I wonder if this movie can have international audience.
This guy changed my mind from fully libertarian to something closer to centrist. Rather than demanding that governments need to be small or non-existent, I now prefer to have many many competing local governments where people can just pay for residency to a place they like most.
Many of my ideas are based on what this guy did, his perceived success in governing Jakarta, and his downfall due to religions. His fall is something democracy can't fix. However, it's something competing mini states can.
Basically, 7 years ago, Jokowi and Ahok became governor and vice governor in Indonesia. They did a good job. Jokowi is now the president of Indonesia. People expect the younger Ahok to follow, either as vice president or president in the future.
Indonesia used to be a very corrupt country. Jakarta is no exception. Under Jokowi and Ahok leadership, the budget are cut. Basically they insist on not approving the budget if they see any frivolous budget in the agenda. This leads to much lower budget that they can use. The rest are saved.
Within just 2 years, with those less budget, Jakarta have clean river (finally), roads built and fixed, free schools for children, and healthcare. Yea they're both a bit socialist. However, I can stomach that.
Corruption plunges to almost 0. Ahok uses e-budgeting. An electronic budgeting system that makes sure every budget proposals are traceable. Anyone even promoting any frivolous budget will not be able to do this anonymously like usual. Also there are rules where businesses must not sell to government anything at higher price than the price they charged their most preferred customers.
My estimate, stealing governments' money in Jakarta would be about as difficult, if not more difficult, than stealing governments' money from private companies. I think it's probably even more air tight than US's governments. I am not sure on that one.
In short. To my surprise. Democracy works.
For a while.
I am very surprised that democracy can work in Jakarta. The Jakarta people achieved that without help from Bush's bombers. It just works.
Then Ahok wanted to get reelected. He was never really elected. He became governor because he replaced Jokowi when Jokowi won presidential election. People liked him. But he was a christian in a place where 80% of the voters are muslims.
Religion used to be a small issue. He joked about people using religions for lying.
The case becomes very controversial.
Radical muslims claim that Ahok, a christian, is insulting religions by saying that a quranic verse is used for lying.
Supporters of Ahok, many of which are muslims too, tend to interpret Ahok's sentence to mean corrupt officials are utilizing religions for dishonest goals.
Given huge amount of corruption before, it's very reasonable to think this way.
Ahok was sentenced for 2 years in jail. He could get out early but he chose to fulfill his whole sentences because he suspected that his opponent will just come up with something if he's on probation.
Ahok is still very popular. He still have many followers in Indonesia, a country with muslim majority people.
And that's why people made movie about him.
As a convict, Ahok's political's career will be severely limited. So I do not know his future. He's a successful businessman too. So not much of an issue for him. But many of his followers miss him. Ahok's followers would still vote for anyone Ahok recommends.
What's interesting about Ahok cases is that normal people do not "expect" that what he said will be considered insulting to any religions at all. However, Ahok costed a lot of corrupt officials a lot of money.
I see how wicked politicians can simply use laws against "offending people" to severely limit freedom of speech and protect their corruption business.
So I guess there's something we should learn from this, not just Indonesian. Be very suspicious of anyone that claim they're offended. They just do so as a strategy to silent truth. Hope it's not happening anywhere else.
This guy changed my mind from fully libertarian to something closer to centrist. Rather than demanding that governments need to be small or non-existent, I now prefer to have many many competing local governments where people can just pay for residency to a place they like most.
Many of my ideas are based on what this guy did, his perceived success in governing Jakarta, and his downfall due to religions. His fall is something democracy can't fix. However, it's something competing mini states can.
Basically, 7 years ago, Jokowi and Ahok became governor and vice governor in Indonesia. They did a good job. Jokowi is now the president of Indonesia. People expect the younger Ahok to follow, either as vice president or president in the future.
Indonesia used to be a very corrupt country. Jakarta is no exception. Under Jokowi and Ahok leadership, the budget are cut. Basically they insist on not approving the budget if they see any frivolous budget in the agenda. This leads to much lower budget that they can use. The rest are saved.
Within just 2 years, with those less budget, Jakarta have clean river (finally), roads built and fixed, free schools for children, and healthcare. Yea they're both a bit socialist. However, I can stomach that.
Corruption plunges to almost 0. Ahok uses e-budgeting. An electronic budgeting system that makes sure every budget proposals are traceable. Anyone even promoting any frivolous budget will not be able to do this anonymously like usual. Also there are rules where businesses must not sell to government anything at higher price than the price they charged their most preferred customers.
My estimate, stealing governments' money in Jakarta would be about as difficult, if not more difficult, than stealing governments' money from private companies. I think it's probably even more air tight than US's governments. I am not sure on that one.
In short. To my surprise. Democracy works.
For a while.
I am very surprised that democracy can work in Jakarta. The Jakarta people achieved that without help from Bush's bombers. It just works.
Then Ahok wanted to get reelected. He was never really elected. He became governor because he replaced Jokowi when Jokowi won presidential election. People liked him. But he was a christian in a place where 80% of the voters are muslims.
Religion used to be a small issue. He joked about people using religions for lying.
The case becomes very controversial.
Radical muslims claim that Ahok, a christian, is insulting religions by saying that a quranic verse is used for lying.
Supporters of Ahok, many of which are muslims too, tend to interpret Ahok's sentence to mean corrupt officials are utilizing religions for dishonest goals.
Given huge amount of corruption before, it's very reasonable to think this way.
Ahok was sentenced for 2 years in jail. He could get out early but he chose to fulfill his whole sentences because he suspected that his opponent will just come up with something if he's on probation.
Ahok is still very popular. He still have many followers in Indonesia, a country with muslim majority people.
And that's why people made movie about him.
As a convict, Ahok's political's career will be severely limited. So I do not know his future. He's a successful businessman too. So not much of an issue for him. But many of his followers miss him. Ahok's followers would still vote for anyone Ahok recommends.
What's interesting about Ahok cases is that normal people do not "expect" that what he said will be considered insulting to any religions at all. However, Ahok costed a lot of corrupt officials a lot of money.
I see how wicked politicians can simply use laws against "offending people" to severely limit freedom of speech and protect their corruption business.
So I guess there's something we should learn from this, not just Indonesian. Be very suspicious of anyone that claim they're offended. They just do so as a strategy to silent truth. Hope it's not happening anywhere else.
