Services sector: An alternative route to high growth?

Indonesian economic growth has been marked by the rapid growth of its services sector, as indicated in the growth of its non-tradable sectors.

This sector, including trade, services, finance, transport, communication and construction, has been growing at 8 percent each year for several years, which is higher than the overall GDP growth.

Even after the impact of global economic crisis in 2009, services sector still grew at 5.9 percent, almost doubled the rate of growth of tradable sectors that consist of agriculture, mining and manufacturing.

Because of its rapid growth, Indonesian services sector has accounted for 51.9 percent of its GDP in 2009, compared with 48.9 percent in 2006.

This means that now, more than half of Indonesian GDP comes from its services sector. This trend would continue in the coming years, and as Indonesian industrial growth continue to lag behind the growth of its services sector, the Indonesian economy will be dominated more and more by its services sector.

Some have argued that an economy with a high growth in its services sector would tend to have high GDP growth, or to put it the other way, a country that has a high economic growth tends to show high growth in its services sector.

This argument was put forward recently by Ejaz Ghani (The Jakarta Post, March 31, 2010) an adviser to the World Bank. He made the argument after studying economic growth of China and India.

China and India have achieved a remarkable economic growth in recent years, but according to Ghani, the paths and patterns of their growth have been strikingly different.

While the Chinese pattern followed conventional stages, where manufacturing took over the roles of agriculture, India’s economy has leapfrogged from an agriculture-based economy into a service-sector-dominated economy. Ghani thinks India’s pattern of growth could be an alternative for underdeveloped economies still struggling to achieve high economic growth by developing their manufacturing sector.

Ghani’s arguments have provided some intriguing questions regarding the Indonesian economy: Has the Indonesian economy entered the threshold of an advanced economy, whose primary characteristic is the dominance of service industries?

If so, would its pattern of growth divert from conventional stages — from agriculture to industry and then to services — as prescribed in textbooks on economic development?

Before contemplating these questions it is worthwhile first to know why the services sector has seen higher growth than other sectors? There are several reasons that could explain this.

The services sector is a sector that could readily benefit from information technology and globalization. The process of adapting technology in services is more automatic and less complicated than in other sectors.

The market for services is already more global. Once a business entity enters service business, it is immediately plugged into a global IT network. This is clearly the case in the finance and telecommunications industries.

Globalization and the inherent competition it brings with it, and the widespread use of IT has brought down costs, which has benefited customers worldwide and generated opportunities for higher profit and growth.

In the case of Indonesia, high growth in services sector is also the result of its far reaching liberalization that has been accorded by successive Indonesian governments in the past.

While deregulation has been resented and criticized, and has aggravated an economic crisis in the past, the fact remains that the liberalization of its service industries has served as impetus for its high growth by enabling the sector to provide cheaper and better services to customers.

The other reason is that the service industries are less prone to backlogs in physical infrastructure than other industries such as manufacturing, whose growth is highly dependent on the availability of adequate physical infrastructure.

The increasing role of the services sector in the Indonesian economy is not a result of its ingenuities, nor does it mean the Indonesian economy is entering an advanced-economy stage. The services sector’s apparent growing importance in the overall economy is because the growth of the manufacturing sector is still depressed.

The manufacturing sector in Indonesia is still facing all myriad problems ranging from uncertain regulatory frameworks to a lack of infrastructure. Even though the government is working hard to overcome these problems, given its limited competence it will take several years to its structural reforms.

So Indonesia’s economic growth would still depend on the growth of its services sector. To make growth in the services sector more sustainable would require certain conditions, the most important of which is education.

India may be a poor country but it has an excellent education system. Its technical colleges have produced thousands of highly qualified engineers. Thousands of Indian engineering graduates have returned from American universities and Silicon Valley, California, the center of US computer industries.

These are people who have pushed Indian IT services to become a global power. They have made Bangalore, a dusty town in Southern India, become a Mecca for IT services for many large international corporations.

English language, which is the second language in India, has helped its services sector expand enormously.

Indonesia does not have these kinds of advantages, yet its services sector has managed to grow rapidly. But to rely too much on the services sector growth raises questions as to the quality of growth. Service industries require a highly skilled and educated workforce, so they tend to be less labor intensive than manufacturing industries.

While the growth of the services sector could be left to the dynamics of globalization and technology, Indonesia with its huge population and workforce needs to pursue high growth policies in its manufacturing industries especially those with high labor absorption capacities.

So, even though the growth of the services sector can pull up the overall GDP growth, it should not, and could not be an alternative to growth in the manufacturing industries.

What we could expect from Obama’s visit

Barring any unforeseen trouble ahead, US President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit Indonesia and Australia in the second half of March.

For both President Obama and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), the visit will be a welcome diversion from domestic political headaches that currently grip both leaders.

Of course, this will also be a great photo opportunity for both Presidents. Obama will be able to show the folks back home that he is still the most popular president on the face of the Earth and still commands respect and admiration from a country with the highest Muslim population in the world.

Meanwhile, SBY will relish the international spotlight while showing off Indonesia as one of the most beautiful and important countries in the world.

The million-dollar question is what Indonesia should expect from President Obama’s visit.
The bad news is that Indonesia should not expect too much from this visit. Aside from reaffirming Indonesia as one of the US’s major trading and security partners and his personal visit to his childhood “kampung” in Menteng, it is very unlikely that Obama will bring anything major to the table.

With the US congress is in uproar thanks to his healthcare mess and the US economy just starting its slow rebound, Obama’s options are limited.

On the other hand, in light of Indonesia’s recent successes in tackling radical Muslims (e.g. Noordin M. Top), considering Indonesia’s willingness to help the US over the past several years, and not to mention Obama’s personal attachment to Indonesia, SBY needs to capitalize on this occasion to press the US on several important aspects, notably on the issue of trade, security and education.

Trade, of course, will always be one of the most important aspects of this visit. Aside of course, hoping to increase US investment in Indonesia, President Yudhoyono should also focus on trying to increase Indonesia’s exports to the US.

Facing the flood of cheap Chinese goods, thanks to the implementation of the China-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, Indonesian manufacturers need to increase exports, especially on high-quality or highly specialized goods in order to survive.

Regardless of the economic crisis and high unemployment rate, the US remains one of the richest countries and one of the largest markets in the world.

Its economy has also improved far better than those in Europe. As a result, Indonesia needs to try to increase its market share in the US.

The second important aspect is the military aspect. While the US had lifted its arms embargo on Indonesia, Indonesia still faces difficulties in procuring more arms from the US due to cost, bureaucratic hassle and congressional hostility. Of course, it can be argued the Indonesian military needs to undergo structural reform first.

Still, the fact remains the Indonesian military is vastly under-equipped and needs more equipment and spare parts to defend the huge expanses of Indonesian territory.

As US forces are stretched thin due to commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and all over the world, the US needs a friendly Indonesia to maintain the stability of the region in the face of threats from a rising China and radical religious terrorists, not to mention criminal elements such as human traffickers or drug smugglers. It is only fair the US help Indonesia modernize and equip its military forces.

While the US Congress, especially the Democrats, are usually pretty hostile and critical toward the Indonesian military, Obama actually could persuade his Democrat party colleagues and more friendly Republican congressmen to back more military aid to Indonesia in order to improve regional security and stability.

The debate over the US policy on Afghanistan showed that Republicans were more than willing to support President Obama’s military buildup, so Obama just needs to convince his Democratic colleagues to support more military aid to Indonesia by arguing that it is in the interest of improving regional security.

The third important aspect is education, especially more opportunity for civilians and military officers to pursue higher education at American universities.

While the quality of Indonesian education is steadily improving, Indonesia still needs more capable civil and military scholars to help further improve its higher education institutions.

In addition, SBY should urge American universities to open branches in Indonesia, as they have in Singapore.

For the US, this is a win-win proposition, an increase in the number of Indonesian scholars studying there means that they will be immersed in American values and share them back in Indonesia when they return.

These scholars can help improve the image of the US and its reputation in Indonesia, which took major beatings under George W. Bush.

On military affairs, as Indonesian Army officers become more professional, they will help reform the Indonesian military and strengthen democracy in Indonesia.

In the end, while Indonesia should not expect much from Obama’s visit, SBY still needs to capitalize on it and push for more cooperation in trade, security and education.

Editorial: Mud-slinging matches

The wealth of public officials is in the spotlight. Recently it was the former director general of taxation who is now chairman of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), Hadi Poernomo.

According to a government assessment in 2008, most of Hadi’s fortune (Rp 26.58 billion) came from donations, Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) reported last week.

This is a shocking revelation because unless we have a bunch of extremely generous donors among us, even a top civil servant cannot accumulate such huge wealth.

Credit is due to the anti-graft agency since the revelation is in line with the government’s agenda to curb corruption.

The fight against graft suffered aa relapse late last year when the National Police and Attorney General’s Office (AGO) were found to have colluded to undermine the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). These authorities are two of the most important law enforcing bodies in Indonesia.

Where else can we place our hopes when these judicial institutions have apparently drifted so far from their missions, as businessman Anggodo Widjojo demonstrated with his telephone conversations that were broadcast live on television?

The spotlight on Hadi is a twist in irony, since the BPK is one of the agencies assisting the House inquiry committee to find irregularities behind the controversial Rp 6.76 trillion Bank Century bailout.

The 2-month inquiry, broadcast live on national television, was initially expected to target Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati and Vice President Boediono, the two top officials responsible for the bailout decision, when the latter was the governor of Bank Indonesia.

Hadi was one of the director generals removed by Sri Mulyani under her 2006 reform program.

This is a classic case where the “pot is calling the kettle black”.

Hadi is the latest person under the spotlight, on the sidelines of the inquiry.

Earlier, legislators from two of the most vocal parties in the bailout were charged with corruption.

Emir Moies of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) was reported to have made several suspicious transactions with Bank Century. While admitting that he had made several transactions with the bank, Emir insisted that none were illegal.

Inquiry chairman Idrus Marham of the Golkar Party was also reported to the National Police by the Association of Village Unit Cooperatives (Inkud) for suspected graft in the procurement of transportation for 60,000 tons of rice from the customs office in 2003.

Mud-slinging between opposing political groups continues with demands to question House’s Golkar Party chairman Setya Novanto who is reportedly responsible for the procurement.

Following Soeharto’s fall in 1998, new laws were issued obliging public officials to declare their wealth.

However, four presidents after Soeharto, it seems easy for public officials to get around these laws
with impunity. The arrogance of power that was nurtured under Soeharto seems to be too strong to overcome. Following closely is the preservation (if not escalation) of corruption.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who just entered his second term in office, has his hands full in working to make his battle cry from his election campaign into a reality. But Yudhoyono needs to be more resolute to curb this social ill. Otherwise, he will not live up to his words.

Editorial: Can’t speak English?

How can Indonesian officials, assigned to an overseas post by the state, be effective in promoting or protecting the interests of our country when they fail to meet the very basic requirement of proficiency in English? Such an official not only wastes state money, but also humiliates Indonesia, as they become a source of jokes among their foreign counterparts.

Amid allegations that several Foreign Ministry officials marked up the prices of airline tickets, Foreign Ministry secretary-general Imron Cotan revealed that several Indonesian attaches stationed at Indonesian embassies had such a poor grasp of English that they often avoided meetings with foreign counterparts.

“Every time their counterparts from the home government want to meet them, they freak out and seek ways to avoid the meetings,” said Imron, who will soon take his new post as Indonesian ambassador to China.

Imron indicated clearly which government departments (not the Foreign Ministry) the officials he was referring to were from, namely the ministries of trade, labor and transmigration, the Indonesian Military (TNI) and the Immigration Office.

During a visit to The Jakarta Post on Friday, Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa played down Imron’s comments, arguing that we should avoid generalization. But the fact that the information came from a very senior diplomat could also mean that these problems are more complicated than just English speaking skills.

The appointment of attaches is often not based on professional considerations, as much as good political connections. Thus it is also highly likely that their incompetence is not limited to language skills, but other substantial areas also.

Unless the government undertakes comprehensive measures to ensure that only capable and professional officials are posted at our foreign offices, complaints similar to Imron’s will emerge again and again.

Many of Indonesia’s ambassadors also have trouble with English, but it is not just the monopoly of our own envoys. Not all foreign ambassadors here can speak English either, and they have the right to be flanked by interpreters.

In a meeting with about 200 diplomats from 119 Indonesian embassies and consulate generals around the globe, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono ordered diplomats to attract investors.

This was apart from their other main duties, including to protect Indonesians abroad.
However, there is little hope that the unqualified officials will meet this target.

What about our career diplomats? There is no doubt at all about their English proficiency, because the ministry has set high standards for diplomats. Many of them studied at top universities and have brilliant academic achievements behind them. Diplomats assigned to major United Nations offices are also supposed to have mastered other major languages, such as French.

By comparison, let us look for a moment at the skills of foreign diplomats here. It is not difficult to find diplomats in Jakarta who are fluent in Indonesian. Many of the diplomats from Japan, South Korea, Russia and China have mastered Indonesian as well as English. These extra capabilities are very helpful for them in communicating with Indonesian people.

The Foreign Ministry fully realizes the need for such an advantage, and has also recruited top young graduates from arts faculties including Chinese studies. However, such efforts are still in very preliminary stages.

What is worse, the problems faced by Indonesian officials abroad do not just revolve around their language abilities, but also in their capacities and willingness to act as representatives of our country.

Editorial: Mud-slinging matches

The wealth of public officials is in the spotlight. Recently it was the former director general of taxation who is now chairman of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), Hadi Poernomo.

According to a government assessment in 2008, most of Hadi’s fortune (Rp 26.58 billion) came from donations, Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) reported last week.

This is a shocking revelation because unless we have a bunch of extremely generous donors among us, even a top civil servant cannot accumulate such huge wealth.

Credit is due to the anti-graft agency since the revelation is in line with the government’s agenda to curb corruption.

The fight against graft suffered aa relapse late last year when the National Police and Attorney General’s Office (AGO) were found to have colluded to undermine the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). These authorities are two of the most important law enforcing bodies in Indonesia.

Where else can we place our hopes when these judicial institutions have apparently drifted so far from their missions, as businessman Anggodo Widjojo demonstrated with his telephone conversations that were broadcast live on television?

The spotlight on Hadi is a twist in irony, since the BPK is one of the agencies assisting the House inquiry committee to find irregularities behind the controversial Rp 6.76 trillion Bank Century bailout.

The 2-month inquiry, broadcast live on national television, was initially expected to target Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati and Vice President Boediono, the two top officials responsible for the bailout decision, when the latter was the governor of Bank Indonesia.

Hadi was one of the director generals removed by Sri Mulyani under her 2006 reform program.

This is a classic case where the “pot is calling the kettle black”.

Hadi is the latest person under the spotlight, on the sidelines of the inquiry.

Earlier, legislators from two of the most vocal parties in the bailout were charged with corruption.

Emir Moies of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) was reported to have made several suspicious transactions with Bank Century. While admitting that he had made several transactions with the bank, Emir insisted that none were illegal.

Inquiry chairman Idrus Marham of the Golkar Party was also reported to the National Police by the Association of Village Unit Cooperatives (Inkud) for suspected graft in the procurement of transportation for 60,000 tons of rice from the customs office in 2003.

Mud-slinging between opposing political groups continues with demands to question House’s Golkar Party chairman Setya Novanto who is reportedly responsible for the procurement.

Following Soeharto’s fall in 1998, new laws were issued obliging public officials to declare their wealth.

However, four presidents after Soeharto, it seems easy for public officials to get around these laws
with impunity. The arrogance of power that was nurtured under Soeharto seems to be too strong to overcome. Following closely is the preservation (if not escalation) of corruption.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who just entered his second term in office, has his hands full in working to make his battle cry from his election campaign into a reality. But Yudhoyono needs to be more resolute to curb this social ill. Otherwise, he will not live up to his words.

Editorial: Less is more

The correlation between an uncontrolled birth growth and poverty was identified in the 18th century when economist and demographer Thomas Robert Malthus introduced his seminal population theory.

Population growth, Malthus said, will always tend to outrun the food supply, and the betterment of humankind is impossible without stern limits on reproduction. At the time, Malthus’ interpretation of the danger of overpopulation was deemed controversial, not just among religious leaders, but also among fellow scientists.

The controversy has still not abated, including in Indonesia, despite its internationally acclaimed success in curbing population growth. That the government has been stretched to breaking point to promote the family planning program shows not everyone is happy about birth control.

The controversy reportedly set off a political see-saw that eventually resulted in the program getting the new motto of “two children are better” to replace the old one of “two children are enough”.

The population issue, however, far outstrips political, moral and socioeconomic interests. It is related to the survival of the nation, even the human race, which is why governments and private donors the world over consistently pour in money to help Indonesia keep its birth rate under control.

Like it or not, the late former president Soeharto deserves praise for pioneering the family planning program. Indonesia’s population grew by an average 2.3 percent between 1971 and 1980, but slowed to 1.4 percent until he stepped down in 1998.

Under Soeharto, family planning worked effectively thanks to the use of force and mass deployment of field workers to every part of the country’s territory to convince residents of the need to control births and delay marriage for the sake of the families’ welfare and the future of their children.

During that time, the National Family Planning Coordinating Board (BKKBN) played a pivotal role and worked under a clear chain of command to ensure the program succeeded.

The reform movement proved a setback for the family planning program, partly because it was associated with Soeharto. Post-Soeharto governments decentralized the program in line with the spirit of regional autonomy, but not all heads of regional administrations care about the population issue.

Central Kalimantan is a living laboratory that proves that an unsuccessful family planning program can lead to a rise in poverty. The province’s growth rate lagged behind the national mark between 2000 and 2005, while its poverty rate increased from 28.35 percent to 41.58 percent.

Vice President Boediono underlined the need to maintain family planning as a priority program for the government, on the grounds that overpopulation would hamper development and spark social problems such as unemployment, food shortages and poverty.

Overpopulation is also a source of environmental degradation, which was why the West Sumatra government intensified the family planning program to stop forests being cleared for residential and industrial areas.

With the BKKBN looking to get 7.1 million families on board this year, extra efforts are mandatory to get people to use contraceptives and other methods of birth control. BKKBN chief Sugiri Syarief claims the body has registered 100 million families over the last 40 years, but admits the threat of a baby boom lingers as many newlyweds tend to expect more than two children.

His concern about the future of the family planning program is reflected in his opposition to non-civic marriages, or nikah siri, and polygamy, which he said would wreak havoc with the BKKBN’s target.

Many may deem the BKKBN chief has overstepped his authority, but this only highlights the endless controversy over the population check. We should not waste time settling the controversy, as our land and natural resources are dwindling and there are many more mouths to feed.

Editorial: Castrating netizens

Those who expressed fear and skepticism at the appointment of Tifatul Sembiring as the communications and information minister may now claim that they have even more solid grounds to justify their negative perception of the former chief of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS).

The anxiety within the media industry that Tifatul will revive the repressive Ministry of Information from Soeharto’s era is certainly excessive. However, upon reading the minister’s draft regulation on the contents of multimedia – with so many prohibitions proposed – it is hard to deny that the negative perception of Tifatul’s agenda is not baseless. The draft decree, which comprises six chapters and 32 articles, is a direct threat to the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Constitution.

Leading the opposition to the draft is no less a figure than Constitutional Court chief Mahfud M.D. Media reports recently quoted Mahfud as emphasizing that freedom of expression should be regulated by law, and not by ministerial decree or government regulation. It is therefore ridiculous for the minister to claim to have the right to regulate something that forms a pillar of the very fundamental rights of Indonesian citizens.

One thing is certain: The minister’s attempt to reduce Internet-related crimes and create a healthy environment for cyber business is noble and deserves the support of the whole society. But it does not mean he can do whatever he pleases to achieve this goal, no matter how vital or religious the purpose is.

Chapter 2 of the draft decree, for instance, regulates the bans on pornography, misleading information, privacy and religious hatred. Chapter 3 obliges multimedia players to impose self-censorship on their contents. Meanwhile, Chapter 4 regulates on the appointment of a Multimedia Content Team that will have far-reaching powers, including the right to block websites.

Minister Tifatul has given the public nine days until Feb. 19 to post their objections or views about the draft ministerial regulation at gatot_b@postel.go.id, the email address of ministry spokesman Gatot S. Dewa Broto. The dissemination of such an important agenda should involve as many stakeholders as possible and be conducted in a transparent manner. Apart from the mechanism, who can guarantee the ministry will seriously take into account the emails from the public?

Our position is very clear: We are against any restriction on the freedom of expression, although this does not mean the state has no right to regulate such freedom. It is not a freedom without norms and it is not an unlimited freedom.

We therefore call on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to get personally involved in handling the draft ministerial decree, because its implications could be very damaging should the ministry be allowed to work freely without sufficient supervision from the President. We also urge the House of Representatives to prioritize the discussion of this agenda before it is too late.

We do believe Minister Tifatul fully realizes the controversy over his plan. This is not a matter of winning or losing, or of seeking a win-win solution. The draft ministerial decree is too important to be decided by a minister alone.

Minister Tifatul should give all stakeholders a fair chance to be heard, and assure that their voices are heard and accommodated. Please do not take all objections or opposition against your plan as a personal attack.

Editorial: Castrating netizens

Those who expressed fear and skepticism at the appointment of Tifatul Sembiring as the communications and information minister may now claim that they have even more solid grounds to justify their negative perception of the former chief of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS).

The anxiety within the media industry that Tifatul will revive the repressive Ministry of Information from Soeharto’s era is certainly excessive. However, upon reading the minister’s draft regulation on the contents of multimedia – with so many prohibitions proposed – it is hard to deny that the negative perception of Tifatul’s agenda is not baseless. The draft decree, which comprises six chapters and 32 articles, is a direct threat to the freedom of expression guaranteed in the Constitution.

Leading the opposition to the draft is no less a figure than Constitutional Court chief Mahfud M.D. Media reports recently quoted Mahfud as emphasizing that freedom of expression should be regulated by law, and not by ministerial decree or government regulation. It is therefore ridiculous for the minister to claim to have the right to regulate something that forms a pillar of the very fundamental rights of Indonesian citizens.

One thing is certain: The minister’s attempt to reduce Internet-related crimes and create a healthy environment for cyber business is noble and deserves the support of the whole society. But it does not mean he can do whatever he pleases to achieve this goal, no matter how vital or religious the purpose is.

Chapter 2 of the draft decree, for instance, regulates the bans on pornography, misleading information, privacy and religious hatred. Chapter 3 obliges multimedia players to impose self-censorship on their contents. Meanwhile, Chapter 4 regulates on the appointment of a Multimedia Content Team that will have far-reaching powers, including the right to block websites.

Minister Tifatul has given the public nine days until Feb. 19 to post their objections or views about the draft ministerial regulation at gatot_b@postel.go.id, the email address of ministry spokesman Gatot S. Dewa Broto. The dissemination of such an important agenda should involve as many stakeholders as possible and be conducted in a transparent manner. Apart from the mechanism, who can guarantee the ministry will seriously take into account the emails from the public?

Our position is very clear: We are against any restriction on the freedom of expression, although this does not mean the state has no right to regulate such freedom. It is not a freedom without norms and it is not an unlimited freedom.

We therefore call on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to get personally involved in handling the draft ministerial decree, because its implications could be very damaging should the ministry be allowed to work freely without sufficient supervision from the President. We also urge the House of Representatives to prioritize the discussion of this agenda before it is too late.

We do believe Minister Tifatul fully realizes the controversy over his plan. This is not a matter of winning or losing, or of seeking a win-win solution. The draft ministerial decree is too important to be decided by a minister alone.

Minister Tifatul should give all stakeholders a fair chance to be heard, and assure that their voices are heard and accommodated. Please do not take all objections or opposition against your plan as a personal attack.

Editorial: Copy, paste

A small piece of good news has come out of the embarrasing incident endured by this newspaper, induced by a writer found to have committed plagiarism. I promise, one reader said in response to the report, not to engage in plagiarism again. The reader, apparently a university student from Banyumas, Central Java, said almost all the students she knew had been involved in “some kind of plagiarism” but may have been “unaware” that it was wrong.

The renowned professor had also stated on his Facebook account that he apologized and that his deeds were “unintentional,” though many may not understand how one unintentionally copies a string of paragraphs.

The above student’s pledge is insignificant in the surroundings, which still places higher value on academic titles, rather than the disciplined process of intellectual creativity and honesty. What’s wrong with a copy paste here and there? Why waste time painstakingly researching and writing one’s orginal work, only to be thrashed by a demanding lecturer?

With or without the Internet, we know well that cheating has been widespread here. Every year at the time of examination at all school levels, we even hear of teachers turning a blind eye to cheating students, for the sake of maintaining the school’s reputation of graduating 100 percent of students. As long as teachers condone cheating, there’s little chance that a parent’s nagging would instill some understanding that copying material without crediting the original writer is plain stealing.

Little wonder that such permissiveness carries on to university years. With a bit of charisma and a click of the mouse, cheating increasingly becomes easier and tempting for the rising campus star; the perpetrator becomes careless until someone cries foul. So this raises the question, how many plagiarists are out there?

One can easily block paragraphs and check across the Internet for the authencity of articles, against those which have been published in English. But this, of course, means that one plagiarist causes a thousand honest writers to become circumspect to the same scrutiny as the humiliating loud beeper checking the shopper’s bag. Seeking the instant road to fame and social acceptance has long meant plagiarizing and purchasing of academic titles and certificates. “Outsourcing” theses was a practice across universities here well before the days of the Internet. Which further means that one plagiarist who has been found out would be the tip of the iceberg.

The cost of all this cheating? The country and Indonesians are the ones losing out. We are notorious for our poor writing, which only becomes evident when Indonesians attempt to study overseas, or face report assignments on the job. The studies on various aspects of our own country, past and present, are still largely the work of foreign researchers. Our “verbal tradition” is but a petty excuse for the academia; they may not all be expected to be Einsteins, but are certainly expected to be honest.

Indonesia does not lack talking heads; we have many of them, gaining fame as part and parcel of the political talk shows. More writers among them are harder to find, though more self confidence and less censorship have encouraged more local writers than before. Their readers will just have to be more discerning, sifting through the true creators of local narrative from the liars and cheaters.

We all thought the Japanese walk on water!

Once upon a time — not so long ago in fact — the word “Toyota” was a synonym for “quality”, even “reliability”. Even that’s under recall now.

In a stunning reversal, the Tokyo-based auto giant is starting to back-pedal big-time. More than two million cars, from no less than eight model-lines, are being recalled, due to widespread performance-safety reports. Included in the massive backwards-movement were the popular Camry sedans and RAV4 sport utility vehicles. Red-faced Toyota execs admit that even the Prius, the green-car superstar, is under serious scrutiny.

Good news for America? Sure, in the sense that what’s not good for Toyota can prove great for General Motors (not to mention Ford). Last month, the latter realized a 24 percent increase in sales, and GM’s up-tick was also anything but shabby. Trend lines? Time, as it so often does, will tell.

In the meantime, the massive recall has an arguably philosophical as well as business dimension.

The first thing to be recalled is the notion that anything produced by the Japanese doesn’t need floatation devices because the Japanese walk on water. This idealization was most rampant in the eighties. This was when Japan had more disposable income than the rest of us, exported cars that were almost perfect and nearly cheap, and had on display, in Yasuhiro Nakasone, a Prime Minister who looked, acted and in fact was just about everything you could want in a PM.

Actually — and some people may not know this — the Japanese don’t walk, on water that is. In fact, they are humans, like the rest of us.

As a nation and as a race, they may on average be a little harder working and a little more insular than most tribes on the face of the earth; but fundamentally they are human beings like the rest of us, prone to gravitational pulls and the laws of nature. To suggest otherwise is, in fact, reverse racism.

Perhaps you don’t find Japanese mortality comforting — but I definitely do. It helps explains anomalies.

Because unless you understand the Japanese as mortal members of planet earth like the rest of us, there is no way to explain why Japan’s economy is starting to lean like a potential Titanic; why its top national leaders sometimes act like goofballs; why its sizzling ice skaters (even a champ like the celestial Mao Asada) sometimes fall on their butts; why even their gigantically talented baseball players, like the great Godzilla, Hideki Matsui, the 2009 World Series Most Valuable Player, can whiff; why living-legend symphony conductors like even Seiji Ozawa can forget to give a poor exposed oboist a proper cue; and why gas pedals even in Toyotas can stick like used-Singapore-chewing-gum and cause unwanted acceleration.

So now we look for some balance in our assessment of the Japanese. Note, for purposes of calibration, that the regal, silver-tongued Nakasone is now aged 91. And in a way, so is Japan. In many retail price categories, South Korea now makes better mid-sized cars. In the area of macro finance, Beijing actually holds more American Treasury bonds than Tokyo. And last year Japan posted negative economic growth rates while those of China, India, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam were (in differing degrees) positive.

How humiliating! Or — how human!

Countries rise and fall, as do dynasties and civilizations; sometimes the undulations are even predictable. Since the nineties Japan’s friends, as well as enemies, have been predicting a subtle setting of the land of the rising sun, unless Japan reformed itself — seriously. But what happened?

Japan failed to do so and so the decline proceeds apace. And now the decline apparently includes Toyota, one of Japan’s crown jewels.

Turn for a moment to another economic superpower: the United States. All smiles at Ford and GM right now, but across the great land of America, mostly frowns are to be found. Last year’s big financial shock has abated somewhat. No one is giving President Barrack Obama much credit for this, but recognition for that will come in time.

But in the meantime, serious reform of the American economy lags, as it did for the past two decades in Japan. In both countries, vested economic interests – as well as societal inertia — have had the political system in its vise, like a Mafia loan-shark shaking the last dollar out of a frightened, immobile customer. And so are the results predictable?

Look at the sad saga of once-invincible Toyota as a metaphor for what happens when you are riding so high, you just cannot see how far down you have to fall.


The writer, a columnist and journalist, has just completed a book on Lee Kuan Yew.

Letters: Habibie and impeachment

Mon, 02/08/2010 10:47 AM | Reader's Forum

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.

Editorial: Print dying, journalism thrives

Print may not be dead but those who still glorify printed materials, including newspapers and books, are preventing the industry and society from taking the necessary steps to prepare society to enter into the digital era. One hard truth those in self-denial refuse to swallow is that the printed world is a sunset industry. One would be much better off preparing not only for its inevitable demise, but more importantly, for an emerging society dominated by the digital world.

The National Convention on the Mass Media in Palembang this week hears two contrasting views of how the Internet impacts the media industry and society.

One camp still insists there is ample room for growth for the printed world, and the Internet will not replace the printed materials. Newspapers will survive just as they overcame earlier challenges from telex, the radio, television, facsimile and cable TV.

Another camp, which predicts 100 million Internet users in Indonesia in the next three years, asks the important question: Is Indonesia ready for the digital world? Andy Sjarief of Media Track believes that Indonesia can still take control of the direction of the Internet development, but it needs to get its act together.

The implied message is clear: Drop any pretension that the Internet is not a threat and start entering the new digital world to make sure that we don’t lose out in the fierce global competition, unleashed by the ongoing revolution of the communication and information technology.

Being a sunset industry means it is only a matter of time before the printed world loses its relevance. The experience of the United States and Europe tells us that it is not so much a question of people ceasing to read or buy newspapers, as a question of the industry losing its commercial viability. The writing had been on the wall for some years, and the economic recession helped to speed up the demise of dozens of newspapers in the US by a few years.
Expect more titles to close down and migrate to the digital world in the coming years, including in Indonesia.

The sooner we accept that print is dying a slow death, the sooner we will be in making adjustments. In journalism, this means reinventing the profession to fit to the new situation, a world in which anyone, thanks to easy and cheap access to the Internet, can do the work that has traditionally been the domain of journalists: to disseminate information to the masses.

Professional journalists today have to compete with “netizens” or citizen journalists, including bloggers and just about everyone with accounts in social media like Twitter and Facebook, in breaking news and in spreading information. On many cases, they are breaking the news before even journalists reach the area, which raises the question, how should professional journalists respond?

In this kind of competitive environment, it is wrong to ignore the ground rules and ethics in journalism. If there is one thing that does not change in journalism — whether print, broadcast or the Internet — it is that credibility and trust continue to be the chief currencies underpinning this profession. Good journalism means sticking to the old and tested principles and values that make this profession the fourth pillar in democracy, including honesty, accuracy and fair reporting.

Print may be dying, but the traditional journalism will continue to live for far longer. When society suffers from a massive information overflow, good and honest journalism becomes even more, not less, relevant than ever.