Indonesia's Contexts

The Economic Context

Indonesia’s GDP is increasing from 156.0 US$ Billion in 1993 to 173.0 US$ Billion in 2002 to 208.3 US$ Billion in 2003. However, Indonesia’s budget for education is quite low, that is around five percent of the National Budget and Expenditure. This is not only because it suffered economic crisis since 1997, but the rational is rather political (even before the crisis, it had been always low). For example, to ‘keep their people happy’, the government subsidised its fuel oil prices (up to September 2005).

With the recent high oil prices, the ‘policy’ appeared to have become disastrous, i.e. seeing Rp 130 trillion (US$13.2 billion, assuming exchange rate of $1 equals to Rp 9000) of the national budget or almost a third of the total spent on fuel oil subsidy (Antara, 2005). Meanwhile, the government and the House of Representatives had only allocated Rp 26.5 trillion for education (in 2005), despite National Constitution and Educational Law requiring a minimum 20 per cent (or at least Rp 56 trillion) of national and regional budgets and expenditure for education.

Meanwhile, Indonesia is also known as the country with the fifth highest external debt outstanding showing no slowing down. For instance, it increased from 136,088 US$ Million in 1997 to 141,695 US$ Million in 2000 to 132.763 US$ Million in 2003. If total debt/GDP is calculated, it shows data of 33.6 % in 1993, 76.5 % in 2002 and 64.5 % in 2003 respectively (World Bank, 2004b). Furthermore, the annual debt payments are around $0.9 billion or Rp 131 trillion (Jubilee, 2005).

In 2003, a third of Indonesia’s 2004 expenditure goes to debt payments (The Jakarta Post, 13th December 2003) while in 2004, that increased to 52 per cent of Indonesian total revenue (worth Rp 219.4 trillions) (WLHI, 2004). Indonesia has been indebted to IMF since 1997 with no significant progress ever since. In the light of the preceding data, it may seem impossible for Indonesia to pay more attention to its educational sector and other public services.


The Political Context

Indonesia formerly had an authoritarian and bureaucratic political system. Its modern political government and institutions still owe much to both Dutch and ‘traditional Javanese’ influence. Java’s traditions were adopted and enforced as the Indonesian traditions, values and cultures because of their numerical domination in Indonesian politics. Both President Soekarno and Soeharto addressed the problem of unity - since it is a multi racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural country- by adopting an authoritarian system that lasted for 40 years (eight years and 32 years under each rule respectively’) (Wanadi, 2002). King (1982) states that the previous bureaucratic authoritarian regime was characterized by a high degree of corporatism. Instead of individual patron-client ties, various groups within the state as well as in society were collectively tied to the leaders of the state.

Furthermore, Pratikno (no date) adds that a highly centralised political structure had been developed in the name of national integration, political stability and economic development. Although unity and diversity (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika) was a dominant political slogan during that time, political arrangement had given no room for the emergence of competing powers outside Jakarta. Therefore, ‘local power was seen as a threat, subject to central government repression’ (p.3).

However, since 1998 Indonesia moved to more ‘democratic’ transition with the introduction of free press for the first time, decentralisation of authorities to lower governments since 2001, and having three presidents in four years as well as conducting the first direct presidential election in 2004. Although rapid change took place, the former practice and paradigm were not easy to transform. For instance, during the era of ‘dictatorship’, the education system was used as a political machine by the Golkar (Golongan Karya, Functionalist Group) Party. Thirty two years of authoritarian regime organised teachers and civil servants to support the Golkar Party’s bureaucratic government.

However, after the commencement of decentralisation since 2001, political parties – such as the ruling party PDIP (Partai Demokrasi Indonesia Perjuangan, Indonesian Democrat Party of Struggle) – still tried to use teachers and civil servants for their political end by, for example, using school meetings for their campaign of 2004 General Election (Pikiran Rakyat, 2003). This phenomenon above raises a key question: as the change of political landscape took place, has cultural transformation also taken place or has the same practice remained?

The Cultural Context

Looking at its huge cultural diversity, i.e. from Aceh in the West to Papua in East, the modern Indonesia could be described as a very diverse country. However, since 45 per cent of its population is Javanese (WIZ, 2005) and with Soeharto’s Javanese cultural underpinnings of 32-year New Order, consequently Indonesia has been masked by Javanese cultural domination. Soeharto used his own interpretation of Javanese culture – based largely obedience characteristics such as respect for seniors, conformity to hierarchical authority and avoidance of confrontation – to strengthen his bureaucratic and authoritarian regime.

Under circumstances like this, it is not surprising if it is hard for democracy to flourish.
The national education laws always were aimed to develop Indonesian citizens to be complete persons – religious, intelligent, healthy, democratic, independent, responsible, etc.

The National Education is aimed at elevating the intellectual life of the nation and to develop the complete Indonesian person, i.e. one who is devout and God fearing, with high morality, possessing knowledge and skill, who is physically and mentally healthy, who is of stable personality, independent and has a deep sense of responsibility towards the society and nation (Act or Law No 2, 1989).

….they become persons imbued with human values who are faithful and pious to one and only God; who possess morals and noble character; who are healthy, knowledgeable, competent, creative, independent; and as citizens, are democratic and responsible (Act No 20, Year 2003).

However, in reality, those ‘too idealistic’ goals were never achieved. In fact, Indonesia is known to be one of the most corrupt countries (Transparency International, 2002a, 2002b, 2005) with poor human rights record in the world (Human Right Watch, 2004).

Educational Resources Context

Ministry of National Education (MONE, locally known as Depdiknas) has limitations of expenditure on school facilities and maintenance, learning resources and human resources. For example, data showed that in 2000 the condition of primary school buildings throughout Indonesia was deteriorating, since 58 % of them were damaged, 23 % and 26 % of them were severe and minor respectively.

In 1999, the General Director of Primary and Secondary education, Indra Djati Sidi, also suggested that 65 % of all school buildings in Indonesia were damaged (Kompas, 2003a). Furthermore, MONE limitations also saw most learning resources from the centre ended up in warehouses of LEAs (district/local education authority, locally known as Disdik) or PEAs (provincial education authority, locally known as Disdikprov) due to lack of funding to distribute them to schools (Kompas, 2001). Unsurprisingly, only two per cent from almost 200,000 primary schools had sufficient library collections and learning resources (Kompas, 2000a).

As a result of decentralisation the MONE authority’s provision of textbooks was delegated to regional governments since 2003 (Sidi, 2003), however, the distribution of textbook block grants to schools was hampered by corruption (ICW, 2005). Essentially, that meant most pupils have to buy books on their own, mostly from their schools. Schools sold books because they received incentives from book publishers (Gunawan, 2002; Kompas, 2004a). According to the 2001 Annual Report of Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education (ARSRRE), Indonesia students suffer greatly from a lack of qualified and committed teachers.

It reported that ‘today teaching is a low-paid and low-prestige profession’, showing eighty per cent of teachers have parallel jobs, a situation which is facilitated by the teaching time of 2.5 days and 15 weekly hours (Human Right Features, 2003). Furthermore, Kompas (2002a) found that teachers’ wages were also affected by various cuts, making their ‘take home pay’ actually lower than expected.