Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TRS10 17
TRS10 17
2017 no. 10
Trends in
Southeast Asia
The author is wholly responsible for the views expressed in this book which
do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.
Fossati, Diego.
The Indonesia National Survey Project : Economy, Society and Politics.
(Trends in Southeast Asia, 0219-3213 ; TRS 10/17)
1. Indonesia—Economic conditions.
2. Indonesia—Social conditions.
3. Indonesia—Politics and government.
I. Title.
II. Hui, Yew-Foong.
III. Negara, Siwage Dharma.
IV. Series: Trends in Southeast Asia ; TRS 10/17.
DS501 I59T no.10 (2017) September 2017
THE EDITORS
Series Chairman:
Tan Chin Tiong
Series Editor:
Ooi Kee Beng
Editorial Committee:
Su-Ann Oh
Daljit Singh
Francis E. Hutchinson
Benjamin Loh
1. Introduction........................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background of the Study............................................................ 1
1.2 Survey Methodology.................................................................. 2
1.3 Purpose and Structure................................................................. 3
2. Economy............................................................................................. 4
2.1 Evaluation of the Economy........................................................ 4
2.2 Economic Policy........................................................................ 8
2.3 Infrastructure Policy................................................................... 9
2.4 Role of Government in the Economy....................................... 13
2.5 Internet and E-commerce......................................................... 13
3. Society.............................................................................................. 16
3.1 Islamic Practices....................................................................... 16
3.2 Islam in Society and Politics.................................................... 23
3.3 Chinese Indonesians................................................................. 24
4. Politics.............................................................................................. 27
4.1 Approval Rating of President Widodo..................................... 27
4.2 Trust in Institutions and Satisfaction with Democracy............ 29
4.3 Decentralization....................................................................... 31
4.4 Political Participation............................................................... 35
4.5 National Identity....................................................................... 37
4.6 Globalization and International Relations................................ 37
5. Conclusion........................................................................................ 47
Figure
1. Evaluation of economic condition (country).................................... 5
2. Evaluation of economic condition (household)................................ 6
3. Evaluation of household economic condition by location,
education and income........................................................................ 7
4. Compared with the SBY years, has the economy improved
since Joko Widodo took office?........................................................ 8
5. On whether it is easier to find a job, by gender, location,
education and income...................................................................... 10
6. Satisfaction with government performance on infrastructure,
by location....................................................................................... 11
7. What kind of infrastructure should be a priority?........................... 12
8. Main obstacles to develop infrastructure in Indonesia.................... 13
9. Most important issues/problems facing Indonesia today................ 14
10. Role of government in the economy............................................... 14
11. Internet usage by gender, location, education and income............. 15
12. Cell phone ownership by gender, location, education
and income...................................................................................... 17
13. How important is it for a Muslim to go to haj?............................... 18
14. Should all Muslim women wear hijab?.......................................... 19
15. Do you personally wear hijab? (women respondents only)............ 20
16. Would there be any benefits to implementing shariah law?............ 21
17. What is the most important challenge facing Islam
in Indonesia?................................................................................... 22
18. Do you usually buy Islamic products and services from the
following categories?...................................................................... 23
19. Stereotypes of Chinese Indonesians: Privileged............................. 25
20. Stereotypes of Chinese Indonesians: Influence............................... 26
21. Stereotypes of Chinese Indonesians: Exclusiveness...................... 26
22. Are you comfortable with a Chinese Indonesian in a position
of political leadership?.................................................................... 28
Table
1. The Role of Islam............................................................................. 24
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• The ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute commissioned a nationwide
survey in Indonesia, called the Indonesia National Survey Project
(INSP) to enhance understanding of economic, social, and political
developments in Indonesia.
• President Joko Widodo’s approval rating hovers at around 68 per
cent, and respondents generally think that the President has made
improvements to the economy, although there are concerns with
the price of necessities and job-seeking prospects. The Widodo
administration scores well in infrastructure development, which is
its signature policy thrust. Roads, education and electricity supply
remain the top priorities for respondents, while corruption is still
considered the most important problem facing Indonesia today.
• Some key issues that have emerged during the Jakarta gubernatorial
election, such as punishing blasphemy against Islam and voting a
Muslim leader into office, receive significantly high support from
respondents, suggesting that these issues have currency beyond
Jakarta and the election.
• On the political front, state institutions, especially the Army, are
more highly trusted than politicians. Key elements of Indonesia’s
political infrastructure, such as democracy, Pancasila, and
decentralization are supported by an overwhelming majority of
respondents.
• Indonesians identify strongly with Indonesia and consider traditional
economic partners such as Malaysia, Japan, Singapore and ASEAN
to be most important for Indonesia.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
The Indonesian economy, society, and politics have been undergoing
a number of crucial developments that may shape the country’s future
trajectory in important ways. The economy, although still crippled by
sluggish global economic expansion, has proven to be resilient to the
slump in commodity prices, and the current administration has ambitious
plans to expand infrastructure and promote a more open and investment-
friendly economic environment.2
In the social and cultural realm, Indonesia is facing seemingly
contradictory developments. On the one hand, there is a resurgence of
anti-liberal sentiments, ranging from a growth of conservative Islam
in some social sectors to increased animosity towards immigrants and
ethno-religious minorities. On the other hand, civil society organizations
are becoming more assertive, and they play a more influential role in
shaping policy direction.
In politics, the process of democratic consolidation continues without
substantial setbacks, despite unfortunate continuities with the past such
1
Diego Fossati is Associate Fellow at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute and
Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University; Hui Yew-Foong
is Senior Fellow at the ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute and Associate Professor,
Hong Kong Shue Yan University; and Siwage Dharma Negara is Fellow at the
ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute.
2
World Bank, Indonesia Economic Quarterly: Upgraded, June 2017.
3
Jeffrey A. Winters, Oligarchy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).
Also, Dan Slater, “Indonesia’s Accountability Trap: Party Cartels and Presidential
Power after Democratic Transition”, Indonesia 78 (October 2004): 61–92.
2. ECONOMY
2.1 Evaluation of the Economy
Respondents are asked to evaluate the current condition of the Indonesian
economy, the condition of the economy as compared to the previous year,
and the expected condition of the economy in one year’s time. Figure 1
shows that 45.3 per cent of respondents perceives the current economic
condition as “average”, 28.7 per cent perceives the economic condition
as “bad”, while only 26 per cent perceives the economic condition
as “good”. However, 41.5 per cent thinks that the current economic
condition is “better” as compared to the last year, exceeding those who
think that there is “no change” (34.4 per cent) and those who think that it
is “worse” (24.2 per cent). When asked about the outlook of the economy
in one year’s time, 66.5 per cent thinks that it will be better, exceeding by
a large margin those who think that there will be “no change” (23.3 per
80
80
66.5
60
60
60
45.3
41.5
Percent
40
40
40
34.4
28.7
26 24.2 23.3
20
20
20
10.3
0
0
0
ge
se
ge
se
tte
tte
or
or
an
an
d
ge
Be
Be
W
W
oo
Ba
ch
ch
ra
G
o
Av
cent) and those who think that it will be “worse” (10.3 per cent). Thus,
while respondents may seem slightly pessimistic about the current state
of the economy, they are more optimistic when comparing the economy
to the last year and when forecasting the performance of the economy for
the year to come.
The survey also asks respondents to evaluate their current household
economic condition, compare it to the previous year and their expected
condition in one year’s time. Overall, their responses are more optimistic
than their assessment of the national economy. Figure 2 shows that
37.8 per cent of respondents perceives their household economic
condition to be “good”, almost twice those who perceive their household
economic condition to be “bad” (19.9 per cent). More strikingly, 75.4 per
cent of respondents thinks that their household economic condition will
be “better” in one year. This greater optimism with respect to household
economic condition demonstrates the perception that President Widodo’s
handling of the economy will not only lead to growth for the national
economy, but more importantly, will bring real benefits to individual
households.
80
80
75.4
60
60
60
45
42.2
Percent
40
40
37.8
40
32.8
22.2
19.6
19.9
20
20
20
5
0
0
0
ge
se
ge
se
tte
tte
or
or
an
an
d
ge
Be
Be
W
W
oo
Ba
ch
ch
ra
G
o
Av
4
We group respondents into three main categories according to their reported
income level and education level. Low-income respondents report incomes
below Rp1.6 million, middle-income respondents between Rp1.6 million and
Rp4 million, and high-income respondents above Rp4 million. Meanwhile, low-
education respondents are defined as having only primary education, if any;
medium-education respondents have completed middle-school or high school;
high-education respondents have at least some college education, a college or
a postgraduate degree. This follows Diego Fossati, The State of Local Politics
in Indonesia: Survey Evidence from Three Cities, Trends in Southeast Asia
No. 5/2016 (Singapore: ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute, 2016).
6
By location
Rural Urban
50
50
47.3
42.6
40
40
35
30.6
30
30
Percent
22.1 22.4
20
20
10
10
0
By education
Low education Medium education High education
57.8
60
60
60
47.6
39.7
40
40
40
Percent
19.8
20
20
20
8.89
0
0
r
ge
se
ge
se
ge
se
tte
te
tte
or
or
or
an
an
an
t
Be
Be
Be
W
W
ch
ch
ch
o
o
N
By income
Low income Middle income High income
58.5
60
60
60
44.4
39.4
40
40
40
35.5
Percent
32.5
27.4
25.1
23.1
20
20
20
14.2
0
0
r
ge
se
ge
se
ge
se
tte
tte
tte
or
or
or
an
an
an
Be
Be
Be
W
W
ch
ch
ch
o
!
N
60
60
55.2
52.1
47.7
40
40
40
Percent
27.5 28.7
25.3
22.6 23.5
20
20
20
17.3
0
Easier to find a job Prices are cheaper Improved condition for the poor
60
60
60
47.8
43.2
41.3
40
40
40
Percent
20
0
5
Estu Suryowati, “Jokowi Yakin Pertumbuhan Ekonomi RI Bisa Tembus
7 Persen”, Kompas, 15 June 2014 <http://ekonomi.kompas.com/read/2014/
06/15/2127459/Jokowi.Yakin.Pertumbuhan.Ekonomi.RI.Bisa.Tembus.
7.Persen> (accessed 7 August 2017).
6
In general, this relates to the perception that the economy has become more
competitive in comparison with other economies.
7
Fabian Januarius Kuwado, “Inflasi 2016–2017 Terendah dalam 7 Tahun, Jokowi
Apresiasi Kepala Daerah”, Kompas, 27 July 2017 <http://nasional.kompas.com/
read/2017/07/27/13010491/inflasi-2016-2017-terendah-dalam-7-tahun-jokowi-
apresiasi-kepala-daerah> (accessed 7 August 2017).
8
Roads include toll roads, highways and general roads.
By gender By location
17-J02520 01 Trends_2017-10.indd 10
Male Female Rural Urban
50
50
50
50
46.3
43.9
38.8
40
40
40
40
36.4
33.1
31.6 30.5
29.5 29.3
28.1
30
30
28
30
30
24.4
Percent
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
Disagree Neither Agree Disagree Neither Agree Disagree Neither Agree Disagree Neither Agree
By education By income
Low education Medium education High education Low income Middle income High income
48.5
50
50
50
50
50
50
44.9
41.7 40.4 40.4
39.5
40
40
40
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
27
24.1
Percent
Percent
19.7
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
ee er ee ee e r ee ee er ee ee er ee ee er ee ee er ee
gr th gr gr th gr gr th gr gr th gr gr th gr gr th gr
isa ei A isa ei A isa ei A isa ei A isa ei A isa ei A
D N D N D N D N D N D N
25/8/17 10:16 AM
Figure 6: Satisfaction with government performance on
infrastructure, by location
Rural Urban
80
80
76
71.8
60
60
Percent
40
40
28.2
24
20
20
0
While the order of the top three priorities — roads, then schools, then
electricity and power plants — is consistent across rural and urban
respondents, rural respondents are more likely to prioritize roads and
electricity, while urban respondents are more likely to prioritize schools.
This is probably because roads and electricity are less readily available
in rural locations, and the urban population is more likely to have
better education and higher income and therefore greater demand for
educational facilities.
Concerning the main obstacles to infrastructure development,
respondents are asked to choose up to three answers (this is why the
percentages add up to more than 100). Figure 8 shows that 97 per cent
of respondents thinks that corruption is the main obstacle to developing
infrastructure in the country. The option that attracts the second highest
proportion of votes is the “lack of human and financial resources” at
33.1 per cent, and coming in third is the lack of support from the local
government at 11.1 per cent.
11
Whole sample
Electricity & power plant 5.82
Roads 70.5
Seaports 1.36
Airports 1.08
School 15.9
0 20 40 60 80
Rural
Electricity & power plant 6.54
Roads 73.7
Seaports .556
Airports 1.11
School 11.5
0 20 40 60 80
Urban
Electricity & power plant 5.05
Roads 67.2
Railways & MRTs .892
Dams 2.97
Seaports 2.23
Airports 1.04
School 20.7
0 20 40 60 80
Percent
12
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
13
Corruption 38.8
Price stability 22
Poverty 20.9
Education 18.8
Unemployment 16.3
Healthcare 9.53
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Spend more for the poor Set price for gas and staple food
100
100
90.1
80
80
64.6
Percent
60
60
35.4
40
40
20
20
9.91
0
100
89.1
80
80
71.1
Percent
60
60
40
40
28.9
20
20
10.9
0
14
By gender By location
Male Female Rural Urban
79.1
80
80
80
80
70.7
66.4
58.2
60
60
60
60
Percent
Percent
41.8
40
40
40
40
33.6
29.3
20.9
20
20
20
20
0
0
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
By education
Low education Medium education High education
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
92.9
84.3
Percent
56.7
43.3
15.7
7.12
By income
Low income Middle income High income
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
81.4
69.4
Percent
61.1
38.9
30.6
18.6
9
McKinsey, Unlocking Indonesia’s digital opportunity, 2016.
15
3. SOCIETY
3.1 Islamic Practices
This subsection looks into the influence of Islam in society, especially in
view of Indonesia being a majority Muslim country. Muslims constitute
86.2 per cent of the sample,12 and it is their responses that we examine
10
“Special Report Indonesia”, The Economist, 27 February 2016.
11
Stefani Ribka and Dylan Amirio, “E-commerce boom here to stay, industry
players say”, Jakarta Post, 27 May 2016 <http://www.thejakartapost.com/
news/2016/05/27/e-commerce-boom-here-to-stay-industry-players-say.html>
(accessed 7 August 2017).
12
The 2010 Census put Muslims at 87.5 per cent of the population. See Aris
Ananta, Evi Nurvidya Arifin, M. Sairi Hasbullah, Nur Budi Handayani and
Wahyu Pramono, Demography of Indonesia’s Ethnicity (Singapore: Institute of
Southeast Asian Studies, 2015).
16
By gender By location
Male Female Rural Urban
77.7 78.5
80
80
80
80
70.1 69.3
60
60
60
60
Percent
Percent
40
40
40
40
29.9 30.7
22.3 21.5
20
20
20
20
0
0
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
By education
Low education Medium education High education
97
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
86.1
Percent
56.6
43.4
13.9
2.96
By income
Low income Middle income High income
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100
87.7
78
64.6
Percent
35.4
22
12.3
17
0 20 40 60
Percent
13
As our data are not longitudinal, this does not preclude the possibility that
communal religious practices may be getting more prevalent.
18
By education
Low education Medium education High education
88.9
83.8
79.3
80
80
80
60
60
60
Percent
40
40
40
20.7
16.2
20
20
20
11.1
0
By income
Low income Middle income High income
85.1
80.4 78.5
80
80
80
60
60
60
Percent
40
40
40
19.6 21.5
20
20
20
14.9
0
19
By education
Low education Medium education High education
94.5
78.4
80
80
80
75.2
Percent
60
60
60
40
40
40
24.8
21.6
20
20
20
5.45
0
By income
Low income Middle income High income
84.9
78.2
80
80
80
75.6
Percent
60
60
60
40
40
40
24.4 21.8
20
20
20
15.1
0
14
There is evidence that the hijab has been getting popular among young
professional Muslim women. See Annisa R. Beta, “Hijabers: How Young
Urban Muslim Women Redefine Themselves in Indonesia”, International
Communication Gazette 76, Issue 4-5 (June 2014): 377–89.
20
0 20 40 60 80
Percent
15
Identifying with shariah can mean identification with Islamic values in general,
and not necessarily support for the implementation of hudud, punishments
mandated to be carried out with the infraction of shariah law.
21
Christianisation efforts
2.13
are growing
Other .966
0 10 20 30 40
Percent
22
Food Banking
Yes 83.1 Yes 26.1
No 16.9 No 73.9
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Education Housing
Yes 39.1 Yes 15.9
No 60.9 No 84.1
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Music Healthcare
Yes 31.7 Yes 20.8
No 68.3 No 79.2
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
Cosmetic Magazine
Yes 27.4 Yes 18.4
No 72.6 No 81.6
0 20 40 60 80 0 20 40 60 80
23
Item Support
1 The government should prioritize Islam over other 49%
religions
2 Islamic religious leaders should play a very important 37%
role in politics
3 Indonesian regions should be allowed to implement 41%
shariah law at the local level
4 Shariah law should be implemented throughout 39%
Indonesia
5 Blasphemy against Islam should be punished more 63%
severely
6 When voting in elections, it is very important to choose 58%
a Muslim leader
7 Islam should become Indonesia’s only official religion 36%
24
48.0
Life is easier for Chinese Indonesians 31.6
20.4
60.1
Chinese Indonesians are usually at least middle-class 23.9
16.0
0 20 40 60 80
25
41.9
Chinese Indonesians have too much influence in the
31.3
Indonesian politics
26.8
Agree
Neither
62.0
Chinese Indonesians have too much influence in the Disagree
23.2
Indonesian economy
14.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
33.7
It is inappropriate for indigenous Indonesians to
30.6
inter-marry with Chinese Indonesians
35.8
47.6
Chinese Indonesians may still harbour loyalty
34.5
towards China
17.9
44.1
It is hard to be a close friend with a Chinese
26.6
Indonesian
29.3
42.4 Agree
Chinese Indonesians have their own religion that do
30.0
not fit well in Indonesia Neither
27.6
Disagree
42.6
Chinese Indonesians have different culture that does
30.9
not fit with Indonesian values
26.5
46.3
Chinese Indonesians are too greedy and ambitious 29.5
24.2
48.4
Chinese Indonesians only care about their own kind 24.0
27.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
26
4. POLITICS
4.1 Approval Rating of President Widodo
One of the key questions of the survey is to ask respondents whether
they approve of how Joko Widodo is handling his job as President of
16
See A.J. Muaja, The Chinese Problem in Indonesia (Djakarta, Indonesia: New
Nusantara Publishing Coy, 1960).
17
As our research design does not produce representative samples of ethnic
groups, our inferences regarding variation across ethnic groups should be
interpreted with caution. The largest groups in our sample are the Javanese (685
respondents), Madurese (227) and Malay (66). For other minority groups, the
figures are based on a lower number of respondents, given the smaller size of
such groups as a share of the general Indonesian population.
27
By education
Low education Medium education High education
80
80
80
66.8
64.2
60
60
60
53.4
46.6
Percent
40
40
40
35.8
33.2
20
20
20
0
0
No Yes No Yes No Yes
By income
Low income Middle income High income
80
80
80
67.4
63.6
60.7
60
60
60
Percent
39.3
40
40
36.4 40
32.6
20
20
20
0
18
Cici Marlina Rahayu, “Survei SMRC: 67% Masyarakat Puas terhadap Kinerja
Jokowi”, Detiknews, 8 June 2017 <https://news.detik.com/berita/d-3524763/
survei-smrc-67-masyarakat-puas-terhadap-kinerja-jokowi> (accessed 6 August
2017).
28
100
1
86
82 83
80
78
80
76
63 64
61 60
60
Percent
39 40
40
37 36
24 22
20
18
20
17
14
0
0
se
ay
an
li
en
n
gi
es
es
ta
an
bo
Ba
ne
al
vi
nt
Bu
Ba
an
ur
in
re
M
ta
Ba
va
ad
nd
Ci
Ba
Ja
M
Su
Uncomfortable Comfortable
29
By gender By location
Male Female Rural Urban
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
68.7 67.6 68.9 67.4
Percent
Percent
31.3 32.4 31.1 32.6
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ve
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
ro
p
pp
pp
pp
pp
Ap
Ap
Ap
Ap
a
a
is
is
is
is
D
D
By education
Low education Medium education High education
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
67.5 68.8 67.7
Percent
By income
Low income Middle income High income
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
30
Courts 65.7
Police 70.3
Army 90.2
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
4.3 Decentralization
Respondents are asked to assess if having multiple levels of government
is a system that is working for Indonesia. In response, 80 per cent of the
31
Indonesia is a democratic country Indonesia more democratic now than 10y ago
77.4
80
20 40 60 80
71.6
60
Percent
40
16.6 19.3
20
5.97 9.12
0
0
Disagree Neither Agree Disagree Neither Agree
Democracy best form of govt. for Indonesia Democracy can solve Indonesia's problems
79.8
80
80
71.6
40 60
60
Percent
40
15.5 18.3
20
20
10.1
4.69
0
26.4
23.8
sample says that the system is working “quite well” or “very well”, while
the remaining 20 per cent chooses “not well at all” or “not very well”.
This suggests that a strong majority of respondents is satisfied with the
current system of decentralized governance.
When we consider location as a factor, rural respondents are more
likely than urban respondents to think that the current decentralized
system is working well (Figure 29). Where region is concerned, it
appears that the furthest reaching regions of Eastern Islands (91 per cent)
and Papua (88 per cent) and the most populated region of Java and Bali
(83 per cent) have the highest proportion of respondents that considers
32
100
87.7
78.3
80
80
60
60
Percent
40
40
20
20
16.8
11.6
4.87
.672
0
Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree
By ethnic group
Javanese 4
Sundanese 6
Malay 9
Bugis 4
Betawi 4
Batak 11
Minang 3
Chinese 31
0 10 20 30
By religious group
Islam 4
Catholic 25
Protestant 9
0 10 20 30
By location By region
83
100
78
80
91
88
83 82
77
80
69
60
60
Percent
40
40 31
22 23
18
20
17 17
20
12
9
0
19
As our research design does not produce representative samples at the region/
provincial level, our inferences on variation across regions should be interpreted
with caution. Of the 1,620 face-to-face interviews we conducted, 950 took place
in Java or Bali, 330 in Sumatra, 100 in Kalimantan, 130 in Sulawesi, 80 in the
Eastern Islands (Nusa Tenggara and Maluku), and 20 in Papua.
34
By location By region
59
60
80
66
63
47
60
56
54 54
40
42
Percent
30
40
26 33
32
24 30
25 25 25
24
20
20 21
15
20
17
9
5
0
35
20
Here, voting behaviour is over-reported, as the percentages are higher than
official turnout. For 2014, the turnout for parliamentary and presidential elections
were 75.11 per cent and 69.58 per cent respectively. See International Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance, “Voter turnout data for Indonesia” <http://
download.idea.int/vt/countryview.cfm?id=101> (accessed 7 August 2017).
21
The last corresponds with the degree of e-commerce participation of
respondents.
36
Cooperative 8.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
we break down the data further, it appears that respondents who are male,
based in rural locations, and have higher education are more interested
in politics (Figure 33). Where income is concerned, respondents with
middle income are least interested in politics.
By gender By location
Male Female Rural Urban
78.1
80
80
80
80
74.3
69.3
65.9
60
60
60
60
Percent
Percent
40
40
40
40
34.1
30.7
25.7
21.9
20
20
20
20
0
0
No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes
By education
Low education Medium education High education
75.9
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
70.4
59.8
Percent
40.2
29.6
24.1
By income
Low income Middle income High income
76
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
70.9 66.7
Percent
29.1 33.3
24
38
80
75.4
66.7
60
60
Percent
40
40
18.2
20
20
15 15.1
9.55
0
80
60
60
40.8 40.1
40
40
19
20
20
14.5
8.34
0
39
88
85.6
86 85.3
83.6
84 83.0
82.5 82.8
82.1
81.8
82 81.2
80 79.5
79.3 78.6
77.8
78 77.3
76.7
76
74
72
tes ina an sia ore and ali
a N
Sta Ch Jap lay gap ail str EA
ited Ma Sin Th Au AS
Un
40
22
Prashanth Parameswaran, “Is Indonesia Turning Away from ASEAN Under
Jokowi?”, The Diplomat, 18 December 2014 <http://thediplomat.com/2014/
12/is-indonesia-turning-away-from-asean-under-jokowi/> (accessed 7 August
2017).
41
70
60
54
51
50
48
45
43
Percent
41
40
40
38
29
20
20
17
0
se
ay
an
li
en
er
gi
es
es
es
ta
an
bo
Ba
th
ne
al
vi
nt
Bu
Ba
an
ur
in
in
re
O
M
ta
Ba
va
Ch
ad
nd
Ci
Ba
Ja
M
Su
60
60
Percent
Percent
40
40
40
32
27.7
23
20
20
20
12.3
9.9
7.7
0
Not at all A little A lot Not at all A little A lot Not at all A little A lot
By income
Low income Middle income High income
80
60.6
66 58.2
60
60
60
Percent
40
40
33.9
40
29.9
22.8
20
20
20
Not at all A little A lot Not at all A little A lot Not at all A little A lot
66.7
60
50
Percent
40
38.5
40
37.5 37.5
33.3
31.4
25
23.8
22.4
20.1
20
6.4
0
se
ay
an
li
en
er
gi
es
es
es
ta
an
bo
Ba
th
ne
al
vi
nt
Bu
Ba
an
ur
in
in
re
O
M
ta
Ba
va
Ch
ad
nd
Ci
Ba
Ja
M
Su
43
Be allowed to work in
Indonesia with no restrictions 3.26
Be allowed to work in
Indonesia but in limited numbers 50.2
Be allowed to work in
Indonesia, but only if high-skilled 19.9
Not be allowed to
work in Indonesia 26.6
0 10 20 30 40 50
allowed, 54.9 per cent thinks that they should be allowed in some cases,
and 19.9 per cent thinks that they should be allowed (Figure 41).
The survey also asks respondents about their opinion in relation to
what role Indonesia should play in view of China’s disagreements with
its neighbours over its maritime territory in the South China Sea. 53 per
cent of respondents does not select an answer, which suggests general
lack of awareness of this issue. Among those who give an answer to
this question, 37.7 per cent thinks that Indonesia should not be involved,
because it has no territory in the South China Sea (Figure 42). A majority
of 50.7 per cent thinks that Indonesia should mediate between China and
Southeast Asian countries. 10.2 per cent thinks that Indonesia should
support or lead Southeast Asian countries in this dispute, and only
1.45 per cent thinks that Indonesia should side with China.
44
It should never
be allowed 25.2
It should be allowed
only in some cases 54.9
It should
be allowed 19.9
0 20 40 60
Figure 42: How should Indonesia handle the South China Sea
issue?
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50
23
China and Indonesia have been clashing over fishing rights in the waters off
Indonesia’s Natuna Islands since 2015.
46
47
48
49
2017 no. 10
Trends in
Southeast Asia