Change we can grovel in

We read an opinion today by the Jakarta Post [1] and couldn't keep wondering why on earth they would write something like this. It's on Obama not coming to Indonesia in his Asia tour.

Read the whole thing there but here is some taste of it:

------
" [...] Indonesia – the world’s third-largest democracy and country with the world’s largest Muslim population – is of vital strategic importance to the US [...] A new era of US-Indonesia relations was touted [...]

But when it came time for recognition, we did not get our expected due.

"Two days in Japan, two cities in four days in China, two days in Korea, three days in Singapore, and not a minute in Indonesia? We all wonder. [...]

But the news of the cancellation [...], is a letdown that speaks volumes as to the significance, or lack thereof, Indonesia is granted in American foreign policy circles.

Some insiders claim Obama actually wants to visit next year [...]
Be that as it may, the hurt has been done. Even a five-hour pause at the airport and palace would have sufficed. "
-----

Now hang on a minute, because we got some questions:

Question number one, who's hurt by Mr Obama not visiting Indonesia?
Our answer: Not us the little people. Not us mere mortal earning less than a dollar a day and have to live with horrible traffic day in day out to earn it.
(We still remember the time when W Bush visited Indonesia and how annoying the security measures were.)
So let's see. Obama's not coming. Hmm.. Do we feel hurt? Any pain at all? A little depress maybe? Some kind of feeling? Disappointment? Anything? Deep down inside? Hmm...

Nope. Nothing. Sorry.

As a matter of fact, we didn't even know he's planning to be in the neighbourhood.
Sure, we like Obama and his hope thing. But it does not mean we would grovel for his attention. Haven't we grovelled enough throughout history? Let's have some dignity for a change. (Change! hey, another Obama thing).

And number two, why do we need recognition from Mr. O on how well we did democracy-wise?
What does a thumbs-up from him mean anyway?
Let's see: we got our democracy after the fall of Suharto. And what country supported Suharto to stay in power for decades? Oh, that's right. The good old US of A [2].
So we set ourselves free from a dictator that they once supported, and now we want THEIR recognition?

Really, Jakarta Post? Really?

Sorry, but when it comes to recognition, the only two-thumbs-up we need is from our own people, and that is yet to be seen.

So speak for yourself, Jakarta Post.

---------
Source:
[1] The Jakarta Post - Barry’s snub
[2] AFP - US propped up Suharto despite rights abuses: documents

God's will?

It's God's will, some say. And we hear this time and time again when disaster strikes (such as the recent earthquake that took way too many lives.)

It's God's will, some say.
Sure, some of us Indonesians (if not most of us) are religious in one way or another. So respecting God's will is an instinctive response.

It's God's will.

Is it?
OK, earthquake is a natural phenomenon, but if we really look at it, it's not the earthquake that killed most of our folks there. It's the landslides that followed the earthquake.
And the crumbling building: The crumbling schools, hospitals, houses...

We may not be able to predict earthquake, but we can calculate the risk of landslide ahead of time.

We cannot prevent earthquake, but we can prevent our schools from crashing down on our children by building them stronger.

So no. Sorry. It's not God's will. Not yet.
If we ride a motorcycle without a helmet and then crash and crack our head, who's fault is it?
Are we going to blame it on God too?

Please do not get us wrong. We are not questioning the greater power, and we are not saying that it is wrong to be religious. No.

We are just trying to point out that some deaths that occurred after the earthquake are actually preventable. And it is our fault that we failed to do so. Not God's.

After the earthquake in Jogja, when people were starting to rebuild, there were some talks on how to build an earthquake-proof house. A stronger structure that if not withstand the average earthquake, at least stay together long enough to give time for the people inside to get out.

Some also say that it actually does not cost more, especially if we build the house from scratch, as many people in Jogja had to do anyway at the time, since their houses were destroyed.

Days and months passed by since then. And what happen in the end?
People rebuild the houses the same way they did before. It's the same old.
So if another earthquake strikes the area again (God forbid), the same thing will happen again.

And again.
And again.

Read this news:
The number of schools damaged and destroyed because of the earthquake in West Sumatra is 1.929 [1]. The news is dated October 6, 2009.

And now read this:
An earthquake of 5.8 Richter scale in West Sumatra has destroyed 295 schools, killing three teachers and four students [2].
When is this? March 9, 2007. More than two years ago.

See?
Again.
And again.
And again.

And that's God's will?

If we failed to prevent the preventable, it's our own fault.

We do preventive measures all the time: We took vaccination. Wear helmet. Seatbelt. We use antibacterial soap. We work out and eat our vegetables.

We do them to prevent bad things from happening to us.

But somehow when it comes to building our houses, our hospitals, our schools we just don't think that far.

It's not ok to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but we can get away with building schools with shoddy structures.

And when the earth started moving, our schools crumbled, killing our children, we say it's God's will.

Please.

Sure, having stronger buildings will not prevent casualties 100%.
Sure, when it is time to go it is time to go.

But when's the last time we hear an earthquake killing thousands in Japan? This is a country with daily earthquakes. is that God's will, or is it because the Japanese decided to have enough with the deaths and started building better structures to withstand the tremor?

Clearly, there is a way to prevent the worst.

So enough with it already.
When it is our fault, it is our fault.
It's nothing we cannot fix.

If we fix it right, when another earthquake occurs in the future (and it will), the news hopefully will be a short one: Earthquake, 8 richter scale. No casualty. No major damage.

Now that's God's will.

----
Source:
[1] Republika - Gedung Sekolah Rusak Akibat Gempa 1.929 Unit
[2] Detik - Gempa Sumbar, 295 Sekolah Rusak, 3 Guru dan 4 Siswa Tewas

It's no crime

In the past (and in our book) we wrote our opinion that drug users should not be thrown to jail.
That drug users are not criminals. They committed no crime.

(We think for an act to be considered a crime, there should be at least a victim. Either a loss or damage of property, injury, death etc.
When people use drugs, there is no other victim other than themselves.
This should set a clear differentiation between drug users and drug dealers. Drug users are not criminals, drug dealers are).

So let's say we change the law and drug users don't need to worry about jail anymore. What will happen?

We so far collected this concerns among us:

1. If people can do drugs freely, won't our street be full of drug addicts, hovering around, knocked out unconscious on the sidewalks and city parks?

2. Will the number of drug addiction rise because of it? After all, if we can do it freely, we would at least try, right? And then got hooked?

3. With harsh drug law in neighboring countries like Malaysia and Singapore, wouldn't drug tourists from those countries will just come to Indonesia in great numbers to get high?
Wouldn't that ruin Indonesia's reputation? Visit Indonesia and get high!

So let's get this straight: We, the IA folks are old people, we are not that funky and we are not suggesting legalization of drugs.
We are suggesting that it is not a crime and the punishment should not be jail.

This means, you will still have to answer to the authority when you use drugs. You just won't be thrown to jail. Instead, we will make sure you undergo therapy. (more on this later).
So no, our streets won't be suddenly flooded with people getting high. It's not that kind of freedom.

Decriminalization. Not legalization.
We want drug users to feel safe when they admit that they have problems.
After all, how do we expect them to admit their addiction if we'll throw them in jail as soon as they open their mouth?
We want them to openly seek help. And get help. Just like people with alcohol or gambling addiction need.
Help.

But if drug-use is so lightly punished, will the number of addiction increase? What about drug tourists from neighboring countries?

It may be good to learn from other country's experience on this, so it was heaven-sent that we found the report on Drug Decriminalization in Portugal [1].

Apparently, in 2001 a nationwide law in Portugal took effect that decriminalized all drugs and that means:

"...drug possession for personal use and drug usage itself are still legally prohibited, but violations of those prohibitions are deemed to be exclusively administrative violations and are removed completely from the criminal realm. [1]"

Starting in 2001! So what's the result? Bear in mind that Portugal is part of the European Union, and that people within the EU have freedom of movement. With Portugal the only country in the region decriminalizing drug use*, do European drug addicts flock to Portugal to get high?
No. Did not happen.

"Roughly 95 percent of those cited for drug offenses every year since decriminalization have been Portuguese.
Close to zero have been citizens of other EU states" [3].

Do number of drug addictions rise? No. It went down. It is "in numerous categories are now among the lowest in the European Union [2]".
Drug related problems, including sexually transmitted diseases and death from overdoses has decreased. The number of newly reported cases of HIV and AIDS among drug addicts has declined substantially every year since 2001 [3].

So there you go.

All right. We mentioned therapy earlier, and of course we do caught some concerns from some of us here:

"Therapy is not cheap. If therapy is mandatory for all drug addicts, who's going to pay for it? There are plenty of poor addicts out there who cannot afford therapy.
So who's going to pay? The government? Using our tax money?
I won't be too happy if my tax money is used to finance addictions when it is badly needed to improve our education, our infrastructure etc.
There is no way I am paying for that."

But then one responded:

"Oh really? Then who's paying for all drug addicts' food and care when they are in jail right now? Jail is not cheap either, and guess what: you've been paying for it.
That includes paying for the judges, prosecutors and the courts for processing each and every one of this offenders. That's money too, you know."

"and what about the offenders who are actually productive citizens and got caught for recreational drug use? This folks are in jail doing nothing when otherwise they will be working and paying taxes. What about the loss of tax revenue there? If they go to therapy instead, they can still work and in turn pay their taxes."

In a way, providing therapy would be money better spent, because a drug free generation will be a more productive generation. And if it can help reducing the number of addicts, as it does in Portugal, then we will spend less and less in the long run. And our jails won't be overcrowded.

And of course there is another concern starting from this point, as one friend put it:

"I can already see it now: dodgy therapy clinics sprouting all around us, taking the government money, selling 'I completed my therapy and I am clean' certificate to drug addicts, without even providing proper service.
For sale: get-out-of-jail card. Get one now. 20% off for repeat offenders..."

Ah. We never say it's a perfect world....

-----------------------------
* Some dear readers may wonder when we wrote Portugal as the only country in the EU that decriminalize drug use. What about the Netherlands?
There is decriminalization and there is depenalization. Depenalization means drug use itself is still a crime. In a “depenalized” framework, drug usage remains a criminal offense, but imprisonment is no longer imposed for possession or usage even as other criminal sanctions (e.g., fines, police record, probation) remain available.
No EU state other than Portugal has explicitly declared drugs to be “decriminalized.” [3]


[1] Cato.org - Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies


[2] Portugal's drug policy: Treating, not punishing
The Economist, August 29 - September 4 2009, page 23

[3] Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies, Glenn Greenwald, CATO Institute.
(PDF File.)

Still Up?

It's quite touching to from time to time receive an email or two from dear readers asking why we don't write very often.
That's very sweet. Thank you.

And if we could, we would blog more. It's fun. More fun than working, really.

Unfortunately it is difficult to write something when most of our time we are exhausted doing this mundane things we call our job.
(Just like everybody else we have to earn our living, and earn it hard).

That's not an excuse, of course. Many other bloggers who are busy can still manage to write and write really really well.

So we'll try to do better. We manage to hang on this long, certainly we can push ourselves a bit more.

To make life easier, you, our dear readers, can use newsfeed reader and subscribe to our RSS, together with all other blogs you would like to read. This way you don't have to keep coming here and get disappointed when there is no new post. When we have new post, you'll see it on your reader. (That if you don't know about this already). There is no ad in our RSS or anywhere in this blog, so you can subscribe to our feed and still have your peace.

Thank you for being with us. And please hang in there. We may not write often, but we do write.

This blog was up since 2005, and nobody among us thought it would last this long, and yet we are still around. And we will be around for say another half a decade (that's when our oldest colleagues would, well, too cranky to quote for a post).

If our young colleagues are willing to pick up this silly blog where we left it, it may last even longer than that.

So we will be around.

As our middle-aged male colleagues would say:
"the point is not about getting it up. It's about keeping it up for as long as you can".

And yes, we are still talking about blogging.
Four good years of it.

At 64, a work in progress

More than a decade ago there was this thought in our mind, whenever we looked at our children:

What if, one day, in the future, our children looked at us and ask:

"Mom, Dad, What have you done? Why did you leave behind this poor, corrupt and undemocratic country? Why didn't you do something to change it? Now we have to fix everything..."

So now, looking back, we are relieved to know that we can say:

Guess what, kids. We did do something.
We have democracy now.

It's not perfect, of course.
But then again kids, try name one country that has a perfect democratic system. Can you think of one? Because we couldn't.

We're still poor, yes.
And yes. corruption is still a big problem [1].

We're still working on it. And that's what we will leave behind.

A work in progress.

So get ready to take over the work.
And please, take care of this young democracy.

Because getting this far wasn't easy.


---------------
[1] In 2008 Transparency International Corruption perception index, Indonesia is ranked 126 of 180. Below Honduras, Guyana, and Ethiopia. As a comparison, Thailand is 80, Malaysia is 47.
But to make us feel better, in 2007 Indonesia was ranked 143 of 179, so not all is bad.
Source: Transparency International - Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 , 2008.

Flog it, girl!

Aparrently in Sudan women get flogged for wearing trousers.

From the New York Times [1]:

"The 1991 indecency law was adopted by Sudan's Islamic regime which came to power after a coup led by President Omar Al Bashir in 1989. It follows a strict interpretation of Islamic law that imposes physical punishment on ''those who commit an indecent act that violates public morale; or who dress indecently.''

"Trousers are considered indecent under the law."

"Public order cases usually involve quick summary trials with sentences carried out shortly afterward, as was the case with the 10 of the 13 women arrested earlier this month. They were flogged and fined 250 Sudanese pounds, or about $120." [2]

So at lunch we mentioned this to our female colleagues, who are mostly muslim women, to get their opinion.

After the first reaction of "that's terrible!" and "oh, how could they!", we asked:

What would they say if

1. Indonesia adopted the Islamic law (which by the way were being pushed by certain political parties but proven unpopular [3])

and

2. by that making the act of wearing trousers punishable by flogging?*

All of them have similar answer:

"I don't need anybody telling me what I should or should not wear.

I wear what I want to wear.

They can go flog themselves."

Ah. Indonesian women. Who can resist?

----------------------------

* Note to sensitive reader: please bear in mind this is an 'if' question. A hypothetical one.

Source:

[1] The New York Times - Police Beat Women Opposing Sudan Dress Code Trial

[2] The New York Times - Sudanese Woman to Give Up Immunity to Stand Trial

[3] The New York Times - Indonesia’s Voters Retreat From Radical Islam

Chicken or fish

Our young friend Roni went on assignment a while back. On the plane he had an interesting conversation with a fellow passenger. Here it goes, in his own words:

I got on the plane and found my seat. Next to me was an elderly gentleman. Grey hair, nice batik shirt. Awfully familiar face although I still couldn't remember where I saw him before.

While waiting for the plane to take off, I emptied my bulging shirt pocket to organize it a bit. Boarding pass stub, money, receipts, and oh yes: traffic violation ticket that I got from the police an hour ago. How annoying.

"Traffic ticket?" asked the gentleman next to me with a friendly smile.
"Yes. I was in a hurry driving to the airport and there was this roundabout with time restriction on it... I made a wrong turn..."

"Ah, yes. Happens all the time. So you asked for a ticket? Didn't play along and pay a bribe. You opted to go to court. What a good man."

I didn't answer. Not sure if he really meant it or just being sarcastic.

In the meantime, the plane took off.

"It's a terribly inefficient system." the gentleman said after a while.

"What is?"

"That. Think about it. You didn't crash into other people's car, you didn't do drunk driving, you didn't cause any harm to anybody. You made a turn at a wrong time. It's an honest mistake. Yet they took your driver license, and you have to go to court to pay the fine and get your license back.

Imagine how many people will have to push the papers because of this. The police department will have to process it, then submit it to the court, where more people will have to process it so that everything is ready when you go there.

All this people, pushing papers. For what? Just because you made a turn at a wrong time."

He has a point. I never really thought of it that way.

"It's understandable if you made a serious violation. But simple ones like parking at a wrong place or a broken brakelight... do we really have to go to court for this and waste everybody's time? Imagine all the productivity lost. Now you will have to be there all day instead of doing your work..."

"True. So what do you suggest?" I asked. Curious.

"Ideally, they don't need to take away your license. Just give you a ticket and let you go. You can then pay your fine at a bank somewhere, and done with it. It should be as simple as that."

"But..." the gentleman continued, "Do you know what will happen if we do it this way?"

"Some people will ignore the ticket and do not pay?"

"Exactly. And why is that?" asked the gentleman, seemingly very happy that I was willing to play along.

"Because the police did not have anything to force us to pay. The reason why they took my driver license hostage is because that is the only way to force me to pay the fine."

"True, but that is not the whole story. After all, they wrote down your license plate number. They can still track you down."

"Yes, but not all cars are registered in the owners' name. My car for example, I bought it second hand and it is still in the previous owner's name... So if they track me down, they'll get the previous owner..."

"Exactly. Now we're getting closer to the root of the problem. It's not a matter of giving traffic ticket per se. So young man, why didn't you switch the car registration to your name?"

"Err.. mostly because it's expensive... and some say it's bureaucratic. I've never done it myself, to be honest."

"So we should make it easier to do, and cheaper."

"That's not going to happen. The government wants all the money they can get..." I answered.

"Ah, young man. Look at it this way. Let's say they make the registration very easy to do and only takes 10 minutes. And they cut the fee in half. That's 50% off.

I am willing to bet that the number of people who go to change their car registration to their name can easily triple. Cut the fee in half, but you get three times more business. The government actually will make more.

Not to mention the benefit of having the cars on the street all registered to the rightful owner. If anybody failed to pay their traffic fine before the deadline, the police can track them down and slap even more hefty fines. More money for the government."

I nodded. Make sense.

The gentleman continued:

"With all the money goes to the government, we can then use some of it to take care of our policemen. This folks work day and night at polluted streets. It's also a dangerous job. We have to take care of them better. With the money we can also provide them with better equipments: better communication devices, computers, cameras, better cars and motorcycles. In the end they will work better and can catch even more traffic violators and bring even more money for the government.

And us, when we made a mistake, we will be happy to pay the fine because: one, we don't have to waste our time going to court and two, we know the money will all go to the government.

The police department and the court of justice will be happy too. Less papers to push. Less work. They can focus on more important cases."

"Sounds good," I said. "So why is it not being done? Why are we stuck with this inefficient system?"

"Think of it this way: It's just like when we have our reformasi."

"Reformasi?"

"Yes. Before we have our democracy, some of us were doing very well under Suharto. They made a lot of money, building even more businesses and make even more money. So when the people wanted Suharto out, they initially resisted. Life is good, why change? It's understandable. They did not want to lose their investment, their business, everything that they have worked for to achieve.

But guess what. Now that we have our democracy, this same people are now doing just as good, if not even better. Most of them are just as rich, if not richer because of the reformasi. Now even they don't want to go back to dictatorship.

Same thing with all this traffic fine system. Some people are actually doing well with the current system. Making good money out of this inefficiency. They don't want to lose it.

But if we ask for it, pressure the parliament and make it happen, this same people will later see that they will do just fine if not better under a reformed system.

We just have to help them to see it. And to make this happen, we the people have to ask for it. Demand it. Just like we demand our reformasi."

What a passionate old man, I thought.

The gentleman took a deep breath.
"It's nice to dream, isn't it. " He chuckles.

"Yes sir. It is."

Then a stewardess came with a trolley, waking both of us from our dream.

"Chicken or fish, sir? ... And what would you like to drink?"