Is The Fight Against RIM More Than Just Porn?

The Jakarta Globe is reporting that the Minister for [Mis]Communication and [Mis]Information, Tifatul Sembiring (or as I prefer to call him, "TitS") has moved his anti-RIM and anti-BlackBerry fight to an argument that is "more than just about porn". And, he is telling the truth.

The Minister's campaign against RIM is about beating RIM into submission. It is all about control. TitS problem with RIM is that he cannot control it. The fact that he cannot control RIM or how people use their BlackBerry Smartphones is a threat. In the TitS world this is a threat against the unity of the Republic, it is a threat to the political and corporate elite that "run" the show in Indonesia in part to the ability to control the president and organise SBY's agenda. The TitS view is that social networking and the internet are threats to the controlled democracy that Indonesia currently enjoys.

A TitS reality is that if he does not control upstart foreign infidels like RIM then there will be significant repercussions for Indonesia that are not natural disasters (currently linked to viewing too much porn) such as a people-centered democracy as opposed to a political and business elite-centered democracy where the rich get ever so much richer and the rest can do whatever they want so long as it is not social networking.

If you want to see how much of a threat the social networking phenomenon is to Indonesia in the eyes of the National Security Council (Dewan Ketahanan Nasional / Wantannas) then follow this link (unfortunately it is in Indonesian). This is a Terms of Reference (TOR) document for meeting held early 2010.

So, the fact that TitS is now playing the nationalism card is not surprising. In fact, it is long overdue. The best way to turn public opinion is to play to one's sense of nationalistic pride and make the foreigners the bad people who are only in Indonesia to rape and pillage in a vein similar to what the Dutch did when they were the colonial masters of the Dutch East Indies universe. It is a standard game of "us" and "them" rhetoric that is designed to deceive Indonesians to give up voluntarily their freedom to access information in a manner that is difficult for the Indonesian authorities to monitor.

The reality is that a legitimate request for information from RIM or to track corruption or terrorist suspects through the RIM servers would more than likely be granted. The need for a RIM server in Indonesia is nothing more than "big brother" wanting to be able to go in without legitimate reasons to track the activities of every day Indonesians going about their business.

The suggestion yesterday that RIM was stealing the wealth of Indonesian citizens because it did not pay taxes or have business investment such as servers in Indonesia is absurd. RIM provides a service you pay for it, and you get what you pay for. RIM is not stealing from ordinary Indonesians. I am all for finding a way that allows Indonesians to benefit from RIM expertise through employment and the like. Perhaps, a start is the service center. But, the threat to shut RIM down is silly.

It would have been fun to watch RIM tell TitS that they were not going to comply; call his bluff. If TitS had the testicular fortitude to shut RIM down then all hell would break loose down Senayan way as all the BlackBerry using politicians and party appartchiks found themselves carrying round a useless piece of technology.

Yes, Minister, this confrontation is about more than just porn. This shakedown is about the sort of freedoms and democracy that Indonesians want to enjoy in the future. It is about whether Indonesians are allowed to utilise the Internet on their own terms and social network freely or submit to your terms of control.

Is the TitS plan the first step along the path to the dark abyss?

More on Julian Assange and Wikileaks: The Sarah Palin View...

Julian Assange has certainly found more fame than he may have craved in developing Wikileaks into a whistleblower of world renown. The recent release of some 250,000 US diplomatic cables has intensified the hunt for Assange and the "need" to bring him to justice. Assange has some serious legal problems aside from the alleged rape and sexual molestation of which he stands accused of committing in Sweden. There are quite a number of states looking to prosecute him for his part in the publication of the "illegally" obtained diplomatic cables.

Australia is clearly looking to build a case against Assange. However, it would seem that the US is also exploring what options it has in making the case and prosecuting Assange in the US. This has obviously brought the ranting and railing conservative right out. Among them is the former Vice-Presidential candidate from the Grand Old Party (GOP), Sarah Palin. The fact that some might consider her a legitimate contender for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012 is scary enough, but the latest outburst is indicative as to what lengths this woman will go to try and capitalise on conservative popular opinion. It is also indicative of the fact that she really does not understand the difference between Osama bin Laden and Julian Assange. It is pretty clear that she obviously missed the advocacy class on why not to use exaggeration.

Sarah Palin in her infinite wisdom has taken to Facebook to condemn Assange for his role in releasing to the world some 250,000 confidential and secret diplomatic cables. Fair enough! There are good arguments to be made that it was irresponsible for Assange to publish via Wikileaks. However, Palin was not satisfied stopping there. In order to really ratchet-up the rhetoric she decided to add that Assnage should be hunted down like Osama bin Laden.

Well, after ten years of searching the US has not found or been able to confirm that it has killed bin Laden. So, it would seem that Assange really need not fear the US if it was to mount a similar "search and destroy" campaign that has been mounted for bin Laden. Although, on a more serious note, it would appear that all those who need to know where Assange is, in fact know where he is. It would also appear that an arrest is not that far away once the arrest warrant(s) are in order, assuming Assange decides to surrender to authorities and not seek political asylum in a country favourable to that proposition, Switzerland perhaps.

To further reinforce her point she suggested that Assange is not a journalist in any shape or form and compared this lack of journalistic skill to the current editor of al-Qaeda's English-language magazine, Inspire. Further intensifying the rhetoric saw Assange labeled as anti-American and with blood on his hands.

In any event, this was a political point scoring opportunity that was more about Palin slamming the White House and President Obama by implying that they were complicit in Assange's Wikileaks work because they have not been serious in hunting him down or arresting him.

Yet, this generally fits into the overall rhetoric of US politics with recent claims seeking to force the US government to declare Wikileaks a terrorist organisation. A whistleblower as a terrorist organisation, what an interesting development. However, it is symptomatic of the way the world is post 9/11. Anything that annoys us or possible effects many as opposed to a few is almost immediately labeled a terrorist organisation. I wonder what the Tea Party might need to do to be labeled a terrorist organisation? What about the Republicans or the Democrats?

However, the US is looking to invoke the Espionage Act with a view to criminal prosecution. And, it is imperative in the US view that they do this one by the numbers, and make the case bullet-proof.

The case to shut down sites that release confidential documents needs to be assessed on a merits basis. The reality is that releasing secret or confidential information can always be criminalised, but at what cost?

The question that must be answered here was whether there was any value in the releasing of these particular diplomatic cables? Simply, does the public need to know outweigh the need to maintain confidentiality?

Ho hum...

Indonesian Elections and Youth

The Indonesian General Elections will soon be upon us. There is always talk of regeneration and providing opportunities for younger, and presumably cleaner, candidates that have not yet been tainted by the old ways of government. This coming cycle might provide a few of those opportunities. Then again, getting on a ticket is one thing, garnering the votes to get yourself elected is another kettle of fish altogether.

I need to state at the outset that I do not know the person who is the subject of this musing personal and I know not much about her, other than what I have read, therefore my commentary here is general within the framework of an actual possibility.

The National Awakening Party, which was once Amien Rais' vehicle for a shot at the presidency, but that never worked out for him, has selected a 21-year-old to head up their ticket in the province of Riau. This might be a bold move or just another case of politics as usual. It is being reported that the candidate, Nathania Regina, has family connections to the party and that her father has been a consistent and sizable financial supporter of the party in Riau.

This is unfortunate as it is destined to detract from any achievements that she may be able to cite in support of her candidacy, as the questions will linger. However, by all accounts she has spent much of her high school and university education overseas and has held leadership roles in student organizations. Whether this is a good grounding for national politics, Indonesia style, remains to be seen. What is for sure is that one can never know until it has been tried.

However, who is to say that 21 is too young to aspire to the national political stage? It is certain that youth will bring a certain degree of energy, altruism, and perhaps naivety that is free from the "business as usual" mindset of many other candidates. Perhaps it is these characteristics that Indonesia so desperately needs when they are combined with a commitment to change and a commitment to see the people of Indonesia achieving what is possible for all and not just for a select few.

The problem with youth is that it is so rarely connected to the powers that be. One 21 year-old, no matter how well-connected and how driven, may not be able to change the culture of politics in Indonesia as it currently stands. But, it is always worth a shot, always! The voters of Riau will make the determination by casting their votes.

I have always believed that if we can send our young men and women off to foreign shores to fight and die for our freedoms, then we can also afford them the same opportunity to fight for us and our freedoms at home in the halls of government and power. It is the epitome of arrogance by an entrenched set of interests to restrict the contribution of youth. It is, and will remain, empty rhetoric to say that the youth are our future but not let them then be a part of creating that future but rather enforce them to inherit problems that may never have existed had the vision of youth been given its due.

To be sure, if Nathania is elected it is going to be a steep learning curve as politics in all parts of the world is a cut throat business. Yet, it is nice to imagine a young woman sitting in the halls of power with the courage of her convictions to speak her mind and advocate for a better future. I just hope that she does not lose the innocence of her idealism in the process.

Viva Democracy!