'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.