Sabtu, 28 Maret 2015

‘Coming Out’: It’s not easy being green …or being gay

‘Coming Out’: It’s not easy being green …or being gay

Julia Suryakusuma  ;  The author of “Sex, Power and Nation”
JAKARTA POST, 25 Maret 2015


Do you remember Kermit the Frog from The Muppet Show and his signature song, “It’s Not Easy Being Green”?

He laments his coloration: He thinks green is boring because it “blends in with so many ordinary things”. He wishes he could have been red, yellow or gold, “or something much more colorful like that”.

Members of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community probably envy Kermit’s “predicament”, as they are all too often labeled abnormal, unnatural, immoral, different, deviant, dangerous — even a scourge to society.

At least Kermit should be happy that he’s never had a religious fatwa (Islamic edict) issued against him proposing the death penalty for being green, amphibian or having webbed feet, i.e. being a frog. Imagine!

Absurd, isn’t it? To criminalize and punish someone for being what and who they are? But this is precisely what the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) has done.

On Dec. 31, 2014, they issued a fatwa (No. 57/2014 on lesbians, gays, sodomy and immoral behavior) that stigmatizes same-sex behavior. They recommend punishment up to the death penalty and have urged the government not to allow lesbians, gays and bisexuals to organize.

Announcing the edict publicly on March 3, Hasanuddin AF, head of MUI’s fatwa commission, said it was issued because sexual deviance was on the rise. It had infiltrated schools and would hurt “national morale”. He called on the government to set up rehabilitation centers to “cure” LGBT people and eradicate homosexuality.

Sigh. Another case of MUI moral panic. Don’t they have anything better to do? How about cracking down on sexual deviance in their midst, e.g. the kiai and ustad (religious teachers) who sexually molest and/or sodomize their students? Homosexuality is virtually institutionalized in pesantren (religious boarding schools) anyhow — isn’t MUI being a tad hypocritical?

I reckon the government would do better to set up a rehabilitation center to cure people like Hasa-nuddin of their (religious) bigotry and dangerous ignorance.

Hasn’t the MUI heard that the World Health Organization, the Health Ministry and all major mental health organizations worldwide no longer consider homosexuality a mental disorder? It’s simply a variation in sexual orientation. As Alfred C. Kinsey (1894-1956), the famous American sexologist said: “The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”

LGBT and human rights activists, not just in Indonesia, but also internationally, were quick to condemn MUI’s fatwa. Rightly so. You’d expect that wouldn’t you?

Interestingly, 13 days after the MUI issued the fatwa, on March 16, a book called Coming Out addressing the issue of being gay in Indonesia, was published by Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia (KPG).

The author, Hendri Yulius, a 26-year-old scholar, researcher, writer, author and LGBT activist, is a very impressive young man who is as intelligent, well-read, and dedicated as he is talented. A prolific writer, he’s published more than 10 books on a range of topics and many articles in various journals. Ten books at age 26? Now that makes me jealous!

I first met Hendri when he came to interview me about two years ago for an academic assignment. He was then 24, still a student at Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore (NUS).

It didn’t take me long to be impressed by Hendri’s intelligence, knowledge and pleasant, engaging personality. At NUS, he took four other minor topics on films and sexuality. He told me he’s been interested in gender and sexuality since he was a teenager and is basically self-taught.

Before Coming Out, in 2013 he had published Lilith’s Bible, his collection of feminist horror short stories. Feminist horror? Yes, you read right.

So given his background, it’s not surprising that Coming Out is an expression of so many things about the author. It’s about his personal journey, his scholarly bent (sic !), his research capability, his literary inclinations, and of course, his passion for the truth and justice.

The book is a very informative and fascinating read. It contains, among others, the history and traditional practice of homosexuality in Indonesia; analysis of the biological basis of homosexuality; discussions of bio-politics and the nation-state and highlights academic debates on homosexuality.

It addresses issues around homosexuality and the military; marriage (both heterosexual and same-sex); homosexuality in Indonesian literature, films and pop culture; and of course, the vexed connection between homosexuality with faith and religion.

Most importantly, Coming Out debunks and deconstructs myths and misconceptions about homosexuality and sexuality in general.

As Hendri points out in his book, historically and universally, homosexuality has been condemned, maligned and misunderstood.

This is strange, given that about 10 percent of people in any given society are gay.

Why is love between two men considered taboo, he asks, but blood, gore and killing are considered entertaining, sellable commodities? Go figure.

Given the ignorance not just of the MUI, but also the general public on LGBT issues, Coming Out should be required reading for everyone, especially MUI members.

What happens if we juxtapose the MUI’s fatwa with Hendri’s book? We see the personification of Indonesia’s past and future. The MUI and their fatwa trigger-happy ways belong to the past; Hendri’s knowledge-packed book, with a big dose of heart and compassion, belongs to Indonesia’s future.

Hendri’s triple-minority status (gay, Christian and ethnic-Chinese) represents Indonesia’s democratic pluralism, while MUI’s restrictive, judgmental, condemning, outdated, ignorant, moralistic way belong to Indonesia’s authoritarian past.

Who would you choose? Hendri or the MUI? It’s a no-brainer, right?

But let’s not forget our friend Kermit. If he wants to be more colorful, then he should join the LGBT Rainbow Coalition, which is not just a celebration of LGBT, but of pluralism, diversity and the human spirit.

But guess what? Indonesia already has its Rainbow Coalition: it’s called Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (Unity in Diversity), our national motto. Hurray!

Where will history place Lee Kuan Yew?

Where will history place Lee Kuan Yew?

Tom Plate  ;  The author of Conversations with Lee Kuan Yew in the Giants of Asia book series; His next book is The Fine Art of the Interview; He is the distinguished scholar of Asian and Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles
JAKARTA POST, 24 Maret 2015


My differences of opinion with Lee Kuan Yew (which included views about the future role of China’s Communist Party and other matters, but no matter here) included one about the character of his political genius. For that, as any fair-minded observer of the founding father of bustling modern Singapore knew, was what he was.

But what was its nature?

Lee and his followers, which much of the time included most of the people of Singapore, showed the world that economic self-improvement had to have public policies grounded in best-practice pragmatisms rather than in ideological schematics. It also required hard-working citizens sharing the vision to get off the ground.

Whether your political system was argumentative-parliamentarian, messy-democracy or shut-up authoritarian, the people had to be brought along and had to believe in the leader’s way of moving forward if they were to give it their best.

LKY, as he used to sign his private notes, convinced people that his way — hard work, scientific public policy, political-party monopoly, clean government and media as ally, not as smarty-pants second-guesser — would work if given a chance. And it did.

In his own phraseology, Singapore went from Third World to First in almost a generation’s time, never stopping for a rest, much less to entertain a second guess or tolerate second-guessers.

I once offered him the formulation of the late Isaiah Berlin, the great Oxford don who imagined political genius in the manner of Tolstoy. The great ones were either “hedgehogs” (one giant idea brainiacs) or “foxes” (a million clever approaches). Their political sense was either multifaceted (the ultra-alert fox who knew a thousand ways to survive) or the one-big-idea porcupine (with but a single survival move — yet it was a prickly doozey!).

The wartime Winston Churchill with all his many tricks was a fox; Albert Einstein, who could barely cross a street without help, was nonetheless the hedgehog with his one world-changing idea.

LKY, only grudgingly accepting my Berlin-Tolstoy dichotomy, insisted he was a fox, not a hedgehog: “You may call me a ‘utilitarian’ or whatever. I am interested in what works.”

He had a strong argument. Really good and sophisticated governance requires a map of multiple routes to the future, not to mention mature management of the present.

Critics belittled the result as a “nanny state”, but not every nanny was as competent and diligent as this one. Little Singapore’s journey also needed a team of like-minded colleagues and a talented people, with a Confucian culture that could tolerate exceptionally strong and singular leadership.

So I accepted his demurrer and had to face facts; Einstein, after all, had worked more or less alone, not with a Cabinet full of ministers and dozens of problems pressing daily. Besides, who would know him better than himself? Perhaps only his late wife Choo understood what was behind that iconic public face that at one hour could be so gruff and cold and intimidating — and two hours later so charming and gracious and reasonable.

I told him I marveled at how well Singaporeans understood him, but he shook his head and snapped back: “They think they know me, but they only know the public me.”

My sense is that, for all his writings and interviews, and for all the media on him, he was right about that. So we await the some future longish biography that gets to the real bones-and-flesh human man behind the larger-than-life public figure.

For the interim version, I tried — probing him with annoying questions about his sons, including the current well-performing prime minister; his daughter, the brilliant medical professional; and of course his late wife. And that did let in some light.

But when once asked whether there was anyone alive who was like him, he answered without apology: “I do not know of any person who is most like me.”

About that — again — he may very well have been right, but if so, that helps make my case for awarding him hedgehog honors despite everything. Sure, I’m stubborn about this, but let us note that in one conversation he summoned up the notable figure Jean Monnet (1888-1979), whom history reveres for his prophetic vision of European unity, by way of a Common Market and European Union.

For this one singular contribution, Monnet gets marked as a political hedgehog. So how is the Lee Kuan Yew a modern Monnet, as I suspect history will say?

We will require more time to helicopter upward for the illuminating panoramic view. But in my mind with each year in power he grew into a composite figure, a dual icon of sorts where a modern-day Plato (glowing with the vision of an ideal city-state run solely by the virtuous) fused with a modern-day Machiavelli (calculating strategies to keep the “soft-headed” utopian vision from getting its head chopped off).

 To govern in these fraught times, I am afraid to say it but you need to be both. The political hedgehog in effect must have two sides to his political being. As Machiavelli insisted, it was best if the leader was both feared and loved.

Because Lee Kuan Yew had it all, he became a political giant of his time. Personally, over the decades, I met no one most like him.

I wish his surviving family and relatives the very best, and thank him for all the time he offered me — and for all the wisdom and insights he gave me that I hope will never leave me.

Lee Kuan Yew Singapore’s, Southeast Asia’s true leader

Lee Kuan Yew Singapore’s,

Southeast Asia’s true leader

Sabam Siagian  ;  A senior editor of The Jakarta Post;
He interviewed the late Lee Kuan Yew several times
JAKARTA POST, 24 Maret 2015


Lee Kuan Yew was sworn in as prime minister of Singapore on June 5, 1959, when Singapore then was a self-governing state within the British Commonwealth.

When the Federation of Malaysia was established in 1963, Lee ushered Singapore into the newly created Federation. His party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), was his strong political base after it overcame some internal problems.

In 1964, PAP (with 75 percent Chinese membership) took part in Malaysian national elections based on Lee’s decision. Lee’s belief in multiracialism apparently was viewed differently by the Malay politicians.

In August 1965, Lee was told by his Malaysian colleagues in the federal government that Singapore had to leave the federation.

An Australian journalist friend who covered the event remembered that Lee with tears on his face softly said to the few reporters present: “We are on our own now.” My friend also noted the determination in Lee’s voice. It is helpful to remember the context of that event, which made the situation faced by Lee and his colleagues challenging indeed.

Former president Sukarno who at that stage showed clear indications of megalomania considered the formation of the Federation of Malaysia as Great Britain’s imperialist stratagem to encircle the Republic of Indonesia because of his anti-Western attitude.
Sukarno declared what he referred to as Konfrontasi, or confrontation, which in reality was launching a series of military operations against Malaysia and the recently independent Singapore.

Lee was indeed very much relieved to see the gradual changes happening in Jakarta after the failed communist party coup on Oct. 1, 1965. Perhaps it took the same time for Lee to comprehend the actions of the newly emerging leader in Jakarta, gen. Soeharto, because of his unmilitaristic decisions.

He abolished the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), called for an end to all military operations against Malaysia and Singapore and reactivated Indonesia’s membership at the United Nations.

And as acting president since 1967, Soeharto made approaches to Western countries that were willing to provide economic aid to Indonesia, which slowly recovered from a chaotic economic mess with 600 percent inflation thanks to Sukarno’s revolutionary outbursts.

In other words, unintentionally, there was a parallel of action and purpose between Singapore’s Lee and Indonesia’s Soeharto. Lee was determined to transform Singapore as a modern state with a sophisticated economy. The end of Konfrontasi made his job easier. And Soeharto quietly made repairing Indonesia’s broken economy his top priority, along with providing basic necessities to the ordinary people that had suffered for so long.

Books have been written to describe the Singapore miracle that became the modern hub of Southeast Asia under the leadership of Lee. Indonesia and Singapore’s other neighbors benefit from the modern services that Singapore is able to provide so efficiently.

On the other hand, Singapore’s rapid modernization would have been difficult to achieve without political stability in Southeast Asia.

That’s why the establishment of the ASEAN on Aug. 8, 1967, in Bangkok was such an impressive political achievement.

The situation in 1967 was hardly conducive to promote regional cooperation. True, Konfrontasi was terminated. But there was still lingering suspicion among Indonesia’s neighbors. They were perhaps puzzled to see a military leader with so much combat experience pushing for regional cooperation.

It was Lee that from the outset, perhaps based on his fine political instinct, perceived Soeharto as a potential regional leader that would opt for regional cooperation and social economic development.

In August 1967, five foreign ministers gathered in Bangkok to discuss the need for regional cooperation. They were Adam Malik (Indonesia), Tun Abdul Razak (Malaysia), Narciso Ramos (the Philippines), S. Rajaratnam (Singapore) and Thanat Khoman (Thailand).

They were personalities with differing backgrounds and political views. Nevertheless, they were convinced that only a stable Southeast Asia, free from external interference, with their countries linked with each other in a regional organization would ensure the future of their respective countries.

Indonesian diplomats who were members of the Indonesian delegation told me about the hardworking Singapore delegation whose drafting skills in English was instrumental to produce the 1967 Bangkok declaration on the establishment of ASEAN.

It is not that difficult to speculate that prime minister Lee instructed his delegation that for the sake of Singapore’s future and the stability of Southeast Asia, the meeting must be successful. Only a stable and cooperating Southeast Asia would create a secure geopolitical environment to ensure Singapore’s progress.

Lee became convinced that Indonesia, under Soeharto’s leadership, would act constructively. After all, as the largest archipelago state, Indonesia too requires a stable Southeast Asia.

Considering the fluid situation in 1967 (it was the beginning of the third Vietnam War), one has to marvel reading the following paragraph as part of the Preamble of the ASEAN declaration in Bangkok, Aug. 8, 1967:

“Considering that the countries of Southeast Asia share a primary responsibility for strengthening the economic and social stability of the region and ensuring their peaceful and progressive development, and that they are determined to ensure their stability and security from external interference in any form or manifestation in order to preserve their national identities in accordance with the ideals and aspirations of their peoples.”

This paragraph encapsulates the ASEAN spirit. Lee’s farsightedness was instrumental that despite of all sorts of problems affecting the countries of Southeast Asia regional cooperation under the umbrella of ASEAN is still functioning.

Singaporeans should be proud to have a great statesman and a true leader such as the late Lee. We in Indonesia too acknowledge Bapak Lee Kuan Yew’s achievement as a true regional leader.

Mangkatnya Singa Pembangunan Singapura

Mangkatnya Singa Pembangunan Singapura

Ismatillah A Nu’ad  ;  Peneliti Madya Institute for Research and Development, Jakarta
SINAR HARAPAN, 25 Maret 2015


Bapak arsitek pembangunan negeri Singapura yang sangat fenomenal, Lee Kuan Yew, meninggal pada Senin (23/3) di usia 91 tahun akibat serangan pneumonia. Ia salah satu legenda Asia yang dikenal luas di dunia internasional sebagai pemimpin sebuah negeri, tokoh politik, dan begawan pembangunan. Lee berhasil membawa Singapura dari negeri antah berantah, menuju negeri yang sangat disegani dan berpengaruh di kawasan Asia Tenggara, bahkan Asia. Singapura menang karena unggul dalam sektor pengembangan jasa.

Singapura menjadi negeri transit dari berbagai bangsa besar, seperti Amerika Serikat, Inggris, Prancis, Jerman, maupun negara maju di Asia, seperti Jepang dan Korea Selatan. Bangsa-bangsa itu mempercayai Singapura sebagai akses atau pintu masuk di kawasan Asia Tenggara. Faktor Lee sangat penting karena ia telah banyak berkiprah bagi kebijakan membuka keran deregulasi di Singapura.

Singapura saat ini boleh dibilang sebagai negeri adidayanya di kawasan Asia Tenggara, khususnya dalam bidang kemajuan ekonomi dan pendidikan. Banyak negara dan daerah, maupun tokoh politik yang mengagumi Singapura sekaligus menjadikannya contoh untuk diterapkan di kawasannya masing-masing. Sebut saja dari Bupati Bantaeng, Sulawesi Selatan, hingga Presiden Rwanda Paul Kagame. Keduanya mengidolakan Singapura dan tokohnya Lee Kuan Yew sebagai arsitek pembangunan.

Bupati Bantaeng, Nurdin Abdullah terinspirasi dari Singapura, menjadikan Bantaeng yang dulu terkenal dengan semak belukar, sekarang telah berubah menjadi kabupaten dengan “sejuta” tempat wisata indah. Nurdin bercita-cita menjadikan Bantaeng sebagai Singapuranya Indonesia. Itu karena sebagian besar pusat pemerintahan dan fasilitas pelayanan publik dipindahkan di daerah pantai.

Daerah nun jauh di Afrika sana bernama Rwanda, presidennya terinspirasi Lee dalam membangun Singapura. Rwanda yang pernah dilanda konflik etnis berkepanjangan yang berujung genosida pada 1994 yang diperkirakan menewaskan 1 juta jiwa manusia, telah mendeklarasikan diri sebagai Singapuranya Afrika.

Rwanda di bawah Kagame yang terinspirasi dari Lee benar-benar sangat transformistik berubah besar-besaran. Bayangkan, tujuh tahun lalu di sana masih belum ada mesin ATM, supermarket, dan sangat sulit mencari alat telekomunikasi publik. Namun, kini di Rwanda telah ada berbagai jenis supermarket, lusinan mesin-mesin ATM dari bank-bank internasional, pelayanan telekomunikasi publik yang murah-meriah, serta akses internet rakyat.

Ada satu lokasi wisata di Rwanda yang sangat terkenal, yakni Pegunungan Gorila (Mountain’s Gorilla). Tujuh tahun lalu, pemerintah Rwanda berjuang keras supaya turis tertarik berkunjung dan membelanjakan uangnya untuk paket wisata seharga US$ 375. Namun, kini tidak cukup membayar paket wisata itu seharga US$ 500 karena sangat tingginya permintaan (demand).

Pemerintah Rwanda ingin memperbaiki dan memakmurkan negeri melalui sektor pariwisata, yang tentu ditopang dengan sistem keamanan domestik. Pembangunan hotel terjadi di mana-mana. Pemerintah Rwanda merangkul Korea Telecom untuk menunjang internet broadband nirkabel. Surganya restoran, dan yang terpenting juga meriahnya dunia pendidikan, seperti pembangunan universitas idesiakan pemerintah Rwanda. Bahasa nasional kedua mereka berpindah dari Prancis ke bahasa Inggris. Rwanda, seperti juga Singapura, telah bergabung dalam serikat Commonwealth atau negara-negara persemakmuran.

Kisah dari semuanya ialah pentingnya sosok pemimpin, seperti Lee, Kagame, maupun di Indonesia seperti Nurdin Abdullah. Bukan cuma soal popularitas, karisma, dan intrik politik untuk meraih kuasa dengan menggunakan berbagai jalan, melainkan pemimpin harus memiliki wawasan visioner yang membumi, mengerti strategi pembangunan, memahami apa yang dibutuhkan bagi negerinya, dan yang terpenting harus dilakukan sebesar-besarnya untuk kemakmuran rakyat. Lalu, apa pentingnya bagi negeri kita Indonesia?

Pelajaran untuk Indonesia

Sejak Reformasi 1998 hingga kini, negeri yang besar bernama Indonesia masih tertatih-tatih. Hendak kemana pembangunan bangsa besar ini mau dibawa? Jokowi memang telah mendeklarasikan akan dibawa ke arah pengembangan sektor kemaritiman, tetapi masih berusia “jabang bayi”. Secara menyeluruh arah kebijakan pemerintah belum terlalu kentara, apalagi dari sektor industri, pariwisata, ekonomi, sosial dan politik. Semuanya belum membuahkan hasil yang menggembirakan hingga saat ini.

Mestinya untuk membangun bangsa besar ini, pemerintah harus memfokuskan pada skala prioritas, misalnya melalui sektor kemaritiman seperti didengungkan Jokowi. Dari fokus skala prioritas itu, niscaya jika sudah berkembang dan maju maka akan terbuka jalan untuk sektor-sektor lain. Penetrasi pembangunan memang sangat lah diperlukan sehingga konsentrasi pembangunan dari kebijakan pemerintah tidak terpecah-pecah. Itulah yang dilakukan Singapura selama dipimpin Lee Kuan Yew.

Penetrasi pertama menjadikan negeri itu sebagai negeri jasa, lalu meningkat ke perdagangan, pariwisata, dan lain-lain. Itulah yang menjadikan Singapura hari ini sangat disegani dan terhormat bergaul dengan bangsa-bangsa besar lain, bahkan sebagai alat percontohan bagi negara-negara berkembang.

Seperti dikatakan Kagame, yang terpenting dari seorang pemimpin adanya kemauan (willingness) untuk “turun ke lapangan”, bekerja keras, “melipat lengan baju”, untuk sebesar-besarnya kemakmuran rakyat, bukan pemimpin yang pandai melakukan retorika, melainkan kosong makna serta tindakan nyata.

Reformasi Polri dalam Catur Cita

Reformasi Polri dalam Catur Cita

Teddy Rusdy  ;  Mantan Direktur BAIS, Asrenum Panglima ABRI/TNI 1987-1992
SINAR HARAPAN, 24 Maret 2015


Rapat Akbar mahasiswa dan alumni berbagai perguruan tinggi di kampus UI Salemba, Jumat (20/3), mengusung catur cita perjuangan, yaitu perkuat KPK, reformasi Polri dan lembaga peradilan, bersihkan demokrasi dari oligarki, turunkan harga, serta berantas mafia. Di antara empat butir cita-cita perjuangan itu, satu hal yang menarik perhatian yaitu butir kedua tentang reformasi Polri.

Hari ini, sebagian tokoh sudah menyerukan reformasi jilid II, dan di antaranya adalah mereformasi Polri. Institusi ini mendapat sorotan tersendiri karena dalam persepsi publik berdasarkan banyak survei dianggap paling buruk kinerjanya. Apalagi, masih belum dihentikannya kriminalisasi terhadap para komisioner dan penyidik KPK serta masyarakat luas, meski dari Presiden Joko Widodo, Wapres Jusuf Kalla, hingga Tim 9 bentukan presiden sudah berkali-kali minta polisi tidak melakukan kriminalisasi. Seolah tidak mendengarkan seruan satuan atasnya, polisi terus memburu mereka yang bersikap kritis untuk ditarget sebagai tersangka.

Kenapa Polri dapat dengan leluasa, tanpa kontrol dari satuan atasannya, sering mengkriminalkan siapa saja yang dianggap mengganggu petingginya atau lembaganya?

Tidak hanya pemimpin KPK, seperti BW dan AS, yang sudah dijadikan tersangka dalam kasus yang disebut ketua Tim 9 Syafi’i Ma’arif sebagai kasus yang dicari-cari itu, dua komisioner tersisa, Zulkarnain dan Adnan Pandu Praja, juga diancam ditersangkakan. Belakangan, mantan kepala PPATK Yunus Husein dan mantan wakil menteri hukum dan HAM Denny Indrayana, juga ditarget dengan delik yang diciptakan tiba-tiba.

Sudah banyak yang mengalami hal serupa. Tidak tertutup kemungkinan, pada masa mendatang pun model kriminalisasi demikian potensial terus bermunculan. Kenapa demikian?

Ada dua perspektif antara polisi yang merasa dikriminalisasi saat ada petingginya menjadi tersangka, atau polisi mengkiriminalisasi pihak lain. Lebih menarik untuk menyoroti yang kedua, dengan pertimbangan hal inilah yang lebih banyak dirasakan masyarakat.

Untuk membaca hal tersebut, pertama-tama marilah kita perhatikan reaksi Polri sejak Komjen Susno Duadji, Irjen Djoko Susilo, Brigjen Didik Purnama, hingga Komjen Budi Gunawan (BG), ketika ditetapkan sebagai tersangka korupsi.

Dalam catatan sejarah, Polri sebagai lembaga penegak hukum saat itu justru bereaksi aneh tanpa tedeng aling-aling melakukan gelar geger
celeng melawan penetapan, menghambat pengusutan, lalu menyeruduk dan memburu penegak hukum KPK sebagai tersangka kasus-kasus rekayasa kelas picisan.

Apa sebab kriminalisasi itu dengan mudah dilakukan Polri? Jawaban utamanya adalah, karena saat ini kedudukan Polri berada di tempat yang salah dalam struktur organisasi kenegaraan kita. Kedudukan yang ketinggian itu membuat Polri tidak terkoreksi dari satuan atas sebagaimana lazimnya seperti satuan bersenjata lain.

Ini terjadi sejak ditetapkan dalam TAP MPR Nomor VI dan VII/2000, diikuti pengesahan Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor 2/2002, Polri terpisah dari TNI, lalu berperan sebagai bagian dari penegak hukum dan penjaga keamanan dan ketertiban masyarakat. UU ini juga menempatkan polisi langsung berada di bawah seorang presiden tanpa ada satuan atas lain sebagai komando yang bersifat teknis.

Ini adalah pangkal masalahnya. Sebagai satuan aparat sipil bersenjata, untuk mengendalikan dan menggerakkannya perlu satuan atas dalam fungsi komando dan pembinaan, sebagaimana seorang kepala staf angkatan darat/laut/udara, ke atas masih ada panglima TNI, menteri pertahanan, dan menteri koordinator.

Kepala Polri yang dahulu sejajar dengan kepala staf, kini berada langsung di bawah presiden atau menghapus tiga level sebelumnya. Dikarenakan tidak berada dalam struktur yang benar, Polri bermasalah sedikit saja langsung mengganggu presiden, dan presiden sebagai satuan atas ke bawah tidak dapat memberikan komando dan pembinaan berupa perintah, instruksi, dan teguran.

Sesungguhnya, struktur teknis ini bukan wilayah seorang presiden. Oleh karena itu, presiden sering tidak berkutik, bahkan dalam banyak hal seperti kasus penetapan tersangka Komjen BG dan penangkapan komisioner KPK, presiden terkesan bingung, bahkan mengambil sikap tidak jelas karena takut dituduh intervensi hukum atau politisasi polisi. Padahal, komando dan pembinaan itu adalah konsekuensi logis dari struktur yang diatur UU tentang Polri dan mendapat sandaran kuat dalam TAP MPR terkait.

Untuk menghindari kriminalisasi dan bentuk penyimpangan lain kembali terjadi, struktur Polri dalam bagan lembaga kenegaraan kita harus ditinjau ulang agar dengan alasan independensinya, Polri tidak lagi menjadi lembaga liar dan ganas tanpa kendali. Oleh karena polisi adalah aparat yang bersenjata, seharusnya berada dalam koordinasi satuan atas teknis tertentu.

Jika tidak ada reposisi tempat duduk Polri, presiden sebagai satuan atas strategisnya akan selalu terseruduk kasus demi kasus yang melibatkan polisi. Untuk mengurangi risiko di pihak satuan atas yang seorang presiden itu, Polri harus dikembalikan ke tempat yang benar dengan dimulai meninjau ulang TAP VI dan VII MPR/2000 dan UU terkait Polri.

Dari sandaran hukum Polri, reformasi Polri itu dimulai sebagaimana yang menjadi tuntutan catur cita yang digelorakan mahasiwa, dosen, dan alumni berbagai perguruan tinggi di UI Salemba, Jumat silam. Jika tidak didudukkan kembali pada posisi yang benar dengan doktrin yang tepat, Polri akan tetap menjadi bola liar di NKRI. Lantas mau jadi apa Polri kita?

Jumat, 27 Maret 2015

Perlukah Perppu Anti-ISIS?

Perlukah Perppu Anti-ISIS?

Sidratahta Mukhtar  ;  Dosen tetap Ilmu Politik dan Keamanan Internasional
FISIPOL UKI; Penulis buku “Militer dan Demokrasi” juga “Politik Islam dalam Dunia yang Berubah” (2015)
SINAR HARAPAN, 24 Maret 2015


Tampaknya pemerintah mulai resah menghadapi ancaman ISIS yang berkembang pesat di Indonesia, dalam beberapa tahun terakhir. Dalam sejarahnya, ISIS yang dideklarasikan Al Bagdadi, lahir dari situasi krisis dan instabilitas politik dan agama di Timur Tengah.

Ketika gelombang demokrasi sampai ke Suriah, berkecambahlah berbagai kelompok oposisi; sebagian murni merupakan gerakan pro demokrasi. Lebih banyak lagi adalah kelompok-kelompok militan-radikal dengan semangat sektarianisme keagamaan.

Ketika mendeklarasikan berdirinya “Negara Islam” itu, dengan cepat ISIS memiliki pendukung di Indonesia. Berbagai jaringan dan sel-sel terorisme yang berserakan mulai menemukan momentum baru untuk mengkonsolidasikan kembali kekuatannya, setelah negara (Polri, BNPT, dan lembaga antiteror lainnya) mulai menghadapinya, baik dengan pendekatan lunak maupun dengan pendekatan keras.

Menariknya, di tengah pemerintah memperkuat peran dan langkah-langkah dalam penanggulangan terorisme, pendukung dan anggota ISIS mengalami peningkatan. Bila pada 2014 diperkirakan baru sekitar 60 orang, dengan propaganda politik kekerasan yang mereka lakukan, kini jumlahnya sudah meningkat drastis menjadi lebih dari 600 orang.

Saat ini pemerintah ingin mengajukan peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang (perppu), untuk menghadapi maraknya warga Indonesia yang memilih bergabung dengan ISIS di Irak dan Suriah. Tampaknya pemerintah memandang migrasi dan keberangkatan warga Indonesia ke Irak dan Suriah beberapa waktu lalu, menjadi dasar pertimbangan pemerintah; bahwa hal itu sudah dikategorikan kegentingan dan situasi yang dipandang perlu untuk membuat Perppu Anti-ISIS.

Pahadal, mestinya pemerintah memaksimalkan kekuatan nasional dan lembaga-lembaga pemerintah terkait, untuk menghadapi gelombang warga negara yang pindah dan bergabung dengan ISIS. Memang, harus diakui gerakan dan internasionalisasi lembaga ISIS sangat cepat, baik dengan menggunakan jaringan Al-Qaeda atau sel-sel terorisme di kawasan dan dunia yang sudah ada; maupun dengan potensi dunia maya seperti media sosial, media massa, juga jaringan internasional dan nasional yang tersedia.

Sebenarnya, pemerintah memiliki semua potensi strategis dan taktis, dalam menanggulangi ancaman ISIS dan perkembangan terorisme baru (new terrorism) di Tanah Air. Masalahnya, pemerintah kurang dapat mensinergiskan dan menyingkronkan berbagai potensi yang ada.

Artinya, peran badan keamanan seperti Densus 88 Polri, BNPT, dan BIN belum memadai untuk menghadapi ancaman terorisme ISIS. Oleh karena implementasi peran dan kerja pemerintah kurang mampu menandingi pertumbuhan ISIS dalam dua tahun terakhir di Indonesia, pemerintah perlu memberdayaan potensi strategis keamanan nasional dari unsur TNI, pemerintah daerah, dan kementerian-kementerian terkait lainnya.

Pendekatan Keamanan Komprehensif

Salah satu pendekatan pertahanan dan keamanan yang masih problematis di Indonesia saat ini adalah belum adanya strategi, pola, dan sistem keamanan yang dapat menyinergiskan peran serta tugas semua instrumen keamanan nasional. Menghadapi ancaman perang asimetrik yang terjadi seperti ISIS, tidak mungkin dapat diatasi dengan komprehensif tanpa kerja sama dan koordinasi antaraktor dan lembaga keamanan nasional.

Masalahnya, RUU Keamanan Nasional (Kamnas) yang dirancang untuk sinergi dan koordinasi tak kunjung rampung, setelah lebih dari satu dasawarsa dibahas dalam program legislasi nasional. Indonesia mengalami semacam ketakutan menyusun regulasi yang berbau “pendekatan politik keamanan”, sebab pada masa lalu UU Antisubversi yang berlaku pada zaman Orde Baru, digunakan untuk menjerat aktivis dan tokoh politik radikal, yang ketika kita memasuki era demokratisasi dikategorikan sebagai kebijakan yang melanggar HAM dan diskriminasi terhadap warga negara.

Namun, yang dapat dijadikan model adalah negara seperti AS dan beberapa negara di Eropa yang membuat regulasi antiterorisme yang menyerupai UU antisubversi, dan ternyata efektif dalam menghadapi ancaman terorisme di tingkat domestik. Dalam konteks pemerintah ingin membuat Perppu Anti-ISIS itu, mungkin lebih baik dilanjutkan pembahasan RUU Kamnas agar menyempurnakan UU tentang Polri dan TNI yang ada dalam kerangka sistem keamanan yang komprehensif ke depan.

Untuk menghadapi ISIS yang mendapat dukungan yang cukup besar dari jaringan kelompok fundamentalisme di Indonesia, perlu dilakukan dialog dan pendekatan kemanusiaan kepada mereka. Asas praduga tak bersalah perlu dikedepankan, agar menimbulkan respek dan kepercayaan terhadap pemerintah saat ini. Peningkatan kepercayaan terhadap pemerintah dapat mengurangi harapan, dukungan, dan loyalitas pada ISIS.

Meskipun berbagai potensi terorisme dan fundamentalisme yang berkembang di Indonesia saat ini dikategorikan sebagai basis terorisme agama (religious terrorism), terdapat faktor-faktor yang memberikan ruang bagi pilihan dan harapan masyarakat pada ISIS; yakni adanya ketidakpastian politik, sosial dan ekonomi, serta ketidakpastian hukum.

Bila pemerintah dan masyarakat sipil dapat mengatasi secara bersama masalah-masalah sosial, seperti kemiskinan, ketimpangan sosial, konflik sosial, dan korupsi, dengan sendirinya akan muncul public trust yang memberi peluang bagi dukungan publik dan harapan terhadap peran negara, dalam membangun masyarakat dan menciptakan keadilan sosial bagi seluruh lapisan masyarakat Indonesia.

Oleh karena itu, pemerintah tidak perlu terburu-buru membuat kebijakan Perppu Anti-ISIS. Pemerintahan kabinet kerja Jokowi-Jusuf Kalla saat ini perlu memaksimalkan perannya dalam mengatasi masalah-masalah sosial, pembangunan, dan kesejahteraan bangsa yang pada akhirnya akan memberikan efek positif dan konstruktif pada perubahan orientasi masyarakat yang menolak ancaman ISIS.