Peran Asia Timur di Perekonomian Dunia Rachmat Gobel  ;   Menteri Perdagangan RI

MEDIA INDONESIA, 22 April 2015

                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                           

ASIA Timur memiliki peranan penting bagi perekonomian dunia. Sebanyak 22,5% GDP dunia bersumber dari negara-negara kawasan ini, dengan tingkat pertumbuhan di 2014 mencapai 3,6% dibanding tahun sebelumnya, lebih tinggi jika dibandingkan dengan tingkat pertumbuhan dunia yang hanya mencapai 3,4%. Pertumbuhan ekonomi tertinggi dialami Tiongkok yang tumbuh 7,4% jika dibandingkan dengan tahun lalu, diikuti Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, dan Jepang (3,7%, 3,5%, 3,0% dan 0,9%). Selain itu, Asia Timur memiliki economic size yang besar, yakni 22,2% populasi dunia berada di kawasan ini. Jumlah ini ditopang oleh Tiongkok dengan jumlah populasi 1,3 triliun jiwa. Dengan economic size yang besar itu, Asia Timur, terutama Tiongkok menjadi produsen sekaligus pasar yang sangat menjanjikan. Dari seperlima penduduk dunia yang berada di Asia Timur, meningkatnya proporsi kelas menengah menjadi perhatian tersendiri. Populasi kelas menengah di dunia pada 2030 diperkirakan meningkat dua kali lipat. Pertumbuhan paling tinggi akan dialami Asia, sehingga 64% populasi kelas menengah akan berada di Asia, terutama di Tiongkok.Sementara itu, kelas menengah di Eropa dan AS diperkirakan akan turun dari 50% terhadap total kelas menengah dunia, hingga hanya mencapai 22%. Kelas menengah merupakan faktor ekonomi yang sangat penting, terutama bagi negara-negara berkembang karena sebagai mesin penggerak pertumbuhan ekonomi. Kelas menengah, menurut Mario Pezzini pengamat ekonomi OECD, menjadi fondasi yang kuat bagi perkembangan ekonomi suatu negara dengan mengendalikan permintaan konsumsi domestik. Pada 1980-an, di Brasil jumlah kelas menengahnya hanya mencapai 29% dari total populasi, sementara kelas menengah di Korea Selatan telah mencapai 53% dari total populasinya. Jumlah kelas menengah tersebut telah menjadikan Korea Selatan bergeser dari negara yang pertumbuhan ekonominya berbasis ekspor menjadi berbasis konsumsi domestik. Hal yang serupa terjadi di Brasil yang kelas menengahnya kini mencapai 52%. Tumbuh signifikan Lebih dari 50% investasi FDI Asia Timur berasal dari negara-negara di kawasan Asia Timur sendiri. Tiongkok dan Hong Kong merupakan negara investor terbesar bagi kawasan Asia Timur yang masing-masing menyumbang 15,1% dan 33,6% terhadap total investasi. Sementara itu, negara-negara di Asia Timur lebih banyak melakukan investasi di luar Asia Timur dengan pangsa 63,9% dari total outflow. Namun, Tiongkok masih merupakan negara utama tujuan investasi negara-negara di Asia Timur dengan pangsa 17,4%, diikuti Hong Kong sebesar 16,8%, dan AS 12,3%. Untuk negara ASEAN, Singapura dan Indonesia, merupakan tujuan utama investasi Asia Timur. Negara di Asia Timur juga memegang peranan penting dalam peta perdagangan dunia. Asia Timur menguasai 21,5% ekspor dan 22,9% impor dunia. Di antara negara– negara Asia Timur, Tiongkok merupakan eksportir ke-1 dan importir ke-2 dunia dengan nilai ekspor dan impor US$2,2 triliun dan US$1,9 triliun pada 2013. Nilai tersebut setara dengan lebih dari 50% pangsa ekspor dan impor Asia Timur dengan dunia. Sementara itu, Jepang yang merupakan negara maju berasal di Asia Timur ialah eksportir dan importir ke-4 dunia dengan pangsa 4% dan 4,5% terhadap ekspor impor dunia pada 2013. Adapun Jepang, mengalami kecenderungan penurunan ekspor, selama periode 2009-2013 turun sebesar 3,5%. Penurunan ini ditengarai sebagai imbas dari kontraksi ekonomi di Jepang. Korea Selatan sebagai negara dengan nilai perdagangan ketiga terbesar di Asia Timur merupakan eksportir ke-7 dan importir ke-8 dunia, meskipun pangsanya tidaklah lebih dari 4% total ekspor maupun impor dunia di 2013. Dilihat dari neraca perdagangan dengan dunia, Tiongkok, Korea Selatan, dan Taiwan merupakan negara di Asia Timur yang mengalami kenaikan surplus neraca perdagangan selama periode 2010-2013. Sementara itu, neraca perdagangan Jepang selama 3 tahun terakhir justru mengalami kenaikan defi sit neraca perdagangan, bahkan di 2013 mencapai US$118,1 miliar. Hong Kong merupakan satu-satunya negara di Asia Timur yang selalu mengalami defi sit neraca perdagangan selama 2010-2013. Secara rinci, ekspor yang terjadi di an tara negara-negara Asia Timur pada 2014 mencapai US$1,3 triliun, atau setara dengan 34,5% dari total ekspor Asia Timur ke dunia. Sementara untuk perdagangan ekstra regional Asia Timur, AS, Singapura, Jerman, Vietnam, dan Belanda merupakan negara tujuan utama dengan nilai ekspor masing-masing mencapai US$598,4 miliar (pangsa 15,8%), US$108,5 miliar (pangsa 2,9%), US$99,8 miliar (pangsa 2,6%), US$89,1 miliar (pangsa 2,4%), dan US$84,2 miliar (pangsa 2,2%). Adapun ekspor Asia Timur ke ASEAN sebesar US$507,5 miliar (pangsa 13,4%), dengan ekspor ke Indonesia mencapai US$70,6 miliar (pangsa 1,9%). Untuk kawasan ASEAN, secara umum ekspor Asia Timur terlihat hampir merata. Dilihat dari komoditas ekspornya, 91,9% ekspor Asia Timur merupakan produk manufaktur dan sisanya komoditas primer (didasarkan atas data ekspor 2013). Untuk komoditas manufaktur, secara umum didominasi oleh telepon seluler dan komputer portabel dengan nilai US$229,7 miliar atau kurang lebih 6% dari seluruh ekspor Asia Timur. Tidak jauh berbeda dengan kinerja ekspornya, impor intra-Asia Timur pada 2014 mencapai US$1,2 triliun (pangsa 33,1%). AS, Australia, Arab Saudi, Jerman, dan Malaysia merupakan negara utama asal impor di luar Asia Timur yang masing-masing mencapai US$292,6 miliar (pangsa 8,2%), US$178,6 miliar (pangsa 5,0%), US$156,5 miliar (pangsa 4,4%), US$145,6 miliar (pangsa 4,1%), dan US$109,1 miliar (pangsa 3,1%). Impor Asia Timur dari ASEAN mencapai US$478,1 miliar (pangsa 13,5%), sementara impor Asia Timur dari Indonesia mencapai US$80,6 miliar (pangsa 2,3%). Impor Asia Timur didominasi oleh impor produk manufaktur dengan pangsa sebesar 57,0%, sisanya merupakan komoditas primer (pangsa 43%). Produk manufaktur yang paling banyak diimpor ialah electronic integrated circuits, sementara produk primer yang paling banyak diimpor ialah petroleum oils. Dalam kaitannya dua kawasan yang saling berdekatan, Asia Timur merupakan mitra dagang penting bagi ASEAN. Sebesar 35% ekspor ASEAN ditujukan ke Asia Timur dan 38,8% impor ASEAN berasal dari Asia Timur. Lebih lanjut, selama lima tahun terakhir, 2009-2013, Indonesia, Malaysia, dan Singapura selalu mengalami surplus neraca perdagangan dengan Asia Timur. ●

The global economy and Indonesia in 2015  Rachmat Gobel  ;   The writer, a former transportation minister, is chairman of the Matsushita Gobel Foundation and president commissioner of PT Telkom Tbk

JAKARTA POST,  08 Desember 2014

                                                                                                                       

The past year has not been an easy one for Indonesia’s slowing economy, as the global environment generated disturbances, such as sharp falls in commodity prices, substantial uncertainty over geo-political stresses in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and East Asia, destabilizing capital flows and renewed doubts about major engines of growth such as the eurozone, Japan and China. So as we approach the end of an eventful year, we have to ask — what does the global economy portend for Indonesia in 2015? Our take is generally a positive one — while some very real geo-political and economic risks remain, we believe that the world economy should be largely supportive of Indonesia’s economic outlook. The main reason for our optimism is the robust state of the United States economy as we head into 2015. Despite China’s expanding footprint in the global economy, the United States remains the world’s pre-eminent market, while its monetary policies determine international flows of capital vital to an economy such as Indonesia. The good news is that, after a patchy recovery, the United States economy is now expanding at a reasonably vigorous pace. Most of the segments of its economy that were damaged by the financial crisis are now surging: the credit market has revived, with even small and medium enterprises now reporting easier access to loans. As these businesses hire more workers, jobs are becoming more plentiful, boosting consumer confidence to the highest levels since 2007. The housing market, which helped to trigger the crisis, is now recovering, with prices rising gently and the stock of unsold housing down sharply. Unsurprisingly, the lead indicators that forecast economic activity a year ahead are moving up strongly, giving us confidence that the American economy will be an engine of global growth in 2015. Over the next year, the American economy is likely to get a significant additional boost from higher capital spending. So far in this recovery, companies have been wary of spending the roughly US$1.6 trillion hoard of cash that they have built up, deterred by a lack of confidence. But with capacity utilization rising and new technologies such as cloud computing, solar energy and 3D printing reaching critical takeoff points and needing huge new investments, a turnaround in capital spending is now more likely. Oil prices have fallen by about 35 percent from their peak, cutting energy costs and encouraging producers to boost output. As consumers’ transportation and electricity costs fall, they have more money in their pockets to spend on other items, thus expanding demand. Lower oil prices also imply lower inflation, giving central banks more reason to ease monetary conditions, providing another leg-up for global growth. Also, such sharp falls in oil prices essentially transfer wealth from oil-exporting countries, which tend to have high savings rates, to oil-consuming nations, which tend to spend much more — that alone helps to rev up global demand. These two factors — the improving US economy and much lower energy costs — are massive positives for the global economy. Still, since media commentaries are full of all the many things that can go wrong, it is worthwhile understanding these risks and assessing just how much downside there really is: The eurozone recovery has hit a rough patch: slower growth, even in the region’s powerhouse, Germany, and almost non-existent inflation have instigated worries of a deflationary bust in the region. However, there are three reasons not to be too pessimistic — the European Central Bank has aggressively eased monetary policy, the European Commission has launched a new investment program and the weaker euro will help boost competitiveness. So long as the region’s political leaders hold their nerve, the eurozone economies should produce slightly faster growth next year. Japan, too, has lost momentum this year. But as the effects of the sales tax-increase in April wear off and the massive Yen depreciation and bold monetary policies of the central bank take effect, the economy should continue growing, albeit slowly. China, however, is more of a concern because of massive excess capacity, a deflating property bubble and multiple financial imbalances. Still, policymakers have not disappointed us before — in the past few weeks, the central bank has reversed course to inject substantial liquidity into the economy while the government is vigorously stepping up spending on infrastructure. China still has some positive growth drivers as well — urbanization is proceeding rapidly and the online retail revolution is generating employment and major new capital spending. Chinese growth will be slower than in previous years but should still add nicely to global demand. A faster US economic recovery also means a quicker pace of interest rate increases in the United States, as its central bank, the Federal Reserve, will be forced to raise rates. As we saw in May 2013, when the Fed first hinted at rate increases, the mere suggestion of tighter money scares financial markets and drives capital out of emerging economies such as Indonesia. However, the Fed has been preparing global investors for such a move so that they are unlikely to pull money out of Indonesia in the way they did before. Moreover, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s bold and energetic policies have boosted global investors’ confidence in Indonesia, thus reducing this risk. That leaves geo-political risks as the remaining concern. The area that poses the largest risk to global growth is the Middle East — if the civil wars in Libya, Syria, Yemen and Iraq and the growing insurgency in Egypt turn more violent and spill over to oil-producing regions or affect oil transportation routes such as the Suez Canal, oil prices will spike, reversing much of the benefit of lower oil prices that we have been enjoying. This risk is difficult to quantify. In conclusion, the two huge positives of the US economic rebound and lower oil prices will boost global demand for Indonesia in 2015. Of the risks we can identify, the economic ones — the eurozone, Japan and China — can be contained through policy measures already being put in place. So long as the wild card of Middle East political risks does not materialize, the global economy is likely to be kind to Indonesia. ●

A recovery in Japan’s economy will boost Indonesia Rachmat Gobel  ;   Deputy Chairman of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin) and chairman ofthe Indonesian-Japan Friendship Association (PPIJ)

JAKARTA POST,  26 Februari 2014

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                         

                                                                                                                       

After many years of Japan seeming to matter less and less to the rest of the world, the country is making a comeback. There is much media focus on Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s groundbreaking policies called “Abenomics”, the outlook for the yen and the prospects for Japan to make a decisive break with two decades of deflation and decline. While the jury is still out on how successful Abenomics will be, the initial signs are encouraging. Japan is making a spirited return and this will be positive for Indonesia. A more positive mind-set is beginning to take hold among corporate leaders and ordinary citizens since Abe took over as prime minister in December 2012. He has swiftly delivered on two parts of his “three arrow” strategy. Monetary policy has been boldly transformed, with the Bank of Japan aggressively pumping money into the economy and moving away from its past hesitancy to tackle deflation. He has also introduced several large fiscal stimulus packages, the second arrow of his strategy. Now Abe is beginning to push through structural reforms despite the political risks of doing so. This third arrow of his strategy has been criticized for being too timid but such a judgment is premature. A more reasonable interpretation is that Abe is introducing reforms steadily and at a pace that Japan’s conservative society can absorb. He has outlined a detailed plan for reforms and has already gone ahead with some of them. The most important has been in agriculture, where 40-year old subsidies for producing table rice according to state-determined quotas will be abolished by 2019. Few had expected Abe to tackle such a sensitive issue as rice farming. Several other reforms have also been brought up in recent months on other touchy issues such as immigration (where highly skilled foreigners can now apply for permanent residence more easily), education (changes in entrance examinations) and policies to aid working women. The Abe government has also encouraged firms to invest abroad, especially in Southeast Asia. Reforms may be slow and cautious but the cumulative impact will become powerful over time. Abenomics has delivered some important results. The yen has depreciated by about a quarter against the US dollar since late 2012, providing relief to Japanese exporters and boosting the profitability of Japanese companies. Exports grew 9.5 percent in January as a result. A critical improvement has been the turnaround in deflation — core consumer prices are now rising by more than 1 percent annualized after years of decline. Land values in more than two-thirds of major urban areas have started to rise as of the summer of 2013. The business sector is also much healthier — business failures fell 10.5 percent in 2013 to the lowest level in 22 years as credit conditions eased as the central bank’s aggressive monetary policies boosted bank lending. One area of concern has been the still-downbeat confidence levels of households. A recent survey showed that 73 percent of respondents felt that they were not benefiting from Abenomics. That is why the decisive turnaround in the labor market is so important. With the ratio of job offers to applicants above one since November 2013, the excess labor that caused wages to fall 8 percent from the 1998 peak is less of a drag. Indeed, large companies have been indicating that they are prepared to give wage increases this year — a vital step toward boosting consumer spending and the economy. If wages rise as we expect, the rise in the sales in April will not be as damaging to consumer spending as many fear. Another reason to expect the improvement in Japan’s recovery to be sustained is that Japanese companies are likely to step up their capital spending. Service sector companies (about two-thirds of companies in Japan), in particular, are reporting a shortage of capacity requiring stepped-up investment. Once investment accelerates, the boost to employment and the multiplier effects on spending will allow economic growth to accelerate. Japan’s return to economic vibrancy will offer tremendous benefits for Indonesia. Japan remains the third-largest economy in the world, accounting for about 8 percent of world output. It is the sixth-largest source of foreign investment and the fifth-largest importing country in the world. A turnaround will impact the world economy and Indonesia significantly. Indonesia stands to be a major winner. First, a more confident Japanese corporate sector is indeed stepping up investment abroad in countries such as Indonesia, which offers a large domestic market that is growing rapidly. Indonesia is doubly attractive because China is less and less attractive to Japanese companies as the latter’s costs rise and political tensions erupt every now and then. Second, stronger import demand from Japan will help Indonesia in two ways. Prices of commodities that Indonesia exports will be better supported if Japan recovers. The volume of demand for Indonesia’s commodity and manufactured exports will also rise. Third, as the Bank of Japan steps up its monetary easing, Japanese portfolio capital will flow out in ever larger magnitudes. This is important at a time when the US Federal Reserve has started to reduce its monetary expansion, causing portfolio capital to flow out of countries such as Indonesia. Japan’s policies could thus offer Indonesia important protection against the sort of financial market volatility and pressures on the rupiah Indonesia had to endure last year. Fourth, as an improving economy and easy monetary policies strengthen Japanese banks, they will be in a better position to help fund Indonesia’s massive infrastructure needs — in the way they did in the 1990s before Japan’s banking crisis and Indonesia’s financial crisis erupted. Yes, there remain many risks for Japan given its aging society, high public debt and the many obstacles to structural reforms. Still, it would be wrong to dismiss Abenomics as doomed to failure as some observers have done. The evidence of the past year shows that Abe and his allies are determined to press ahead with a revitalization of Japan. Perhaps some of the measures needed will be too slow to materialize because of political or other hindrances. But the strong political will that is evident will over time overcome these challenges and eventually turn Japan around. Such a turnaround in one of Indonesia’s most important economic partners can only be positive for Indonesia. ●

The industrial policy we need

The industrial policy we need Rachmat Gobel ;  Vice Chairman of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin), President Director of PT Gobel International JAKARTA POST, 13 Agustus 2013

Mainstream economists view industrial policy with disdain and it is indeed true that the record of such policies has been mixed. Still, it is possible to learn lessons from past mistakes and to implement an industrial policy tailored to Indonesia’s special circumstances, which can boost Indonesia’s economic development.

What went wrong and what worked well with previous attempts at industrial policy? 

Indonesia’s experience with industrial policy was not a great success. But this need not have been the case if previous policies had been structured wisely. 

First, in its previous incarnation, industrial policy gave government bureaucrats full authority to select industrial products; this encouraged corruption and cronyism. Established and wealthy business groups had the resources to win the favor of bureaucrats giving out licenses and issuing regulations. Consequently, industrial policy tended to entrench existing vested interests that were able to distort the economy to their benefit. Since the profits from such licenses and regulations were substantial, there was a great incentive for protected companies to reward the bureaucrats with substantial bribes as well. 

Second, past industrial policies failed to produce globally competitive and sustainable Indonesian companies which could be weaned off protectionism and subsidies. It is important to understand the reasons for this. 

Apart from the uncoordinated and often incoherent implementation of these policies, industrial policy relied on substantial protectionism. This meant that the Indonesian companies selected to become national champions did not have the spur of intense competition to push them to greater heights of proficiency in their respective markets. 

This was markedly different from Korea, for example, where high tariff and other protectionist barriers did protect the local champions from external competition but the government planners also ensured vigorous domestic competition by selecting not one but several local companies in each industrial sector. The result of this intense competition was companies that kept improving their production processes, technology, brand power and marketing skills. 

The government also pushed these companies to enter the international market to prove their worth. Eventually, as these Korean companies improved the quality and appeal of their products, they were able to survive the competition when the Korean government removed protectionist barriers. Today, they have become world-beating, globally competitive companies. 

Third, the selection of which industries to target was flawed. Instead of basing the decision on a clear-headed understanding of the areas in which Indonesia had clear competitive advantage, such decisions were often based on the whims of political leaders such as a fondness for high-technology areas where it would have been difficult for Indonesia to establish itself credibly.

Finally, the enabling environment for industrial policy to succeed was not established. One of the most critical aspects of the enabling environment was the development of human capital: the nation sorely lacked a critical mass of universities, polytechnics and vocational training institutes which churned out highly-skilled engineers, technicians, production supervisors, technical foremen and the like — all critical to successful manufacturing ventures. 

How should Indonesia move with industrial policy?

Fifteen years after the end of Indonesia’s financial crisis, the economy has stabilized and is enjoying reasonable but not exciting growth. As China’s rising costs and strengthening currency weaken its competitive edge in labor-intensive manufacturing, manufacturing that is relocating out of China. Indonesia has a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to capture this outflow as it can leverage off a large pool of relatively cheap labor, a growing consumer market as well as existing large clusters of industrial activity which are competitive. 

It is timely, therefore, to consider a new push on industrial policy to take Indonesia to a higher level of industrial competence so that its manufacturing sector can become a more powerful driver of economic growth and a creator of good jobs for Indonesians. What should Indonesia do?

First, it needs to work harder at building human capital. A group of tertiary educational institutions and vocational schools should be selected to be developed into world class institutions matching the best available in successful countries such as Japan and Germany. The apprenticeship scheme which Germany has benefited from so spectacularly should be brought into Indonesia so that a cadre of skilled and dedicated craftsmen can be developed over time. Indonesia can learn much from Japan’s approach of learning by doing. 

Second, it needs to remove impediments which undermine local companies’ competitiveness. These include excessively generous provisions in labor regulations as well as tariffs and other government interventions which inflate costs for selected industries. 

Third, technology transfer should be accelerated. Government funds should be set up to fund the acquisition of existing patents and technology by local companies. National research agencies modeled on Taiwan’s successful ones should be set up to undertake discoveries, create new products and develop new processes which can be transferred to Indonesian companies. 

Fourth, follow the market in deciding areas in which Indonesia should excel. Instead of picking winners and pouring resources into areas such as aircraft manufacturing which are inherently difficult for Indonesia, the policy makers should take the cue from what the private sector is doing. It is clear from the pattern of investment flows that private companies find Indonesia competitive in a range of areas such as motor cycles and fast-moving consumer goods. 

Thailand’s extraordinarily successful approach to developing its auto sector provides a good lesson. Thailand did not pick local companies as potential winners but focused on enticing global auto producers and their top notch sub-contractors to cluster in the eastern seaboard region to the southeast of Bangkok — using tax incentives, the lure of well-developed industrial estates and newly developed transport linkages. As a result, a huge auto cluster has developed which has allowed Thai companies to develop by supplying components and services. In fact, several Thai companies have become globally competitive suppliers of all kinds of components to the thriving auto sector. 

In short, Indonesia is in a good position now. All it has to do is to put in place a few key policies and it can ignite a new phase of industrial growth in the country. ●

Mediating Indonesian democracy : The critical role of the media

Mediating Indonesian democracy : The critical role of the media Rachmat Gobel  ;  Patron of the  Matsushita Gobel Foundation

JAKARTA POST, 25 Februari 2013

The media mediate. Herein lies their importance in any society. In a democracy, however, that role is critical. So it is with the Indonesian media. The media — whether print or broadcast or digital, mainstream or alternative — mediate between the people and the government, and among people themselves.  They bring to the government’s attention issues that are important to ordinary people without the intervention or control of the bureaucracy, which is a part of the state structure.  But the media also are agenda-setters for the public itself. They select and highlight the most important issues of the day and set the tone of public discussion by the way they analyze those issues. These functions are important in any political system. The problem is that, in an autocracy, the media either become a “responsible” one-way channel of communications between the government and the people, or they are deemed irresponsible and even subversive, and treated accordingly. Depending on the degree of autocracy, newspapers can be banned or inquisitive journalists killed. In a democracy, by contrast, the whole concept of responsibility is turned on its head: the freedom of the media becomes a part of the work that a “responsible” state does. In other words, the legitimacy and credibility of the government depend on the extent to which it enables the media to be free. This is an undeniable achievement of Indonesian democracy. Whereas the state-controlled and censored media of the Soeharto era were seen as being essential to the state’s stability, it is the free media that perform such function today.  Whereas problems such as corruption continue to afflict democratic Indonesia, its free media are a source of national pride both in Southeast Asia and beyond the region. What has been proved over the past decade is that free media do not sow dissension and chaos in society. True, there will always be newspapers or TV stations that will cater to narrow audiences and seek popularity by pandering to their baser instincts, or by sensationalizing issues to confirm their pet prejudices.  However, freedom means also that other sources of information, analysis and opinion will be available to counter sectarian or partisan propaganda and balance it. The truth may not emerge immediately amid the cacophony of contradictory voices, but it will prevail eventually. When this happens — that is, when the truth is established through the contest of ideas and not presented as a fait accompli through the coercion of power — public opinion moves toward a genuine consensus on the direction of society. In contributing to this outcome, the free media strengthen the democracy that gave birth to them. The media repay democracy’s gift. Democracy and the media are political fellow-travelers. Indonesian democracy is a combination of a presidential system derived from the West and a political culture that is intensely Indonesian. Within that system, the Indonesian media have taken with alacrity to their role as the Fourth Estate. In doing so, they are wedding the best traditions of Western liberalism, from whence such concepts are drawn, to indigenous Indonesian traditions of intellectual independence and critical thinking.  They are proving that there is no dichotomy between the highest Western and Eastern values, although the application of these values obviously will differ depending on circumstance and context.  In the case of Indonesia, the role of the free media touches particularly on religion, a key issue in the consolidation of democracy.  Although Indonesia is home to the largest Muslim population in the world, it is a Pancasila state that recognizes equality before the law for all its citizens irrespective of religion. This is one valuable principle that has been transmitted from the Soeharto years to the democratic era. Hence, in giving voice to the religious aspirations of Indonesians, which are entirely legitimate in themselves, the media must be careful not to amplify the voice of any religious community to the point where weaker voices are drowned out.  Indeed, in the interests of upholding religious pluralism, the media should be extremely careful to not give undue prominence to the most radical elements, particularly those wedded to violence, merely because they shout the loudest.  Cutting off the oxygen of publicity works wonders with those who seek to attract it through egregiously hateful speech or gratuitous acts of violence.  Wherever possible, the media should highlight the views of those who believe in reason and tolerance and are prepared to stand up for what they believe, sometimes at the cost of their personal security.  Media activism in this sense will be required as Indonesia moves into the next phase of its development. The consolidation of democracy, sustained growth rates that create a viable basis for economic evolution, and a vibrant civil society are converging to mould a country that will entrench its position as Southeast Asia’s lynchpin power. But it is the media that will complete this picture by fulfilling its mandate as a watchdog of both state and society.  This is also true of countries and regions such as the United States and Europe, where media freedom is an inextricable part of the political and civil liberties that define the character of the people. However, in order to play a watchdog’s role, the media will have to become more self-critical. Journalists who believe that their vocation is a mission as well will have to come together to create norms that will be respected across the profession.  A self-policing media mechanism is the best safeguard against both journalists who exploit media freedom to further corporate or sectional interests; and those in power who will look for excesses committed by rogue scribes to curb legitimate media freedom. When responsible — that is, fearless — journalism becomes the norm, any attempt by vested interests to corral freedom will be reduced to a fringe, rearguard action. That is the day when the free Indonesian media will come into their own. It is a day that all citizens should look forward to, because nowhere on earth is there an advanced society where the media are backward. Indonesia is no exception. ●

Reformasi Hukum di Indonesia

Reformasi Hukum di Indonesia Rachmat Gobel ; Pelaku Usaha

KOMPAS, 26 November 2012

Keberhasilan penerapan demokrasi di Indonesia sekarang ini telah menjadi bagian yang tidak terpisahkan dalam kehidupan berbangsa dan bernegara. Demokrasi dan stabilitas menjadi fondasi baru dalam pelaksanaan pembangunan ekonomi. Kendati begitu, masih terdapat suatu area di mana kita masih tertinggal, yaitu reformasi hukum. Hukum adalah kerangka kerja di mana kita menggunakan hak-hak kita sebagai manusia dan memenuhi tanggung jawab kita sebagai warga negara. Pemaparan saya di sini berdasarkan pengalaman panjang yang telah saya lalui, sebagai seorang pengusaha dan sebagai warga negara Indonesia. Saya merasakan, saat ini hukum di Indonesia kurang dapat mengikuti perkembangan perubahan yang terjadi di lingkungannya. Reformasi hukum memiliki konsekuensi politik dan sosial penting, selain sangat krusial bagi pelaksanaan pembangunan ekonomi. Seperti di negara lain, perekonomian Indonesia tidak bisa lepas dari pengaruh globalisasi. Itu berarti kita tak lagi bersaing hanya di antara kita sendiri, tetapi juga dengan bangsa lain di dunia. Untuk itu, hukum harus mampu memberikan keunggulan kompetitif untuk mendukung pelaksanaan pembangunan ekonomi. Akibat dari hukum yang terkesan asal-asalan dan tak disusun dengan baik serta perilaku tak pantas sejumlah pejabat pembuat kebijakan dan penegak hukum, Indonesia menjadi kurang menarik bagi investor asing dibandingkan negara-negara lain. Hal ini menjadi penghambat tumbuh kembangnya perusahaan baru dan membuat perekonomian kurang efisien. Dimensi Internasional Menurut laporan Ease of Doing Business Bank Dunia, ada keterkaitan kuat antara reformasi hukum dan pertumbuhan ekonomi jangka panjang. Pemerintahan dan sistem hukum yang kuat penting dalam menciptakan lingkungan yang ramah bagi kegiatan bisnis. Termasuk di sini terkait pelaksanaan kontrak, perlindungan bagi investor dan resolusi dari kegagalan usaha. Dalam laporan 2012, Bank Dunia mencatat bahwa pada 2010-2011, sekitar 46 persen dari langkah reformasi yang dilakukan negara-negara berpenghasilan rendah berfokus pada upaya memperkuat institusi hukum; meningkat dari 18 persen tahun sebelumnya. Kecenderungan serupa terjadi di kalangan negara berpenghasilan rendah-menengah dan tinggi-menengah. Setelah mengalami sedikit perbaikan pada 2011, kinerja Indonesia semakin tertinggal jauh. Dalam indeks keseluruhan, Indonesia menempati urutan ke-129 pada 2012, turun delapan posisi dari 2011. Penelitian menunjukkan, reformasi hukum sangat terkait dengan pencapaian hasil ekonomi, seperti peningkatan investasi dan perbaikan daya saing. Dari survei yang dilakukan American Chamber of Commerce di Singapura terhadap para investor terkemuka AS di negara-negara ASEAN pada 2012, transparansi dan kepastian hukum menjadi faktor terpenting yang sangat memengaruhi keputusan investasi. Sistem hukum Indonesia yang relatif lebih lemah memengaruhi tingkat daya saing dan daya tarik Indonesia sebagai tujuan investasi (Global Competitiveness Report 2011/2012). Jika tren ini terus berlanjut, kita akan kian tertinggal dari kompetitor di tingkat regional, dalam menarik investasi dan membangun perusahaan berkelas dunia. Pengalaman internasional menunjukkan reformasi hukum mendapatkan momentum pada saat terdapat dorongan awal kuat untuk mewujudkan target ekonomi yang jelas. Rencana ke depan Indonesia harus mencakup reformasi hukum jangka pendek dan jangka panjang. Dalam jangka pendek tiga tahun mendatang, Indonesia harus mampu meningkatkan efisiensi dan transparansi dari sistem hukum. Langkah yang harus dilakukan, pertama, meningkatkan tingkat kepercayaan publik terhadap sistem hukum dengan memperbaiki profesionalitas lembaga peradilan. Gaji para hakim perlu ditingkatkan secara signifikan untuk menarik orang-orang berbakat dan mempromosikan sistem hukum yang bersih. Opini hukum perlu dipublikasikan agar terdapat peningkatan pengawasan publik. Pengawasan publik akan menciptakan akuntabilitas yang lebih besar. Anggaran operasi yang jelas dan terpisah untuk sistem peradilan akan memperkuat kemandirian dari hukum. Kedua, memperbaiki platform teknologi informasi dalam sistem hukum, untuk kepentingan pengelolaan kasus yang lebih efisien. Negara perlu menyediakan lebih banyak akses informasi bagi pihak-pihak yang berperkara di sepanjang durasi kasus yang dimejahijaukan. Demikian juga publik harus diberi informasi seluas-luasnya melalui inisiatif-inisiatif seperti hukum on-line. Ada kebutuhan mendesak, untuk memastikan bahwa tidak ada penundaan yang tidak perlu atau ketidakefisienan di dalam sistem hukum. Ketiga, membentuk pengadilan komersial terpisah agar beban kasus dapat disebar antara kasus-kasus komersial dan nonkomersial. Ini juga akan membuat hakim mampu menjadi spesialis dan ahli dalam area-area hukum yang berbeda. Kualitas putusan dan layanan hukum dengan sendirinya akan meningkat. Reformasi Jangka Panjang Reformasi-reformasi jangka pendek seperti ini akan sangat menentukan panggung untuk reformasi yang berjangka lebih panjang dan lebih menyeluruh. Dalam jangka panjang, langkah meliputi, pertama, kajian menyeluruh untuk memastikan konsistensi dan kejelasan yang lebih besar di antara hukum-hukum dan peraturan. Ini akan mendukung terciptanya lingkungan yang ramah terhadap kegiatan usaha. Indonesia masih bergantung pada hukum-hukum produk era kolonial Belanda. Sesuai dengan hukum Belanda, pengadilan Indonesia tak menerapkan prinsip preseden saat mengambil keputusan hukum. Hal ini sering kali menyebabkan keputusan hukum menjadi subyektif dan terkesan tidak konsisten. Sebuah laporan Bank Dunia menyebutkan, 80 persen peraturan pemerintah yang disahkan sebelum 2007 tidak konsisten dengan hukum nasional. Misalnya, pemanfaatan sumber daya panas bumi di kawasan hutan. Ini berlawanan dengan hukum kehutanan, yang melarang kegiatan eksploitasi di dalam kawasan hutan.  Juga, Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 6 Tahun 2006 yang mengharuskan proyek-proyek infrastruktur yang sifatnya build-operate-transfer atau build-transfer-operate diikuti minimal lima peserta tender. Padahal, dalam peraturan proyek public-private partnership (kemitraan pemerintah-swasta) hanya disyaratkan tiga peserta. Kedua, memperkuat institusi hukum, termasuk di dalamnya Komisi Hukum Nasional, Komisi Yudisial, Komisi Ombudsman Nasional, dan Kementerian Hukum. Selain itu diperlukan pula penguatan sekolah dan pendidikan hukum, lembaga penegak hukum, dan petugas hukum dalam sistem pengadilan. Institusi lain, seperti Indonesian Center for Legal and Policy Studies, juga perlu diperkuat. Ketiga, mempersiapkan Indonesia sebagai ekonomi abad ke-21. Kita perlu mengembangkan undang-undang dan peraturan baru di bidang-bidang tertentu, seperti perubahan iklim, perlindungan terhadap hak atas kekayaan intelektual (HKI), aliran data digital, dan privasi. Hal ini akan membantu Indonesia bergerak dari ekonomi berbasis SDA menjadi ekonomi bernilai tambah tinggi.  Keberadaan UU dan peraturan yang mampu memberikan kepastian perlindungan HKI akan mendorong pengusaha Indonesia berinvestasi pada kegiatan inovasi. Rezim HKI yang tepat juga membantu mendorong komersialisasi dari inovasi-inovasi dan ekspornya. ●

Protect IPR, protect Indonesia

Protect IPR, protect Indonesia Rachmat Gobel ;  Vice Chairman of the Employers’ Association of Indonesia (Apindo) and President Commissioner of the PT Panasonic Gobel Indonesia

JAKARTA POST, 17 Oktober 2012

Indonesia’s democratic achievements since 1998 are now a part of world, and certainly of Asian, political history. Our economic advances are recognized by our membership of the G-20, a familial gathering of the world’s most influential nations. However, what has not kept pace with these developments is Indonesia’s legal infrastructure, which connects the dots between politics and economics and provides the foundation for change, underpinned by stability. Improving this legal infrastructure is a challenge that lies ahead. Indonesians and foreigners alike bemoan this gap in the country’s evolution in the post-New Order era. The Asia Foundation defines a healthy legal system as creating an environment which respects individual rights and enforces contractual obligations, makes property rights secure and transferable, and ensures that public decision-making is transparent and predictable. That kind of an environment is taken for granted in most developed countries and without it, a nation like Indonesia will be condemned forever in the international race for respectability and success. The image of a country affects its attractiveness as a destination for foreign capital. Respectable businesses cannot afford to run the risk of not knowing if their rights are protected against arbitrary bureaucratic changes to the rules. Businesses want certainty. Strong legal infrastructure makes the enforcement of rights concrete and predictable. This is particularly true of intellectual property rights (IPR). With concrete property rights, the man in the street acknowledges the moral and legal reality that he cannot take what belongs to others without their permission — because that would be theft. Amazingly, however, this logic simply vanishes when it comes to IPR. Pirated computer software and Hollywood and Bollywood DVDs are sold in Indonesian shopping malls in blatant disregard of the law, as if stolen intellectual property is not property, or not stolen. To the casual observer, Indonesia is home to a giant thieves’ market of intellectual pirates. That’s perhaps a slight exaggeration, but there is good reason why the United States has placed us on an ignominious black list of the 13 worst countries for violation of IPR and copyright. Things have got so bad that Andrea Hirata has declared that his next book will be in English. Rampant piracy is set to drive the best-selling Indonesian author from Bahasa Indonesia itself! This is the intellectual equivalent of driving a man from a village by taking away his home, but the public imagination is hardly as incensed by Hirata’s predicament as it would be by the story of a villager made homeless by an egregious violation of his property rights. Hirata’s case dramatizes the new edge to an old story. It is now the turn of Indonesians themselves to face the consequences of IPR violation. And they are suffering on a national scale. Because of lack of IPR protection, Indonesia has missed out on the booming global software business, with Bangalore in India positioning itself as Asia’s Sillicon Valley. Indonesia is not short of software expertise, but this industry cannot survive, let alone flourish, without the protection of the intellectual talent on which it is crucially based. Another example was highlighted in Vice President Boediono’s speech to mark International IPR Day in May. He noted the pathetically small number of new patents and trademarks registered each year compared to the size of the economy. Clearly, as Indonesia moves away from a resource-dependent economy to a knowledge-driven one, it will have to tackle the IPR violations that deter innovation and creativity. Unlike Hirata, who, for all his troubles, can escape into English, small business enterprises, particularly in traditional industries such as handicrafts, have nowhere to run. The pirating barbarians are out to kill them and a way of life that does so much to preserve Indonesian culture at home and abroad. As if this is not enough, indigenous Indonesian food such as tempe ends up being patented abroad! Admittedly, the government is trying to tackle our IPR problems. It has set up a task force to amend and upgrade laws to bring them into compliance with global standards. However, it will be many years before these amendments come into force. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the new laws will be enforced effectively. More heartening is the decision by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to establish a new Tourism and Creative Economy Ministry, led by Mari Elka Pangestu, who handled the creative economy in her earlier capacity as trade minister. She put small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in touch with the National Export Promotion Board to help them learn the benefits of IPR, and to help with the registration of their rights. One of Indonesia’s strengths is its handicrafts industry, which unites our far-flung archipelagic nation under a coalition of batik-makers, wood-carvers and other artisans. This industry is driven by SMEs more than large corporations. Stronger IPR protection will help SMEs to be more creative and innovative. This is the right way to go. However, so long as IPR violations are tolerated when it comes to foreigners — and not only in the computer software industry — it is unlikely that Indonesians as a people will appreciate the need to protect the work of their fellow-countrymen. And this mindset, to return to the point which we made at the start, is where the crux of the matter lies. Lawlessness is the bane of weak and struggling states. It is simply intolerable in strong and mature states. Similarly, it is one thing for poor countries to turn a blind eye to the piracy of exorbitantly-priced textbooks produced abroad, books without which their students cannot hope to get a foot in the international door. Piracy is still wrong, but its provenance is important. However, it is unconscionable for a rising economy to behave like a victimized one and treat IPR as an optional luxury. It is not. Rising Indonesians owe it to ourselves as much as to others to protect intellectual property, whether foreign or indigenous. This should be a part of our new international branding. Now is the time to start, and start in earnest. ●