IMO default category
What are the things to look forward to? Foreign Policy curated twenty elections that could change the world in 2012. Jakarta will also hold its gubernatorial elections this year, though I doubt any significant changes will be made after the elections.
The House of Representatives (DPR) passed a Law on Land Provision for the Development for Public Interest on Friday (16/12).
For those who have been involved in infrastructure provision in Indonesia, the new land law provided a breath of fresh air in the process of acquiring land that is much needed for infrastructure projects in the country. The Law is not a novel policy, but in the form of Law (Undang-undang) it provided better legal certainty compared to the previous Presidential Regulation stipulating the similar matter.
Based on the Law, it set a timeframe for acquiring land, whereby all of the land acquisition process should be finished within a maximum of 436 working days, which includes notification, public consultation, and dispute settlement mechanisms that provides legal protection for rightful landowners to get their fair share of compensation.
Compensation is also not limited to money, as rightful landowners can be compensated through land swaps, resettlement, stock ownership or any other forms agreed by both parties.
Agrarian reform activists fear that the Law can be used to forcefully take land for the benefit of corporations, such as in the recent case of Mesuji whereby farmers’ land are allegedly taken away by force for palm oil and rubber plantations. The Law, however, specifies exactly which categories of projects are eligible in the name of “public interests” and palm oil is not included. Moreover, the Law emphasizes that it is the responsibility of the state to acquire land from rightful land owners. Even if they are in a public-private partnership agreement for a project, any risks involved in acquiring land is shouldered by the government.
The term “rightful land owners” imply that landowners truly own their piece of land and are registered, not just simply owning a land certificate. Problems will then arise with those whose lands are not registered, and considering that most indigenous land or ulayat rights in Indonesia are not registered, the fears of landowners being evicted out of their land – their home – is not baseless.
There are due process mechanisms in the new Law to ensure that anyone who is affected with the land acquisition can voice out their concerns. However, embedded in the spirit of the Law is the assumption that at least two enabling conditions are in place: that Indonesia has an efficient land registration system and an effective land-use planning.
Unless we get these two enabling conditions right, no matter how good the land acquisition law and its bylaws are drafted, implementation will still be difficult.
Last week US President Barrack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard unveiled the plan of establishing a US base equipped with 2,500 US marines in Darwin, Australia’s Northern Territory, only 820 kilometers from Indonesian territory. The Jakarta Post reported that the new US base should not be a threat to Indonesia, as President Yudhoyono was reassured by Gillard that “Australia and the US meant no harm in their plan to build military base in Darwin.”
International Law Professor Hikmahanto Juwana was quick to analyze that US interests may change from time-to-time, thus he warned that Indonesia should nevertheless be cautious about the US military presence in Australia. A part of that cautiousness was also attributed to whether the US would intervene among the rising tensions in the Papua region of Indonesia. Although during the recent visit, US Defense Secretary Leon Panettavoiced support for Indonesia’s strong stance against the Papua separatist movement.
The US and Australia have always been strong allies since a very long time, and as Michael Wesley from Lowy Institute have mentioned in an AlJazeera interview:
Australians tend to think with the American alliance as an insurance policy. We’re paying our premiums, we go to Afghanistan, we go to Iraq, and we just hope that the insurance premium will come when we’re in trouble.
And this is not a reason for Indonesia to be cautious with either Australia or the US?
One possibility of why Obama paved the way for the military base in Australia was to have a strategic position in the region especially to counter China’s influence. China was also quick to react to the plan, saying that “one should consider other regional countries’ interests when developing ties in that region”. Indeed, Stephen Walt from Foreign Policy explained why the US have been shifting a lot of strategic attention to Asia and mostly it is to contain China’s growing powers.
A friend once joked that when two elephants fight, the grass suffers. But when two elephants make love, the grass suffers also. It is too early to tell what Indonesia can get out of this positioning, but surely we need to figure out how to make the best out of the situation.
What Indonesia can learn from Singapore on how to manage their prisons.
A former inmate of Salemba Penitentiary, Syarifudin S. Pane, released a video from his cellphone taken in 2008 depicting the conditions inside the prison and the stark contrast between the treatment of inmates convicted of corruption and other crimes.
Syarifudin claimed that Block K – notorious for housing convicted corruptors such as Nurdin Halid (former Chairman of Indonesian Soccer Association, for illegal smuggling of imported sugar and corruption of cooking oil distribution) and Said Agil (former Minister of Religious Affair, for corruption of Hajj funds) – have rooms equipped with air-conditioning, refrigerator, water dispenser, and even gym and karaoke facilities inside the block, all with the price of IDR 30 million (US$3,330) per room in addition to IDR 1,250,000 (US$135) per month for electricity, security and cleaning services.
Despite the oddities of why Syarifudin was allowed to bring a cellphone inside the prison in the first place, the story of exclusive treatment of inmates with the expense of bad treatment of others is not new in Indonesia. In early 2010, for example, the head of Pondok Bambu Penitentiary was released from his duties along with the rotation of several prison officers due to the case of Artalyta Suryani’s penitentiary pent house.
How do you prevent discriminatory treatment such as these in Indonesia when you know that the very institution that is supposed to penalize corruption is corrupt? In this post I examine the organization of prisons in Indonesia and roughly explain how it is done in Singapore.
***
Before we move on, it is important to know the difference between a penitentiary (rumah tahanan) and correctional facility (lembaga pemasyarakatan) in the Indonesian criminal justice system. A penitentiary is a temporary place where criminal suspects are held, pending of their final and binding decision from the court regarding their punishment. Correctional facilities on the other hand is a place where convicted criminals are held, and it is where they are supposed to get their guidance and re-education before entering into society again.
By function, penitentiaries and correctional facilities are different, but both are Technical Implementation Units (unit pelaksana teknis) carrying out some tasks and functions of the Directorate General for Corrections of the Ministry for Law and Human Rights. Each of them are managed by the head of the penitentiary or head of correctional facility allocated to each regions in Indonesia.
My first puzzle here, is why are convicted corruptors held in penitentiaries and not in correctional facilities?
The immediate response would be that there is currently a problem of overcrowding in Indonesian prisons, thus more often than not, criminal suspects are put into correctional facilities temporarily, or if the correctional facilities are full, convicted criminals are put into penitentiaries. Consequently, one would think that why are penitentiaries and correctional facilities differentiated in the first place because it boils down to the very same thing.
Overcrowding in prisons may signify that not much resources are allocated for the rehabilitation of inmates in Indonesia. It’s also not a politically popular issue either, resulting the low priority for the welfare of prisoners.
However, overcrowding is simply not just a matter of not enough prisons, but also how the overall criminal justice system (involving the courts, police and the prosecutor’s office) is carried out in Indonesia. Patrialis Akbar, the previous Minister of Law and Human Rights, have also once said that overcrowding might also be caused by unnecessary prosecution of petty crimes. If trivial cases such as selling an iPad without a manual or an illiterate grandma “stealing” palm oil seeds worth Rp 2,000 (US$0.22) are being prosecuted, perhaps Patrialis has a point.
Separate from the problem of overcrowding, corruption in prisons should be given special attention. First and foremost, I would see that putting corruptors behind bars will have no penalizing effect, but freezing their assets and returning what belongs to the state should be the initial punitive action that prosecutors aim for. Afterwards, they can be put to jail as a secondary punishment.
When corruptors are held in prisons with access to their assets in hand, they have the opportunity to exploit the low incentives that the prison officers currently have and develop patron-client relationships within the confinement, as they have the means to pay the prison officers in exchange for better treatment.
If the government does not put a priority into how the prisons are being managed and look carefully on the human resources of people running the prisons, the problem will become a never ending cycle and most importantly, there is no incentive for people to deter themselves in doing corruption because they know they can easily pay their way out.
***
In contrast with how prisons are run in Indonesia, this semester one of the case studies that I did in my public management class is on the Singapore Prison Service (SPS). The SPS have gained a lot of awards, from the Excellent Service Awards to the Top 10 Best Employers in Singapore.
I am amazed on how successful SPS is and how one can make a career in correctional facilities. One of the lessons learned in this case is that the achievement is largely due to the organizational culture embedded within SPS.
Even though they are a government agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the SPS operates efficiently like a corporation. It gets the job done by emphasizing the common values shared by the people inside the organization, which shaped their attitudes and behavior aimed for better performance.
The organizational culture of the SPS was transformed by the leadership of Chua Chin Kiat, which took over the Director position in 1998 and was instrumental in directing the new vision and mission for the SPS, calling themselves the “Captains of Lives”. Prison officers believe that they are the Captains in the lives of inmates, responsible for their journey for rehabilitation, and not just punishment.
What I take away from the story of SPS is that code of ethics (like the one in Indonesia) can only go so much for controlling the behaviors of staff, as it is often violated without any real sanctions. It really takes the leadership of the organization to manage and motivate their people to take ownership for better results and leveraging culture is a powerful tool to do so.
Shaping culture should be strategically relevant. In the case of SPS, the “Captains of Lives” culture was aligned to their business strategy of “Executing Justice, Reducing Reoffending, and Preventing Offending”.
Employees should have intense training and socialization to embody this culture, recruitment should ideally be targeted for people that has the cultural fit (see recruitment ad above), and rewards system should be put in place (however, usually bureaucratic rules prevent organizations to do this). Culture will then empower people to think and act on their own in pursuit of the strategic objectives.
The SPS also collaborated with aftercare agencies in order to reduce the recidivism rates and gained public support with their yellow ribbon campaign, creating awareness to give ex-offenders second chances in society. I believe this aftercare rehabilitation process is important, especially in the case of terrorism acts in Indonesia as ex-offenders may regroup with their extremist communities after prison (they even recruit in prisons).
There are several other innovations that the SPS pursued, such as the cluster management system, integrated electronic database of inmates or better educational and rehabilitative activities, which had a lot to do with the SPS strategic planning and research branch, the “think-tank” of the organization.
***
A lot of people say that Singapore had it easy because it’s a small country, unlike Indonesia. I believe the problem is not about size per se, but more on the political willingness to change how prisons are managed in Indonesia. I’ve explained the urgency of the problem in Indonesian prisons, and possible solutions from Singapore that the government can look at, so what else is the government waiting for?
The voting of the Komodo Island in the New7Wonders of Nature contest serves as another example of lack of coordination in the Indonesian government.
One of the reasons why I’m happy I don’t own a Blackberry anymore is that I managed to avoid receiving annoying, misleading broadcast messages rallying people to vote for the Komodo Island in the New7Wonders of Nature contest.
I have been, first and foremost, skeptical of the whole contest, because I knew at the very beginning that the “movement” is no different than a popularity contest tricking people into using your money, invoking your sense of nationalism and making you believe that your votes will actually translate into doing something good for your country.
There’s already a good blog post (in Bahasa Indonesia) explaining why the New7Wonders contest is basically a vanity scam, but what I would like to question here: why is there a lack of coordination in the Indonesian government regarding the Komodo voting?
***
Tracking back from the current status, the Government is filing a law suit to the New7Wonders Foundation because the Foundation have removed the Ministry of Tourism (technically it is now called the Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy though they haven’t changed it in their website) as an Official Supporting Committee (OSC)/Lead Agency from the contest.
The dispute started when the government refused to become the host for the winner announcement ceremony of the contest, because allegedly the foundation asked for US$10 million in license fee, in addition to the fee that the government already paid for entering the contest. As a result of the refusal, the Foundation still listed the Komodo Island as one of the 28 finalist in the contest, but the Ministry is not allowed to act as Komodo’s OSC anymore.
Based on the article, the Ministry is demanding its right to become the OSC again. However, previously on August 15 2011, the Ministry declared its withdrawal from the New7Wonders of Nature contest with their press release.
Apparently a group of environmental activists led by Emmy Hafild (known for her work in Walhi, Greenpeace, TI) established the Support Committee for Komodo Island (P2Komodo) to continue promoting the bid and has been registered as Komodo’s OSC because they lobbied the Foundation to continue the nomination. They even asked Jusuf Kalla (the ex-vice president of Indonesia) to become the Komodo Ambassador, calling people to vote for Komodo through cheap SMS.
The cheap SMS votes (Rp.1) is indeed misleading, because of course there is a sponsor behind it. Recently the Indonesian Telecommunications Regulatory Body (BRTI) have received numerous complaints from users who were charged between Rp.1,000 and Rp.1,500 for each Komodo SMS vote that they thought were free. As of now, BRTI is summoning Mobilink and Telkomsel regarding this matter.
We are now left with the Ministry not being the official supporter of the Komodo campaign, but other parties are profiting through the number of SMS that we send each time we vote for Komodo. Ultimately, however, the profit goes to the organizers of the contest themselves, although they say “it aims for a distribution of surplus“.
Economic benefits to Indonesia? Komodo National Park was already registered as a UNESCO heritage site since 1991, and I see no additional benefit of branding Komodo Island as a winner of a suspicious vanity contest. One should definitely scrutinize the Ministry whether it has conducted any due diligence before it participated in the contest in the first place, especially since it involved taxpayers money.
If any taxpayers money should be involved, it should be invested to improve infrastructure in Komodo Island itself, including the surrounding areas in West Nusa Tenggara and East Nusa Tenggara. Not to mention to increase the welfare of park rangers because in the end Komodo Island is a National Park where one of its main purpose is for conservation of the Komodo dragons.
I see no difference between the New7Wonders of Nature contest with Miss World or Miss Universe. If anyone deserves a title out of this mess here, it should be, misunderstanding.
The current Nazaruddin saga have perfectly captured Indonesia’s struggle in the fight against corruption. Did Indonesia’s government lost the battle, or was the duel insincere to begin with?
The current Nazaruddin saga have perfectly captured Indonesia’s struggle in the fight against corruption. Did Indonesia’s government lost the battle, or was the duel insincere to begin with?
***
It worries me that some Indonesians deals the issue of corruption with cynicism, followed by apathy, and are sometimes subdued to its practices because it is seen to be “entrenched” in the system – as if there is no exit and no hope in trying to curb it out.
What also worries me is that the whole issue on corruption has taken over Indonesia’s mainstream and social media, leaving other important issues such as public health, education, the environment, and many others behind.
Last year, Prof. Robert Klitgaard, a renowned scholar on corruption, gave a talk on his five ingredients for the recipe to fight systemic corruption:
Prof. Klitgaard firstly argues that we shouldn’t target corrupt individuals, but target corrupt structures. Corruption, can be seen in this formula:
Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability
By using this formula, a successful anti-corruption effort is to reduce monopolies over a good and service, limit and clarify discretion, and raise accountability. My question to this statement is that just by raising accountability, it does not necessarily mean that it can control corruption straight away. I looked at the Worldwide Governance Indicators and compared Indonesia with its neighboring countries in Southeast Asia and China, based on voice and accountability and control of corruption.
Indonesia tops the list in terms of voice and accountability, but when it comes to control on corruption, it is one of the poor performing countries. Based on the chart above[1], it gives me a certain confidence that voice and accountability[2] alone is not enough in controlling corruption. A critical media and transparency principles are needed to perform the checks and balances that are needed, but I would argue that the rule of law, especially the law enforcement agencies and judiciary institutions are pertinent to this equation.
An insulated and professional law enforcement agencies and judiciary are thus important, and it is what I see still lacking in Indonesia.
The Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi – KPK) is one of the approach that Indonesia takes into curbing corruption. But this is where Prof. Klitgaard’s second ingredient comes in: a whole-government approach. Putting the weight into KPK as a single institution to fight corruption will not work, because a national anti-corruption agency is futile “if it cannot coordinate with the other ministries and agencies vital to prevent, prosecute, and punish corruption“. It is also dangerous to put all the power in KPK, as KPK itself is not free of political interests, and its investigators and prosecutors do come from the police force and the attorney general’s office as well.
Rather than focusing too much on who’s going to head KPK, tell me, how are we going so far with our reforms in the police force, attorney general’s office, and the supreme court? Not to forget our bureaucracy reform progress to correct Gayus and the likes in the tax department.
The basic concept of supply and demand in my sense can also be applied in corruption. The reason why bureaucrats and public officials become corrupt is because there is a demand and incentive for them to do so. And if the system provides that window of opportunity for misbehavior, then you got yourself a case. Businesspeople, lawyers, accountants, and other stakeholders involved with state institutions in general in their daily business, must be engaged actively in reducing corruption from the demand side.
This is exactly what is also happening in India, as an op-ed in the New York Times have suggested that there is a selective rage over corruption, whereby their citizens direct their rage towards the corrupt government, but they’re lenient towards the companies who did it too. It takes two hands to clap, anyway.
Now, if people were strategic about subverting corruption, one would make use of whistle-blowers. In Indonesia, however, the price for being a whistle-blower is too high. Sadly, sometimes if you’re telling the truth, you are offering yourself in a risky position.
Take for example the case of Siami, a housewife and mother from Surabaya, whereby she was forced by her neighbors to move out from her house after she reported a national exam cheating case in her son’s class at a state elementary school. How can you say no to corruption when cheating is seen as a customary practice in schools? Have society gone mad now that an honest person is seen as the bad guy?
***
I fear that corruption is an issue which is now used as a political rhetoric. Every politician talks about it, how serious and detrimental it is, but no one has actually an idea and the strong will to get rid of it.
Perhaps because the very institution where these politicians come from are the breeding grounds for corruption itself. Nazaruddin was the (former) treasurer of the ruling political party after all.
[2] According to WGI, voice and accountability captures perceptions of the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media
I’m not against the idea of buying a Presidential Plane, I’m just questioning whether it is necessary at this point of time.
I’m not against the idea of buying a Presidential Plane, I’m just questioning whether it is necessary at this point of time.
***
President SBY is planning to buy a presidential plane, a Boeing 737-800 Business Jet 2, which seems to be a favorite aircraft among State VIPs in other countries. How much? Some estimate from US$ 68 million to US$ 85 million, but we don’t exactly know the actual price, although Sudi Silalahi, the State Secretary said that the government already sealed the deal on December 27, 2010.
Some arguments for buying the plane would be for security and economic efficiency, not about foolish pride or showcasing the strength of the Presidency.
Security should be the number one priority, as flying on commercial planes pose a greater threat for security rather than a military-run presidential plane like the US Air Force One. The next question is to ask whether the operational budget will come from the military or the presidential post.
To my knowledge, President SBY travels either by Garuda Indonesia Airways or Pelita Air Service to this date. However, the intricacies of how much SBY and his entourage spend for each time they fly using these planes are not clear. Thus, if economic efficiency were the case, they should lay down the numbers of how much savings will be gained if the government were to purchase its own presidential plane rather than renting to a third-party for each flight (read: a cost-benefit analysis).
I’m sure all of this is public information, no? If they are reluctant to share it then we should be suspicious if there’s any shady transactions behind these deals. For example, aren’t you curious why the plane deal was signed on December 2010, but DPR said they haven’t agreed to anything?
If you look at the interior of the plane (picture above), it’s very lavish. I’m sure SBY or any future president of Indonesia will need that level of comfort because, well, being a President of the second-largest democracy in the world is a tough job, right?
I’m just questioning whether the same amount of money of buying that plane could be put to better use and for more pressing matters for its citizens, i.e. basic infrastructure such as water and sanitation, health and education.
If buying the plane is necessary and urgent, the government should really make the case why buying the plane is a priority, rather than leaving its citizens second-guessing why and how much money is actually being used.
The Hollywood movie stand-off between the Indonesian government and the movie distributors will end soon, said Jero Wacik, the Indonesian Minister for Culture and Tourism. I wrote about the cause of our missing Hollywood movies in my other blog post the other day, but after reading the news, I’m skeptical to rejoice because we can’t tell whether the distributors are willing to pay their due taxes.
Maybe.
The Hollywood movie stand-off between the Indonesian government and the movie distributors will end soon, said Jero Wacik, the Indonesian Minister for Culture and Tourism. I wrote about the cause of our missing Hollywood movies in my other blog post the other day, but after reading the news, I’m skeptical to rejoice because we can’t tell whether the distributors are willing to pay their due taxes.
However, it will be a great loss for the distributors and the cinema chain that they’re tied with if they still won’t pay their taxes. They can’t afford another delay because business is bad if you can’t get the movies to come in. Even if we get to enjoy the second installment of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Kung Fu Panda 2 or other summer box offices that we’re longing for, one problem still remain: there is still a monopoly of the movie distribution business in Indonesia.
With the monopoly still intact, any stand-off between the government and the sole group of distributors in the future will be at the customer’s cost.
Another thing that I examined out of this commotion, at least consolidated interest and public pressure in Indonesia still work, at least for the middle class. Now if only the middle class can consolidate their concerns into something else…
Nunun Nurbaeti is a suspect regarding Miranda Goeltom’s bribery case surrounding her voting as the Senior Deputy Governor of Bank Indonesia in 2004, following the testimony that Nunun distributed Rp 22 billion in bribes to dozens of government officials and lawmakers. She suffered from “memory loss” and thus undergoes treatment in Singapore, but then she fled to Thailand and later it was found out that she’s in Cambodia.
Nunun Nurbaeti is a suspect regarding Miranda Goeltom’s bribery case surrounding her voting as the Senior Deputy Governor of Bank Indonesia in 2004, following the testimony that Nunun distributed Rp 22 billion in bribes to dozens of government officials and lawmakers. She suffered from “memory loss” and thus undergoes treatment in Singapore, but then she fled to Thailand and later it was found out that she’s in Cambodia.
I remember during my youth I played an edutainment game named “Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?” which teaches us geography. We are supposed to chase the villain, Carmen Sandiego, across various places around the globe as she leaves a trail of hints to go to the next place where she’s heading before the time runs out. You would also need a warrant and make an arrest, thus if you obtain the wrong warrant or arrest the wrong guy, the villain will escape – you lose points and miss your chance to get promoted up the rank.
I wouldn’t be surprised if suddenly Indonesian game developers make the similar Carmen Sandiego game but based on Nunun Nurbaeti’s efforts to run away from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the police.
***
UPDATE – 9 June 2011
Turns out the Indonesian police applied for an Interpol red notice to arrest Nunun. Seems like our very own Carmen Sandiego is indeed in the making.
On a lighter note, I read in the newspaper today that she’s off to Viet Nam. Now I’m taking bets to find out when KPK (or Interpol) will finally catch Nunun. My friend bets for 2 weeks, I’m betting for 10 days. But if the Interpol indeed issued the red notice, perhaps 5 days.
Take your guess. Winner gets bragging rights in my blog.
Australia stopped some of its cattle exports to Indonesia following some video footage on the condition of the abbatoirs in Indonesia. Obviously there is a lack of monitoring on the standards practiced in these abbatoirs and I’ll be giving some quick analysis on the issue (Warning: this post will contain some gruesome images, viewer’s discretion advised).
Australia stopped some of its cattle exports to Indonesia following some video footage on the condition of the abattoirs in Indonesia. Obviously there is a lack of monitoring on the standards practiced in these abattoirs and I’ll be giving some quick analysis on the issue (Warning: this post contains some gruesome images, viewer’s discretion advised).
***
The Australian government suspended live cattle exports to 11 Indonesian abattoirs after the documentation of the abattoirs’ condition in video footages showing distressed cattle, whipped and tortured before they were cut by their throats. The full video footages can be seen here, but some of the screenshots where the steers are treated cruelly, whereby their tails are pulled, their faces kicked and their eyes poked are below.
First thought that came through my mind was how did such atrocities happened because as far to my knowledge, the halal way of slaughtering cattle is to inflict the least painful way for the animal being killed and to do it in the most humane way as possible. If we still allow such cruel practices, won’t Indonesians – whereby most of the population are Muslims – are not eating halal meat?
Let me put the halal debate aside for a while and stick to the regulations first.
I quickly browsed through the related regulations and the first one I checked was Law No. 18/2009 on Farming and Animal Health. In article 1 (42) it defines Animal Welfare as
“…every matter related to the physical and mental condition of the animal according to the measure of its natural behavior which have to be implemented and upheld to protect the animal from any kind of unacceptable acts towards animals utilized by humans” (unofficial translation – bold added by myself)
In Article 61(1)(b) of that Law, it states that the butchering of these animals must follow the health principles of the veterinarian community and animal welfare. Article 66 (2)(f) further states that
“the cutting and killing of the animals must be conducted in the best possible way so that the animal is free from pain, fear and pressure, torture and misuse“
So the rules are already there, it is just that any violation of these principles, however, are not criminalized. There are possibilities for administrative sanctions, which array from stopping their business, their abattoir licenses being revoked or even financial penalties.
Abattoir licenses are given by each of the local government in Indonesia, under the authority of each Regent or Mayor (Bupati/Walikota). These abattoir businesses must fulfill the technical standards under Ministry of Agriculture Regulation Number 13/Permentan/OT.140/1/2010 on Requirements for Ruminantia Abattoirs and Meat Cutting Plants.
Under this regulation, it reiterates that the killing of these animals must follow the principles of animal welfare and Islamic syariah law. Violation of the technical requirements of cutting and/or handling of ruminantia meat may cause the abattoirs to lose their licenses (Article 39(4)(b) of the Ministerial Regulation).
The monitoring of these abattoirs must be conducted under the supervision of a veterinarian authorized in veterinary public health. Law 18/2008 mentioned about a veterinary authority, but then I found out that this was never established. Currently, the veterinary authority is under the Ministry of Agriculture on the rank of an Echelon II. Therefore, they don’t have many powers and are not independent to conduct monitoring as such. It is then not a surprise that the condition of the abattoirs are not monitored regularly.
From this point on I believe that the underlying problem is that the Ministry of Agriculture does not think of the veterinarian occupation as well as animal health and welfare seriously.
Now if we want to look whether the killing of these cattle are halal or not, I found out this website on the conditions for halal slaughter and even some information whether stunning the animal prior to the killing can be considered halal. For stunning to be acceptable in Islam, according to that website, the following conditions must be fulfilled:
I thought this was supposed to be an Indonesian Policy Bits segment, so I apologize for the long post in the end. But anyhow, the lengthy explanation was necessary to show you that neither by current Indonesian regulations nor halal standards that the cruel acts shown in these abattoirs are acceptable.
It is a pity that we have only taken attention on this issue after the Australians decided to ban their cattle exports to Indonesia. Now the ball is in the hands of the Indonesian government. We’ll see.
Why is SBY concerned about rumors sent over an SMS and immediately made a press conference about it?
Why is SBY concerned about rumors sent over an SMS and immediately made a press conference about it?
***
President SBY held a press conference today clarifying the rumors sent over a series of text messages (SMS), one of them was the rumor that he had a sex scandal with one of his male presidential staff member.
His points in the press conference was more or less like this:
Based from my observation, the rumors started from twitter. If we put it into context, twitter users in Indonesia (despite being the third largest next to Americans and Brazilians) are only a small number of the electorate. Most people are not into twitter and thus don’t have the access to these rumors or allegations (some people don’t have access to electricity, let alone the internet for God’s sake).
The fact that SBY made a press conference about it, only made other people who were clueless about it before, into eager beavers wanting to know more and discuss about it.
Allegedly, these rumors came from a Singaporean phone number and many suspect that it came from Muhammad Nazaruddin, a former Democrat Party treasurer who left for the country before he was made into a suspect for a graft case and bribery attempt.
The Democrats fired Nazaruddin from his position due to the allegations towards him on the Southeast Asia Games dormitory corruption case and the unsolicited gift to Constitutional Court Secretary General MK Janedri M amounting to IDR 840 million. Possibly disappointed that he was fired, he lashed out on his fellow Democrat members, calling that they are also involved in other corruption cases and SBY, the party’s head of Advisory Board, is also included.
Simply put, Nazaruddin is in a position where he’s taking everyone else down if he himself were to fall.
At one point, I wondered which hat did SBY wore when he gave the press conference. From what I observed, he used his podium of presidency to defend the acts of the Democrat Party.
So, what happens now?
It is up to the judiciary to shed some light upon these rumors and allegations. Courts involve the due process of law involving witnesses, evidences and the rational thinking of the judges, in which rumors such as these can be scrutinized in the name of justice. Indeed, one can argue that the Indonesian courts cannot be trusted, but it is better compared to the court of public opinion in Indonesia. As much as I question the effectiveness of the legal system in Indonesia, it is better than hearing these ongoing he said-she said debacles in the media.
The immediate step would be to bring Nazaruddin back home to Indonesia. Unfortunately Indonesia and Singapore don’t have an extradition agreement, which does strain the foreign relations between both countries. Funnily, Singapore has now become a favorite getaway for Indonesians, ranging from movie fans, medical patients and even alleged corruptors.
Bottom line, if President SBY does his job correctly, he shouldn’t care about any rumors involving him. People will judge him based on his performance; on his actions and not his political image per se. Like I said in my previous post, legally he can’t be re-elected for 2014 so he has nothing to lose to take the much needed risks in order to get things done.
Oh, FYI, he did his press conference in Bahasa Indonesia. The full text of his speech is here.
This week’s commentary on Indonesian policy bits: Constitutional Court chief Mahfud MD said that SBY’s English speeches are illegal, according to Law No. 24/2009 and his own Presidential Decree.
This week’s commentary on Indonesian policy bits: Constitutional Court chief Mahfud MD said that SBY’s English speeches are illegal, according to Law No. 24/2009 and his own Presidential Decree.
Seriously?
I’m not joking. If you care to read Law No. 24/2009 on State Flag, Language, Symbol and National Anthem, it says on Article 28 that:
Bahasa Indonesia is compulsory to be used in official speeches of the President, Vice President, and other state officials that are delivered domestically or abroad.
In the explanation, it states that these “official speeches” can use foreign languages (so not specifically English) as long as it is in an international forum that’s conducted abroad that stipulates the use of specific languages.
SBY even signed a Presidential Regulation No. 16/2010 on the Usage of Bahasa Indonesia in Official Speeches of the President and/or Vice President as well as Other State Officials to strengthen this law.
So apparently, all this time, his speech writers didn’t get the memo?
It’s a good thing that the law does not stipulate any criminal sanctions for using languages other than Bahasa Indonesia in official speeches. If you try to burn down our red and white flag or try to be creative with remixing Indonesia Raya (the national anthem), you can however, go to jail.
I think the whole idea is ridiculous. Why do you need to regulate the use of language in official speeches? My bet is that this law will soon be amended. Whatever. Why was this regulated in the first place – be it the philosophical rationale, the costs and benefits – that’s what I seriously want to know.
This is another example of an Indonesian law that’s not been carefully thought of and consistently implemented.
This is a continuation on the debate whether a Soeharto-style government is going to be beneficial to Indonesia or not. My fellow blogger Erwin has argued that without that kind of authoritarian government, Indonesia will not move forward. I argue otherwise and below are my explanation.
This is a continuation on the debate whether a Soeharto-style government is going to be beneficial to Indonesia or not. My fellow blogger Erwin has argued that without that kind of authoritarian government, Indonesia will not move forward. I argue otherwise and below are my explanation.
Soeharto’s Good and Bad
Firstly I would like to acknowledge Soeharto’s role in Indonesia’s nation-building process. Soekarno and Hatta may be our founding fathers, but without Soeharto, the much needed control for unity of the “united colonies of Netherlands Indies” under the new nation “Indonesia” would have not been possible. Many dissent and separatist movements were successfully silenced, leading to Indonesia’s growth, although the means are often violent and the repercussions of those actions are only felt now.
During Soeharto’s authoritarian regime, the legislative assembly was pretty much the president’s rubber stamp and the judiciary is deliberately weakened to serve the president’s interests. All the veto power in policy making went to the president and of course we had a strong presidential government because no system of checks and balances were in place. In addition, cronyism and favoritism is accepted as the norm while corruption and patronage systems are rampant.
What Soeharto lacked compared to Lee Kuan Yew, both authoritarian in their regime, is the lack of attention that Soeharto gave towards institutional building of Indonesia’s state institutions and the missing values of meritocracy and honesty embedded in our governance system.
Can we correct Indonesia’s democracy?
Here’s another thing that we should learn from Singapore: be pragmatic. We don’t need to achieve western-style democracy, but we need a system that works, where the government is responsive and accountable to its people. Too much attention is going out on the debate of democracy but too little effort is concentrated to make the much needed governance reform in Reformasi.
What I’ve mentioned in my earlier post, is that Neo-New Orders are still in Indonesia, local patronage systems are still rooted in our decentralization process and to top it off, as cliche as it is, there’s no political will to change the status quo!
What we see lacking in SBY – a strong leader with a vision and the will to get things done – we then substitute it with our fond memories of ‘development’ under Soeharto.
So, is going back to the old way of authoritarianism like Soeharto the way to go for Indonesia? No.
Authoritarianism might have worked in the past, but for Indonesia’s current condition, with its diverse 238 million population, putting too much authority in the president will be detrimental to the development of the country. As Lord Acton famously said, “power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
***
[Update, 26 May 2011]
Here’s data from the World Bank on Indonesia’s GDP Per Capita (current US$). The point of this graph is, if 13 years of democracy is so bad for the economy, why is the data stating otherwise – when our economic growth went up significantly after Soeharto fell down? My comments are below, but since I can’t embed the graph in the comment box, I’m putting it up in the post.
I’m starting a weekly segment on my blog on “Indonesian Policy Bits”, which are minor commentaries on articles that I’ve read on Indonesian policies and its political and economic situation, apart from my regular analysis or commentaries. This week, I’ll touch up on the issue of drunk driving vis-a-vis alcohol control and the government’s proposal to sell citizen database in the electronic identification cards system for business interests.
I’m starting a weekly segment on my blog on “Indonesian Policy Bits”, which are minor commentaries on articles that I’ve read on Indonesian policies and its political and economic situation, apart from my regular analysis or commentaries. This week, I’ll touch up on the issue of drunk driving vis-a-vis alcohol control and the government’s proposal to sell citizen database in the electronic identification cards system for business interests.
***
The famous fountain in front of Hotel Indonesia has become a favorite spot for drunk drivers. A car with its 23-year-old drunk driver crashed the fountain, broke two fountain lamps (each costing Rp 27 million) and a water pump. A police officer who worked at the police bureau near the fountain said that similar accidents were frequent, at least five this year.
So what is the solution? A Jakarta Park Agency officer said:
“We have requested the Transportation Agency to immediately build rows of light speed bumps so that drunk drivers would be alerted as their cars approach the fountain”
Did it occur to them that they should stop drivers from getting drunk at the first place?
At least two problems occur to me: 1) there is a lack of public education on the consequences of drunk driving; 2) I question whether there is alcohol control, especially for minors.
I would expect the government to have public education services on the dangers of alcohol, i.e. that you need to be responsible when you drink. Of course, conservative groups would immediately make a fuss that such acts would only encourage more drinking because you’re not supposed to drink in the first place. It’s the same problem with sex education and public information on the use of condoms – try telling the girls who must bear their unwanted pregnancies that it’s their fault because they’re not supposed to have sex in the first place.
Public awareness is needed because you can’t stop people from getting drunk or having sex, but you can teach them on how to be responsible about it. Ignoring the problem doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.
One phenomena that I observed in Jakarta, is the mushrooming of 7/11, Circle K and other convenience store that freely sells alcohol. In several occasions, I have seen under-age teenagers buying alcoholic drinks without any adult supervision. There were no control from the sellers themselves, although there is clearly a sign that says “selling alcohol and tobacco to people under the age of 18 is prohibited” behind the sales counter.
Tobacco? Don’t get me started. Any kid can easily buy cigarettes from the nearby warung for such a cheap price.
***
Here’s another news: the government plans to sell our electronic data for business interests.
I’m a supporter for a single identification number system, because there are several benefits to it, among them are:
What I don’t agree is that if the government tries to sell our data for marketing purposes:
Reydonnyzar Moenek, Home Ministry spokesman, told The Jakarta Post on Monday that the data could be used for business interests but only to see the distribution of certain characteristics of the Indonesian population.
“For example, if a milk brand needs data about infant distribution in Indonesia for marketing purposes, they can use the data. But we won’t disclose private information,” he said, adding that the government would charge those who were interested in using the data.
“We will discuss the mechanism further, but if it happens, the income from selling the database will be categorized as non-tax income,” he added.
Instead of protecting our privacy, they are looking for additional state income? If this happens, I will mourn the loss of integrity from my government that they are more willing to sell our data for money.
An analysis of Indo Barometer’s recent survey on the Indonesian public’s preference for Soeharto over SBY.
An analysis of Indo Barometer’s recent survey on the Indonesian public’s preference for Soeharto over SBY.
***
Indo Barometer’s recent survey on the evaluation of 13 years of Reformasi and SBY-Boediono’s government have caused quite a stir. One of the most intriguing findings is how the Indonesian public favors Soeharto’s rule over SBY’s. Consequently, the Presidential Office were quick to comment on the motives behind the release of this survey. Despite Heru Lelono’s infamous track record, his suspicions are valid, as one must question Indo Barometer’s methodology in the survey and examine the results carefully. However, one result out of this survey is certain: the public is unhappy with SBY’s performance.
In the first part of the report, the survey firstly asked an open question towards the 1200 respondents of Indonesia’s 33 provinces, over what they think Reformasi is. While 24,2% simply states Reformasi as the existence of “change”, actually a majority of 29,6% of the respondents are clueless or did not have an answer on what is the meaning of Reformasi.
The survey continues to ask which condition is better, is it Soeharto’s New Order or the current condition. It is found that 31% agrees that the current condition is better than the New Order, 28,2% believes that it is actually much worse, while 27,2% are indifferent about it.
If you simply add-up the numbers of 28,2% who believes that the current condition is much worse with 27,2% who thinks the old Soeharto days is just as bad (or as good – we don’t know for sure) in comparison with today’s Indonesia, we end up with 55,4%, which can be implied that the majority of Indonesians believe that the changes of Reformasi fell short from what has been promised.
This is related to the next part of the survey, in which I think is the most intriguing of all the findings: in general, 40,9% of Indonesians prefer the conditions under Soeharto’s New Order. An Indonesian layperson feels that the New Order condition is superior in terms of economy and security, while it is only slightly better in terms of politics and social conditions. The only thing that is better in the current condition, albeit a little, is Indonesia’s legal condition.
I have my own arguments on why Indonesia’s legal condition is better now, but one thing that is apparently missing based on the public’s perception, quoting from Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign, “It’s the economy, stupid”.
Many economists agree that Indonesia did well on the last 2008 financial crisis. While many countries slumped, Indonesia’s economy was stable and it can be considered as one of the factors why SBY was re-elected in 2009. Little do the public know that Sri Mulyani Indrawati – who was the Finance Minister and one of the backbone to the decision-making on the economy – resigned (or politically ousted by SBY, as some rumors among Indonesians suggested) in May 2010 over the issue of the Century Bank bailout, which has not yet been resolved until now. This is among the early addition to the list of disappointments over SBY.
Corruption is still rampant, taxpayers are wary of Gayuses and don’t know where their money is going, minorities are being physically harassed, illegal logging of forests are still ongoing and infrastructure is problematic. These are just a small part among Indonesia’s long list of issues, but the institutional-building process that is needed in the government is moving very slow.
Without strong institutions and an efficient government, the economy will not grow as fast as it is needed. Even with Indonesia’s current economic growth and its G20 status, the economic pie is not yet distributed equitably because only the few elites can enjoy it.
My fear is that those elites who reminisces the glory days of Soeharto are still in the system and have not yet been swept by the tides of reform. Yet, they establish themselves as Neo-New Orders posing as reformists, but still act on the basis of collusion, corruption and nepotism while the practices of honesty and meritocracy is not yet applied. These, unfortunately, cannot be unveiled by surveys alone.
Indo Barometer’s survey seems to imply that Reformasi and SBY’s regime are of the same creature and the public’s disappointment to SBY is intertwined with the failure of Reformasi. That is why in the survey, Indonesians prefer Soeharto over SBY and why the New Order regime is seen to be better than the current conditions.
I question whether the respondents in the survey know consciously in their mind, or whether they were at least informed by the researchers, that Soeharto’s authoritarian rule span for over 32 years while Indonesia’s transition to democracy after Reformasi had only been for 13 years, under the leadership of four presidents: BJ Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, Megawati Soekarnoputri and SBY. The process of “change” is not instant and therefore, one can argue that comparing New Order and “current condition” was never a fair comparison to begin with.
It is unfair to shoulder the failure of Reformasi on SBY’s shoulder alone. However, it should be noted that SBY is the first re-elected President of Indonesia thus he has the opportunity to ensure that Indonesia’s reform made progress and not regress. SBY’s current leadership is more of a shadow of his first presidential term and the public is disappointed due to his lack of firmness in action. He himself has nothing to lose, since legally he can’t run again for presidency in 2014.
President SBY, if the survey tells you anything, is that you have three more years ahead of you and you should focus on your programs and policies – that is if you have any. If your programs and policies are effective, it’s more potent than building your political image and any advice that your PR consultancies have offered to you.
The Indonesian public simply demands your leadership to be in charge of this country.
It is not just emails, but there are serious problems underlying DPR’s institutional capacity.
It is not just emails, but there are serious problems underlying DPR’s institutional capacity.
During their “study trip”to Australia, members of DPR’s Commission VIII that oversees religious and social affairs made a mishap by stating a fake email address when asked by one of its constituents on how to contact the Commission during their discussion that was held by the Indonesian Students Association of Australia (PPI Australia).
Other IMO Bloggers have posted their story on DPR’s study trip and also on the video capturing the whole commotion. PPI Australia have also made an evaluation of DPR’s visit here (in Bahasa Indonesia).
It’s not entirely surprising that this pandemonium happened, because this only adds up to the list of “mistakes” that DPR have made. The email incident is just the tip of the iceberg, because I would argue that the problem lies deeper and it has something to do with the dire condition of DPR’s institutional capacity.
Firstly, the much needed institutional capacity building in DPR did not happen during the course of Soeharto’s 32-year authoritarian regime. MPR/DPR were pretty much the President’s rubber stamp when it comes to the government’s policies. While other parliaments in the world have developed themselves as an effective political institution for checks and balances of the executive’s power, MPR/DPR was very much under the executive’s control.
It was only until 1998 onwards, post-Reformasi and Indonesia’s transition to democracy that people realize that DPR can actually do something, that they have an authority that can balance the executive by representing the voices of its citizens. As a result, even though the DPR building exists there for a long time, but inside the building, the process of DPR’s evolution as an institution that truly represents the interests of the Indonesian constituents have only started slightly more than a decade ago.
Second, DPR needs to know that its constituents matter. The real voice of the people matters. Public scrutiny such as the video that was made by students of PPI Australia is a form of feedback on DPR’s performance. Being defensive about this whole incident and not saying sorry just truly show that they are not working for the interests of the people. We would like to know how to contact DPR, but if they don’t have any interaction or a forum of communication with its constituents, how are we going to make sure that they’re doing their job?
Social media, thankfully, has been an effective tool to monitor the performance of our legislators, our government officials, and our political parties, especially since the mainstream media have also been captured by the elite’s interests.
Rather than going abroad, wouldn’t it better that during DPR’s recess week that they go back to their constituents and do their work back home in Indonesia? I know some legislators do this, but unfortunately this is not the norm – only the exception.
I’ve mentioned in my other post that we’re partly to blame because we were the ones who put these people in DPR. Voting matters, but I know most of us randomly ticked whoever name is listed on the election paper based on the party – because we simply don’t know whom to choose. Thus, the biggest underlying problem in DPR is that the process of selecting the best candidate in Indonesia’s political party system is defunct.
If we were given a good candidate, we would’ve voted him/her to be in DPR or DPRD. Alas, the candidate selection mechanism in the party is opaque, not merit-based and it is a common perception that whoever owns the more amount of money can be selected. In the end, the names listed in the ballot paper are unknowns with no credentials – and on the point of emails – it’s people that we can’t even contact with!
It takes good leadership for someone inside DPR right now to make performance evaluation and connecting with constituents as a norm, institutionalize it in the system.
It also takes good leadership for those who are in the top posts of the political parties to understand that people are growing tired of these rhetorics and we want concrete programs and policies with results, because we simply want the best people with the best competence working for our best interests.
Twitter went wild yesterday with the death of Osama bin Laden when it was officially announced by Obama (yes, I better make sure I don’t make the same typo). Big news, but I actually would think that it doesn’t mean much to Indonesia.
Twitter went wild yesterday with the death of Osama bin Laden when it was officially announced by Obama (yes, I better make sure I don’t make the same typo). Big news indeed, but I actually would think that it doesn’t mean much to Indonesia.
Firstly Obama’s speech was a smart one, winning cookie points with the Muslim world with this statement:
As we do, we must also reaffirm that the United States is not –- and never will be -– at war with Islam. I’ve made clear, just as President Bush did shortly after 9/11, that our war is not against Islam. Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims. Indeed, al Qaeda has slaughtered scores of Muslims in many countries, including our own. So his demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity.
The Vatican also issued a statement shortly after Osama bin Laden’s death which is aptly put:
“Faced with the death of a man, a Christian never rejoices but reflects on the serious responsibility of each and every one of us before God and before man, and hopes and commits himself so that no event be an opportunity for further growth of hatred, but for peace,”
I have never understood the minds of people who kill by the name of religion, and Osama bin Laden certainly was a poster boy for this ideology. If his death would mean anything to Indonesia, first of all, it would be a signal that as long as anyone is there spreading terror, there would also be people against it. So for some, Osama bin Laden’s death might be a victory, but for the world to be cheering about it, it’s an overstatement.
Terror is a concept, it’s created in our minds. Waging war against terror, in my view, would be difficult to measure. To which point does the war end and who can be determined as the winner?
If fear spreads, then terror already won. But if in the case of a bomb, a conflict, or a riot happened and the citizens remain vigilant and calm, then terror have lost. When the JW Marriot bombing happened in 2009, the #indonesiaunite movement was an example that we refuse to be in a state of fear and be united against terrorism.
If Osama’s death is any indication that the war on terror has been won, then that is a false sense of achievement. Indonesia has been facing an increasing number of religious-related violence, and the fact that the government is doing very little about it means that they are condoning such behavior.
I wouldn’t be relieved that Osama bin Laden has died, if the spread of radicalism, hatred and intolerance is still there. So as long as it is still there, especially in Indonesia who is supposedly built on the principle of unity in diversity, I don’t think Osama bin Laden’s death means much to the people here.
Feel free to put in your thoughts in the comments below.
There’s a recent polemic where the government is planning to uphold democratic elections for the Yogyakarta province in the reformulation of the Law on the Special Administrative Region of Yogyakarta, thus making the position of governor open for contenders other than the Sultan. There was a lot of (in my opinion, blinded) rage over SBY’s remarks, especially from Yogyakarta and the Sultan’s side, that no monarchy system can clash the constitution and the democratic values in Indonesia.
The media always love to take the context out of proportion and make the government (especially SBY) look bad, but let’s look at the issue with a cool head.
There’s a recent polemic where the government is planning to uphold democratic elections for the Yogyakarta province in the reformulation of the Law on the Special Administrative Region of Yogyakarta, thus making the position of governor open for contenders other than the Sultan. There was a lot of (in my opinion, blinded) rage over SBY’s remarks, especially from Yogyakarta and the Sultan’s side, that no monarchy system can clash the constitution and the democratic values in Indonesia.
The media always love to take the context out of proportion and make the government (especially SBY) look bad, but let’s look at the issue with a cool head.
Continue reading “Yogyakarta: Between Monarchy and Democracy”
Notes from an Indonesian Policy Wonk 