Thang D. Nguyen's Column

ASEAN destroys its own credibility

2007-12-03T00:08:00.000-08:00

Asiasentinel
www.asiasentinel.com

Thang D. Nguyen
03 December 2007

The publicity over ASEAN's failure of nerve about Burma obscures other troubles with its new charter

While international organizations and regional blocs like the European Union are trying so hard to stay relevant, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) seems not to be bothering.

First was the disastrous and disgraceful climbdown at the recent 13th ASEAN summit in Singapore, when the organization bent to the demands of Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein in refusing to allow United Nations Envoy Ibrahim Gambari to brief leaders and their dialogue partners from Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea on Burma’s crackdown on Buddhist monks and civilian protesters — forcing Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong of Singapore, which now chairs ASEAN, to scrap the meeting.

Worse yet is the ASEAN Charter, which confirms that the principle of non-interference will remain unchanged. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, herself mired charges of corruption and a domestic mess last week with an attempted coup, at least stood up and said she wouldn't sign the charter unless the long-confined Nobel laureate and opposition leader Aung San Suu Ky is freed and Burma agrees to some degree of human rights liberalization.

Leaders from the 10 member countries ended up signing a charter that aims towards comprehensive integration, but that has significant problems that certainly render the charter problematical, if not meaningless. On the economic front, the charter contains the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Blueprint that was adopted at the summit. Similar to — if not inspired by — the European Economic Community, the AEC Blueprint aims for complete economic integration among 10 member countries by 2015.

For a group as diverse as ASEAN, whose members are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Burma, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam, the AEC Blueprint is, indeed, a bold and encouraging vision. But at the same time, the very diversity of or imbalance among the 10 members' economies makes it very difficult to realize the AEC Blueprint by 2015 as planned.

At the heart of this plan is the Common Effective Preferential Tariff (CEPT), which ultimately targets a zero tariff rate among the 10 members. While this goal is easier to reach for advanced economies in ASEAN, namely Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, it is more difficult for their less developed fellow economies, namely Cambodia, Laos, Burma and Vietnam. The main reason is that the latter group, as do most developing countries, tends to have high tariff rates as a way to maintain or improve their terms of trade (prices of a country's exports over its imports).

Understandably enough, ASEAN's less-developed economies are given a later schedule for tariff reduction. But for the AEC vision to be realized, it will require a strong political will, discipline and leadership from them and the rest of ASEAN.

Put differently, what happens if any member — regardless of its economic stage — which does not respect and meet the deadline of tariff reduction and other requirements set out by the AEC Blueprint? Is there some sort of punishment for those that don't do their parts and, thus, fail the whole AEC vision altogether? And may other members have any say?

Sadly, the answer to these questions is negative. The cause of this is nothing other than ASEAN's fundamental principle of non-interference.

Forty years ago when ASEAN was founded, its founding fathers — some of whom are still alive — agreed that all ASEAN members would not interfere with matters considered to be a fellow member's domestic affairs. After the Cold War, this principle seemed to work well for ASEAN, whose members then were Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

As the group grew larger and inducted Cambodia, Laos, Burma and Vietnam in the early 1990s, however, the political structure changed. Indeed, the new four members' political systems and ideologies were, and still are, very different from those of the original six. Nevertheless, ASEAN's political culture, or the principle of non-interference, stayed the same.

To be fair, ASEAN did surprise the world in 2003 when it urged Burma's military rulers to free Ms Suu Kyi, whose National League for Democracy secured a landslide, but unrecognized, victory in a 1990 election. Last year, an ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus was even established, with the primary aims of pushing democracy in Burma and helping free Ms Suu Kyi. To ASEAN's credit, the pressure it exerted in the past led to Burma giving up its scheduled turn as the chair of the association last year (the Philippines took the position, as it was next in line).

And at first in September, when the Burmese junta cracked down brutally on protestors, ASEAN initially showed that it was breaking away from its excessively polite political culture and the principle of non-interference. Singapore’s Lee, who currently chairs the group, said ASEAN cannot "credibly remain silent or uninvolved in this matter."

"National reconciliation means opening of meaningful dialogue with Aung San Su Kyi and the NLD (National League for Democracy); (it) means releasing political detainees, including Aung San Su Kyi; (it) means moving forward to achieve a peaceful transition to democracy and to address the economic hardships of the population of Myanmar," he said.

But, alas, ASEAN is not in favor of sanctions or dismembering Burma, as the US Senate and the Human Rights Watch Group have urged, although during the summit, ASEAN did make its position clear that Burma cannot go back to the status quo — a position obscured by the cave-in on Gambari's briefing. By all accounts, ASEAN is the loser, having first attempted to discipline Burma and then being forced to back away. In addition, international outrage over Burma's military crackdown is stalling ASEAN's trade negotiations with the United States and causing serious diplomatic difficulties with the European Union

This is no way for ASEAN to maintain its credibility. Now that it has broken its premise of non-interference through its statements and actions towards ASEAN thus far, maintaining the principle, if anything, will make ASEAN hypocritical.

Burma, as a consequence, will get spoiled again, as it knows that it can continue to keep Aung San Suu Kyi under arrest and suppress democracy and ASEAN won't do a thing since it is considered an internal matter. Not only has ASEAN continued to back the wrong horse, but it has lost its face in the international community.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. More of his writings can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com .

Jakarta's poor need jobs, not law

2007-10-22T03:29:00.000-07:00

The Business Times
Singapore

Published October 17, 2007

Outlawing begging will not help as it is the job of the government to pursue policies which create jobs for its citizens

By THANG D NGUYEN

(JAKARTA) In other parts of the world, giving a few coins to help a less fortunate person would be considered a humane act. But if you do that in the Indonesian capital city of Jakarta, it can cost you a lot more money.

Last month, the Jakarta City Council approved a bylaw that bans busking, begging and street hawking as well as banning people from giving money to beggars, vendors and hawkers.

Initiated by the city's departing governor, Sutioyoso, the bylaw says that anyone who is caught giving money to beggars, and others of their ilk, will be fined of 50 million rupiah (S$8,072).

While this new policy is well-meant as it is intended to help make Jakarta, a city of more than 12 million people, a less squalid place and, thus, a more attractive destination for visitors, it is - like many Indonesian laws - vacuous and ridiculous.

For one thing, this policy violates a personal liberty. Giving, after all, is a personal choice and, as such, it should neither be forced nor prohibited.

Thus, by enforcing this bylaw, the City of Jakarta is denying its residents their freedom to give.

Furthermore, like prostitution, begging is one of the world's oldest professions. Even in the world's richest countries one can find beggars.

And in a country like Indonesia, where half of its 230 million people live on less than the equivalent of US$2 a day, and there is no social welfare system, it is no wonder that there are so many beggars in Jakarta and elsewhere in the country.

To be sure, many of the beggars one sees in Jakarta are members of syndicates run by gangs who rent out toddlers and are said to earn more than an average Indonesian government official. But not all of these beggars are con artists. Unemployment, old age and poor health are among the other factors which force people to beg for a living.

'I have nowhere to work in my hometown, so I came to Jakarta and start selling cigarettes on the street to get a little money to live,' Chakim, a 24-year-old streetside cigarette vendor in Jakarta, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur (dpa).

Countries like Switzerland and Luxembourg have not become some of the world's richest places by banning their citizens from giving to beggars. Instead, they try to ensure that their citizens can find jobs.

And for those who are unemployed, disabled, aged, or in poor health, there is a social welfare system - financed with tax revenues - that saves them from begging for a living.

In Indonesia, the establishment of such a social safety net is currently impossible. This is because there is no effective tax revenue and expenditure system in place and there is still so much corruption entrenched in the government.

Employment creation is possible, however. It is, after all, the job of the government of Indonesia and the City of Jakarta to pursue policies which create jobs for their citizens.

And if they can't do their job, at least they should let unemployed, poor, and less able citizens find a way to make a living, even if that happens to be by begging.

By the same token, those who are willing and able to help other less fortunate Indonesians should be allowed to do so.

While Mr Sutioyoso and his colleagues may insist that their policy is the way to clean up Jakarta, it is not.

Simply put, the bylaw won't work because there is no sound alternative, that is, employment.

Beggars may move away from begging on Jakarta's streets, but they will simply do it somewhere else.

'I have agreed with many buskers that we will stay on the streets, whatever it takes. The new bylaws don't scare me too much,' said Susi, a transvestite who sings daily at a dusty and congested intersection in Central Jakarta. 'I can earn up to 30,000 rupiah a day.'

While beggars like Susi are determined to stay on the streets, departing Governor Sutioyoso is said to be running for president in 2009.

If that is the case, the beggar bylaw may not be a good thing for him when the time comes for Jakarta residents like Susi, Chakim, and thousands of beggars to cast their votes for the president in two years' time.

And should Mr Sutioyoso make it, it may be good for him to keep in mind three things that make a country peaceful, prosperous, and clean. They are: jobs, jobs, and jobs.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist.

UN needs to give Myanmar an ultimatum

2007-09-28T06:23:00.000-07:00

The Jakarta Post
October 4, 2007

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—As the crisis in Myanmar worsens, protesters in neighboring Malaysia and elsewhere in Asia are increasing their calls for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to play a more proactive role in overcoming the situation.

But really, what else can ASEAN do about Myanmar?

ASEAN - whose members are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam - has tried to work with Myanmar in a constructive way to bring democracy into the country.

In 2003, foreign ministers from ASEAN issued a statement urging Myanmar's military rulers to free Nobel Laureate and democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whose National League for Democracy secured a landslide, but unrecognized, victory in a 1990 election.

Last year, an ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus was established, with the primary aims of pushing democracy in Myanmar and helping free Ms. Suu Kyi.

Let's not forget that ASEAN has only recently moved away from its founding principle of non-interference - i.e. members will not get involved in issues considered to be the internal affairs of other members.

To ASEAN's credit, the pressure it exerted in the past led to Myanmar giving up its scheduled turn as the chair of the association last year (the Philippines took the position, as it was next in line).

After consulting other members, Singapore, which assumed the chairmanship of ASEAN in July, called on the organization to make a statement on the crisis in Myanmar.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said ASEAN cannot "credibly remain silent or uninvolved in this matter".

But, let's face it, a statement from ASEAN may be helpful, but it won't be a critical force. In other words, the Myanmarese junta is really beyond the reach of ASEAN at this point.

Do not forget, this is the same government that defied calls from the U.S., the European Union, ASEAN itself and the entire international community to free Aung San Suu Kyi and allow democracy to take place.

The proof is that despite U.S. sanctions that President George W. Bush announced in New York during the United Nations (UN) General Assembly last week, the Myanmarese junta went ahead with its crackdown on Buddhist monks and civilian protesters, arresting more than 100 and killing at least 17.

India and China - two neighboring countries outside ASEAN that have influence on Myanmar - have reacted disappointingly to the situation. While they both expressed concern about the crisis, they clearly said it falls into the category of Myanmar's internal affairs.

As a close trading partner and corridor to the Indian Ocean, Myanmar must be stable in China's eyes.

However, a Beijing-backed crackdown on the monks over their protests would hurt China's image, especially as it prepares to host the Olympics next year.

As for India, Myanmar is its source of oil, so it will remain diplomatic.

With news from Myanmar overwhelming the mood at the General Assembly, the UN Security Council held an urgent meeting and agreed to send the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, Ibraham Gambari, to Myanmar to deal with the junta.

However, Gambari's presence is not strong enough for the junta.

He handed over a message from the UN urging the junta to stop its crackdown on the monks and civilian protesters.

But this regime has shown, and continues to show, defiance of instructions, no matter how strong they are or who they are from.

After all, the junta has been living with warnings, sanctions and other forms of pressure from the international community for the past 19 years.

So as sad as it may be, another visit from another envoy with another message from the UN is nothing new for the junta.

Therefore, if the crisis in Myanmar is to be resolved, the UN needs to gather its will, consensus and resources to send an ultimatum to the junta.

The ultimatum is simply this: If the junta does not stop its crackdown, the UN will move its troops into Myanmar!

The junta is smart enough to know that its military resources do not outnumber those of the UN, should it decide to take this path.

And if this scenario materializes, the people of Myanmar will side with - you guessed it - the UN troops, adding more force to this democratic revolution.

This is an opportunity for the international community to bring peace and democracy to Myanmar once and for all. And if the world misses this opportunity, Burma - as Myanmar it is affectionately known - will never be free.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. More of his articles can be found at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com

Martyring for freedom in Burma

2007-09-26T09:11:00.000-07:00

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—Politics and religion should not be mixed. And for good reasons, that is. For one thing, secularism prevents a nation from becoming a theocracy—the antithesis of democracy.

And in the case of radical Islamic groups, their battle for God, or jihad, is carried out as massive, deadly terrorist attacks.

But in Burma, a Buddhist-majority country, religion is now a powerful force for democracy.

It has been over a week since a few hundred Buddhist monks started a protest against the ruling junta in the former capital of Rangoon and other major cities in Burma.

Walking in the rain in Buddhist robes and with their hand clasped, the monks demand for an apology from the Burmese junta for the violent break-up of a civilian rally that was triggered by protests over price rises last month.

Civilians have joined the monks, even though they have asked not to do so for fear of provoking reprisals by the security forces.

To be sure, many activists have been jailed and some have allegedly been tortured for participating in earlier protests.

As a matter of fact, the monks’ march sends a chilled reminder of a mass protest in 1988 when the junta cracked down on activists, killing hundreds, if not thousands, of them.

In the beginning, the junta was reluctant and cautious. The main reason is that, in a country where Buddhist monks are the highest moral authority, a crackdown on them will certainly cause a massive national outcry.

But, after a week of mysterious silence, the junta broke its silence and warned the monks of military action if they did not stop protesting.

Next, military forces arrested over 100 monks and civilians for participating in the protest. But the protesters did not give up, and the military started to crack down on them with tear gas and gun-firing.

So far, three monks are dead and 20 other protestors injured during their clash with security forces. As part of the crackdown, security forces have also raided several Buddhist monasteries.

If anything, the clash shows how defiant the junta is—as always.

As he spoke before the UN general assembly in New York this week, President George W. Bush announced US sanctions against the Burmese military regime.

“Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma, where a military junta has imposed a 19-year reign of fear. The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable,” he said.

The junta obviously did not care much about Mr. Bush's speech.

Lest we forget, this is the junta that has kept democracy leader and Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest since 1990 when her National League for Democracy (NLD) won landslide elections but was never allowed to govern.

This is the same junta that has since defied pressure from the US, the European Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations—of which Burma is a member—and the entire international community to free Aung San Suu Kyi and allow democracy to take place.

Sadly, the one country that can influence the junta’s action, China, has only urged for stability but refused to get intervene, saying that the protest is a matter of Burma’s internal affairs.

As one of its trading partners and corridor to the Indian Ocean, China does not like an unstable Burma.

But, a Beijing-backed crackdown on the monks over their protest will hurt China’s image as it is hosting the Olympics next year.

It remains to be seen how the clash between the junta and Burmese protestors will turn out in the coming days.

Meanwhile, the protest is most significant in several ways.

First, it is a protest initiated and organized by a religious force, as opposed to a civilian one. To be sure, Burmese monks were involved in the 1998 bloody protest, but only from behind the scenes.

Second, because of their position in Burmese society, the monks present the most serious challenge the junta has faced thus far in the country’s modern history.

Third, if protest results in a crackdown similar to that in 1988, it will be remembered as a most significant event that has ever happened for democracy in Burma.

Fighting for democracy is never easy. Or, as Thomas Jefferson put it: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

More monks and civilians will get hurt in this protest. More will die because of it.

But they will die martyrs, not for God, but for democracy.

The writer is an Asia-based columnist. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

TIME ruling a setback for democracy in Indonesia

2007-09-26T08:37:00.000-07:00

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—Sometimes when things appear to be better, they are actually worse. This is certainly the case with press freedom in Indonesia.

As the largest Muslim-majority nation, Indonesia’s democratic transformation since 1998—when strongman Suharto was toppled—has been an exemplary example for the world.

In addition to having free elections and a government they select, Indonesians today practice a variety of democratic rights, including demonstrating—something that would put them in jail or could cost them their lives under the old regime.

Indeed, Indonesia has thus far shown a steady democratic transition, despite resistance from some minor groups—mostly hard-line Muslim organizations.

For instance, in 2002, the Indonesian Parliament rejected a motion to institute sharia, or Islamic Laws, across Indonesia.

What is more, in July this year, the Constitutional Court scrapped Articles 154 and 155 from Indonesia’s Criminal Code and banned the government from imprisoning anyone whose expression of thoughts and ideas was considered hostile or subversive towards the state.

Media and civil society organizations, among others, gladly welcomed this decision and considered it another step forward for democracy in Indonesia.

But, alas, only a month later, Indonesia’s Supreme Court did something that, de facto, undoes what the Constitutional Court did. On 30 August, the Supreme Court ordered Time magazine to pay former president Suharto Rp. 1 trillion (US$ 106 million).

The ruling resulted from a suit filed by Suharto against the US magazine over an article in which it said that he had stashed a massive amount of his wealth abroad.

In an article titled “Suharto Inc.: The Family Firm”, published in May 1990, Time wrote that it “has learned that $9 billion of Suharto’s money was transferred from Switzerland to a nominee bank account in Austria”.

For someone who does not know much about Indonesia, this article might have brought some startling facts. But for those who do, it is hardly any news.

During the 32 years when he was in power, Suharto himself, his children, and cronies are said to have accumulated trillions dollars worth of personal wealth and kept it both here in Indonesia and overseas.

But where they have kept their monies is not the issue. Rather, it is that their monies have come from what Indonesians call KKN, or corruption, collusion, and nepotism.

As a matter of fact, there have been efforts to try Suharto for corruption, but so far, they have been unsuccessful.

Back in 2000, Suharto was indicted for alleged corruption, but judges dismissed a US$600m corruption case on the grounds of his ill health. Last August, the Office of Attorney General dropped Suharto’s corruption charges altogether on the ground that his poor health did not allow him to stand trial.

"Our conclusion, after hearing the statement from the doctors, is that Suharto's condition is getting worse [sic],” said former attorney general Rahman Saleh.

While it remains to be seen if Suharto will ever be tried for corruption, the Time ruling has several negative impacts.

For one thing, it paints a wrong picture of Indonesia abroad as a nation that indulges corruption.

Together with the decision last year to drop Suharto’s corruption charges, the Time ruling sends a message to the world that he is, indeed, above the law.

Interestingly enough, the Time ruling came out just two weeks before the United Nations and the World Bank issued a joint report on the so-called Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative. In the report, Suharto is mentioned as one of the leaders who have misappropriated national assets in developing countries.

What’s more, the Time ruling illustrates the self-contradiction in the Indonesian government. On the one hand, the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono administration prides itself on fighting corruption. But on the other hand, Indonesian courts continue to make such counterproductive decisions as the Time ruling.

In other words, how can corrupters be brought to justice if the media, Indonesian and foreign alike, are scared of paying millions worth of defamation for filing stories about their corruption?

But most importantly, the Time ruling is a setback for democracy in Indonesia. In addition to freedom of speech, a free press is a sign of a healthy democracy.

To be sure, the media have found a lot more freedom in Indonesia now than they ever did under the old regime.

The Time ruling, however, undermines the very democratic progress that Indonesia has made so far.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist and editor of two books on Indonesia. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Jakarta turns off investors, big time!

2007-09-06T03:10:00.000-07:00

The Business Times

Singapore, 31 August 2007

Dark clouds a-gathering: Business-unfriendly laws, corruption, lack of infrastructure and political and legal uncertainty raise the costs of doing business for investors in Indonesia and may drive them away

By Thang D. Nguyen

SOMETIMES, when things appear to be better, they are actually worse. Recent events in Indonesia show that this is the case with the country's business climate.

In late April, Newmont - the world's second largest gold miner - was acquitted after being accused three years ago of dumping unsafe levels of waste in a bay on Sulawesi island.
Not only was this a vindication for Newmont Indonesia and its chief executive, Richard Ness, but it was also a positive development that the business community in Indonesia gladly welcomed.

More importantly, the government of Indonesia initiated a number of economic reforms earlier this year in an effort to boost investment in Indonesia. Specifically, these reforms were designed to improve tax and investment laws and therefore create more incentives for investors in South-east Asia's largest economy.

The business community viewed these reforms as well as the Newmont verdict positively as they showed that Jakarta was serious about making Indonesia a more attractive place for investment.

But before it can show progress on these reforms, the government has already built another hurdle for businesses.

In late July, Indonesian lawmakers passed a bill that makes corporate social responsibility, or CSR, mandatory for businesses - particularly resource-based industries - in Indonesia.

The bill, of course, met resistance from the business community.

'CSR programmes should be (voluntary). They should not be made a corporate responsibility,' said Sofyan Wanandi, chairman of the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo).

Despite opposition, the bill was passed, making Indonesia the only country in the world where CSR is a duty, not a choice.

For one thing, CSR is a form of social contribution, not a tax. Thus, it is unclear why the bill was drawn up in the first place and then passed in Indonesia's House of Representatives.

Furthermore, there is no point making CSR a duty for businesses in Indonesia when many companies are already doing it as a matter of corporate practice. But most importantly - now that the CSR bill has been passed - it will only be a burden for the business community and another barrier for investors in Indonesia.

Let's face it. Investors, both foreign and domestic, already have more than enough laws and regulations, among other issues, to deal with in Indonesia.

The last thing they need is another law that makes their business in Indonesia more difficult and costlier.

By passing the CSR bill, Indonesian lawmakers might have meant well and seen the good of CSR for society.

Making it a duty, however, is likely to discourage investors from Indonesia and thereby hurt the country's investment as they might find it better and cheaper for them to do business in another country where they don't have to deal with this law.

Thus, not only does the CSR remind us of how challenging Indonesia's business climate still is, but it also shows Indonesia's lack of competitiveness in today's global economy.

In addition to its business-unfriendly labour and investment laws, investors face a host of issues in Indonesia, including corruption, the lack of infrastructure, political instability and legal uncertainty.

Together, these issues raise the costs of doing business for investors in Indonesia and may drive them away.

To be fair, the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono administration does recognise these problems. Since assuming power in October 2004, Dr Yudhoyono's administration has taken a number of initiatives to improve Indonesia's investment climate.

For example, it has held two major conferences to lure foreign investors to infrastructure projects in Indonesia. But, alas, little has resulted from these events.

Likewise, Dr Yudhoyono, who campaigned, among other things, on the platform of fighting corruption, set up the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

For about three years, the KPK did its job, tackling a number of high-level corruption cases. But earlier this year the KPK was dissolved, as though its job were completed.

Does that mean that corruption in Indonesia is eradicated? Far from it! If anything, now is the time when the government needs to do more, not less, to carry out its economic, legal and social reforms.

Just as importantly, the government has to ensure that investment laws, such as the CSR law, that the Indonesian parliament passes do not clash with its efforts to improve the business and investment climate in Indonesia.

If not, it will create distrust among investors and drive them away, and that will make FDI not 'Foreign Direct Investment', but as The Economist put it, 'Foreigners Ditching Indonesia'!

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His articles are available at http://www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com/

Democracy the right choice over theocracy

2007-08-28T02:26:00.000-07:00

The Jakarta Post
Tuesday, 28 August 2007

Thang D. Nguyen, Jakarta

As Indonesia turns 62 this month, Indonesians should be proud of their nation's democratic transformation.

Since 1998 when strongman Soeharto was toppled, Indonesia has become a rising democracy. With free elections and a democratically selected government, Indonesia is, in fact, the world's third-largest democracy, after the U.S. and India.

But what makes Indonesia's democratic transition outstanding is that it has taken place in the world's largest Muslim-majority nation.

Amid global debates on whether Islam and democracy can coexist, this transition has, indeed, been an inspiring success story.

Although most Indonesian Muslims are considered moderate, radical, hard-line Islamic groups do exist in Indonesia, and they are not happy with the country's democratic change.

What these groups want, instead, is a theocratic state, an Indonesia that is ruled by sharia, or Islamic law. And to that end they have made numerous attempts.

In 2002, for instance, a motion to institute sharia in Indonesia was put before the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), but it was rejected.

This Aug. 12, 90,000 Muslims gathered at Jakarta's Bung Karno Stadium for the International Caliphate Conference. This was the second conference by Hizbut Tahrir, a global Islamic organization whose mission is to build an Islamic state throughout the world.

During the event, the group blamed democracy as the main reason why Indonesia is lagging behind other nations.

"What has democracy brought us?" asked Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, spokesperson of Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, a chapter of two million members. "Democracy only brings us secular policies, like what's happening nowadays (sic)."

But, seriously, what can theocracy, or sharia, bring to Indonesia, where 39 million people live in poverty and 22 million others are still unemployed?

And if sharia is the key to Indonesia's, or any other country's, problems, why is it that the Islamic world is so far behind the West and other non-Muslim countries in economic development and other spheres?

To be sure, if we take a good look at the Islamic world today and ask ourselves which countries are peaceful, prosperous and advanced, we can only name a few: Brunei, Malaysia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

As for the rest, some are either at war with a foreign country or in a civil war, e.g. Iraq, while others face the threat of terrorism masterminded and launched by homegrown radical Islamic groups, e.g. Indonesia.

Ironically, this is the Islamic world that is 1.3 billion strong and has the biggest oil reserve in the world, among a wealth of other natural resources. And, lest we forget, this is the same Islamic world that was the most powerful, advanced and enlightened civilization at one point in history.

Unfortunately, as the West developed and gained dominance following the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, the Islamic world continued to live in its once-glorious past and gradually fell behind.

And as the development gap between the West and the Islamic world has widened, Muslim groups, such as Hizbut Tahrir, have put the blame on democracy as the cause of all the wrongs in the Islamic world.

Some other groups, such as al-Qaeda, have taken a more extreme view, calling the West the enemy of Islam. Thus, they have turned to jihad as the way to fight against the West, particularly the U.S. and its allies, in defense of Islam.

This is certainly the case of the al-Qaeda-linked Jamaah Islamiyah (JI). With its links and operations across Southeast Asia, the JI has been responsible for major terrorist acts in Indonesia, namely the Bali bombings of 2002 and 2005; the Jakarta JW Marriott blast in 2003; and the attack on the Australian Embassy in Jakarta right before the 2004 elections.

As we have seen, violent jihadism is no solution to poverty, backwardness and other problems that Islamic countries are facing today; in fact, it has done more harm to Islam and Muslim-majority nations.

In the JI attacks, for instance, most of the victims were innocent Muslim Indonesians. What is more, these attacks have damaged Indonesia's global image, investor confidence and tourism industry.

But most importantly, these attacks have darkened the good name of Islam.
In a nutshell, such jihadism is no way for Indonesia, or any other Muslim-majority nation, to overcome its national challenges and move forward.

Likewise, instituting sharia, as Hizbut Tahrir would have you believe, is not the answer to Indonesia's problems either.

To be sure, democracy may not be the best political system in the world. Or, as the former British prime minister Winston Churchill put it: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

So, until Indonesia finds a better form of government, it had better stick with democracy.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com

Just Do It instead of playing blame games

2007-08-07T03:26:00.001-07:00

Business Times - 07 Aug 2007

Indonesia must step up moves to improve its investment climate to retain foreign players

By THANG D NGUYEN

IF you want to solve a problem, the first step is to acknowledge it exists. But sadly, this is not the case with some people in Indonesia, who like to blame foreigners for many things that go wrong in the country.

Take the case of Nike. Recently, thousands of workers from Naga Sakti Parama Shoes Industry (Nasa) and Hardaya Aneka Shoes Industry (Hasi) took to the streets in rallies against the American athletic apparel company because it ended working contracts with them.

Nike said it did this because of poor quality and late deliveries.

But the workers thought otherwise. Carrying banners like 'I hate Nike' and 'Go to hell Nike', they demanded the company restore its contracts with their factories - and denied the problems that Nike said it had.

What these workers do not realise is that Nike is not responsible for their problem and therefore they are not entitled to seek compensation from it.

'Nike is only a buyer - not the investor who owns the factories and employs the workers,' Nike spokesman Maretha Sambe was quoted by The Jakarta Post as saying. Furthermore, Nasa and Hasi were given the chance to improve their production quality and retain their contracts with Nike. But they failed.

'Nike had already warned them of their sub-standard output and other problems in March this year,' said Nike's director for corporate responsibility communications Erin Dobson.

And 'because there has been no significant change in quality and delivery, Nike headquarters sent termination notices', said Maretha Sambe.

Like many Indonesians, Nasa and Hasi workers do not realise that in today's global economy, making a good product is no longer enough for investors or buyers.

They demand the best product in terms of both quality and production cost. And if this demand is not met, they will go somewhere else where it can be met.
That's exactly what Nike did. It shifted orders to 37 other sports-gear factories in Indonesia to meet its demand.

What's more, Nike, which started sourcing from Indonesia in 1989, said this week that it remains committed to doing business with Indonesia despite the problems it has had with Nasa and Hasi and despite the worker protests. Nike could have shifted its orders to India, China or Vietnam. It could have wound up doing business with Indonesia because of the problems it has faced and the Nasa-Hasi protests. But it did not.

As opposition against Nike mounted, the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM) intervened and helped resolve the dispute.

And the outcome is positive: Nike agreed to extend its contracts with Nasa and Hasi, ending weeks of confrontation among the parties involved.

Still, the Nasa-Hasi protest reminds us of how challenging Indonesia's business or investment climate is.

Besides labour laws and worker protests, foreign investors face a host of issues including corruption, inadequate infrastructure, political instability and legal uncertainty. Together, these issues raise the cost of doing business and drive investors away.

To be fair, the Indonesian government does recognise the problems. Since taking office in October 2004, the administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has taken numerous steps to improve the investment climate.

It has held two major conferences to lure foreign investors for infrastructure projects, though little has resulted from these events.

There are major problems, like poor infrastructure as traffic jams in Jakarta and Bandung are getting worse day by day.

Mr Yudhoyono, who campaigned for fighting corruption among other things, set up the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). And for about three years, KPK did a good job, filing several high-level cases. But earlier this year it was dissolved, even though its job was far from completed.

If anything, now is the time that the Mr Yudhoyono's government needs to do more - not less - to carry out its economic, legal and social reforms.

If not, distrust will only intensify. For foreign investors, it will be distrust in Indonesia as a place to do business. And for Indonesians - particularly those who voted for Mr Yudhoyono - it will be distrust in democracy.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writings can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com

Change is what matters after Davos

2007-01-26T00:49:00.000-08:00

The Jakarta Post

Opinion News - Thursday, February 01, 2007

Thang D. Nguyen, Jakarta

As world leaders from the business community, governments and civil society arrived in Davos for the World Economic Forum's (WEF) annual meeting this year, they did not see as much snow in this Swiss ski resort as they had in previous years.

Elsewhere across the world, weather patterns have been, and still are, more than unusual. In Boston, for instance, the temperature in December climbed to 20 degrees Celsius. Last Christmas, it snowed in Sydney. It also rained in Vietnam this month.

This is why climate change is a key topic on the agenda of the WEF's meeting this year, which takes place from Jan. 24-28. Under the theme The Shifting Power Equation, this year's meeting also focuses on other challenges, namely the Middle East crisis and world energy power.

And the list of world leaders who are in Davos this year is as impressive as ever, ranging from Prime Minister Tony Blair to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, DELL Corporation founder Michael Dell and U2 singer-cum-activist Bono.

As usual, participants in this year's meeting will get to rub shoulders with these shakers and movers over cocktails and dinners -- having paid a handsome fee of 30,000 Swiss francs (about US$24,000) each to get in.

As usual, these leaders will deliver keynote addresses or speak in plenary sessions -- offering solutions with which to solve the world's greatest challenges.

As usual, these leaders will get the most and best media coverage during their (usually brief) stays in Davos.

But what happens after Davos? Is the world better, or is it actually worse? Will there be any concrete change or action on the issues that are discussed so passionately in the WEF's Congress Hall in Davos?

Getting positive answers to these questions is the ultimate challenge for the WEF, which sees itself as an international organization that is "committed to improving the state of the world".

Among other things, the WEF has been, and still is, criticized as a prestigious talk shop where there are only talks, but no action.

This criticism seems, however, unfair for several reasons. For one thing, some of the challenges discussed at Davos are just too new and complex -- even for the experts.

Take the Asian bird flu for instance. And while there has been no cure for it, there is a threat that it could be transmitted from human to human.

Furthermore, it is hard to overcome the challenges discussed in Davos when some key players do not bother coming.

A case in point is the U.S. government delegation, which includes the trade representative Susan Schwab (no relation to WEF founder Klaus Schwab), Senator Joseph Biden and Senator John McCain.

While it is important to have Schwab in Davos for talks on reviving the failed Doha Round of the World Trade Organization negotiations, the U.S. delegation this year is inadequate and disappointing.

To be sure, President George W. Bush was busy preparing for his State of the Union Address on Jan. 23, but he could have sent a senior government official like the Secretary of State or an official with the Department of Defense to explain his new policy toward the war in Iraq, which looks increasingly like a second Vietnam War and for which he has requested some 23,000 more U.S. troops.

Bush could have sent also the most senior official in charge of the environment to talk about what the U.S. can and should do about climate change.

After all, the U.S. is the biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the key substance that causes global warming, or climate change. And yet, the Bush administration continues to refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Finally, while the WEF can bring world leaders together, what they do or don't do after they leave Davos is beyond its control. This is like the old saying that "you can take a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink".

The writer is a former Manager for Asia at the World Economic Forum (WEF). More of his work can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com. This is a personal view.

2006: A Year of Living Dangerously for Southeast Asia

2007-01-14T23:16:00.000-08:00

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—For Southeast Asia, 2006 was a year of living dangerously.

Indeed, a quick glance at each of the ten members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) shows that while a few countries showed economic growth and political stability in 2006, others continued to be marred with political turmoil, corruption, poverty, disintegration, terrorism, and disasters—both natural and man-made.

For Indonesia, an ASEAN's leader and its largest member, 2006 was a relatively good year in security terms. For one thing, Jakarta has made peace with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and ended a three-decade war between the two. Most notably, on the eve of the two-year anniversary of the Asian Tsunami, which destroyed Aceh, the province ran peaceful and democratic elections.

Furthermore, the Indonesian government managed to arrest and put in jail a number of terrorists who launched the Bali bombings of 2003 and 2005; the J.W. Marriott Jakarta Hotel blast in 2003; and the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in 2004.

Nevertheless, the US and other critics have considered these verdicts to be lenient, particularly the recent release and vindication of Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, who is said to be the spiritual leader of the al Qada-linked \nJemaah Islamiyah (JI) , which was responsible for these attacks.

And exactly two years after the Asian Tsunami of 26 December 2004, the province of Aceh, northern Sumatra, was devastated again, this time with floods and landslides. The difference between this tragedy and the Tsunami is that the latter was natural while the former was man-made.

The cause of these floods and landslides, according to experts, was deforestation. A study by Greenomics, a non-governmental organization focusing on mining and forestry, found that affected areas contributed about 36 percent of timber to the reconstruction of Aceh and Nias, which had been hit hard by the Tsunami and earthquakes. \n The rest of the deforestation, the study said, was for farming and plantations.

To be sure, the Indonesian government had been warned about this tragedy. Last January, the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI) sent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) letter pointing out
To be sure, the Indonesian government had been warned about this tragedy. Last January, the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI) sent President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) letter pointing out disaster-prone spots in Aceh. Unfortunately, the warning was not heeded.

"The floods and landslides were not natural disasters, but the fruits [sic] of daredevil negligence," WALHI disaster manager Sofyan told The Jakarta Post.

On the economic font, Indonesia's performance was unimpressive, particularly with increased poverty, inflation, and unemployment.

According to a World Bank study last November, Indonesia's poverty rate has reached 17.7 percent. Likewise, a survey by the TNS group found that 32 percent of respondents reported they are worse off because of increased transportation, food, and other costs of living.

And despite his polished international image, President Susilo is being criticized for failing to deliver his campaign premises on corruption, legal reform, and economic growth.

As for Thailand, ASEAN's second-largest member, 2006 was a year of turmoil. On 19 September, a military coup overthrew the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra. The causes of the event were increasing pubic discontent of his dictatorship, corruption, and abuse of power. Even though it was bloodless, the coup has been dubbed a setback for Thailand's democracy.

What is more, just a few days before Christmas, the Thai baht was overvalued and put at a 9-year high against the US dollar and, as consequently, the Bank of Thailand had to issue a capital control to limit the flow of foreign currency out of economy.

While this was a temporary crisis that did not influence other countries, it sent a chilling reminder to Asia and the international investor community of the Asian financial crisis of 1997, which started out with in Thailand and contaminated other Asian economies.

More importantly, however, the coup leaders have failed to keep the nation secure until new elections, which are set for 2007. On New Year's Eve, a series of eight bombs went off in various locations in Bangkok, killing three and wounding 38 persons, including nine foreigners.

While it's unclear who was behind these attacks, Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont told reporters that "briefs from various intelligence agencies, based on evidence available, show that they [the blasts] came from groups that have lost political powers."

In the Philippines, ASEAN's third-largest member, weakened political leadership and terrorism continued to hinder the country's security and damaged ASEAN's image.

Last December, Manila was to host ASEAN's annual meeting in the city of Cebu, but called it off at the last minute, citing bad weather as the cause. But, alas, it was not the weather that shut down the event. For one thing, there was a terrorist threat in the area based on an Australian intelligence report.

Furthermore, the ASEAN summit was to take place at a heightened point in Manila as President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was under attack and, therefore, planning to call for an amendment of the Philippine constitution as a way to linger in power.

Amid criticism of the ASEAN non-summit, the Philippines announced that the event would take place in January 2007.

In Myanmar, the junta regime continued to defy both ASEAN's and international pressure to release democratic leader and Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. In doing so, the junta leadership has damaged ASEAN's image as a powerless organization.

And three years after his retirement, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad turned around and launched a verbal attack on his hand-picked successor, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi. While Mahathir's attacks were acrimonious as usual, they did not seem to damage the soft-spoken Badawi. On the contrary, critics have now dubbed Mahathir a man with post-power syndrome. Despite this personal problem, Malaysia fared relatively well in security and economic terms.

As for Brunei, Laos, and Cambodia, 2006 was an uneventful event; these countries are usually quiet, by nature.

The last two members of ASEAN, Singapore and Vietnam, fared very well in 2006. Tiny Singapore, under the new leadership of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, posted positive economic growth.

Unlike the Philippines, Vietnam hosted the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit successfully last December and was the fastest-growing economy in the whole ASEAN. With its new membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and political stability, Vietnam looks set to do well in 2007.

As ASEAN welcomed 2007, it is reminded of formidable challenges that its members have to deal with domestically, such as terrorism, disintegration, and poverty. As a group, ASEAN has to work much hearder to mend its already-damaged image; otherwise, it will be taken only as a talkshop--no more, no less.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Domestic Politics Caused Terror in Thailand

2007-01-10T00:45:00.000-08:00

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA-2007 looks like it will be another year of living dangerously for Thailand. On New Year's Eve, a series of six bombs went off in Bangkok, killing three and injuring 38 persons, including nine foreigners.

These blasts were the latest political development following a coup last September when Thai military leaders, who called themselves the Council for National Security (CNS), ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra and took over the government.

As bloodless as it was, the September coup was, to be sure, a setback for Thailand's democracy and damaged the Thai economy, particularly the tourism industry-which has been, and will be, a sine qua non for Southeast Asia's second-largest economy.

To make matters worse, stock plunged by 15 percent after the Bank of Thailand (BoT) imposed capital control on 18 December as a way to curb the Thai baht's strength as it was overvalued against the US dollar, hurting exporters.

Shortly after the Bangkok blasts, Thai military-installed Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont was quick to say that "briefs from various intelligence agencies, based on evidence available, show that they [the blasts] came from groups that have lost political powers."

On his part, former Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra denied any involvement in the blasts.

"I strongly condemn this act and I swear that I never ever think of hurting the people and destroying the country's credibility for my own political gain," the toppled premier two in a letter from China.

Thaksin also suspected that Islamic separatists in southern Thailand, where they had been waging a bloody insurgency for the past three years, were behind the New Year's Eve blasts.

As expected, the CNS ruled out this possibility.

"The bandits and terrorist groups in southern Thailand had no links or connections to the bombs in Bangkok," Gen. Saprang Kanlayanamitr, a member of the CNS, told reporters.

While it's unclear who was-or were-behind the Bangkok blasts, one thing is certain: The cause was Thailand's domestic politics.

Unlike the Sept. 11 attacks, the London bombing in 2005, or the numerous bombings in Indonesia's resort island Bali and its capital Jakarta from 2002 to 2005, the targets were not foreigners, or foreign premises.

In other words, these attacks were directed at the Bush Administration, its unilateral foreign policy, and its allies, namelthe UK and Australia.

Rather, the target in the Bangkok blasts was the Thai junta who seized power after the September coup.

Whoever they may be, the perpetrators New Year's Eve bombs achieved their goal of discrediting the military-installed, interim government of Thailand.

And while the death toll and injury from the Bangkok blasts were not as serious as they could be, the political implications, of the event are significant.

For one thing, the blasts heightened Thailand's political instability. To be sure, Thailand is no stranger to military coups. And, of course, Muslim-majority southern Thailand has experienced deadly attacks, including bombs, from insurgent groups.

But, it was the first time the capital city of Bangkok was the site for such an attack, and this means the level of Thailand's instability is at its peak.

Second, the impact of this event on the embattled Thai economy is immense.

"Bangkok has changed overnight. People started to worry about their security and will keep money in their pocket," James Davison, vice-president for international business development at giant retail Central Group, told AFP.

Third, whoever was behind the Bangkok blasts, the message sent to the junta government was that managing Thailand is far more difficult than taking it by force.

"They [military leaders] are beginning to wake up to quite how difficult the task they have set themselves is, if you fling out a political leader who has support of 55 percent of the country," Chris Baker, a political analyst and Thaksin biographer, told AP.

It will take quite some time to find out--if ever--who were responsible for the New Year's Eve attacks.

Meanwhile, it is certain that 2007 will be a challenging one for Thailand.

For one thing, the junta government has to come up with security measures to ensure security for both Thais and foreigners, including tourists. On the economic front, this also means restoring investor confidence in the Thai economy.

Otherwise, capital flights will continue and tourists will stay away from Thailand.

What is more, whether Thaksin loyalists or southern Muslim separatists were behind the Bangkok blasts, the junta government has to find away to deal with them properly to ensure peace and security for the whole
kingdom of Thailand.

For now, it is interesting to see if the revered Thai monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, will do something--if any--to help his nation through this tough time.

In the past, King Bhumibol, whose position commands the ultimate authority in Thailand, has intervened in Thai politics when the nation was in trouble. If the king does not, this time, who can?

The writer is Jakarta-based columnist, whose writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com. He is also the editor of an upcoming book on Thailand.

The Boxing-Day Tsunami Two Years Later

2006-12-26T00:18:00.000-08:00

Asiasentinel
www.asiasentinel.com

22 December 2006

Thang D. Nguyen

Two years after one of the world’s worst natural disasters, Indonesia has made some unlikely gains but corruption and red tape still leave their scars

Sometimes a tragedy is the very thing that triggers progress. This is true in the case of Indonesia, one of the most-affected countries by the Asian tsunami that happened on Boxing Day two years ago.

Billed as one the world’s worst natural disasters, the 26 December 2004 disaster took approximately 230,000 lives in several Asian and African countries. In Indonesia, the worst hit areas were Aceh and Nias, both located in northern Sumatra, where 168,000 people died and thousands of homes, roads, and other infrastructures were destroyed.

Shortly after this tragedy happened, the international community reached out to Indonesia with food, water, medicine, and other logistical supplies and pledged generous aid packages for the reconstruction of Aceh and Nias.

While corruption and red tape have hampered the rebuilding of tens of thousands of homes even two years later, the tsunami, as devastating as it was, produced a remarkable political opportunity for the Indonesian government and its implacable foe, the Free Aceh Movement (GAM). It was perfect timing for Jakarta and GAM to go back to the negotiating table for peace talks. Historically, GAM had fought for separation from Jakarta for 30 years. Before the Tsunami, many deals had been cut and agreements signed between the two sides, but peace never came.

This time, however, it worked. Following a series of quiet but intense meetings between GAM leaders and the Indonesian government, a peace pact was signed in the Finnish capital of Helsinki in August 2005—two days before the Indonesian Independence Day of 17 August. GAM put down its weapons and the Indonesian military (TNI) pulled its 24,000 troops from Aceh following the signing of the agreement. Indeed, this historical break-through has been so positive that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was nominated and considered for this year’s Nobel peace prize.

To ensure the peace process in Aceh, however, the EU, Norway, Switzerland, and five Southeast Asian countries established an Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM).

On the eve of the second anniversary of the tsunami, Aceh is not only more peaceful than ever before, but it has also become more democratic. About 2.6 million registered Acehnese voters went to the booths on 11 December to elect their local government.

For one thing, the December election was peaceful. Furthermore, it had participation from former GAM rebels. But most importantly, according to early polls, several ex-GAM rebels are expected to be elected as governor, mayors and regents.

With these successful elections, the AMM completed its mission and left Aceh.

“The page has been turned—people are looking forward,” said Pieter Feith, the head of the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM). There are concerns, however, about the future of Aceh. First, there is a call for GAM to ban its identity for good.

With former GAM leaders now in the newly elected government, it is hoped that they will ban this now-defunct organization. With AMM gone, however, it remains to be seen if GAM will forsake its past and continue to honor the Helsinki agreement.

Second, while the December elections were exemplary, a most formidable challenge for Aceh—and Nias, for that matter—is to revitalize the economy in this oil-rich province. According to a recent USAID-funded survey, Acehnese are most worried about economic issues: employment, poverty, social issues—not their physical security.

Third, there is a concern about the introduction of shariah (or Islamic laws) to Aceh. It is one thing to apply shariah only to Muslims; however, if it is applied to all people in Aceh it could, Feith believes, negatively affect the business climate, harming efforts to encourage investment.

Most importantly, despite all the aids from international donors, the reconstruction of Aceh and Nias is still far from adequate.

For one thing, while many aid packages have been pledged, not all have been delivered twp years later. According to a report by the BBC, of the US$6.7 billion pledged, a tenth has yet to be delivered, and only US$3.4 billion has been spent thus far. What is more, once aid packages have been delivered, it takes a long time for them to reach recipients—if they do.

Earlier this month, the head of the Aceh-Nias Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Agency (BRR), Kuntoro Mangkusubroto, told reporters that US$6.1 billion has been funded and reported that 57,000 homes have been built. But that is only over a third of the permanent 128,000 homes that are needed for tsunami and earthquake victims in Aceh and Nias.

“Nearly two years after the tsunami struck, enormous strides towards recovery have been made,” said Robert Fox, executive director of Oxfam Canada. “But the poorest people of Aceh—squatters, renters and women--are still wondering when and where they will be resettled.”

In addition to homes, roads, ports, and other badly-needed infrastructures in Aceh and Nias have not been built or rebuilt either. Many victims in Aceh and Nias are still homeless. With all the aid monies coming in from the international community, they thought that their lives could be rebuilt. But now, they are not sure about that. They remain victimized twice: First by the tsunami and earthquakes, and second by bureaucracy, corruption, and broken promises.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com

RP official defends ASEAN postponement

2006-12-18T23:23:00.000-08:00

The Philippines Inquirer
December 17, 2006

By Nikko Dizon

PRESIDENT Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo knew her government would be heavily criticized whether or not the 12th ASEAN Summit was postponed because of inclement weather, an official of the organizing committee said yesterday.

"She risked this kind of criticism in making her decision. Either way, I don't think she would have gotten universal approval for whatever decision she made," Victoriano Lecaros, summit spokesperson, said.

The Inquirer sought Lecaros' reaction to a scathing column published Sunday in The Nation, one of Thailand's English dailies.

Titled "ASEAN caves in to the bad guys," columnist Thang D. Nguyen said a reported terrorist threat and a political maelstrom in Manila were the real reasons for the summit postponement.

"[The] typhoon never came. Over the weekend, there were only rains and strong winds in the area," Nguyen wrote.

The columnist said ASEAN had "lost face over the Cebu non-summit" and called the postponement, a "debacle [that] has caused considerable damage to the image of the ASEAN as an organization."

Nguyen wrote: "For one thing, it reflects poorly on the leadership of the Philippines as the host of the summit. Even if the typhoon was the real reason they shut it down, blaming it on the weather is just lame. Besides, if the weather in Cebu was a problem, why not move the summit to another city?"

He added: "The non-event this year also shows that current ASEAN leaders are not as strong as their predecessors. Indeed, by backing down this year, ASEAN has shown that it will cave in to terrorism. This is ironic because one of Asean's projects is tighter cooperation among its 10 leaders to fight terrorism."

The ASEAN Summit and the 2nd East Asia Summit should have been held on Dec. 10-14 but were postponed because of a typhoon forecast.

Speculations arose that the deferment was actually because of a terror threat, with the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Japan issuing travel advisories to their citizens, discouraging them from going to Cebu during the summit.

A political storm was also brewing in Manila after various sectors condemned Arroyo's allies in the House of Representatives for attempts to railroad constitutional changes through forming the House into a constituent assembly to make the changes.

Lecaros said it was "understandable" for people who "were not in the room with the organizing committee, [who did not see] the weather maps, and [did not talk] to the weather bureau" to cast doubts on the real reason behind the summit's deferment.

"It was a case of choosing how we wanted to be criticized: For being irresponsible or for being weak?" he said.

Lecaros, who is also the country's ambassador to Malaysia, stressed that the organizing committee wanted to ensure the safety of the leaders who were scheduled to arrive on the day Typhoon "Seniang" (international code name: Utor) was expected to hit northern Cebu.

"We have to hand it to the President. She knew the kind of reaction [the decision to postpone the summit] would elicit. Still, she took the recommendation of the organizing committee," he said.

Calling the wave of criticisms over the summit postponement a "distraction," Lecaros said they would rather concentrate on preparing for the summit, which had been rescheduled to January 11-13.

Several ASEAN leaders have already confirmed their attendance. The Inquirer reported on Saturday that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe had confirmed his attendance.

"The only [way to] answer these criticisms is to have a successful summit in three weeks' time," Lecaros said.

©Copyright 2001-2006 INQ7 Interactive, Inc. An INQUIRER and GMA Network Company

Asean Caves In to the Bad Guys

2006-12-14T22:47:00.000-08:00

Asiasentinel
www.asiasentinel.com

14 December 2006

Thang D. Nguyen

Halting the Cebu Summit sent all the wrong signals ands showed the weakness of Southeast Asia's current crop of leaders.

JAKARTA--Gone are the days when the Association of Southeast Asian Nations was steered by Indonesia's Suharto, Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, and Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad. Call them dictators or whatever you like, but to be sure, these leaders did lead Asean and made it a real entity in world affairs.

A case in point was the third Asean Summit in 1987 in Manila. A series of coup attempts threatened the government of former President Corazon Aquino as it was preparing to host the summit. Indonesia's former President Suharto took the lead and announced he would attend the event against security advice. He moved other Asean leaders to follow suit, and the summit took place.

In contrast, this year's Asean Summit, which was supposed to be held in Cebu, the Philippine second largest city, from 10-14 December, was postponed at the last minute because, according to the organizing committee, a great big rain storm was on the horizon.

"We can't say how strong or weak the typhoon will be," said Marciano Paynor, who heads the national committee that organized the summit. "The primary responsibility of the host is the safety of his guests."

Fair enough, but was the weather going to be so bad that it could shut down an event as important as this? According to Karl Wilson of AFP, one of the many journalists that went to Cebu to cover the summit, the Philippine national weather bureau had recommended it go ahead as planned.

And the typhoon never came. Over the weekend, there were only rains and strong winds in the area.

The real reason behind the abrupt and panicky cancellation, it turned out, was a terrorist threat. Just a few days before the summit was to begin an intelligence report from Australia said that a terrorist attack in the Cebu area was in its "final stages." Following the report, six countries including Australia, the US, the UK, and Japan, issued warnings to their citizens advising them not to travel to the province during the Asean summit.

Of course, such threats can be real. In recent years, two Muslim militant groups, the Philippines-based Abu Sayyaf and the Indonesia-headquartered Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), have launched several deadly attacks in the Philippines. In Indonesia itself, the JI was responsible for numerous attacks, namely the Bali bombings of 2002 and 2005; the Jakarta J.W. Marriott blast in 2003; and the bombing of the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in 2004.

But another reason behind the cancellation was the political situation in the Philippines. For one thing, the government still has to deal with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front [MILF], the largest Muslim rebel group in the southern Philippines. Furthermore, the summit was scheduled to take place at a time of heightened political tension in Manila over the government's plans to push through radical changes to the constitution.

"The threat of a terrorist attack was one part (of the reason) and the other part was the political situation in Manila," an anonymous source at the Philippine foreign ministry was quoted by Wilson as saying.

Still insisting that weather was the reason, the summit's organizing committee announced last weekend that the summit would be rescheduled for January 2007.

Meanwhile, the debacle has already caused considerable damages to the image of Asean as an organization. For one thing, it reflects poorly on the leadership of the Philippines as the host of the summit. Even if the typhoon was the real reason they shut it down, blaming it on the weather is just lame. Besides, if the weather in Cebu was a problem, why not move the summit to another city?

By comparison, Indonesia did better as the host of the last Asean summit. Despite threats from the JI, the Indonesian government hosted the last event last year in Bali, the resort island that has been attacked twice. Even US president, George W. Bush, whose foreign policy has been the main cause of terrorist attacks worldwide, attended.

The non-event this year also shows that current Asean leaders are not as strong as their predecessors. As young, bright, and polished as they are, the new generation apparently does not have the guts that Suharto and his colleagues did when the political situation in the Philippines was in turmoil ahead of that 1987 summit. They stared down the threat and pushed ahead.

Indeed, by backing down this year Asean has shown that it will cave in to terrorism. This is ironic because among one of Asean's projects is tighter cooperation among its 10 members to fight terrorism. Indeed, just last month, Asean defense ministers gathered and agreed to a collective security pact which aims at increasing intelligence-sharing, training, and technical assistance.

But perhaps Asean is what its critics have long claimed it to be: a machine that cranks out long-winded meetings and high-sounding documents that result in no action or progress.

It is sad that Asean lost face over the Cebu non- summit. It is sadder, however, that the winners in this are the terrorists themselves.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com .

TIME TO THINK: WHAT THE ISLAMIC WORLD NEEDS TO DO

2006-11-23T00:47:00.000-08:00

The following article is part of a chapter in a book entitled The Muslim Renaissance: The Birth of a New Era, which was launched at the 2nd World Islamic Economic Forum organized by the Asian Strategic and Leadership Institute (ASLI) in Islamabad, Pakistan, from 5 to 7 November 2006.

TIME TO THINK: WHAT THE ISLAMIC WORLD NEEDS TO DO

THANG D. NGUYEN

Columnist (www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com), Jakarta, Indonesia

INTRODUCTION

This book and the 2nd World Islamic Economic Forum organized by the Asian Strategic and Leadership Institute in Islamabad, Pakistan, from 5 to 7 November could not have been timelier.

During a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany, where he was previously a professor of theology, Pope Benedict XVI quoted the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said:

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

This quote has caused anger across the world, particularly among Muslim communities. From the Middle East to Asia, Muslims put out protests, burned churches, and attacked Christians in reaction to the Pope’s usage of the quote in his lecture, which was interpreted as a condemnation of, or an insult to, Islam.

On 1 October, Indonesia—the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation— commemorated the 2nd anniversary of the 2nd Bali bombing. Along with the first Bali bombing in 2002 and other terrorist attacks in Jakarta, the 2nd Bali bombing was the work of the al-Qaida-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), an Indonesian radical Islamic network with links and operations across Southeast Asia.

And amid the Iraq War and the Palestine-Israel conflict, Israel attacked Lebanon in August this year. The attack, which took place under a vacuous pretext that Israel needed to rescue two of its soldiers whom the Hezbollah had captured, killed thousands of civilians and destroyed several cities in Lebanon. It must be noted that the international community, except for the US and UK, condemned this attack, but Israel forged ahead with its plan and only stopped it when too much blood was shed in Lebanon.

Altogether, these wars, attacks, and conflicts raise several questions. Why do they happen to, or in, Muslim countries? Is terrorism the way for them to fight back? Or is there a smarter way to do it? But most importantly, how do Islamic nations—at one point in history an advanced civilization—rise against the rest of the world in today’s competitive environment?

This essay is a humble attempt to answer these questions. The first section lays out key challenges that the Islamic world faces. The second part shows why the Islamic World has been unable to overcome them. The third part suggests what the Islamic nations need to do to deal with its challenges and gain power in today’s competitive world. Finally, the article will conclude that the challenges facing the Islamic world are formidable, but they are not impossible to deal with; however, overcoming them will require some self-critical thinking and pragmatic actions.

DENIAL IS THE ISLAMIC WORLD’S BIGGEST PROBLEM

If we take a good look at the Islamic world today and ask ourselves which countries that are peaceful, prosperous, and progressed, we can only name a few: Brunei, Malaysia, Qatar, and the United Emirates. As for the rest, some are either at war with a foreign country or in a civil war, e.g. Iraq, while others face the threat of terrorism that is masterminded and launched by homegrown radical Islamic groups, e.g. Indonesia.

Ironically, this is the Islamic world that is 1.3 billion strong and has the biggest oil reserve in the world, among a wealth of other natural resources. And, to be sure, this is the same Islamic world that was the most powerful, advanced, and enlightened civilization at one point in history. For this reason, many Muslims and scholars of Islam have started to question what has happened to Islam.

The Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis phrased this question as follows.

What went wrong? For a long time people in the Islamic world, especially but not exclusively in the Middle East, have been asking this question...There is indeed good reason for questioning and concern, even for anger. For many centuries the world of Islam was in the forefront of human civilization and achievement...In the Muslims’ own perception, Islam itself was indeed coterminous with civilization, and beyond its borders there were only barbarians and infidels.

The answer to this question, according to Lewis and some Muslims themselves, is the rise of the West, first on the battlefield and later in science and the marketplace. Along with technology, modernity, and economic growth that enabled the rising power of the West, particularly the US, came the concept of democracy, secularism and other values.

As the West became more dominant, Muslims started to retreat. What’s more, they started to perceive the West as a force that is incompatible with—if not antithetical to—Islam. This is part of what Harvard political science professor Samuel Huntington called The Clash of Civilizations:

Indeed, it is hard to find statements by any Muslims, whether politicians, officials, academics, businesspersons, or journalists, praising Western values and institutions. They instead stress the differences between their civilization and Western civilization, the superiority of their culture, and the need to maintain the integrity of that culture against Western onslaught. Muslims fear and resent Western power and the threat [that] this poses to their society and beliefs. They see Western culture as materialistic, corrupt, decadent, and immoral. They also see it as seductive, and hence stress all the more the need to resist its impact on their way of life. Increasingly, Muslims attack the West not for adhering to an imperfect, erroneous religion, which is nonetheless a “religion of the book,” but for not adhering to any religion at all. In Muslim eyes Western secularism, irreligiosity [sic], and hence immorality are worse evils than the Western Christianity that produced them.

In other words, the biggest problem that the Islamic world is facing today is that it is still living in the past in which it was once one the most superior civilization; it fails to realize that it is so far behind the West in every sphere; and, it is in denial of such issues as poverty, backwardness, and terrorism as their problems.

Thus, the Islamic world can only conclude that the West causes all their problems and, as such, the West is their enemy. As long as Muslims throughout the world keep thinking like this, they will never be able to solve their problems and rise again to be a leading civilization that they once were. Like the treatment of a patient of alcoholism, the first step for the Islamic World is to admit its problems—political, social, economic, or otherwise. Only then can they start to change the Islamic world for the better.

JIHAD IS NOT THE SOLUTION

In addition to the dominance of the West in the world today, the overwhelming support of Israel from the US, and the UK, has worsened the anti-Western mentality and resentment among Muslim communities across the globe.

As a matter of fact, Muslims see the killings of Palestinians and the blatant US support of Israel as a direct attack against the Islamic world as a whole. The al-Qaida leader Osama bin Ladin, for instance, has cited the Palestinian struggle as one of the reasons why his organization has launched the 911 attacks in the US and the London bombing in July 2005.

To be sure, US foreign policy under the Bush Administration has fueled more anger from the Muslim world than any other previous one. Examples are plenty. For one thing, the US bypassed the United Nations and invaded Iraq under the false pretext that Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction (WMD). What is more, while the Bush Administration supported India’s development of nuclear programs, it opposes Iran’s. Why, Muslims worldwide ask. Is because Iran is a Muslim nation and India is not?

Thus, Muslims across the world have increasingly joined the Islamic struggle against the US and its allies, including Australia, India and the UK. In Asia, for instance, terrorist attacks continue to happen in Pakistan and India as of this writing, following the two bombings in the Indonesian island of Bali in 2002 and 2005 as well as those of the Marriott Hotel and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta in 2003 and 2004, respectively.

In what they see as their defense against the rise of the West and its anti-Islamic values and the unilateral US foreign policy, leaders of Muslim organizations have found no other way other than resigning themselves to terrorism. For them, this is a battle for Islam, or a jihad, which is often interpreted as a holy war. The religion expert Karen Armstrong wrote in The Battle for God:

Jihad (“struggle”) [in Arabic] was not a holy war to convert the infidel, as Westerners believed, nor was it purely a means of self-defense, as Abdu had argued. Mawdudi de.ned jihad as a revolutionary struggle to seize power for the good of all humanity...Mawdudi, who developed this idea in 1939, shared the same perspective as such militant ideologies as Marxism. Just as the Prophet had fought the jahiliyyah, the ignorance and barbarism of the pre-Islamic period, so all Muslims must use all means at their disposal to resist the modern jahiliyyah of the West. The jihad could take many forms. Some people would write
articles, others make speeches, but in the last resort, they must be prepared for armed struggle.

As justified as it is in the eyes of Muslim jihadists, terrorism cannot and will not help them win their battle against the US and its allies. To be sure, the 911 attacks have changed the world in many ways, but they have not defeated the US—still the world’s superpower – or stopped its support of Israel or foreign policy towards Muslim countries. Quite the contrary: The US is as aggressive and powerful as ever. The proof is its invasion of Iraq and its silent backing of Israel in the recent attack on Lebanon, not too long after its retaliation in Afghanistan to “wipe and smoke” the al-Qaida out of its caves.

Moreover, Islamic militant and terrorist attacks don’t help Muslims win their battle against the US or the West; in fact, they are costly – in financial terms and otherwise. But most importantly, as Muslims spend more financial and other resources on jihad, they forgo the same resources that can be used to improve their economies, which in turn will translate into peace, prosperity, and power.

The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, capture the problems facing the Islamic world very clearly in his speech at the Organization of the Islamic Conference in Putrajaya, Malaysia, on October 16, 2003:

None of our countries are truly independent. We are under pressure to conform to our oppressors’ wishes about how we should behave, how we should govern our lands, how we should think even.

Today if they want to raid our country, kill our people, destroy our villages and towns, there is nothing substantial that we can do. Is it Islam which has caused all these? Or is it that we have failed to do our duty according to our religion?

Our only reaction is to become more and more angry. Angry people cannot think properly. And so we .nd some of our people reacting irrationally. They launch their own attacks, killing just about anybody including fellow Muslims to vent their anger and frustration. Their Governments can do nothing to stop
them. The enemy retaliates and puts more pressure on the Governments. And the Governments have no choice but to give in, to accept the directions of the enemy, literally to give up their independence of action.

There is a feeling of hopelessness among the Muslim countries and their people. They feel that they can do nothing right. They believe that things can only get worse... They will forever be poor, backward and weak. Some believe, this is the Will of Allah, that the proper state of the Muslims is to be poor and oppressed in this world.

But is it true that we should do and can do nothing for ourselves? Is it true that 1.3 billion people can exert no power to save themselves from the humiliation and oppression inflicted upon them by a much smaller enemy? Can they only lash back blindly in anger? Is there no other way than to ask our young people to blow themselves up and kill people and invite the massacre of more of our own people?

There is a way – there must be – for the Islamic world to deal with its many formidable challenges. But it is only possible if the world’s Muslim community starts to think instead of reacting in a state of anger.

UNITY, KNOWLEDGE, AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ARE KEY WEAPONS

As shown in the previous section of this essay, fundamentalism – as expressed by Muslims in the various forms of jihad, including terrorism – is not the way for the world’s Islamic community to solve its problems. As a matter of fact, it is counterproductive.

Thus, instead of fundamentalism, Muslims need to come together as one united community to assess their strengths and weaknesses, make good use of their wealth of oil and other resources, and think of strategies that will improve their economies and, thereby, enhance their national defense and power.

As they control 57 out of the 180 countries in the world, Muslims are a considerable group. Unfortunately, their voice in the international community is weak, however. For one thing, it is because most of them do not have the economic power that can make them be heard. But, more importantly, they are not united as a community. Thus, Muslim nations need a collective coordinating body to ensure that all members act in concert and, thereby, wield strength among them for the improvement of the Islamic world.

Working closely with such organizations as the League of Arab Nations, the World Islamic Economic Forum (WIEF) can be used for that purpose. In addition to addressing challenges that the Islamic world faces, the WIEF is a place where delegates can share knowledge and skills, build networks of valuable contacts, and seize business opportunities worldwide.

But creating and participating in such forums as the WIEF is not enough to improve the knowledge or enhance the skills that Muslims need to compete in today’s global economy. If we take a close and honest look at the curriculum at schools across Muslim countries, we can see that it still focuses a little too much on the teachings of the Koran and not enough on computer science, math and natural sciences, writing and the English language, which enable students to be find jobs easily upon graduation and more competent at the workplace.

To be sure, students who read more than one book and study more than one discipline must be more knowledgeable and well-rounded than those who read only one book or study only theology. Upon graduation, the former will be able to contribute better and more to their jobs, organizations, families, communities, and societies than the latter. This is the reason why in the US there are many liberal arts colleges where students are required to take courses in all disciplines, aside from their majors or concentration.

In addition to education, the Muslim world needs to focus more on other requirements of economic development. A progressive educational system will produce a good labor force for their economies, but that, alone, is not enough for economic growth. For one thing, Muslim countries need to spend more on research and development (R&D) because it is where new ideas, inventions, and advancements come about. If we look at the US, it is a young nation compared with the Islamic world. But it is the strongest economy. How
is that possible? One of the reasons is, in addition to its first-rate educational system, it has a lot of think tanks, such as the Rand Corporation, where smart graduates get paid to think and come up with new ideas that are applied in business and daily life.

Furthermore, economic growth requires good infrastructures. These include roads, telecommunication systems, ports, and so on. Like bones and vessels in a human body, infrastructures facilitate business transactions and other economic activities. To be sure, a country with poor infrastructures cannot
have a strong economy, and it takes more time and costs more to do business in such an uncompetitive environment.

Finally, and most importantly, economic growth requires a country that is politically stable. If a Muslim nation does not like the idea of democracy as a form of government and would rather stick to a monarchy or sultanate system, that is a choice that others – especially the US – should respect. Nevertheless,
if such a country is constantly bombarded with terrorist attacks or conflicts caused by home-grown militant, radical Islamic groups, then it cannot blame investors, domestic and foreign alike, to close their businesses and move them somewhere else safer. So, if governments of Muslim nations want to enhance their economic growth by increasing the level of investment in their economies, they should work hard to provide security in their countries.

As for Muslim nations that are fighting wars that the US has started or supports, namely Iraq and Palestine, peace is still a dream. But there are things other than telling young Muslims to commit suicide attacks that their leaders can do to help stop the violence that has been shedding too much Muslim blood already. For one thing, as Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad suggested, they should work more closely with other Muslim nations and non-Muslim nations that sympathize with them to gain more support in the international community for
their causes. What’s more, use their own media – not Fox News, of course – to show the world the killings and sufferings of innocent civilian Muslims and that it is as wrong to kill a Muslim as it is to kill a Jew or anyone else, for that matter. Until the world sees and acknowledges this, more Muslim blood will be shed.

CONCLUSION

As shown in this essay, the Islamic community has moved from being, for centuries, a most powerful civilization in the world to being one that is far behind the West. Today, the Islamic world is confronted with poverty, backwardness, and oppression, and that is sad – if not ironic – for a 1.3 billion community with
the largest oil reserve and a wealth of other national resources. This has made Muslims and Islam scholars question what has happened to, or gone wrong with, Islam. Some have pointed to the rise of the West and modernity as the causes of Islam’s turmoil, while others go back to Islamic fundamentalism, or jihad, as a solution.

To be sure, some Muslim nations are fighting wars that the US has started or supports, but the US and its allies cannot be blamed entirely for what has happened to the Islamic world. And terrorism, which is committed in the name of Islam, is not the way for Muslims to .ght these wars. Nor is it the way for the Islamic world to rise against the West and be the powerful civilization that it once was.

Rather, as suggested in this essay, the Islamic community needs to think collectively of how to deal with its challenges. While the challenges facing the Islamic world are formidable, they are not impossible to overcome. What the Muslim world needs to deal with its challenges effectively are unity, knowledge, and economic growth. Only when these requirements are met can the Islamic community gain peace, prosperity, and power and rise again in the world.

Thang D. Nguyen is a writer, editor, and communications consultant. He pens frequently on Indonesian and Asian affairs for international and major Asian newspapers. His publications include three books:
Indonesia Matters, The Malaysian Journey, and The Indonesian Dream. Prior to moving to Indonesia in 2003, Thang was a manager for Asian affairs at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Geneva, Switzerland.
Among his other credentials, he holds degrees from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS); Hobart College; and Springfield Technical Community College (STCC), USA.

Why the US doesn't invade North Korea

2006-11-16T23:59:00.000-08:00

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—His visit to Hanoi, Vietnam, for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit on 18-19 November is President George W. Bush’s first overseas trip since his Republican Party’s defeat in the November 7 election.

For the most part, the Democrats’ victory—and control of the US Congress after 12 years—was because of the increasingly visible failure of the Iraq War.

But, as leaders of the 21-nation APEC come to Hanoi this weekend, including President Hu Jintao, President Vladimir Putin, and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the US debacle in Iraq is not on their minds.

To be sure, there will be trade talks among APEC leaders, particularly on how to revitalize world trade after the failure of the Doha Round.

But the big issue at this year’s APEC Summit is something much hotter than trade: It’s North Korea and its nuclear programs.

“It’s inevitable that North Korea will be the focus of everyone’s attention,” Daniel Sneider, associate director of Stanford University’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, told The Associated Press.

Indeed, the APEC meet is the first meeting at head-of-state level among the US, China, Russia, and Japan since Pyongyang tested its atomic bomb on 9 October. Along with the two Koreas, these countries have been involved in six-party talks designed to get Pyongyang to drop its nuclear programs.

As it can be expected, the now so-called lame duck president George Bush will continue to criticize North Korea and probably drops a few caveats it during the APEC Summit. After all, as it is a member of the “axis of evil”—a phrase that he used in speech at the UN General Assembly in 2002—that includes Iraq, Iran, and North Korea itself.

Furthermore, although his secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld resigned (he got sagged) after the Republicans’ defeat, President Bush continues to defend the Iraq War and insists that withdrawing from Iraq is a defeat. He keeps regurgitating the point that his administration has saved the Iraqi people from living under tyranny and dictatorship by taking Saddam Hussein out.

To be sure, Saddam Hussein—who is now waiting to be hanged for his crimes against humanity—is no angel. But, if Saddam’s dictatorship was good enough a reason to go to war, why hasn't the U.S. invaded North Korea, which showed the world its nuclear capability in early September, and taken its dictator Kim Jong-Il out?
Is Kim Jong-Il lesser of a dictator than Saddam Hussein? Or does Mr. Bush think that the North Korean people have not suffered as much as the Iraqi people?

Clearly, North Korea meets all the justifications for a war that Iraq did not have. So, why has the US not gone to war with North Korea?

There are several possibilities. First, North Korea is of no economic values to the US.

For one thing, North Korea has no oil. Furthermore, there are no US business activities in or trading with this closed, Communist economy.

As a matter of fact, starving North Koreans survive each year because of the generous food aid from—you guessed it— Uncle Sam.

To be sure, going to wars does benefit the US economy as it brings big contracts to the defense industries or business opportunities for other sectors.

In the case of North Korea, however, there would be only costs for going to war with Pyongyang but no benefits from it.

Second, unlike Baghdad, Pyongyang has Beijing as a patron.

Despite Beijing's statement that it is "resolutely opposed to" the nuclear test and that Pyongyang has "ignored universal opposition of the international community", China is still North Korea's big brother. Thus, the US would have to deal with China if it wanted to do anything to North Korea.

Third, while South Korea and Japan are US allies, they are not Israel.

It's no secret that Israel is America's favorite and spoiled child. Time and time again, we have seen Washington's overprotective attitude when it comes to Jerusalem.

Examples are plenty. One is the Bush Administration's silence (read approval) on Israel's attack on Lebanon that started in July this year. The attack killed over 1,500 people, many of whom were Lebanese civilians, and severely damaged Lebanese infrastructure.

Imagine what Washington would do if someone else did the same thing to Israel? And, imagine what Washington would do if North Korea, with its real nuclear programs, were located near Israel, as Iraq is?

The former Malaysian prime minister, Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, had it right: Israel rules America and the world by proxy.

Finally, although Pyongyang is a danger to Seoul and Tokyo, it is an opportunity to Washington.

For South Korea and Japan, who are most exposed to North Korea as a security threat, their source of protection comes from none other than the US. In other words, each year Seoul and Tokyo spend a great deal of their national budgets on US-made weapons and defense systems as part of their guard against North Korea.

As such, North Korea makes the US indispensable for South Korea and Japan and, of course, keeps fat contracts for US defense companies with Seoul and Tokyo coming.

Indeed, the day the North Korean Communist regime collapses or the demilitarized zone (DMZ) that divides North Korea and South Korea falls down—as the Berlin Wall did—the US will be less relevant in North Asia. And, thus, there won't be many contracts for US defense companies either.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Gossip is not journalism

2006-11-09T23:13:00.000-08:00

The Jakarta Post
10 November 2006

YOUR LETTERS

I write in response to the article entitled Squander good luck, rake in misfortune by Julia Suryakusuma in The Jakarta Post on Nov. 8. The author complained about how her maid, and the maid's husband, quit their jobs by not returning to work after Idul Fitri.

Once again, Julia Suryakusuma, who is Indonesia's leading feminist writer, complains about her servants to readers of this newspaper. In doing so, she puts herself in the same category as Jakarta's elite housewives whose pastime is to gather, usually in five-star malls or over lunch at fancy restaurants, to exchange -- you guessed it -- gossip and complaints about their maids or drivers. Is this the result of a U.K education and decades of writing essays on feminism?

What is more pathetic is that Julia Suryakusuma, an intellectual and author, chose to bring her pen down to the level of two semi-literate Indonesians who can't defend themselves.

Whining about your maid is inappropriate in a commentary column. In other words, journalism is not about complaints concerning your personal problems. To be sure, it is not uncommon for journalists to get ideas from their daily lives. But they don't devote their articles to telling readers about them or complaining about their servants.

As for why Julia's maid quit her job, it is possible that she found a different and better job -- or a better boss -- during her vacation.

THANG D. NGUYEN
Jakarta

Squander good luck, rake in misfortune

Opinion and Editorial - November 08, 2006

Julia Suryakusuma, Jakarta

Disaster has struck: My servants Sari and Didi have disappeared and with them goes a mother lode of ideas for columns!

My ever-forgetful cook and her husband, the "pious giggler", were meant to return after a one-week mudik (Idul Fitri homecoming), in time for major renovations starting in my house. However, I discovered a few days ago that they had deserted me. Their room was stripped bare of their belongings (and some of mine as well!) and I finally realized that this was their very Javanese way of saying so long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, goodbye.

Perhaps I should have been suspicious from the start -- servants taking mudik for only one week? Get real!

As I stood there in their dusty empty room, it hit me that perhaps I should not be unhappy to lose them. The one thing that I had banked on from them -- their honesty -- turned out to be unfounded. They had lied, stolen and let me down at a crucial time. So, perhaps their disappearing act was a blessing in disguise. Better sooner than later, no?

But I was totally at a loss to comprehend why they did it -- why give up the fantastic deal they had? They only had to do the normal work expected of any household servant -- cooking, cleaning, laundry. In return they got an above-average salary, tips, medical costs and guaranteed education for their three kids, as far as they could go. All the children did well at school, so university and perhaps a chance to escape the poverty cycle was possible too. I was even willing to support the fourth child, Sari or Didi Jr., due any time now in November.

Yes, I know, women sometimes get loopy when they're pregnant -- maybe all the blood being pumped away from the head into the baby-making machine leaves the brain dry as a bone, reducing thinking power to zero, zippo, zilch. But what was Didi's excuse?

I had actually been quite excited at the prospect of a new life -- the baby -- in the house, but this excitement now became astonished reflection as I tried to understand their self-destructive decision. And I couldn't help but wonder if Sari and Didi's short-term thinking, squandering good fortune and planting the seeds for your own -- and others -- bad luck, was somehow a particularly Indonesian thing?

Looking back on our history, it struck me that the answer was a resounding "yes"! From day one in August 1945, we've been consistently wasting our good fortune. Forget Marhaenism, integralism, patrimonialism. Scrap theories of class, economics and institutions! Throw out all the complicated political, anthropological, cultural, psychological theorizing ever cooked up by Indonesian and Western scholars to comprehend Indonesia and Indonesians! Now there's one, complete, explanation: Sari-Didiism. Brilliant, brilliant!

Just look back over the last six decades. We squandered the hard-won independence that promised freedom (at last!), prosperity, pluralism and the pursuit of happiness, for Guided Democracy, our very own homegrown brand of tyranny. Sure, Western-style liberal democracy was fun to fool around with for seven years (1950-1957), but then we said, nah, this ain't suited to our Indonesian circumstances. Let's really mess ourselves up!

So Sukarno called for a political system of "democracy with guidance" based on "indigenous" procedures: Musyawarah (prolonged deliberation) and mufakat (consensus), all, naturally, under the guidance of the Penyambung Lidah Rakyat (Extension of the Tongue of the People, my personal favorite among the many titles Sukarno gave himself).

This dictatorship of "talk, but then do what I say" laid the basis for Soeharto's 32-year authoritarian rule, where all the fruits independence had given us -- political freedom, freedom of expression, civil liberties, human rights -- were dumped in the out-tray.

But there was a lot in the in-tray in the New Order as well, don't you worry. Indonesia experienced unprecedented economic growth, thanks to an export-driven economy, so much so that it was hailed as a model "Asian Tiger" economy. And poverty was alleviated as well -- especially for members of the military, Golkar and Soeharto cronies. In fact, Transparency International even proclaimed Soeharto the world's most corrupt politician, claiming he pinched between US$15-35 million through bribery, racketeering and embezzlement. So there we go again, short-term gains resulting from short-term thinking, squandering our chances to be an economic power in the region.

And 60 years after independence, eight years into Reformasi, will we have another Sari-Didi moment and squander our big chance for post-Soeharto reform? Will we drop the ball and opt instead for ego-centered instant power that gives rise to fragmentation and endless conflicts? Will we blow the chance for moderate Islam to emerge from under repression as a moral and intellectual force for good, instead allowing the positive aspects of religion to be lost in a wasteful burst of extremist militancy? Take a guess.

Enough! The reflections on Sari-Didiism in Indonesia jostling in my head may win me a Nobel prize, but they weren't doing much to solve my domestic crisis. I began to sweep up the dust and debris the fugitives had left behind.

Luckily Hadi, my quiet and efficient new driver, came to the rescue the next day, miraculously delivering me Asih, one of his neighbors, to help salvage my home from the ruins. She is effective, efficient, diligent and reliable -- and the house has never been so clean, the clothes more neatly ironed!

There is a downside though. Asih is just too good. I don't think she can ever be the rich mine of ideas for columns that Sari & Didi were. But, then again, maybe she could be an inspiration for stories about the other side of midnight, where we use all the good chances that come our way. Let's hope ...

The writer is the author of Sex, Power and Nation. She can be reached at jsuryakusuma@mac.com or jskusuma@dnet.net.id.

Indonesia needs to do more to attract investment

2006-11-07T02:46:00.000-08:00

The Business Times
7 November 2006

The reason why investors hesitate to invest in infrastructure projects, or in any other area for that matter, is the legal uncertainty that characterises South-east Asia's largest economy

By THANG NGUYEN

AS AN attempt to show investors that it means business, the Indonesian government put on the Indonesia Infrastructure Conference and Exhibition 2006 which ended last week. It was the sequel to the Infrastructure Summit 2005, which is considered less-than-successful.

This conference is an effort to lure investment for at least 10 infrastructure projects. Ranging from toll roads and seaports to telecom networks and power plants, these projects are worth about US$4.5 billion. Compared with the 91 projects exhibited at last year's summit, the scaled down number of projects at this year's conference shows that the government has learned its lesson.

'This year's event will be different from the previous one. We have made improvements to our preparations and the tender process for the projects,' Suyono Dikun, deputy to Indonesia's coordinating minister for the economy, was quoted as saying.

The criticism of last year's summit is not without substance. According to The Jakarta Post, of the 91 projects, worth US$22 billion, offered during last year's summit, only '24 deals worth US$6 billion have so far been clinched, with eight others still under negotiation'.

When asked about the dismal outcome of last year's summit, Chris Kanter, who is the chairman of the Indonesian Chamber of Trade and Industry (KADIN), said: 'What we offered back then was simply a list of projects from the ministries (sic), several of which were still at the 'raw proposal' stage. The ministers back then were also relatively new in their posts, and were busy with the tsunami disaster at the time.' To be sure, last year the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) cabinet was still on the learning curve and had to deal with the aftermath of the Asian tsunami of December 2004.

During the same period, however, 23 new shopping malls, numerous luxurious apartment buildings, and many other private properties popped up like mushrooms in Jakarta alone.

And at the same time, the Jakarta monorail was started. But, alas, as of now, the funding for the project has stopped; all that can be seen of it are half-built cement columns standing in the middle of Jakarta's main roads. And why is it that government projects, like the Jakarta monorail, do not get funded easily or - for that matter - completed as quickly as those offered by the private sector?

For one thing, bureaucracy prevents government, or public, projects from getting done quickly. No one would be surprised to learn that red tape is one of the biggest problems facing the Indonesian economy and investors, both foreign and domestic. To deal with this issue and get their projects done, investors don't have much of a choice other than resorting to paying bribes.

Depending on the size of their projects, investors often find themselves giving bribes - in cash or in kind - to government officials and other parties involved. Unfortunately, bribes, or 'facilitating payments' as they are sometimes called here, do not solve the red-tape issue.

To be sure, the SBY government has launched a visible anti-corruption campaign since it assumed power two years ago. Thus, corruption seems to be less prevalent these days; however, it is still well and alive beneath the surface.

Actually, corruption in Indonesia today is worse than what it was during the Suharto era because there are more parties that investors have to bribe than there used to be. Worse still, there is no guarantee that, after paying big bribes, investors get what they want.

As the Australia National University economist Andrew MacIntyre puts it: 'The only thing worse than 'organised corruption' is 'disorganised corruption'.'

But uncertainty in corruption is only part of the problem facing the business community in Indonesia. The main reason why investors hesitate to invest in Indonesia's infrastructure projects, or in any other area for that matter, is the legal uncertainty that characterises South-east Asia's largest economy.

It is not that Indonesia lacks sufficient legislation governing foreign investment (it is the other way around, actually). Rather, the real impediment to legal certainty is the unwillingness of government officials, the courts, and other law-enforcement authorities to respect the laws that they are sworn to uphold.

What is more, uncertainty also lies in the government's policies towards investment in Indonesia. There is no such thing as investment without risks; some investment projects have more or higher risks - and thus high gains - than others.

One of the risks that investors encounter in Indonesia's infrastructure projects is that there is no written guarantee of returns (or profit). This risk is normal and acceptable, however.

A bigger - or political - risk is a change of government or its policies towards ongoing investment projects. When this happens, a contract's terms of reference or agreement often fail to be honoured. Thus, together with bureaucracy, corruption, and legal uncertainty, political risks in Indonesia kill investor confidence that the economy badly needs.

To be fair, the Indonesian government recognises this. It will need, however, to provide investors with more substance, incentives, and a more business-friendly environment to gain their confidence than just holding conferences on infrastructure and other investment projects.

Otherwise, these conferences will end up being, as Indonesians like to say, NATO, or No Action, Talk Only.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist.

Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

What a difference a faith makes!

2006-10-05T02:26:00.000-07:00

Asiasentinel (www.asiasentinel.com)
04 October 2006

By Thang D. Nguyen

Whereas a jihadist (a holy warrior) is someone who fights for his religion and gets glory for it, a martyr is someone who gets killed because of it.

The three Catholic Indonesians who got executed on 21 September were the latter.

Known as the “Poso Three”, Fabianus Tibo, Marianus Riwu and Dominggus da Silva were accused of inciting violence between Muslims and Christians in 2000 that led to the deaths of some 1,000 people in the Poso port region of Sulawesi island.

Before their execution, the Vatican, the European Union, and human rights organizations had protested their convictions. Pope Benedict, in particular, wrote a letter to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono asking him for their clemency.

On their part, the three convicts admitted their guilt as charged and asked for mercy.
Unfortunately, the efforts to save their lives were in vain.

In contrast, however, Muslim Indonesian convicts tend to get much lighter sentences for more serious crimes. Last year, for instance, an Indonesian court found Muslim cleric Abu Bakar Ba’asyir guilty of an “evil conspiracy” to commit the 2002 Bali nightclub bombings—which killed 202 people, including 88 Australians—and handed him a 30-month jail sentence.

Ba’asyir, who is considered the spiritual head of the al Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorist group, which is blamed for the two Bali bombings, the Marriott bombing and the Australian Embassy in 2004, did his time and is now a free man. It is also worth noting that his jail term was cut short of about four months in observance of Indonesia’s Independence Day, 17 August, this year.

In addition, in early September, the Denpasar district court sentenced Dwi Widiarto to 18 years and Abdul Aziz to eight years in prison for their involvement in the 2005 Bali bombings, which killed 26 civilians and injured over 100 people. Another militant, Mohammad Cholily, was sentenced to 18 years for supplying equipment for the attacks. The same court also Anif Solchanudin to 15 years in prison for his role in helping to plan the attacks.

While 15 or 18 years may sound like a long time, they are hardly comparable with death. Many Muslim Indonesians, moreover, were upset over the convictions of the Bali bombers. It is, therefore, questionable whether the death sentence given to the Poso Three was the Indonesian government’s way of placating them.

“The Indonesian government is sacrificing true justice to provide ‘balance’ by executing these three Christians,” said Jeremy Sewell, the spokesperson of the International Christian Concern (ICC). “This is not justice. This is deception, cover-up and appeasement.”

Whether this is true or not, it is hard to justify why the Poso Three got the death sentence, whereas the Bali bombers got only 8, 15, or 18 years, depending on their charges.

Is terrorism lesser a crime than a Muslim-Christian conflict? Is it because the Bali bombers are Muslim and the Poso Three were Catholics? Or is it because, as Sewell suggested, the Indonesian government wants to please the Muslim majority at the expense of the Christian minority in Indonesia?

Whatever the reason behind the execution of the Poso Three, the message it sends is that in Indonesia, one will get a much lighter sentence for terrorism than other crimes or conflicts among regional, ethnic, and religious groups.

What’s more, the execution of the Poso Three will damage Indonesia’s international image. Founded on the motto “Unity in Diversity” (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika), Indonesia is supposed to be a nation that it has respect for, among other things, religious freedom, equality, and justice.

Unfortunately, Indonesia is still far from it. Today, many Indonesians still experience discrimination, violence, or death just because of their religious faiths; churches still get burned whenever Muslim Indonesians are angry at their Christian fellow citizens; and it is very difficult to get a permission to build a place of worship for a religion other than Islam.

To be sure, all Indonesians are equal in the eyes of God. But in reality, to paraphrase British novelist George Orwell, Muslim Indonesians are more equal than others.Justice, too, may be blind, but for Indonesians, as the execution of the Poso Three has shown, it is not faith-blind.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist (www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com). He is the editor of The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, and Democracy in Times of Distrust (Marshall Cavendish Academic, 2004).

When a coup is a good thing

2006-10-02T04:25:00.000-07:00

22 September 2006

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—Coups are never considered a good thing, even if they bring peace and order back to a country in a political crisis.

This is true in the case of the military coup that ousted Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra on 19 September.

Thailand observers and some foreign countries have already called the coup a setback for the nation’s democracy.

The US, in particular, is most critical of the coup.

"There's no justification for a military coup in Thailand or in any place else," said State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey.

“We are also reviewing our assistance to Thailand in light of the various legal implications of assistance to a country in which there has been a military coup to depose a civilian elected leadership," said US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill.

To be sure, since 1991, when the nation last saw a military coup, Thai politics has moved from away from its off-and-on military rule to a civilian government.

In a closer look, however, the coup has several positive aspects to it.

First, it brings a long-awaited end to Thailand’s political crisis that has started since the April election this year.

Thaksin's decision to snap the April elections followed a mounting campaign of criticism of his personal financial dealings.

In January, his family sold its stake in Shin Corporation, a leading communication company, for 73 billion baht (about $US1.88 billion), an enormous profit on which the Shinawatras legally paid no tax.

The opposition Thai Democratic Party boycotted the April election and took to the streets of Bangkok for several weeks to demonstrate against Thaksin’s campaign and accuse him of abuse of power and corruption.

Even though Thaksin’s Thai Rak Thai (Thais love Thais) Party won the April election, it did not end Thailand’s political crisis.

Shortly after the election, Thai courts ruled the April election result unconstitutional, based on the ground that Thaksin’s party pulled most of the votes.

Following this ruling, Thaksin took the role of a care-taker prime minister and a Thai general election committee scheduled a rerun of the April election for October this year.

Together with Thaksin’s heavy-handed handling of the conflict in Muslim-majority southern Thailand, months of street protests against him had already damaged the Thai economy, particularly the tourism industry.

Second, it is a bloodless coup.

There has been neither resistance from the people towards the military nor any violence since the coup took place.

In fact, many Thais see the coup as a good thing. About 75 percent of Thais support the coup—evident in their giving of food and flowers to Thai solders as they seized control of Bangkok.

"I'm delighted he's gone," said opposition senator Mechai Viravaidya. "It would have been great if he had resigned voluntarily, but apparently he was too stubborn. But at least it's better than an assassination."

Third, and most importantly, this coup had support from the king.

Unlike many countries in which the military is the most powerful institution in a political crisis, or vacuum, the ultimate authority in Thailand rests with the King.

Officially, his influence over Thai politics is limited. In practice, however, he yields immense power, due to the reverence that the Thai people have for him.

In the past, the king has stepped in to restore order in Thailand during military coups and riots. And whenever he does that, the whole kingdom of Thailand, including the military, submits to his authority.

So, even though the king has said nothing about the coup, it could not have happened without his blessing.

In fact, the coup leaders announced on television that the king endorsed Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin as the head of the temporary government.

They would not dare to say that if the king did not support them, would they?

Among other things, the coup has shown that the role that the king plays is prominent as ever.

And as undemocratic as it may seem, the coup has put an end to the Thaksin fiasco, and that is not a bad thing at all.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist (www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com). He is currently editing a book on Thailand.

Protests give relevance to world meetings

2006-09-18T23:55:00.000-07:00

The Straits Times
Singapore, Sep 18, 2006

REVIEW

By Thang D. Nguyen
for the Straits Times

IN JAKARTA - LIKE other global economic organisations or business alliances such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the World Economic Forum (WEF), the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank attract large demonstrations from anti-globalisation organisations and activists.

The latter see global financial institutions, trade agreements and corporations as undermining the environment, labour rights and even national sovereignty, especially of Third World countries.

In addition to organising protests at conferences of international economic institutions around the world, anti-globalisation activists also hold their own forums as a counterbalance.

The World Social Forum (WSF), for instance, is held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and other places around the world at the same time as the WEF holds its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

While they share a similar conference structure - complete with plenary sessions, workshops, cultural events and sometimes even the same speakers - the WEF and WSF are antithetical in every sense of the word.

The WEF's participants are mostly CEOs and senior executives who come to town in suits, stay and dine in five-star hotels and pay a handsome fee to network with the world's shakers and movers.

At the WSF, participants are often unkempt-looking activists with backpacks who have paid no fee to attend and who rub shoulders with Brazilian landless peasants, Colombian trade unionists, Indian dalit (formerly 'untouchables') or African debt-relief campaigners.

Whereas the WEF gets thorough and respectful coverage in the media, the WSF is mostly invisible.

"The spectacular turnout in Mumbai for the WSF last year of around 100,000 people from more than 100 countries, as well as the presence of heavyweight political and academic figures was, for the conservative
Wall Street Journal (WSJ), not newsworthy enough even for an acknowledgement of the event's existence.

"By contrast, coverage for the Davos event was plentiful: The WSJ reported on the World Economic Forum three times, while The New York Times ran six stories on the summit," wrote Mr Vince Medeiros, who studied the media coverage of the two events last year.

And while participants at meetings such as the WEF are welcomed by their national or local hosts, anti-globalisation activists are not.

The reason is that the former bring with them revenue, business and prestige, while the latter too often cause violence and may even damage public infrastructure.

For instance, the Group of Eight Summit protest in Genoa, Italy, from July 18 to 22, 2001, was one of the bloodiest protests in Western Europe's recent history. Several hundred people were injured and one died.

This is perhaps why Singapore is not allowing demonstrations outside the venue of the ongoing IMF-World Bank meetings.

Instead, the Singapore Government-appointed organising committee for the event has provided demonstrators with a 10m by 14m space inside the lobby of the Suntec City Convention Centre, where the meetings are being held. Demonstrators will also have to abide by set of rules if they wish to protest inside the venue.

Given these factors, participants at the IMF-World Bank meetings can rest assured that there will be no noise and disturbance from the demonstrators.

However, why should the protesters want to demonstrate if they can only be seen but not heard?

For this reason, anti-globalisation activists and other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have decided to hold their demonstrations and social forums in parallel with the IMF-World Bank meeting on the Indonesian island of Batam instead.

The Batam authorities initially did not allow these events to take place, but later gave them the go-ahead.

While Indonesia is in no position to compete with Singapore economically, the decision to allow anti-IMF-World Bank events to take place in Batam reflects a respect for freedom of expression befitting the world's third-largest democracy.

More importantly, the fact that activists and NGOs can demonstrate against meetings of global economic institutions show that these organisations are still relevant.

Indeed, the day that anti-globalisation activists stop following and protesting against meetings of the IMF and World Bank as well as of their fellow organisations around the world, is the day that they no longer matter.

The writer was regional manager for Asia at the World Economic Forum. He is now a Jakarta-based columnist.

Copyright 2006 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved. Privacy Statement & Condition of Access

Lessons from Timor Leste

2006-07-27T21:59:00.000-07:00

TODAY
Singapore, 25 July 2006

Analysis News

By Thang D Nguyen

Dili used to blame Jakarta for the bloodshed in Timor Leste before the latter gained independence from Indonesia and became the world’s youngest nation in 1999.

Since then, however, Dili has been responsible for its own destiny, including the waves of violence that have rocked Timor Leste in the past two months.

The violence began after former Prime Minister Mari Alkatiri sacked 600 of the country’s 1,400-strong army after they went on strike to protest what they said was discrimination against those from the west of the country.

Fighting between rebel soldiers and government forces has disintegrated into street violence involving gangs, the killing of innocent civilians, looting of public facilities and torching of houses in Dili. Shortly after violence broke out, the authorities sought assistance from the international community.

Thus far, the United Nations has sent aid supplies to Dili. Several countries — namely Australia, Malaysia and Portugal — have helped by sending troops and police, while others have pledged financial aid packages.

The crisis in Dili continues, and there is no sign of a solution. But several lessons can be learned from the situation.

First, the UN forces left East Timor too soon. In August 1999, the East Timorese voted for independence from Indonesia, but the voting was followed by violence perpetrated by pro-Indonesia militias.

Thus, the UN sent an Australian-led international force to restore order in Dili, and later established the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor mission to help build the world’s newest nation.

In 2001, the UN left East Timor as the country seemed capable of handling its own affairs. But as the ongoing crisis in Dili shows, the UN should have stayed longer.

Second, Dili was not ready for independence from Indonesia, even though its people’s vote for it was overwhelming.

In a Cabinet meeting in January 1999, former President B J Habibie told his ministers that, between autonomy and independency, Jakarta should give Dili the latter. His rationale was that East Timor was more of a liability than an asset to Indonesia.

He reportedly said to some colleagues: “Why do we have this problem when we have a mountain of other problems? Do we get any oil? No. Do we get gold? No. All we get is rocks. If the East Timorese are ungrateful after what we have done for them, why should we hang on?”

Mr Habibie’s economic ministers supported his view because an independent East Timor would relieve them of a financial burden.

Some other ministers even said that an independent East Timor would allow Indonesia — the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation — “to be rid of 600,000 Catholics,” referring to the religion of the majority of people in the former Portuguese colony. And so East Timor’s independence was granted. But, as early as 1997, the East Timorese former resistance leader and now President, Xanana Gusmao — with his colleagues Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Carlos Bello — had said that viable independence in East Timor would require a preparatory period of five to 10 years. They were correct, weren’t they?

Third, Australia’s coax for East Timor’s split from Indonesia was not as good as it sounded at the time. The history of East Timor’s independence started with a letter sent by Prime Minister John Howard in December 1998 to then interim President Habibie suggesting that Jakarta should give Dili the right to self-determination after a period of autonomy.

When asked about Australia’s involvement in East Timor, Mr Howard said it was “the most positive and noble act by Australia in ... international relations in the last 20 years”. Was it?

For one thing, the Howard government saw the atrocities committed by the Indonesian military in East Timor before 1999 as an opportunity to enhance its international image. By helping the East Timorese, Australia could portray itself as a moral beacon in the Asia-Pacific region. Australia, it seems, did not help East Timor out of altruism.

Furthermore, being its immediate northern neighbour, chaotic East Timor was perceived as a source of trouble — if not danger — to Australia. By intervening in East Timor, Canberra was actually helping itself by, among other things, preventing unwanted immigrants from going to Australia.

Finally, contrary to the Howard administration’s belief, Australia’s involvement in East Timor has damaged its relations with Indonesia, its most important neighbour. It will take years to repair the ties between the two countries.

As the crisis in Dili continues, one wonders if the Australians can really help the Timorese this time around. Meanwhile, let us hope that East Timor will not become another Haiti.

Whose war on terror is it, anyway?

2006-06-13T21:57:00.000-07:00

TODAY

Straight Talk

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Jakarta, Washington's ally, is getting a one-sided deal

Thang D Nguyen

US-INDONESIA relations have had their ups and downs, but the two countries seem to be closer than ever before. In March, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Indonesia. And last week, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld did the same.

During a one-day visit to Jakarta, Mr Rumsfeld discussed issues such as bilateral military cooperation, the fight against terrorism, and the threat of piracy in the Strait of Malacca with his Indonesian counterpart Juwono Sudarsono.

The visits by Mr Rumsfeld and Dr Rice came on the heels of Washington's decision last November to lift its arms embargo on Indonesia, imposed because of the atrocities committed by the Indonesian military (TNI) in 1999 in Timor Leste, then East Timor.

One wonders what really lies behind Washington's recent gestures towards Jakarta. The Bush administration tells us that it wants to support Indonesia because the world's largest Muslim-majority nation is a democracy.

"One of the things that they have said is that they want to be a voice for moderate forms of Islam that understand that democracy … and Islam are by no means enemies of one another, and that people of all ethnic groups and all heritages can live together," Dr Rice said last year.

But is this the only reason why Washington is befriending Jakarta?

For one thing, Washington needs to protect US businesses in Indonesia. Being a resource-rich country, Indonesia is a land of opportunities for many US mining and energy companies, as well as those in other sectors. Good relations with Jakarta are a good thing for US businesses in Indonesia, as they enable US diplomats and policy-makers to help these firms in their operations, vis-à-vis Jakarta.

More importantly, by being close to Jakarta, Washington finds an agent through whom it can fend off China. It is no surprise that the US is concerned about the rise of China, both economically and politically, given its size.

And, given Indonesia's strategic and geopolitical position in South-east Asia, Jakarta is Washington's first choice as an ally in building a security ring to keep China at bay. Besides Indonesia, the US is also courting Vietnam — which was an enemy for several decades — for this purpose.

And, when the US approaches security "partners" like Indonesia, it tells these countries that it wants to help them enhance their defence systems. In other words, by buying US weapons, they would bolster their defence. So, the more weapons they buy from the US, the more secure they become, goes the US pitch.

However, there are no perceived threats within the region for South-east Asian countries, including Indonesia, to defend themselves against.

And, a growing China is a good thing for South-east Asia economically.

Therefore, there is no need for countries in the region to enter an arms race and thereby, benefit the US defence industry.

Most importantly, we are told, the US wants to help Indonesia in the global war on terror. For the US, the second front in the fight against terrorism is Indonesia — home to the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) network — which has experienced a series of major terrorist attacks in recent years.

But, whose war on terror is Indonesia fighting, really?

The major terrorist attacks in Indonesia — the two Bali bombings, the Marriott Jakarta blast and the bombing of the Australian embassy in Jakarta — were assaults that represented backlash against America's backing of Israel in its conflict with Palestine, the US invasion of Iraq, and Australia's strong support of US foreign policy.

And most of the victims of the terrorist attacks were Indonesians, although foreigners were also among the victims.

Simply put, terrorism in Indonesia is nothing but a proxy war against the US. Enough Indonesian blood has been shed, and there is no need for Indonesia to go on fighting it and fattening the pockets of US defence companies.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writings can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com

What's your view?

Email us at news@newstoday.com.sg

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

When protesting becomes wasteful noise

2006-06-13T02:56:00.000-07:00

Business Times
Singapore, 13 June 2006

By THANG D NGUYEN

EIGHT years ago, demonstrations were a part of a movement that forced strongman Suharto out of power and ushered democracy into Indonesia. But now, they have become a nuisance to society and a problem for business in the country.

In the past three months, for instance, Jakarta and other major cities in Indonesia have seen large demonstrations, ranging from support for a pornography Bill before Parliament, to opposition to the Indonesian version of Playboy magazine and a new, pro-business labour law.

To be sure, some of the issues that trigger these demonstrations are about deeply held taboos in the world's largest Muslim-majority nation.

Let's face it: even though most Indonesian Muslims are moderate, some are under the influence of hard-line Islamic groups that, of course, want Indonesia to become a theocratic state under syariah law.

During the Suharto era, no one could organise a demonstration on any issue, even if it was not a hot, Islam-related one. So for a nation that was under a dictatorship for decades, the right to demonstrate is no doubt a precious one.

But alas, it has become too commonplace.It is even more mundane when protestors in a demonstration are not doing it for a cause, but money! Yes--you read it right--for 20,000 rupiah (S$3.40) a day, there are professional protestors who are willing and able to carry banners, shout slogans and march in Jakarta's heat and polluted air as though they were protesting something they believed in. You can find the same people the next day in another demonstration wearing a different outfit, carrying a different banner, and shouting a different slogan. And they will do the same thing again the next day, as long as they get paid.

But more importantly, demonstrations have become a public nuisance: they worsen traffic jams in Jakarta and other major cities in Indonesia. In these cities, traffic jams are already bad enough. And with demonstrations, traffic in Jakarta and other big cities becomes paralysed.

What is more, some of these demonstrations get violent, and thus public facilities get damaged and, in some cases, private premises--such as the Indonesian Playboy office, for example--get attacked.

As for business, of course, demonstrations are a problem. When demonstrations take place on major streets where business offices are located, most of them are forced to close since their employees cannot get to work.

This is a cost that no one but businesses affected by demonstrations have to bear.

And the more frequently demonstrations happen--and they do seem to be getting more frequent--the higher the cost to the business community.

Likewise, demonstrations worsen the image of Indonesia as a place for foreign investment. When it comes to doing business in Indonesia, foreign investors already have enough issues, such as corruption, labour, regulations, and the legal system; they don't need a business environment that is disrupted by frequent demonstrations.

In today's increasingly competitive world where other countries offer foreign investors, among other incentives, a business-friendly and politically stable environment, disruptive demonstrations are another reason why they avoid Indonesia.

To their credit, though, the Indonesian leaders know about the damage demonstrations do to the nation's foreign investment, which it has been trying hard to increase in recent years.

"It's a shame that the image we have built up has changed again. The perception isn't favourable anymore. It seems pointless for me to travel the world...telling investors that Indonesia is safe and welcomes investors,'' President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said in response to a violent series of rallies against the new, pro-business labour law.

So, what can be done? Of course, the Indonesian government cannot prohibit demonstrations. But what it can do is, first, have a zero-tolerance policy towards protestors who get violent and damage facilities, public or private.

Second, the government should take tough measures to keep demonstrations out of streets with heavy traffic. There are parks or other public places where demonstrations can take place and thus do not block up roads and paralyse traffic in Jakarta and other cities. Third, and most importantly, the government should stand by decisions it makes that are right for the country against the pressure from demonstrations. In other words, just because protestors take an issue out to the streets, it does not mean they are always right, and a good government does not always appease demonstrators.

Take the new labour law, for instance. Protestors are against it because it is pro-business. But, as Manpower and Transmigration Minister Erman Suparno puts it, this new labour law is aimed at attracting more foreign investment (read jobs and tax revenue) to Indonesia.

The government's position in this case is sound and, therefore, should be sustained against the pressure from protestors. It might make the Yudhoyono administration unpopular, but because its returns are high and good for the country, it is a position worth maintaining.

Indonesians are proud of their democratic right to hold demonstrations. But when they overdo it, demonstrations become commonplace. And when demonstrations get violent, destructive and disruptive to society and business, they are a problem that should be dealt with properly.

The writer is a Jakarta-based writer.

Beware theocracy in Indonesia

2006-06-07T01:36:00.000-07:00

The Straits Times
Singapore

REVIEW

June 7, 2006

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA - FOLLOWING the fall of former president Suharto in 1998 and free elections since, Indonesia, the world's largest-Muslim majority nation, has become a young, promising democracy. Amid global debates on whether Islam and democracy can co-exist, Indonesia has, indeed, been an inspiring success story.

Although most Indonesians are moderate Muslims, there are, however, radical, hardline Islamic groups that are not happy with the country's democratic transformation.

These hardline groups want, instead, to turn Indonesia into a theocracy based on syariah, or Islamic law. And they have made several attempts towards that end.

In 2002, a motion to institute syariah in Indonesia was put before the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), but it was rejected. Hardline Muslim Indonesians have not, however, given up their pursuit of a syariah-based society.

More recently, these hardliners have taken to campaigning for the passage of an anti-pornography Bill, and are taking action against those who criticise it.

The Bill, still being considered by the MPR, is reportedly designed to end the sale, distribution, and consumption of pornographic products in the country. But this is not why critics of the Bill are against it. Among the many clauses of the Bill, one prohibits kissing in public; another prohibits women from wearing 'provocative' clothes that expose parts of their bodies, including the belly button; and another prohibits the reading of poems or documents in public with a 'sexy' expression or tone of voice.

For opponents of the Bill, the issue has become not pornography per se, but limiting their personal freedoms as individuals - as though they had to live under syariah. They have held rallies to protest against the Bill.

Unfortunately, these protests have met with attacks from extreme Islamic groups. Playwright Ratna Sarumpaet and dangdut (a form of Indonesian pop music) singer Inul Daratista, for instance, received personal threats from the Betawi Brotherhood Forum for participating in a rally against the Bill on May 3.

Likewise, when former president Abdurrahman Wahid, known as Gus Dur, a Muslim leader who headed the influential Nadhatul Ulama (NU), was about to give a speech in West Java, it was disrupted by members of the Islam Defenders\' Front (FPI) because he had come out against the Bill.

In response, Gus Dur supporters - mainly members of the NU - called on the government of Indonesia to arrest FPI members who were behind this insulting incident and to disband the group altogether. The proposal for the FPI should be considered seriously because of its violent acts towards others.

Even though groups like the FPI are a minority in Indonesia, their extremism gives Islam and the Indonesian Muslim community as a whole a bad image.

But the question remains: Should the anti-pornography Bill be passed?

There are several reasons why it should not. First, the Bill itself cannot eliminate the porn industry in Indonesia, as its proponents claim.

With the Internet, it is impossible to stop sales and distribution of pornography, even if pornographic DVDs (digital video discs) and magazines are not sold in the market. As a matter of fact, the passing of the Bill would do the porn industry a service, as scarcity would drive up prices of pornographic products.

Second, the Bill itself cannot stop the consumption of pornography.

Lest we forget, pornography had existed for centuries in many cultures, including Javanese and Balinese, and in various forms of the arts, way before the making of 'blue films' and the invention of the video and DVD players.

Indonesians - like many individuals in other parts of the world - will continue to consume pornography, with or without the Bill being passed.

So, there is no point trying to stop it; in fact, it is counterproductive to do so because, as human nature dictates it, the more we are told not to do something, the more we are likely to want to do it.

And who knows how many of those who support the pornography Bill are actually consumers of porn themselves?

Third, the Bill is basically an application of syariah across Indonesian society.

Let's not forget that Indonesia is a nation of diversity and was founded on the concept of 'unity in diversity'. Although Islam is the main religion in Indonesia, the country's Constitution recognises other religions, namely Buddhism, Catholicism, Christianity, Confucianism and Hinduism.

Therefore, to pass the pornography Bill is to impose a set of Islamic laws or regulations on Indonesians of other faiths.

But most importantly, the passing of this Bill will, de facto, turn Indonesia into something close to a theocracy.

This is the last thing that should happen to Indonesia after it has taken a long, hard journey to become the democratic nation that it is today.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist and the editor of The Indonesian Dream: Unity, Diversity, And Democracy In Times Of Distrust. His writings can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com .

A dictator's track record counts

2006-05-31T01:04:00.000-07:00

TODAY
Singapore, Wednesday • May 31, 2006

Those accusing Suharto of corruption may be myopic

Thang D Nguyen

INDONESIAN politics heated up recently when Attorney-General Abdul Rahman Saleh announced that corruption charges against former President Suharto had been dropped.

The announcement — which came as Mr Suharto, 84, was hospitalised for internal bleeding — was based on grounds that he is physically unfit to stand trial.

"Our conclusion, after hearing the statement from the doctors, is that Suharto's condition is getting worse," Mr Saleh said. Thus, "Suharto is no longer a defendant, he is a free man," he said.

The decision caused an outcry among students, activists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

In fact, a case has already been filed against the attorney general's office for its decision on Mr Suharto — who was ousted after 32 years in power amid student protests and nationwide riots in 1998, and was charged with embezzling US$600 million ($946.4 million) in 2000.

Meanwhile, the government's response has been mixed. A few days before the attorney general's announcement, Vice-President Jusuf Kalla supported the idea that the charges against Mr Suharto be dropped.

Hours before the announcement, however, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said the charges should not be dropped.

A few days later, the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission said the decision regarding Mr Suharto lay with Dr Yudhoyono.

Shortly after, Cabinet Secretary Yusril Ihza Mahendra announced that the President would drop Mr Suharto's case and rehabilitate the former leader's reputation.

But on May 20, a day after visiting the ailing Suharto in hospital, Dr Yudhoyono told student activists in Bandung: "I'm not supposed to interfere so let law enforcers handle it." Meanwhile, there were ongoing street protests in major cities in Indonesia, demanding that Mr Suharto be tried.

The President's shift in position was attacked by critics.

"If (Suharto is pardoned), it would set a bad precedent in which corrupt top officials could demand the same thing," said Mr Amien Rais, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Mr Amien has a point. After all, one of the highlights of Dr Yudhoyono's election campaign was his pledge to tackle corruption. Shortly after coming to power, he set up the anti-corruption commission.

His decision regarding Mr Suharto seems to undermine the current anti-graft campaign. What's more, criticism of this soft stance comes at a bad time for Dr Yudhoyono. Following a fuel hike last year and a pro-business revision of a 2003 labour law, his ratings have fallen markedly.

It is unclear what will happen next to the Suharto case. There are some points to consider: Assuming he is put on trial, can prosecutors prove the charges against him?

If the answer is no, then it may be best to reconsider the case.

Secondly, did Mr Suharto engage in corrupt activities while in office, or did his children and cronies? If it is the latter, the prosecutors should put them on trial and freeze their assets.

Thirdly, if he is found guilty, what sentence should he get? An ailing 84-year-old wouldn't last long in a prison cell. More importantly, nothing much is achieved by putting him there, although, symbolically, it would look as though justice were being served.

One must bear in mind that Mr Suharto had been charged with corruption and not any other wrongdoing. When critics speak out against the dropping of the graft charges, this is mixed with a complaint — that justice has not been served in terms of addressing Mr Suharto's wrongs as a dictator in his 32 years in power. If they insist that he be tried for other crimes, they should call for separate charges — perhaps relating to human rights violations.

However, when critics accuse Mr Suharto of corruption, thereby committing "a sin" against his nation, they fail to recognise what he has done for Indonesia.

Indonesia under Mr Suharto fared better economically than it has in the past eight years. Under him, Indonesia's economic growth was on par with the East Asian tigers — South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. For this reason, Indonesians have called Mr Suharto "Bapak Pembangunan", or "Father of Development".

As the Indonesian authorities decide if Mr Suharto should be tried, they should do a cost-benefit analysis to see if it is really worth making him stand trial. And, apart from his health, they should bear in mind what Mr Suharto has done for Indonesia.

Thang Nguyen is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com

Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved.

Myanmar: Diplomacy is not a one-way street

2006-04-21T02:55:00.000-07:00

TODAY
Singapore

ASEAN should perhaps ask junta if a win-win solution is possible

Friday • April 21, 2006

Thang D Nguyen

ALMOST everyone has tried to help free Ms Aung San Suu Kyi, the democracy activist and Nobel peace laureate, from her oppression by Myanmar's junta.

The United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions on Myanmar and threatened to boycott regional meetings in which it participated. The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, too, has tried, by appointing a Malaysian diplomat as a special envoy to deal with Myanmar on the issue of its human rights record and its lack of democracy. But the envoy resigned recently.

A group of Ms Suu Kyi's fellow Nobel laureates wrote a letter to the junta demanding that it free her and in 2003, the foreign ministers of the Association of South-east Asian Nations (Asean) issued a statement urging Myanmar's military rulers to free her.

All of these actions were sparked by Myanmar's poor human rights record and the 16-year-long house arrest imposed on Ms Suu Kyi since 1990, when her National League for Democracy won a landslide election victory which the regime never acknowledged.

Despite the actions taken by the international community and Asean, of which Myanmar is a member, the junta has shown no inclination to free Ms Suu Kyi or work on its promised democratic reforms. In fact, Ms Suu Kyi's house arrest term has just been extended.

To Asean's credit, though, the pressure it exerted in the past led to Myanmar giving up its scheduled turn as the chair of Asean this year. An Asean Inter-Parliamentary Myanmar Caucus was also established last year and its aim is to "institute democracy in Myanmar" and help free Ms Suu Kyi.

And after much pressure, Myanmar allowed Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar to visit last month. But the visit was cut short, and he did not get to meet Ms Suu Kyi or make any progress on talks about the country's democratic reforms.

Nevertheless, considering Asean's founding principle of non-interference — which says that the members will not comment on or interfere with one another's domestic political affairs — the group should be lauded for its actions so far.

But for the international community, who has pushed for Ms Suu Kyi's freedom, the efforts by Asean are not good enough.

This is perhaps because of their one-sidedness. In other words, so far, everyone has criticised Myanmar for being an undemocratic regime and demanded that it free Ms Suu Kyi unconditionally.

Perhaps one needs to ask the question: What does Myanmar want in order to let her go? Is there a win-win option for the country and the parties involved? Diplomacy, after all, is not a one-way street.

But the challenge is hobbled by the fact that Asean is seen to have mixed responses on the issue of Myanmar. Reports say that there are two camps: On one side, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand have spoken out on the issue. The second group — Brunei, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam — has remained neutral.

Asean has to work on this in order to deal with Myanmar effectively and it should ensure that whatever solution it comes up with, should be an Asian and an Asean one, not one that is influenced by what the international community wants.

Bullying will not work. The truth is, Myanmar does not appear to give a hoot about all the sanctions and rhetoric piled against it so far by the US, the EU and Asean.

Myanmar knows that it can just keep Ms Suu Kyi under house arrest for the rest of her life and nothing will happen to the regime.

Unlike the backlash that Iran and North Korea face for their nuclear programmes, Myanmar has recently discovered a less internationally-sensitive energy source: Oil fields. Said to last for 30 years, it knows that it can use this natural resource to its advantage.

So far, Myanmar's cosying up to India, Russia and North Korea speaks volumes on whether it plans to toe the Asean line.

The writer is a journalist based in Jakarta. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist. blogspot.com

Deal with substance more than form to attract FDI

2006-04-06T04:59:00.000-07:00

Attracting the big money: Vice-President Jusuf Kalla beating a gong to mark the opening of the International Investment Conference in Nusa Dua last month. Without equity, predictability and more rigorous leadership, the investment that Indonesia so badly needs will stay away.

Business Times
Singapore, 04 Apr 2006

Indonesia must implement economic measures, and introduce legal reforms and sanctions

By THANG D NGUYEN

ON THE surface, it looks like Indonesia is doing all the right things to attract foreign direct investment (FDI).

In January 2005, shortly after President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) came to power, the Indonesian government organised an infrastructure summit in which it pledged to make infrastructure development a top priority.

And now, more than a year later, the government is planning another one for this coming June.

Meanwhile, both SBY and Vice-President Jusuf Kalla, accompanied by economic ministers and Indonesian business delegations, have taken numerous trips abroad in an effort to boost the country's international standing and attract foreign investment.

But, alas, these road shows are nothing more than a Potemkin village.

In other words, these initiatives by the government amount to nothing more than broadcasting a rosy picture of doing business in the country.

Unfortunately, as many investors find out shortly after they arrive in Indonesia, the business operating environment on the ground is very different.

Of all the challenges that confront investors, the most formidable are macroeconomic instability, regulatory policy changes, corruption and legal uncertainty.

In taking a look at each of these risks, we can see that, taken together, they make Indonesia one of the least favoured destinations for foreign direct investment in the world today.

Since the 1997/98 East Asian financial crisis, of which Indonesia was a prominent victim, the macroeconomic condition of the country has been undermined, for the most part, by political instability.

The lack of stability over the past seven years has been a direct result of transitional politics and the fact that the nation has seen four presidents and administrations since the fall of Suharto in 1998.

To be sure, Indonesia's transition from authoritarianism to the world's third-largest democracy has been an inspiring story. Nevertheless, democracy is not enough. Without equity, predictability and more rigorous leadership, the investment that Indonesia so badly needs will stay away.

As a Hong Kong-based investment banker put it: 'We (businesses) don't have a problem with either a dictatorship or a democratic government in Indonesia.

'It's something between the two that we cannot accept.'

With regard to corruption, what more is there to say? Better known in the country as 'KKN' - an acronym associated with the Suharto era that stands for corruption, collusion, and nepotism - corruption is so entrenched that many doubt it can seriously be addressed until society as a whole becomes more embarrassed by it.

Until this happens, fairly or unfairly, Indonesia will continue to be dogged by the unflattering image that corruption is the rule, not the exception.

But among all the frightful risks investors face, legal uncertainty is by far the most formidable.

Laws and regulations are often contradictory, vague or antiquated. A much larger problem, however, is the behaviour of judges, lawyers, courtroom clerks, the police, and others who have the solemn duty to uphold the law.

In this system, a verdict in a commercial lawsuit or legal dispute can be purchased no matter what the respective merits of the case. If an investor involved in a legal matter is unwilling or unable to play this game, the chances of losing in court - particularly at the lower level - is high.

Some business people have even gone as far as to say that abiding by the rules only serves to disadvantage them.

Another point worth mentioning is that the Indonesian legal system operates on inconsistency. For instance, not all the laws concerning foreign investors are applied in all cases.

What is more, the speed with which the Indonesian courts process legal cases or appeals often depends on the size and perceived importance of the plaintiff or defendant.

In other words, if a case involves a big foreign business, it is likely to be heard relatively quickly. By the same token, if a case involves a small foreign business, the process can take a lot longer.

Examples abound. A case in point is that of PT Kangar Consolidated Industries (KCI) vs PT Multi Inti Trada (MIT). KCI is the Indonesian subsidiary of Owens Illinois, a US-headquartered multinational company with a modest manufacturing enterprise in the country. The company worked with MIT as its local distributor until last year when it ended the distributor agreement because MIT paid late and violated other trading terms. Upset with KCI's decision, MIT filed a suit against KCI in the East Jakarta District Court.

Although right was on the side of KCI, the East Jakarta District Court ordered KCI last November to pay MIT six billion rupiah (S$1.07 million) in material damages and another one billion rupiah in immaterial losses for 'wrongful termination' of the distribution agreement.

In reaction to the dubious court decision, KCI has reported the case to the Judicial Commission and says it intends to contest the verdict.It remains to be seen what the Judicial Commission will do with the case of KCI vs MIT and how long it will take to hear from it.

Meanwhile, one thing is certain: While they don't make headlines like US mining giants Newmont and Freeport, or Canadian insurance giant Manulife, it is smaller ventures like KCI that have stayed loyal to Indonesia through the Asian financial crisis and the years since.

So, if the SBY government really wants foreign businesses in Indonesia, it must get beyond form and start addressing the substantive issues that are damaging the business operating environment.

It should implement new economic measures and introduce legal reforms and sanctions now. Otherwise, do not expect much improvement in the investment picture.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist.

Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press

Get real about jazz!

2006-03-22T23:03:00.000-08:00

Dear Sachin,

In response to my letter on your article about the Java Jazz Festival (JJF), you wrote that hits by ticketing and advertizing agencies on Google is a "valid" way to let people know about the JJF and asked: " Isn't that plain and simple advertising, or prepublicity, the right sort of communication we are looking for to enhance Indonesia's image in a positive way?"

My answer is that there is nothing valid or invalid about these hits. If anything, it is just plain business. It would be naive of you, or anyone, to think that these agencies were promoting a better image of Indonesia abroad; in fact, they were just going about their business. And, therefore, they would do the same thing for any client other than the JJF, wouldn't they?

And by going through the trouble of finding definitions of non-jazz mucians, such as Dave Koz and Kenny G, on the Internet and putting these definitions in your letter, you have done nothing other than proving my point that they are not jazz mucians. Intentionally or not, you may have given readers of your letters the impression that you are a fan of Mr. Koz and Mr. G. While there is nothing wrong with being a fan of either one of the two aforementioned musicians--one's choice of music is a matter of one's taste and liberty--it was unwise to go public about it as it your readers may think that you have a bad taste for music. In other words, everyone has (at least) a skeleton his closet, but he may not want to, or should not, show it to everyone, like you did!

As for your comment about Blue Note signing a record deal with Norah Jones, my response is, to quote the tittle of a legendary tune by Miles Davis: So what? Only because she did a record with Blue Note, that does not make her a jazz vocalist or, as some labels have so daringly called her, "a jazz diva"; only because a foreigner wears a batik shirt, that does not make him an Indonesian, does it?

And thanks for pointing out an obvious point that "music is meant to be food for the soul and is a universal language that promotes cross-cultural harmony, friendship and understanding". Fair enough! But, it remains that, to quote Duke Ellington, "there are only two kinds of music, good and bad." And, I am afraid, the music that you like and defend falls into the latter.

With regards, I remain,

Thang D. Nguyen
Jakarta

The Jakarta Post
25 March 2006

Your letters

Music promotes understanding

I was quite amused by Thang D. Nguyen's response to my article, for he seems to be a jazz "purist" who was offended by a pop-jazz-soul music festival that could not cater to his definition of jazz. In my article, I genuinely believed that my viewpoint was perhaps reasonably qualified due to my close proximity to see, hear, experience and therefore report.

The popularity of any jazz festival is perhaps impossible to measure, so I never even attempted to measure the popularity of the Jakarta Jazz Festival (JJF), instead I focused on how much it is talked or written about. Hits on Google are one such indirect measure of how many times it is talked or written about all over the world.

Even ticketing and advertising agencies mentioning the Jakarta Jazz Festival are valid, as this is letting people all over the world know that there is a JJF and it is taking place in Indonesia. Isn't that plain and simple advertising, or prepublicity, the right sort of communication we are looking for to enhance Indonesia's image in a positive way?

I prefer to respond to some of his specific points on what is jazz and who jazz musicians are. Nguyen's classifying of Dave Koz and Kenny G in the so-called "vulgar camp of elevator music" is a classic example of a purist's self-proclaimed superiority in what he believes jazz should be.

Wikipedia, one of the Internet's largest encyclopedias, states that "Dave Koz is a Jewish-American jazz saxophonist and radio host. He is currently co-host of the morning show on 94.7 The Wave, a smooth jazz station in Los Angeles". Perhaps we need to give them a call and tell them of Nguyen's findings about Koz.

Wikipedia states that "Kenny G is an American saxophonist born in Seattle. Influenced by the likes of Grover Washington, Jr., his own albums are usually classified as smooth jazz, though there are many in the music community who categorize his albums more as adult contemporary". This is perhaps borderline target practice for Nguyen as Kenny G has received similar flak from many other quarters.

Wikipedia also states that "James Brown is recognized worldwide as an African-American entertainer recognized as one of the most influential figures in 20th century music. As a prolific singer, songwriter, bandleader and record producer, Brown was a seminal force in the evolution of gospel and rhythm and blues into soul and funk".

And of course let's not forget his footnote on Norah Jones, because the leading jazz recording label Bluenote classifies her music as pop, folk, soul, jazz. Jones majored in jazz piano and won the Beat Student Music Awards for Best Jazz Vocalist (twice, in 1996 and 1997) and Best Original Composition (1996). Music is meant to be food for the soul and is a universal language that promotes cross-cultural harmony, friendship and understanding, not to segregate humanity into camps of genre fanatics.

Music is meant to be food for the soul and is a universal language that promotes cross-cultural harmony, friendship and understanding, not to segregate humanity into camps of genre fanatics.

SACHIN GOPALAN
Jakarta

The Jakarta Post
23 March 2006

Your Letters

I refer to the article entitled "Java Jazz Festival and Indonesia's global reputation" by Sachin Gopalan published in The Jakarta Post on March 18.

While it is unclear whether it was out of his patriotism that Gopalan wrote this article or it was because his media company was involved in the promotion of the Java Jazz Festival, the article itself contained a great deal of narcissism and is based on a misperception of jazz by most Indonesians.

For one thing, for Indonesia -- the world's fourth most populous nation -- having organized a big musical event like the JJF is no major achievement. Look at tiny Singapore and ask yourself how many large (measured by the size of the audience) musical events, among other things, that it holds a year!

Furthermore, citing the number of hits on a Google search of the phrase "Java Jazz Festival", the author asserted that JJF is the biggest event of its kind. While the number of hits on JJF is high, only a few actually come from jazz media, connoisseurs, critics and fans. For the most part, these hits come from ticketing or advertising agencies!

This is no way to measure how popular JJF is, is it? In the world of modern (not fusion and light) jazz, the biggest and most well-known ones are still in the U.S. and Europe. In Asia, the only place known for holding fine jazz events and a public that really knows good jazz is Tokyo, Japan.

This brings me to the third and final point: Only because Indonesia has the JJF, that does not mean it is a really a jazz event. Seriously, if you look at the names that came to JJF this year and the previous ones, most of them are lightweight and/or pop musicians and singers doing jazzy tunes.

Who in the know considers Dave Koz a jazz musician? If anything, he is in the same vulgar camp of elevator musicians like Kenny G! And James Brown came to last year's JJF, but "I Feel Good" is not jazz, is it?

So, if the organizers of JJF want to bring it to a higher level and to be recognized as in international jazz festival, I would advise them to approach and bring in some big names like hardcore jazz artists, such as Kenneth Garrett, the Marsalis brothers and Diana Krall, to Jakarta next year.

But, don't approach Norah Jones because she would make your festival lame (nora in Bahasa Indonesia)!

THANG D. NGUYEN
Jakarta

The Jakarta Post

18 March 2006

Java Jazz Festival and Indonesia's global reputation

Sachin Gopalan, Jakarta

"For a country that has been quite the superstar with its terrorists and bombs, this goes to prove that Indonesia is still alive and kicking! Behold, the Java Jazz Festival, bringing together some of the worlds greatest jazz musicians ...," Fida Heyder, Singapore.

This statement jumped out at me as I was browsing the Internet for some information on Indonesian cultural events. With these ominous yet simple words, it dawned on me yet again how everyone from the outside world perceives Indonesia.

These words also made me realize that the most significant effect of the recently concluded Java Jazz Festival has perhaps eluded most of the people who were present: That they all played a part in creating modern international cultural history.

What exactly is the significance of the JJF, and in particular the second version held in 2006? First, as Peter Gontha, the Festival chairman put it, "This is probably the biggest jazz festival of its kind in the world."

Not a tall claim. When we look at the total number of artists, locations and performances over the tightly packed three-day schedule, this is the biggest festival of its kind. So one can safely conclude that this event has definitely put Indonesia on the international cultural map for posterity, and three positive truths emerge.

First, Indonesia has the capability to be recognized globally for making positive contributions to international society and culture.

Second, there are still people in Indonesia who believe in the importance of doing so. And third, they are definitely going about doing so, despite all the odds they may face.

Consider this in contrast to many other infamous people giving Indonesia many other dubious distinctions; of being the most corrupt country, most devastated country and several other "mosts" or "firsts". The JJF is perhaps one of the few significant positive international achievements Indonesia has managed in recent times.

One can count on one's left hand how many such achievements we have made in the past year. Perhaps the A1 races, the Bandung Conference, and of course one cannot forget, an international conference on terrorism.

So what exactly is the important context of modern cultural history that needs to be understood by us? If you remember, Woodstock way back in 1969 was the biggest concert ever until that point in time. People still talk of it today.

Woodstock was not just a concert, it was an idea, a spirit of celebration and it is still celebrated all over the world through countless rehashed versions and musical tributes. The JJF, one hopes, has created a somewhat similar effect among the thousands who flocked to the festival, the glaring difference only being the dramatically superior surroundings, use of high technology and availability of global logistics to bring practically anyone from anywhere to the 15 stages at the festival.

Another important question is, how important is the global race to be bigger and better than everyone else? I personally heard several comments during the festival of how its better to try to be the best instead of the biggest, and how the festival was overpriced and how the schedules were infected with Indonesia's national disease, jam karet, or rubber time, a term indicating a general lack of urgency to do anything on time.

Sure, agreed, but these are only improvements that organizers need to work on. Nobody who was there can deny that despite all the minor problems, the event generally went well and it was the biggest music party of the century for Indonesia

Another point that needs to be appreciated is the brilliant strategy of the JJF to get the most famous international musicians performing alongside the most famous Indonesian musicians, in a unique collaborative effort, confirming that the country's musical ability has finally been recognized by the best names in the musical world.

So when one takes a giant step back and looks at the bigger picture these minor organizing irritants begin to die of insignificance, and realization dawns that we are perhaps at the proverbial tipping point of creating a ripple effect or avalanche of good cheer for Indonesia.

A case in point is exactly how much the JJF is being talked about or written about. A search on Google for the words "Java Jazz Festival" elicits 1.35 hits (734,000 results in English and another 616,000 results in other languages). All that coverage in just two years. Compare this to the words "North Sea Jazz Festival" (1.8 million hits after being around for over 30 years) and "New Orleans Jazz Festival" (2.18 million hits after being around for 36 years).

The JJF is also featured in Answers.com, a New York-based Internet resource site, and Wikipedia, the Internet's largest encyclopedia. And, of course, the JJF features on almost any international jazz website worth its sax appeal.

To everyone who was there at JJF 2006, Indonesian or foreign, artist or music fan, organizer or participant, advertiser or consumer, one fact should now start to become clear. They have indeed created history. And the message they have sent out is clear and resounding. Indonesia is safe, and Indonesia is center stage in setting international standards in global cross-cultural developments.

And yet, the vulnerability of it all is also glaring. All we need is another bomb, another disaster, another scandal, for human memory only retains the latest event. Let's have another JJF quickly before something unwanted happens. Or let's outdo the terrorists by having more good and positive events than the bad they can ever plan to do. After all, the majority should be the winner.

So, for the moment, and until the next happening, we again have something to be proud of, something to reminisce about and enjoy. When was the last time somebody did the country proud? Somebody give the medals to the real heroes of Indonesia, they are just a mere handful and it surely wouldn't cost the taxpayers much to recognize them, reward them and encourage them onward.

The writer currently heads a convergent media company based in Jakarta. He can be reached at sachingopalan@gmail.com.

Does FDI Mean Foreigners Ditching Indonesia?

2006-02-13T20:35:00.000-08:00

Business Times
Singapore
Tuesday, January 24

Opinion

By Thang Nguyen

THE huge numbers of new shopping malls, apartment buildings and hotels being built in Jakarta and other big cities in Indonesia may give the impression that the investment climate in the country is improving.

In turn, this also gives the impression that capital which left Indonesia in the aftermath of the 1998 East Asian financial crisis is coming back. And some even think such projects are part of the government's infrastructure development plan aimed at increasing foreign direct investment (FDI) in Indonesia.

All of these impressions are false, however. For one thing, Indonesia's investment climate remains gloomy as we enter the new year. A joint survey conducted last year by the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank cited macroeconomic instability, corruption, and regulatory policy uncertainty as three main areas of concern, and concluded that Indonesia needs to strengthen its efforts to improve the investment climate.

While it may be true that some capital is returning to Indonesia, much of it is investment in consumer-oriented businesses and in property. This is not, however, indicative of a growing, healthy economy as a whole.

If we look at the mushrooming number of malls and apartment buildings against the fact that Indonesia has a combined unemployment and underemployment rate of about 40 per cent, it is obvious that only affluent Indonesians can afford these luxuries.

Furthermore, these investments are not being channelled into the sort of public infrastructure the country so desperately needs to facilitate business activities and drive its economic growth. Last January, shortly after President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono came to power, the government organised an infrastructure summit in which it pledged to make infrastructure development a top priority. A year has passed since this meeting, but nothing much has happened.

But infrastructure is only one of the many components important to a nation's economic competitiveness and attractiveness as a destination for foreign investment. Besides the quality of local labour, transportation, supplies of materials, and other logistical matters, foreign investors look for a business-friendly environment, political stability and a legal system that adjudicates commercial disputes fairly. Apart from corruption and regulatory risk, the mostchallenging problem that foreign investors face in Indonesia is legal uncertainty.

It is not that Indonesia lacks sufficient legislation governing foreign investment (it is the other way around, actually). Rather, the real impediment to legal certainty is the unwillingness of government officials, the police and courts to respect the laws that they are sworn to uphold. Indeed, some business people assert that abiding strictly by the rules only serves to disadvantage them.

Take the case of PT Kangar Consolidated Industries (KCI) vs PT MultiInti Trada (MIT), for instance. KCI is the Indonesian subsidiary of Owens Illinois, a US-headquartered multinational company and the world's largest glass-packaging manufacturer. The company worked with MIT as its local distributor until last year when it ended the distributor agreement because MIT paid late and violated other trading terms. Upset with KCI's decision, MIT filed a suit against KCI in the East Jakarta District Court.

Last November, the East Jakarta District Court ordered KCI to pay MIT six billion rupiah (S$1 million) in material damages and another onebillion rupiah in immaterial losses for wrongful termination of the distribution agreement. One of the court's justifications for this ruling was that MIT's late payments 'were still within the normal range (sic)'.

How appropriate is it for a court to excuse late payment when the trading terms were explicit? Sixty-day payment terms were specified in the agreement MIT had signed with KCI, and the agreement clearly stated that failure to abide by these terms would represent grounds for termination of the distributorship. Why was it wrong to enforcethe terms of the agreement?

As a result of cases like Kangar, other foreign subsidiaries eager toexpand their operations in Indonesia find it difficult to persuade their headquarters to go down that route. The consequence is thatIndonesia does not get the investment it requires to facilitatefurther economic recovery and growth. And this is the very real costof a dysfunctional judiciary.

Therefore, if the government wishes to retain and attract foreign investment to Indonesia, it must act to crack down on the country's wayward legal system. Otherwise, FDI will come to mean Foreigners Ditching Indonesia.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at http://www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com/

Sr. Francesco urges thinking as essence of being

2005-12-23T23:05:00.002-08:00

The Jakarta Post

Sunday, 18 December 2005

BOOKMARK

Think: Notes of an Educator
Sr. Francesco Marianti
Panekuksanur, December 2005
206 pp.

Thang D. Nguyen, Contributor, Jakarta

The French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes once uttered: "I think, therefore I am." In other words, thinking defines a person's existence.

This is the premise of Think: Notes of an Educator, the memoirs of Sister Francesco Marianti -- a Catholic nun and one of Indonesia's most respected educators -- which was launched last week in its English version.

In 1974, shortly after Sr. Francesco took up her post as the principal of her alma mater, Jakarta's Santa Ursula High School, some of her students gave her a gift: a wooden board with the word Fikir, or think, on it. They did this because the question she often asked her students was: "Have you thought about it carefully?"

But the most important question for Sr. Francesco has been, and still is: "How can I make my students think?"

Sr. Francesco believes that this is the ultimate responsibility of a teacher, and that education is not just about enhancing one's knowledge; rather, it is about learning how to think, to reason and to be a human being -- a free one, that is.

"The ability to think is God's gift to mankind," Sr. Francesco writes. "Thinking symbolizes the fundamental freedom of a human being, as predicted by favorite poet, Kahlil Gibran: You may chain my hands and shackle my feet/You may even throw me into a dark prison/But you shall not enslave my thinking/Because it is free."

Thus, whether it's science, writing, or otherwise, Sr. Francesco puts emphasis on training her students how to think critically and how to reason.

"Out of the four lessons I learned in this school, the word THINK is number one. Through Sister Francesco, I came to realize how powerful this word is. Thinking forces us to act in the right way. Thinking helps us to consider what is, or is not, appropriate behavior towards fellow human beings. Thinking helps us to be better human beings, to progress more than others," said Reda Gaudiamo, a Santa Ursula alumnus and deputy editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan magazine.

But Sr. Francesco's does more than teach; she touches lives, those of her students and of many others who have come to know her. As a nun and principal of Santa Ursula -- whose motto is Serviam (I serve) -- she has reached out to the poor, the sick and the weak.

While she may not have food, water, or clothes to give them, she speaks for them so they can be heard, and is with them in their hour of need, whether it is a campaign on violence against women and children at the Hotel Indonesia roundabout, a trip to Aceh, Timor Leste or Kalimantan to help victims of conflicts or a sabbatical to places as far as Calcutta, India, to help unfortunate villagers.

What is most touching in this book, however, is the story of how Francesco Marianti, originally a non-believer, followed her calling to become a nun.

While studying at Santa Ursula, then 15-year-old Francesco Marianti asked her father for his permission to convert to Catholicism.

"After you're baptized, be a Catholic 100 percent. Not halfway. If you are not able to do this, you'd better cancel your decision," he said.

But answering her calling two years later to become a nun -- instead of a doctor, as her parents wished -- didn't come easily.

"(My parents) were shocked, angry and finally refused to speak to me again," she writes.

Her parents also stopped providing for her senior year at Santa Ursula, but Francesco still managed to graduate. Next, with encouragement from her confessor, she enrolled in Engineering at the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB) -- also against her parents' will.

While at ITB, she met a man, and four years later, they were to be married -- but this time, she had her parents' blessing.

For once, life seemed to be going smoothly, but then Francesco was diagnosed with lung disease and had to endure a life-threatening operation.

"God showed his power at the most depressing moment for my family. When I realized I was receiving the sacrament for the sick, I vaguely remembered my promise, to give myself 100 percent to the Lord. I don't know exactly what happened, but amidst all the confusion, I managed to say `I will, and You've got to take care of everything.' After that, I felt myself making a rapid recovery," she writes.

As though her lung operation was not enough to confirm her faith in and readiness for God, her fiance called off their wedding plans. With a broken heart, Francesco Marianti headed for the convent to fulfill her calling.

Francesco tells her life as a Catholic nun and an educator in a warm, gentle and honest way that allows a reader to listen, understand and empathize.

But most importantly, this book makes you think. Whatever your position, you will realize after reading this book that teaching others to think and therefore, to be, is not easy to do, whether at school, home, work or elsewhere.

The writer is program director of the United in Diversity Forum, http://www.unitedindiversity.org/. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Australia and immigrants

2005-12-02T00:45:00.000-08:00

The Jakart Post
2 December 2005

Your Letters

I refer to a letter entitled On Insight Program by Irene Fraser in The Jakarta Post on Nov. 10. It was correct of Fraser to point out that Arthur Calwell, the Australian former minister of immigration, made the comment "Two Wongs don't make a white" in the 1940s. Like many other Australians, however, Fraser is in denial of the fact that certain racist attitudes still remain in Australia -- despite how the nation has become more multi-racial, thanks to immigrants from Asia and other parts of the world.

Just because Australia has now become a multi-racial, or multi-cultural, society, that does not make it a tolerant place where immigrants or Australian citizens of non-white origins are treated with fairness, equality, or for that matter, dignity.

The reason, Professor Geoffrey Blainey points out, is that "The more emphasis that is placed on the rights of minorities and the need for affirmative action to enhance those rights, the more is the concept of democracy -- and the rights of the majority-- in danger of being weakened. But most importantly, however, Fraser was so wrong when she declared that, like Calwell, the White Australia Policy is dead.

Let me remind her of (or give her, rather) a brief history of Australia's racism. We needn't go as far back as the 1970s, when the White Australia policy officially ended, or even to the 1960s, when the masthead of the Bulletin, Australia's leading magazine, carried the slogan "Australia for the White Man"; we certainly need not go as far back as The Magic Pudding, the famous Australian children's book, that includes insults such as "you unmitigated Jew!"

Let's just take a trip to the period between the 1980s and the 1990s, when Arthur Tunstall, Australia's infamous senior sports official, made racist jokes and comments about disabled athletes; it was the same decade that saw a string of aboriginal deaths in police custody (not many white ones); and the same decade saw the rise of the One-Nation party led by Pauline Hanson, who all but called for those of Asian descent to be ejected from the country, displaying her profound international knowledge by sayingthe 2.5 billion Asians to the north "have their own language and culture."

Whatever motivated Fraser to write her letter in response to my comments on the Insight program, she needs to know better about her own people's history and realize the reality that Australia is not a racism-free society.

THANG D. NGUYEN Jakarta

The Jakarta Post
10 November 2005

On Insight Program

Recently I saw on TV the SBS "Insight" Program from Jakarta and I would like to make some comments to both you, your readers and the others involved in the Insight Program.

Thang Nguyen's argument that Australians are racists referring [sic] to Arthur Calwell's quote "Two songs don't make a white." This was a bad joke; many of our politicians have been known to offend while trying to be funny.

Your audience as well as a large percentage of our population would not be familiar with the name Calwell. Nguyen implied that this was a recent comment and representative of Australian thinking in this time.

Calwell is long dead and that comment was made when he was minister of immigration, which was back in 1945-1949. He was a strong supporter of the White Australia Policy, and it, like Calwell, is also dead.

We have come a long way since then and as the world knows we have embraced many cultures and religions. Nguyen with his knowledge of our past [sic] history could have commented.

In spite of the White Australia policy, in 1909 the people elected to our upper house and parliament a Chinese man with Chinese values.

Referring to the reaction of so much support by Australians for Schapele Corby, it is not, as some on the program claimed, because "she is young and pretty"--there have been other and pretty Australians who have been charged with drug crimes but whom the Australian public have [sic] not supported. The difference is we can identify with Corby's case.

We have a history of corrupt police, politicians and criminals along with a drug trade which flourishes. Airport baggage handlers have been shown on surveillance cameras intercepting passengers' luggage.

We ask, is it beyond reasonable doubt that Corby's unlocked luggage could have easily had drugs planted in it that were meant to be off-loaded at Sydney International Airport? Certainly people in the highly paid drug trade will exploit any person and any situation for their benefit. Unfortunately there is no proof.

There was also [sic] no proof for the ordinary couple who reported after arriving at their hotel in Bali that they found an addition to their luggage. A parcel containing what they presumed was a drug.

The Australian Embassy then advised them not to report it to the police and to instead flush it down the toilet. There was no proof they would have been able to offer, therefore, they could have been accused of being drug dealers.

IRENE FRASER
Ryde NSW, Australia

Another terror for Indonesia to fight

2005-12-01T20:41:00.000-08:00

TODAY, Singapore

Misconceptions about the disease, lack of awareness major obstacles

Friday • December 2, 2005

Thang D Nguyen news@newstoday.com.sg

Of all the places in the world that he could be yesterday for World Aids Day, Mr Peter Piot, the head of UNAids, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/Aids, chose to be in Jakarta, Indonesia.

This is because as South-east Asia's largest country, with the world's fourth-largest population, Indonesia has become "the new frontline of an Aids epidemic", he said.

As of September this year, the Ministry of Health showed that about 8,251 Indonesians have HIV/Aids.

According to experts from both Indonesia and abroad, however, the real figure can be from 90,000 to 250,000.

Whatever the real figure is, the Indonesian government has realised that HIV/Aids is yet another war — like those against terrorism and poverty — it has to fight. As part of its campaign against HIV/Aids, the government has promoted the use of condoms and sterile needles as unsafe sex and needle-sharing are major ways through which Aids is transmitted.

This campaign is not altogether successful, however. The use of condoms must be accompanied by sex education and public awareness of Aids but many young Indonesians either do not receive sex education or receive it too late.

According to a Durex-sponsored global sex survey this year, Indonesians start to receive sex education at 14.4 years of age, compared to a global average of 13.2 years. The poll also shows that 40 per cent of Indonesians have unsafe sex without knowing their partners' sexual history.

Second, many Indonesians don't use condoms because their leaders — religious or otherwise — advise them not to do so.

Take Mr Adhyaksa Dault, Indonesia's State Minister for Youth and Sports Affairs, for example.

"I don't agree that we should promote condom use as a way of preventing HIV/Aids. That's not the way. It's more about how to steer our young people away from promiscuity," he was quoted by Antara as saying.

Messages like this are counterproductive to Indonesia's campaign against Aids. If anything, they beget a myth that sex with different partners — promiscuity — is the root cause of Aids and that monogamy can prevent it.

What if one of the spouses in a polygamous marriage, which is allowed under Islamic law, happens to be HIV-positive and transmits the virus to other partners through unprotected sex? And what happens to people who have unsafe sex with different partners? Do they all get Aids?

To be sure, the use of condoms doesn't guarantee absolute protection from Aids, but they are the most effective and affordable tool for prevention available now.

Third, Aids victims are stigmatised in Indonesia, making the fight against Aids difficult. Aids victims dare not speak out and educate others about the disease, its causes, and how to protect themselves against it.

If Indonesia is to make progress in its campaign against HIV/Aids, everyone must be involved. This includes not only the medical authorities, international and local non-governmental organisations, and the government, but also parents, teachers, religious and community leaders and Aids activists, including gays.

As there is no cure for Aids yet, the best cure we have is to prevent it. And Indonesia will do better in its campaign against HIV/Aids by providing more education on Aids and sex; correcting the misperceptions (or myths) Indonesian leaders and citizens have of Aids; and stopping the stigmatisation of its victims.

Otherwise, the campaign will be in vain.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at www.thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Ramos-Horta: A disgrace to Nobel values!

2005-11-22T23:23:00.000-08:00

The Jakarta Post
23 November 2005

By Thang D. Nguyen, Jakarta

In 1996, the Nobel Prize Committee awarded one half of the Nobel Peace Prize to Jose Ramos-Horta, who currently serves as East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation.

The other half of the prize went to his fellow countryman, then East Timor Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, "for their work towards a just and peaceful solution to the conflict in East Timor".

Since he got the Nobel Prize, Horta has gained respect from around the world as a champion of peace in East Timor, which became the world's youngest nation in 2002, following a UN-sanctioned referendum in 1999 that led to its independence from Indonesia.

Unfortunately, the Nobel Committee's decision to give Horta the peace prize has turned out to be a mistake: He likes war, not peace!

Nowhere else does he reveal his true color as a war-lover more clearly than his commentaries in which he defends the Iraq War.

In one article, published in The Asian Wall Street Journal on Oct. 17, he argued against a U.S. withdrawal, calling U.S. soldiers "the real heroes in Iraq".

As a student of peace studies, Mr. Ramos-Horta probably bases his defense of the U.S. invasion of Iraq on an international relations theory called "just war". In a nutshell, the just war theory holds that it is morally and legally acceptable to use armed force, as in a war, if the cause is justifiable or just.

Examples of both just and unjust wars are plenty. The war waged by the Allies against Hitler's Germany in World War II, for example, was a just war as a failure to wage war would have resulted in the deaths of billions of innocent people, and Fascism, or totalitarianism, would have prevailed.

In contrast, the U.S. invasion of Iraq is an unjust war. The pretext with which the Bush government took America to war in Iraq was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Former Secretary of State Colin Powell gave a presentation before the UN to claim that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and thereby justified the U.S. attack.

Unfortunately, the presentation was based on false and plagiarized information provided by British intelligence authorities; in fact, the British government later admitted that the report it had given to Mr. Powell came from a paper by an American academic -- Ibrahim al-Marashi, a research associate at the Center for Non-proliferation Studies in Monterey, California.

Most importantly, however, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- which was recently awarded the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with its director, Mohamed El Baradei -- found that Saddam Hussein had no nukes!

What is more, the Bush administration tried to justify the Iraq War further by saying that, having taken Saddam Hussein out, it had saved the Iraqi people from living under tyranny and dictatorship. To be sure, Saddam was no angel, but was his dictatorship enough to justify an invasion that looks increasingly like another Vietnam War?

And if Saddam Hussein's dictatorship was good enough a reason to go to war, why hasn't the U.S. gone to war with North Korea, which (by the way) claims to have WMDs, and taken its dictator Kim Jong-Il out?

And, for that matter, why hasn't the U.S. gone to war with Myanmar to overthrow the junta regime, which has been oppressing its people for decades, and thereby save the Nobel Peace Prize laureate and democracy champion Aung San Suu Kyi?

Could it be because neither North Korea nor Myanmar has oil?

It is sad that the main beneficiary of the Iraq War is none other than corporate America, namely the defense, energy, and construction industries. Their profits comes at the expense of both the Americans and Iraqis who have died thus far in Iraq, as well as U.S. taxpayers back home.

So, there is nothing just about the Iraq War; it is neither justifiable nor justified.

Nevertheless, Ramos-Horta defends it shamelessly.

Is it, perhaps, because he is trying to please the White House in the hope of financial support with which to build his newly independent country?

Lest he forgets, East Timor was invaded by Indonesia in 1975 with the support of and advice from -- you guessed it -- the U.S.

Whatever his rationale for defending the Iraq War may be, Ramos-Horta has shown himself to be an undeserving Nobel laureate.

The Nobel Peace Prize was established to honor those who honor peace and denounce war. Unfortunately, Mr. Ramos-Horta is not one of them.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist.

Fighting Terrorism Takes Unity, not Dividedness!

2005-10-18T00:20:00.000-07:00

Unpublished

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—It is ridiculous to see the dividedness between the Indonesian and Australian governments on how to deal with the terrorist network Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) at a time when unity is needed most.

Just days before the third commemoration of the Bali bombing of 2002, which killed 202 people, mostly Australians, terrorists attacked Bali again with three bombings on 1 October, killing 23 people, mostly Indonesians, and injuring more than 130.

While no individual or group has claimed responsibility for the second Bali attack, intelligence authorities and analysts believe that it had all the hallmarks of JI. Linked to the al Qaida, JI is responsible for the first bombing of Bali in 2002 and those of the JW Marriott Jakarta Hotel in 2003 and the Australian Embassy in Jakarta last year.

The issue between Canberra and Jakarta, however, is not whether JI carried out these attacks. But, rather, it is what to do with the group and its leadership, namely the currently jailed cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir.

Prime Minister John Howard and his government recently requested the Indonesian government to ban JI and not to further reduce Ba'asyir’s jail term.

Mr. Howard also sent his foreign minister, Mr. Alexander Downer, to Bali for the third commemoration of the first Bali bombing, during which he is expected to push Jakarta to ban JI.

It was wise and appropriate of Mr. Howard, however, to stress that “we are having a debate, a discussion, about the laws of another country." In other words, banning JI or not is a matter of Indonesia’s sovereignty.

Despite how terrorist attacks in Indonesia—besides the Asian tsunami—have brought the two neighboring countries closer than ever before, certain anti-Australia attitudes still remain among many ordinary Indonesians.

Likewise, certain xenophobic and racist attitudes towards Indonesia still remain among many ordinary Australians, as their reactions to the 20-year drug-smuggling charge given to Ms. Schapelle Corby by the Bali High Court back in July clearly showed.

Because of this difficult nature of Indonesian-Australian relations, it can only be hoped that, while in Indonesia, Mr. Downer has done his job with respect for Indonesia’s sovereignty, a soft approach and diplomacy—lots of it.

Understandably, too hard a hard push from Canberra on the banning of JI can only backfire, fueling further anti-Australia sentiment among the Indonesians and, thereby, making the long and complex relations between the two countries more difficult than they already are.

Meanwhile, in Jakarta, the Indonesian government appeared to dismiss the existence of JI as an organization and opposes the request from Canberra to ban it.

"For us, the existence of that organization (JI) is not organized, so how can we disband it," Vice President Kalla said. "If we have not recognized [sic] it and do not know its members, how can we ban it," he added.

While no one expects the vice president to be an expert on terrorist groups, it is ungrounded—if not absurd—to deny JI’s existence as an internationally linked and well-organized network of radical Islamic terrorists.

For one thing, the most determining factor of terrorist groups and their attacks is—you guessed it—organization.

Just because JI has recruited members who are willing, able, and ready to die for jihad (or holy war), it is not enough an element to make it a dangerous group and its attacks deadly.

Like the al Qaida, JI has many masterminds with impeccable organizational skills to train new recruits, plan attacks well in advance, and execute them with clockwork precision. In other words, the JI would have been unable to carry out its attacks in Indonesia thus far, had it not been a well-organized organization.

Furthermore, JI’s appearance as a loose, faceless or invisible group, in fact, makes it less noticeable and, therefore, more dangerous.

Put differently, publicity is counterproductive for JI and its works; deception is its modus operandi. Thus, to dismiss it as a terrorist network is to help it.

Unfortunately, after all the attacks that JI has done, many Indonesians are still in denial of its existence as a group that destroys its economy, kills its own sons and daughters, and worst of all, darkens the name of Islam.

Enough blood has been shed and much has been lost; Indonesia doesn’t need more bombing attacks to realize that it has been living with a homegrown enemy.

Like an alcoholic trying to quit drinking, the first step for Indonesia, as a nation, to deal with JI is to admit that it does exist.

Only then will ordinary Indonesians start to feel its presence; only then can they be helpful in the hunt of its leaders and members; and only then will Indonesian Muslim leaders condemn JI harder and teach their followers that Islam is not about killing.

But most importantly, only when the Indonesia fully recognizes the threats from JI and acknowledge its existence will it consider Australia’s request to have the network banned.
The British poet John Donne wrote: “No man island, entire of itself…and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." Likewise, JI is as much as, if not more, an enemy to Indonesia as it is to Australia; in fact, most of the victims in the Bali and other bombings were Indonesians.

Therefore, Jakarta should not see Canberra’s request that JI be banned as an intrusion into its domestic affairs or a threat to its sovereignty. Rather, it is a well-meant intention to fight their mutual enemy.

The only way to win against JI it is for Indonesia and Australia to fight it together with unity, not dividedness, nor xenophobia.

Mr. Thang D. Nguyen is a Jakarta-based columnist, whose writing can be read at http://thecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Lost in Ignorance

2005-10-17T01:19:00.000-07:00

The pleasure was all mine. The Chronicle will benefit its readers by publishing my letter in which they can see your flawed argument--that which you called a "stimulating debate".

For clarification, when I mentioned that many Americans don't speak a foreign language, I referred to the Anglo-saxon majority of the American population. Of course, immigrants coming to the US from other countries (such as myself) speak their (foreign) languages. (Thanks for pointing out the obvious, Dr. Pells!)

You made an Orwellian point that Muslims, Christians, and Zionists are all terrorists, but the Muslims are worse than the others. That, in and of itself, does not make the Christians and Zionists terrorism-free, does it?

And if I may, Prof. Pells, you have nerve to put Baghdad in the same category with NYC, London, Bali, and Madrid. Who started all the violence (or terrorism) in Iraq but your Christian fanatic president George W. Bush, his father, and their neo-cons? The retaliatory violence that the Iraqies have been showing in Baghdad is nothing but an act of self-defense against the American invasion of their country on the pretext that Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destructions (WMDs).

In case you have not realized, there were no WMDs in Iraq, and the presentation that former Secretary of State Colin Powell made about Iraqi nukes before the UN right before the US invasion was based on false information from British intelligence authorities. As a matter of fact, the British government acknowledged that the report it gave to Mr. Powell came from an American academic, Mr. Ibrahim al-Marashi, a research associate at the Center for Non-proliferation Studies in Monterey, California. If this is not plagiarism, what is, Dr. Pells?

Finally, does it matter how the term "halfbright" has been coined? What matters is that it is so true of some Fulbright fellows, or Albright, who give ill advice to the White House, Foggy Bottom (nickname for the State Department), and the Pentagon on foreign affairs. I can only hope that you are not one of these "experts"!?

With regards, I remain,

Thang D. Nguyen

Thank you for your message. I hope the Chronicle does publish your letter, since the purpose of articles like mine is to stimulate debate, not to have everyone nodding in agreement.

But just for the record, I am aware that most Americans know little about the rest of the world. Indeed, I have written extensively about American provincialism in books and articles (including several in past issues of the Chronicle). But the present article is not about that. It is about the current failures of and opportunities for America's cultural relationships with other countries (and not just Muslim ones).

The article was also about the ignorance, or at least the simplistic stereotypes, that many people abroad have about the U.S. Unfortunately, your message reflects and repeats some of those stereotypes. For example, when you imply that few Americans can speak a foreign language, that is precisely the sort of cliche that people spout when they either don't know or aren't thinking about the contemporary nature of American society. For the past 40 years, there have been waves of immigrants coming to America. As a result there are millions of American who know Spanish (either because, as Americans, they have come from Cuba, Mexico, or Central America, or because non-native-Spanish speakers have undertaken to learn Spanish in order to deal with and understand the huge number of Hispanics in the U.S.). Moreover, there are (for the same reasons of immigration) large numbers of Americans who speak an Asian language—Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese. Would that other countries, both in Europe and in Asia, were as open to newcomers in their midst.

As to Muslim terrorism, there is no doubt that others have engaged in terrorist acts over the years and centuries. But more recently, neither Christians nor the Northern Irish nor what you call "Zionists" have come anywhere near matching the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians all over the world committed by Muslim religious fanatics (imbued with the sort of totalitarian sensibilities that would have made Hitler or Stalin proud). If you don't believe that, ask the people in Bali, Baghdad, Istanbul, Madrid, London, New York, and Washington.

As to American foreign policy, sometimes it has been a force for good (as in the case of postwar Germany & Japan), sometimes it has been for bad, and sometimes it's just been plain incompetent. So what else is new? American foreign policy has been, on balance, no better or worse than the foreign policies of most other countries in the world.

Finally, regarding your snide reference to "Halfbright," you should be aware that this phrase is itself a cliche—originally coined by right-wingers in the U.S. in the late 40s who were opposed to the Fulbright Program (and who didn't have one-tenth the intelligence or global understanding that Sen. Fulbright himself had). Surely you wouldn't want to put yourself in their company.

Best Regards,

Richard Pells

Dear Professor Pells,

Greetings from the Big Durian!

Following is my letter to the Chronicle in response to your recent article reflecting your experience as a Fulbright fellow in Indonesia.

I hope you will take my letter from a constructive view and that the Chronicle will publish it.

Sincerely,

Thang D. Nguyen
http://thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com/

P.S. Do you think, Prof. Pells, that after having sent such qualified fellows as yourself to the world, the Fulbright program should, perhaps, be called Halfbright instead?

Lost in Arrogance

2005-10-16T02:08:00.000-07:00

Dear editor,

I refer to the article entitled "Lost in Translation" by Professor Richard Pells (http://www.chronicle.com/, Volume 52, Issue 8, Page B6). (See following article.)

While the author is right about being "lost in translation" because of the language (communication) barrier between Indonesians and himself while he was visiting Indonesia as a Fulbright fellow, he completely fails to mention--or perhaps, he conveniently forgot to--how little Americans themselves know about Indonesia, and other countries, for that matter.

Furthermore, the author stressed that the understanding of America is most needed in the Muslim world. In doing so, he implied that terrorist attacks are the works of Muslims. In case Professor Pells does not know, one of the world's major terrorist networks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Hindu-majority nation. In fact, it is incorrect to say that violence as a manifestation of religious fundamentalism only exists among Muslims because it does among Christians and Zionists, too. On that note, I highly recommend, in case Professor Pells has not read it, that he read a book called The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong.

What is more, as learned a person as Dr. Pells is, he falls into the condescending idea that American culture must be learned and spread out throughout the world when many Americans themselves are completely ignorant of the rest of the world.

Seriously, besides the intelligensia and other Americans who have lived, studied, or been born abroad, how many Americans speak a foreign language? (In fact, most of them have a hard time speaking or writing English themselves.) By contrast, the number of Indonesians, and other peoples around the world, who speak English is higher.

Besides economic benefits, the US has tried so hard to globalize America and its values, namely the idea of democracy, by invading or waging wars with other nations just to fail in the end. Have we not seen enough blood and damage of this failing, hegemonic foreign policy? Have they cost enough American tax dollars? And what have come out of these wars? If we look at the places where the US has tried to democratize or change their regimes, most of them--like Haiti, the Philippines, and so forth--have been and still are messes.

In other words, the US has always backed the wrong horses. Lest we forget, about 10 years ago, Osama bin Ladin was an American hero, taking lots of money from the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, and what has become of him, or what has he done for America in return?

It is time for the US to show a little more respect to other peoples and their cultures. As a matter of fact, it is time for the US to stop invading other countries in the name of democracy altogether. Although America's wars abroad benefit corporate America, particularly the defense, energy, and construction industries, they cost a lot of American lives, taxpayers' dollars, and worst of all, they make people in the invaded countries hate America more.

Sincerely,

Thang D. Nguyen

About the author of this letter: Mr. Thang D. Nguyen is a Jakarta-based columnist, whose writing can be read at http://thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com/. He has published two books on Indonesia, including Indonesia Matters: Diversity, Unity, and Stability in Fragile Times ('Times Editions, 2002).

The Chronicle of Higher Education
Volume 52, Issue 8, Page B6

America: Lost in Translation

By RICHARD PELLS

How successful has the United States been in making its policies and values better understood among Muslims in the Middle East and Southeast Asia? Based on my experience last summer as a Fulbright senior specialist in Indonesia, the answer is: hardly at all. During May and June, I spent three weeks giving a series of lectures on American history and the global impact of American culture to students and faculty members at several universities in central Java. I was based in Yogyakarta, which the guidebooks describe as the "intellectual" capital of Indonesia. Leaving aside the characteristic hyperbole of guidebooks, I anticipated that I would meet a number of people who had some familiarity with the United States. Moreover, since Indonesia is a country with the largest and (along with Turkey) the most moderate Muslim population on the planet, I assumed that it would be a focal point for the Bush administration's efforts to win "hearts and minds" in the Islamic world.

The disparity between my expectations and my experiences could not have been greater. Since 1978 I have been a visiting professor abroad on many occasionsÂ â€” not just in relatively tranquil places like Western Europe, Scandinavia, or Australia, but also in Eastern Europe during the Communist era, Turkey, Thailand, Malaysia, and Brazil. But never have I had as difficult a time communicating with audiences, or deciphering what they were saying to me, as I did in Indonesia. Ironically, the original intent of the Fulbright program, when it was launched in 1946, was to promote "mutual understanding" between Americans and other people around the world. What I encountered in Indonesia was mutual incomprehension.

Indeed, I often felt like the Bill Murray character in Lost in Translation: jet-lagged, surrounded by people eager to please, bemused by my inability to fathom their version of English, trying to remember to nod and smile even when I was clueless about what was going on around me. As my frustration and sense of isolation grew, I recalled the advertising slogan in the movie: "For relaxing times, make it Suntory time." In my case, it was Smirnoff timeÂ â€” I sometimes suspected that the only personal relationship I established in Indonesia was with a liquor salesman who kept saying to me as I left his emporium: "I see you again, Mister." More seriously, Lost in Translation is one of the most discerning films ever made about culture shock. And that, in fact, was what I felt in Indonesia almost every day.

The breakdown in communication, however, did not result simply from the struggle many Asians have in pronouncing certain English words. In the "discussions" that followed my lectures (which frequently took the form of someone delivering a 10-minute speech before arriving at a question), and in the conversations I had with individual students and faculty members, I found myself repeatedly saying, "I don't understand what you mean." That was true even when their comments or queries were translated into recognizable English. The problem was not one of language, but of context. What I didn't grasp, at least not for a while, were the political and cultural assumptions behind the questions Indonesians were posing.

My dialogue with Indonesians often became surreal. "Is there grass in Texas?" I was regularly asked of my home state. Obviously IndonesiansÂ â€” having seen far too many old WesternsÂ â€” supposed that Texas, with some of the most heavily populated urban areas in America, was a veritable wasteland of sagebrush and dust. Indonesians also seemed obsessed with the prevalence of what they called "free sex" in America. Someone finally explained to me that they meant the tendency of Americans to engage in sex before marriage or after divorceÂ â€” whereas in Indonesia such activity is forbidden, in theory if not in practice. And since many Indonesians in my audiences had seen Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, they were convinced that students in American high schools were heavily armed, just waiting for the opportunity to open fire.

But it was their questions about Moore himself that left me truly befuddled. I was asked continually if the Bush administration had subsidized Moore's movies, including Fahrenheit 9/11. Eventually I realized that such a question revealed an entirely different set of ideas about the relationship between government and culture. Since Indonesians believed that movies, plays, and novels could scarcely exist without the political and financial support of the state, it was hard for them to imagine the existence of a "private" sector in the arts, or the absence of an American ministry of culture.

Indonesians are by no means the only people, in Asia or elsewhere, who cherish their stereotypes about America. One can find similar misconceptions all over the world, notably among Europeans currently hostile to American foreign policy as well as to what they regard as America's economic and religious "values."

Yet in Indonesia I did not confront the usual anti-Americanism. Nor did I come across students, even at privately financed Muslim universities, whose knowledge consisted exclusively of what they'd memorized from the Koran. Although I was certainly asked whether the Bush administration was genuinely committed to the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, or only to fulfilling America's imperial ambitions, no one shrieked at me about the war in Iraq or Washington's support for Israel.On the contrary, there isÂ â€” at the momentÂ â€” a great deal of affection for the United States. That fondness is the result, in part, of America's financial and military assistance to Indonesia after the tsunami devastated most of Aceh Province in Sumatra. The favorable attitude was reinforced by the highly visible presence of American journalists covering the tsunami's wreckage, and by the well-publicized trips of the former presidents Bush and Clinton to devastated areas.

Moreover Indonesians are as sensitive as Americans to the menace of terrorism. In 2002 two nightclubs in Bali were bombed, killing 202 people, including 88 Australian tourists. In 2003 the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta was severely damaged. Soon after I landed in Indonesia, the U.S. Embassy and its consulates closed down for several days because of a terrorist threat. Meanwhile the English-language Jakarta Post persistently warned Western tourists to beware of congregating at shopping malls. Those threats and warnings have turned out to be all too realistic in view of the most recent suicide bombings on Bali that killed 22 people and wounded more than 90.

Perhaps as a result of both their gratitude toward and shared vulnerability with Americans, many Indonesian students told me after my lectures that they were eager to learn more about American culture, and that they wanted to find out how to obtain grants to study in the United States. They also pointed out to me that I was the first visiting professor from America they had ever encountered who had talked to themÂ â€” however impenetrablyÂ â€” about the history of America's politics and its culture.

The trouble, therefore, is not so much with the clichÃ©s that Indonesians have in their minds about America, just as it is not with our mutual failure to comprehend one another's language. The central problem is that Indonesians know almost nothing about the United States, beyond what they've seen in Hollywood's blockbuster movies. What they really need is some in-depth instruction about the complexities of American lifeÂ â€” about America's history, its political system, its economic and social structures, its foreign policy, and its cultural institutions.

In short, IndonesiansÂ â€” and people in other Muslim countriesÂ â€” could benefit enormously, as would Americans, from the sorts of overseas cultural activities to which the United States committed itself during the cold war. From the late 1940s through the end of the 1980s, the American governmentÂ â€” along with the Rockefeller and Ford FoundationsÂ â€” sponsored lectures and conferences abroad on American history and literature; art exhibitions featuring America's Abstract Expressionists and postmodern painters and sculptors; international tours of jazz musicians, symphony orchestras, and ballet companies, as well as of Broadway musicals and dramas; visiting professorships where American academics taught in foreign universities; fellowships for foreign graduate students to study in the United States; and cultural centers like the America Houses in West Germany and Austria that showed American movies, displayed works of American photographers, and offered symposia on American social and cultural life.

In addition the State Department, the U.S. Information Agency, and the foundations helped build up library collections of American materialsÂ â€” especially books, magazines, and newspapersÂ â€” in foreign universities. For example, in the 1950s and 1960s, at the John F. Kennedy Institute for North American Studies at the Free University of Berlin, the Ford Foundation helped subsidize the creation of what became the largest research library for American topics on the European continent.

Even the Congress for Cultural Freedom, though secretly bankrolled by the CIA, was instrumental during the 1950s in publishing magazines and holding symposia that provided outlets for debates between American and foreign intellectuals. More important, the congress arranged for manuscripts written by Eastern European dissidents to be published in the West.

After the end of the cold war, many of those global cultural efforts and institutions either were eliminated or suffered dramatic cutbacks in financing. The stipends for Fulbright lectureships, including the better-endowed Fulbright Chairs in Europe, failed to keep pace with rising faculty salaries, making it tougher for the program to persuade American professors to teach abroad. The Clinton administration, presuming that the United States no longer had to contend with an external enemy like the Soviet Union, reduced the financing of American-studies conferences and lecture tours abroad, discontinued the practice of underwriting concerts and art exhibits, closed all the America Houses and other cultural centers overseas, and shut down the American libraries housed in U.S. embassies.

Furthermore the infrastructure that supported America's public and cultural diplomacy was severely weakened. The U.S. Information Agency, which had supervised most of our international cultural and educational programs since 1953, was absorbed by the State Department in 1999, thereby losing its independence and becoming more subservient to the department's political and foreign-policy priorities. Meanwhile, according to statistics from the Defense Science Board and the Government Accountability Office, the staff and funds for public diplomacy (i.e., cultural programming and public relations) have been eroded by more than 25 percent, adjusted for inflation, since 1989. That means that there are fewer U.S. consulates overseas that organize conferences and fewer cultural-affairs officers in American embassies. Those officers who remain are stretched too thin, having to serve too many masters, and they are increasingly aware that the road to promotion and influence in the Foreign Service lies not through culture but through press and public relations.

It was only after the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon in 2001 that many outside observers (among them, journalists and academics) and some government officials recognized that the United States needed once again to communicate, culturally, with the rest of the world, particularly in the Middle East and South Asia. Nevertheless, that communication has been awkward at best, much of it marred by an emphasis on advertising techniques and an excessive reliance on the Internet rather than on direct, face-to-face interactions between Americans and foreigners. Nor have the ventures been inspired by the long-range vision that characterized America's cultural efforts during the cold war.

There are, of course, many differences between the cold war and the war on terrorism. The cold war was primarily a contest between two nation-states, the United States and the Soviet Union, both with a lot to lose in the case of a possible nuclear conflagration. Consequently each country understood that there were limits beyond which neither could go, particularly when it came to threatening the spheres of influence or national-security interests of its adversary. Terrorists, on the other hand, are stateless and fanatical, with nothing to lose and no conception of what is and is not permissible.

Still, America's cultural activities during the cold war were not designed to convert Communists, nor today can such programs expect to persuade terrorists to alter their tactics of intimidation and mass murder. Instead, the libraries, symposia, magazines, and concerts were aimed during the cold war at people in Western Europe, Latin America, and Asia who were agnostic about the virtues of American culture or reluctant to choose sides between the United States and the Soviet Union. Similarly a resurrection of America's cultural diplomacy in the 21st century has to focus on those in the Islamic world who remain ambivalent about the United States and what it stands forÂ â€” and who are uncertain about how America's policies and values will affect their own cultures, social institutions, and religious beliefs.

The best way to begin is by launching a sustained effort to make America more intelligible to Muslims. Indonesia could be an ideal test case for how effectively the United States can inform people in other countries (and diminish their stereotypes) about life in America.

And the place to start is with libraries. Indonesia, like many countries around the world, desperately needs books about the United States, subscriptions to American newspapers and periodicals (both mass-circulation magazines and professional journals), and DVD's of classic American films. But such collections should be located within Indonesian universities rather than at separate cultural centers, as in the past, since Asian versions of Europe's America Houses could be tempting targets for terrorist bombings.

After the demise in the 1990s of American libraries overseas, the Bush administration placed its faith in what were called "American Corners"Â â€” mini-libraries that, at least in Indonesia, contain a few out-of-date magazines and books about American history. But American Corners are pathetic simulations of authentic libraries like the kind that exist at the JFK Institute or in British universities. So if Americans truly care what the Muslim world thinks, then university collections of American materials must be substantially enlarged and improved.

Second, the State Department should consider financing semester-long visiting professorships to Indonesia, and perhaps elsewhere in the region, instead of relying on the small and underfinanced Fulbright program or on ad hoc faculty exchanges between American and foreign universities. Those professorships ought to match the salaries of American academics, to be more financially appealing than the paltry stipends for Fulbright grants. Such a program would also require that the State Department actively identify and recruit scholars in American history, literature, sociology, economics, political science, and law, rather than depending on whoever happens to apply for the positions.

The purpose of the visiting professorships, however, would not be simply to send American academics to Indonesia or to other Muslim countries to teach courses and advise local faculty members on curricula. Instead, just as the American government after World War II dispatched scholars to Europe to help establish university departments and institutes of American studies, so the State Department should define the role of the new professorships as training one or two generations of Indonesian and other Muslim Americanists, who could then transmit what they know about the United States to their own students.

That training should not be devoted merely to developing a cadre of indigenous academic specialists in American subjects. As in the case of postwar Europe, the ultimate objective would be to provide students who will some day enter business, law, politics, or the media with a greater knowledge of and sophistication about America's political and economic system and its cultural traditions.

Third, the State Department and the Fulbright Program, along with private foundations, could increase the number of fellowships for Indonesian and other foreign graduate students to study American history, literature, law, or politics in the United StatesÂ â€” not just for a year or two, but with a view toward earning a Ph.D. and returning to teach their fields to their own undergraduates. Again, fellowships like those were indispensable during the cold war in helping to produce several generations of Americanists in Europe, Latin America, and Japan.

Finally, the Foreign Service itself could require more people who are interested in American culture and willing to devote their careers to making our culture more comprehensible to foreign audiences. If a broader set of cultural initiatives is to materialize, U.S. embassies abroad, not only in Indonesia, urgently need more personnel and more support from Washington.

All these efforts will cost a great deal more money than the Bush administration has allocated for public diplomacy. But, despite their intermittent disdain for the use of "soft power," important members of the administration are aware of how precarious America's image is in Muslim countries, if not also among America's wary allies in Europe. Condoleezza Rice, after all, was in her earlier life an expert on American-Soviet relations, and she knows how crucial culture was as a component of the cold war. Karen P. Hughes, the new under secretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, is a confidante of President Bush and may be able to encourage the administration to pay more attention and devote more resources to the role of American culture overseas.

Yet no matter what happens during the next three years, the significance of and opportunities for cultural diplomacy extend well beyond the life span of the Bush administration. Right now Indonesia could be a place for pilot programs that, if successful, might eventually be expanded to Malaysia and (if circumstances permit) Jordan and Egypt. But such programs require imagination, energy, adequate funds, and above all time to work.

Thus, unless people in the State Department begin to think of the distant future, rather than of immediate propaganda payoffs, America will never duplicate the cultural accomplishments that characterized the cold-war years. Instead, we will continue to find our views and our values distrusted, misinterpreted, and lost in translation.

Richard Pells is a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin. His books include Not Like Us: How Europeans Have Loved, Hated, and Transformed American Culture Since World War II (Basic Books, 1997).

http://chronicle.comSection: The Chronicle ReviewVolume 52, Issue 8, Page B6

Bookmark: At home with Indonesia

2005-10-09T00:38:00.000-07:00

The Jakarta Post
Sunday, 9 October 2005

Title: Made in Indonesia
Author: Warwick Purser
Publisher: Equinox Publishing
Date: September, 2005

By Thang D. Nguyen
Contributor, Jakarta

Judged by its cover, size, and shape, Made in Indonesia looks just like any other coffee-table book on Indonesia -- one with lots of pictures of Balinese resorts, beautiful Javanese houses, or rice fields, and a short introduction, if any. But it's not!

While Made in Indonesia has many great pictures, they are not the key feature of the book. Rather, they accompany and help the author explain and illustrate in his own words how Indonesians make world-class handcrafted products, using natural and recycled waste materials and, of course, their hands.

Simply put, it is nothing less than amazing to see in this book how bamboo, palm trees, seashells, recycled newspapers and steel are turned into elegant, stylish and classy handbags, shoes, picture frames, dining ware, furniture and a variety of interior accessories in the hands of Indonesian craftspeople.

While there are many books about Indonesia -- ranging from history, politics, puppetry (wayang kulit), coffee and clove cigarettes (kretek), to the nightlife in Jakarta and "crazy" foreigners (bule gila, or bugil) living in the country -- there has not been one that is devoted entirely to Indonesian craftsmanship. Thus, the timing of Made in Indonesia makes it a significant publication.

What is more significant about this book, though, is the story of its author, Warwick Purser, and how he has come to build "Out of Asia", an exporting business of handicrafts made in Indonesia to markets worldwide.

About 10 years ago, Mr. Purser -- a lanky Aussie who describes himself as an Indonesianized bule -- came to Tembi, a village area on the outskirts of Yogyakarta, central Java, where he saw an opportunity to build an enterprise that would be profitable and benefit the local community at the same time.

"When I first moved to Tembi, the streets were unpaved. Many of the houses [there] were sadly in need of repair. Many families could not afford to buy day-to-day basics ... or provide education. It would seem that there were very few assets that could ensure any degree of continuous and sustainable living," he writes.

There was, however, one asset: "the ability Indonesians have to create almost anything and everything with their hands. Tembi was no exception. However, while the skills were there, they were not being properly utilized. My challenge was to revitalize this talent in an effort to improve their standard of living."

Today, Out of Asia produces handcrafted accessories for some of the finest shops in the world and employs thousands of Indonesians. So, in doing well as a business, Out of Asia does good for the community -- that which we call corporate social responsibility or socially responsible investment.

But what is most significant about Made in Indonesia is that it helps bring Indonesia to the world in a positive way and thereby contributes to a better, more informed understanding of Indonesia as a nation of great diversity, whether it be natural resources, cultures or otherwise.
Despite its geography, diversity and greatness, Indonesia is probably the least known or understood -- if not the most misunderstood -- nation in the world.

For many people in other parts of the world, Indonesia is part of Bali, if they know where the latter is. How many people know that Indonesia is the world's fourth-most populous country, the largest archipelago, the largest Muslim-majority nation and, more importantly, the third-largest democracy?

For one thing, the poor understanding of Indonesia in the world is because of the lack of a largely overdue public relations campaign that promotes (or sells) Indonesia abroad to tourists, investors, and people who, otherwise, could be interested in visiting, doing business, or living in Indonesia. Seriously, how can Malaysia be more "truly Asia" than Indonesia, given the latter's wealth of natural resources and diversity?

What's more, people in many parts of the world, especially Australia and the West, tend to have a negative image of Indonesia. For them, the name Indonesia is a synonym for terrorism, corruption, or radical Muslims, among other things.

While Indonesia does face these immense challenges, there are success stories about it that the world often doesn't hear; positive qualities about it that the world often doesn't see; and nice Indonesians that the world often doesn't meet.

For the most part, this is because what is shown of Indonesia in the international media is usually bad news, which, of course, sells better than good news.

And because of this so-called CNN effect, people will remember and associate Indonesia with such terrorist attacks as the bombings of Bali, both in 2002 and last week, of the JW Marriot Jakarta Hotel in 2003, and of the Australian Embassy last year.

But how many people have seen on TV or read in the news about the successful transformation of the world's largest Muslim-majority nation in the past seven years from 32 years of dictatorship into the world's third largest democracy?

And, for that matter, a few years from now, how many people will remember the Asian tsunami that devastated Indonesia, among other countries, last December?

This is why Made in Indonesia is a timely, relevant, and therefore, meaningful book. Not only does it celebrate Indonesian craftsmanship and introduce it to people all over the world, it also shows positive aspects of Indonesia that they don't know or haven't seen.

Mark Twain once quipped: "Wagner's music is better than it sounds." The same is true with Indonesia: The world just has to listen more attentively!

Mr. Thang D. Nguyen is the Program Director at the Jakarta-based United in Diversity Forum (www.unitedindiversity.org). He is also an op-ed columnist, whose writing can be read at http://thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Neighbors - Indonesia and Australia

2005-10-07T00:09:00.000-07:00

By Jenny Brockie

SBS TV - Dateline From Metro TV in Jakarta - Indonesia
Jakarta, October 04, 2005 (Transcript)

This forum was held at the studios of Metro TV in Jakarta. Indonesian community leaders, politicians, diplomats and journalists, many of whom have visited Australia discuss Australian perceptions of muslim Indonesia . A poll has shown nearly a third of Australians view Indonesia as a threat, a country where 90% of the population is Muslim. Tragically, another massacre in Bali has occurred. This program was recorded before these events but what is discussed is still highly relevant. The guests included Yenny Wahid, the daughter of the former Indonesian president - who has worked as a journalist for the 'Sydney Morning Herald' - Desi Anwar, the senior newsreader for Metro TV where we recorded our program, Wimar Witoelar, a former presidential advisor and a well-known commentator, Angelina Sondakh, a former Miss Indonesia and a Member of Parliament.

JENNY BROCKIE: I'd like to welcome all for joining us. And I'd like to start with you, Alpha Amirrachman. You've just come back to Indonesia, I think, after studying at the University of Sydney. What do you think Australians don't understand about Indonesia?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN, JOURNALIST: Thank you, Jenny. But I don't want to get trapped in stereotyping, OK? But I was in Sydney when the Bali blast occurred. It was so tragic. Many Australians were killed. And people at the university were very diplomatic. They didn't want to show their anger to me, their cynicism. But, outside of the universities, I met one woman who was unable to hide her anger and she told me, "Bali should not belong to Indonesia." I said, "Why?" "Because Bali is so different from the rest of Indonesia." "What do you mean by 'the rest of Indonesia'?" "The rest of Indonesia means Muslim majority." So I don't want to get trapped in stereotyping, but I have strong -

JENNY BROCKIE: But do you think that stereotyping exists in Australia?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: Yeah, yeah, I think so. But I had a strong impression that, that woman doesn't really understand the diversity of Indonesia, doesn't really understand the complexity of Indonesian society. That's my impression.

JENNY BROCKIE: And you - I know you also wrote about another incident in a bar, when you were in a bar in Sydney. Can you tell us that story?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: Yeah, but I was with my Australian friends and some of my international friends verbally attacked me, they said, "Your country is so dangerous because most of them are Muslims." And I was so angry. And my Australian friend calmed me down and then he drove me home. But I didn't get drunk. I was drinking orange juice at the time. Those people were drinking beer and they were angry with me.

JENNY BROCKIE: But how did you feel, though, when you received that sort of message in Australia? How did you feel at that time? You were angry, yeah?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: I was so angry and I said, "You know, a small fight in Indonesia could result in headless body on the streets." I was so angry, I expressed myself like that. And my Australian friend calmed me down and, yeah.

JENNY BROCKIE: Desi, what do you think? You're a news anchor here at Metro TV where we're recording this program. Do you think Australians understand Indonesia?

DESI ANWAR, TV PRESENTER: Well, I wouldn't want to presume what Australians think of Indonesia. I mean, the - the one thing that we do get is through the media coverage of what - Australian media cover, what Australians think about Indonesia. And I don't know how true that is, whether it actually reflects the sentiment of Australians in general.

JENNY BROCKIE: So what do you think of that media coverage, though, when you see it? What sort of things are you talking about?

DESI ANWAR: Well, for example, the reaction to the Schapelle Corby case, for example, and of course the trial of Abu Bakar Bashir and that kind of emotions that we get to read on Australian media. And again, being in the media, I don't know how -

JENNY BROCKIE: Representative it is.

DESI ANWAR: How true, how representative that is. I mean, my personal experience with Australians, I mean, they're wonderful people. I know a lot of people in Australia and I know a lot of Australians in Indonesia.

JENNY BROCKIE: But what it is about that kind of coverage that worries you?

DESI ANWAR: Well, I think it doesn't worry me as much as - for example, it shows in a way that there is this gap of understanding about Indonesia but what actually worries me most is that the emotional reaction that that kind of - you know - generates a kind of ill feeling, which I think is unnecessary. Because, I mean, emotional responses I can perfectly understand because, you know, with emotional reactions, you can motivate people to do, sort of, good things, you know? It makes people generous for example. It makes people - it puts people together. But, in terms of emotional responses that create, for example, negative impact, I don't think it's very good -

JENNY BROCKIE: You mentioned a gap in understanding. Where's the gap?

DESI ANWAR: Well, I think basically - I mean, I wrote an article about the reaction to the Schapelle Corby case. One thing that I think Indonesians cannot understand is why was there such an emotional response from the Australians because, when Indonesian media, for example, covers issues about Australia, for example, the Bali bombing, we actually covered the - more of the victims, you know, the Australian victims of the bombings more than the Indonesians who actually died. So to get that kind of response is -

JENNY BROCKIE: So you think it's skewed the wrong way in a sense? It's sort of tipped the wrong way?

DESI ANWAR: Yeah, and I think it's, you know, I think that kind of reporting, I mean, if the media wants to focus on that kind of reporting, they're not actually doing themselves a service by focusing on the emotional side of the reactions.

JENNY BROCKIE: Yes, Wimar, yes.

PROFESSOR WIMAR WITOELAR,JOURNALIST: I don't think we can single out the Australian media as such but the media of any developed country which has an organised press backed by big business. I'm a Professor of Journalism at Deakin University and I've seen how people are channelled into the world of PR, world of journalism, and I know the individuals well, I know very many Australians. All of them are unbiased. All of them are enlightened. All of them are educated. But, when they band together, they have a bossy mentality that says, "Lynch the image of the Indonesians." So I think it's a frenzy among the media, which is not specifically Australian.

JENNY BROCKIE: But I'm interested about the point you're making about when people get together they're - you said bossy?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Bossy. American, B-O-S-S-E. You know, "Get the culprit, round up the citizens, get the black guy, the Chinese guy, the brown guy."

JENNY BROCKIE: Racist?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Yes.

JENNY BROCKIE: You think the Australian media is racist?

WIMAR WITOELAR: No, they're not racist, but the Australian media appeals to some part of Australia which somehow, you know, gets their feelings incited over that. But you don't see that when they are individuals.

JENNY BROCKIE: Yenny. Yes. Do you agree with that? I mean, you've worked as a journalist on the 'Sydney Morning Herald' and you've lived in Australia.

YENNY WAHID, DIRECTOR, WAHID INSTITUTE: To a certain degree, there is a stereotyping that journalists do to make the stories simple for the readers. And I think Indonesia is such a complex and diverse culture that, without the simplification and stereotyping, it would be very difficult for the, you know, the readers or for the - What do you call it? For TV. For the viewers, the audiences to understand what's really going on. So it's almost -

ANGELINA SONDAKH, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: I just want to jump in. You know, the perception, you know, because when I was meeting with the Member of the Parliament from Australia and some of the young members of the Parliament and they say, "Angelina, are you Indonesian?" and it's like, "Yes. Why?" "You don't look like Indonesian." I mean, that's one perception. But I'm purely Indonesian. My mum is Mindanaoese and my father is Indonesian. This is how the Australians see Indonesia and the Indonesian people. I mean, besides that, you know, people from Aceh, Minadano, Jakarta are different.

JENNY BROCKIE: So do you feel Indonesia gets simplified as a nation? Lots of nodding here.

YENNY WAHID: Any news in the world about other countries always gets simplified. It's just the nature of the media, in my opinion. And also, in my - I think that most people are very provincial, be it Indonesians, Australians, Americans, you know, any countries. I mean, they tend to look at things from their own perspective. So the media, in a way, has to follow that dictate, you know, otherwise, people won't really understand the story. So, in that process, the nuances get lost.

JENNY BROCKIE: And what are the nuances? Tell me about the nuances of Indonesia.

YENNY WAHID: Well, you know, the fact that -

MAN: Tell her about the Muslims being seen as troublemakers.

YENNY WAHID: Yes, the Muslim issue, you know, is very, is very simple case. I mean, Muslim in the world, not only Indonesia, is not a homogeneous entity. We have a spectrum, you know, a difference, of a brand of Islamism that people believe in. There are the so-called moderates, there are the people that believe that violence is the only means to channel their views and all sorts of things but not all Muslims are similar. And this gets lost of course in the translation or whatever, in the reporting.

JENNY BROCKIE: Chusnul, what do you think about that? Did you agree with that?

CHUSNUL MAR'IYAH, UNIVERSITY LECTURER: Well, I'm not expert on the media but I think my understanding about Australia and Indonesia relations is, you know, Australian society is also divided between the Canberra policies and the Jakarta policies and also between the people.

JENNY BROCKIE: Dita, yes?

DITA SARI, TRADE UNION LEADER: Yeah, I think we have to be quite clear in this case because we have to make sure that there is a differentiation between the Government of Australia and the people of Australia. We cannot just mix it up. Most of the time, I think the policy of the Government of Australia, the Howard Government right now, can shape the attitude and consciousness of the majority of the people of Australia. For instance, like the participation of the Howard Government in the war in Iraq, the Australians also accepting troops to Iraq, it helps creating the understanding and consciousness among the Australians that because this war is against terrorism and it - most of the time, it's portrayed as the war against the Muslims' community - so the sentiment, anti-Muslim sentiment, then raised in Australia but I think it's not originally owned by the Australians but I think it mostly caused by the policy of the Government.

JENNY BROCKIE: And Indonesians feel that? You feel that, that anti-Muslim sentiment? Is that something you feel coming from Australia?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Well, even in your opening you said that Australians thinking that Indonesia 90% Muslim means they are trouble. So it goes, you know, even without thinking that the stereotypes - I know, that if you think hard, you know - I mean, these are not terrorists you have here and we are probably 90% Muslim - but somehow again, when you get on to that podium, into that thing called the media, you tend to generalise, maybe because it's harder to differentiate.

JENNY BROCKIE: But that is a fact too. I mean, that's just a fact.

WIMAR WITOELAR: That 90% are terrorists?

JENNY BROCKIE: Yeah, yeah - no. That's not what I said. That's not what I said!

WIMAR WITOELAR: What is a fact?

JENNY BROCKIE: That 90% are Muslim.

WIMAR WITOELAR: Sure. But that has no linearity with troublemaking. I mean, in New Orleans, there was a lot of looting, they're not Muslims. Bush dropped a lot of bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan and he's not Muslim. So a lot of non-Muslims cause trouble - Northern Ireland, everywhere.

JENNY BROCKIE: I guess it's interesting because, when I think about the reason that we said that, one of the reasons we said that was because of the fear. It feeds on itself, doesn't it, in a sense?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Well, fear, of course, is psychological. It's your problem. I mean, Australians ask me, "Is it safe in Indonesia?" I don't know. It's not safe anywhere. It's not safe at my dentist, right? I mean, you can get AIDS or something. So it's very psychological.

JENNY BROCKIE: It's a good point. It's a very good point. Yes.

THANG NGUYEN, JOURNALIST: I'd like to go back to what Wimar and Yenny and other media leaders here have said so far about the gap between the understanding of Indonesia in Australia and vice versa. It's not just how the media portrays Indonesia in Australia and the rest of the world - what they portray, what they choose to show of Indonesia really matters. You sit in Canberra or Washington DC and you turn on your camera - your TV, I'm sorry - all you see is coverage of terrorist bombings. You don't see much of diverse Indonesia. You don't see coverage of the third largest democracy in the largest Muslim world on TV.

JENNY BROCKIE: But that's the nature of news, isn't it? Isn't news about problems?

THANG NGUYEN: Bad news sells. Bad news sells. Intelligent people will think for themselves, they will not rely on the TV to tell them what to think but unfortunately how many Australians or Americans for that matter... ..have that capacity to distinguish what is bad news from good news.

JENNY BROCKIE: Yes. Mr Sadjanan, yes, you. Former ambassador to Australia. What do you have to say about this?

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT, FORMER AMBASSADOR TO AUSTRALIA: Well, being somebody who really has to gather all the opinion and try to articulate these opinions into strengthening relations between countries - that is my profession - I think when people oversimplify, simplify overly a certain issue, and react on this very simple mind of opinion, of reason, then that creates problems to people like us. Say, for instance, at the time when you remember probably in 2001 when hundreds of illegal migrants, they was transported by Indonesian ship. The reaction that is being made by the Australian Government at the time was that the Indonesian Government have to be held responsible for this. And then this, I think it is oversimplification of a response by somebody at the very high level of government official. I think this kind of attitude in many cases creates difficulty for people like us.. Visit the related web page

JENNY BROCKIE: Do you feel that's patronising sometimes?

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Oh, well, unfortunately that's the fact. So saying that the Indonesian Government have to be held responsible for this case - I think this for the ordinary people in Indonesia is kind of accusations, baseless accusations. Because those people are not even Indonesian nationals and we do not know where they come from but why should we be held accountable for this while the fact is that those people are trying to get into Australia and we are the victim of the situations. Being the victim at the time when we feel we are the victim and at the time we are feeling as the victim, we are accused as being irresponsible and then it's hard for people like us to, you know, to redress the situations.

JENNY BROCKIE: Mmm. Hermawan, you wanted to say something. Now, you're a marketing consultant here. I'm interested from a marketing point of view what you think about all of this.

HERMAWAN KARTAJAYA, MARKETING CONSULTANT: Yeah, OK, in marketing, we believe that it is very often that perception is much more important than reality. But, you know, it is not fair actually. Sorry - Australia with 16 million to 20 million population, they are called continent and Indonesia with 220 million population, we are archipelago with 17,000 islands in the low tide and maybe 15,000 islands in the high tide, but we are called only country. So there is a simplification about us, right? So maybe Australians, they have the perception that Indonesia is very simple because we are called 'country' so everywhere is the same, that's why they simplify the thing.

JENNY BROCKIE: Endi, you wanted to say something. Editor of the 'Jakarta Post'. What do you think?

ENDI BAYUNI, EDITOR, JAKARTA POST: I feel this is turning into bashing the Australian media or it sounds like it. But I think that Hermawan was right that perception is formed by the media and in that way I think the media is responsible for forming public opinions. You know, trying to play the devil's advocate, I think the reverse is also true - that Indonesian media is not helping to, is not giving a true picture of Australia nowadays. Australia is now a very multiethnic society but yet I think in the public's perception, Australia is still very much white man's country, you know, European traditions, values and prejudices and this is the way in which we see - I'm not talking about us here because we know better - but the public in general, they see Australia -

JENNY BROCKIE: You're saying it cuts both ways.

ENDI BAYUNI: Especially in the wake of 9/11, the Bali bombing, the war on terrorism, and Indonesians see Australia as, you know, very much a white man's nation with all its, you know, so-called hidden agenda.

DESI ANWAR: Sorry, Jenny, if I can go back to the poll that you mentioned and if this poll is pretty accurate and if most Australians think that Indonesia is full of extremist terrorists about to blow up Australians and that, you know, Bali should be part of Australia and not part of Indonesia, then I think it's really sad in a way because, I mean, if the polling is accurate –

JENNY BROCKIE: It's a small poll. It's a small poll.

DESI ANWAR: If that is true, then I think Australians are missing out on, you know - just Indonesia is so much bigger than Bali, it's so much more. There's so many things that they can actually - you know, if they like surfing, it's not just in Bali, you can go to Nias, you can go to Mentawai and you can go to Banda. And so, in a way, I think it's the Australian media, you know, they are - I want to go back to the media. The media is actually doing the Australians a disservice because focusing on or basically pandering to sort of emotional outbursts, for example, or just focusing on the hopefully the vocal minorities that are sort of out to bash Indonesia is actually not doing Australians themselves any good because they are projecting themselves in a negative way, not just to Indonesia, but to the rest of the world. And I think it's a pity.

JENNY BROCKIE: Well, for many Australians, one of the strongest images to come out of your country recently was of Schapelle Corby, that Schapelle Corby drug trial, the woman who was convicted on drug charges and there've also been others since, other Australians, the Bali Nine, now facing possible death sentences, and Australian model Michelle Leslie, who is now also facing drug charges. Alpha, what do you think of the way Australia has reacted to those drug cases?

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: Corby?

JENNY BROCKIE: All of them, but Corby in particular, because it was the strongest.

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: Yeah, I think it's - I could say excessive. I think, um, it was overreaction and it was also, again, situated by the media. And in Corby's case, you know, it was so excessive. It was focusing only on that and then emphasising the difference between Abu Bakar Bashir's treatment and Corby's treatment. That is legal matters, legal matters.

JENNY BROCKIE: And you think that was OK? I mean, Australians did think that was an extraordinary difference between the sentence that Abu Bakar Bashir got and that Schapelle Corby got. You did not think that was unusual?

WIMAR WITOELAR: They're apples and oranges. You cannot compare them. First of all, as a parent, I would be greatly distressed if my daughter, if I had a daughter, be in a spot like that and it's a personal tragedy. You should not link that, I think, to a case of bilateral relations or a judgment of the Indonesian judicial system but, if you do so, you should compare the Corby case to other people involved in drugs.

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Can I pick up your point? I tend to see that this is a matter of law enforcement that is being judged by emotions, a matter of implementations of law that is being judged by the perceptions of somebody who is young and innocent and things and that this influenced the articulations of the very strong judgment into our judicial system as if we did not do anything good in terms of implementing our own law. This is, I think, once again, oversimplification of things, of matters. That placing an issue of law enforcement in the context of defending somebody who is young, innocent, pretty and things like that and then is being cooked up by the media and this is gone wrong. Once again, this is a matter of implementations of law enforcement.

JENNY BROCKIE: There was some extreme reaction in Australia to the Schapelle Corby case in particular and especially on talkback radio in Australia. I'd like to play you something that was broadcast on a popular Sydney radio station in May this year about that case.

MALCOLM T ELLIOTT, 2GB: The judges don't even speak English, mate, they're straight out of the trees if you excuse my expression.

CALLER: Don't you think that disrespects the whole of our neighbouring nation?

MALCOLM: I have total disrespect for our neighbouring nation my friend. Total disrespect. And then we get this joke of a trial, and it's nothing more than a joke. An absolute joke the way they sit there. And they do look like the three wise monkeys, I'll say it. They don't speak English, they read books, they don't listen to her. They show us absolutely no respect those judges.

JENNY BROCKIE: Angelina, you wanted to say something.

ANGELINA SONDAKH: Yes. This is actually what we have talked about in the young leaders' discussion - you know, me and Nursanita - about how the media comparing our judges to the monkey and that it comes to our sensitivities. I mean, I believe that it's not the majority of the people in Australia think or voice but, in a matter of this case, I think media plays an important role in making the relationship to the betterment, not to damage the relationship to more worse.

JENNY BROCKIE: I should point out a lot of Australians were very offended by that as well when it was broadcast. Thang, you described in an online column, I think, about this case, you described the Australian reaction as being 'xenophobic'.

THANG NGUYEN: Yeah, right. And it reflects a certain attitude of racism which still remains in Australian society today. I think it's one thing to portray - for the media to pick on this image of a true-blue, beautiful woman to gain the sympathy from the Australian public, that's one thing. But I think it's beyond that, it's beyond the media playing that beautiful-woman-true-blue card. What I looked at in that article was why is it that there are 54 Australian criminals who face drug charges, including death penalty - death, not 20 years - why don't they get the same - why didn't they get the same attention from the public as well as the Australian Government that Corby did? For your information, she wrote a letter to Prime Minister Howard, who responded that, "Rest assured that I will take a personal interest in your case." Right?

JENNY BROCKIE: So why aren't the others getting attention? Why don't you think the others are getting any attention?

THANG NGUYEN: Because, guess what? Their last names are like mine - N-G-U-Y-E-N-, T-R-A-N, L-E-E, not Schapelle, not Corby.

JENNY BROCKIE: Do other people agree with what Thang is saying?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Well, the burden is on disproving his impression because it's a fact that so many dozens of Australians are facing death penalty and severe penalties in other South-East Asian cities and they are not of European origin so there has to be, you know, something disproved -

JENNY BROCKIE: So do you think Australia is racist?

DESI ANWAR: Jenny, if we read the articles in the newspapers, if we watch the programs or if we listen to that kind of radio broadcast, of course then we will think that Australians don't like us, they're racist and basically, you know, they don't like to be neighbours with us. But how true is that in real life? I mean, because we mustn't fall into that trap of stereotyping like all Australians are like that. Like you said, a lot of Australians were offended by statements that came out of that interview. So, I mean, let's be careful here -

JENNY BROCKIE: Not to generalise too much.

DESI ANWAR: Not to generalise or throwing petrol into the fire.

THANG NGUYEN: Don't get me wrong. I did not say in the article that the whole Australian society is racist. I'm saying through the reaction from the Australian public and the support from the Government, there is a reflection of certain racist attitudes that still maintain or remain in the society. I'm not saying the rest of Australia is racist, alright?

DESI ANWAR: No, but that kind of news coverage, or that kind of attitude will portray Australia as racist.

THANG NGUYEN: Excuse me. Have you heard of a former minister by the name Arthur Calwell? And you know what he said? "Two Wongs don't make a white." Here is a minister who said that.

DESI ANWAR: Well, I think that's more of a reflection on the minister.

THANG NGUYEN: Have you heard of a magazine called the 'Bulletin' in Australia? Only a few dozen years ago, the masthead of it still said "Australia for the white man". Now, if that is not racism, then tell me what it is.

JENNY BROCKIE: So that still bites for people in Indonesia?

DITA SARI: The policy, the immigrant policy of the Australian Government. I went to Australia in the year of 2002 and we had a picket line in front of the Villawood Detention Centre. It's an immigrant detention centre. And we saw that they were being treated very badly, children and mothers and old people. They're coming from Vietnam, they're coming from Bangladesh. They are poor people. They're not white. They're brown, they're yellow, but they're not white. And I saw how many of the Aborigines, for instance, in Australia are also very poor and how the policy of the Government treating them. I think this kind of public policy made by the Government affects the people, affects how the people look at the non-white Australians or the non-white people who live in Australia. So I don't say that Australians are racist, but the policy -

THANG NGUYEN: Sure, that's the reason why they see Corby as an innocent victim and they don't see other Australian citizens of Asian or Latin American descent as innocent. Maybe, maybe. We don't know, alright? They are saying the Indonesian judges are not being fair, the legal system here sucks. Now, let me tell you, the Indonesian judges gave Corby a very fair go. First, there was not enough witnesses. The High Court of Bali then decided to give her a second chance to bring witnesses to Bali to testify in her defence. Guess who showed up? One Indonesian law professor who defended her. Where were the Australian witnesses? If that's not fair, what is? You tell me that the first trial was unfair. I give you another one. Prove it.

CHUSNUL MAR'IYAH: Jenny?

JENNY BROCKIE: Yes.

CHUSNUL MAR'IYAH: I think we have to go back again. There are some differences between the people-to-people relations because I know there's still a lot of Australians that have, like, empathy to Indonesia, they love Indonesia, they teach Indonesian language there. So going back again to item of racism, I don't want Indonesia also to become racist to Australia but again we don't know much also about the Australian society. You know, we don't have lot of, like, Indonesian people who study in Australia, they don't study Australian, they study Indonesian, something like that. But in Australia we have so many Indonesianists there that learn about Indonesia. But at the same time I think we have to portray the whole of the issue on the table and we have to discuss. For example, the policy of the Government in Canberra. They have good intention to help eastern Indonesia for the development. They give lot of aids there. But if there is no communication between Canberra and Jakarta, what happens? The good intention of Australia, we don't receive as good intention. This is the idea - that Australia would like to disintegrate Indonesia. So there is a lot of thing from the policy point of view coming from Jakarta, Canberra and also the people to people. And I think also because I'm teaching Australian in the University of Indonesia, I feel so sad when Australian Government close their library in Jakarta, in Indonesian Embassy. You want Indonesia to understand about Australia but there is no access to information about Australia in Jakarta. So it's the whole lot of things that we have to learn each other.

JENNY BROCKIE: And I know we have a lot of students here in your yellow uniforms from the University of Indonesia and you all study Australia, don't you? You all study Australian politics, yeah? What are you learning about our country?

STUDENT: Desert. Large continent. Empty. 19 million people living there.

STUDENT 2: About the kind of state, about the political system in Australia, about the habits of Australians and a lot of more we study about Australia. But we have no access to know Australia more because the reason that the library in the embassy is closed since the Bali bombing.

STUDENT 3: The first impression I get from Australia is Australia is an arrogant country. Why? Because they try to bully Asia Pacific region.

JENNY BROCKIE: They try to bully Asian Pacific nations?

STUDENT 3: They claim themself as a representative of a Western country in the Asia Pacific. So there is two policies of Howard I think is so arrogant. The first - he claims himself as the deputy sheriff of United States in 1999 and, in 2002, he...he made a policy about the pre-emptive strike as a legal right to self-defence. PRIME MINISTER JOHN HOWARD, "SUNDAY" 2002: I mean, it stands to reason that if you believed that somebody was going to launch an attack against your country - either of the conventional kind or of the terrorist kind - and you had the capacity to stop it, and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity, then of course you would have to use it.

JENNY BROCKIE: So that had a big impact on you? That comment about a pre-emptive strike had a big impact on you? And others here? Yes?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Yeah, of course. We were scared stiff, yeah.

JENNY BROCKIE: You are scared stiff?

WIMAR WITOELAR: Yeah. Because we could get struck any moment just because somebody is suspicious. It's just like the guy on the London subway who got shot because he was carrying a rucksack.

JENNY BROCKIE: Well, those -

MAN: The Australian support of the Iraq war also counts as a defining -

JENNY BROCKIE: Well, let's get on to that. We'll get on to that in a minute. Because the pre-emptive strike issue is an interesting one and this issue of extremism comes up again and again. And the other very strong images, I think, that have had a big effect on Australians in recent times have been of the Bali bombingsWHERE 88 Australians lost their lives three years ago as well as obviously very many Indonesians and the Australian Embassy bombing here in Jakarta just a year ago. Do you understand Australia's fears of extremism? Can you understand that fear?

WIMAR WITOELAR: We are just as afraid of those extremists as Australians are. I wrote an article. I said, "When your dog has fleas, don't think that the dog is enjoying those fleas." Don't think we like having terrorists. We are scared stiff. We've had to deal with them since I was 10 years old, which means 50 years ago for your information. We've always been bothered by terrorism and we cannot get rid of them. So we know what terror is, we know what fear is and we hate them, we despise them. The Muslim majority is against terrorism. And to be thought of that we are comfortable with these lies, these fleas, these terrorists - I feel sympathy for the Australian people because they are good people, they're kind people, educated, but how come some of them are just so simplistic?

JENNY BROCKIE: Yenny, you were nodding your head then.

YENNY WAHID: Yeah. Like Wimar just said - Wimar put it succinctly - but we are as fearful of the threat of terrorism here in our own backyards as any other countries, I guess. And the fact that, like Dita said, us being a victim but also seen as being the aggressor really puts us off, you know? You know, instead of giving us any help in dealing with terrorism, we're getting all this flak about having them here. I mean, we don't choose to have these people here. They're just, they're here.

JENNY BROCKIE: Nursanita, is it a legitimate fear to have, do you think?

NURSANITA NASUTION, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT: Yes, you are afraid about the terrorism and I think that all the people in the world are against that. But I am very sad if terrorism is tied to the Muslims. You know, this is not true because, you know, in Indonesia, we are...most of us are Muslims but we are moderates. But I think that Islam is not the same is terrorism. If there is terrorism, I think that's because they act as the result of the international policy - maybe international policy to the Muslims so they don't like that so they act like that. But my party, the Prosperity and Justice Party, sometimes we act and make demonstrations and demonstration I think is part of the democracy. So I think that - I heard that this evening that the Prime Minister of the Australia said he wants revisions about the regulation of terrorism. I hope that Australia not be panic and change the regulations and don't obey about the human rights and also the democracy.

WIMAR WITOELAR: Sorry, sorry, my son asked me specifically to say this to the forum. Yesterday we went to this book store, a great big bookstore, I won't say the name. Now, it's almost fasting time so there's a big section of Muslim books. About 50% to 60% of the Muslim books all had a theme of how to fight terror, how to curtail terror, we are against terror. So the Muslim community is fighting very hard against terrorism. Yenny's institute, the Wahid Institute, also is doing that. So we are doing our best but it's an uphill battle. It's no help if we are accused of helping the terrorists.

JENNY BROCKIE: Yeah and it's interesting too because I mean Islamic extremists may be a minority but when they speak out they certainly have a big impact. And I'd like you to have a look at this report from SBS in Australia recently which includes an interview with one of the men who was convicted of the Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta. Have a look at this.

SBS NEWSREEL: Amidst the gangsters, corruptors and drug dealers, the terrorism trials attract very little interest. Iwan Darmawan, alias Rois, is said to be the one who selected the suicide bomber for the embassy attack.

REPORTER, (Translation): I read that you said that you regret there were no Australian victims.

ROIS, (Translation): That's not what I regret, I regret that the victims were Muslim and Indonesian. That's what I regret.

REPORTER, (Translation): But as I asked, do you hate Australians?

ROIS, (Translation): I don't hate Australians. I hate people anywhere who oppress Islamic people. I don't hate Australians, but anyone who oppresses Muslims.

JENNY BROCKIE: Ahmad Syafi'i Ma'arif, what do you think of those views when you see those views?

AHMAD SYAFI'I MA'ARIF, MUSLIM LEADER: I think if we talk about terrorisms, we have to make a clear distinction. There are at least three types of terrorism - individual, groups and state-structured terrorism. I think what Mr Bush and also Israel have made is some kind of state terrorism. Therefore -

JENNY BROCKIE: Do you understand those views? I mean, do you support those views?

AHMAD SYAFI'I MA'ARIF: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I think, if you talk about terror, we are on the same boat - we have to hunt the terrorists, all kind of terrorism, to the end of the journey. So I have made a very strong statement about this many times - terrorism is the real enemy of humanity.

DESI ANWAR: Jenny, the man behind the bars is not representative of Muslims. He is a criminal. That's why he's behind bars. For the rest of us, when the Bali bombing happened, when the Australian Embassy bombing happened, when 9/11 happened, we were devastated, we were very, very - I mean, the whole thing was very, very tragic and we were extremely sorry and more so because of it happening to our guests, you know, these are the guests of Indonesia. And if it happens, say for example - we've seen so many tragedies in Indonesia, so many conflicts, so many bombings that they hardly make headlines any more but when it happened to the Australians in Bali and also the attempt at the Embassy, we in the media made it very sure that we showed our sympathy and we were extremely sorry. And that's all in sincerity because we are as disgusted, you know, when we see violence, when we see murders, when we see senseless killings. I mean, we are just as terrified of terrorism as anybody else.

JENNY BROCKIE: Do you think Muslim leaders in Indonesia have been strong enough in their condemnation of those acts of violence? Syafi'i, yes.

AHMAD SYAFI'I MA'ARIF: This is the problem. OK, we have made very strong statement many times to condemn strongly all kinds of terrorism.

JENNY BROCKIE: You don't hear a lot of that in Australia.

CHUSNUL MAR'IYAH: Because the media is never interested in the moderate people. They just like to have the radical, very few unspoken. That's the problem, the problem I think is why.
DITA SARI: Why the perception is built that way? Why the opinion is built that way by the media and also by the authority? I think because the foreign policy, the Australian foreign policy needs some good ground...

JENNY BROCKIE: Just let her finish.

DITA SARI: ..needs some strong justification so that the kind of foreign policy that is chosen by Howard, by the authority of the Australians, is justified by the people. So they -

JENNY BROCKIE: Are you talking about Iraq and Afghanistan? What are you talking about?

DITA SARI: Foreign policy. And also local policy. So this kind of perception is built so the Australian people can be convinced that we need less immigrants, we need more troops sending to Iraq, we need more military budget so that more troops will be sending to Iraq.

JENNY BROCKIE: Very quickly. We are going to have to wrap up.

DR HARIMAN SIREGAR, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR: You Australian got used to Suharto. When Suharto here, Australian is very polite to Indonesia because Suharto is strong. And you need people like that in Indonesia now. It's impossible.

JENNY BROCKIE: Ah. You need Suharto now?

DR HARIMAN SIREGAR: No, no, no. What you expect - like what you said.

JENNY BROCKIE: We need Suharto?

DR HARIMAN SIREGAR: You expect condemnation, strong condemnation. You need Suharto. We haven't got Suharto anymore.

JENNY BROCKIE: A diplomat here. Yes, A diplomat's voice.

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Let's pick up a few points being made by my colleague, Dita. I think she pointed out very rightly in saying that the foreign policy that is being made by the Australian Government should be formulated in such a way that it's also sensitive to its neighbours, like us, like Indonesia, for instance. It's not only for the purpose of satisfying their constituents, that government like Prime Minister Howard that have to say something -

JENNY BROCKIE: And you don't think it is? You don't think that policy is formulated that way?
SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Well, rather than considering the relations between the two countries, I think they consider giving more emphasis on how to satisfy their constituents and -

JENNY BROCKIE: Harry, you have to stop. You have to stop! Just let him finish.

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: But I have seen so far, within this last few years, I thought there had been an improvement in the relations between the two countries, at least in the government-to-government level. And where in almost every issues that cropped up in the context of relations between the countries being communicated behind the bar, behind the scene, rather than being said, as we qualify it, as megaphone diplomacy.

DR HARIMAN SIREGAR: I remember in Suharto times - Let me speak. The intelligence of Australia always coming down with our boat. There is our fishermen always come to Australia but they never take action. They just put some intelligence there, they take a note. But now, they just burn our boats!

JENNY BROCKIE: Woah! Woah! Woah!

SADJANAN PARNOHADININGRAT: Something about future relations between us and them.

JENNY BROCKIE: I'd like to wrap up on that note. Reni, you teach Australian politics and I'm interested in knowing what you think could be done to improve the situation.

RENI SUWARSO, UNIVERSITY LECTURER: Yeah, good question. First, I want to give a comment. I want to be more fair, you know. I agree with all the previous speakers about terrorism. Islam against terrorism, yes. But we should fair to express that all religions right now tend to be more militant - it is also for Islam and also other religions. It is the first point. And the second point is I want to raise issue, the basic issue whether - we are talking about stereotyping, about Australian perceive Indonesia, and how about Indonesia perceive Australia? How many people in Indonesia realise that we have neighbour, Australia is our neighbour. We didn't talk about the extremists, no, no. We just realise whether - do we realise that Australia is our neighbour? How many people? Is it up to 50% of the Indonesian people? I don't think so.

JENNY BROCKIE: OK, so there's not an awareness of that. How can we improve the understanding between the two countries?

WIMAR WITOELAR: More people-to-people contact. When you have people-to-people contact, it's all right. I lived in Geelong for three months, never an unfriendly face. I travel in Melbourne, friendly. Never. I get my nasty moments on radio talkback shows and I get my uncomfortable moments in shows like this but, if you have people-to-people contact, everything's peachy. Australians are great.

JENNY BROCKIE: Final comment, yes.

ALPHA AMIRRACHMAN: We should have more opportunity. This is to show how we Indonesians do not really understand Australians. We might ask like, "Are you Westerner from the east or easterner from the West?" That expresses that we actually don't really know Australians and we need as Wimar said, people-to-people contact.

DESI ANWAR: Sorry, Jenny, to answer your question, maybe you should have more Australian journalists here in Indonesia. I mean, the fact that Australia is so close, you have so few journalists and mostly if they come here it's because of a particular trial. You know, Indonesia is so huge. There's so many stories to cover and I think Australians, the Australian public is missing out on a lot of great stories. And, trust me, Bali is not the only place for Australians to go on holiday to. You know? So I think it is important for more informed programs about Indonesia. Likewise, I mean, we should have more kind of exchanges, people-to-people. But definitely, I think the media does play a huge role and if the Australian media is only interested in focusing on sensationalist stories and in generating audience or readers' response by printing out emotional and sensationalism story, I think, you know, it's doing a great disservice to the Australian public that is now portrayed as, I wouldn't say arrogant, but simply sort of, in a way, well... ..unsophisticated, I'm sorry to say, with all the kind of, you know, emotional outbursts we're seeing. It's, you know, quite embarrassing.

The Difference between Two Tsunamies

2005-10-03T04:30:00.000-07:00

Unpublished

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—The word ‘crisis’ in Chinese has two syllables: The first one means danger and the second means opportunity. This is exactly how the Asian tsunami has unfolded in the Indonesian province of Aceh, which was the worst-hit area when this catastrophe happened on Boxing Day last year.

As soon as the news of the Asian tsunami—which wiped out almost everything (except for a few mosques and churches) and killed more than 126,000 Indonesians—broke out, the Indonesian government made its response to the victims and their families a national priority.

Next, the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono government put in place a plan to coordinate the recovery and rebuilding of Aceh, with relief and financial aid from the international community, including the US.

But most importantly, the Indonesian government saw the Asian tsunami as a perfect opportunity to bring peace to Aceh and seized it. After five rounds of talk, on Aug. 15, Jakarta and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) signed a peace agreement in Helsinki.

If implemented successfully, this peace deal could end the three-decade long conflict between the Indonesian military (TNI) and GAM, who had been fighting for full independence from Jakarta.

Roughly two weeks later, half the world away, a different tsunami happened. Hurricane Katrina ripped through the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, and its neighboring areas, followed by heavy floods.

So far, Hurricane Katrina has killed about 1,000 Americans, and the final death toll can be up to 10,000. Meanwhile, it has left about 300,000 people homeless.

Unlike the Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono Administration’s, however, the Bush Administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina has been more than disappointing.

As Katrina floods engulfed New Orleans, thousands of victims, most of whom were poor African Americans, called and waited for help in vain, while many others disappeared or died.

Whereas the Asian tsunami ignited the peace-building process in Aceh and brought the Indonesian people closer together, Hurricane Katrina has widened the gap between black and white Americans.

It is quite understandable that black victims of Hurricane Katrina feel that they have not received the treatment from their government because of their skin color. After all, they paid US tax, and their sons went to war in Iraq.

The US National Guards could have been sent to New Orleans to help victims when Hurricane Katrina happened. But, alas, they too were in Baghdad at that time. To be sure, some did come home, but in body bags!

But, now that the camera has moved on and the water in New Orleans is receding, it remains to be seen if the Bush Administration will give full support, financial and otherwise, to the rebuilding of Katrina-affected areas, as President George W. Bush has pledged.

Meanwhile, one thing is certain: The US does have the resources with which it can rebuild Katrina-affected cities.

Unlike Indonesia—which has been going through some political and economic tough times since the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98, of which it was one of the most prominent victims—the US is still the world’s most powerful economy.

But does the Bush Administration have the commitment and experience that it takes to help victims of Hurricane Katrina and their families rebuild their homes, their cities, and most importantly, their lives?

On this particular note, it is hoped that President Bush, who requested that President Yudhoyono sit next to him at the UN Summit dinner earlier this month, asked for advice on how to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina from his Indonesian counterpart.

To be sure, President Bush could learn a thing or two from President Yudhoyono. Compared with the American president, the Indonesian president had a tougher crisis to deal with when the Asian tsunami hit Indonesia.

For one thing, while President Bush had received warnings about Hurricane Katrina, the Asian tsunami caught President Yudhoyono and his people by surprise. (Ironically, it was an American meteorologist who saw the Asian tsunami coming, but could not send a warning to affected countries in time.)

Furthermore, by the time Hurricane Katrina happened, President Bush was quite experienced in crisis management, having dealt with 9/11, waged war with the al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and invaded Iraq. By contrast, when the Asian tsunami came, President Yudhoyono was only two months in office.

Given his learning curve, however, President Yudhoyono seems to have done a good job in dealing with the Asian tsunami and rebuilding Aceh—thanks to the generosity that the international community has pledged thus far.

To be sure, Indonesia is in no position to teach the US about unity and diversity, given the challenge of maintaining its own national integrity. But the Bush Administration can certainly look at the peace-building process that the Indonesian government has started in Aceh as an example of what it can do now in Hurricane Katrina-affected areas.

It is sad to see through Hurricane Katrina that, until today, the United States of America is still a house divided between black and white. But, at the same time, Hurricane Katrina has also offered President Bush a perfect opportunity to heal America.

Mr. President, don’t waste this opportunity!

Oh, and while you are at it, you might want to sign the Kyoto Protocol on environment protection to help prevent future natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, whose real name are—you guessed it—global warming.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist, whose writing can be read at http://thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com. He writes frequently, and has published two books, on Indonesia.

The difference between two tragedies

2005-09-26T00:05:00.000-07:00

The Jakarta Post
26 September 2005

Thang D. Nguyen, Jakarta

On Sept. 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists attacked America, and a total of 2,749 Americans died that day.

Roughly four years later, on Aug. 29, 2005, America was hit again, this time by a natural disaster. Hurricane Katrina ripped through the city of New Orleans and its neighboring areas, followed by heavy floods.

So far, Hurricane Katrina has killed about 500 Americans, but the final death toll can be up to 10, 000. Meanwhile, it has left about 300,000 people homeless.

While Sept. 11 and Hurricane Katrina are different in many ways, they both are tragic -- in the sense that they took many innocent lives and that they should not have happened at all.

There is, nevertheless, another striking difference between these two tragedies: The responses from the Bush Administration to them both, respectively.

Shortly after Sept. 11 happened, the Bush Administration was quick to send U.S. National Guards, firefighters, police, and other federal resources to Ground Zero for help.

In contrast, the Bush Administration's response to Katrina has been more than disappointing. As Hurricane Katrina and its floods engulfed New Orleans, thousands of victims called and waited for help in vain, while many others disappeared or died.

So far, commentators and many victims of Hurricane Katrina themselves have blamed the slow response on racism.

Since most prominent victims of Hurricane Katrina in and around New Orleans were poor African Americans, this criticism is understandable. It is, however, not necessarily the reason why the Bush Administration's response to Katrina has been inadequate.

Consider the following comparisons.

Whereas Ground Zero is in New York City, America's symbol of prosperity, pride, and freedom, the hardest hit city by Hurricane Katrina is New Orleans, just another part of America's colonial history.

Compared to the almighty Twin Towers, or the World Trade Center, what is the French Quarter? If anything, gone are its good old jazz bars!

Whereas New York City is, among other things, the center (and symbol) of America's economic might, New Orleans itself is just an old city with a poor population.

To be sure, the Gulf of Mexico is home to some of America's energy infrastructure, which produces (or refines) about a quarter of its oil and gas. The damages that Hurricane Katrina has on the U.S. economy, however, are "modest," as Ben Bernanke, the chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, said on Aug. 31, compared to those caused by Sept. 11.

But most importantly, whereas Sept. 11 was an act of terror, Katrina was a natural disaster, albeit a severe one.

For days after the Twin Towers collapsed, there was nothing on CNN but Sept. 11. To be sure, there were news about Katrina on American TV channels, but the reporting was not on a 24/7 basis, as was the case after Sept. 11 happened.

And because of this so-called CNN effect, Americans -- and people around the world, for that matter -- will remember Sept. 11 forever.

But, by the same token, how many people will remember Hurricane Katrina a few years from now -- seriously?

In other words, the public will remember and consider only what the media shows important; everything else doesn't matter.

And now that the camera has moved on and the water in New Orleans is receding, will the Bush administration show the same kind of support, financial and otherwise, in rebuilding it as it has done in New York City?

Meanwhile, one thing is certain: While the Bush Administration took America to war with the al-Qaeda in Afghanistan in the name of "justice" for the victims of Sept. 11 and, later, used it as a pretext to invade Iraq, it cannot do the same to Mother Nature.

Furthermore, while they cost Washington billions of dollars, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq do bring economic benefits to the U.S. economy.

These benefits include: The U.S. government's orders of weapons and military-related items; fat contracts that American construction companies have won in Iraq; and, of course, oil.

But rebuilding New Orleans and other Katrina-affected areas will only be a cost to Washington and its corporate supporters, not benefits -- none whatsoever.

So, the message goes: The lives that Sept. 11 took are more important than those that Hurricane Katrina did. And if responding to a tragedy does not benefit corporate America, frankly speaking, the Bush Administration doesn't give a damn!

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His writing can be read at http://thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Thaksin can learn from Indonesia

2005-08-24T22:49:00.000-07:00

The Jakarta Post

Thursday, 25 August 2005

By Thang D. Nguyen

JAKARTA—It may sound like a paradox, but there is a lesson about peace that Prime Minister Thaksin Sinawatra should learn from Indonesia and apply to the conflict in southern Thailand. On Aug. 15, two days before Indonesia's 60th Independence Day, the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) signed a peace agreement in Helsinki.

Materialized after five rounds of talk, the agreement allows the Acehnese to have economic and political autonomy, to the extent that they may form local political parties, with Jakarta withdrawing the Indonesian military's (TNI) operation in the province.

If implemented successfully, this peace deal could end the three-decade long war between the Indonesian government and GAM, who had been fighting for full independence from Jakarta, and bring about peace in Aceh -- which was hit hardest during the Asian tsunami last year.
To make it work, both Jakarta and GAM have to honor the agreement that they signed in Helsinki.

This means that GAM really has to put down its weapons for once and for all, and Jakarta has to abide by the agreed cease-fire and allow the autonomy process to start in Aceh. Thus, if either party violates this agreement one way or another, all the peace-building efforts so far will be in vain. And, if this happened, war would return.

While we hope that both Jakarta and GAM will succeed with the Helsinki pact, it can serve as an example for Thailand, which is facing a similar challenge with Muslim-Thai separatists in the south.

Since last January, when assailants attacked a military camp in southern Thailand and cleaned out its armory, about 800 Thais have died in this conflict.

The most condemnable bloodshed, however, took place on Oct. 25 last year when 78 Muslim-Thai protesters were arrested and suffocated to death while being transported in police trucks.
"This is typical," said Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra when asked about reports of scores dead in this massacre. "It's about bodies made weak from fasting. Nobody hurt them."

It can only be hoped that Prime Minister Thaksin's knowledge of postmortem forensics has improved since he made this infamous statement. But, alas, he has not softened his violence-based approach to dealing with the conflict in the south, which doesn't seem to get better as time goes by.

To be fair, however, Thaksin has met with Muslim leaders from other countries, namely Indonesia, to seek their advice on how to solve the southern problem. He has also put together a team of experienced and able Thais, such as former foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan, to work on it.

Unfortunately, this team seems ineffective because -- being the autocrat that he is -- Thaksin still calls all the shots when it comes to the southern conflict, or everything else in Thailand for that matter. He sees and approaches it the same way that US President George W. Bush -- whom he admires a lot -- does terrorism.

Obviously, Thaksin's way of dealing with such a multi-dimensional and complex issue as the southern conflict is not working. This is because he is trying to solve this problem with military forces thinking that it will be corrected instead of finding out what its root causes are and treating them with appropriate, preventive measures.

To be sure, the Malay-Muslims in the south have been, and still are, the minority or "underdog" group. They make up about 2.3 million people of Thailand's 63 million population, the majority of whom are Buddhist. Over a century ago, the five southern provinces belonged to the Muslim kingdom of Pattani, which was "annexed" in 1902 by Siam, as Thailand was known then.

The fact is that the discontent among Muslim Thais in the south has been fed by the poor economic opportunities in the region; their distinct culture, history, language and religion from the Buddhist Thai majority; and the human rights violations they have been subject to by Thai troops and police.

This is what Prime Minister Thaksin is not accepting as the truth.

Now, the question remains, what to do to bring peace to the south?

First, Prime Minister Thaksin should admit that he has been wrong with his heavy-handed handling of the southern conflict.

Like an alcoholic who is trying to quit drinking, this first step is most crucial because, if he keeps thinking that he has been doing the right things all this time, he will keep escalating the violence the south and, thereby, worsen the situation on the ground.

Second, as the Indonesians have done with the Acehnese, Prime Minister Thaksin should encourage talks between Bangkok and representatives of the Pattani region that can lead to a peace agreement.

These talks, which can take place in another country and be mediated by a third party, will allow Bangkok and the leadership of the Pattani region to put on the table their needs or demands that must be mutually met, so that peace may come to the south.

This part is quite challenging in the sense that, unlike GAM in Aceh, no individual leader or organization in the south has claimed the leadership to represent the people of the south. It is, however, doable if Bangkok can show its willingness and ability to hold talks with representatives from the south.

Finally, if a peace pact can ever be made between Bangkok and the south, both the Thaksin government and the leadership of the south -- whoever it may be -- must carry out the terms of peace that are mutually agreed.

Peace in southern Thailand is possible. But, it won't be won with violence. Rather, it will require the Thai government to win the hearts and minds of the people in the south. But most importantly, peace is only possible when it is honored.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist (whose writing can be read at http://thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com). Currently, he is editing a book on Thailand.

Aceh pact a birthday gift for Indonesia

2005-08-16T20:53:00.000-07:00

TODAY
Singapore

Wednesday • August 17, 2005

Thang D Nguyen
news@newstoday.com.sg

AS INDONESIA celebrates its 60th Independence Day today, the nation cannot give itself a more meaningful gift for its birthday than the peace agreement that was signed between the Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) in Helsinki on Monday.

The deal, clinched after five rounds of talks, allows the Acehnese political autonomy, the setting up of local political parties and the eventual pullout of the Indonesian military (TNI) from the province.

Some caution is advised as similar agreements have been signed in the course of this long-running conflict, but they did not result in peace.

In 2002 a peace agreement mediated by the Henry Dunant Center was signed in Geneva, giving the Acehnese special autonomy, but not full independence.

Unfortunately, former President Abdurrahman Wahid (also known as Gus Dur) did not prepare for the talks, and the signing of the agreement with the Acehnese rebels was a blunder.

Fighting continued in Aceh and the rebels expanded their operations there. Gus Dur's successor, former President Megawati Sukarnoputri, declared martial law in Aceh and sent 35,000 troops to the province in May 2003.

This was the largest military operation in Indonesia's history since its invasion of the now independent Timor Leste. The aim of the deployment was, in the words of former TNI chief Endriartono Sutarto, "to destroy the armed forces of GAM through [sic] their roots."

The government and GAM have to honour the Helsinki agreement to avoid repeating history. In other words, GAM has to put down its weapons once and for all, and Jakarta has to abide by the ceasefire and allow local political autonomy to take hold in Aceh.

Another reason for Indonesia to be careful with the Helsinki deal is that it has given rise to jealousy among provinces such as Papua, which faces political conflicts and poverty, despite its natural resources.

Papuans believe that their elders' vote to join the Republic of Indonesia in 1969 was fraudulent. The Papuans — especially those of Melanesian origin — are now calling on Jakarta to honour the law on special autonomy that it signed in 2001, saying that it has not been well implemented.

This law was expected to bring about policies of affirmative action for indigenous Papuans, the establishment of the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) and peace. But none of the promises have been fulfilled.

As it has done in Aceh, Jakarta is meeting local challenges in Papua with TNI forces. Unfortunately, this treatment only further widens the existing distrust between the Papuans and Jakarta. To avoid further conflicts in Papua, Jakarta should honour the special autonomy law.

The United States, which expressed interest in Papua's plight, has said that it will not interfere in ways that would affect Indonesia's unity, but will help the government to fulfil the special autonomy law.

Likewise, both the Indonesian government and GAM will need support to implement the Helsinki pact successfully.

While Indonesia has made progress, its journey to peace and unity is far from over. If it succeeds in implementing peace deals like the Helsinki accord, not only will it become a more peaceful and united nation, but it can also be a shining example of peace-building for other nations, such as Thailand and the Philippines, which face similar challenges.

The lesson goes: War does not bring about peace; it only begets itself. And to end war, peace must be honoured.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist and has published two books about Indonesia.

Thang Nguyen: The ugly ocker rears his racist head once more

2005-07-19T20:00:00.000-07:00

The Australian
20 July 2005

Has the Schapelle Corby drama revived White Australia attitudes?

IN Australia, to paraphrase British political novelist George Orwell, all citizens "are equal, but some are more equal than others". This was made clear last week when Prime Minister John Howard wrote a letter to convicted Australian drug smuggler Schapelle Corby.

In a personal note to Howard earlier this month, Corby had pleaded: "I need your help to prove my innocence to the courts, release me from this nightmare and set me free." To which Howard replied: "I would like to take this opportunity to assure you that I will continue to take a personal interest in your case." He promised that Corby would get assistance from Canberra.

Meanwhile, as her lawyers have appealed, the Bali High Court has granted Corby a retrial, which starts today. The difference this time, however, is that there will be 12 witnesses from Australia who may get her free.

Howard's letter came after a series of what can be interpreted only as xenophobic acts since the 27-year-old beautician received a 20-year sentence on May 27 for smuggling 4.1kg of marijuana into Bali.

First, Australians told each other to boycott Bali holiday resorts and Indonesian products in Australia. Next, they regretted having made donations to Indonesian victims of the Asian tsunami and some issued death threats against Indonesian diplomats and civilians living in Australia.

Some enraged Australians sent bullets to the Indonesian consulate in Perth and twice sent a chemical powder, which turned out to be harmless, to the Indonesian embassy in Canberra. Worse, someone sent a package that also contained harmless chemical powder to Parliament House in Canberra and addressed it to their own Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, who on behalf of the federal Government had sent regrets for the previous incidents to the Indonesian Government.

Why can't these Australians see that a crime is a crime, regardless of where one commits it? Everyone is subject to the laws and punishments of the nation in which he or she commits a crime. An Indonesian who commits a crime in Australia falls immediately under Australian laws. If found guilty, he or she would have to face the consequence -- whether it is imprisonment or otherwise -- of his or her crime under those laws.

Most of what the Australian public saw on television on May 27 was a true-blue, young Australian woman facing stone-faced Indonesian judges and being taken by the arms by Indonesian police after the reading of her verdict. For many Australians, this image provoked nothing less than injustice done to an Australian on foreign soil.

Never mind that 45 Australians are facing drug-trafficking charges across Asia. And never mind that some have received more severe sentences than Corby's. Nguyen Tuong Van and Tran Van Thanh, for instance, have been convicted of drug-smuggling charges, and they both face death row in Singapore and Vietnam respectively.

Why don't these Australian citizens receive any attention or sympathy from the Australian public, let alone personal interest from their Prime Minister? Is it because their surnames are Nguyen and Tran? If this does not sound like racism, what does?

Of course, given Australian history, one should not be surprised that a broad group of Aussies is still xenophobic. Remember, it was only a few decades ago when the slogan "Australia for the White Man" was on the masthead of The Bulletin, the nation's most respected magazine. And who could forget Labor leader Arthur Calwell's "Two Wongs don't make a white"?

Sure, Australia has changed for the better since those dark days, notwithstanding Hansonism in the late 1990s. Just think of the many Asian Australians, their cuisines and diverse cultures that one can find today in Sydney, Melbourne and other places in Australia. Still, as Australians' reactions to the Corby case show, the spectre of White Australia haunts the nation. The message: a white or Aussie life is more valuable than a brown or Asian one. Justice may be blind, but for Australians it's not colour-blind.

Thang Nguyen is a Jakarta-based columnist, whose writing can be read at http://thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com

Arroyo must decide whether to run or stand and fight

2005-07-16T04:14:00.000-07:00

By Thang D. Nguyen, Jakarta

Had Cardinal Jaime Sin been still alive and well, perhaps he would play a leading role in the current political crisis in the Philippines.

Indeed, politics was for Cardinal Sin, who died last month at age 76, a second calling after the church. First, he mobilized "people power" to end former president Ferdinand Marcos's lengthy dictatorship in 1986.

Next, Cardinal Sin pushed Madam Corazon Aquino, the widow of Marcos rival Benigno Aquino who had been assassinated in 1983, to run for president.

And she became the first woman president of the Philippines.

Once again, in 2001, Cardinal Sin put his influence to work, this time to oust former President Joseph Estrada and support the then Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to take over the Philippine presidency.

Unfortunately, President Arroyo is facing calls for her resignation. Among other things, she is charged with rigging last year's election to win her second term.

In early June when thousands of Filipinos protested in Manila against President Arroyo, most analysts considered a chance of her being ousted -- as her predecessor was -- slim.

Recent events in the Philippine capitol, however, suggest otherwise. For one thing, Aquino herself last week called on President Arroyo to step down.

What is more, the 85-member Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines met last weekend and issued a statement calling for the creation of an independent "truth commission" to investigate the allegations against the president.

"We ask the president to discern deeply to what extent she might have contributed to the erosion of effective governance and whether the erosion is so severe that it's irreversible," the statement also said.

The bishops stopped short, however, of calling for her resignation.

But the question remains: What will happen?

Three scenarios seem possible: First, President Arroyo may resign; second, if found guilty, she may be impeached; and third, a clash between the military and anti-Arroyo Filipinos may happen.

At the moment, President Arroyo is doing everything she can to avoid resignation, including sending her corruption-tainted husband, Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo, into exile in the U.S. and asking her cabinet to resign.

While stepping down may be the last thing she wants to do, it is the best and only way that she can leave in grace, if she is in fact guilty as charged.

In other words, if she has indeed committed the sin of stealing last year's election, she might as well come clean and end her presidency in grace rather than being impeached.

As for impeachment, President Arroyo is willing to go on trial. She has also admitted talking to an election official during the counting of last year's election and apologized to the nation for her "lapse of judgment."

The president's advisors and she probably think that agreeing to go for impeachment hearings may buy them some more time to come up with new defensive strategies -- given the usually long process that it takes to bring a president to impeachment in the Philippines, or any other country, for that matter.

President Arroyo should only agree to go for impeachment hearings if she can prove that she is not guilty at all.

Otherwise, she should not, simply because if she does not fare well in the hearings, she will be found guilty and, thereafter, impeached.

But, what if she is found not guilty? If that is the case, she may stay in office, but most Filipinos will have lost their confidence in her by then. Worse yet, a bloody clash between anti-Arroyo Filipinos and the military may occur.

Thus far, the Philippine military has pledged its neutrality. And it is hoped that there will be no bloodshed this time, given the history of violent politics in the Philippines.

Should the Arroyo presidency come to an end, Vice President Noli de Castro is in line to succeed her.

Among most ordinary Filipinos, de Castro is popular, having hosted the country's evening news programs for 17 years.

The concern that the Philippine elites and business community have, however, is that de Castro does not have the political experience and skills that the presidency requires.

For the Philippines, a country that is best described with political instability, corruption, and poverty, the concern about de Castro's ability to steer the helm is not without legitimacy.

Unlike Arroyo who openly campaigned against her former boss, Estrada, while he was still president, de Castro has thus far appeared calm, not too eager to take over the presidency.

"Let's give President Arroyo a chance to think and decide for the nation," de Castro said last Friday.

The president does, indeed, need some time to think and decide whether to quit or continue her battle.

Whichever course President Arroyo may choose, it may serve her well to remember what Abraham Lincoln once reportedly said: "You can fool all the people some of the time and some people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. His columns can be read at http://thangthecolumnist.blogspot.com.

Fighting corruption in Indonesia requires a holistic approach

2005-06-26T18:05:00.000-07:00

The Jakarta Post
26 June 2005

Thang D. Nguyen, Jakarta

Corruption has been with us since human civilizations first began.Today, it costs governments, businesses, and ordinary citizensworldwide hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

And in Indonesia, fighting corruption is more than daunting a task for its government.

Since he came to power last October, President Susilo BambangYudhoyono (SBY) has made corruption one of the priorities for hisgovernment. He has launched an anti-corruption campaign that, he said,"I myself will lead."

To show that he means business, he has put together a 51-personCoordinating Team for Corruption Eradication (KPK), an anti-graftagency that is put in place to continue what has been -- for the mostpart -- a mission impossible for its successors.

Thus far, the new campaign appears to have teeth. To start with, theformer Aceh governor, Abdullah Puteh, was accused in early lastDecember of taking a cut from the purchase of a Russian helicopterpurchased by the government. He is now on trial.

Last month, two other notable individuals were arrested on charges of corruption. The first one is former Bank Mandiri president director,E.C.W. Neloe, whom the Attorney General's Office (AGO) named as asuspect for his alleged role in the lending scam at the giantstate-owned bank.

The second one is Nazaruddin Sjamsuddin, former chairman of theIndonesian General Elections Commission (KPU). The KPK called forNazaruddin's arrest on the basis of his alleged corruption during lastyear's elections.

As impressive as the campaign seems, some questions remain: How longwill it last? Is it really effective? And, most importantly, willthose convicted of corruption walk free or get a light sentence?

The answer is: It is too early to tell.

Meanwhile, one thing is certain: like poverty, corruption will alwaysbe with us. It is mainly because greed, which is the root cause of corruption, is a permanent feature of human nature.

Thus, to make the Susilo-led anti-corruption campaign work, itsobjective should be realistic and achievable. Put differently, theultimate goal of this campaign should be to reduce corruption inIndonesia to a minimal level.

Why reduce corruption and not get rid of it altogether? It is simplybecause corruption cannot be terminated.

No one single country -- even those in the West, which prides itselfon transparency and good governance -- can claim that it is completelycorruption-free. Put differently, corruption exists in all societies,but it is more serious in some than others.

For this reason, the Transparency International (TI) publishes anannual index of corruption, which ranks Indonesia the world's fifthmost corrupt nation this year.

But just having a realistic goal of reducing corruption in Indonesiadoes not guarantee success. In other words, the Susilo-ledanti-corruption campaign requires more than naming and arrestingcorrupters.

To be sure, these arrests signal a good start. They seem, however, toreflect a corrective, rather than a preventive, approach to dealingwith corruption.

Thus, the campaign may be more effective if it is executed with a moreholistic approach that has three folds. First, Indonesian citizens, regardless of profession, must be given ways to make a living withoutbeing or becoming corrupt.

It is understandable that a poorly paid teacher or police officer has to take bribes. Even though he may feel guilty doing it, it's the onlyway for him to provide for himself or his family.

Therefore, if the Susilo Administration can find ways to increase thesalaries for workers across the sectors and reform the civil services, it will help reduce a great deal of corruption; workers and civilservants should not feel the need to be corrupt.

Second, like a people's or revolutionary war, the Susilo-led campaign must be carried out with the "hearts and minds" of the people of Indonesia. In fact, the campaign needs their support to succeed.

Why their support? It's because if encouraged, they will be motivatedto provide the KPK with the intelligence, evidence, or witnesses, allof which are necessary for the agency to find and bring corrupters tojustice.

The government should, therefore, reward well and give protection toIndonesian citizens who help find out if, and prove that, anindividual or organization -- public, private, or otherwise -- hascommitted corruption.

In fact, this campaign requires the help of the Indonesian civilsociety and each citizen, if it is to succeed. Or, as the KPKvice-chairman, Erry Riyana Hardjapamekas, puts it, "Let's all lightsome candles rather than [cursing] the darkness."

Finally, the KPK must show that it means business by giving corrupterswho are found guilty the punishments -- imprisonment, fine, or eventhe death sentence -- they deserve.

It is no news that money and power can easily buy freedom forcriminals in Indonesia -- and other parts of the world, for that matter. Therefore, the KPK must be empowered with not onlyanti-corruption laws, but strong support from the Indonesian legalsystem, particularly judges, to drive the campaign successfully.

Indonesia is making progress on reducing corruption. But like otherdiseases, corruption must be treated holistically, with bothpreventive and corrective measures. Otherwise, the Susiloadministration\'s battle with corruption will be fought in vain.

The writer is a Jakarta-based columnist. He writes frequently onIndonesian affairs and has published several books.

An ASEAN deal for Myanmar

2005-05-30T20:29:00.000-07:00

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

2005-05-30T03:30:00.000-07:00

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

2005-05-15T22:02:00.000-07:00

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

2005-05-02T02:00:00.000-07:00

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!

2005-05-02T01:55:00.000-07:00

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

2005-05-02T01:42:00.000-07:00

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

2005-05-01T23:08:00.001-07:00

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

2005-05-01T23:04:00.000-07:00

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.