Welcome to the Land of Disrespectful Smokers and Poor Etiquette

(published by The Jakarta Post on 23 Feb 2010. Click here)

Is it true Indonesians are courteous and respect etiquette when in public? A friend of mine shared her story of riding in a public minivan to her office one morning. As usual, the driver thought he was in a Formula One race, careening through heavy traffic.

At one stop, a man climbed on and promptly squeezed himself into the already-packed minivan. A minute later, he lit up a cigarette. Eyes half closed, he then blew straight into everyone else’s face. Most of the passengers that morning were young women going to work, including my friend.

These young ladies had, of course, spritzed on their finest perfume before leaving home, only to have it drowned in the stench of tobacco. None of the passengers complained, but their frowning faces said it all. The man kept puffing away.

Finally my friend ran out of patience.
“Pak, could you put out your cigarette, please?”
The man looked a bit surprise, smirked, then replied, “Why?”
“Because this is a public minivan, Pak,” my friend answered.
“Oh ya? You’re right, mbak, this is public, so if you don’t want to smoke, get your own car,” he replied, still blowing out smoke.
My friend clammed up then, as did everyone else. What could she do?

The man’s behavior was mind-boggling. Perhaps he was uneducated; after all, he was wearing thread-bare clothes and rubber slippers, riding a public minivan and smoking to boot. But smoking in an inappropriate area is not a matter of education or social status.

I once had a meeting at a luxurious office in Jakarta. Entering the restroom, I was suddenly hit by an olfactory assault from cigarette smoke. In one of the toilet bowls was a cigarette butt. Were the people working in that building uneducated? In another office, I saw a man dressed very dapper, complete with necktie, sitting in an air-conditioned room with a cigarette clamped between his fingers.

Yet another show of our compatriots’ poor manners was evident when I dined with my family at a food court in Jakarta. The place was so crowded we barely managed to get a table. We finally got a table but still lack of one chair. I had to go around asking people for their unoccupied chairs. But hardly any of them would acquiesce, despite the chairs being empty.

Comparing our people to residents of other countries in term of etiquette is useless.
Take Singapore, where I once vacationed with my family. At first, we didn’t understand why every time we entered the MRT (mass rapid transportation), someone sitting by the door would get up to give their seat to my wife, who was carrying on our child.

We thought it was sympathy. But after several trips on the MRT, we read the notice posted up near the door: “Please give up your seat for those who need it.” Below the text were pictures of a person with a crutch, a pregnant woman, and a mother with a child on her lap.

“Perhaps Lee Kuan Yew had it easy managing the country and instilling a culture of respect for etiquette, because Singapore is tiny compared to Indonesia,” my wife suggested. Personally, I don’t agree. I think it’s about the morals that we believe in. That’s probably something most Indonesians don’t have.

***
Serpong, 22 Jan 2010
Titus J.

Antasari: Guilty or Innocent?

(published by The Jakarta Post on 16 Feb 2010. Click here)

Our justice system again created a mystery when the judges at the South Jakarta District Court sentenced former Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman Antasari Azhar to 18 years in prison. The verdict was handed down to Antasari for his role in the premeditated assassination of Nasruddin Zulkarnaen, a director of state company PT Putra Rajawali Banjaran, in 2009.

From the beginning, when the case that enmeshed Antasari showed up in public, during the trial, and until today when the chief judge banged his gavel, the public have kept asking whether Antasari is guilty or not. A similar case was the assassination of human right activist Munir Said Thalib, when the court acquitted former deputy head of state intelligence (BIN) Muchdi Purwopranjono: the case remains a mystery until today. This proves that our justice system never ends with total finality but mystery that makes us always question our claim as a legal state (rechstaat).

Prosecutors alleged Antasari ordered the murder after Nasruddin attempted to blackmail him when he was caught red-handed with Nasruddin’s third wife, golf caddie Rhani Juliani, in a hotel room. Would a person of the caliber of Antasari, who once headed the Prosecutor’s Office in South Jakarta and later chaired the KPK, take the “hackwork” to kill someone because of a sexual affair with a golf caddie? Was the motive behind the high-profile murder as simple as that? We were disappointed as the court kept concentrating on this as the sole motive behind the murder with Antasari accused of attempting to cover up the extramarital affair.

Suppose the affair was true, what was the difficulty in Antasari covering it up without having to commit such a risky act as that? With his performance and achievements at the time he was KPK chairman, when he was hailed by the public for corruption eradication, wouldn’t it have been easy for him to convince the public that he was being blackmailed by Nasruddin? So, ordering the assassination of Nasruddin just because of a golf caddie did not make any sense for Antasari.

The verdict is more confusing when we learn of Antasari’s 18-year sentence. This was the same verdict handed down to Daniel Daen Sabon, one of the five hit men who were sentenced by Tangerang District Court for pulling the trigger on Nasruddin. How come the mastermind received the same punishment as the field operator in this murder case?

If the judges were really sure Antasari was guilty of masterminding the premeditated murder, moreover as a law enforcer who supposedly upheld the law, the judges should have sentenced him to death as demanded by the prosecutor. Otherwise, Antasari should have been acquitted because the judges should have decided only on those two possibilities, i.e. guilty or innocent. A verdict of guilty would give him the death sentence, innocent would free him totally, as there was no “in-between” verdict on such a high-profile crime involving such a high-profile figure as Antasari.

During Antasari’s trial, there was public suspicion that he was a target of the weakening the KPK, as the powerful institution in the war against corruption. One of co-defendants, senior commissioner Wiliardi Wizard claimed in court he had been set up by his superiors at the National Police headquarters who were trying to bring Antasari down.

Antasari has committed to file an appeal. It will be a long journey for him to seek real justice. He may win, he may lose. No matter what will happen to him, whether he wins or loses, it is not easy to answer this question: Is Antasari the good guy or the bad guy? It remains a mystery.

***
Serpong, 14 February 2010

Titus J.

Habibie And Impeachment

(published in The Jakarta Post on 8 Feb 2010. Click here)

Former president B.J. Habibie made an interesting statement on Jan. 30, when he was honored by University of Indonesia (UI) with an Honorary Doctorate in Philosophy Technology, when he was asked about the issue of the impeachment of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono or Vice President Boediono over the Bank Century scandal: “People should not jump to the conclusion of impeachment every time they felt disappointed with their leaders. We should consider the financial, social and political costs of taking such a step.”

The statement was interesting because it came from Habibie, who took over the reins from the late president Soeharto in May 1998. He led the country only for the months of transition and preparation for the general election in 1999. His accountability report before the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) was rejected. In fact, the rejection was not addressed to Habibie but to the New Order’s administration.

Habibie knew himself very well. He knew what people wanted at that time. He knew what people wanted was that they did not want him. That time, whoever was considered as Soeharto’s close aides, was considered tainted. Soeharto was deemed the bad guy so everything connected to him was automatically also bad. But Habibie had no option but to show up on the public stage. He inherited a disordered country which had been laid in ruins by his predecessor. He knew people did not want him, so, after he accomplished his job, he left the political stage.

He might have been be very much hated by Soeharto, he was accused of being a Brutus, involved in weakening Soeharto’s legitimacy and stabbing Soeharto in the back. Several times, he was willing to visit his ailing “father” in hospital, but was always rejected, even up to Soeharto’s death. Habibie still respected Soeharto as his guru and father who had made him as he is today.

These days, impeachment is a hot topic. Everyone is talking about impeachment, mostly those who oppose the government. What does impeachment mean? If it means to unseat President SBY and Vice President Boediono, impeachment is not the right word. The Oxford dictionary defines impeachment a calling into question the integrity or validity of a practice.
What we are seeing now in our political arena is actually not an impeachment discourse, but a discourse about the possibility of deposing or dethroning the duo of SBY and Boediono (Bahasa Indonesia is pemakzulan).

A university student, who participated in the demonstration on Jan. 28, was asked by a TV reporter why he was demanding that SBY step down. He answered shortly: “He failed!” When asked which failures SBY had made so he should step down, the student replied haltingly and could not explain at all.

Is there dissatisfaction with his performance: yes, most of us agree on that. Several polls by prominent survey institutions show his reputation has declined. SBY and Boediono’s poor performance is worse, as they are accused of involvement in the Bank Century bailout case. People feel his very slow decision making in many cases confirms him as “Mr. Doubtful”.

As poor performance is not a reason to dismiss the President and Vice President, there is no mechanism by which the President or Vice President can be dismissed, unless through the Bank Century scandal. However, until today the House inquiry committee is only playing around with the erroneous policy and procedures, but is failing to establish if the Rp 6.7 trillion (US$716 million) bailout fund flowed to SBY, Boediono or Finance Minister Sri Mulyani.

The elite should learn from Mr. Habibie, to know what the people want – particularly if people do not want them anymore – and when they must leave the political stage.

***
Serpong, 4 Feb 2010
Titus J.