Indonesia's Oligarchy maintained with new political bill

Perhaps only a few Indonesians realize the House of Representatives recently approved a new bill on political parties that replaces the previous bill from 2002.

Many elements of civil society, including non-governmental organizations, feel disappointed because they expected a much more reformed law.

Some crucial issues remain untouched in the newly endorsed law (the bill will automatically become law in one month even if the President does not sign it).

The law does not encourage transparency and accountability of political parties, especially in regard to financial issues. Moreover, the new bill is considered by many to hamper the rights of citizens to establish new political parties.

The new bill increases requirements for creating a new political party, requiring that it establish branches in at least 60 percent of all provinces, 50 percent of municipalities/regencies and 25 percent of districts (Article 3d). This is the result of compromise between the government and civil society groups. Originally the government's draft bill called for representation in 75 percent of provinces.

Both the government and major political parties want stricter branch requirements because they share the view that Indonesia needs a simpler multiparty system. NGOs, however, generally consider the requirement intended to make it more difficult to create new political parties.


The new law also provides an alternative manner for resolving internal party disputes outside of court, saying dispute resolution can be conducted through reconciliation, mediation or arbitration (Article 32.3). The mechanism for resolving disputes should be regulated by the party's statute (AD/ART).

In the new law political parties still have the power to withdraw their legislators from the parliament (Article 16.3). In addition, the dismissed party members are prohibited from establishing a new political party under the same name (Article 26.1).

The old law allowed dispute resolution to take place in court, with no regulation on banning revoked members from establishing a split political party.

The new conflict resolution system is probably based on the current political parties' experience. Almost all political parties have experiences with internal conflict, and currently they can only rely on court processes to settle disputes. The internal conflict is often followed by twin political party establishments using the same symbol, such as the National Awakening Party and the Reform Star Party, or similar names, as in the case of the Democratic Party of Reform (PDP) and the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P).

Indonesia's political party system is still very oligarchic, with the main power held by the chair's colleagues. In addition, parties' chairmen usually have a very strong role in filling public office positions and in determining punishment for party members.

The new law makes several changes in this area. One of the requirements to establish a political party is that the party must have a bank account on behalf of the political party (Article 3e); the old law does not regulate this. The party must also submit an annual financial report of funds from national and regional public budgets (Article 13i). The outgoing law required a political party to submit an audited annual financial report to the Election Commission (KPU).

In the new bill, a political party will receive funds from national and regional public budgets based both on its number of seats in the parliament and the number of votes it receives in the general election (Article 34.3). In the old bill the subsidy was given to a party based on its seats. Each seat was valued at Rp 21 million (US$ 2300).

This means the state must provide a much higher subsidy for political parties. Currently the government grants a subsidy of Rp 11,550,000,000 every year to all political parties with seats in parliament. The subsidy will hugely increase with the new allocation additionally based on votes. If we take the 2004 election as an example and value each vote at Rp 1000, the new subsidy would be almost 10 times the previous subsidy. If each vote was valued at Rp 2000, the subsidy would grow to Rp 213,548,216,000 -- 18.5 times the subsidy granted under the old law.

Another problem is the increase in the donation limit. An individual non-member may now contribute up to Rp 1 billion, a sharp rise from Rp 200 million, and a private company may contribute Rp 4 billion, up from Rp 800 million.

Consequently, a few people making huge contributions may have strong control over a political party, and could drive its decisions.

The requirement that a new party have a bank account is a good step to ensure the party uses the account only for its financial activities. However, there is no regulation against a party using more than one account.

The new bill is a setback in ensuring political finance transparency. The new bill only requires a political party to make a financial report for using money from its public budget, then submit it to the Supreme Audit Agency.

By comparison, the prior law authorized the KPU to accept an audited financial report from a political party, but fewer than 10 parties usually submitted such a report. Yet, the KPU does not have power to punish parties not submitting a report.

Progress is seen in the realm of gender issues. A new political party is obliged to have a membership that is at least 30 percent women. (Article 2.2). Likewise, the central committee must also comprise 30 percent women (Article 2.5), a stipulation that extends to the province and city (Article 20). However, there is no strict sanction against violations.

The new law will increase a political party power's but decrease transparency and public accountability, especially in terms of political finance. Therefore, the development of democracy for a healthy political party system will be dependent upon the people.


Partono and Diman Simanjutak, Jakarta

Partono is a senior researcher at the Center for Electoral Reform. Diman Simanjutak is a program manager of the Election for Democratic Reform Support Program, USAID. The article reflects their personal views.
Jakarta Post

Organized religion, the liberty of prejudice
(The Jakarta Post)

Early Muslims called their faith tazakka to describe efforts to refine themselves in its teachings of compassion and virtue.

Their belief was not simply centered on a monotheistic canon, but an exegesis to cultivate a caring and responsible self.

Indonesia is awaking to the realization that the "religion of peace", to which 88 percent of its citizens subscribes, has been sullied by intolerance. Liberty has given rise to the freedom to be prejudiced.

This year we continued to witness the religious chauvinism which the state has, intentionally or not, helped perpetuate.

Last week's attacks on the Ahmadiyah complex in West Java was another example of how the name of Islam is used to subjugate those outside the mainstream control of the power brokers of the prevailing organized religion.

Article 29 of the amended 1945 Constitution guarantees freedom of worship according to an individual's own religion or beliefs.

Nevertheless, proponents of alternative denominations are jailed for blasphemy, groups like al-Qiyadah al-Islamiyah and Wahidiyah and demonized and liberal Koranic philosophers like Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd are harassed into staying silent.

Though Islam has historically never accepted a clerical hierarchy, Indonesia perpetuates the state-funded structure of the Indonesian Council of Ulema (MUI), which serves as an Islamic thought police.

This is the same organization whose ulemas forbid people of different faiths to marry, viewed a female president as sinful, declared unlicensed proprietary software haram, forbade greeting members of other faiths on their religious days and dammed liberalism and pluralism because, as MUI cleric Umar Shihab said, "liberalism does not accept polygamy while Islam does".

The MUI has tried to deflect responsibility by denouncing the attacks on Ahmadiyah, ignoring the fact that it was their edict that created such hatred.

There are dozens of Islamic sects throughout the world. Is the MUI so divine as to declare Shiites, Sufis, Zaidis, Alawis or Nizaris un-Islamic? Are they so conceited as to declare that the Aga Khan and the Ismailis are less devout than they are?

The state has perpetuated these tyrannical practices by ceding to the MUI on religious matters and effectively purging persons of "non-recognized faiths" by complicating the requirements to obtain civil registration and birth certificates as well as marriage licences.

Several laws extend New Order-style powers by allowing state prosecutors to investigate groups that adhere to mystical beliefs.

Indonesia's founding fathers came from diverse backgrounds, ethnically, ideologically and religiously. Hence Pancasila's first principle acclaims theism without a predisposition to any particular denomination or embedding religion in a political infrastructure.

We have also forgotten history and seemingly regressed eight centuries to Europe's dark days of the Inquisition under Pope Gregory IX when people were condemned for heresy.

Some contend secular-pluralist views are western liberal democratic concoctions, alien to Indonesian values. Nevertheless even Mohammad Hatta, one of the nation's founding fathers, in a letter to Johannes Post in 1939, conceded that while he did not admire the practices of western democracies, he still hoped "the spirit of democracy will win in the end."

There should be an end to the quasi-government sponsorship of religious organizations like the MUI and a reassertion of the separation of religion and state. It is not that moral values have no place in state life but we must ensure the nation is protected from any dogma, religious or otherwise.

Indonesia was a nation constructed to serve based on rule of law (rechstaat), and its citizens should be accountable to these laws, not their level of piety. It is a sad day when Indonesia becomes like Malaysia, which has made it illegal to convert outside of Islam.

The split between Sunnis and Shiites in the seventh century was initially not due to theological interpretations, but one of political power and leadership.

The obstinacy of current organized religion is of similar motives. The odium of religious superstructures -- whether the Roman Catholic Church, the MUI or others -- against beliefs outside their domain has to do with a potential loss of power.

Power can only be sustained through self-righteousness and by demonizing someone else.

These clerics are not democratically elected officials, nor legislators. There is no obligation for the state to legitimize their presence or support their activities with state funding.

Mortal claims of authority over divine teachings reduce the transcendental idea of God to an infantile definition.

There is certainly a need for keep abreast of new sects in society. But this should be done through a framework which allows them to freely pursue their activities.

If necessary, religious movements can be asked to register with the ultimate aim of preventing them from being exploited for criminal activities.

Groups like Ahmadiyah, for example, should only be prosecuted if their actions cause physical harm, destroy property or incite hatred. The validity of their teachings has no value in a court of law.

The first and, arguably, most beautiful word in Islam sent to Prophet Muhammad is not jihad, but iqra (read), implying the necessity of intelligence in pursuit of ijtihad (independent and rational thinking/interpretation).

Conservatives contend only clerics and those with scholarly training have a right to engage in ijtihad. But denying the use of our brains, our intelligence is to refuse the defining distinction between evolved humans and our predecessor apes.

Blind faith, using religion without intellect, would leave us no better than organized monkeys.

The author, a staff writer with The Jakarta Post, is currently studying at Harvard University as a research fellow with the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

I don't want Indonesia becomes Malaysia ...
I can't also understand why MUI can say "Kafir" to the other faith under name of Islam ...

Indonesian govt more efficient, less corrupt: World Bank

A REFORM push by leaders in Indonesia has substantially improved the performance of government and cut into corruption in South-east Asia's largest economy, the World Bank said on Wednesday.

The bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) report found governance had improved significantly in Indonesia in the 10 years of 'reformasi' since the 1998 ouster of dictator Suharto, a statement said.

'The progress is a reflection of a country whose political leaders, policymakers, civil society and private sector view good governance and corruption control as crucial for sustained and shared growth,' report co-author Daniel Kaufmann said in the statement.

AGREEE,
I don't want Indonesia to become more like Malaysia...

AGREEE,
I don't want Indonesia to become more like Malaysia...

Malaysia is a better country than us. They are wealthier. More educated. Less corruption. Less violence. Better economy. Millions of our people desperately try to get a job in Malaysia as maid and blue collar labor. Without the generosity of Malaysians, tens of millions of our people will still live in poverty.
We should treat Malaysians with full respects. They help us alot.

Yakni sukma otong merasuk ke petrus lewat anus.....