Democracy in India and Indonesia

published @ The Jakarta Post

India and Indonesia are regarded as the world’s largest and third-largest democracies respectively. India and Indonesia have many similarities. Both declared independence at relatively the same time and each founding father, Jawaharlal Nehru and Sukarno were co-founders of the non-aligned movement. Both have large populations and social diversity. Both are still developing and still grappling with poverty, red tape and inadequate infrastructure.

The differences are India has embraced democracy since its earliest days, while Indonesia achieved it in 1998 after toppling president Soeharto. In terms of economics, Indonesia under president Soeharto‘s administration was touted as an economic miracle. India’s economic growth has been anemic for decades. Nehru’s legacy was opting for centralized development planning. Amid the financial crisis in the 1990s, India, led by then prime minister Narasimha Rao and then finance minister, Manmohan Singh, started reforming the economy and moving to a market economy.

It is worth noting that in India a state is managed by a party and led by a chief minister. Through economic surveys, each state’s performance is publicly announced. Each party boasts about the best performance of states under its rule. So, before elections Indians have references on a political party’s performance. The party hardly promises anything beyond reality.

In a similar vein, Indonesia has been under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s (SBY) administration for 10 years. The best he gave us was stability in economy and politics. The economy has grown by around 5 percent during his two terms, which brought Indonesia into the G20 as a country shaping the global economy. And there has been no significant turmoil in politics. However, his administration has been tainted with corruption scandals implicating the top brass of his Democratic Party.

Thanks to democracy Indonesia has also given birth to a new leader. To many people, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo was seen as the best choice to replace SBY and bring Indonesians to prosperity. Like India’s Modi, his meteoric rise started from the success in managing a municipality, Surakarta. He made many breakthroughs in the economy, infrastructure and public services through a hands-on approach.

Later, this achievement brought him to lead Jakarta and ultimately to lead Indonesia. To this point, Indians and Indonesians have got the leaders they wanted. However, India and Indonesia have different political systems. Under the parliamentary system, Indians know exactly what party to vote for if they want Modi to be prime minister. And in the last general election, the BJP-led coalition swept the parliament.

In contrast, Indonesia subscribes to a presidential system with the result that legislative elections do not necessarily correspond with the presidential election. The Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P)-led coalition who managed to secure Jokowi’s presidency got fewer seats than those of the opposition coalition. The debacle begins.

Even before the new president is sworn in the opposition is trying everything to show their force in controlling legislation and trying to hamper all the executives’ policies. The amendment to the law regarding the House of Representatives leadership is a case in point.

As an Indonesian, I am very envious of the Indians. In India, the fierce rivalry during the general election has completely stopped as the loser has given way to the winner. And the newly established government has started working with full confidence and support. In Indonesia, the future looks grim and uncertain. The fallout of the presidential election still exists and, sadly, Jokowi’s administration – instead of working to catch up with the progress of other developing nations – has to start quarrelling with the House about many issues for the next five years.

* * * * *

Wrong debate on local election bill

published @ The Jakarta Post

Recently, the Red-and-White Coalition led by Prabowo Subianto has been making trouble again. They are trying to re-enact the election of local leaders through city/district councils instead of by direct election. Their intention is loud and clear. Their combined representatives dominate the councils, so they have the biggest chance of retaining the regional top jobs all over Indonesia. The coalition’s hidden motive is to exact revenge for losing the presidential election. However, their move, which jeopardizes Indonesia’s nascent democracy, must be stopped.

The main reason is that with power in the hands of councilors, prior to local elections, leadership candidates will meekly focus their efforts to appeal to the councilors instead of the people. This is susceptible to bribery. And after the election, the new leader will serve and please the powerful councilors rather than the powerless people.

The interests of councilors are very different from the interests of the people. The former pursues the enjoyment of power while in contrast the latter wants the best public service. And the facts show that the much-admired leaders such as Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, Ridwan Kamil, Tri Rismaharini, Nurdin Abdullah are the ones who deliver results and are directly elected by all the people.

Due to the recent maelstrom of debate, the substantial matter of regional autonomy needs be given priority. The debate should not be whether a leader is selected through direct election or not, but it must be at what level regional autonomy applies.

Ryaas Rasyid, former regional autonomy minister, once cited the overlapping of authority among governor and regents in one province. In fact, the governor has no “real” authority in the province, since the regents have already ruled on the regencies in the province. He said it was a waste that a governor had technical offices such as public works, health etc., which were matters that were already managed by regencies. So it would be better if the real debate on local government revision, including elections, was this overlap. There are at least two options available, namely autonomy at provincial level or at regency level.

If regional autonomy lies at regency level, then the services to people are wholly provided by the local government of the regency. The governor must not have technical offices and not be elected by people but be appointed by central government. The real function of a governor would be to represent central government in the province.

If regional autonomy is handed to the provincial level, then the power goes to the governor. The governor will be elected by the people and be held responsible for providing public services. The regents will be appointed by the governor and serve as the area managers to implement the governor’s policy. Some have rejected this structure because it resembles federalism which is stigmatized in Indonesian politics.

This is the crucial matter that should be debated and solved. It definitely concerns the effectiveness and efficiency of local government. And to join the fray, I propose that regional autonomy should stop at the provincial level.

Jakarta is the best example of autonomy at the provincial level. The governor is directly elected by the people, while all mayors are appointed by the governor. And Jakarta is a big province in terms of population and so far this system has worked.

* * * * *

Bukittinggi: The Town That Killed Colonialism

published @ The Jakarta Post

Pramoedya Ananta Toer, Indonesia’s most remarkable writer, once wrote a piece entitled The Book that Killed Colonialism. In it, he stressed the importance of Eduard Douwes Dekker’s 1859 novel Max Havelaar, which highlighted the misery wrought on Indonesians by the policy of forced cultivation. This book energized the liberal movement in the Netherlands, eventually leading to new, more ethical colonial policies, including Western education for Indonesians. 

Well, if a book can kill colonialism, then why shouldn’t a town be able to? That town is Bukittinggi. The back-story is the coffee trade and the scene is the Padri War.

Since the advent of Westerners arriving in West Sumatra, coffee as an export commodity had been thriving. To begin with, the Dutch held sway only in Padang and the surrounding coastal area. The coffee plantations were far inland. Then the Padri War broke out.

The war was ignited by a group of Wahabi-inspired clerics, recently returned from the Middle East. They insisted on the brutal implementation of fundamental Islam in the Minangkabau region. However, the clerics met resistance from traditional chiefs called the Kaum Adat. The war raged for decades.

In 1821, the embattled Kaum Adat asked for support from the Dutch in Padang. The Dutch were keen to help in order to safeguard their coffee supply chain and to gain power in areas where coffee was grown.

To strengthen their military position, the Dutch built the Fort de Kock in 1833 in the middle of the Agam plateau; the local Agam people named this colonial town Bukittinggi. The Dutch defeated the clerics in 1837.

To boost the economy, using the export of coffee as the backbone, the Dutch built infrastructure including schools and coffee warehouses, and trained locals to run the coffee-related businesses as well as the administration of the local government. The Minangkabau people were dragged into the modern era, giving birth to a class of Dutch-speaking local teachers, civil servants and intellectuals. This class and its offspring would later play a leading role in Indonesian independence.

A notably large proportion of Indonesian intellectuals involved in the struggle for independence were in some way related to Bukittinggi and nearby Koto Gadang, including Bung Hatta (1902-1980), Abdul Muis (1883-1959), Tan Malaka (1897-1949), Agus Salim (1884-1954) and Sutan Sjahrir (1907-1966).

Bung Hatta was a co-founder of the nation. Along with Bung Karno, he proclaimed and signed the declaration of Indonesian independence in 1945.

Tan Malaka was an underground fighter and a prolific writer. One of his books, Madilog, is still widely read. He also had the first clear vision of the country’s future, in 1925 writing an essay entitled Toward the Republic of Indonesia.

Both H. Agus Salim and Abdul Muis were activists in Sarekat Islam, the commercial-turned-political organization that spread nationalism all over the archipelago. Sutan Sjahrir was the first Indonesian prime minister. He played a key role in the 1946 Linggarjati agreement — the first negotiation between the Dutch and the formally declared Indonesian nation.

The Minangkabau people and their culture maximized the hidden benefits of Dutch rule, at least in part resulting in a consequence unintended by the colonialists: Indonesian independence.

* * * * *

RI's Democracy Homework

published @ The Jakarta Post

Democracy is a system to form a governing institution and its leader for a certain term through regular general elections. The underlying idea is to get wisdom from the crowd. However, effective democracy needs several intertwined conditions, including a relatively high-income society and a rules-conscious society.

People’s prosperity is the cornerstone of democracy. Psychologists know well that people who lose their wealth suffer more, as compared to long-time poor people. So, the richer the people, the more rational they will be. They will apply freedom hand in hand with obligation. They will not endanger their good lives by not participating in forming a legitimate government. Some experts suggest that democracy runs better in a country with a per capita income of more than US $10,000 a year. That’s why in earlier years suffrage was only for the rich and land owners.

The other substantive matter of democracy in a general election is competition. Rules are set and all participants must abide by these. There is a referee who supervises the competition and guarantees fair play. The competition results in a winner and inevitably a loser. And most importantly, the loser must accept the results gracefully. That’s why, in a mature democratic country, soon after the quick count result, the loser will give a concession speech and ask his supporters to support the winner. If not, democracy brings chaos.

These preconditions bring us to the current situation of RI’s nascent democracy. In fact, after 16 years RI’s democracy has run quite well. However, the recent dispute in the presidential election is a wake-up call. Here are some notes:

Hours after the election people got confused because the two camps claimed different results. One camp announced Prabowo Subianto’s win, but the other claimed Joko “Jokowi” Widodo won. But if we scrutinize further we find that the former camp carried out its survey with a tendency to justify Prabowo’s win. The latter’s result was similar to the General Election Commission’s (KPU’s) result. Obviously, the quick count had been used to disrupt the democratic process and give false hopes to the loser.

Second, there was the blow-up over baseless vote-rigging accusations. After expressing jubilation at “winning” the election, Prabowo‘s supporters asked people to wait for the KPU’s result, but one or two days before the KPU’s announcement Prabowo suddenly asked for a cancellation. Then he withdrew from the vote recapitulation process just minutes before the official announcement that declared Jokowi the winner.

As a last ditch effort, Prabowo resorted to his constitutional rights by filing his case with the Constitutional Court. He made accusations about a structured, systematic and massive vote rigging by the KPU.

Finally, some have blatantly abused the tools of democracy, such as the quick count and the right to dispute the results, since there is no solid proof — let alone 10 truckloads of evidence. Unfortunately, some people still buy this humbug and tolerate such denial of losing. This might be the corollary of a lack of education.

* * * * *

Lessons Learned from Ukraine

published @ The Jakarta Post

The crisis unfolding in Ukraine might give lessons learned and paint a picture of the world we live in. American values and interests rule the world; the supply of basic needs (food, energy) is a powerful tool in international politics; the Cold War has not completely vanished; but the odds of world war are also small.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, each Soviet state declared independence from Russia, including Ukraine. In fact, the tension of the Cold War waned for some time. However, the geography of these countries — Russia in the east and western Europe in the west — creates unintended consequences.

This incurs a repeated tug-of-war between Russia and the Western bloc. On grounds of economic benefits, many European countries eagerly joined the Western bloc and NATO, but Russia is uneasy when surrounded.

So Russia interferes with domestic politics in order to keep its neighbors under Russian influence. It ignites conflicts, first in Georgia in 2008 and now, Ukraine. However, in the big picture this Ukraine conflict also tells us, at least, three things.

First, we live in a US-dominated world. It is the US that defines what is good and what is bad. When Moscow assisted the Crimea separatists, the US condemned this action and imposed sanctions. But, if we juxtapose Ukraine with Syria, we get confused with what’s right and what’s wrong. The US backs the rebels, including al-Qaeda-linked Islamists, to topple the legitimate regime. It also did this in Libya. And the world must acquiesce and never impose any sanctions.

However, the US is absolutely not all that bad. Thanks to the US, the world flourishes with innovations, respect of human rights, freedom to choose and democracy.

Their values are virtuous, though sometimes they don’t walk the talk. It can’t imagines if the most powerful country were to be Russia or China.

Second, the security of basic needs (food, energy) is very important to any country. Self-sufficiency is a must, otherwise the supplier will dictate. In terms of energy, Ukraine is very fragile. Each bold decision made by Ukrainian leaders always brings the fear of the gas supply being cut off by Gazprom, the Russian gas company owned by the government. Back in 1973, the Arabs adopted this very “weapon” to support Egypt against Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

This cautionary tale might also happen in regards to the food supply. This explains why the most advanced countries — belied to their preaching of free trade — always give subsidies to their farmers. It’s simply because they don’t want to starve in case of war with food suppliers.

Once, Indonesia depended on US-made weapons systems. Due to human rights infringement in Timor Leste, the US banned spare parts supplies and left the weapons in bad shape.

Third, the whole world is more civilized now than it was hundreds years ago. This confirms the thesis of Steven Pinker, the author of bestselling book, The Better Angels of Our Nature, which argues that violence among nations and among people has declined throughout human history. Nowadays, people more often resolve disputes with talks rather than weapons.

As the crises are escalating in Ukraine and in Syria, solutions through diplomatic channels intensify. Vladimir Putin of Russia and Barack Obama of the US call each other. And their respective foreign ministers, John Kerry and Sergey Lavrov, work hand in hand to sort out problems. Indeed, the world’s superpowers have no appetite to wage a full-scale war.

The time of war is relatively short when a superpower gets involved directly. Libya, which has no superpower backing it, is a case in point.

But the US hardly attacked overtly in Syria because of Russia’s support. The same is true in the South China Sea conflict between China and the US-supported Philippines.

Prolonged, unwinnable and mutually devastating war is always a last resort.

* * * * *

Why Are National Exams Needed?

published @ The Jakarta Post

There are various arguments for and against the national exams. Those for the exams argue that after three or six years of study, students should be tested. The exam results reveal weaknesses in the education system and the progress of students in each area and school. This allows policymakers to devise solutions for improvements. Those against holding the exams say that students should not be judged by a single examination but that other variables should be taken into consideration, and that ranking students does not reflect their true capacity. Worse yet, many students experience stress during the exams, which is bad for them.

I am in favor of exams. The absence of standardized national exams would mean no indicators of knowledge or competency among students. Accordingly, there would be no feedback for education policies. It is like thinking you are very good at karate but never competing in any karate tournament to confirm your ability.

Those who argue against the exams don’t reject exams or student ranking outright. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which assesses 15-year-old students’ performance in mathematics, science and reading, is widely accepted. Although the PISA represents the performance of a city or a country rather than that of an individual, it compares education systems, and most importantly provides feedback.

To me, the arguments against exams lean too much toward the ideal education. Education is about teaching how to learn and to master basic skills, not how to pass tests.

One of the world’s best education systems can be found in Finland, where descriptive feedback is adopted rather than exams. Unfortunately, Indonesia’s education system is hardly on par with Finland’s. Hiring the top graduates to become teachers, delivering education at an individual level and equality for all are the main characteristics of the Finnish education system, all of which are absent in Indonesia. In Finland, the rivalry to become a teacher is cut-throat. Only the best can be teachers. The government also deems education a human right so that every student obtains the same high quality of education regardless of the conditions of students and parents. So all students are guaranteed a high quality education and no student is left behind.

In contrast, Indonesian teachers are recruited from people who just simply want to be teachers. Moreover, top graduates are unlikely to sign up to become teachers. Inequality is also widespread. Urban students have better infrastructure and better teacher attendance than rural students.

However, all the downsides of Indonesia’s education system justify national exams. Why? First, the current education system is still considered inadequate to produce smart students who are ready to compete in the 21st century. The impact of the education system is barely measured until students are tested. The results of national exams keep policymakers informed about the condition of our education system. The data should lead to improvements.

Second, it’s about making students study on their own. Unlike Finnish teachers, Indonesian teachers are assumed to deliver a poor quality of education, making Indonesian students struggle by themselves. National exams push students to learn the material.

* * * * *

Reading Megawati's Tweets

published @ The Jakarta Post

I confess that I had been one of Megawati Soekarnoputri’s critics, based on her short presidential stint in 2001–2004. Unlike her much-revered father, founding president Sukarno, she did not deliver good, interesting speeches. The content of her speeches was mostly dull, and worse, some of her policies were controversial, such as divesting the state-owned telecommunications company, Indosat, and selling cheap gas from the Tangguh field to China. 

Although these have drawn criticism since she was in office, I have never heard her defend herself. Only her Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) supporters have tried to make unsatisfactory rebuttals. We may all think that she has no answers and is barely able to think independently. In which case, she implemented these policies because her ministers or advisers told her to do so. Until recently, she had put up quite a convincing case in this regard via the social media site, Twitter. 

She tweeted explanations of her controversial policies regarding Indosat and Tangguh gas on her Twitter account, @MegawatiSSP. 

After taking the helm after president Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, Megawati faced a budget shortage. There was also money owing to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In addition, the country’s military equipment, including warships and fighter jets, were aging. The US had not only embargoed military spare parts due to the Dilli Santa Cruz massacre in East Timor, but it had also stationed one of its aircraft carriers at the intersection of the Java Sea and Timor Sea, infringing Indonesia’s maritime territory. The Indonesian Military (TNI) was powerless and could do nothing.

To address this, Megawati decided to divest valuable state assets, of Indosat and several other state-owned enterprises. After filling its coffers, the government paid off its IMF debt and bought military weapons from Russia and Poland, such as Sukhoi fighter jets and helicopters. New barracks for military personnel were also built and existing barracks repaired to improve morale. 

At the same time as improving its military hardware, the government launched soft power initiatives through intensifying diplomatic ties with Russia, China, North Korea and Eastern European countries. This sent a strong and clear message to the US on which bloc Indonesia was in if the former’s aircraft carrier kept sailing in our territory. 

Another source of money the government had was the Tangguh gas field. Unfortunately, China was the only potential buyer and investor for exploitation, as Indonesia was competing against another supplier, Russia. All things considered, the only way to convince China to establish the plant and buy the gas was to offer low prices with strings attached. 

China would assist the government in establishing power plants, access roads to villages and megaprojects, such as bridges and ports. And the price would be reviewed in five years’ time after the first eight years. Another heart-touching requirement was that China had to help 1.2 million starving North Koreans.

After reading all her tweets, I suddenly saw Megawati differently and accepted her accounts. This does not necessarily mean that she introduced the best policies compared to other alternatives. But she has given us an insight into why she reached those decisions, basing them on several understandable and plausible considerations. Megawati may be a bad communicator, but she is not an entirely bad decision maker.

* * * * *

ASEAN's Technology Race

published @ The Jakarta Post

It was Aug. 10, 1995. An Indonesian-made turboprop aircraft, the B-250, touched down after completing its maiden flight. The nation was overwhelmed with a proud and can-do spirit. The N-250 was the next stage of Indonesia’s aviation technology progression, followed by the CN-235 that was developed in a joint venture with Spain’s Casa. The N-250 was the result of planned technology development.

Back then, without democracy, the Indonesian president developed the nation assisted by able ministers who were free from political interest. Indonesia was ready for the takeoff stage of development. Unfortunately, a financial crisis emerged. The rupiah plummeted, prices skyrocketed and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) intervened.

Guided by the IMF, the course of economic development changed. It is said there were two schools of thought to develop Indonesia’s economy. Simply put, “Habibienomics” emphasized value-added technology and “Widjojonomics” largely concerned itself with macroeconomics. The latter prevailed and high tech industries were no longer funded. The Engineers stepped aside, the economists lead the way. The IMF had driven the last nail into Indonesia’s high technology coffin.

Indonesia has halted its technological progress. Worse, in the democratic era, the president must please political alliances rather than take risks and finance new technologies. Long-term goals only reach as far as the next election.

In the meantime, our ASEAN neighbors flex their muscles. During 2005-10, the number of full-time equivalent researchers per million people was 6,173 in Singapore, 365 in Malaysia, 316 in Thailand, 90 in Indonesia and 78 in Philippines. Research and development expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) was 2.43 in Singapore, 0.63 in Malaysia, 0.21 in Thailand, 0.11 in Philippines and 0.08 in Indonesia. Patent applications filed by residents were 1,076 in Malaysia, 1,056 in Singapore, 927 in Thailand, 541 in Indonesia, and 186 in Philippines. These indicators support the reality.

Singapore is a success story as it has shifted its economy to manufacturing and then to being knowledge-based. After Asia’s financial crisis in the late 1990s, Singapore began its Technopreneurship Investment Fund (TIF) to lure the world’s leading venture capitalists to fund domestic knowledge-based start-ups.

Malaysia is attempting to transform itself into a developed nation. Malaysia’s government also founded Agensi Inovasi Malaysia, an investment company to fund start-ups. Vietnam, the new kid on the block, is also seriously addressing new kinds of economic development.

In terms of technology (or anything else), during President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s 2004-2014 stint, there has been nothing to be proud of. Despite “good” macroeconomic indicators, there’s no longer an ambitious dream to achieve something great. Strategic industries are almost abandoned. Scientists stand idle and some go abroad to quench their technological passion.

* * * * *

Nationalist in Free Market Era

published @ The Jakarta Post

Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politicians have befuddled us many times. They seem to emphasize nationalism, the need for a people’s economy, but sometimes their policies contradict the ideologies they tout.

During Megawati Soekarnoputri’s 2001-2004 stint, she made many blunders in regard to nationalism. First, she divested the government’s majority share at Indosat, a state-owned company, to foreign firm Singapore Technologies Telemedia (STT). The government not only sold a lucrative company but put national security at risk.

Second, she sold Tangguh natural gas at a cheap price to China via a long-term contract. She fiddled away a big source of big government funding to satisfy national ambition. Third, she sold the Pertamina-made very large crude carriers (VLCC). The vessel was codesigned by Indonesians and it would have given Pertamina an advantage. Recently, Jakarta Governor Joko “Jokowi” Widodo made the same mistake by buying Chinese-made articulated buses instead of those domestically made by PT Inka for the Transjakarta fleet. Those Chinese-made buses were found to be rusty and damaged. Procedurally speaking, what Jokowi’s administration has done is not wrong.

The provision of buses was undertaken through a competitive international tender. The products that fulfill the right specifications and offer them at the cheapest price should be awarded the tender. Unfortunately, Inka’s articulated buses lost to China’s. Inka, however, still provides Transjakarta single buses. Inka also previously lost to a Chinese company in Soekarno-Hatta International Airport’s commuter line tender.

The tender is under investigation but Chinese products are a threat to almost all national products. Jokowi, who is tipped to be Indonesia’s next president, must pay attention to this. National products have to be championed. And the lessons learned from China’s auto industry, which dominates the global auto industry, in relatively short terms must be drawn.

In fact, the Chinese government intervene in the industry through state-owned automakers. It strengthens its domestic automakers; it regulates the transfer of technology from foreign automakers through joint venture; and, ultimately, it develops a Chinese brand.

In contrast, Indonesian leaders abandoned the potential of its state-owned automaker. In 1965, Sukarno uttered the vision of berdikari (stand on our own feet — self reliance). Former president Soeharto forged this policy through establishing strategic industries. Inka is a state-owned company specializing in rolling stock and automotive manufacturing. If we can produce things on our own, why are buying from China?

Indonesian leaders, including Jokowi, seem naive when it comes to free-market implementation. Historically, almost all nations, including the UK, US and Japan, protected their own industries in the early years of industrialization.

Finally, in contrast with the stale economics textbook, the state can regulate the market for its own interests. As market law goes: “market is great as long as you win.”

* * * * *

Reflecting on General Elections

published @ The Jakarta Post

Democracy is often considered to be the best way to organize a country and achieve prosperity. Western countries always preach this to the developing world. India and Indonesia, as the world’s largest and third-largest democracies, are often cited as the paragons. In contrast, China is deemed to be moving down the wrong path because it abandoned democracy.

However, if we scrutinize further, Western countries implemented democracy in a gradual process. Most importantly, they became fully democratic only after they had developed their economies, governing institutions and educational systems.

A general election (boasting universal suffrage) is the be-all and end-all of true democracy. It is important to note that in their nascent democracies, Western states limited the people who were entitled to cast their ballots; the UK and the US are cases in point.

England was the country that inspired modern democracy. Following the signing of the Magna Charta in 1215, the first parliament was established in 1265 containing two chambers: the House of Lords comprising unelected aristocrats, and the House of Commons, which contained elected members of parliament (MPs). However, the only people allowed to vote were male landowners.

This situation lasted for centuries but by the 19th century, ordinary people began to demand inclusion. In 1819, for instance, amid desperate economic conditions, local people gathered to demonstrate in Manchester.

Fear by the British authorities of potentially revolutionary forces as seen across the Channel in France resulted in the government cracking down on the gathering.

However, this watershed event did trigger reform. In 1832, the Great Reform Act was enacted in order to accommodate the middle-class voice in politics. Still, the working class struggled for enfranchisement. Only after the end of World War I in 1918 was universal suffrage introduced in the UK, which at that time was the world’s superpower.

The United States went through a similar experience. In its early years, there was no universal suffrage in the US. Only white male landowners were allowed to vote. In 1856, the franchise was extended to include all white men. Ridiculously, native Indians were turned down for voting, because they legally didn’t include the citizen.

African-Americans were given the right to vote in 1870, although many were hampered by a poll tax and literacy test. Women were only given the right to vote in 1920.

The long journey to universal suffrage in most advanced countries reminds us of our so-called “Asian values”. Lee Kuan Yew said successful democracy required “an interested and vigilant electorate” and “the ablest, toughest and most dedicated of leaders”.

* * * * *

Capitalism without Religions

published @ The Jakarta Post

The article entitled “Religions and Capitalism” by Satrio Wahono (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 30) has linked the success (or failure) of capitalism with religion. Economic crisis happens because the very system abandons religion. Here are some notes on this proposition.

First, capitalism has no founders and was developed without any blueprint. And there is also no spirit of religion involved. The seed of capitalism was rooted in business activities in Italy, the bastion of Catholicism, long before the birth of the Protestant movement.

The next milestones were when the English and the Dutch established the first joint-stock companies: the East India Company in 1600 and Dutch India Company in 1602. Furthermore, the stocks could be sold and bought on the first stock exchange established in 1611 in Amsterdam. Europe entered an age of enlightenment which was based on reasoning. Science and technology, trade and factories were thriving.

Second, to link religion with the rise of capitalism is too exaggerated. Protestantism definitely shook up Christendom. For the first time, the authority of Pope and his priest were openly opposed. This breakthrough arguably freed people’s potential from the shackles of divine authority. However, if Protestantism guarantees advanced development, why is Protestant-majority Papua New Guinea still poor?

Islamic law arguably hampered capitalism. In The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East, Timur Kuran, a Turkish American scholar, argues that laws of inheritance discourage the accumulation of wealth, as the Islamic law of commercial partnership limited its sustainability and Islamic legal proceedings hampered a paper economy which is critical to establishing large scale enterprises such as joint-stock companies.

This explains why the Ottoman Turks, a former Islamic superpower, declined sharply amid the rise of capitalist Western countries. Moreover, the resurrection of China was definitely nothing to do with Confucianism. Rather, the pragmatist Deng Xiaoping emancipated all the pent-up Chinese productive forces. His policy was merely practical, neglecting the color of the cats as long as they caught mice.

Third, capitalism has befriended economic crises since its infancy. The first economic crisis transpired in 1636-1637 caused by the reckless stock trade of tulip bulbs. Since then, one crisis after another buffeted capitalism including the great depression and formidable challenge of communism. But, capitalism gets by.

Unfortunately, its success inherently brings unintended consequences. For example, the advanced technology results in globalization and a knowledge-based economy. This kills jobs and widens inequality. Globalization shifts the low-skilled jobs from advanced economies to the Third World. This causes the unemployment in some advanced countries to be stubbornly high.

To sum up, capitalism is linked with more earthly, rather than heavenly, ideas. Without the burden of divinity or heresy, capitalism has always managed find creative ways to sort out all of its problems. And the crisis surrounding capitalism strengthens rather than weakens the system. This creative destruction culls the good/adaptable businesses from the bad/inadaptable ones.

* * * * *

Ahmad Dhani and Musical Psychology

Published @ The Jakarta Post

Ahmad Dhani is a talented musician-cum-entrepreneur. He cofounded a legendary Indonesian band, Dewa 19. Either with a band or solo, he has composed a lot of memorable songs.

Having turned down borrowing money from a rising female singer he helped promote, he founded Republik Cinta Management (RCM), an artist management company. He envisioned a just and formal contract between a singer and a promoter. Later, he expanded his business to a school of music.

He has become a judge in Indonesia Idol, a reality TV show. He selects the contestants and gives feedback on their performances. His comments are often harsh, to the point, and sometimes contemptuous.

However, I see something different in his comments — high-quality advice based on a psychological theory.

Dhani said our highest ability would always be about one level below our favorite singer. Benjamin Franklin, an American founding father, adopted the same method to master writing skills. After reading an article he admired, he tried to emulate the article with his own words.

The judge also challenged contestants to name 10 international female singers.

If they could name them, they would secure golden tickets (to Jakarta for a further selection phase) without singing any song. It is about immersion — total involvement — in the search to acquire skills.

This method was inspired from language learning. Shinichi Suzuki observed that children can easily learn their mother tongue because they are exposed to that all the time. Later, Suzuki applied this method of immersion (and repetition) to mastering music — called the Suzuki Method.

Dhani suggested a participant learn one English-language song each week. It is about deliberate practice coined by K. Anders Ericsson, an American psychologist.

One aspect of deliberate practice is to practice beyond one’s existing capacity.

Lastly, Dhani commented to a contestant from Medan that she could really sing, but didn’t have the voice of a singer. A voice of singer denotes innate talent. It gives rise to the longstanding debate of nature versus nurture. Some experts believe hard work is the best predictor of success.

Research shows some great musicians or sportspeople have innate talent, but this view doesn’t completely defy the merits of hard work.

Success is the combination of inner talent and hard work.

Indonesian Military

1. We, Indonesians, exude self-confidence in country’s defense. It seems we believe that no country dares to attack or challenge us. Data shows Indonesia have relatively only a fraction compared to our neighbors.

	Population	Area	Personnel	Aircraft	Warship
Indonesia	247 million	1.9 million km2	460,000	444	150
Thailand	66 million	0.5 million km2	305,860	743	596
Vietnam	88 million	0.3 million km2	412,000	644	161
Australia	22 million	7.6 million km2	47,135	377	54

    Even though less likely, Indonesia looks unconvincing to         address any big warfare.  

2. Indonesia military power is too lean and we also cast doubt whether the equipments are modern or combat-ready. We hear many times accidents due to aging equipment. Of late, Australian boat crossed illegally and easily Indonesian territorial waters without any appropriate response.      

3. Since long time ago, Indonesia has established the strategic industries related to military. PTDI produces aircraft, PT PAL warship, PT. Pindad rifle and armored personnel vehicle, PT. Dahana bombs. But, Indonesia still buys military equipments from foreign producers.

4. Foreign-made weaponry will be the burden. Once, United States embargoed the spare-parts of aircraft on grounds of Indonesian mishandling of demonstrators in East Timor. The equipments will also be disadvantage, because the foreign producers know well the weakness. Hence we hardly win the war against the allies of producers. If most of our weapons coming from United States, we can’t wage war against Australia. Because Australia is the ally of United States, then Australia will know how to anticipate our weapons.   

5. Fortunately, this has been realized by the military commanders. Recently they have signed agreement with local institutions such as National Institute of Aeronautics and Space (LAPAN) and Surya University to develop indigenous weapons system.

6. Once, military might means a large number of skilled soldiers. Roman Empire, Mongolian Empire and Ottoman Empire wielded this power. Later, military might means aerial power. In six-day war, Israel paralyzed all Arab countries with fierce aerial strikes. And now the era of drone and long-range guided missile in which Western power and its allies rule the roost. With this, they can launch surgical attacks any target anywhere.

7. Indonesia’s self-sufficiency in military is a must. And the state-of-the art weaponry of modern warfare must be locally made.
                      

* * * * *

Fighting Against Mother Nature

published @The Jakarta Post

Singapore is well-known with her rigorous administration managing people’s lives in the city state. But in 2010 Singapore was stricken by flood inundating the famous Orchard Road.

More recently, in December 2013, the United Kingdom saw a flood caused by high tide of the North Sea, which resulted in the loss of lives and more homeless, as did the Alberta flood in Canada in June 2013. These instances show us that nobody can fully control the flood waters.
Every Jakarta governor has the headache of the yearly flood caused by heavy rain during November to February. The public blames them for their incompetency. Here are some insights raised for fair and better judgment.

First, water flows from upstream to the downstream from high ground to low ground. This implies that to prevent flooding as much water as possible must be kept in the upstream. The solutions have been discussed and some have even been done, namely: keeping water in upstream (outside Jakarta) through reforestation and building dams and controlling water in the downstream through reservoirs and infiltration wells (in Jakarta).

Water management in the upstream will reduce water flow downstream. The Jakarta administration has signed the cooperation agreement with the State-Owned Enterprise Ministry to build four dams at Ciliwung upstream. Besides, the Jakarta administration has financed Bogor regency administration to demolish illegal villas in the upstream area to improve water catchment.

Reservoirs and infiltration wells will absorb water run-off into the ground rather than adding more burden to the drainage channels and rivers. Moreover this will preserve underground water. The Jakarta administration has shown us their incredible work through the rehabilitation of reservoirs.

Especially, the relocation of illegal squatters from the Pluit and Ria-Rio reservoirs. And recently, they have also constructed about 2,000 infiltration wells.

Second, some victims of flood live on the river bank. Technically, the river bank is part of the river. If someone lives on the riverbank, the right description of is that he lives “in” the river. Accordingly, no one or thing is to blame if flood waters inundate their houses. Another vertigo-inducing problem is the uncivilized culture of throwing trash in the river and the Jakarta administration spends billions of rupiah to excavate the garbage.
Again, this problem also has been well identified and there has been solution, since Fauzi Bowo’s stint. The residents of the Ciliwung riverbank will be moved to low-cost rental apartments, with Jokowi, as usual, executing the idea. Last year, he has commenced the development of the apartments that are scheduled to be completed by the middle of 2014.
All in all, the Jakarta administration has done well. However, the problem might only be mitigated, hardly eradicated. Man proposes, God disposes.

Third, we can’t fully control natural disasters in spite of any efforts made. Even the most advanced countries cannot. Sometimes the rain is so heavily that it overwhelms any control system. So disaster management must be well developed in the first place.

* * * * *