Search results

The aim of this paper is to discuss the Finnish education system from an Indonesian perspective, and consider what citizens, notably from middle-income countries, may learn from the Finnish system. The source material is the author's book, which provides an Indonesian perspective on the Finnish education system, supplemented by discussions from webinars and weekly Instagram Live discussions on the topic. It is known that education is part of a country's culture, thus the Finnish education system cannot simply be implemented as such in another place. Yet there certainly are elements that can be adopted to the local culture, in this case, in Indonesia. The different models of education in Finland and Indonesia are compared to conclude with lessons that we can learn from Finland, notably regarding a sustainable future and the possibility of learning simple daily life skills.

Parliament has its role in supporting Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). SDG number 16 on peace, justice, and strong institution states one indicator of a legislative institution (for "responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative", that the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) commits to achieve. However, parliament must support the government in achieving all SDG programs as stated in Agenda 2030. What is the role of parliament in this and how to achieve it? This paper aims to show that the role of parliament in SDG is beyond the traditional legislative role of legislating, budgeting and overseeing the government, but more on representing people, meaning channeling people's voice at the global forums, notably the parliamentary forums discussing sustainable development issues. The cases used in this paper are Southeast Asian parliaments, notably Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore. The paper uses four cases of parliamentary gatherings: the World Parliamentary Forum on Sustainable Development Goals in 2017-2019 (3 meetings) that Indonesian parliament organized and the 10th Asia-Europe Parliamentary Meeting (ASEP) in 2018 that the European Parliament organized, where parliaments of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore were attended. The study shows that the parliaments still focus much on secondary sources for gathering information, that is from the government, senior policymakers, and international agency personnel to support SDG, rather than bringing the constituents' voices on these forums. The case also shows that personalized politics still exist from the Indonesian parliamentary side –and not so obvious from the Malaysian and Singaporean sides. This may serve as a base for further study of whether the parliamentary system works better than the presidential system. The parliamentary system emphasizes more on the constituent background, while the presidential one states the members' political party affiliation. ; peerReviewed

This paper introduces the challenges of studying parliamentary institutions in Southeast Asia. My focus of research is in three countries' institutions: national parliaments of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. While in Southeast Asia, it is widely known that studying issues of politics and institutions face challenges – compared to studying culture, for example, this view is arguably no longer valid, however with certainqualification.The comparison of parliamentary tradition between three countries – based on observation of the plenary session - reveals that the effectiveness of parliamentary works is related to parliamentary procedure, and even to the culture of work in the countries. Parliamentary structure, procedure and their political culture matters. Therefore, acknowledging these factors will give rise to more research opportunities, if a researcher plans to study the political institution in other countries in Southeast Asia.

This paper introduces the challenges of studying parliamentary institutions in Southeast Asia. My focus of research is in three countries' institutions: national parliaments of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. While in Southeast Asia, it is widely known that studying issues of politics and institutions face challenges – compared to studying culture, for example, this view is arguably no longer valid, however with certain qualification. The comparison of parliamentary tradition between three countries – based on observation of the plenary session - reveals that the effectiveness of parliamentary works is related to parliamentary procedure, and even to the culture of work in the countries. Parliamentary structure, procedure and their political culture matters. Therefore, acknowledging these factors will give rise to more research opportunities, if a researcher plans to study the political institution in other countries in Southeast Asia. ; peerReviewed

This article presents the experiences and problems of the Indonesian parliament, or DPR (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat), during the transition from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one, in 1999–2004. Despite empowerment through the amended constitution and political laws, the DPR did not significantly change its parliamentary procedure and practices. The problems in the DPR actually lie in its procedure. The DPR procedure and the parliamentary debates retain the authoritarian tradition that favours the executive government (president), encouraging small groups of commissions to take the decisions and to discuss parliamentary tasks outside the plenary session. Aspects of parliamentary procedure are also discussed. Accordingly, as the parliamentary procedure and its political culture remain outdated, the DPR cannot yet be considered to be a fully democratic parliament. As a means to empower the parliament, this article discusses the possibilities of reform in the DPR, including revising its procedure, as part of its democratization process. ; peerReviewed