If heaven drops a date, open your mouth.
-- Chinese Proverb
08 March 2008
07 March 2008
Religious Freedom in Indonesia
Religious freedom in Indonesia or more specifically the lack of it is about to garner some attention at the United Nations Human Rights Council Plenary session currently underway in Geneva. I have written on religious freedom and intolerance in Indonesia previously so feel free to search through the blog to find these postings (if you're interested). However, it is clear that the issue of religious freedom is going to be an issue that at some point in time the Indonesian government is going to have to address. If for no other reason than maintaining social harmony or more specifically to be true to the national motto of "unity in diversity".
Simply, this concept of unity in diversity that is enshrined in the State ideology of 'Pancasila' or the Five Principles is not something that the Indonesian government seems to give much weight to. The first of these principles is the belief in a supreme God. Too bad for any animist tree or mountain or big stone worshippers. Unless of course you can characterize a tree as a supreme God -- good question! The first principle here seems to be tailor-made for the development and expansion of sects with slightly different sets of beliefs.
One of the bigger religious tolerance or intolerance issues to arise has been with regard to the Ahmadiyah sect. This is an Islamic sect that had slightly different interpretations regarding who was in fact the last prophet of Islam. Obviously, this is sure to be controversial but as the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) also determined in a fatwa it issued, ultimately heretical! The issue of the fatwa led to some outbursts of communal violence and attacks against sect members.
The issue here is whether or not the Indonesian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The simple answer here is that it does -- yes! Although arguments can be made that despite the guarantee there are no real protective mechanisms built into ensure that this freedom to practice one's faith is maintained in a practical sense. So, despite the probable repercussions of the action it must take, the State needs to come out and say that with all due respect to the MUI (usually translated as no respect at all) that Ahmadiyah and its followers have a constitutional right to practice their faith. However, and somewhat unfortunately, the government decided to accept the MUI interpretation and called in the attack dogs and put the sect under surveillance.
Heresy is a crime in Indonesia, at least in the sense that a creative interpretation of the Criminal Code provisions, Article 156(a) for example, would allow cases to be brought before courts where a different interpretation of the faith is developed and practiced.
Bottom line -- When will the government stand up and be counted on this argument is any one's guess. But the most likely scenario would be not before there was much more widespread violence involved and a real risk to the stability of the broader Indonesian community.
When it is all said and done Indonesia is still a country that burns textbooks that offer a different view of accepted national history, such as the 1965 coup attempt, so if you cannot face your past the ability to face your future is also in question! But, alas, this is a post for another time.
Simply, this concept of unity in diversity that is enshrined in the State ideology of 'Pancasila' or the Five Principles is not something that the Indonesian government seems to give much weight to. The first of these principles is the belief in a supreme God. Too bad for any animist tree or mountain or big stone worshippers. Unless of course you can characterize a tree as a supreme God -- good question! The first principle here seems to be tailor-made for the development and expansion of sects with slightly different sets of beliefs.
One of the bigger religious tolerance or intolerance issues to arise has been with regard to the Ahmadiyah sect. This is an Islamic sect that had slightly different interpretations regarding who was in fact the last prophet of Islam. Obviously, this is sure to be controversial but as the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) also determined in a fatwa it issued, ultimately heretical! The issue of the fatwa led to some outbursts of communal violence and attacks against sect members.
The issue here is whether or not the Indonesian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The simple answer here is that it does -- yes! Although arguments can be made that despite the guarantee there are no real protective mechanisms built into ensure that this freedom to practice one's faith is maintained in a practical sense. So, despite the probable repercussions of the action it must take, the State needs to come out and say that with all due respect to the MUI (usually translated as no respect at all) that Ahmadiyah and its followers have a constitutional right to practice their faith. However, and somewhat unfortunately, the government decided to accept the MUI interpretation and called in the attack dogs and put the sect under surveillance.
Heresy is a crime in Indonesia, at least in the sense that a creative interpretation of the Criminal Code provisions, Article 156(a) for example, would allow cases to be brought before courts where a different interpretation of the faith is developed and practiced.
Bottom line -- When will the government stand up and be counted on this argument is any one's guess. But the most likely scenario would be not before there was much more widespread violence involved and a real risk to the stability of the broader Indonesian community.
When it is all said and done Indonesia is still a country that burns textbooks that offer a different view of accepted national history, such as the 1965 coup attempt, so if you cannot face your past the ability to face your future is also in question! But, alas, this is a post for another time.
Indonesia & Iran
Is the safest option to abstain?
In a recent vote on whether or not to expand sanctions against Iran for its "flagrant" violations of UN directives regarding its nuclear policy saw Indonesia cast the lone abstaining vote in a vote that saw no 'nay-sayers' at all. Interestingly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is on the record as saying that Iran is making progress and cooperating. Obviously this progress and cooperation is not what is expected by some and hence the need to ratchet up the pressure.
The problem seems to be that Ahmadinejad continues to state that Iran as a sovereign nation has the right to power its cities and communities with nuclear power. In that sense there can surely be no objection. But when this is combined with what appears to also be an intention to develop a nuclear weapons capacity and the subsequent statements attributed to the Iranian President that Israel does not deserve to exist and should be wiped off the map, and presumably the face of the earth, it is understandable that this raises some concerns.
So, should Indonesia have abstained?
This question relies as much on local and domestic politics in Indonesia as it does to world politics. The last time around on the issue of imposing sanctions on Iran for developing a nuclear weapons capacity and failing to comply with IAEA inspections saw Indonesia vote for sanctions. This in turn led to the street protests seen in and around Jakarta and a movement to formally question the President regarding Indonesia's decision to vote for sanctions at the Security Council.
Indonesia's position was further complicated by the fact that President Yudhoyono plans to visit the Iranian Republic soon. So, perhaps the thinking here is that it is better not to annoy the hosts before you travel.
The other concern is that with a general election due in Indonesia in 2009 that it problem is not worth the problems a 'yes' vote might entail. This is particularly true when you do not have any veto power and the resolution was overwhelmingly in favour of expanding the sanctions.
It is naive to think that Security Council votes occur in a vacuum where only the State's moral and ethical convictions are important. The five permanent members and the rotating non-permanent members of the Security Council have been known to use abstaining votes and the five permanent members have used their veto powers to ensure that resolutions do not proceed. A simple search of the UN website will highlight this. In essence, the idea that abstaining from a vote is the same as saying you oppose it is just too much of an over-simplification of the issue.
An abstaining vote is not always a flip flop position. A State might choose to abstain from a vote because where they may generally agree in principle there might be problems with the wording of the resolution that make it unsupportable. Or where in a particularly fluid situation, events on the ground outstrip the wording of the resolution. The idea that you have to vote one way or the other is the same mentality that allows people to make claims like "you're either with us or you're against us". Unfortunately, the geo-political landscape is not always that simple and hardly that easy.
If we are going to simplify everything in the world to that degree, then anyone who goes against the grain would have to be called a coward or a wimp and dismissed out of hand, this is plain stupid! It is the sort of mentality that would have us believing that the earth is still square and the sun rotates around the earth!
Bottom line is that Indonesia's decision to abstain should be defined for what it is -- a position that says sanctions at this stage are premature in light of Indonesia's belief that Iran is making moves towards compliance. Whether Iran really is making moves to compliance is a matter of interpretation and their are currently 14 other members of the Security Council that do not agree that Iran is making progress at the speed required. But last time I checked the UN was still an organization that was founded on democratic principles and equality between States (yes, I know I am a dreamer!) and therefore if Indonesia chooses to abstain then it has that right!
If we judge a person by their deeds then so we should also judge a State by their deeds and actions. If an abstaining vote is squandering one's rights then let those who believe so make their case and to each their own. But simply, if the idea was that States had to vote one way or the other then the mistake is with the organization that allows the "easy out" with an option to cast an abstaining vote and not with the State that chooses to exercise the option provided for it.
In a recent vote on whether or not to expand sanctions against Iran for its "flagrant" violations of UN directives regarding its nuclear policy saw Indonesia cast the lone abstaining vote in a vote that saw no 'nay-sayers' at all. Interestingly, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is on the record as saying that Iran is making progress and cooperating. Obviously this progress and cooperation is not what is expected by some and hence the need to ratchet up the pressure.
The problem seems to be that Ahmadinejad continues to state that Iran as a sovereign nation has the right to power its cities and communities with nuclear power. In that sense there can surely be no objection. But when this is combined with what appears to also be an intention to develop a nuclear weapons capacity and the subsequent statements attributed to the Iranian President that Israel does not deserve to exist and should be wiped off the map, and presumably the face of the earth, it is understandable that this raises some concerns.
So, should Indonesia have abstained?
This question relies as much on local and domestic politics in Indonesia as it does to world politics. The last time around on the issue of imposing sanctions on Iran for developing a nuclear weapons capacity and failing to comply with IAEA inspections saw Indonesia vote for sanctions. This in turn led to the street protests seen in and around Jakarta and a movement to formally question the President regarding Indonesia's decision to vote for sanctions at the Security Council.
Indonesia's position was further complicated by the fact that President Yudhoyono plans to visit the Iranian Republic soon. So, perhaps the thinking here is that it is better not to annoy the hosts before you travel.
The other concern is that with a general election due in Indonesia in 2009 that it problem is not worth the problems a 'yes' vote might entail. This is particularly true when you do not have any veto power and the resolution was overwhelmingly in favour of expanding the sanctions.
It is naive to think that Security Council votes occur in a vacuum where only the State's moral and ethical convictions are important. The five permanent members and the rotating non-permanent members of the Security Council have been known to use abstaining votes and the five permanent members have used their veto powers to ensure that resolutions do not proceed. A simple search of the UN website will highlight this. In essence, the idea that abstaining from a vote is the same as saying you oppose it is just too much of an over-simplification of the issue.
An abstaining vote is not always a flip flop position. A State might choose to abstain from a vote because where they may generally agree in principle there might be problems with the wording of the resolution that make it unsupportable. Or where in a particularly fluid situation, events on the ground outstrip the wording of the resolution. The idea that you have to vote one way or the other is the same mentality that allows people to make claims like "you're either with us or you're against us". Unfortunately, the geo-political landscape is not always that simple and hardly that easy.
If we are going to simplify everything in the world to that degree, then anyone who goes against the grain would have to be called a coward or a wimp and dismissed out of hand, this is plain stupid! It is the sort of mentality that would have us believing that the earth is still square and the sun rotates around the earth!
Bottom line is that Indonesia's decision to abstain should be defined for what it is -- a position that says sanctions at this stage are premature in light of Indonesia's belief that Iran is making moves towards compliance. Whether Iran really is making moves to compliance is a matter of interpretation and their are currently 14 other members of the Security Council that do not agree that Iran is making progress at the speed required. But last time I checked the UN was still an organization that was founded on democratic principles and equality between States (yes, I know I am a dreamer!) and therefore if Indonesia chooses to abstain then it has that right!
If we judge a person by their deeds then so we should also judge a State by their deeds and actions. If an abstaining vote is squandering one's rights then let those who believe so make their case and to each their own. But simply, if the idea was that States had to vote one way or the other then the mistake is with the organization that allows the "easy out" with an option to cast an abstaining vote and not with the State that chooses to exercise the option provided for it.
04 March 2008
03 March 2008
UPH and the University Ranking System
The simple question that a recent ranking of Indonesia's universities in a recent issue of Globe Asia Magazine raises is Universitas Pelita Harapan (Pelita Harapan University / UPH) really the second best public or private university in Indonesia?
This is a more interesting question when one considers that the Globe Asia Magazine is part of the once again burgeoning Lippo Group which is the conglomerate established by the Riady family (perhaps in another post I will write on the Clinton / Arkansas connections) and which also just happens to be the family responsible for the establishment and development of UPH.
There is an obvious potential conflict of interest here and the cynics among us might even write the rankings off as a brazen marketing ploy to attract more high fee-paying students to the campus with the illusion of greatness.
To be fair to UPH, it will eventually become one of Indonesia's premier universities, if not the premier university in Indonesia, particularly if the Riady family continue to invest heavily in it. I have had the good fortune of going and checking out their facilities, particularly the Faculty of Law. The library is already an imposing entity and one that many of Indonesia's more established universities should be envious of, facilities wise.
However, a university when it is all said and done is as much about the academic staff that work there and the quality of the research that they produce. The rankings gave a much-reduced weighting to these key indicators than it did to facilities. For example facilities were weighted at 16% with staff and research weighted at a mere 9% and 7%. On these fronts a number of other Indonesian universities would surely rank higher than UPH at this stage of UPH's development.
The fact that UPH out-ranked some of Indonesia's more established and highly regarded universities such as Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Atma Jaya, and Universitas Parahyangan (Unpar) was surprising. Perhaps what was most surprising was that the ranking is probably a little premature and unwarranted at this point in time.
Education is a business and good reviews are important to attracting the best and brightest. In simple economic terms this was an exercise in self-promotion. Some will be critical of the method employed by the Lippo Group to promote UPH. However, as a promotional tool is has worked, because people are talking about university education in Indonesia in general and specific terms. And, this is a good thing!
But never underestimate the consumer and when you have to pay big money for a university education you become a much more cost-conscious consumer. A good review is not the be all to end all of a decision, give consumers of higher education the benefit of doubt here that they are a little more discerning than reading a good review as being reason enough to throw their hard-earned cash at UPH for an education.
This is a more interesting question when one considers that the Globe Asia Magazine is part of the once again burgeoning Lippo Group which is the conglomerate established by the Riady family (perhaps in another post I will write on the Clinton / Arkansas connections) and which also just happens to be the family responsible for the establishment and development of UPH.
There is an obvious potential conflict of interest here and the cynics among us might even write the rankings off as a brazen marketing ploy to attract more high fee-paying students to the campus with the illusion of greatness.
To be fair to UPH, it will eventually become one of Indonesia's premier universities, if not the premier university in Indonesia, particularly if the Riady family continue to invest heavily in it. I have had the good fortune of going and checking out their facilities, particularly the Faculty of Law. The library is already an imposing entity and one that many of Indonesia's more established universities should be envious of, facilities wise.
However, a university when it is all said and done is as much about the academic staff that work there and the quality of the research that they produce. The rankings gave a much-reduced weighting to these key indicators than it did to facilities. For example facilities were weighted at 16% with staff and research weighted at a mere 9% and 7%. On these fronts a number of other Indonesian universities would surely rank higher than UPH at this stage of UPH's development.
The fact that UPH out-ranked some of Indonesia's more established and highly regarded universities such as Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM), Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Atma Jaya, and Universitas Parahyangan (Unpar) was surprising. Perhaps what was most surprising was that the ranking is probably a little premature and unwarranted at this point in time.
Education is a business and good reviews are important to attracting the best and brightest. In simple economic terms this was an exercise in self-promotion. Some will be critical of the method employed by the Lippo Group to promote UPH. However, as a promotional tool is has worked, because people are talking about university education in Indonesia in general and specific terms. And, this is a good thing!
But never underestimate the consumer and when you have to pay big money for a university education you become a much more cost-conscious consumer. A good review is not the be all to end all of a decision, give consumers of higher education the benefit of doubt here that they are a little more discerning than reading a good review as being reason enough to throw their hard-earned cash at UPH for an education.
A Positive Thought for Monday
Doest thou love life? Then do not squander time; for that's the stuff life is made of.
-- Benjamin Franklin
-- Benjamin Franklin
Lincoln's Grand Plan - Buy Slaves
It seems that in Lincoln's view rather than wage war against the secessionist southern States it would make more long-term financial sense to buy the slaves and emancipate them that way. This plan would obviously require that former slave owners do not use their new found wealth to go out an buy more slaves but an intriguing idea that had it taken off would have changed US history.
By Lincoln's calculations the Civil War was costing some USD 2 million a day to wage and buying slaves could be accomplished at USD 400 "a head" (very much like buying cattle - it is a distasteful notion that human beings of whatever colour or creed could be deemed property in this way to be bought and sold -- personal opinion!).
Back to Lincoln, there are some 72 letters in the series and they were bequeathed to the University of Rochester by William Henry Seward III, the great-grandson of Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward Sr. The letters are available at the University of Rochester's Rare Books & Special Collections website.
Lincoln figured that to purchase the more than 430,000 slaves in the Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and Washington DC area would amount to some USD 174 million or the equivalent of 87 days worth of Civil War. The net result would have seen the freeing of the slaves and the saving of lives lost in the defence of the relevant positions on slavery adopted by the North and South.
But the idea never took off and instead there was the Emancipation Proclamation which eventually formed the basis of the 13th Amendment which ended slavery in the US.
So, this logic gets me to thinking. Not much has changed as this is a method that in many places the US continues to pursue! For example, the dollar diplomacy of North Korea. Stop building a nuclear weapons capacity and we will help you develop clean and renewable energy capacities. But alas this was not the method they adopted in Iraq although now that there has been regime change the US is throwing money at this idea (some might say pipe dream) of an Iraqi government that is democratic and stable.
I guess dollar diplomacy is not for everyone nor is it, it seems, for the faint-hearted!
Prisoner Transfers - Australia & Indonesia
The most prominent Australians likely to benefit from any prisoner transfer / exchange deal hammered out between the Australian and Indonesian governments will be Schapelle Corby and the members of the Bali Nine that were not sentenced to death (Martin Stephens, Michael Czugaj, and Renae Lawrence).
For the Indonesian side, I do not recall any 'big name' prisoners sitting in Australian jails. They are probably big names in their local villages and to their respective families. But of late most Indonesians violating Australian laws tend to be Indonesian fisherman operating in Australian territorial waters.
Illegal immigrants are not technically jailed but rather detained until all their legal avenues are exhausted then they are usually deported. It is worth noting that some, perhaps many, would consider conditions in an Australian detention facility like being in jail.
The question though is a simple one: If you are an Australian doing time in an Indonesian prison is it in your best interests to seek repatriation to Australia to serve the remainder of your sentence in an Australian jail?
If 20 years imprisonment in theory means 20 years imprisonment in practice. Then a convict like Schapelle Corby will be compelled to complete a full 20-year term in an Australian jail. Indonesian sentences do not generally contain a minimum period or a non-parole period. Simply, when the judge says 20 he means 20! So, even after 15 years Corby could not apply for parole nor could she rely on any kind of remission for good behaviour or otherwise.
On the plus side, conditions might be slightly better in practice and probably a whole lot cleaner! And she would also be closer to her family and the financial burden on them to visit will be greatly reduced.
In contrast, if Corby were to continue to serve her sentence in Indonesia where the system allows for remissions to be handed out, and sometimes handed out twice a year, she could conceivably serve a whole lot less time.
Tommy Soeharto is a classic example of how the remissions system can work in the favour of a convict. It also highlights the distorted and misguided nature of Indonesian law. But anyway, Tommy gets 15 years for the assassination murder of a Supreme Court judge (Corby gets 20 years for drug possession and smuggling - distorted) but serves only about half the time courtesy of remissions and other health related factors. So, if Corby plays her cards right she could conceivably do a whole lot less time in an Indonesian prison that she might if the 20 means 20 in Australia!
Unless, of course the convicts, although serving their prison time in Australia, can still be granted remissions by the Indonesia government and have them applied to the sentences being served in Australia. Then the decision to access the prisoner transfer program would be a 'no brainer'.
Now, things do not always go to plan and Corby missed out on the last round of remissions for supposedly being in possession of a mobile phone. This in itself hardly seems to be an additional crime worthy of that kind of punishment. Yet, in the light of that remission cancellation some jails now have installed public phones, which can be more easily monitored. But there are no hard and fast rules in that sense with regard to remissions that what you might lose on the swing you will probably make up on the merry-go-round!
Yet, for Corby and her Bali Nine friends that may benefit from this agreement it is still a wait and see game as not all the appeals processes have been exhausted. Generally, the agreement would only kick in after there were no further avenues of address and the sentence was in effect 'final and binding'...
Nevertheless, there are some interesting choices to be made by Australians in Indonesian prisons going forward.
For the Indonesian side, I do not recall any 'big name' prisoners sitting in Australian jails. They are probably big names in their local villages and to their respective families. But of late most Indonesians violating Australian laws tend to be Indonesian fisherman operating in Australian territorial waters.
Illegal immigrants are not technically jailed but rather detained until all their legal avenues are exhausted then they are usually deported. It is worth noting that some, perhaps many, would consider conditions in an Australian detention facility like being in jail.
The question though is a simple one: If you are an Australian doing time in an Indonesian prison is it in your best interests to seek repatriation to Australia to serve the remainder of your sentence in an Australian jail?
If 20 years imprisonment in theory means 20 years imprisonment in practice. Then a convict like Schapelle Corby will be compelled to complete a full 20-year term in an Australian jail. Indonesian sentences do not generally contain a minimum period or a non-parole period. Simply, when the judge says 20 he means 20! So, even after 15 years Corby could not apply for parole nor could she rely on any kind of remission for good behaviour or otherwise.
On the plus side, conditions might be slightly better in practice and probably a whole lot cleaner! And she would also be closer to her family and the financial burden on them to visit will be greatly reduced.
In contrast, if Corby were to continue to serve her sentence in Indonesia where the system allows for remissions to be handed out, and sometimes handed out twice a year, she could conceivably serve a whole lot less time.
Tommy Soeharto is a classic example of how the remissions system can work in the favour of a convict. It also highlights the distorted and misguided nature of Indonesian law. But anyway, Tommy gets 15 years for the assassination murder of a Supreme Court judge (Corby gets 20 years for drug possession and smuggling - distorted) but serves only about half the time courtesy of remissions and other health related factors. So, if Corby plays her cards right she could conceivably do a whole lot less time in an Indonesian prison that she might if the 20 means 20 in Australia!
Unless, of course the convicts, although serving their prison time in Australia, can still be granted remissions by the Indonesia government and have them applied to the sentences being served in Australia. Then the decision to access the prisoner transfer program would be a 'no brainer'.
Now, things do not always go to plan and Corby missed out on the last round of remissions for supposedly being in possession of a mobile phone. This in itself hardly seems to be an additional crime worthy of that kind of punishment. Yet, in the light of that remission cancellation some jails now have installed public phones, which can be more easily monitored. But there are no hard and fast rules in that sense with regard to remissions that what you might lose on the swing you will probably make up on the merry-go-round!
Yet, for Corby and her Bali Nine friends that may benefit from this agreement it is still a wait and see game as not all the appeals processes have been exhausted. Generally, the agreement would only kick in after there were no further avenues of address and the sentence was in effect 'final and binding'...
Nevertheless, there are some interesting choices to be made by Australians in Indonesian prisons going forward.
02 March 2008
A Positive Thought for Sunday
"Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice."
-- William Jennings Bryan
-- William Jennings Bryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)