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.

On Religion, Part Four: Presumed Origin

The origin of religion, along with language, music, and art, as some of the products of human civilizations, are not so much understood. But, it is well-established that religion, even though it opposes evolution, in fact emerged from the evolution of human brain. This is why humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, like souls, and the possibility of life after death. To understand how religion developed, we can observe from individual sphere and social sphere.


Individual Origin


Supernatural concepts are heavily attached to humans' intuition. This intuitive and imaginative ability was first evolved circa 30.000-50.000 years ago, during the Upper Paleolithic, the final end of Stone Age. That time, arts (like petroglyphs, cave paintings), funerary*) artifacts, and more sophisticated and diverse rock tools begun to bloom. This intuition led to "agency detection," that is the tendency to "feel" or register the presence of agency even though there is only inconclusive evidence. "Agency detection" coupled with humans innate desire to find and seek meaning and other novel things led them into primordial supernatural concepts. When primitive humans, for instance, see lightning, which is outside their capability to explain (unlike now, we know how lightning can be formed.) and given its destructive power, loud sound of thunder, and majestic appearance of the lightning, it's easily to ascribe lightning as something that comes from God, or even that there is God of lightning.  If this intuitive capability is somehow diminished, then people will be less likely to believe in God or other supernatural concepts. There are at least three studies to support this:


1. The study that shows that people with autism are less likely to believe in God. It tells us that that religious belief relies on being able to intuitively conceptualize deities as intentional agents with mental states who anticipate and respond to human beliefs, desires and concerns, a capacity known as "mentalizing." Autistic people, lacking the ability to imagine what other people are thinking, are having difficulty in conceiving the notion of a concerned God, and therefore less likely to believe in it.

2. The study that shows that people with analytical thinking are less likely to believe in God. Humans use two separate cognitive systems for processing information: one that is fast, emotional and intuitive, and another that is slower and more analytical. The first system innately assigns purpose, mental state, and personality to objects, leading to supernatural beliefs; but activating analytical thinking can override this intuitive system, leading to disbelief in God.

3. The study that shows that children have a natural propensity to regard the world as intentionally and purposefully designed. They instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose. It turns out that this bias can extend into adulthood, leading children into religious persons.

Social Origin

How did individual belief then develop into such organized religion? The key is on the size of society. At least until 12.000 years ago, humans lived in relatively small groups which mostly consisted of family or had some sort of familial relationship. Cooperation among them was ensured by kin cooperation and reciprocal altruism. But as the size of the groups grew vast, the interactions with strangers were inevitable and occurred more often, thus humans needed an extra safeguard to ensure the cooperation among them - safeguard to punish the violators and free-riders. Thus religion comes to rescue. Since humans at that time hadn't been able to conceive legal system as what we have nowadays, with its laws, legislators, polices, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and courts, the idea that there is an omniscient, omnipresent, watchful God made people cooperate and ensuring the contracts. This study tells us that thinking about God makes believers feel as if their behavior is being monitored, and, subsequently, increases their public self-awareness and socially desirable responding.

There are also some studies that support the notion that people will better cooperate if they're under the impression of being watched. This study, for instance, shows that even subtle exposure to drawing resemble eyes encourage good behavior among strangers. Another study shows that children's belief in an invisible person inhibits cheating. Another, shows that believers in omniscient-omnipresent God are more generous than those who believe in deities who aren't as omniscient and as morally concerned. Even, according to this study, exposing people to words like "God," "spirit," and "divine" increases their generosity in economic dictator game.

The role of religion (or belief in God) to maintain social cohesion is perhaps the reason why atheists have the lowest approval ratings of any social group, including other religions. Intolerance of atheists stems from the intuition that people will behave better if they feel that a God is watching them. Thus, outward display of disbelief in a watchful God can be perceived as untrustworthy.

When the concept of omnipotent-omnipresent-omniscient, interventionist, watchful God became increasingly common, religion then intertwined to morality; making the notions of supernatural punishments and blessings, damnation and salvation, heaven and hell, karma, etc. also became more increasingly common. As the society gets even larger, ritual became even more essential, as displays of strict religious devotion such as fasting, taboos, animal sacrifice, martyrdom signify a sincere intention to cooperate. Some prominent figures then rose with the claim that they were chosen by God or ever directly talked to God**). If people believe in them, then they started establishing some rituals and particular definitions/characteristic/descriptions of God and enforced them to other people. If not, then they might be considered crazy. These particular rituals and God concepts were passed to next generation via oral tradition or written scriptures. The era of organized religions thus begun.

Towards Post-religionism?

As development of secular morality such as secular humanism, and also the development of legal system to protect people from violation of each others' rights and/or bind them into their obligations, religion becomes more estranged in human lives. In secular countries, like Scandinavian countries, the role of religion to ensure social cohesion has been replaced by secular concept, yet still somehow retains the happiness and cooperation among their citizens. Interestingly, atheism increases along with the quality of life. First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear pattern can be seen. Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%. The reason that religion loses ground in developed countries can be explained by how religion, with the concept that there is/are God(s) who care to human being and cater their needs, slowly losing its importance in human lives. With the better science, medicines, government safety nets, security, and legal protection, there is less fear and uncertainty in people's daily lives and hence less of a market for religion.


The development of science to replace religion as something that can satisfy human's desire to find meaning and purpose, pushes religion even further. Creationism and intelligent design are challenged by cosmology, physic, and evolutionary biology. The infallibility of Holy Book like Qur'an or Bible is challenged by historical study and textual criticism. The claims of miracle are challenged by chemistry, archaeology, anthropology, and medical science. One thing is left: that belief in God is a subjective experience (thus, there is no way to prove to disprove it.) However, recent developments in evolutionary biology and neuroscience***) have tried to decode the thought process that gives birth to the notions of God and religion. One day, when human mind is finally mapped and it turns out that religion is just a mundane brain phenomenon and there is nothing supernatural or holy about it, what is left from religion? We don't know. But are we ready?

Post Scriptum:

*) Even though burial rites first came 300.000 years ago during Middle Paleolithic, there are still debates whether their purpose has supernatural meaning or just simply honoring the dead.


**) It has been suggested that religious figures like Moses (on Exodus 3 and Exodus 19), Saint Paul (on Acts 9:1-19a, Acts 22:3-16, Acts 26:9-18, and perhaps 2 Corinthians 12:7), and Seventh-day Adventists Church founder Ellen White (who once had brain trauma when she was 9) all had temporal lobe epilepsy, which may cause hallucination. This hallucination could be mistakenly perceived as religious vision or divine encounter. Some even wilder theory suggests that Moses was under the influence of psychedelic plants when Ten Commandments were given.


***) - For instance, the "light tunnel" vision during near death experience/NDE (in which some people ascribed that with a journey to the afterlife) can be explained by hypoxia/cerebral anoxia (lack of oxygen to brain.) When a person enter clinical death, brain is deprived of oxygen supply and higher brain areas (frontal lobe, parietal lobe, occipital lobe, and temporal lobe) in the cortex quickly blank out. The more primitive lower brain area (medulla, pons, midbrain, thalamus, hypothalamus) remains active for several minutes, causes "neural noise," or an overload of information sent to the brain's visual cortex, creating an image of a bright light that gradually grows larger, which may be interpreted as going through a tunnel. NDE can also be explained by a sudden REM sleep state while brain is still awake, that is triggered by extreme stress or trauma. Since the higher brain (to process spatial sense, logic, and bodily perception) is malfunctioning during NDE, sensory inputs that come from lower brain (in which also regulate memory) are not processed, resulting in out-of-body experience (OBE), "traveling in extra dimensions," and encounter with angel, demon, God, or dead people. NDE also triggers brain to release endorphin as coping mechanism, which may cause the tranquil, calm, heavenly sensation. Sensory malfunctioning and euphoric sensation from the endorphin together can be simply mistakenly perceived as "afterlife." See also God helmet.


- OBE or astral projection itself can be explained by malfunctioning in temporal parietal junction, causing brain unable to distinguish what is real or not.


- Transcendental feeling when people are meditating is now linked with increased activity in frontal lobes (makes people having more attention and focus.) The thalamus also shuts down normal sensory input during meditation. The parietal lobes (which regulate our spatial and temporal perception) is also less active. Add to that increased flow of endorphin, giving the sensation of having a sense of timelessness, a suspension of self, a feeling of bliss and being "united with universe."


- Speaking with tongue (glossolalia) is associated with lower activity in frontal lobes - the thinking, willful part of the brain through which people control what they do, as were the language centers. This gives the impression for the speaker that God is taking control of her body, and manifested in some unknown speeches.


- Ghost sighting is liked with infrasonic sound. Because the brain is not used to registering frequency so low (since it's not what is usually heard in normal situation,) it cannot associate such frequency to any object/definition, causing spooky feeling. The low frequency can also cause eyeballs to vibrate slightly due to resonance, and it might alter the vision for split seconds, creating ghostly images.

Theodicy

Di luar sedang hujan, seperti malam-malam sebelumnya di bulan Desember. Perlahan, ia membuka pintu katedral itu. Matanya menyiratkan kebimbangan, antara gentar dan geram, dan dia tidak tahu harus memilih yang mana. Ia melangkahkan kakinya masuk ke bilik pengakuan, sambil memegang erat pistol di balik jasnya, yang baru beberapa saat yang lalu memuntahkan maut. Lalu ia duduk. Terpekur. Dan dengan datar ia berkata kepada Pendeta di balik bilik itu, “Bapa, aku telah berdosa. Baik dalam pikiran dan perbuatan. Dan aku membunuh lagi malam ini.”

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

 “Sudah lama sekali sejak aku terakhir datang ke gereja. Mungkin sudah tujuh tahun,” ia menggumam, “Ya. Sudah tujuh tahun.” Badan Pendeta bergetar. Tangannya dingin. Ia takut. Belum pernah sekalipun dalam sepanjang hidupnya, yang sudah ia serahkan kepada Tuhan, ia berbicara kepada seorang pembunuh. Dan dengan jarak yang hanya sepelemparan tangan, ia yakin bahwa hidupnya belum tentu aman. Meskipun dia punya Tuhan.

“Mengapa kau diam saja, Bapa?” Dan baru sesaat Pendeta berpikir untuk melarikan diri, dia mendengar suara dari balik bilik itu. “Kalau kau mencoba keluar, aku akan membunuhmu!” Kilatan dari badan pistol itu terpatri di matanya, dan untuk pertama kali, dia tidak pernah merasa sedekat ini dengan kematian.

“Apa maumu? Apakah kau ke sini untuk meminta pengampunanku? Engkau tentu tahu, bahwa membunuh adalah kejahatan yang paling keji di mata Tuhan. Kau tidak akan diampuni jika kau tidak benar-benar bertobat dari dosamu itu! Kau harus pergi ke polisi. Serahkan dirimu. Dan berdamailah dengan Tuhan!”

“Aku tidak ke sini untuk meminta pengampunan, Bapa. Aku ke sini untuk mengerti.”

“Apa yang ingin kau mengerti?”

“Tiga hari yang lalu, aku membunuh seseorang. Sebelum ia mati, ia meminta waktu padaku untuk berdoa. Dan aku mempersilahkannya.” Pendeta bergidik ngeri. Ia tidak sanggup membayangkan apa yang dialami orang itu. “Aku ingat benar, Bapa, dia mengucapkan ayat-ayat dari Kitab Mazmur. Kurasa Mazmur dua puluh tiga. Aku melihat damai memancar dari matanya. Damai yang belum pernah aku lihat sebelumnya.” Pembunuh itu menghela nafasnya. “Aku merasa, damai itu berasal dari iman. Katakan padaku, Bapa, bagaimana kau dapat beriman pada sesuatu yang tak dapat kau buktikan?”

“Kurasa… karena itulah ia disebut iman. Ia tidak perlu bukti.” Mata si Pembunuh memicing. Kelihatan benar ia tidak puas dengan jawaban Pendeta.

“Kau tahu, Bapa, bahwa iman yang kau ciptakan ini, hanyalah supaya kau merasa nyaman? Nyaman bahwa setelah kau mati jiwamu akan kekal. Nyaman bahwa hidupmu di dunia ini ada artinya. Bagaimana jika semuanya itu ilusi, Bapa? Bagaimana jika tidak ada neraka dan surga? Apakah kau masih beriman pada-Nya?”

“Aku tidak mengerti apa maumu bertanya seperti itu. Kau membunuh setidaknya dua orang! Sadarlah!”

“Oh, bahkan lebih dari itu, Bapa. Aku telah membunuh banyak orang. Dan akan bertambah lagi malam ini.”

“Tolong, berhentilah!” Si Pendeta mulai tidak sanggup lagi mendengarkan Pembunuh itu bercerita. Ada setetes air mata di sudut matanya.

“Nyawa manusia itu berharga di mata Tuhan. Kau tidak boleh sesuka hatimu menghilangkannya! Bertobatlah!’ kata Pendeta itu setengah memohon. “Yang benar saja, Bapa! Tuhan yang di surga membunuh lebih banyak orang daripada aku! Hitung saja! Sudah berapa nyawa yang mati karena nama-Nya?” Kata-kata si Pembunuh mencekik sanubari si Pendeta. Di dalam hati dia pun menyetujui. Bukankah memang sudah banyak darah tertumpah karena nama-Nya?

“Bapa, aku ingin mengerti, kenapa Tuhan yang Maha Kuasa dan Maha Tahu, mengijinkan manusia berbuat sekehendak hati mereka? Mengapa Dia tidak menghentikan kejahatan?”

“Tuhan memberikan manusia kehendak bebas, itu sebabnya.” Pendeta itu menjawab sekenanya. Dia pernah mendapatkan hal semacam ini di seminari sebelumnya. Hanya, ia tidak menyangka bahwa kelak dia harus diuji. Di tempat seperti ini. Dengan kondisi di mana dia setiap saat bisa mati.

“Hahaha… Enak sekali kau bicara seperti itu, Bapa.”

Pembunuh itu sesaat menatap pistol yang digenggamnya erat, kemudian melanjutkan, “Bukankah Tuhan ini Maha Kuasa, Bapa? Tidak bisakah Dia menciptakan dunia, di mana kejahatan hanya akan menyakiti orang yang melakukannya saja? Tidak perlu ada orang tak bersalah yang menderita. Tidak perlu ada orang tak berdosa yang kehilangan nyawa. Dunia di mana manusia tetap bisa belajar agar tidak melakukan kesalahan, dan bertobat ketika dia melakukan kesalahan. Dunia di mana kehendak bebas tetap ada, namun tidak perlu ada korban sia-sia.”

“Aku tidak mengerti kenapa kau malah mengajakku berfilosofi. Mari kita bicarakan saja, apa sebenarnya yang menyebabkanmu membunuh?” Si Pendeta sadar benar dia tidak bisa menjawab pertanyaan barusan, maka cepat-cepat dia mengalihkan pembicaraan.

“Ah. Aku pun sebenarnya tidak tahu, Bapa. Inilah aku. Inilah yang kulakukan. Seperti ini hidupku. Lagipula, tenang saja, Bapa, aku hanya membunuh mereka yang jahat dan pantas dibunuh.”

“Kau tidak berhak melakukannya!” sergah Pendeta, “Itu hak Tuhan!”

“Lucu sekali, Bapa. Aku pernah memohon pada Tuhan supaya seseorang ini mati dilaknat. Seseorang yang benar-benar jahat. Jahat di mata manusia, dan lebih-lebih di mata Tuhan. Dan dia tetap hidup, sampai kemudian aku turun tangan.”

“Aku tahu kenapa kau melakukannya. Kau ingin bertindak seperti Tuhan. Kau hanya ingin menunjukkan kekuatan. Hentikanlah semua itu!”

“Bapa, tidakkah kau kadang ingin agar seseorang mati?”

“Tidak… Tidak pernah sedikitpun…”

“Jangan bohong kau, Bapa! Atau kutembak kepalamu!” hardik Pembunuh sambil mengangkat pistol sejajar kepala Pendeta.

“Baiklah! Baiklah! Pernah ada seseorang yang sangat kubenci hingga aku ingin dia mati. Tapi… apa yang kulakukan tidak seperti yang kau lakukan. Pikiran bukanlah tindakan kejahatan!”

“Secara tidak langsung kau sudah berharap, Bapa. Dan harapan adalah doa. Kau berdoa supaya Tuhan mengambil sebuah nyawa.”

“Doa yang jahat tidak akan dikabulkan! Lagipula aku pun sudah memaafkan dia. Begitupun juga engkau. Siapapun yang membuatmu menjadi seperti ini, ampunilah dia! Jadilah orang baik dan lanjutkanlah hidupmu!”

Pembunuh menurunkan pistolnya, dan terkekeh.

“Maksudku… lihatlah, Bapa. Bukankah ada kegelapan di setiap hati kita? Kegelapan yang sama yang membuatku membunuh dan membuatmu berharap Tuhan yang membunuh? Apa bedanya…”

“Bedanya adalah aku tidak membunuhnya! Dan meskipun kegelapan ada di setiap hati kita, di situ juga terletak cahaya. Aku yakin di hatimu pun juga ada! Ampunilah mereka yang menyakitimu… Ampunilah…”

Pendeta itu menangis sambil memegang rosari. Tangisan yang sama yang dilakukan Yesus dulu di Taman Getsemani. Antara keraguan dan keyakinan. Antara ketakutan dan belas kasihan. Antara pasrah dan melawan.

“Menurutmu, apakah orang seperti itu layak dibiarkan hidup?”

“Pembalasan adalah hak-Nya… Nanti dia akan dihukum Tuhan di neraka. Sudah, biarkanlah….”

Si Pembunuh menundukkan wajahnya, ada keresahan di desah nafasnya.

“Kalau seperti itu, mengapa ada polisi dan pengadilan, Bapa?” Suaranya terdengar lebih perlahan. Lebih tenang dari sebelumnya. “Kalau semua kejahatan ini ada karena suatu tujuan yang hanya dimengerti oleh Tuhan. Kalau semua ini nantinya akan dibalaskan… Mengapa kita perlu mencegah kejahatan? Sekarang… di dunia ini?”

Si Pendeta tercekat. Baginya, tidak ada serangan iman yang lebih menusuk daripada ini. Bahkan dibandingkan godaan untuk mengambil uang persembahan di laci. Bahkan dibandingkan jemaat yang sering melayangkan senyum penuh arti.

“Sepertinya apapun yang kukatakan tidak akan mempan bagimu. Menurutmu itu semua adalah keadilan. Tapi… Tapi yang kulihat darimu… adalah seseorang yang kecanduan akan kekuatan. Pistol itu memberimu kuasa. Kuasa untuk menentukan hidupmu dan hidup orang lain. Kau tidak akan berhenti, karena tanpanya hidupmu tak berarti!”

“Jangan naïf, Bapa! Aku juga melihat hal yang sama di matamu. Mata yang kosong, bahkan ketika kau berbicara tentang Tuhan. Ada apa denganmu, Bapa? Ada apa dengan imanmu? Apakah kau sudah tidak percaya lagi? Apakah kependetaanmu ini semata-mata menunjukkan bahwa kau juga orang kuat? Bahwa kau tidak hanya sekedar orang tua, yang sebenarnya tanpa atribut keimananmu, salib, Alkitab, dan semua ini, tidak akan ada orang yang peduli?”

Seketika itu hancurlah hati Pendeta. Dia gagal membela dirinya. Dia gagal membela Tuhannya. Tak tahan lagi, dia mulai mengutuki dirinya sendiri. Bertahun-tahun menjadi pendeta, dia menyerah kalah. Kalah pada perkataan seorang pembunuh. Siapakah orang ini gerangan? Apakah dia setan? Atau jangan-jangan dia malaikat kematian?

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

Sudah lima menit berlalu dari kata terakhir yang terucapkan. Di dalam bilik si Pembunuh terdengar sebuah isakan.

“Bapa, sebenarnya alasanku kemari adalah untuk membunuhmu.”

“Apa sebenarnya yang kuperbuat padamu? Aku bahkan tidak mengenalmu!” katanya setengah berteriak.

“Bapa, ingatkah engkau pada putra altar yang kau lecehkan tujuh tahun lalu? Itu aku. Apakah perlu kuceritakan kembali, apa saja yang sudah kau lakukan padaku?”

Pembunuh membuka sekat antar bilik, dan menempelkan pistolnya ke dahi Pendeta.

“Aku mohon, ampunilah aku! Aku sudah berubah… Aku sudah bertobat…”

“Tutup mulutmu, Bapa! Dan mulailah berdoa!”

“Tolong jangan bunuh aku! Apa yang dapat kulakukan untuk memperbaiki kesalahanku padamu. Katakan saja!”

“Bukankah aku sedang berbuat baik kepadamu? Membuatmu lebih cepat bertemu Tuhan yang kau puja-puja itu? Kalau kau yakin akan mendapatkan surga, Bapa, seharusnya kau tidak perlu takut pada kematian.”

Air matanya mengalir deras ke pipi. Mulutnya terkunci. Satu-satunya yang ia harapkan sekarang adalah bahwa semuanya ini hanyalah mimpi. Ia mulai melihat seluruh kehidupannya berputar di matanya bagai sebuah film. Tidak pernah menyangka, bahwa film ini nantinya akan berujung tragedi.

“Mulailah mohon ampun, Bapa. Apakah menurutmu Tuhan akan mengampuni apa yang kau perbuat kepadaku?”

“Kurasa.. iya… Ampunilah hamba-Mu ini ya Tuhan!”

“Bagus! Karena aku tidak akan pernah mengampunimu!”

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

Sekali berbunyi, setelah itu sepi. Tubuh rentanya jatuh ke bumi, dengan darah yang mengucur deras dari lubang di dahi. Di tangannya, masih tergenggam sebuah rosari.

Di luar, hujan sudah berhenti.

* Theodicy, berasal dari kata dalam bahasa Yunani, theos, yang berarti Tuhan, dan dike, yang berarti keadilan, atau pembenaran.

Bête Noire

Tadi malam kau menemuiku lagi di dalam mimpi. Masih dengan gelagat yang sama. Masih dengan senyuman yang sama. Senyuman yang selalu membuatku muak sekaligus menginginkanmu di saat yang bersamaan. Bukankah aku sudah pernah berkata kepadamu untuk pergi jauh-jauh dariku?

Aku masih ingat malam ketika pertama kali kita bertemu di sudut kafe itu. Kau memesan segelas mocha. Sedangkan aku hanya memesan kopi hitam biasa. Kemudian, entah siapa yang memulai percakapan, tiba-tiba kita sudah berbicara terlalu jauh. Tentang kamu. Tentang aku. Tentang mimpimu yang imajinatif. Tentang mimpiku yang bahkan lebih naif. Aku harusnya sadar, momen ketika aku menatap matamu, maka semuanya tak lagi sama. Dan aku seharusnya tidak usah pergi ke kafe itu untuk berjumpa.

Gelas kopiku sudah mulai dingin. Yang tersisa hanya ampas dan aromanya yang terbawa angin. Namun aku tak mau beranjak, seakan tersihir oleh celotehanmu yang sesungguhnya banal itu. “Lho, kok diem?” ujarmu. Aku termangu, kelu. “Eh… Nggak kok. Aku cuma bingung mau ngomong apa lagi.” Mendadak kemampuan berbahasaku seperti anak umur lima tahun. Kata-kata yang kurangkai dalam kepalaku tiba-tiba hilang, lepas. Segala tingkah lakuku menjadi tidak pas. Yang kemudian disambung oleh kesunyian. Sebuah kesunyian yang nyaman. Setidaknya begitulah bagiku. Karena dalam diam aku menikmatimu. Sama seperti aku menikmati malam ini. Yang lantas kusesali.

Sejak pertemuan pertama itu, pikiranku dihinggapi rasa yang tak dapat kumengerti. Duniaku terbalik. Kau nyata. Ada. Tapi di hidupku – setidaknya sampai saat ini – kau hanya menjadi fantasiku. Sebuah imaji yang semu. Namun, kau pergi dari kafe itu dengan memberikan hasrat pada otakku. Semacam ekstase yang berkesinambungan dan tak ada habisnya. Untuk mengamatimu. Untuk menganalisa kehidupanmu. Ini mungkin sebuah penyakit, obsesi, gejala psikotik, aku tak tahu. Tapi, entah kenapa, aku nyaman dengan ini. Dan, kalaupun itu semua benar, aku pun juga tak mau menjadi sembuh.

Aku sadar benar bahwa mungkin aku tak dapat dan tak akan dapat memilikimu. Kamu dan hidup ini bukanlah kopi yang bisa seenaknya dipesan sesuai keinginan dan lantas ditinggalkan. Dan akhirnya ketakutanku menjadi kenyataan, di kali kedua kita bertemu. “Aku sudah tunangan,” katamu. “Oh!” Aku terhenyak, bebarengan dengan api dari rokok kretek murahan yang menyengat jariku. Di dalam dadaku membuncah berbagai sumpah serapah. Saat itu pula aku memakai topeng yang terbaik yang aku punya sambil mengucapkan selamat. Beserta doa semoga langgeng dunia akhirat. Sesungguhnya, aku tidak rela. Siapa yang bisa? Yang benar saja! Tapi aku bisa berbuat apa? Karena aku yakin, sama seperti kau yang hanya menjadi bayangan di hidupku, aku pun juga tak lebih dari sekedar bayangan di hidupmu. Hanya, tidak sepertimu, rasanya aku lebih tidak rasional. Kau menjelma menjadi seseorang yang benar-benar aku mau. Seseorang yang benar-benar aku inginkan. Seperti puteri dalam dongeng atau roman picisan. Dan, bodohnya, aku berharap terlalu banyak. Jiwaku retak. Dan akhirnya aku menyerah. Kalah.

Sejak itulah kau muncul dalam mimpi. Berkelebatan di malam-malam yang berbeda. Namun, ceritanya selalu sama. Menyedihkan, bukan? Kadang-kadang, aku berharap bahwa yang muncul di mimpiku ini setan saja. Kuakui, lama-lama, bermimpi pun menjadi hal yang menjemukan buatku. Apalagi jika bahkan dalam mimpiku pun aku tetap tak dapat memilikimu. Kau selalu diam, dengan pose yang sama dan pandangan mata yang sama. Bicaralah sekali-kali! Seperti patung saja kau ini!

Aku tidak menyalahkanmu. Tidak. Kau tidak berdosa. Kesalahanmu hanya satu, yaitu membuatku tergila-gila padamu. Kegilaan yang membuatku selalu berpikir bahwa ada yang kurang dari hidupku. Kegilaan yang menguras semua energiku untuk kembali ke tempat dan waktu di mana aku tidak pernah mengenalmu. Atau setidaknya, di mana dirimu hanyalah seorang asing yang tetap menjadi seorang asing – atau paling banter hanya menjadi seorang teman. Aku terlanjur jatuh terlalu jauh. Jatuh dan terus jatuh, sampai aku tak yakin lagi apakah ada dasar di bawah sana. Kamu itu sebuah kutukan bagiku. Sebuah kutukan yang akan lenyap, hanya kalau diriku juga lenyap. Sekarang aku telah kehilangan jejak atas semuanya. Jejak dari kehidupanku sebelumnya di mana dirimu bukanlah tuhannya. Yang sekarang sudah remuk, hancur dalam beribu fragmen.

Dan kini, seperti malam-malam sebelumnya, kau menemuiku lagi di dalam mimpi. Tapi kali ini kau berbeda. Kau memelukku. Erat. Lekat. Tubuhmu hangat. Sesaat aku berpikir, mungkin inilah surga. Sederhana saja. Tidak perlu ada hingar-bingar malaikat melantunkan puji-puja. Yang ada hanya cinta. Cinta dua orang insan yang tidak pernah terwujud di alam nyata. Lalu kau membisikkan sesuatu di telingaku. Sesuatu yang tidak akan pernah kulupakan sepanjang hidupku. “Jangan biarkan aku pergi.” Dan aku pun berharap aku tak akan pernah bangun lagi.

Belakang rumah, 22 Mei 2012, 01.00 pagi, dengan bintang di seberang mata dan rokok di genggaman jemari.

* Bête noire, yang dalam bahasa Perancis secara literal artinya "makhluk buas berwarna hitam," merupakan sebuah ungkapan untuk menunjukkan seseorang atau sesuatu yang tidak disukai, atau bahkan ditakuti. Bisa juga diartikan sebagai mimpi buruk (meskipun dalam bahasa Perancis, "mimpi buruk" biasanya memakai istilah cauchemar.)

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.

Luck, Richness, and Tax

Whenever I say or hear motivational speakers (Mario Teguh? Hell, Donald Trump?) emphasizing hard work and effort as the way to be rich I can help but ponder, is it so? Turns out this rationale is also oftenly spewed by conservatives whenever they want to oppose taxation; how taxation "punishes" and disincentifies those who exerts more efforts than others. Few things come in my mind. Is it really true that I can get rich as long as I work harder and those who are poor basically just don't work hard enough? I don't think so.

Hard work, effort, will, discipline, initiative, persistance, drive, etc. are good virtues - and remain so, but they aren't that independent of brute luck. How? It began even since our conceptions. We are lucky enough to be born with good talents and without defect genes. We are lucky enough to be born to "able" parents: those who can afford giving us good nutritions ever since we were babies, those who can afford giving us decent homes, those who can afford giving us educations, those who care so much to our development, etc., etc. We then grew up as educated and healthy persons with sound mind. It is simply because of good luck that we weren't born in North Korea or Ethiopia, where some kids trapped in endless cycles of poverty; poor parents that can't afford to give us education, nutritions. We might end up as malnourished and uneducated kids. In the end, we can't afford having decent jobs to improve our lives and our families' lives. Not to mention if such conditions made worse by endemic diseases or war.



But let's say you say that that's the end of our luck, that after graduation, what shape us to be rich lawyers, businessmen, stock traders, or motivational speakers (!) is purely (or mostly) because of our dilligence and persistence. But that's not so true either. Why? Because we live in the world that has market system that happens to reward what we do, our jobs, very well. Disproportionately well*. The important variable for richness, however, does not seem to be our dilligence or hard work, but profession. If we’re in a high-value profession, hard work can do us a lot of good. If we’re not, it may not do you much good at all however hard we are working everyday. We're lucky that we were born in a time and place where the hard work we're good at (say, stock speculation or legal knowledge) are valued over the hard work that other people are good at (say, carpenting or repairing air conditioner.) That's the difference between the hard work of a stock trader and the hard work of the person who repair the AC in IDX tower.

So "anyone can get rich** if only they work harder" is not just untrue, it's also insulting. We can't have a society where everyone is a lawyer or a stock trader. We can't have a society where we have to pay 100 million rupiah to every good and hardworking military personnel, policeman, nurse, firefighter, schoolteacher, carpenter, electrician and all of the other professions that civilization needs to survive (and that rich people need in order to stay rich.) These military personnel, policeman, nurse, firefighter, schoolteacher, carpenter, electrician may work 100 TIMES HARDER than you every day; some of them even risk their lives everyday while you sit comfortably in your office, yet, they will never make as much money as you businessman make. So be grateful.

And that's where tax comes in. As what John Rawls said***, to compensate people those who are disadvantaged from this brute luck, we tax the riches to give adequate basic scheme for the worst off and reduce inequality, so that we can imagine that even though we end up being so poor, social arrangement permits and guarantees us to basic scheme like security, education, and healthcare. This is by no means punishing those who are working hard and being rich, this means that something needs to be done and those who are above average have the capabilty to do so. The analogy will be like asking tall person to pick a book in the top shelf: this isn't a punishment for her being tall, but since no other person is tall enough to get it, then she has to get the book. Those who are rich tend to be able to pay not only more rupiah but also a larger share of their income without suffering. Thus those rich folks who refuse to pay higher tax is just egoistic and immoral. We can't do everything by ourselves. Our houses and schools were built by other people. Our cars were made by other people, run by gasoline drilled and processed by other people, driven in roads made by other people. And so on.

Say you can do all of that, and refuse to pay tax, but what if there's bad person is trying to take your wealth? What would you do? Your security measure won't fend them off -- suppose they have more weapons. What will you do, call the cops? That is, other people, who will risk their lives while being paid with still tax money, who will try these bad guys in a court funded by tax money, under laws passed by legislators paid with tax money? Accept that, you can't live alone by yourselves. Caring for other persons - by paying tax, is one of the requirements to be a moral person.

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

Post Scriptum

*) For instance, the ratio of CEOs' pay to average workers in United States are 475:1, and it takes 14,000 years for average Sri Lankan workers to earn Nike CEO's annual pay. This discrepancies is so huge, despite both CEOs and workers are equally important for companies' operation.

**) Simple logic dictates that "anyone can get rich" is true on individual level - but not on collective level (i.e. "everyone can get rich.") Why? Resources are limited. Money supply is limited as well. Suppose population of Indonesia is 1,000 person, and there is 100 million rupiah of money supply. Let's say parameter of richness is by having 1 million rupiah, there will never be more than 100 person that is rich (but then 900 others have no money at all, not to mention if several people have more than 1 million rupiah - even more people will have no money.) Printing more money so that each person has at least 1 million rupiah won't work either. Why? As you print more money, money supply is increasing and inflation occurs, and the value of money drops. 1 million rupiah after printing more money will always be less than the value of 1 million rupiah before printing money.

***) Ironically, Rawls seemed to against progressive tax, despite his difference principle must require progressive tax and transfer scheme. I also prefer Amartya Sen's capability approach to Rawls' in this matter.

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.)