'What have we achieved on reform?'

'What have we achieved on reform?'

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Reform was supposed to mean a welcome goodbye to all that was
wrong with this country.

With students as its foot soldiers, and swept in on the high
hopes of a public that was beaten down and left morally bruised
by the unbending dictates of the New Order regime, the call for
reform promised a new, better Indonesia.

It would be a place where people would be free to speak their
minds, the great divide between the haves and have-nots would be
broken down and there would be an end to the Soeharto-era
scourges of corruption, an almost untouchable military, as well
as the patronizing stance that the bigwigs in Jakarta knew best
for the "backward" denizens of the provinces.

Today, four years on, it's time to ask: Has the reform agenda
delivered?

Corruption is so commonplace that it's the norm, not the
exception. Military officers and unscrupulous officials play a
waiting game when they are called to account for their past
misdeeds and the government of Megawati Soekarnoputri is giving
every indication it is disinclined to push the reform objectives
through, even displaying a Soeharto-esque high-handed prickliness
to the most constructive of criticism.

We asked politicians, security officials and members of the
public what they think has been accomplished -- and what still
must be done.

Amiludin, 24, a high school graduate who works as a street
hawker:

Reform, in my opinion, is useless. The movement sparked by the
student activists four years ago came to nothing as it was
nothing more than rhetorical rubbish.

I should say, frankly, that the government never reaches down
to the grassroots level. They can speak about us but never speak
for us, the poor and downtrodden.

One thing for sure is that they only think of how to beat
their political competitors in a bid to hang on to power.

In the reform era, the ordinary people's lives are getting
tougher. For instance, the Jakarta administration is evicting the
street vendors. But what for? Do the authorities give them better
jobs afterward? Not at all, just grief and misery.

Well, I felt it was better when Soeharto's New Order ruled the
country despite his corrupt government. It was relatively easier
to earn a simple living. It was also a little safer as the whole
nation was under control due to his repressive approach.

I don't care about how long a government serves. The most
crucial thing is the government's action, instead of its
rhetorical statements!

If you asked me to rate the situation, I think I'd give it a
big, round zero. That's fair, I think.

Muslim Muzakir, a fruit trader in Kramat Jati wholesale market
in East Jakarta:

Economically, I've gotten nothing from the reform process as I
have not seen any significant economic recovery since the process
started four years ago.

But there is something positive which I feel as a trader. The
Kramat Jati traders, including myself, for example, can complain
to the City Council if we have problems with the city
administration or market management. This was unlikely to happen
during the Soeharto era.

About the current political situation, I think that many
people are still confused about the situation as it is a
transitional era. It is normal if there are people who are
impatient in facing the situation.

But I think the process should continue. I hope that the
leaders begin to realize that it is time to think about the fate
of the people who have suffered due to this reform process. An
extreme movement like a revolution is not necessary as it would
only cause people more misery.

Azas Tigor Nainggolan, chairman of the Jakarta Residents'
Forum (FAKTA):

I suggest a cultural revolution as a way of coping with the
failure of the current reform process. A physical revolution
would cost the public too much. People would suffer more.

The failure of the reform movement was caused by many people
from the New Order of the dictator Soeharto and new people who
only took advantage to further their own interests.

People should be aware of the existence of liars in the
legislatures and governments.

Samudra Sukardi, businessman, a director of Abacus, a
subsidiary of Garuda which handles online reservations, and
brother of State Minister of State Enterprises Laksamana Sukardi:

Reform is a change from the status quo to the dream situation
that we expected. This change should be managed. Just like
(people) moving into a new house, the government mustn't get
distracted by the euphoria.

They have to arrange all the "furniture", which ones should be
put into the house first, whether it's the bed, the chairs or
something. They should think not only about the future condition
but also the present situation.

For me, reform is definitely beneficial. People can express
their opinion more freely, no limits, and no fear. They are even
more freely expressing their opinions in media like newspapers.

The government should pay attention not only to economic
growth, but it is more important to examine the distribution of
welfare. The increase or decrease of economic growth is just a
number, only the national product. The government should focus on
people's buying power.

Wahyu Susilo, humanist and coordinator of the Consortium for
Migrant Workers Advocacy (Kopbumi):

We have yet to form a consolidated democracy. We are still in
transition and the word (reform) remains jargon for now.

I only enjoyed the spacious elbow room given during B.J.
Habibie and Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid's administrations for
activists and non-governmental organizations to work and the
"relative" press freedom. But nothing else.

I feel that Habibie and Gus Dur's time gave the people high
hopes for a better democracy. But the current Megawati
Soekarnoputri administration is leading us back to the past
regime. The military has been given the chance to consolidate and
anti-civilian movements have reemerged.

As an example, Megawati, with her Indonesian Democratic Party
for Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), has backed a motion against the
amendment of the 1945 Constitution, although the public believe
the amendment is one of the instruments we need during this
transition era to achieve a better democracy.

What differs now, from the condition four years ago, is that
the state today acknowledges the people's civil and political
rights.

The sad thing is that people have failed to translate what
democracy is. They take it as the chance to be different from
others. Take, as an example, the comments from legislators on
Megawati's plan to attend East Timor's independence day.
Everybody says irrational things, as long as they are different
to others. They forget that being logical is part of democracy.

I also see that the old forces still exist and that the
political parties, although there is no longer a limit on their
number, are still dominated by old-fashioned ways of thinking on
religion, orthodox nationalism or (founding president) Sukarno-
ism. There has yet to be a party with an inspiring vision.

What makes us stagnant is that the state has failed to redeem
the people's faith in justice and humanity, let alone social and
economic welfare for all.

There is a way: transitional justice, which is currently
voiced by the students. The transitional process in South Africa
was relatively smooth, where the state succeeded in expunging the
people's hatred against the past racist regime, while not erasing
the history. That way, people learn not to repeat past mistakes
in the future.

Indonesian people are still in the phase of releasing their
anger and hatred against the past regime, but the state has
offered a mechanism, such as a commission for truth and
reconciliation, to calm their restlessness.

If the state still ignores the momentum we created four years
ago, then I support the students' call to get rid of the one
generation of leadership and let the idealists, who have yet to
be touched by the old regime, take the lead.

Comr. Agus Irianto, subprecinct chief in Tebet, Jakarta:

The most notable part of reform for police officers nationwide
in Indonesia has been that we are now identified independently as
police officers, and not part of the Indonesian Armed Forces
(ABRI) or part of the Indonesian Military (TNI).

The military is there to fight wars, but the job of the police
is to fight crime. Before, the hands of the police were tied
when, for instance, crimes involved military officers. Now, our
hands are a bit freer, to some extent at least.

Due to reform and separation from the military, every move the
police makes is scrutinized by the public.

This is sometimes bad, since people can be extremely
judgmental on how we do our work.

They sometimes cannot understand how extremely strenuous and
tough our jobs are, under what kind of public and media pressure
we work, particularly considering our low wages. People brand us
corrupt and inefficient, but they cannot imagine what working for
36 hours at a stretch without sleep can be like.

It's only when big police arrests are made that they hail us
for a day and then forget about it.

In Japan, they have this public safety commission, which
bridges the communication gap between police officers and the
general public.

Members of the commission are neither bureaucrats nor
politicians, just ordinary people. They get to meet the police
chief once a week and tell him all the problems and complaints
people have toward the police. The police chief notes this down
and tries to make amends. They should at least start something
like that, even on a small scale, in Indonesia.

Lt. Gen. Agus Widjojo, deputy speaker of the Indonesian
Military (TNI)/National Police faction in the People's
Consultative Assembly (MPR):

As a soldier, I must be ready to carry out all the state's
policies, which includes the repositioning of the TNI's roles and
functions, during this transition period. We must understand that
all changes are efforts to place the military as part of the
country's national system.

Even though, as a soldier, I realize that I'm not in the
capacity to determine whether the current situation is better or
worse than the past four years, I think it will be more
comfortable for us should the people of this country believe and
trust in us as their guardian.

The people's trust and belief are necessary for us to carry
out our duties because we, as soldiers, never want to hurt them
intentionally.

I do understand that this transition period is difficult for
all of us, as we must fight to be a more democratic and modern
country so that we can stand equally with other countries in the
world. Of course, during this time, we cannot avoid changes that
reflect on the past situation to reach our goal.

During the last four years, TNI has also faced strong
opposition and condemnation from the public. But all these things
have not affected our efforts to be the country's instrument of
defense, as we believe that all TNI's tasks, both in the past and
in the future, are always part of the government system.

No matter how difficult this situation is for us, I guess it
should not be the reason for this country to return to the New
Order's centralized system. Once we have committed ourselves to
be a more democratic and modern country, we must carry out all
efforts to maintain it. Therefore, I ask all Indonesians to join
hands and work together as one nation.

Anas Urbaningrum, former chairman of the Islamic Students
Association, member of the General Elections Commission (KPU):

To put it simply, in its fourth year the reform movement has
yet to find a definite direction. The ideal goals expected by
student movements to replace the (New Order) regime have not yet
materialized. There have only been a few changes of personnel.
There is only a shift in political configuration, but the
attitude of the old regime remains.

I think there are changes in some aspects, but they are not
very clear. The system is changing, but the "taste" remains the
same. I don't know exactly, if four years are too short for our
expectations. Or, perhaps, the reform movement itself is too
slow.

Possibly, the situation is caused by: First, the system
building is still in process. What happens today is very
important to create a new playing field. A new regime needs a new
playing field that is well organized. The process has not
finished.

Second, I think the reform movement requires a transformation
in attitude and mentality. But, unfortunately, this
transformation has not yet taken place. There is a shift in the
political configuration, but the way of thinking, the paradigm,
or mentality, won't change overnight.

Third, this nation has failed to take a definite stance about
the last regime. What the government perceives of Soeharto's last
days is not clear. If it is not clear, I think it consumes the
nation's energy for debate. It definitely halts the reform
movement.

Arie Wibowo, former secretary-general of the Student Executive
Body (BEM) at the University of Indonesia, a student organization
that fought in the reform movement; he is currently working at a
private company selling industrial equipment:

The only positive thing we achieved from the reform movement
was freedom of expression. Otherwise, I don't see change for the
better in other aspects of life. The price of goods and services
have soared, while the people's income remains steady, which
leads to the reduction of people's purchasing power. Corruption
remains rampant, aggravated by weak enforcement of the law.

Politicians must be held responsible for the sluggish pace of
reform. They merely pursue their own interests, disregarding
wider national interests, as is clearly shown by members of the
People's Consultative Assembly in their efforts to amend the
Constitution.

However, despite the fact the fate of the reform movement
remains uncertain, it is not wise to look back to the New Order
era, even though it provided a more stable and prosperous
society.

The stable and prosperous society under the New Order regime
was deceptive, as it was achieved at the expense of human rights.

Like it or not, we should push forward to sail through this
movement to arrive at a stable and prosperous society in the
future. This is a transitional period; whether we go through this
or not depends on us.

Tumbu Saraswati, lawyer, PDI Perjuangan legislator: I think
the call for reform in 1998 has been adopted in the amendment to
the Constitution.

For example, the amendment has limited the presidential term
to two periods. This limitation has prevented a lifelong
presidency.

There are many things that have been changed through
constitutional reform. I think constitutional reform would be the
starting point for the entire reform process.

Unfortunately, reform has yet to touch law enforcement in this
country. Law enforcement remains a vicious circle. But we have to
start now. We have already had good regulations. The proposed
establishment of a judicial commission tasked to supervise the
legal system is expected to boost law enforcement here.

Frans Seda, former minister of finance, PDI Perjuangan
adviser:

We have to evaluate the reform movement, which has lasted for
four years. We need to assess if the reform movement has brought
a positive outcome.

I think the reform movement has not been successful enough.
This is not the first time we, as a nation, have launched a
reform movement. The first reform movement was when we struggled
for independence. The second one was when founding president
Sukarno introduced 'Guided Democracy'.

The third reform movement was when former president Soeharto
brought in the New Order government, and now we are in the fourth
period of reform.

In the first three reform movements, the nation could unite on
a clear platform. But, in the present reform movement, the nation
is being led into internal friction.

During the struggle for independence, the nation was united to
expel the aggressor and establish a country. Sukarno appeared and
brought a national front with clear concepts. Soeharto also
appeared with a clear platform of development with the support of
all elements.

Now what? This is the weakness of the current reform movement.
There is no support. There is no clear platform, only national
friction.

In my life, I have never experienced national friction like it
is now. We have be introspective and look within ourselves. We
have to unite and form a clear platform. Unfortunately, the
reform movement has now gone in another direction.

Erna Ratnaningsih, a lawyer with the Jakarta Legal Aid
Institute (LBH):

The reform movement has yet to touch the legal institutions in
the country. Corrupt judges, lawyers and police are all still
there, just like four years ago.

I agree that a revolution could be an option for improving the
legal situation, as the government is not serious in upholding
and restoring the law.

Frans Hendra Winata, lawyer, member of the National Law
Commission:

I don't think the reform movement has brought significant
improvement to the country, particularly in law enforcement. It
is only a case of the government paying lip service.

Some things are even getting worse compared to the Soeharto
era. At the moment, we are all hearing reports about widespread
bribery among law enforcers. Actually, this is nothing new. But
today, they do it more openly and the amount of cash involved is
much bigger, amounting to billions of rupiah.

However, I have to admit there has been an improvement in
transparency and press freedom, which supports law enforcement as
a major element of the reform movement.

It will take time to bring about reform. Maybe it will take a
generation. However, we all must realize that we must lay a firm
foundation during the first five years so as to put the movement
on the right track.

Turiman, a teacher from state elementary school SD Pejagalan
07 in North Jakarta:

In my personal opinion, reform has been all about lip service
and far from the public's expectations. Many officials talk about
reformasi but in reality they are still resistant to criticism
and unwilling to be open-minded.

The country's economy is getting worse as our foreign debts
continue to increase, reaching a level which will be hard to
shoulder in the future. Meanwhile, in politics, the legislators
are only good for bickering and feathering their own nests,
forgetting all about the plight of the public.

The main problem lies with law enforcement. The law must be
enforced so that corrupt officials are dealt with strictly. No
more bribery.