Kalla's democracy and Golkar ...

Democracy

Vice President Jusuf Kalla, also the general chairman of the country’s largest political party, Golkar, made another controversial statement recently when he said, democracy is a tool and not an objective in itself.

And as a tool, it can be put aside or even replaced, he said before members and leaders of Golkar when referring to efforts to improve people’s welfare.

In less than 24 hours the statement drew a lot of reactions, mostly regretting his simplistic point of view because—to many political analysts, observers and activists in the country—democracy is something they were fighting for so many years. It was not until about 10 years ago that Indonesia managed to call itself one of the biggest democracies in the world.

Therefore, to them, democracy is not just a tool, not even a mere “noun”. It implies leadership, courage, creativity, open-mindedness and ability to see an opportunity (and eventually power)—for the welfare of the majority of the people.

Therefore, it was rather surprising that Kalla described democracy simply as a tool in his capacity as the general chairman of Golkar, a political party which might not have survived the tumultuous late 90s if it was not because of the eagerness of the country’s political elites to support the basic principles of democracy.

However, we can also try to understand his statement. It was uttered amidst the country’s continuous political bickering that many parties simply forget their noble tasks of improving the welfare of the people (or at least those who have been supporting them)—a situation which actually has prompted many people to also say that Indonesian democracy is still “low” in terms of quality.

So probably it was something said out of Kalla’s frustration.

But frustration or not, at least Kalla had urged us—as a nation—to have a look again at “our democracy” especially because in a matter of months we are going to celebrate the 10^th anniversary of our reform era.

We believe it is high time we have a very close look at our tool again because even a tool sometimes needs fine-tuning just like a knife which needs to be regularly sharpened.

As one wise man said: Our biggest challenge actually is not how to promote democracy, but how to check it.

ASEAN and a load of old crap (again!)

Of benefit to all?

The ASEAN Charter will be of benefit to all members, said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono at the 13th ASEAN Summit in Singapore on Tuesday.

He, of course, was only echoing what had long been known as ASEAN’s tradition of upholding consensus. From the very beginning hardly anyone would expect the 40 year old organization to make statements containing strong messages towards Myanmar and its repressive military junta.

Therefore, it was anticipated already that in the last minutes the ASEAN Charter would undergo major changes and everything related to punitive measures on any member abusing human rights were taken out.

We can only hope that what was decided at the summit does not further highlight the fact that—as many critics say—ASEAN is an elitist organization. Everything discussed and decided by the organization only served the interests of the leaders, not the people.

That’s why when Yudhoyono said that the ASEAN Charter would be “of benefit to all members” it was not really clear whether the word “all” also referred to the people throughout the ASEAN region, in Myanmar in particular.

For ordinary observers like us, it was strange actually how a government like the one in Myanmar could take as many as nine other governments “hostage” to its problems.

Things were even more confusing when the nine other governments abruptly agreed to cancel a briefing by a U.N. representative Ibrahim Gambari before the senior officials of the Association on the latest situation in Myanmar.

The reason was nothing but “an objection made by the Myanmar military junta who said that what Gambari was going to talk about was its domestic affairs.”

The cancellation, of course, placed Singapore—the host of the summit—in a very embarrassing situation and, worse, reflected ASEAN’s longstanding weakness and ineffectiveness in handling the bad behavior of its own troublemaker.

It is not known how long, the nine other member countries could tolerate the attitude of Myanmar despite their elites’ economic and business interests in the country.

Well, at this time of the day, probably it’s just enough that we remind all those participants of the 13th ASEAN summit that the mightiest power of all is the power of the people—not of the leaders.

ASEAN and a load of old crap

The summit

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) held its 13th summit in Singapore on Monday and Tuesday amid global concerns over the continuous crackdown on human rights activists in one of its member countries: Myanmar.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono also attended the event and held meeting with leaders of the nine other member countries.

The summit, obviously was not the first. It fact, in the last several years it had become something routine. It just takes place regularly even though there is no special agenda that needs the common and urgent attention of all the leaders of the 10 countries in the 40 year old grouping.

With probably the signing of the ASEAN Charter as the only exception, actually other issues discussed by the leaders have been, are still being, or will be, discussed in various other international forums.
Such issues include Myanmar which has been deliberated at the United Nations although to this date there seems to be no agreement among the world’s major powers on the best way to deal with the repressive administration in the country.

ASEAN leaders, in the mean time, apparently will stick to their “own way”—meaning punitive sanctions against the country’s military junta are out of the questions.

Another “top agenda” was the climate change. It is yet to be seen whether the Association will come up with a joint stance on the issue prior to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) meeting in December in Bali. Chances are slim that they will because—as many analysts have said—ASEAN actually is still very far from an “integrated” region.

Its membership, for example, ranges from the very poor to the moderately rich, from democracies to monarchies, and from military rules to communist regimes.

Even the so-called “historic” ASEAN Charter looks like it can barely function as a tool to enhance the cohesiveness of one of the world’s oldest regional associations.

The long-overdue Charter is actually aimed at formally turning the organization—which has frequently been derided as a powerless talk shop—into a rule-based legal entity by setting up a human rights agency.

But, the fact that the 10 leaders have finally agreed to take out references to punishing violators again tells us that ASEAN still concentrates its activities on “moral influence”—if nothing else.

Che as seen by The Economist

Why the Che myth is bad for the left

The bearded face—eyes staring defiantly to infinity, the long wavy hair beneath the beret stirred by the Caribbean breeze—has become one of the world's most familiar images. Alberto Korda's photograph of Ernesto “Che” Guevara may be waved aloft by anti-globalization protesters but it has spawned a global brand. It has adorned cigarettes, ice cream and a bikini, and is tattooed on the bodies of footballers.

What explains the extraordinary appeal of Guevara, an Argentine who 40 years ago was captured and shot in Bolivia? Partly the consistency with which he followed his own injunction that “the duty of the revolutionary is to make the revolution”.

A frail asthmatic, he took up arms with Fidel Castro's guerrillas in Cuba's Sierra Maestra. After their victory, Guevara would fight again in the Congo as well as Bolivia. He fought dictators who were backed by the United States in the name of anti-communism when the cold war was at its hottest, and when Guevara's cry to create “two, three...many Vietnams” resonated on university campuses across the world. His renewed popularity in recent years owes much to a revival of anti-Americanism.

But it is semiotics, more than politics, that leads teenagers ignorant of the Sierra Maestra to sport Che T-shirts. Korda's photograph established Guevara as a universal symbol of romantic rebellion. It helps, too, that he died young, at 39: as a member of the Cuban gerontocracy he would hardly have become the James Dean of world politics.

A second picture, that of the bedraggled guerrilla's corpse, staring wide-eyed at the camera, provides another clue. It resembles Andrea Mantegna's portrait of the dead Christ. It fixes Guevara as a modern saint, the man who risked his life twice in countries that were not his own before giving it in a third, and whose invocation of the “new man”, driven by moral rather than material incentives, smacked of St Ignatius Loyola more than Marx.

In Cuba, he is the patron saint: at school, every child must repeat each morning, “We will be like Che.” His supposed relics are the object of official veneration. In 1997, when Cuba was reeling from the collapse of its Soviet ally, Mr Castro organised the excavation of Guevara's skeleton in Bolivia and its reburial in a mausoleum in Cuba. Except that in the tradition of medieval saints, it probably isn't his body at all, according to research by Bertrand de la Grange, a French journalist.

The wider the cult spreads, the further it strays from the man. Rather than a Christian romantic, Guevara was a ruthless and dogmatic Marxist, who stood not for liberation but for a new tyranny. In the Sierra Maestra, he shot those suspected of treachery; in victory, Mr. Castro placed him in charge of the firing squads that executed “counter-revolutionaries”; as minister of industries, Guevara advocated expropriation down to the last farm and shop.

His exhortation to guerrilla warfare, irrespective of political circumstance, lured thousands of idealistic Latin Americans to their deaths, helped to create brutal dictatorships and delayed the achievement of democracy.

Sadly, Guevara's example is invoked not just by teenagers but by some Latin American governments. In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez wants to create the guevarista “new man” , just when Cuba is having second thoughts.

As Jorge Castañeda, one of Guevara's biographers, notes, Che's lingering influence has retarded the emergence of a modern, democratic left in parts of Latin America. Sadly, most of those who buy the T-shirt neither know nor care.

The Economist – Oct. 11, 2007

Being ripped off by doctors!

Down below is something I copied and pasted from “Café Salemba”…
Very interesting, especially after recently I tried to interview Dr.H. Muki Reksoprodjo, SpOG, president director of the MMC Hospital in South Jakarta and he REFUSED.

He said he had nothing to say when it came to “hospital management” and he, after all was, a “bad manager” and that another reason was—despite being a par excellence Javanese—he preferred to speak matter-of-factly about things and this in the end might hurt “the powers-that-be.”

Ah yes, he also mentioned about the fact that his wife was the chair of the Women's International Club and he did not want to make it look like he was up and ready to share his views with the international community especially because the interview would be published in English!

Well, so much so for turning down an interview request. But it’s not that I don’t know about his position with regards to hospital management and more importantly about hospital SERVICES.

Still I’m glad that he was willing to share some of his opinions about the role Health Ministry as the regulator of the country’s hospital industry—off the record!

But, I’ve done my researches and actually—although in a very on-and-off basis—I’ve been virtually following him for probably over 20 years … since he helped me with the birth of my two daughters.

So I think I—more or less—know what he has in mind

I also know that he did make statements which might be very irking in the ears of the authorities. Someday, when I have the time I think I will share them with some people … Not now…

In the mean time, have a look at this piece written by “rizal” from Café Salemba …

How many of you are damn sure that whenever you go to those fancy hospitals and health clinics in Jakarta, without medical insurance in hand, you are not ripped off by those, favorite, doctors? That, somehow, you feel that your headache is not that bad, but then you find yourself ended up into unecessary expensive procedures as well as pricey medicines? That you are sure that caesarean section is indeed in dire need, and not the way obstetricians make extra money off you? And—this is is the worst—that they really know what's going on inside your body?

But since you have no expertise in medical science, the only option for you is to shut your mouth up, and let the experts decide your fate. Worse still, they are the one who not only diagnose, but also will be paid for further treatment.

The same thing goes for laptop repair, or car mechanics. And this guy, Henry Schneider of Cornell, took the challenge to prove whether car mechanics, in 40 Connecticut garages, don't swindle their costumers. The result: only 20 percent pass the test.

I hope somebody's gonna hire economists to do the same undercover research for health services here in Jakarta, or Indonesia, instead of relying on anecdotal evidences and finger-pointing game on doctor's malpractices. Schneider's paper and model is not technically too complicated to replicate for our case.

I am looking forward to it.

Musharraf's Pakistan

Dictatorship

What is dictatorship? When dictatorship relates to a mode of governing in modern states, it labels the unrestricted power of one person (or a group of individuals). Or a government in which political power is exercised by a single individual whose rule is considered illegitimate. Or a system of government in which a country is ruled by a single person with absolute power.

Pervez Musharraf’s administraton in Pakistan fits all the above-mentioned definition as he recently removed all pretence of a transition to democracy by conducting what was in effect yet another extra-constitutional coup.

The world, obviously, was surprised by his “bold” move. Even Pakistan’s closest ally, the United States, immediately urged him to prepare the roadmap to democracy and abandon extra-constitutional policy.

But the biggest pressure apparently has come from the Pakistani people themselves because demonstrations have continued to take place across the country.

They launched massive protests over the fact that opposition party members, lawyers, judges, human rights advocates and journalists were rounded up by the police without charge and the press was constrained.

The Pakistani people apparently are fully aware that although it is dangerous to stand up to a military dictatorship, but more dangerous not to. It is yet to be seen what Musharraf will do about the large-scale protests but so far, it looks like, even the United States still has difficulties to convince him to restore the “normal” system of governance in the country.

If a country which has given aid of more than US$10 billion since 2001 still cannot convince Musharraf to abandon his dictatorship, then it is for sure that it cannot ask him to fight—let alone defeat—the Taliban or Al Qaida.

Therefore, probably, it is high time that the U.S. as well as its western allies stop pinning their hopes on the effectiveness of financial aid in urging Pakistan to help fight international terrorism network.

The only way to contain terrorism—or any kind of extremism—is to continuously promote democracy.

In the case of Pakistan, it means that they must tell Musharraf that martial law is not acceptable and that a free, fair, impartial and internationally-monitored elections must be conducted soon. Otherwise, he may have to face the possibility of international isolation.

On being poor

Poor

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono when commemorating the National Health Day on Wednesday revealed two interesting data. The first is about the life expectancy in this country which has increased from 66.2 years three years ago to 69.4 years this year.

The second was about the poverty rate. He acknowledged that Indonesia’s poor today still totaled no less than 37.1 million, a high rate indeed by any standard.

The president was clearly proud when he talked about the increasing life expectancy, saying that it reflected the improvement of the health and nutrition status of the population especially because at the same time infant mortality rate (IMR) also decreased from 36/1,000 live births in 2003 to 32/1,000 live births in 2006.

Unlike when he talked about the life expectancy and the IMR, he was clearly defensive when talking about the poverty problem.

He even blamed some analysts who said that the number of poor people in the country today totaled 76.4 million, saying that the figure apparently was based on the number of people covered by the health insurance scheme known as the Askeskin.

Askeskin, he said, was not aimed at providing basic health services and treatments to the poor only. It was also aimed at those belonging to the category of “almost poor” and “less-privileged.” Together with those categorized as poor, the almost poor and the less-privileged indeed totaled 76.4 million.

For us—and we believe also for the government—actually it does not really matter whether the 76.4 million people are the poor, the almost poor or the less-privileged because they all must have access to the necessary supports to lead decent life.

The sooner they get them, the better because the success of the Yudhoyono administration will mostly be measured by its ability to improve the welfare of these 76.4 million people.

Surely it cannot stop at making new definitions only, otherwise the future will remain bleak for many Indonesians.

For the record: poverty, according to the government, is less money than is needed to afford a diet of 2,100 calories a day or Rp152,847 (US$16.80) a month, an amount which is well below the more widely used benchmark of US$1 a day.