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.

* * * * *