Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Cancer, can we live without it?

Benny YP Siahaan

      Sore dan malam ini (10/11) saya dan teman-teman kantor ke RS Long Island Jewish (LIJ) di Forest Hills dan Funeral Home di Elmhurst di Queens, New York.  Kami menjenguk seorang diaspora Indonesia di New York  yang sakit keras dan melayat warga Indonesia yang meninggal. Keduanya menghadapi penyakit yang sama: kanker, penyakit yang paling ditakuti abad ini dan sampai saat ini belum ditemukan obat yang manjur baik untuk preventif maupun  kuratifnya.

Pak Un (Sik Oentoro), begitu saya memanggilnya dikenal sebagai teman yang baik, setia dan memiliki jiwa sosial yang tinggi. Tidak heran banyak teman-temannya rajin menjenguk baik di rumah maupun di rawat di RS. Kami dikabari bahwa beliau sudah dalam saat-saat terakhirnya akibat penyakit yang dideritanya. Saat merasa waktu sangat cepat, padahal baru bulan Mei 2015 lalu saya dan istri menjenguk beliau setelah dioperasi untuk memotong sel kanker  agar tidak menyebar.
Saat kami jenguk pak Un sudah kurus sekali.  Bu Ling Ling istrinya seperti biasa tabah dan setia mendampingi suami tercintanya hingga disaat–saat terakhirnya (paliatif). Menyambut kami ramah, beliau membangunkan pak Un yang sudah mulai tidak sadar akan kondisi sekelilingnya. Menurut bu Ling ini akibat asupan morfin yang diberikan dokter untuk menahan rasa sakit. “kanker sudah menyebar ke mana-mana, ginjalnya sudah kena dan livernya juga” tutur bu Ling sambil menahan air mata namun berusaha untuk tabah. Sebelum pamit kami menghibur bu Ling untuk tetap tabah dan sabar menghadapi cobaan hidup. Pak Un kiranya Tuhan memberikan kekuatan dan ketabahan atas cobaan ini.
Di funeral home yang kami kunjungi terbaring ibu Setiawati (Ati) Loppies. Wajahnya seperti tertidur dan nampaknya telah siap Tuhan memanggilnya. Seperti Pak Un, badannya kurus sekali.  Di kebaktian penghiburan kami terharu melihat video keluarga yang memperlihatkan bu Loppies saat sehat maupun saat sakit beserta keluarga. Pak Stanley, suami ibu Loppies dan anak-anaknya kelihatan begitu kehilangan atas kepergian sang istri dan ibu tercinta. Semoga bu Loppies beristirahat dengan tenang di rumah Bapa di Surga. Amin.
Di keluarga saya, kanker rahim (cervix) juga telah mengambil tante Intan, yang kami sayangi. Sebelumnya tante dinyatakan sehat oleh dokter (cancer survivor) karena sudah lima tahun tidak pernah muncul gejalanya. Namun hanya kurang dari satu tahun saat relapse, kanker ganas itu begitu cepat mengambil tante Intan dari kami.
Dan akhir-akhir ini kami semakin banyak mendengar teman dan kenalan kami yang terserang kanker. Ia menyerang tidak pandang bulu.  Kaya-miskin, tua-muda.
Menurut definisi Yayasan Kanker Indonesia (YKI) Kanker adalah penyakit akibat pertumbuhan tidak normal dari sel-sel jaringan tubuh yang berubah menjadi sel kanker. Dalam perkembangannya, sel-sel kanker ini dapat menyebar ke bagian tubuh lainnya sehingga dapat menyebabkan kematian
Minggu lalu majalah Time edisi 9 November 2015 menurunkan berita yang cukup menghebohkan: Red Meat, Hot Dogs and the War on Delicious. Intinya penyakit kanker berdasarkan penelitian ilmiah banyak disebabkan oleh makanan yang diproses seperti sosis, bacon, daging kornet dll. Hasil penelitian ini cukup mengejutkan dan diperkirakan banyak menimbulkan pro dan kontra terutama dari produsen makanan yang diproses yang dapat dipastikan akan mengeluarkan “penelitian’ tandingan untuk mengamankan produksinya. Seperti halnya asosiasi produsen minuman soda (Coca Cola, Pepsi dll) di AS menyewa “ilmuwan” untuk menyatakan bahwa kecil kaitan minuman soda dengan diabetes.
Di Indonesia juga kita sebagai bagian kehidupan modern, processed food adalah dapat dikatakan bagian dari kehidupan sehari-hari. Mulai dari mi instan, sosis dan lain lainya.
Menurut data badan kesehatan Dunia WHO tahun 2014, kematian akibat kanker di Indonesia sebesar 1,551.000 jiwa sejak tahun 2000 dengan pendudul 247 juta jiwa. Korban pria lebih banyak dibanding wanita dan untuk wanita umumnya akibat kanker payudara sementara untuk pria banyak terkait dengan pernafasan dan paru-paru. Sementara AS dengan penduduk 336 juta jiwa, jumlah kematian akibat kanker sejak tahu 2000 adalah 2,656.000  yang lebih banyak memakan korban pria akibat kanker prostat dan wanita akibat kanker payudara.
Masyarakat internasional saat ini sudah dapat meminimalisir penyakit penyakit yang menjadi momok sebelumnya seperti polio, cacar dll. Apakah masyarakat dunia dapat kembali menemukan vaksin atau obat yang manjur untuk penyakit yang mengerikan ini? Nobody knows.
Banyak yang mengatakan bahwa timbulnya penyakit kanker terkait dari gaya hidup dan pola makan. Selama ini serting disebutkan merokok dan makanan fast food merupakan salah satu biang keladi penyebab kanker. Seperti halnya AIDS,  disebutkan juga karena gaya hidup seperti seks bebas yang tidak berpelindung. Akhirnya, semuanya kita kembali ke kita semua. Namun kanker lebih mengerikan karena banyak yang sudah melakukan hidup sehat dan hidup preventif untuk menghindari kanker, terkadang terkena kanker juga. Nampaknya dunia kedokteran perlu lebih keras lagi mencari kuratif penyakit yang mengerikan ini.
Sore ini saya mendengar pak Un  mendapat sakramen perminyakan (sakramen untuk orang yang sakit berat) dari pastur.  Nampaknya keluarga sudah mulai merelakan yang terbaik untuk Pak Un. Selamat jalan bu Ati Loppies dan doa kami untuk Pak Un.

                                                             New York, 11 November 2015 at 16.54
Read more
Posted by at November 11, 2015 No comments: Edit
Labels: ,

Thursday, October 22, 2015

The Comparison Between Soekarno's and Jokowi's Initial Visit to the US

By Benny YP Siahaan

While many don’t really comprehend the logic behind President Jokowi’s decision not to attend one of the most historic events in New York, September 2015 -- Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), reportedly President Jokowi decided to visit the US from Oct 25-28, 2015 to meet President Obama. The two leaders will discuss a wide range of global, regional, and bilateral issues of interest to both countries.
Nonetheless, critics have criticized the visit, claiming it is uneconomical for the VP and President to visit the same country in less than a month. The VP visited New York from 23 September to 2 Oct 2015.

Why not just combine them into one visit? Jokowi could have met bilaterally with Obama at the UN just like other Heads of States do, this is a common practice. Reportedly also, his visit to the US is not a state visit but only an official visit, which implies that there will be no State Dinner etc.
Aside from the above debate, I am more interested in viewing Jokowi’s initial visit to the US from a different perspective.
Jokowi is a popular leader in Indonesia. This reminds me of the visit of President Soekarno, also a popular leader, who made the first visit to US in 1956 which many considered a huge success. Hence I would like to compare the first visits of the two presidents, including the different challenges and environmental factors faced by the two leaders in their respective times and what possible benefits might be derived from Jokowi’s visit.
Soekarno’s first visit to the US was from May 16 to June 3, 1956. The world in 1950s was in the early era of the Cold War and Soekarno was very popular internationally as “neutralist”, since he was considered champion of the NAM which had just conducted its first Conference in Bandung, April 1955.
He visited not only Washington DC, but also other cities like New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, LA, and San Francisco. During his visit, Soekarno had a State Luncheon, State Dinner, and speech before the Congress Joint Session. Aside his son Guntur Soekarno Putra, he was accompanied by only 15 delegation from Jakarta –a very efficient number for a State Visit.
Jokowi reportedly will only visit Washington DC and San Francisco to meet with business and universities leaders. Since it is not a State Visit, there will be no State Dinner, speech before Joint of Congress or any public ceremonies. Jokowi is known for being efficient in term of number of delegation.
While visited the US, Soekarno faced many internal problems ranging from local insurgencies to national political rift and economic problems, which were common as a fledgling nation. Jokowi will now visit US when Indonesia at its 70th year. Indonesia is no longer a young nation but still has problems to address.
Now insurgencies are on the wane. Currently, perhaps, only Papua is still a problem, but the difference is that during Sukarno’s visit, Indonesia was in the process of securing Papua to become its territory from the Dutch; the following years after the visit, the US became one of the supporters of Indonesia in this endeavor which was demonstrated through the New York Agreement in 1962.
In the 1950s, Indonesia was considered a champion of human rights in its early years, because it was at the forefront supporting the struggle of many countries against colonialism. In 1956, only 80 countries were registered with the UN, there are now 193 countries with South Sudan being the latest member. On the other hand, Jokowi inherited the consequences of past human rights abuses by his predecessors notably President Soeharto, including the 1965 Communist purge.
Geopolitically, in the 1950s Southeast Asia was not a stable region since it was on the brink of proxy competition between the Eastern and Western bloc. Now ASEAN is considered as one of the most progressive and stable regions in the world despite potential flashpoints such as South China Sea issue. Furthermore, Indonesia was known as the country with the highest Muslim population and impoverished economy, it has now become the third largest democracy and the biggest economy in Southeast Asia.
Psychologically, during Soekarno’s visit, the US was at the peak of its time as super power and victor of WWII, but Soekarno with high confidence met President Eisenhower and gave a persuasive and excellent but blunt speech before Joint Session of Congress about non-alignment and independency, a speech which drew a big applause from Congress. Now, the US is not that great anymore.
It was due to Soekarno‘s extraordinary oratory skills and charismatic personality that he could brilliantly manage the liabilities of his country to become assets and get sympathy from the US public such as through  laying wreath on Thomas Jefferson’s grave in Virginia and said “Jefferson was one of my teachers”. He received a warm in all cities he visited --about 80,000 New Yorkers cheered his motorcade parade from Battery to City Hall. In short, his visit was a great success.
On the other hand, Jokowi has long been known as a timid person (typical of Solo people) in contrast with Soekarno from East Java who are known to be more direct like the American people.
Apart from that, the current standing of Jokowi is higher than that of Soekarno initial visit to the US. Although it is only an official visit, it is hoped that the impact will be greater than that of Soekarno’s first visit. Furthermore, time and challenges faced by the two leaders might be different but the goals to make Indonesia great and prosperous has to be the main objectives of Indonesia’s leaders including through their foreign visits.
Ah, the last but not the least is about their names. President Jokowi actually has two names: Joko Widodo, while President Soekarno just like any old Javanese has only one name. But jokingly, the US media said Soekarno may have only one name but he has multiple wives. Reportedly, the reason why Soekarno in his visit was only accompanied by his son was since the First Lady Fatmawati divorced him due to Soekarno’s marriage to other women. In Jokowi’s upcoming visit, I believe he will be accompanied by his one and only First Lady.
---
Read more
Posted by at October 22, 2015 No comments: Edit
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

When the Devil Presents at Carnegie Hall

By Benny YP Siahaan

What are you going to do if the devil (Dedemit) is in the room?  Run or scream right? But the people at Carnegie Hall that night in silence, stayed, and enjoyed it.

In collaboration with Indonesian Consulate General in New York, Jaya Suprana together with his current and former students held a concert titled The Indonesia Pusaka at Weill Recital Hall, Carnegie Hall, New York on Oct 20, 2015.

The concert features 12 young Indonesian pianists, mostly from Jaya Suprana School of Performing Arts, Jakarta.

Locals and Indonesian diaspora from New York and surrounding cities packed the 268-seat hall. Desra Percaya Indonesian ambassador to UN, former Defense Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro and several members of diplomatic circles in New York were also seen attending the concert.

In her opening remarks read by Indonesian Ambassador to US B. Bowoleksono, Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs Retno Marsudi congratulates Jaya Suprana for his effort in promoting Indonesia to the world trough arts and culture.  

She also underlines the importance of cultural diplomacy in promoting Indonesia’s State philosophy, Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (one out of many).

Bedhaya, the sacred dance from Central Java, kicked off the show performed by eight female dancers symbolizing various acts of adolescence girls.

The centerpiece of the show was the piano concert which featured among others Jesslyn Handoko, Evelyn Abidin, Randy Ryan, Ryan Ferguson, Gabriela Handoko, Viona Sanjaya, and Gillian Gani.

Whist Suprana informatively yet entertainingly explains each of his compositions and introducing the pianists who are mostly in their teens except Jesslyn Handoko, age 9. All the performers are award winning pianists and have performed in other world class stages like Sydney Opera House.

They played Suprana’s favorite compositions like Tri Reminiskenza, For Ayla III & XI, Aforisma & Geguritan, For Ayla IV, Fantasi Arum Dalu, Sonata Sekar Setaman, Fragment Dolanan, Variasi Gethuk, Aforisma, Rhapsodia  Lir-Ilir, Uro-uro and Dedemit.

The audience seemed to drift in the inner emotion of each composition, from cheerful and witty (Fantasy Arum Dalu), romantic (For Ayla) to melancholy (Aforisma).

Hendrata Prasetya performed the pinnacle of the concert by playing “Dedemit” (devil) composition. Suprana said that Dedemit is the most difficult composition he has ever made.

He even asked the technician to dim the lighting to create a creepy atmosphere. Yet Hendratta played it beautifully. It was crisp with beautiful control of the delicate repertoire.

The last part of the show, the audience heard Armonia Choir who performed Javanese traditional folk songs like Manuk Dadali and Jali-Jali as well as a special song composed by Suprana for the event called Indonesia.

The concert drew a mixed review. Joseph from Italy said that the piano concert was superb.  He was so entertained by the young talented Indonesian pianists.  Eugene from Singapore said that he was so surprised that he never heard of Jaya Suprana.

Lukewarm comments mostly went to dance and choir performances which they said that the performers need more practice to meet the high standard and reputation of Carnegie Hall.

In general, what spectators most appreciate was the piano concert. Some of the audience even said that without dance and choir the recital would be more focused and beautiful. Even some said the choir became the anticlimax of Hendrata’s excellent performance.

According to Suprana, with more Indonesian artists perform in world class stages like Carnegie Hall, he hopes that it will make more Indonesian young talents get worldwide recognition.

And surely this concert was a great opportunity to grow, to nurture their already innate talents to the next level, to even greater heights”, he adds.

Indeed, with their splendid performance, they showed us a hint of the direction they are heading.

All in all, it was an entertaining event.

                                                                                                                  New York,  October 2015




Read more
Posted by at October 21, 2015 No comments: Edit
Labels:

Monday, August 17, 2015

Happy 70th Independence Day, Indonesia!





By Benny YP Siahaan

August 17 this year marks the 70th year when the young Soekarno read aloud the Proclamation of Independence on Friday at 10 AM at his house at Pegangsaan Street No. 56, Jakarta (Although the UN acknowledges that the date of Indonesia’s Independence is on December 27, 1949, nobody in Indonesia cares!)


Even though Indonesia is still a relatively young nation (compared to France or US), Indonesia has a rich, brave and inspirational history of independence to remember. And every year on August 17, we observe with gratitude and respect the staunch and bloody struggle waged by our founding fathers against colonialism -the struggle that ultimately led to our freedom as an independent nation.

To mark this 70th Independence celebration, I assume every Indonesian citizen and organization in the country and abroad would think hard about how to make it exceptional (to give their best) to mark this special day of remembrance, as we will do in New York

In New York, on 22nd August the first ever  street festival will be initiated as the apex of this year’s Indonesia’s Independence celebration.  The event is to be conducted along the 68thstreet where the Indonesian Consulate is located,one of the most prime areas in Manhattan which is adjacent to the legendary Central Park and located between the world’s famous high end shopping streets ,Fifth and Madison Avenues.

The Indonesian diaspora in New York and surrounding cities are excited and eager to participate in and anxious to have this event occur in their city. Not only is it a  first time ever event, but it will attract a huge crowd of not just an Indonesian audience but also locals as well as tourists who are visiting Central Park, Fifth and Madison Avenues. Indeed, although the Consulate was established in 1951, no one really knows why there was no idea (or perhaps there was but it never materialized) to celebrate Indonesian independence through such a festival,while many countries, including the Philippines, already have their own street festival (even parade) in New York City.

The long, arduous and complicated process to obtain a permit from the City of New York is said to be one of the main deterrents as to  why the Indonesian street festival is yet to happen in almost 64 years! Well, in fact that was what our founding fathers did when they tried to gain independence from the Dutch - to make something possible from the impossible. Based from that inspiration, through hard work and a spirit of cooperation, the Indonesian Consulate, though with limited budget, and with the full support of the Indonesian diaspora, and students in New York, finally got the permission by the City of New York to hold such a festival.

The preparation is underway with a high spirit and enthusiasm, but we are also reminded that after being granted permission, we all agreed that this should be maintained as an annual event for Indonesia in New York. Nobody wants  this to be a one-time event, the first and the last.  The organizing committee members have delivered their utmost thought into making this celebration as vibrant as possible while at the same time, very conscious about making it run efficiently and in an orderly manner since, should there be any complaints or incidents, it will be put on record and in many cases in the next year, the permission may not be granted.

This situation is more or less similar to our independence in 1945 where our  forefathers seriously thought  about how to make the independence more than a onetime event, an event that could be continuously celebrated every year with each year better than the previous one. Indeed, independence should never be a onetime event and to make it as continuous event is really a tall order.

Judging from the current situation, as a nation we have already been surviving for 70 years. Indeed, it is a great achievement in some point. We are lucky to be spared from disaster when we were struck by the 1998 financial crisis which was followed by chaotic conditions that caused many to predict that Indonesia would be Southeast Asia’s Balkan. But do we have the same spirit as our forefathers had when they waged struggle for independence?

Hence, it is  sad to read the recent news (Kompas.com, July 22, 2015) that the Interior Minister, Tjahjo Kumolo, has issued a circular letter to instruct every school to hold a flag ceremony every Monday because of the  many reports of neglect and disrespectful attitude of students and teachers to the Indonesian flag and national anthem. They really do not realize the real meaning of those two states’ sacred symbols that were dearly fought with blood by our founding fathers.

Apart from that, at this 70th commemoration of Indonesia independence, it is a high time for us to redefine our spirit of independence in order to safely navigate our nation to the uncharted sea of the future. What kind of independence do we want at present and in the future? In this light, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s four fundamental freedoms are still relevant and perennial to every nation: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear.

At this 70th independence we ought to reflect where we are now at those four fundamental freedoms. I believe that we should answer honestly by ourselves. Happy Independence Day, Indonesia!

New York, 17 August 2015
 
Related article

Pertama Kali Sejak 50 Tahun, Perayaan HUT RI Tutup Jalan di New York (Detik)

Indonesian Street Festival Digelar di Central Park New York (Tempo)

Ini Perjuangan Urus Street Festival di New York (Tempo)

Warga Amerika Padati Festival Seni Indonesia di New York (Viva News)

Lagu Indonesia Raya Berkumandang di Jalanan Manhattan (Republika)


Related Video:







Read more
Posted by at August 17, 2015 No comments: Edit
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Is an Asia-Pacific Community the answer to security and world order?


By Benny YP Siahaan

I recently attended the Asia Society’s seminar in New York titled “Securing Peace in Asia: Time to Build an Asia-Pacific Community?” The topic was very intriguing with a list of speakers who are distinguished in their respective fields, such as Marty Natalegawa, former Indonesian Foreign Minister and Thomas Donilon, former Deputy US National Security Adviser.  The seminar was chaired by Kevin Rudd who currently presided over the Asia Society Policy Institute in New York.


In essence the seminar was discussing whether it the time is ripe to establish the Asia Pacific Community (APC) in view of the worrisome recent development in the region’s flashpoints, notably the South China Sea and North Korean Peninsula, among others. According to Rudd, the worrying trend of peace and security in the region should be anticipated early and the region could not afford to wait for a World War to happen first, like Europe before they established the European Steel and Coal Community (ESCS) and European Economic Community (EEC).

While the speakers and the chair tend to agree on the idea of establishing such an institution with a possibility of taking ASEAN and East Asia Community (EAS) as the model of departure, the larger questions regarding the practicality and urgency of establishing APC remain at large to the audience, including me. It is easily guessed that Kevin Rudd is the main force behind this seminar as he has incessantly been selling the concept since 2008, since he was Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Australia, up to the present. He envisioned that such a mechanism would be established by 2020. If it is established APC will be the biggest regional mechanism since it will comprise 60 percent of the world's population.

The quest for world order and effective international cooperation seems to be becoming increasingly sought after in recent years due to the shift of global geopolitical and geoeconomy, characterized by anarchical world politics particularly after the Cold War, and compounded by the rise of emerging powers like India and notably China as a potential superpower and its increasingly assertive behavior.

Theoretically this condition  more likely fits as described by International Relations (IR) theorist Kenneth Waltz on anarchic structure of world politics, in which he argued that when it comes to the study of international politics (state interactions) it’s about how to conceive of an order without an orderer and of organizational effects where formal organization is lacking. Hence, the deficiency of a world authoritative body, trust and cooperation that supposedly arises from a condition of anarchic self-help is considered to be the basis of sovereign world politics.


This, multilaterally, can be seen from the failure of the UN to address major conflicts and failures of other multilateral institution like the World Trade Organization who failed to achieve a major round since replacing GATT in 1994. The World Bank, IMF, and Asian Development Bank also waned in its control and legitimacy while China and BRICS countries established parallel institutions like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and New Development Bank (NDB) respectively. On the other hand, local conflicts tend to multiply.
In this anarchical world politics, the immediate logical question is why are states not always at war with one another if there is no authoritative power to respect and obey? Waltz argued that while anarchy is somewhat vulnerable to war, the self-help structure that arises between states coerces them to balance against one another and avert war at all times if possible, largely due to its  devastating consequences, or in Marty Natalegawa’s words, it is “dynamic equilibrium” that ensures order. This may partly explain that although the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has so far failed to address the discrimination between nuclear and non-nuclear states, the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) is widely accepted among the nuclear power countries to prevent the next World War due to its mutual annihilating consequences. But it has produced proxy local military conflicts including the recent ones such as in Crimea and the Middle East.

Instead, since there is no authoritative body or country that keeps countries safe from one another and they cannot fully rely on the cooperation of other states, Waltz argues that states should exert their maximum capacity to ensure their survival. This involves building up their military capabilities, alliance-building and intelligence. In that regard, in the last decade we have seen the biggest military buildup in history in the Asia Pacific region; even the NSA’s PRISM clandestine surveillance program of foreign nationals and leaders is part of this context.

Nonetheless, although many consider anarchical world politics to be an issue that needs to be addressed, few think it is possible. Even worse, some consider the international anarchy as a fact of life, and even somewhat a “norm”. 

Hence, although we have seen that the media and commentators seem to portray that there is a tendency of China to challenge the US’s dominance in military, political and financial/economic fronts, hence possibly creating an impression that there is possible split or conflict between China and the US in the region, I think we should not be too anxious since the rise of China is a fact and we have to accept that China is now a US balancer in the region. The most important thing is to keep both superpowers from opting for a zero sum game, which I think is also unlikely anyway.

Indonesia as a middle power may seek a role in bridging these two great powers.

Against this backdrop, the issue of whether we need an Asia Pacific Community has become less relevant in this regard. As long as there is a dynamic equilibrium serving to build trust among each other through dialog within existing mechanisms in the region (ASEAN, EAS, etc.), any new mechanism will need to be thoroughly scrutinized for its merits.


----
Read more
Posted by at June 30, 2015 No comments: Edit
Labels: , ,

Friday, December 19, 2014

Indonesian Restaurant Review in New York Times: Sky Cafe

Posted by at December 19, 2014 No comments: Edit
Labels: ,

Thursday, November 6, 2014

Promise in Indonesia

By Adam Malik

Foreign Affairs, January 1968 Issue

Every historical milestone reflects the end as well as the beginning of an era, and since history is continuity in spite of change, so the beginning of an era is never a complete disengagement from the past, either materially or mentally. Such is the case now in Indonesia.
 



Within her short history as an independent nation Indonesia has experienced systems of government, political outlook and conduct which were more than merely different; they were contradictory. But during both those decades one man remained at the summit of the Indonesian political scene: Sukarno. His character is by no means easy to describe because of its many ambiguities. He is a man who loves the mysteries of the night's darkness, but none the less can enjoy the freshness of a bright day; who knows how to add flavor to protocol by breaking formal rigidities with touches of human interest; who smiles or snubs as he expresses his vivid joys or sorrows to others; who sometimes reveals the positive attitude of an exact scientist or, again, the intuition of an artist; who knows how to saturate the masses with emotion and hold them spellbound, but also how to control them with a minimum of gestures. During serious discussions of problems with his ministers he could appreciate humorous interruptions by high officials in the role of court jesters. My personal recollection of him is of a man rich in ideas and imagination and direct in both his sympathies and antipathies; in short, an unforgettable character.

In spite of the mistakes which Sukarno made during his period as President of the Republic, he succeeded in making himself a rallying point for the Indonesian people in general. It was not easy to build up a leadership image in a polyethnic country like Indonesia. We must admit Sukarno's skill in developing his image as Supreme Leader of the Indonesian Revolution, Extension of the People's Tongue, Bearer of the Mission of the People's Suffrage and so on. He was able to discredit any politicians who did not share his political views. Orders to jail anyone who opposed the President hung like a sword of Damocles above the heads not only of politicians but of intellectuals and artists, indeed anyone and everyone who was in disagreement with him.

The atmosphere of threat and insecurity became more and more oppressive during the years 1959-60. That was the period in which, with Sukarno's encouragement, the Communist Party (the P.K.I.) gained its great influence in Indonesian politics. The Institution for Building up the Revolutionary Spirit was established to compose the ideas, speeches, slogans and symbols which were to be spread out through the entire nation by means of courses in building cadres, by discriminatory upgrading and downgrading of officials and by mass rallies, campaigns and drives. The Institution's aim was to indoctrinate the Indonesian people with the belief that what Sukarno said was always right and wise and that the body of his teachings actually incorporated undeniable and absolute truth. An order was issued to all newspapers, weeklies and monthlies to reserve columns for the coverage of "the teachings of the Supreme Leader of the Revolution Bung Karno," and they had to comply or be accused of subversion and counterrevolutionary attitudes.

The climate came closer and closer to madness, yet an old discredited politician, quoting Hamlet, remarked "how much system there was in this madness." The idea of revolution, the unfinished revolution, justified any and every sudden change in political behavior. It also justified Indonesia's unpredictability in changing allies and foes in its foreign relations. Similarly, staggering economic conditions had to be accepted as necessary for the sake of building the nation. Nation-building and national identity were the slogans, and they were driven to the point where xenophobia was not just permitted but nourished.

Typical of Bung Karno's views was his speech of August 17, 1959, known as the Manifesto Politik, abbreviated to "Manipol" and later ideologized as "Manipolism." One sentence read, "The whole strength of the people must be canalized into one vast wave of energy . . . into one irresistible wave of heave ho and pull together" ("Ho lopis kuntul bans"). It was a period of collective hypnosis. The mass motto of "heave ho and pull together" soon became institutionalized in the form of the Front Nasional in which the P.K.I. was definitely given the role of directing the course of Indonesian politics. Its success was due not so much to any majority this National Front possessed or might possibly gain, but to the protective hand of Sukarno who was, alas, its Chairman. Mainly because of this the P.K.I., a minority, assumed the quality of a majority. Some elements tended to coöperate with the leftists at least partly out of loyalty to "Bung Karno" and his teaching that "the Indonesian Revolution is a leftist revolution."

Bung Karno's absurd "Nasakom" concept, resulting from his early studies of Marxism, Islam and Nationalism, became (or was made) a political credo which every political party had to accept as beyond criticism. On it he intended to build a stable political platform in Indonesia, even in the whole world, as indicated in his statements following the abortive communist coup of September 30, 1966. Even in the traditional August speech which he made in the summer of 1966 he played with the idea of reviving the Nasakom concept (although he cautiously changed it to "Nasasos," abbreviating Sos from Socialism, and making it more vague by adding "plus whatever sort of Nasa it may be"). That speech was actually the point of no return in the split between Sukarno, protector of the Communist Party, and the anti-communist masses led by students and supported by other political groups.

The Provisionary Consultative Council of People's Representatives has now declared Communism/Marxism-Leninism a forbidden ideology in Indonesia and the P.K.I. has been banned. Months before this decree was issued masses of students and militant youths painted the walls of Djakarta with cynical and insulting statements regarding the P.K.I. and the Nasakom idea. In some places new meanings were given to the term Nasakom, e.g. Nas(ution) A(mbil) Kom(ando), meaning "Nasution, yours to command." Political interpreters explained that the reference to General Nasution really meant the armed forces.

General Suharto has moved patiently toward a settlement of the political conflict which followed the abortive communist coup, showing his good will in trying to solve it as peacefully as possible. His intricate and sensitive efforts, conducted by gradual phases, caused a certain amount of confusion and speculation, especially among foreign observers. A comparison might with some reason be made between his methods and our traditional Indonesian shadowplay; but the fact remains that national problems cannot be solved in complete detachment from the prevailing intellectual and cultural climate. It was not hesitation or reluctance that slowed the procedure adopted by General Suharto so much as the complicated character of the person being dealt with. The nuances of feeling and intuition hidden in that introverted personality presented many riddles and required delicate manipulation.

II

Such was the picture in 1966-a blend of uncertainties and hopes. A new leader had been given to the nation, but the old leader still struggled to postpone his defeat. He was a leader of the past, and his decline and eventual defeat were an historical necessity. Simultaneously with his decline there came into being a new generation aware of its responsibilities. This new young generation had been frustrated by prolonged suppression, but in spite of terror and threats had determined, in a spirit of l'amour de risque, to start a history of their own. Calling themselves "Generation-66," the second generation since "Generation-45" to have political significance, they have today become a pillar of the New Order in Indonesia. It is their merit that they were the first to make sure that the New Order was not to be degraded into a mere slogan and to insist that it be given meaning as a new social and political way of life based upon the Constitution.

It is to be hoped that students and intellectuals can continue to contribute to the country's development. They will do this effectively only if they can keep their momentum and at the same time adjust themselves to changing conditions and changing demands. To be useful, they should adapt their methods of struggle to the shifts in aims and objectives as Indonesian society develops. This will not be easy, but it can be done, and I am convinced it will in fact be done in the long years of social, economic and political reconstruction that lie ahead.

"The freedom of assembly and association, of expression of spoken and written opinion, shall be provided for by law," says Article 28 of the Constitution. It sums up the main mission of the New Order: to restore democracy. This is not as easy as many Westerners think. Five to six years of brainwashing and indoctrination have left their traces in the minds of many, even those who are in principle on the side of the New Order. Some fear the consequences of restoring democracy, while others are still under the influence of the political prejudices and poisonous effects of prolonged indoctrination. Time will be needed for complete recovery.

Both Indonesia's leaders and policy-makers and the Indonesian people as a whole must persist in the determination to realize the ideal of true democracy. Unless the New Order succeeds in this mission it is doomed to degenerate into mere sloganism. It was born as a response to the challenge of tyranny and terror, and it must maintain that challenge against all forms of absolutism or dictatorship. The system most suitable for governing our widespread archipelago is that of a unitarian democratic republic. Retrogression to a dictatorship ruling by the old methods of force and intimidation would end inevitably in the disintegration of the Indonesian state.

The question now is whether or not the democrats of Generation-66 will be able to restore full confidence in democratic institutions and solve our national problems by the democratic means provided within the context of the Constitution. Those in positions of responsibility in the government administration and the armed forces, and the leaders of political parties, must realize that Indonesia's problems will not be solved by mere exchanges of abuse, by accusations and counter-accusations or by making scapegoats of opponents.

In most countries when the military takes over the running of the government its first act is to abolish or distort the Constitution. This has led to questions being asked about the possibility that the political leadership of the armed forces represented by General Suharto will follow a similar course. The answer to those questions is no. In our case, the armed forces have committed themselves to restore a constitutional government and to revive the democratic spirit. General Suharto and the armed forces have assumed the solemn duty of fulfilling this. I am convinced that General Suharto wishes to do so, as do also, I hope, all the top military leaders. If all who belong to the New Order are aware of the responsibility they share to restore democracy, then the year 1966 will have become in fact a milestone of Indonesia's coming of age socially and politically.

III

It is over a year now since the government started tackling its economic problems seriously and systematically. Substantial progress has been made in controlling inflation, but the economy is still suffering the after- pains of the drastic operation; at best it can be described as being in a state of convalescence.

In October 1966 the government began to correct the ubiquitous controls and gross errors in the allocation of funds which had prevailed in the past and had finally produced a runaway inflation. All unproductive spending on monuments and prestige projects was cut off. Foreign trade was freed from the unrealistic exchange controls which had handicapped exports and made imports cheap for those who were lucky enough to procure licenses. Exports and imports were for the first time given a floating exchange rate to protect foreign trade in the still existing inflationary conditions. The very high export taxes concealed in the foreign-exchange regulations were substantially reduced.

During that last quarter of 1966 the government also approached creditor countries, to which it owes more than $2.5 billion, in an effort to secure a rescheduling of current debt obligations. Intergovernmental groups met successively in Tokyo and Amsterdam to discuss the problem. Impressed by the Indonesian Government's serious intention to put its own house in order, they agreed to reschedule current debt obligations and to furnish $200 million to support the budget and to ease our balance of payments in the first year of the stabilization effort. The government insisted that these fresh loans be given in the form of multi-purpose commodity loans, primarily to support the budget rather than to finance projects. This form of international aid is not common, but fortunately the creditors agreed to it. In all of this, the assistance and counsel of the International Monetary Fund were invaluable.

The government also submitted to parliament a budget in which expenditures and revenues (inclusive of foreign aid) were in balance. It had been a very long time since an Indonesian government had presented a balanced budget, or indeed a well-prepared budget of any sort. Although the government had no illusions that a rigid balance could be maintained throughout 1967, it was determined to introduce budgetary discipline, begin setting new rules for sounder budgetary practices and make sure that government budgets should no longer be the source of inflation as in the past.

A new round of economic measures was undertaken in February 1967, this time aimed at abolishing subsidies to public utilities and national oil companies; unless this was done, the budget would never be in balance. The cost of gasoline, kerosene and diesel oil went up eightfold and, partly as a consequence, public utility rates had to be raised twentyfold in order to break even. These rate and price adjustments were a severe shock to the economy and inevitably had political repercussions, but there seemed no alternative.

Since then the economy has been painfully trying to accommodate itself to the new rules and to move from hyperinflation and excessive government controls to a more stable market economy. The rate of inflation is still 65 percent per year, but the government is avoiding price and foreign-exchange controls in an effort to make the policies stick.

The ordeal of stabilization is being widely felt. The deflationary forces resulting from reduced government spending and from higher transportation costs and public utility rates have brought hardship to many of our still- infant domestic industries. The high priority accorded to exports and the increasing stability of the currency have already produced a stream of imports; the "empty-shelves economy" of the past is over. This means that domestic industry still has to make further painful adjustments to the new competitive situation.

In the final analysis, the success of the stabilization and rehabilitation program depends on our obtaining sufficient foreign aid. Budget expenditures had to be cut substantially in the past year due to shortfalls in foreign aid receipts. Instead of $140 million worth of development expenditures, only $95 million will have been spent. As a result, the government could carry out only the most necessary road repairs and complete one or two high-priority agriculture and irrigation schemes and certain industrial projects already long under construction.

The 1967 budget for salaries was very inadequate. The total sum available for salaries, to be distributed among some two million employees, the armed forces included, amounted to only $240 million. The average salary per government worker thus is about $120 per year. Low wages create a temptation to government employees and others to make up the difference between their salaries and the minimum necessary for subsistence for themselves and their families by taking second jobs or by various devices, legal or illegal. This poses a problem which only the capacity to raise salaries gradually can bring under control.

The salary scale in 1967 represented an improvement over the preceding year, and the reduced rate of inflation adds to the protection of persons with fixed incomes. Nevertheless, a further improvement is vitally necessary. The new regime has put great stress on bettering economic conditions. Although it is not giving the people rosy promises, it nevertheless is creating expectations. In 1968, a pre-election year, the new régime will be measured above all by its performance on the economic front.

The government enjoys several obvious advantages in dealing with its problems. General Suharto has given it determined leadership; major political dilemmas have been solved with tact and without creating unnecessary turmoil. It has struck a happy balance between continuity and change. Its major support is the military establishment, at the moment the strongest political entity in the country. A broad consensus exists about the general direction in which the New Order should move even though there is ample criticism of the way specific changes are being managed. Meanwhile the opposition is not very vocal and is not well organized. All this makes for a relatively strong government with good chances for survival. The fact remains that the régime has to score substantial successes in the economic field; it has to "deliver the goods."

For the fiscal year 1968 (which coincides with the calendar year) we need a larger budget in order to permit improvements in salaries and larger investments in development. Our first effort will be to cover routine expenditures by raising domestic revenues some 27 percent in real terms. If we can achieve this, it will be the first time in Indonesia's history. In addition, in order to cover a higher development budget, we need increased foreign aid, if possible the equivalent of $250 million in the same form as the past year-that is, multi-purpose commodity aid.

Outside the regular operating budget, we will introduce direct project aid in the form of equipment and capital goods, mainly to rehabilitate infrastructure projects: roads, harbors, rivers, railways, generating plants, airways and irrigation facilities. None of these has had proper replacements since 1961 and most are in very bad repair. Thus 1968 will be an "infrastructure year," aimed at repairing facilities in order to revive the economy, boost exports and lay a more solid foundation for the long- range development which we intend to start in 1969.

Ideally, we hope aid may come from the United States in the calendar year 1968 in the amount of $50 million under Public Law 480, $50 million in the form of commodity credits and, say, $30 million in the form of capital goods for rehabilitating the infrastructure. Since we are a nation of 110 million people, such governmental aid would amount to a little over $1 per head. By comparison with the $65 million of American aid in the current year, the new figure might appear too hopeful, but if it is enough to bring stability to a vital region of the world it could be considered a modest investment.

In addition to governmental aid, Indonesia is hoping for a good measure of American equity investment. Our foreign investment policy is an integral part of our overall economic and development policy. The law passed as a high priority measure in parliament as early as the last quarter of 1966 provides ample guarantees against expropriation and undue government interference in management. It provides also for the free transfer of profits as well as legitimate costs such as expenses for patents, royalties, insurance and part of the salaries of expatriate employees. After the tax holiday is over, repatriation of capital will be allowed. Indonesia's great natural potential and its large domestic market can be developed effectively by private enterprise, and in this foreign capital can play a very important role. The government will confine itself to investments in roads, harbors, rail transport, communications, agriculture, schools and other requirements for social development and will leave the rest of the economy open to the initiative of private enterprise. The government also realizes that since it cannot count on the flow of foreign aid capital continuing indefinitely, self-help measures are necessary to mobilize the domestic capital which will one day have to take over the role now being filled by international aid.

In developing countries, however, foreign equity capital should work in a coöperative manner with the host society. Foreign investment must become a truly international venture; that is, it must produce a blend of Western technology and management with local human and social capacities. Trouble comes if foreign investment creates isolated islands of modernity in an underdeveloped native sea. Along with the influx of foreign capital we have to develop an indigenous middle class, which in time should be as strong as the foreign business class, indeed preferably stronger. This is imperative if we want to preserve social and political stability. In Indonesia there is as yet no strong and established middle class, save for the semi-alien Chinese business community. That is why the government prefers joint enterprises or joint ventures rather than foreign investments which remain fully controlled from abroad; but because of the scarcity of Indonesian capital and entrepreneurs it will not insist on these in the beginning. We want to develop indigenous entrepreneurs through education and employment, and for this purpose foreign enterprises are required to train Indonesians and employ local skills to the extent they are available.

IV

We must give evidence of progress toward maturity in our handling of international as well as national problems. In our foreign relations, I regret to say, policy-makers of the past regime destroyed much good will or at the least did not respond adequately to evidence of it. The task of the Indonesian Government now is to regain the confidence of some of the nations which have experienced mistreatment by our predecessors. It will make every effort to restore relations with other nations in the Indonesian people's genuine spirit of good will, so long suppressed.

We believe that no nation in this age of rapid technological progress and scientific advances can live in isolated self-sufficiency. Even if for the time being we put more stress on our domestic problems, we are aware of our role among the other nations of the world. The fact that so much has to be done at home to improve social welfare and develop natural resources does not indicate any lack of interest in foreign affairs.

Indonesia's main problem today is to reëstablish her position as a respectable and respected nation based on a policy described usually as nonalignment. This means that Indonesia will not become a member of any international bloc, either political or ideological. It does not mean, however, that Indonesia will take up an attitude of indifference toward world problems and world conflicts. Indonesia will join with other nations to promote world peace and good international relations. I must admit that our good will has not as yet been fully reciprocated; policies of the past régime have left a certain residue of mistrust abroad. That is why I am making it my mission as Minister of Foreign Affairs to regain what good will we may have lost, not by promises but by proving Indonesia a reliable partner in political as well as business matters.

In this context we are working toward the establishment of regional coöperation in Southeast Asia. The initiative is not a new one. The Asian nations, and especially those of Southeast Asia, are aware of the necessity of coöperation not just for political ends but for the sake of mutual development. The exchange of experience in nation-building in a world of rapid social change and technological progress is fruitful not so much because one can copy from another as because a comparative analysis can prevent the repetition of mistakes.

The primary reason for regional coöperation is the necessity for modernization. The developing nations themselves have the primary responsibility for accelerating the speed of their recovery and improving their standard of living. Yet other more developed nations have a duty to help on ethical grounds. Today national leaders must consider the good not of their nations but of humanity in general. The cultural differences among the peoples of the world present problems of a quite secondary order compared with the problems arising from the discrepancies in the basic needs for human survival. Especially in our region, the question of war or peace is not the only problem. There is a desperate struggle, too, against poverty, disease, illiteracy and many other ills. It is a struggle which can be won if the will exists, by which I mean if the nations of the world will pay enough attention. With this in mind we look on the establishment of regional coöperation in Southeast Asia as part of, and in harmony with, international coöperation in general, the overall object being to improve our standard of living and our intellectual capacities so that we may keep pace with modern progress or at least not stay too far behind.

In view of the tremendous growth of the idea of regional coöperation, which resulted in the establishment of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it might seem logical that part of the foreign aid given to Indonesia or other countries in the area should be diverted to multinational regional projects. The fact is, however, that the aid given directly to Indonesia or other countries of the area is much smaller than their needs. Because of this, and also because aid varies in kind and purpose from country to country, a diversion of any part of it does not seem feasible without curtailing the programs already under way. Such aid as might be provided for multinational regional projects ought not to interfere, therefore, with what is given to national economic programs.

No Asian country can detach itself from anything that happens in Asia. Although Asia is composed of many nations, with varieties of culture and political and ideological outlook, every part feels the pulse of every other part. The Chinese Cultural Revolution is an Asian problem, as the Viet Nam war is also a problem for other parts of Asia. The same is true of the industrial progress of Japan, which affects certain aspects of the national economy of other Asian nations. But in a general way we can almost say that the Asian problem is caused mainly by the fact of transition- transition from traditional society toward a modernized society, from colonialized nations toward independence, from more or less tranquil isolation toward international involvement. Nor are the problems involved rational only; some of the inhibiting factors are basically emotional in nature. Psychologically, the situation can be stated in terms of a traumatic experience-the attempt to achieve self-responsibility in a community of nations where interdependence is a must.

The idea of regional coöperation is not, of course, inconsistent with coöperation with other nations in the world, and for this Indonesia believes that the United Nations is indeed the most suitable forum. Since its establishment in 1945 the United Nations has undergone drastic changes in nature and structure, for the world itself has changed, and many problems not foreseen in those early days of postwar fatigue and hope have arisen as results of new conflicting forces and ideologies. It is not enough to blame each other for the present sorrow in the world. We are all to blame, and each will be blamed by tomorrow's generations unless each does his share to end it.

To those nations which belong to the family of the affluent I would like to make an appeal: transcend limitations of national or local interest and dismiss feelings of superiority. The relationship of the affluent and the impoverished but developing societies must not be based on such assumptions and cannot be contrived by political manipulation. The better world we hope for will be inhabited by men possessed of their full dignity and rights and conscious of their plain duty. To fulfill that hope should be the ethical purpose of the United Nations, which is the institutionalized manifestation of the society of man.
-----
Adam Malik was Foreign Minister of Indonesia (1968-1978)

Source: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/23947/adam-malik/promise-in-indonesia
Read more
Posted by at November 06, 2014 No comments: Edit
Labels: , ,