Bahasa Indonesia Masih "Immature"

February 3, 2009

Diaz Hendropriyono

Washington, DC

Saya memang bukan pecinta olahraga sepak bola. Tetapi mau tidak mau, setiap pagi saya membaca koran, selalu terbaca bagian olahraga tersebut, khususnya saat Piala Dunia dan Piala Eropa berlangsung. Walau tidak tertarik pada berita pertandingan sepak bola, ada satu hal yang selalu membuat saya terus berfikir: mengapa selalu terdapat perbedaan dalam penulisan negara-negara asing?

Sebut saja, negara Česká Republika yang di artikan Czech Republic dalam bahasa Inggris. Negara tersebut ialah negara baru yang terpecah dari Československo atau Czechokoslovakia pada awal 1993. Sejak berdiri, pemerintah negara tersebut berfikir bahwa nama negara mereka terkesan cukup panjang untuk diucapkan, sehingga memutuskan untuk memberikan nama pendek. Seperti halnya Slovenská Republika, yang dipendekkan menjadi Slovensko (atau Slovak Republic menjadi Slovakia dalam bahasa Inggris), Česká Republika disingkat menjadi Česko.

Dalam penulisan bahasa Inggris, pada tahun 1993, kementrian luar negeri negara tersebut menghimbau semua kedutaan besarnya untuk terus menggunakan nama Czech Republic dalam dokumen resmi, dan membolehkan penggunaan nama pendek Czechia untuk kegunaan lainnya. Walau demikian, banyak kalangan sering menyebutnya Czech, tanpa Republic di belakangnya.

Dalam bahasa Indonesia, penulisan negara ini berkesan sangat membingungkan. Dua negara pecahan Cekoslowakia (dalam bahasa Indonesia) disebut Republik Ceko dan Republik Slowakia. Seperti halnya dalam kedua bahasa asing di atas, dalam bahasa Indonesia, kedua negara ini di pendekkan menjadi Ceko dan Slowakia.

Yang memprihatinkan, beberapa sumber resmi di Indonesia menggunakan nama Česká Republika dalam bahasa Indonesia dengan sebutan yang berbeda. Beberapa kamus Inggris-Indonesia, contohnya, karangan John Echols dan Hassan Shadily dan berbagai macam kamus Inggris-Indonesia online—seperti dicts.info, sederet.com, dan xamus.com—menterjemahkannya sebagai Ceko. Begitu juga dengan Ensiklopedi Umum terbitan Yayasan Kanisius tahun 1977, yang menyebutnya Ceko. Selanjutnya, Deplu RI menggunakan nama Republik Ceko atau Ceko.

Sementara, beberapa pihak lain menyebutnya Republik Ceska (dalam bahasa Indonesia), dan sering di pendekkan menjadi Ceska. Sebagai contoh, beberapa surat kabar Indonesia seperti Bola, Sinar Harapan, dan Kompas, di antara lain, sering menyebutnya demikian.

Untuk diketahui, sebutan Česká Republika dalam bahasa asalnya mengandung arti feminin yang tidak bisa berdiri sendiri. Jadi, dengan menyebutnya hanya dengan Ceska tanpa kata “Republik” (bukan Česko, jika berdiri sendiri), merupakan penulisan yang salah. Terlebih, penulisan Republik Ceska itu sendiri juga membingungkan, karena kata “Republik” merupakan bahasa Indonesia, dan “Ceska” merupakan bahasa Ceko (čeština).

Lebih disayangkan, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (Edisi ke 4) menyebut negara tersebut Republik Cheska atau Republik Cek.

Harus diakui bahwa memang beberapa negara asing masih memperdebatkan penyebutan nama negara Česká Republika dalam bahasa mereka sendiri. Tetapi yang mereka perdebatkan adalah mengenai penggunaan nama panjang atau nama pendek negara tersebut. Contohnya, pengguna bahasa Inggris masih lebih nyaman dengan nama panjang Czech Republic daripada Czechia. Bahkan, bangsa Ceko sendiri pada awalnya sempat menolak istilah pendek Česká Republika, yaitu Česko. Sementara orang Itali cenderung menggunakan nama panjang La Repubblica Ceca (bukan Cechia), orang Rusia dan Jerman lebih terbiasa dengan sebutan pendeknya, seperti Чехия dan Tschechien. Malahan, warga Spanyol sudah terbiasa dengan sebutan pendek dan panjangnya, Chequia dan República Checa.

Dalam bahasa Indonesia, fokus perdebatannya sedikit berbeda. Kita tidak berdebat tentang penggunaan nama panjang atau pendek negara tersebut, seperti yang di perdebatkan dalam bahasa asing. Tetapi, sepertinya kita tidak tahu harus menyebut apa negara Česká Republika dalam Bahasa Indonesia—apakah Republik Ceko, Republik Ceska, Republik Cheska, atau Republik Cek.

Saya tidak menyalahkan siapapun untuk menggunakan salah satu dari nama tersebut diatas, karena siapa saja dapat berargumen bahwa mereka dapat nama tersebut dari salah satu sumber resmi di Indonesia.

Yang menjadi masalah yaitu karena adanya beberapa insitusi dan sumber resmi yang memberikan beberapa nama yang berdeda untuk satu subyek yang sama sehingga membuat beberapa pihak menuliskannya dengan cara yang berbeda.

Dengan adanya beberapa cara untuk menyebut nama-nama negara asing, khususnya Česká Republika, diantara banyak lainnya, dalam Bahasa Indonesia, adalah suatu bukti bahwa Bahasa Indonesia itu sendiri masih dalam masa perkembangan. Bahasa kita masih mempunyai standar ganda, ataupun multiple, dalam menyebut sebuah negara asing. Tanpa adanya suatu persetujuan dan penentuan bersama untuk menyebut suatu negara, agaknya Bahasa Indonesia masih terus dianggap immature.

Indonesia Should Do More in Gaza

January 17, 2009

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Following the expiration of the six-month Egyptian-brokered cease-fire agreement, Hamas militantsclaiming that Israel had violated the truce - began to fire rockets at Israel although no significant damage was reported.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak stated that its government has engaged in anwar with Hamas, and this war is thought to be one of the deadliest military operations since Israel's occupation of Gaza in 1967.

Hamas has controlled the Gaza Strip since ousting the moderate Fatah faction of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in June last year.

Israel went further by prohibiting news organizations from entering Gaza, an ironic move for a country that prides itself as the healthiest democracy in the Middle East.

While the United States maintains that Israel has the right to self-defense and blames Hamas for provoking the conflict, Muslim nations around the world condemn Israel over the deadly attacks. Reacting to Israel's military offensive, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon asked for an immediate cease-fire, and requested Israel allow humanitarian supplies and aid workers into Gaza.

In Indonesia, several Islamic groups plan to send volunteers to Gaza. For example, the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) has prepared 20 individuals to provide medical assistance to Gazans. Muhammadiyah, which recently signed a medical cooperation agreement with Israel's first-response organization, will send six surgeons as well as medical and logistics supplies.

With a more aggressive plan, the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), announced it would recruit as many as 1,500 mujahideen to be sent to defend Gaza and fight Israel.
During a recent protest in front of the US Embassy in Jakarta, FPI's coordinator Awit Masyuri also said that each of these "fighters" would receive training for a week before being deployed to the battlefield (Dec. 31, 2008, Kompas).

FPI's secretary-general Ahmad S. Lubis added,should be in good physical conditionand be ready to die - and are provided with a one-way ticket until we defeat Israel" (Dec. 29, 2008, The Straits Times). This view is also supported by Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia, an international pan-Islamist party, whose spokesman, Farid Wajri, has urged all Muslim countries to send not only medical aid but also fighters.

While sympathizing with the Palestinians and persistently supporting their rights and sovereignty is a must, sending Indonesian "volunteers" to fight alongside the Gazans may not be the best option for Indonesians.

Indonesians need to be careful in fighting for the Palestinians in Gaza. A few countries, such as the United States, Canada, Japan and the EU, designate Hamas as a terrorist group, while the UK and Australia classify its military wing as such. Thus, defending the Hamas-controlled Gaza might be interpreted by some as defending a terrorist group.

Furthermore, the mujahideen to-be should realize that their participation could put them at risk of losing their Indonesian citizenship. The citizenship law No. 12/2006 Article 23(e) and (f) could be used to strip them of their nationality, as their involvement may be interpreted as serving in a foreign force.

Finally, by deploying Indonesians to the battleground, we would put these men in harm's way, as they may lose their lives fighting a military equipped with some of the world's most advanced weapons and technology.

In this case, the Indonesian government needs to take a more active role in urging these volunteers not to leave for Gaza. It also needs to be more involved in helping the Gazans, and to assure Indonesians that the Palestinians are being helped.
Indonesia should do more than just urge the UN Security Council to issue a resolution to halt Israeli strikes, or send US$1 million in cash and Rp 2 billion (US$179,000) worth of medical aid to Gaza.

The writer is Ph.D. Candidate at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University

Taken from:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/01/17/indonesia-should-do-more-gaza.html

RI Harus Lebih Aktif di Gaza

15 Januari 2009

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Pada pertengahan Desember, Israel memulai serangan udara besar-besaran—terbesar sejak perang Arab-Israel tahun 1967—terhadap Hamas di Gaza. Paling tidak 1000 orang Palestina terbunuh, termasuk sekitar 300 anak-anak dan 92 wanita, lebih dari 4,400 orang terluka dan puluhan ribu warga sipil kehilangan tempat tinggal.

Serangan Israel menghancurkan banyak rumah penduduk, markas polisi, apotik, kantor pemerintah, sekolah PBB, masjid, sebuah Universitas Islam, dan ratusan terowongan bawah tanah yang digunakan Hamas untuk menyelundupkan makanan, bensin, termasuk senjata dan bahan peledak ke Gaza. Untuk memperkuat invasi, Israel mengerahkan 6.500 pasukan cadangan untuk melawan kelompok yang berhasil mengambil alih Gaza pada pertengahan 2007 dari kelompok moderat Fatah, kubu Presiden Palestina Mahmoud Abbas.

Selama penyerangan, selain melarang koresponden asing masuk ke Gaza, Israel juga telah mempersulit pemberian akses masuk tim medis Palang Merah Internasional untuk menolong korban sipil di Gaza. Selain itu, Human Rights Watch melaporkan bahwa dalam serangan daratnya, Israel menggunakan zat kimia kontroversial yang mengandung fosfor putih—yang juga pernah digunakan saat melawan Hizbullah—dimana jika terkena manusia, akan menimbulkan luka bakar yang mengerikan.

Sementara itu, Hamas terus melayangkan beberapa roket al-Qassam dan Katyusha ke wilayah Israel, termasuk ke daerah yang sebelumnya diperkirakan tidak akan pernah terjangkau, seperti Ashdod, 33 km dari Tel Aviv, dan Beersheba, 42 km dari Gaza. Paling tidak serangan Hamas telah menewaskan 10 tentara Israel dan 3 warga sipil.

Sementara Amerika Serikat menyalahkan Hamas sebagai pemicu konflik, demo anti-Israel terus terjadi di berbagai kota dunia, termasuk London, Oslo, Madrid, Karachi, Baghdad, Damascus, Manila, Athena, Paris dan banyak kota lainnya. Di beberapa kota besar di Indonesia, unjuk rasa juga terus berlanjut sejak penyerangan Israel. Di Jakarta, Hizbut Tahrir Indonesia menggerakan ribuan massa di Monas, ratusan di Kedubes AS, puluhan ribu di Surabaya, dan puluhan lainnya di Makassar. Bahkan, di Palu, aksi demo ratusan mahasiswa sampai merusak restoran cepat saji produk Amerika KFC. Tak ketinggalan, ratusan anak TK dan SD di Demak berdoa bersama guru mereka untuk keselamatan anak-anak Palestina sebelum melakukan longmarch. Keadaan serupa juga ditemui di Kediri dan Surabaya dimana demonstrasi di hadiri oleh ratusan murid SD Muhammadiyah.

Saat ini, beberapa kelompok Islam di tanah air telah mempersiapkan relawan unutk membantu warga Gaza. Bekerja sama dengan MER-C, Persis Bandung telah menyeleksi 50 personil tim medis. Begitu juga dengan Muhammadiyah,—yang dilaporkan pernah mempunyai kesepakatan kerja sama di bidang kesehatan dengan organisasi layanan kesehatan Israel—Komite Nasional untuk Rakyat Palestina (KNRP) dan Partai Keadilan dan Sejahtera (PKS) yang ingin berpartisipasi dalam misi kemanusiaan di Gaza.

Bahkan, beberapa kelompok Islam berencana untuk mengirimkan relawan untuk berperang melawan Israel di Gaza. Majelis Mujahidin Indonesia (MMI) wilayah Sumatera Barat mengaku sudah merekrut sekitar 60 orang yang siap bertempur. Forum Pembela Islam (FPI) mengumumkan akan merekrut 5.000 relawan, termasuk merekrut kembali mujahedin yang gagal berangkat ke Palestina empat tahun lalu. Sejauh ini, FPI/Komando Laskar Jihad (KLI) meng-klaim sudah mendapatkan 1.000 orang yang siap mati syahid dan sudah mengikuti pelatihan selama satu minggu. Dan walau hanya terkumpul Rp. 50 juta, Keluarga Muslim Bogor (KMB) juga terus membuka pendaftaran untuk merekrut relawan mujahedin.

Bersimpati terhadap warga Palestina dan mendukung hak dan kedaulatan mereka adalah suatu keharusan. Sayangnya, mengirim relawan mujahedin untuk bertempur membela warga Gaza melawan agresi Israel bukanlah suatu opsi yang terbaik.

Relawan mujahedin harus lebih berhati-hati sebelum memutuskan untuk berperang membela warga Gaza. Beberapa negara, seperti Amerika Serikat, Kanada, Jepang, dan bahkan Uni Eropa, telah menetapkan Hamas sebagai organisasi teroris (Inggris dan Australia hanya menetapkan sayap militer Hamas sebagai teroris). Dengan demikian, membela Gaza, daerah yang di kuasai oleh Hamas, dapat diartikan oleh beberapa pihak sebagai tindakan membela teroris.

Selain itu, relawan-relawan Indonesia harus mengerti bahwa mereka bisa kehilangan warga negara Indonesia-nya karena berpartisipasi dalam peperangan di Palestina. Dalam hal ini, bukanlah tidak mungkin UU Kewarganegaraan No.12/2006 Pasal 23 (e) dan (f) dapat diartikan secara umum dan luas untuk menarik kewarganeraan para relawan yang ikut berjuang membela negara asing.

Lebih lanjut, kemungkinan para relawan jihad bisa masuk ke Gaza, saat ini, cukup kecil, mengingat Yordania dan Mesir membuka jalur ke Gaza hanya untuk pengiriman obat-obatan dan makanan. Terakhir, keberangkatan para relawan jihad Indonesia membawa resiko yang sangat besar untuk mereka sendiri. Mereka akan menghadapi suatu angkatan militer yang mempunyai salah satu persenjataan tercanggih di dunia.

Dalam hal ini, pemerintah Indonesia harus terus melarang para jihadis untuk pergi ke Gaza. Selain itu, pemerintah juga harus lebih pro-aktif dalam kebijakannya di Palestina. Agaknya, meminta Dewan Keamanan PBB agar mengeluarkan resolusi untuk menghentikan serangan Israel, mengirim US$ 1 juta cash, dan Rp. 2 milyar dalam bentuk obat-obatan, tidaklah cukup untuk meyakinkan warga Indonesia bahwa warga Gaza mendapatkan pertolongan dan keamanan yang layak.

Alasan Penolakan RUU Pornografi

October 3, 2008

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Pengesahan RUU Pornografi yang rencananya akan di lakukan pada 23 September lalu akhirnya kembali tertunda karena masih menimbulkan pertentangan di masyarakat. RUU yang pada mulanya berisi 11 bab dan 93 pasal sebelum akhirnya dikurangi menjadi 8 bab dan 44 pasal ini, sebenarnya sudah mulai dibahas pada tahun 1997, dan di wacanakan lagi pada awal 2006 dengan nama RUU Anti Pornografi dan Pornoaksi. Pendukung RUU, seperti PKS, berpendapat bahwa RUU ini sangat diperlukan untuk menyelamatkan moral bangsa dari penyakit pornografi yang dianggap sudah mencapai tingkat yang mengerikan. Kenyataannya, RUU yang sudah di uji publikan di Kalimantan Selatan, Maluku, Bali, DKI Jakarta dan Sulawesi Selatan—dan sudah di bahas dengan pemerintah, khususnya Menkum HAM, Menag, Menteri Pemberdayaan Perempuan, dan Menkominfo—hanya akan menimbulkan kerugian yang berkepanjangan.

Pertama, kalangan perempuan seperti Jaringan Peduli Perempuan dan Anak (JPPA) dan Asosiasi Perempuan untuk Keadilan (APIK) menilai bahwa RUU tersebut memposisikan perempuan sebagai objek pornografi, dan mengancam terjadinya kriminalisasi terhadap perempuan.

Kedua, RUU ini terlalu mencampuri privasi individu. Misalkan, seusai pasal 6, pasangan suami istri tidak diperbolehkan untuk mengkonsumsi dan menyimpan pornografi. Dan anehnya, menurut anggota panja RUU Pornografi dari FPDI-P, Eva Kusuma Sundari, sesuai pasal 30, pelanggaran teresebut dapat dihukum penjara dan denda yang melebihi pasal UU illegal logging dan korupsi.

Ketiga, Komponen Rakyat Bali (KRB) menganggap bahwa RUU Pornografi mengancam khas dan budaya daerah, serta tidak menghormati hak agama dan pluralitas Bhineka Tunggal Ika. Walaupun telah di khususkan bahwa penggunaan materi seksualitas dapat dilakukan untuk kepentingan seni dan budaya (pasal 14), banyak kalangan masih menilai pasal tersebut bertentangan dengan pasal lainnya yang harus dibenahi. Misalkan, Institut Perempuan (IP) menilai definisi pornografi sebagai sesuatu yang “membangkitkan hasrat seksual” (pasal 1) sangatlah subjektif dan menimbulkan banyak interpretasi. Karena itu, masih ada kekhawatiran akan adanya larangan terhadap tarian tradisional.

Keempat, RUU tersebut dapat menimbulkan tindakan anarki, karena di perbolehkannya peran serta masyarakat dalam mencegah perbuatan, penyebaran dan pengunaan pornografi, sesuai tertulis pada draft pasal 21. Lebih spesifik, ketua Dewan Adat Papua (DAP) Fadhal Alhamid khawatir timbulnya peluang benturan antarkelompok masyarakat jika RUU ini disahkan. Gerakan Aktif Tanpa Kekerasan Indonesia (GATKI) juga khawatir akan adanya tindakan saling menghakimi antar warga dan peluang bagi warga untuk menjadi polisi moralbagi warga lainnya.

Kelima, Dewan Kesenian Surakarta (DKS) berpendapat bahwa RUU Pornografi bertentangan dengan nilai dan semangat UUD 1945. Konstitusi Indonesia tidaklah diskriminatif atau mengkriminalisasi, dan menjunjung tinggi nilai kenakeragaman bangsa. Komnas HAM juga khawatir jika negara justru akan melanggar kewajibannya melindungi HAM yang dijamin oleh UUD 1945. Apalagi, Indonesia sudah meratifikasi Kovenan Hak Sipil Politik yang jelas melarang diskriminasi agama, warna kulit, status sosial, dan jenis kelamin.

Keenam, pembahasan RUU Pornografi bukan hanya memecah belah parpol di DPR, tetapi juga Indonesia secara keseluruhan. Selain masyarakat Bali, Yogyakarta, dan Sulawesi Utara, paling tidak NTT dan Papua juga menolak keras RUU tersebut, khususnya karena kekhawatiran akan adanya larangan terhadap tarian daerah yang diperagakan oleh perempuan yang tidak menggunakan busana pada bagian atas termasuk penangkapan penarinya. Terlebih, di Sulawesi Utara dan Bali sudah ada ancaman wacana untuk melepaskan diri dari NKRI jika RUU tersebut disahkan.

Ketujuh, pengesahan RUU Pornografi dinilai percuma karena substansi yang ada di RUU tersebut sudah diatur oleh beberapa UU yang ada. Menurut Ketua Umum PDS Ruyandi Hutasoit, sudah ada beberapa UU yang mengatur pornografi, seperti Pasal 282 KUHP tentang Kesusilaan, UU 23/2002 tentang Perlindungan Anak, UU 32/2002 tentang Penyiaran, dan UU 40/1999. Selain itu, ada UU 11/2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik, UU 8/1992 tentang Perfilman, dan Peraturan Pemerintah 7/1994 tentang Lembaga Sensor Film, yang juga mengatur masalah teresebut.

Kedelapan, RUU Pornografi di tolak keras oleh berbagai kalangan sehingga upaya untuk mengesahkan RUU tersebut akan terus mengalami kesulitan dan menjadi sia-sia. Bahkan, beberapa organisasi Islam seperti Hizbut Tahrir dan Forum Umat Islam mengungkapkan beberapa kelemahan yang ada di RUU tersebut, sehingga mereka menilai bahwa RUU Pornografi memang harus di format ulang.

Beberapa kerugian diatas menunjukkan bahwa RUU Pornografi sebenarnya memang tidak perlu untuk disahkan menjadi UU. Lebih baik, substansi peraturan yang sudah ada, seperti KUHP, UU, dan PP, dapat di perjelas, di revisi dan di tegakkan untuk mengatasi masalah pornografi. Saran kedua, jika memang nantinya dinyatakan bahwa pornografi masih merupakan suatu masalah yang harus di atur lebih lanjut, pengaturannya sebaiknya pada tingkat daerah saja, dan bukan tingkat nasional. Dengan demikian, peraturan akan dibuat dengan menghormati keanekaragaman, adat-istiadat, dan budaya daerah.

Terakhir, sebenarnya moral bangsa yang rusak akibat pornografi dapat dibenahi tanpa mekanisme hukum yang berkesan terlalu mencampuri urusan pribadi, yaitu dengan memperbaiki, mempertegas, atau memperbanyak pengajaran agama di sekolah dan di lingkungan keluarga.

Diaz Hendropriyono's Interview - Presidential Debate

Diaz Hendropriyono, PhD Candidate at the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech, Commenting on the Presidential Debate in the US and Indonesia. Broadcast on Voice of America and Radio Trijaya Jakarta 104.6 FM on October 10, 2008

Why Obama Deserves Your Vote

September 27, 2008

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

I watched the U.S. Presidential debate last night between John McCain and Barack Obama. No doubt, there are significant and fundamental differences between the candidate’s view about a few major things. Take, for example, when asked to comment about the current financial crisis, McCain blamed greediness, while Obama blamed the lack of oversight over financial institutions. While Obama wanted to give tax cut for 95% of Americans—and by the way, increase tax for the wealthy—McCain said that he wanted to give everyone $5,000 tax credit to purchase health care. Where McCain asked for a surge in Iraq and change tactics to defeat the enemy, Obama wanted to end the war in 16 months, as he insisted that the “real enemy” is in Afghanistan, not Iraq. And he emphasized his focus on al Qaeda. Regarding Russia, it is clear that McCain, although at other times he suggested that the Cold War era has ended, still implied the “tough” stance towards Russia. He said that in Putin’s eyes, he saw three letters, KGB. Obama wanted to have a softer approach towards Russia, simply by implying that the U.S. does not need to provoke Russia. Americans just need to show democracies in Europe (Russia’s “adversaries”) that the U.S. is with them.

It seems that any foreigner who watched the debate would like to see Obama get elected because of his stance. However, what I think I like about Obama is not any of that. The most important point in the debate that I think is worth of the biggest praise is the fact that he admitted that the U.S. image abroad is bad, and it needs rehabilitation. As a foreigner, I know deeply how important it is for the U.S. image to be rebuilt to change our view towards the U.S. Talk to any European (other than the British, of course). Talk to any Arab about the U.S. And talk to any Indonesian you can find. You will most probably realize that most of them would say negatively about the U.S. You can also easily look at any poll in any country, and you will not find a single poll noting a favorable view towards the U.S. under Bush.

Obama is committed to rebuild the U.S. image worldwide. And he said it quite a few times, even before the debate. On the other hand, I have never heard McCain saying the same. It is quite strange for a presidential candidate not wanting to admit (or perhaps he does not know) that many countries do not have a favorable view towards the U.S., especially after the War in Iraq. How does McCain want to make America get the respect from the world community when he does not know that nobody likes the U.S. (policy)? Simply because understanding that, if I were American, Obama would get my vote.

Artis Harus Menjadi Kepala Daerah

3 September 2008

Diaz Hendropriyono

Washington, DC

Munculnya artis ke dunia politik telah melahirkan wacana yang beragam. Ada pihak yang menolak, ada yang mempersilakan. Di tingkat eksekutif, beberapa artis telah berhasil terpilih secara demokratis untuk menduduki kursi wakil kepala daerah. Rano Karno terpilih menjadi Wakil Wali Kota Tangerang dan Dede Yusuf menjadi Wakil Gubernur Jabar. Saat ini, Helmi Yahya sedang mencalonkan diri sebagai Wakil Gubernur Sumsel. Begitu juga dengan Wanda Hamidah yang kabarnya akan ikut pilkada Tangerang sebagai wakil wali kota. Kabar terakhir menunjukkan kemungkinan Della Citra juga dicalonkan sebagai Wakil Bupati Serang dan Ikke Nurjanah sebagai Wakil Bupati Majalengka.

Artis ikut pilkada sebenarnya juga terjadi di banyak negara lain. Aktor Joseph Estrada pernah dipercaya sebagai Wali Kota San Juan dan Presiden Filipina. Pelawak dan TV host Joey Marquez adalah mantan Wali Kota Paranaque City, Filipina. Di India, jabatan chief minister (kepala daerah) Provinsi Andhra Pradesh dan Tamil Nadu pernah dijabat oleh aktor ternama NT Rama Rao dan MG Ramachandran. Pemain film Fatma Girik adalah mantan Wali Kota Sisli, Turki. Penari kabaret Isabel Peron dipercaya menggantikan suaminya menjadi Presiden Argentina. Di Polandia, artis cilik kembar bersaudara Lech Kaczyñski dan Jaros³aw Kaczyñski sempat menjabat Presiden dan Perdana Menteri pada saat yang sama. Dan Gubernur Altai Krai di Russia pernah dijabat oleh seorang aktor komedian Mikhail Yevdokimov.

Di Amerika Serikat, aktor produser Sonny Bono yang juga mantan suami penyanyi Cher sempat dipercaya sebagai Wali Kota Palm Spring, California. Aktor laga Clint Eastwood menjabat Wali Kota Carmel, California; penyanyi Jimmie Davis terpilih menjadi Gubernur Louisiana pada dua saat yang berbeda; dan pegulat WWF Jesse Ventura menduduki kursi Wali Kota Brooklyn Park dan Gubernur Minnesota. Yang lebih terkenal, aktor Ronald Reagan terpilih sebagai Gubernur California sebelum dipercaya sebagai Presiden AS. Lalu aktor binaraga Arnold Schwarzenegger sekarang sedang menjabat Gubernur California.

Popularitas para artis sebenarnya tidak selalu menjamin kemenangan dalam pemilihan umum. Sebagai contoh, aktor Fernando Poe Jr sempat mengincar kursi Presiden Filipina sebelum dikalahkan oleh incumbent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Baru-baru ini, aktor serial TV Fred Thompson mencalonkan diri sebagai Presiden AS, namun akhirnya gagal dalam primary (putaran pertama). Setelah berkarier di parlemen, artis film dewasa Ilona Staller gagal terpilih sebagai Wali Kota Milan di Italia. Begitu juga dengan pemeran film Beverly Hills Cop Gill Hill yang tidak sukses dalam memperebutkan kursi Wali Kota Detroit, Michigan. Di Indonesia, Marissa Haque kalah di pilkada Banten, sehingga gagal menjadi wakil gubernur. Didin Bagito memilih mundur dari pencalonannya sebagai Wakil Wali Kota Serang sebelum pilkada berlangsung karena tidak dapat memenuhi jumlah minimum pendukung.

Walaupun fenomena yang ada di Indonesia juga terjadi di negara lain, namun ada satu perbedaan menarik. Mayoritas artis Indonesia terkesan masih enggan menjadi seorang kepala daerah, dan memilih maju ”hanya” sebagai wakil. Dari sekian banyak artis yang maju dalam pilkada, hanya sebagian kecil yang maju untuk menjadi kepala daerah. Sebagai contoh, Gusti Randa sempat mengincar posisi kepala daerah di Padang, walau akhirnya mengundurkan diri dari pencalonannya karena kekurangan pendukung. Primus Yustisio baru saja mendaftar menjadi calon Bupati Subang.

Sedikitnya, jumlah artis yang mencalonkan diri untuk menjadi kepala daerah tentunya bisa menimbulkan kesan negatif di mata masyarakat. Publik bisa menilai bahwa para artis sebenarnya kurang percaya diri dalam mengatur suatu pemerintah daerah sehingga harus dipasangkan oleh seseorang yang memang mempunyai pengalaman dalam bidang administrasi publik. Pada akhirnya, hal ini dikhawatirkan akan berimplikasi negatif terhadap reputasi para artis itu sendiri.

Perlu diketahui bahwa para artis yang menjadi kepala pemerintah di negara lain banyak yang terbilang sukses. Misalnya, walau terlibat masalah korupsi dan perjudian, Presiden Filipina Estrada termasuk seorang politikus yang berani. Paling tidak ada 46 kamp pelatihan gerilyawan separatis mulsim MILF, termasuk kamp Abu Sayyaf, yang dilumpuhkan pada masa pemerintahannya.

Di Amerika, Gubernur Schwarzenegger baru saja mengesahkan UU untuk mengurangi emisi greenhouse gas di daerahnya ke tingkat tahun 1990, pada tahun 2020. Ia juga mengharuskan semua sekolah negeri di California untuk lebih memperbanyak buah dan sayur-sayuran dalam menu makanannya, sesuai dengan standar nutrisi yang telah ditetapkan. Dan California akan menjadi negara bagian pertama di AS yang melarang restoran untuk menggunakan trans fat (lemak/minyak jenuh) dalam masakannya.

Pada saat dilantik, Presiden Reagan dengan lantang menyatakan, ”Pemerintah bukanlah solusi dari masalah kita; pemerintah itu sendiri adalah masalahnya.” Terobosannya meliputi penurunan pajak, kenaikan pengeluaran militer, kenaikan produk domestik bruto sebesar 3.4% per tahun, dan penambahan 16 juta lapangan pekerjaan, walau akhirnya menimbulkan defisit negara. Ia berpidato di Tembok Berlin, menantang Presiden Uni Soviet Mikhail Gorbachev untuk meruntuhkan tembok tersebut. Reagan dinilai berperan penting dalam memenangkan Perang Dingin.

Melarang partisipasi artis di dunia politik Indonesia adalah bertentangan dengan pilar demokrasi. Kehadiran mereka juga tidak melanggar UU yang ada. Oleh karena itu, artis yang ikut pilkada harus bisa membuktikan kalau mereka mempunyai kemampuan untuk memimpin seperti halnya para artis yang terjun ke politik di negara lain. Publiklah yang harus mengawasi kinerja mereka. Sayangnya, mengevaluasi performa para artis dan kontribusi yang mereka berikan untuk daerah adalah suatu hal yang sangat sulit kalau mereka ”hanya” dijadikan wakil kepala daerah. Oleh karena itu, akan lebih baik jika para artis mulai lebih berani dan lebih diberi kesempatan oleh parpol dan masyarakat, untuk maju ke panggung politik sebagai kepala pemerintah daerah, bukan wakil. Hanya dengan demikian publik dapat menilai apakah para artis benar-benar mampu dalam memimpin daerah.

Penulis adalah Kandidat PhD bidang Administrasi Negara dan Kebijakan Publik di Virginia Tech University, AS.

Diambil dari Situs: http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/berita/0809/03/sh03.html

Indonesian Celebrities Go For Political Seats

September 3, 2008

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

The rise of celebrities in the political arena has created a mixed message. While many are against it, mainly because of their lack of political experience, others are willing to give these actors an opportunity to prove themselves. At the executive branch, as it is widely known, actors Rano Karno and Dede Yusuf have been democratically elected as the vice regent of Tangerang, Banten, and deputy governor of West Java, respectively.

Currently, Helmi Yahya is running for deputy governor of South Sumatra and Dicky Chandra for vice regent of Garut, West Java. There are at least two "dangdut" singers running for deputy mayor, Syaiful Jamil in Serang, Banten, and Ayu Soraya in Tegal, Central Java. Additionally, there are indications that Wanda Hamidah, Della Citra and Ikke Nurjanah are eyeing the second-in-command position in the City of Tangerang and the regencies of Serang and Majalengka.

Having celebrities running for a political seat at the executive branch is undoubtedly not a new phenomenon. In the Philippines, actor Joseph Estrada had been the mayor of San Juan before becoming president. Comedian Joey Marquez was the mayor of Paranaque City. The job of chief minister in the Indian provinces of Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu was filled by actors N.T. Rama Rao and M.G. Ramachandran, respectively. Turkish actress Fatma Girik was the mayor of Sisli. Argentine cabaret dancer Isabel Peron replaced her husband as president. Twin child-actors Lech Kaczynski and Jaroslaw Kaczynski were for a year the president and the prime minister of Poland at the same time. And in Russia, actor-comedian Mikhail Yevdokimov was trusted as the governor of the Altai Krai region.

In the United States, actor-producer Sonny Bono, once married to singer Cher, was elected mayor of Palm Springs, California; TV host Jerry Springer was mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio; "Dirty Harry" star Clint Eastwood was mayor of Carmel, California; singer Jimmie Davies was governor of Louisiana and World Wrestling Federation star Jesse Ventura was mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, as well as governor. As was more popularly known, actor Ronald Reagan was elected governor of California before becoming the U.S. president. And presently, actor-bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger is in his second term as governor of California.

In some cases, celebrities' popularity is not always enough to get them elected. For example, Filipino actor Fernando Poe, Jr. lost the presidential election to incumbent Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Beverly Hills Cop star Gill Hill failed in his bid to become the mayor of Detroit, Michigan. Italian adult movie star Ilona Staller was unsuccessful in her run for the mayor of Milan. And more recently, TV star Fred Thompson withdrew his candidacy for U.S. president after losing in the primary election. In Indonesia, running for deputy governor of Banten, Marissa Haque lost the provincial election. Didin Bagito even decided to pull out from his candidacy for deputy mayor of Serang before the election for lack of public support.

Although there are celebrities running for political offices in other countries such as what is found in Indonesia, there is still one notable difference: The majority of Indonesian celebrities seem reluctant to run for local executive head and are more comfortable to be number two. Among the many who participate in the race, only a few run for the first-in-command posts. Although unsuccessful, Gusti Randa ran for mayor of Padang, and Primus Yustisio is now running for the regent of Subang.

The small number of celebrities who run for regional head may create negative impressions. The public may judge that these actors do not have the confidence to manage a government, thus they need to be coupled with someone who has experience in public administration and policy. Doubtless, this will eventually hurt the artists' reputations.

It should be remembered that there are many actor-politicians who have had some accomplishments during their administration. For instance, although the court found him guilty of plunder before finally being pardoned by the current president, some still consider former president Estrada a success. At least 46 Moro Islamic Liberation Front secessionist camps, including that of Abu Sayyaf, were overrun during his time in office.

California Governor Schwarzenegger recently signed landmark legislation to reduce carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. He also banned the sale of sodas in schools and set a stricter nutritional standard which required more fruits and vegetables in meal planning. And California will be the first state in the nation to ban the use of trans-fat oils in restaurants.
In his first inaugural address, former U.S. president Reagan boldly preached: "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." During his presidency, he reduced income tax rates, increased GDP by 3.4 percent annually, created more than 16 million new jobs and increased military spending -- although at the end, left his government with a huge deficit. Many even think he deserves credit for ending the Cold War.

To forbid Indonesian celebrities from entering politics is to go against the pillars of democracy. Their participation does not violate any law either. Hence, celebrities who take part in district head elections must prove themselves capable of managing a government administration and creating public policies, such as those movie stars in other countries. It is then the public's duty to evaluate their performance. However, evaluating their contribution to the public seems difficult when these celebrities are "only" elected as second-in-command. Thus, celebrities must be emboldened to run for, and political parties need to support them as regional heads, not deputies. Only by doing so will the public know whether or not these celebrities can truly govern.

The writer is PhD Candidate at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University. He can be reached at d_hendropriyono@yahoo.com

Taken From: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/09/03/indonesian-celebrities-go-political-seats.html

Implikasi Konflik di Georgia dan Impeachment Musharraf Terhadap AS

12 Agustus 2008

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Perang di Georgia

Pada saat Olimpiade berlangsung di Beijing, Russia memulai agresi militer ke wilayah Ossetia Selatan di Georgia, dimana pasukan Georgia telah melancarkan serangan kejutan di kota Tskhvinkali beberapa hari sebelumnya untuk meredam gerakan separatis yang berusaha untuk memisahkan diri secara penuh dari Georgia. Konflik bersenjata tersebut paling tidak telah memakan 2,000 korban, memaksa ratusan ribu warga sipil meninggalkan rumah mereka, dan sekitar 34,000 mengungsi ke Vladikavkaz, Russia. Invasi Russia meliputi serangan darat dengan tank yang menghancurkan beberapa kota termasuk Gori di Georgia tengah, dan serangan udara dengan jet tempur yang menenggelamkan kapal selam Georgia di Laut Hitam dan membombardir pabrik yang memproduksi pesawat tempur Sukhoi SU-25 di pinggiran ibukota Tbilisi. Dengan segera, Russia memperluas serangan militernya ke kota Senaki di Georgia melalui Abkhazia di baratlaut, sebuah wilayah lain yang juga ingin melepaskan diri dari kekuasaan Georgia. Seperti penduduk Ossetia Selatan, mayoritas penduduk Abkhazia adalah pemegang paspor Russia.

Russia juga menyerang perekonomian Georgia dengan cara memblokade dan merusak beberapa pelabuhan di Laut Hitam, termasuk Poti, yang digunakan sebagai tempat transit untuk mengangkut sekitar 500,000 barrel minyak mentah (crude oil) setiap harinya ke pasar-pasar barat. Lebih lanjut, Russia berusaha menghancurkan saluran pipa miyak Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan yang mengirim sekitar 900,000 barrel minyak dari Azerbaijan ke Turkey, via Georgia. Dan dalam waktu tiga hari, hampir seluruh wilayah Georgia telah di kuasai Russia.

Presiden Georgia Mikheil Saakashvili yang pro barat mengatakan bahwa sebuah proses penyerbuan, pendudukan, dan pembinasaan sedang berlangsung di negara yang berdaulat dan demokratis. Pertempuran ini pun mendapatkan reaksi keras dari dunia internasional. Presiden Amerika Serikat George W. Bush mendesak Russia untuk menghentikan aksi militernya, dan menandatangani perjanjian gencatan senjata dengan Georgia untuk kembali ke status quo tanggal 6 Agustus. Presiden Prancis Nikolas Sarkozy, dalam kapasitasnya sebagai Presiden Uni Eropa, langsung berkunjung ke Moskow dan Tbilisi untuk misi perdamaian. Presiden Lithuania, Polandia, Ukrania, dan Perdana Menteri Latvia dan Estonia juga akan terbang ke Tbilisi untuk memberikan dukungan kepada Georgia. Dukungan lain datang dari para Menlu negara-negara G7. Pada akhirnya, setelah memporak-porandakan Georgia dan mendapatkan kecaman keras dari dunia internasional, Russia menghentikan serangan militernya.

Musharraf Terancam Impeachment

Beralih ke Pakistan. Pakistan adalah sebuah negara sekutu Amerika yang lain, yang juga sedang mengalami kesulitan. Presiden pro-barat Pervez Musharraf saat ini terancam pencabutan jabatan. Koalisi partai yang berkuasa sejak pemilu Februari, Partai Rakyat Pakistan pimpinan Asif Ali Zardari, Partai Liga Muslim (N) pimpinan Nawaz Sharif, dan beberapa partai kecil lainnya, sepakat untuk mengajukan impeachment terhadap Musharraf di Parlemen. Mereka menuding bahwa Musharraf telah melanggar konsitusi, menyalah gunakan jabatannya, dan bertanggung jawab atas krisis ekonomi, dengan nilai inflasi mencapai 20%, krisis listrik, dan makanan. Dibutuhkan paling tidak 2/3 suara dari majelis rendah (national assembly) dan majelis tinggi (senate) di parlemen untuk melakukan pemecatan terhadap presiden. Yakin akan mendapatkan lebih dari 295 suara yang dibutuhkan untuk melaksanakan pemakzulan, partai koalisi mendesak Musharraf untuk segera turun dari jabatannya sebelum dipermalukan oleh proses impeachment yang belum pernah terjadi dalam sejarah Pakistan. Terlebih lagi, empat provinsi di Pakistan (Punjab, Baluchistan, Sindh, dan North West Frontier) dipastikan akan menyerukan mosi tidak percaya dalam waktu dekat, dimana resolusi tersebut akan menambah tekanan politik terhadap Musharraf untuk mundur. Berdasarkan konstitusi, Musharraf sebenarnya bisa membubarkan parlemen, atau menyatakan negara dalam keadaan darurat, walaupun hal ini akan menjadi sesuatu yang sangat kontroversial. Pilihan yang lebih “demokratis” yaitu dengan membela diri dan melawan proses impeachment di parlemen.

Popularitas Musharraf sebenarnya sudah mengalami penurunan drastis sejak tahun lalu saat ia memecat seorang hakim agung dan 60 hakim lainnya karena menolak perpanjangan masa jabatan presiden. Pemberlakuan state of emergency pada November lalu, penahanan ribuan politisi dan pengacara oposisi, serta penutupan saluran-saluran televisi swasta terus mengikis popularitas Musharraf. Pada Februari tahun ini, sebelum digelarnya pemilu legislatif, tingkat kepuasan publik pada pemerintahan Musharraf berada di tingkat terendah, yaitu 15%.

Implikasi Terhadap Pengaruh AS

Situasi di kedua negara sekutu dekat AS ini tentu berimplikasi buruk terhadap AS. Pemecatan terhadap Musharraf dan kemugkinan pergantian pemerintahan Saakashvili akan megurangi pengaruh AS di Timur Tengah dan Eropa. Belakangan ini, Georgia telah membina hubungan baik dengan AS. Tahun lalu, pada saat negara-negara lain menarik pasukannya dari Iraq, Georgia menambah jumlah pasukannya di Iraq, sebagai bukti dukungan untuk AS. Dengan demikian, Georgia adalah negara ketiga yang mempunyai jumlah pasukan terbanyak di Iraq setelah AS dan Inggris. Dengan dukungan AS, Georgia berambisi untuk menjadi anggota NATO dan Uni Eropa, dan berkeinginan untuk me-reintegrasi tiga wilayah separatis, Abkhazia, Ajara dan Ossetia Selatan, suatu kebijakan yang di tentang keras oleh Russia. Hal ini tentu menambah perhatian AS terhadap Georgia. Paling tidak, AS telah mendanakan $64 juta untuk melatih dan mempersenjatakan tentara Georgia untuk melawan al-Qaeda di perbatasan Russia-Chechnya dan mempersiapkan pasukan Georgia untuk mengatasi situasi di Iraq.

Seperti diketahui, perang Iraq telah membuat reputasi AS di negara-negara Eropa menurun drastis, khususnya di Prancis dan Jerman. Bahkan polling terakhir di Inggris, sekutu kuat AS di Eropa, menunjukkan hanya 33% responden yang mempunyai opini baik terhadap AS. Pengaruh AS di Eropa mulai berkurang dengan turunnya beberapa pemimpin negara-negara sekutu AS di Eropa beberapa saat lalu, seperti Jose Aznar di Spanyol, Jose Barroso di Portugal, dan Silvio Berlusconi yang sempat turun dari kursi PM di Italia. Banyak juga tekanan-tekanan publik dari dalam negeri di Ceko, Polandia, dan Hungaria yang mendesak pemerintahannya untuk lebih mendekatkan diri ke Prancis dan Jerman daripada AS. Menghilangnya Saakashvili dari panggung politik akan meninggalkan AS dengan sekutu-sekutu kecil seperti Latvia, Lithuania, dan Estonia.

Begitu juga yang terjadi di Pakistan, yang merupakan sekutu penting AS, khususnya dalam memerangi terorisme. Pakistan, yang sejak 2001 telah menerima bantuan AS senilai lebih dari $10 milyar, dianggap berkontribusi banyak terhadap suskesnya “Perang Melawan Terrorisme” yang di usung AS. Lebih dari 750 anggota al-Qaeda berhasil ditangkap/dibunuh di wilayah Pakistan, termasuk tokoh penting seperti Khalid Sheikh Mohammed dan Ramzi bin Alshibh yang di serahkan ke AS. Sayangnya, performa Musharraf dalam memerangi al-Qaeda dan Taliban dinilai menurun sejak dirinya dilanda kesulitan politik belakangan ini. Walaupun demikian, pemakzulan Musharraf merupakan suatu hantaman keras untuk kekuatan AS di wilayah tersebut.

Mengamati perkembangan di atas, AS seharusnya lebih berani lagi untuk membela kedua kepala negara yang sedang mengalami kesulitan. Pengutukan dan rasa keprihatinan yang di sampaikan melalui media tidaklah cukup untuk mempertahankan kedua sekutu penting yang sudah lama membantu AS. Mungkin sudah waktunya bagi AS untuk membalas budi.

Penulis adalah Kandidat PhD bidang Administrasi Negara dan Kebijakan Publik di Virginia Tech University, AS.

Realita Penundaan RUU Kamnas

25 Agustus 2008

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Dua Perdebatan Utama dalam RUU Kamnas

Naskah Rancangan Undang Undang Keamanan Nasional (RUU Kamnas) yang sekarang sedang dikaji oleh Lemhanas masih memicu kontroversi yang berkelanjutan. Perdebatan pertama dalam naskah RUU yang mulanya di susun oleh Direktorat Jenderal Strategi Pertahanan Departemen Pertahanan pada awal 2007 ini terletak pada keinginan Dephan untuk mereposisi Kepolisian Republik Indonesia dibawah satu departemen setingkat menteri. POLRI, yang pisah dari TNI sejak tahun 2000 berdasarkan Tap MPR No VI/2000, terus bersikap keras menolak RUU yang dinilai akan menghambat efektivitas institusi sipil tersebut. Perdebatan lainnya, RUU Kamnas di anggap akan mengembalikan paradigma lama dengan melebur sistem pertahanan dan keamanan negara, dimana tanggung jawab keamanan nasional di emban bersama-sama oleh POLRI dan TNI. Padahal, seperti di ketahui, UU No 2 Tahun 2002 dan UU No 34 Tahun 2004 telah membagi fungsi POLRI sebagai penjaga keamanan dan TNI sebagai kekuatan pertahanan. Selain itu, keterlibatan TNI dalam bidang keamanan di khawatirkan akan membuka peluang pelanggaran HAM oleh militer, seperti yang terjadi di zaman Orde Baru.

Paling tidak ada 35 dari 70 pasal dari naskah RUU Kamnas yang menimbulkan polemik. Misalkan, pasal 22 ayat 6 memperbolehkan penggunaan militer dalam menjaga keamanan pada saat keadaan darurat sipil. Pasal 61 ayat 1 menyebutkan bahwa TNI dapat diperbantukan untuk mengatasi aksi mogok masal, konflik komunal, dan dampak bencana alam. Pasal 63 ayat 1 berbunyi kurang lebih, dalam situasi genting yang mengancam keamanan insani dan publik, dan jika unsur keamanan nasional lainnya tidak mampu mengatasi situasi genting tersebut, maka TNI dapat digunakan untuk mengambil langkah-langkah penyelamatan. Selanjutnya, pasal 17 ayat 1 dan pasal 21 ayat 1 berbunyi bahwa penanganan keamanan nasional harus ditempatkan dibawah tanggung jawab menteri urusan dalam negeri.

Penolakan POLRI

RUU Kamnas, yang sudah di sosialisasikan sebanyak paling tidak enam putaran, termasuk di Perguruan Tinggi Ilmu Kepolisian (PTIK), sudah tentu mengancam kemandirian POLRI. Kalangan penolakpun berdalih, kemandirian POLRI menyangkut masalah historis. Sebelum di masukannya POLRI di bawah kementrian pada tahun 1961 sampai 1999, berdasarkan PP No. 11 D Tahun 1946, POLRI pernah menjadi lembaga independen setingkat departemen langsung di bawah Perdana Menteri (1946-1950) dan di bawah Perdana Menteri/Menteri Utama (1950-1959). Sehingga, mereka menilai bahwa independensi POLRI bukanlah suatu hal yang baru, dan seharusnya dapat diterima oleh semua kalangan termasuk Dephan.

Alasan Dephan Mendukung RUU Kamnas

Walau demikian, ada beberapa alasan penting untuk mendukung RUU Kamnas. Misalkan, dosen Ilmu Kepolisian Universitas Indonesia yang juga mantan anggota POLRI, Bambang Widodo Umar, mengingatkan tentang pentingnya RUU Kamnas karena UU tentang Kepolisian (UU No 2 Tahun 2002) sudah mendahului UU Keamanan Nasional. Hal ini berbeda dengan UU No 34 Tahun 2004 tentang TNI yang dibuat setelah UU No 3 Tahun 2002 tentang Pertahanan.

Menteri Pertahanan Juwono Sudarsono mengatakan perlunya penyelarasan kesimpang-siuran UU mengenai pertahanan dan keamanan, yaitu UU No 2/2002 tentang Kepolisian, UU No 3/2002 tentang Pertahanan, dan UU No 34/2004 tentang TNI. Ketiga UU ini telah menimbulkan multitafsir, khususnya terkait kewenangan TNI dalam bidang keamanan nasional. Dengan demikian harus ada UU lain yang lebih memperjelas kewenangan TNI tersebut.

Menhan melanjutkan bahwa keterlibatan TNI dalam menjaga keamanan negara masih sangat diperlukan, dalam konteks arti keamanan yang cukup luas. Dengan kata lain, domain keamanan bukanlah hanya milik POLRI. Dengan ini, RUU Kamnas hendaknya tidak dilihat sebagai upaya untuk kembali mencampur adukkan fungsi TNI dan POLRI dibawah HanKam seperti pada zaman Orde Baru. Struktur kedua lembaga tetap terpisah, tetapi dalam menjalankan tugas dan fungsi harus selaras dan bisa bersatu. Dan realitanya, banyak kasus-kasus yang membutuhkan kehadiran TNI dengan segera.

Pasca kerusuhan 22 Januari 2007, ratusan personel TNI, sebagai aparat penegak hukum dan penjaga keamanan (non-militer), dikerahkan untuk membantu POLRI memburu pelaku terror bom dan pembunuhan di Poso. Begitu juga yang terjadi setahun sebelumnya saat TNI di libatkan dalam Operasi Lanto Dago di provinsi Sulawesi Tengah. Pada pertengahan 2006, ribuan personel TNI dan taruna Akademi Militer dikerahkan untuk membantu korban bencana gempa di Yogyakarta. Dan pada tahun yang sama, ratusan personel TNI turut serta dalam pencarian korban hilang akibat tsunami di Pangandaran. Dalam mengamati keterlibatannya, terlihat anggota TNI lebih tanggap, efektif, dan cekatan dalam memenuhi kebutuhan rakyat di daerah konflik atau bencana tersebut.

Alasan lain terkait reposisi POLRI dibawah suatu kementrian. Kewenangan POLRI saat ini sangatlah besar, seperti tertera di Bab III pasal 13 sampai 19 pada UU No 2 Tahun 2002. Karena itu, seperti di utarakan oleh Gubernur Lemhanas Muladi, POLRI sebaiknya berada di bawah kementrian negara untuk mendapat pengawasan.. Hal senada juga di lontarkan oleh Ketua Komisi I DPR RI Theo Sambuaga. Politisi Golkar ini juga berpendapat bahwa payung hukum ini sangat diperlukan untuk menghindari bentrok TNI-POLRI yang sejak dikeluarkannya Tap MPR No VI dan VII Tahun 2000 tentang pemisahan dan fungsi TNI-POLRI, sudah terjadi lebih dari 100 kali dengan memakan korban jiwa.

Mengenai reposisi POLRI, wacana yang berkembang saat ini selain di Depdagri, POLRI dapat di tempatkan di bawah DepHukHam atau di sebuah departemen baru yang menangani urusan keamanan nasional. Ada juga yang mengusulkan dibentuknya semacam Dewan Kepolisian Nasional sebagai lembaga kebijakan yang beranggotakan Kapolri, Menhan, Mendagri, dan MenHukHam. Walau idealnya POLRI di taruh di bawah Depdagri, seperti pada zaman Kapolri pertama Jenderal Soekanto pada tahun 1945, dimanapun insitusi ini di posisikan, sebenarnya bukan masalah yang sangat besar. Intinya, harus ada pengawasan.

Lebih lanjut, berdasarkan pasal 9 UU No 2 Tahun 2002, Kapolri bertindak sebagai pembuat dan penyelenggara kebijakan POLRI. Berbeda dengan TNI, sesuai pasal 3 ayat 2 UU No 34 Tahun 2004, dimana kebijakan pertahanan berada di tangan Dephan. Membiarkan suatu institusi tanpa pengawasan dan berwenang menetapkan, melaksanakan, mengevaluasi, dan mengawasi kebjiakannya sendiri, terlepas apakah insitusi itu politis atau non-politis, merupakan suatu hal yang sebenarnya bertentangan dengan cita-cita reformasi.

Rekomendasi

Penyusunan RUU Kamnas adalah hal yang sangat penting demi tercapainya keamanan nasional. Oleh karena itu dukungan penuh harus diberikan untuk di undang-undang kannya RUU tersebut. Walau demikian, suatu hal yang penting bukan berarti mendesak. Ada beberapa hal yang sebenarnya harus di benahi sebelum disahkannya RUU Kamnas. Hal ini terkait realita politik yang ada saat ini.

Pertama, melalui TAP MPR No 1 Tahun 2003, sebagian besar Ketetapan MPRS/MPR yang dikeluarkan antara 1960 sampai 2002, yang dinilai tidak lagi sesuai dengan tata kehidupan masyarakat sekarang, dinyatakan tidak berlaku lagi. Beberapa Ketetapan masih di pertahankan karena di anggap penting bagi kehidupan berbangsa. TAP MPR No VI Tahun 2000 tentang pemisahan TNI dan POLRI, dan TAP MPR No VII Tahun 2000 tentang peran TNI dan POLRI dinyatakan berlaku sampai dikeluarkannya UU terkait. Meskipun demikian, terlihat masih terjadi multi-interpretasi dan kesalah pahaman di masyarakat tentang TAP MPR No 1 Tahun 2003. Ada baiknya menghapus dahulu kedua TAP MPR tentang TNI dan POLRI di sebuah sidang istimewa sebelum melanjutkan penyusunan naskah RUU Kamnas, sekaligus untuk memuluskan proses di undang-undangkannya RUU tersebut.

Kedua, penundaan RUU Kamnas juga ada baiknya mengingat situasi politik dan kondisi masyarakat secara umum sekarang yang tidak stabil dan tidak menentu. Lebih khususnya, hubungan antara TNI dan POLRI. Pemaksaan untuk di selesaikannya RUU Kamnas sebelum pergantian permerintahan tahun depan hanya akan memanaskan rivalitas dan memperbesar konflik di antara kedua lembaga bersenjata ini.

Terakhir, seperti di atur dalam UU No 10 Tahun 2004 tentang Pembentukan Pertaturan Perundang-Undangan, bahwa penyusunan dan perancangan RUU—yang merupakan wewenang DPR, DPD, dan Presiden—harus dilakukan berdasarkan Program Legislasi Nasional (Prolegnas). Selanjutnya, di dalam program tersebut ditetapkan skala prioritas untuk berbagai RUU yang akan dibahas, dengan memuat program legislasi jangka panjang, menengah, dan pendek. Sayangnya, RUU Kamnas tidak di prioritaskan dalam Prolegnas 2007 dan 2008. Terlebih lagi, berdasarkan evaluasi Badan Legislasi DPR RI, dari 284 RUU yang masuk Prolegnas 2005-2009, baru 104 yang disahkan menjadi undang-undang. Tentunya ini merupakan suatu hambatan dalam proses pengesahan RUU Kamnas.

Dengan berbagai alasan diatas, penundaan untuk di undang-undangkannya RUU Kamnas sampai sesudah pemilu tahun depan adalah suatu pilihan yang tepat, dan yang pasti lebih realistis.

Penulis adalah Kandidat Doktor (PhD) ilmu administrasi negara dan kebijakan publik di Universitas Virginia Tech, Amerika Serikat

Diambil dari Situs: http://suarapembaca.detik.com/read/2008/08/25/170214/994301/471/realita-penundaan-ruu-kamnas

Indonesian Military Might Will Win Malaysia's Respect

October 25, 2007

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

Despite sharing commonalities, the relationship between Indonesia and Malaysia has turned sour in recent years. A few years ago, the two claimed ownership of the oil-rich Ambalat sea block, situated near Sipadan and Ligitan islands off the coast of Borneo. Tension grew stronger when Malaysian naval vessel KD Rencong rammed into Indonesian vessel Tedung Naga while patrolling in the area.

The continued mistreatment of Indonesian domestic workers by their Malaysian employers poses another problem. These workers, who represent most of the 240,000 domestic workers in Malaysia, are often considered second-class humans. Not only do most earn less than 25 US cents per hour (500 Ringgit per month), if anything at all, many have also been physically, sexually and psychologically assaulted by their employers.

Because of abuse, lack of freedom and other dissatisfactions, thousands of Indonesian maids have run away from their workplace. In June, trying to escape her violent employer, a worker tried to escape from a 15th floor apartment with a rope made of towels and bedsheets. In August, another maid made a similar attempt before being rescued from a seventeenth floor ledge, while a bruised body of an Indonesian servant was found dead at her employer's home in Kuala Lumpur.

The relationship between the two countries was further exacerbated when Malaysia decided to install harsher punishments for illegal immigrants in Malaysia five years ago, including longer jail time, heavier fines and caning. Such a practice was deemed "inhumane" and hurt Indonesia's dignity, especially following the forced return of some 400,000 Indonesian workers.
More recently, there have been other cases that have worsened bilateral ties. An Indonesian referee visiting Malaysia for the Asian Karate Championship was confronted by four plainclothes Malaysian police officers over a minor misunderstanding, and was handcuffed, arrested and beaten.

A sophisticated phone-tapping device worth Rp 3 billion and destined for the Malaysian Embassy's defense attache was confiscated at Soekarno-Hatta airport, where it was brought into the country by a Malaysian national. During an operation to weed out illegal immigrants, the wife of the Indonesian Embassy's cultural attache in Malaysia was detained by a volunteer security force known as RELA, which treated her like an undocumented guest.

The robbing of seven Indonesian students on the outskirts of Kuala Lumpur and the raid on the house of the chairman of the Indonesian Students Association in Malaysia by RELA members put these Indonesians in a state of fear and further strained bilateral relations.

Indonesia also accuses Malaysia of stealing the folk song Rasa Sayange, believed to have originated from the eastern islands of Maluku. Malaysia is also accused of having claimed ownership of other traditional Indonesian heritage, including batik and wayang shadow puppets.

Indonesia has made several attempts to respond to these various problems. For example, Indonesia believed that the Ambalat dispute must be resolved through negotiation.

Responding to the Malaysian government's failure to act against errant employers, Indonesia's House of Representatives has considered reporting the cases to the UN Human Rights Commission. The House has also asked the government to request clarification from the Malaysian government about the discovery of the phone-tapping device.

After the RELA incidents and the beating of the Indonesian karate referee, Indonesia demanded an apology from Malaysia. And many Indonesians now see the need to copyright all Indonesian folk songs, especially those with anonymous writers, to avoid further claim by Malaysia.

Unfortunately, however, these efforts are short lived. An article in The Jakarta Post by Rizal Sukma on Sept. 3 noted that "many Indonesians feel there has been a growing tendency in Malaysia to look down on Indonesia ... [and] feel that Malaysia has become arrogant .... We are often hurt by the way our neighbor looks at us and perceives us".

If this were true, as long as Malaysia still looks down on Indonesia, the aforementioned policies could not guarantee that any similar future problems would not emerge.

It is no doubt that these solutions are wise and necessary, and it is not my intention to argue against these courses of action. Yet, a long-term alternative must be found and employed to supplement, rather than replace, these ad hoc strategies. Such a solution rests in the power of Indonesia's military.

Writing in the 18th century during the U.S. constitutional ratification debate, American founding fathers John Jay in Federalist No. 4 and Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 8 (essays supporting the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation), argued that a country's healthy defense represses, discourages and thus prevents war rather than invites it.

Following this reasoning, it is vital to rebuild Indonesia's defense system, improve the military's professionalism and push other internal reforms. Indonesia is currently on the right track in its attempt to modernize its military. For example, it recently signed a US$1 billion arms deal with Russia to buy submarines, tanks and military helicopters.

Despite a legal problem which has stalled the administrative process since 2002, Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono recently stated that Indonesia will continue with the procurement of Mi-17 choppers.

In an effort to increase the military's professionalism, the House passed Law No. 34/2004 mandating that the government take over all the military's enterprises within five years. Next, the military's Rp 33 trillion current budget must be increased to its ideal level, around Rp 100 trillion. The bigger allocation would enable the military to increase the welfare of personnel and to provide better training. Finally, to contribute further to the military's professionalism, the government of Indonesia should resolve the conflict between the military and the police, which according to the RIDEP Institute has seen at least 10 violent incidents this year alone.

Having a strong defense would change Malaysia's foreign policy toward its "big brother". It would remind the Malaysian government to be more committed to stopping the abuse of Indonesian workers. It would remind Malaysia not to encroach on Indonesia's territory. Most importantly, Indonesia's stronger defense would make the government of Malaysia and its citizens be more careful in their action toward Indonesia.

The writer is a PhD student at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University.

Taken From:

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/10/25/indonesian-military-might-will-win-malaysia039s-respect.html-0

Russia Helps RI Rebuild Defense Capability

September 24, 2007

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

On the first visit by a Russian leader to Indonesia in over 50 years, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono recently to witness the signing of a US$1 billion arms deal to upgrade Indonesia's defense capability.

The agreement includes Indonesia's purchase of 20 Russian tanks, 22 helicopters (17 passenger/transport and five assault) and two submarines, with an option to buy more over the next 15 years. Despite concerns that Russia is also aiming to expand its military clout in Southeast Asia, such a deal should not be viewed with any suspicion. Indeed, the deal will prove beneficial for Indonesia in several ways.

First and foremost, Indonesia's crumbling military needs to be modernized. Suffering under a floundering economy, Indonesia's capability to defend and secure its maritime borders has been weakened by a lack of submarines and warships. The military currently only operates two obsolete German submarines purchased in the 1980s. The recent purchase of more sophisticated and stealthy Kilo Class 636 diesel submarines will ensure more effective naval patrolling of the country's 17,000-odd islands.

Modernization could increase Indonesia's naval standing among its neighbors. The Singapore Navy currently has four Swedish Challenger submarines and plans to buy two more by 2016. The Royal Australian Navy possesses six Collins Class subs, which are already considered superior to those run by Indonesia, and will be upgraded in the near future. Recently, the Royal Malaysian Navy increased its naval power by obtaining two high-tech Scorpene Class submarines.

In the face of all this, Indonesia's efforts to modernize its navy with the purchase of two, or even more, Russian submarines appears reasonable and timely.

The second positive point is that this arms deal will not only improve Indonesia's bilateral defense relations with Russia, but will also benefit other sectors. As Putin said during his visit, "We agreed to develop our cooperation in energy, mining, aviation and the telecommunication sector."

The two nations signed oil, gas and mining agreements which, according to Mine and Energy Minister Purnomo Yusgiantoro, are worth up to $8 billion. These deals will help revamp Indonesia's aging oil and mining facilities.

Indonesian state-owned mining company Aneka Tambang inked a $1.2 billion deal with Russian United Company RUSAL for a project in Kalimantan. The two companies are also exploring further possibilities to expand their business into power station construction and the smelting of aluminum.

Russian oil giant LUKOIL and Indonesia's state-run Pertamina have also agreed to a $1 billion project for a cooperative oil and gas exploration. Both countries have also agreed to develop aerospace technology.

Shortly after Putin's visit, Frans Kaisiepo Airport in Papua was designated a base for launching rockets carrying Russian satellites, starting in 2010.

Russia has also stated its interest in helping Indonesia build its first nuclear power plant on Java by 2016. It is perhaps not unimaginable that the annual trade of around $680 million between the two countries could reach $1 billion in the next few years.

The third benefit from the visit is the credit offer from Russia, repayable within 15 years, which will provide flexibility for Indonesia's cash-strapped government. Russian military hardware is cheaper than similar U.S.-made models and represents what presidential spokesperson Dino Pati Djalal describes as a "generous package."

There are also fewer "strings attached" with Russian the arms sales. Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono said, "Requirements for purchasing arms from Western countries are complicated, with preconditions attached, such as human rights, accountability, not to mention licensing." This is a reference to Indonesia not being allowed to use its British-supplied Scorpion tanks during its conflict with separatist rebels in Aceh.

Finally, Indonesia's relationships with Russia will help reduce its dependence on the United States, once Indonesia's largest arms supplier. In 2005, the U.S. lifted its arms embargo on Indonesia, which was imposed in 1992 after the Indonesian army killed hundreds of protesters in East Timor.

However, Indonesia does not need to reestablish its arms business with the U.S., should it choose not to. Building ties with Russia will diversify the sources of Indonesia's military equipment. Furthermore, the popularity of the U.S. has continued to decline in Southeast Asia, primarily because of its policies in the Middle East, and secondarily because of its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. Reestablishing arms deals with the U.S. would likely result in criticism or even major protests in Indonesia.

Despite suspicions by the West that Russia is attempting to expand its political influence in Southeast Asia, the arms deals between Indonesia and Russia should be defended as there are benefits, both political and economic, at stake.

The writer is PhD student at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University.

Taken From: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2007/09/24/russia-helps-ri-rebuild-defense-capability.html

"John Q" Reveals Weaknesses of U.S. Health Care

August 8, 2007

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC

I have just finished watching a movie called John Q, which i rented from NetFlix. I like the movie so much that I have seen it for a few times. This movie reminds me of the problems that I found in the U.S. health care system: Access, Cost, and Quality.

John Q. Archibald, played by my favorite actor Denzel Washington, is a behind-on-bills metal worker who has just been cut to half-time hours due to the recession and who has been out of luck looking for a second job. The income that he makes as a part-time worker and his wife, Denise, as a cashier at a grocery store apparently is not enough to financially support the family that they even need to let their car got reposed by the bank just so that they can pay the house rent.

Their family problem started to get worse when their only son, nine-year-old Michael, collapsed when playing baseball. After being rushed to the hospital, Michael was found to be seriously ill and needed an emergency heart transplant. Should he not get the transplant immediately, he would soon die for heart failure.

After deciding on the high-risk surgery, to their surprise, the hospital told them that John’s insurance will not cover the cost of a procedure the magnitude of this transplant, costing $250,000, an outrageous amount that the family obviously cannot afford. With Denise not receiving any health insurance at all from her employer, the family must race with time to accumulate at least $75,000 as a down payment just to put Michael as a prospective recipient on the donor list.

Then, John went to his employer asking about his health insurance, in which he was told that the company will only pay for the maximum payout limit of $20,000 for the procedure because of the restrictions on his policy as a part-time employee. Desperately seeking for help, he went to the State Service only to find out that those who qualify for financial assistance must be on welfare. Both the Medicaid and the County Medical Assistance, whose offices he visited, were of no help either. The money he receives from selling his low-priced assets, contributions from his neighborhood, and church donation is still not enough, while the hospital is already planning to send Michael home after the $30,000 cost of his treatment left unpaid.

With time and options running out, John unexpectedly made a bold move. Using a gun, he took the emergency room hostage, with several patients and a doctor inside it. John’s request is quite clear: to put Michael’s name on the donor list to avoid a blood bath.

The movie carries a strong argument that the U.S. health care system faces three major problems: access, cost, and quality.

Access to Health Care

First, it fails to serve every American. It only caters to the rich and well-insured middle classes while denying quality care to the uninsured and the poor. The Census Bureau reported that the number of Americans without health insurance had jumped from 39.8 million in 2000 to 45.8 million in 2004. Unfortunately, this trend will likely continue into the foreseeable future.

The Lewin Group, a private health consulting firm, reported that among those uninsured Americans, the African-Americans and Hispanics are less likely to be insured than the Whites. The fact that the Arhcibalds are African-American may coincidentally portray the reality of inequality of access to health care. John’s limited access is shown, for example, when he went to the County Medical Assistance, where he was denied coverage simply because Michael’s condition is congenital: a birth defect which pre-dates existing coverage. This is a problem since many Americans have exclusions in their policy that deny coverage for treatments related to conditions that preexisted initiation of their present coverage. This means that the cost of the care they are most likely to need is not insured.

Cost of Health Care

At $5,000 per person per year, America spends 40 percent more dollars per capita on its health care than the next most expensive nation, and more than twice as much as most. The increase spending for health care is expected to increase continuously. It is even predicted that Americans would be spending about eighty percent of their GDP to health care by the mid-point of the twenty-first century, compared to only 5 percent when contemporary health care began in the 1950s. It is equally embarrassing to know that with the glut of funding, the U.S. is the only developed nation in the world that does not guarantee health care to its people.

The movie touches on the cost subject when the Archibalds were asked to give the down payment just to put Michael’s name on the donor list. Denise asks “our son is upstairs dying and all you can talk about is money?” To the Archibalds, it is shameful that the hospital could not do one operation in good faith after getting nice profits from performing over three hundred surgeries the year before.

Looking at this, it is easy to say that the goal of health care should not be to maximize profits. By focusing on profits for both insurance companies and hospitals, the cost of health care will continue to rise. It is precisely because of the “wrong” thinking adopted in health care that a citizen like John does not receive adequate health care.

The incredibly high cost of health care, or heart transplant in particular, that John faces is exactly what many Americans are facing. In fact, because of this expensive procedure many Americans have decided to go overseas to have a certain operation done for a better price and, often, a better medical treatment. In general, offshore medical procedures can be performed for as little as one-tenth the cost of what would normally be charged domestically.

For example, while Americans pay $55,000 for heart bypass surgery at a U.S. hospital, patients would only pay $6,000 for the same procedure in India. Obviously, this cost-saving has attracted many American patients to go to India. It is, thus, not surprising that the McKinsey Consulting group estimated medical tourism will bring about $2.1 billion revenues for India by 2012, especially after it has established world-class expertise in cardiac care, cosmetic surgery, dentistry, and joint replacements.

Quality of Health Care

Quality of health care has been debated that an increasing number of scholars have expressed concern about the potential for failing standards of care. Indeed, the average American does not reliably receive care of high quality. It is because of the low quality in health care that between 44,000 and 98,000 people die needlessly every year due to medical error.

Although John Q puts emphasis more on cost and access as problems, it also shows that quality is a problem in health care. When the Archibalds were told that the hospital needed the big sum of money to do the surgery, John’s thinking of moving Michael to a county hospital for a cheaper cost was quickly discouraged by the hospital administrative supervisor. She ensured him that Hope Memorial is the better place to do the operation than the low quality county hospital, whose surgeons are not as well-trained as those at Hope Memorial.

Another major problem displaying the deficiency of health care quality that John Q shows is a common disrespect towards patients. For example, John was not even told that his employer switched to a different, less costly, carrier.

What the Movie Shows

John Q perfectly shows several major health care problems that each one represents an actual challenge in the sector. Indeed these problems have existed for years that many scholars have advocated for a fundamental reform in health care but continued to face numerous barriers that prevent it from getting implemented.

John Q shows us the complexity of the health care system during a conversation at the emergency room between male nurse Leo Maguire and the rest of the hostages, in which Leo says:

"You see, here's the problem, on the one hand, you've got your insurance companies who basically want you healthy or dead. That's how they make money. On the other hand, you've got your medical establishment, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, who don't want you healthy. They want you sick. That's the way they make money… and the individual is caught in the middle of this gigantic tug-of-war. It's a game. And the end result is, people don't get the treatment they deserve."

John Q also points out how much bureaucracy is involved in health care policy. So much that it impedes the processes. For example, when John asked Dr. Turner to give recommendations to put Michael’s name on the recipient list, the latter only said, “I am only a physician. I don’t make policy decisions…I make recommendations, all the time. Yet, the final decision rests with the board of trustees.” Additionally, John was upset with the bureaucracy in health care when he met his insurance representative and was told to file an appeal, which would take seven working days—a long process, indeed. He even got more irritated when the hospital administrator told him that he should have filed for another procedure instead, called grievance (since an appeal is only for an already existing claim)—which would take thirty business days. These two examples illustrate that health care policy is full with “red-tape” bureaucracy. Procedures must be followed. None would argue against such statement. Yet, in an emergency, often these procedures slow down the processes that they will produce unfavorable results, including low quality, high cost, inequality, access, and even the loss of life.

John Q has become a reminder to the public as well as policy makers of several major problems in health care that need to be reformed.

Einstein: the Father of Relativity?

March 7, 2007

Diaz Hendropriyono

Washington, DC

Albert Einstein is unquestionably one of the most influential persons and a mathematical genius in the modern era. His huge contribution to science has transformed our understanding about the universe: from the very large to the very small particles. Einstein also radically challenged the then-established concepts of time and space. Who has not heard of E = MC²?

Einstein published eleven papers, six of which were about relativity. Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity at the young age of 26, a discovery that abandoned the concept of time and space as absolute entities. He asserted that there was no absolute motion in the universe, only relative motion, superseding the 200-year-old theory developed by Newton. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is seen as having two separate parts: special relativity in the world of microscopic physics, which was presented in 1905, and general relativity in the world of astrophysics and cosmology, which was not published until 1916.

According to his special theory of relativity, the speed of light was the same for all observers, regardless of their motion relative to the source of the light. He also said that observers moving at constant speed should observe the same physical laws. Having these two together, he said that it could only happen if “time intervals and/or lengths change according to the speed of the system relative to the observer's frame of reference.”

An experiment showed that an atomic clock traveling in a jet plane tick slower than if it were stationary. This experiment lead to the thinking that time travel is not impossible. Provided that one can travel at, or close to, the speed of light, one can travel to the future. For example, say, Bill travels to space at a speed of light, while Ted is on earth doing his regular activities. At the time of Bill’s arrival on earth, Ted is going to be much older than Bill.

Einstein then said that the theory of relativity—the E = MC², showing that matter and energy are interrelated and even equivalent—operates in the absence of gravitational field. Thus, he formulated another theory that took gravity into account. This theory is known as the General Theory of Relativity, which provides “the law of gravitation and its relations to the other forces of nature.”

Basically, this theory suggested that gravity and motion can affect the interval of time and space. The idea was based on the Principle of Equivalence, where gravity pulling in one direction is completely equivalent to an acceleration in the opposite direction. Thus, it said that a uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniform acceleration.

For example, imagine a person in two situations. In the first situation, the person, standing at rest on earth, is feeling the downward gravitational pull. In the second situation, the person is standing inside an elevator in space, and the elevator is moving upward at the rate of 32 ft/sec squared. In both situations, the person would feel the same downward gravitational pull. This contradicts Newton’s view of “gravity as a force acting at a distance”.

However, I think that Einstein’s greatest contribution to our civilization is not in physics, regardless of how huge of an impact that has on us. Not because he proved Newton’s theory wrong. Not that he received many awards—among them the Bernard Medal, Copley Medal of the Royal Society, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, and a Nobel Prize in physics—that he was considered a great person.

His greatest contribution goes beyond the advancement of electronics and the possibility of space travel. It is about peace. He warned us that, “as long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable” (Einstein, 1945). And for those jihadists who go to war for the sake of religion, Einstein had warned them that, “science without religion is lame [and] religion without science is blind,” (Einstein, 1941). If everyone would think before he acts, would use logic rather than emotions, and no nation on earth would not compete to be the most powerful entity, peace may be upon us. After all, one week before his death, Einstein left a note for all nations to give up nuclear weapons. His purpose, clearly, was no other than international peace. He should be the father of peace.

A Flawed Policy in Lebanon?

September 18, 2006

Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington DC

In mid-July, Hizbollah ground forces ranged across the Lebanese border into Israel, capturing two Israeli soldiers, killing three and sparking a destructive month-long war. The clash included at least 15,500 Israeli Air Force sorties into Lebanon and the firing of 4,000 Hizbollah Russian-made Katyusha rockets into Israel. The casualties stand at more than 1,500 Lebanese and 40 Israeli civilians.

On Aug. 11, the United Nations Security Council passed UN Resolution 1701. It calls for the cessation of hostilities, the disarmament of the guerrillas, and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. Hizbollah expressed reservations at the outset, but eventually both sides agreed. The mandate of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon was extended until Aug. 31, 2007 to ensure the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Southern Lebanon and to restore peace.

World democracies responded favorably to this plan to end the conflict. The resolution authorized a 15,000-member peacekeeping force, and the European Union provided the backbone by pledging a deployment of 6,900 troops. At least three countries with Muslim majorities (Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia) also promised to send soldiers to fill the remaining slots. Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda recently announced the government's plan to send 1,000 troops.

While sending Indonesian troops may quell domestic anger over the Middle East conflict and dissuade militants from going to Lebanon to conduct jihad, this foreign policy move may prove damaging. First, although it eventually agreed to Indonesia's participation, Israel initially resisted the involvement of countries that did not recognize the Jewish state, including Indonesia, which has the world's largest Muslim population. Consequently, Indonesia's troop participation may stave off any form of relationship between these two countries, or perhaps between Indonesia and the U.S. -- Israel's largest foreign aid donor since 1976, bestowing $357 million in Economic Support Funds and $2.2 billion in Foreign Military Financing in fiscal year 2005 alone.

Furthermore, French President Jacques Chirac said the 15,000-member force, alongside another 15,000 troops from the Lebanese army, is simply excessive. If he is correct, then an additional 1,000 Indonesian soldiers may be superfluous, and may have no significant impact on the peace process.

Third, Indonesia's financial constraints may hamper the plan's implementation and distract from other, more pressing needs. The House has approved a budget of Rp 355 billion (about US$39 million) for the peacekeeping operation, which is a burden on the state budget. Whether the UN will fully reimburse the spending, as Indonesia claims the international body has promised to do, remains to be seen. In fact, House budget committee leader Emir Moeis has said the UN will only reimburse logistical and operational costs, which unfortunately account for a mere 20 percent of the total budget. That leaves Indonesia to pay the remaining Rp 287 billion.

The money allotted for the purchase of 32 armored cars from France could be used for other purposes. It could rebuild about 20,000 houses destroyed by the recent natural disasters in Central Java and Yogyakarta, at a cost of approximately Rp 15 million each. The funds could also be used to increase the promised oil subsidies in 2007 and to sustain the affordability of gasoline in anticipation of future gas price volatility. Additionally, the amount spent on troop deployment could help offset the upcoming payment of the 13th month salary and pensions of civil servants and retirees.

Even if these monetary outlays are partially or fully reimbursed, the potential for Indonesian casualties is real, and those losses would be truly irreplaceable. During last month's conflict, four UN Truce Supervision Organization members from Austria, Finland, Canada and China were killed in Israeli air attacks.

The current administration does not have to turn a deaf ear to the public outcry over the Middle East crisis. However, there are other ways to help. Sending tents, sleeping beds, pillows, medicine, food, water and other essentials is a more practical approach, especially since more than 900,000 Lebanese and tens of thousands of Israelis were displaced by the conflict. Furthermore, Indonesian citizens could participate in the relief efforts by contributing to reliable humanitarian organizations such as Islamic Relief, LIFE, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, and many others. The administration must assume a central role to encourage Indonesians to participate.

The writer is PhD student at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University.

Taken From: http://old.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060918.E02

War in Iraq Imprudently Decided During Financial Turmoil

June 14, 2006

Diaz Hendropriyono

Washington, DC

Until now, I am still puzzled by the Bush policy to start the War in Iraq. How could he decide to go to Iraq when the financial situation in the U.S. was not conducive to fund the war? The decision to go into Iraq was made when the U.S. was faced with financial troubles.

First, the federal government had just experienced a deficit of $158 billion in 2002, after enjoying a surplus since 1998, in which it produced $69 billion. It was the federal government’s first surplus since a $3 billion surplus in 1969. The government’s finance was characterized by large annual budget deficits from the early 1980s through the early 1990s. Factors contributed to this situation included a severe recession in the early 1980s, a sharply increased spending for national defense during the 1980s, and a continued expansion of spending on entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Second, the U.S. economy was experiencing a downturn in the early part of the 21st century. The National Bureau of Economic Research announced that the world’s largest economy sank into a recession in March 2001, marking the end of the nation’s longest economic expansion of ten years. Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth slowed by summer of 2001 and then declined over the second half of the year before finally picked up. Business fixed investment fell sharply, declining an estimated 3.6% in 2001 after eight straight years of growth above 8%. Real consumption only grew 3% compared to 5% for the last three years. U.S. employment fell by 1.1 million jobs while the unemployment rate increased to 5.8%, showing its highest level in seven years. In reaction to the weak economy in 2001, U.S. employers cut around 415,000 jobs, the biggest since May of 1980, which involved 460,000 job losses.

Third, the events of 9/11 changed federal spending dramatically, especially on strengthening homeland security. For example, through the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, Congress created the Transportation and Security Administration (TSA), charged with developing policies to ensure the safety of U.S. air traffic. TSA personnel took over airport security from the airlines employing private screeners and replaced them with a better-paid and better-trained work force a few months after the attacks. The move to federalize airport security obviously did not come without any cost. The Bush Administration originally submitted a $4.4 billion budget request for TSA for fiscal year 2002 and $4.8 billion for fiscal year 2003 in the Emergency Supplemental bill. While the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its request, the House cut the funding for the newly-created agency to $3.85 billion for fiscal year 2002, or $550 million below the administration’s request. Its approved budget for fiscal year 2003 was $4.95 billion. And the remainder of the agency’s budget would come from user fees, such as a security fee on airline tickets.

The Anthrax attacks have also increased the nation’s financial burden. The outbreak, which caused four deaths, including two postal workers, cost the United States Postal Service $5 billion in equipment damage, clean-up efforts and lost revenues.

Fourth, in June 2001, President Bush signed a $1.35 trillion tax cut into law. Although the relief, which would occur slowly over the next decade, was smaller than the $1.6 trillion amount that he originally proposed, Bush hailed it as major victory. After fulfilling his campaign promise, he stated that tax relief has only occurred twice since WWII, during the Kennedy’s administration and Reagan’s presidency. “And now it’s happening for the third time, and it’s about time,” said he. Although tax cut would normally boost national economy, a study conducted by Peter Yoo of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis in 1996 concluded that consumers saved most of a tax cut in the months immediately after the tax relief occurred. He found that the 1964 tax cut did not result in an immediate increase in spending. This tax cut would substantially contribute to deteriorating the budget outlook. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the tax cut coupled with the increases in discretionary spending would worsen the budget outlook by $550 billion in fiscal year 2002.

Fifth, on September 22, 2001, President Bush signed into law H.R. 2926, the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act to “provide compensation to any individual, or relatives of a deceased individual, who was physically injured or killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001,” as stated in Section 403, Title IV of ATSSSA. By December 2003, a total of 2,823 death claims, averaging $1.8 million per claim, in addition to 3,517 injury claims were received. The $18 billion federal bailout was also meant to help the airline industry since the families receiving the compensation must renounce all rights to sue airline companies whose airplanes were used in the attacks. Rand Corporation study reported that by November 2004, these individuals as well as businesses impacted by the attacks had received $38.1 billion in compensation. Of this, the federal assistance amounted to $15.8 billion, insurance companies contributed $19.6 billion, and charitable groups donated $2.7 billion.

Sixth, in February 2003, the U.S. national debt had become so high that Treasury Secretary John Snow urged Congress to raise the debt ceiling to maintain the full faith and credit of the U.S. government and avoid any negative repercussions both at home and abroad. Such a request came with criticisms as the borrowing limit had just been upped by $450 billion to $6.4 trillion in June 2002. Representative Ron Paul described the request to increase the debt limit showed the administration’s fiscal irresponsibility and would endanger the U.S. economy. Senator Kent Conrad stated that the Bush administration “wants our children and grandchildren to pay our bills.” The House, however, agreed to a $984 billion increase as part of its 2004 budget blueprint.

Seventh, the War on Terror was launched in October 2001 with the deployment of U.S. military troops to Afghanistan. At the start of the war, the Center for Strategic and Budget Assessments estimated the Afghan invasion, aided by the United Kingdom and the NATO alliance, would cost “a staggering $400 to $800 million in its first 25 days of action.” Initially, Congress provided $17.4 billion to the Defense Department for the overall war on terrorism. However, in March 2002, President Bush requested another $14 billion to fund for the remaining months of the fiscal year. Such a request was considered reasonable knowing the high costs of war (A carrier-based F/A-18 fighter-bomber costs $5,000 an hour to fly; 90 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, used by the U.S. Navy, cost about $1 million apiece). Thus, it is not surprising that the Afghan War had already cost $4.4 billion since the start of the war through Feb 2002. At a price tag of around $1 billion a month the Afghan War had become the nation’s most expensive war since Vietnam (For comparison, the 78-day air attack against the Serbians in Kosovo in 1999 cost about $3 billion, and the Gulf War in 1991 only cost $2 billion, after the original cost of $14 billion was offset by reimbursements from a few grateful Persian Gulf Nations).

Finally, the decision was made when the U.S. economy was suffering from a sluggish growth in the first quarter of 2003 and when was facing the growing costs of entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid—costing $397 billion and $438 billion in 2002 and 2003, respectively.

Knowing all these financial difficulties that the US was facing, how could Bush decide to go to Iraq when we all knew from the beginning that the U.S. could not afford to wage this war—at least financially.

The federal deficits, significant economic decline since March 2001, the increased security measures in response to the 9/11 attacks, the tax cuts in 2001 (which inevitably would fuel more deficits), the compensation package given to the family of 9/11 victims, the rise in national debt, and the already-high price of executing the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, should have shown the clearest evidence that the funding of the Operation Iraqi Freedom was going to be problematical from the very start.