Transkrip diambil dari YouTube. Klik timestamp biru untuk melompat ke posisi tersebut di pemutar.
0:08 Brail TV. 0:16 Brothers and sisters blessed by Allah 0:17 Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. We have arrived at 0:19 the special news topic dialogue session 0:21 for Wednesday's edition. We are already 0:23 connected with our guest, Bang Toni 0:26 Rosid, a political observer and 0:28 national analyst, via telephone. Hello, 0:30 Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi 0:32 wabarakatuh, Bang Toni. 0:33 Waalaikumsalam warahmatullahi 0:35 wabarakatuh, Mas Angga. 0:37 How are you this morning, Bang Toni? 0:39 Also observing the market situation, 0:41 right? 0:41 Yes, it's quite bright this morning, 0:44 but the market is in the red. There are 0:48 terms like green market and red market, 0:51 right? 0:52 Yes, the market is red, and the rupiah 0:58 is weakening. 1:00 That is 1:01 a response to the dismissal, right? 1:05 This "dismissal" language is the 1:07 language of the Finance Minister, 1:09 Purbaya. Yes. Yes. Well, what is 1:13 circulating is that when he was asked 1:16 at the DPD 1:19 asked by the 1:23 mainstream reporters, right? "Where are 1:26 you going, sir?""I was quickly 1:28 dismissed." 1:31 Now, Bang Toni, we want to highlight 1:34 this. Because if—if Bang Toni—we 1:38 want to ask for your deeper analysis 1:41 regarding how political communication 1:45 is used by officials. And also the 1:49 design. There is a term "political 1:54 design," where officials or those in 2:00 power usually compete or are "versus" 2:05 against one another. First, Bang Toni, 2:10 the position of Finance Minister is not 2:12 an ordinary position, right? In the 2:16 hands of the Finance Minister lies 2:18 control over the state budget (APBN), 2:20 state revenue, state expenditure, and 2:22 fiscal policy. People are wondering— 2:27 and many have analyzed this—is this 2:30 purely a matter of competence, with 2:33 Purbaya being replaced by Sri Mulyani, 2:36 or is there a larger political 2:39 calculation? Talking about the 2:43 political design, Bang Toni even looks 2:46 at the symbols shown through gestures 2:48 and the language of the figures and 2:50 officials in this country. So, is this 2:54 purely about competition, or is there a 2:56 much larger political calculation? This 2:58 is the issue regarding the Finance 3:00 Minister. We also want to highlight 3:03 these village heads (Kades), Bang Toni, 3:05 as the news was presented earlier. They 3:08 had an audience at the DPR and were 3:10 received by Ahmad Dasco, and they are 3:12 demanding unlimited terms for village 3:14 heads. Some see that if this is based 3:19 on the village heads 'wishes, there is 3:21 a potential for absolute power starting 3:24 from the bottom, or even serving for 3:27 life. Even these village heads are 3:30 requesting that acting village head 3:31 positions be given to former village 3:33 heads to fill those posts. The issue of 3:37 village heads really started to rise 3:39 when the previous leader, Jokowi, was 3:42 truly coordinating the scope of the 3:44 village heads. So, Bang Toni, looking 3:48 at these two issues, where would you 3:50 like to start? Please. 3:53 Yes. The reason I suggest that 4:00 interviewing Purbaya would be 4:04 interesting is that 4:08 Purbaya is quite outspoken, you know. 4:12 That's right. 4:13 Whatever is on his mind, he just says 4:15 it. Whatever he sees, he expresses it. 4:18 If you could interview Purbaya, that 4:21 would be cool, 4:24 really interesting. 4:26 I suggest that you and other media 4:29 outlets should interview him while he's 4:32 still willing to talk, while it's still 4:35 fresh. Yesterday, it was mentioned that 4:41 dozens of echelon 3 officials were 4:44 removed by Purbaya. 4:47 Yes. 4:50 Purbaya, according to his predictions 4:52 and assumptions, could it be related to 4:55 the second issue, the high-speed rail, 4:57 right? Is it because of that? 5:01 The removal was so sudden, it happened 5:03 while Purbaya was in a meeting with the 5:05 DPD group, 5:07 then he got a call and stepped out. 5:11 When he came out, did that video of 5:14 Purbaya leaving the DPD room during his 5:17 dismissal circulate? 5:20 Hm. 5:21 Yes. 5:22 H. 5:23 Very sudden. So when he was asked if he 5:27 was told beforehand, he said it was 5:30 sudden, and when asked about being 5:32 fired, he said he didn't know, it's the 5:35 president's right to fire him. 5:39 Is it because of the rail project or 5:41 because of 5:42 reorientations in the echelon 3 5:45 positions? Those assumptions can be 5:48 traced and investigated, it's not 5:50 impossible. 5:52 Yes. What's clear is that there's 5:54 something. When an official is suddenly 5:59 replaced, it means there is a factor, a 6:03 factor considered fundamental enough to 6:06 cause a firing. Is that fundamental 6:10 factor related to performance? Is it 6:13 related to political elements? This is 6:17 what needs to be investigated to serve 6:20 as a reflection for other officials. Be 6:25 careful, you know. Purbaya's dismissal 6:28 also serves as a warning to all 6:30 officials 6:32 that you can be "Purbaya-ed" at any 6:34 time. " 6:36 Purbaya-ed." Now, there are factors 6:39 that make this clear; if a firing 6:42 happens, especially a sudden one, there 6:44 is something that makes the president 6:47 uncomfortable. 6:48 Yes. Or at the very least, someone the 6:54 president couldn't refuse made a 6:57 request, or at least he was 7:00 uncomfortable, so a dismissal occurred, 7:03 or there was an emergency situation 7:07 where something had to be resolved by 7:10 Purbaya. 7:12 Yes. It could be that there is 7:15 political power from the outside that 7:16 is greater, exerting pressure. H. 7:19 On the president to act. Why? Because 7:22 the one who can fire, the one who can 7:24 stop it, is Purbaya. 7:26 Yeah. 7:27 Other politicians who hold positions as 7:32 officials, especially in ministries, 7:38 use the term "dismissed." Anies's 7:42 language was "I have been relieved of 7:44 my duties," 7:45 right? Generally, it's "dismissed," but 7:48 Purbaya said, "I was fired." Yes, that 7:55 language shows feelings, the emotional 7:58 situation within someone. 8:03 Now, if the phrasing used is that I was 8:05 fired, there is a sense of anger, a 8:07 sense of disappointment. Why, because I 8:11 have often said that everything I did 8:14 was under the president's orders and 8:16 wishes, you know. And it's true, where 8:19 would a minister—as the saying used 8:21 to go— 8:23 their vision is the president's team 8:24 vision. That's correct, it is indeed 8:26 the president's vision. 8:28 When it turns out not to be, the 8:30 governor's vision is also the 8:32 governor's vision, not the vice 8:34 governor's or the agency head's, so 8:37 when something doesn't align with that 8:39 vision, it must be replaced because 8:41 it's no longer consistent. 8:45 Yeah, for example, let me share a bit 8:47 of a story I once heard. A governor. 8:52 Yes, Anies, for instance, when he was 8:55 governor, his vision for the future was 8:58 clear, the future roadmap was clear. 9:02 Then, if a department head turns out to 9:04 be unable or unwilling to follow 9:06 the instructions given. 9:09 Then okay, if you don't want to follow, 9:11 I'll give you three months. If you can 9:13 share a vision with me, let's proceed. 9:15 But if you cannot share the vision, it 9:17 is better for you to resign. The people 9:19 who resigned during Anies's time were 9:21 actually people who were fired. But to 9:23 be elegant, they were asked to resign. 9:26 No, shouldn't a leader be the one to 9:28 step up and take the heat? Just let 9:32 those people resign as if Anies is the 9:34 one who disappointed them, as if Anies 9:35 is the one who couldn't work with them, 9:37 he takes 9:39 he takes that risk. A leader's criteria 9:42 must include being someone who is brave 9:45 enough to take risks. 9:47 Yeah. Regarding what happens, including 9:51 what is done by their subordinates, 9:53 that is a leader. Now, in the context 9:56 of Purbaya, his vision is indeed the 9:59 president's vision. If Purbaya is no 10:02 longer in line with the president's 10:05 vision and is replaced, then that would 10:08 be meritocracy-based, with specific 10:10 metrics. Yeah. 10:13 Or perhaps Purbaya disappointed the 10:17 president politically, we don't know. 10:22 So I suggest to the media, especially 10:26 Rasil, to interview Purbaya. Purbaya 10:32 needs someone to talk to, just speak on 10:34 podcasts. What is the real problem? 10:38 Even if Purbaya doesn't explicitly 10:41 state "it's A, B, C, or D," when 10:43 Purbaya says he was rotating so many 10:46 Echelon 2 and 3 officials, that could 10:49 be an indicator that he could no longer 10:52 take responsibility. Yesterday I gave 10:55 this, now I don't even have that burden 10:57 . Now, that could be an indicator to 11:01 investigate whether those two factors 11:04 were the reason Purbaya was fired, or 11:07 if Purbaya had actually made the 11:09 economy unstable, for example, failing 11:12 to stabilize monetary policy— 11:17 the rupiah dropped, the JCI plummeted, 11:20 and so on; we don't know for sure. 11:25 Because usually, a cabinet reshuffle is 11:29 not immediately followed by 11:31 explanations regarding the factors 11:35 behind the firing or dismissal. 11:39 That's it. 11:43 Looking at what Purbaya is doing, 11:45 people consider him to be low-context; 11:48 he gets straight to the point using 11:50 direct language without beating around 11:53 the bush, avoiding bureaucratic 11:55 communication styles, and choosing 11:57 simple diction. Even the handover of 12:02 office was very, very brief. Compared 12:06 to the performance of other ministers, 12:10 is the indicator really performance, 12:13 Bang Toni, if we are talking about 12:17 competence? 12:18 Yes. Yes. Because it’s not all 12:20 complete, everything has to be seen, 12:23 right? What is clear is that the 12:26 information circulating so far is that 12:28 there is a kind of insubordination by 12:30 subordinates, by the apparatus. 12:34 So that what Purbaya wants, or his 12:38 programs, do not run effectively, right 12:42 ? And it’s indeed not easy; Purbaya 12:45 apparently does not want to adapt to 12:48 the customs and traditions in the 12:50 Ministry of Finance that are already 12:53 deeply rooted. 12:55 Now, this is the importance of a leader 12:57 . On one hand, he creates changes and 13:01 breakthroughs, but on the other, he 13:03 must be able to lead his subordinates 13:05 to work, as the name leader implies— 13:07 to lead. So, making or moving 13:13 subordinates to work. 13:16 Now, there’s an art to that. So if 13:19 someone has a program but is unable to 13:22 move their subordinates to work 13:24 according to their vision and their 13:26 wishes, then that leadership is a 13:28 failure. 13:30 Yes. Because, regardless, our 13:33 bureaucracy, we know that everywhere 13:35 our bureaucracy is... 13:37 Yes, that's how it is. A chaotic, messy 13:43 , and corrupt system, right? Now, when 13:47 a new leader or official is in that 13:50 position, do they find a win-win 13:54 solution? On one side, for what...Yes, 14:01 on the other side, being idealistic, 14:03 then taking a middle ground, right? 14:07 Yes. In my opinion, Pitirim Sorokin's 14:11 theory about idealistic, ideational, 14:14 and... 14:15 pragmatism, or whatever it's called, 14:20 materialism, I think could be a 14:23 reference for leading a... 14:27 community or an agency, an institution 14:31 that already has a mental tradition, a 14:34 character passed down for generations, 14:38 and if we don't prune it, everyone will 14:41 resist by staying silent and not 14:44 working. Bureaucracy, when they don't 14:48 agree with their leader, their way of 14:51 rebelling is by not doing the work. 14:54 Yeah. 14:56 And that seems to be what is happening 14:58 at the Ministry of Finance, what 15:00 Purbaya is experiencing. 15:03 Yeah. 15:04 Right? That is where a win-win solution 15:07 is needed, but whatever the story, we 15:09 are still making assumptions—just 15:11 assumptions. I also happen to not know 15:15 Purbaya, so I don't have enough 15:18 information to get more details on that 15:21 . 15:22 Yes. I haven't had the time, I've been 15:25 busy until late. Tomorrow maybe I can 15:27 get information on matters like this. 15:29 Oh, is that so? If we were to rank them 15:32 , you know, rank the ministers based on 15:34 how the people see their performance— 15:37 from the most problematic, the quietest 15:40 , the biggest sycophant, the one 15:42 chasing image, and the one most in the 15:45 spotlight. Not to mention recently, 15:48 Minister Nusron is also currently under 15:50 the spotlight, right? Now, is the 15:54 President's move actually appropriate 15:58 or is this reshuffle the right step? 16:02 There are many ministers who are very 16:03 worthy of being reshuffled by Mr. 16:05 Prabowo, right? 16:06 The question is, what is the metric? 16:08 Hm. 16:10 What is the standard, what is the 16:15 weight used to evaluate these ministers 16:20 ? 16:20 Hm. Well, generally speaking, the first 16:25 is political weight, right? Then the 16:30 second is performance weight. The third 16:33 is loyalty weight. 16:34 Hm. 16:36 What exactly is political weight? 16:38 Political weight is what party they are 16:39 from. A party chairman. It's risky if 16:43 they are replaced, or if they are 16:45 replaced, it might cause turmoil 16:47 because that minister might have public 16:49 support, for example. Then there is the 16:53 loyalty weight, are they loyal or not? 16:55 Hm. 16:56 Loyal to the president or loyal to 16:58 someone else, right? Then the third is 17:02 meritocracy regarding competence. What 17:06 products have they produced, or what 17:07 performance have they achieved? The 17:12 problem in Indonesia is that the basis 17:17 for meritocracy is often minimal, it's 17:22 usually secondary. 17:27 What matters is political strength and 17:30 political loyalty, isn't that right, 17:33 Mas Angga? Hm. 17:36 So, often when a reshuffle happens, the 17:40 dominant metrics are politics and 17:44 loyalty. 17:46 Hm. 17:47 Performance basis is secondary. 17:51 Performance basis is secondary. 17:54 Yes. That is often what makes this 17:57 country......what makes this country 18:04 become a state that is, what? Let's 18:09 look at reshuffle after reshuffle, is 18:10 there any change? 18:11 There isn't any. It might even be 18:14 declining. 18:15 Yes. Reshuffle after reshuffle occurs, 18:19 but there is no significant change. 18:24 This has become a problem for us, right 18:25 ? Because the considerations for 18:30 conducting a reshuffle are mostly based 18:35 on......political considerations, and 18:39 then based on what? Considerations 18:42 other than political, such as loyalty. 18:45 A minister speaks out and gets fired, 18:47 right? That's a political consideration 18:50 , or criticizing the president and 18:52 getting replaced—that's also a 18:54 loyalty consideration. Hm. 18:58 But is there an evaluation every 6 19:01 months or every 3 months using a 19:05 standard? A standard like, say, for 19:10 regional heads there is a performance 19:13 indicator; if they are evaluated and 19:15 score below 6 or 7, then reshuffle. 19:21 Give it to the ministry or the party to 19:24 replace their cadre there. 19:26 Right? But if those who pass are above 19:31 seven, then it relates to, uh, first, 19:34 politics, second, uh, what, loyalty, 19:37 and third is, uh, performance. For 19:42 example, the performance is, uh, 50%. 19:45 Then loyalty is, uh, 25%. And then, uh, 19:52 the politics are, uh, 25%. Now, factors 19:57 like these will then become, uh, a 19:59 measure for the people, you see. The 20:02 people will see, oh, they're 20:04 accountable, so the people will also 20:05 propose it. Everything now is political 20:08 in nature. Protests are also sometimes 20:10 funded by other parties to demonstrate 20:12 against this minister so they get 20:13 replaced. Then those who fund the 20:15 future candidate minister, right, or 20:17 fund the future minister's brokers. 20:20 That's common in Indonesia, isn't it? 20:23 But if we have standards, have proper, 20:26 clear measures, then if it's off by a 20:29 little bit, it's, uh, controlled, so 20:31 whether this is a political drama or 20:34 something real... 20:37 Right. Is this a K-drama or for real? 20:40 So that, uh, the nation's journey isn't 20:42 dominated by pragmatic politics, you 20:44 know. 20:45 Yes. Alright, Bang Toni. From the 20:47 Minister of Finance, let's move to 20:48 village heads, shall we? These 36,000 20:50 village heads are asking for their term 20:52 of office to be extended. One comment 20:56 from an analyst is, is it true this is 20:58 for budget efficiency, to save on the 21:01 costs of holding village head elections 21:04 , or, you know, for the stability of 21:06 national programs? It seems the 21:10 government wants to ensure the 21:12 continuity of the MBG and KDMP programs 21:14 , right. So some are also highlighting, 21:16 is it true that behind these village 21:18 heads there is the Minister of Home 21:19 Affairs? Is there a political agreement 21:21 or something else? What is your 21:23 analysis, Bang Toni? 21:24 Yes. Since the, uh, 17th century, 21:30 uh-huh. Harrington, uh, Harrington 21:34 already revealed that a healthy state, 21:37 uh, or institution, is one where there 21:39 is a rotation of positions. So there is 21:45 rotation, there is refreshment, there 21:48 is no authoritarianism, constantly, uh, 21:51 refreshing against the existing 21:53 situations, yes. Uh, that is what 21:57 happens, that is normal, that is 21:59 healthy, yes. Now, when village heads' 22:03 terms were just extended, there were 22:06 many protests yesterday. Why? Because 22:10 extending it is just to gain village 22:12 support. Because vote banks are in the 22:15 villages, so it faced criticism. Now 22:18 it's even worse if it's for life, this 22:20 is a democratic country, right. 22:25 Democracy doesn't embrace, uh, if, like 22:27 , in the village during the reform era, 22:30 uh, during the New Order, even the 22:32 president wasn't for life. Village 22:36 heads weren't, regents weren't. Uh. 22:39 Others weren't, right. And then when 22:42 the President was challenged, which 22:44 ultimately led to only two terms, why 22:46 would village heads go back to the past 22:48 ? At the start of the New Order, there 22:51 was already a reform regarding the 22:53 position of village head, which 22:55 initially—this is still the New Order 22:58 —was for life, and then it became not 23:00 for life. Uh, that's where the 23:03 President was then demanded not to be 23:05 for life either, because it was 23:06 successful. And now we want to go back? 23:09 This is not a kingdom. 23:11 Yes. 23:13 The question is, in my opinion, this 23:15 absolutely must be rejected. Absolutely 23:19 rejected, you know. We prefer to be led 23:22 by fresh, young people in rotation 23:24 rather than by old people who are 23:25 already tired. 23:27 Hm. 23:27 The simplest example is this. In the 23:30 prayer rooms and mosques in the 23:32 villages, because there is no young 23:34 generation. The imams are already 23:40 elderly, almost at the end of their 23:41 lives, their voices are worn out; 23:43 it’s uncomfortable. 23:46 It’s not pleasant for leading. 23:48 Leaders need energy, new energy, new 23:53 thoughts, and new ideas. A process that 23:58 adapts to modernity and the existing 24:01 developments. This is what is needed. 24:05 Imagine, let's look back to the past; 24:08 even Pak Harto reformed the position of 24:11 village head from a lifetime tenure to 24:14 a non-lifetime one. Are we really going 24:17 to be worse than Pak Harto? Are we 24:20 going to be worse than the New Order? 24:22 That's the point. If it is granted, it 24:26 means there is something behind it. 24:31 What is that something? The ones who 24:33 can grant it are from above, from the 24:35 center. Village heads will ask for it; 24:38 anyone who wants to stay, anyone who 24:40 holds a position wants it for life—if 24:42 necessary, even reincarnate to hold it 24:44 again. 24:46 That's the nature of people in power. 24:49 But this is not good; the impact is too 24:52 great. It causes damage to the people. 24:56 So, we know there are charismatic 25:05 leaders, traditional leaders, and as 25:08 Weber says, there are rational leaders 25:11 based on rationality and a rational 25:13 system. Especially now that we realize 25:18 that in what do you call it? In our 25:22 state system our state system indeed 25:27 requires continuous rotation. Moreover, 25:33 the modern political parties are only 25:37 two, one is Golkar. The second one is 25:41 PKS, which is system-based. The others 25:44 belong to their chairmen, like 25:48 corporations. PKB used to not be, but 25:51 now PKB is like it belongs to its 25:52 chairman, PAN is also like it belongs 25:54 to its chairman. There is no limit to 25:57 the number of periods. Let alone if 25:59 it's the village head position. We can 26:02 imagine, this once happened in our own 26:04 family. It just so happened that my 26:06 older sibling was a village head. In 26:09 the end, the village officials were my 26:11 uncles, my relatives, and everything 26:13 was family. If the village head 26:17 position is made for a lifetime, that 26:19 will happen again. Hm. 26:21 And the second vulnerability is, in 26:24 this open era, when there is public 26:26 dissatisfaction, those village head 26:29 houses could be burned down, just like 26:32 during the fall of the New Order. 26:34 Hm. 26:35 The situation is very different now and 26:37 the demands are very different. We are 26:39 currently on the right track. Even 26:42 though it was politically tainted as a 26:44 historical accident yesterday, are we 26:46 going to make this history even worse? 26:48 That is the question, right? 26:50 Yes. 26:50 Yes. The impact, the destructive impact 26:53 is quite large, isn't it? It ends up 26:55 being nepotism again. We shouldn't let 26:59 the public assume that this village 27:01 head election is a way to perpetuate 27:03 the village heads 'power, which in turn 27:05 is meant to perpetuate the president's 27:07 power. In the end, that's what the 27:10 public accuses. 27:12 Yeah. 27:13 Maybe this acts as a stepping stone, a 27:16 foundation, or a reference—an excuse 27:18 to strengthen the president's lifetime 27:21 tenure. That is ultimately the public's 27:26 view, the public's accusation toward 27:29 that, Mas Angga. 27:32 Hmm. Yes, that is the public's 27:34 accusation toward that. So we see, Bang 27:37 Toni, things that keep disappointing 27:39 the people. I saw this on social media, 27:43 there's a video of MH that was being 27:47 shared. Why does the government always 27:50 make things difficult for the people? 27:52 Even if this country were to collapse, 27:55 it's the people who are burdened. Now, 27:57 as a closing point, Bang Toni. How can 28:01 the government actually serve the 28:03 people instead of burdening them with 28:06 all its dynamics, steps, or policies? 28:10 How do you see the government's 28:12 seriousness in serving the people, Bang 28:14 Toni? 28:15 Yes. The design of a country will be 28:19 correct and orderly if its planning is 28:22 correct. First, and secondly, it must 28:26 be managed by the right people. Right? 28:31 So those two are the minimum, and what 28:33 does it mean to be managed by the right 28:35 people? People who have integrity and 28:37 capacity, besides just loyalty. Not 28:39 just relying on loyalty, but also based 28:41 on meritocracy. Those people have 28:44 competence and they have integrity. In 28:47 addition to, of course, what is needed 28:49 is loyalty to the leader. Those three 28:51 things are what is needed. So, this 28:54 planning is often done in a hurry, 28:57 rushed, quickly, kind of instantly. 29:03 Even if the goal is good, the intention 29:06 is good, the aim is good, the desire is 29:09 good, but if the planning is not mature 29:11 , if the planning is not good, what 29:14 happens is it ends up messy. Planning 29:18 is already 50%. If the planning is good 29:20 , there is 50%success, that's what 29:22 management theory says. 29:24 Right? Now, if the plan is bad, then it 29:26 will turn out bad. Then, if the plan is 29:30 good but it's managed by the wrong 29:32 people, it's still bad. Good planning, 29:37 well-managed, and then well-supervised 29:40 —that creates a system. Yeah. 29:44 But, if we have a system that is 29:48 inherited and is bad, then...This 29:52 system must be improved, how? With good 29:58 planning and then with good human 30:01 resources. Once again, good human 30:06 resources are those who have integrity 30:08 and competence in their respective 30:10 fields. Then human resources that have, 30:14 uh, the right loyalty, you know. If 30:19 that exists, then this country will be 30:21 better, not troublesome but orderly. 30:24 H 30:24 Yeah. But once again, the factor why MH 30:28 says it’s troublesome is because 30:29 these two factors, the planning is not 30:31 mature, right. And then it is also 30:35 managed by the wrong people. 30:37 Yeah. So, uh, this is what then, uh, 30:41 becomes troublesome. 30:45 From here, we will then see, you know, 30:47 3 years ahead, 8 years ahead, 10 years 30:50 ahead. If the pattern is like this, the 30:52 result will be like this, it won't 30:54 change, you know. As long as the 30:57 initial design is not changed, and then 30:59 the human resources are not changed, 31:01 the people are not replaced, yeah. 31:05 Don't ever hope for change, 31:07 it's not pessimism. But this can be 31:09 theorized, 31:11 yes, theorized, you know. We are 31:15 testing all of this based on, first, 31:17 data, and second, theory, theoretical 31:20 analysis. 31:20 Yes. Yes. 31:21 Yes, it can be seen, you know. It can 31:24 be seen like that. If a person runs, 31:26 roughly how fast they run per kilometer 31:29 . Then if they are as fast as, uh, one 31:32 step is this much or two steps in this 31:34 many seconds, then 1 kilometer is this 31:37 many minutes, it can be seen. 31:39 Uh-huh. Right. 31:40 Yeah. It will change, it can be seen if 31:43 a person runs and is 60 years old, for 31:45 example, and they rarely exercise, they 31:47 reach 2 kilometers and they might just 31:49 die, right. It can be seen, it can be 31:51 predicted. Theory is meant to predict. 31:54 Based on existing data, then, uh, uh, 31:56 what is it called, this database, then 31:58 we look at what happened before, the 32:01 scale is like this. That is theory. 32:05 Ah, now we can see, you know, what the 32:07 economy will be like, what the 32:09 political situation will be like, right 32:11 . What education will be like, uh, 32:14 today we can already see if a change 32:17 does not happen. If a change does not 32:20 happen, Masa Angga. 32:21 We will see that, right, Bang Toni. 32:23 Yes, yes. 32:25 Alright, Bang Toni. Thank you very much 32:27 for this dialogue this morning. 32:29 Hopefully it is useful for the 32:30 listeners. God willing, we will meet 32:32 again next week. Peace be upon you and 32:34 the mercy and blessings of God. 
