Poverty and peace

 HS Dillon, you have done it again writing a fantastic, courageous, thought provoking article, How poverty relates to peace, in The Jakarta Post, Oct. 16.

 Read this with another story, Indonesia is not a poor country on page 6, under “Other opinion” in the same edition — the decade-old Indonesian monetary crisis is summed up in two simple articles.

 Well, I never believed there was a real monetary crisis in Indonesia. It was a man-made, and manmishandled series of crises (or opportunities?) out of which 100s richly benefited at the cost of millions of Indonesians.

 All are aware that most of the capital flight during 1997-1999 was Indonesian money and only a small portion of it foreign capital. And it is common knowledge that the money is very much there, in hard cash.

 With such a huge amount of Indonesian money parked in front of our eyes, see how the safe-keeper has progressed and prospered during the last decade, with construction and businesses booming everywhere, expansion of airport(s), buildings, bridges, land-reclamation, hosting international summits and conferences, deploying state-of-the-art security systems, and what not — no dearth of capital for any developmental and/or innovative activity/project!

 Fair enough, the money that came in unsolicited was well-kept with full legality and responsibility, well-deployed and very efficiently managed, of course. It was totally a win-win situation for both the depositor and the recipient. No issue about it.

 Imagine, Indonesia managing to bring back a good part of the Indonesian money that flew from its shores during that crisis period and subsequent years. Would there be any need for us to travel to the other side of the earth soliciting investments into this rich country?

 In my opinion, it is never too late to start doing the right thing, or start moving in the right direction. We should immediately start evolving a strategy, invent a methodology and mechanism to bring back at least 50 percent of the lost capital, which fortunately for us, is still very much there, in front of our eyes!

 If we don’t have a mechanism to punish the embezzlers and bring them to book, let us go ahead and embrace them, paving the way to bring back their money into Indonesia — the focus should be just to get the capital flowing back, which is rightfully Indonesia’s. There need not be any kind of feeling in doing this, malu-malu (being ashamed), ego, the thought of what-will-others-think, defeatist attitude or whatever.

 In order to achieve it, come on, let us start looking for the Muhammad Yunus of Indonesia to invent the right strategy and implement it. Who knows, his name could be HS Dillon.

RANGA NATHAN
Jakarta

Lesson from Brazil

 Brazil’s presidential election runoff, pitting Lula, of the  Workers Party (PT) against Geraldo Alckmin of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party (PSDB), offers some lessons for Indonesia.

 One is Lula himself, an elementary school dropout, factory worker, trade union leader and opponent of military rule who became president of a great nation.

 In opposition, Lula was an inspiring spontaneous orator able to cut straight through the obfuscatory rhetoric of those in power.

 In this regard, the Indonesian figure he most resembled was Munir, who, tragically, will never become president of his country.

 Also sadly, no person of Lula’s educational background is allowed to become president, or even hold high office, because of the stipulation that candidates must have a high school diploma.

 This stipulation stems from an undemocratic outlook, where politicians are not so much people’s representatives as elected bureaucrats, whose fitness for office must be vetted by authorities in case the “ignorant” populace choose the “wrong” people to represent them.

 Do Brazilians feel that Lula is unfit to represent them? Perhaps many feel that he is not a great president, but none doubt that he is a worthy one.

 Another lesson is that democracy takes time to produce accountable leaders. Although military rule ended in Brazil in 1985, it was not until Fernando Henrique Cardoso took office in 1995 that Brazil had a thoroughly credible and capable president.

 In the 1980s, the PT and PSDB were the only parties with an ideological commitment, while larger parties were mainly vehicles for the personal ambitions of their members.

 From small beginnings these two parties have now become the main contenders in elections for most major executive posts, from the presidency to provincial and local levels.

 While FHC, Lula and co. have certainly not solved all their country’s problems, they have at least tamed the worst problems of rampant inflation, crippling debt and ubiquitous poverty, and increased Brazil’s prestige as a regional leader and rising world power.

 So will Indonesian politics follow a similar pattern?

One drawback is that Indonesia has no ideology-based parties, other than Islamic parties with sterile development programs.

 Another is that corruption and sectarianism — Indonesia’s biggest problems — have more in common with lawlessness and gang violence, two problems that Brazil’s leaders have failed to address convincingly.
 Still, we can hope that the discipline of elections, free speech and a discerning public will gradually push Indonesia’s political parties to seek candidates able to woo voters and practice transparent, accountable and effective government.

JOHN HARGREAVES
Jakarta

Don’t mix religion with politics

A very interesting editorial appeared in The Jakarta Post on Oct. 18, under the title of Islamist party, No?. The editorial says, “The question that we should be asking is whether the presence of Islamist parties is beneficial or detrimental to Indonesia’s future.” This question is worth comment.
The drafters of Indonesia’s Constitution were wise, realistic and objective. They were leaders of high moral standing and dignity. They drafted and decided that Pancasila had to be accepted as the only ideology that governs Indonesia and its people. There is no bargaining on this point.
One of the principles of Pancasila clearly states “Belief in one God”, not “Belief in one religion”. The government of Indonesia recognizes almost all religions of the world. Every religion in Indonesia is considered equal.
Religion is a personal taste that has to do with morals, day-to-day duties and salvation, whereas politics is a common taste that has to do with power, money and pleasure. These are two vehicles going in different destinations, and they never meet. The rise of fundamentalism in any religion, mixed with politics, is an obstacle for any country’s stability and security. Religion is religion and politics is politics.
There are some countries divided on the basis of religion. Though the majority of Indonesians are Muslim, Indonesia is not a Muslim state. In a way it is a secular state.
There are also Christians, Hindus, Buddhists and followers of Confucianism in this country. It would be an act of wisdom if the leaders of this country took the bold decision to ban all political parties using religious symbols during the general election in 2009.
It is unfortunate that crime in the name of religion, mixed  with politics, has become a low-risk but high-profit business these days. The incidents in Palu and Poso are the result of the mixing of religion with politics. The presence of any political party with any religious symbols will surely be detrimental to Indonesia’s future, and it may lead to the disintegration of the nation

MANMOHAN SINGH
Jakarta

Munir murder remains mystery

Before unveiling the talks between Pollycarpus and Muchdi in the murder case of rights activist Munir, which were denied by both, it is worthwhile to probe the truth of the conversations first.
The dates and hours of mobile phone calls can be detected. Besides the 41 calls as reported in newspapers, the mobile phone used by Pollycarpus certainly had other contacts. Those receiving his calls can be asked for confirmation.
After finding out the dates and hours of his contacts with the phone of the National Intelligence Agency (BIN), both sides can be asked to disclose where they were when the conversations took place.
The news that Pollycarpus was a BIN secret agent assigned to kill Munir is illogical because such an agent should not have revealed his identity. Likewise, the report on Muchdi’s continued phone contacts with Pollycarpus
following the murder is
odd, which was also denied
by Muchdi.
Another peculiarity concerns the food and drinks suspected of having been treated with arsenic. As the stewardess had no idea which food and drink Munir was going to choose, all of them should have been poisoned. But the two passengers sitting beside Munir were not poisoned.
Strangely still, the arsenic residue was found by the Dutch Forensic Institute three hours after Munir’s death. According to a forensic expert at the University of Indonesia, usually an hour after a victim’s death no more arsenic can be found in their blood.
The Dutch authorities said that Munir died too fast because it happened within less than 10 hours. This is based on the assumption that the poisoning occurred during his Jakarta-Singapore flight, whereas textbooks put the average time at 24 hours.

SUNARTO
PRAWIROSUJANTO
Jakarta

Naturalization law

According to an article in a national Indonesian newspaper (Kompas, Oct. 7), the regulation to naturalize the children of  mixed-marriage couples, which was mandated by the new Citizenship Law, has been completed and is ready to be applied.
The Human Rights Ministry has already distributed application forms to its provincial offices to start the process.
What I regret about the announcement is this: The release of this important news was made known exclusively to a select group of people who represent a small part of society, rather than through a formal press release where all layers of society involved in mixed marriages could receive the information correctly and at the same time. For what reason?
This type of limited scope campaign only gives the public an incomplete picture of the regulation, which leads to confusion. It also attracts the intervention of middlemen who will know the procedures much better than the public and, once again, charge exorbitant (agent) fees to complete the application process.
We have the right to get information directly and
to exercise our rights as citizens without confusion and ambiguity.

NUNING HALLETT
Jakarta