"It is known that one elephant who was rather slow in learning his tricks and had been punished severely by his master's beating, was discovered later that night, alone in his tent, practicing those tricks."
~Pliny the Elder, Natural History, Book III
Some forty years ago, when the old people were young, the communist attempted a coup that went bad and resulting in the biggest manslaughter of the post-WW II world. It took several years, but by the time they were done, Communism was so thoroughly discredited, its many different forms eradicated and all of its ideas extinguished. It was even made into a law to ensure that any intellectual adventures into the far left is deemed unworthy and therefore categorically treated with suspicions similar to treason.
History books are littered with references to the bad reds and the promising future of the new blues.
These same guys were issued free rounds and the moral theatrics in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands communists by the US Government (CIA financed the operations, some 800,000 people were killed in 1965). They were duly rewarded with wealthy aids and healthier pensions and to sit in high places shaping policies in important things and ultimately, to identify and ensure all the right ideas to flourish. In short, to do what they do best. What they did was monstrous and they created a monster.
Following the last crumbles of the USSR, America duly changed its course and went about in a confusing lapse of judgement. With no big bad red enemy, America has less use of third world country proxies and they’re fading into irrelevance in Pentagon speak. The wall was gone and everyone for himself from then on. The generals were left holding broken machine guns. It began with a sudden jolt of guilty conscience and completed with yhe economic crisis of the late 90s for the last free kick to the groin.
Bankrupted and embarrassed, the Generals were robbed of their toys and they went shopping around in the previously unthinkable regions instead. Of the eight F16s in the Indonesian Air Force, none of them really flies anymore since they’ve no spare parts to fly them with (complete military embargo). These days, the new funky jet orders go to China and Russia.
Soon enough, everybody want to go to China.
Cautious in embracing an old nemesis, it’s not really surprising that lacking a suitably solid ideological safety net they would look for the comfort of the traditionalist-nationalist-fundamentalist cocktail school.
Post 911, the world’s largest Moslem democracy gained a sudden relevance. Again, America returned to point out at obvious mistakes: any movement reflective of religious tendencies get itchy reactions from the American establishments and the tap water becomes unpredictable.
It doesn’t help that now everybody on the Western Hemisphere generally identify their faith with an alarmed sense of aggression. The generals are getting old and death is real and they’re being told their God is evil. Some scary shit.
The old men are getting bored of the whole dance of point and vote game.
You can not teach people to vote and at the same time telling them who to vote for without seriously considering the conflict of interests.
You might force yourself to do that every once a while, but they always cost a lot in moral capital. This time around, it’s stretched too far to be safe.
Even old soldiers got tired of being told around all the time. They were soldiers in 1965. They’re Generals now. They don’t die, remember? They fade away.
As V would have it, they become the ghosts of Christmas past.
Or is it just another proof that population are rational?
But that’s an entirely different subject.
Monday, December 25, 2006
Friday, December 15, 2006
Microsoft Indonesia (Beta 2)
Mistakes committed by Ignorance in a virtuous Disposition, would never be of such fatal Consequence to the Publick Weal, as the Practices of a Man whose Inclinations led him to be corrupt, and had great Abilities to manage, and multiply, and defend his Corruptions
~James Swift
The Indonesian government decided to go with Microsoft. That’s the gist of it. The MoU document goes the long way around to make sure that they’re not breaking various bits of laws here and there, but anyone reading the full document will get that very impression: the Nov 14, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia (represented by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology) and Microsoft Corp (PT Microsoft Indonesia) basically laid down the outline for a procurement and implementation plan of Microsoft platform/software across the entire government.
Much has been said about this – the open source arguments etc. – and many would point out the several obvious loopholes in the document (or inconsistencies, depending on which way you look at it). The linux herds are quick to cry the battle cry and the interested parties are similarly quick to respond with the merit of observing international copyright treaties and agreements.
My issue with this document – and the spirit it carries – are extensive and is probably worth detailing in separate points, but the first thing that came to mind is the blatant deception it carries in legal mumbos and – even greater – the bigger problems with copyright issues in third world countries in general. Again, I’ll try to handle this one at a time, and we best leave out the latter for later.
The MoU refers to IDC/World Bank/Intel surveys that estimated the number of PC (needing MS Windows) across the government at 35,496 plus additional 266,220 in the form of license grants. Additionally, they will also need 177,480 licenses for MS Office. While there’s no dollar value anywhere on the document, Tony Chen, the local MSFT President put the dollar value of Microsoft revenue loss to piracy in Indonesia at US$187m – so the estimate will be somewhere around that figure.
To put this figure in perspective, the entire Indonesian judicial system gets roughly just a little more than double that figure for their budget this year (they asked for more, but that’s how much they get in ‘06).
Reading the MoU and the subsequent comments from the officials close to the deal (the MoU includes confidentiality clauses, but we’ll get there), their repeated mantra here is always ‘be legal’ – as my lawful colleague pointed out, tragically enough this is an implicit recognition that they are, in fact, illegal.
Sure enough, the Gov’t is probably the largest institutional piracy in the country, but there’re little you could do about it where for so long, they barely had any real alternatives.
A few years back, Mr. Richard Kartawijaya was running Microsoft Indonesia and he was rumoured to be forced to resign amid the pressure from Redmond to push harder against piracy. Where Mr. Kartawijaya and Redmond clashed was on approach to take. Redmond wanted to push harder, Mr. Kartawijaya wanted a more sensitive approach.
In the end, Redmond took over, went on a litigious rampage and in the end, ended up blackmailing the government into this newly signed MoU. Everybody has their take on it, but reading the document, it looks too much like a purchase order to be considered for any other purpose.
The government basically agreed to have everything running on MS Windows. The exact number will be based on further census, but it encompass everything in the government with the exception of State owned enterprise and gov’t run schools.
The license grant is only applicable for computers running NOT higher than Pentium 3. I’m not sure why this is here, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the grant only covers Windows up to Windows XP – they’re not giving the new Vista/Office 2007. In effect, Microsoft is giving away their software as it is being phased out.
The Government makes repeated assurances and commitments to educate and promote awareness of intellectual property rights across the board and any breaches of the agreement (in plain terms, for the gov’t to continue using pirated MS software somewhere), will void the whole licensing deal. Basically, the Government made assurance to purchase, then made sure that everybody within the government will continue to purchase in the future.
If this isn’t enough, the document also outlined certain ‘flagship projects’ among others, implementation of National Single Window project using Infopath across the national government.
All this, and the MoU includes a specific confidentiality clause where during the course of the agreement, both parties must maintain confidentiality. Furthermore, neither parties are supposed to do any press releases or other public notifications.
While this comes along with a qualifier (to the extent required by applicable law), it does bring the question, why?
The documents are full with funny workarounds to make sure they comply with at a glance review of the literal law, but at the same time, consistently maintaining that it will lead to a purchase in the future. One clause would explicitly say that the MoU is nonbinding and gives no legal claims to neither parties, but at the same time – in fact the very next article – maintains that it will continue to be in force until the date of execution and this needs to be done before March 31, 2007 (the appendix also sets out payment schedule to be no later than June, 2007).
It maintains that the procurement will be done according to the law and will involve a tender process – this is supposedly to be done as Microsoft will provide the Government with the names of its approved vendors to participate in the tender.
When the products and the quantity and the payment terms are so clearly laid out, it begs the question, what exactly will be tendered in this future tender?
The way it looks to me, this is precisely the muddy water that multinationals regularly ventured into where they do more damage than they’re assumed goodness. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making an argument against multinationals, but a government, is the Government: it has responsibility and accountability to the public for its decision and the use of the taxpayers money.
When it was obvious that everyone from Bill Gates to George Bush to the World Bank were getting busy in this intellectual orgy, in the end the Government looks very meek and –even reluctantly- submissive.
Ultimately, embarrassing.
Many people close to the deal reflected that this is in a effect an official stonewalling on the Government side as they still need to get budgets etc, and Microsoft is supposedly not very high on their priority list.
For Microsoft this might represent another big account in their fat pocket. Even the police these days are getting busy going around offices in the CBD checking for pirated software, again, it does beg the question if our limited law enforcement resources are not better spent elsewhere?
For many people within the open source movement, this paints their perfect picture of what happened when you stared into the abyss. Only this time, more and more people will be looking along with them, because, well, it’s harder not to notice when the abyss stared back into you.
PS: I don't have a soft copy of the MoU but if anybody needs it, leave comment here or drop mail. I might be persuaded to scan it and post it here if you're nice.
~James Swift
The Indonesian government decided to go with Microsoft. That’s the gist of it. The MoU document goes the long way around to make sure that they’re not breaking various bits of laws here and there, but anyone reading the full document will get that very impression: the Nov 14, 2006 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia (represented by the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology) and Microsoft Corp (PT Microsoft Indonesia) basically laid down the outline for a procurement and implementation plan of Microsoft platform/software across the entire government.
Much has been said about this – the open source arguments etc. – and many would point out the several obvious loopholes in the document (or inconsistencies, depending on which way you look at it). The linux herds are quick to cry the battle cry and the interested parties are similarly quick to respond with the merit of observing international copyright treaties and agreements.
My issue with this document – and the spirit it carries – are extensive and is probably worth detailing in separate points, but the first thing that came to mind is the blatant deception it carries in legal mumbos and – even greater – the bigger problems with copyright issues in third world countries in general. Again, I’ll try to handle this one at a time, and we best leave out the latter for later.
The MoU refers to IDC/World Bank/Intel surveys that estimated the number of PC (needing MS Windows) across the government at 35,496 plus additional 266,220 in the form of license grants. Additionally, they will also need 177,480 licenses for MS Office. While there’s no dollar value anywhere on the document, Tony Chen, the local MSFT President put the dollar value of Microsoft revenue loss to piracy in Indonesia at US$187m – so the estimate will be somewhere around that figure.
To put this figure in perspective, the entire Indonesian judicial system gets roughly just a little more than double that figure for their budget this year (they asked for more, but that’s how much they get in ‘06).
Reading the MoU and the subsequent comments from the officials close to the deal (the MoU includes confidentiality clauses, but we’ll get there), their repeated mantra here is always ‘be legal’ – as my lawful colleague pointed out, tragically enough this is an implicit recognition that they are, in fact, illegal.
Sure enough, the Gov’t is probably the largest institutional piracy in the country, but there’re little you could do about it where for so long, they barely had any real alternatives.
A few years back, Mr. Richard Kartawijaya was running Microsoft Indonesia and he was rumoured to be forced to resign amid the pressure from Redmond to push harder against piracy. Where Mr. Kartawijaya and Redmond clashed was on approach to take. Redmond wanted to push harder, Mr. Kartawijaya wanted a more sensitive approach.
In the end, Redmond took over, went on a litigious rampage and in the end, ended up blackmailing the government into this newly signed MoU. Everybody has their take on it, but reading the document, it looks too much like a purchase order to be considered for any other purpose.
The government basically agreed to have everything running on MS Windows. The exact number will be based on further census, but it encompass everything in the government with the exception of State owned enterprise and gov’t run schools.
The license grant is only applicable for computers running NOT higher than Pentium 3. I’m not sure why this is here, but I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the grant only covers Windows up to Windows XP – they’re not giving the new Vista/Office 2007. In effect, Microsoft is giving away their software as it is being phased out.
The Government makes repeated assurances and commitments to educate and promote awareness of intellectual property rights across the board and any breaches of the agreement (in plain terms, for the gov’t to continue using pirated MS software somewhere), will void the whole licensing deal. Basically, the Government made assurance to purchase, then made sure that everybody within the government will continue to purchase in the future.
If this isn’t enough, the document also outlined certain ‘flagship projects’ among others, implementation of National Single Window project using Infopath across the national government.
All this, and the MoU includes a specific confidentiality clause where during the course of the agreement, both parties must maintain confidentiality. Furthermore, neither parties are supposed to do any press releases or other public notifications.
While this comes along with a qualifier (to the extent required by applicable law), it does bring the question, why?
The documents are full with funny workarounds to make sure they comply with at a glance review of the literal law, but at the same time, consistently maintaining that it will lead to a purchase in the future. One clause would explicitly say that the MoU is nonbinding and gives no legal claims to neither parties, but at the same time – in fact the very next article – maintains that it will continue to be in force until the date of execution and this needs to be done before March 31, 2007 (the appendix also sets out payment schedule to be no later than June, 2007).
It maintains that the procurement will be done according to the law and will involve a tender process – this is supposedly to be done as Microsoft will provide the Government with the names of its approved vendors to participate in the tender.
When the products and the quantity and the payment terms are so clearly laid out, it begs the question, what exactly will be tendered in this future tender?
The way it looks to me, this is precisely the muddy water that multinationals regularly ventured into where they do more damage than they’re assumed goodness. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not making an argument against multinationals, but a government, is the Government: it has responsibility and accountability to the public for its decision and the use of the taxpayers money.
When it was obvious that everyone from Bill Gates to George Bush to the World Bank were getting busy in this intellectual orgy, in the end the Government looks very meek and –even reluctantly- submissive.
Ultimately, embarrassing.
Many people close to the deal reflected that this is in a effect an official stonewalling on the Government side as they still need to get budgets etc, and Microsoft is supposedly not very high on their priority list.
For Microsoft this might represent another big account in their fat pocket. Even the police these days are getting busy going around offices in the CBD checking for pirated software, again, it does beg the question if our limited law enforcement resources are not better spent elsewhere?
For many people within the open source movement, this paints their perfect picture of what happened when you stared into the abyss. Only this time, more and more people will be looking along with them, because, well, it’s harder not to notice when the abyss stared back into you.
PS: I don't have a soft copy of the MoU but if anybody needs it, leave comment here or drop mail. I might be persuaded to scan it and post it here if you're nice.
Friday, December 8, 2006
Defamation: No More?
In a 4-9 vote, the Constitutional Court declared defamation against head of state as unconstitutional. On the basis that it's against human rights – no-brainer there – and that in practice it's difficult to distinguish between critic and defamation. The court also throws a number of other good punches. It said defamation against head of state should be dealt with the same way as defamation against other ordinary citizens. In other words, the president must file charges, which means they'd have to testify that he/she feels humiliated.
The court, as always, fails to guide us mere mortals on the boundaries of these 'freedom of speech'. Instead of setting out the boundaries, it goes in 'speculation mode' identifying political scenarios where defamation clauses would hinder expression.
For those not in the loop, Indonesia's amended constitution is rated among the most liberal as it adopts various human rights etc etc. But putting it into practice is a complete different ball game. When drafted, few were informed what those provisions entail. And, unlike in more mature democracies, the text didn’t come from experience – if not the exact opposite since we barely had any freedom of speech at previous time in our history. In sum, the court is left with the mounting task of putting the clauses into Indonesia's context.
Too tall of an order perhaps.
The dissenters in this decision take the normal route – clauses against defamation are everywhere internationally too. Unlike some other dissents, this one might is quite cunning. It said in other countries possible abuse of defamation clause can be curbed by their constitutional courts since they can preside over the enforcement of the law. This is different here where the court's jurisdiction is independent, separate from the general courts. So, the court is actually arguing for an expansion of its jurisdiction from reviewing laws against the constitution into looking at how the laws are enforced.
Another spin on this constitutional court decision is how it is affecting those currently under investigation, in court proceedings or now rotting in jail for committing a crime that's now declared unconstitutional?
Due to the way Constitutional Court is structured in Indonesian judicial system, its decision has no bearing to on-going proceedings (let alone past ones). So the guy who filed the petition, Eggy Sudjana, is technically still open to prosecution.
Whacky right – as much as I hate Eggy's guts! Moreover to those rotting in jail – how unconstitutional is it to let them continue to rot there based on a crime that's declared unconstitutional.
The lawyers are quick to argue the legal hurdles – yes, they're (only) good at that. But they could've channelled it to argue on how it is to be done. For a start they could argue the convicts should get a pardon. That is if SBY wants to free those sentenced to defame him or his office in the first place. How wicked is that!
And, given SBY's penchant for political scores., them convicts are not the group he wants to target either. Hell, some of these guys (convicts serving more than 5 years sentence) aren't eligible to vote in the first place.
The court, as always, fails to guide us mere mortals on the boundaries of these 'freedom of speech'. Instead of setting out the boundaries, it goes in 'speculation mode' identifying political scenarios where defamation clauses would hinder expression.
For those not in the loop, Indonesia's amended constitution is rated among the most liberal as it adopts various human rights etc etc. But putting it into practice is a complete different ball game. When drafted, few were informed what those provisions entail. And, unlike in more mature democracies, the text didn’t come from experience – if not the exact opposite since we barely had any freedom of speech at previous time in our history. In sum, the court is left with the mounting task of putting the clauses into Indonesia's context.
Too tall of an order perhaps.
The dissenters in this decision take the normal route – clauses against defamation are everywhere internationally too. Unlike some other dissents, this one might is quite cunning. It said in other countries possible abuse of defamation clause can be curbed by their constitutional courts since they can preside over the enforcement of the law. This is different here where the court's jurisdiction is independent, separate from the general courts. So, the court is actually arguing for an expansion of its jurisdiction from reviewing laws against the constitution into looking at how the laws are enforced.
Another spin on this constitutional court decision is how it is affecting those currently under investigation, in court proceedings or now rotting in jail for committing a crime that's now declared unconstitutional?
Due to the way Constitutional Court is structured in Indonesian judicial system, its decision has no bearing to on-going proceedings (let alone past ones). So the guy who filed the petition, Eggy Sudjana, is technically still open to prosecution.
Whacky right – as much as I hate Eggy's guts! Moreover to those rotting in jail – how unconstitutional is it to let them continue to rot there based on a crime that's declared unconstitutional.
The lawyers are quick to argue the legal hurdles – yes, they're (only) good at that. But they could've channelled it to argue on how it is to be done. For a start they could argue the convicts should get a pardon. That is if SBY wants to free those sentenced to defame him or his office in the first place. How wicked is that!
And, given SBY's penchant for political scores., them convicts are not the group he wants to target either. Hell, some of these guys (convicts serving more than 5 years sentence) aren't eligible to vote in the first place.
SBY Takut Istri?
So he announced that he just took on another wife. I don’t watch much terrestrial channel but apparently it was all over the place, the two wives going on rounds of press conferences and all.
Now the President is considering a revision to the polygamy law.
Frankly, at first, this was all a non-starter for me. A religious figure decided to remarry, so what? If anything, I feel it was totally irresponsible of him to be so publicly apologetic. He admitted that it was a hard decision to make and he probably wasn’t setting the best of examples and the public – all several hundred millions of them who listens to what he says every day – are free to choose another, better example.
I failed to comprehend that. It’s silly.
If you don’t think it’s wrong, why apologise? And if you sincerely think you’re an unsuitable leader, then for the love of God, vacate the news space already! Dismiss yourself. Have some dignity. You can’t suggest that your followers follow someone else and at the same time arrange for massive media coverage over the whole thing. It’s bizarre.
But back to the President, his reaction was even more mind boggling. According to several very verifiable sources inside the Presidential household, Mrs. President has been giving her husband a hard time for this stuff. The First Lady sympathises with first wives everywhere and quite simply, light a dynamite in the presidential bottom. Figuratively speaking, of course.
Within the last week, the President and his staff have been very busy investigating and holding important meetings with various lobbies to see how he could possibly advance this issue. All sorts of smart people turned up at the palace to contribute and what was a cheapish tabloid gossip is quickly taking shape as an entirely different animal.
This is now the green Moslem lobby against the liberal-secular lobby (and their wives). Prominent figures are quick to frame the polygamy question as yet another attack into religious freedom and the secular group are touting the virtues of the modern world.
The President moves quickly and rides the momentum with little hesitation. Fully anticipating a resistance in the parliament, he’s getting a Presidential Decree (not requiring parliamentary approval) to ban all public servants from polygamy.
For a President with little legislative support, he sure knows how to the quick votes.
Well, what do I have to say about all this?
Not much really, except that it is sad that the President is finding this sort of stuff to be more important than actually trying to run the country.
But I’m currently single and I don’t have an irksome wife in the kitchen, so who am I to speak?
Now the President is considering a revision to the polygamy law.
Frankly, at first, this was all a non-starter for me. A religious figure decided to remarry, so what? If anything, I feel it was totally irresponsible of him to be so publicly apologetic. He admitted that it was a hard decision to make and he probably wasn’t setting the best of examples and the public – all several hundred millions of them who listens to what he says every day – are free to choose another, better example.
I failed to comprehend that. It’s silly.
If you don’t think it’s wrong, why apologise? And if you sincerely think you’re an unsuitable leader, then for the love of God, vacate the news space already! Dismiss yourself. Have some dignity. You can’t suggest that your followers follow someone else and at the same time arrange for massive media coverage over the whole thing. It’s bizarre.
But back to the President, his reaction was even more mind boggling. According to several very verifiable sources inside the Presidential household, Mrs. President has been giving her husband a hard time for this stuff. The First Lady sympathises with first wives everywhere and quite simply, light a dynamite in the presidential bottom. Figuratively speaking, of course.
Within the last week, the President and his staff have been very busy investigating and holding important meetings with various lobbies to see how he could possibly advance this issue. All sorts of smart people turned up at the palace to contribute and what was a cheapish tabloid gossip is quickly taking shape as an entirely different animal.
This is now the green Moslem lobby against the liberal-secular lobby (and their wives). Prominent figures are quick to frame the polygamy question as yet another attack into religious freedom and the secular group are touting the virtues of the modern world.
The President moves quickly and rides the momentum with little hesitation. Fully anticipating a resistance in the parliament, he’s getting a Presidential Decree (not requiring parliamentary approval) to ban all public servants from polygamy.
For a President with little legislative support, he sure knows how to the quick votes.
Well, what do I have to say about all this?
Not much really, except that it is sad that the President is finding this sort of stuff to be more important than actually trying to run the country.
But I’m currently single and I don’t have an irksome wife in the kitchen, so who am I to speak?
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Open Letter to Mr. SBY
Andi Malarangeng – the presidential spokesperson - wrote in this week’s Tempo about the merit of direct voting for parliament members. The President is campaigning to change the law so that in the next election we will be voting for individuals directly as opposed to a party-assigned rank of priority.
The campaign starts early. It’s embarrassing that the President even has the time for this stuff. This is the world’s third largest democracy, the first directly elected President after 60 years of independence (include 40 odd years of ruthless tyrants and abundance of chaos to fill in the gaps). For the very first time in its history, this country – all 280m people of it – has the chance to choose their own leader. For the first time in its history, too, these people can say whatever they want, almost wherever they want. The first time in almost ten years, that the unruly mob keeps to their senses and participated in the politics of it.
For the first time, the President wields some political capital and credibility to spare and convince that he was there to lead.
And he spends his time to woo the National Female Caucus for female votes. Direct votes for individuals will get him more votes from the female candidates (female nominees tend to be assigned to lower priority by the parties) and likely to help his party by the occasional celebrity-cum-politician allies. The Party holds too few seats in the Parliament and he’s forever humbled by the seemingly all powerful Vice Presidents. With all due respect Mr. President, he stands barely to your shoulder.
Dear Mr. President,
You’ve a cabinet member, a Social Welfare Minister (also one of Forbes richest men) who is currently displacing some 20,000 people in the largest man-made national disaster ever. Social Welfare. Is that an inside joke?
Your shorter Vice President is ordering tax free choppers for fun.
You’ve a judicial reform that couldn’t manage to pick 12 honest judges for Supreme Court.
You’ve a Justice murdering tycoon granted with the largest sentence reduction in the judicial history of the country. And you gave him $1.5bn right out prison.
You’ve a human rights activist killed in a national carrier eating airplane food. Qantas wasn’t that bad.
You’ve entire forests burn in flames, world’s largest ecological disaster happening in your very own backyard. Do you even smell that?
You’ve a food crisis in the world’s fifth largest nation. You’ve the poorest farmer in all farming nations. Do you know that?
You’ve coalition partners shagging B-list celebs on regular basis and this is the good news.
Sure enough, inflations are in single digits and we’ve new huge malls and fewer people are murdering each other and I actually have a regular income, but to float the boat is hardly a promise that we will ever get anywhere at all.
Dear Mr. President,
You’ve 280m people that already voted for you and election is still quite a while away.
You’ve an illiterate ex-president grandma and blind men for your nearest competition.
You’ve a country full of people that wait.
You’ve a Presidential spokesperson with the ugliest grin and cheap tie to do your cheap campaign for the cheap votes.
You’ve a country full of people that are very tired of waiting.
Dear Mr. President,
You were elected by the people, in the largest direct democratic election in the history of all democracies.
You promised them a future.
In return, they get the rude assurance not to ever fall backward.
That was the best that they could ever hope for.
Democracy at its best, institutionalised mass delusion.
The very best trick the devil ever pulled.
I’ll be damned if I were to give you my vote.
Ever.
Please, at the very least, do tell Mr. Malarangeng to stop grinning and get a better tie.
The campaign starts early. It’s embarrassing that the President even has the time for this stuff. This is the world’s third largest democracy, the first directly elected President after 60 years of independence (include 40 odd years of ruthless tyrants and abundance of chaos to fill in the gaps). For the very first time in its history, this country – all 280m people of it – has the chance to choose their own leader. For the first time in its history, too, these people can say whatever they want, almost wherever they want. The first time in almost ten years, that the unruly mob keeps to their senses and participated in the politics of it.
For the first time, the President wields some political capital and credibility to spare and convince that he was there to lead.
And he spends his time to woo the National Female Caucus for female votes. Direct votes for individuals will get him more votes from the female candidates (female nominees tend to be assigned to lower priority by the parties) and likely to help his party by the occasional celebrity-cum-politician allies. The Party holds too few seats in the Parliament and he’s forever humbled by the seemingly all powerful Vice Presidents. With all due respect Mr. President, he stands barely to your shoulder.
Dear Mr. President,
You’ve a cabinet member, a Social Welfare Minister (also one of Forbes richest men) who is currently displacing some 20,000 people in the largest man-made national disaster ever. Social Welfare. Is that an inside joke?
Your shorter Vice President is ordering tax free choppers for fun.
You’ve a judicial reform that couldn’t manage to pick 12 honest judges for Supreme Court.
You’ve a Justice murdering tycoon granted with the largest sentence reduction in the judicial history of the country. And you gave him $1.5bn right out prison.
You’ve a human rights activist killed in a national carrier eating airplane food. Qantas wasn’t that bad.
You’ve entire forests burn in flames, world’s largest ecological disaster happening in your very own backyard. Do you even smell that?
You’ve a food crisis in the world’s fifth largest nation. You’ve the poorest farmer in all farming nations. Do you know that?
You’ve coalition partners shagging B-list celebs on regular basis and this is the good news.
Sure enough, inflations are in single digits and we’ve new huge malls and fewer people are murdering each other and I actually have a regular income, but to float the boat is hardly a promise that we will ever get anywhere at all.
Dear Mr. President,
You’ve 280m people that already voted for you and election is still quite a while away.
You’ve an illiterate ex-president grandma and blind men for your nearest competition.
You’ve a country full of people that wait.
You’ve a Presidential spokesperson with the ugliest grin and cheap tie to do your cheap campaign for the cheap votes.
You’ve a country full of people that are very tired of waiting.
Dear Mr. President,
You were elected by the people, in the largest direct democratic election in the history of all democracies.
You promised them a future.
In return, they get the rude assurance not to ever fall backward.
That was the best that they could ever hope for.
Democracy at its best, institutionalised mass delusion.
The very best trick the devil ever pulled.
I’ll be damned if I were to give you my vote.
Ever.
Please, at the very least, do tell Mr. Malarangeng to stop grinning and get a better tie.
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Master of Our Own Household
Today all media report on the broadcasting commission’s (KPI) call for Lativi to push drop or push back its smack down program. KPI later sanctioned Lativi, undisputedly the worst TV station in the country, stop broadcasting these programs. Well that makes a lot of sense and it’s about time. Too may TVs are too relaxed with rules set out on broadcasting time, particularly in the interest of the children. And yes, sanctioned those TV stations, so they learn to better balance commercial and public interest.
A kid was actually killed in being a victim of his peers imitating those pro (and fake) wrestlers. I can relate to that, I have to repeatedly tell my kid that a cap can’t hold him from falling off the roof top. He was devastated to learn that Superman only exist in movies.
You see, these things that affect the way our kids think are everywhere. It is all too easy for us to blame the government, the media (and their capitalist backers) of everything. We can blame the schools too for not properly educating the children. Don’t get me wrong, some of these accusations are well justified. But they’re yours, ours.
So we need to acknowledge the other side of the problem. We parents are too often too relaxed on the kinds of show their kids watch. Rated R movies and we close their eyes in kissing or violent scenes. Or we let the maids watch soaps and mystical shows et al while they’re sitting on the kids.
For once let’s take control of our own kids in household. Tell them what to see and not to see. Forget the damn government.
A kid was actually killed in being a victim of his peers imitating those pro (and fake) wrestlers. I can relate to that, I have to repeatedly tell my kid that a cap can’t hold him from falling off the roof top. He was devastated to learn that Superman only exist in movies.
You see, these things that affect the way our kids think are everywhere. It is all too easy for us to blame the government, the media (and their capitalist backers) of everything. We can blame the schools too for not properly educating the children. Don’t get me wrong, some of these accusations are well justified. But they’re yours, ours.
So we need to acknowledge the other side of the problem. We parents are too often too relaxed on the kinds of show their kids watch. Rated R movies and we close their eyes in kissing or violent scenes. Or we let the maids watch soaps and mystical shows et al while they’re sitting on the kids.
For once let’s take control of our own kids in household. Tell them what to see and not to see. Forget the damn government.
Stupid Argument over Court Fees
I’m sick and tired reading these reports of tug of war between the State Audit Agency (BPK) and the Supreme Court over court fees. BPK argued that the fees are illegal and that the court must stop collecting them. And of course BPK must be able to audit the funds. On the other hand, the court said the fees have been there all along and they are paid by litigating parties. Technically the fees are not state funds so BPK can’t audit. The court went to argue it lacks funding and bla bla bla.
Stupid arguments, it’s embarrassing really. Fees of civil cases are legit and they should be paid by litigating parties. Hell, they ask the State to intervene and decide which one is right (and wrong). It’s true that this money do not belong to the State. Instead they are paid in advance by the plaintiff as and advance so the court can summon the parties, duplicate documents and so forth. So the court is right, for once, that these fees are
Audit is put in place for accountability and that covers how State agency manages third party funds. Simple right? This is particularly important knowing how the court uses and manages the fees. A portion of the money is paid for judges as incentives t decide the case. Now this is not right. Judges must get paid by the State budget; if it is not enough, then increase the damn budget.
Once the case is decided, then the losing party pays the fees. This means the court must force it to pay then return the advance to the plaintiff. But go ask any lawyer – they never bother asking the money back because it costs more than the refund!
So BPK stick to your auditing and ask good lawyers to argue your case. They want their money back too.
Sweet Ambon: Mixing Business with Pleasure
Last month I was on a business trip to Ambon and decide to mix pleasure with it. Foolish not to. I’ve read reviews about how good is the dive there but the violence in past years have drove the dive operators away. Last year a new one, Maluku Diver started operation. And they’re still the only one. But they got descent rooms and great food. Too bad the seasons are all messed up! The best diving season is supposed to start October, one of those current patterns bringing excellent visibility.
I’m not all that lucky. Bad vis in most sites around the resort at Latuhalat, though better ones in sites further away. Thank god we have critters (smaller marine animals for you non-divers). Night dives at the house reef were so rewarding – many nudibranch, crab, lobster, cuttlefish, ghost pipe and octopus. I saw two huge nudibranch, one orange, the other red. They’re not tiny as usual but more than 30cm in diameter. Big mama.... Oh, and guess what. We ran into a huge solitary bumphead parrotfish. I was too shocked and afraid being rammed at actually that I forgot to shoot my camera until it’s too late.
The next day we dove at Pulau Tiga - better visibility but not that many to see, except a lone bumphead and many many triggerfish. I’m certain that’s their spawning ground. Got separate from the group but I ended up with a couple of barracuda and tunas.
Now the last day dive is quite odd. After 1 dive at the wreck in Laha- nothing special – we did Twilight Zone. I don’t know what’s with the name but it is eerie there. We dove among rubbish. Ambon Bay is dirty but this site has all garbage you can think of – rubber tires, plastics, tin cans, etc etc. On top of all that, there are carcasses of fishes everywhere as this is the place where fishermen clean their catch and boats.
But the stuff there are excellent. Many pipefish, frog fish, leaf fish, too many eels... The guides said there are a couple Rhinopias frequently seen here. But not my lucky day.
All and all, the diving is good but not great. Bad vis means little chance of seeing pelagics. But I’m happy enough with the critters, more so when I look into the pictures. As a first under water photo trip, it ain’t bad at all!
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
the Return of the King
One headline caught my attention over the weekend, Tommy is getting his old stash back from Bank Mandiri. For some reasons this is relegated to less important news category, I think most people have already given up with the Cendanas. There’s little you can do full stop.
The legalese bores me, the point of the decision was to award Tommy’s Timor Putra Nasional with a little over one trillion rupiah (that’s US$100m) that was seized prior to him going to prison.
This is just one of those things I will never truly understand. The man went to prison for killing a Justice and he won the biggest sentence reduction in the history of judicial system. Upon his return, he gets his money back. With interest.
A while ago, when the AG dropped charges against his dad, I spoke to a few friends. To me, it was a major let down when SBY let the old man go on the very same day that students were getting killed trying to get him back.
My friends, all student activists in their days, convinced me that there’re a lot more to come. That wasn’t the end of it. There are reasons to hope that things will get better. The Supreme Court is getting better, Abdulrahman Saleh will improve the AG office. KPK will do something about things.
The more you pin your hopes on these things the more it looks like the system simply will never survive against Tommy and the likes.
It’s sad.
The legalese bores me, the point of the decision was to award Tommy’s Timor Putra Nasional with a little over one trillion rupiah (that’s US$100m) that was seized prior to him going to prison.
This is just one of those things I will never truly understand. The man went to prison for killing a Justice and he won the biggest sentence reduction in the history of judicial system. Upon his return, he gets his money back. With interest.
A while ago, when the AG dropped charges against his dad, I spoke to a few friends. To me, it was a major let down when SBY let the old man go on the very same day that students were getting killed trying to get him back.
My friends, all student activists in their days, convinced me that there’re a lot more to come. That wasn’t the end of it. There are reasons to hope that things will get better. The Supreme Court is getting better, Abdulrahman Saleh will improve the AG office. KPK will do something about things.
The more you pin your hopes on these things the more it looks like the system simply will never survive against Tommy and the likes.
It’s sad.
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Indah Kiat Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court recently decided on some bond papers issued by Indah Kiat (some $500m worth). it's a complicated legalese around stuff i don't really understand (count on my co-host to explain when he's awake!), but the decision basically renders the bond agreement null in void.
In effect, it nullifies the bond and thus awarding Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper with $500m windfall (since the bond agreement was deemed in breach of Indonesian law, it -logically- frees indah kiat from its obligation to the bondholders). Among other problems (legal certainty issues, etc.) similar structure is used for many other bonds namely, PT Inti Indorayon Utama, PT Astra International, PT HM Sampoerna, PT Medco Energi, and PT Excelcomindo Pratama. While the decision itself was careful to note that it doesn't rule on the obligation itself (limited to the agreement), it's still an interesting case, nevertheless.
This is yet to make headlines (and unlikely so) - mainly because the primary creditors chose the quieter route and went with settlement deals instead.
It's also probably too complicated for most mainstream media to take notice at this stage as the implications are not yet clear.
And also the obvious fact that everybody involved would prefer to do this quietly -except those who lose. In the IKPP case, the losing parties are mostly vulture funds that bought the bonds at huge discount anyway (some 2c/$1) - ironically so since the bond was only dumped for the discounted value after APP danced around in its debt restructuring program earlier and resulting in this bonds to be in the hands of the 'distressed asset fund' investors.
Apparently this was even discussed with GWB on his visit last week. The Supreme Court is about to rule on another case (IKPP affiliates, Lontar) and already, ALL the major law firms in town are busy on their tails looking for the decision documents to explore the new exciting possibilities. This is probably the hottest decision coming from the court in many years. Except too many people would prefer that this is kept away from the public (they'd prefer to have the less scrutiny on the decisions so they can move forward with filing their own cases).
Several rating agencies overseas had already taking drastic steps in downgrading Indonesian bond ratings and flaunting the case as a major step backward in the legal system.
That's about as much as i could pretend to understand about this. Shoot me email, (or shoot my co-host) then we'll probably be back for more.
In effect, it nullifies the bond and thus awarding Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper with $500m windfall (since the bond agreement was deemed in breach of Indonesian law, it -logically- frees indah kiat from its obligation to the bondholders). Among other problems (legal certainty issues, etc.) similar structure is used for many other bonds namely, PT Inti Indorayon Utama, PT Astra International, PT HM Sampoerna, PT Medco Energi, and PT Excelcomindo Pratama. While the decision itself was careful to note that it doesn't rule on the obligation itself (limited to the agreement), it's still an interesting case, nevertheless.
This is yet to make headlines (and unlikely so) - mainly because the primary creditors chose the quieter route and went with settlement deals instead.
It's also probably too complicated for most mainstream media to take notice at this stage as the implications are not yet clear.
And also the obvious fact that everybody involved would prefer to do this quietly -except those who lose. In the IKPP case, the losing parties are mostly vulture funds that bought the bonds at huge discount anyway (some 2c/$1) - ironically so since the bond was only dumped for the discounted value after APP danced around in its debt restructuring program earlier and resulting in this bonds to be in the hands of the 'distressed asset fund' investors.
Apparently this was even discussed with GWB on his visit last week. The Supreme Court is about to rule on another case (IKPP affiliates, Lontar) and already, ALL the major law firms in town are busy on their tails looking for the decision documents to explore the new exciting possibilities. This is probably the hottest decision coming from the court in many years. Except too many people would prefer that this is kept away from the public (they'd prefer to have the less scrutiny on the decisions so they can move forward with filing their own cases).
Several rating agencies overseas had already taking drastic steps in downgrading Indonesian bond ratings and flaunting the case as a major step backward in the legal system.
That's about as much as i could pretend to understand about this. Shoot me email, (or shoot my co-host) then we'll probably be back for more.
Honest Lawyers
I probably wouldn’t normally do this but this is too good to resist: lawyers + advertising + feminist + cleavage. The ingredients are simply too good. Also that I have not much else to do.
This happens in America (really, where else?). Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly run ads (for custom tailored suits) that are apparently too raunchy for some. After running for three weeks in a row, readers contacted the magazine, finding the ad to be “demeaning” and it suggests “gender discrimination” in the legal profession – this is from the president of the Women's Bar Association. They demanded the ad to be pulled. David Yas, the publisher wrote a column and retaliated that the critics were "a bunch of self-important prudes." The debate raged on.
In America, a barely dressed brunette in action means women are being demeaned.
The image was too raunchy and sensual and thus the press was pressed for self-censorship.
In the more immediate context, it seems to also suggest that lawyers have sex and this is somehow surprising.
My co-host here yesterday met one of Indonesia’s most famous lawyer and the guy was sporting a gold badge bearing his name, as if you would forget who the man was.
A friend of mine had lunch with another lawyer and finding herself panicking for a secluded corner after he turned up with chequered trousers and pink jacket.
I drive home everyday past a house with a big plastic neon lit palm trees, Indians and cowboys in the front yard. The mansion bears a huge sign with the name of the proud lawyer residing inside.
You turn on the telly and the attorneys here regularly set the standard for preposterous fashion – and acting skills.
They also regularly go to prison for bribing in behalf of their clients.
A few years ago, I was walking around the market in Covent Garden in London and came across this sign that I bought for a very good friend, a lawyer. I didn’t really understand what that meant at the time, I only thought it was rather funny.
Now I get it.
This happens in America (really, where else?). Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly run ads (for custom tailored suits) that are apparently too raunchy for some. After running for three weeks in a row, readers contacted the magazine, finding the ad to be “demeaning” and it suggests “gender discrimination” in the legal profession – this is from the president of the Women's Bar Association. They demanded the ad to be pulled. David Yas, the publisher wrote a column and retaliated that the critics were "a bunch of self-important prudes." The debate raged on.
In America, a barely dressed brunette in action means women are being demeaned.
The image was too raunchy and sensual and thus the press was pressed for self-censorship.
In the more immediate context, it seems to also suggest that lawyers have sex and this is somehow surprising.
My co-host here yesterday met one of Indonesia’s most famous lawyer and the guy was sporting a gold badge bearing his name, as if you would forget who the man was.
A friend of mine had lunch with another lawyer and finding herself panicking for a secluded corner after he turned up with chequered trousers and pink jacket.
I drive home everyday past a house with a big plastic neon lit palm trees, Indians and cowboys in the front yard. The mansion bears a huge sign with the name of the proud lawyer residing inside.
You turn on the telly and the attorneys here regularly set the standard for preposterous fashion – and acting skills.
They also regularly go to prison for bribing in behalf of their clients.
A few years ago, I was walking around the market in Covent Garden in London and came across this sign that I bought for a very good friend, a lawyer. I didn’t really understand what that meant at the time, I only thought it was rather funny.
Now I get it.
Autopsy #2
Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere in this courthouse.
A: No.
Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.
Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.
Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
A: No.
Q: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
Q: But could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
A: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere in this courthouse.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Cross Examination
Q: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he
doesn't know about it until the next morning?
A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
doesn't know about it until the next morning?
A: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
on Autopsy Report
Q: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
A: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
Q: And Mr. Dennington was dead at the time?
A: No, he was sitting on the table wondering why I was doing an autopsy.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)