Tom Lembong Bicara Blak-blakan Soal Kasusnya!

Welcome back to Malaka Cinematic Podcast. This time with me, Kania Cita, and my guest, Ferri Ruandi.

Hello.

And we have Mr. Tom Lembong.

Yay!

I'm so happy to be here.

Thank you for inviting me, Kania. Thank you, Ferri.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much for inviting me here.

It's been a month since you've been free.

It's been a month since you were released. Yes, it's been a month. I was released on 1st of August.

Is your body getting stronger?

Thank God. I'm still not back to the beginning, but I'm getting better.

We were invited to come here. I told him to let me talk to you later. Thank you. A week later, I was like, hmm then we got a lot of invitations.

So we thought we can invite them now. Because we thought there was a break time, we wanted to play first, meet family and friends, and all that. But it turns out we can invite them now.

Slowly, slowly.

Okay, sir. Maybe we're still talking about the case yesterday, right? Yes, yes. Yesterday, after you were abolished,

it was a time of a downturn.

The case was down.

But we saw in the news that there will be a request from Malik.

There was a report.

To the judge, to the BKP.

Is it still going on?

It's still going on. That's why, on my case to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Commission. Then we also reported the BPKP to the Ombudsman. And that will be the last step in terms of law from me. Related to my case. Because I also want to move on. To things that I think are more important and more urgent.

But we feel that the reporter is important. It's necessary. Because if not, it can be said as a waste. I think there is a lot of content about the jungle of the judges' decisions. I will not go into it. But if it's that clear,

as clear as possible, why don't we report it? It's weird, right? We don't have any grudge or bitterness. We just feel as professionals, there must be a next step. It can't be just like that. Okay, it's done. The important thing is freedom.

As a responsible citizen, we must continue to act that most likely violates the code of ethics.

And maybe violates the law.

And it can be a violation of the law. We have to think carefully. In the face of the doubt. That's right. But, clearly, various misunderstandings require an investigation. And maybe the first response from the perpetrators is to sanction or correct or take corrective action.

Hopefully this can be a momentum for improvement. For the institution, we once again do not want to attack individuals or individuals. We realize that the perpetrator is just doing their job or the top command. I feel sorry for the auditor of the BPKP. She looks very young compared to the young, very junior for a project that is so high profile,

which is very sought after by many. Why is he asked to move forward? I feel so sorry for him.

Why is he the only one? That's a question for... That's how bureaucracy works. When there's a problem, the one who's blamed is the boss. When there's a problem, the one who's blamed is the functional. In this case, it's the auditor.

Atom said this before the shooting, why is the hot ball being thrown down?

Or even the junior relative. And I hope this will bring improvement. Thank God, the Judicial Commission and the Ombudsman treated us well. And we hope there will be some kind of investigation that can open up a little bit more about what happened between those three judges. until we can produce an audit that is very embarrassing. Very embarrassing. And I'm not attacking the institution. But this thing is already done.

It's already a public document. As a proof in the court. And if it goes around, and if the investor sees it, it reflects an accounting culture or an audit that is very embarrassing.

So it's not accountable.

Yes.

What I'm confused about, what's leading to the direction is actually a fortune. From the fortune itself, we are from the beginning to the end, the case is confusing. It's really confusing, until you move here, move there, move there. The tariff is really funny. The import city, everything.

The import tariff. But there is no form for, for example, we can demand it to the judge, or to the auditor, or to the judge himself, sir. Because the audit pattern of potential loss, before Mr. Top Lemok, it has happened several times. Because of the fantastic number, which actually has no fundamental basis. People who understand accounting, this is messed up, where is the school if it's like this?

The regression is made like this, etc. But back again from the BPPK, usually the policy is to be careful, raise the case, audit the BPPKP.

From the caution itself, there is no reverse prediction or anything, sir? Several things, Mas Ferry. made me and my law course not to have high hopes on the Justice Committee. Maybe the talk show that was hosted by Mr. Aiman on iNews.

So, secondly, this is the abolition of the idea of no reason. That's what I mean. That's the abolition of caprice. That's the decision that is made by the top of the executive branch. So, we feel like we should give room to the executive branch, the government,

to clarify the president's ideas and the president's position. And it would be very strange if the government doesn't clarify the importance of the very clear direction. From the top, the president. Not only as the head of the government, but also as the head of the country. Because he doesn't represent Nabil here by himself,

but with the legislative branch, the DPR. So, while the executive is the executive, and the DPR. So, meanwhile, the investigation is the part of the executive and directly under the president.

There was a comment from the netizen, I'm sorry for saying this, but I was a bit annoyed to hear it, like, Mr. Tom Lembong should not have accepted the abolition, he should have just worn a shirt to the bath. That's when I heard that response, because people don't know the case by case

there's a comment like that it's like if you accept abolition, it's like submit the power abuse has happened if Uda Ferry said that it's not good, you should try to be in jail for a day

yes, we think that you don't know you don't experience the process.

Maybe it's more...

Yes, this is also anti-government, it can be like opposition, but abolition should not be accepted. Just go ahead, compared to... Oh, I'm not like this either.

I can understand people who are worried about the implementation of abolition. with the perpetrators of this abuse, such as Mr. Naufal Baswedan. It is very, very worrisome because the use of amnesty instruments and abuse in the case of TPP Corp. in the face of corruption, I think it should be admitted as something dangerous. Risky. Very risky.

And secondly, I can understand

that there is a concern to the government.

That's for sure. It's weird to use amnesty and abolition instruments for typical cases. Corruption charges. Second, I can understand many of you who are ready to fight, from PT to MA, to fight directly or indirectly. When they are ready, suddenly the electricity is turned off.

All the lights are off. Then the situation is gone. It's like an anti-climax. But in practice, first, my case also shows how our justice system is problematic. So, it is very, very unreliiable. We cannot believe that even in a high court level...

...or even in a high court level, there will be no intervention or... ...no guarantee at all that... ...the process will be fair. ...the process will be fair and the decision will be reasonable. And it is true that Makania and Masferi said earlier, ...I was always laughed at.

Other people might be happy, ...posting from outside, ...or commenting from outside. But, how about... ...how about my family? How about me? And How is it with me?

We can take your iPad.

It's been returned. You've been taken. But I hope I can be more optimal or contribute more outside the prison than inside the prison.

But I understand that there are many pros and cons regarding the use of amnesty and abolition instruments this month? They are separated from their families for nine months.

We have to look at the complexity of the case. He also admitted to the Ministry of Justice. But thankfully, many people understand. Moreover, Mr. Tom responded directly with the power of law. It's amazing. Thank you. It's good too.

But on the one hand, abolition is according to the rules. There is a political order, to free the people for political compatibility.

So the case is from the beginning, it's political.

It's like an under confession.

So, amnesty and abolition, back then when there was political resistance, they gave amnesty or abolition.

Is it a statue?

Political resistance, right? That's the question. Apakah Pak Tom itu tahanan politik? Ya kan pertanyaannya seperti itu.

Kalau nggak salah sudah dibenarkan tanda kutip oleh Pak Mencesnek kan, Pak Minister Kesehatan Negara. Kalau nggak salah ingat pernyataan beliau ke media bahwa kasus Pak Hasto dan kasus saya memang lebih besar unsur politiknya. And in my case, the political element is bigger. If I'm not mistaken, what he said to the media, so, so, I think many people can see it too. Why among all the candidates accused of corruption,

why Mr. Hasto was specifically chosen at that time? Why was I specifically chosen to be the director?

I don't know, Sir.

If there are many political issues, who is the most important? Yes, because we don't know. Why is the one who gave the abolition, the president? Is it? But yes, the important thing is is you have gathered with your family. Thank you.

You can come to your family. And it also has a positive impact for the community. In this case, it means the community can still have a voice. That's right. And they can see it objectively. People used to see it as a corrupt label.

It's done. Whether it's right or wrong.

Actually, there are some weird user accounts that comment like that when we post about you. Oh, yes. Some people comment like, this is another corrupt person being defended.

Yes, trying to be negated.

Yes, those numbers, Mr. Tom.

Yes. And how many are those like a number, sir. Yes, yes. And then, how much is it? I mean, from the beginning, wow, label. And it's really intentional to label it, even though there is no proof at all. There is no benefit. Well, if there is something that we can evaluate from all this process, sir.

Whether from the rules or ... You mentioned the law, right? As a law operator, from the rules themselves, so that this can be a violation, how is it, sir? If it damages the country.

Yes, the definition of damaging the country.

That's the country's citizens can be affected. Which was said yesterday at the UU BUMN, actually tried to revise it. The PNS that was late to enter. That's damaging the country, right?

It can be affected, if it's like that, if it's really pulled. Indeed, I read, and I haven't fully experienced it, but I read, Mas Ferry, that Indonesia is the only country, out of about 180 countries in the world, that uses the definition of state corruption

to define corruption. None of the other countries in the world define corruption as a concept of state corruption. Because in human life, sometimes we are lucky, sometimes we are at a loss. Sometimes we can benefit the country, but there is a corruption. It's possible, right? Why not?

Sometimes something that produces good results, but there is a swap, there is gratification. How is it not corrupt? Just because what happens is not to benefit the country, but to benefit the country. Logically. It's a personal logic. What happens is, it's not a country's loss, but a country's profit. So, logically...

It's a personal thing to say.

It's directly contradictory. There's a clear swap, a clear gratification or conflict of interest.

But because the country is profitable.

Exactly. So, that's it. On the contrary, not all losses are the result of corruption. Sometimes we're not lucky, sometimes we are unlucky. And any business, there is no one who is always profitable.

100% guarantee there is no loss.

From 17 times of projects or 17 times of trying to make a new business, we found that the success rate was 100%. There must be some that succeeded, and some that didn't. So, I think it's clear that it's a very wrong way to to eradicate or to breakicate corruption. There is no correlation between profit and loss.

But even the definition of loss is also, they use unrealized revenue too, right?

Recently.

Well, that's also criticized, right? I mean, even if we accept the indicator of the country's losses,

but the definition of losses is not a loss. Potential loss.

Yes, potential profit that is not realized.

Yes, that's right. So, there has been progress from the Constitutional Court, which a few years ago has issued a fatwa that in the case of corruption charges, ...the country's judges must be real. They must be real and real.

They can't be potential laws. But, as I said earlier, I feel that the past few years are getting further away from the MKI breakthrough. It's getting unclear. The calculation basis or the basis of the damage is being blamed.

And the interesting thing is, in one of the contents, coincidentally, because people are in the world of accounting, Yes, the background is... Maybe the big one, before entering the BPKP, it turns out to be in the MNQ, I don't know. We really try to calculate,

that's the data, even though it's really hard to trace the BPS data, Oh my God, it's even using USDA. Indeed, when the import decision was made, if we talk about potential loss or loss, if it's not done, it's over. What I'm surprised is I don't know if other people noticed or not. Because when I followed a case, the printout was not transparent.

In the judge's decision, it was said, I don't know, 2000, whether he was a sly or what, he said 2016. At the beginning, 2019, he was the last. So if the last 2019, Mr. Zulhas after Mr. Tom, got it. If with the same basis, right? Well, that's what it sounds like, or he's wrong, or what.

And that's a court decision. A court decision. It means that it's already really bad. So, he uses data if it's not... I can check it again. Because I heard it right. He said 2019. January 2016, the price is this much. December 2019, the price is this much.

Why 2019?

Whereas my work is from 2015 to 2016.

It's weirder.

Yes, that's why with so many bright and clear mistakes, why don't we just stay silent? Walk away. As professionals, we have to be responsible and continue.

That's the argument for the loss. It's a decision.

Yes, it's the basis.

It's a decision. Yes, it's based on the initial price, January to 2009. Why 2009? It's a special result.

You mean the price is rising? The price is rising. It's a control, but it's not successful.

Yes, because the basis is like less. The rise is... ...only controlled but not successful. Yes, because the base is like that. The loss is...

This is indeed... ...if we read the decision of the conference... ...it is not in line with... ...the transcript of the trial. With the facts that are clearly stated in the trial. And we knew from the beginning that this could happen. So, we made sure that 100% of every minute,

from every session, we recorded it using video. There was an audio file, there was a video file, and there was a transcript. So, we can see the facts of the hearing. And if it's parallel, the transcript with the decision, it's transcribed with a decision, it's a waste of time. So, we reported it to the court, not only to the judicial commission, but also to the Supreme Court.

So, the judicial commission can only decide whether there is an ethical violation. But it cannot interfere with the substance of the decision. It is not the top of the judges who can correct. It's just the internal of the judiciary. So it means the top is responsible for correcting the bottom, which is the judges at the level of the State Council.

There was a judge, Uda Ferry, who said, those judges, we should think about it carefully. I think we should ask Tom Lemo to give us code number 7. I don't understand what 7 means. What does it mean? Pressure on 7. Uda Ferry, people usually say that.

What does it mean?

Hahaha. Is there pressure? I was told that Uda Ferry is a common name. What does that mean?

Is there any pressure?

That's what Uda Ferry said. I'm not a lawyer. I just checked the numbers. And the rules. If he uses BUMN, he should break the rules. If he uses GKM., he will break the rules, right? If GKM...

Yes, he has to use the tariff.

No, he has to use private. If GKM, but if he uses white crystal sugar,

Then it's BWMN.

It has to be BWMN. The rules are made like that. This is not a rule.

Correct.

And then if GKM uses BWMN, they can be arrested. They even break the rules. They even break the rules. If it's crystal white, it's more expensive in 2016. Because there's the USDA. And this, if I become a judge, I'll be confused. I'd rather be a judge here, if there's a case like this. It's so weird.

So, Mas Arief, I like to say, it's like the rules say that it's forbidden to bring in a plane, firecrackers. Yes. Then I was convicted because I brought in a plane,

firecrackers. So what is forbidden to import is white sugar. Yes. Except through the government. Yes. Then I was convicted because I brought in or imported raw sugar.

What is forbidden importing raw sugar. It's prohibited to import white sugar.

Right? Yes.

Meanwhile, Jakarta said that it should be imported white sugar.

Yes.

Even though the regulation prohibits it.

Yes.

Right? Except through BMN. Right? But there is no prohibition to import raw sugar. Through private companies.

They said it should be imported white sugar because the rate is higher.

Yes. They said we have to import white sugar because the price is higher. That's funny.

That's why we can't ban the red sugar.

It's illegal. It's illegal. It's illegal, but there should be an official recommendation. But it's a close name, what should we do? There's a notulensi. That's the point.

It's an underline. In my knowledge, there are seven opinions. Among them, it's about the obligation of the sugar importation agreed or even agreed by the Ministry's inter-ministerial agreement. Or the ministerial level agreement. Then, as Bakanya said, there will be a difference in income tax.

Because, as usual, the finished goods always have a higher income tax than the raw materials. But, if we say, everyone should not import, everyone should not import the raw materials. Everyone imports the finished product. So, we should not build an industry. Because if we build an industry, we import raw materials, such as raw sugar, for sale as finished products,

the revenue from the M&A will decrease. It's a very wrong logic. It's a very illogical logic. It's very illogical. So, as much as there are such misunderstandings, we think we can't just leave it alone.

But President Joko Widodo, after this case happened,

and it was decided, he issued a statement that he was the one who was responsible for the import.

Yes.

Right? Why did he make the statement a week after the abolition? If it happened before the abolition, then the case is over, right?

What's wrong with you, Mr. Tom?

Well, this is...

I mean... I will find my own way.

Right?

Paten.

Now, we leave it to the Almighty.

Yes, it means that Mr. Jokowi's opinion is stronger if Mr. Tom is not wrong. So don't be closed again. Mr. Jokowi has said, yes, but maybe a little late. After the police.

Maybe you haven't seen the social media.. Maybe he hasn't seen the social media.

Yes, he hasn't seen the social media. He's still in the process.

And of course, it applies to all food imports. Because in 2015, the food was extremely green. Not just sugar, but also rice, corn, and then because corn is a staple food for chicken, especially, it's related to the price of chicken, eggs, and so on. So, once again, the price of food in 2015, but thank God we were able to finish it in 2015. But, thank God, we could finish it in 2016.

Well, sir, facing this situation is not easy. We are not corrupt, accused of corruption, national corruption, many people will slander, the narration is also everywhere at that time, all kinds of things. What made you, who and what made you still strong in doing this? You are also updating the news, who? Who are the characters that always exist?

And how big is their influence? Of course it's very big. First, of course, family. Wife and children. But, thankfully, I was blessed with a match. A very tomboy wife.

Since high school, I was already known as a tomboy. Strong. Tough. Tough, tough, and very practical. Very, very practical. And independent. The second, the children, thank God, are a bit older, at the age of 20 and 18, can process it well.

We have also discussed the political risks from afar. So even from 2022, when Mr. Anris'apres' speech was hot, I talked to the children. We will start a very dangerous journey. It can bring all kinds of risks.

So, we have to be prepared for all kinds of risks. Secondly, the first time I was there, I had to be prepared for all the risks. Second, the first time I was fired was from Mr. Hanis. That night, too. It was not until 8 pm. He immediately made a statement that he respected the legal process.

But, because he had knew me for 19 years. He believed that I was an integrity person. And the words he used was, I still have my trust in you. I still believe in you, Tom. And, yeah, a lot of my friends who knew me,

also joined the voice. It really helped me, really helped me to strengthen my own spirit. And it can't be denied, as a human being, the first and second week were really hard. Even though I went out to be called for an examination. In the media documentation, I looked calm or tense. There was definitely an emotional part. And lastly, and above all, because we are religious people, we have a lot of prayers, and we try to take examples from, because I am Catholic, from the Bible, stories or teachings.

We are taught to trust God. That everything is God's plan. And God's plan is always perfect. So, often we don't know. Like we are in a boat. There is a storm.

We don't know where we will go. When the storm will end. But there is no disaster without an end. All disasters will pass. We don't know how long the disaster will last, how chaotic it will be.

But we give up. If the fate is that your fate is to sink, then what's the point of doing it? If you're angry, you'll cry, you'll solve the problem or change the situation. It's not like that. Back to the topic, why Sisqa and I are a good match? Because both because both are very practical, very pragmatic.

Do what you can do, right?

Exactly. Do what you can do. But the rest is for stress, right? It's useless. I'm confused, for example, you are already free, and the country needs you. The government needs you. And you can be the minister.

Investments or... Yes, what about the case yesterday? Will you take it again?

But you know you can contribute and you are given the space for that. Yes. Maybe I want to offer a different perspective. A government and policy program cannot and will not be good if it is too dependent on one individual. So, what's the difference?

If I were to answer, I'm just one person. Maybe we should take a broader perspective. Is it in a managerial? Is the overall arrangement and management of the government correct? Is the policy orientation correct?

Is the attitude of policy makers and decision-makers correct? Because if it's not optimal, it's useless. If it's me, or Albert Einstein, it won't have the desired effect.

So you see it first, the conducive or not.

But if now, Mr. Atom now you see it, that's the case

That's why I haven't been out of jail for a month

But if Mr. Anies, if the president is Mr. Anies

Not that, but it's time to talk Because for 9 months, my access to information was through Sopradis And I just started to help.

That's a good answer, Sir.

Really.

Okay, Sir.

Top. I'm afraid I said it wrong. Or I was caught. I mean, caught again. Sorry. That's not what I meant.

Do you have PTSD?

I definitely have PTSD. Post-stress. I definitely have trauma, but also a lot of wisdom, or a lot of benefits. That's what's should focus on. When we are in a boat, in the middle of a sea, rather than being angry or crying,

we should focus on what we can do. What we can do. Focus on the inside. Focus on the things I can control. I read a lot of books, write a lot, pray a lot, exercise a lot, think a lot. All the things that are in our control.

So, one of the wisdoms from 9 months in prison is that I have a lot of time to read and write, and reflect. And, yes, is it a day, a month, or 10 years in prison? That's a different experience for everyone. It's impossible for people to get out of prison and be the same person as when they were in prison. But where we have control, where we have agency,

is how we handle it. Whether it's a day, a month, or 10 years in prison. Whether we use the time to be lazy, or to curse, or to swear. Or we use it to do a lot of sports, so that when I get out of jail, I feel fit. For example, a musician, sometimes he asks for permission to bring in his instrument, whether it's a violin or guitar,

and he uses his time to perfect his skills or his skills in playing guitar or music. So, there's the post effect, and there's the trauma, but there's also a lot of learning. A lot of positive things that if I have to choose, I won't choose to be in jail. But, it's already happened. We should use the opportunity.

After being in jail, the case didn't end up like this. The judge's label was the label. That's what I think. People who didn't do anything wrong, didn't take advantage, were labeled as a corrupt person for the rest of their lives. And after 5-10 years, people don't care about the process.

They know that they are corrupt.

Right.

They were given abolition.

Maybe we need to trust the authorities. Just believe that with time, the truth will be revealed. This is an interesting topic, Mas Ferry and Mak on. We are pessimistic because research shows that in social media, hoax is 10 times more viral than the truth. But in my theory, because I see more and more educational content, critical content on social media. My theory is that the virality of lies is only short-term. Meanwhile, as time goes by, the truth will emerge.

And in the medium term, the long term, it will defeat lies. My theory is that with social media and hundreds of millions of smartphones, hundreds of millions of cameras, microphones, it's harder to dig for the truth. The world is becoming more transparent. Because the truth is easier to find its way. It's easier to be revealed, because the more connected everyone is. And people who know the truth are very easy to publish it.

Document it.

They take a photo of the document, take a photo of the proof, and then they post it. He took a photo of the document, took a photo of the proof, and then he posted it. So, I think my experience is a classic example. It's really amazing. Civil society that moves through social media. And fight for the heritage of healthy logic by extracting data, extracting facts,

which are even admitted by the judges themselves in their own business. That there is no evil intention, right? I don't accept money, things, or promises. And the country's economy is going up and down, right? What?

The 400, the 578, and then the 124. So this, this ...

Calculate from the interest rate gap. Yes, then, oh, that's 1.4 billion. So, this, this... The calculation is from the interest rate gap.

Then, oh, that's not allowed.

We don't use BUMN, we have less revenue to BUMN.

So, what? What do you calculate with? So, BUMN can get this much profit.

Yes, that's included in the loss.

Yes, I like to say, let the facts speak for themselves. And that's what I'm very grateful for that. Mas Ferry, Mbak Ania, and tens, maybe hundreds of content creators have passed the argumentation and content on facts, data, logic, calculations. The right calculations.

And that's what I think, defeated the slander that was thrown at me.

Yes, because people see it, sir. Because there are so many. If my wife said, if Mr. Tumin is Mr. Tom is in jail, the smart people will think about it. They will take the security from the country's authority.

So, I made the content.

So, thank you, Mr. Ferry's wife.

And I think, yes, if there are many people who are fighting, I said on Omde's podcast,

if Tom made the final decision in prison, I would stop making contacts like this.

I'm afraid too.

Yes, I'm afraid. We never know what will happen.

And that's the end, once the winner or the defendant wins, the victory will be more powerful, right? Right, right.

Actually, one of the implications of the end of the case,

we have hope that the power can have a counter. And they can also ramp up. Yes, and all this time we know that, to be honest, it is a superpower entity. Super body.

This is interesting to Masfererry Makaniyya. In the research, I once saw a research that deepened what is called conviction rate. Conviction rate. That is the ratio of the decision that won the candidate. The candidate.

The candidate. And in developed countries, the winning ratio for the candidate is maybe 60%. And that's reasonable. Because the candidate is a human.

It can be wrong. They can make mistakes.

They can make mistakes. And in developing countries, or there are certain advanced countries, rich countries whose system of calculation is also not developing. It didn't grow. The winning ratio of Jakarta is 90%, or even 100%, or 95%. Oh yes, sir.

That high?

I think if we try to dig up the data in Indonesia, maybe my guess is between 80% to 100%. Jakarta has never wanted to lose. 80-100%. Never have I ever thought of losing. One of the practices in chess in Indonesia, if you lose, you automatically lose. You never accept defeat.

You have to win. That's the official KPI of Jaksa. IQ. Or if the phonics is below 2, 3, instead of a demand, it's automatic.

Oh, it's still not satisfied.

Yes. So, I just want to ask a question. As far as I know, many big religions teach that the perfect perfect is only God. So, anyone who claims to be perfect is a sin. So, how do we interpret a winning ratio for the audience? The one above is 80 or 90 percent. Negative perfect. the winning ratio for the candidates is above 80-90%.

Negative. Let's look at other fields. Maybe from all the business world, people make new business efforts, maybe 80% fail. Only 20% succeed.

Or for example, in the sports field, baseball. I don't really like sports, but as far as I know, the hit ratio, if I'm not mistaken, is called batting average. So, a baseball player, how many times he can hit the ball, is 40%. 40%.

So, is it natural, is it logical that a player or a player will win 80-90% of the cases. Because humans, whether it's a laboratory experiment in an academic context, or an athlete, even the top in the context of physical activity or sports performance, the ratio is more like 20, 30, 40 percent.

Success rate. So, what's more interesting for me is the mindset. The mindset. That the apparatus is always right. Even though we are human.

Yes.

Yes, that's what I think.

And back to the first motive,

we never know what Mr. Tom is up to.

But he was called a politician. Oh yes. He was admitted.

Oh yes.

Yes.

He didn't know he was a politician.

It's not allowed to use law as a weapon. As a weapon. No, it's not. The law is used for political purposes. No, it's not. It's not according to our determination. That's why there are many obstacles. And thankfully, the most important thing is that Mr. Tom is free.

That's what we can say.

With all the shortcomings and so on.

But with freedom, Mr. Tom can do other things.

More productive. Hopefully, it will be more useful. We can also see that there is still hope.

Oh, it turns out not. It turns out that so far it's not like that.

There is an emergency brake.

Yes, actually it's like that. But this brake is like a real exception. But there is still this exception.

So, be more careful.

Yes, exactly. I hope this will be a momentum for improvement. Right? Even though it started from one case, that's my case, but there's a saying, sorry, I'm using English,

A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. So, whatever our goal is, we always start with the first step. One step. The important thing is that we have to take the second, third, fourth, fifth steps. In a constructive spirit. In the spirit to improve.

Okay. What's your next step?

If you're told to take over the office, you'll think about it for a month.

I'm not mistaken, you have a think tank in Singapore. Correct. It's an economic policy think tank.

So, it's true. So, after I didn't continue in President Jokowi's cabinet, I finally created a research institute, or what we know as a think tank in Singapore. That's my heritage. Like a PT, a researcher, or a policymaker can be a think tank. I'm more focused on policy.

I'm interested in politics because there are no choices. Because it's impossible to get rid of politics. But I'm not a very political person. Because it's impossible to get rid of politics. But I'm not a very political person. It's even weird for me to be in the political party. Because I'm a very introvert, very independent, a nerd. And I'm not too... I'm not too much of a nerd, to be honest.

But, I want to focus more on sharing knowledge, tips and tricks, for entrepreneurs, especially the middle class, small and micro. Because I used the term,

more important and even critical things. My savings, maybe that's what I can do, which can be useful directly a short period of time... ...for so many entrepreneurs who are having a hard time today... ...in a very difficult economic condition. And as a pragmatic and practical person...

...it's a simple thing, but many entrepreneurs... ...don't realize it or... It's simple, but many entrepreneurs are not aware of it. Or even though they have the intuition, they have the intuition, Oh yeah, I think it's like this, it hasn't been formulated as a solid paradigm.

For example, maybe you have heard the term formulated by the consultant, McKinsey, which is the 80-20 rule. 80-20 rule. So, almost all businesses have 20% of the best customers, which is 80% of the profit.

And most business partners, whether small or medium, feel that there is a very loyal partner, who is very nice, who doesn't deny it, doesn't deny it to the point.

Basically, it's nice to be with this customer. This is a good customer. And there are other customers, it's troublesome to deal with that person. And in the end, there are more losses. It's a loss. You have to deal with the customers who are frustrated.

But maybe the business owner has never heard of the 80-20 rule. And maybe they just click. Oh yes, what does it mean? Don't waste time with the customers who are really troublesome. I'm sorry, or not profitable. So, don't...

One of our diseases in our culture, the food atmosphere, I think it's a bad culture. Bad. There are customers who are stingy, who ask for this discount, ask for that discount,

we don't like it, we give a discount, and then we eat a lot. Why don't you just kick them out? I'm sorry. And it's not just a hassle, but we don't have time to take care of good customers. So, focus on good customers. And another consequence of the process, many entrepreneurs are busy selling. Always busy looking for new customers.

While the existing customers are overwhelmed. They think, oh, the customers have entered, they are already in the cage. So, just leave it alone.

Not taken care of, finally gone.

Finally they are gone. What they already have is gone. They are busy looking for something new. And there is research that shows getting a new customer is 10 times more expensive than

maintaining an existing customer. So, instead of being busy looking around or having a lot for money to advertise, they should really take care of their 20% of the best nasabah. And they will be the advertisers. They will be the ones who are going around, giving testimonials,

saying, hey, that shop is good, that shop is good, that doctor is good. So, we want to... I, been investment sales for our country. I know that I want to talk to the investors, compared to the existing investors. To praise our country, the investors will definitely trust him more than me. Right? This is a person who really experienced it.

I invested in Indonesia, it was fun, I made a profit. Then I said, yes, it's true, Indonesia is good. So, people trust him more than me.

The salesman.

Rather than the salesman. So, it's a simple practice. I want to test the market. I want to test whether all business owners have been inspired, have been in the basic business principles.

But there must be an effect, right? From macro policy to how businesses can run. For example, we know that there are some radical economic policies. Like, for example, the DHA must be 100% domestic. Mr. Tom, do you have any insights?

We all borrow from God, that's why we do what we can do. And each of us has our own talent. I will not be a successful podcaster or influencer. I don't have that talent. And I also feel that it's not from the background or the activist soul. So, to challenge that voice.

But I have expertise in the business field, in the business field, trade, and maybe my communication style or the way I formulate certain things will be more useful for my bottom-up. So, I even described macro policy as top-down. From the government, from top to bottom.

As an ordinary citizen, I prefer to take the bottom-up approach. as a normal citizen, right? As much as possible, to take a bottom-up approach, right? With other citizens, with businessmen, with...

factory owners or farmers, or whatever. So, I want to focus more on that. For me, for the moment.

Okay. For the moment, because we have only been here for a month. We have to wait for the update.

It's been a month, we can live and exercise again. We can read the news. We don't need to be pushed, it's safe.

Yes, yes. Thank you. But, yes, that's about it. But, yes, our country is facing a lot of challenges. So, we can't stay silent. We have to be active and proactive.

According to our talents and capacities. From the middle, Pak. There is a pro-contra, of course. I mean, if you look at it, there is a big superholding now. It makes us confused why there is still a Minister of Home Affairs. After the funds. Because it is designed specifically for that.

And if we still use the same method, the same legal approach, it means that people in the middle can get everything. If you invest, it can be. Yes, if you use Mr. Tom's case study,

for example, he puts money there, and it can be.

That was also mentioned yesterday when Mr. Tom's case was raised, everyone said that it can be all. Yes, it can be affected. It was also mentioned in the case of Mr. Tomnai. Everyone said that it can affect everyone.

Yes, it can affect everyone. Mr. Tom, seeing the Superholding like this, will it follow the success story of Temasek? Or maybe, it's different?

Maybe what I can share, let's look at the data and facts. History and global. If we look at the facts and data, entities like Temasek are very rare. Almost none.

Maybe only Abu Dhabi, and now smaller, Dubai, or Temasek, GIC Singapore, there is ADIA or Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. There is also Norway, Norway Oil Fund. But I think we have to separate the ones who manage surplus funds, or export migas, for example. And those who manage their shares in their BIMNs.

And among them, it's more like Temasek. In China, there are also many BIMIMs. And it's like a mixed bag. In China, there are many BIMs. In Vietnam, there are also many BIMs. But, almost none of them are successful. Which BIMs are successful? In the countries that is the most successful in the world?

The most advanced and more advanced countries are almost all BUMN.

Right? The fact is. The last data I looked at, BUMN in Indonesia, apart from the descendant entity and the grandchild, the grandchild can be 1000, 1065. BUMN in Indonesia is 65. And the green one is only Rp. 17,000. So, Rp. 65,000, Rp. 17,000, Rp. 26,000.

But the PMN keeps on going. That's right. Even one of your leaders, Mr. Donny Oskaria, said that 54% of all PMNs are at a loss. with a total loss of 50 trillion rupiah per year. So, Temasek and its business partners, such as Singapore Airlines, Singtel, DBS Bank, are exceptions.

There is no such entity as Temasek or Dantara in the world that is as successful as Temasek or Dantara, are the most successful in the world. And the data doesn't support it. And many people say, China can advance like now thanks to the BMA. But the data shows the opposite.

China can advance even though it has a very inefficient BMW sector. So, in fact, despite their BMWs, if they cut the BMW sector in China, then the economic growth will be much higher than the current condition.

What is the property problem? it a renegade company?

Evergrande. That's different. It's private. Evergrande, Country Garden. So, it's a speculation of property. They finally printed a giant company. But everything was in debt. Everything was in debt.

Then, the price... Collapsed.

Collapsed.

The earth collapsed. Causing deflation in China. But, I'm a BMN in the field of reading in China, or BMN in the field of MIGAS, spiritual chemistry, the profit is far below private sector. So, the one that makes the highest profit in China is all private sector. Alibaba, WeChat, Tencent, TikTok, ByteDance.

And the most innovative company is all private. So, in China, BMN is inefficient and there is a lot of corruption. So, that's a more fundamental question. How realistic is it that we rely on BNM as an economic growth agent?

When the data track record is there, it doesn't support it globally. And the national level is also like that.

But it is needed so that the political cake can be distributed more widely.

Oh my God, we're listening seriously. No, this is the most serious answer here. That's the argument.

Because if there's a slot in the cabinet, it's impossible to make the minister 500. Okay. So, ultimately, the cake that is distributed by the BUM Commissioner has never been by competition, right?

To decide who will be the commute or who will be the... So I have no comment.

Paton no comment.

That's what I see. We can observe it. We can observe who will be who. The sectors that are directly related to the state are based on the State Budget. But in fact, today Shell and Vivo are empty. Then Minister Bahlil said,

it's all in the Portamina.

The State Budget is great. I'm sorry. Well, earlier, Makani asked about the policy of export deficit.

Yes, because it's related to investment.

The obligation of the shareholders who produce the deficit deficit, to plant the 100% of the deficit, it must be saved or put in the country, it cannot be taken out. Maybe this is a term that you can support. For me, it's a logical fallacy. There's no connection between export activities and the stability of divisas. So, those are two different things.

Actually, the biggest deficit is not the exporters who bring out the export deficit. But it's our own people who exchange their money for dollars, for traveling abroad, or to pay for their children's college abroad, or the big one is called capital flight. As a former finance minister, you know that very well.

So, people, entrepreneurs who are uncomfortable, feel a lot of risk to save money or save assets in the country, they convert their savings or rupiahs to dollars or Singapore dollars or euros, then they try to open a bank account abroad, and then he went abroad. And many of them were rich people, especially,

or even middle-class businessmen, who happened to have children who studied abroad, they could borrow their children's bank accounts abroad. who happens to have a student who is studying abroad, can afford to pay for his student's tuition, he, instead of saving all his savings in rupiah, he converted to pound sterling, and paid for his student's tuition in English.

So, people are forced to hold on to their export deficit. It's like closing a small window, but the door is wide open. People see the political risk, criminalization risk, legal risk, so they run as much much money as possible abroad. That's what we call a slum.

Besides, of course, people who are traveling abroad, people who are working abroad, etc. The export revenue is not big. Not significant. Compared to others. In a collective way.

So, this is not a restriction. So that there is... The argument at that time was that it could be turned around here. So that it can be invested here.

So that our course is not disturbed. We can do well on paper.

From our high deficit.

But actually... I's not that effective.

I'll give you an analogy. Before we started recording the podcast, I talked to Kania. Imagine there's a hotel. I have a hotel. And the hotel is good. It's luxurious, comfortable, and high quality. And I said,

Oh yeah, please stay at my hotel. But the condition is, once you check in, you can't leave for three months. Right? Do you think it's interesting? No. Well, it's like a prison, right?

Oh, I don't know. The hotel is amazing. It's very luxurious, and the food is amazing. It's very delicious. The food is amazing. It's very delicious. The service is also very high quality, very classy. But the condition is, you have to stay in the hotel for three months,

and you can't go out for a minute. And you can't go in and out again. You can't go in and out. Do you think it's interesting?

No.

Okay, let's say there is an investor. Oh, I, sorry. I said it wrong. There is someone who, okay, I'll just try. I'll just try to get in. I haven't been out for three months. Right? And then I want to go out, but I've been in for a while. And I've been told, I've been told, I can't go out.

Because I already know the conditions, right? Once he goes out, will he come back? He will come back and say, this is fun, going to jail. A three-month-long luxury prison. I want to go back to stay for a year.

So, the hotel, we go in and out. It doesn't mean we don't want to stay there. But, who wants to be forced to stay there non-stop for three months. So, it's the same with capital. Investors are told, okay, please invest, please invest in this model. But the condition is that you can't go out for a year.

Your money will be imprisoned for a year. Your money will be in jail for a year. Is it interesting for investors? Meanwhile, neighboring countries do not have such conditions. There they are free. Please deposit the capital. And when you can go out, go in again, go out again, go in again.

Free, right? Which one is more interesting? If we sell to investors.

Which one is more interesting? If we sell to investors. Which one is more interesting? So, taking away the competitive advantage.

In a way, right? Simple. I try to use as many simple analogies as possible.

Anything else? It's all. Anything else?

It's safe.

If we extend it, it will be in. I think that's enough. Anything else? Okay.

Instead of going straight to editing, we will be lazy. It's too safe, right?

We don't need to take unnecessary risks.

It's safe. We all know that. So, is it a problem to say, pidato, we walk the talk? That's not the answer. I can only say that I'm not the writer of pidato. That's all.

There are many pidato, greetings, speeches that I prepared for Mr. President, Mr. Jokowi. But that's not one of them.

The one I attended was the video of Winter is Coming.

Game of Thrones.

That's it.

I was at the location. In Bali. In Bali. And I made the J20 video at that time. Thank you.

That's good. It's good, Edy. Thank you. That's good. It's good to edit. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much, Tom.

Thank you, Mas Ferry, Malaka. Thank you, Pak. Thank you for the invitation. Thank you for the opportunity. And thank you for all the kindness, support and help.

If it's a silly decision, I have to support it. I have to support it. Okay. Thank you for watching.

See you in Malacca Cinematic Podcast. See you in Malacca Cinematic Podcast.

Next. Bye.