and now a nice bit of "opinion" to follow...,

After Six Decades of Independence, Broken Bridges and Broken Promises...


Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | December 01, 2011


Last weekend’s collapse of a bridge in East Kalimantan raised a lot of eyebrows. People immediately compared the quality of the 10-year-old bridge with Dutch-built infrastructure here that remains standing after decades. There are discussions of how much effort it took to demolish a single Dutch dam, in contrast to many Indonesian-made dams that only lasted for a few years before rupturing in floods.

All these discussions show how much different is the development mind-set of the Dutch compared with Indonesians.

While it is true that Dutch interests in Indonesia were mainly exploitative, to cart off Indonesia’s riches back to the Netherlands, the Dutch also realized that they could not exploit Indonesia effectively without building a strong infrastructure. Without strong dams, bridges, railroads and roads, highly efficient and profitable plantations would not have been possible. As a result, by the time the Dutch recognized Indonesian independence in 1949, they had left Indonesia with a legacy of infrastructure that would provide a strong foundation for Indonesian economic growth.

The professionalism of the Dutch administration in running Indonesia was emulated by Indonesia’s founding fathers. Understanding that the Dutch had viewed Indonesians as lazy, unprofessional and clueless in managing the country, the founding fathers set out to prove otherwise.

In the Volksraad , an advisory body established by the colonial government in the 1910s, people like Haji Agus Salim and Jahja Datoek Kajo showed their wits in advocating Indonesian interests. Both also contributed heavily in making Bahasa Indonesia the official language of the Volksraad. Even though the Volksraad was seen as a rubber-stamp body, the fact that both elders managed to persuade the Dutch-dominated body showed how professional and skillful they were.

During the economic hardship of the war for independence, our founding fathers also won respect from the Americans and even their Dutch adversaries thanks to their skill in managing the ragtag republic. The late George Kahin, a leading American expert on Indonesia, once recalled that when he met Mohammad Natsir in 1948, the latter was shabbily dressed. Even then, however, Kahin was highly impressed with Natsir’s skills and ability as a communication minister.

The post-independence era provided the opportunities for great minds like Mohammad Hatta and Sjafruddin Prawiranegara to shine and to create a better society. But unfortunately, independence also brought out the worst in society: people whose goals were simply power and money. It brought to power many who were and are just as venal as the Dutch in exploiting the country, with the difference being that they are not very efficient at it.

The statistics on civil servants provide a useful snapshot for the crassness of their rapacity. By early 1952 the number of civil servants in Indonesia was 571,243, compared with 144,974 in the Dutch East Indies in 1930, leading to Sjafruddin’s lamentation that government service had become a charitable institution.

The struggle between people who wished to build Indonesia into a modern society and people who demanded political power and economic wealth has continued to the present day. Even today the government seems incapable of providing an infrastructure to support the population, too distracted as it is with maintaining an outmoded feudalism whose intention is to protect dynastic wealth and privilege at the expense of social progress.

This attitude has no place in the 21st century, just as the former colonialism no longer has a place in Indonesia or in any accountable, transparent, liberal society run by professionals who recognize that the foundation of any society lies in the equality of all men and women and their right to share in the common wealth of a prosperous and just economy.

Yet today, if we pause and reflect, we can acknowledge, for all the time-conditioned faults and the unacceptable mentality of a bygone era, under the Dutch we did get roads that did what roads were meant to do. We also got thousands of well-managed plantations, the Bosscha Observatory, dams, impressive and tasteful public buildings and palaces, an efficient and clean railroad system, canals that worked, a disciplined army, an education system worthy of the name and a legal system administered in courts free of corruption. Under the Dutch we also had a fair proportion of politicians who knew what they were talking about, even if they were talking about the wrong things by today’s standards. Still, not bad.

While clearly the centuries of Dutch occupation and colonial administration, with all the concomitant injustices, were not a form of therapy for the Indonesian people, it is fair to ask: What exactly did we learn from that experience?

Building bridges that stay up is obviously not one of them. And that is indicative of other things we failed to make better than the Dutch. Perhaps deep down some Indonesians are no better than our past colonial masters. Perhaps they haven’t really learned anything. If that is the case, our overlords are now our own brothers and sisters. And that is a far worse, more humiliating occupation.

Perhaps it’s time to ask the Dutch back. At least then we knew where we were, even if we were in the wrong place. Most of us are still at the bottom of the pile. Some of us are even at the bottom of the river. But the government tells us we never had it so good and would have us believe how lucky we are to have them. Is that so?



Yohanes Sulaiman is a lecturer at the Indonesian National Defense University (Unhan). Phillip Turnbull is a theology teacher based in Jakarta.



(with thanks to the JG)

Nice indeed, I like this article, Om Kesas. Some rather subtle criticism in here.

Kesasar schreef:

Yohanes Sulaiman ( siapakah dia ?)schreef:

1. under the Dutch we did get roads that did what roads were meant to do.

2. We also got thousands of well-managed plantations, the Bosscha Observatory, dams, impressive and tasteful public buildings and palaces, an efficient and clean railroad system, canals that worked, a disciplined army, an education system worthy of the name and a legal system administered in courts free of corruption. Under the Dutch we also had a fair proportion of politicians who knew what they were talking about, even if they were talking about the wrong things by today’s standards. Still, not bad.



Perhaps it’s time to ask the Dutch back.
(with thanks to the JG)

Wah, itu orang goblok .

De Nederlanders bouwen industries , havens, bruggen , leggen wegen etc voor hun zelf , niet voor den Inlanders .
Moet je de cijfers v.d statistieken zien van 1930 (soms tot 1940) .
Hoeveel verdienen den Inlanders , hoeveel verdienen de nederlanders.
De scholing , nog niet eens 3% van de 60-70 miljoen inwoners, waarvan ongeveer 0,7%(nog niet eens 1%) werden toegelaten bij de Nederlandse scholen ( HIS,MULO,AMS, HBS en verder).

Ik heb vermoeden dat die Menir Yohanes Sulaiman nog die oude Inlandse mentaliteit heeft , opzien tegen zijn oude Meesters .

Ha bro.Sid! De ene meester beter dan de andere dan? van beide kanten zijn deze meesters superb gaarders van poen als 't te halen is, zelfs de "lagere" orang Belanda of Indische mensen deelde niet mee in de winst! groetjes, Om K.

Om Sid, ik denk helemaal niet dat Dr. Sulaiman tegen de Nederlandse koloniale meesters opkijkt, daarvoor zit er teveel venijn en sarcasme in zijn commentaar:

Kesasar schreef:

(...) it is true that Dutch interests in Indonesia were mainly exploitative, to cart off Indonesia’s riches back to the Netherlands, the Dutch also realized that they could not exploit Indonesia effectively without building a strong infrastructure.

(...)

It brought to power many who were and are just as venal as the Dutch in exploiting the country, with the difference being that they are not very efficient at it.

En de belangrijkste zin uit het stuk:

Citaat :

While clearly the centuries of Dutch occupation and colonial administration, with all the concomitant injustices, were not a form of therapy for the Indonesian people, it is fair to ask: What exactly did we learn from that experience?

Hij erkent dat de Nederlanders de infrastructuur voornamelijk voor hun eigen gewin gebruikten, en dat de Indonesische bevolking werd uitgebuit. Hij houdt de mensen (lezers en politici) juist een spiegel voor: "Hoeveel beter dan de Nederlanders doet de heersende klasse van Indonesië het nu anno 2011?"

Anti-Indo schreef:

Om Sid, ik denk helemaal niet dat Dr. Sulaiman tegen de Nederlandse koloniale meesters opkijkt, daarvoor zit er teveel venijn en sarcasme in zijn commentaar:


Hij erkent dat de Nederlanders de infrastructuur voornamelijk voor hun eigen gewin gebruikten, en dat de Indonesische bevolking werd uitgebuit. Hij houdt de mensen (lezers en politici) juist een spiegel voor: "Hoeveel beter dan de Nederlanders doet de heersende klasse van Indonesië het nu anno 2011?"

Ik heb veel opmerkelijke "uitspraken" van sommigen / oudere generatie Indonesiers gehoord en gelezen.
Ze hadden het over "zaman normal" , toen alles nog normaal was in hun beleving.
Redelijke veiligheid en "welvaart" voor iedereen , de koelie en de tani ( even chargeren) hadden nog geen eisen , met 1 benggol per dag zijn ze al tevreden.
De meeste Inlanders kunnen of mogen niet naar school , en zeker als het een Nederlandse opleiding/school betreft.Ik las ergens(site van Pelita) dat ze eerst 75 gulden moet verdienen om je (inlandse) kind naar een H.I.S mag sturen.
Terwijl ze in feite ingedeeld waren tot 3de rangs inwoners van hun eigen land.


Nu zijn ze merdeka , dat ze nog steeds niet geemancipeerd zijn zoals de gemiddelde West Europeaan is te wijten aan hun zelf.
Mijn stelling is dat ze na ongeveer 50 jr ( periode 1945 tot ongeveer 1970) het beter hebben dan de vorige generatie , qua opleiding, welvaart , sociale mobiliteit en ze kennen sinds de verkiezing van SBY al een paar jaren democratie.
In theorie en praktijk kunnen ze een corrupte regering / president naar huis sturen .
Dat hadden ze ook gedaan toen ze SBY als nwe president hadden gekozen.
In die oude "zaman normaal", kan het niet gebeuren , de volksraad is een nep instituut.
De Inlanders hadden geen stemrecht .

Vergelijk de statistieken uit die periode (1930-1941) en van nu .

Dat er nog corruptie(KKN) is jammer maar hoort erbij .Voorlopig ,moeilijk uit te roeien.
Dat zie je ook ook gebeuren in het begin jaren toen Europa aan het ontwikkelen waren .

Kesasar schreef:

After Six Decades of Independence, Broken Bridges and Broken Promises...

Broken promises ?
Welke dan ?
De belangrijkste zijn dat Indonesia Merdeka en een eenheidsstaat is gebleven .
Voor hoelang is afhankelijk van de Indonesiers zelf.

Wil je welvaart , Gemah Ripah Loh Jinawi ??
Daar moet je er voor werken.
Op zijn minst moet je een stok ( cassave) in de vruchtbare grond in steken en water geven.


Yohanes Sulaiman & Phillip Turnbull | December 01, 2011


Last weekend’s collapse of a bridge in East Kalimantan raised a lot of eyebrows. People immediately compared the quality of the 10-year-old bridge with Dutch-built infrastructure here that remains standing after decades. There are discussions of how much effort it took to demolish a single Dutch dam, in contrast to many Indonesian-made dams that only lasted for a few years before rupturing in floods.
Dat is wel waar .
Jatiluhur Dam werd door de Fransen gebouwd .


All these discussions show how much different is the development mind-set of the Dutch compared with Indonesians.
Zulke vergelijkingen kan je niet maken.
Nederland heeft eeuwen voorsprong.


While it is true that Dutch interests in Indonesia were mainly exploitative, to cart off Indonesia’s riches back to the Netherlands, the Dutch also realized that they could not exploit Indonesia effectively without building a strong infrastructure. Without strong dams, bridges, railroads and roads, highly efficient and profitable plantations would not have been possible. As a result, by the time the Dutch recognized Indonesian independence in 1949, they had left Indonesia with a legacy of infrastructure that would provide a strong foundation for Indonesian economic growth.
Profitable plantations ? , Ja voor de Dutch.
De Inlanders verdienen een paar benggol.
Is ook bestemd voor export( cultuurstelsel) .Is ook monocultuur .
Toen de Indonesiers het mogen overnemen , waren het min of meer verwaarloosd . Als gevolg van 4 jaren lang oorlog .


The professionalism of the Dutch administration in running Indonesia was emulated by Indonesia’s founding fathers. Understanding that the Dutch had viewed Indonesians as lazy, unprofessional and clueless in managing the country, the founding fathers set out to prove otherwise.
Het was hun geluk , zie de oprichting van Budi Utomo , Sarikat Islam etc .
Binnen 1 generatie hebben ze meer opgeleide Indonesiers dan de opgeleide Nederlanders .


In the Volksraad , an advisory body established by the colonial government in the 1910s, people like Haji Agus Salim and Jahja Datoek Kajo showed their wits in advocating Indonesian interests. Both also contributed heavily in making Bahasa Indonesia the official language of the Volksraad. Even though the Volksraad was seen as a rubber-stamp body, the fact that both elders managed to persuade the Dutch-dominated body showed how professional and skillful they were.
Hoe professioneel en goed opgeleid ze waren, waren ze toch Inlanders of Nederlandse Onderdaan .
Hebben ze grote mond, kunnen ze in gestuurd werden naar de buiten gewesten, zelfs naar Nederland als te gevaarlijk zijn .

During the economic hardship of the war for independence, our founding fathers also won respect from the Americans and even their Dutch adversaries thanks to their skill in managing the ragtag republic. The late George Kahin, a leading American expert on Indonesia, once recalled that when he met Mohammad Natsir in 1948, the latter was shabbily dressed. Even then, however, Kahin was highly impressed with Natsir’s skills and ability as a communication minister.

The post-independence era provided the opportunities for great minds like Mohammad Hatta and Sjafruddin Prawiranegara to shine and to create a better society. But unfortunately, independence also brought out the worst in society: people whose goals were simply power and money. It brought to power many who were and are just as venal as the Dutch in exploiting the country, with the difference being that they are not very efficient at it.
Dat is ook zo, gedeeltelijk waar.
Per saldo hebben de Indonesiers toch goed gedaan(zie statistieken en internationale rapporten)


The statistics on civil servants provide a useful snapshot for the crassness of their rapacity. By early 1952 the number of civil servants in Indonesia was 571,243, compared with 144,974 in the Dutch East Indies in 1930, leading to Sjafruddin’s lamentation that government service had become a charitable institution.
Ik weet niet hoe het in andere landen(Europa) geregeld is .
Aantal ambtenaren en aantal bevolking in combinatie met de uitgestrektheid van Indonesia .



The struggle between people who wished to build Indonesia into a modern society and people who demanded political power and economic wealth has continued to the present day. Even today the government seems incapable of providing an infrastructure to support the population, too distracted as it is with maintaining an outmoded feudalism whose intention is to protect dynastic wealth and privilege at the expense of social progress.
Feodalisme ?
Er zijn verschillende soorten feodalisme, vested interest etc

This attitude has no place in the 21st century, just as the former colonialism no longer has a place in Indonesia or in any accountable, transparent, liberal society run by professionals who recognize that the foundation of any society lies in the equality of all men and women and their right to share in the common wealth of a prosperous and just economy.
Voorlopig nog toekomstmuziek.
In ieder geval is er nog steeds veranderingen gekomen.


Yet today, if we pause and reflect, we can acknowledge, for all the time-conditioned faults and the unacceptable mentality of a bygone era, under the Dutch we did get roads that did what roads were meant to do. We also got thousands of well-managed plantations, the Bosscha Observatory, dams, impressive and tasteful public buildings and palaces, an efficient and clean railroad system, canals that worked, a disciplined army, an education system worthy of the name and a legal system administered in courts free of corruption. Under the Dutch we also had a fair proportion of politicians who knew what they were talking about, even if they were talking about the wrong things by today’s standards. Still, not bad.
Lijkt wel verheerlijking van de aanwezigheidheid van de Nederlanders in Indonesia.
Alsof de Indonesiers ook mee konden genieten van al die zegeningen . Alsof de "oudere broer"gelijk is aan de "broer" .


While clearly the centuries of Dutch occupation and colonial administration, with all the concomitant injustices, were not a form of therapy for the Indonesian people, it is fair to ask: What exactly did we learn from that experience?
Hebben we(Indonesiers) dan moeten leren van de Nederlanders ?


Building bridges that stay up is obviously not one of them. And that is indicative of other things we failed to make better than the Dutch. Perhaps deep down some Indonesians are no better than our past colonial masters. Perhaps they haven’t really learned anything. If that is the case, our overlords are now our own brothers and sisters. And that is a far worse, more humiliating occupation.
En daarkan jij en andere kritische Indonesiers er iets gaan doen


Perhaps it’s time to ask the Dutch back. At least then we knew where we were, even if we were in the wrong place. Most of us are still at the bottom of the pile. Some of us are even at the bottom of the river. But the government tells us we never had it so good and would have us believe how lucky we are to have them. Is that so?
Weet niet of het een reorische vraag is , maar gezien zijn betoog heb ik vraag tekens.
Hoezo perhaps ?
Moeten we adviezen vragen aan de oude meesters?
Ben je of zijn we niet genoeg opgeleid om het zelfs uit te zoeken en daarna zelf je eigen keuze nemen ?



Yohanes Sulaiman is a lecturer at the Indonesian National Defense University (Unhan). Phillip Turnbull is a theology teacher based in Jakarta.
(with thanks to the JG)

Er zijn verschillende mogelijkheden , de artikel was bedoeld om de Indonesiers wakker te maken.
Of cynisch bedoeld.
Of nostalgia voor de tempo doeloe die waarschijnlijk van horen zeggen is.
Voorbeeld: veel Indonesiers zijn teleurgesteld over SBY, de tot 2x democratisch gekozen president.
Hij is te slap , in vergelijking met Soeharto.
Sommigen dromen over de Soeharto tijd.

Ik weet niet wie zijn doelgroep is .