Social Science and Power in Indonesia (book review)

Title :- Social Science and Power in Indonesia.
By :- Vedi R. Hadiz and Daniel Dhakidae (editors)
Published :- Ford Foundation, Equinox Publishing & Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (2005) Hard back (270 pages)
Outline;- Post independence the universities taught the Social Science, but this subject was hijacked by the Suharto government (New Order) and directed to reflect its political agenda. In essence it became an extension of the governments propaganda machine, and continues to imprint on the way Indonesian universities run, the ongoing narrow focus of the Social Scientists seek a job from the elite powers and reflected in current promulgation of laws – see Law 11/2014. A must read to the further understanding of Indonesia today.
Some extracts;
• “Corruption, controversially, could also be a blessing for the economy if it is measured in terms of economic growth. For example, if the Social Security Net (JPS) funds actually reached the poor, then the impact on the economy, in theory, would be small. The poor only spend their income on inexpensive goods and services whose stimulatory impact on the economy is weak. The impact on macroeconomic growth would also be weak. On the other had if the JOS funds are embezzled by those in high positions, the money could be spent on luxury goods and services, thereby increasing economic activity, and generating employment. Aggregated income could increase quickly and this could, in turn, be reflected in high growth statistics.”
• “These studies resulted, for example, in the PKI’s identification of the seven village devils who such the blood of the peasants ; landlords, usurers, advance purchase of crops, middlemen, bureaucratic capitalists (those who use state funds to pressure peasants to sell their products to the state enterprise for low prices), village bandits, (local strongmen who commit crimes to defend the interests of the exploiting classes) and evil village officials.”
• Even today; -“The motivation to become a campus bureaucrat has more to do with increasing one’s income that with academic achievement. This, in turn, has contributed to a situation where academic authority is subordinate to administrative authority, a situation that influences the way in which policy is decided.”
• The Suharto government – “this manipulation of mainstream social sciences involved three aspects, namely the legitimacy of policy, the positioning of strategic groups and the boundaries of state authority.”