Can They Blame Jabulani?

If you can't dance don't blame the floor. If you can't win in the World Cup match don't put the scapegoat on Adidas-made ball Jabulani. It seems disproportionate as there is too much complaint on the high-tech ball.

The goals scored in this first round matches is only 25, compared to 39 and 42 in Germany 2006 and Japan-South Korea 2002 World Cup, respectively. Is this justified the less goals due to this damned Jabulani? However, statistics say that this first round average goal of 2.1 is nearly the same with average goal of 2.21 in Italy 1990 World Cup. The then-less goal is analyzed as a result of defensive playing.

In my opinion the combination of defensive tactics and the same level of skill among the teams contribute utmost to the drought of goals. We can see how Japan thrashed Denmark and how the top-notch teams such as Italy must go home earlier. The players across the world have honed the skills in the same primary league in Europe, so they are quite familiar with up-to-date strategy of football.

Had Jabulani is a problem, it might be so much goals instead of less. Why? The goalies would always fumble in catching the ball! Every shooting to the goal area will have a high probability to be a goal. Moreover, I watched the match Netherlands versus Japan in which the Dutch had the ball possession of 70%. It means the Dutch can control Jabulani. If the ball is so wild, it will never happen that a team has a lopsided possession. And the last argument will go to the result of the matches. Until now we see no surprising result. Even some second-round playing teams dubbed as underdogs, they have played the good games and deserves to pass the first round. If the ball uncontrollable, then the matches will be in a mess, the result will be arbitrary.

So just go on playing with Jabulani, stop complaining anything and give us the best show.

Where Will We Go?

As a nation we do not know where we will go in this turbulent world. I see nothing of clearly, loudly communicated plan from our leader, SBY. Until now I have never been impressed by anything what he had done for his 2-term mandate in terms of what this nation want to achieve.

SBY's pro growth, pro poor, pro job is too abstract for me. It is far cry from we really need now: simple realistic plan, but considerably implemented. Lack of vision, make us mire in the crazy idea of pork barrel. Since the term of presidency is only 5 years, the plan needs quick and smart actions to ensure people seeing the result.

Among the 3 pros, pro job should be the first thing to be handled. The growth we need is the quality growth that leads the jobs absorption. The poverty will be eradicated if the government can provide jobs directly or indirectly with the adequate salary to live on. We don't need the statistics telling us that the employment is full or the unemployment less than 10%, we absolutely need is how to make a rapid shift from the low added value of farming-oriented jobs to industrial jobs and then the next to higher added value of service industry. That is the path should be got through. And there is no other path to step based on Indonesia's situation.

The government should formulate the program to be industry-based country. And the rational way is to invite the foreigner through Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). To lure the foreign fund of investment we should give them best infrastructure, red-tape-free administration, tax holiday, etc. And we should have known that there is a lot of choice for investors to put in their money. And what we have done with FDI is very poor. Data showed that Indonesia lagged behind in terms of FDI absorption. The ratio of Indonesia's FDI to GNP is 5%, compared to China 11%, Vietnam 55%. We have a lot of space, a lot of variety of energy, a lot of cheap workforce, but we see only few of economic zones. We have abandoned this competitive advantage. It indicates that the government has no real agenda to make pro job happen.

In a nutshell, our prosperity begins with shifting of farming jobs to industrial jobs – Pak Harto had ever had and had ever carried out this vision. The SBY administration should begin the massive program of industry-led development. Only the government with bold action and do something meaningful remains memorable. Hopefully SBY listen to my advice :-) or the next president will.

Spend or Not To Spend

The world's economic crisis has not gone yet. Many economies are still crippling and trying to find a new way to boost growth. The standard policy during economic crisis is to give stimulus and unemployment benefit. But now, the still-sluggish economy faces a new-arising crisis of swelling fiscal deficit which has claimed a victim, Greece. And Greek generous pension system has now been under fire for its contribution to the large deficit. (see Reference #1)

Large deficit debacle of Greece spooked many countries all across the world. Many countries from United Kingdom to Japan is now controlled by deficit hawks. Under the fiscal retrenchment action, the government budget will be shrunken.

Now the government have 2 alternatives of action: stop its stimulus, unemployment benefit and shift to parsimony or go on because of still-sluggish economy?

Apparently, noted economists have different answers.

The answer of Nobel Prize-winning economist, Paul Krugman: continue spending! The government should help the unemployment and continue the economic stimulus until the certain good economic condition and then save the money. In a nutshell, spent now, save later. But when is the perfect time to save? The right time is when the Federal Reserve has traction on economy, so it can reduce the interest rate to offset the rising of tax and spending cuts. Now the Feds can do nothing with its instrument because the interest rate is nearly zero. (see Reference #2)

In contrast, Harvard University Professor, Alberto Alesina has different prescription. To face the large deficit budget, the fiscal retrenchment is the right answer. The idea is the government's lower spending need lower tax and as the consequence it will lead the rising demand. There have been mountains of evidence. Goldman Sachs economist Broadbent and Daly researched 44 large fiscal adjustments in 24 advanced economies since 1975 concluded that reducing expenditure by 1% boosted growth by 0.6%. (see reference #3)

Let us see who is right, who is wrong. In my opinion Krugman's suggestion is more plausible.

Reference:

1. http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2010/02/greeces_generous_pensions
   
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/opinion/21krugman.html?ref=paulkrugman
   
3. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-21/cameron-bets-on-prosperity-from-austerity-while-obama-pushes-more-stimulus.html
   

Pork Barrel Initiative

It is imperative to help people, let alone you are a lawmaker, but it is more important to help them in rational way and for long term sustainability.

The Golkar Party proposed initiative, dubbed pork barrel, raised many questions. It is much condemned, but it is still rolling down due to SBY's indecisiveness. (see Reference #1). The idea helping people by direct intervention seems ridiculous, because it is not their main job. The lawmakers' much expected job is to make good law and oversee the government's job. If they can do this well, they have already fulfilled our hopes.

Our country has been transforming itself from centralized development to decentralization one. It has been done since 1999 and until now problems still appears. We call it decentralization, but why 70% our budget is controlled by central government. (see Reference #2). This imbalance budget shed light on still-uneven development. This is one root of problems that has to be firstly handled.

And even though that 30% of central government budget will be allocated to regional government, the new anxiety emerges. The Supreme Audit Agency, BPK's report shows most of local government fails to perform satisfactory financial statement. (see Reference #3)

Moreover, we have several overlapping of budget and development due to our still-improving system. Until now it is not clear who is really in charge in province. Is it the directly-elected governor who actually has no area but has own development program on it or is it the also-directly-elected regent/mayor who has the real area and own development program. The theory it can be done by dividing the job, but the practice shows it can't. My friend in a Ministry told me that overlapping happened. Some equipment from the central government's budget had been sent arbitrarily to a regency and the regency's officers did not know what to do with the equipment because they have no program on it.

In short, many problems have arisen concerning with regional development and they have to be handled right off the bat. So lawmakers, if you want to contribute something during your term, just use your own 'tools and vehicles' to make or change law. Those actions will be more useful for our country rather than to give money or projects directly to your constituent and inappropriately hope that they will vote for you in the next election.

Reference:

1. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/21/golkar-continue-push-%E2%80%98pork-barrel%E2%80%99-initiative.html
   
2. http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2010/05/30/04524053/.sistem.anggaran.belum.dukung.otonomi
   
3. http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/17/inconsistency-enhancing-accountability.html
   

Adding Salt to Seawater

Democratic Party should be praised for 2 (two) things, namely: (i) its process of chairman election and (ii) the result itself. The process shows that the party members can vote on their own candidate freely without intervension and guidance from its patron, SBY. SBY-approved candidate, Andi Mallarangeng has been abandoned by the party members. The democrats show us the real democracy. And the party' last congress resulted in the new direction of the county's leadership. The newly elected party chairman, Anas Urbaningrum is young and dynamic representing regeneration in the party leadership. No other party does the same. And Anas is the next Democratic presidential might-wannabe. Despite this is an internal affairs, but we are yearning of the new leader for a better tomorrow of Indonesia. We have fed up with the old generation.

The downside of the story is the absence of meritocracy in the party development.

Recently, some of activists, bureaucrats, professionals come flocking to join the Demoratic Party. It seems everybody loves a winner. The liberal Muslim scholar, Ulil Abshar Abdalla will join the party and so will General Elections Commission member, Andi Nurpati. But what raises my eyebrow is Todung Mulya Lubis. I wonder why he does not apply for Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman instead of joining Democrats. KPK, rather than Democratic Party, needs him a lot. To give a help to the winning party is like to add the salt in the seawater.

The nascent democracy sometimes appears comical. The party is not developed by system, where patchwork rather than meritocracy prevails. The popular outsiders are invited to strengthen the party. Can't we see the party's program to groom its leader from insiders as a result of the long-term forming of cadres?

Maradona

It is difficult to answer this question: who is the best ever player in world? Is it Pele, Franz Beckenbauer, Maradona, or Zinedine Zidane? Certainly this question is invalid, because it is not fair to compare them who played in different situation and era. It is better to say that they are considered as the best player at their times. Are you satisfied with this anwer?

Pele is the best when we talk about 3 times of winning World Cup trophy in 1958, 1962 and 1970. Beckenbauer is the best when we remember how he lead German to beat the much tipped Netherlands led by much praised Johan Cruyff in the 1974 World Cup final. Zidane is the best when we saw him playing attractively for host-country France to grasp the World Cup in 1998.

In my opinion, Maradona is the best. Yes I have the bias judgment here. Frankly speaking I have hardly seen Pele and Beckenbauer playing – despite I have seen some footage – as I saw a dazzling Maradona. I never forgot that if he got the ball to dribble then at least 4 opponent players came to guard him or Maradona will rampage their defense. The England knew this in 1986 World Cup, when Maradona could dribble the ball through 5 English players before conquering the goalkeeper Peter Shilton. And every time he got a chance and shot it to the goal, then it would be the dangerous shooting. There is no player ever like this.

Even Michael Platini praised Maradona when he was asked who is the best between Maradona and 1998 World Cup winner, Zidane. Platini answered what Zidane does with a ball, Maradona could do with an orange. I don't know whether it is a real compliment or maybe Platini was merely jealous to Zidane since he never appeared as the champion of the World Cup.

Now Maradona comes back to 2010 World Cup as a coach of Argentina. He pursues the record as the player and the coach winning the trophy the way Beckenbauer did in 1990 World Cup. Should Maradona succeed in this tournament, then I never cast doubt that Maradona is the best in the football history.

The Mystery of World Cup Champion

World Cup final is likely not an usual game in which we cannot forecast the champion. In contrast, in this event, we can predict who will be the champion. Certainly we cannot single out exactly the ensuing champion right now, but it will be either Brazil or Uruguay or Argentina, Italy or Germany or England or France. Based on the long-standing history analysis of World Cup, the countries have the possibility to be a winner beyond the previous mentioned would be Spain and Netherlands. So frankly speaking, the spirited supporters of South Korea or Swiss should not dream of grasping the cup.

It seems the championship trophy will be awarded to the countries have a long tradition of football. The surprising country blessed with luckiness will not prevail. Compared to European Championship, the trophy could go surprisingly to Denmark or Greece, we have never seen this happening in World Cup. This final is not the place for underdogs. They may be invited to the game, but not to win it. In biblical words, many are called but few are chosen.

If we see the last 40 years of World Cup finals, the new countries added to the list are Argentina in 1978 and France in 1998. Who are they? Are they new countries in football arena? Absolutely not. Argentina was the runner up after having been beaten by Uruguay in the first World Cup in Uruguay in 1930. France reached semifinal but lost to Brazil in 1958. And in this 1958 World Cup, Just Fontaine set a goal tally record of 13 and it remains until now. We can see, it is not easy to join the elite group.