Indonesian Military Might Will Win Malaysia's Respect

October 25, 2007

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Despite sharing commonalities, the relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia has turned sour in recent years. A few years ago, the two claimed ownership of the oil-rich Ambalat sea block, situated near Sipadan and Ligitan islands off the coast of Borneo. Tension grew stronger when Malaysian naval vessel KD Rencong rammed into Indonesian vessel Tedung Naga while patrolling in the area.

The continued mistreatment of Indonesian domestic workers by their Malaysian employers poses another problem. These workers, who represent most of the 240,000 domestic workers in Malaysia, are often considered second-class humans. Not only do most earn less than 25 US cents per hour (500 Ringgit per month), if anything at all, many have also been physically, sexually and psychologically assaulted by their employers.

Because of abuse, lack of freedom and other dissatisfactions, thousands of Indonesian maids have run away from their workplace. In June, trying to escape her violent employer, a worker tried to escape from a 15th floor apartment with a rope made of towels and bedsheets. In August, another maid made a similar attempt before being rescued from a seventeenth floor ledge, while a bruised body of an Indonesian servant was found dead at her employer's home in Kuala Lumpur.

The relationship between the two countries was further exacerbated when Malaysia decided to install harsher punishments for illegal immigrants in Malaysia five years ago, including longer jail time, heavier fines and caning. Such a practice was deemed "inhumane" and hurt Indonesia's dignity, especially following the forced return of some 400,000 Indonesian workers.
More recently, there have been other cases that have worsened bilateral ties. An Indonesian referee visiting Malaysia for the Asian Karate Championship was confronted by four plainclothes Malaysian police officers over a minor misunderstanding, and was handcuffed, arrested and beaten.

A sophisticated phone-tapping device worth Rp 3 billion and destined for the Malaysian Embassy's defense attache was confiscated at Soekarno-Hatta airport, where it was brought into the country by a Malaysian national. During an operation to weed out illegal immigrants, the wife of the Indonesian Embassy's cultural attache in Malaysia was detained by a volunteer security force known as RELA, which treated her like an undocumented guest.

The robbing of seven Indonesian students on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur and the raid on the house of the chairman of the Indonesian Students Association in Malaysia by RELA members put these Indonesians in a state of fear and further strained bilateral relations.

Indonesia also accuses Malaysia of stealing the folk song Rasa Sayange, believed to have originated from the eastern islands of Maluku. Malaysia is also accused of having claimed ownership of other traditional Indonesian heritage, including batik and wayang shadow puppets.

Indonesia has made several attempts to respond to these various problems. For example, Indonesia believed that the Ambalat dispute must be resolved through negotiation.

Responding to the Malaysian government's failure to act against errant employers, Indonesia's House of Representatives has considered reporting the cases to the UN Human Rights Commission. The House has also asked the government to request clarification from the Malaysian government about the discovery of the phone-tapping device.

After the RELA incidents and the beating of the Indonesian karate referee, Indonesia demanded an apology from Malaysia. And many Indonesians now see the need to copyright all Indonesian folk songs, especially those with anonymous writers, to avoid further claim by Malaysia.

Unfortunately, however, these efforts are short lived. An article in The Jakarta Post by Rizal Sukma on Sept. 3 noted that "many Indonesians feel there has been a growing tendency in Malaysia to look down on Indonesia ... [and] feel that Malaysia has become arrogant .... We are often hurt by the way our neighbor looks at us and perceives us".

If this were true, as long as Malaysia still looks down on Indonesia, the aforementioned policies could not guarantee that any similar future problems would not emerge.

It is no doubt that these solutions are wise and necessary, and it is not my intention to argue against these courses of action. Yet, a long-term alternative must be found and employed to supplement, rather than replace, these ad hoc strategies. Such a solution rests in the power of Indonesia's military.

Writing in the 18th century during the U.S. constitutional ratification debate, American founding fathers John Jay in Federalist No. 4 and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 8 (essays supporting the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation), argued that a country's healthy defense represses, discourages and thus prevents war rather than invites it.

Following this reasoning, it is vital to rebuild Indonesia's defense system, improve the military's professionalism and push other internal reforms. Indonesia is currently on the right track in its attempt to modernize its military. For example, it recently signed a US$1 billion arms deal with Russia to buy submarines, tanks and military helicopters.

Despite a legal problem which has stalled the administrative process since 2002, Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono recently stated that Indonesia will continue with the procurement of Mi-17 choppers.

In an effort to increase the military's professionalism, the House passed Law No. 34/2004 mandating that the government take over all the military's enterprises within five years. Next, the military's Rp 33 trillion current budget must be increased to its ideal level, around Rp 100 trillion. The bigger allocation would enable the military to increase the welfare of personnel and to provide better training. Finally, to contribute further to the military's professionalism, the government of Indonesia should resolve the conflict between the military and the police, which according to the RIDEP Institute has seen at least 10 violent incidents this year alone.

Having a strong defense would change Malaysia's foreign policy toward its "big brother". It would remind the Malaysian government to be more committed to stopping the abuse of Indonesian workers. It would remind Malaysia not to encroach on Indonesia's territory. Most importantly, Indonesia's stronger defense would make the government of Malaysia and its citizens be more careful in their action toward Indonesia.

The writer is a PhD student at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University.

Taken From:

Russia Helps RI Rebuild Defense Capability

September 24, 2007
Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

On the first visit by a Russian leader to Indonesia in over 50 years, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono recently to witness the signing of a US$1 billion arms deal to upgrade Indonesia's defense capability.

The agreement includes Indonesia's purchase of 20 Russian tanks, 22 helicopters (17 passenger/transport and five assault) and two submarines, with an option to buy more over the next 15 years. Despite concerns that Russia is also aiming to expand its military clout in Southeast Asia, such a deal should not be viewed with any suspicion. Indeed, the deal will prove beneficial for Indonesia in several ways.

First and foremost, Indonesia's crumbling military needs to be modernized. Suffering under a floundering economy, Indonesia's capability to defend and secure its maritime borders has been weakened by a lack of submarines and warships. The military currently only operates two obsolete German submarines purchased in the 1980s. The recent purchase of more sophisticated and stealthy Kilo Class 636 diesel submarines will ensure more effective naval patrolling of the country's 17,000-odd islands.

Modernization could increase Indonesia's naval standing among its neighbors. The Singapore Navy currently has four Swedish Challenger submarines and plans to buy two more by 2016. The Royal Australian Navy possesses six Collins Class subs, which are already considered superior to those run by Indonesia, and will be upgraded in the near future. Recently, the Royal Malaysian Navy increased its naval power by obtaining two high-tech Scorpene Class submarines.

In the face of all this, Indonesia's efforts to modernize its navy with the purchase of two, or even more, Russian submarines appears reasonable and timely.

The second positive point is that this arms deal will not only improve Indonesia's bilateral defense relations with Russia, but will also benefit other sectors. As Putin said during his visit, "We agreed to develop our cooperation in energy, mining, aviation and the telecommunication sector."

The two nations signed oil, gas and mining agreements which, according to Mine and Energy Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro, are worth up to $8 billion. These deals will help revamp Indonesia's aging oil and mining facilities.

Indonesian state-owned mining company Aneka Tambang inked a $1.2 billion deal with Russian United Company RUSAL for a project in Kalimantan. The two companies are also exploring further possibilities to expand their business into power station construction and the smelting of aluminum.

Russian oil giant LUKOIL and Indonesia's state-run Pertamina have also agreed to a $1 billion project for a cooperative oil and gas exploration. Both countries have also agreed to develop aerospace technology.

Shortly after Putin's visit, Frans Kaisiepo Airport in Papua was designated a base for launching rockets carrying Russian satellites, starting in 2010.

Russia has also stated its interest in helping Indonesia build its first nuclear power plant on Java by 2016. It is perhaps not unimaginable that the annual trade of around $680 million between the two countries could reach $1 billion in the next few years.

The third benefit from the visit is the credit offer from Russia, repayable within 15 years, which will provide flexibility for Indonesia's cash-strapped government. Russian military hardware is cheaper than similar U.S.-made models and represents what presidential spokesperson Dino Pati Djalal describes as a "generous package."

There are also fewer "strings attached" with Russian the arms sales. Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono said, "Requirements for purchasing arms from Western countries are complicated, with preconditions attached, such as human rights, accountability, not to mention licensing." This is a reference to Indonesia not being allowed to use its British-supplied Scorpion tanks during its conflict with separatist rebels in Aceh.

Finally, Indonesia's relationships with Russia will help reduce its dependence on the United States, once Indonesia's largest arms supplier. In 2005, the U.S. lifted its arms embargo on Indonesia, which was imposed in 1992 after the Indonesian army killed hundreds of protesters in East Timor.

However, Indonesia does not need to reestablish its arms business with the U.S., should it choose not to. Building ties with Russia will diversify the sources of Indonesia's military equipment. Furthermore, the popularity of the U.S. has continued to decline in Southeast Asia, primarily because of its policies in the Middle East, and secondarily because of its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Reestablishing arms deals with the U.S. would likely result in criticism or even major protests in Indonesia.

Despite suspicions by the West that Russia is attempting to expand its political influence in Southeast Asia, the arms deals between Indonesia and Russia should be defended as there are benefits, both political and economic, at stake.

The writer is PhD student at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University.

Taken From: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/09/24/russia-helps-ri-rebuild-defense-capability.html

"John Q" Reveals Weaknesses of U.S. Health Care

August 8, 2007

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

I have just finished watching a movie called John Q, which i rented from NetFlix. I like the movie so much that I have seen it for a few times. This movie reminds me of the problems that I found in the U.S. health care system: Access, Cost, and Quality.

John Q. Archibald, played by my favorite actor Denzel Washington, is a behind-on-bills metal worker who has just been cut to half-time hours due to the recession and who has been out of luck looking for a second job. The income that he makes as a part-time worker and his wife, Denise, as a cashier at a grocery store apparently is not enough to financially support the family that they even need to let their car got reposed by the bank just so that they can pay the house rent.

Their family problem started to get worse when their only son, nine-year-old Michael, collapsed when playing baseball. After being rushed to the hospital, Michael was found to be seriously ill and needed an emergency heart transplant. Should he not get the transplant immediately, he would soon die for heart failure.

After deciding on the high-risk surgery, to their surprise, the hospital told them that John’s insurance will not cover the cost of a procedure the magnitude of this transplant, costing $250,000, an outrageous amount that the family obviously cannot afford. With Denise not receiving any health insurance at all from her employer, the family must race with time to accumulate at least $75,000 as a down payment just to put Michael as a prospective recipient on the donor list.

Then, John went to his employer asking about his health insurance, in which he was told that the company will only pay for the maximum payout limit of $20,000 for the procedure because of the restrictions on his policy as a part-time employee. Desperately seeking for help, he went to the State Service only to find out that those who qualify for financial assistance must be on welfare. Both the Medicaid and the County Medical Assistance, whose offices he visited, were of no help either. The money he receives from selling his low-priced assets, contributions from his neighborhood, and church donation is still not enough, while the hospital is already planning to send Michael home after the $30,000 cost of his treatment left unpaid.

With time and options running out, John unexpectedly made a bold move. Using a gun, he took the emergency room hostage, with several patients and a doctor inside it. John’s request is quite clear: to put Michael’s name on the donor list to avoid a blood bath.

The movie carries a strong argument that the U.S. health care system faces three major problems: access, cost, and quality.

Access to Health Care

First, it fails to serve every American. It only caters to the rich and well-insured middle classes while denying quality care to the uninsured and the poor. The Census Bureau reported that the number of Americans without health insurance had jumped from 39.8 million in 2000 to 45.8 million in 2004. Unfortunately, this trend will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

The Lewin Group, a private health consulting firm, reported that among those uninsured Americans, the African-Americans and Hispanics are less likely to be insured than the Whites. The fact that the Arhcibalds are African-American may coincidentally portray the reality of inequality of access to health care. John’s limited access is shown, for example, when he went to the County Medical Assistance, where he was denied coverage simply because Michael’s condition is congenital: a birth defect which pre-dates existing coverage. This is a problem since many Americans have exclusions in their policy that deny coverage for treatments related to conditions that preexisted initiation of their present coverage. This means that the cost of the care they are most likely to need is not insured.

Cost of Health Care

At $5,000 per person per year, America spends 40 percent more dollars per capita on its health care than the next most expensive nation, and more than twice as much as most. The increase spending for health care is expected to increase continuously. It is even predicted that Americans would be spending about eighty percent of their GDP to health care by the mid-point of the twenty-first century, compared to only 5 percent when contemporary health care began in the 1950s. It is equally embarrassing to know that with the glut of funding, the U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that does not guarantee health care to its people.

The movie touches on the cost subject when the Archibalds were asked to give the down payment just to put Michael’s name on the donor list. Denise asks “our son is upstairs dying and all you can talk about is money?” To the Archibalds, it is shameful that the hospital could not do one operation in good faith after getting nice profits from performing over three hundred surgeries the year before.

Looking at this, it is easy to say that the goal of health care should not be to maximize profits. By focusing on profits for both insurance companies and hospitals, the cost of health care will continue to rise. It is precisely because of the “wrong” thinking adopted in health care that a citizen like John does not receive adequate health care.

The incredibly high cost of health care, or heart transplant in particular, that John faces is exactly what many Americans are facing. In fact, because of this expensive procedure many Americans have decided to go overseas to have a certain operation done for a better price and, often, a better medical treatment. In general, offshore medical procedures can be performed for as little as one-tenth the cost of what would normally be charged domestically.

For example, while Americans pay $55,000 for heart bypass surgery at a U.S. hospital, patients would only pay $6,000 for the same procedure in India. Obviously, this cost-saving has attracted many American patients to go to India. It is, thus, not surprising that the McKinsey Consulting group estimated medical tourism will bring about $2.1 billion revenues for India by 2012, especially after it has established world-class expertise in cardiac care, cosmetic surgery, dentistry, and joint replacements.

Quality of Health Care

Quality of health care has been debated that an increasing number of scholars have expressed concern about the potential for failing standards of care. Indeed, the average American does not reliably receive care of high quality. It is because of the low quality in health care that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die needlessly every year due to medical error.

Although John Q puts emphasis more on cost and access as problems, it also shows that quality is a problem in health care. When the Archibalds were told that the hospital needed the big sum of money to do the surgery, John’s thinking of moving Michael to a county hospital for a cheaper cost was quickly discouraged by the hospital administrative supervisor. She ensured him that Hope Memorial is the better place to do the operation than the low quality county hospital, whose surgeons are not as well-trained as those at Hope Memorial.

Another major problem displaying the deficiency of health care quality that John Q shows is a common disrespect towards patients. For example, John was not even told that his employer switched to a different, less costly, carrier.

What the Movie Shows

John Q perfectly shows several major health care problems that each one represents an actual challenge in the sector. Indeed these problems have existed for years that many scholars have advocated for a fundamental reform in health care but continued to face numerous barriers that prevent it from getting implemented.

John Q shows us the complexity of the health care system during a conversation at the emergency room between male nurse Leo Maguire and the rest of the hostages, in which Leo says:

"You see, here's the problem, on the one hand, you've got your insurance companies who basically want you healthy or dead. That's how they make money. On the other hand, you've got your medical establishment, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, who don't want you healthy. They want you sick. That's the way they make money… and the individual is caught in the middle of this gigantic tug-of-war. It's a game. And the end result is, people don't get the treatment they deserve."

John Q also points out how much bureaucracy is involved in health care policy. So much that it impedes the processes. For example, when John asked Dr. Turner to give recommendations to put Michael’s name on the recipient list, the latter only said, “I am only a physician. I don’t make policy decisions…I make recommendations, all the time. Yet, the final decision rests with the board of trustees.” Additionally, John was upset with the bureaucracy in health care when he met his insurance representative and was told to file an appeal, which would take seven working days—a long process, indeed. He even got more irritated when the hospital administrator told him that he should have filed for another procedure instead, called grievance (since an appeal is only for an already existing claim)—which would take thirty business days. These two examples illustrate that health care policy is full with “red-tape” bureaucracy. Procedures must be followed. None would argue against such statement. Yet, in an emergency, often these procedures slow down the processes that they will produce unfavorable results, including low quality, high cost, inequality, access, and even the loss of life.

John Q has become a reminder to the public as well as policy makers of several major problems in health care that need to be reformed.

Einstein: the Father of Relativity?

March 7, 2007
Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Albert Einstein is unquestionably one of the most influential persons and a mathematical genius in the modern era. His huge contribution to science has transformed our understanding about the universe: from the very large to the very small particles. Einstein also radically challenged the then-established concepts of time and space. Who has not heard of E = MC²?

Einstein published eleven papers, six of which were about relativity. Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity at the young age of 26, a discovery that abandoned the concept of time and space as absolute entities. He asserted that there was no absolute motion in the universe, only relative motion, superseding the 200-year-old theory developed by Newton. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is seen as having two separate parts: special relativity in the world of microscopic physics, which was presented in 1905, and general relativity in the world of astrophysics and cosmology, which was not published until 1916.

According to his special theory of relativity, the speed of light was the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the source of the light. He also said that observers moving at constant speed should observe the same physical laws. Having these two together, he said that it could only happen if “time intervals and/or lengths change according to the speed of the system relative to the observer's frame of reference.”

An experiment showed that an atomic clock traveling in a jet plane tick slower than if it were stationary. This experiment lead to the thinking that time travel is not impossible. Provided that one can travel at, or close to, the speed of light, one can travel to the future. For example, say, Bill travels to space at a speed of light, while Ted is on earth doing his regular activities. At the time of Bill’s arrival on earth, Ted is going to be much older than Bill.

Einstein then said that the theory of relativity—the E = MC², showing that matter and energy are interrelated and even equivalent—operates in the absence of gravitational field. Thus, he formulated another theory that took gravity into account. This theory is known as the General Theory of Relativity, which provides “the law of gravitation and its relations to the other forces of nature.”

Basically, this theory suggested that gravity and motion can affect the interval of time and space. The idea was based on the Principle of Equivalence, where gravity pulling in one direction is completely equivalent to an acceleration in the opposite direction. Thus, it said that a uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniform acceleration.

For example, imagine a person in two situations. In the first situation, the person, standing at rest on earth, is feeling the downward gravitational pull. In the second situation, the person is standing inside an elevator in space, and the elevator is moving upward at the rate of 32 ft/sec squared. In both situations, the person would feel the same downward gravitational pull. This contradicts Newton’s view of “gravity as a force acting at a distance”.

However, I think that Einstein’s greatest contribution to our civilization is not in physics, regardless of how huge of an impact that has on us. Not because he proved Newton’s theory wrong. Not that he received many awards—among them the Bernard Medal, Copley Medal of the Royal Society, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a Nobel Prize in physics—that he was considered a great person.

His greatest contribution goes beyond the advancement of electronics and the possibility of space travel. It is about peace. He warned us that, “as long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable” (Einstein, 1945). And for those jihadists who go to war for the sake of religion, Einstein had warned them that, “science without religion is lame [and] religion without science is blind,” (Einstein, 1941). If everyone would think before he acts, would use logic rather than emotions, and no nation on earth would not compete to be the most powerful entity, peace may be upon us. After all, one week before his death, Einstein left a note for all nations to give up nuclear weapons. His purpose, clearly, was no other than international peace. He should be the father of peace.