Interview with Mr. Josef A. Nae Soi
By Keny Widjaja and Yahya Cahyadi

---

Mr. Josef Nae Soi is a member of the People’s Representative Council, where he serves in its Commission V, which oversees developments and issues in the fields of transportation, telecommunications, civil works, civil housing, and underdeveloped regional development.

Note: The opinions reflected in this interview are solely the interviewee’s and do not necessarily represent FICA Cross Point’s

---

Keny and Yahya (CP): In your capacity as a member of Commission V of the People’s Representative Council (DPR), what are your current top priorities in your to-do list?

Mr. Josef Nae Soi (JS): My top priority is to address the lack of access for the poor. Lack of access is a structural problem in Indonesia, and is one contributor to the problem of poverty in our country. Therefore as a member of a DPR committee in charge of infrastructure development, I am working on reducing the isolated-ness of areas which causes poverty. One thing I do here are revisions of infrastructure constitutions through the DPR. Another is the allocation of funds and resources throughout Indonesia so that infrastructure growth can be relatively equal from Sabang to Merauke, from Niangas to Rote. My second priority is the revision of the political system and structure of Indonesia. We know that we are going to have a National Election (Pemilu) in 2009, for the legislative and for the President. We need to revise the constitution regarding the workings of political parties, and we need to revise the election system itself in order to get the most compatible system for Indonesia. These are my top two priorities as a DPR committee member.

CP: What are the biggest challenges that you face in your work?

JS: As far as the infrastructure is concerned, budgeting is a challenge. We are not supposed to spend our country’s entire budget solely on infrastructure development. Land reclaiming / buyback is another problem. We know that in Indonesia, land ownership is a very big and sensitive issue. There are investors who are ready to invest on toll-road development projects, just to be discouraged by the messiness and lengthiness of the reclaiming process. Adding on to this problem is the rapid fluctuation in land values. Investors need stability, and this includes price stability. It is impossible for the investors to do any business if the land value is constantly fluctuating. As for the political system, the biggest challenge is that: we are still not able to determine for ourselves whether or not Indonesia is in the state of political transition or of political consolidation. If we are in a consolidating state, that means we should be able to determine what our needs are, and revise our political system accordingly.

CP: As you face the challenges in your work, do you ever find yourself having to make compromises with other groups? In other words, how much bargaining is involved, and with whom do you need to bargain with in your job?

JS: As far as infrastructure development is concerned, we need to realize that both the central government and the local government are involved in the political process. Then we need to consider the real stakeholders in politics: the entire nation, the masses. According to political science, the stakeholders can be divided into three groups: the political masses (those who are directly involved in the political arena, including political parties and groups), the market masses (ed: those directly involved in the economic marketplace), and the volunteer masses (comprised on the voluntary social institutions and the academia). These three different types of stakeholders have different aspirations, and we need to accommodate them as we shape and build our law and regulations system. We need to make sure that everyone’s need is addressed. That’s the biggest challenge that Indonesia faces. The question was (and it was a good one): is bargaining power necessary and needed? The answer is: in politics, bargaining is necessary. On the other hand, this prevents DPR from being hijacked into a mere partisanship tool. I think we no longer have a place for partisanship.

CP: There is a huge number of political parties in Indonesia. Which are the ones with the most votes and followers?

JS: As of 2004, we have introduced an electoral threshold system. Parties which do not make the threshold cut need to merge themselves with bigger parties or each other to make a big enough party before they are allowed to participate in the election. This system allows for a natural and systematical selection, one that is based on the voters’ preference and decision. Parties that are not able to gather enough support need to learn that they need to “let go”. You can’t just try to make some loophole just so that you can participate in the election.

CP: Our first main question is: One of the major phenomena happening in Indonesia at this moment is the process of “democratization”. In general, is “democracy” a good thing for Indonesia?

JS: Any good system should come from the genuine aspiration of the grassroots. In reality, we have a social capital. Our social capital exists in the form of declaration signed by our founding fathers that is Pancasila. This basic capital contains values that we need to develop as we build a platform for cooperation among different groups. These values are what we need to build trust among these different groups. Trust undermines prejudice. Regardless of the system being used, when there is understanding and trust and common values among the different groups of people, we will not see the same problems that we have in the past.

CP: So you believe that Pancasila needs to be used as a common platform among all groups, that the norms that it contains have the potential to build trust, and that democracy will take place because everyone can cooperate with each other.

JS: When we’re talking about democracy, we are talking about how in our diversity we can still interact and inter-relate with each other for the sake of building the nation. In nation building, the government, the social institutions, the academia, everyone needs to see themselves as being part of the nation. We are a diverse nation, consisting of so many races, tribes, religions. We need a cohesive agent that can bring everyone together.

CP: What are the downsides / weaknesses of the democracy system in Indonesia right now?

JS: We have not actually found the one democracy system that is proven to work in Indonesia. During the New Order, we had what we call the Pancasila Democracy. But that itself is ambiguous that no one knows what it means. Historically, we are a paternalistic nation. We used to consist of kingdoms. And although these kings were not elected by their people (but rather had their thrones pass down through royal lineage), they did have some form of a democratic process in their social services system. In the end, we need to realize that the question is not “what system to use”. Even democracy itself is a mere tool. The end goal, our main objective, is the welfare of the people.

CP: What were the failures of Pancasila Democracy?

JS: Back then, Pancasila Democracy only existed in paper. For all practical purposes, it never existed. It was a democracy consisting of 36 articles that had to be memorized by everyone. This time around, we need to make sure that the values of Pancasila manifest themselves in our formal education system. We need to recognize that we are a nation that believes in God. Therefore we need to acknowledge any religion. Secondly we need to recognize the values of human rights. We need to respect each other and abolish the practice of human rights abuse. Thirdly, we as a nation need to be united, from east to west and north to south. This means there should be no more separatist spirit. Fourthly, our decision-making process need to be consensus-driven. And lastly, the general welfare of the people needs to be prioritized. We need to better exploit and manage our natural resources so as to fully utilize their potential for the common good. These are the values contained in Pancasila, and they need to be taught to our children at a very young age. We as adults also need to play a model role for the next generation.

CP: But the reality is, as you have mentioned yourself, we are still searching for the right type of democracy. So the question is, why are we still searching, if it fact Pancasila is such a good platform?

JS: We have been traumatized by the New Order. As a result, everything that has anything to do with the New Order is labeled defective. This is a normal reaction. Now what we need to realize is, it is not the system’s fault that Pancasila failed. Pancasila failed due to human error. We should not dismiss Pancasila and start blindly improvising. But rather, let us work together with what we have. Frankly speaking, I don’t know what kind of democracy will be best for us. I do know that whatever it is, we need to make sure that everyone is given the opportunity to participate in building the nation, and that this system that we already have needs to be further developed. First of all, as we explore and further develop our democracy system, we need to retain the vision of NKRI (United Republic of Indonesia), and use that as our reference point. We can’t have a system that provides freedom at the expense of a divided nation. Secondly, our democracy needs to further strengthen the presidency as defined in UUD ’45. Thirdly, our democracy needs to encourage more participation from everyone in the decision-making process in the society. The democracy needs to make sure that positions in government institutions are filled based on elections.

CP: How optimistic are you that that will turn into a reality?

JS: I’ m a relatively optimistic person. Borrowing from the SWOT framework, I realize that Indonesia has a lot of strengths. We are a populous nation, and we are a nation that recognizes religion. But we should not forget that we also have our weaknesses. Our diversity may prove to be an agent of friction. In the political arena, mature attitude is still hard to come by. A mature politician knows how to concede gracefully when losing in an election. We are not quite there yet, although we are heading on the right direction in that regard. We also face threats from the outside world, as well as from within our own selves. In the midst of all these, I also see opportunities.

CP: Can you give us examples of challenges that are coming from outside?

JS: Globalization is an example. In this day and age, information flows so freely among countries. People listen to what’s happening in other countries and learn about political systems in foreign countries. Then they compare what they learn with what they see in Indonesia, and adopt what they think is good. They learn that other countries have succeeded in creating tolerance without the use of the Pancasila ideology, and will start asking the effectiveness of their own ideology. That is what I meant by challenges from outside. They are challenges that affect the society’s way of thinking. They can be good or bad.

CP: All types of democracy should be able to guarantee the freedom of speech. This means democracy also has the potential to give birth to radical elements. Considering our condition right now, it seems that democracy, directly or indirectly, will have an adverse effect on the very social capital that we are trying to build. What is your thought on this?

JS: First of all, I have mentioned that our nation is still searching for the right shape of democracy. Second of all, it seems that people always think that democracy affords unlimited freedom to speech. Thirdly, as we work to guarantee their freedom of speaking out their aspirations, channels need to be created so people can convey their aspirations in an orderly fashion. But what do we see is happening in Indonesia? We see that oftentimes, the democracy system is misused by people to make their wants, not just their needs, known. Too much freedom will lead to an irresponsible and a destructive form of democracy. I think we can find a few examples of organizations that try to push their agenda in an undemocratic, often violent fashion. We need to understand that there is no room for violence in a democracy. Selfishness does not go along well with democracy. Indonesia needs to understand that democracy is not an unrestricted pass to push our selfish agenda. We need to learn how to exchange ideas and have arguments in a civilized manner.

CP: Compared to the New Order era, it looks like political participation is a lot higher now. But the more people we have participate in politics, the more fragmented the playing field is. New political actors appear that only bring with them their own groups’ agenda (eg: A Chinese descendant will fight for the Chinese minorities’ agenda). We can almost blame the rise in fragmentation on the rise in political participation. What are your thoughts on this?

JS: I agree. Again, we are still looking for a right type of democracy. We are in a transition / consolidation mode. Fragmentation and participation go alongside each other. It is the job of the political elites to suppress fragmentation while at the same time further encourage political participation. The problem at hand is, a lot of us are not mature enough to compete in political arena, and yet still we decide to stay in the arena. Today there are a lot of groups that historically have been a political minority (the Chinese minority as an example) that are entering the arena, only to be treated unfairly and prejudiced against by the elites. I don’t have a solution yet for this, but at least we in the DPR are already thinking about coming up with regulations that will encourage greater participation and discourage fragmentation.

CP: Our second question is regarding the Islamization and its relation with Social Capital and Pancasila.

JS: It is true that we have seen the births of a few parties with a Muslim platform, and that in itself is is perfectly fine. Birds of a feather flock together. People who share the same background, religion, birthplace, vision, naturally group together. Freedom of assembly is a good thing. But once they enter the public sphere, they have to play by the norms that have been set in the public sphere, and in the public sphere, there is no room for compartmentalization. Before you walk in to the public sphere, you need to take off your private identity and put on your public / shared identity. What is often the problem is, people often force their private / group agenda in a public forum.

CP: Which is more popular at the moment: the Pancasila-based norms, or norms based on the Shariah?

JS: I think Pancasila-based norms are still more appealing. A polling done by the LSI in March 2007 concluded that 87% of the population believes in NKRI on Pancasila platform. Only 14% support regional independence. 22% support an Islamic state. The majority still support Pancasila.

CP: So it seems that the desire for an Islamic state is still an isolated sentiment. Yet it still is a credible threat against the social capital.

JS: In general, I respect the freedom for people to observe Shariah. But we can’t pass Shariah into regulation. We can’t allow them to take over the government based on that issue.

CP: Isn’t it true that in some regions, Shariah has been passed into local regulations?

JS: Yes. This is a problem and I strongly disagree with the regulations. The fact that Shariah law was passed into regulation is a sign that the government has started to take control over the society’s private life. The government is supposed to stick with the domain of the public sphere. When the government starts to take over the society’s private life, it’ll be hard for them to stay impartial.

CP: Do you think that the the Shariah-inspired local regulations are a precursor of a wider national trend? Or do you think they are isolated incidents?

JS: I am certain that they are isolated. The more people try to act exclusive, the more isolated they will become. The history of our country tells us that attempts to ride on religious differences have always failed. But we need to constantly be alert for new attempts to disintegrate the unity of our nation. We need to acknowledge and respect the fact that Muslims are a majority in Indonesia. But they have no need to formalize their rights and rules into regulations either. Public sphere needs to be kept as an inclusive environment.

CP: How do you think we can win over those who support the formalization of Shariah into local regulations?

JS: We need to start by respecting their train of thoughts, that every religion has its own absolute truth. Then we need to reason with them, that we already have the Pancasila ideology as a basis for cooperation, and that there is no need for additional instrument. We can convey our point in a lot of ways. We could discuss this with them over coffee, for example. It is the responsibility of DPR to educate the government officials (including DPR members, governors, regents, etc) that the political sphere should not interfere with the private sphere. There is no reason why they need to create into law a custom already observed by the majority in that area. They can simply observe it without making it a law. My point is, if it’s already working as it is, there is no reason why the government should interfere with it.

CP: As you may have known, a lot of the TPM participants are either college students or professionals. How can we participate and contribute towards the future of Indonesia?

JS: Let me first remind all of you that you need to be thankful that you are studying abroad. This is a very great opportunity that you need to savor. Secondly, You also need to study and work as hard as possible, and gain as much knowledge and skills as you can so you propagate and pass on your knowledge and skills to fellow countrymen later. Thirdly, feel free to send us ideas that you think warrant further development in Indonesia. We desperately need fresh ideas from all of you in all sectors of our lives, including in transportation, environment, energy, etc.

CP: What channels can we use to send your our thoughts and ideas (eg: ideas for a new way to regulate laws, etc)?

JS: You can contact me personally, send me a mail or email.

CP: Do you have any last message / remarks for us?

JS: I am grateful to my friends at FICA and TPM that TPM has taken on a topic that is so relevant with the current situation in Indonesia. It’s something that even a lot of Indonesians have forgotten about. But you have reminded everyone that social capital is important and valuable, and that we need to continue thinking and developing our understanding on the issue. Also, I would like to encourage that similar meetings be held regularly so your understanding on the context, issue and nuance is further developed and enriched, and can be passed on to the society according to each person’s competence. Some of you are doing your undergraduates, some your masters and some your PhDs. But our country needs al of you.

Back to top