Transkrip diambil dari YouTube. Klik timestamp biru untuk melompat ke posisi tersebut di pemutar.
0:03 TV. Listeners blessed by Allah 0:10 Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. We have now 0:12 entered, uh our Wednesday morning news 0:19 topic dialogue with Bang Toni Rosid. 0:23 Assalamu'alaikum, Bang Toni. 0:24 Wa'alaikumsalam warahmatullahi 0:26 wabarakatuh. 0:27 How are you, Bang? 0:27 Alhamdulillah, I am well. Right, Bang 0:31 Toni. We see that the national 0:34 political dynamics are once again 0:37 drawing attention. There is a statement 0:41 from President Prabowo calling some 0:43 experts "so smart they become stupid," 0:45 which has sparked debate about 0:47 criticism and academic freedom. On the 0:51 other hand, we are also highlighting 0:54 the Constitutional Court, which has 0:56 removed the 20%presidential threshold, 0:59 opening a new discussion regarding the 1:01 presidential nomination mechanism. 1:05 Along with that, the Constitutional 1:07 Court is also handling a lawsuit 1:09 questioning the legitimacy of Gibran 1:11 Rakabuming Raka's vice presidential 1:13 nomination. These three issues bring us 1:17 to a broader problem, Bang Toni. How, 1:20 then, should the relationship between 1:22 power, criticism, democracy, and the 1:25 law actually function? And of course, 1:28 brothers and sisters, we are now 1:30 connected with Bang Toni Rasyid. Bang 1:32 Toni, let's start the question, uh 1:36 regarding President Prabowo's statement 1:38 that some experts are "so smart they 1:41 become stupid." How do you, Bang Toni, 1:44 view this statement in the context of 1:45 the government's relationship with 1:47 experts and policy critics? Yes. So, uh 1:52 , the "stupid experts," right. 1:55 Yes, Bung Toni. 1:57 So it's like this, uh, there are sides 2:00 or situations and conditions that 2:03 sometimes put a person under pressure. 2:09 Those pressures then, in their 2:13 subconscious, create, uh, a what? An 2:21 expression, yes, an expression to be 2:25 voiced; certainly, in his conscious 2:29 mind, uh, Mr. Prabowo did not, what do 2:33 you call it, intend it. Uh-huh. 2:37 That "experts" meant all experts, right 2:40 ? 2:40 Uh-huh. So, uh, this is what often 2:46 becomes a criticism, a warning, an 2:52 input for the President so that in 2:58 every of his narratives 3:02 yes 3:03 it is considered for the political 3:09 effects and other effects, right? So 3:14 that what is expressed by the President 3:18 , uh, does not create a uh, different 3:24 interpretation, right? A meaning, a 3:27 different assessment, let alone until 3:31 it then creates an uproar. This "expert 3:35 " fuss then went viral in various media 3:38 , especially social media. Now, many 3:42 then leveled criticism. Uh, many 3:45 experts assess that Mr. Prabowo 3:47 actually has insight and is intelligent 3:50 . 3:51 Yes. It’s just that there is some 3:56 kind of pressure, certain pressures, 4:00 that create disappointment or anger, 4:04 which ultimately gets expressed through 4:09 such narratives. Therefore, it is 4:16 important for the team, especially 4:19 those in Mr. Prabowo's circle, to 4:23 prepare narratives, to prepare speech 4:28 texts, of course. Hm. 4:31 Mr. Prabowo often, when improvising, 4:36 ends up with narratives or expressions 4:42 that, to the public, are surprising, 4:47 right? 4:48 Yes. " 4:49 Why is it like this, why is it like 4:51 that," right? Because the language is 4:54 language that, uh not public language, 5:00 right, not common language, not 5:04 language that is, uh, natural to the 5:08 ears of, uh, our society, you know. 5:12 Yeah. 5:13 So for me, I never take it seriously 5:16 whenever there's an expression from Mr. 5:19 Prabowo. But our society judges, our 5:24 society then, uh, reads that Mr. 5:26 Prabowo is, you know, what ultimately 5:29 produces, uh, the decline, right 5:33 uh 5:34 the decline in, uh, public satisfaction 5:36 , his electability, you know. Because 5:37 why? This involves public emotion. 5:40 Yeah. yes, not just rational. So, 5:43 politics is perception. Now, that 5:47 perception, well, it can be perceived 5:50 through a rationalization process, it 5:53 can be perceived through an emotional 5:56 process. Now, many in our society are 6:00 emotional and don't think long-term, 6:03 you know. Because indeed our society's 6:06 education is not even 10%university 6:07 graduates. Meaning the education level, 6:10 our HDI level is, uh, low. That's where 6:13 , uh, people don't want to think 6:15 long-term, their emotional level is 6:18 also higher. So the president's 6:21 narratives, anyone's narratives, will 6:24 be perceived spontaneously and, uh, in 6:27 the short term, you know. Ah, Mr. 6:31 Prabowo often produces narratives that 6:33 give birth to or touch the emotional 6:35 side of the public. 6:38 Yeah. Yes, public emotion that 6:41 ultimately, uh, makes the public feel 6:44 disappointed, the public feels, uh, 6:46 what do you call it, not right, 6:48 inappropriate, which contributes to or 6:50 downgrades, uh, the satisfaction level. 6:54 And meanwhile, in the upper-middle 6:57 class, they process it, uh, rationally, 7:01 by looking at his programs to what 7:04 extent they are useful and spread, in 7:07 general, it will be viewed from the 7:10 side through an, uh, emotional process. 7:14 Ah, that emotional process, the object 7:17 is the narratives from Mr. Prabowo, the 7:19 attitudes from Mr. Prabowo, either as 7:21 head of state or as president. 7:24 Yes. 7:24 That's Mas Mata Angga. 7:26 Yes, Bang Toni. Uh, the President has 7:28 also said that he has never had an 7:31 issue with criticism, but what is 7:33 questioned is criticism that is 7:35 considered slander. Uh, according to 7:38 you, Bang Toni, where is the line 7:40 between criticism, analytical errors, 7:43 and slander in a democratic life? And 7:46 should the use of terms like "stupid" 7:48 in responding to criticism be seen only 7:50 as a political communication style, or 7:53 does it indeed have consequences for 7:55 the relationship between the government 7:57 and intellectual groups? 8:00 It is indeed a style that then has 8:03 consequences. 8:04 So, it cannot be separated. It is a 8:06 style, uh, of narrating, right, a style 8:13 of, uh, speech, a way of communicating 8:17 that is done by the president, which 8:20 then has political consequences, has 8:24 political relationship consequences, 8:27 has consequences for, uh, what, uh, the 8:31 relationship between Mr. Prabowo and 8:35 the parties that, uh, have been 8:38 providing criticism and input. It 8:42 happens automatically. This is, this is 8:45 what we must understand and we must, uh 8:47 , realize that it will go hand in hand. 8:50 So that narrative is a style, a speech 8:54 style. That expression is Mr. Prabowo's 8:56 communication style, right? Then the 8:59 relationship is the impact, the effect, 9:02 the consequence of that narrative. So 9:06 it’s like this, Angga. If it is said 9:10 that between criticism and slander, 9:11 well, it is not always slander. 9:14 Sometimes, people who criticize have 9:17 the freedom to provide criticism, to 9:21 give an assessment as part of the 9:24 concern of academics, happen to be, uh, 9:27 what? Grassroots, happen to be 9:31 intellectuals, happen to be activists 9:33 for this nation. So they pay attention 9:36 to every policy that is implemented. If 9:40 what is done by the President is 9:41 perceived, well, the perception does 9:43 not have to be the same as the 9:45 President's. If the perception is the 9:48 same as the President's, then what is 9:49 the point? Of criticizing, you know. 9:52 But if being different from the 9:54 President is considered slander, that 9:56 is a problem. Regarding data, it is 9:59 impossible for the data to be the same 10:01 but the way of reading it to be 10:03 different. Ah, criticism, why does 10:07 criticism arise? Because there is a 10:10 difference in perception. Why does 10:11 criticism arise? Because there is a 10:13 difference in reading the data. Why 10:16 does criticism arise, because there is, 10:18 uh, there is a difference in, uh, what 10:20 is it called? Interpreting something. 10:25 Differences like these should not be 10:27 considered slander. 10:28 Yes. Uh-huh. 10:30 Right. If it is good and appropriate, 10:32 accept it. If not, at least those 10:35 differences give birth to various, uh, 10:39 varieties of opinions. Those opinions 10:44 should be identified and verified. 10:48 First, listen to them, put them in a 10:51 box, then perform verification. Which 10:54 ones turn out to be good but look at it 10:56 objectively? Take them as input. If it 10:59 is not good and turns out to be wrong, 11:01 then leave it, you know. But do not, 11:03 well, criticism does stem from 11:06 differences. Every difference is 11:07 considered slander. Ah, that is where 11:11 it is important for the government to 11:13 open itself up to receive different 11:15 perceptions from outside. That is what 11:17 is called criticism. 11:19 The inputs are A, B, C, D. Not 11:21 everything has to be accommodated, 11:23 right. Just accept it as part of the 11:27 input, which is then valuable to see 11:30 which ones are appropriate, which are 11:33 good, which are, uh, constructive to be 11:39 taken. One needs to be open-minded to 11:43 accept that. But if everything must be 11:45 uniform, everything must be the same, 11:47 then it is impossible to have criticism 11:48 if everything must be the same. 11:50 Yes. Right, just supporting. Therefore, 11:55 for all of us academics, and for all of 11:58 us intellectuals, I think not 12:00 everything the government does is bad, 12:02 but not everything the government does 12:05 is good. Therefore, we support what is 12:09 good, but what turns out to be 12:11 inappropriate or not good, we criticize 12:13 . If the criticism is not accepted, 12:16 well, that is something that is indeed 12:19 part of the dialectical process, right. 12:22 In dialectics, there are things to take 12:24 and things to leave. Yes, what is 12:26 important is having a sense of national 12:29 responsibility. This responsibility is 12:33 part of the patriotism and nationalism 12:35 of experts, intellectuals, and 12:37 academics to provide input as part of 12:40 their duty and care for this nation. We 12:44 should not interpret every difference 12:47 or every criticism as hatred. If the 12:51 government always views criticism and 12:53 differences as hatred, that is fatal. 12:56 If it considers everything as slander, 12:58 then that becomes a problem. I think 13:00 the government has the instruments to 13:02 observe that. Even those instruments 13:05 are quite complete, with intelligence 13:07 and so on. Whether a party has an 13:10 agenda-setting motive or is genuinely 13:12 criticizing out of love for this nation 13:14 . Whether this party is part of 13:17 opposition politics and so on. That can 13:20 certainly be identified, right? Don't 13:24 let, for example, anger toward one 13:26 person...Yes. ...lead to using 13:30 narratives that are, what should I say? 13:33 That are universal in nature. Let's say 13:37 Mr. Prabowo is angry at one or two 13:39 experts because their criticism didn't 13:41 sit well, or the way it was delivered 13:44 made him angry. Don't generalize it as 13:48 if to say "all experts are stupid," 13:51 because the public will understand that 13:54 "all experts" are being referred to. 13:59 But in Arabic, that would be indefinite 14:01 , wouldn't it? Yes. In English, you'd 14:06 use "the" to make it specific, or use a 14:08 genitive construction to make it 14:10 definite, so there's no need to mention 14:13 a name. Some might take a step forward 14:17 and say, "I criticize this, here is the 14:18 criticism." I take this as input, but 14:21 it must be objective; the data says 14:23 this, after all. Even if the name of 14:27 the group isn't mentioned, the public 14:29 knows there are indicators pointing in 14:31 that direction. Which then makes the 14:34 public understand. "Oh, that's what Mr. 14:37 Prabowo meant." But if Mr. Prabowo 14:39 thinks there are "stupid experts," then 14:42 all experts will be offended. 14:45 Yes. 14:45 Right, everyone gets offended. That is 14:50 why communication intelligence, 14:52 narrative-building intelligence, and 14:55 relationship-building intelligence are 14:57 so important. This is important because 15:03 language is an expression of what is in 15:07 our brains, an expression of what is in 15:11 our hearts, and it represents who we 15:14 are. Whatever we express to the public, 15:17 the public will see, "Oh, so that's how 15:19 he is." 15:20 Exactly. 15:21 Alright, Bang Toni, let's move on to 15:23 the second theme. At the same time, 15:26 Toni, after the Constitutional Court 15:28 abolished the 20%presidential threshold 15:31 , a new discourse has emerged regarding 15:33 the presidential nomination mechanism, 15:35 raising questions about how much space 15:37 is given to political parties and the 15:40 people in determining the nation's 15:42 leadership choices. Now, Toni, to start 15:46 us off, after the Constitutional Court 15:48 removed the 20%PT, there is now 15:50 discourse that presidential and 15:51 vice-presidential candidate pairs must 15:54 be supported by at least two political 15:56 parties that hold seats in the DPR. 15:59 What is actually at stake, Toni, in 16:01 this change of rules? Is it to broaden 16:04 the people's choices or to maintain 16:06 political stability? That is part of 16:10 our constitution where the people have 16:15 rights and freedoms that are not 16:19 co-opted by...... 16:22 a system that restricts them. Therefore 16:24 , the lawsuit was accepted by the 16:25 Constitutional Court. Then the 16:27 Constitutional Court made a decision 16:32 that all parties, to ensure 16:36 representation and leave no one behind, 16:41 can nominate candidates with a 16:45 presidential threshold of 0%. That is 16:50 good. Ah, about a week ago, someone 16:54 called me and said that the draft bill, 16:57 or the draft for the revision of the 17:00 election law, had already been made. 17:06 Yes. Among those mentioned was Surya 17:09 Paloh, right? Surya Paloh said, and 17:14 this has been a long-standing discourse 17:17 that was then reinforced, that there 17:20 would be a presidential election 17:22 supported by at least two, or nominated 17:25 by two, political parties that have 17:28 members in the DPR or in parliament. 17:32 Yes. 17:33 Now, this is restrictive. If they 17:35 already have members in parliament, all 17:36 parties can later be co-opted by those 17:38 in power to support the ruling power. 17:40 The candidate becomes a sole candidate. 17:42 Opportunities for others are lost. This 17:46 becomes a problem, "at least two." This 17:49 is a problem. Look, I always think this 17:53 nation does not have a standardized 17:57 system, an ethical standard in building 18:01 a system. It is different from America, 18:03 for example. America has a system; one 18:06 can make changes or innovations, but 18:08 there are things of a principled nature 18:10 that cannot be changed. If they try to 18:13 change them, it is challenged. For 18:16 example, when Trump tried to change the 18:18 rule that people born in America 18:21 automatically become citizens, it could 18:24 not be done. In Indonesia, every 18:28 president can make changes. Even when 18:32 creating a policy, it turns out it 18:35 creates a decree. It turns out that the 18:38 decree clashes with existing 18:39 regulations or laws. The law gets 18:41 changed. 18:42 Yeah. 18:44 It differs from presidential 18:46 regulations where the government 18:48 regulation changes along with the 18:49 presidential instruction. The 18:52 presidential instruction gets changed. 18:55 That often happens in Indonesia. 18:58 So, the president's whims are what open 19:01 the space for the president, for those 19:04 in power, to become authoritarian, 19:06 changing everything, and Indonesia will 19:09 not mature into a strong country if it 19:11 is always like this. So, even the 19:15 Constitutional Court is being ignored 19:17 like that. Just imagine it. 19:19 The Constitutional Court can be 19:21 intervened, and after making a decision 19:22 , it can be ignored, right? A law is 19:26 issued, then one, two, three of its 19:28 articles are struck down by the 19:30 Constitutional Court, then they can 19:32 just create a government regulation in 19:35 lieu of law; what kind of country is 19:37 this? If it continues like this, 19:42 Indonesia will never progress toward 19:44 building a better and stronger system. 19:48 Why? Every system can be overhauled, 19:50 every system can be changed. Every time 19:52 the president changes, the system 19:53 changes; every time the ruler changes, 19:55 the system is changed. Yeah. 19:57 And in the end, what happens? We just 19:58 keep going around in circles. That's 20:00 the point. So, there is no standardized 20:03 ethic, right? Yes. No ethical standards 20:07 . Which ones can be changed, which ones 20:10 cannot—it’s all flexible and open 20:12 to change. Finally, what happens? 20:16 Indonesia becomes—if we learn the 20:18 theory, what was it, Bauman's concept 20:21 —there is the term "liquid modernity. 20:24 ""Liquid" means fluid; everything 20:27 becomes fluid, rules become fluid, you 20:28 know. 20:29 Yes. 20:30 Yes. Rules then become liquid. Laws can 20:33 be changed at any time, right? Then 20:36 below that, government regulations in 20:38 lieu of law can be changed at any time, 20:40 and government regulations can be 20:41 changed at any time too. And then, what 20:45 do you call it, presidential 20:47 regulations can be changed at any time; 20:49 then below that, regional regulations 20:51 can be changed at any time, like that. 20:55 Until when will this liquid, what do 20:59 you call it, this "liquid state," whose 21:02 fate depends on the ruler, be stopped? 21:07 Yes. Yes. Uh-huh. 21:08 Yes. So it’s all up to the ruler's 21:10 whims. So, we must look at this from a 21:13 more macro perspective: why this 21:16 country does not move forward and 21:18 progress to a higher stage, not " 21:21 climbing" in the terms of, uh, what's 21:24 his name, uh...Pitirim Sorokin, he has 21:30 a term, uh, "social mobility," or " 21:32 state mobility" if we look at it even 21:34 more macro, state mobility. This 21:38 mobility has what is called, uh, what 21:41 is it, uh, vertical mobility. Vertical 21:45 mobility can go up or down, it can be 21:47 climbing or it can be sinking, you know 21:49 . So, when is Indonesia climbing? 21:52 If we are "liquid," you know, fluid, 21:55 and this fluidity is left to the ruler, 21:58 to the president. Every time the 21:59 president changes, it's up to them. And 22:01 we can also see that in the ministries, 22:04 a new ministry changes, even the 22:06 applications change, just imagine. 22:08 Yes. See, 22:10 every new ministry changes its 22:12 applications, like that. Sometimes the 22:14 logo changes too. How much is the cost 22:17 spent, and beyond that, the more 22:20 fundamental issue is that this causes 22:23 things to become stuck. It doesn't move 22:27 forward into a higher stage that is 22:29 becoming more perfect and stronger. But 22:33 what happens is, uh, reshuffle after 22:35 reshuffle, yeah, uh, deconstruction, 22:37 yeah, it's deconstructed but then not 22:39 reconstructed for the better. 22:43 Yeah. So the dialectical theory is 22:45 correct to be used in our political 22:46 world. The dialectical theory is that 22:48 the bad should be removed, but the good 22:50 ones shouldn't be eliminated, you know. 22:52 So reconstruction, not just 22:54 deconstruction, you see. 22:56 Yeah. Reform, you know. Reform is good. 23:01 But the reform that has become our 23:03 jargon, in reality, it isn't running 23:06 well. 23:08 What we have is more tearing down, more 23:10 tearing down, more tearing down at the 23:12 ministry level, at the agency level, at 23:14 this level. This is because we truly 23:18 lack ethical standards, we lack a 23:21 framework, we lack a tradition to build 23:23 a more civilized nation. Alright, Bang 23:27 Toni. So which part of our election 23:29 system, in your opinion, needs to be 23:31 fixed the most? The nomination 23:34 mechanism, the party system, the 23:36 campaign, or the voting mechanism, Bang 23:38 Toni? 23:40 Everything. 23:41 Everything, Bang Toni? 23:42 Yes, including the parties, right? 23:45 Parties must recruit. For example, 23:47 candidates for DPR or DPRD must have 23:49 standards. 23:51 Uh-huh. For example, to enter 23:53 commissions A, B, or C, the standards 23:56 are A, B, C; the party must prepare 23:58 that to become a minister, that's fine, 24:00 no problem. So this multi-party system 24:03 is indeed more complicated than, uh, 24:05 two parties, you know. This multi-party 24:09 system, because of its various, uh, 24:12 what you call it, platforms and so on, 24:14 results in, uh, reshuffles and so on, 24:17 driven by diverse interests. Uh, if, 24:20 for example, a ministerial candidate, 24:23 you know, ministerial candidates A, B, 24:25 C, or D, those candidates should be 24:27 people who have, uh, competence in 24:29 their fields. Yes, sports, then in the 24:31 field of sports. It doesn't matter 24:32 which party they are from, that's fine. 24:34 Their graduates, for example, from what 24:37 you call it, from a university with a 24:38 study program, uh, A or B, for example, 24:41 at least B. Then the grade must be at 24:42 least this much. These are high-ranking 24:46 officials who have a huge influence on 24:47 this country. Even for civil servants, 24:49 to be, uh, a civil servant, the minimum 24:51 is three, right? 24:53 Their GPA, their grade point average, 24:54 you know. 24:55 Yeah. Then from what study program, uh, 24:58 B, for example, from a program that has 25:01 a B standard, a B grade, you know. And 25:04 then, uh, and so on, there are 25:06 standards, so why is it that to become 25:08 a DPR member, there are no standards, 25:10 bro? 25:12 Yeah. 25:13 Right? There's a minimum of high school 25:15 , how can they manage this with only a 25:16 high school diploma? Forgive me, I'm 25:19 not belittling high school graduates, 25:20 it's just below the standard, you know. 25:23 Yeah. 25:24 It should be at least a bachelor's 25:26 degree, you know, and then they join a 25:28 commission, for example, commission 10, 25:30 they really should have a major, at 25:32 least an education major, or they have 25:33 written many journals on education or 25:35 filled seminars, there is a track 25:37 record so they understand the matter. 25:40 And then if they join commission 11, 25:42 they must understand finance, right. 25:45 Graduates of the faculty of economics, 25:46 graduates of whatever faculty, then 25:48 their study program must be this, the 25:50 grade must be at least that, or what 25:51 else? To be a minister, for instance. 25:53 To be a lecturer, you must have a 25:55 Master’s, then eventually a Doctorate 25:56 . But for a minister, a high school 25:59 graduate can be a minister, at least 26:00 that’s how it is. S-degree graduates 26:03 have stricter standards. While 26:04 Master’s graduates have even stricter 26:06 standards, Bachelor's are lighter. 26:07 At the very least, when asked something 26:09 , they should be coherent, right, Bang 26:10 Ton? Ask A, get answer A. Don't ask A 26:14 and get answer C. 26:18 Yes, that’s what we call ethical 26:19 standards for our bureaucracy, ethical 26:21 standards for our politics. 26:23 This is what we don’t have. It 26:25 doesn’t matter which party they are 26:27 from, that’s not an issue. What 26:29 matters is that the standards are 26:31 followed and over time they get 26:33 stricter, get higher, but we don't do 26:35 that. It’s funny how the standards 26:38 actually drop over time. 26:40 Yes. 26:42 They keep dropping to accommodate the 26:45 interests behind that politics. That is 26:49 the nation's problem. If it stays like 26:51 this forever, don’t hope for anything 26:52 better, a hundred years from now 26:54 Indonesia will remain the same. Falling 26:56 further behind Malaysia. Falling 26:58 further behind Thailand, and in the 27:00 future, we’ll be left behind by 27:03 Vietnam, and then by the Philippines, 27:05 even worse. Yes. 27:07 We are already far behind Malaysia. 27:09 Never mind Singapore, let’s not even 27:11 think about Singapore yet. We are far 27:13 behind Malaysia, and even behind 27:14 Thailand we lose. If we then lose to 27:17 the Philippines and Vietnam, those 27:20 smaller countries, then it's game over. 27:23 We are too busy blaming others and 27:25 clawing at each other. Right, Bang Toni 27:28 ? 27:28 Yes. Not having those standards. 27:30 Those standards. 27:31 Yes. 27:31 Not having those standards. If we have 27:34 standards, it creates a system. What 27:36 was it that Edward Deming said? He said 27:40 , "A bad system will beat a good person 27:44 every time." So a bad system will 27:48 swallow everyone, including good people 27:50 . As Mahfud MD said, even an angel in 27:52 office in Indonesia would become 27:53 corrupt. No matter how good an angel is 27:56 , if they come to Indonesia, they’ll 27:58 turn into a demon, that’s what Mahfud 28:00 said. 28:01 Alright, Bang Toni, lastly, since we 28:04 are limited by time. If the 28:06 presidential threshold rule is 28:08 abolished by the Constitutional Court. 28:11 In your opinion, what is the most 28:12 important thing that shouldn't be lost 28:13 in drafting the new rule? The freedom 28:15 for parties to nominate candidates. The 28:17 public's opportunity to have many 28:19 choices, or the certainty of forming an 28:21 effective government? 28:23 Yes. First, it must start with opening 28:26 space for many parties to nominate and 28:29 be nominated, that’s where the public 28:32 gets many options and can choose the 28:35 best among those candidates. But if the 28:40 nomination process is then co-opted by 28:44 a new regulation or election law that 28:47 essentially clashes with the intent of 28:51 the Constitutional Court. This is 28:55 what's dangerous. Therefore, it cannot 28:57 happen, or what would be the point? 28:59 Then the Constitutional Court, meaning 29:02 by that, by removing the threshold for 29:05 the presidential candidacy, it was 29:08 about saving the substance of the 29:10 constitution, where every citizen has 29:13 the widest possible right to nominate 29:16 themselves, to vote, and also to be 29:19 elected. That is the core substance of 29:22 it. Don't let it be that what has been 29:24 opened is closed again by the 29:26 Constitutional Court, or at the very 29:27 least narrowed by the Constitutional 29:29 Court by requiring a minimum of two 29:31 seats in parliament. This is 29:34 substantially contradictory, you see. 29:38 And in my opinion, this is the behavior 29:40 of politicians that will continuously 29:43 damage this nation, damaging this 29:45 country—until when will it always be 29:48 ruined? So, every good intention is 29:51 destroyed by malicious intent. This is 29:54 part of an abuse of power, an effort to 29:57 destroy the system that is currently 29:59 being built. In my opinion, the 30:01 Constitutional Court is still quite 30:02 good. Not all Constitutional Court 30:04 rulings are perfect, that's not the 30:06 case. But, if we survey the public, 30:10 they trust the Constitutional Court 30:12 more than they trust politicians. 30:16 Yes. Yes. 30:16 Exactly. 30:17 Uh-huh. Alright, brother Toni. Thank 30:19 you very much, brother Toni, for our 30:21 dialogue this morning. Stay healthy 30:23 always, brother Toni. Peace be upon you 30:24 , and 30:25 the mercy and blessings of God. 
