Welfare State, Mati di Eropa, Lahir di AS

Welfare State, Mati di Eropa, Lahir di AS Jennie S Bev  ;  Pengamat Globalisasi bermukim di California, Singapura dan Jakarta; Arsip publikasi: jenniesbev.typepad.com JARINGNEWS, 25 Oktober 2013

Pada tanggal 19 September 2013, Raja Belanda Willem-Alexander mengeluarkan pernyataan mengejutkan: Welfare state Belanda sudah tamat. Negara-negara Eropa lainnya juga telah menanggalkan atribut-atribut welfare state. Uniknya, AS sedang menuju Era Obamacare yang sedikit mendekati universal healthcare system yang dianut oleh para welfare states, walaupun bukan merupakan bab baru The New Deal-nya Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Ketika Eropa menyatakan kematiannya welfare state, AS baru mulai menjadi welfare state.

Apa saja masalah-masalah yang ditemui oleh para welfare state gagal tersebut? Apakah AS bisa berhasil dalam menerapkan Obamacare? Perlukah Indonesia mengambil jalan welfare state?

Pertama, 'welfare state' adalah suatu sistem di mana negara memegang peran penting dalam melindungi kepentingan-kepentingan ekonomi dan sosial para warga negara. Welfare statedidasari oleh prinsip-prinsip persamaan kesempatan, distribusi kekayaan yang berkeadilan, dan menjamin mereka yang beremampuan minimal dalam mencukupi kebutuhan sehari-hari. Para ekonom memberikan definisi 'welfare state' bagi negara yang menggunakan 20 persen dari GDP nasionalnya untuk kepentingan welfare dan pendidikan. Tahun 2012, AS menggunakan 19,4 persen total GDP nasionalnya untuk dua kepentingan ini.

Sosiolog TH Marshall menggabungkan konsep-konsep demokrasi dan kapitalisme dalam sebuahwelfare state. Tiga kategori welfare state adalah sosial demokratik, konservatif dan liberal. Berbagai negara Eropa seperti negara-negara Nordik seperti Islandia, Swedia, Norwegia, Finlandia, dan Denmark serta Belanda menganut kategori pertama. Australia dan Kanaga juga menganut sistem ini dalam kategori kedua, sedangkan Amerika Serikat tidak secara tegas menganut sistem ini terlepas dari berbagai elemen welfare state yang diadopsinya sehingga dapati dikategorikan ke dalam 'liberal welfare state'. Inggris Raya, Selandia Baru, dan Irlandia termasuk kategori ke-empat welfare state yang tidak terkategorikan.

Selain krisis ekonomi berkepanjangan di Eropa, melesatnya jumlah para lanjut usia generasi baby boomer sangat sulit untuk ditopang dari pajak yang diterima dari para pekerja generasi muda yang jumlahnya sangat signifikan kecil. Di AS sendiri, Obamacare yang baru akan diimplementasikan secara penuh di tahun 2014 dan pembayaran uang pensiun dari akun Social Security masih merupakan tanda tanya, mengingat anggaran yang luar biasa tinggi sedangkan situasi ekonomi makro memprihatinkan.

Kedua, demi keberhasilan, welfare state membutuhkan apa saja? Pertama, integritas setiap individu penerima fasilitas-fasilitas yang diberikan oleh welfare state. Tanpa integritas, welfare state yang sangat mengandalkan honor system akan sangat rentan terhadap para individu yang doyan memalsukan situasi. Yunani merupakan salah satu contoh nyata kegagalan welfare state. (Baca juga Jennie S. Bev: Kegagalan Welfare State, Pelajaran dari Yunani untuk RI)

Kultur impunitas dan korup menggagalkan niat baik pemerataan kekayaan, karena mereka yang tidak miskin ternyata tidak ragu untuk 'pura-pura miskin' dan yang tidak sakit juga tidak ragu untuk 'pura-pura sakit' demi mendapatkan hak welfare dari kas negara yang rentan terhadap penerimaan pajak yang tidak selalu mencukupi. Ini merupakan tantangan bagi setiap welfare state.

Kebutuhan utama sebuah welfare state adalah sistem yang berjalan secara teruji serta dijalankan oleh mereka yang sudah teruji daya saringnya (filtering recipient candidates). Dana yang mencukupi dari pool pajak sudah jelas merupakan kebutuhan mendasar yang harus selalu ada. Dana sangat besar yang dikumpulkan dalam kas welfare ini tentu sangat rentan dikorupsi dan sangat berbahaya apabila diletakkan di dalam tangan segelintir orang saja.

Ketiga, masalah-masalah utama welfare state antara lain adalah cash flow yang harus selalu ada. Pemerintah menjadi pemegang monopoli pelayanan kesehatan dan pendistribusian kekayaan dari yang lebih mampu kepada yang kurang mampu. Kultur korup sudah semestinya diminimalisasi sedemikian rupa sehingga sistem bisa berjalan dengan stealth performance. Sistemnya sendiri sudah harus sedemikian rupa dirancang agar bisa mem-filter out tindakan-tindakan korupsi.

Ini adalah tantangan terbesar Indonesia yang merupakan kendala besar implementasi unsur-unsur welfare state. Budaya 'sungkan' juga membendung teguran-teguran keras atas segala bentuk perilaku korupsi. Cash flow yang diperoleh dari pajak harus mendapatkan perlindungan utama dari berbagai gerogotan tikus-tikus berwajah manusia.

Keempat, tantangan Obamacare adalah tantangan para aspirator welfare state modern versi partisipasi WN. Sistem partisipasi nasional ini baru mulai dijalankan secara penuh terhitung 2014, setelah Obama memasuki tahun ke-2 administrasinya yang ke-2. Persiapan dilakukan dengan matang selama hampir empat tahun. Mengapa demikian?

Selain masalah dana yang perlu dianggarkan khusus, para aktuaris juga bekerja untuk mencari algoritma yang tepat akan demografi para penderita sakit di seantero negeri Paman Sam. Berapa persen berpenyakit tertentu sehingga berapa anggaran per pasien yang perlu disisihkan. Cukup kompleks algoritma yang digunakan dalam menganalisa berbagai hal berkenaan dengan sistem ini.

Ini baru masalah pendanaan dari negara. Belum lagi mengenai pooling dari asuransi partisipasi para WN yang diwajibkan untuk membeli premi asuransi berdasarkan grup. “Obamacare” merupakan nama populer Affordable Care Act dari grup asuransi yang terdiri dari semua WN AS. Preminya berdasarkan insiden-insiden di dalam grup, bukan perorangan. Mereka yang tidak membeli premi akan dikenakan penalti ketika melaporkan pajak di akhir tahun. Besar penalti sekitar US$ 95 per orang di tingkat federal dan berbeda-beda di tingkat negara bagian.

Kartu Sehat Jakarta yang dimulai dengan naiknya Joko Widodo dan Basuki 'Ahok' Purnama ke puncak administrasi kota Jakarta ternyata banyak mengalami hambatan. Penulis agak 'terkejut' ketika Kartu Sehat dicetak hanya beberapa hari setelah Jokowi-Ahok diangkat sebagai gubernur dan wakil gubernur, karena sistem yang ada sesungguhnya sama sekali belum memadai untuk melakukan berbagai transaksi publik healthcare system ala welfare state demikian.

Diperlukan informasi saling menyilang yang bisa memberikan konfirmasi akan integritas suatu kasus, dari asuransi kesehatan, dokter penyedia jasa kesehatan, hingga ke proses billing yang kompleks. Ini tidak dijumpai di dalam sistem Kartu Sehat Jakarta, sehingga sekarang dalam masa 'transisi' perbaikan.

Kelima, baikkah bagi Indonesia untuk mengambil jalan welfare state? Mengapa? Ini merupakan dilema. Warga Indonesia masih membutuhkan berbagai bentuk pengayoman dari pemerintah, yang sayangnya tidak cukup telaten untuk membangun sistem yang baik.

Para warga Indonesia masih beraspirasi untuk memperoleh 'segala sesuatu gratis' dari pemerintah, yang merupakan salah kaprah tingkat tinggi. Tidak ada yang gratis, semua berasal dari pajak yang luar biasa tinggi di negara-negara welfare state. Saya yakin tidak ada warga Indonesia yang mau membayarkan pajak sebesar 30 persen hingga 75 persen dari pendapatan. Apalagi dengan tingkat korupsi sangat tinggi di setiap instansi pemerintah.

Di Swedia, pajak pendapatan mencapai 30 persen dan berbagai pajak lainnya menggenapkan total 60 persen pendapatan untuk pajak. Di Denmark yang menyediakan fasilitas childcare danmaternity/paternity leave hingga dua tahun, pajak pendapatan dikenakan hingga 50 persen. Di AS, setiap pemilik rumah membayarkan lebih dari satu persen nilai rumahnya saat itu untuk pajak properti (semacam Pajak Bumi dan Bangunan versi Indonesia), juga membayar sales taxbervariasi dari 4 sampai 10 persen setiap kali berbelanja, belum lagi berbagai pajak lainnya sehingga sekitar 50 sampai 80 persen dari pendapatan digunakan untuk pembayaran pajak. Dengan kata lain, welfare state itu sangat mahal.

Negara welfare state Eropa yang sering dijadikan teladan adalah Belanda. Raja Willem-Alexander telah menyatakan sistem ini telah berakhir. Yunani sudah lama mengalami masalah internal yang disebabkan oleh kegagalan sistem ini dan perpajakan mereka. Dalam kultur korup, hampir mustahil welfare state bisa dijalankan dengan lancar. Bayangkan saja, dana luar biasa besar (20 persen dari GDP nasional) berada di dalam satu tangan, yaitu: tangan pemerintah.

Tentu saja Indonesia akan siap menjadi welfare state setelah kultur korup sirna dan pemberantasan korupsi menunjukkan hasil luar biasa sukses yang bisa bertahan dalam jangka panjang.

Akhir kata, matinya welfare state di Eropa akankah menular ke seantero dunia? Saat ini AS ingin membuktikan bahwa welfare state merupakan pilihan yang tepat bagi negara yang sedang terseok-seok ekonominya. Apakah Obamacare akan menjadi benchmark baru kesuksesan welfare state, ini masih merupakan tanda tanya besar. ●

Tantangan Demokrasi : Mengelola Krisis Kepercayaan

Tantangan Demokrasi : Mengelola Krisis Kepercayaan Jennie S Bev ;  Penulis dan Kolumnis berprestasi yang bermukim di California JARINGNEWS, 10 Agustus 2013

Tahun 2014 Indonesia “merayakan” pesta demokrasi lagi. Era Reformasi diharapkan membawa bangsa dan negara Indonesia ke arah yang lebih baik, dimana kemakmuran dan kemaslahatan rakyat bisa dirasakan dengan lebih merata. Sayangnya, ini sering kali hanya menjadi platform partai-partai yang bergulat dalam memenangkan suara.

Rakyat sendiri terbagi atas mereka yang sadar akan pentingnya memberikan suara dan mereka yang hanya menerima uang sekadarnya untuk suara mereka. Yang termasuk ke dalam golongan pertama terbagi lagi atas mereka yang aktif secara politis, mereka yang tidak begitu aktif secara politis namun memberikan suara secara legal dan ofisial, dan mereka yang apatis. Ketiganya mempunyai keterbatasan yang nyata, yaitu hanya mampu memberikan suara alias “memilih” dari yang disodorkan.

Rakyat mempunyai keterbatasan dalam menentukan arah demokrasi. Mereka hanya bisa menyatakan ketidaksukaan akan suatu rezim, namun mereka tidak bisa mempengaruhi kebijakan secara langsung, mengingat mereka sangat dibatasi. Para “wakil rakyat” yang dipilih oleh rakyat dari suatu daftar panjang sering kali mendesain kebijakan yang menguntungkan mereka, keluarga mereka, dan mereka yang mempunyai kepentingan yang sama dengan mereka.

Kecenderungan ini bisa diamati baik di Indonesia maupun di negara-negara lain. Dunia sedang mengalami krisis demokrasi. Pergantian rezim baik secara “demokratis” maupun “tidak demokratis,” tidak selalu membawa perubahan berarti yang diharapkan oleh rakyat. Ini adalah fakta dalam demokrasi sebagai pengalaman kolektif.

Dalam Counter Democracy, Pierre Rosanvallon menyatakan bahwa publik kurang menyadari miskonsepsi tentang menurunnya kepercayaan terhadap demokrasi. Elemen yang perlu diamati dengan kritis adalah demokrasi sebagai pengelolaan ketidakpercayaan, bukan tentang kepercayaan yang diberikan oleh publik.

Era teknologi sekarang memungkinkan pengawasan terhadap demokrasi dilakukan dengan sekejap saja. Kombinasi antara fitur Internet dengan smartphone serta berbagai gadget memungkinkan setiap warga negara untuk melakukan monitoring, sehingga kekuasaan sesungguhnya terbagi dengan manis antara rakyat dengan para “penguasa” alias “wakil rakyat yang dipilih oleh rakyat.”

Pertukaran posisi dari “rakyat yang tidak berdaya” ke “rakyat dengan kekuasaan mengawasi” memungkinkan untuk menggulingkan pemerintahan dengan dalih “liberalisasi” sebagaimana terjadi di berbagai negara. Namun sering kali harapan ini tidak terpenuhi. Termasuk di Era Reformasi atau Pasca-Reformasi.

Perhatikan berbagai rezim di Indonesia yang bertindak sebagaimana “kemauan pasar,” yang menyembunyikan nosi tirani mayoritas. Berbagai kebijakan didasari oleh “kemauan pasar” yang tidak begitu jelas efeknya terhadap kepentingan rakyat  mayoritas. Di sini terjadi ketimpangan antara harapan rakyat akan representasi yang mengutamakan kepentingan rakyat dengan fakta bahwa pesta demokrasi hanyalah suatu instrumen bagi segelintir orang untuk mendapatkan legitimasi kekuasaan yang mengatasnamakan orang banyak.

Berbagai retorika dan statistik ekonomi menjadi indikasi bahwa segelintir “representatif” rakyat sudah bekerja dengan sebaik-baiknya. Namun berbagai indikator menunjukkan bahwa kesejahteraan umum masih merupakan perjalanan panjang yang mungkin semakin sulit di capai.

Di Amerika Serikat yang sudah dianggap sebagai Bapak Ideologi Demokrasi mengalami kesulitan dalam menjalankan demokrasi sebagai ideologi yang memberikan kesejahteraan merata, karena ternyata yang menjadi motor adalah sisi kapitalismenya. Dalam kapitalisme, pemilik kapital mempunyai bargaining position yang tinggi dan demokrasi memberikan “pasar” bagi mereka.

Di Indonesia, ternyata juga serupa. Ekonom Harvard Dani Rodrik dalam The Globalization Paradox menulis bahwa dunia tidak bisa menjalankan secara stimultan globalisasi hiper, demokrasi dan determinasi diri. Menurut Rodrik, rakyat berhak memilih namun hak mereka tidak datang dengan serta merta untuk memilih kebijakan yang mengutamakan kepentingan mereka.

Di Indonesia, kita bisa perhatikan berbagai kebijakan pemerintah yang menimpakan kewajiban kepada segelintir kelompok sedangkan pemerintah sendiri dibebaskan dari kewajiban tersebut. Ini bisa kita lihat daritidak adanya sistem yang memberikan bantuan kepada mereka yang gagal mendapatkan pekerjaan dalam jangka waktu tertentu, sedangkan para pemilik usaha yang mempekerjakan pegawai diharuskan untuk memberikan pesangon yang sangat tinggi jumlah ketika mem-PHK-kan seseorang. Ini sebenarnya bisa dibuatkan sistem dimana pemerintah memberikan bantuan sebesar jumlah pajak yang disetor selama masa kerja bagi mereka yang sedang mencari pekerjaan berikutnya.

Juga bisa kita perhatikan berbagai kebijakan yang memberikan kesempatan bagi segelintir kelompok untuk mengambil keuntungan dari apa yang seharusnya menjadi bagian dari kepemilikan publik, misalnya liberalisasi penjualan tanah serta monopoli telekomunikasi.

Di AS, ketimpangan akses terhadap penciptaan dan penerapan kebijakan sangat menguntungkan segelintir orang yang bisa dibaca dari satu persen dari penduduknya menguasai 35.4 persen seluruh kekayaan. Bagaimana dengan di Indonesia?

Rodrik menyebut kondisi demokrasi dewasa ini sebagai democracies without choices, sovereignty without meaning, and globalization without legitimacy. Hak-hak hadir tanpa akses nyata terhadap perubahan. Tantangan agar hasil nyata dari Pemilu 2014 lebih baik. Bisakah? ●

Iran Era Hasan Rowhani

Iran Era Hasan Rowhani Jennie S Bev ;   Pengamat Globalisasi dan Kolumnis yang bermukim di California

TEMPO.CO, 20 Juni 2013

Presiden Iran terpilih yang dikenal moderat, Hasan Rowhani, menjanjikan transparansi atas program nuklir mereka. Ia juga menjanjikan pemulihan hubungan baik dengan Barat, terutama AS, dengan harapan sanksi-sanksi ekonomi, perdagangan, sains, dan militer bisa dicabut. Ia juga mengatakan bahwa Iran punya hak atas tenaga nuklir dan ini akan dipegangnya dengan teguh, sepanjang tidak melanggar hukum dan konvensi internasional.

Namun Rowhani mempunyai keterbatasan. Iran, yang merupakan negara teokrasi, menempatkan para ulama di bawah pimpinan Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sebagai pemegang keputusan akan kebijakan-kebijakan nuklir, pertahanan, dan hubungan luar negeri. Para ulama ini dilindungi oleh Pengawal Revolusi. Kemoderatan Rowhani memang merupakan angin segar bagi Barat dan dunia internasional, namun bisa jadi merupakan bumerang dan berupa noise saja. Bagaimana Rowhani mengimbangi kekuatan para ulama, ini masih perlu kita tunggu.

Terminologi “Barat” di sini dipakai untuk menunjuk P5 plus 1, yang termasuk Cina, Rusia, Jerman, Prancis, Inggris Raya, Uni Eropa, dan AS. Terminologi ini tidak digunakan untuk menunjuk dunia internasional keseluruhan dengan 120 negara anggota Gerakan Tanpa Aliansi (Non-Aligned Movement).

Bahwa Iran punya niat untuk menggunakan tenaga nuklirnya untuk kepentingan penyerangan bom, sesungguhnya ini masih merupakan spekulasi. Catatan sejarah menunjukkan bahwa semestinya Iran punya niat damai dengan tenaga nuklirnya. Melalui tangan Shah, Iran merupakan salah satu penanda tangan (signatoris) kesepakatan Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) pada 1 Juli 1968.

Terhitung pada 1979, Iran sudah punya program tenaga nuklir sipil dengan dua reaktor di Bushehr di Gulf Persia. Tidak lama kemudian, Iran mengalami revolusi, sehingga Iran dan AS bukanlah lagi aliansi yang akrab. Sebelum Revolusi Iran tahun 1979, AS mempunyai tiga alasan untuk beraliansi dengan Iran: suplai energi minyak bumi, dukungan Iran bagi Israel, dan mempromosikan demokrasi serta kebebasan.

Sebelum revolusi tersebut, Iran merupakan pendukung Israel. Pada masa itu pula, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei merupakan oposisi politik Shah yang pernah dikirim ke pengasingan di bawah pengawasan AS dan Shah. Kebangkitan tradisi Syiah dengan tradisi agama yang kuat memutarbalikkan kekuasaan atas proksi yang selama ini dipegang Shah. AS mengalami pukulan politis.

Kekuatan politik Syiah sebagai pembela yang lemah dan terinjak bertentangan dengan para aliansi di Teluk. Saddam Hussein, misalnya, dikenal boros dan bergaya hidup mewah. Para ulama Syiah memegang nilai-nilai kesederhanaan. Namun tentu saja ini bukan ukuran yang sahih mengenai kemungkinan penggunaan tenaga nuklir untuk merebut kekuasaan dunia. Ini hanya sebagai ilustrasi perbedaan cara pandang dan hubungan antara pemegang kekuasaan atas energi minyak dan pengelola sumber daya bagi kepentingan nasional alias “rakyat.”

Sekitar satu setengah tahun Revolusi Iran, Irak menyerang Iran. Perang Iran-Irak berlangsung selama delapan tahun. Irak dan para penguasa aristokrat negara-negara Teluk memandang Khamenei sebagai “pemberontak.” Selama Perang Iran-Irak, AS memihak Irak. Di sini dimulai posisi AS sebagai anti Iran. Dalam masa dan konteks ini pula, Iran membentuk aliansi dengan Hizbullah di Libanon dan Hamas di Gaza. Semakin “buruk”-lah Iran di mata AS.

Pembekuan aset Iran semasa Revolusi Iran oleh Presiden Jimmy Carter dengan Executive Order pada November 1979 membekukan US$ 12 miliar. Dengan invasi Iran oleh Irak pada 1984, AS meningkatkan sanksi terhadap Iran dengan pelarangan penjualan senjata dan segala macam bantuan AS. Presiden Ronald Reagan melarang ekspor dan impor perdagangan dari dan ke Iran.

Pasca 9/11 tahun 2001, Iran mengajukan diri untuk membantu AS menumpas Al-Qaidah, yang disaksikan oleh Hillary Mann, seorang US Representative di gedung PBB di Kota New York. Namun, menurut Peter Osborne dan David Morisson dalam A Dangerous Delusion: Why the West is Wrong about Nuclear Iran (Elliott and Thompson, Juni 2013), pemerintahan Bush tidak menanggapinya.

Menurut sumber yang sama, AS, melalui diplomat James Dobbins, yang memimpin delegasi AS pada 2001 Bonn Agreement on Afganistan pada 2002 dan 2003, Khamenei kembali mengajukan diri untuk bekerja sama soal perbedaan-perbedaan persepsi dalam program nuklir mereka dan membantu usaha perdamaian di Afganistan dan Irak. AS kembali menolak.

Kepentingan AS di masa lampau akan sumber daya minyak, ideologi demokrasi, dan dukungan Iran bagi Israel yang tidak terlaksana, tampaknya masih menjadi momok bagi hubungan antara Iran dan AS sampai sekarang. Juga ribetnya sanksi-sanksi ekonomi, perdagangan, sains, militer, dan bantuan merupakan salah satu benang kusut dari “masalah nuklir Iran” di mata AS.

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) sendiri merupakan treaty yang unik. Para penanda tangan NPT terbagi atas dua kategori: negara-negara yang memiliki nuklir dan negara-negara yang tidak memiliki nuklir. Para pemilik nuklir sebelum 1 Januari 1967 adalah Cina, Prancis, Rusia, Inggris Raya, dan AS. Iran saat itu termasuk dalam kategori kedua. Dalam pasal ke-4 NPT tertulis, “..untuk meneruskan negosiasi dengan iktikad baik mengenai penanganan efektif dalam hal pelucutan nuklir….” Tidak ada batas waktu soal “pelucutan nuklir” ini yang merupakan legal loophole tersendiri.

Sampai saat ini, lima negara pemilik nuklir belum menghentikan program nuklir mereka dan negara-negara dalam kategori kedua tetap dilarang memiliki senjata nuklir. Pengecualian penggunaan nuklir untuk kepentingan sumber daya listrik diizinkan atas pengawasan International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Negara-negara pemilik nuklir untuk kepentingan sumber daya listrik sekarang termasuk Jepang, Belanda, Argentina, Brasil, Jerman, dan Iran. Di samping itu, Israel dan India memiliki tenaga nuklir namun tidak (atau “belum”?) menandatangani NPT.

AS tidak ada masalah dengan lima negara pemilik nuklir lainnya plus Israel dan India, namun tidak demikian dengan Iran. Mengapa? Karena apabila Iran “diberi lampu hijau” untuk melanjutkan program nuklirnya, ini berarti AS menarik sanksi-sanksi yang diterapkan bagi Iran.

Indonesia sendiri, sebagai negara berpenduduk mayoritas beragama Islam, menempati bumi yang sama. Bahwa Indonesia mempunyai hubungan relatif spesial dengan AS melalui Barack Obama dan hubungan “fraternitas” sesama muslim dengan Iran, hal itu belum mempunyai efek dalam konstelasi ini. Obama tampaknya masih melanjutkan “kebijakan” Bush soal “nuklir Iran”. Hillary Clinton pada Maret 2011 menyatakan bahwa Iran “mungkin” akan bisa melanjutkan program uraniumnya di masa mendatang sepanjang merespons harapan-harapan komunitas internasional.

Bisakah Hasan Rowhani memperbaiki hubungan Iran-AS sehingga program nuklir Iran tidak lagi dipandang 

sebagai “ancaman” bagi dunia? Ini merupakan salah satu proyek besar bagi Rowhani. ●

15 years after the May tragedy

15 years after the May tragedy Jennie S Bev ;  An Author and Columnist based in California

JAKARTA POST, 14 Mei 2013

This year, we are commemorating 15 years since the May 1998 tragedy in Indonesia and 12 years since the 9/11 tragedy in New York. These two incidents marked important milestones in many people’s lives. The former woke me up from innocence and the latter shifted my view that no place was a utopia, not even the US, the land of second chances. 

 Both tragedies reminded us of how fragile human beings are. As individuals, as groups, and as members of imagined communities, human beings are never completely disconnected from each other. A singular act of kindness or evil can create ripple effects that travel through time and space. 

Think of ourselves as tiny moving dots. One move can create a small movement of other tiny dots. And those dots number 7 billion in total. How powerful. Any bump among these dots can create an explosion. More bumps, more explosions. 

I witnessed the May 1998 riots in Jakarta, where houses and buildings were burned to the ground, belongings were looted, and women were gang-raped. 

There were too many casualties to mention, for one raped woman, one death, or one robbery was already one too many. And I must deal with the trauma and “survivor’s guilt” for as long as I live.

There are several “theories” on what triggered that tragedy, who masterminded it, and why it occurred. Too many questions have gone unanswered. Too many tears were shed. Too many families have lost their loved ones and hard-earned wealth. No closure has been reached because the alleged perpetrators have not been justly punished.

For what? For satisfying a few heartless and greedy politicians? 

Sure, we can easily blame the failure of Indonesia’s nation building and the Asian financial crisis in 1997, which uncovered a substandard banking system and monetary policies and served to create financial crisis in many families. 

Others blame Indonesia’s exclusive pluralism and hidden segregation among ethnicities and religious followers, which enraged the poor and the marginalized when they could no longer afford to live.

A concoction of those elements created a lethal, combustible combination that was the May 1998 tragedy.

Three years and four months later, on Sept. 11th, another tragedy occurred 10 thousand miles away from Jakarta. I visited the World Trade Center in New York that summer and looked on in disbelief when the TV aired clips of two passenger airplanes plunging into the twin towers. 

 Both incidents taught me several things. First, no place is perfect. A place can be both utopian and dystopian within a blink of an eye. Second, human beings are connected at various levels. We are attached through an invisible string that encircles us and makes us the human race. 

Third, corrupt power tends to use violence in sustaining existing power and acquiring more power, as Weberians would attest. 

Fourth, the pain, the trauma, and the shift of consciousness resulted from witnessing and experiencing first hand a humanitarian tragedy lasts a lifetime. 

Today, with so many violent incidents in the world, such as the mass shooting of 20 elementary students in Newton last December, the Boston Marathon bombings, killing three innocent people and injuring 175 others, and the rape of a 5-year-old child in India recently, I have come to realize that the risks involved in living in modern world have multiplied considerably. Things can change in an instant. Returning to the state of equilibrium is probably an obsolete concept, for volatility is the “new normal”.

Religions and ideologies have been used to justify disturbed individuals for using violence to achieving their goals. 

Some violent incidents do not even have any religious or ideological justification. Sometimes, a violent incident merely results from failures: society’s failure in helping an individual or an individual’s failure in conforming to the majority.

Modern society is amazingly complex. An act could be small and overlooked, yet it has the potential to trigger cruel, subsequent acts. And we sometimes contribute to the intertwining web of human complexities, either directly or indirectly.

May victims and survivors of the May 1998 tragedy be blessed with peace, fairness and justice, soon. ●

Bom Boston dan Fenomena Kekerasan AS

Bom Boston dan Fenomena Kekerasan AS Jennie S Bev ;  Penulis Berprestasi, Kolumnis Forbes, The Jakarta Post dan KONTAN Daily dan Weekly, Tinggal di California

JARINGNEWS, 30 April 2013

  

Bom Maraton Boston yang memakan 3 jiwa dan 175 luka-luka masih sangat jelas terekam di benak kita semua. Penyergapan kolosal anak muda Chechen dari Chechnya bernama Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (19) oleh polisi Boston dan FBI dengan 9000 anggota pasukan ditayangkan langsung melalui Internet. Ideologi “anti terorisme” masih hidup sehat, sedangkan “anti kekerasan bersenjata” masih belum dipandang penting oleh Senat AS dengan digagalkannya amandemen cek latar belakang (background check) secara seksama sebelum izin kepemilikan senjata api diberikan. Padahal, setiap hari 80 orang mati tertembak di AS.

AS masih sangat perkasa menghadapi terorisme. Bahkan tampak bak film Hollywood. Sayangnya, kematian 20 anak SD dalam penembakan di Newton Desember lalu, belum mengetuk hati para anggota Senat AS yang mayoritas anggota partai Republikan untuk melindungi warganya dari berbagai bentuk kekerasan bersenjata.

Apa sebenarnya yang terjadi di dalam masyarakat AS sehingga kekerasan bersenjata yang mengakibatkan pembunuhan masal meningkat sangat tajam di tahun 2012? Di tahun 2012, terjadi tujuh kali pembunuhan masal dengan berbagai motif: tekanan sosial, tekanan keluarga, kebencian etnis/agama, dan ketidakstabilan psikis. Selain itu, apa yang terjadi di pemerintahan sehingga prioritas kebijakan bukanlah ideologi anti kekerasan publik, melainkan anti terorisme?

Pertama, masyarakat AS sendiri merupakan masyarakat majemuk terbentuk dari asimilasi berbagai bangsa. Mereka yang bermigrasi ke AS sesungguhnya mempunyai kesempatan lebih di negara asal mereka, seperti jaringan sosial politik kultural, pendidikan, finansial, inteligensi, profesionalisme, dan lain-lain. “Sesuatu yang ekstra” tersebut membawa pro dan kon tersendiri.

Pembentukan AS sebagai “bangsa” melalui proses sadar bahwa setiap warga AS berasal dari negara dan bangsa lain yang bermigrasi. Tingkat “kesadaran” dan format akhir asimilasi berbeda gradasinya yang bermuara kepada bahaya laten asimilasi semu.

Kedua, freedom of speech memungkinkan berbagai ideologi dan media alternatif tumbuh subur. Selain itu, eksponensialnya pertumbuhan teknologi memaknifikasi suatu tindakan kekerasan secara virtual sehingga membentuk keadaan psikis, kognitif dan afeksi yang “siap kekerasan.” Berbagai penelitian menunjukkan bahwa latihan-latihan virtual mempersiapkan otak untuk praktek nyata.

Ketiga, termasuk di AS, pertumbuhan penduduk dunia yang semakin berpusat di kota-kota raksasa (mega cities) memperkuat gaya hidup self-centered yang mempertinggi alienasi dari hubungan-hubungan erat fraternitas. Ini menimbulkan perasaan keterasingan dan ketidakseimbangan psikis yang siap “meledak.”

Keempat, penyakit-penyakit mental dan keadaan psikis yang tidak terdeteksi maupun tidak terkendali mendapatkan tempat di dalam masyarakat urban self-centered yang permisif terhadap pemikiran-pemikiran alternatif anti arus utama (mainstream). Ini menyuburkan berbagai bentuk kebencian, ekstremisme, dan hasrat melakukan kekerasan tanpa bendungan.

Pemerintah AS sendiri terdiri dari individu-individu yang berasal dari sosio-ekonomi berbeda dari kebanyakan warga AS. Menurut Joseph Stiglitz, mayoritas senator telah berpenghasilan satu persen teratas (one percenters) sebelum duduk di senat. Para “satu persen” ini berpenghasilan USD 1,5 juta per tahun. Tampak jelas diskoneksi antara warga AS dengan representatif dan legislatif mereka.

Terlepas dari kenyataan virtual yang bertendensi menghubungkan individu-individu secara horisontal, vertikalitas antara warga dengan representatif dan legislatif mereka bukan hal sepele. Diskoneksi Wall Street dengan Main Street serupa dengan diskoneksi Pemerintah AS dengan Warga AS.

Ego AS untuk tetap bertahan sebagai pusat geopolitik dunia sesungguhnya mengabaikan kesejahteraan warganya sendiri. Bayangkan, dana luar negeri AS akhir 2012 adalah USD 20 miliar, padahal lebih dari 40 juga warga AS hidup di bawah garis kemiskinan dan beresiko kurang pangan. Di antaranya, 16.2 juta anak-anak beresiko kurang pangan.

Konklusi, kekerasan di AS semakin merajalela antara lain disebabkan kegagalan AS dalam memberikan kesejahteraan bagi rakyatnya, mengingat besarnya dana dan besarnya ambisi sebagai pusat geopolitik. Kepentingan politik sebagai “the best” and “the most” hanya sekedar membangun “merek,” bukan membangun kesejahteraan warga sesungguhnya.

Mungkin demokrasi memang pilihan buruk dari yang sistem-sistem pemerintahan yang lebih buruk, seperti kata Churchill. Pelajaran berharga bagi Indonesia dan dunia. ●

The aging world and Indonesia’s population boom

The aging world and Indonesia’s population boom Jennie S Bev ; An Author and Columnist based in Northern California

JAKARTA POST, 26 April 2013

  

While many populations in the world are aging, Indonesia’s population is exploding. In terms of consumption, it means Indonesia is still a very attractive market. However, such a condition is accompanied by classic problems derived from overcrowding including, but not limited to, a high crime rate, unemployment, diminishing living space, mounting trash, water scarcity and risks of flooding. In terms of the oversupply of manpower, Indonesia enjoys a high number of blue-collar workers. With the right mind-set, attitude, skills, and knowledge base, Indonesia’s population explosion can be turned into a winning formula. According to a UN report titled World Population Ageing 1950-2050, there are four main characteristics of this aging world population: unprecedented, pervasive, enduring and has profound implications. In this century, aging in the world’s population is unprecedented, due to significantly lower birth and mortality rates. This is the case not only in developed Western countries, such as those in Europe, Canada and the United States, but also in Asian countries like Japan, Korea, China, Taiwan and Singapore. Indonesia, however, is an exception. According to 2012 data, there are 17.7 births annually per 1,000 people. Every year, approximately 3.5 million to 4.5 million births occur, which is almost the entire population of Singapore. In Singapore, approximately only 7.72 births occur annually per 1,000 people, while in Korea and Japan, the ratio is 8.4:1,000 and in Taiwan, is 8.7:1,000 The Philippines also enjoys a high annual birth rate of approximately 25 births per 1,000 people, while India has an annual average of 20.6 births per 1,000 people. These two countries now supply the world with unskilled and highly skilled workers as well as white-collar information technology (IT) workers and executives. Unfortunately, Indonesian migrant workers are notorious for their lack of skills, which could have been resolved with simple trainings and updated public education programs. The world has changed: It is highly interconnected and globalized. Thus, people, their skills and knowledge must adapt as well. Today, people rarely sweep floors with traditional floor sweepers; instead, they use high-tech vacuum cleaners, such as those produced by Dyson. Society is also more conscious about safety and security issues; thus, migrant workers must upgrade their life skills. Nannies are no longer merely companions for children; they are also expected to possess basic medical skills in the event of an emergency, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) including mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Most migrant workers from Indonesia, however, lack these basic skills. In terms of highly skilled and highly trained workers, India and the Philippines score far higher than Indonesia. These two countries’ workers have been enjoying offshore outsourcing trends with jobs imported from high-wage countries like the US and those in the European Union (EU). India is renowned for hard-skilled workers in IT, accounting, taxation and medical technology. The Philippines is renowned for soft-skilled workers in areas such as customer service, research, writing, editing and call centers. Both Indian and Philippine workers are by default capable of speaking fluent English, albeit with their regional accents. While Indians tend to be more British-inclined, Filipinos are more Americanized due to being a former US colony. Both countries have absorbed the English language, making it part of their lives, despite social and economic statuses. Thus, they are ready to be trained in English and they can perform tasks in this language naturally. Indonesia, on the other hand, has not made English a significant part of daily conservation, other than in urban areas and among the highly educated. English is still considered a language only used by those with a higher social status. It is time to get rid of the notion that English is an “elite” language. No, it isn’t. It is a means of communication. And if you speak and write English well, you will definitely have better opportunities than those people who don’t. With the right mind-set, attitude, skills, and knowledge, Indonesian workers have an unprecedented opportunity to break into the world labor market, especially in countries whose populations are aging. What is the “right” mind-set? The ability to speak, think and perform jobs in English, as it is the most widely used language in the world, and it the language of the Internet. We can no longer separate the face-to-face world with the online world; it is one and the same. What is the “right” attitude? The right attitude is projected when someone shows confidence in working in other cultures. In short, cultural capital is often-overlooked capital that matters most in winning in the 21st century. What are the “right” skills? Skills that were worthy in the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, may no longer be useful in the 21st century. IT, biotechnology, medicine, and other hard skills are more economically useful than skills in the liberal arts or knowledge. Science makes people’s lives better, healthier and longer. In contrast, although the arts do, of course, bring happiness and joy to many people, they cannot prolong lives with direct intervention as medical science does. What is the “right” knowledge base? Knowledge that is essential for living successfully anywhere in the world, including fluency in foreign languages, financial literacy, technological literacy and an awareness to continuously upgrade one’s existing knowledge. The Indonesian government must rise to the occasion by sincerely assisting Indonesians of all social and economic classes to grow globally with the appropriate mind-set, attitude, skills and knowledge base. Let’s start with good governance with transparency and willingness in creating a safe environment for progress. ●

Bombs, guns and tragedies

Bombs, guns and tragedies Jennie S Bev  ;  An Author and Columnist based in Northern California

JAKARTA POST, 18 April 2013

  

The recent Boston Marathon bombs that killed three and injured 175  were shocking. In the past decade, bombings have been rare, though gun violence causing mass killings and public panic in the US has increased in the past year. “Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians, it is an act of terror. What we don’t yet know, however, is who carried out this attack and why, whether it was planned and executed by a terrorist organization — foreign or domestic — or was the act of a malevolent individual,” said US President Barack Obama on Tuesday. At the time of writing this article, the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had not made an official statement on suspects or motives behind the attack. Law enforcement officials and politicians are being careful not to create unnecessary confusion by keeping things low key until evidence has been gathered and a suspect has been officially identified. This is a tragedy, but what could this attack symbolize? The attack occurred on Patriots’ Day, a US holiday, in the historical city of Boston, at a sporting event. It killed innocent people, including at least one child, through two explosions in close proximity with homemade bombs. That there were two-explosions, and that there was possibly a pressure cooker used in one or both of the bombs, could be signatures of certain entities. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, the US has been relatively spared from bombings. The only bombing that occurred post-9/11 was in 2004 by Dennis Mahon, a white supremacist. Mahon used a homemade bomb to attack Don Logan, an African-American city diversity director of Scottsdale, Arizona. There have also been several bomb scares.  Pre-9/11, the US saw numerous bombings: the 1993 truck bomb at the World Trade Center; the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by right-wing extremist Timothy McVeigh and the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta by anti-abortion extremist Eric Rudolph. Considering these incidents, its too early to say whether Islamic terrorists are behind the Boston Marathon bombing. The US itself has been experiencing an upsurge in gun violence in the past year. Whether that is now morphing into bombings remains unclear, but we cannot afford to experience more mass killings of innocent people in a nation where about 40 percent of US households own guns. The FBI’s definition of mass murder is “a murder that kills four or more people”. According to the database of the news organization Mother Jones, mass killings occurred throughout the US, semi-automatic guns were used in 75 percent of incidents, assault weapons were used in 40 percent of incidents, 79 percent of guns were obtained legally and no armed civilian fought back, with 2012 being the worst year for  “mass killings”. Seven mass shootings in the US occurred in 2012. In February, Jeong Soon Paek shot two of his sisters and their husbands in Atlanta, Georgia. Jeong then killed himself. In April, One L. Goh opened fire in a nursing classroom, and killing seven in Oakland, California. In May, Ian Stawicki shot four café customers, injured one and then killed himself in Seattle, Washington. In July, James Holmes killed 12 people in a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. In August, a US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire at a Sikh temple before shooting himself, in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page killed six. In September in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Andre Engeldinger shot a business owner, three employees and a UPS driver after being fired. He then also killed himself. In December in Newton, Connecticut, Adam Lanza shot his own mother at home and killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School, before turning the gun on himself.  Stephen King, the best-selling author, wrote in the ebook Guns that he supports gun control. As an author of numerous books on death and violence, he felt he had a moral obligation to remove one of his books — titled Rage — from bookstores because it had inspired some individuals with mental issues to hurt others. Aggressive gun control must be imposed immediately and deterrents must established to reduce gun and bomb violence. Despite US nationwide criminal databases, stricter rules on who can purchase guns and how can be licensed for gun ownership must be updated. More than four decades ago, in 1972, the US Surgeon General issued a warning on the strong causal relationship between televised violence and antisocial behavior, which included violence. Recent violence-laden video games even “train” players to kill in a virtual reality. King writes: “About 80 people die of gunshot wounds in the US every day.” This is a lesson for all of mankind. Tragedies like these must be stopped. ●

Religion is sweet poison, heaven is a state of mind

Religion is sweet poison, heaven is a state of mind Jennie S Bev ;  An Award Winning Author, Columnist based in Santa Clara, California

JAKARTA POST, 30 Maret 2013

  

I’m a believer. I have written about this many times. I don’t deny that I still believe that Christ is the ultimate Savior and Saint Mary is the mother of all creatures, big and small.  Yet, I also acknowledge that religion is a sweet poison. A poison we sometimes need to swallow deliberately to release us from worry and stress, to find solace in something we believe will be able to heal our broken hearts, and to give hope when things go awry in this uncertain and chaotic world. Yet, religion is so sweet a poison that if we take too big a dose, our sanity would collapse and vanish. A person, after all, must be realistic enough to understand that salvation doesn’t come for free externally, but most importantly it comes through internal enlightenment. If you think that by joining a religion, then salvation comes as a complimentary bonus, well, that’s a part of the persuasive power of a poison.  We need to save ourselves, first and foremost, by opening our hearts and minds.  If a religion helps us understand this important part of our life’s journey, then it is a good dose, which is not yet poisonous, but healing instead. I still drink my sweet poison every day. I pray relentlessly in sickness and in health, in happiness and in grieving periods, in good and in bad days.  And I think it is healing to be taken in a light dose, just like alcohol, which otherwise can overwork our liver so much that we can collapse and die. Beware, though, for religion is more lethal than any poison known to humankind.  If you consider religion as the handbook of morality, think again. Morality has long existed without religion. Religion emerged because of morality.  Thus, teaching a child that “God is always watching” is hilarious because the parent thinks that God is a CCTV. God isn’t a CCTV or a handbook and will not be one, despite what uninformed individuals think and believe. The correct way of doing things is what matters and can be sought within through our own enlightened self-guidance, regardless of whether one does or doesn’t adopt any institutionalized religion.  Atheists are wired in their brain not to need to drink the sweet poison every night before bedtime. And it is a respectable choice indeed. Like eros love, religion is both intoxicating and lethal. Neuroscientists have argued that it is the wiring in the brain that makes someone highly religious or not at all. Whether you trust science or believe in mystical principles, sweet poison must be taken with care and awareness. Perhaps some day I’ll be able to live without swallowing this sweet poison anymore and I look forward to it.  Meanwhile, a religion is a place where I can safely make wishes and dream about what would happen next after experiencing a tumultuous life journey or even to dream about the afterlife.  Such wishes and dreams are encapsulated in something called “faith”. At this point in life, religion to me is a nice warm bed every night and a smiling motherly figure singing lullabies. A religion is not an order to do things or not to do things. What I choose to do is based on my own considerations.  And a religion sometimes plays a role because when I’m drinking sweet poison, I feel elated and more positive about the present, the future, and the days after I die. Internal enlightenment occurs when we make decisions based on priorities and not harming others. Collective individual enlightenment would create a culture of strong internality, instead of showing off with “holy attributes”. A sweet poison has reached its most poisonous deadly form when people who call themselves “religious” start killing and hurting others physically or mentally.  Being a believer or a non-believer has nothing to do with one’s internal enlightenment.  Intellectually and affectively, we can heighten our awareness without having to drink too much of this sweet poison.  And being an atheist as a choice may also be evidence of internal enlightenment, for he or she can survive without having to rely on some abstract ideas and dogmas handed down from ancient times. A non-violent atheist is much more enlightened than a violent religious individual, who believes that killing others is a duty to reach a place called Heaven.  It is a misconception buried so deep in some religious individuals, because heaven is not a place. Heaven is a state of mind. ●

Serenity, cleanliness and lining up

Serenity, cleanliness and lining up Jennie S Bev ;  An Author and Columnist Based in Northern California

JAKARTA POST, 16 Maret 2013

I was born in the middle of Central Jakarta at RSIA YPK and raised in the surrounding area. By birth, I was a big city kid. By choice, I am a small town woman.  A good friend who is a scholar at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, said a similar thing recently that she, too, is actually a small town woman. She said, “Maybe you and I are the village kind of souls. We function best in serenity and calmness, and we value life over money and earthly possession. We are the odd ones out, according to the people of Jakarta.” Jakarta is hectic, chaotic and never sleeps. Above all, living there is expensive despite the low quality of life. A high quality of life in a city comes with clean air, green with lush trees and public parks, minimal noise, closed sewage system, drinkable water, appreciation for beauty and art, sidewalks accessible to people with disabilities, clear roads with no visible pot holes nor large open holes, good waste management, clean roads, no visible trash and minimal people loitering on sidewalks, parking lots or in front of houses idling doing nothing.  Above all, a good quality of city life comes with strong laws in public places, including strong penalties for graffiti, littering and loitering. Singapore and Tokyo are good examples. In Singapore, carrying durian “the stinky fruit” at closed public places, like inside the MRTs, is forbidden. How conscientious. Such a simple law teaches people to respect others, for not everyone can stand the aroma. And if people think Jakarta is too big a city to manage, such ignorance shall eventually give birth to more chaos and more social problems. The recent floods in January are a proof of bad city management resulting in deaths and economic casualties. Those deaths could have been prevented and I’m deeply saddened by the incidents. I recall when an Indonesian journalist interviewed me at home in Northern California. She said, “Your neighborhood is so clean, tidy and no one sitting around in front of the houses. It must be an upscale neighborhood.” I answered, “No, it’s a middle-class community. Not million-dollar houses. No one is sitting around on the sidewalks because everyone is busy working, studying and entertaining themselves indoors, except whenever they are at the parks.” While some Indonesian readers might get offended when I compare with the USA, I mean well. Think with an open mind: What makes Jakarta dirty, noisy and overcrowded, other than population explosion? A simple comparison with Kuala Lumpur, for example, reveals that Jakarta wins in terms of trashing places. KLIA and Rapid KL trains, for instance, are clean and international tourists happily ride them to go places. It is rare to find international tourists on public transportation in Jakarta. Don’t we want our guests to feel comfortable and safe? After all, we don’t and can’t live alone. Jakarta is a part of Indonesia and Indonesia is a part of the global constellation. A clean, clear and safe capital city is a reflection of the country’s overall well-being, if it is a valid indication. Observing how people lining up, or “queuing”, in Jakarta is also interesting. You’d need to stand so close to the person in front of you or someone would get in between and claim his or her spot. Even in the ladies restroom, waiting in line requires more than just standing, it requires standing up for the right to enter or someone would barge into the booth despite it is your turn. Loving a place requires ownership and it translates to not trashing it with junk, excessive noises and respecting each other with courtesy.  My friend in Melbourne further added, “The fact that food and accommodation are already double the price than those in Kuala Lumpur shows that it has become a very expensive place to live. The more money one has, the more quality of life one can get.  The love for money is a norm, not an exception there. Life and relationships become scarcity. In Robert Cialdini’s book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, social proof, reciprocity and scarcity are three of the six powers of influence. It is no surprise that people who live there put money as number one, above relationships and love for people.” Living in a big city doesn’t need to be rude, dirty, insensitive and despiteful. Inner high quality of life must be preserved and maintained, for it is key to creating a high quality external life.  ●

An unlikely Asian century

An unlikely Asian century Jennie S Bev  ;  An Author and Columnist, She is also the CEO of A Digital Venture in Santa Clara

JAKARTA POST, 04 Maret 2013

  

The 19th century was the European century, the 20th century was the American century and the 21st century is believed to be an Asian century. While this century has 86 more years to go, Asia is unlikely to be  the sole dominant political and cultural power.  Out of the big Asian players, none has risen, nor is likely to rise, as the dominant power and the sum of all Asian countries isn’t likely to have the capacity to dominate the world. First things first, the big Asian players, like China, India, Japan and Korea are busy with their own domestic issues.  The populations of China and India come with their own social issues requiring tight control to prevent social chaos. Japan and Korea are busy with their economic agendas, ensuring that they get through the global crisis with flying colors. Korea with its unification plan needs all the political strength to focus on its success. Second, the second-tier Asian players, like Indonesia and other Southeast Asian countries do not have enough momentum to propel them to political and cultural megastardom. Either individually or as a group, Southeast Asian countries are climbing uphill due to limited experience and poverty, excluding Singapore. Third, G7 countries (US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada and Japan) are still leading the world with their soft power, despite their economies being in a big mess and their net wealth having dwindled. With their combined experience of more than a millennium, G7 countries are maintaining the status quo of world political and cultural power. Fourth, the US, despite being a “frugal superpower”, continues playing the role of “the world police” even though they need to borrow funding from China, the world’s “lending bank”.  The US has showed no sign of stepping down from the highest place of the “policing the world” totem pole. Its latest military base in Niger is an attempt of a superpower in a midlife crisis to show its remaining power to the world. It is extremely interesting to notice that the grandfather of capitalism is now borrowing money from the grandmother of communism. And in the matter of finances, apparently, both countries are a matching pair of gloves, which creates an unprecedented synergistic power.  Despite China’s position as a “bank”, its reluctance to control world domination is another interesting phenomenon. Fifth, western countries are likely to continuously leading scientifically through various technological innovations, which makes a cliché “marry an engineer, not an artist because an engineer can always find jobs while an artist is likely to be starving” a reality.  For instance, Germany, the “geeky techie” nation, is relatively stable in the midst of global crisis. Sixth, economically, Asian countries are likely maintain their supportive role as ideal regions for offshore outsourcing.  However, due to rising costs of doing business in Asia, western countries are likely to limit offshore outsourcing. Many businesses have rebuilt manufacturing plants in their own countries. Seventh, Indonesia with its ongoing issues as a young democracy is unlikely to rise to the occasion. It is yet to earn respect from the world, due to its inability to manage a mid-sized country whose population explosion has gone through the roof with 3.5 million to 4 million babies born every year and a land area is merely 2.67 times the size of Texas. Poor internal management and mediocre international image make it an uphill battle.  Despite its national GDP, GDP per capita and positive economic growth of 6.3 percent per year, Indonesia is a Third World country in terms of infrastructure, legal and taxation provisions, political performance and educational system. Eighth, the overall world disequilibrium has shown how fragile power is as the world today is much more susceptible to shocks and the global risk landscape has been dominated by sharp discontinuities, as posited by World Economic Forum economist Thierry Malleret.  The world has simply changed so rapidly due to these four dominant forces: interdependence, complexity, velocity and transparency. At last, the unlikeliness of Asia to dominate this century doesn’t mean it will be led by a unipolar superpower USA anymore. The century is likely to be led collectively by all strong state and non-state agents, including individuals.  The world has finally come to its most equal form: Anyone with hard and soft power has the potential to dominate the world politically, socially, culturally, economically and philanthropically. The “wisdom of the crowd” has reached its tipping point. And the world isn’t going back to the old ways of doing business anymore. The United Nations and NGOs may attempt to steer the world into becoming a more peaceful place, yet they are likely unable to fill the global governance vacuum.  The unlikely Asian of this century is both a pro and a con, as long as you know what to do and which decisions to make.  ●

Indonesia : The land of liars, criminals and frauds

Indonesia : The land of liars, criminals and frauds Jennie S Bev ;   An Award-Winning Author and Columnist based in California

JAKARTA POST, 15 Januari 2013

Who should I respect in Indonesia? The longer I stay in this beautiful tropical country, the harder it is for me to respect anyone. Also, why don’t I feel safe?  Oh, there are no registries or available public records disclosing people’s backgrounds. We don’t know exactly who we are dealing with as there is no way to check up on their past records.  Sure, a new acquaintance might introduce himself any way he wants, because he doesn’t need to take any responsibility for what he tells others. Polite and not-so-polite lies are of little consequence because there are no records against which people can check and recheck. Too much power is in the hands of liars, crooks and criminals.  In Indonesia, I have to trust my “gut feeling”, which often isn’t reliable due to various preconceived notions. I may be representative of many foreigners who are considering investing in Indonesia. I’m not the only one who thinks this way. I respected government ministers in Indonesia, but recently some ministers have been accused of mega-corruption. I respected local leaders, but then there was the regency official who disrespected his wife by divorcing her within days of their wedding due to her “not being a virgin” anymore. I respected many top individuals, only to find out that they are either liars or criminals in disguise. It seems like criminality — both big and petty — is rampant throughout Indonesia. Those who look like they are financially wealthy may well turn out to be the country’s largest corruptors or tax evaders.  Those who look so pious may well be hiding fraudulent activities behind their religious masks. People can easily lead double lives because there is no system in place that forbids them from behaving unethically. Having no financial or legal public records is like walking in the dark. Every step taken comes with exponential risks. I have come to be very cautious when dealing with people in Indonesia, especially when it comes to doing business and hiring people. In the US, whenever we are hiring someone, background checks can be made immediately.  In 50 states, someone’s crime records (including traffic tickets for both moving and non-moving violations), medical records, financial records bearing credit scores, taxation records and other public records are available. Also, checks can be cleared immediately with online communication between the beneficiary and the bank in which the funds are deposited.  In the US, there is no way for someone to hide. Important things that affect person-to-person interactions are transparent.  The system forces people to behave as good citizens, which later becomes a habit and turns the society into a civilized society. If you have been convicted for sex-related crimes, like molestation, sexual harassment or rape; national, statewide and citywide registries are available for immediate perusal. You can literally find out whether there are sexual offenders residing close to your home and your children’s school. These “Megan’s Law” registries include the full names, home addresses and photos of sex offenders. How embarrassing and restricting. Bad apples shouldn’t spoil the rest of the apples. In Indonesia, ironically, good people often place restrictions on themselves, such as living behind high fences and refraining from certain activities due to fear and a sense of insecurity.  Rampant fraud carried out by mobile phone is a clear example. I no longer take calls from unrecognized numbers on my smartphone. A friend in California once said about his home country the Philippines, that it was like a “big black hole”. The same thing can be said about Indonesia. It’s so dark and not transparent that we gamble with our lives every day. Who are these people that we encounter every day? When they brag about how much they earn, is it truthful? Who is that new teacher? What if he is a sexual predator and now teaching our children? Who is this polite guy? Is he a polite liar? I certainly don’t know. ●

Socioeconomic classes in our classes

Socioeconomic classes in our classes Jennie S Bev ;  An Award-Winning Author and Columnist Based in California

JAKARTA POST,  08 Januari 2013

Karl Marx might have called them “the bourgeois” and “the proletariat”. Adam Smith might have called them “the capitalist” and “the laborer”. Seth Godin might have called them “the linchpin” and “the cog”. Well, not exactly like that, but sort of.  Observing the education system and schools in Indonesia, it is interesting to note that classes of students and graduates are so obvious. By “classes” here, I refer to social and economic classes — and sometimes, intellectual.  While national plus schools are proud to offer bilingual and, even, trilingual curricula, elementary public schools are currently being reformed to teach the Indonesian language only. Among national plus and private schools, a varying degree of non-academic reputation is obvious, as some schools are more “elite” than others, mostly due to the social, economic and sometimes political status of the parents of the students.  Human beings are rank-conscious creatures, just like other mammals. And some institutions reinforce ranks more actively than others, like schools. It is actually quite mind-boggling since schools are supposed to make people realize that all human beings are equal and that we can achieve whatever we set our minds to. Yet, every school is different in its rank within the constellation of similar schools. And in schools, students are introduced to ranks — or “classes” — for the first time in their lives. Every student has his or her rank within a class based on academic performance, which later can be ranked within the school, and eventually among peer schools in a region. And those who go to schools with “superior” internationally-acclaimed curricula have an upper hand from the beginning. Because those who rank high in a class in such a school are likely to rank much higher in comparison to other students from schools with “inferior” curricula. We cannot take for granted or underestimate a school, its curriculum and the culture of learning that the parents and the students bring to the school. Yes, the parents and the students, not the teachers. While teachers are an important element in the success (or failure) of a student’s learning process, the parents determine the standard of learning. The intensity of learning is set at home. In the United States, public schools from kindergarten to high school levels are funded by property taxes and the city. Since a student must go to school in the district in which he or she resides, it provides an equal opportunity for kids of parents of various professions and economic capacities to learn in the same school, as long as they live in the same city or town.  This means that whether a student’s parents are high-ranking CEOs or maids of the CEOs, they can go to the same school. Still, no school is completely equal. If your family resides in Cupertino, for instance, where Apple’s headquarters are located, you are likely sending your children to schools within the Fremont Union High district, among which is Monte Vista High School that ranks 16th in the country. William Faria Elementary of Cupertino Union district tops the rankings in the state.  These schools are top ranked in the state and the country because the parents of the students are likely highly educated and work in the vicinity, which is located in an international information technology hub. The learning atmosphere at home rubs off on the students. Thus, the quality of the schools in the US is largely determined by the learning culture of families who reside in the city or town where a school is located. In Indonesia, private schools, for instance, already set their “niche target market” based on tuition fees, which selectively predetermine the parents’ financial capacity. Financial capacity may or may not reflect one’s learning culture. It is, however, a more valid indication of one’s purchasing power.  Thus, with the wide divergences in curricula, potential academic achievement and financial power between students who go to “elite” private schools and “regular” public schools in Indonesia, we might see two sets of graduates as outputs. The first set comprises those with strong language skills and international mindsets, ready to compete internationally. The second set comprises those with mediocre skills and somewhat lower self esteem than the first set. In classes, we learn first-hand about classes. The world is unequal, but fairness is something we can strive for. If we make ourselves indispensable through our unique skills, creativity, innovation and independence, it doesn’t matter which school you went to. Because what you know is more important than where you studied. This, I know for sure. ●