An ASEAN deal for Myanmar

The Jakarta Post
31 May 2005

Thang D. Nguyen, Jakarta

The word crisis in Chinese has two characters: The first means "danger," and the second "opportunity." This is how the issue of Myanmar's chairmanship of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) should be dealt with, given Rangoon's obstinate posture on human rights, freedom and democracy.

Myanmar (formerly Burma) is scheduled to assume the chairmanship of ASEAN -- which is rotated in the alphabetical order of the ten member countries' names -- in 2006.

To be sure, Myanmar feels ready and able to assume this position. It faces objection, however, both from external forces and from within ASEAN, which groups Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

The objection is grounded on Rangoon's infamous treatment of Nobel-winning activist and democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Since 1989, the military has been putting her under house arrest.

Moreover, in 1990, Suu Kyi's party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), won a landslide election, but Myanmar's junta regime never acknowledged its victory.

The EU, for instance, has threatened to boycott the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM) if Rangoon did not free Suu Kyi and show democratic progress and continues to put pressure on Myanmar.

Likewise, lawmakers in several ASEAN countries, namely: Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore, have independently signed petitions calling on Myanmar to forgo the ASEAN chairmanship.

Under international pressure, ASEAN has, as a group, also called for Suu Kyi's release. During a gathering of its foreign ministers in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, in June 2003, ASEAN issued a statement urging Myanmar's military rulers to free her.

This was an unprecedented event because one of the key founding principles of ASEAN is the so-called non-interference policy, which says that the ten member countries will not comment on and interfere with each other's domestic political affairs.

But, alas, nothing has changed. Suu Kyi and her NLD colleagues are still under house arrest.

What is more, last October, Rangoon's hard-line leadership fired the then Prime Minister Khin Nyunt, who had drafted the country's "Roadmap to Democracy," which was supposed to culminate in free elections. This move has, of course, been viewed as another major drawback for democracy in Myanmar.

Thus, Myanmar occupied a prominent part of the discussion at this year's ASEM, which took place on May 6-7 in Kyoto, Japan. Foreign ministers from ASEAN+3 (Japan, China, and South Korea) countries and their EU counterpart called for "a sense of urgency" on Myanmar's democratic reforms, but stopped short of coming up with a concrete action or solution.

Even though as a group it has publicly asked Myanmar to free Suu Kyi, the main obstacle for ASEAN in dealing with Rangoon's ruling regime is the non-interference policy.

Rangoon knows this and has thus been, and still is, able to play a cat-and-mouse game with ASEAN on the basis that Suu Kyi's freedom and democratic progress in Myanmar are -- and rightly so, according to the non-interference principle -- its domestic political affairs.

Now, what to do?

It seems that no one single country in ASEAN can single-handedly solve the Myanmar problem. Therefore, it calls for a collective, consensus-based solution.

The solution is for ASEAN to arrange a private gathering of foreign ministers from all ten member countries to lay out a simple proposition: If Myanmar wants to keep the chairmanship of ASEAN next year, it must release Suu Kyi and allow for the "Roadmap to Democracy" to resume; if not, the chairmanship will go to the next country in line -- which would be the Philippines.

To give this deal some teeth, the majority of the ten member countries must agree on it and set a deadline by which Myanmar has to submit a response to the proposition. If needed, a majority-rule vote is one way to obtain consensus among the member countries on the proposal.
Interestingly enough, on May 7, the second day of the ASEM meeting in Kyoto, three bombs exploded at two shopping centers in Rangoon, killing 11 people and wounding 162 others. Both the ruling regime and Myamar's rebel groups have denied responsibility for the attack.

Regardless of who was behind the blast, it gives ASEAN another reason with which to pressure Myanmar. In fact, it makes sense not to have Myanmar hold the ASEAN chairmanship next year because security is a must for the grouping's various meetings throughout the year in the country.

Myanmar might very well argue that the bomb attack is a matter of its domestic politics and, therefore, ASEAN should not be concerned about or interfered with it.

ASEAN's response should be: When a domestic issue, such as the safety for the group's leaders and meetings in a host country, is at stakes or endangered, it affects each member country and the group as a whole. Thus, it is no longer a domestic issue with which ASEAN may not interfere.

Alternatively, Myanmar may use the bomb attack as an excuse to forsake its chairmanship of ASEAN and, thereby, saves face.

Whatever choice Myanmar may make, ASEAN does have an opportunity to push it to free Suu Kyi. And it is an opportunity that ASEAN should not miss.

The writer, a former regional manager for Asia at the World Economic Forum (WEF), is a Jakarta-based columnist.

By the Book: The ABCs of Indonesian Law

The Jakarta Post
Bookmarks
May 22, 2005

By Thang D. Nguyen

You might ask yourself, "Why would anyone read a book on Indonesian law?"

It is because navigating the Indonesian legal system is like a walk in an unfamiliar jungle at night. So, if you have to deal with Indonesian law, let Sriro's Desk Reference of Indonesian Law be your guide.

Not that Indonesia lacks laws. As a matter of fact, it has tens of thousands of them.

To start with, Indonesia has the French-inspired Dutch civil laws; that is, laws on the books when Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands. Today, some of the Dutch laws are still in effect and used in Indonesian courts.

Then there are Indonesian laws, which were enacted during the post-colonial period and are heavily influenced by principles of continental European civil law, Anglo-Saxon common law, Islamic law and traditional, unwritten Indonesian adat , or customary law, systems.

This mixed theoretical system makes Indonesian law difficult to understand and seemingly inconsistent.

But worst of all, the Indonesian legal system is corrupt. At the top level, one has to deal with corrupt lawyers and judges who make court rulings in favor of the rich and powerful. In the middle, one faces incompetent, corrupt bureaucrats who delay the legal process, unless they are bribed. And at the bottom, one has law enforcing authorities, e.g., policemen, who are poorly paid and will, therefore, do anything for money -- depending on the size of the bribe.

Thus, justice does not serve the honest, the poor or the weak. But not having money to pay their way through the Indonesian judicial system is not the only reason why a just cause may lose. The other, more important, reason is that most people simply don't have adequate access to Indonesian laws; they just do not know their rights.

As Andrew I. Sriro, an American lawyer who knows and practices Indonesian law, writes:

"If people do not have access to the law, they cannot know their rights. If people do not know their rights, they cannot demand the enforcement of their rights. [And] if people are not empowered to demand the enforcement of their rights, they will be exploited and abused by those with access to power over the law."

With sections on the Indonesian government and judicial systems, business organizations and commerce, debtor-creditor rights, labor law, family law, intellectual property, immigration and, among others, a handy list of treaties and conventions to which Indonesia is party, this reference serves more than just the average Indonesian.

Businesses and government officials -- both Indonesian and foreign -- employers and employees, expatriates, foreign spouses of Indonesians, foreign retirees living in Indonesia and anyone who has to deal with Indonesian law at all will find Sriro's Desk Reference of Indonesian Law a useful tool.

In plain English -- soon to be available in Bahasa Indonesia -- and a reader-friendly structure, the book defines for readers and explains to them the implications of Indonesian legal concepts that are typically difficult to understand.

Thus, even if you are not involved in a lawsuit under Indonesian law, it would be wise to have a copy of this book on your desk or in your library; it may come handy someday.

The British scientist Francis Bacon once rued: "Knowledge is power." The ignorance of your rights, therefore, becomes somebody else's power that can be used against you.

Tip the scales of justice back in your favor: Get a copy of this book.

The reviewer is a Jakarta-based columnist. He writes frequently on Indonesian affairs and has published several books, including Indonesia Matters: Unity, Diversity, and Stability in Fragile Times by Times Editions.

Vietnam War is still on, in Iraq

The Jakarta Post

Saturday, 14 May 2005

By Thang D. Nguyen

HO CHI MINH CITY—Thirty years have passed since the US left Vietnam in defeat. The image of American GIs and their southern Vietnamese counterparts and their families struggling to get onto the last choppers to get out of the country atop the US embassy in Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City, on that fateful 30 April, 1975, is still fresh and tragic as ever.

In retrospect, one would think that America has learned a big lesson from its debacle in Vietnam. Unfortunately, Washington has learned, to put it simply, nothing.

In the name of democracy, the US bypassed the United Nations and invaded Iraq against the protest of not only peace-loving nations, but also some of its major allies—namely, Germany and France.

To be sure, Saddam Hussein was no angel. Let’s not forget, however, that until today no weapons of mass destruction have been found, contrary to what Washington had used as a pretext for its war in Iraq.

And after what was billed as a democratic election, Iraq now has a government. But, how long will this government last? Do the people of Iraq really support it? Or is it just another Washington puppet? And is Iraq now a peaceful place?

The fact is that after Baghdad has a government, thousands of US troops are still there. Thus far, about 1,600 US troops have died in the war and 6,000 wounded. Meanwhile, about 100 US troops continue to die in combat with the Iraqi resistance forces every month.

Bombs still go off and bullets are fired in Baghdad almost on a daily basis and kill both American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

If this does not sound like a second Vietnam War, what does? And if one wants to predict the end of the Iraq War, just look at the Vietnam War. Let’s get it straight, Washington could not win a war against an enemy that it considered small and was small, indeed, by military size and might.

It is tempting to ask why and how America lost. A look at why and how the Vietnam War happened reveals the answer to this question.

For the most part, the US and the northern Vietnamese fought two different wars with two different causes. Whereas the US waged a conventional war, the northern Vietnamese fought a people’s war, or a revolutionary one.

Most American GIs, young men who were hastily drafted, hardly knew why they were in Vietnam (or Nam, as they would say); they were told that they were fighting something called Communism.

Their northern Vietnamese counterparts, in contrast, knew exactly what they were fighting for: independence. In other words, the northern Vietnamese had the will to fight and win the war, and the Americans did not.

Whereas the US fought the war with a mighty military and weapons, the northern Vietnamese found their strengths in their people’s support and guerilla tactics. In combats, the US forces and there Southern Vietnamese army (or, ARVN) were spotted, and therefore killed, easily. They could hardly see their enemy because it was hiding in tunnels, forests, rivers, hills, and villagers’ homes.

After combats, American and ARVN soldiers would go out and became easy targets for the Northern Vietnamese army, which also included civilians, regardless of age or gender, who served as logistics suppliers, shelter providers, and intelligence sources. Thus, the northern Vietnamese always saw their enemy, but their enemy never saw them.

Moreover, the US backed the wrong horse. After having chosen Ngo Dinh Diem as the president of its South Vietnamese ally, Washington later grew disappointed in him and the ARVN, both of whom were considered corrupt and incompetent.

In 1963, Diem was assassinated. It is believed that the US had a great deal of influence in this assassination. Not only was the US wrong about Diem and the ARVN, it was wrong about the whole war altogether.

Robert McNamara, the defense secretary during the Vietnam War, writes in his book In Retrospect: “The Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation [America]. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong.”

Thirty years after the Vietnam War, it is hoped that the US will not be wrong again, this time in Iraq. But maybe it will, because it has not learned its lesson from the Vietnam War yet.

The fall of Saigon happened thirty years ago, and it is only a matter of time before the fall of Baghdad does.

The writer is a commentator based in Asia.

Aceh's misery lingers on as foreign help pulls out

TODAY
Singapore

April 27, 2005

By Thang D Nguyen

Four months after it happened, the Asian tsunami seems to be, for the most part, a thing of the past. While victims and their families in Aceh, Indonesia — and other affected areas, for that matter — still suffer from this tragedy and struggle to rebuild their lives, homes and communities, the media has moved on to new, more happening global events.

But, let's not forget, the threat of tsunamis and earthquakes is still there, if not greater than before. Thus, the need of an international warning and migration system for countries where earthquakes and tsunamis have happened before and are most likely to happen again remains urgent.

Most importantly, the reconstruction works in regions affected by the Asian tsunami and earthquakes remain to be done. To be sure, the world community has so far given Indonesia and other tsunami-hit countries generous assistance.

Altogether, the world has pledged US$7 billion ($11.5 billion) of aid to help tsunami victims. A common problem with aid pledges, however, is delivery. In other words, aid pledges are often made, but not delivered. And if delivered, they are usually less than the amounts originally promised.

So, in a nutshell, the global community should live up to its word and deliver the pledges it made to tsunami victims.

Another challenge with aid is management.

Corruption is often a major problem. Therefore, when aid reaches victims, it needs to be distributed properly, used efficiently and monitored closely. Otherwise, it won't go to the right victims and the right projects. Instead, it gets wasted and, worse yet, ends up in someone else's pocket.

For this reason, the reconstruction works in Aceh — and other tsunami-affected regions — require the participation of international aid agencies.

While foreign aid agencies have the resources, expertise, and experience needed for reconstruction works, their presence can be perceived as a threat to national governments.

Indonesia is a case in point. Roughly one month after the Asian tsunami, Jakarta set a deadline on March 26 by which all foreign aid agencies would have to leave Aceh. A few days before the deadline, however, Jakarta decided to extend it for one more month, until April 27, which is today.

Jakarta's call for foreign aid agencies to leave Aceh is understandable for two main reasons.

First, because of the on-going conflict between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement, which has been fighting for independence from Indonesia for decades, the presence of foreigners in the province worries Jakarta.

Second, Indonesia wants to rebuild Aceh on its own. On March 24, it announced an elaborate 5-year plan to rebuild Aceh that it said would cost US$5 billion. While Indonesia feels strongly about this blueprint, one cannot help but wonder if it has the resources, know-how, and experience required.

As much as foreign aid agencies want to stay and help the people in Aceh, some are not welcomed, however. For instance, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) pulled out of Aceh on March 24 after the Indonesian government refused to approve an extension of the agency's stay in the province.

The departure of UNHCR and other foreign aid agencies is indeed unfortunate as the Acehnese victims of the tsunami and earthquakes and their families need all the help they can get to rebuild their lives.

The battle that Indonesia's tsunami and earthquake victims have been fighting since last December is not over.

And the turf fight between the Indonesian government and foreign aid agencies on the reconstruction works of Aceh only makes it worse.

The writer is currently a Jakarta-based columnist. He has published several books, including The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust (Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004).

Get serious about giving tsunami aid!

The Nation
Bangkok, Thailand

March 18, 2005

By Thang D. Nguyen

As former presidents Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr touched down in Banda Aceh, the area worst hit by the Asian tsunami, the only things they saw that were still standing were a few mosques and churches. (Many locals believe that God did it.) Everything else was, to put it simply, gone with the tsunami, which took place on Boxing Day, December 26, last year.

“I’ve never seen anything like this in my entire life. Ever,” said Clinton while visiting tsunami sites in Aceh.
Bush Sr, whom the current US President George W Bush appointed to lead a US-wide fund-raising campaign for tsunami victims with Clinton, added: “I don’t think there’s ever been a tragedy that affected the heartbeat of the American people as much as this tsunami has done.”

Shortly after the tsunami happened, many countries around the world sent troops, aid workers and aid supplies to Indonesia and other victim nations, except for Thailand, which declined foreign assistance on the basis that it can take care of itself. More importantly, some of the world’s most powerful nations pledged generous aid packages to their Asian friends in this hour of darkness. The list of donor countries and their pledges is quite impressive: Australia, US$764 million (Bt29.3 billion); Germany, $674 million; Japan, $500 million; the United States, $350 million; the United Kingdom, $96 million; and the European Union, $30 million. Altogether, about $7 billion has been pledged thus far. After their visits to the tsunami-affected areas, however, Bush Sr and Clinton warned that another $4 billion would be needed.

While any additional aid would be more than welcome, the real challenge for countries affected by the tsunami is to actually get their hands on the $7-billion pledge that the international community has made. While promises are easy to make, they are easy to break, too. This has happened before. A case in point is the earthquake that killed 25,000 people and flattened the ancient city of Bam, Iran, on Boxing Day of 2003, exactly one year before the Asian tsunami. After this catastrophe took place, the international community made a pledge of $1 billion to Iran. Unfortunately, it is estimated that the aid that has actually been delivered to Bam stands somewhere between $17 million and $115 million.

For a number of reasons, victims of natural disasters do not get the aid that the world promises. For one thing, a lack of coordination and monitoring means that a lot of international aid falls through the cracks. What’s more, the corruption in, and bureaucracy of, local governments reduce the actual amount of aid by the time it gets delivered.

“There is the risk of multiple funding of the same project. In Indonesia, [for instance,] we also have to avoid corruption for which it is well known,” said Hugh Goyder, an independent development consultant.

It is easy for countries or individuals from around the world to make pledges and not keep them when the media has moved on to other, more happening global events. In other words, the Asian tsunami no longer makes headlines. But those who make such pledges should remember, to paraphrase the American poet Robert Frost, that they “have promises to keep”, and victims of the Asian tsunami have “miles to go before they sleep”.

The writer is director of programmes at the Jakarta-based United in Diversity Forum.

Handy tool to navigate Indonesia's legal jungle

The Business Times
Singapore
March 9, 2005

By THANG D NGUYEN

YOU might be asking yourself: 'Why should anyone read a book on Indonesian law?' It is because navigating the Indonesian legal system is like a walk in an unfamiliar jungle at night.

So, if you have to deal with Indonesian law, let Andrew I Sriro's Desk Reference of Indonesian Law (Equinox Publishing; February 2005) be your guide. Not that Indonesia lacks laws. As a matter of fact, it has tens of thousands of them. To start with, Indonesia has the French-inspired Dutch civil laws; that is, laws on the books when Indonesia was a colony of Holland. Some of the Dutch laws are still in effect and used in Indonesian courts.

Then, there are Indonesian laws, which have been enacted in the post-colonial period and are heavily influenced by principles of the continental European civil law; English common law; Islamic law; and traditional, unwritten Indonesian adat (customary) law systems. This mixed theoretical system makes Indonesian law difficult to understand and seemingly inconsistent. But worst of all, the Indonesian legal system is not transparent.

At the top level, one has to deal with lawyers and judges who often make court rulings seemingly in favour of the rich and powerful. In the middle, one faces incompetent, corrupt bureaucrats who delay the legal process, unless they are bribed. And at the bottom, one has law enforcing authorities, eg, police officers, who are poorly paid and will, therefore, do anything for money - depending on the size of the bribe.

Thus, justice does not serve the honest, the poor, and the weak. But not having money to pay their way through the Indonesian judicial system is not the only reason why a just cause may lose. The other, more important, reason is that most people simply don't have adequate access to Indonesian laws; they just do not know their rights.

As Mr Sriro, an American lawyer who knows and practices Indonesian law, writes: 'If people do not have access to the law, they cannot know their rights. If people do not know their rights, they cannot demand the enforcement of their rights. (And) if people are not empowered to demand the enforcement of their rights, they will be exploited and abused by those with access to power over the law.'

With sections on the Indonesian government and judicial systems; business organisations and commerce; debtor-creditor rights; labour law; family law; intellectual property; immigration; and, among others, a handy list of treaties and conventions to which Indonesia is a party, this reference serves more than just the average Indonesian.

Businesses and government officials (both local and foreign), employers and employees, expatriates, foreign retirees living in Indonesia, and anyone who has to deal with Indonesian law at all will find Mr Sriro's Desk Reference of Indonesian Law a useful tool.

In plain English (soon to be available in Bahasa Indonesia) and a reader-friendly format, the book defines for readers, and explains to them the implications of, Indonesian legal concepts that are difficult to understand. Thus, even if you are not involved in a lawsuit under Indonesian law, it would be wise to have a copy of this book on your desk or in your library; it may come handy someday.

The British scientist Francis Bacon once rued: 'Knowledge is power.' The ignorance of your rights, therefore, becomes somebody else's power that can be used against you.

Mr Nguyen is a Jakarta-based columnist. He writes frequently on Indonesian affairs and has published several books, including Indonesia Matters: Unity, Diversity, and Stability in Fragile Times (Times Editions)

Indonesia roots for SBY ... and justice

TODAY
February 23, 2005

By Thang D Nguyen

JAKARTA — As 2004 drew to a close, Western intelligence forces issued a warning of a potential terrorist attack on a Hilton hotel in Indonesia over the Christmas and New Year holidays.

Fortunately, no attack took place. Unfortunately, however, a killing took place at the Jakarta Hotel Hilton on New Year's Eve.

A bartender at Hilton's Fluid Club, Mr Yohanes Haerudy Natong, popularly known as Rudy, was allegedly shot dead by tycoon Adiguna Sutowo, after the bartender told him that his female companion's credit card had been rejected.

The police arrested Adiguna after the shooting and he is now behind bars as the investigation goes on.

Rudy's death went almost unnoticed, overshadowed by the news of the tsunami that hit Indonesia and several other Asian countries on Boxing Day.

It is also likely that the killing of Rudy got scant attention in the Indonesian media because the suspect is a member of Jakarta's elite.

Adiguna is the brother of Mr Pontjo Sutowo, the owner of the Jakarta Hilton, and the son of the late Ibnu Sutowo, a former president of the state-owned oil and gas company Pertamina.

The Indonesian media is wary of reporting on prominent personalities as it has got its hands burnt following its zealous reporting of scandals by Indonesia's elite.

In one major case last year, Mr Bambang Harymurti, the chief editor of the weekly news magazine Tempo, was found guilty of libelling tycoon Tommy Winata, one of Indonesia's most powerful businessmen.

Violence serves not only the Indonesian business world. In fact, the culture of violence in Indonesia could be said to have begun with top members of the Indonesian military (TNI), some of whom are known have close links with the country's political elite.

The relationship began in the Suharto era. The TNI served him well as a handy tool to silence the Indonesian media, non-government organisations and student activists.

The TNI has also been accused of atrocities and human rights violations in the pre-independent East Timor and other parts of Indonesia.

Today, violence is still very much a part of TNI culture.

A case in point is the recent beating up of anti-graft activist Farid Faqih by Indonesian soldiers in Banda Aceh, the area worst hit by the tsunami.

The soldiers alleged that Mr Farid, who is the coordinator of the Government Watch, had stolen two truckloads of aid supplies donated by the military wives' association, Dharma Pertiwi.

Did Mr Farid deserve the beating?

No!

Whatever the allegations, Mr Farid should have been handed over to the Indonesian police and investigated.

It may well turn out that Mr Farid took the aid supplies to distribute to the tsunami victims. The question being asked by the man the street is: Did he get beaten up because he is an anti-corruption activist?

Likewise, bartender Rudy did not deserve to die because his customer's credit card was not cleared.

He was just doing his job. He did not insult tycoon Adiguna by telling him that his companion's credit card had been rejected. He was merely stating a fact.

Sadly, Rudy died just a few weeks before his wedding. A 25-year-old college student, he was working as a bartender to save up for what would have been the happiest day of his life.

His fiancé, family and friends can only hope that justice will be done.

And what about the death of human rights activist Munir, who was poisoned with arsenic on Sept 7 last year on a flight to the Netherlands.

Five months have gone by since President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ordered an investigation but to date no one has been charged.

President Yudhoyono, who was in Singapore recently, spoke at a key forum of his resolve to improve the living standards of ordinary Indonesians.

"What I promised the Indonesian voters was quite simple: To do my best to make Indonesia more democratic, more peaceful, more just, more prosperous. And I intend to keep that promise," he said.

Indonesians want him to succeed — and also ensure that justice is served in the cases of Munir, Rudy, and Farid.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. He has published several books on Indonesia, including "The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust" (Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004).

Witnessing the violent face of Indonesia

The Jakarta Post
February 16, 2005

Thang D. Nguyen, Jakarta

As 2004 came to an end, Western intelligence forces issued a warning of a potential terrorist attack at a Hilton hotel in Indonesia during the Christmas and New Year holidays.

Fortunately, no terrorist attacks happened. Unfortunately, however, a killing took place at Jakarta's Hotel Hilton on New Year's Eve.

The suspect of the killing is tycoon Adiguna Sutowo, who shot a bartender at Hilton's Fluid Club named Yohannes Haerudy Natong, better known as Rudy, dead after the bartender told him that his female companion's credit card had been rejected.

The police arrested Adiguna after the shooting, and he remains in custody while an investigation takes place.

Meanwhile, Rudy's death went almost unnoticed. For the most part, it was overshadowed by the news of the tsunami that hit Indonesia and several other Asian countries on Boxing Day.

But the killing of Rudy has not been covered well by the Indonesian media because the suspect is a member of Jakarta's elite. After all, Adiguna is the brother of Pontjo Sutowo, the owner of the Jakarta Hilton, and the son of the late Ibnu Sutowo, a former president of state oil and gas company Pertamina.

In other words, the Indonesian media has been burned because of its coverage of scandals involving Indonesia's elite.

For instance, last year, Bambang Harymurti, the chief editor of the weekly news magazine Tempo, was found guilty of libel against tycoon Tommy Winata, one of Indonesia's most powerful businessmen.

Violence serves not only the Indonesian business world. In fact, the culture of violence in Indonesia has started among, and remains with, Indonesian political elite, namely, top members of the Indonesian military (TNI).

Examples are aplenty. In the Soeharto years, the TNI served him well as a handy tool to silence the Indonesian media, non-governmental organizations and student activists.

At the same time, it has committed atrocities and human rights violations in pre-independence East Timor and other parts of Indonesia.

Today, violence remains a strong part of TNI culture. A case in point is the recent beating of antigraft activist Farid Faqih by Indonesian soldiers in Banda Aceh, the area worst hit by the tsunami. The soldiers' alleged grounds for the beating was that Farid, who is the coordinator of the Government Watch (GOWA), had stolen two truckloads of aid supplies donated by the military wives' association (Dharma Pertiwi).

Did Farid deserve the beating? No! Whatever the cause of his act, Farid should have been handed over to the Indonesian police for investigation. Whatever their crimes may be, suspects, or criminals for that matter, are human beings and should, therefore, be treated with dignity and humanity. And what if Farid took the aid supplies to give to tsunami victims? Or did he get beaten up because he is an anti-corruption activist?

Likewise, Rudy did not deserve to die just because his customer's credit card did not work. For one thing, it happens all the time that, either because of billing problems or over-the-limit issues, credit cards are rejected.

Furthermore, Rudy was just doing his job. In other words, the bartender did not insult Adiguna by telling him that his companion's credit card had been rejected.

But worst of all, Rudy died just a few weeks before his wedding. A 25-year-old college student, Rudy had taken on extra work as a bartender to save up for the happiest day of his life.

It will not happen now, and nothing can bring him back to his fiance, family, and friends. They can only hope that justice will be done.

"[Adiguna] has taken the life of the child [Rudy]. It's vital that he must be punished as severely and appropriately as possible," said Frumens da Gomez, Rudy's uncle.

And what about the murder of human rights activist Munir, who was poisoned with arsenic on Sept. 7 last year on a Garuda flight to the Netherlands? It has been five months since President Susilo Bambang ordered an investigation into Munir's death. Alas, nothing has been found thus far.

Together, Munir's murder, Rudy's death and Farid's beating remind us that violence remains strong in Indonesian society; that injustice is what the poor and the weak get; and that activists who make Indonesia a better place are in constant danger.

As President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has just celebrated his 100th day in office, his people wish him well in the months to come. He cannot go wrong by focusing on such priorities as Aceh's tsunami recovery, the economy, fighting corruption, infrastructures and education.

He would be wise, however, to make sure that justice is served in the cases of Munir, Rudy, and Farid. If not, these cases may harm his presidency.

Most importantly, if justice is not served in these cases, they will damage Indonesia's international image as a young, promising democracy.

Mr. President, progress awaits you. So does justice!

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His new book is The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust.

Why are the Indonesians so worried?

The Australian
18 January 2005

Thang Nguyen: Why are the Indonesians so worried?

SINCE the earthquake and tsunami hit Indonesia on Boxing Day, many countries around the world, led by Australia and the US, have together sent thousands of troops, aid workers and supplies to the province of Aceh, the area most affected, as part of an international relief effort to help victims of one of the world's worst catastrophes.

Before the tragedy happened, the image of foreign troops on Indonesian soil would be unthinkable. For the most part, this is because of the ongoing conflict between the Indonesian military (TNI) and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), which had been fighting for independence from Indonesia for decades.

Also, because of Indonesia's poor human rights record and atrocities that the TNI has committed across the nation for years, foreign countries, namely the US, have either broken or frozen their military ties with Jakarta.

Today, it is heartening to see foreign troops working hand in hand with their Indonesian counterparts helping victims in Aceh. To be sure, the people of Aceh appreciate the assistance -- military or otherwise -- that foreign countries have been giving them.

But Jakarta has received the help from foreign friends with a sense of distrust -- if not xenophobia. Roughly three weeks after the tsunami, the Indonesian Government announced that it wants all foreign troops in Aceh to leave by March, at the latest. "Three months are enough. The sooner [foreign troops leave], the better," Vice-President Jusuf Kalla said. "We don't need foreign troops."

For one thing, foreign troops are not fighting in a civil war on Indonesian soil. Unlike the US troops in the Philippines, who are there to help Manila crush the rebel group Moro Islamic Liberation Front, foreign troops have come to Indonesia for a good cause -- that is, to help devastated victims of a natural disaster.

Furthermore, foreign troops in Aceh will not be a financial burden for Indonesia. In other words, they are not some kind of loans that Indonesian would have to pay back.

Most importantly, the relief works in Aceh -- let alone its recovery from the tsunami -- will take more than three months. And, realistically, Indonesia will not be able to go it alone; it does not have the resources, financial and otherwise, to handle all the relief work and recovery single-handedly.

As the most prominent victim of the tsunami, Indonesia currently owes about $US48 billion ($63 billion) of international debt. This means Indonesia would have had to pay about $US3 billion in principal repayments this year, the amount it needs to recover from this crisis.

It seems obvious, then, that Indonesia's announcement that it wants all foreign troops out of Aceh by March is unnecessary, inappropriate, and ungrateful of the kindness that foreign friends have shown Indonesia in its hour of darkness.

"The presence of foreign parties in Aceh is purely based on the spirit of solidarity. To save human lives [sic]," Aceh's Serambi Indonesia newspaper said in one of its recent editorials. "[Foreigners' assistance] should be appreciated. We must not be suspicious. We are unable to do the things they are doing for us."

This is not the first time Indonesians have shown paranoia towards foreigners. Starting with their founding president, Sukarno, Indonesians have a history of being xenophobic. For instance, during the 2004 Indonesian presidential election -- which international observers hailed as a triumph of democracy in the world's largest Muslim nation -- some key international elections specialist groups, such as the International Foundation for Election System and the National Democratic Institute, worked hard to help make it a successful and democratic election.

These organisations, however, were accused of meddling in the election's outcomes. The then state minister for national development planning, Kwi Kian Gie, said in a cabinet meeting that foreigners had played a role in swaying public opinion in the aftermath of July 5 presidential election.

But the question remains: Why does Jakarta want foreign troops out so soon when Indonesia is devastated by the tsunami and, therefore, needier than ever before? The most plausible answer is that the foreign troops, along with international aid workers, are winning the hearts and minds of the Acehnese, and the TNI is not.

Whereas the Acehnese had been told that foreigners could not be trusted, they are now relieved by foreigners; whereas they had feared that foreigners would only come to drain their natural resources, they now receive food, water and medicine from international aid workers; and whereas they had been treated with violence by the TNI, they are now saved by foreign troops.

It is time for Indonesia to stop its xenophobia altogether, as it has not helped Indonesia and its relations with the world. The road to recovery for Aceh will have to be paved with solidarity, humanity, and trust, not xenophobia.

Thang Nguyen is author of The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust (Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004).

The Two Faces of Indonesia

The Asian Wall Street Journal
Tuesday, 30 November 2004

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA-The British novelist Graham Greene once lamented: "I often find myself torn between two beliefs: the belief that the world should be better than it is and the belief that when the world appears to be better, it is actually worse." Although he never wrote a novel about Indonesia, he might as well have been talking about the state of the country today.

Since the fall of Suharto in 1998, Indonesia has steadily evolved into Asia's rising democracy - the world's third largest one, to be exact. In 1999, Indonesia democratically held its first parliamentary elections following three decades of dictatorship. This year, for the first time in history, Indonesians directly elected their president.

As can be expected, the tree of democracy has given fruit to greater freedom. The Indonesian media that Mr. Suharto kept silent for so long were, all of a sudden, able to report the truth. Publications that Mr. Suharto had shut down were able to resume their activities. Likewise, International and Indonesian non-governmental organizations and humanrights groups were able to exist and work in Indonesia. The most famous example was the International Crisis Group (ICG). The Brussels-based crisis analysis group started an Indonesia program looking at everything from decentralization to Islamic terrorist networks. Journalists have been able to investigate government and business entities and uncover major scandals--something inconceivable under Mr. Suharto.

So, yes, the advance of liberty in Indonesia has been remarkable. The introduction of democracy in the world's largest Muslim-majority nation is a daily rebuttal to those who are skeptical that democracy can co-exist with Islam.

Alas, progress has been unsteady. The most infamous backward step, and most damaging to Indonesia's reputation abroad, was the deportation of Sidney Jones, the director of ICG's Indonesia program, in June. At first, the Indonesian immigration authorities cited visa violations as the grounds on which to expel her. Later, after pressure from Ms. Jones's colleagues, the media, other NGOs and many others in civil society, immigration officials authorized her expulsion on the grounds that her reports had criticized the government of Indonesia for taking lightly the threat posed by the terrorist Islamist network Jemaah Islamiyah (JI).

The al Qaeda-linked JI is responsible for several terrorist attacks, including the the 2002 Ball bortbing that killed 202 people; the bombing of the J.W. Marriott Jakarta Hotel in May 2003; and the bombing of the Australian Embassy ahead of both Indonesia's and Australia's election.

Next came the indictment of Bambang Harymurti, the chief editor of the weekly news magazine Tempo, in September. Regarded as one of Indonesia's finest journalists, Mr. Bambang was found guilty of libeling one of Indonesia's most powerful businessmen.

And this month, the Nederlands Forensisch Instituut said its autopsy of Indonesian human rights activist Munir, who died on Sept. 7 enroute to the Netherlands, revealed he was poisoned with arsenic. Munir, who was well known for his courageous works on corruption, violence, and human-rights violations in Indonesia, was on his way to the Netherlands to complete his legal studies. He was 38 years old, and a heroto many. His family and his admirers in Indonesia and abroad are demanding an investigation, which Indonesia's new president has promised.

Together, Ms. Jones's expulsion, Mr. Harymurti's imprisonment, and Munir's murder reflect also the reality of today's Indonesia -as much as the free elections and the freer press does. It is to be hoped that democracy will solve these problems in time.

Mr. Nguyen is a Jakarta-based columnist. His new book is "The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust" (Marshall Cavendish Academic).

Get your priorities right

The Business Times
Views & Opinions
Published October 22, 2004

New skyscrapers aren't going to provide the infrastructure and education that Indonesians, Filipinos as well as foreign investors need.

By THANG D NGUYEN

AS my friend and I drove on Roxas Boulevard, one of Manila's major landmarks, on an evening during my visit there last month, we passed by many Las Vegas-like clubs, bars, and restaurants.

The crux of the matter is, even with such advances as the Internet and airplanes, foreign investment still requires roads on which traffic flows.

While he was driving, my friend pointed to a tall office building, which stood invisibly (in darkness, actually) only a about 10 or 15 metres away from these well-lit, eye-catching entertainment facilities. He asked me if I knew what the building was.

'What is it? Is that a warehouse or some unoccupied office complex?' I responded in ignorance.
'That's the Department of Foreign Affairs (of the Philippines),' my friend said, taking pride in his reply.

'It is unbelievable, isn't it?' he added rhetorically, as I was still looking at him in speechlessness.

Back in Jakarta, I see a similar picture. Five-star hotels, luxurious apartment complexes, and shopping malls are popping up like mushrooms. Not too far from these high-end buildings - of which Jakarta already has plenty - are smelly, sometimes stagnant, canals and roads that are dirty and jammed almost all the time with decades-old buses spitting out black smoke behind them.

Where are the new schools, hospitals, roads, post offices, and other infrastructure that the public needs and foreign investors require, I often ask myself?

In the case of the Philippines, I am told, it is corruption in government that steals the financial resources that should be allocated for infrastructure-building projects, among other things.

Not only does the Philippine public deserve better, but building and maintaining good infrastructure is one of the prerequisites of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the Philippines, or any other country for that matter.

It is no wonder that a report last year by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which is headquartered in Manila, described the Philippine investment climate as one of the worst in both east and South-east Asia.

As for Indonesia, the picture does not look any better, when it comes to FDI.

Citing poor infrastructure, a lack of legal consistency and corruption, among other things, The Economist glibly reported that FDI has now come to mean 'Foreigners Ditching Indonesia', as opposed to foreign direct investment.

But the lack of infrastructure in Indonesia is not just due to the limited government funding for them or corruption of public servants. It is also a reflection of the lack of corporate social responsibility (or CSR) among Indonesian business leaders.

Profits come first

In other words, Indonesian businesses are still driven by profit-oriented projects, like five-star hotel, shopping malls, and apartment buildings. While they are nice developments for Jakarta and other Indonesian cities, these luxurious facilities are not necessarily foreign investment projects.

If anything, these projects are places to which some of the old monies that left Indonesia during the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 - of which Indonesia was one of the most prominent victims - come back.

Nor are they socially responsible investment (or SRI) projects that are, in addition to profit, aimed at providing better services to the public, such as clinics, airports, schools, subways or sky-trains.

For one thing, how many Indonesians can afford the aforementioned luxurious facilities? The answer is, very few.

Furthermore, can these facilities really help bring FDI back to Indonesia? The answer is, not really.

The crux of the matter is, even with such advances as the Internet and airplanes, foreign investment still requires roads on which traffic flows; telephone lines that work, airports or seaports that can transfer cargo quickly; hospitals or clinics that take care of their employees' health; and, most importantly, schools that are not flooded and can churn out skilful, competent, and reliable workers.

In the Philippines, it remains to be seen if President Gloria Arroyo will be able to use her second term in office to revitalise the economy, reduce the nation's debts, and improve the country's competitiveness by tackling such pressing issues as corruption, poor infrastructure and education.

Compared with the Philippines, Indonesia's prospects for change look relatively better with a newly elected president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was inaugurated on Wednesday. Mr Yudhoyono, who is known popularly as SBY, was elected in the country's first-ever direct presidential vote on Sept 20.

Simply put, the people's expectations for Mr Yudhoyono, who won the race against the outgoing President Megawati Sukarnoputri by a 20 per cent margin, are high, and the tasks awaiting the new president are daunting.

After his honeymoon period - which will be understandably short - Mr Yudhoyono, who was security minister under Ms Megawati until March, will have to tackle more than the terrorism threat. Among his most urgent tasks will be to fight corruption, create jobs, and improve the nation's education system. Most importantly, he will have to lure FDI back to Indonesia.

Mr President, the people of Indonesia and foreign investors await changes under your leadership.

If you meet their needs, you will have passed the test of democracy.

The writer, a former regional manager for Asia at the World Economic Forum, is a Jakarta-based columnist. His recently published book is 'The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust' (Marshall Cavendish Academic).

Indonesia faces test of democracy

The Business Times
Sept. 29, 2004

Fresh Start: Once elected to the top post, Mr. Yudhoyono will have a challenging time fulfilling the high expectations Indonesians have of him as their hope for a better future
The people have voiced their demand for political change

By THANG D NGUYEN

On September 20, roughly 125 million Indonesians turned out to select their next leader in Indonesia's first direct presidential election.

An exit poll by the Washington-based National Democratic Institute by late Monday showed that General Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had 61.2 per cent of the votes, and the other candidate, incumbent President Megawati Sukarnoputri, had 38.8 per cent.

It will take about two weeks for the final results to be announced, but for now, Mr Yudhoyono looks set to become Indonesia's next president when he is inaugurated on October 20. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that this election has been most significant to Indonesians, as much as it is encouraging to the world.

For one thing, this election was the first election in which the President was chosen directly by the people with their votes, rather than by members of the Peoples' Consultative Assembly (or MPR) as it had been done before.

Despite repeated terrorist attacks, the people of Indonesia did not let terrorism spoil the nation's democratic progress.

The election took place shortly after the Sep 9 terrorist attack outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta that killed nine Indonesians and injured about 180 people.

This election, which was peaceful and democratic, could not have been a stronger testimony by the Indonesians of their desire for a democratic society. This election, following the legislative election in early April and the first round of the presidential election in early July, show that democracy is growing in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-majority nation.

Change over continuity

In other words, this election demystifies the notion that Islam and democracy are incompatible.

With the first presidential election in its history, Indonesia is a rising democracy - the world's third largest one, to be exact. Furthermore, this election shows that the Indonesians, who are actually more mature an electorate than critics think, have a strong appetite for change.

By voting overwhelmingly for Mr Yudhoyono, the Indonesian voters took a chance on him, who is a relatively new figure in Indonesia's presidential politics.

As a career general and security minister under Ms Megawati, his name only popped up as a presidential candidate about a year ago.

He will undoubtedly be on a learning curve once he takes office, but Mr Yudhoyono shows more promising potential for leadership and change than Ms Megawati - the president that all Indonesians know.

The fact of the matter is, Ms Megawati has had her chance for almost four years - the equivalent of a full presidential term - but, unfortunately, she has not succeeded. In all fairness, however, the Megawati administration has done a good job sustaining Indonesia's macroeconomic stability, as indicated in the interest, exchange, and inflation rates.

Nevertheless, many stressing problems remain unsolved, namely: rising unemployment, rampant corruption and rent-seeking, decreasing foreign investment, a chronic lack of competitiveness, a low growth rate, and a constantly inconsistent or uncertain legal system.

Hence, this administration has been dubbed a do-nothing government that muddles through. Moreover, the Megawati government has not cracked down hard enough on radical Islamic Al Qaeda-linked terrorist groups, such as the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), which was responsible for the Bali bombing in 2002 that killed 202 (mostly foreigners), the J W Marriott blast in 2003 that killed 12 (mostly Indonesians), as well as the recent Australian embassy bombing.

Despite many arrests of terrorists, the Indonesian police and security authorities have not shown a strong sense of effectiveness and seriousness in the fight against terrorism.

A case in point is the incident in which Ali Imron, who is serving a life term for his role in the nightclub blasts in Bali, was taken to Starbucks in the Plaza Indonesia mall by Indonesian police authorities.

'As long as it is for investigation development, it can be done,' said national police spokesman Inspector General Paiman.

'If you are worried about security, well there was security all around him,' he added.

But dealing with terrorism is just one of the many pressing issues that await Mr Yudhoyono, come 20 October. His to-do list will be packed with some other more formidable challenges, namely: unemployment, corruption, and education. To provide 220 million Indonesians, 40 per cent of whom are unemployed or underemployed, with jobs, the Yudhoyono administration will need to bring the growth level to at least 7-9 per cent.

Back to basics

Getting to that level of growth will, however, require a successful implementation of economic and legal reforms that can increase Indonesia's competitiveness, bring about a business-friendly climate, develop infrastructures, and a consistent legal system among other things.

These are the basic requirements for foreign investment that Indonesia does not have, or has lost.

Most of the investment that should be in Indonesia now goes to places like China, Thailand, or Vietnam - hence The Economist's glib report that FDI has now come to mean foreigners ditching Indonesia, as opposed to foreign direct investment.

The Yudhoyono administration will also have to clean-up the civil service.

This will require not only a higher salary for public servants, but also a firm punishment of those, regardless of their positions in society, who are found guilty of corruption.

This is what Malaysia's Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi has done since he took office last October, and his anti-corruption campaign seems to have teeth.

Equally, if not more important, is the challenge for the Yudhoyono administration to improve Indonesia's education system.

Indonesian public schools are inadequately funded, teachers poorly trained (if not corrupt), and students non-performing.

As a matter of fact, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reports that Indonesia has the highest rate of elementary school dropouts in Southeast Asia.

In addition to more funding for public schools and teachers' training, the curriculum in public schools must offer students a progressive education, one in which they read widely, learn English and other foreign languages, and build practical skills that will enable them to compete in the job market upon graduation.

Simply put, the future of Indonesia lies in the classroom.

The caveat for Mr Yudhoyono is that the expectations the Indonesian people have for him are very high.

In other words, he is their hope for a better future.

But hope, as Francis Bacon once put it, is a good breakfast, but it is a bad supper.

If Mr Yudhoyono does not deliver the goods, once the honeymoon period is over, not only will the people be disappointed in him, they will also grow disillusioned and distrustful of democracy itself.

The writer, a former manager for Asia at the World Economic Forum (WEF), is a Jakarta-based columnist. His recently published book is "The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust"

Indonesian polls show democracy a heady brew

The Straits Times
Friday, August 20, 2004

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA - As Indonesia celebrates its 59th anniversary of independence this week, it is appropriate to reflect on the democratic progress it has achieved thus far.

Considering how young democracy is in Indonesia since the end of the Suharto era and how long it has taken others to build a democratic nation, the presidential election this year is certainly an exemplary one.

On July 5, roughly 153 million Indonesians turned out to select their next national leader in the first direct presidential election in the history of the world's largest Muslim-majority nation.

The Indonesian electorate has shown an appreciation of voting, a democratic right that is often forbidden or taken for granted elsewhere in the world.

In dictatorships or non-democratic regimes, voting does not exist. In other societies, voters may vote, but their mandates are not accepted by the ruling regimes.

This is certainly the case of Myanmar, where voting was granted about a decade ago, but its people's overwhelming choice of Nobel peace laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was never acknowledged. What is more, the junta leadership has yet to release her from house arrest, despite many calls from the international community.

It is often forgotten that voting is a luxury not all citizens can afford.

In other words, voting or political activities, such as participating in election campaigns, takes time, energy and resources the poor do not have.

When a voter's main concern is to put food on the table, for himself or his family, voting is arguably the last thing on his mind.

As much as he may want to join election campaigns to support his preferred presidential candidate and vote, economic conditions simply don't allow him to and, therefore, he is not necessarily considered politically indifferent.

Political indifference, on the other hand, is a phenomenon in which an individual's economic conditions allow him to vote, but he decides not to.

It is either because he is too occupied with other pursuits in life or simply not interested in politics, based on his belief that it does not, or will not, make his life any better.

This phenomenon happens in some First World countries in which most citizens enjoy high standards of living.

For instance, the United States, which considers itself the democratic beacon of the world, has a relatively low voter turnout. In the 2000 presidential election, the US voter turnout rate was just 51 per cent. Interestingly enough, this was a period during which the US economy was doing well.

For Indonesia, where 40 per cent of its 220 million people are unemployed or underemployed, its democratic progress, as seen in its steady voter turnout rate, is indeed remarkable and encouraging.

Furthermore, this year's election has shown the Indonesian electorate to be mature - if not sophisticated. For the first time in the nation's history, voters seemed to pay more attention to issues.

In Indonesia - like most other South-east Asian countries - political culture is, for the most part, personality-based and traditional authority-oriented.

In other words, apart from money politics, voters are influenced by a candidate's charisma and advice from tribal heads or religious leaders when making their electoral decisions.

When asked if they would base their voting rationale on a candidate's personality or his policy, a June survey conducted by the International Foundation for Election Systems showed 43 per cent of those polled said both factors matter equally.

Among issues of concern to most voters, corruption ranks the highest.

For this reason, Mr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, a retired general who was the coordinating minister for political and security affairs until March, is the most popular candidate. The main reason is that he is perceived as someone who is still clean, or bersih in Indonesian.

As a candidate needs more than 50 per cent of the votes to win the election, the results of the July 5 election mean that retired general Bambang, or SBY as Indonesians call him, and incumbent President Megawati Sukarnoputri will face each other in a final run-off scheduled for Sept 20.

Meanwhile, it is also worth noting that there has been virtually no violence from the time the campaign started in March till the legislative-level elections in April and election day itself, when millions of Indonesians turned out to vote.

What is most positive about the Indonesian elections is that they illustrate not only can democracy exist, but it can also flourish in the world's largest Muslim-majority nation.
Amid raging global debates on whether Islam is compatible with democracy, Indonesia's democratic process is most encouraging.

However, while Indonesians look forward to next month's run-off and their next leadership, they need to be reminded that democracy is not an end in itself.

Rather, it is a means to prosperity, security and job creation.

This means if the newly elected government can't deliver the goods as promised during the election campaign, democracy will be meaningless, and the people will become disillusioned.

As for others around the world who are observing Indonesia's elections, they, too, need a reminder, which is: Be patient. Democracy is not instant coffee; and if you don't grow, brew and serve it right, you will get a nasty drink.

The writer, a former regional manager for Asia at the World Economic Forum, is a Jakarta-based columnist. His forthcoming book is The Indonesian Dream: Diversity, Unity and Democracy in Times of Distrust.

Challenging road to democracy in Indonesia

The Business Times
July 28, 2004

But democracy cannot be an end in itself and must be accompanied by economic progress to be successful, meaningful and sustainable.

By Thang D. Nguyen

On July 5, about 153 million Indonesian voters went to the polls to elect their next president. To most observers, this event might seem just one of the many elections that take place this year in Asia and other parts of the world. But for Indonesians, it has been a highly significant event, one of the milestones in the country's modern history.

Not only was this election a time for Indonesians to select a leader to guide them through their future, it was also an opportunity for them to show the world that democracy can and does work in Indonesia, which is the world's fourth most populous nation and home to the largest Muslim community.

For Indonesia - the world's largest archipelago - managing this event in terms of sheer logistics has been no easy task. Besides the size factor, security has also posed a daunting challenge.

But Indonesia had done it well, and did it again on July 5. Remarkably, there has been virtually no violence from the time the campaign started in March till the legislative level elections in April and election day itself, when millions of Indonesians turned out to vote.

The turnouts for Indonesian elections have been consistently high. In the 1999 election, according to the Stockholm-based Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Indonesia's voter turnout rate came in at 85.7 percent. And the turnout rate on July 5 was 80 percent.

But this election is also important because it is the first direct presidential election in the history of Indonesia. In the past, the president was elected indirectly, by votes from members of the People's Consultative Assembly (or MPR). Under a constitutional reform that the MPR approved in August 2002, the president will now be elected directly by the Indonesian voters.

All of these facts indicate that democracy is growing in Indonesia. Amid raging global debates on whether Islam and democracy are compatible, the prospects for Indonesia's democratic success are most encouraging.

'What is happening in Indonesia,' said European Commissioner for External Relations Christopher Patten in a recent visit to Jakarta, shows that 'democracy and Islam can co-exist, and the rest of (the world) should be supporting it'.

Indonesia's democratic journey is not easy, however. The Indonesians must realise that the election is the journey, and the destination is not just democracy per se, but also prosperity. In other words, for democracy to be successful, meaningful and sustainable, it must be translated into jobs and wealth creation that benefits the vast majority of Indonesians. This means the economy must be the No 1 priority for the next leader of Indonesia and his or her administration.

The economy is projected to grow at 4.8 percent in 2004. Nevertheless, to provide jobs for Indonesia's 220 million population, which is fast growing, it would take a GDP growth rate of between 7-9 percent, which was the average rate at which the economy grew for roughly two decades before it was engulfed by the Asian financial crisis of 1997.

What will it take for Indonesia to achieve a high growth rate? The answer lies, basically, in competitiveness. A country's economic competitiveness is measured by a number of factors, such as its political stability; government policy and treatment of foreign investors; physical infrastructure; the quality and level of its public education, the productivity and skill level of its labour force; transparency; and legal consistency.

When it comes to Indonesia's competitiveness, while there has been progress, there remain many challenges. Measured by macroeconomic indicators, Indonesia is doing well. In fact, the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Report 2003-2004 says that Indonesia's macroeconomic environment score is the 5th most improved. Nevertheless, rampant corruption, the lack of an attractive investment climate, and legal inconsistency remain the biggest challenges. The next government will have to deal with these issues head-on.

For Indonesia to make economic progress, the quality of leadership is of key importance. The Indonesian electorate, which is actually more sophisticated than some critics think, are well aware of this. When a June survey by the International Foundation for Election Systems asked Indonesians what is their most important consideration when voting for their president, leadership ability scored a high 45 percent, far ahead of other criteria, such as religion, which scored only 4 percent.

The results of the July 5 election released on Monday by the National Elections Commission (KPU) show that retired general Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is the leading candidate. According to the KPU, Mr Bambang has 33.6 percent of the votes, followed by incumbent President Megawati Sukarnoputri with 26.6 percent and Wiranto, another former general, with 22.2 percent.

Since it requires a candidate to have more than 50 percent of the votes on July 5 to win the election, these early results confirm that Mr Bambang, or 'SBY' as Indonesians call him, and President Megawati will face each other in a final run-off scheduled for Sept 20.While Indonesians and friends of Indonesia from around the world look forward to the September run-off and its result, the key point that nobody should miss is that democracy is beginning to flourish in Indonesia.

Speaking of the July 5 election, former US president Jimmy Carter, who was one of the international observers, said that Indonesia had made a 'wonderful transition from authoritarian rule to pure democratic rule'.

The American writer Mark Twain once quipped: 'Wagner's music is better than it sounds.' Democracy in Indonesia, it has been said, is like Wagner's music: the world just has to listen to it attentively.

The writer, a former regional manager for Asia at the World Economic Forum, is currently a Jakarta-based political analyst. He is also the author of the forthcoming book, 'The Indonesian Dream: Diversity, Unity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust' (Marshall Cavendish Academic, September 2004).

The rut of democracy without prosperity

The Straits Times
May 28, 2004

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA - Frederick Douglas once rued that 'if there is no struggle, there is no progress'. In its recent past, Indonesia has struggled, but progress still seems far away.

Six years ago this month, Indonesia experienced some of the most memorable events in its modern history. On May 12, 1998, four Trisakti University students were shot during a demonstration that was part of the student activist movement that toppled the 32-year Suharto regime and started an era of reform (reformasi) and democracy.

Known as the May Riots, the shooting incident was followed by a series of anti-Chinese violence from May 13 to 15 in which more than 1,000 ethnic Chinese Indonesians were killed, about 5,000 Chinese-owned stores and buildings torched, and dozens of ethnic Chinese women assaulted and raped.

As Indonesians commemorate the sixth anniversary of the May Riots, it seems the past six years of reformasi have been a disappointment. For one thing, those who committed these inhuman acts have not been brought to justice. More important, little economic progress has been made. It seems Indonesia's past struggles to bring about democracy have been in vain.

For democracy to have any meaning, it must be accompanied by economic growth and translated into jobs, which in turn enable people to meet their basic needs on a daily basis.

By the same token, the economic pie must be big enough so everyone has a share of it. This economic balance is the basis of social stability and order. When this condition does not hold, it gives rise to ethnic hatred and social unrest. As an old saying has it: 'Hunger makes anger.'

This was exactly what happened in Indonesia in 1998. The ethnic differences between the indigenous Indonesians (pribumi, or 'of the soil') and their ethnic Chinese counterparts - whose ancestors migrated to Indonesia as early as the 1500s - were not the root cause of the May Riots. It was the economic inequality between them that ignited the fire.

Let's not forget that the ethnic Chinese account for about 4 per cent of the Indonesian population, but own roughly 75 per cent of its private economy, including its largest conglomerates. They are members of what Yale law professor Amy Chua calls 'market dominant minorities'.

To be sure, six years of reformasi brought about some remarkable democratic changes. For instance, in 2002, the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) approved a constitutional reform package that allows the electorate to select the president by direct vote, removes 38 seats in the MPR the military used to occupy, and reiterates that Indonesia is a democracy and not a theocracy by rejecting a motion to apply syariah, or Islamic law, across the nation.

Unfortunately, in economic terms, Indonesia cannot be said to have achieved much progress during the reform years. Its many problems remain.

Besides rampant corruption and a lack of cross-sector competitiveness, there has been no significant increase in the Indonesian growth rate.

Indonesia's high unemployment is a consequence of its lack of sufficient economic growth in recent years. The Indonesian economy grew by 0.8 per cent in 1999, 4.9 per cent in 2000, 3.4 per cent in 2001, 3.7 per cent in 2002 and 4.1 per cent last year.

These may be high by the standards of developed countries, but are too low to provide the nation's 220 million people with jobs. During the Suharto years, growth averaged 7 to 9 per cent.
Come July and September, when Indonesians hit the polls to select their president and decide who will be the leader of their future, not only do they need to vote with care, but they also need to remember their recent past. If they don't, they may repeat it.

The writer is a Jakarta-based political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Indonesian Dream: 'Unity In Diversity' In Transitional Times.

Myanmar junta unlikely to release Suu Kyi

The New Straits Times
May 19 2004

By Thang D. Nguyen

THE prospects for the release of Myanmar’s democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi are looking good, but for all we know, this might be just another move by the junta in a cat-and-mouse game.

The junta held a convention on Monday to draft a constitution as part of a road map towards democracy. It had also said that it would release Aung San Suu Kyi — who won the 1991 Nobel Peace prize — but would not identify a specific date.

In response, the opposition National League for Democracy (NLD), of which Aung San Suu Kyi is the chairman, insisted on her release as a condition for its participation in the convention.

"We have not decided on what to do about the national convention, but we need to have all our leaders, Aung San Suu Kyi and vice-chairman Tin Oo free first," NLD central executive committee member Soe Myint was quoted by Reuters as saying. "Only then will we discuss this matter among ourselves and then make a final decision," he continued.

But soon enough, the junta backed down on its decision to release the Nobel laureate. Its decision should not come as a surprise, given the nature of such regimes. Aung San Suu Kyi is its ace card in this game and, therefore, it is unwilling and unable to release her.

In other words, once it frees her, the junta will be left with nothing to base its demands upon with which to demand from and negotiate with the NLD and representatives of the international community, such as Malaysian diplomat Tan Sri Razali Ismail, who has been appointed as the UN envoy to work with the regime on her release and other efforts to bring democracy to the nation.

The junta, whose real leader was General Ne Win, knows the price it will have to pay if it releases Aung San Suu Kyi for good: democracy. For this reason, since 1989, the military has put her under house arrest in a renewable one-year term. The military regime will do whatever it takes to ensure that Aung San Suu Kyi, whose father was the independence hero of Myanmar, the NLD and her constituents will not gain the momentum to bring about democracy.

The junta does not want to see the democratic movement that happened in Indonesia in 1998-99, for instance, to happen in Myanmar. In 1998, Indonesian students and activists drove Suharto out of power after three decades of dictatorship, corruption, and cronyism, and in 1999 Indonesia held its first democratic election, in which President Megawati Sukarnoputri's Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) triumphed over Golkar, the party of Suharto and his cronies.

To be sure, Indonesia's democratic triumph would not have been possible, had it not been for the devastating impact on the Indonesian economy of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. As an old saying has it, "hunger makes anger", and that provided the momentum, the energy, and the pretext that ignited and brought about democracy in Indonesia.

For such a dynamic movement to take place in Myanmar, perhaps the people would need to go through an economic crisis as the Indonesians did in the Asian financial crisis. This will not happen to Myanmar, however. The reason is that, unlike the Indonesian economy, which is open to the world economy and financial system and had become a newly industrialised economy right before the Asian financial crisis, Myanmar's economy remains an isolated socialistic system to this day. Economics is a game of dilemma, risks and gains: If one doesn't play, one can't win, but if one plays, one can get hurt.

Aung San Suu Kyi's followers and many others from the international community are keeping their fingers crossed for her release. They hope that she will soon be freed and that some day democracy will come to Myanmar. Unfortunately, as long as the junta is in power, their hopes will be more like a dream deferred. Hope, to paraphrase Francis Bacon, is a good breakfast, but it serves a poor dinner: It is just not enough.

The writer is a Jakarta-based political analyst and public relations consultant. He has published several books on Southeast Asia.

Religion doesn't figure in Indonesian polls

The Straits Times
Saturday, April 3, 2004

By THANG D. NGUYEN

JAKARTA - Come Monday, Indonesia will hold its general elections, which will be followed by a presidential election set to take place in July.

Unlike the recent elections in neighbouring Malaysia, which were filled with piety politics, religion does not dominate election campaigns in Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population.

Lately, there has been a growing concern about the so-called 'green wave', the rising Islamisation of politics in the Muslim world, for fear of societies being turned into theocracies if an Islamic party wins and terrorist acts are carried out by radical Muslims.

As the results of the March 21 elections in Malaysia illustrated, the 'greenisation' of elections has its weaknesses.

The hardline Parti Islam SeMalaysia (PAS) campaigned with the line that Malaysian voters 'will go to heaven for choosing an Islamic party, while those who support un-Islamic parties will logically go to hell'.

The end result was PAS lost, and Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi's National Front, a multi-ethnic party with a progressive, economics-oriented platform, won big.

Similarly, religion is the last thing on Indonesians' minds as they go to the polls.

An early-March survey conducted across the country by the International Foundation for Election Systems (IFES) confirms this trend. Survey participants were asked what mattered most to them as criteria in the elections: employment, political stability, transparency, education and religion, among other things. While other criteria scored as high as 40 percent, religion scored a tiny 4 percent.

The same survey also showed the most popular parties are not Islamic ones. Of the 24 contesting parties, the leading three are Golkar (short for Golongan Karya, or Functional Group); the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), led by President Megawati Sukarnoputri; and the National Mandate Party (PAN), led by Speaker of Parliament Amien Rais.

A party is considered Islamic only when its platform is Islam-based. Thus, even though PAN has many supporters from Muhammadiyah, one of Indonesia's largest Islamic organisations, it does not qualify as an Islamic party. The same applies to the National Awakening Party, which is led by former president Abdurrahman Wahid and has strong support from Nahdlatul Ulama, another Islamic powerhouse.

The message from this survey is clear: Indonesians want a democratic society with a strong economy, political stability, clean government and leadership. These are the deliverables Indonesian voters want to see from the elections, in both the parliamentary and presidential rounds.

That is their definition of democracy. Without these deliverables, democracy has hardly any meaning to the people of Indonesia - or their counterparts in other parts of the world, for that matter.

Even the Islamic parties are not campaigning on a religious, Islamic platform, as PAS did in Malaysia. Even though Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world, Islam is not its official religion. In its early years, some lawmakers tried to persuade founding father Sukarno to institutionalise Islam and so make Indonesia an Islamic state. Understanding the complexity of Indonesia as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious archipelago, Sukarno offered a compromise whereby one the five principles of the state ideology is a 'belief in one god'. Knowing the majority of its population are Muslims, Sukarno's wisdom or cleverness lies in the fact that this 'one God' can be Allah, Buddha or Christ, depending on one's faith.

Islam is still the core religion in Indonesia. In 2002, many years after Indonesia's founding, a motion to institute Islamic law was put before the People's Consultative Assembly, but it was rejected.

As for the people of Indonesia, most do not desire a theocracy. As the IFES survey showed, they are rational enough to realise what matters most is that their basic needs - such as food, shelter, water and clothing - are met, and religion is not one of them.

If anything, to paraphrase Karl Marx, religion is the opium of the people: They can smoke it, but they can't eat it.

The writer, a Jakarta-based political analyst, has published several books, including Indonesia Matters: Diversity, Unity and Stability in Fragile Times.

The U.S. backs most of the wrong horses

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta, Indonesia
Tuesday, March 16, 2004

By Thang D. Nguyen, Program, Coordinator, United in Diversity Forum, JAKARTA

Finally, Jean-Bertrand Aristide gave up and fled Haiti under pressure from the U.S., which sent a batch of its marines to Port-au-Prince last Sunday as part of an international peacekeeping force authorized by the UN Security Council.

No applause, please! For one thing, the U.S. response was belated, after a month of rebellion in this violence-torn former French colony. The other, and more important, thing is that the U.S. should not have supported Aristide from the beginning.

America's relationship with Aristide has turned from sweet to sour in the past decade. Back in 1991, a military coup in Haiti brought Ltg. Cedras to power, and Aristide fled to the U.S. In 1994, as an effort to restore democracy in Haiti, former President Jimmy Carter and Gen. Colin Powell struck a deal with Ltg. Cedras and President Jonaissant for Aristide to come back to power. In the same year then President Bill Clinton sent 20,000 troops to back him up, and Aristide was back in power.

On the surface, the late response from the U.S. in the past few weeks in Haiti displays its distrust of Aristide in the recent years and desire to disassociate itself from him. Deep down inside, however, the US must regret -- though unwilling to admit -- that it has backed yet another wrong horse.

Post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy is marked by a shift from sending American troops overseas to stop Communism from spreading itself to playing the role of an international policeman, and recently to the so-called "regime change" paradigm.

In a nutshell, regime change means democratizing the world by selecting and backing local leaders that it deems suitable, willing, and able. By the same token, any national leader--democratically elected or otherwise -- that the U.S. considers non-democratic is likely to be pressured to resign or forced out of power by a U.S.-backed coup d'etat or, in the case of Saddam Hussein, a U.S. invasion.

The fact remains, most of the national leaders that the U.S. supports turn out to be corrupt dictators who, in the end, are forced out of power by their own peoples. Southeast Asia is a case in point. The US-backed regimes of the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos and Indonesia's Soeharto ended in turmoil.

Worse than being forced out of power and costing American taxpayers a dear sum of money, some of the U.S.-chosen national leaders become enemies of the states. Only about a decade ago, Osama bin Ladin was an American hero, who got tons of U.S. aids to fight the Russians.
But what is absurd is that, after its failures in globalizing democracy or regime change, the U.S. often goes back the UN and asks for its involvement. Let's take the Iraq War as an illustration of this point. After bypassing the UN Security Council, which opposed the war, the U.S. took a unilateral decision to invade Iraq and, thereby, diminished the relevance of the UN as the body of the international community.

As more coalition troops died in Iraq -- and this number is increasing everyday -- the U.S. went to the UN seeking its peacekeeping force. Luckily for the U.S., the bombing of the UN headquarter in Baghdad that killed UN envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello -- who was one of Secretary-General Kofi Annan's finest staffs and close friends -- left the UN no choice but to get involved.

The very fact that the U.S. goes back to the UN for help shows that the latter, despite its shortcomings and problems, still matters. Until we find something better, the UN is the only collective body that the international society has. So, until then, don't disregard or disrespect the UN yet because, as the U.S. has done many a time, you may need it before you realize it.
Back to the Aristide coup, the lesson for the U.S. is that it is not good at democratization, nor should it select and support national leaders for other peoples based on what it deems to be good for them. Let the peoples choose for themselves by whom they want to be governed. After all, "democracy is," said Abraham Lincoln, "the government of the people, by the people, for the people."

These are his personal views and, therefore, do not represent those of the Forum.

Controlled Media Could Cause Mass Deception

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta, Indonesia
Monday, March 8, 2004

By Thang D. NguyenProgram CoordinatorUnited in Diversity ForumJakarta

The media has become a weapon of mass deception. This has happened in two ways: The first is that governments have come to dominate the media, and the second is that too much freedom has made the media irresponsible.

The first case is quite Orwellian in that the media, especially the state-owned media, serves as governments’ obedient mouthpieces. For one thing, this means that news reports are government-friendly. But this also means they cover up scandals in which their bosses are at fault.

As an old saying has it, “never bite the hand that feeds you,” anyone who violates this rule will face many consequences: from the loss of their job to threats, imprisonment, family harassment and death. Because of overwhelming power of the “thought police”, many media agencies bite the bullet and hide truthful and objective information from the public.

There has, however, been one exception recently: the BBC’s reporting, much of which was done by the brave, controversial Andrew Gilligan, accusing Downing Street of ‘sexing up’ the Iraq dossier that led the UK into the U.S. war on Iraq. In January, the BBC’s ex-chairman Gavyn Davies and ex-director-general Greg Dyke quit their jobs in defense of the corporation’ s reporting independence.

Before announcing his resignation, Dyke sent an email to the BBC staff in which he wrote: “…the management of the BBC was heavily criticised [for the Gilligan reports]. We need closure to protect the future of the BBC, not for you or me but for the benefit of everyone out there. Throughout this affair my sole aim as director general of the BBC has been to defend our editorial independence and to act in the public interest.”

It is a shame that Dyke resigned; it is Prime Minister Tony Blair who should have resigned instead. It is also a shame that this is happening to the BBC, which has worldwide respect for its independent news services. It sounds paradoxical, but the reports on the Iraq war from the government-funded BBC were much more objective and truthful than the reports from the privately owned CNN or – much worse – Fox News.

The second case in which the media becomes a weapon of mass deception is when it fails to perform responsible journalism. What is responsible journalism? It is the responsibility of media professionals – whether they be reporters, correspondents, producers, editors, managing directors, chief executive officers, or chairmen – to ensure that the public receives accurate facts and objective information in a timely manner.

But more than that, responsible journalism means that media professionals are responsible for detecting, investigating and reporting news that has life-and-death impacts on the lives of people – hence the term investigative journalism.

Often associated with Enron-like cases, Lewinsky-like affairs, or Watergate-like scandals, investigative journalism seems to be disappearing, and some journalists have become irresponsible.

Under totalitarian, Communist, or other undemocratic societies in which the media is state-controlled or publicly funded, it might be understandable that, as much as journalists want to investigate and report truthful stories to the public, they cannot for fear that they or their families will be endangered by either the state, influential businesspeople, or other powers that be.

Sadly, however, irresponsible journalism is happening in democratic countries in which the media enjoys not only the right to report freely but also to investigate into and blow up scandals.
A case in point is the cover-up of and the much belated reports on the bird flu that has caused deaths and led to massive slaughter of millions of chickens throughout Asia. The outbreak first revealed itself as early as last August when thousands of chickens started to die in Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, and has since spread to Cambodia, China, Japan, Laos, Pakistan, South Korea and now the U.S.

The Thai public was uninformed of this epidemic until the government ordered a cull of its infected chickens roughly two months after thousands of Thai chickens had already died of the flu.

Likewise, the Indonesian public was kept in the dark until the end of last month when the news was no longer concealable. The Indonesian government then went public with the bad news and ordered a mass cull of its chickens, after citing inadequate funds and insisting that culling would not be effective and doing it “would certainly reduce [its] poultry population drastically.”

Where was the media all this time? In Thailand, the theory is that the media are quite scared of the Thaksin government, which is influenced by powerful businesses such as the feed producer Charoen Pokphand Group (CP Group). But where does that leave the Indonesian media, which since the end of the Suharto era has gotten quite a lot of freedom of the press – if not too much?
If the media joins governments and their intelligence agencies in failing – intentionally or otherwise – to provide the public with timely, accurate, and truthful information, who else can we turn to?

When the media acts as governments’ tools of deception or are irresponsible, it is as dangerous as weapons of mass destruction.

These are personal views and do not necessarily represent the views of the United in Diversity Forum.

Southeast Asia in 2004: Living dangerously again

Jakarta Post
Saturday 21 February

By Thang D. Nguyen, Program Coordinator, United in Diversity Forum, Jakarta

2004, the Year of the Monkey, will be an exciting, but challenging one for Southeast Asia.The New Year has already challenged the leadership in several Southeast Asian countries with the bird flu outbreak. Thus far, this epidemic has taken lives in Thailand and Vietnam and led to mass culls of millions of chickens throughout Asia -- from Cambodia to China, Laos, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea and Taiwan -- and recently reached the US.

While scientists still try to confirm if this virus can be transmitted human-to-human, it gives us all a chilling reminder of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) that took many lives and damaged Asia's economies severely last year and shows that the region's leadership has failed the test of handling this crisis.

The bird flu aside, leadership in several Southeast Asian countries is expected to change this year. For Indonesia and the Philippines, 2004 is an important year as their presidential elections are only a few months away.

In the Philippines, one can only hope that, if re-elected, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo will become a better president than she has in her first term in office, especially in revitalizing the economy and dealing with the Muslim rebels in the south. As bright and strong a leader as she is, President Arroyo needs to enhance and protect her credibility by making her decisions in a manner consistent with what she says.

Even though the excitement about Indonesia's elections has not picked up yet, as it did at the same time before the 1999 elections, it will be a most significant presidential election in the country's history as the president will be selected by direct votes. President Megawati Soekarnoputri -- despite her shortcomings and lack of leadership -- is in fact the leading candidate at the moment.

Whatever the outcomes of the presidential elections in Indonesia and the Philippines, it is certain that the elected presidents have an overwhelmingly challenging task of bringing about stability, security, and prosperity in these troubled democracies.

A quick look at its other heads of states shows that Southeast Asia's leadership is young and, therefore, still on the learning curve.

Malaysia's new prime minister, Abdullah Badawi -- or Pak Lah as he is affectionately called -- took office last October as Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad retired after 22 years of leadership. Pak Lah is navigating to find his own direction and build his own leadership style, which is different from that of Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad.

Thus far, he appears to fair rather well. Malaysia will soon have its general elections. It is reasonable to expect that Pak Lah will make good use of his time in office to gain popularity before deciding when the elections will take place.

Singapore's Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong is expected to hand the baton over to Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (the son of Singapore's founding father, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew), by 2005. While the exact timing of this transition is unclear, it is certain that Goh will do so when he feels is most appropriate and that Lee, the junior, has been well groomed and is ready to take charge ably as soon as he assumes his new post.

Thailand's Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra has been exceptional. In his three years in office, Thaksin has been, and continues to be, a leader of respect (if not fear). Described by some as a transactional leader, Thaksin's policies, those with heavy-handed government intervention into not only in the economy and politics, but also other aspects of the Thai society, have made a turn-around for Thailand -- one of the most prominent victims of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998 and from which it spread to neighbor economies.

Nevertheless, Thailand's cover up of and belated response to the bird flu will both hurt the country's chicken poultry exports and Thaksin's rising reputation.

In addition to being young, it is also fair to say that ASEAN leaders, with a few exceptions, are for the most part not visible or heard enough in international arenas and not strong or proactive enough in their region. This is certainly true in the case of Brunei, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam. It is reasonable to expect the leadership in these countries to remain the same in 2004.

ASEAN's ultimate goal is to integrate its ten member economies. While this is a noble cause that ASEAN has every reason to pursue, it presents the grouping with a number of formidable challenges.

For one thing, there is a lack of the much-needed political will among member countries to reduce both tariff and non-tariff barriers within AFTA (ASEAN Free Trade Agreement). This lack of commitment from member countries has made trade more expensive and business more costly to do in and with them. The consequence is evident in that intra-ASEAN trade has fallen by 19 per cent since 1994, when the free trade area wasestablished.

The second challenge is the grouping's consensus-oriented governing style. Founded on a non-interference principle, ASEAN as a grouping of diverse political regimes, cultures, and ideologies needs to move beyond its consensus-seeking tradition to a majority-voting style. Unpopular as it is, a majority-voting style would enable ASEAN to move forward with its market integration and trade liberalization processes.

The third challenge is the grouping's lack of institutions to further its economic integration. The grouping's Jakarta-based Secretariat is not suitable, nor is it capable, to monitor and implement this process.

If anything, AFTA is operated by ministers of trade and industry from the ten member countries who hold long meetings and hammer out wordy documents that are hardly implemented. It is time to create an ASEAN Trade Organization (ATO) to handle its trade matters and other perfunctory institutions to monitor and implement its economic integration.

Leaders like Lee Kuan Yew, Mahathir bin Mohamad, and Soeharto have developed ASEAN and worked hard to earn it a place and respect in the international community. The grouping's leadership torch is now in the hands of its current leaders, who should make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it on to their successors.

These are his personal views.