Comments

Harusnya KPU tdk meloloskan Prabowo maju nyapres.jelas prabowo pernah terlibat langsung atau tdk dlm penculikan beberapa aktivis dimasa lalu.walaupun atas perintah atasan atau tdk,ia eksekutor dilapangan.
Ini baru pertama kali didunia ada capres yg terlibat penculikan aktivis baik secara langsung atau tidak dimasa lalu bisa maju nyapres.

n my opinion, the author is a man accustomed to living in phobian. Moreover, the author is Australian, who wanted leaders of Indonesia is the country dictated that easy. Fears Australia against Prabowo quite reasonable, so that if Prabowo president of Indonesia, the region’s Influence Pasipic Australia would disappear, because his leadership style is quite hard and firm (like leadership Ir. Sukarno)

Mr Beale, Dr Somkit is a marketing specialist, not really cut out to manage Thailand’s macro-economy. Mr Pridiyathon, another NCPO advisor, is a better bet. And so is his fellow advisor Dr Narongchai, though the latter’s business dealings in the boom years leading to 1997 must raise doubts. The fact that military and military-backed governments presided over Thailand’s rapid growth in previous decades is, however, a bit of a red herring. The Thai technocracy was subject to little political interference during those decades, and it is not clear whether the same will be true now. Further, the Thai economy was far less complex and far less exposed to international capital flows then. So the parallel that you draw may not be terribly convincing. Of course, the months ahead may well prove you correct.

I hardly think Timor Leste was better off under the illegal occupation of Indonesia and the ensuing killing of thousands of East Timorese by the Indonesian Army. Your example is poor. Pakistan is not a particularly successful Islamic nation, but India accepted partition into two nations: One that was predominately (but not exclusively) Hindu and secular, and one for Indian Muslims, that was supposed to be secular (according to Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s wishes) and ended up, Islamic, according to Zia ul-Haq’s actions. Timor Leste and Pakistan are hardly, cheap political pretexts, which is absurd. Name me one nation, where the elite is not in control (outside the Western world, or at least outside Scandanavia). Elite bureaucracies and corruption hardly require partition of former colonial nations. Indonesia is a perfect example, as is Malaysia, and 150 other nations around the World. To pick on Timor Leste, which has suffered enough in its effort to become a self-sufficient independent nation, is hardly fair. One can debate the merits of the 1963 Malaysia agreement that led to Singapore, Sabah (North Borneo) and Sarawak joining Malaysia, and contemporary arguments can be made on both the pro-unification and pro-secession sides, but Sabah and Sarawak seceding from Malaysia, would not be a cheap political pretext, but a very serious historical change, one I do not happen to support (and I acknowledge all the innumerable problems in Sabah and Sarawak, many not of their own making).

If a recent poll is to be believed, General Prayuth and the threatening-sounding NCPO (The National Council for Peace and Order) had been given a definite thumbs-up, with an approval rating of 8.82 out of 10.

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/416756/people-give-thumbs-up-to-ncpo-prayuth

So far so good eh? But people would usually respond favorably after a month of calm and the General making quick results on such matters as disbursements of billions owed the rice farmers (under the subsidy plan) et al.

But I am NOT impressed. I still General Prayuth in his intimidating uniform everyday. I’ll feel less threatened if General Prayuth would start wearing business suits instead. That to me would be real big sincere step by the General to restore Thailand to ‘normalcy’.

I really enjoy reading your insightful article. You presented very interesting points. Few things I’d like to add.

First, it is too exaggerated to say that “Indonesia’s foreign policy revival” was largely initiated by SBY. SBY in fact did not build Indonesia’s foreign policy profile from a low base. For instance, it was Gus Dur who actively expanded Indonesia’s bilateral ties (in about 2 years of his presidency, around 80 times Gus Dur went on to visit foreign countries), promoted compatibility between Islam and democracy and sought alternative bilateral loans (in order to reduce its reliance to IMF). During Megawati’s presidency, Indonesia initiated Bali Concord II which was a fundamental agreement for the establishment of 2015 ASEAN Community and ASEAN charter. Indonesia, historically and strategically, always perceives itself as a strategic player in world politics. Except the brief period during the Asian Financial Crisis (1998-1999), Indonesia is always enthusiast to assert large role internationally, despite its significant domestic constraints. Its foreign policy is more about story of continuity, rather than change, at least since the post-Suharto era. The role of bureaucracy in foreign policy is influential, thus whoever leader will just follow existing patterns and mechanisms.

Secondly, don’t worry about either Jokowi’s bad English or Prabowo’s nationalist rhetoric. Foreign policy experience is highly relative. SBY’s English is relatively good when he delivered speech, but he often had some difficulties to handle QA sessions in several international occasions (http://www.beritasatu.com/amerika/74706-di-new-york-sby-bingung-ditanya-dalam-bahasa-inggris.html). Many world leaders also cannot speak English well and don’t have so much interest on foreign policy, but it does not necessarily mean that they are inward-looking and selfish. There are always competent bureaucrats, diplomats, scholars and interpreters who can help the leaders. For Prabowo, there will be a tendency to tone down his rhetoric once he is in power. It’s true that he will have to deal with some serious criticism because of his past record, but he always can analogize his circumstances to Narendra Modi’s.

What I have found amusing in local media these days is labelling General Sondthi’s handling the aftermath of the 2007 coup as being “too soft”. The media doesn’t seem to recognized that it took only a week for General Sondthi to enact a temporary constitution and appointed a prime minister while a month after this current coup, no such acheivement has yet to be made. Prayuth might claim that having the constitution and a head of the government within the first month is not a part of his so-called roadmap, but he has not been able to deliver any major policy decision and left most issues unanswered, including his own schedule retirement.

Although I oppose the 2007 as well as the current coup, I do appreciate how articulate General Sondthi was in laying out a structure that benefited the military a great deal. In the period between the 2007 and the current coup, the military had virtually unlimited influence on every elected government. They could ask for any budget without fear of being audited. They could call for a goverment to leave office on national television. They could even master-mind switching political factions in a barrack. However, the current junta failed to appreciated this very system which had only one condition, “not committing the military to another coup”, and is now in limbo on what to do (and who can really be used).

Membaca artikel ini hanya menyajikan satu sisi untuk memojokkan Prabowo, terlihat tujuannya hanya untuk mengalahkan Prabowo. Tidak ada unsur keseimbangan berita dari artikel ini. Judul terlalu berat dibandingkan isi artikel. Penulis apakah lupa bahwa Megawati pernah menjadikan Prabowo wakilnya dan berjanji menjadikan Prabowo presiden di 2014 melalui perjanjian batu tulis. Penulis berani tidak mengulas bahwa Jokowi maju sebagai Gubernur pun karena dukungan Prabowo?Bagaimana dengan Ahok dan Ridwan Kamil apakah produk non demokratisnya Prabowo?Penulis berani mengutip ucapan Prabowo bahwa siapapun yang menang beliau akan menghormatinya?Demokratiskah ucapan ini atau tidak?Prabowo akan mengakui lawan debatnya jika memang bagus. Tidak demokratiskah itu?

Begitchuu

Dewi tolong buktikan bahwa Prabowo pada 1997-1998 dekat dengan Amien Rais. Klo dekat kenapa ketika itu Amien Rais dengan berapi2 minta Prabowo di bawa ke pengadilan militer dalam kasus pelanggaran HAM. Tapi kalo sekarang dekat ya gak udah dibahas.