Tag: Asia

  • Gaza Ceasefire, Humanity and the Future of Palestinian State

    Gaza Ceasefire, Humanity and the Future of Palestinian State

    The long-awaited Gaza ceasefire, announced in early October 2025, represents a fragile but historic moment in the century-long struggle for Palestinian freedom. After nearly two years of relentless bombardment, the guns are finally silenced, at least for now, we hope. For the people of Gaza, who have endured unimaginable suffering, this truce is more than a political arrangement. A space breath of life after the darkest chapter in their history. The ceasefire, though temporary and uncertain, signals a rare glimpse of hope that diplomacy may yet prevail over devastation.

    The toll of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has been catastrophic. According to international humanitarian organizations. Reuters mentions from the Palestinian Ministry of Health that more than 67,000 Palestinians have lost their lives since October 2023, and over half of them are women and children. Entire neighborhoods were flattened, hospitals and universities turned to rubble, and the International Rescue Committee cited more than 1.9 million people were displaced within a besieged strip of land barely 40 kilometers long. The cost of reconstruction, as cited by Al Jazeera estimated to exceed $53 billion, a figure that cannot begin to measure the trauma inflicted on generations. Many observers and legal experts have rightfully described the campaign as a genocide, pointing to deliberate targeting of civilians, starvation tactics, and destruction of vital infrastructure that sustained life.

    For Palestinians, this ceasefire is not a victory in the military sense, but it is a moral triumph against annihilation. The fact that Gaza still stands, despite the might of one of the world’s most advanced armies, is a testament to the resilience and resistance of its people. Yet, as the dust settles, there remains a haunting silence, a reminder of lives buried under ruins, dreams extinguished, and futures lost. Every ceasefire in the past has come with uncertainty, but this one feels different because it is accompanied by global acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to exist and self-determination.

    International diplomacy has played a pivotal role in this breakthrough. The United Nations, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, the IOCs, and the United States all helped mediate the delicate agreement between Israel and Hamas. The UN Secretary-General welcomed the ceasefire as “a path toward Palestinian statehood and a permanent peace framework.” For the first time in years, major powers converged on the idea that peace cannot be sustained without justice and the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state. Even nations once hesitant, like France, Spain, and Italy, have now declared their recognition of the State of Palestine, setting a powerful diplomatic precedent.

    Behind the scenes, tireless negotiators and humanitarian workers bridged divides that seemed unbridgeable. Their efforts deserve recognition: from the humanitarian volunteers risking their lives to deliver aid, to civil society groups rallying across the world to demand accountability. The moral force of global solidarity, as seen in mass demonstrations, student movements, and the voices of conscience on every continent, pushed global leaders to act. In many ways, this ceasefire belongs not just to leaders but to ordinary people who refused to look away.

    However, as every student of history knows, colonial powers rarely keep their promises. The record of broken truces, delayed reconstruction, and unfulfilled statehood pledges looms large. Israel continues to occupy large parts of the West Bank and has yet to define a timeline for full withdrawal from Gaza. The newly proposed “technocratic administration” for Gaza is a stopgap, and questions persist about sovereignty, demilitarization, and who will govern the reconstruction process. The road to a permanent peace remains clouded with suspicion and mistrust.

    Despite these doubts, the value of a permanent ceasefire cannot be overstated. Every day that guns remain silent means lives are saved, children can attend school, and hospitals can reopen. Peace, even fragile peace, is a condition for humanity to heal and rebuild. It is not a concession, it is a moral necessity. For Palestinians, whose entire modern history has been written in blood and exile, peace is both a right and a responsibility.

    The recognition of the State of Palestine by more nations marks a moral and diplomatic turning point. It signifies that the world is beginning to see beyond narratives of terrorism and security, toward a deeper understanding of occupation, resistance, and human dignity. Statehood is not merely a political status; it is a shield for a people long denied their identity and protection under international law. The new UN New York Declaration of 2025 has reinforced this principle, calling for the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel and a permanent cessation of hostilities.

    Yet peace cannot be imposed by resolutions alone, but it must be built step by step. Each stage of this process, from prisoner exchanges to the rebuilding of homes, requires trust, accountability, and courage. Every supporter of peace, whether governments, NGOs, or individuals, must remain engaged. The path is not linear, and setbacks are inevitable. But as long as there is dialogue and empathy, there is hope that the dream of coexistence will endure.

    The human cost of delay is simply too great. Gaza’s children, who have known nothing but war, deserve to inherit a world where drones no longer hum overhead and their nights are not lit by explosions. These children are the future of global civilization, and their right to live, learn, and dream must not depend on political expedience. A permanent ceasefire is not a gift for them. Rather, it is the bare minimum the world owes them.

    The international community, particularly Muslim and Arab nations, now bears a renewed moral duty. It is not enough to celebrate the ceasefire; they must commit to rebuilding Gaza, restoring institutions, and empowering Palestinians to govern themselves freely. Financial aid, diplomatic protection, and political unity are essential. The Arab League’s consensus to support a phased peace framework is a commendable start, but implementation will test the sincerity of all parties involved.

    For Israel, this moment is also a test of conscience. Security built on the suffering of others is never sustainable. The only security that lasts is one rooted in justice. If Israeli leaders truly wish for peace, they must recognize the humanity of the people they have long sought to erase. Peace will not come from domination, but it will come from mutual recognition and equality.

    There are still clouds and doubts ahead. The remnants of war, political factions, and ideological divides threaten to derail progress. Extremists on both sides will attempt to sabotage reconciliation. Yet history teaches that even the hardest peace is better than endless war. The ceasefire, though imperfect, is a door slightly open, a chance for humanity to walk through with humility and purpose.

    In the end, the Gaza ceasefire is more than a political pause; it challenges nations to choose between complicity and compassion, between silence and justice. As the people of Gaza begin to bury their dead and rebuild their shattered lives, the world must not look away again. Their courage and endurance illuminate a universal truth: peace, however fragile, is always worth the struggle.

    Let this ceasefire be the beginning of a new era, not just for Palestine, but for all humanity. Let it remind us that every act of compassion, every diplomatic breakthrough, and every word spoken for justice brings us one step closer to a world where no child lives under siege. For the people of Gaza, for the conscience of the world, peace must not only be a hope, it must be our collective promise and purposes.

  • The New Era of Garuda-Danantara Partnership

    The New Era of Garuda-Danantara Partnership

    In a defining moment for Indonesia’s economic trajectory, the government has initiated the Garuda–Danantara investment, a strategic move designed to reignite the nation’s industrial economy post-covid revival through government link company (GLC/BUMN). Representing resilience and national pride, the Garuda–Danantara partnership integrates the strength of state-owned enterprises, investment body, and investors frameworks under one unified vision: to transform Indonesia into a modern, competitive, and sustainable industrial powerhouse.

    President Prabowo Subianto’s administration has positioned the Danantara initiative as a central pillar of its bold vision to transform the economy and long-term growth strategy. The plan emphasizes BUMN management approach, revitalization, and innovation as the drivers of national economy progress. Beyond accelerating investment expansion, it seeks to restore Indonesia’s economic sovereignty after years of structural dependence on investment and capital crisis.

    Functioning as a hybrid national investment model, Danantara operates under a coordinated structure, part state-led, part market-driven, enabling capital to flow efficiently into productive and emerging industries such as defense, manufacturing, renewable energy, logistics, and digital infrastructure. Danantara-BUMN framework represents “a new investment ecosystem, not merely a funding scheme.”

    Through this national investment body, the government aims to promote strategic autonomy by accelerating domestic productivity of key industrial economic systems. This approach supports Indonesia’s ambition to reduce the BUMN deficit, boost productivity, and strengthen domestic value creation across priority sectors.

    Amid the national optimism, Garuda Indonesia, the country’s flagship airlinem remains a critical test case for the success of the Danantara investment framework. After years of financial turbulence and negative equity exceeding Rp20 trillion, Garuda’s recovery has been a matter of national concern. The company, once a proud symbol of Indonesian excellence, has been constrained by high debt servicing costs, limited cash flow, and rising operational expenses following the pandemic downturn.

    Under the new framework, Danantara investment stepped in as a strategic investor, injecting Rp30 trillion into Garuda through a private capital participation scheme equivalent increase to approximately 93.5 percent ownership . This infusion effectively transforms Garuda’s balance sheet, turning its equity position from negative to positive territory for the first time in nearly a decade. The restructuring ensures that Garuda not only stabilizes financially but also regains access to credit facilities and international partnerships critical for global operations.

    This investment marks more than a financial turnaround; it represents a renewal of national confidence in Garuda’s role as Indonesia’s aviation ambassador. With its excellent service quality, strong safety record, and global brand recognition, Garuda Indonesia is once again positioned for sustainable growth. The Danantara investment thus stands as a decisive and forward-looking move, aligning financial health with national strategic interests and reaffirming the government’s commitment to revitalizing vital state enterprises.

    Economic observers and business associations have expressed optimism that this initiative will shift Indonesia’s economic narrative, from reliance on resource extraction to high-value industrial economic production. The IHSG’s market recent turbulence shocks in early October underscores renewed market antusiam on Garuda stock which still on FCA (Full Call Auction) list. Furthermore, this initiative are worth to appraise.

    Ultimately, Garuda–Danantara stands as more than an investment initiative, it is a national economy transformation framework. With unified leadership, coherent planning, and disciplined execution, it can become the cornerstone of Indonesia’s long-term journey toward inclusive, resilient, and sustainable prosperity.

  • Prabowo’s Ideological Social Program and Engineering-Wise

    Prabowo’s Ideological Social Program and Engineering-Wise

    As President Prabowo approaches his first year in office, we see that he is perhaps the only Indonesian president in the Reformasi era who has directly implemented the fundamental programs based on the Asta Cita political promises in less than a year. Prabowo’s flagship programs include free nutritious meals (MBG), the Red and White Village Cooperatives program, 19 million jobs, 3 million houses for the people, and agrarian reform, which involves expanding access to land for the people.

    The acceleration of these Asta Cita-based programs has certainly not been without obstacles. The creation of quality jobs has been hampered by the global economic slowdown and budget austerity policies, which have hampered economic growth. The MBG program has been hampered by cases of food poisoning affecting 5,194 receivers, including schoolchildren, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers. Cooperative programs, public housing, and others have been hampered by bureaucratic preparedness and ministers who do not understand Prabowo’s ideological programs.

    Not to mention the stance of academics and activists, such as the Aliansi Ekonom Indonesia dan Aliansi Akademisi dan Aktivis Peduli Masa Depan Indonesia , who reject Prabowo’s social programs, such as the MBG (Indonesian Development Goals) and Cooperatives, as populist and anti-democratic. The label of Prabowo’s social programs as populist and anti-democratic by academics and activists, most of whom are economists, legal practitioners, and doctors, is actually interesting, because populism is essentially a political style that emphasizes siding with the people (populares) and is the opposite of elitism, which emphasizes the exclusivity and privileges of the elite.

    By labeling Prabowo a populist, does this alliance of economists, legal practitioners, and doctors represent the interests of elites who are disturbed by Prabowo’s social programs, which are actually ideological? If they prioritize the interests of the elite status quo, how can they consider themselves to be upholding democracy?

    Populism is an Ideological and Democratic Attitude!

    Despite experiencing pejorative influence, populism, as a political style that emphasizes siding with the plight of the common people, is born from an ideological stance. The founding of the Republic of Indonesia, based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, had the ideological goal of realizing social justice for all people. This means that if the government, as the state administrator, wishes to implement social programs, the benefits of justice must be felt by all citizens as a substantial manifestation of democracy.

    Contrast this with the policies of the 27 years of Reformasi, which were designed by elitist and pragmatic economists. Their formula for dealing with crises has always been deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies, specifically for the poor. However, according to the Statistics Bureau (BPS), Indonesia’s social structure is dominated by 66.35 % middle class and is moving towards the middle class.

    So, for economists, deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies are like magic mantras for all situations, both crisis and normal, like Pak Pung Oil, which is effective for all kinds of sickness!

    Pragmatic policies are indeed a kind of religion for mainstream economists. We certainly remember how mainstream economists like Dr. Sjahrir, Dr. Sri Mulyani, and Dr. Sri Adiningsih agreed to remove the principle of kinship from the fourth amendment to Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution, arguing that this principle was the cause of corruption, collusion, and nepotism during the New Order era.

    Instead of refining the principle of kinship with more ideological principles such as democratic equality and brotherhood, Ciil and Duo Sri instead sought to incorporate the principle of efficiency as the foundation of our country’s economy. Efficiency is, of course, a principle that encompasses the agenda of deregulation, debureaucratization, and targeted social policies, including liberalization and privatization, the neolib mantra of the Washington Consensus from multilateral institutions like the World Bank, WTO, and IMF.

    Prabowo, who repeatedly stated in his Gerindra Party declaration and election campaign that he wanted to restore Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution to its original form, would certainly not align with the elitist-pragmatic economists who carry this neolib mantra. And neoliberal mantra chanters will always label their ideological opponents as anti-democratic, even though it has been repeatedly emphasized that Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution is an effort to improve democracy in the areas of economic development and social welfare, not just politics.

    The Urgency of an Engineering-Wise Attitude

    In building his government, Prabowo’s choice to rely on academics and practitioners with backgrounds in mathematics, engineering, and agriculture (STEM) signifies a paradigm shift from a conservative-pragmatic, cautious policy to a progressive-ideological, engineering-wise approach. Government portfolios covering the health, nutrition, higher education, and financial sectors are held by figures with engineering-wise thinking.

    Therefore, in the petition, in the articles published by Aliansi Ekonom dan Aliansi Akademisi dan Aktivis Peduli Masa Depan Indonesia, you won’t find academics or activists with backgrounds in mathematics, engineering, or agriculture. An engineering-wise perspective almost always synergizes with the perspectives of politicians with military backgrounds like Prabowo, especially since military science is essentially science and engineering for the purposes of war.

    The engineering-wise perspective is a unique approach to implementing state policy. First, engineering-wise views all problems, whether simple or complex, whether regular, complex, random, or irregular, as things that can be structured, patterned, and analyzed using mathematical formulations, and can be explained in human language that is easily understood by the public.

    Second, engineering-wise views every problem as having a solution, constraints that can be engineered, and limitations or boundaries that cannot be violated. Therefore, every engineer is essentially a disciplined problem solver, and the constraints and limitations encountered in life are actually answers to the universe, which, based on God’s Law, will always strive to find equilibrium, like connecting vessels in a physics and chemistry laboratory.

    Third, engineering wisdom always considers building sustainable systems. An engineering-wise person will never just solve short-term problems, but also long-term and sustainable solutions for the future.

    An engineering-wise perspective is most appropriate for development in a democracy that allows for differences in political views and attitudes. Consider President Habibie, a politician with a background in aircraft engineering. He was able to use the principles of aerodynamics and aeronautics to implement economic policies, which helped economic growth rise from minus 13 percent to minus 4 percent, and the dollar exchange rate to the rupiah dropped from 16,000 to 6,700.

    But look at what the neolib economists of the Ciil and Sri camps did? They continued to criticize Dr.-Ing Habibie’s abilities even as he successfully rescued the nation’s economy from the monetary crisis. Public distrust grew stronger, until Habibie’s accountability report was ultimately rejected by the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), and he was not willing to be nominated for reelection as President of the Republic of Indonesia.

    Conclusion

    The Prabowo administration should be able to resolve the problems it faces in implementing its ideological social policies with an engineering-wise perspective. We see figures with backgrounds in mathematics and engineering becoming important officials in Prabowo’s regime. Politicians in Prabowo’s inner circle, Gerindra, generally have backgrounds in mathematics and engineering, such as Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Prof. Dr. Ir. Sufmi Dasco Ahmad (Electrical Engineering), Minister of State Secretary Prasetyo Hadi (Forestry), Minister of Foreign Affairs Sugiono (Computer Engineering), Deputy Minister of Agriculture Sudaryono (Mechanical Engineering), and Pertamina President Director Simon Aloysius Mantiri (Marine Engineering).

    Six ministers and one agency head are professionals, academics, and bureaucrats with backgrounds in mathematics and engineering from Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB): Minister of Finance Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa (Electrical Engineering), Minister of Health Budi Gunadi Sadikin (Physics), Minister of Public Works Dody Hanggodo (Petroleum Engineering), Minister of Higher Education Brian Yuliarto (Engineering Physics), Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Sakti Wahyu Trenggono (Industrial Engineering), Minister of Manpower Yassierli (Industrial Engineering), and Head of the Statistics Indonesia (BPS) Amalia Adininggar Widyasanti (Chemical Engineering). Minister/Head of Bappenas Rachmat Pambudy is a livestock engineer, and Head of the National Development Planning Agency (BGN) Dadan Hindayana is an agricultural engineer from Bogor Agricultural University (IPB).

    As a Cabinet dominated by politicians and professionals with an engineering-minded approach, the scientists and engineers in the Prabowo regime are certainly capable of structuring and finding solutions to existing problems, obstacles, and limitations, and developing these ideological policies into long-term programs. And of course, scientists and engineers can address the increasingly evolving dynamics of democracy in society. After all, Prabowo’s ideological social programs can only be sustainable if they are trusted by the public, right?

    Let us embrace the changing tide of the times, from a conservative-pragmatic era that favored chanting the mantras of the neoliberal elite to development with ideological nuances, even tending towards socialism. We must face a few difficulties to realize the shared happiness of the Indonesian nation. Let us face these difficulties with science and technology.

  • Palestinian State Recognition: A Shift in International Diplomatic

    Palestinian State Recognition: A Shift in International Diplomatic

    This week, the diplomatic map of the Middle East shifted as several nations, including major Western powers, formally recognized the State of Palestine. What was once considered a distant or symbolic gesture has suddenly become a defining move in international diplomacy. The announcements came not in isolation, but in the heart of New York at the United Nations forum, where the debate over Palestinian statehood has been reignited with renewed urgency.

    The symbolism of the moment was powerful. After decades of stalled negotiations, speeches, and resolutions, the recognition of Palestine was no longer limited to countries in the Global South or the Arab world. It now included European states long seen as staunch allies of Israel, as well as countries like Canada and Australia, whose foreign policies had previously aligned with Washington. Each recognition was framed as a moral necessity and a political tool to salvage the two-state solution.

    At the UN forum, two unlikely partners, which are France and Saudi Arabia, stepped into the spotlight as conveners of a summit that would redefine the tone of the global conversation. France, with its historical influence in Europe and the Mediterranean, and Saudi Arabia, with its religious authority and regional weight, formed a joint board to guide deliberations. Their cooperation was both symbolic and strategic, bridging Western diplomacy with Arab leadership in a way rarely seen before.

    France’s decision to formally recognize Palestine sent shockwaves across Europe. For Paris, the move was not only a response to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza but also a statement that endless deferrals of Palestinian sovereignty had eroded the credibility of international law. France framed recognition as a diplomatic necessity, an alternative to perpetual conflict and a challenge to the idea that only violence could shape the future of the region. Besides, there is public pressure and demonstrations around the country on the Palestinian crisis.

    Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia’s representative emphasized that occupation, displacement, and ongoing aggression cannot be normalized. Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud called on the international community to reaffirm its commitments to international law, to protect civilians, and to demand that any future Palestinian governance be free of militarization and extremism. By supporting recognition within a UN framework, Saudi Arabia sought to place the Palestinian issue back into legitimate diplomatic channels, while signaling that a militaristic approach must not dictate the fate of the entire Palestinian.

    European diplomacy, in particular, has played a decisive role in pushing recognition forward. Countries such as Portugal, Belgium, Andorra, Malta, and Luxembourg, alongside France in recognizing Palestine, each linking their decision with demands for governance reforms in the Palestinian Authority, exclusion of non-civilian armed groups from official power, and assurances of democratic accountability. The recognition wave was explicitly tied to the idea that only legitimate political institutions could disarm Hamas and weaken its grip on Palestinian politics. Nevertheless, we will see how the Palestinian people and their political factions work together to build a constructive situation.

    Spain also did not mince words. Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez spoke at the meeting, saying that a two-state solution is impossible “when the population of one of those two states is the victim of a genocide.” Sanchez invoked human dignity, international law, and reason as foundations for the urgency of state recognition. Meanwhile, Italy’s PM Giorgia Meloni conditioned recognition on concrete steps: full release of Israeli hostages and exclusion of Hamas from governance. Her speech caused controversy when some argued it placed too much emphasis on one side, but others acknowledged it reflected a diplomatic realism being embraced by more nations.

    Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese delivered a speech that stretched beyond moral arguments to personal grief and humanitarian urgency. He cited the death of an Australian aid worker, Zomi Frankcom, and expounded on the widespread suffering in Gaza, framing recognition not only as symbolic support but as a means to protect civilians and push for a ceasefire and proper governance. Albania’s push was that recognition must come hand in hand with action: demilitarization of governance, elections, and an end to hostilities.

    Turkey has been among the most vocal nations from both Asia and the Muslim-majority world in support of Palestinian state recognition. President Erdogan declared the recent recognitions, particularly by UN Security Council members, as “historic,” stressing that they must accelerate the implementation of a two-state solution. He urged that all states adopt the 1967 borders and recognize East Jerusalem as Palestine’s capital. Erdogan also condemned the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, calling Israel’s actions a massacre, and insisted that a ceasefire, humanitarian access, and withdrawal of forces were necessary conditions for peace.

    From Africa, President Cyril Ramaphosa used the UN forum to renew his country’s commitment to a two-state solution, demanding that a contiguous Palestinian state be established based on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital. He accused Israel of “disproportionate punishment” of Palestinians and called on all countries that recognized Palestine to be applauded for their moral courage.

    Indonesia added a distinctive voice to the debate, with President Prabowo Subianto delivering a bold yet balanced statement at the UN. While firmly supporting Palestinian statehood, Prabowo underscored that peace could not be achieved without recognizing the security of both nations, Palestine and Israel alike. His remarks sparked controversy in some circles, as critics saw them as too conciliatory toward Israel, but many diplomats praised his speech for breaking through entrenched rhetoric. The balanced tone was widely appreciated in the world forum as a sign that reconciliation is possible if both sides’ dignity and safety are guaranteed.

    This European, African, and Asian engagement reframed recognition not as a reward but as a pathway to responsibility. By pushing for the establishment of a recognized Palestinian government free from military factions, while also acknowledging Israel’s right to security, many leaders signaled that diplomacy could create a viable middle ground. Recognition thus became both carrot and stick: it granted Palestine diplomatic standing, while setting clear expectations that governance must be civilian, accountable, and independent of armed factions.

    As the week closed, what remained was not just a shift in the diplomatic arithmetic but also in the global imagination of peace. For the first time in years, the recognition of Palestine was being discussed as an urgent necessity rather than a distant ideal. This week’s developments also signaled that international diplomacy is entering a new phase, one where nations are reminded of their shared responsibility to support each other in providing peace, security, and justice around the world. The debate on Palestine thus became more than a regional concern; it transformed into a real test of whether the global order can rise to the challenge of resolving conflicts through principled cooperation rather than perpetual division.

  • Privacy Poverty – Lessons for Malaysia’s Digital Future?

    Privacy Poverty – Lessons for Malaysia’s Digital Future?

    Privacy in the digital age is often discussed as a universal right, but in reality, the poor face very different challenges in exercising it. “Privacy poverty” refers to the unique vulnerability of those living in poverty or unprivileged circumstances, who are often forced to surrender personal information simply to access aid, services, or recognition. Far from being indifferent, poor communities make difficult trade-offs, choosing between visibility for survival and the preservation of their personal boundaries.

    This reality was captured powerfully by a group of researchers in India who studied the country’s Aadhaar national biometric system—the world’s largest digital identity program. Their article, “The Poverty of Privacy: Understanding Privacy Trade-Offs From Identity Infrastructure Users in India”, revealed how people with low income often compromise privacy to gain access to essential benefits. Many gave up data regardless of the credibility of the collector, the clarity of purpose, or the existence of safeguards, fearing exclusion if they declined. The study also highlighted that even in poverty, individuals care about privacy—they calculate when to give up visibility and when to protect their information. This confirms that privacy is not a luxury, but a right that the poor value as much as the affluent.

    Malaysia today faces a moment where this lesson is highly relevant. In recent years, the government has introduced or updated major legal instruments to strengthen data governance and security. The amendment to the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 [Act 709], the new Cyber Security Act 2024 [Act 854], and the Data Sharing Act 2025 [Act 864]. Alongside these, the Ministry of Home Affairs recently tabled the National Registration (Amendment) Bill 2025, which aims to give statutory recognition to MyDigital ID as a valid identification document.

    MyDigital ID has sparked much debate on privacy and security. While its framework ensures that personal data is only verified against government databases and not retained by MyDigital ID itself, public concerns remain. Expanding biometric data collection raises questions about consent, purpose limitation, and safeguards—issues that disproportionately affect those in vulnerable or low-income groups.

    Here lies the lesson from India: building digital identity systems is not only about security and efficiency but also about protecting the dignity of those who cannot afford to “trade” their privacy. Malaysia’s strong legal foundation must now be matched by deliberate policies that:

    • Ensure informed consent is genuine,
    • Limit the use of personal data strictly to its intended purposes, and
    • Build credible safeguards that reassure all citizens—especially the poor—that their data will not be misused or exposed.

    It may be inappropriate to directly compare India’s Aadhaar system with Malaysia’s MyDigital ID, given their different purposes and designs. But acknowledging privacy poverty is not about rejecting MyDigital ID. It is about ensuring that digital transformation protects the most vulnerable, recognising them not merely as data subjects but as rights-bearing individuals. Safeguarding privacy in contexts of poverty is not an act of charity—it is an act of justice.

  • A Failed Political Escalation in Indonesia, When Elites Try to Take Advantage of Peaceful Demonstrations

    A Failed Political Escalation in Indonesia, When Elites Try to Take Advantage of Peaceful Demonstrations

    The wave of demonstrations that erupted in Indonesia in recent weeks reflects deep public frustration toward inequality, corruption, and the privileges enjoyed by political elites. What began as a peaceful movement demanding accountability, particularly regarding lawmakers’ allowances and the erosion of public trust, was meant to highlight systemic injustice. Yet, in the midst of this legitimate civic outcry, certain elites and local actors attempted to hijack the protests, turning them into political tools for their own advantage. This maneuver, however, backfired, creating what can be seen as a failed political escalation that ultimately weakened the credibility of those involved.

    At the core of this escalation lies the dangerous opportunism of local political brokers, who often see unrest as a chance to delegitimize opponents or strengthen bargaining positions within the state apparatus. Rather than channeling the protests into constructive reforms, they instead amplified tensions, hoping to gain visibility or extract concessions. Such actions reflect a common pattern in Indonesian politics, where mass mobilization is not only an expression of grievances but also a stage for elite competition and maneuvering. In this case, the attempt to politicize the movement undermined the authentic voices of students, workers, and civil society groups.

    The escalation also exposed how fragile the boundary is between legitimate dissent and manipulated chaos. Local actors, which some linked to rival factions within parliament or regional power structures, encouraged confrontational tactics and spread inflammatory narratives. Their aim was not justice or reform but to destabilize the government and open opportunities for negotiation or influence. By doing so, they placed the nation’s stability at risk, treating demonstrations not as a democratic right but as a bargaining chip in the game of power.

    However, the people on the ground proved more discerning than the elites anticipated. Student groups, delivery workers, and women’s alliances refused to let their agenda be diluted by hidden political motives. They continually emphasized that their demands were about structural reform—ending unjust privileges, curbing corruption, and improving welfare. By keeping their focus clear, these groups exposed the opportunism of the political elites, thereby preventing the escalation from spiraling into a national political crisis. This resilience demonstrates the maturity of Indonesian civil society in guarding its movement from being co-opted.

    The failed escalation also underscores a broader lesson about nationhood. Indonesia’s democracy is still fragile, with institutional weaknesses and ongoing elite capture of the state. Yet, when elites overstep, often using peaceful demonstrations as pawns in their political game, they reveal their detachment from the real aspirations of the people. Such miscalculations not only erode their legitimacy but also reinforce public cynicism toward political institutions. The danger lies in how repeated attempts of this nature can exhaust the energy of civic movements, leaving society vulnerable to authoritarian impulses.

    Nationhood, in its true essence, requires a shared responsibility to preserve peace and advance justice. When local actors play dangerous games, they endanger not only political stability but also the moral fabric of the republic. Exploiting demonstrations for short-term gains betrays the sacrifices of citizens who risk their safety to voice legitimate concerns. The misuse of people’s energy for elite battles deepens mistrust and fragments the collective sense of belonging that underpins Indonesian identity.

    The attempt to escalate peaceful demonstrations into political turmoil stands as a caution and moral lesson for all. It reveals both the predatory instincts of certain elites and the resilience of grassroots actors who refused to surrender their struggle to manipulation. For Indonesia to strengthen its democracy and nationhood, it must ensure that civic movements remain rooted in public interest, free from elite capture. Only then can demonstrations serve as instruments of reform rather than stages for political gamesmanship.

  • Why the U.S. Overlooks Indonesia’s QRIS, GPN, and TKDN: A Missed Opportunity Amid Inshoring and Tariff Shifts

    Why the U.S. Overlooks Indonesia’s QRIS, GPN, and TKDN: A Missed Opportunity Amid Inshoring and Tariff Shifts

    As the global economy undergoes significant transformations, Indonesia has emerged as a proactive player, implementing policies like QRIS (Quick Response Code Indonesian Standard), GPN (Gerbang Pembayaran Nasional), and TKDN (Tingkat Komponen Dalam Negeri) to bolster its digital infrastructure and domestic industries. These initiatives aim to enhance financial inclusion, secure payment systems, and promote local manufacturing. However, the United States appears to be overlooking these developments, potentially missing out on strategic economic opportunities in Southeast Asia’s largest economy.​

    Indonesia’s Strategic Economic Initiatives

    Indonesia’s government has been steadfast in its commitment to strengthening its domestic economy. The QRIS system, for instance, has revolutionized digital payments by standardizing QR codes across various platforms, facilitating seamless transactions for millions of users. Bank Indonesia reported that as of mid-2023, QRIS had been adopted by over 26.7 million merchants, with 91.4% being micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMES).​

    Similarly, the GPN initiative aims to create a unified national payment gateway, reducing reliance on foreign payment networks and enhancing the security and efficiency of domestic transactions.​

    The TKDN policy mandates a certain percentage of local content in products and services, encouraging foreign companies to invest in local manufacturing. This policy has seen significant success, with companies like Pertamina, for example, achieving a 60% TKDN realisation in 2021, amounting to IDR 9.73 trillion.

    U.S. Hesitation and Missed Opportunities

    Despite these advancements, the U.S. has shown reluctance to engage with Indonesia’s economic policies. The American Chamber of Commerce in Indonesia and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have expressed concerns over the TKDN regulations, viewing them as obstacles to investment. This perspective overlooks the potential benefits of integrating into Indonesia’s growing economy and the opportunities for collaboration in the technology and manufacturing sectors.​

    Moreover, the U.S.’s focus on reshoring and insourcing manufacturing, especially under the Trump administration’s tariff policies, has led to a more inward-looking economic approach. This shift may cause American companies to miss out on strategic partnerships and market access in countries like Indonesia, which are actively seeking to attract foreign investment and technology transfer.​

    Global Companies Embracing Indonesia’s Policies

    Contrastingly, other global players have recognized the potential in Indonesia’s policies. Apple Inc., for example, committed to a US$1 billion investment to establish a manufacturing plant in Indonesia after facing a ban on the iPhone 16 due to non-compliance with TKDN requirements. This move not only aligns with Indonesia’s local content policies but also secures Apple’s position in a rapidly growing market.​

    Such examples highlight the opportunities available for companies willing to adapt to Indonesia’s economic landscape. By investing in local manufacturing and complying with domestic policies, foreign companies can gain significant advantages in market access and consumer trust.​

    The Need for a Strategic U.S. Approach

    For the U.S. to maintain its economic influence in Southeast Asia, a strategic reassessment is necessary. Engaging with Indonesia’s initiatives like QRIS, GPN, and TKDN can open avenues for collaboration in digital infrastructure, fintech, and manufacturing. By aligning with Indonesia’s economic policies, the U.S. can foster stronger bilateral relations and tap into a burgeoning market.​

    Furthermore, supporting American companies in navigating Indonesia’s regulatory environment can enhance competitiveness and innovation. This approach requires a shift from viewing policies like TKDN as barriers to recognizing them as frameworks for mutual growth and partnership.

    Indonesia’s proactive economic policies present significant opportunities for international collaboration and investment. While the U.S. has been cautious, a more engaged and adaptive approach could yield substantial benefits. Recognizing and integrating with initiatives like QRIS, GPN, and TKDN can position the U.S. as a key partner in Indonesia’s economic development, fostering mutual prosperity in an increasingly interconnected global economy.

    References:

  • Abolishing Import Quotas: A Strategic Step Toward Affordable Prices in Indonesia

    Abolishing Import Quotas: A Strategic Step Toward Affordable Prices in Indonesia

    In recent days, President-elect Prabowo Subianto has made a bold statement that has stirred national discourse: the abolition of the import quota system. This proposal, while eliciting mixed reactions, deserves serious consideration as a strategic effort to reform the distribution and regulation of essential commodities. For a country like Indonesia, which has long grappled with stabilizing food prices and protecting household purchasing power, such a policy shift may offer significant potential.

    Indonesia’s current import quota system was designed to regulate the supply of crucial goods such as rice, sugar, garlic, beef, and other staples. In times of scarcity, the government authorizes limited import quotas to boost market supply. However, in practice, these quotas often fail to reduce prices. Despite the availability of imported goods, prices remain high. In some cases, quotas have even become tools of market manipulation by groups with exclusive access to import licenses.

    The core issue with the quota system lies in its exclusivity and lack of transparency. Only select importers are granted permits, creating an uncompetitive market. This situation paves the way for oligopolistic practices and, in some cases, cartel behaviour, where a small group of actors controls supply and pricing. As a result, consumers are forced to pay inflated prices, even though global market prices or basic production costs are much lower. The current system widens the gap between large and small players in the national supply chain.

    Replacing the quota system with a more open approach, such as a transparent, tariff-based licensing system, would likely lead to a healthier market. Importation would no longer be a playground for elite interests but a mechanism for stabilizing prices and ensuring availability. Increased competition among importers would drive prices closer to equilibrium levels. For consumers, this means better access to essential goods at more affordable prices and improved quality.

    This reform would also benefit domestic industries that rely on imported raw materials. Sectors such as manufacturing, food and beverages, pharmaceuticals, and small-to-medium enterprises (SMEs) would gain more flexibility in sourcing inputs. Competitive pricing of raw materials would lower production costs and boost the competitiveness of local products both at home and abroad. This could stimulate exports and increase employment opportunities.

    Moreover, a more open import regime could positively impact other sectors, including logistics, ports, freight transportation, and warehousing. Increased flow of goods and more efficient distribution channels would strengthen supply chains, making them more resilient to shocks. This would also spur economic development, particularly in eastern Indonesia, which often suffers from high logistics costs.

    However, abolishing import quotas must be approached with caution. A large portion of Indonesia’s domestic food producers remains small-scale and vulnerable. These local producers could be easily displaced if the market is flooded with cheaper and more consistent imported goods. Thus, any reform in the import system must be accompanied by robust protection and empowerment policies for local farmers, livestock breeders, and micro-businesses. Government support is essential in the form of production subsidies, access to affordable financing, improved technology, and guaranteed markets for local produce.

    Additionally, import oversight and regulation must be enhanced. Without stringent quality control and safety standards, the domestic market could be overwhelmed with substandard imports. Agencies such as quarantine services, customs, the Ministry of Trade, and the Ministry of Agriculture must play a proactive role. The digitization of import processes, data transparency, and the integration of national stock and demand information should be prioritized to ensure a smooth and accountable system.

    What is commendable about President Prabowo’s proposal is the political will to evaluate longstanding policies that have become sources of inefficiency. Import regulations can no longer rely on closed, bureaucratic approaches. The global landscape has changed, supply chain disruptions caused by pandemics, geopolitical conflicts, and climate change all highlight the need for a flexible and open system to safeguard economic stability.

    Naturally, such a bold policy will attract resistance, especially from groups that have long benefited from the current quota system. However, the government must remain grounded in the principle that public policy should serve the broader interest of the people, not a handful of economic elites. Affordable food prices are not merely an economic issue, they are also a matter of social justice and national stability.

    In the long term, reforming the import system can be part of a larger structural transformation of Indonesia’s economy. The government must design a careful transition strategy, involve stakeholders inclusively, and foster public dialogue to ensure that the policy is widely accepted and effectively implemented.

    If executed carefully, based on data, transparency, and protection for domestic producers, the abolition of import quotas will not merely be a technical reform, but a strategic move toward a healthier, fairer, and more efficient trade system. The Indonesian people deserve access to high-quality goods at affordable prices. This is where the government must step in—not to restrict the market, but to ensure that it works for everyone.