Have you watched Seporsi Mie Ayam Sebelum Mati — out now in cinemas???

Whether you just watched it or are still on the fence, you might be surprised by how much it has in common with The Odyssey.

(Yes… the one with Matt Damon).

Other than their good looks, the protagonists Ale and Odysseus share quite a few things in common:

• Both embarked on a hero’s journey of self-discovery
• Both were survivors of war — one against depression, the other against the Trojans, and
• Both met characters along their journey who transformed them for the better.

1. Murad and The Cyclops

While Odysseus was trapped in a cave with the Cyclops, Ale found himself locked in a jail cell with Murad.

Odysseus’ bravery and ingenuity were tested by the one-eyed beast, while Ale’s courage and morality were put to the test by the gangster.

As frightening and uncivilised as these characters may have been, they forced our protagonists to become stronger and more fearless in the face of life’s challenges.

2. Juleha and The Sirens

Temptation is an inevitable part of every man’s journey.

For Odysseus, it came in the form of the Sirens. For Ale, it came in the form of Juleha. Both represented the temptation to indulge in one’s deepest desires. Both possessed the allure to seduce even the most hardened of men.

And yet, it is the ability to resist such temptations that often distinguishes a boy from a man.

3. Pram and Telemachus

Having both experienced the absence of their fathers, Pram and Telemachus taught us the importance of self-reliance.

For better or worse, who we are is a reflection of those who came before us.

For Pram, this meant continuing his father’s legacy as a noodle seller. For Telemachus, it meant living up to the legacy of his father, the legendary warrior Odysseus.

4. Mami Louise and Athena

Every man needs a wise figure to lean on, perhaps a motherly character who truly understands what they’re going through.

In Odysseus’ darkest and most vulnerable moments, Athena was there to protect and guide him throughout his journey.

Likewise, amid the dark and dirty surroundings of a nightclub, Ale was comforted by the wise words of Mami Louise.

Both women were not only helpful — but essential — to the eventual triumph of our protagonists.

5. The Wise Blind Men: Pak Jipren and Eumaeus

Wisdom comes from the ability to see things clearly. But there are truths deeper than the eye can see.

Through his conversations with the blind cracker seller, Pak Jipren, Ale discovers a new perspective on just how fortunate his life really is. And although many had given up hope of Odysseus’ return, his loyal servant Eumaeus never lost sight of the possibility.

Sometimes, the greatest insights come when we are prepared to close our eyes.

6. Ipul and Eurylochus

Every great warrior needs a second-in-command, someone trustworthy who acts as a voice of reason amid the chaos.

Whenever Odysseus was consumed by recklessness and selfishness, Eurylochus provided a moral compass as he grounded him in the realities of their situation. Likewise, when Ale was knee-deep in trouble, it was Ipul who saved him and redirected his path.

These men weren’t just a voice of conscience from a distance; they were in the heat of the action in our protagonists’ journey.

7. Bima and Antinous

Some men are driven by greed, revenge, and envy in their search for greatness. And they are willing to kill in order to establish what they perceive as justice.

Although Bima and Antinous tried to be seen as powerful, they were, in fact, riddled with weaknesses and insecurities.

In the end, they remind us that there is no such thing as a shortcut to greatness.

8. Death and Poseidon

A hero’s journey usually comes with a big bad monster trying to bring about their demise.

While Odysseus had to contend with Poseidon, the God of the Sea, Ale had to battle with the prospect of death itself.

Both Odysseus and Ale went through hell in their effort to stay alive. Thankfully, both lived to see another day.

9. Ibu Murni and Penelope

Behind every man’s journey is someone who makes the journey worth taking.

For Odysseus, that person was Penelope, the wife he spent ten years trying to return to. For Ale, it was Ibu Murni, whose warmth and affection healed the scars left behind by his abusive mother.

Amid the arduous and painful hero’s journey, both women remind our protagonists that somebody is still waiting — patiently, endlessly, lovingly — for their return home.

*Be sure to watch Seporsi Mie Ayam Sebelum Mati, out now in cinemas — or buy the amazing novel by Brian Khrisna!

Thank you for reading! Follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

It is a rare thing to feel overdressed sitting next to a seasoned diplomat…

And yet, that was precisely the predicament I found myself in at our latest Ngobrol Yuk event, featuring Pak Dino Patti Djalal.

Having spent much of his career navigating the corridors of international politics, Pak Dino now seems intent on passing on the torch of diplomacy to the younger generation.

The following, ladies and gentlemen, are a few golden takeaways from our group discussion.

1. Are We Playing with Fire with Singapore?

Our recent spats with Singapore and MSCI have left many wondering whether we are burning bridges we shouldn’t be burning.

Complaints and constructive criticism from these foreign parties have been met with hostility, defensiveness, and straight-up conspiracies. Yet this dismissiveness may come at a hefty price for Indonesia in the form of economic ostracism.

“Financial issues can trigger so many things, and we cannot solve them with ultranationalism alone,” said Pak Dino. “Do you think MSCI cares about ultra-nationalism?”

“What foreign investors ultimately care about”, continued Pak Dino, “…is a safe environment where their money can grow.”

What is currently unfolding in the Indonesian capital markets — the insider trading, the politicization of business interests, the opaque ownership structure — clearly reflects our market’s vulnerability to manipulation.

Not unlike the forest fires, our capital markets exude a stench that’s giving foreign investors the ick. And for the sake of our own and the region’s prosperity, Indonesia would be better off accepting constructive criticism with open ears rather than a closed mind.

“I would like to see an ASEAN where everybody who is affected can talk about it openly and maturely, without fear. This is my principle: wisdom without fear.”

2. Healthy Nationalism and Internationalism

Back in 1960, President Soekarno reminded the world in his UN speech that nationalism and internationalism are not mutually exclusive, but are deeply intertwined.

In the heat of argument, we can easily forget that multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the European Union — and indeed, ASEAN — were created for the promotion of peace and economic stability between nations.

We would be better off if we work together instead of against each other — this seems to be the philosophical foundation upon which all these institutions were built.

“Kita semua nasionalis, tapi kalau tidak digandeng dengan internasionalisme, we are going to be a weak and even unsuccessful nation”, said Pak Dino.

History has shown time and again that xenophobia leads to poverty, while those who are open to cooperation are rewarded with prosperity (just look at North vs South Korea).

“The best examples are all over…”, continued Pak Dino. “Turkey, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, Australia, India, Brazil, UAE, Qatar… You name it!”

What allows these nations to punch above their weight is not their nationalism alone, but their ability to integrate their nationalism with a cooperative, open, and internationalist mindset.

3. Beyond Sumpah Pemuda

This question came from Ayu, one of the audience members at the event:

What can the young generation of Indonesians do to contribute to the betterment of the country?

Having recently celebrated Hari Sumpah Pemuda (Youth Pledge Day) on the 28th of October, Pak Dino reminds the younger generation how far we have come — but more importantly, how much more needs to be done beyond the national identity forged by this iconic pledge.

“We must remember that the aspirations of the 1928 pledge — ‘One Motherland, One Nation, One Unifying Language’ — have been achieved. We now have a unifying identity”, said Pak Dino.

“What comes next in the agenda should be democracy and reformation. These are what make us feel like we have ownership of Indonesia.”

Back in 1928 — Indonesians had an identity crisis. Today, we already know who we are. What comes next is whether we feel like we have control of our own destiny.

4. The Shrinking Middle Class

Rafi, one of our attendees, asked Pak Dino:

What is your perspective on our middle class today, which is shrinking?

Pak Dino reminds us to look at the data critically, because the definition of what we call the “middle class” is artificial, with a surprisingly low threshold.

“This is why we have to be careful with (the way we treat) MSCI…”, said Pak Dino. “You know why? Because domestic capital to support our economy is very limited.”

If we look at the graph above, the middle class is classified as those with a real consumption of between $73 and $353 per month, translating to just $2.5 to $12 per day.

Yet even with an artificially low threshold, the great majority of our population still falls below this category.

“What I would love to see is for Indonesia to become a middle-class democracy”, continued Pak Dino.

This is a democracy based on a thriving middle class, a democracy where the complaints from the middle class echo loudly in the hallways of the Istana, a democracy working to make the lives of the middle class easier, not harder.

Graphically, a population with a strong middle class would be “fat in the middle”, instead of “fat on the left side”, as illustrated below.

5. Making a Difference Outside of a Political Party

An anonymous questioner asks Pak Dino: Must we join a political party to contribute positively to the country?

Drawing on his experience founding and growing FPCI, (the Foreign Policy Community of Indonesia), Pak Dino’s answer is a resounding No.

“My greatest joy is to see young people come to our conference with a blank mind, and see them become convinced that kindness is power, convinced of positive nationalism, convinced of smart internationalism. That is power.”

Indeed, sometimes the best way to make a difference is from the outside, not the inside.

But this is not to diminish the work of good men and women operating from inside the system. Quite the contrary:

“If you are a good person and you join a political party, that is an asset. We need more good people in political parties”, said Pak Dino.

When asked which political party Pak Dino recommends joining, he understandably declined to name one. Perhaps that is a discussion for another party.

6. Create an Intellectually Rich Policy Environment

In the words of our former president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono: “The presidency is an institution, not a person.”

Nobody is so smart that they can handle the economic, legal, political, military, cultural, environmental, technological, religious, and foreign affairs of the nation all on their own.

It is therefore vital for a president to be open to the consultations of his team, and also have strong discernment in distinguishing signals from noise.

The key to making good policy decisions, according to Pak Dino, is to create an intellectually rich policy environment. An environment based on a battleground of ideas, not power.

“You have to create an environment where ideas flow from all directions… You challenge your staff and direct them in an intellectually rich environment.”

This applies whether you are in the public sector or the private sector.

This space for dialogue between leaders and followers, between the governor and the governed, is where the flowers of democracy blossom at its fullest.

Whether the subject matter is government policy, forest fires, or the state of the economy, everyone should be able to speak their honest thoughts without fear of negative repercussions.

As for my honest thoughts on the event:

• The guest speaker was stellar
• The audience questions were thoughtful
• The venue (AKC Library Cafe) was beautiful.

My only regret is not having tried their Dendeng Balado.

What a perfect excuse to return.

Thank you for reading! Follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

In the latest chapter of Chronicles, Dr. Bagus Muljadi attempted to reverse-engineer the man himself.

Like a priceless Patek, Mr. Gerung’s internal mechanics are multifaceted. Complex.

But unlike a Patek, he is alive, slick, and slippery to pin down.

The following are some memorable highlights from their conversation.

1. Who Are We?

Most, if not all, of what we do boils down to who we think we are.

If we see ourselves as sinners who fell from grace, we may base our lives on the redemptive promises of a holy book. If we see ourselves as rational agents, we may base our lives solely on reason. If we see ourselves as individuals inseparable from a larger tribe, we may base our lives on shared narratives.

But which one is most accurate? Who are we — according to Rocky Gerung?

“Contradictions always arise whenever we try to pin down an idea with a definition, said Mr. Gerung.

He seemed to compare having an ontological position to a quantum particle’s probabilistic position — of being neither here nor there — seemingly forgetting that he operates in a classical physical world.

In an attempt to steer Mr. Gerung back to the question, Mr. Muljadi asks: Where do human rights come from?

Those who believe in a creator may have an easier time with the concept of rights, while those who do not believe in a creator may have nobody to bill those rights to.

According to Mr. Gerung, our theories of life can be derived from different sources, including physics and religion.

This tension between realism and idealism, between phenomena and noumena, may be the reason why it’s difficult to pin down who we really are (and perhaps why it’s difficult for him to give a straight answer).

2. Do We Have a Right to Eat?

Mr. Gerung believes in the inherent justice of Mother Nature — that there is enough food for every person born into this world — and thus, every misallocation of resources is always a result of human greed.

But given that humans do interfere with Mother Nature — given that some people do have much more than others — do people who lack food have a right to receive food from those who have an abundance?

A staunch libertarian may argue no.

In a world where liberty reigns supreme, the mere existence of inequality does not create a right for the poor to claim resources from the rich, just as it does not create an obligation for the rich to provide for the poor.

As a libertarian himself, Mr. Gerung admits to seeing ethical holes in this world view. To paraphrase him: “Kalau indra saya tertutup, nggak ada masalah. Tapi begitu indra saya terbuka, saya bisa lihat orang menderita. Maka saya menganggap bahwa mereka berhak punya kapasitas yang lebih.”

In Rousseau’s ideal world — dictated by general will and ethics of care — food inequality would probably not exist.

But we do not seem to live in a Rousseauian universe, thus, the state must intervene to provide for the basic needs of the people.

In the words of Mr. Muljadi:

“Jadi ada seorang Rocky Gerung yang idealis (libertarian), ada seorang Rocky Gerung yang hidup di Indonesia (dan melihat kenyataan di Indonesia).”

Once again: a tension between realism and idealism that makes it difficult to pin down his source code.

3. MBG’s Egg-sistential Crisis

Mr. Muljadi attempted to test Mr. Gerung’s libertarian ideals in the context of MBG.

If I — of my own free will and with the best of intentions — cook and serve free food to a hundred people, and 60 of them get food poisoning, should I be held accountable?

Mr. Gerung replied with a definitive yes.

According to him, the absence of obligation and the presence of good intentions do not exonerate a libertarian from accountability.

In fact, a libertarian’s free will holds him to a higher standard of accountability precisely because he is acting out of freedom.

The issue, therefore, is not whether the government is accountable — but accountable for what? If recipients are experiencing food poisoning, then the government must be held accountable for food poisoning — not for fiscal irresponsibility.

Regarding the Constitutional Court’s recent decision to exclude the free-lunch program from the education budget, Mr. Gerung sees this as an issue of priorities.

Indonesia’s limited budget causes us to be stuck between a rock and a Rocky Gerung, whereby we must choose between education and nutrition. And as many of us know today, Mr. Gerung prioritizes nutrition.

4. Antimajority

If there is one word to encapsulate Rocky Gerung’s source code, it seems to be this one: antimajority.

Many see him as a rebel who was anti-government in the Jokowi era and a traitor who is pro-government in the Prabowo era.

But Mr. Gerung emphasizes that what he was fighting against was never the government, but the majority.

According to him, Jokowi during his heyday represented the majority; whilst today, the masses rallying against Prabowo are the majority.

Simply put, whichever group has the greatest number of voices — whether it comes from the government or the people hating on the government — rest assured that Mr. Gerung will stand firmly on the other side of the court.

5. Imported Theories

Everybody knows that Indonesia is rich in natural resources. But are we as rich in knowledge?

Mr. Gerung goes one step further in saying that not only do we import theories from abroad — we apply them ignorantly back home.

“Kita ambil teori dengan cara yang keliru. Kalau kita copy-paste aja udah bagus!” — Rocky Gerung.

Take our legal theory, for example. Our positivistic legal system borrows from Hans Kelsen’s Stufenbau, whereby legal norms get their legitimacy from a higher norm, thereby creating a hierarchical pyramid of norms.

But Kelsen explicitly stated that the norm above all norms — the Grundnorm — is not itself positivistic by nature and thus cannot be transcribed. It is the grand assumption — the axiom — that allows all norms to exist.

In Indonesia, the meticulously transcribed Pancasila is taken to be the norm above all norms. And because of this explicit transcription, it is vulnerable to weaponization and a monopolization of interpretation.

Alas, an imported theory applied sub optimally back home.

Mr. Muljadi reminds us that Indonesia does have its own local theories (or inner logic, as beautifully put by Mr. Gerung), particularly in the realm of environmental ethics.

The Buginese culture and the Sundanese culture, to take two examples, offer local frameworks for relating to Mother Nature.

Yet we forego these inherited frameworks in exchange for imported ones from abroad, only to produce a plethora of conflicts and a lost sense of self.

6. Socia-Capita-Libera-lism?

It is rare for Mr. Muljadi to look utterly flabbergasted. But at the 1:09:15 mark, it seemed like he was. And who can blame him?

Here is what I think I heard:

• Mr. Muljadi asked Mr. Gerung about Indonesia’s socialist origins. Our socialism is ambiguous, with unclear lines on where it starts and where it ends.
• Mr. Gerung explained that our socialism starts off by misunderstanding the concept of rights. It confiscates rights in the name of socialism while disregarding customary notions of rights.
• The presence of the state in the Suharto era manifested as etatism, which hijacked these socialist values and sold them for a profit to the capitalists.
• Thanks to etatism, the socialist spirit of Indonesia was replaced with crony capitalism (not even proper capitalism).
• Mr. Muljadi asks: “How do we undo this and get back to our socialist ideals?”
• Mr. Gerung: “I wish to continue to push socialist ideals that nurture the environment and have an ethics of care.”
• Mr. Gerung admits that his socialist views contradict his libertarian values by saying:

“Saya tetap libertarian di dalam pikiran, tetapi di dalam kehidupan saya perlu ada kepekaan sosial”

• Mr. Muljadi is flummoxed by this clash between private values and public action. But Mr. Gerung is not backing down: “Seorang libertarian kalau berpikir nggak akan diganggu oleh apa pun!”

Hence:

7. Dialektika Dungu

The ‘D’ word is one of my all-time favorites within Mr. Gerung’s arsenal of compliments. In truth, I cannot wait until I am famous enough to be knighted with the honorary “dungu” label from the man himself.

But this label is not given away lightly. One must earn it. One must embody it.

According to Mr. Gerung, many who criticize him are simply bandwagoning. They are not original in their thinking. And what people often call IQ or intelligence should strictly be about how original their ideas are.

Mr. Rocky waits for the day when people genuinely battle with him in the realm of substance, not merely rhetoric or insults.

A dialectic — in the truly Socratic sense of the word — is what he craves from his critics.

As outlined by Mr. Muljadi, if people wish to dismantle his stance on MBG, they can either:

❶ Make an argument that the right to eat is, in fact, an illusion

❷ Prove that his understanding of socialism as it pertains to Indonesia is wrong, or

❸ Prove that his logic, if extended to its limit, leads to absurdity or a bad outcome.

If one fails to do any of these and simply calls him a political shape-shifter, then the “dungu” label shall be gladly bestowed upon them.

8. Indonesia’s Future Amidst Volatility

In an increasingly volatile world, one’s ability to be responsible and take precautions for the future becomes ever more important.

Yet — as proven by the recent forest fires — Indonesia often adopts an attitude of helplessness, disguising a lack of initiative as a righteous acceptance of destiny.

What will our future look like if we continue to adopt this defeatist attitude?

Mr. Gerung believes there are indeed situations we are destined for. But destiny does not imply finality. There is room for us to intercept.

Was Indonesia always destined to be a socialist country? Maybe not.

Socialism was a reaction from our founding fathers toward the tyranny of imperialism and capitalism. But either way, it is not final.

We can still have conversations about what socialism truly means for us, what type of socialism fits best for our people, and indeed, what sort of political system truly reflects our source code.

Thank you for reading! Watch the latest episode of Chronicles on YouTube! And follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

Dr. Muhamad Chatib Basri recently wrote an article titled “Perlukah Batas Defisit APBN 3 Persen?” (“Is a 3 Percent State Budget Deficit Limit Necessary?”), which I highly recommend reading on Kompas.

Like all his pieces, the article offers not only enlightenment, but entertainment.

Allow me to share the lessons I learned from reading it:

1. Established Norms Can Have Arbitrary Origins

For over two decades, Indonesia has strived to cap its budget deficit at three percent of GDP.

This means that when the government spends more than it collects in any given year, the difference must not exceed three percent of that year’s GDP.

Sounds simple enough. But we have not always succeeded in keeping within this limit. From 2020 to 2022, the pandemic left the country with little choice but to temporarily scrap the limit before returning to it in 2023.

But where did this three percent come from? Why three?

Like most quirky things in life, one can conveniently blame the French.

In 1981, a French economist named Guy Abeille was tasked by senior officials at the French Ministry of Finance to come up with a simple rule to prevent the newly elected government from overspending.

In not very much time (or effort) at all, Abeille simply divided France’s deficit at the time (roughly 100 billion francs) by its GDP (roughly 3,000 billion francs) — and voilà!

By the grace of rudimentary arithmetic brought to you by the École Nationale de la Statistique et de l’Administration Économique, the 3% rule was born.

The rest, as they say, is history.

2. Know What You Are Measuring

A widely used map does not necessarily speak to its accuracy.

The deficit-to-GDP or debt-to-GDP ratio is often used to measure the fiscal health of a country. Yet this ratio can be misleading in painting an accurate picture of a nation’s capacity to repay its financial obligations.

At the level of the state, financial obligations that take precedence over pretty much everything else are interest payments.

Sure, governments must pay the salaries of their employees and provide welfare to their citizens, but debtholders cannot wait either.

We must remember, however, that interest payments are not paid back using the country’s GDP. They are paid back using government revenues.

As highlighted by Mr. Basri in the article, a country can have identical debt-to-GDP ratios while having vastly different capacities to pay back its interest.

To paraphrase him: “Country A has an income of 20 and interest obligations of 2, leaving it with 18. Country B has an income of 10 with the same interest obligations of 2, leaving it with 8.

Country C has an income of 10 but interest obligations of 4, leaving it with 6. The debt is identical, but the fiscal health differs. What matters is not the size of debt, but the size of the interest obligations relative to the income.”

An extremely high debt-to-GDP ratio is highly forgivable as long as the interest-to-revenue ratio is low.

Take Japan, for example. The country has an extraordinarily high debt balance exceeding its annual GDP, but it also has strong revenues to cover its interest payments.

3. Pay Attention to Free Cash Flow, Not Just Debt Capacity

Regardless of what the average American says, debt does not solve all of life’s problems. It can breed new ones.

Money borrowed today has a cost tomorrow in the form of interest. Interest is paid from revenues. And revenues must be sufficient to cover not only interest, but other crucial spending such as government worker salaries and welfare programs.

Currently, nearly one in every five (19%) rupiahs collected by the Indonesian government go straight to interest. And the more we borrow, the higher this ratio will be due to greater credit risk.

As stated by Mr. Basri, fiscal room (or what we might refer to as free cash flow here) equals government revenues, plus borrowings, minus non-deferrable government spending, minus interest.

The true definition of fiscal freedom, therefore, is not how much money we can borrow, but how much free cash flow we have left after all essential financial obligations have been paid.

Therein lies our true fiscal legroom.

Are there ways to widen this legroom apart from taking on more debt? Absolutely. Take revenues, for example.

Research by Mr. Basri and his colleagues (Basri, Felix, Hanna and Olken, 2021) has shown that widening the tax base

and improving administration can more than double tax revenues, whilst raising tax revenue via increasing tax rates is expensive, costing about half a rupiah for every additional rupiah collected.

In the words of Mr. Basri, “Borrowing more money is easy because the cost is deferred. Improving our revenue stream is harder and requires time”.

4. Which Came First, the Deficit or the Growth?

At the heart of the desire to surpass the 3% deficit limit lies a fiscal chicken-and-egg problem: does a deficit affect growth, or does growth affect the deficit?

While pro-borrowers believe in the former, econometric analysis by Mr. Basri points more toward the latter.

When growth strengthens, deficits reduce; when growth weakens, deficits pile up. This causal relationship does not seem to go in the opposite direction.

“I did not find sufficient evidence that more deficits result in more growth,” said Mr. Basri.

Deficits, in other words, do not trigger growth. They respond to it.

Like a teenager, Indonesia is full of ideals and ambition. We should be proud of this.

We wish for better infrastructure. Better welfare. Better industry. Better education. All of this takes time and money. But it also takes a sober head to equip us with good judgement.

The humorist James Thurber once said, “One martini is all right. Two are too many, and three are not enough.”

Perhaps budget deficits are a bit like martinis: one must be cautious about going beyond three.

Thank you for reading! Check out and follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

Sources:

• Perlukah Batas Defisit APBN 3 Persen? — Kompas
• Indonesia Relaxes Fiscal Rules in Response to Coronavirus — Fitch Ratings
• The secret of 3% finally revealed — Voxeurop
• Tax Administration versus Tax Rates: Evidence from Corporate Taxation in Indonesia — American Economic Association

Are we inherently divine — or inherently devilish?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes present opposing views on human nature and how society should be structured accordingly.

With a collection of highly respectable intellectuals — and Rocky Gerung — on stage, it is my pleasure to serve you the highlights of their conversation at Endgame Townhall.

1. The Devil Wears Prada

As the most prolific actress of our generation, Ms. Dian Sastro delves into the topic from a psychological — dare I say, Freudian — perspective.

She asks: What happened in a character’s past that molded them into who they are today?

Hobbes and Rousseau are, at the end of the day, only human. And humans do not develop a worldview in a vacuum.

As someone who lived through the English Civil War, Hobbes had first-hand experience of how brutish, brutal, and barbaric human beings can be. And it is from these experiences that he advocated for the security provided by the state.

Rousseau, on the other hand, saw civilization as a corrupting force toward humanity’s inherent divinity. He believed in the inherent goodness of people, which only becomes contaminated as they are increasingly exposed to the banal boastings of the bourgeoisie.

As an actress, Ms. Dian is cautious about categorizing a character into one bucket or the other.

She sees multidimensionality and inconsistency within a character — where they are capable of both good and evil, bravery and cowardice, self-centredness and self-sacrifice.

The job of the artist, therefore, is to understand and embody this duality, so as to make the character relatable and thus believable to the audience.

“The beauty and the tragedy of being human is that our greed and generosity, our courage and cowardice, simultaneously live within us” — Dian Sastrowardoyo

2. The Dark Energies in Politics

Just as our universe contains the opposing forces of gravity and dark energy, our political system is in a tug-of-war between the forces of technocracy, meritocracy, and the dark forces that oppose them.

Which of these two opposing forces will reign supreme?

After a long rant on the laws of physics, Mr. Gerung finally shines a light on the state of Indonesian politics:

“There are dark energies in our politics, but there is also gravity that protects our country from totalitarianism!”

“But where are these so-called dark energies?” continued Mr. Gerung.

“Are they in Hambalang? Or Solo? Or Cikeas? Or Teuku Umar? Wherever they may be, they are definitely not in Endgame…”

Citing a number of Ms. Dian’s reputable works, Mr. Gerung took the creative liberty of renaming a few of her films: “Pasir Berbisik menjadi Solo Berisik! Ada Apa Dengan Cinta menjadi Ada Apa Dengan Prabowo?”

3. Leviathan VS Law

Citing the book The Narrow Corridor by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, liberty comes from the balance between the opposing forces of authoritarianism and anarchy.

How do we utilize the law as a tool to balance these two forces?

Ms. Bivitri starts off by challenging Hobbes’ pro-government sentiment:

When Hobbes sees the state as a civilizing force against man’s natural incivility, the question that we need to ask is: Who is the state??

Power tends to corrupt, so the law should be a civilizing force not only for the citizens, but also for the state.

In our system today, we must be honest about who really holds the power to 1) create laws and 2) enforce laws.

True power often lies in the shadows — behind job titles and designations. Unfortunately, the power to create and enforce laws currently belongs to one camp.

When the law is misused like this, it ceases to become a force that limits power and starts to become a force that concentrates it.

4. Democratizing VS Elitizing the Economy

Article 33 of our Constitution outlines the values of togetherness and equitable prosperity with regard to the management of our economy. Yet today, we see the middle class shrinking and prosperity concentrating.

How do we better democratize, rather than elitize, our economy?

Mr. Bima sees our current economic activities as an overly masculine endeavor in dire need of the feminine touch.

What is the role of women in this Hobbes VS Rousseau debate? Referring to the two books above, Mr. Bima highlights the very often overlooked role of women in the economy.

Our economy and economic policies today embody a masculine ethos that tends to be extractive and destructive to the environment.

Unlike Bhutan, which prioritizes GNP (Gross National Happiness) instead of GDP, Indonesia is neither happy nor prosperous — thus, it is time for us to redefine what it means to have a successful economy.

5. From Homo Homini Lupus to Homo Economicus

Mr. Rocky Gerung rejects the idea that Rousseau does not have a feminist’s touch.

Unlike Hobbes, who does not believe in the natural goodness of humans and advocates for a patriarchal state, Rousseau sees the natural goodness in humanity and advocates for the General Will: a common good that people must aim toward that transcends each person’s selfish desire.

Mr. Gerung calls this the ethics of care — ever-present in Rousseauian philosophy yet greatly missing in Hobbesian philosophy.

Hobbes popularized the term Homo homini lupus (Man is a wolf to his fellow man), and Mr. Gerung sees these selfish tendencies as being ever-present in today’s capitalist society.

Homo homini lupus has not disappeared, but has simply been accommodated and justified through Adam Smith’s economic rationality — or homo economicus.

“Bumi di lindungi oleh Rousseau, di rusak oleh Hobbes!”, Mr. Gerung claims.

While Hobbes is a centralist, Rousseau is a socialist and collectivist, advocating for sharing and acting for the greater good of the community.

6. Rousseau = No-Show?

Mr. Bhima addresses Mr. Rocky’s argument by highlighting Rousseau’s inherent hypocrisy:

Rousseau himself abandoned all five of his children soon after they were born. He was a no-show father.

What kind of feminist value is this ??

Indeed, Rousseau has been called a hypocrite by many for having the audacity to write a book on raising children.

This hypocrisy is also apparent in the usage of Article 33 of our Constitution: a so-called guide to economic democratization utilized as a justification for state capture in reality.

According to Mr. Bhima, this debate about Hobbes and Rousseau should not only be done in elitist circles, but ideally in all classrooms in the country.

Yet this is not possible if we are unwise in allocating our budget. And this unwise allocation only makes public discourse ever more elitist — ever more exclusive.

“Bagaimana guru bisa mengajar tentang Hobbes kalau dia khawatir harus jualan apa untuk menafkahi anaknya nanti?” - Bhima Yudhistira

We see elitization and concentration of wealth getting worse in this country, with 50 of the wealthiest possessing wealth equivalent to that of 55 million citizens, up from 50 million in previous years.

The shrinking middle class — according to Mr. Bhima and Pak Gita — not only represents a shrinking of wealth, but also of cognition.

The solution, therefore, is not merely a distribution of carbs, but a distribution of cognition.

Circling back to our Constitution, Ms. Bivitri sees Article 33 as our founding fathers’ attempt at articulating their socialist ideologies for the nation.

Yet the wording in that article is vague, and thus vulnerable to interpretations and perhaps even hijackings by those in power.

In Indonesia, truth and “justice” are often written by those who wield the mighty pen (a.k.a. the law). But Ms. Bivitri reminds us that truth — the real truth — is within all of us.

The truth, as they say, shall set us FREE (not give us free food).

7. The Social Sexual Contract

While Hobbes and Rousseau studied the social contract between citizens and the state, Carole Pateman looked at a related yet often overlooked contract between males and females: the sexual contract.

Echoing Pateman’s book, Ms. Dian sees parallels between the agreement established between the state and society and between men and women, whereby men occupy a position of authority while women are subjugated in the social order.

This patriarchal contract not only exists in private relationships, but also in public policy, as evidenced by the extractive and unempathetic nature of our economy.

8. MBG: Makanan Bung Gerung

Must we choose between free food and higher-quality education to better distribute cognition in Indonesia?

According to Mr. Gerung, the answer is Yes; we MUST choose, with free food being the more important of the two.

“Anda hentikan MBG hari ini, anakmu 15 tahun yang akan datang akan stunting!” — Rocky Gerung

Just as 10 + 6 = 17, Mr. Gerung seems adamant that MBG is necessary for our nation’s cognitive prosperity.

In response to Mr. Gerung, Mr. Bhima ends the Townhall event with a parable that serves as food for thought:

Once upon a time, a student asks her teachers: “Pak Guru, Bu Guru, kenapa gajinya 300 ribu rupiah sebulan? Kenapa ke sini naik motor sampai 15 kilometer?”

And the teacher says:“Nak, makan…”

The student becomes traumatized and vows to NEVER become a teacher.

Thank you for reading! Check out and follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

Follow @Gamechangers.id and @Endgametownhall on Instagram for their next Townhall event!

Do you have enough? Do you feel — enough?

Habib Ja’far, Dr. Fahruddin Faiz and Iyas Lawrence delved into humanity’s age-old struggle with the concept of sufficiency.

Allow me to share with you the highlights of their discussion from this year’s Endgame Townhall.

1. Why Do We Struggle to Feel Enough?

According to Dr. Faiz, our sense of insufficiency stems from a place of fear.

Even when we are in a state of objective sufficiency, our negative projections of the future can cause us to feel insecure and thus insufficient in the present.

Social media isn’t helping either. News about this and that often triggers anxieties about the future that block us from being grateful in the present.

Habib Ja’far sees this as an issue of learning and social conditioning:

“We as a society are never taught the concept of enough. We are only taught the concept of lack.”

This asymmetry is also apparent in our conception of rights and responsibilities: We often talk about human RIGHTS, but very rarely human RESPONSIBILITIES.

In a world defined by rights instead of responsibilities and lacks instead of sufficiency, it is no wonder why we struggle with feeling enough.

2. Pecel Madiun

Habib Ja’far tells the story of a Pecel Madiun (traditional Javanese salad) seller who sells exactly 154 portions per day — no more, no less — despite demand consistently exceeding supply.

When asked about her reasoning, the old woman simply replied: “Because that’s the amount of money I need.”

Unlike this old woman who defined her sense of sufficiency, we as a society do not yet have a collective definition of sufficiency.

“Kita hanya punya kategori ekonomi garis kemiskinan, tidak punya kategori ekonomi garis kekayaan.” — Habib Ja’far

3. Ambition VS Greed

Must we sacrifice our ambition in order to feel enough? And is ambition always driven by greed?

“All humans are equipped with desires,” — said Dr. Faiz. “It is human to want, to desire, to dream, and to be ambitious.”

The danger comes when such desires surpass our capacity, values, visions, and ideals for ourselves. Left unchecked, ambition morphs into obsession, and obsession is difficult to satiate.

Dr. Faiz then quotes the wise and rhyming words of Mahatma Gandhi:

“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”

Habib Ja’far reminds us that the word for fate (takdir) shares its etymological roots with the word for measure (kadar, or qadr in Arabic).

To know our fate is therefore to be aware of what God has allotted for us, and it is from this place of awareness that we actualize our potential.

But those who are unaware of their lot from God, and thus never feel enough, will continuously strive for more and in effect be in contradiction with God.

At the extreme, one can develop a God complex whereby “enough” is never enough, and “more” becomes the holy grail.

4. Natural VS Unnatural Desires

How do we feel full within God when our ego and social circle constantly encourage us to strive for more?

Drawing from Epicurean philosophy, Dr. Faiz outlines three categories of desire:

• Natural and necessary: things like food, water, and shelter.
• Natural and unnecessary: things like luxury goods, fancy clothing, and (my words, not his) lavish presidential trips.
• Unnatural and unnecessary: things like power, popularity, and online followers.

Once we have fulfilled the first category of desire, it is natural to wish for the second category. The danger, however, arises when we wish for the third category. This category must always remain a byproduct — never the target — of our pursuits.

In the context of leadership, Habib Ja’far believes practice is key. Extraordinary feats become ordinary through practice and habituation.

As complex beings, we must practice to lead many parts of ourselves: our eyes, our ears, our minds, and indeed our desires.

Leadership, therefore, is a learned skill of controlling first and foremost: ourselves.

Yet today, our institutions do not teach us the fundamental principle of self-control. Our institutions take a more utilitarian approach whereby the ends often justify the means — sacrificing self-control for the sake of “getting the job done.”

Habib Ja’far takes the example of mistakes vs. deceit. To paraphrase:

“Lembaga dan kurikulum pendidikan kita sering kali mendidik kita untuk menjadi pemimpin yang tidak boleh salah, tapi boleh bohong… bukan boleh salah, tapi tidak boleh bohong.”

In a world where success takes precedence over self-control, we shouldn’t be surprised when we produce leaders with little capacity to govern themselves — let alone govern others.

5. From “Asal Bapak Senang” to “Asal Bapak Tau”

The conversation proceeded to the realm of office politics (yes, strictly office politics).

How do we create an environment (i.e., office environment) whereby leaders (i.e., office leaders) are open to receiving bad news from their subordinates? (i.e., office subordinates)

Drawing from the philosopher John Rawls, Dr. Faiz reminds us that leadership must take a holistic point of view whereby leaders take into account not only people at the top, but also (and especially) people at the bottom.

Leaders must eagerly ask:

“How is the most disadvantaged group doing under my leadership?”

It is therefore the job of the leader to sift through the layers of ego-licking, ABS-politicking nonsense and get in touch with

the authentic realities on the ground.

Dr. Faiz then presents another theory that outlines the three jobs of a leader: to serve, to be a role model, and to create a vibe.

True to his youthful vibe, Habib Ja’far drops a mic-dropping quote that most millennials and Gen Zs can relate to:

“Pemimpin yang baik adalah pemimpin yang grup Whatsapp karyawan yang tidak ada dia di dalamnya paling sedikit.”

A bad leader is one whose subordinates invariably say “Yes Sir!” and “Noted Sir!” while they’re scrambling in another chat group trying to get the job done.

6. The Wisdom to Take a Break

How do we cultivate the self-understanding to be able to distance ourselves from the negativity we often experience online?

“Once we decide to take a break, it’s important to know what we should do during that break,” Dr. Faiz replied.

Just like sleeping, many of us consider taking a break a passive act. But sleeping and taking a break should be seen as an active process of rejuvenation.

It is therefore important to fill our break with rejuvenating activities such as reading and learning from the wisdom of people who know more than us.

Diversity is also important. We need to do a variety of activities (rather than obsessing over one) for the sake of our mental resilience.

Echoing Dr. Faiz, Habib Ja’far reminds us that we are often ardent in our ambitions, but unwise in our ability to take a break — so much so that it bleeds into our relationship with God.

“Ibadah pun dianggap tentang ngegas, bukan ngerem.”

In Catholicism, the world has Mother Teresa, who said, “In the silence of the heart God speaks.” In Hinduism, there is the Day of Silence (Nyepi). And in Islam, the Prophet Muhammad received revelations from God during periods of retreat and solitude.

Silence and solitude, therefore, are part and parcel of religiosity.

7. A Time for Everything

In closing, Dr. Faiz reminds us that feeling enough does not imply helplessness or passivity. Feeling enough does not justify laziness and an unwillingness to grow.

To quote an Arabic proverb:

“For every situation there is a saying; and for every saying, there is a situation.”

Likewise, there is a time for effort and a time for acceptance.

A time for striving and a time for silence.

A time to ingest and a time to digest.

The Book of Ecclesiastes in the Christian religion also encapsulates this idea: “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens.”

In the analogy of the Stoic philosopher Cicero:

The job of the archer is to invest all his efforts into shooting straight. The moment the arrow leaves the bow, what comes after is no longer within his control.

“It is just the same with what we call the supreme good in life. To actually hit the target is, as we say, to be selected, but not sought.”

What do you think? Is “enough” a condition of reality — or a condition of perception?

Thank you for reading! Check out and follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

It is unclear which one is brighter: his intellect or his suit 🤨

Pak Dino Patti Djalal, along with Pak Marty Natalegawa (the DINOsaurs of Indonesian diplomacy), graced the stage of this year’s Endgame Townhall last Saturday.

True to their reputations, both statesmen answered every question with substance and style 😎

Allow me to present to you the highlights of their conversation with Pak Gita Wirjawan.

1. A War of Attrition?

What many thought would last for two weeks has now dragged on for seven months. Iran — a supposedly inferior nation militarily and economically, certainly when compared to the United States — is proving far harder to manage than many have expected.

“Iran bukan negara tempe”, said Pak Dino. They have experience, resilience, and more efficient drone and missile technologies that can challenge even the United States’ ginormous military-industrial complex.

Politically, Trump is being held hostage by his electability prospects if he dares to put boots on the ground. Indeed, this is one of the very few instances in which his megalomania may in fact be a force for peace rather than conflict.

Historically, Pak Dino reminds us that a direct order from a U.S. president to kill the leader of another nation — let alone a religious leader — is an act of extraordinary significance.

Pak Marty sees Iran’s defiance against the United States as containing a very valuable lesson, namely: Might is not always right.

Military muscle may not, in fact, be the “end-all-be-all” in getting what you want in the grand scheme of things.

According to Pak Marty, this war is not necessarily about who is more powerful - but who is more eager to survive.

“Sekarang soal siapa yang akan blink first? Siapa yang pain tolerance-nya lebih tinggi?” — Marty Natalegawa

For the United States, this conflict may be a pathway toward being more powerful on the global stage. For Iran, however, this conflict is an existential struggle for Being itself.

As a country that does not heavily rely on military prowess, Indonesia should draw encouragement from the fact that diplomacy — the very bedrock of international relations — still very much matters.

In closing this part of the conversation, Pak Dino added a sharp remark on the issue of trust: In his assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in such an uncivilized manner, “Trump has lost a lot of trust and political capital.”

2. A Threat to Non-Proliferation?

For decades, many nations have relied upon America’s patronage as a deterrent against certain proliferations — nuclear weapons being the most devastating.

How should we navigate an increasingly multipolar world whereby the unipolar narrative has been (quite literally) shattered?

Pak Dino answered with a chilling remark: “We may be heading to a world in which non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is no longer held sacred”.

In this type of world, historically “non-nuke nations” such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia may indeed seriously consider the efficacy of nuclearization.

According to Pak Marty, pressures toward proliferation have always been part and parcel of international relations.

There are always tensions, whether we live in a unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar society.

Yet Indonesia is not a bystander in the issue of nuclear proliferation. As Chair of the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network, Mr. Natalegawa and his colleagues strive to uphold the “nuclear taboo”.

With regard to unipolarity, Mr. Natalegawa does not see the presence of a hegemon as an automatic ticket to stability.

“We need to redefine what it means to be secure. Security cannot be bought using armaments. As we see in many parts of the world today, there are more armaments, yet less security.” — Mr. Natalegawa.

There is currently a deafening silence from Indonesia on the issue of nuclear security. And Pak Marty, true to his proactive leadership style, is striving to revitalize the conversation.

Mr. Dino echoes Mr. Natalegawa’s view of Indonesia’s recent passivity in the landscape of global politics:

“In the past two years, there hasn’t been a single initiative from Indonesia in the realm of global politics, and this concerns me.” — Dino Patti Djalal

With a history of diplomatic excellence embodied by figures like Marty Natalegawa, Ali Alatas, Hassan Wirajuda, Retno Marsudi, and Dino Patti Djalal, Indonesia has a responsibility to take back its place as an active participator in the global dialogue.

3. The Hubris of Unipolarism

The West’s campaign to proselytize liberal democracy to all corners of the globe seems to be failing. This is because their unipolarist agenda comes with a universalist mindset that says, “My God is your God”.

In contrast, China has demonstrated that globalization can be attained not by universalism, but by pluralism: “My God is not your God, but in the meantime — buy my widgets! ”

What are the implications of these dynamics for Indonesia?

“Power is situation-specific” - Mr. Natalegawa answered.

Different situations involve different stakeholders, regardless of who happens to be the “number 1 superpower” in the world at the time.

Indonesia should not simply bandwagon with whoever is most powerful, but be agile in considering the specific issues at hand and working with the interested parties involved.

Mr. Dino considers this issue from a tech-policy perspective:

As AI technologies grow exponentially in significance, our ability to manage relationships with the global leaders in this field becomes increasingly imperative.

As of today, the U.S. and China reign supreme in the AI race; with the U.K., Israel, South Korea, and Singapore trailing a bit further behind.

Currently, Indonesia has a firm strategy when it comes to artificial lunches, but not artificial intelligence.

If we wish to keep up with the latest developments in the world, we must take this 21st-century technology much more seriously by developing a well-thought-out tech policy.

4. ASEAN’S Disparity

A great divergence exists within ASEAN in the space of education between Singapore and the rest of her neighbors. This divergence is not conducive to our collective wisdom and will hinder us in tackling the big issues involving geopolitics, climate and technology.

Should there be an intervention in ASEAN in the space of education?

Diversity, according to Mr. Natalegawa, is an inevitable characteristic of ASEAN. He sees diversity as an inclusive force for good rather than a political bottleneck to eliminate.

“I would rather have a diverse yet inefficient ASEAN than a uniform yet efficient one.” — Mr. Natalegawa

With regard to education, what calls for concern is not diversity but disparity. We can counteract this disparity perhaps not through so-called “intervention”, but through harmonization. Nations with comparative advantages can spread their talents to create a win-win solution for the region.

Circling back to AI, Mr. Natalegawa draws our attention to the Space Race of the Cold War, which eventually led to the development of the Outer Space Treaty as a means of enforcing civility within the space race.

According to Mr. Natalegawa, there needs to be an equivalent of the Outer Space Treaty in the realm of AI to uphold global civility in the AI race.

5. Diplomatic Excellence

Mr. Dino closed the conversation by sending a powerful message to our future diplomats:

“Let’s not forget that we are the country that changed the world through the Asian–African Conference, that shaped the world through the Non-Aligned Movement, that sculpted the region through the creation of ASEAN, that transformed the laws of the sea through our efforts at the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, that played a major role in the creation of the G20 as a leaders’ summit through our lobbying efforts.We have a history of changing the world. This is what makes us noble and respected on the global stage.”

Indeed, Indonesia needs to get back to the spirit of diplomatic excellence.

Back to the days of Pak Marty Natalegawa and Pak Dino Patti Djalal. Back to the days when our diplomats exuded not only substance — but style. Not only prudence, but panache. Not only wisdom, but wit.

And certainly, we need diplomats with the individuality, integrity, and audacity to wear a white suit.

Thank you for reading! Check out and follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

Who are we? Or, more intimately: “Who am I?”

Universe

13.8 billion years ago, an explosion triggered the existence of existence itself: The Big Bang.

The newly born universe was hot and violent, until eventually, a cooling process paved the way for protons and neutrons to fuse together, eventually forming atoms — the fundamental building blocks of matter.

The aftermath of this fusion laid the foundation for the formation of billions of galaxies and trillions of stars populating our universe today.

For millennia, humanity believed our universe to be static. Unchanging. Constant. Yet within this past century, our brightest minds found evidence against this constancy.

The universe as we know it may not be stagnant after all. It might be expanding — stretched by a mysterious, invisible, yet pervasive, dark energy.

Humanity

Some 200 years ago, another explosion occurred on a tiny, blue planet orbiting a small, burning star: the explosion of human consciousness.

Unlike the Big Bang, this explosion did not quickly cool down into stability. It persisted — insisted — on heating up.

From one billion… to two billion… to three… to four… to eventually 8.2 billion points of human consciousness now exist on our planet today, bringing about a host of scientific, industrial, economic, and climate revolutions.

Just as our Sun illuminates our Earth, the proliferation of human consciousness brought about the Enlightenment era that illuminated our understanding of the universe.

This Enlightenment brought about competence, capital, and confidence — yet not necessarily clarity. It brought about WhatsApp, Walmart, and Wendy’s — yet not necessarily wisdom.

Human civilizations proceeded to rise and fall, expand and contract, be born and annihilated — driven by both our intelligence and stupidity.

The aftermath of World War II produced a hegemonic power of unrivalled competence, capital, and confidence that the rest of the world has relied upon economically, politically, and militarily for decades.

Uncle Sam became a Unipole — the uncle of all uncles. Through his might and leverage, he promised to preserve the peace and stability the world has yet to ever dream of.

But the unipolarity of the United States brought with it a universalist mindset: “My way, or the highway” — said Uncle Sam. “My God is your God.”

Yet humanity does not fit neatly into the mold of the unipolarist. Humanity brings with it a multitude of gods, beliefs, and values.

Just as the constant of the universe was challenged a century ago, the constant of the unipolarist was challenged in 1955 at the Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia.

This summit pushed the agenda of multilateralism across the globe. It nurtured the seeds of coexistence and cooperation between societies, nations, races, and individuals alike.

“Live and let live!”, said Soekarno.

“I have a dream!”, said Martin Luther King Jr.

“It is an ideal for which I am prepared to die,” said Nelson Mandela.

Such is the appetite to embrace our inherent diversity.

Such is the appetite to recognize the humanity in every human.

Self

170 years ago, a man by the name of Sigmund Freud was born in what is now the town of Příbor, in the Czech Republic.

As the father of psychoanalysis, Freud pioneered the notion that each human being is driven by an unconscious mind shaped by our past. Our present desires, impulses, and wishes are an amalgamation of the colours of experience painted onto the canvas of our upbringing.

Today, it is Freud that we have to thank for popular terms like “Freudian slip”, “childhood trauma”, “projection”, and indeed… “mommy issues”.

Fourteen years after the birth of Freud, another man by the name of Alfred Adler was born in Vienna, Austria.

While Freud looked to the past to explain the present, Adler looked to the future.

To Adler, humans are not merely the by-products of our past, but an expression of our goals for the future. We behave the way that we do today not merely because of what happened to us — but because of who we wish to become.

It is our future, not our past — asserts Adler — that greatly determines how we act in the present.

As the universe is pulled in two opposing directions by the forces of gravity and dark energy, humanity is pulled in two opposing directions by the forces of unipolarity and multipolarity. And by the same token, each and every one of us — me and you — is pulled in two opposing directions by the gravity of our past and the light of our future.

Alas, the question remains:

Who are you? Or, more intimately: “Who am I?”

Perhaps, it is through the directions we choose and the forces we choose to embrace — the dark or the light, singularity or diversity, the past or the future — that we ultimately define who we are.

Thank you for reading! Check out and follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

It is always a delight when the President engages in a substantive, long-form dialogue with members of the public.

It takes away some of the mystery, grandiosity, and pomposity often associated with presidential leadership.

In the third installment of Presiden Prabowo Menjawab, the President immerses himself in a three-hour-and-forty-minute dialogue with journalists and analysts on issues currently bubbling in the conscience of many Indonesians today.

Allow me to summarize for you some of the sumptuous courses from this exquisite conversational banquet:

1. Is Our Growth Organic or Synthetic?

Mr. Wahyu Daniel, Editor-in-Chief of CNBC Indoneisa, starts off by questioning the roadmap of Indonesia’s future growth prospects.

With much talk on industrialization initiatives, can Indonesia drive its future growth from a strong investment — rather than a government spending — narrative?

According to data quoted by the President (which comes from the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board, or BKPM), Indonesia earned Rp. 1,931 trillion worth of investments in 2025, and has realized Rp. 1,010 trillion worth of investments as of June 2026 — putting us on the right trajectory towards a target of Rp. 2,041 trillion in 2026.

These promising 2026 figures will soon increase as more investments are coming our way in the near future.

With Goldman Sachs forecasting Indonesia to be the fourth largest economy by 2050, our president seems confident in the robustness of our growth.

2. An Explosion of Natural Disasters

From the eruption of Anak Krakatau to the forest fires in Kalimantan, the number of fire-related natural disasters occurring in Indonesia as of late has been ash-tounding.

Situations are worsened by the bone-dry environment the country is currently experiencing amidst El Niño conditions.

Ms. Ratna Susilowati, senior journalist at Rakyat Merdeka, asks: How is Indonesia responding to these crises in terms of food security and international relations, given that the forest fires have affected neighboring countries?

President Prabowo reminds us that Indonesia is situated within the Ring of Fire: a “ring” around the Pacific Ocean rife with the world’s most active volcanoes and earthquake potential.

Given the geological cards we have been dealt with, the president asserts that the institutions, technologies, and investments required to mitigate these disasters must be strengthened.

The president then reminded us that a volcanic eruption — destructive as it may be — is a sign of the fertility of our soil, with the aftermath resulting in the formation of valuable minerals.

The fact that we are blessed with so much natural assets gives us a responsibility to manage these assets efficiently, hence his staunch focus on efficiency initiatives in the country.

With regard to the effects of the smoke on our neighbouring countries, the president highlighted that Indonesia is open to — and has been receiving — support from a number of nations. Japan, China, and Russia were a few names mentioned.

3. Are Your Flagship Programs Served Up Too Quickly?

Ms. Rivana Pratiwi, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of MetroTV, wonders whether Prabowo’s rapid implementation of his programs (MBG, Kopdes, Sekolah Rakyat, Swasembada Pangan, Swasembada Energi) poses political risks amidst criticisms that they are being rolled-out haphazardly.

“Hidup selalu ada risiko…”, said the president. “Everything has a risk…”

The president stresses that the issue of hunger is something that cannot be delayed, especially for a G-20 nation.

“Jadi kalau anda bilang saya nge-gas, Iya!”

Mr. Prabowo seems confident that the people are on his side, and that his steadfast implementation of his flagship programs does not pose a great risk to his electability.

The political backlash that he does receive, in his opinion, is driven exclusively by propaganda from his dissenters: the corruptors and rule-breakers he is trying to eradicate.

“If you are trying to eradicate corruption, do you think the corruptors will be happy at you?”

4. What is Our Path Towards 8%?

Prof. Gema Goeyardi, co-founder and CEO of Astronnaci International, asks:

Amidst the geopolitcal uncertainties caused by American leadership, the capital outflows from our country, the lack of liquidity for small businesses, and the erosion of investor confidence due to legal uncertainties — what is Indonesia’s pathway toward our target of 8% growth?

The president assures that the fundamentals of our economy are strong. The problem is not in the value of our assets, but how we control and capture that value.

Through initiatives such as DSI (Danantara Sumberdaya Nasional), it is hoped that the country can better capture the value from its vast stores of natural resources.

Whilst many are bearish on Indonesia’s growth, Mr. Prabowo is wholeheartedly bullish and even confident that our GDP is under-reported.

Through the millions of jobs and economic activity created by government investments and spending on flagship programs, the president is convinced that our growth is higher than what is currently being reported.

The issue of growth, according to the president, is merely an issue of better resource management. The more we can capture the value we already have whilst reducing wasteful spending, the better our wealth can be enjoyed by many more in the country.

5. Show Me The Money

True to his name, tvOne news anchor Mr. Andromeda Mercury poses a question of interstellar quality:

Given that the Asset Recovery Agency has recovered Rp. 1,797 trillion out of the targeted Rp. 3,266 trillion for 2026, how much cash do you plan to claw back from corruptors during your presidency?

President Prabowo assures that it is in the fiscal interest of the country to get every Rupiah back in order to finance meaningful spending for the populace.

Mr. Mercury proceeded to follow up with another earth-shattering question:

If there is an indication that someone from your inner circle is corrupt, will you take an objective stance in punishing them?

“Saya kira saya sudah buktikan…”, said the president.

“Pak Dadan (Hindayana) was my success team… I have also turned in a few very competent generals who ended up getting ‘tempted’ by their position”, he elaborated.

In terms of the death penalty for corruptors, Mr. Prabowo perceives the death penalty as something irreversible, and thus must be done with extreme precaution.

The most important deterrent, in his opinion, is strong systems and institutions to combat corruption.

6. Local vs Central Governments and Political Parties

This question comes from politician, journalist, and podcaster Mr. Akbar Faizal:

With the reduction in transfers from the central government to local governments, how will you manage the issue of under-funding while ensuring that political parties nominate local leaders who are better qualified and less influenced by oligarchic interests?

Based on past observations, Mr. Prabowo believes that local governments have not been spending their budgets wisely.

He estimates that local government budgets are currently experiencing a leakage of about 30%, wasted on items like television ads and other campaign expenses. Meanwhile, crucial expenses such as school facilities and decent roads are often neglected.

In the midst of these budget cuts, certain regions have even threatened to secede from Indonesia due to the lack of support.

Despite the criticisms and the backlash, Mr. Prabowo remains fervent in his support of the budget cuts.

According to President Prabowo, a decentralized government = an inefficient government.

FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS IN THE SECOND HALF:

Ms. Rivana Pratiwi: Nearly two years into your presidency, are you satisfied with the performance of your ministers?

Mr. Prabowo: My evaluation is continuous, and I believe my team has performed okay. But I always remind them that we are a team, and that we need to have priorities on what we work on; namely food security and energy independence as being very important.

Mr. Akbar Faisal: What are your views on the increased role of the military in civil society?

Mr. Prabowo: It is actually in these turbulent times that we need our first responders. These battalions have been very helpful in recent natural disasters. Indonesia is very large, and these battalions are needed in all regions to maintain law and order. And let’s not forget that our military budget is still very modest compared to other countries.

Mr. Andromeda Mercury: According to The Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education, 36.5% of grade four students do not have basic numeracy skills. What needs to be improved in our education system?

Mr. Prabowo: The whole system needs improvement. Democratization and decentralization look good on paper — but the reality is, when authority over primary and secondary education is handed to local governments, quality erodes.

The main issue is the recruitment and training of teachers. The central government currently has initiatives to help local governments in these matters.

The economic wellbeing of teachers is also important. We are streamlining the payment process for teachers so that they can get their salaries more quickly.

Mr. Wahyu Daniel: What are your thoughts on certain rating agencies like Fitch and Moody’s who recently downgraded Indonesia’s economic outlook?

Mr. Prabowo: Why should we submit to these rating agencies who don’t know anything about us? We have sovereignty!

Some of these agencies, such as S&P, recognizes our good policies, including DSI (Danantara Sumberdaya Indonesia). Critics of DSI do not have the moral authority to critisize me as I am trying to fix the issue of underinvoicing that has been going on for decades.

Prof. Gema Goeyardi: We have a competency issue in our government whereby there is often a gap between leaders and their subordinates. Competency is not cultivated and the opacity of the law makes room for competent people (such as Tom Lembong) to be criminalized. How do we rectify this issue?

Mr. Prabowo: We must improve our institutions and close this competency gap. We are taking steps to improving recruitment, evaluation, and development. We are building Universitas Republik Indonesia (URI) and Lembaga Administrasi Negara (LAN).

France has the École nationale d’administration (ENA) which trains its top government officials, and we are building the same thing here.

We must also ensure there are no government officials who are “untouchable”. Some bureaucrats act like kings, and behaviors like this must be reprimanded.

Prof. Gema Goeyardi: How do you ensure that the information you receive from your subordinates is accurate?

Mr. Prabowo: “Asal Bapak Senang” is an endemic issue in our bureaucracy. A lot of data are cosmeticized, and I have to be diligent in analyzing and interpreting them.

And last but not least, the most interesting question of them all:

Ms. Ratna Susilowati: What is a book that has inspired you and changed your view of the world?

Mr. Prabowo: It’s actually a thin book, by a Brazilian author.

Paulo Coelho: Warrior of the Light.

The Alchemist is also a good book… but this book is amazing.

Thank you for reading!

Check out and follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!

Sources:

• YouTube — EXCLUSIVE — PRESIDEN PRABOWO MENJAWAB (FULL VERSION), 16 September, 2026
• BKPM — Realisasi Investasi 2025 Lampaui Target, Hilirisasi Melompat 43,3 Persen, 15 January 2026
• BKPM — Realisasi Investasi Semester I 2026 Tembus Rp1.010 T, Serap 1,4 Juta Tenaga Kerja Langsung, 17 July 2026
• CNN — What is the Ring of Fire?, September 8 2017
• Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia — Kejaksaan RI Paparkan Capaian Penegakan Hukum Penyelamatan Aset dan Optimalisasi Keuangan Negara Melalui Badan Komunikasi Pemerintah RI, 24 June 2026

60 PEOPLE — 5 HOURS — 1 ENDGAME: to spread intelligent and audacious ideas across the galaxy.

Our fourth Ngobrol Yuk event was filled with courage, camaraderie, and colorful clashes of opinion.

With a headless Ironman watching over us, the Avengers of our generation gathered to fight the Thanos and Dr. Doom of Indonesia: IGNORANCE and INCOMPETENCE.

The following, ladies and gentlemen, are a few highlights from our galactical dialectics at Total Politik:

1. A.I. = Apocalyptic Inevitability?

With observed cases of cheating and blackmail from certain AI models, are we in danger of creating an entity we may no longer be able to control?

The complexity of AI models brings with it some uncertainty about what they are truly capable of: are these models able to perfectly align with human interests — or are they capable of having interests that go against our own?

As explained by software engineer Thareq Yusuf, the field of Mechanistic Interpretability (MI) tries to reverse-engineer the processes by which AI models arrive at their conclusions. Just as neuroscience explains the mechanics of the human brain, MI acts as the neuroscience for AI models.

It is hoped that the more we can understand the mechanics of how these models “think,” the more we can align their interests with our own.

Beyond the alignment issue, biotech researcher Sharlini Eriza Putri points us toward the risks AI data centers and their infrastructure can pose to the environment.

With yearly water usage equivalent to all the bottled water bought on Earth and electricity usage equivalent to that of the United Kingdom in 2025, AI’s consumption of water and electricity may not be environmentally sustainable in the long run.

As the demand for AI grows insatiably, its energy consumption will inevitably burden our environmental ecosystem even further.

This technology does indeed come with a handful of benefits, but understanding its internal mechanics and managing its environmental impact will be imperative for humanity’s wellbeing both environmentally and existentially. (Now please enjoy this AI-generated image below)

2. Mother Nature or Mommy Issues?

From the floods in Sumatra to the fires in Kalimantan to the recent earthquake in the Java sea — Indonesians aren’t strangers to natural disasters.

This begs the question: Are we taking enough care of Mother Nature — or do we deserve a spanking from her?

Daniel Lim, founder of Neohistoria, takes us through a historical journey of our geological destiny:

As a country located within The Ring of Fire, Indonesia is perfectly placed for experiencing earthquakes caused by a clash of tectonic plates within the region.

Despite this earth-shattering fate, the country seems to not be taking natural disasters as seriously as we should be.

Recently, the government drastically reduced the state budget for the National Disaster Management Agency (BNPB) from Rp2 trillion in 2025 to Rp490 billion in 2026 — continuing a downward trend that has been going on for multiple years.

The reduction of funding for natural disaster relief programs may be a sign of overfixation on flagship programs such as MBG and Kopdes, but it may also be a sign of mental immaturity among our leaders — the great majority of whom are male.

As outlined in the book Raising Boys (recommended by biotech researcher Sharlini Eriza Putri), boyhood is divided into three main developmental phases:

Phase 1 — The Gentle Years (0 to 6): the boy is deeply attached to his mother, from whom he gets his sense of unconditional love.

Phase 2 — Learning to be Male (6 to 14): the boy looks more toward his father to learn how to act and behave like a man.

Phase 3 — Becoming a Man (14 and above): the boy looks toward outside male role models to guide him through adulthood.

If any one of these phases are skipped, the boy is destined to remain stuck in his boyhood and make bad decisions for himself — or worse, make bad decisions for OTHERS if he happens to hold a position of power.

Patriarchy, patronage, populism — all the ills of Indonesian politics today — may indeed be symptoms of old men in power still stuck in their boyish ways. They are symptoms of psychological immaturity operating at the highest levels of society.

Like it or not, the seeds of empathy and conscientiousness required to make good environmental policy decisions are planted at home. It is perhaps through the relationship we have with our mothers that we first learn to love and care for Mother Nature.

3. A Party of Parties

Why are there so many political parties in Indonesia — and what does each of them stand for?

According to Nada Zharfania Zuhaira, a senior analyst at an environmental think tank, political parties in Indonesia are sorely due for a reformation in three particular areas:

1. Money Politics: money plays a tremendous role in Indonesian politics. One cannot even begin to start a political party without access to tens of billions of Rupiah at the VERY LEAST. If one wishes to be competitive with the existing political parties, that number goes way higher to the point where it becomes an endeavor reserved for the ultra-elites.
2. Unclear Ideologies: whilst America and the U.K. have two political parties with clear and contrasting ideologies, the political party landscape in Indonesia paints a more diverse (and thus, ambiguous) picture.

With the progressives gravitating toward the Democrats and the conservatives gravitating toward the Republicans in America, it is not so clear which ideologies belong to which parties in Indonesia.

If the two-party system in the U.S. and the U.K. resembles a boxing match, the Indonesian multi-party landscape looks more like a perplexing chess tournament.

3. Unrepresentative of The People: Political parties in Indonesia tend to represent only a certain class of people — the businessmen and the oligarchs of the country. Because they require tremendous capital to build and maintain, political parties inevitably serve those with the financial means to keep them alive, creating a doom-loop of money politics whereby no real space is given for the interests of the middle and lower classes.

Given the elitism, ideological ambiguity, and unrepresentative nature of our political parties, it is not surprising that our policy decision-making resembles more of a circus act than anything worthy of being taken seriously.

4. Is Indonesia‘s Entertainment Industry “Trashy”?

Guy says: Bapak kamu… tukang trompet ya????

Girl says: Kok Tau?????

Guy says: Karena kau telah MENIUP CINTA kedalam hatiku…

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called Gombal — cheesy pickup lines often portrayed in Indonesian comedy and sketch shows.

Indonesian humor is very self-deprecating. We “punch down” in our humor — we like to laugh at our mishaps, our misfortunes, and our cringeworthiness.

With extremely popular TV shows like YKS and Opera Van Java — one can sometimes wonder: why isn’t there more quality in Indonesia’s entertainment industry?

Kevin Alexander, a renewable energy student and content creator, has a very market-oriented view of this phenomenon: the Indonesian entertainment industry is of the quality it is today because that is what the market wants.

In his own words: “At the end of the day, the entertainment industry is an Industry. TV studios, film studios, and content creators ultimately want to make a return on their time and capital”.

Prasetya Dwicahya, managing partner at AMANA Solutions and co-host of The Reading Chamber podcast, has a profoundly different view on the matter: Who is to say that TV shows such as YKS are of “low quality”?

Quality — just like beauty — is in the eye of the beholder. Quality is not an objective phenomenon but a subjective one — born from the preferences of each individual. And saying that something is of low quality may be a manifestation of classist thinking.

Regardless of what label we put on it, the art that we create and consume is a reflection of our people.

We may not have Christopher-Nolan-quality movies just yet in Indonesia, but slapstick comedy may indeed be an outlet through which our people can find joy, laughter, and a shared sense of community.

5. Public Relations or Prabowo Relations?

If you look at Instagram, many of the Nutritional Provision Service Units (SPPG kitchens) under the MBG program operate their very own accounts, filled with videos and images showcasing their SQUEAKY-CLEAN reputation.

But who really benefits from all this sweet talk?

Hanah, a communications student, is rather perplexed by MBG’s public relations “strategy” (if they have one).

It is unclear who this content is trying to cater to given that parents, students, and teachers are well aware that the products on the ground aren’t as nutritious and high quality as they are portrayed on these accounts.

Andre, a lawyer, has heard rumors that the content created by these SPPG kitchens is not made to educate the people, but merely a formality to serve appetizing news to the president.

6. Why Doesn’t EVIDENCE Drive Indonesian Policy?

Research, information, data — do they have a place in Indonesian policymaking? Or are the rules and regulations in this country shaped by factors beyond hard data?

Michael, author and long-time resident of the United States, sees this as a sociocultural issue.

Pointing to Mochtar Lubis’s essay Manusia Indonesia, one of the defining characteristics of Indonesians is our superstition. We often attribute mystical qualities to people, events, and even inanimate objects around us.

Nurindah, a government relations and public policy consultant, asserts that evidence-based practices already exist in the halls of government, but more needs to be done in terms of data collection and funding initiatives to further strengthen these practices.

Daniel, founder of Neohistoria, believes that our president currently leads from a place of ideology rather than rationality, with his ideals still rooted in the 1980s when authoritative power structures held sway over the archipelago.

All of the traits mentioned above — superstition, lazy data collection, and toxic nostalgia for a past long gone — contribute to the erosion of rationality in our current political landscape.

Thank you to everyone who attended the event!

Get 15% OFF your Endgame Townhall tickets NOW! 🥳 by using the discount code: ECONFORINTROVERTS

Get your tickets HERE👉👉: bit.ly/egth2026

Check out and follow @econ_forintroverts on Instagram for more content like this!