World Bank Data Visualizer

The World Bank Data Visualizer is just awesome.

Choose what you want – make sure to hit play – and let the story unfold.

Though, it’s not quite the same without the narration of Hans Rosling.

Maps and Storytelling

Lately I’ve been browsing more and more maps, and been intrigued by all forms of data visualization (and presentations) in order to tell a story.

One of my very early and most well-remembered teachers of history taught that before studying anyone’s history, you must first learn their geography. Start with the map.

The land offers insight into the thinking of its’ inhabitants – see Japan for example – and the ratio of coastline to landmass is usually revealing. Europe’s long, twisting coastline in comparison to Africa’s relatively short coastline for such a large continent foreshadows much of their past thousand years of history.

One of my favorite blogs is Strange Maps (whose author recently published a book) which is a playful look into how we see the world and how the world shapes us. My favorites include the United States depicted by proximity to a McDonald’s, and the Patients per Doctor Map of the World. And of course, the often circulated United States of Canada.

These maps help us think in unusual ways about seeing the world, and even understanding the basic (but hidden) facts of the world around us.

Hans Rosling’s “Debunking Myths about the Third World,” is not a map per say, but is one of the best visual representations of the development of nations over time. I’ve watched it many times over. Many theses have been written on development theory but Rosling tells the story better than anyone. And getting people to pay attention (and make sense of the data) is as crucial as anything.

Dear SBY re: Terrorism Strategy

Dear SBY:

You got re-elected. Noordin Top is dead. And terrorism in Indonesia has faded from the headlines. After the first half of this decade, Indonesian intelligence co-opted terrorist groups and brought them into the conversation. After multiple bombings earlier this decade, July 2009 was the first attack in five years. While you may consider that your anti-terrorism strategy needs a rethink, I’d advise against it. Here’s why:

The costs of preventing terrorism are increasing while the costs of committing an act of terrorism are decreasing

Security guards and surveillance are expensive but bombs aren’t. You can’t compete with terrorists on cost, as your sensitivity will continue to be higher than your attackers and is trending against you. No military budget will solve this problem alone.

Terrorism is pursued out of desperation and lack of choice

You need to continue to show leadership. If they feel they have no options, it’s your responsibility to show them options. Offer compassion and toughness. Offer wisdom and choices.

Choice forces responsibility. Attacks come from helplessness and desperation. Offer another path to empowerment, and many will take it.

An attack usually means you’re winning

The more popular your idea becomes, the more it will be criticized.

Front-runners get attacked. Popular ideas get attacked. As Seth Godin puts it, “Ideas that spread, win.” The idea of a modern and moderate Indonesia is spreading. Take heart.

Terrorism does not challenge a person, a party or a state. It challenges a system

An ideology that legitimizes acts of violence no longer sees the world in terms of win-win. They see win-lose. They don’t want to play the game anymore; they want to change it.

Your goal must be to get them back into the system. To give them a stake: to offer them something to believe in and something to lose.

Engagement and bringing them deeper into the conversation (highlighted by a few targeted take-downs like Noordin Top) will continue to yield positive results.

Good luck.

“This is a Lebaran gift for the people of Indonesia”

Terrorism is not new and it was certainly not a twenty-first century invention.

Our collective reactions to acts of terrorism are, in part, what defines the success of the terrorist act itself. Often, we don’t do too well.

The Indonesian anti-terrorism squad killed  Noordin Top, the most wanted terrorist in Indonesia last Thursday.

This was an effective response to an act of terrorism. The Indonesian government near seamlessly controlled the messaging of this raid to prevent it from being tied-in to broad themes of religion,  Islam, the West or even nationalism (Noordin Top is Malaysian-born). This was a personalized campaign on the specific target of Noordin Top himself, and even led to the Chairman of the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) offering the quoted title of this post.

This is what the Bush administration failed to do after September 11, 2001. Instead of focusing on the precise and criminal personality of Osama Bin Laden, Bush expanded to scope of the retaliation into two full-blown hot wars and a global debate over what America means to the world. The messaging was lost over what this was really all about.

The praise of the Indonesian government, and even the police, is well deserved and promising.

By controlling the message, Noordin Top is not remembered as a martyr but as a crook and a murderer.

7.0

I remember distinctly where I was on September 11, 2001. I remember where I was on October 12, 2002. I remember where I was on December 26, 2004. I remember where I was on July 17, 2009. And I will also remember where I was on September 2, 2009.

I was on the 12th floor of my office tower. Writing emails. My stomach rose and people giggled as we realized the earth was shifting beneath us, the same feeling you get on an amusement ride. A large crack/noise/bang sent every eye in the room darting to each others, and without thinking, we were in the stairwell. The giggling stopped.

The shaking of the tower was enough to prevent one from walking quickly down the stairs. It wasn’t just a dizzying feeling, or a mild disorientation, but a see saw back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.

I vividly remember counting the floor numbers as we moved down. Eleven. Ten. Nine. By now so many people had entered the emergency stairwell that we were barely walking anymore. A women had fainted on the floor.  Eight. Seven. Six. A few women were crying. Five. Three. I remember being glad that the Chinese never build fourth floors.

Outside, people were giggling again.

If I were CEO of Air Canada…..

……..I would require every employee to travel at least four times a year.

I’ve heard that their employees get amazing deals on flights, including free fares. I have also heard that a remarkably large number of employees never exercise these benefits. For a company in the travel industry, this just isn’t right. Their employees need to be expert travelers, and I’ve flown Air Canada enough to realize they simply aren’t.

Their staff need a deep experience base in what they do. I know I can buy cheaper airline tickets online, but I like hearing from my travel agent who has traveled to 60 countries. I get information and advice that I simply wouldn’t anywhere else.

Airline staff could help by offering their knowledge to passengers, and this knowledge really only comes through experience. Travelers face an absolute labyrinth of mind-boggling rules, regulations, and requirements across jurisdictions that never seem to be standardized. And yet – nothing. I’m constantly told I can’t do things that I can, and that I can do things I can’t.

Talk to me when I check in about where I’m going. Well-traveled airline staff could connect with me about places, people and experiences in ways that would etch you brand into my mind sharper than all the ads your marketing budget could buy. Believe me – travelers love to talk about their travels. Just ask a few questions.

More than anything, travel experience would bring a greater sense of empathy to their customer relations. When I tell you that your flight is delayed, it would help if, I too, knew what that felt like.

Teeth! I see teeth!

Forget the jilbab.

The most noticeable change in the way candidates presented themselves during the recent Indonesian presidential campaign wasn’t necessarily with the wives, but with the men. After most Indonesian candidates in the previous legislative election presented their public face in true Javanese and reserved tradition, 2009 was a watershed moment in terms of how campaigns communicated publicly, positioned themselves in the media, adapted new technologies to spread their ideas and used images to tell their stories.

I’d written previously about the images of legislative candidates. Now check out the official sites of SBY and Megawati. They’re flash. They’re on Facebook. They photos are telling me something about them – immediately.

And they’re finally smiling in all their campaign posters.

Political Trust

I had a conversation with an Indonesian friend about the conspiracies circulating after the Marriot and Ritz bombings. One to date – SBY, the re-elected President, orchestrated the bombings himself.

It’s ridiculous to even consider this possibility.

My friend agreed – yet for more than 30 years the President of Indonesia abused the authority of his office. He campaigned with mis-information. He lied. He lost trust. Even though the President has now changed, the official word from his office is still not trusted.

Skepticism is healthy, distrust is counter-productive, and distrust in the political system is toxic. Trust is a political asset that is neither here nor there. You have it or you don’t. And when you’ve lost it, it seems impossible to restore. But you can.

The latest election proves that Indonesians are increasingly trusting their emerging democracy, although not necessarily their choices at the ballot box. It will be this – trust in the system, and honesty from the President – that will be a one of their strongest counterweights to terrorism.

Friday Morning, July 17 2009

At 8am Friday morning I jumped on the back on my ojek (“motorcycle taxi”) and made my way to the office. Traffic was unusually bad, even for Jakarta.

It was the most peculiar sight. The police, who hang out and smoke cigarettes at every intersection while cars crawl by, were commanding traffic with purpose. They moved vehicles away from a single lane, even remembering to halt the motorcycles that are normally exempt from road rules. They spoke sternly into their radios. They flapped their hands in the air. None were smoking.

A single lane of pavement, sitting empty, stretched as far as I could see, dotted by the neon yellow jackets of the patrol officers. A few bikes were tempted to zoom ahead on the empty lane, only to be flapped back into line by waving batons. Then I heard sirens. Fire trucks screamed down this runway. Fire trucks! In Jakarta one can find anything, except speeding emergency vehicles.

We turned to make our usual shortcut through Mega Kuningan. The roads were as congested, but with people instead of cars or bikes. Empty office towers surrounded their occupants. People stood in the open grassy, undeveloped plots of land – green spaces waiting for their owners to decide which monument to modernity will be built there: malls, hotels, or luxury apartments.

There were more camera crews than ambulances. There wasn’t a sense of sadness, yet. People walked around, chatting on their blackberries, looking around as if something was about to happen, rather than as if it just had.

As I left Mega Kuningan, my ojek driver insisted there was an attack. I didn’t see anything like that. And I didn’t trust the word of my ojek driver; they are notorious gossip queens. I arrived at work late, and watched television with my colleagues.

Thoughts after the Indonesian Presidential Election

Indoamnesia.

Ten years ago Indonesians parted ways with their disposition for unwavering social harmony and finally demanded that thirty plus years of Suharto’s New Order be brought to an end.

Suharto resigned.

Cronies and military men were self-exiled.

Ten years later, many are back running for office. Every Presidential ticket in yesterdays Presidential elections featured a former Suharto-era military man. Two of the three have particularly notorious track records.

And yet, none of this seemed to be discussed in depth during the campaign. The page had turned. Reformasi was over. The same faces were back in place and people appeared apathetic about their choices.

Given that many criticized the candidates for a lack of discussion on any topic, I felt that there were deep differences between the three pairs.

SBY-Boediono

The moderate. The incumbent President SBY got re-elected with his new, super-clean VP – making SBY’s choice the riskiest move of the election. I liked the choice. Boediono is a nobody. He won’t forge new political alliances like Kalla did in 2004, or bring special interest groups into their corner. But he’s competent. And clean. And these are really, really important. Indonesia does not need rock-star leaders at the moment (Sorry, Prabowo); the country needs competent managers.

Mega-Prabowo

The nationalist. Megawati, a former President for a few years earlier this decade, is more a recurring nightmare than realistic candidate. Most Indonesians are finally waking up. Still, they earned votes in the mid-twenties. This campaign was never really about Megawati as much as it was Prabowo’s coming out party. He’s back in town, he’s got gobs of cash, and he’s not shy. With a residual support level in the mid-twenties (assuming he can capture Mega’s votes), Prabowo has room to run. Watch him in the coming years.

Kalla – Wiranto

The businessman. He wanted to get things done, but with his business empire, it’s impossible to not get caught in a web of conflicting interests. I was surprised how poorly this duo faired in the election, coming out with less than twenty points. I’m still thinking about this one.

Direct democracy is good for Indonesia.

2004 was the first direct Presidential election, with 2009 running much more smoothly. Parliament is increasingly becoming the least respected and least professional national institution, not to the dismay of the police.

Direct democratic elections place leadership above this body, and the ability to reach meaningful positions to create change without compromising with established interests is one of the best ways to ensure change is actually created. It also eliminates a potential check on power, but this parliament would never check power anyways.

SBY was criticized during the last five years for being timid and cautious. His campaign choices already reflect a much bolder, decisive Presidential leader emerging. I’m not sad.