Major Political Parties Head For Showdown

Simon Sinaga

26 February 2010

The Golkar and Prosperous Justice (PKS) parties, despite their being part of the government’s coalition, have explicitly faulted President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s (SBY) top cabinet members, Vice President Boediono and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani, for abusing their position to dispense a total of 6.7 trillion rupiah ($668 million) in bailout money to PT Bank Century in 2008. Boediono was the central bank’s chief at the time of bailout.

Legislators from Golkar and Muslim-based PKS have been leading the opposition to this conclusion following a three-month parliamentary inquiry into the alleged scandal. Golkar and PKS legislators have described the bailout as a stark example of the SBY administration’s corrupt practices.

They have said that Boediono’s and Sri Mulyani’s bailout led to Bank Century management’s embezzlement of funds. Politicians and critics earlier charged that SBY and his Democratic Party benefited from the bailout in the form of political campaign funds and donations to foundations tied to SBY, his wife, and his party.

Boediono and Sri Mulyani say that the bailout was necessary to prevent the financial system from collapsing. But opposition legislators have refused to buy that argument, saying there is not enough evidence to suggest that the financial situation would be in a tailspin without the Century bailout. Golkar Party chairman Aburizal Bakrie said that the party’s faulting of Boediono and Sri Mulyani is based on facts, rather than his party’s opposition to policy-making.

Clearly, it is hard to swallow the notion that the Golkar and PKS parties’ pursuit of the Century case is a genuine move to root out corruption. Golkar’s politicians had called publicly for removing Boediono and Sri Mulyani from the cabinet even before the inquiry started. Golkar advanced its own presidential candidate in the 2009 election despite holding the vice presidency and minister posts in SBY’s previous administration, in which Bakrie himself held a coordinating minister position.

Several Democratic Party legislators said they would resolve the Century case by proving that allegations of wrongdoing are false. In doing so, they insist that their coalition with the Golkar and PKS parties would still stand.

But indications are that Golkar and PKS have no inclination to relent and that SBY’s Democratic Party intends to fight back. The police already have announced that they are launching a tax evasion probe into companies tied to Bakrie.

Calls are rising among SBY’s allies to reopen the investigation into mud volcano incident, which submerged villages in Sidoarjo. Scientists at home and abroad have joined the chorus in pointing fingers at drilling by Lapindo Brantas, a company owned by Bakrie’s group, for the mayhem the mud volcano caused.

An increasing number of Democratic Party politicians and supporters also have begun calling for reopening the investigation into the sale of several state-owned companies during Megawati Sukarnoputri’s presidency. Analysts at the time said that the sale of state companies was rife with corruption. Megawati’s party, PDIP, has been among the opposition parties that accuse Boediono and Sri Mulyani of misusing their power, and seek to remove them from government.

A showdown appears to be imminent. Speculation is on the rise that President SBY will be forced to remove Golkar and PKS from the coalition cabinet if these parties continue to attack Boediono and Sri Mulyani.

At a time when countries in the region are emerging from their economic doldrums, Indonesia needs to focus on seizing the opportunity to raise economic performance to stimulate job creation.

But what politicians now see instead is an opportunity to intensify horse-trading. And the countdown to the next general election, when SBY no longer can be a candidate, might have just begun.

Facebook Is Changing The World

Simon Sinaga

5 February 2010

 A recent comment by a well-quoted University of Indonesia mass   communication analyst that the theory that online media would cause print media to die is “pretty much refutable” goes against what has been happening in the media arena worldwide in the last decade or so.

While Indonesia may not have seen the full impact yet, the online media have unquestionably had an adverse impact on the livelihood of traditional media–including the print media–in much of the world. Newspapers and magazines in the US, Europe, and Japan have continued to suffer from falling circulation and advertising revenues, and the migration of readers to free online media.

The situation has, for example, forced the New York Times to plan to begin charging online readers (who do subscribe to its print issue) next year. It will give readers free access to a number of articles per month and start charging those who want to read more than the set number.

But evidence has shown that such a scheme will be an uphill, if not a losing, battle. Newsday is a case in point. The US Long Island newspaper’s website reportedly has only been able to sign up 35 (thirty-five!) purely online subscribers. Its other subscribers are people who are granted access to its website because they already pay for the print and/or affiliated cable television. The bottom line is that people have become used to having the freedom to access information online.

What is even more striking today is how the online social media have changed the way many people obtain information. Let’s take the case of Prita Mulyasari, a mother of two who was taken to court by Jakarta’s upscale Omni Hospital on defamation charges for writing to friends about mistreatment by the hospital (her friends later posted the statement on the Internet, which in turn led to the Hospital’s legal charges). She was jailed for three weeks awaiting trial. Started by people sympathetic to Prita, a Facebook page enlisted in a few weeks close to 150,000 members in support of her. The Facebook page was the main source of information for most of people following the case closely.

Even more so, the Facebook page put Prita’s case in the national spotlight, rallying people around the country to express support for her. Thanks to a plea posted on the page, thousands of people donated money for her legal defense fees. She was cleared of all charges late last year.

The Economist this week reports that online social networks are changing the way people communicate, work, and play. The other great achievement of online networks, The Economist notes, has been “to turn themselves into superb tools for mass communication.” People who have taken courses in journalism/mass communication schools must have known that mass communication essentially means mass media. In other words, the Economist suggests that online social networks are moving to take over the place that was once occupied by the traditional mass media–print, television, and radio.

There is little question that Facebook is the most dominant of all social media. The Economist described Facebook as “king of the social networking world.” CNN declared that “Facebook Changed the World.” Already, there are 375 million people who are members of millions of Facebook groups, making many billions of new connections.

I argue, therefore, that unless the traditional media invest significantly in online media and function closer to that of social media, they will be slowly but surely left behind by many. Indonesian media are no exception to the rule.

This week Facebook celebrates its sixth birthday. Let’s tender it a very Happy Birthday.

Facts about Facebook: Launched on February 4, 2004 Co-founders : Marck Zuckerberg and fellow classmates while attending Harvard. Facebook paid $ 65 million in settlement in 2007 on complaint from other classmates that Zuckerberg stole their idea Sold a 1.6% stake to Microsoft Corp. for $240 million (indicating a market value of $15 billion) Available in more than 70 languages Has more than 375 million active users worldwide. Revenue: $280 Million in 2008 (2009 estimate: more than $500 million)

Gus Dur, Our Champion Of Religious Tolerance

Simon Sinaga

5 January 2010

The news that Abdurrahman Wahid, leader of the 40 million-strong Muslim organization Nahdlatul Ulama and a former president, passed away late December might not come as a shock to many. Gus Dur, as he is known colloquially, had suffered complications from kidney and heart disease, as well as diabetes for the past several years; he was partially blind.

Yet, his death is a huge loss for the nation. No other person is as well-respected as Gus Dur politically or culturally for championing religious tolerance and democracy. Gus Dur had no reluctance to state publicly to his fellow Muslims – Indonesia’s dominant majority – that tolerance and equal rights for minorities are prerequisite for progress. In 1997 Gus traveled to Tel Aviv – with which Indonesia has not had diplomatic relations – to join a peace declaration promoted by the Shimon Perez Institute. As president, Gus decreed the Chinese lunar new year an official holiday, lifted the ban on public displays of Chinese characters, opened negotiations with the Free Aceh Movement, and apologized for human rights violations during Indonesia’s 24 years of rule in East Timor. Against the backdrop of a national landscape plagued by political disarray and financial collapse, his presidency was short-lived, lasting only from October 1999 to July 2001, during which time he sacked powerful politicians and generals in his coalition cabinet for corruption or involvement in human rights abuses.

Gus Dur’s departure comes at a time when concern looms – particularly among religious minorities – over a strong push by some segments of society – including radical Islamic groups – to introduce strict Islamic syariah law. What appears to have been happening is that the syariah law that has been incorporated into laws in parts of the country has been imposed not only on Muslim populations, but also on religious minorities. The result has been what Gus Dur fought throughout his life – increased intolerance.

Unable to make a strong foothold in big cities, recent movements by strict Islamic groups to introduce and strengthen the presence of syariah law have been carried out in small, rural towns and villages.

Most Indonesians remain positive that their nation can remain a pluralistic and open society for years because the majority of Indonesian Muslims are politically and socially moderate. Over the past decade, Indonesia’s experimentation with direct, open presidential and lower-level elections has been stunningly successful. However, unless Indonesian people and politicians maintain their enthusiasm for tolerance as Gus Dur advocated, we have reason to be apprehensive about what the future holds.