Fergus notes the luke-warm feelings Australians have for Indonesia (reciprocated by Indonesians). One of the explanations of this attitude is the carping, condescending and critical tone of Australian journalistic commentary on Indonesia.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's problems with parliament have been consistently reported here as being about corruption in the rescue of the mid-tier Bank Century while Indonesia was caught up in the backwash of the Global Financial Crisis in late 2008.

In fact, the story is one of pure politics. One parliamentary faction wants to unseat the reformist Vice-President so that they can have his job. Another faction wants to roll the Minister of Finance, because her success in reforming corporate taxation and governance is threatening their commercial interests.

After four months of pernickety inquiry, parliament has found nothing more than a couple of minor administrative peccadilloes in the rescue of Bank Century. No hint of corruption on the part of the Vice-President or the Minister has been found. Nevertheless, for purely political reasons, the parliament (where the President's party has nowhere near a majority) has called (subscription required) for their dismissal 'over a corruption scandal that has tarnished the President's reformist image'.

If this were happening in the Australian parliament, it would be reported for what it is: pure politics. Not pretty, very distracting for the President, but part of the messy process of democracy. The Australian press, however, either doesn't know or finds the corruption story fits its prejudices better.

Photo by Flickr user patrikmloeff, used under a Creative Commons license.

Greg Earl is the Asia Pacific editor at the Australian Financial Review.

After almost 20 years of writing about Indonesia I’ll take Stephen Grenville’s admonition for being ‘carping, condescending and critical’ on the chin. At least I can use it as evidence for the defence next time I’m accused of being a member of the Indonesia Lobby.

But split personalities aside, Stephen’s familiar criticism of Australian journalists does raise a few issues after a week of debate about the bilateral relationship which began right here with Fergus Hanson’s work.

There could be more diverse coverage of Indonesia (including by my newspaper which doesn’t have a staff correspondent there any more) and I lament the fact there are often more Australian journos in the Bali courts these days than in Jakarta, let alone places like Sumatra. But there are still far more Australian reporters in Indonesia than Indonesian reporters here.

The first thing that I find so frustrating from the people who can instantly identify the ‘carping, condescending and critical’ journalism is that they don’t turn the page or flick to another news outlet on the same day to see the range of material in the Australian media at any one time on Indonesia.

Japan or India can only dream about getting the same sort of coverage. Last week was a case in point. I don’t think any fair assessment of the week’s output would find that Stephen’s three Cs prevailed.

Indeed I was struck by the way some of the most critical commentary through the week came from Hal Hill (subscribers only) and Ross McLeod (East Asia Forum) — two economists who come straight out of the same mould as Stephen. So I guess by definition they wouldn’t be carping or condescending.

The second thing that guardians of the relationship have to get used to is that as we go down the track of more integration between the two countries in whatever sector of life that proves possible there is likely to be more unruly commentary from people who are new to the territory — from journalism and elsewhere.

That is the nature of the sort of diverse and growing relationship that we all desire. It is not going to be a rarified discussion on fora like this. It is going to be at the soccer or on cable TV — where the anchors were pleasantly surprised that SBY could tell a good joke.

Stephen presumably feels that all journalists should view Indonesia through the same prism of successful long term macroeconomic performance that is his basic frame of reference.

President Yudhoyono's speech to Parliament (p.29) last week is a remarkable document that makes uneasy reading. 

Rudd welcomed SBY with a routine speech of mutual self-congratulation for having such a splendid relationship (p.27 of the above document). SBY responded with a sophisticated, frank and at times stern analysis of a relationship which is still very vulnerable to mutual mistrust, and still falls far short of its potential. The contrast was stark. 'We should not be complacent', SBY said. 'The worst step we can take is to take this partnership for granted.' It almost sounded as if he was reprimanding the Prime Minister.

The heart of SBY's speech was a warning about the dangers posed by the perceptions that Indonesians and Australians have of one another. He could not have been more blunt:

I was taken aback when I learned that in a recent Lowy Institute survey 54 per cent of Australian respondents doubted that Indonesia would act responsibly in its international relations...there are Australians who still see Indonesia as an authoritarian country, as a military dictatorship, as a hotbed of Islamic extremism or even as an expansionist power.

He acknowledged that Indonesians had distorted views of Australia too:

...in Indonesia there are people who remain afflicted with Australiaphobia—those who believe that the notion of White Australia still persists, that Australia harbours ill intention toward Indonesia and is either sympathetic to or supports separatist elements in our country.

But tellingly, the way his speech developed suggested he was not sure Indonesian suspicions of Australia's attitudes towards separatism were entirely unfounded. Why else would he have thought it necessary to say this?:

Geraldine Doogue is host of ABC Radio National's Saturday Extra program.

In the debate over how to boost comprehensive coverage of modern Southeast Asia, including Indonesia, I favour a new journalistic emphasis: seeking out shared dilemmas.

Instead of the tried-and-true policy of highlighting key differences, why not encourage more curiosity around common middle-class vexations? There's plenty to work with and fresh angles are going begging.

Of course we would need to lose our sentimental attachment to the 'exotic East' stereotype, hardly something to grieve over. Anyway, it could linger in the background to be legitimately mined, given the significant differences in the scale of challenge facing the two different communities. 

But concentrating on similar problems, especially among urban dwellers, would surely lead to a much truer representation of contemporary lives. This could assist a better national conversation that would ultimately buttress sensible inter-country dialogue.

In a wide range of areas — the rising incidence of type 2 diabetes, decreasing physical exercise, dramatically rising rates of obesity, poor work-life balance, quality of parliamentarians — citizens in Australia and the region can easily swap notes. The modern middle-class predicament of encouraging optimal development of children amid an ICT revolution and of a broad search for meaning amid brittle traditions is very much a shared dilemma, as any cursory conversation will reveal.