen the crimes against humanity, and guaranteed the safety of alleged PKI members who wanted to return from overseas exile. This year we will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the tragedy. President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has announced his intention to reopen major human rights abuses in the country, including the Sept. 30 tragedy. But I can bet that he will not dare create “unnecessary problems” for himself, because all Soeharto’s successors, including Sukarno’s own daughter and former president Megawati Soekarnoputri, refuse to touch the sensitive issue. I doubt we are willing to seek the truths of the past and reconcile with them. If a referendum were held now, I suspect that the majority of Indonesians would say: “Why should we reopen old wounds?” The nation succeeded in forcing Soeharto to end his 32-year dictatorship on May 21, 1998, after riots, killings, immolations and rapes of innocent victims in Jakarta and other cities. However, until his death 10 years later, the retired five-star general was completely untouchable. The gross human rights violations that occurred before and around his fall remain in the dark. The alleged perpetrators are still free. Soeharto’s immediate successor, B.J. Habibie, swore that he would bring all the perpetrators to justice. But as Soeharto’s former “golden boy’” he could do not much. How about Megawati? She has not achieved much that could restore the name of her father Sukarno, who was accused as the mastermind of the 1965 massacre. Former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono also promised much during his 10-year tenure, but he acted just like his predecessors. All the atrocities and gross human rights violations will likely remain in the dark. Not just because our leaders refuse to lead the nation to make peace with the past, but worse, because as a nation we prefer to bury the past. So what will happen on Sept. 30 this year? I guess as a nation we will choose to let bygones be bygones. ●

Bakrie 2019 : The Return of Soeharto Kornelius Purba  ;   Senior managing editor of The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 07 Desember 2014

                                                                                                                       

Golkar Party chairman Aburizal Bakrie easily won his reelection as party boss in Bali this week because of, among other reasons, his convincing assurance that  he would make local party leaders in 415 cities and regencies and 34 provinces across the country become mayors, regents or governors. They would not need to make any preparations or woo voters. Voters would be meaningless. His mantra was enticing: let us repeat what Soeharto did for the country! During his 32-year rule, Soeharto’s Golkar completely controlled the country. Only Soeharto had the right to decide on regents, mayors and governors and on nearly all aspects of life in Indonesia. The glorious era of Soeharto and Golkar should be restored was the message in Bali. And Golkar is very close to the goal of reviving Soeharto’s heyday. Now, when party members want to get lucrative local government positions, they only need two things: Aburizal’s blessing and money! How about Aburizal’s own future? The business tycoon — some of his companies are reportedly facing serious financial problems — aims to replace President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo in 2019. Aburizal expects it to be a very smooth win. Even when 150 million voters do not want him to lead the country, he can ignore them. In 2019, Aburizal believes, Golkar will fully control the country at all levels. It will be very easy for him to get full control of the country into his own hands. Just ignore the Constitution, which mandates a direct presidential election. As the second-largest political party after the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), Golkar, Aburizal firmly believes, will be the final arbiter in all political aspects of the country by means of indirect elections. There will be no more direct elections. Since 2005 Indonesian voters have had the right to directly elect their mayors, regents and governors. And since 2004, voters have had the right to choose their head of state and government. The Golkar-led Red-and-White Coalition rejects the people’s constitutional right.  Indonesians will be denied their right to determine the future of the nation. The coalition leaders apparently believe that God has entrusted Aburizal and the loser of the July presidential election, Prabowo Subianto, with the authority to abolish the direct-election system because it is too costly and too complicated for them (in their eyes, Indonesians are probably too stupid to practice democracy). Golkar under Aburizal’s leadership will take all necessary means to enforce the Law on Regional Elections. His success is almost guaranteed.  Shortly before ending his term of office in October, then president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono issued a government regulation in lieu of law (Perppu) to annul the law that reinstated indirect local elections. To me, Yudhoyono is a traitor to our democracy. His Democratic Party fully supported the law. He became president for 10 years thanks to the direct-election system. He issued the Perppu simply because people were angry with his party’s support for the law. He is a great pretender; a genius soap opera actor. The law was supported by Golkar, the Democrats, Gerindra, the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), the National Mandate Party (PAN) and the United Development Party (PPP). The House of Representatives will decide the fate of the Perppu early next year and, Insya Allah (God willing) the Red-and-White Coalition believes, it will face no serious opposition to annulling the Perppu and restoring the indirect-election system. Let me give a few examples. Next year the popular Surabaya Mayor Tri Rismaharini will end her first five-year term. She would easily win reelection under the direct-election system. But now chairman of Golkar’s Surabaya chapter Adies Kadir knows for sure he stands a great chance of taking over the mayor’s position simply with Aburizal’s consent and of course money. The money is needed to buy the votes of 50 members of Surabaya Legislative Council. It is much cheaper and easier for Adies because he does not need the votes of actual Surabaya citizens.  As long as the 50 legislators are happy with him, and as long as Aburizal likes him, Rismaharini can do nothing to beat him. Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama will end his term in 2017. From this point on Golkar chairman of Jakarta chapter Zainudin should accumulate his financial resources. Of course he must also make sure that Aburizal does not change his mind and pick another person to contest the 2017 gubernatorial election. Isn’t it so very easy? Thanks to Soeharto, Aburizal believes that he will also be able to pursue his dream of becoming president. In public of course he must hide his ambition. From now on he just needs to concentrate on how to amend the Constitution and in 2019 there will be no more direct presidential elections. The People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) will take over the voting right of Indonesians to elect their president. The MPR comprises the 560-member House and the 132-member Regional Representative Council. Changing the Constitution apparently is just a technicality for Aburizal, as he pointed out in a recent interview with a national newspaper how an indirect presidential election was possible. Aburizal only needs to find effective ways to eliminate his potential rivals, including Prabowo, in the 2019 (indirect) presidential election. With former Golkar chairman Akbar Tandjung as his chief advisor, it seems that Aburizal will not face any hurdles to realizing his promise and dream: indirect elections. The Jokowi camp, the Great Indonesia Coalition, is trying to weaken the Red-and-White Coalition. At least for a while, Aburizal and Prabowo are still in full control of the coalition. So, Soeharto’s complete return in 2019 is almost guaranteed. ●

A view reasons to be proud of my nation Kornelius Purba  ;   Senior Managing Editor at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST,  06 Juli 2014

Voters will know on Wednesday evening, based on quick counts, whether their ticket of choice will lead the country. But I dare to bet that no significant violent protests will follow the July 9 presidential election. Of course that is not to say that the die-hard supporters of the losing pair will be disappointed, but they will not waste much of their energy defying the victor of the “fiesta of democracy”. The public will accept the winners no matter how bitter or painful the results of judgment day are for them. It is very boring for me to hear the same old song from the lips of the “highly educated” — both Indonesians and foreigners alike — that the majority of Indonesians are not ready for democracy because they lack education and live in poverty. Wrong! Baseless! We, Indonesians, have proved to the world four times since 1999 that only a tiny fraction of the population is pushing against democracy. They may be small in number but are, of course, very powerful and have little respect for democracy if it runs counter to their ego. This small group of elites, thirsty for self-entitled control, desire a democratic system that will guarantee them the freedom to exploit the public and plunder our natural resources, all to satisfy their endless hunger. They think they are God-appointed envoys, with the “right” to do whatever they like. They think they are the supreme holders of the nation’s sovereignty and the rest should behave as their — often unpaid — servants. To make my position clear, I am from a working class background. My late father was a former elementary school teacher and my mother was just a peasant. Don’t worry, I will not talk about certain presidential candidate here, because legally campaign activities are prohibited from July 6 up to July 9. Indonesia is the third-largest democracy after India and the United States. We were able to win this accolade in less than a decade. We may have the right to elect our leaders but we must acknowledge that local elections are still far from ideal. Indonesia is the largest Muslim-majority nation, and as a Catholic, I firmly believe that the most of my Muslim compatriots are moderate and tolerant. Isn’t it an amazing achievement for a nation that was a dictatorship for 53 years? It is true that certain serious problems — corruption, rule of law, clean governance — are yet to be fully routed out. We also still have to follow up on the Constitutional right of freedom of religion in some parts of the country and protection of minorities, there are also threats of terrorism and radicalism. You can add more to the list, and I may agree with you, but you should remember that these problems are purely the problems of my country. Indonesians were only able to exercise full democracy in the legislative election on June 7, 1999: one year after we forced Soeharto to end his 32-year dictatorship on May 21, 1998. From independence, Aug. 17, 1945, until 1998, the country was ruled by two dictators: Sukarno and Soeharto. All elections during their rule were highly fabricated, although some historians argue there was a democratic election in 1955 (the only election under Sukarno). In 1999, international observers like the Carter Foundation and international media organizations like CNN, covered the elections. Many analysts and thinkers from top domestic universities shared the international community concern that riots would erupt after the elections because “Indonesians knew nothing about freedom and democracy”. How wrong they were! After Soeharto’s fall, many academics predicted that Indonesia would fall apart — the balkanization of Indonesia. They eloquently came up with a very convincing scenario that Indonesia was doomed for the same fate of the former Soviet Union country of Yugoslavia. It was true that there were difficulties in Aceh, Maluku, Poso in Sulawesi, and in Papua. But yet, here we are today and the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia still exists. The first ever direct-presidential election was held in Indonesia in 2004. It is a popular voting system. Even many of the much more advanced countries like Japan now are behind us in this regard. In 2009, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono won a landslide victory, securing his second term. The retired general was Indonesia’s first directly elected leader. Both the 2004 and 2009 legislative and presidential elections were peaceful and democratic. In the legislative election this year, voters punished political parties, whose images had been sullied by high-profile corruption cases over the last five years. Indonesia is a great nation thanks to the public’s wholehearted acceptance that we are headed in the right direction toward a fully-fledged democracy. We still have a long road fraught with challenges ahead. ●

We must not allow parasites to take control of our nation Kornelius Purba  ;   Senior managing editor at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST,  04 Mei 2014

                                                

                                                                                         

                                                      

Riau Governor Annas Maamun recently became outraged when journalists asked about his ridiculous nepotistic practices. What usually happens is government officials or politicians provide business facilities or access for members of their family or relatives but the governor has gone further by employing his children, in-laws and other relatives as staff members in his office. The former Rokan Hilir regent insisted he did nothing wrong when he promoted his son-in-law Dwi Agus Sumarno to be head of Riau’s Education Agency. He appointed his daughters Fitriana and Windu Desrina to other lucrative positions. Meanwhile his 27-year-old son Noor Charis Putra got a new position at the lucrative Public Works Agency. Technically, perhaps there is nothing wrong with the governor’s acts. But in my view such a practice should be completely prohibited. The governor has accumulated power and influence by promoting his own children and relatives. Annas is close to creating a mini kingdom in the province. He is smart in finding legal loopholes but again this is totally unacceptable. I believe we must put a stop to such dirty practices or at least to minimize them. Let me share my views. First, there is an urgent need for the government and the House of Representatives to issue strict government regulations and laws restricting blatant nepotism and limiting the power to issue business permits at a local level. Why is this so important? Regional autonomy has created many miniature “kingdoms” and “kings” or “queens” in the form of governors, regents and mayors. They are so powerful that they can easily veto or simply ignore the central government’s policies or laws. Many governors or regents issue business licenses even though it is very clear they are not allowed by law to do so. The central government is often powerless against local rulers. Just look at the education budget. The state is obliged to allocate 20 percent of the state budget for education. These huge funds are very meaningful in enhancing the quality of the country’s education. In realty the central government and also the local government make their own interpretation about the constitutional mandate. At the local government level, the situation is even worse because local councils and administrations often use a major portion of their education budget for other development projects. It often happens that teachers find great difficulties in getting their special allowances from the central government. They are supposed to receive extra pay every quarter but it rarely happens, sometimes they have to wait for more than a year. The governors, regents and mayors often “borrow” the money without any explanation. This practice is rampant and the Education and Culture Ministry blames the local governments for the failure. I myself have personally checked the accuracy of the teachers’ complaints. Some teachers are only able to get what is rightfully theirs after their letters are published in national newspapers. Second, incumbent state officials should resign from their current position if they want to try their luck in another post. In the April legislative election several Cabinet members such as Youth and Sports Minister Roy Suryo Notodiprojo were nominated by their parties to contest the polls. Roy failed but he will remain in his post as a minister until a new president is sworn in October. Very strict legal regulations should be issued. Such candidates must think twice before their nomination to run for the House. Political opponents have urged Jakarta Governor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo to resign from his post before his official registration as a presidential candidate next month. At first glance their demands are sensible, but what they pretend to forget is that Jokowi is not the first state official to have done this. He has just followed the general tradition and practice. As long as the laws and government regulations still have such large loopholes or still tolerate the practice, it is not fair for his rivals — none of whom apparently have any official position — to restrict Jokowi’s right to run in the presidential race. Third, the nation also needs to reconsider our generosity in allowing almost any citizen to contest the legislative elections. Many of the candidates for national and local legislative councils borrow money from banks or relatives or sell their assets to finance their campaigns or to lure voters. They cannot afford to finance their ambitions. Many failed candidates have to see psychiatrists because they are too depressed to accept their failure and the financial obligations that they must now meet. All candidates should be required to deposit a minimum amount of money at a bank and the General Elections Commission (KPU) (at local and national level) should have access to the accounts, and the money should be used to pay their obligations or to pay fines for their failure. Only financially capable candidates — in addition to other requirements — should be allowed to join the race. Many legislators have engaged in corruption because they have to show a return on their investment, they must accumulate wealth to finance their reelection and to maintain the loyalty of their constituents. Many political parties are dependent on the state subsidy, the amount of which is determined by the percentage of the votes they get in the elections. Any citizens have the right to set up political parties because the constitution guarantees this freedom. But the leaders and members of the parties need to have their own financial resources to fund their activities. Political parties should be able to meet certain financial requirements before their official registration. Many countries have adopted this policy including the world’s largest democracy, India. All citizens have the freedom to realize the dream of becoming state officials or to set up political parties. But they should not allow themselves to become parasites that suck state funds in order to finance their ambitions. ●

Facing violent protests from election losers Kornelius Purba  ;   Senior managing editor at The Jakarta Post

JAKARTA POST, 06 April 2014

                                      

                                                                                         

                                                             

A Jakarta-based foreign journalist recently described his difficulties in explaining to newspaper readers about the 12 political parties that are participating in the April 9 legislative election. His editor asked him to write an article explaining the unique characteristics of the election contenders. He categorized them into two groups: Secular and Islamic parties. “My editor turned down my report because, according to him, the secular and Islamic parties are very similar to each other,” he explained. I urged him to explain why the editor concluded that secular parties like the Democratic Party and the Golkar Party are not significantly different to the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS). “They are all equally crazy in committing corruption,” the journalist laughed. We do not need to conduct a thorough study to find the truth in such a sarcastic conclusion. It is a common perception in all levels of society that most Indonesian legislators at city, provincial and national levels are lazy, corrupt, irresponsible and greedy. Civil society organizations have worked hard to help voters by enlisting candidates who have good track records although their names are almost unknown. Though this is helpful for many people, it is not without problems, as in my own case. I have a friend who I would like to represent me in the city council because of his social work. However, I discounted his name because he represented a party that was founded by a leader who has a horrifying track record in human rights. It is not impossible that voter turnout will be low on Wednesday because many think voting is just a waste of time and they are indifferent about the “fiesta of democracy”. I have always told my three children to exercise their voting rights no matter how pessimistic they are about their country. For me, one vote really matters. In my view it is immoral for voters to complain about the government and the state if they decline to use their privilege to vote. The decision of Megawati Soekarnoputri to nominate Jakarta Governor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo as the candidate of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) in the July presidential election was a big boost for encouraging people to vote. Jokowi is likely the only potential presidential candidate who owes nothing to Soeharto’s regime. So far Jokowi is the strongest candidate in the July race. Many first-time or young voters are eager to support the PDI-P on April 9 because they want their favorite candidate be able to fulfill the requirements -- 25 percent of the total vote or 20 percent of seats in the House of Representatives -- to contest as the party’s representative, without the obligation to form a coalition with other political parties. On Wednesday evening, we will get enough of an indication about the winners of the legislative election. The winners will celebrate their victory, and the losers (individuals or organizations) will likely try to find scapegoats. Learning from the experience of local elections, where losers often staged noisy and even violent protests, it is very likely similar incidents will occur again. They will blame cheating as the only reason for their failure. However, the protests will likely be sporadic, because people will prefer to keep their distance from the losers. There is still another potential source of disaster: The Constitutional Court. The court lost its credibility following the arrest and trial of its former chairman Akil Mochtar, who allegedly accepted billions of rupiah from winners and losers of local elections. The court was once regarded as being among the few state institutions, along with the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), that still have credibility in the eyes of the people. The court’s justices have the potential to abuse their power by enriching their own families or helping their political connections. The probability of this occurring is quite high. The General Elections Commission (KPU) faces pressure to prove that it is indeed an independent institution. Temptation is very high among its commissioners because they could accept money or government positions from individuals or political parties if they helped to manipulate election results. The situation in Aceh is worrying too. Aceh is the only province with the privilege of having its own local political parties. The local elites, however, are facing horizontal conflicts. Unlike in the past, Acehnese people cannot blame the central government if violence erupts after the election. They must blame their own leaders for shooting or killing one another. Jokowi will likely be able to contest the presidential election without the assistance of other parties. Many people are asking about his running mate for the July race. One thing is sure; the founder of the Gerindra Party, Prabowo Subianto, will not accept such a position. But let us wait until after the legislative election to discuss the vice presidential candidate. For the fourth time since the nation forced Soeharto to end his iron-fist rule in May 1998, Indonesia will hold a legislative election. On Wednesday, Jakarta’s voters will have the right -- in Indonesia voting is a right not an obligation, though persuading other people not to use their constitutional right is a crime -- to decide who will represent them in the city council, the House and the arguably useless Regional Representatives Council (DPD). Indonesian people have proved to the world that they are as civilized as other people in other democratic countries in adopting democratic principles. Our biggest problem is the immature, selfish and greedy political elites who are never prepared to accept their failures. The nation must be ready to face the impact of protests from the election’s losers. ●