1. Do you agree with PERADI that Mr. Lubis is corrupt?
2. Could you elaborate precisely what Mr. Lubis did as the news articles I’ve read does not state anything that comes close to what you have have accused him off:
“…PERADI (Advocates’ Association of Indonesia) disbarred Todung in 2008 over conflict of interest – he switched sides – in a very ugly, long corruption case involving large-scale alleged fraud over declared assets in a business sale surrounded also by concern for losses from Indonesian State incentive funds….”
“The question poses the unsubstantiated accusation of ‘arrogance'”. I didn’t ask a question, I made a request. You have responded to my request, for which I thank you. I don’t even know how to ‘pose’ somebody else’s accusation.
You really need to read Indonesian Law. Todung’s been disbarred from practising law before the Indonesian courts.
UU No 18 2003 tentang Advokat
…
BAB X ORGANISASI ADVOKAT
…
Pasal 30
(1) Advokat yang dapat menjalankan pekerjaan profesi Advokat adalah yang diangkat sesuai
dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang ini.
(2) Setiap Advokat yang diangkat berdasarkan Undang-Undang ini wajib menjadi anggota
Organisasi Advokat.
So a major element of corruption would be the ugly situation in which some highly paid lawyers keep practising despite disbarment for serious misconduct like conflict of interest.
Please retract your allegation of “scurrilous”. An apology would be in order too
The question poses the unsubstantiated accusation of “arrogance” on the part of PERADI, while the Kompas article cites also an endorsement of Todung’s wayward actions by a critic of PERADI but, again, all entirely assertions of opinion and unsubstantiated a la “conspiracy theory”.
Would an Australian law institute or bar association, let alone a legal services commissioner, for example, face any serious challenge if a lawyer had merely alleged “arrogance” in a decision to strike off a lawyer? No, absolutely not, but some Australians seem happy to apply such a double standard to Indonesia.
The unabashed arrogance would be Todung’s, and of that minority of Indonesian lawyers – and their foreign backers – who have no shame in supporting a permanently disbarred lawyer continuing to take and manage cases before the courts, in direct contravention of the Law.
Of course, a key aspect of this Todung Mulya Lubis saga is backing by the Australian Government, starting with Downer if not earlier, then continuing on after PERADI disbarred Todung in 2008. If this scandal is left unaddressed, it’s fair to assess a potentially deep corrupting effect on the mentality and culture of an Australian legal profession which joined in the open promotion of Todung during his long-running transgression since disbarred.
2/3 of Myanmar is rural still. The enduring change will come only when their expectations demand such.
The abysmal Standard of living must be mended and sustained first. If you believe that is misguided, you should try it for, let’s say, 1 month/moon (in Bamar).
All the shuttered what used to be NLD rep offices reflect your cynicism.
The British Ambassador in Yangon put the position of the British Government on “recognition” of the Rohingya rather well when he told Mizzima in an interview on 8 May last year: “Generally, in the UK and in Europe, ethnic groups are allowed to call themselves by the name they want to use, whether or not that name has any historic validity. Of course, when we use it, that’s not to say that we’re expecting some sort of special status or a recognition of the Rohingya as an ethnic group. That is for the Burmese parliament to decide.”
In order to enlighten readers like me on this issue, could Mr Davies please comment on the following article published in Kompas on 16 May 2008, in which the Jakarta branch of PERADI’s treatment of Mulya Lubis is described as ‘very arrogant’?
Pemecatan terhadap advokat Todung Mulya Lubis oleh Perhimpunan Advocat Indonesia (Peradi) DKI Jakarta, dinilai sangat arogan. Todung sebaiknya mengabaikannya dan mendorong supaya Peradi dibubarkan dan dibentuk organisasi baru yang lebih mencerminkan suara seluruh advokat Indonesia.
“Tindakan Peradi (memecat) itu tidak dewasa. Selama ini memang Peradi dan organisasi advokat lainnya selalu bertindak arogan terhadap anggota-anggotanya,” tegas pengacara Petrus Selestinus SH, ketika dihubungi Persda Network di Jakarta, Jumat (16/5).
Seperti diberitakan Todung Mulya Lubis SH dipecat sebagai advokat melalui putusan majelis kehormatan daerah Peradi DKI Jakarta, karena dinilai melanggar kode etik advocat, yaitu tentang benturan kepentingan dalam menangani kasus keluarga Salim Group.
Petrus Selestinus yang juga tergabung dalam Tim Pembela Demokrasi Indonesia (TPDI) mengatakan, dalam sejarah pembentukan organisasi pengacara selalu diwarnai keributan, dan orientasinya hanya untuk kekuasaan. Sehingga tidak heran, keberadaan organisasi advokat hanya terdengar dan muncul saat ribut-ribut memperebutkan kekuasaan.
“Sebaliknya kewajiban untuk membela rakyat kecil diabaikan. Bahkan, hak anggotanya sendiri juga tidak diperhatikan para pengurusnya. Termasuk ketika para senior mengkritisi organisasi demi kebaikan bersama juga diabaikan,” ujarnya.
Petrus setuju dengan argumen pengacara senior Adnan Buyung Nasution bahwa proses pembentukan Peradi, sebagai satu wadah advokat se Indonesia, cacat hukum.
“Pembentukan Peradi kok hanya dilakukan segelintir pengurus saja,” ujarnya.
Seharusnya, kata Petrus, organisasi-organisasi advokat itu memfasilitasi sebuah kongres untuk pembentukan satu wadah tunggal advokat, dimana seluruh pengacara membahas AD/ARTnya secara bersama-sama, bukan ditentukan segelintir pengurus saja.
Ditanya apa tindakan Todung terhadap pemecatannya itu, mantan pembela Megawati itu mengatakan Todung sebaiknya mengabaikan pemecatan itu. Saat ini keberadaan Peradi sedang dipersoalkan legitimasinya.
“Sebaiknya Todung mendorong dilakukan kongres advokat se Indonesia dalam rangka pembentukan pengurus Peradi baru yang lebih demokratis. Bubarkan Peradi dan bentuk yang baru dan punya legitimasi kuat,” tandas Petrus Selestinus.
Derek Tonkin was outraged because of my allegedly “preposterous allegation” that “few people have made more effort to deny the claims of ethnicity by the Rohingya than Derek Tonkin”. He even takes that as a “personal attack”. It should be noted that I have never attacked him personally (as others have undoubtedly done), in any case I have attacked his arguments, which is quite different. Now, in his most recent article (whose shenanigans I don’t wish to comment in full here), Tonkin leaves clear his position, recommending:
“Countries which choose to use the designation “Rohingya” on the grounds that this is how the Rohingya community have self-identified themselves and that in any case they need to be given an identification of some kind, should make it clear that this does not mean that they in any sense “recognise” the designation Rohingya as an ethnic identity (as Maung Zarni alleges they all do) or accept the Rohingya narrative, which is little short of preposterous.”
I stand by my words: “Few people have made more effort to deny the claims of ethnicity by the Rohingya than Derek Tonkin.” It would be nice that Mr. Tonkin had the intellectual honesty and courage to stand by his and stopped pretending he doesn’t hold the positions he actually holds.
Matt you really need to understand the difference between being disbarred and being a member of a lawyers association. Lubis has not been disbarred from practicing law before the Indonesian courts. It’s quite scurrilous to make such a claim.
As to corruption in the Indonesian legal system,it’s simply a fact recognised by the lawyers themselves as well as the public.
Perhaps the vilest hypocrisy from the recent intense anti-Indonesian media hysteria has been the automatic “corruption” slur against any Indonesian effort to exert a Rule of Law, when the Australians’ “Legal Team” was headed by Todung Mulya Lubis, an (ex-)lawyer disbarred since 2008.
Why did they have to hire a disbarred lawyer? Surely they realized that such a move would only jeopardize the Chan-Sukumaran case for clemency? It would be very strange if this was just a result of failure in diplomacy.
PERADI (Advocates’ Association of Indonesia) disbarred Todung in 2008 over conflict of interest – he switched sides – in a very ugly, long corruption case involving large-scale alleged fraud over declared assets in a business sale surrounded also by concern for losses from Indonesian State incentive funds.
Why did the Australian Government back disbarred lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis? How much has he cost the Australian taxpayer so far? Would they also back disbarred Australian lawyers? Why do they seem not to respect Indonesian efforts to regulate their own legal profession as Australian lawyers and judiciary do their own, but then insist on denouncing Indonesia’s justice system as “corrupt”, regardless?
Australia’s A-G Dept apparently paid for the pair’s Indonesian Legal Team headed by disbarred lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis.
Why did any of you expect the team’s efforts to be taken seriously by the Indonesian judiciary?
Would you expect the same disregard for Rule of Law in Australia?
Jumped or pushed you might call it a blessing in disguise when no mishap has befallen you and you manage to broaden your horizons, gain new skills or continuing education and life experiences outside your own national borders, not to mention earning a decent wage compared with what you can get back home. The lot of an immigrant on foreign soil notwithstanding institutional overt or covert discrimination. The Burmese are latecomers on the diaspora scene as needs must even for a race so attached to their land of birth.
From servicing a metropolitan economy to giving a hand back home and finding a niche for yourself may not match your expectations, little better than returning govt scholars abroad have found it since the bad old days of undisguised military dictatorship. Many did return in the hope of eventually and meaningfully serving one’s country of birth. Unless they happen to be the wheeling dealing type or entrepreneurial Burmese Chinese they are likely to face disappointment and frustration as before. Even the latter may not like being tarred with the same brush as the new laobans from Yunnan. Shop floor and semi-skilled workers are a different kettle of fish altogether, in direct competition with stay-at-homers and landless farmers looking for work in the SEZs.
It’s a brave new world alright but, unfortunately for the majority of ordinary working families, completely skewed in favour of capitalist globalisation with the promise of trickle down and jam tomorrow. The welcome home is not all it’s cracked up to be unless you can regard new problems as more desirable than the old ones.
Hi Franz,
Most Thais now,save for some “Slimm” who seem to unable to accept the truth and who seem to lack the analytical skills, know what has been happened in Thailand during the last 60 plus years. Presently, they are watching. Thailand is like a hot pot where the lid could blow open at any times.
This article is some of the shallowest ‘indepth’ analysis Marthinus has yet to publish amongst so much of his codswallop.
What are “full-bred Indonesianists”? And if such an animal ever existed, there is a reason for them not to be in existence anymore. Society does not need, nor does it want any more apologists to excuse backward ’traditional’ cultures.
Why is it that Australia has to understand and act in a respectful manner to a society known for its feudal hierarchy and totally corrupt governance, legal and police systems?
It is mentioned that 8 out of 10 ASEAN members have the death penalty as though that makes it OK; I have taught my children not to use that pathetic and fallacial mode of debate. Just because everybody does it does not make it right. It makes the author part of the problem. In a modern and progressive society the death penalty no longer has a place. Yes, it is barbaric; (I must admit it, even though I do feel that some crimes still appear to warrant the punishment). It certainly has been proven without doubt by scholastic research to have no effect on crime.
The fact that Indonesia pays “blood money” only encourages a despicable tradition of holding hostages ransom; primitive local cultural practices should never be valued.
Again, Indonesia ‘needs to raise the question of whether it has the sufficient intellectual and cultural competence to understand, communicate and engage with the sensibilities and preferences’ of the universally accepted philosophy of human rights and modern ethics, instead of whining about ‘Asian. Culture having a different dimension. That is an irresponsible cop-out to excuse bad behavior.
BTW, just how many Indonesian politicians are provided with intelligent and logical context-rich and timely advice? (Rhetorical!)
I do like this part: “Proving that someone is wrong does not necessarily mean that they have been persuaded to your point of view…”.
It is also rather amusing that the author does not see the irony in: “Half-bred Indonesian generalists – those who have studied democratic politics, human rights, Western political thoughts, European diplomacy, American security and other forms of the liberal craft…”.
It is time for Marthinus to put away his kulit puppets and other toys, and protect his keratons in the museums of the past where they belong.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
Hi Matt,
1. Do you agree with PERADI that Mr. Lubis is corrupt?
2. Could you elaborate precisely what Mr. Lubis did as the news articles I’ve read does not state anything that comes close to what you have have accused him off:
“…PERADI (Advocates’ Association of Indonesia) disbarred Todung in 2008 over conflict of interest – he switched sides – in a very ugly, long corruption case involving large-scale alleged fraud over declared assets in a business sale surrounded also by concern for losses from Indonesian State incentive funds….”
Thanks
Greg
PS: Some articles on the subject that I read
http://www.ibanet.org/Human_Rights_Institute/About_the_HRI/HRI_Activities/HRI_Media/HRI_Interventions/Indonesia_revocation_advocate_practice.aspx
http://www.seapa.org/?p=3550
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/world/asia/24hotman.html?_r=0
http://www.asiasentinel.com/politics/indonesia-loses-a-human-rights-voice/
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
“The question poses the unsubstantiated accusation of ‘arrogance'”. I didn’t ask a question, I made a request. You have responded to my request, for which I thank you. I don’t even know how to ‘pose’ somebody else’s accusation.
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
You really need to read Indonesian Law. Todung’s been disbarred from practising law before the Indonesian courts.
UU No 18 2003 tentang Advokat
…
BAB X ORGANISASI ADVOKAT
…
Pasal 30
(1) Advokat yang dapat menjalankan pekerjaan profesi Advokat adalah yang diangkat sesuai
dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang ini.
(2) Setiap Advokat yang diangkat berdasarkan Undang-Undang ini wajib menjadi anggota
Organisasi Advokat.
So a major element of corruption would be the ugly situation in which some highly paid lawyers keep practising despite disbarment for serious misconduct like conflict of interest.
Please retract your allegation of “scurrilous”. An apology would be in order too
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
The question poses the unsubstantiated accusation of “arrogance” on the part of PERADI, while the Kompas article cites also an endorsement of Todung’s wayward actions by a critic of PERADI but, again, all entirely assertions of opinion and unsubstantiated a la “conspiracy theory”.
Would an Australian law institute or bar association, let alone a legal services commissioner, for example, face any serious challenge if a lawyer had merely alleged “arrogance” in a decision to strike off a lawyer? No, absolutely not, but some Australians seem happy to apply such a double standard to Indonesia.
The unabashed arrogance would be Todung’s, and of that minority of Indonesian lawyers – and their foreign backers – who have no shame in supporting a permanently disbarred lawyer continuing to take and manage cases before the courts, in direct contravention of the Law.
Of course, a key aspect of this Todung Mulya Lubis saga is backing by the Australian Government, starting with Downer if not earlier, then continuing on after PERADI disbarred Todung in 2008. If this scandal is left unaddressed, it’s fair to assess a potentially deep corrupting effect on the mentality and culture of an Australian legal profession which joined in the open promotion of Todung during his long-running transgression since disbarred.
Myanmar’s workers of the world
Ko Moe Aung
2/3 of Myanmar is rural still. The enduring change will come only when their expectations demand such.
The abysmal Standard of living must be mended and sustained first. If you believe that is misguided, you should try it for, let’s say, 1 month/moon (in Bamar).
All the shuttered what used to be NLD rep offices reflect your cynicism.
If not You the privileged than who?
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
The British Ambassador in Yangon put the position of the British Government on “recognition” of the Rohingya rather well when he told Mizzima in an interview on 8 May last year: “Generally, in the UK and in Europe, ethnic groups are allowed to call themselves by the name they want to use, whether or not that name has any historic validity. Of course, when we use it, that’s not to say that we’re expecting some sort of special status or a recognition of the Rohingya as an ethnic group. That is for the Burmese parliament to decide.”
Myanmar’s workers of the world
Rose tinted glasses blithely missing the reigning rogue elephant in the room.
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
In order to enlighten readers like me on this issue, could Mr Davies please comment on the following article published in Kompas on 16 May 2008, in which the Jakarta branch of PERADI’s treatment of Mulya Lubis is described as ‘very arrogant’?
Pemecatan terhadap advokat Todung Mulya Lubis oleh Perhimpunan Advocat Indonesia (Peradi) DKI Jakarta, dinilai sangat arogan. Todung sebaiknya mengabaikannya dan mendorong supaya Peradi dibubarkan dan dibentuk organisasi baru yang lebih mencerminkan suara seluruh advokat Indonesia.
“Tindakan Peradi (memecat) itu tidak dewasa. Selama ini memang Peradi dan organisasi advokat lainnya selalu bertindak arogan terhadap anggota-anggotanya,” tegas pengacara Petrus Selestinus SH, ketika dihubungi Persda Network di Jakarta, Jumat (16/5).
Seperti diberitakan Todung Mulya Lubis SH dipecat sebagai advokat melalui putusan majelis kehormatan daerah Peradi DKI Jakarta, karena dinilai melanggar kode etik advocat, yaitu tentang benturan kepentingan dalam menangani kasus keluarga Salim Group.
Petrus Selestinus yang juga tergabung dalam Tim Pembela Demokrasi Indonesia (TPDI) mengatakan, dalam sejarah pembentukan organisasi pengacara selalu diwarnai keributan, dan orientasinya hanya untuk kekuasaan. Sehingga tidak heran, keberadaan organisasi advokat hanya terdengar dan muncul saat ribut-ribut memperebutkan kekuasaan.
“Sebaliknya kewajiban untuk membela rakyat kecil diabaikan. Bahkan, hak anggotanya sendiri juga tidak diperhatikan para pengurusnya. Termasuk ketika para senior mengkritisi organisasi demi kebaikan bersama juga diabaikan,” ujarnya.
Petrus setuju dengan argumen pengacara senior Adnan Buyung Nasution bahwa proses pembentukan Peradi, sebagai satu wadah advokat se Indonesia, cacat hukum.
“Pembentukan Peradi kok hanya dilakukan segelintir pengurus saja,” ujarnya.
Seharusnya, kata Petrus, organisasi-organisasi advokat itu memfasilitasi sebuah kongres untuk pembentukan satu wadah tunggal advokat, dimana seluruh pengacara membahas AD/ARTnya secara bersama-sama, bukan ditentukan segelintir pengurus saja.
Ditanya apa tindakan Todung terhadap pemecatannya itu, mantan pembela Megawati itu mengatakan Todung sebaiknya mengabaikan pemecatan itu. Saat ini keberadaan Peradi sedang dipersoalkan legitimasinya.
“Sebaiknya Todung mendorong dilakukan kongres advokat se Indonesia dalam rangka pembentukan pengurus Peradi baru yang lebih demokratis. Bubarkan Peradi dan bentuk yang baru dan punya legitimasi kuat,” tandas Petrus Selestinus.
Rohingya and national identities in Burma
Derek Tonkin was outraged because of my allegedly “preposterous allegation” that “few people have made more effort to deny the claims of ethnicity by the Rohingya than Derek Tonkin”. He even takes that as a “personal attack”. It should be noted that I have never attacked him personally (as others have undoubtedly done), in any case I have attacked his arguments, which is quite different. Now, in his most recent article (whose shenanigans I don’t wish to comment in full here), Tonkin leaves clear his position, recommending:
“Countries which choose to use the designation “Rohingya” on the grounds that this is how the Rohingya community have self-identified themselves and that in any case they need to be given an identification of some kind, should make it clear that this does not mean that they in any sense “recognise” the designation Rohingya as an ethnic identity (as Maung Zarni alleges they all do) or accept the Rohingya narrative, which is little short of preposterous.”
http://www.networkmyanmar.org/images/stories/PDF19/Shenanigans-in-Oslo.pdf
I stand by my words: “Few people have made more effort to deny the claims of ethnicity by the Rohingya than Derek Tonkin.” It would be nice that Mr. Tonkin had the intellectual honesty and courage to stand by his and stopped pretending he doesn’t hold the positions he actually holds.
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
Matt you really need to understand the difference between being disbarred and being a member of a lawyers association. Lubis has not been disbarred from practicing law before the Indonesian courts. It’s quite scurrilous to make such a claim.
As to corruption in the Indonesian legal system,it’s simply a fact recognised by the lawyers themselves as well as the public.
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
Perhaps the vilest hypocrisy from the recent intense anti-Indonesian media hysteria has been the automatic “corruption” slur against any Indonesian effort to exert a Rule of Law, when the Australians’ “Legal Team” was headed by Todung Mulya Lubis, an (ex-)lawyer disbarred since 2008.
“Mr Lubis is understood to be paid out of a special Commonwealth fund from the Attorney-General’s Department in Canberra” (a 19 March 2015 News Corp source: http://www.news.com.au/national/bali-nine-executions-andrew-chan-and-myuran-sukumaran-in-legal-action-to-prevent-execution/story-fncynjr2-1227268538740).
Why did they have to hire a disbarred lawyer? Surely they realized that such a move would only jeopardize the Chan-Sukumaran case for clemency? It would be very strange if this was just a result of failure in diplomacy.
PERADI (Advocates’ Association of Indonesia) disbarred Todung in 2008 over conflict of interest – he switched sides – in a very ugly, long corruption case involving large-scale alleged fraud over declared assets in a business sale surrounded also by concern for losses from Indonesian State incentive funds.
Why did the Australian Government back disbarred lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis? How much has he cost the Australian taxpayer so far? Would they also back disbarred Australian lawyers? Why do they seem not to respect Indonesian efforts to regulate their own legal profession as Australian lawyers and judiciary do their own, but then insist on denouncing Indonesia’s justice system as “corrupt”, regardless?
The power of redemption
Australia’s A-G Dept apparently paid for the pair’s Indonesian Legal Team headed by disbarred lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis.
Why did any of you expect the team’s efforts to be taken seriously by the Indonesian judiciary?
Would you expect the same disregard for Rule of Law in Australia?
Myanmar’s workers of the world
The brain/brawn drain of Myanmar started right after the Ne Win take over. Spiking with every economic and political/social down turns.
This has clearly being reversed for the 1st time since ’62.
The good new is all the brain abroad including Ko Moe Aung and very loosely myself are thriving.
The potential to contribute uniquely is limitless.
Bemoaning all the elements of inequity and inequities. If each of us expat contribute instead of just consuming WILL make the difference.
An exercise of how one can contribute uniquely:
1) What is /are the factors that cause one to have concern/anguish?
2) ID the root cause that one can will be able to contribute w/o all the statics that will hold one back?
3) Make contact or reestablish contact to begin the very important on the ground 1st step.
Everything else will come together surprisingly and miraculously towards your goals.
Remind oneself of this opportunity that was not readily available just a few months back when the endeavor get tortuous.
Thank you Nich for risking being label a crony instead of a pragmatic view.
Change you can depend on
Thank you Nich.
A growing pain that will be overcome.
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
If you think the Aussie drug smugglers can turn Indonesia into a Mexico, where drug cartel rules, you are sadly mistaken…
Please do your drug smuggling elsewhere…
Strengthened sedition
More importantly, we some organization to protect the HUMAN species in Malaysia – namely the Chinese and Indian population.
Woe and misery to DR. My-hater!
Pol-la-muang: The making of superior Thais
The subjects are just following the examples set for them by their betters….imitation is the most sincere form of flattery don’t you know:)
Myanmar’s workers of the world
Jumped or pushed you might call it a blessing in disguise when no mishap has befallen you and you manage to broaden your horizons, gain new skills or continuing education and life experiences outside your own national borders, not to mention earning a decent wage compared with what you can get back home. The lot of an immigrant on foreign soil notwithstanding institutional overt or covert discrimination. The Burmese are latecomers on the diaspora scene as needs must even for a race so attached to their land of birth.
From servicing a metropolitan economy to giving a hand back home and finding a niche for yourself may not match your expectations, little better than returning govt scholars abroad have found it since the bad old days of undisguised military dictatorship. Many did return in the hope of eventually and meaningfully serving one’s country of birth. Unless they happen to be the wheeling dealing type or entrepreneurial Burmese Chinese they are likely to face disappointment and frustration as before. Even the latter may not like being tarred with the same brush as the new laobans from Yunnan. Shop floor and semi-skilled workers are a different kettle of fish altogether, in direct competition with stay-at-homers and landless farmers looking for work in the SEZs.
It’s a brave new world alright but, unfortunately for the majority of ordinary working families, completely skewed in favour of capitalist globalisation with the promise of trickle down and jam tomorrow. The welcome home is not all it’s cracked up to be unless you can regard new problems as more desirable than the old ones.
Pol-la-muang: The making of superior Thais
Hi Franz,
Most Thais now,save for some “Slimm” who seem to unable to accept the truth and who seem to lack the analytical skills, know what has been happened in Thailand during the last 60 plus years. Presently, they are watching. Thailand is like a hot pot where the lid could blow open at any times.
Australia-Indonesia: the view from Jakarta
This article is some of the shallowest ‘indepth’ analysis Marthinus has yet to publish amongst so much of his codswallop.
What are “full-bred Indonesianists”? And if such an animal ever existed, there is a reason for them not to be in existence anymore. Society does not need, nor does it want any more apologists to excuse backward ’traditional’ cultures.
Why is it that Australia has to understand and act in a respectful manner to a society known for its feudal hierarchy and totally corrupt governance, legal and police systems?
It is mentioned that 8 out of 10 ASEAN members have the death penalty as though that makes it OK; I have taught my children not to use that pathetic and fallacial mode of debate. Just because everybody does it does not make it right. It makes the author part of the problem. In a modern and progressive society the death penalty no longer has a place. Yes, it is barbaric; (I must admit it, even though I do feel that some crimes still appear to warrant the punishment). It certainly has been proven without doubt by scholastic research to have no effect on crime.
The fact that Indonesia pays “blood money” only encourages a despicable tradition of holding hostages ransom; primitive local cultural practices should never be valued.
Again, Indonesia ‘needs to raise the question of whether it has the sufficient intellectual and cultural competence to understand, communicate and engage with the sensibilities and preferences’ of the universally accepted philosophy of human rights and modern ethics, instead of whining about ‘Asian. Culture having a different dimension. That is an irresponsible cop-out to excuse bad behavior.
BTW, just how many Indonesian politicians are provided with intelligent and logical context-rich and timely advice? (Rhetorical!)
I do like this part: “Proving that someone is wrong does not necessarily mean that they have been persuaded to your point of view…”.
It is also rather amusing that the author does not see the irony in: “Half-bred Indonesian generalists – those who have studied democratic politics, human rights, Western political thoughts, European diplomacy, American security and other forms of the liberal craft…”.
It is time for Marthinus to put away his kulit puppets and other toys, and protect his keratons in the museums of the past where they belong.