Why does Governor Ahok lose election?

Recently, with 70% approval rating, Governor Basuki “ Ahok” Purnama loses DKI Jakarta gubernatorial election to Anies Baswedan, former President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s Minister of National Education. Meritocracy through crowd wisdom seems not working. Since Jakarta is the barometer Indonesia’s politics, the reasons must be investigated and the lessons-learned must be taken out.

The background of this election is the fallout of 2014 presidential election. It is the proxy war between Prabowo’s camp and President Jokowi’s camp. It is likely the 2019 presidential election will pit both camps too. So this is the warming up.

Indonesia has been experiencing democracy for 18 years. Win or lose happens in election, but this time is different. The downgrade of Indonesia’s democracy is seen. Religious sentiment, instead of merit, emerges as the decisive factor this current election. 

Before blaming religious sentiment as the culprit, the root of the problem might be at Governor Ahok’s personality. He fails to understand that politics entails not only rational but emotional value. Understandably, along with then Governor Jokowi, he indeed makes Jakarta better with massive infrastructure development, public service and governing system and this draws national admiration. But then he becomes over-confident and so naïve.

After Jokowi being elected as president, Ahok as Governor denied Boy Sadikin, PDI-P Jakarta chapter leader to be the vice governor. Ahok preferred to be paired by Jarot Saiful Hidayat, the other PDI-P cadre and former mayor of Blitar. Later, Boy Sadikin joins Anies Baswedan campaign team. In this gubernatorial election Ahok, at first, refused to run through political parties which he deemed corruptive. He would run independently through the support of Teman Ahok (Friends of Ahok). Only after being convinced by PDI-P chairman, Megawati, and potential administration problem of collected identity cards, Ahok accepted the political reality.

Ahok is a very good governor. Like in welfare state spirit, he arguably takes care of the Jakartans from cradle to grave. I see Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew in him. But in doing this, inevitably he must do the unpopular policies, notably eviction of illegal squatters and legal settlers in the river bank. Indeed he does the right things. Without these, Jakarta will not lift up itself to world class metropolis.

Coupled with his combative demeanor, all these become ammunition for his rivals. Worse, his gaffe on Quran’s verse on arguably choosing leader in Islam brings him to court. His opportunist rivals applied the 2000 year-old Sun Tzu’s war strategy: … attack the opponent’s weaknesses. Furthermore, they relentlessly practice the end justifies the means. They cannot compete in terms of performance and achievement, not only Ahok is an incumbent but also a darn good governor.

They take advantages of barbaric religious sentiment against Governor Ahok through concerted public protests. Even Anies Baswedan who previously promotes “the fabric of the nation” seems to tear it down by seeking endorsement from the hardliners. And his supporters unabashedly threatened Governor Ahok’ deceased supporters not to perform last rites. This is the catch of Anies Baswedan’s election win.

Out of 70% approval rating, Governor Ahok only rakes in approximately 42% of votes. It means 28% of voters acknowledge Governor Ahok’s good performance but refuse to re-elect him. Besides Governor’s contentious manner, the only cogent explanation is that religious sentiment fanned by Governor Ahok’s rivals successfully changes some voters’ mind. Some Muslims can be convinced even though in earthly matters such as electing city manager, the religious label rather than capability determines the choice.

Certainly, religion is very important factor in personal and public life. However, in constitution inspired by Pancasila ideology there is no clause or article hampering any one to assume any public office because of religious identity. 

Finally, we must sincerely accept and fully support Anies Baswedan as governor. The stake for DKI Jakarta development is too high if we let him fail. Governor Ahok loses because his unsuitable character and religious sentiment. The latter lower Indonesia’s democracy standard, jeopardizes nation building and poses threat to national unity. And because of its effectiveness, I believe, somehow, some will utilize this sort of strategy as means in the next presidential election.  

*****

           

MUI's edict on BPJS Kesehatan

published @ The Jakarta Post

Fortunately, the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) has denied that it declares the Health Care and Social Security Agency (BPJS Kesehatan) to be haram.

But it did say that the Social Security Management Agency (BPJS) is inconsistent with sharia (The Jakarta Post, July 31, 2015). In its implementation, BPJS Kesehatan contained elements of gambling and other interests. This is utterly irritating.

In essence, the elected government is responsible for providing an affordable health-care system. And BPJS Kesehatan is meant to give universal health care to all people regardless of their income or illness.

Those who can must pay premiums, and the government will pay the premiums for those who can’t. Although the system has diversified, it has been working for decades in many countries.

There are many success stories of people benefitting from BPJS Kesehatan, including mine. People welcome the system. The long queues in many hospitals show that affordable health care is desperately needed.

Prior to this, people hesitated to go to hospital for treatment, because of payment. Now, it’s no more. Whatever the disease, people will see a doctor with confidence.

And regarding the premiums, Indonesians are lucky. Thanks to a large population, the premiums are relatively cheap. However, BPJS Kesehatan is still not perfect. The existence of the first-level health provider is still not well distributed yet. The queues are too long. Learning from my own experience, the examinations and preparation for surgery take too much time.

If these weaknesses are addressed by MUI through its edicts, I shall give them two thumbs up. It means MUI cares about the improvement of public services. In contrast, elements of gambling or interests in BPJS Kesehatan are too abstract for us. Frankly speaking, we don’t give a damn.

From now on, the government and Indonesia’s Muslims must be clear about MUI’s stance. MUI arguably represents Indonesian Muslims, so it has power to influence, especially narrow-minded people. To some, including myself, an edict is not necessarily from God. And in each case, there will be several contradicting edicts.

Modern health care didn’t exist in the past. Surely, in terms of “technical” issues such as funding systems, it is ridiculous to find them in religious references. But the spirit of cooperation to solve a public problem, to help people in need, the ruler’s obligation to serve people and religious teachings undoubtedly can inspire.

Indonesia’s public policy should not be interfered with by religious teaching. It has all the potential to hamper Indonesia’s development and public services.

* * * * *

Political Dynasty

published @ The Jakarta Post

This is to respond to The Jakarta Post’s editorial entitled “Unbreakable dynasties” on July 10. I completely agree with the Constitutional Court verdict scrapping the discriminatory clause in Law No. 8/2015 on regional elections.

Previously, the law included unfairly banning relatives of the incumbent to run in regional head elections. In a democracy, as long as no law is being broken, people’s choice should be the only filter in the election.

A political dynasty is not necessarily a bad thing. In America — the pioneer of modern democracy — political dynasties are well-accepted. No one is complaining about the Kennedy family, Bush family, or Clinton family for dominating American politics.

They ascend to power simply because of their capability of public service. The dynasty grooms them well and politics is ingrained in daily life. Nothing is wrong with this. Unfortunately, instead of quality, the Indonesia’s political dynasties depend only on popularity.

The essence of democracy is crowd wisdom. The idea is that all eligible voters decide and the outcome naturally fits with the people’s interest. And the precondition for a functional democracy is the quality of voters. They must be aware of how a democratic system works.

They must know the wrong decision means disaster to their opulence. Dating back to early democracy, only the rich, professional and the likes whose interest need protection could vote. They were very rational and only voted for the candidates who would really take care of them. Gradually, more people became eligible and finally universal suffrage was applied.

Democracy was not invented here. Indonesia is not well prepared to embrace democracy. Since the beginning, Indonesia has implemented universal suffrage — no filter for irrational voters. Both rational and irrational voters will choose a leader. Unsurprisingly, the outcome sometimes is illogical.

The member of a political dynasty who achieved nothing in the past, even without experience, can easily assume office. Democracy goes haywire.

Accordingly, the key is the rational voters. People must have awareness of the consequences of their choices. Good education emphasizing logic might work for this goals. Since we can reverse the flow of democracy, to be fair, political dynasties must be accepted. To curb the much-concerned corruption, law must rigorously and indiscriminately be enforced. To avoid the low quality of popular candidates, the people must be filled with information.

In my opinion, in the long term this will work.

The problem of Indonesia’s political dynasties lies in the existence of rational voters rather than the political dynasty itself. Had the people become rational, the regional heads would have been democratically selected based on meritocracy. The best must lead the rest.

* * * * *

You Fail Us, Mr. President

published @ The Jakarta Post

President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo deserves accolades galore. He is an entrepreneur-turned-public leader who is has responsive, hands-on, has an egalitarian demeanor and is result-oriented. He blazed a trail to set an unprecedented standard of modern leadership in Indonesia’s government. He put people’s interests first. He showed us that to govern is to serve.

A leader is not a boss behind a desk watching his subordinates work hard. A leader must glean data and information firsthand through impromptu visits. Then, he must make strategic decisions quickly, enable their implementation and control the work until the goals are accomplished. Jokowi has practiced what he preached during his stints serving as mayor of Surakarta and governor of Jakarta, which later catapulted him to the presidency.

During the barnstorming, he made many promises. He would develop a clean government and would be independent regardless of political coalitions. He would never buckle under the coalition party. The party would only join a coalition with no strings attached. And because of his impeccable track record, we believed Jokowi would be different. He gave us a glimmer of hope.

Prior to the appointment of his ministers, again, he stunned us by unprecedentedly seeking recommendations from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK). This means Jokowi kept his promise of a clean government. Moreover, he scrapped fuel subsidies and burned foreign vessels caught fishing illegally. That proved Jokowi was decisive. So far so good.

However, his recent decision on a candidate for National Police chief really shocked us. Unbelievably, he proposed somebody who had been previously disqualified by the KPK and PPATK during the ministerial selection. Even after the candidate had definitively been named a graft suspect by the institution that has earned wide public respect and trust, the KPK, Jokowi still unequivocally defended his choice. We were taken aback. It was not the Jokowi we knew.

Worse, his political supporters ranging from TV stations, lawmakers to party chairpeople scrambled to convince us that Jokowi’s decision was right. They said that the candidate’s allegedly fat bank account had been cleared by an internal investigation as being legal wealth. And procedurally, the candidate was also recommended by the National Police commission. But their logic didn’t add up.

After believing in God, we, Indonesians, believe in the KPK. The institution would never name someone a suspect without solid proof. Nobody has ever been exonerated in a case handled by the KPK. Why does our beloved President Jokowi believe that this case will go against the grain?

He has nine candidates on his hands. Besides questionable integrity, the graft-suspect candidate achieved nothing of significance in the past, so why did Jokowi persistently promote him? Who gave him such lousy advice of abandoning the KPK and PPATK? Even if later, the KPK turns out to be wrong, why should he take the unnecessary risk of forfeiting his political capital of public trust? On this point, Jokowi has started to show his two-facedness on developing a clean government. We have also started to question his independence and think his law-enforcement commitment is too good to be true.

Jokowi’s decision on the National Police chief candidate ticked off his supporters, myself included. His volunteers, who believe he can bring Indonesia to prosperity, cried foul. But it seems he is unfazed, despite canceling, but not revoking, the candidacy.

* * * * *

Should Air Ticket Prices Be Regulated?

published @ The Jakarta Post

Low cost carriers (LCC) are an innovation of value in serving airline customers. Some customers value convenience, but others value low prices, especially for short-distance flights. This market niche has been well-filled by some airlines. To cut the price, a no-frills service is given.

Following the crash involving prominent LLC AirAsia, the Transportation Ministry is to set a minimum fare for air travel tickets. This policy will require that companies charge no less than 40 percent of the price ceiling. The basis for this policy is the argument that LCC neglect safety, jeopardizing passengers. But is it true?

Data reveal that the link between ticket price and flight safety is extremely tenuous. LCC know very well how to manage low margins in this highly regulated business. Ridiculously, a director at the ministry wondered how LCC could sell tickets for only Rp 10,000 (79 US cents) for the Jakarta-Medan route (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 8, 2014). To him that’s impossible.

He forgot that low prices are simply a marketing strategy. LCC do not sell all their seats at such low prices, and, of course, not all the time.

Such an impossibly low price is intended to prompt hype in order to spread the LCC brand. As a result, the load factor (the number of passengers compared with seats available) will be high, and the airline still has a good margin because of its economies of scale.

LCC are created by entrepreneurs pursuing profit; don’t teach the fish how to swim.

This would-be regulated minimum price will also aggrieve consumers. For the last decade, people have enjoyed travelling throughout the archipelago by plane because of these cheap prices.

Another concern is that the regulator will have no idea or control whether the funds from the increased price will be allocated for safety measures or simply for profit.

Worse, if the minimum price has been set and in the future – hopefully never — a plane crash occurs, then this policy will have been pointless and disadvantageous to all stakeholders.

But without regulating minimum prices, how do we address safety issues?

The responsibility lies with the Transportation Ministry. Instead of setting a minimum price, it’s better to issue strict regulations for flight safety. Plane maintenance, weather data provision, operation audit etc: the regulations must be put in place. LCC must comply with regulations. As long as all safety regulations are fulfilled by airlines, then the safety of the plane must be left to The Almighty.

The policy of minimum price definitely barks up the wrong tree. The focus should be on strict regulation, certificates of safety and good supervision. After that, let the airliners compete, and let the customers decide and enjoy the low prices.

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

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.

* * * * *

Preventing the Wrong Public Policy

@The Jakarta Post

One of the government’s main tasks is to develop and implement policy. Problems occur, the goals are set and the government has to tackle and achieve them through policy.

The ordinary route is: Decision makers collect and crunch data surrounding the problems and goals, analysis is carried out and the result is a policy. Some policies eradicate a problem or achieve the goal, but some do not. Worse, failed policies frequently weigh on the budget.

Jokowi's Social Democratic Policies

@ The Jakarta Post

Since taking the helm several months ago, it is interesting to see what Jakarta’s Governor, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, has done toward fulfilling his campaign promises. Some actions have already kicked in, and some are clearly envisioned. Interestingly, the pattern of his policies is attributed to social democracy.

Does corruption hamper development?

Published on 27/6/2012 @ The Jakarta Post http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/27/letter-does-corruption-hamper-development.html

Corruption is certainly bad and one of the banes of development. But sometimes, the way of illicit money is spent can make a difference. Experts have argued that Indonesia is luckier than a number of African countries regarding the impacts of corruption, because Indonesian corruptors invest or spend their money in the country, whereas African corruptors put their money abroad.