Indonesia’s presidential candidate Prabowo Subianto, right, holds a microphone beside his opponent Joko Widodo during a televised debate in Jakarta on June 15, 2014. Indonesia’s two presidential candidates traded nationalist rhetoric on Sunday in a debate ahead of July’s election, with front-runner Widodo suggesting he would make Southeast Asia’s biggest economy more protectionist. (Reuters Photo/Beawiharta)
Jakarta. Indonesians got a better understanding of the nation’s two leading candidates for the presidency in Sunday night’s debate on the economy and social welfare, but that may not be enough to sway swing voters to either candidate, some analysts say.
Prabowo Subianto and Joko Widodo stepped onto the stage without their respective running mates Hatta Rajasa and Jusuf Kalla, both of whom are knowledgeable about the economy.
While many considered Joko and Prabowo to be better prepared compared to their first debate last week, some perceived the lack of substance in the discussions for failing to give a clear description on where the country would head following the election. In the early part of the debate, Joko seemed to stumble in finding a firm footing, while Prabowo went on the attack.
In a nation of 250 million people, 186 million Indonesians will go to the polls on July 9 to elect a new president to replace Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, whose second five-year term ends in October. According to a June 1 survey by the Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI), nearly 42 percent of registered voters remain undecided.
The newly elected president will have to contend with slowing growth amid a wide current-account deficit, a weakened currency, and energy subsidies that continue to take up a good chunk of the state budget. Analysts also wonder whether recent policy initiatives, including the Jan. 12 implementation of a ban on raw mineral ore exports, will be reversed in order to maintain state revenue.
At the same time, the stock market is close to all-time highs, and foreign investment continues to move at a record pace.
Dr. Jacqui Baker, a visiting fellow at the department of political and social change at ANU College of Asia and the Pacific in Canberra, said the debate was remarkable for some topics that weren’t discussed.
Baker said dealing with Indonesia’s tax system, among the lowest rates in Southeast Asia, to get more revenue was not addressed, and neither were fuel subsidies nor the effect that the ban on mineral exports has had on revenue.
While revitalizing agriculture was a “populist playing card,” the long-term trend for it was further government subsidies, which in turn, would mean reduced contribution to state revenue, Baker said.
“Discussion of agriculture, without a parallel discussion of manufacturing, shows the lack of economic vision by both candidates and their susceptibility to economic populism,” she said
Prabowo maintained his stance that Indonesia should prioritize farming to reduce the unemployment rate and to empower people. His plan includes converting two million hectares of land into new rice fields and an additional two million hectares for crops in developing bioethanol.
“It will cause a double failure. It will reduce the forest coverage and at the same time increase the risk of natural disasters,” Mukri Friatna, who is the disasters mitigation manager of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi), told Tempo.co.
Mukri said the best way to revitalize the farming sector was by returning the original function of the land. He said much land in Indonesia has been transformed into housing complexes.
“If you want to have more rice fields, why not return the land to their original function?” he was quoted as saying by Tempo.co.
Baker said Joko’s economic manifesto was more economically literate and more moderate than Prabowo’s. It also stopped short of the former army general’s “deeply worrying economic nationalism.”
However, she said the debate ended in a tie, which was not good news for the Joko-Kalla ticket. “Joko needs to put himself head and shoulders above Prabowo in these presidential debates to maintain his lead and he failed to do this.”
Substance vs delivery
Yuventius Nicky Nurman, a political analyst from Yosef Ardi Corporation — which provides services on analysis of current affairs — said it was difficult to determine the winner of the debate because of the unclear benchmark.
While Joko had a better understanding on the economy and social welfare issues on the micro level, he had a problem in conveying his points to make them easily understood by the public, Nicky said.
“Joko’s target on the economy proved Prabowo’s incompetence, but the problem is, do people who watched the debate understand this?” he said. “If the benchmark is the volume and tone of the voice, people who don’t really understand the substance could easily conclude Prabowo was the winner of the debate.”
Nicky said Joko’s explanation on infrastructure and the economy made up by the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations showed that he actually had a better understanding on the subject compared to his opponent.
“Prabowo kept talking about leaks in the state budget without really explaining how he would stop them. He didn’t answer the questions, and instead he was talking rhetoric,” he said.
Despite Joko understanding the subject matter better, his poor delivery might hamper his efforts to win votes, Nicky said.
One of the biggest blunders for Joko, Nicky said, when he was talking about protectionism by creating barriers for other countries seeking to enter Indonesia’s market. Joko said that “our domestic market should not be dominated by foreigners.”
He also said that while he supported the open investment climate and the Asean Free Trade Area (AFTA), he believed barriers were needed to ensure that Indonesians should be the first to tap into the potential market.
“When he later explained it, we could understand that he was actually talking about the principal of reciprocity. If other countries want easy access to Indonesia they should make it easy for us to do business in their countries as well,” Nicky said. “It’s actually quite sensible and not too controversial, but again, it was conveyed poorly so the message might not have reached the audience.”
Nicky said Prabowo did not have a better understanding on the issue but managed to convince people with his confidence, while Joko needed to work on his public speaking skills.
“He meant well, but he [Joko] still needs a lot to learn because he’s still a bad communicator,” he said.
Still, some observers say Prabowo had the upper hand in the debate.
Prabowo’s solution for revitalizing the farming sector was much more suitable for Indonesia, said Wiko Saputro, an economy analyst from the Welfare Initiatives for Better Societies. Wiko said 58 percent of the Indonesian poor worked in the agriculture sector, and it was correct for Prabowo to say that the farming sector could and should employ more people.
Sandiaga Uno, a businessman who is also Prabowo’s campaign spokesman, said Prabowo had offered details on his vision for Indonesia’s economic development.
“He was very firm and clear in giving the description for the future and very detailed. Prabowo even mentioned how many kilometers of roads will be built and how to develop infrastructure like railways,” Sandiaga said.
Gaining the upper hand
Liam Gammon, an editor of the Southeast Asia academic journal the New Mandala, said Prabowo won the debate, but not by much.
“Prabowo definitely articulated a more convincing economic vision, in terms of its ability to win votes. His ideas might not make sense, but his focus on redistributing wealth and attacks on free trade and so-called ‘neoliberalism’ resonate with voters,” Gammon said.
Joko had an opportunity to link his own experiences as a businessman to an economic agenda, but didn’t seem to pull it off effectively, said Gammon, who is also a PhD candidate at the department of political and social change at Australian National University.
Another foreign political analyst, Dr. Dave McRae, a senior research fellow at the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne, said he did not think investors would have been encouraged by the economic nationalism on show last night.
“Prabowo in particular played the economic nationalist card, and although Joko refused to call for renegotiation of contracts, he did express confidence there would be appropriate barriers to entry for foreign players in the context of the Asean Economic Community,” he said.
McRae said he thought the debate ended in a stalemate and because both candidates spoke past each other a lot of the time, their respective visions went largely unscrutinized.
Timboel Siregar from the All Indonesia Labor Organization said Prabowo lost the debate as soon as he stumbled in answering Joko’s question on regional inflation.
Joko asked Prabowo for his take on the Regional Inflation Management Team (TPID). Prabowo admitted to not knowing what the TPID stood for. After Joko explained, Prabowo promptly said regional inflation was something Joko should ask district heads about instead of him.
“It is very dangerous that a presidential candidate doesn’t understand about inflation. This is the beginning of the destruction of people’s purchasing ability should Prabowo be elected,” Timboel said.
Next Sunday’s debate — the third of five — pits both men against each other again, this time on the issues of domestic politics and national defense.
By Dessy Sagita & Harry Pearl on 04:18 pm Jun 16, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment