Two Faces

Everything was well according to the plan: going to Pasar Santa again, having lunch in its wet section, buying used books (and Dusty Sneakers' new book!) in POST, then watching a students chamber orchestra concert. Everything was even better seen in retrospect: to be able to chat and to mock cheesy soap operas with the jocular wet market tenants, also to be able to snatch awesome classic books in cheap prices. The orchestra was good, too, albeit with some tiny, tiny disturbances. One contra bass player's chair was squeaky, the clash cymbals' sound was no longer crisp, and one cello had its strings slapped the fingerboard, producing "flappy" sounds. I'm not an expert in classical music or symphonic orchestra. Hell, I'm not an expert on anything. So they were not a big deal because the rest of the day was too delightful to fuss about small things.

What's not in the plan was this one event, the second anniversary of a reading community in Taman Menteng - a community I was just made aware of by Teddy. (And again, Nitha laughed at my cluelessness about it.) The other option after the orchestra was to watch Guardians of the Galaxy, but why watch something that you can watch later - either legally or illegally?

So off we went, after grabbing a dinner and feeling a little bit posh about ourselves.

The community literally named itself Komunitas Baca-baca di Taman (KBBT). Unlike its straightforward name, its history is rather murky for me. Teddy said that it was initiated by some ex-punk heads there. They ditched their old lives, collected some books, and invited gamins to read every Saturday night. The first three meetings were held in Bundaran HI. They switched place to Taman Menteng because it's quieter, it has more trees, and it's less polluted here, unlike the traffic-heavy Bundaran HI. The community then got bigger and attracted the non-members or everyone who happened to be there to sit and read with them. They make events with tongue-in-cheek acronyms: BiR (beer) that stands for Bincang Ringan (small talk), KuDeTa (coup d'etat) that stands for Kumpul dengan Teman (gathering with friends), and a discussion session called MiRas (liquor) that stands for Mikir Keras (thinking hard).

When Nitha and I arrived, the anniversary celebration had not started.

"Let's play swings!" she asked me. I obliged.

We walked to the northern part of Taman Menteng where the swings located. I laid my eyes to the pyramidal glass house. I've been told that KBBT usually takes place in front of it, so it's likely that their anniversary was there, too. But still, there were not so much activities in its vicinity. Amidst the couples on Saturday night dates, parents bringing their kids to play in the sandbox, cigarette-and-instant-drink-mix sellers on bikes, and some teenagers playing futsal, the glass house shone brightly, illuminated the park and its dwellers. From afar, where I sat on my swing set, it looked like the third world version of Louvre pyramid.

Taman Menteng was previously Menteng Stadium, a football stadium belonged to Persija Jakarta. In 2004, under Sutiyoso's administration, it was planned to be converted to be a park (the plan allegedly date back even further, during Surjadi Soedirdja's administration). It was very controversial. Some individuals in PSSI reacted with disdain. It even almost led to a conflict that almost disband Persija. 30 billion rupiah and almost 3 years later, it was finally open to public as a park.

Ten minutes passed. I said to Nitha, "I think they are getting started. Let's go there."

And there they were. There was this modest make-do stage in front of the glass house, on the side adjacent to Jl. H. O. S. Cokroaminoto. One man, wearing striped T-shirt and three-quarter jeans, played two-piece drum kit. The other man, a middle-aged man with glass, played guitar. He dressed in white Tshirt with batik scarf around his neck, singing some folks songs. A banner in black color is tied in trees. It said happy 2nd anniversary, signed "KBBT - Komazine". There were two other stand banners in white, beside those two guys playing music. One showed KBBT's motto: "Mau Pintar Kenapa Musti Bayar?" (why must you pay if you want to be smart?). The other: "Bawa Buku Buka dan Baca di Taman" (bring books, open and read them in the park); complete with a cartoon of bourgeoisie-looking giant boar in suits and top hat, reading book while stepping on the protesting humans to death. Red stars and the anarchists' Circle-As adorned both banners. KBBT is apparently a redemption, an educative facility for street people, a society of sharing, and a protest to despondent government all at once.

The books were laid on a mat on the terrace of glass house. We looked around. Most of the ones who came wore black T-shirts. The books were mostly Pramoedya Ananta Toer's. And surprisingly, the collection was very extensive. There were Mangir, Larasati, Arus Balik, Nyanyi Sunyi Seorang Bisu, Perempuan dalam Cengkeraman Militer, Arok Dedes, Calon Arang, and of course, Buru Tetralogy. Among Pramoedya's books, there were several editions of zine titled Komazine scattered.

We spoke to a man who introduced himself as Uu'. His face, his long hair, and his stature reminded me of Indonesian young philosopher, Martin Suryajaya. Not that I actually ever met Martin, but his resemblance was quite conspicuous. He manages both KBBT and Komazine. He is Komazine's all-around writer, layouter, editor, and illustrator.

Komazine is an alternative zine with strong left political leaning. The name was derived from "koma" (coma), which according to them is the most apt depiction to describe this nation: in limbo, coma, neither life nor dead. Its life force has been sucked by the corporates and the corrupt governments, leaving next to nothing to the common folks. Komazine is even older than KBBT. When KBBT was born in September 1st 2012, Komazine already issued its 11th edition. It has 16 issues to date. 

"How often is it usually published?"

"It's not regular. We publish it when we're able to publish. The next edition, for instance, will have to be pushed back to October due to some problems."

I held one in my hand. It dated July 2009.

Visually coarse and crudely illustrated, Komazine hosts works and writings from Uu' and his friends. There are writings about social protests, critics to government, propaganda against capitalism. There are also poems and caricatures. And what excited me somehow were the writings about Marx and Bakunin. With all the limitations these people in Komazine have, be it educations, budgets, and literature references, they succeeded in transforming themselves into political educators for other people. This autodidact, guerrilla education is very, very admirable.

I asked if I can buy this one. 

"Well, I didn't bring copies with me. If you want that one we can make you a copy. We have Twitter account. Mention us the issue you want and next week we'll bring it to you."

"Do you have the one that is for sale?"

I grabbed three issues. The young man besides me took one.

"So, how do you know Teddy?" I asked.

"Oh, he just came here one night. And we just 'clicked'"

"He was with Maesy?"

"Oh, the lady? Yeah. She couldn't stand near here, though. She had trouble breathing. Those dudes were smoking. I wasn't. I don't smoke."

"She has asthma."

Beside being used to finance its future edition, the sales of Komazine are used to fund the maintenance of KBBT's books.

"Are you not afraid if these Pramoedya books are borrowed but not returned?"

"No. We have a strict policy regarding this kind of books. It must be returned in the same day."

Nitha then asked, "What happens if it rains?"

"Oh, we're gonna save the books first. We'll wrap them, make sure they're not wet. Don't care if we are soaked by the rain."

The guys playing drum and guitar "stepped down". The birthday party was about to begin. To my surprise, one relatively new TV station also came to report. After asking Uu' for interview and for taping the event, the crew asked me and Nitha to be interviewed. Both of us declined. Nitha said to me that it's very typical for a TV station to find the photogenic ones. Apparently my blob-like appearance was camera-friendly.

"Okay, we're kinda late actually," says the MC, "most of us have gathered anyway. So let us begin!"

Like the books, the stage and its music equipments were collective good. Several people took the stage alternately. Some sang Iwan Fals songs. Some sang their own song bearing the same message of protest to government, support for the labors, and demand for social justice.

One reminded us about capitalism: "The capital is only owned by a few people!"

"Go back to Article 33!" sang one. Article 33 of Indonesian constitution is about social welfare: common endeavor based on kinship principle, ownership of sectors of production which are important for the country and affect the life of the people by the country, and utilization of Indonesian lands, waters, and natural resources contained therein for the greatest benefit of the people. The song conveyed the restlessness of the common folks seeing this nation's resources being exploited for the interests of corporates and foreign countries instead of its own people.

Mbak Tari, one of the performers that night yelled at the end of her song, "The women must fight!"

"The women must fight!" cheered the crowds back.

Socialism, feminism, anti-imperialism. What's not to like here?

One man, said to be the "director" of KBBT then gave his speech. He explained the manifesto of KBBT and its "Mau Pintar Kenapa Musti Bayar?" maxim. He said, our education has failed. He said, our education has been commodified and capitalized. He said that our government is apathetic about education, even more to the marginalized masses.

"Makan sekolahan gak bikin pinter!" (School doesn't make you smart!)

"Ya iya lah. Makan sekolah gimana bikin pinter? Makan apa lo? Bangkunya?" (Of course. How can eating school make you smart? What do you eat anyway? Its bench?) The man in batik scarf took the literal meaning of "makan" (eating) to heckle the "director." The crowds burst in cachinnations.

"Makan buku, lah!" (reading book, of course!)

"Buku apa? Buku nikah?" (what book? Marriage book?) said another. Another hearty laughter.

"Marriage has been commodified by the country!" said the batik scarf man.

"Marriage is a legalized adultery!" I said without thinking.

He conclude that KBBT is here to take back public space for public use. For better use.

"The public place is ours too!"

Next performers was Petruk. He recited one of Heri Latief's poems. After him, Uu' came to the stage and read Latief's poem from the very same book Petruk just read. I admire this community more. We live in a short-attention-span generation; the age where its youths fetishize gadgets and pop stars. This is the age where posting something on Facebook or Path is trendy, and poetry and philosophy are considered vain exercises. In the age where the refusal to learn is epidemic, who knows that our one of the beacons of classical education is in here, in this small park every Saturday night?

"The stage is all yours! If you want to perform anything, perform!"

The event continued. 

"Wiro! C'mon, Wiro!"

Then one group consisting of one girl and two guys. One of them - the one wearing AC/DC T-shirt - I presumed was Wiro. They took the stage and began singing Serenada from Steven and the Coconut Treez.

Nitha and I sat on the floor. We were offered some snacks, boiled cassava, boiled banana, and oranges.

"No, thanks. We've just eaten."

I took an orange. And in a very socialistic manner, Nitha offered her Cha Cha. Some people took and shared it.

The man in batik scarf sat down near us. He introduced himself as Cibal, a member of Komunitas Kretek, a cigarette appreciation community..

"So do you know Mas Puthut?"

"Of course! We had coffee last week."

"Do you know Iqbal? Iqbal Aji Daryono?" Nitha asked.

"Yes! Do you study in Jogja?"

"Naah, I'm not. She is. In UGM."

The MC shouted, "Next, came far away from Tegal, he's gonna read a poem!" His name was Deni or Dani, I can't remember.

I whispered to Nitha, "He came far away from Tegal just to be here? Wow."

"No, you fool. He's probably from Tegal and has stay long in Jakarta." She laughed at my naivete.

Then we traded stories about our mutual friends, about Klinik Kopi in Jogja, about Komunitas Kretek and its Ekspedisi Cengkeh project, about how attractive clover was in Age of Discovery, about Magellan and Columbus.

"KomTek is not a cigarette lobbyist group. We're not from industry side. We are an appreciation group. Every May 31st, on World No Tobacco Day, we make tweets with #TerimakasihTembakau hashtag, providing counter-narrative," Mas Cibal narrated.

He then added, "KomTek Jakarta usually gather in Tebet. Do come sometime."

"I will come some time."

He went and chatted with other people. At one moment he teased a man who brought his Caucasian friend, "I love national products, not imported ones!"

They all laughed boisterously, except the Caucasian. The joke was lost in translation perhaps.
 
The musics then shifted from reggae to slow rock to bluesy-folk interchangeably. Most of them were their own songs, and the message about struggle remained the same. Two faces of music I listened that day. One was the classic that - while aurally sophisticated - was devoid from any resistance elements. It was pure art. The other one was unyielding voice of the working class. It was pure moving force. And I enjoyed both.

I looked again at the stage, at this camaraderie, at the grass root socialism in action. They have been down the street, joining the rally for the labors in Mayday. They even walked to Russian ambassador, campaigning for Pussy Riot to be released. Then I wondered whether our intellectual left ever embraced them. I never studied Marxism extensively, and I know that our lighthouse of the left in Indoprogress are doing very great jobs, but it itches me that our revolutionary movement has two faces. What can this writing, for instance, support our comrades in Komazine? It's too complicated, too abstruse, too pretentious to relate even for me, and especially for them. Mr. Ali Sastro beats me to it in his critic here. I dream that one day both of them can have discussions together. I dream that they can solidify our educational movements together instead of patronizing, or worse, becoming a left hegemony (which is an oxymoron). 

For about 15 years, with not more than four people (Vasily Ignatov, Vera Zasulich, Leo Deutsch, and Pavel Axelrod), Georgi Plekhanov's early works were dedicated to write, to theorize, to polemicize, and to translate Marxist works into Russian. It was almost unheard, and it was not without critics, too. He was accused to divorce Marxism from its mass acts. But without his writings - as Ted Sprague from Militan once said - perhaps there would be no Trotsky, no Lenin, and no October 1917 Revolution. Building the intellectual and theoretical building blocks is of course necessary for a revolution in a country, especially if Marxism is still in infancy there. Without theories, a mass acts will be a bunch of reactionary agent provocateurs incapable of rhetoric, shaky in its ideology. And I am guilty of it, particularly in last presidential election. Frankly, in a hindsight, it distressed me to vote for a president whom I am actually sure that he will speak in a neoliberalese language, instead of obdurately staying in principle. But both Komazine and Indoprogress are both basically trying to educate the masses. Political education is difficult, but writing something perplexing and out-of-touch with proletarian life is not going to make it easier either. Maybe in this I am patronizing, too, but I believe that Komazine can use some supports from good folks from Indoprogress.

Uu' said the celebration would be all night long. Meanwhile, my friend chatted me to come over to Jalan Sabang and have some coffee. I asked Nitha if she's okay to have some coffee. She said yes.

Mas Cibal said, "There's this one good coffee in Cikini called Kopi Tahlil. Pekalongan style. It's made with nine spices. Nine! It's across Holland Bakery."

"Nice! Thanks for the suggestion. Will go sometimes." We excused ourselves to leave early.
 
I said to Nitha while we were walking to the parking lot, "I'm happy."

"I'm happy too," she replied while smiling, "I'm happy knowing that you have something exciting to do while I'm out of town for two weeks."

I will make sure bringing books next time.

Critique of Pure Inaction

Tidak ada institusi yang benar-benar utopis, tidak juga institusi di tempat saya kuliah (STAN) maupun di tempat saya bekerja (Kemenkeu). Jika Anda tidak benar-benar mengalami masuk di dalamnya, tentu Anda akan mengamini adagium klise nan menyedihkan semacam "anak STAN idaman mertua" dan sebagainya dan sebagainya. Beruntung, ada orang-orang di dalamnya yang berani mengungkapkan pandangan dissenting mengenai realita institusi ini, yang tidak melulu indah di kanan kirinya. Simak tulisan Elan Sanurihim Ayatuna, yang membuka mata tentang kuliah di STAN yang tidak "bertabur bunga" seperti yang orang kebanyakan kira. Asimetri posisi tawar seperti ini adalah harga yang mesti dibayar bagi mereka yang memutuskan untuk berkuliah di sini, bahkan sampai setelah lulus dan bekerja sebagai pegawai negeri. Tulisan Farchan Noor Rachman ini menyingkapkan susahnya mendapat kesempatan untuk melanjutkan pendidikan, sementara Gita Wiryawan berusaha mencelikkan mata Anda tentang realita penempatan yang harus siap dijalani ketika lulus nanti. Di lain sisi, sama seperti Mas Farchan, El-Bantani menulis tentang sebuah PMK yang membonsai otak-otak cemerlang yang terpaksa gigit jari karena tidak bisa lebih lanjut mengembangkan diri.

Cerita-cerita di atas bukanlah kejadian terisolasi. Sudah banyak cerita, keluh kesah, anekdot, dan tetek bengek lainnya, yang dituliskan di blog, status Facebook, Twitter, maupun yang tidak; baik dari jaman dulu maupun sekarang. Keluh kesah semacam ini tentu tidak bisa dikuantifikasi bak survei untuk menjatuhkan putusan secara empiris bahwa institusi kami adalah institusi yang tidak baik. Tidak. Akan tetapi, Anda bisa lihat, bahwa ada yang salah dalam beberapa hal di tempat ini.

Adalah ironis, di tengah gaung reformasi birokrasi, dan Nilai-nilai Kementerian Keuangan yang selalu didengungkan, masih terdapat ketidakpuasan dari para pemangku kepentingan internalnya. Adalah menyedihkan, jika ada satu-dua peraturan yang dikeluarkan tanpa pernah ada kejelasan mengapa peraturan itu perlu ada. Seorang filsuf besar, Immanuel Kant, pernah menulis tentang bagaimana pemerintah seharusnya membuat kebijakan dalam bukunya yang berjudul "Perpetual Peace": “All actions relating to the right of other men are unjust if their maxim is not consistent with publicity”, semua perbuatan yang terkait dengan hak orang lain adalah tidak adil, jika prinsipnya tidak sesuai dengan publisitas. Publisitas di sini maksudnya adalah transparansi, sebuah penjelasan yang dikomunikasikan kepada mereka yang diatur. Jika boleh mengambil satu contoh, saya sendiri sampai sekarang tidak pernah mengerti kenapa UPKP* dihapuskan. Alasan peraturan ini mengada tidak pernah jelas, sementara implikasinya begitu masif, yaitu meskipun kami yang lulusan D3 ini mengambil kuliah ekstensi S1, ijazah S1 tadi tidak diakui. Kita tidak naik pangkat dan tetap menjadi lulusan D3 di mata pemerintah.

Jika saya boleh mengambil satu contoh lagi, yaitu tentang rekrutmen pegawai. Pada tahun 2011 dan 2012, STAN memutuskan tidak membuka pendaftaran untuk program D3-nya. Yang saya dengar dari mulut ke mulut, alasannya adalah karena terjadi penggembungan di tengah pada formasi pegawai, yang terlalu banyak diisi oleh D3 dan S1. Namun entah mengapa, pengangkatan S1 dari luar STAN tetap berjalan, sementara anak D3 yang hendak mengambil S1 malah terganjal oleh peraturan yang meniadakan UPKP. Hal-hal semacam ini - meskipun bukanlah sebuah hal yang menyangkut rahasia jabatan atau rahasia negara - tentu tidak Anda ketahui jika Anda tidak benar-benar ingin tahu tentang seluk beluk institusi ini. 

Para penulis yang saya sebutkan tadi bukannya tanpa kecaman. Beberapa orang menuduh mereka tidak bersyukur sudah diberi kesempatan untuk sekolah gratis dan jaminan mendapatkan pekerjaan. Yang lain, dengan entengnya menyarankan agar mereka keluar saja dari institusi ini. Kepada ini saya ingin menjawabnya.

Yang pertama, bahwa sikap bersyukur adalah tidak mutually exclusive dengan menyuarakan kritik. Tentu kami semua bersyukur telah diberi kesempatan seperti ini, di saat banyak yang lain tidak lolos melewati ujian saringan masuknya. Akan tetapi, bersikap ignoran dan tak acuh terhadap keadaan yang belum sepenuhnya bagus adalah sebuah kebutaan yang disengaja, dan lagi, tidak konsisten dengan semangat reformasi birokrasi Kementerian Keuangan. Apakah kita akan berkata kepada Sri Mulyani, "Anda itu tidak bersyukur!" ketika beliau hendak memperbaiki institusi kita? Apakah Anda akan menyalahkan orang-orang yang berdemo terhadap pemerintah yang lalim dan melabeli mereka sebagai orang-orang yang tidak bersyukur? Apakah Anda akan mengutuk para whistleblower? Tidak bukan? Kita semua merindukan upaya perbaikan yang terus-menerus di segala bidang - sebuah kesempurnaan - jika boleh menukil poin kelima dari Nilai-nilai Kemenkeu.

Bahkan, dalam tinjauan agama sekalipun, kritik adalah suatu hal yang penting, dan tidak melulu merupakan perwujudan rasa tidak bersyukur. Yesus, misalnya, pernah mengungkapkan kritiknya** kepada pemuka Farisi yang lalim: "Celakalah kamu [...] di sebelah luar kamu tampaknya benar di mata orang, tetapi di sebelah dalam kamu penuh kemunafikan dan kedurjanaan." Nabi Muhammad sendiri, dalam sebuah hadits*** pernah bersabda: "Jihad yang paling utama adalah mengutarakan perkataan yang adil di depan penguasa atau pemimpin yang zhalim." Ungkapan syukur tidak seharusnya direduksi menjadi sebuah ungkapan kemalasan berpikir dan inaksi.

Yang kedua, bagi mereka yang menyarankan untuk keluar saja adalah tidak lebih dari sekedar patung hidup yang masokis. Saya yakin, pada suatu waktu tertentu, mereka tentu saja pernah dikecewakan oleh orang tua, atau negara, atau siapapun/apapun itu. Lantas, saya ingin menantang mereka, apakah mereka mau meninggalkan keluarganya, hanya karena pernah berselisih paham dengan keluarganya? Apakah mereka mau pergi ke luar negeri, di saat tidak ada sambal tersaji di rumah karena harga cabai dan bawang yang melambung tinggi? Pergi meninggalkan sesuatu yang mengecewakan tidak akan pernah membawa perbaikan apa-apa, alih-alih, malah semakin melanggengkan keburukan yang ada padanya. Sama saja kita mengusir orang-orang yang beritikad baik, yang mencoba memberitahu kita bahwa ada sesuatu yang salah yang mungkin tidak tertangkap mata. Solusi macam ini adalah tipikal orang-orang bebal, yang mengira dengan pindah ke bulan atau Mars di mana tidak ada yang bisa mengecewakan kita maka semua akan baik-baik saja. Tentu, ini merupakan sebuah reductio ad absurdum dan juga sebuah sesat logika straw man, tapi, alur berpikir yang dipakai tetap sama (hanya saja saya membawanya ke level yang lebih ekstrem).

Kritik-kritik kepada birokrasi akan terus ada, selama masih ada yang dapat diperbaiki dari padanya. Tidak seharusnya kita memberi disinsentif kepada mereka yang mau meluangkan waktu berpikir demi sebuah perbaikan. Adalah sebuah omong kosong besar, jika kita memuja gelar agent of change yang disematkan kepada kita saat kita masih menjadi mahasiswa baru, namun lantas mencemooh mereka yang masih menghidupi semangat tersebut bahkan ketika mereka sudah lulus dan bekerja. Jika memang polemik, kontroversi, dan gonjang-ganjing adalah sebuah keniscayaan yang mengantar kita pada revolusi, maka demi reformasi birokrasi di institusi tercinta kita ini, biarlah pikiran kita terus teragitasi.



------


Post Scriptum:


* Ujian Penyesuaian Kenaikan Pangkat

** Baca Matius 23: 27-28

*** Dari Abu Said Al Khudri. HR. Abu Daud, Kitab Al Malahim Bab Al Amru wan Nahyu, No. 4344. At Tirmidzi, Kitab al Fitan ‘an Rasulillah Bab Maa Jaa’a Afdhalul Jihad …, No. 2265. Katanya: hadits ini hasan gharib. Ibnu Majah, Kitab Al Fitan Bab Al Amru bil Ma’ruf wan nahyu ‘anil Munkar, No. 4011. Ahmad, No hadits. 10716. Dalam riwayat Ahmad tertulis "kalimatul haq" - perkataan yang benar. Syaikh Al Albani menshahihkannya dalam Misykah Al Mashabih, No. 3705

Selamat Hari Buruh

Saya tidak punya waktu banyak untuk menulis sesuatu yang komprehensif saat hari buruh kali ini. maka ijinkan saya menulisnya beberapa buah pikiran saja.

Pertama, apakah demo menuntut kenaikan upah selalu inheren dengan semakin sulitnya keadaan bagi pengusaha juga semakin suramnya iklim investasi? Simpelnya, mungkin saja, namun bagi pengusaha kelas kecil dan menengah, tentu saja. Konglomerat semacam Chairul Tandjung atau Harry Tanoe (yang bisa mengundang David Foster untuk ulang tahun anaknya) saya rasa tidak akan jatuh miskin karena kenaikan upah pekerjanya. (Bagaimana win-win solution untuk pengusaha kecil/kelas menengah? Pemenuhan kewajiban menaikkan upah buruh sedikit-sedikit secara bertahap, misalnya dengan pembuktian laporan keuangan untuk menunjukkan omsetnya).

Selanjutnya, mari kita bandingkan pula Foreign Direct Investment/investasi dari luar negeri yang kita terima dengan Malaysia, yang seringkali diagung-agungkan oleh beberapa dari kita yang punya permasalahan inferiority complex. FDI kita tahun 2012 adalah sebesar US$ 23 milyar, naik 23% dari tahun kemarin*). Sementara Malaysia hanya menerima FDI sebesar 34,8 milyar ringgit pada 2012, atau setara dengan US$ 11,38 milyar dengan kursi 31 Desember 2012. Pun lagi, rencana gabungan pengusaha Jepang Kaikeren untuk merelokasikan beberapa pabriknya di Indonesia, Apple yang berencana untuk berinvestasi sebesar 3 milyar dolar di Indonesia, juga Toyota yang mengucurkan dana 13 triliun rupiah untuk berinvestasi ke sini. Belum lagi British Petroleum, Foxconn, Honam, Unilever, dan lain-lain. Jika ada yang bilang bahwa kenaikan upah buruh hanya akan membuat perusahaan asing enggan berinvestasi, katakan saja mereka berbohong.

Dan kalaupun kita kalah "kompetitif" dari segi upah buruh dengan negara-negara yang tidak memperhatikan kesejahteraan dan hak-hak pekerja macam China atau Vietnam atau Kamboja, saya tidak mengerti kenapa negara harus memprioritaskan ke-"kompetitif"-an kita ini dibandingkan kesejahteraan rakyatnya.

Kedua, lalu bagaimana dengan meritokrasi (gampangnya, yang kerja keras/paling pintar yang berhak bertahan dan mendapat upah besar) yang menjadi kredo dari sistem pasar bebas jika kita menaikkan upah buruh? Pertama-tama, sistem meritokrasi tidak serta merta membawa efisiensi dan kemakmuran. Dari mulanya, tidak pernah ada equality of opportunity yang menjamin terciptanya sistem merit yang adil. Tidak semua orang mendapatkan akses ke pendidikan, penghidupan, dan kesehatan yang sama dengan kaum privileged seperti kita. Kesenjangan tercipta karena power imbalance antara kelas pekerja dan kaum elit sudah berlangsung begitu lama (mereka yang privileged mempertahankan hegemoni dengan cara mentransfer kekayaan atau kedudukan bagi keturunan/keluarga/teman mereka), sehingga cara untuk memutus dominasi ekonomi tersebut hanyalah dengan cara pajak, atau membiarkan buruh menuntut penghidupan yang layak. Kaum elit sudah menang berulang kali, dan kini saatnya mereka mendengarkan kaum pekerja (dan kenapa kenaikan upah buruh selalu diikuti dengan pemecatan, dan bukan penurunan gaji CEO dan manager?). Bagaimana kita bisa dengan santainya komplain terhadap kaum buruh, jika kondisi seperti jam kerja, upah lembur, jaminan sosial, serta pelarangan tenaga kerja anak-anak serta diskriminasi di tempat kerja kesemuanya adalah hasil revolusi mereka, dan kita hanya tinggal menikmati? Kedua, dengan naiknya upah buruh, ada consumer spending yang muncul dari mereka untuk menguatkan pasar domestik**), yang nantinya mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi. Ketiga, dengan naiknya kesejahteraan mereka, ada kemampuan dari mereka untuk berinvestasi kepada masa depan, misalnya, pada pendidikan. Dengan terjaminnya pendidikan bagi anak-anak mereka, akan berpengaruh secara agregat nasional kepada peningkatan human development index serta ketersediaan tenaga kerja yang lebih berpendidikan. Setidaknya, secara teori seperti itu.

Selamat hari buruh***)!

P.S.:

*) Saya tidak sempat mengikutsertakan tautan-tautan mengenai data dan fakta-fakta yang terkait dengan tulisan ini, karena saya sedang lembur hari ini.

**) Selain itu, sebagai cushion bagi inflasi, di mana ekses dari inflasi itu sendiri pada akhirnya mendisipasi ke pengusaha dan penjual barang dan jasa sebagai tambahan income bagi mereka juga, dan akhirnya menggerakkan ekonomi domestik secara keseluruhan.

***) Bukan bagi buruh yang menolak membayar iuran jaminan kesehatan sebesar Rp40.000,00. Demi tuhan, kalian ini seharusnya menjadi sosialis!

The Dark Knight Rises: Tentang Anarkisme dan John Blake

Review ini hanya sekedar ikut-ikutan saja, karena banyak orang di Twitter yang sudah mengulas tentang film terbaru besutan Christopher Nolan dan juga seri terakhir dari trilogi Batman miliknya, “The Dark Knight Rises” (demikian akan disebut TDKR). Saya tidak akan mengulas tentang bagaimana kerennya teknologi CGI yang digunakan untuk membuat gambaran Batpod dan “The Bat,” atau scoring orkestratik milik Hans Zimmer yang terdengar sangat grandiose, atau berapa skor yang layak untuk film ini. Yang itu saya serahkan pada peresensi film saja.

Jika Anda berumur lebih dari 17 tahun dan sedikit banyak paham tentang kondisi politik dan ekonomi di dunia, khususnya di Amerika Serikat (dan jika kehidupan Anda tidak melulu dipenuhi dengan obsesi kepada bintang K-Pop), tentu mahfum bahwa di balik film TDKR ini terdapat sentimen politik, meskipun Nolan tidak terang-terangan mengakuinya. Hal ini tidaklah mengejutkan, mengingat sebenarnya, jika kita bisa melihat jauh melampaui performance apik dari Joker-nya Heath Ledger di film sebelum TDKR, yaitu “The Dark Knight”, ada alegori tentang situasi politik yang dialami Amerika Serikat pascaperistiwa 9/11 yang bisa ditarik darinya. Misalnya, bagaimana Joker mengakali anak buahnya untuk menjalankan aksi yang sebenarnya merupakan misi bunuh diri (here goes the terrorism). Atau bagaimana pahlawan kita Bruce Wayne alias Batman menculik Lau, sang akuntan para mafia, di Hong Kong (here goes the extraordinary rendition). Atau, bagaimana Batman dan Lucius Fox menyadap sinyal telepon genggam orang-orang dan menggunakannya sebagai pelacak (here go the PATRIOT Act and wiretapping). Bahkan, ada yang membandingkan pertarungan Batman vs. Joker sebagai “perang” antara Dick Cheney dengan Osama bin Laden.

Sinopis (SPOILER ALERT!)

Kisah TDKR sebenarnya sederhana: Bruce Wayne (diperankan oleh Christian Bale) yang kecewa karena kematian kekasihnya Rachel Dawes serta terpaksa dikorbankan image-nya sebagai pahlawan agar Harvey Dent, sang jaksa-brilian-namun-berubah-menjadi-penjahat-bernama-Two-Face namanya tetap harum, mengasingkan diri selama delapan tahun. Dia tahu dirinya tidak dibutuhkan lagi oleh Gotham; sudah ada Harvey Dent Act yang menjaga para penjahat dibalik jeruji besi. Dan dengan demikianlah dia kehilangan semangat hidup, karena dia tidak tahu harus hidup demi apa atau siapa lagi. Sampai muncullah seorang teroris bernama Bane (Tom Hardy).

Tom Hardy sebagai Bane. Sebenarnya saya berharap Vin Diesel saja yang memerankannya.

Tidak seperti Joker yang terkesan chaotic dan hanya ingin melihat dunia terbakar, Bane memiliki sebuah cita-cita yang di luarnya tampak mulia: menghancurkan sistem dan mengembalikannya kepada rakyat. Dia memiskinkan Bruce Wayne, membebaskan para penjahat, mempersenjatai mereka, dan mencuri teknologi fisi milik Wayne Corporation dan mengubahnya menjadi bom neutron. Gotham jatuh, bahkan lebih hancur daripada sebelumnya ketika di tangan Joker. Anggota kepolisian Gotham terjebak dan tidak bisa berbuat apa-apa. Orang-orang kaya dirampok dan dibunuh. Sisanya diadili secara kejam di “Pengadilan Rakyat” yang hukumannya hanya ada dua: dibuang atau mati, yang keduanya sama-sama berujung pada kematian.

Batman tidak berdaya baik secara fisik maupun semangatnya, dan bahkan dikecewakan lebih lagi oleh pelayannya yang setia, Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine). Beruntung di antara penduduk Gotham masih ada orang-orang seperti Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman), Opsir John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), dan Komisaris Polisi James Gordon (Gary Oldman – masih brilian seperti biasanya) yang membantu. Juga ada Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway), Robin Hood-slash-femme fatale yang lincah seperti kucing, yang akhirnya datang sebagai juru selamat. Di akhir, siapa kawan dan siapa lawan akhirnya terungkap. Dan Batman harus menghadapi kekecewaan (sekali lagi) bahwa musuh yang selama ini dicarinya ternyata ada di bawah hidungnya, serta keadaan yang memaksa dia untuk mengorbankan hal terbesar yang dapat diberikan oleh seorang pahlawan, yakni hidupnya sendiri, bagi kota yang selama ini menganggapnya sebagai seorang penjahat.

Tentang Anarkisme?

Kali ini alegorinya cukup jelas. Dengan adegan nyanyian “The Star Spangled Banner” dan bendera Amerika Serikat yang compang-camping, orang bisa melihat konteks tentang kesenjangan sosial di Amerika Serikat dan gerakan “Occupy Wall Street” di film ini – selain juga mencatut Harvey Dent Act yang sangat mirip dengan PATRIOT Act  sambil lalu dan kemudian tidak dikembangkan lagi.  Digambarkan di TDKR bahwa kalangan pengusaha, bankir, pialang saham, dan orang-orang kaya lainnya sibuk berpesta dan menyibukkan diri dengan kegiatan filantropis dangkal berkedok acara penggalangan amal – atau dengan meminjam kalimat Selina Kyle - mereka “hidup berkecukupan dan menyisakan hanya sedikit saja bagi orang lain”. Di sisi lain, ada anak-anak panti asuhan yang tidak terurus, ada tukang semir sepatu yang terpaksa merendahkan dirinya di depan dua orang pialang saham demi satu atau dua dollar. Lalu datanglah Bane dengan semangat revolusi yang tampaknya pro-rakyat cilik. Dia “menyerahkan” Gotham kembali ke tangan rakyat. Rakyat yang selama ini tertekan oleh kemiskinan dan ketidakadilan memberontak kepada kaum elit, lalu runtuhlah tatanan sosial di Gotham. Apa yang coba diungkapkan Nolan dengan kontekstualisasi macam ini? Apakah dia mencoba mengingatkan kaum satu persen tentang konsekuensi menjadi kikir, a la sinetron Hidayah? Mungkin saja. Namun, apakah penggambaran seperti ini does some justice terhadap gerakan revolusi rakyat yang berlandaskan anarkisme dan sosialisme? Saya tidak setuju.

Ada yang bilang revolusi yang dilakukan Bane mirip dengan apa yang dicetuskan Mikhail Bakunin (bubarkan penjara, bunuh orang-orang kaya!). Saya rasa tidak. Revolusi yang dilakukan Bane dan Miranda Tate/Talia al-Ghul (diperankan oleh Marion Cotillard yang luar biasa cantik) tidak berlandaskan filosofi apa-apa, melainkan hanyalah sebuah intrik balas dendam dan sekedar father issue. Apakah rakyat yang miskin dan yang termarjinalkan lah yang sedang berrevolusi di kota Gotham? Bukan. Mereka adalah eks-napi yang banyak diantaranya adalah anggota mafia, geng, dan mob. Lagipula, anarkisme bukanlah konsep yang membenarkan orang merampok atau memperkosa satu sama lain hanya karena adanya semangat free sharing. Anarkisme tetap menghormati dan menganggap penting adanya consent atau persetujuan orang lain (meskipun dalam teori anarkisme, menghormati consent orang lain ini tidak di-enforce oleh negara). Sosialisme juga bukanlah tentang mengambil kalung mutiara milik orang kaya, tetapi tentang penggunaan means of production secara komunal. Dan lagi, anarkisme tidak melulu tentang kekerasan. Simak apa yang dicetuskan Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, dan Leo Tolstoy sebagai anarcho-pacifism. Apa yang dilakukan Nolan justru bisa jadi akan menambah sentimen anti-kiri gaya Republikan yang sekarang mulai kuat kembali di Amerika Serikat.

Sosok Alfred pun tidak kalah problematisnya. Dia menganggap bahwa yang dibutuhkan seorang Gotham bukanlah Bruce Wayne sebagai Batman, namun sebagai seorang filantropis. Filosofi “filantropi sebagai alternatif dari revolusi” macam inilah yang salah sasaran. Bruce Wayne sendirian tidak mungkin menghapuskan kesenjangan sosial dengan kedermawanannya. Impuls sosial yang melahirkan revolusi ada bukan karena cuma ada sebiji-dua biji dermawan di kota. Hal ini bukan berarti bahwa charity itu tidak layak untuk dilakukan. Bukan. Namun, ada struktur politik, struktur ekonomi, dan struktur sosial yang kesemuanya menciptakan kesenjangan dan ketidakadilan di masyarakat yang tidak akan hilang semata-mata karena ada aksi kedermawanan beberapa orang kaya. Revolusi anarkis/sosialis mencoba mengubah tatanan semacam itu, dan Bruce Wayne bisa saja menyalurkan Messiah complex yang dideritanya untuk mendukung revolusi tersebut. “Struktur adalah belenggu,” demikian kata John Blake, dan vigilante macam Batman dan John Blake yang mampu melewati struktur inilah yang seharusnya mampu membantu revolusi mengubah tatanan kota Gotham menjadi lebih baik.

Siapa Pahlawannya?

Nolan adalah penutur yang jenius. Dia bisa membuat film yang appealing ke pencinta film block buster maupun pecinta film non-mainstream; yang appealing ke anak-anak yang gemar Batman, maupun ke bapak-ibunya yang gemar politik (meskipun saya yakin sepanjang film mereka pasti pusing ditanyai oleh anak-anaknya). Ia mampu merekonstruksi habis-habisan tokoh-tokoh macam Joker, Bane, dan Selina Kyle, serta mengkontekstualisasi ulang cerita dari komik Batman (misalnya, menciptakan tokoh John Blake dan memakai kisah Bane yang lahir di penjara sebagai kisah hidup Talia al-Ghul). Nolan juga mampu menciptakan film superhero tanpa superhero, yang biasanya dipatok tanpa cela. Bagaimana tidak? Hampir semua tokoh di TDKR mengalami momen kepahlawanan dan kejatuhannya masing-masing. Batman, sang tokoh sentral, pada mulanya undur diri jadi pahlawan, meskipun dia tahu benar Gotham membusuk perlahan-lahan. Komisaris Gordon, terpaksa menyangkal dirinya setiap tahun pada peringatan Harvey Dent Day dan terlibat pada konspirasi untuk menjatuhkan Batman agar Harvey Dent Act bisa dijalankan; meskipun dia tahu benar Harvey Dent lah penjahat sesungguhnya dulu. Alfred Pennyworth, sang pelayan keluarga Wayne yang setia, pergi meninggalkan Bruce Wayne bahkan pada momen-momen terendah dalam hidupnya sebagai Batman. Selina Kyle meskipun jadi pahlawan, mulanya adalah pencuri spesialis orang-orang kaya dan juga pada satu waktu mengkhianati sang Batman. Bane, si penjahat, ternyata digambarkan dulu pernah menolong Miranda Tate/Talia al-Ghul kecil ketika waktu masih dipenjara di Pena Dura. Dan Miranda Tate/Talia al-Ghul, di balik misi mulianya untuk menolong Gotham menyediakan energi yang murah dan terbarukan, ternyata mastermind hancurnya Gotham selama ini.

Marion Cotillard sebagai Miranda Tate. Anggun sekali. How can you not love her?

Sesungguhnya, tokoh yang tidak melenceng dari pakem klasik seorang pahlawan adalah John Blake. Lihat saja integritasnya ketika polisi lain mencoba menangkap Batman demi ketenaran, dia satu-satunya yang percaya bahwa Batman-lah pahlawan Gotham yang sebenarnya. Dialah yang berani bertaruh nyawa demi menyelamatkan polisi Gotham lainnya yang terjebak. Dialah yang mengetahui (entah bagaimana caranya, tidak dijelaskan) tentang alter ego Bruce Wayne dan meyakinkan padanya bahwa Gotham masih memerlukan dia sebagai Batman. Dan ketika Batman telah lengser, Gotham masih bisa bernafas lega, karena dari Bat Cave akan muncul seorang pahlawan anyar: Robin John Blake.

Debunking the Activists on Gasoline Subsidy

On Gasoline Subsidy

The usual argument used by activists is that gasoline subsidies are basically for the poor. On the contrary, most of the benefits of fuel subsidies in Indonesia go to commercial users and wealthier households. In addition to the fiscal burden and risks of the fuel subsidy system, there is also a concern that the current fuel subsidies do not assist the poorer segments of the population who are most in need of such support. I've argued elsewhere that fuel subsidies bring more dead weight loss since wealthy households (who consequently consume more fuel) will be subsidized more. In fact, according to the February 2009 Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional (SUSENAS, National Household Socioeconomic Survey), 40% of the direct benefits to households from gasoline subsidies go to the richest ten percent of households, and less than 1 percent to the bottom 10%. A breakdown of the household component of gasoline consumption by socio-economic group indicates that the top half of households accounted for 84% of gasoline consumption, with the highest consumption decile alone accounting for almost 40%. In contrast, the bottom 50 percent of consumers accounted for just 16% of total household fuel consumption, with the poorest decile accounting for less than 1%. Figure below.

Source: World Bank's Indonesia Economic Quarterly, April 2012

In addition to that, a detailed examination of reported fuel consumption in the household survey indicates that around two-thirds of poor and near poor households do not consume any gasoline whatsoever, and the likelihood of consuming gasoline and the actual quantity consumed rises sharply at higher income levels. Figure below.

Source: World Bank's Indonesia Economic Quarterly, April 2012

To put it in terms of a household’s budget, fuel subsidies are estimated to transfer a car owner who consumes 50 liters of gasoline a week (200 liters a month) IDR 1,115,000 per month (based on the difference between the economic price of fuel and the price of subsidized fuel as of March 2012). This is in contrast with the average motorcycle user who consumes 5 liters a week (20 liters a month, according to SUSENAS, 2009) and only receives a transfer of IDR 111,000 per month from the fuel subsidy scheme. Over a year, this equates to these wealthier households which use a car receiving a transfer of IDR 13,382,000 – 10 times more than the average motorcycle user which receives IDR 1,338,240 and many times the indirect benefits from subsidized fuel that may be received from those households without a car or motorbike.

If we continue subsidizing fuel, assuming oil prices of USD 120 per barrel, the World Bank estimates that Indonesia’s budget deficit in 2012 could move up to 3.1 percent of GDP. If oil prices stay high and the fuel price adjustment is implemented in the third quarter of 2012 the World Bank projects a deficit of 2.5 percent of GDP, compared with a revised Budget deficit level of 2.2 percent (with an oil price assumption of USD 105 per barrel.) Note that the revised budget includes the option of a IDR 1,500 fuel price increase provided the ICP price is, on average, over a six month period, 15% above the revised budget assumption of USD 105 per barrel.

On Inflation

Let's compare the potential inflation in 2012 with the previous fuel price increases of 2005 and 2008. However, this exercise still has its limitations due the considerably different inflation contexts and macroeconomic backdrop. For instace, in 2005 the rising cost of market price for fuel was close to 3 times the subsidized pump price of IDR 1,800 per liter that Indonesian’s were paying, thus government increased the price by 150% within 5 months. This shock is starkly different to the 33 percent increase in fuel prices in 2008 and the potential 2012 increase. In 2008, unrelated to fuel price increases, food price inflation had reached 16 percent in April (the month before fuel prices increased) due to rice and cooking oil shortages. This meant headline inflation was already 7.4% before the fuel price increase and food inflation continuing to build. In contrast to this, in 2012 inflation was at a two year low of 3.6% in February (less than half the level of 2008) and food inflation was at an eight-year low of 2.9%. Not to mention, with the 2008 global economic downturn, most of the downward movement in economic indicators in 2008 occurred not in response to the fuel price increases in mid-2008, but to the global financial crisis in late 2008. In 2012, economic activity has been robust at 6.5% in each of the previous four quarters and, while there remain risks to the outlook from the ongoing fragility of international markets and weakening of external demand, it is expected that growth will remain above 6% for the year.

Taking the previous considerations in projecting 2012's inflation, here's the figure:

Source: World Bank's Indonesia Economic Quarterly, April 2012

It's still lower than those occured in previous price increase.

On Cash Transfer

It's also oftenly argued that cash transfer like BLT (Bantuan Langsung Tunai or direct cash assistance) or BLSM (Bantuan Langsung Sementara Masyarakat or temporary community direct assistance) is not good for poor people as it will create dependancy or so. But let's examine the data.

Current proposal form government was a cash transfer to be distributed to 18.5 million poor households (the poorest 30% of households) of IDR 150,000 per month for 9 months with a total budget of IDR 25.6 trillion. The second compensating program, to assist those indirectly affected by rises in transportation costs, due to the higher fuel price was an increased subsidy for public transport (public service obligation) economy class (passenger and goods) with an estimated cost of IDR 5 trillion for 9 months.

Using BLT as projection for BLSM (I won't cover the effectiveness for other social assistances like education/BSM, health/Jamkesmas, and the others, as it will be too broad, maybe next time,) here are the results:

1. BLT was delivered when it was most needed and allowed households to continue spending regularly. The transfer levels (of IDR 100,000 per household per month) added 10-15% of expenditures and lasted long enough (12 months in 2005/6 and 9 months in 2008/9) for households to adjust spending patterns to new relative prices, especially at times when at the time when fuel prices were increasing fastest. Household expenditure was protected for BLT households, especially in regions where local economies were weakest and not generating noticeable community-wide growth, while communities with more BLT recipients (whether economically strong or weak) saw increased consumption gains for non-BLT households. BLT households removed their children from labor at increased rates while overall health service utilization also increased more for BLT than non-BLT households. In 2008/9, when a BLT payment coincided with due dates for school enrollment and registration fees, households with BLT reported using it to pay these fees and keep their children in school.



2. BLT helped households find work and did not create dependency. In fact, households who received BLT were more likely (by a significant margin) to find new jobs than households without BLT. And there was no difference between non-BLT and BLT households in the rate at which they left or were dismissed from jobs. In other words, BLT was responsible for a net increase in employment. Here's the figure:

Source: World Bank's Indonesia Economic Quarterly, December 2010

Overall, the targeting of Indonesia’s social assistance programs, as measured by coverage of the poor, is pro-poor and in line with international benchmarks. Less than half of the poorest and most vulnerable 40% of households receive BLT and Jamkesmas.

However, there are some caveats. The larger programs – BLT, Raskin, Jamkesmas, BSM – spend too little on administration and support operations and weak socialization and resulting of the lack of accountability. All programs suffer from inadequate socialization guidelines, leading to reduced program transparency and legitimacy and heightened potential for corruption. Monitoring and evaluation, complaint resolution mechanisms, and budget execution are all underdeveloped. All programs have descriptions (in regulations and manuals) of program monitoring arrangements and some details regarding the content of monitoring procedures and reports. However, program monitoring and reporting is most often carried out by local-level implementers and delegated with very little financial support, technical support, or systems for quality control. Knowledge on eligibility rules, program objectives, and beneficiary rights and responsibilities is usually spread thinly among beneficiaries, eligible households, communities, and local-level program implementers. Therefore, bottom-up monitoring of the targeting and benefit distribution process is limited while intra-community jealousy and misunderstanding are often high. SA programs – with the exception of the pilot Kemensos (Kementerian Sosial, Ministry of Social Affairs) cash transfers – do not include an explicit facilitation or outreach process. This limits beneficiaries’ effective access and leads to increased capture by those already familiar with the services offered, especially for Jamkesmas and BSM.

Hope it helps to debunk some of those self-proclaimed "pro poor" activists' arguments.

Gasoline Subsidy? Think Again (Revisited)

Yep, it's kinda late to talk about this. But my gut is somehow tingled when I (still) heard about people on Twitter complaining about the proposal of limiting the consumption of subsidized gasoline per April 1st, 2012.

Most of the whining came from private car owners, asking for treatment as if they are poor people who need subsidy. As one of major causes of pollutions and traffic congestion, especially in Jakarta, my first thought will be, "Bitch please." They ARE NOT justified to receive the benefit from subsidy, taking into account their financial capability and negative externalities that they cause. They sound very similar like corruptors who steal poor people's money.

Arguably, in-kind subsidy (subsidy that attached to a commodity) like gasoline subsidy brings bigger dead-weight loss than direct transfer to poor people. Why? Since this subsidy doesn't discriminate the financial capability of the receiver, it gives the chance for those who actually aren't qualified for subsidy to receive the benefit, like those car owners. Even worse, since rich people consume more fuel, most of the subsidy is spent on these rich households instead of the poor. Banning these car owners to buy subsidized gas will reduce the gasoline consumption up to 14 millions kiloliters and save up to 28 trillions rupiahs in government budget that can be allocated elsewhere, like in education, health care, better public transportation service and infrastructures (to attract people to use it instead of using their own cars,) and poverty alleviation.

Then how to deal properly with the inflation that may ensue? First, we can slowly phase-out the subsidy, allowing society to have time to adjust with the price. Government must follow this with the launching of public relations campaign, broadcasting the explanations of the need for the oil price increases. Second, we can do targeted assistance for poor people as what we did in 2005. We were able back then to give direct cash benefits for approximately 15.5 millions of poor people (roughly 28% of the population.) This was not without problem, though, as there were mistargeting (the cash was randomly distributed to the poorest 40 percent rather than the initially targeted 28 percent,) and leakage (some people who were supposed to not receive subsidy received it.) That's why the preparatory work to identify beneficiaries and design effective and efficient ways to deliver assistance should be given top priority. Government then must empower her citizens to provide assistance and monitoring for this program. Thirdly, government must allocate this 28 trillion rupiahs of budget to provide better and cheaper public services for her citizens, so that even though the gasoline price is high, the cost for citizens to have decent education/health care can be reduced substantially. This requires the participation of both government and citizens (including NGOs and independent monitoring groups) to ensure the accountability and transparency from the budgeting process to its executions.

We were successful back then in 2005, now it's time to do it again, as oil price will keep on increasing in the future. We must realize that the reliance on gasoline subsidy is very unsustainable for both the societies and government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Addendum:

It has become government's decision not to prohibit car owners from buying subsidized gasoline, but also to increase its price altogether from IDR 4,500 per liter to 6,000 per liter. My responses for this is still the same as above, however, there are some things that must be dealt.

First is the accusation that oil pricing that is used by Ministry of Finance is downright wrong. Some of the rationales used are the comparison of oil production cost structure between Indonesia and other countries and that we actually book profit even with today's price. But we can see that currently Indonesia is a net importer country when it comes to oil (thus using world's oil price as a standard of pricing gasoline is not wrong,) and the second calculation didn't take into account recoverable cost and net contractor share.

But let's say that the calculations above are right, that we have surplus on oil, I can't imagine how people can be so egoistic.

Why? Firstly, even if it's surplus, with the current economical growth of Indonesia (thus oil consumption will keep on increasing) and the fact that oil is a very scarce commodity, isn't it better if we also save it for our future generations? Since government's appeal asking people to reduce oil consumption is not effective, price comes as a stronger negative incentive to shift her people's consumption patterns. With that, not only we save the oil for future, if consumption of oil in Java (as the biggest oil consumer in Indonesia) is reduced significantly, there are more oil to be distributed outside Java, in which in some anecdotal reports gasoline is difficult to get and its price can reach up to IDR 6,000-12,000 even when in Java it's just IDR 4,500. Secondly, I believe there will be incentive to look for other alternative souces of fuel. People in Indonesia are mostly oblivious and lulled by subsidized gasoline. They are unaware of the environmental impact (pollution) and scary economic consequences if we keep subsidizing oil: in the future, assuming we keep the price on IDR 4,500 per liter, the moment when unsubsidized gasoline actual price is so high that we can no longer subsidize it (for instance IDR 12,000 per liter,) the sudden blows of 167% of price increase will cripple the economy even worse than if we slowly phasing out the subsidy little by little, perhaps IDR 500 per year.*

Second, on the effect of increased oil price. It's correct that increased oil price will trigger inflation. But let's see the case in 2005. Even when gasoline price increased almost 100% at that time, inflation rate was just around 17,1% in 2005, and next year was down to a mere 6,60%. How could that happen? Because fuel is a variable cost thus will not severely cripple purchasing power.

Let's say Mr. A sells bakso using his motorcycle, expecting inflation, he increase the price of his product 500 rupiah per bowl. It means he has some added revenues to cover the costs of increased oil and/or other commodities prices, his purchasing power is not affected. But for some people, this adjusting period when price is still sticky will indeed decrease their purchasing power. For instance, when people are paid every month, thus their current wages can't keep up with the inflation, or when price shock occurs; there comes the direct cash aid. During these adjusting periods (goverment says it's for 9 months), we flow some cash to compensate their costs first. And after that, we can allocate the money for infrastructure, public transportations, job creations, and other social safety nets, so that even though there is price increase, cost for other basic needs like health care and education can be reduced.

Government can also manage inflation as long as she can keep the money supply steady**. And this is why I don't oppose government proposal. Oil price is increasing and so the cost of subsidizing it is increasing; I am sure that these activists will vehemently reject if we add more loan or increase tax. So from where must the money to cover the subsidy come from? I dare to challenge those who oppose this proposal to come up with solutions:

What will YOU do as government in facing this situation?

Post scriptum

*) My personal observation tells me that cigarettes price is steadily increasing, yet no one is protesting against such increases. Most Indonesian smokers is not that burdened to buy a pack of cigarettes costing IDR 12,000 PER DAY, which may cost that person IDR 3,6 to 4,4 milion per year. My personal observation also tells me that usually most people buy fuel at max IDR 50,000 per week, only IDR 2,6 million per year. It's still LESS than the money spent on cigarettes.

**) I am tempted to say that using monetarism approach, we must increase interest rate. This is bad, as loans will be more burdenful, and may cause double-blow for enterpreneurs. However, using Keynesian approach to increase tax may not be good either, as tax decreases disposable income (and when in times of inflation, person who are caught in fiscal drag may suffer even further.)

But, of Course, SOPA

Written in the name of internet freedom.

So what's the dig on SOPA? Well, if you don't know what it is, then read this first (quick, before SOPA kills Wikipedia!) Done? Great. Now what I'd like to say is that I don't support SOPA.

Firstly, I don't think that file sharing constitutes a copyright infringement. Simple analogy: if I buy a Sherlock Holmes 2 DVD then watch it with my family and friend, or buy a Harry Potter book then lend it to my neighbors, do I infringe the copyright? The answer is a simple no. File sharers never acknowledge that the music or movie that they share as their intellectual property. They also share it for free, which means that they never profiteer over the file.

Secondly, although I don't think that online piracy doesn't create any harms whatsoever, the claim that it causes $58 million dollar is simply bogus and misleading. How about the claim that it damages entertainment industries? Well, take a look at this:


(Courtesy of Techdirt.)

It turns out that the US entertainment industries are just fine. In fact, they thrive amidst the collapse of global economy. How about the claim that it causes 19 millions of jobs losses? Nope. As of 2010, the number of workers in US entertainment industries is nowhere near 19 millions, it is only 374,000. File sharing also will not hurt the US economy as a whole. You might remember the broken windows fallacy: the money that is not spent for buying original CD will be spent for buying other goods or services.

Aside from that, as you can ponder, SOPA will not affect that much regarding people's preferences. Even before SOPA, there are so many people who still choose to watch movies in cinemas and buy original CDs/DVDs or published books despite there are free mp3s, movie videos, and e-books on the internet. One of the reason maybe because there's a physical form of it that can serve as a collectible item. On the other hand, people who download from internet will not simply switch into buying original CDs/DVDs/published books due to SOPA. Maybe there is no access to buy its original form (for instance in China) or the cinemas simply suck for not playing some movies (like here in Indonesia.) The fact that Harry Potter books' sales could break the world record even though there were free e-book versions of them serves as an example.

Another reason the entertainment industries can survive is that because of they already are recapturing much of that revenue through “complementary” purchases. For a movie maker, they can sell licensed merchandises. For a musician, instead of selling recorded albums, they switch the trend into selling live concerts and ring back tones, which, as I observe, remain lucrative businesses. As what is analyzed by Oberholzer-Gee in his paper, recording industry numbers show large increases in concert revenues corresponding to the drop in recorded music sales.

File sharing gives benefit for indie artists to be heard. Arctic Monkeys and Secondhand Serenade owe their success to file sharing. On the other hand, established artists like Trent Reznor (Nine Inch Nails) on his album "Ghost I-IV" and Radiohead on their album "In Rainbows" were still able to book millions of dollars in profit despite letting people to buy their songs for whatever price they wanted to and many of them downloaded the albums for free.

After all, SOPA will not stop file sharing, anyway. You may recall how in 2005 US Supreme Court's "Grokster" decision that ruled that file sharing networks could be held liable for copyright infringement if they take "affirmative steps" to encourage infringement, went backlash as peer-to-peer (P2P) sharing flourished after the decision. Moreover, the punishment is horribly unjust. You can get 5 years in punishment for uploading a Michael Jackson's song. That is one year longer than the sentence for a doctor who apparently killed him.

Surprised?

On Religion, Part Two: Calling for Liberalism

On part one, I have told what bothers me about religions and subsequent intolerance that occurs in Indonesia. Now, on part two, I will tell about my personal opinion on how religious people should be.

Mix religion with power, and you get one hell of recipe of destruction and oppression. History records this very well that religions become corrupt in the course of time. We saw how Christians went with Spanish Inquisition or Islam with their bloody history of caliph feuds*. Today, we can see religious cacophonies elsewhere in this world: Iran, Yemen, Saudi Arabia (with law giving death penalty to apostates,) Indonesia, Pakistan, Vatican (the alleged pedophilia cases, rejections to condom, church inclusivity via Dominus Iesus, etc.,) Lord’s Resistance Army (theocratic Christian militant army with long list of human rights violations in Sudan, Congo, and Central Africa,) Al-Shabaab (Islamic militant army based in Somalia,) Al-Qaeda, right wing Hindu Bharatiya Janata Party in India (who keeps on oppressing Sikhs and Christians,) Laotian Buddhist government (who keeps on oppressing Christians,) and the lists go on**. What should we do to mitigate these? The answer is to contain religion within private sphere of individuals.

Reshaping Individual Realms of Religion

I am always perplexed with absolutism and fundamentalism, given the claim of religion is circularly self-justifying and there is nothing we can verify of such claim from outside of religion. Thus, with the contradictions of what God and heaven look like, and the way to achieve salvation among religions in this world, one can rationally conclude that there is non-zero probability that we pick the wrong religion. Rather than feeling humble in the presence of God, followers of each religion feel superior to others, thinking that they’re the chosen ones. Fanaticism is fed with theologies based on superstitions, erroneous ideas, unscientific concepts, false expectations, and unethical commands. With the vivacity of converting others into their groups – to the extent of offering various versions of heaven or even threatening with forces – religion has grown into divisive teaching. When one thinks that her religion is absolutely correct and the only way to salvation, using violence seems justifiable. When one thinks that her eternal life in paradise is at stake, anything done to achieve it seems justifiable. Instead of teaching tolerance, religion teaches intolerance. Instead of teaching peaceful co-existence, it teaches dominance, and even annihilation.

There are two kinds of religiosity: one in which someone tries to delve into sublime and intimate spiritual depth, and one that treats it as simple economic calculus of “what will I get if I believe in God and what will I get if I don’t.” This Pascal’s Wager-ish sort of discourse renders most people reluctant to dig deeper into their religious teaching, resulting in widespread reticence and ignorant uni-dimensional perspective of religion. As a rational being, of course we have to seek deeper, to question religion and its conception of morality, and to check the infallibility claim of the holy book. As an ex-apologetic, I’ve seen contradictions and discrepancies in two of the biggest holy books, Bible and Qur’an, and this is the view that I’d like to sound: that no religion is perfect.

Here is the thing, although in my view, religion is self-justifying, paradoxical, and contradictory, doesn’t necessarily mean that we as rational being cannot embrace it. As Kierkegaard also noted, to embrace religion is to do the “leap of faith.” But this “leap of faith” cannot be completely devoid of reason. This “leap of faith” must be justified because somehow the religion that we pick is in accordance with our moral sense and our idea of a good life, and therefore shaping our life experiences. As we are all beings in a dynamic society, changes in this moral sense and idea of good life are to be expected, hence, we must revise our belief system according to these days’ moral conception, although this doesn’t necessarily entail outright falsity of our belief system. Since the moral sense and idea of good life of everyone is different, one must also firmly adhere to the notion that one’s religion is justified to her and her only. To each is their religion, and we must not interfere nor judge them as wrong.

It is by opening our mind to other religions that harmony can exist. Interfaith discussion and peaceful coexistence may not be working if people still think that religion is a “sensitive” issue. It is funny that religious liberals who are interested to go against extremism and for peaceful religious coexistence are persecuted and deemed “infidels” by their fellow religious members. It is therefore very important for us to become spearheads for socially disseminating these non-violent religious views, via social media and conversations with family members or friends.

Re-contextualizing and Testing Religions for Morality

One common thing that has always been cited of religion by its proponents is on its status as inerrant and infallible Words of God and therefore the ultimate source of morality (objective moral value, if I may.) But then it’s a shame if such guidance of morality and peace also condone war (see war on Amalekites on Exodus 17 and war on Jericho on Joshua 6, and also Qur’an Sura Al-Anfal verse 60, At-Taubah verse 29.) Should these verses taken literally, you got recipe for religious discriminations and religion-motivated wars, as what I’ve mentioned in paragraph one. A rational being will always re-contextualize religious tenets with current situations***.

However, re-contextualizing religious tenets need moderation, and moderation generally means having some doubts to the claim of absolute validity and inerrancy of religious credence. One must be open to the questions such as: “What if my belief is wrong? Why are there some foundational questions it cannot answer?” This is why it’s important to sow doubt and to force ourselves into coping faith with reason - apologetic-style. The calling for religious war aforementioned, for instance, can be taken as “spiritual war”, between good and bad. Or you can simply contextualize it into the condition of Middle East during that era, with all the hostility, and thus war can be viewed as preemptive self-defense (which is, perhaps, no longer appropriate these days as now we have ICJ to settle international conflicts.) Or, you can also think that actually, calling for war is something that was reluctantly done by God to ensure the continuity of His people; that God basically regretted it (God CAN indeed regret something, viz. Noah flood.) Or you can simply regard that as proof that some of the religious tenets are no longer relevant these days and must be changed, whatever you may.

Christianity was also actually born by re-contextualization of Jewish teaching. If you read what Jesus said in Gospels, it is actually a critic toward a strict and literal application of Torah. Jesus reconstructed everything that in the end, the compassions and love for other human being is equally important to the love for God. Using this as a pretext, the condemnation of LGBT, for instance, can also be re-contextualized****.

So, the question left, if the Words of God are not absolute objective moral source*****, what is it, then? My simple explanation is that we don’t have such absolute objective moral source, yet we don’t necessarily be a fatalist and moral nihilist. We can simply construct morality using our logical and ethical capacity as humans. I always think that morality is related to the intentions and actions whose purpose is to maximize collective well-being of environment and other conscious creatures. Such conception of morality must stand on several tests. One, the test of rationality: what would I, as an average reasonable person, free from bias and mental defect, and have sufficient IQ and information, think of moral value? This is done to establish boundary for the possibility of radically different moral preferences. One that thinks genocide or rape as something delightful must be declared insane.

Second, the test of justice. Borrowing John Rawls’ concept, morality must allow the collective well-being to be maximized through mutual benefit, or, at least a Pareto optimum condition. Should discrepancies occur (for instance, dichotomy between religious majority and minority,) morality must prevail to give the greatest benefit for the most disadvantaged, for the ongoing of social cooperation. This is the duty of civility for every rational being to make a harmonious society.

The Conception of Liberalist Government

With different point of view of what is construed by each individual as religiously moral, one will ponder on how to ensure the stability and the obedience of citizen towards law in a liberal society. The most desirable method in achieving stability will happen if citizens have overlapping consensus, i.e. supporting the same basic law inasmuch for different reasons, e.g. a reasonable Christian doctrine, a reasonable Islamic doctrine, a reasonable atheistic doctrine are all affirming the law supporting freedom of religion using their own perspective. But this is somehow difficult to achieve as some worldviews are exclusionary and often have conflict with each other, that’s why we must go with secularism.

It’s unreasonable for citizens to impose what they see as whole truth to others. Citizen must be able to justify their political decisions using publicly available values and standards (using Rawls’ term: public reason.) Public reason encompasses all aspects of social cooperation. To name some: freedom of religions; equality of women, racial minority, religious minority, and LGBT; efficiency and equality of economy; preservation of environment and public health, etc. Nonpublic reason only incorporates certain values that are internal to certain organizations, viz. bishops have to commit celibacy, Hajj pilgrim must be done in Mecca and Medina, etc.

Public reason is not taken whenever citizen is doing some mundane activities (such as singing) or activities outside of public sphere (such as praying in place of worship.) Public reason must be taken into inquiry whenever fundamental public/political decision is about to be taken or whenever citizen is engaging in some political activities, viz. when she is sitting in House of Representative. Using this, law banning LGBT marriage will violate this public reason, as not all citizen can be reasonable expected to accept Bible or Qur’an as authoritative set of political values and common standard to evaluate public policy. The usage of public reason, especially concerning different religious precepts, will be made possible when the government embraces liberalism.

The conception of liberalist government is then as follows: after relegating religion strictly into the realm of nonpublic reason and coming up with moral judgements that withstand at least two tests I’ve mentioned above, we develop political theory from the generalities of these moral judgements. This political theory then eventually be revised over time according to dynamic of society and be compared to other theories in terms of reasonability, consistency, coherency, and feasibility in accordance to moral judgements that we’ve developed at the very first time (although our moral judgements can also be revised over time.) This government then must also come with severe legal punishment for the violators of the moral judgements and empowerment for the supporters of peace. As the policy of religion often depends on who is the religious leader in power******, government has to ensure that the grip religion have on the political fabric of society be checked and reduced if necessary. Government must also not endorse having no religions above having religions and vice-versa, or endorse having a certain religion above the others.

Religion as Intuitively Good Thing

Religion, morality, and science have one thing in common: that they are, at very best, based on intuitions and concepts that can’t be reduced nor justified. Mathematical axioms are intuitive (see also Godël incompleteness theorem) and sometimes it is very intuitive to help someone in calamity (what if the person I help turn out to be a criminal?) as human knowledge is limited and it’s impossible to attain perfect information of everything and to justify everything (see Gettier problem and problem of infinite regression.) Intuition can also be wrong. We often have intuitive “physic”, but much of our intuition of physic is wrong – with regards to how matters behave, quantum physics, relativity, etc. We often have intuitive “morality”, but much of it is also wrong – with regards to test of rationality and test of justice. But, just because something is intuitive doesn’t mean that it always wrong, otherwise we are afraid to do anything and believe in anything. Although I have left religion myself, I can still see why it’s intuitively good. In my opinion, religion, at its best, is beautiful. There is always compassion, understanding, love, peace, patience, and harmony inside the core every religion. Unfortunately, I see this beautiful core grows weaker every day.

Post Scriptum:

* For further reading, see book by Farag Foda titled “Al-Haqiqah al Ghaybah.”

** Theists often cite the massacre done by Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot to show that atheistic persons can also commit atrocity. First, CMIIW, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot didn’t kill in the name of atheism. Second, even if they did, this is not a contest of “who kills less therefore it is right.” This is a classic “lesser of two evil” logical fallacy, as genocide done either by atheists or theists are equally evil.

*** Also called hermeneutic or takwil, as the counterpart of exegesis or tafsir.

**** On the basis of condemning LGBT using Leviticus (particularly Leviticus 18:6 and 20:13,) I can make an objection that is how Leviticus is mostly irrelevant these days. Practices such as marriage is only valid when the woman is virgin; covering women’s head with veil; prohibition on eating pork, getting round haircuts and shaving beards, tattoo, working on Sabbath, wearing mixed garments, are abandoned by mainstream Christians these days. Why not on LGBT?

***** As an objection to divine command theory, how can we, humans that were made in God’s image (thus retaining God’s characteristic – I assume His conception of morality as well) can think that murder on the basis of differences is immoral, yet somehow God who created us think that it’s okay, even endorses it? I think that problem of evil is solved by Alvin Plantinga’s defense of free will, yet the question of how could an all-loving omnipotent God kills via disasters and famine and didn’t answer to Jews prayer during Holocaust, is still unanswered.

****** When the conservative Ratzinger became pope, many Catholics express their concerns as to his stance may reverse the progress of interfaith discussions that had been earlier forwarded and campaigned by Pope John Paul II. We can also observe various ludicrous laws passed by religious authority such as ayatollah in Iran or those in Arab Saudi. Should the leader be more moderate, we won’t find any of these idiosyncratic laws.