The Jakarta Composite Index fell by 0.36 percent to 6,250.26 and hit its week-lowest, along with Rupiah that weakened by 0.23 percent in the middle of Prabowo Subianto' lawsuit at the Constitutional Court - Photo: Special

JAKARTA (TheInsiderStories) – The second debate of the 2019 presidential candidates which discussed the issue of food, energy, infrastructure, environment and natural resources has been held. The range of themes that should be able to elaborate on a number of fundamental issues.

The facts say the opposite: instead of debating exploratory issues, Joko Widodo is concerned about claims that are not all true and Prabowo Subianto is a sale of jargon.

Palm oil governance strategies for example. The Greenpeace report shows that 25 palm oil producers in Indonesia have cleared 130 thousand hectares of forest since 2015. Instead of promoting strategies and policies to improve palm oil governance, the answers of the two candidates overlooked the fact that oil palm plantations are the biggest contributor to deforestation in Indonesia.

Subianto will instead boost palm oil production so that it can be utilized as bio fuel, bio diesel, and increase farmers’ income. Widodo isn’t better either. He did not mention the continuation of the moratorium on oil palm plantation permits that expired in 2021 from the moratorium presidential decree signed in September 2018.

This debate also shows the sinking of the world’s maritime axis in the vision of the incumbent. Since 2014 Widodo echoed the world’s maritime axis slogan through its sea highway vision. However, during this debate, this slogan was not discussed at all. Even the vision of the sea highway is only once mentioned during an exploratory debate, the context is not even the main answer to the question of managing maritime resources. In discussing infrastructure, Widodo actually introduced Palapa Ring to support industry 4.0.

Subianto’s limited answer, again falling into rhetoric, makes it difficult for us to dig it too. Subianto rarely evaluates Widodo’s toll road projects and port construction in a number of regions. He only mentioned the port operations that were not managed properly.

The scheme of financing infrastructure through debt is not completely ignored by the two candidates. Subianto should be able to maximize the data: until September 2018, Indonesia’s total foreign debt reached US$ 360.7 billion. Subianto briefly touched on government debt but was limited to the big picture that was glaring.

Freeport had been touched on by Widodo, and this was only limited to claims of majority ownership of 51 percent. What escaped from Subianto: the rights of Freeport workers who had been marching in front of the Palace for more than eight months without ever having met.

In the field of environment, we also do not hear the discussion about global warming and reclamation. Even though there are a number of serious problems in Indonesia such as declining air quality in a number of regions in Indonesia, especially in Jakarta, land subsidence, sea level rise, to rising temperatures and extreme weather.

In Greenpeace’ record, Jakarta was ranked as one of the worst air quality in the world on 11 August 2018. At the same time, Jakarta sank one to 15 centimeters per year. The temperature in Indonesia rises per year from a scale of 0.01 to 0.02 Celsius from a rise in global temperature of 1.5 Celsius.

While the issue of reclamation is also quiet from the debate. Even though reclamation always reaps the resistance of the people because it damages the environment and the ecosystem order. There are at least five major reclamation projects that are still being debated: the reclamation of Benoa Bay, Makassar CPI, North Manado, Palu Bay and Jakarta Bay.

When discussing the mine pit they were neglected to speak 32 victims who  died after drowning in a mine pit in East Kalimantan, which allegedly belonged to PT Bukit Baiduri Energy.

The public mind was even more chaotic by claims of Widodo’ success being wrong on the one hand, the absence of a concrete program from Subianto on the other.

One of his mistakes is the matter of the agrarian conflict. Widodo said that in the past four years there was almost no conflict in land acquisition. Meanwhile, the Wahana Lingkungan Indonesia noted that over the past year there were 555 agrarian conflicts. One of the most widely reported was the construction of New Yogyakarta International Airport.

This conflict even triggered chaos many times. November 2017, PT Angkasa Pura and the police force forced residents to leave their homes. They break the door of the house with kicks, crowbars, and hammers.

Next is Widodo’ claim for success in overcoming peat land fires. However, data from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry shows, there is indeed a decline in fires from 2015 to 2017. In 2015 there were 891,275 hectares of land on fire. This figure dropped to 97,787 hectares in 2016 and 13,555 hectares in 2017. However, in 2018, the fire rate rose dramatically to 125,340 hectares.

The opposition Subianto also did not provide fresh air. He did not provide alternative solutions, no concrete programs and only good at selling out jargon. This has even surfaced since the first segment. He looks more concerned with rhetoric, not numbers and data. In the end he id not answer public expectations regarding concrete solutions to the problems faced by society.

Of course, this debate has an electoral impact on both candidates. Performance during the debate, especially regarding vision and mission, mastery of the substance of the question, innovation of strategies offered, often helps win competitions.

PoliticaWave records the selection of the two candidates based on the flow of chat on social media. Widodo-Amin’ Awareness Trends: 355,104 vs Subianto-Uno: 325,133, candidate electives: 677,511 vs 613,415, shared awareness: 1,286,533 vs 1,023,087, share of citizens: 198,403 vs. 137,423.

Written by Lexy Nantu, Email: