Diaz Hendropriyono - Interview on Obama's Visit to Jakarta
Diaz Hendropriyono - Interview on the No-Phone Zone Day
Diaz Hendropriyono & Ian Wirajuda - Interview Part 2
Diaz Hendropriyono & Ian Wirajuda - Interview Part 1
A Symbol of Economic Disparity
January 15, 2010
Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC
Dubai recently unveiled the world’s tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa, which stands 828 meters high, more than twice the height of New York’s Empire State building. History shows mankind has tried to build tall structures ever since the fabled Tower of Babel in the city of Babylon. In modern times, most of the early skyscrapers sprang up in New York and Chicago, including the Chrysler Building, the Empire State and the Sears Tower. As the 20th century drew to a close, other countries began to follow suit.
Malaysia built the Petronas Twin Towers, the world’s tallest in 1998. China has built many skyscrapers since the 1990s. Hong Kong has constructed at least five super-tall buildings in the past decade. South Korea is now building the country’s tallest building in Incheon.
Meanwhile, the Menara Jakarta, as one of the country’s several planned megaprojects — along with the Surabaya Sports Center, a nuclear reactor in Central Java, the Sunda Strait suspension bridge and the Center Point of Indonesia in Makassar — will begin construction in Kemayoran, Central Jakarta, this year and is expected to be completed by 2012. Initially planned during the Soeharto era to be the world’s tallest structure, it was stalled due to the 1997/1998 financial crisis. The tower will stand 558 meters high. Thus it’ll be more than four times the height of the National Monument, or Monas. Surpassing in height the Eiffel Tower and the destroyed World Trade Center in New York, it will be taller than any other fully constructed building in the world at this time, save the Burj Khalifa. It will also be the tallest tower in the world, superseding Canada’s CN Tower and Malaysia’s KL Tower.
Obviously countries around the world race to build these sky-high structures for more than just functional reasons. For instance, built in the midst of the Great Depression, the Empire State lifted the spirits of Americans and symbolized humanity’s attempt to reach the impossible at the beginning of the century. The Burj Khalifa was inaugurated to show Dubai’s perseverance after the city-state’s financial troubles became international news, when it failed to pay off its debts a few months ago and was forced to seek help from the neighboring emirate of Abu Dhabi.
However, most importantly they are built to symbolize the country’s economic power and wealth.
The Menara Jakarta will definitely put our city among other popular cities with super-tall landmarks, such as Shanghai, Taipei, New York, Kuala Lumpur and Hong Kong, and will be a proud icon of our country. If finished, it will be a vertical triumph for Indonesia. Yet whether the Menara Jakarta will generate such prestige is a matter that deserves closer analysis.
Countries with skyscrapers are all considered economically advanced. Likewise, Indonesia’s economic statistics are quite comforting. Our country’s unemployment rate has dropped from 12.5 percent in 2007 to 7.87 percent in August last year. The inflation rate is at its lowest level in a decade, at 2.78 percent. Indonesia is the largest economy in Southeast Asia and enjoyed an annual growth of 4.3 percent last year, and is expected to expand by 5.5 percent this year. With more than US$65 billion in foreign currency reserves, Indonesia is able to maintain the exchange rate of our currency against the US dollar at a level 15 percent higher than in 2008.
Unfortunately, poverty rate is still hovering at 14 percent, among the highest in Asia. What is more disappointing is that the gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Indeed, the ILO reported in 2008 that there had been an increase in income inequality between top executives and average employees in Indonesia for the past decade. Specifically, the country’s Gini Coefficient, which measures income inequality, rose from 0.311 in 1999 to 0.368 in 2008.
This should be a concern as we seek to build the Rp 5 trillion (US$544.5 million) Menara Jakarta. We surely do not want to create social jealousy, nor do we want to go up on the top of the tower and look out of the window only to see people living in slums around the luxurious high-rise. Even worse, we do not want the super-tall tower to end up representing the wide gap between rich and poor in Indonesia, rather than the strength of our overall economy.
The construction of the tower and the other mega projects will definitely enhance our country’s reputation on the world stage. However, as we seek out this vertical triumph, we should not forget to aim for a horizontal triumph too. First, there should be an increased focus on resolving the country’s slum problem, particularly in Jakarta. The city’s development board states that 70 percent of homes in Jakarta are self-built, and about half are slums. Second, we should also pay attention to the welfare of other Indonesians, particularly the 379,000 Jakartans who earn less than a dollar a day, as well as the other 32 million across the country living in poverty and the 76 million considered poor nationwide.
In short, vertical and horizontal developments must always go hand in hand. In this way, the Menara Jakarta and other future mega projects will appropriately represent our economic power, instead of become a symbol of economic disparity.
The writer is the founder of the Youth Initiative for Indonesian Democracy and Development (YIDD) and a PhD candidate at Virginia Tech
Taken From: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/01/15/a-symbol-economic-disparity.html
How to Respond to Public Opinion on Facebook?
December 31, 2009
Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC
For example, during his campaign, Barack Obama raised about US$500 million dollars online, including from his 3.2 million supporters on Facebook. Former premier Thaksin Shinawatra opened a Facebook account to update his supporters about his daily activities, as well as to criticize the Thai government. Presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi relied heavily on Facebook to spread messages to young Iranians. Collaborating with the Colombian Intelligence Agency, the FBI used Facebook to locate youth who threatened to kill the son of President Alvaro Uribe. Israel’s internal security service, Shin Bet, acknowledged that Hizbollah used Facebook to recruit Israeli spies and agents. Inspired by Facebook, the US intelligence community — consisting of the CIA, FBI, DEA, NSA, and others — created its own internal Facebook-like site — called A-Space — to share stories and files among themselves.
Meanwhile, Indonesians have effectively created various groups on Facebook to influence government policy. These include those that voiced support for the arrested deputy chairmen of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), for the establishment of an inquiry committee in the parliament to probe the Bank Century scandal, and for a woman who is now facing a legal trial for criticizing health care provisions in an email.
Realizing the major role that Facebook has played in our lives, especially in pressuring the government, in the case of Indonesia, questions still linger: To what extent does Facebook impact the working of our democratic government? And how should the government respond to people’s opinion on Facebook?
There are several pillars of democracy: executive, legislative, judiciary, media, pressure groups and the people. An Indonesian writer recently added that as technology advances, the virtual world or the Internet should be the next pillar of democracy. Each of these pillars, then, should serve as checks and balances for the other.
In the famous KPK vs. the National Police (Polri) case, we saw these pillars of Indonesia’s democracy at work. When people felt the House of Representatives sided with Polri, while the executive was behind the screen for sometime and the judiciary played no role (except the Constitutional Court) people turned to Facebook as the next pillar to voice their opinions. While this may show a healthy democracy at work, at first glance, we should not conclude so, perhaps not too soon.
We should know that Facebook does not represent the voice of all Indonesians. While the number of Facebook users in the country has reached 13.9 million, this amount is only 6 percent of our population, mostly concentrated in big cities, and not all from that figure participate in virtual political discussions.
Furthermore, since it only requires a few easy clicks to join a group to pressure the government, there is still the possibility that a user does not know the case they are supposedly fighting for in-depth. As evidence, although the number of supporters for the KPK’s chairmen exceeded one million, the number of protestors on the street was much fewer, perhaps in thousands.
Of course the government is not expected to ignore people’s opinion on Facebook, or even block the social networking site, such as China, Iran, and Vietnam have done. Yet, the government should be careful that it does not base its policy decision solely on opinions posted on Facebook, however big a group claims to be. Each of the democratic pillars should keep the others accountable. No one pillar, i.e. Facebook as part of the virtual world, should act as the determinant of policy for a democratic Indonesia. If this happens, our democracy may eventually turn into poor form of government; anarchy.
The writer is a PhD candidate in Public Administration at Virginia Tech and founder of the Youth Initiative for Indonesia’s Democracy and Development (YIDD)
Taken From: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/12/31/how-respond-public-opinion-facebook.html
Diaz Hendropriyono's Interview - 2010 New Year Resolution
Diaz Hendropriyono, PhD Candidate at the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech, Commenting on his New Year Resolution. Broadcast on Voice of America and Radio Trijaya 104.6 FM on December 31, 2009
Bisakah Indonesia Jadi Negara "Superpower"?
26 November 2009
Hadianto Wirajuda dan Diaz Hendropriyono
Secara geopolitik, Indonesia dikelilingi oleh beberapa negara besar dan kuat. Di bagian utara, terdapat Tiongkok, dengan status ekonomi terbesar ketiga di dunia, dengan pertumbuhan diprediksi melampaui 10% pada akhir tahun ini. Di bagian barat laut, terdapat India, negara nuklir dengan kekuatan militer yang sangat besar dan salah satu negara dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi tercepat di dunia.
Sedikit di bawah Indonesia ada Australia, middle power, yang dikategorikan oleh IMF sebagai advanced economy. Beberapa kota besar di negara itu mendapat julukan sebagai most liveable cities di dunia. Merujuk pada kapasitas yang kita miliki, apakah masih ada harapan dan optimisme bagi Indonesia untuk dapat menjadi negara adidaya?
Dalam bukunya yang berjudul Indonesia's Foreign Policy Under Suharto, Leo Suryadinata (1996), mengemukakan beberapa faktor yang menguatkan kredibilitas Indonesia di forum internasional. Pertama, secara geografis, Indonesia adalah negara terbesar di ASEAN. Secara demografis, Indonesia adalah salah satu negara dengan penduduk terbesar di dunia, setelah Tiongkok, India, dan AS. Kedua, Indonesia merupakan emerging economy di Asia dan mendapat sebutan "Macan Asia." Pertumbuhan ekonomi Indonesia saat itu sekitar 7% per tahun dan jika bukan karena krisis finansial pada 1997-1999, ekonomi Indonesia mungkin akan jauh lebih baik. Ketiga, kekuatan militer Indonesia merupakan yang terkuat di bagian tenggara (southeast) Asia. Berbagai kapasitas tersebut merupakan regional entitlement bagi Indonesia, sebagaimana diutarakan oleh Michael Leifer, profesor ternama ilmu hubungan internasional.
Era Soeharto telah berlalu. Sekarang, kita berada pada era yang baru. Sebuah era yang menuntut kemakmuran ekonomi dan kebebasan politik berjalan berdampingan; era yang menuntut kepemimpinan yang kuat dan tidak hanya bersandar pada besaran geografis negara; era yang menuntut toleransi terhadap perbedaan pendapat dan keyakinan di masyarakat. Secara geografis dan demografis, negara kita tidak banyak berubah sejak zaman Orde Baru. Indonesia masih merupakan salah satu negara terpadat di dunia dan yang terbesar di ASEAN.
Sekitar 230 juta dari 570 juta penduduk ASEAN tinggal di Indonesia. Secara ekonomi, ketahanan bangsa kita dalam menghadapi krisis finansial, saat ini, menempatkan Indonesia sebagai satu-satunya negara dari Asia Tenggara sebagai peserta forum ekonomi bergengsi dunia, G-20.
Percaya Diri
Dari persepsi politik, Indonesia merupakan pendukung kuat perkembangan politik di ASEAN. Seperti kita ketahui, forum ASEAN selama ini lebih mengedepankan pertumbuhan ekonomi dibandingkan perkembangan politik. Ini bukanlah suatu keanehan, bahwa ASEAN, tidak seperti Uni Eropa, berintikan negara-negara dengan sistem politik yang tidak seragam. Ada junta militer hingga demokrasi penuh.
Berkaca dari kenyataan tersebut, tidaklah mudah untuk mempromosikan kebebasan politik dalam konteks ini. Tetapi, perkembangan demokrasi yang sehat, sejak 1999, telah menyuntikkan rasa percaya diri Indonesia untuk mempromosikan signifikansi kebebasan berpolitik melalui Bali Concord II pada tahun 2003. Inisiatif yang disebut sebagai ASEAN political development, bukan democratization, ini pada akhirnya berhasil dimaktubkan dalam ASEAN Charter yang mulai berlaku pada Desember 2008.
Terlepas dari perdebatan apakah Indonesia harus meratifikasi piagam tersebut mengingat masih banyak ruang kosong yang harus diperbaiki, Indonesia tetap bersikeras mendukung inisiatif tersebut. Hal ini didasarkan pada kenyataan, tanpa sebuah piagam yang mengikat semua, ASEAN tetap akan menjadi organisasi yang longgar, yang akan dapat mengurangi komitmen negara-negara anggotanya dalam upaya pengembangan demokrasi di kawasan.
Dalam konteks ini, penting bagi kita untuk mengingat posisi Indonesia sebagai pihak yang pernah menolak nilai-nilai demokrasi Barat, karena dianggap bertentangan dengan Asian values.
Kapasitas lainnya mencakup status Indonesia sebagai negara demokrasi terbesar ketiga setelah AS dan India, dan negara Islam terbesar di dunia. Indonesia adalah tempat di mana Islam, modernitas dan demokrasi dapat tumbuh kembang secara bersama-sama. Namun, Indonesia juga masih harus menghadapi beberapa tantangan. Termasuk di dalamnya adalah konflik horizontal di kalangan masyarakat. Tetapi, hal ini jangan sampai menimbulkan kekhawatiran yang berlebihan terhadap dominasi fundamentalisme di Indonesia, sehingga dapat mengancam karakter ketoleransian bangsa ini.
Seperti dikemukakan oleh Ramage dan MacIntyre dalam laporan ASPI, berjudul Seeing Indonesia as a Normal Country, ketakutan akan fundamentalisme dan antipluralisme di Indonesia adalah keliru karena mayoritas masyarakat Muslim Indonesia adalah kaum moderat. Di samping itu, kita juga harus ingat bahwa tidak satu pun negara di dunia ini yang dapat dijadikan model sebagai demokrasi yang sempurna. Bahkan, di AS sekalipun, konflik kesukuan dan ras masih terjadi.
Di samping itu, korupsi masih merupakan masalah untuk Indonesia. Berdasarkan laporan dari Transparency International, Indeks Persepsi Korupsi Indonesia masih setara dengan negara korup seperti Ethiopia dan Uganda. Tetapi, kesuksekan kita dalam memberantas korupsi telah memperbaiki indeks tersebut sebanyak 37% sejak 2002. Namun, kekisruhan kepastian hukum, yang terjadi saat ini, jelas menuntut ketegasan pemerintah agar tidak berlarut-larut, yang mana dikhawatirkan dapat memengaruhi tingkat kepuasan publik terhadap upaya pemberantasan korupsi di negeri ini.
Kebebasan Berbicara
Dalam hal kebebasan berbicara, Reporters Without Borders (RWB), sebuah organisasi nonpemerintah internasional yang fokusnya pada kebebasan pers dan advokasi jurnalis, melaporkan bahwa kebebasan tersebut menurun sejak 2002 (peringkat 57), membuat kita setingkat dengan Guinea dan Mauritania, di mana kebebasan bicara tidak begitu dijamin. Pada Feburari 2008, misalnya, Bersihar Lubis, editor Koran Tempo, harus berhadapan dengan tuntutan hukum karena mengutip sebuah pendapat seorang tokoh yang kemudian diinterpretasikan pendapat tersebut sebagai penghinaan terhadap sebuah institusi hukum di Indonesia. Akan tetapi, ranking Indonesia mengalami perbaikan dari posisi 111 ke posisi 100 setahun terakhir.
Kemiskinan di tengah masyarakat juga merupakan tantangan bagi siapa pun yang memegang tampuk kepemimpinan di negeri ini, walaupun tercatat bahwa pemerintahan SBY berhasil menurunkan tingkat kemiskinan dan pengangguran di Indonesia beberapa tahun terakhir, masing-masing ke tingkat 14% dan 9%.
Sebagai penutup, bukanlah sebuah mimpi belaka untuk bercita-cita bahwa Indonesia dapat menjadi negara superpower melihat potensi yang kita miliki, yang juga dimiliki oleh sebuah negara adidaya secara garis besarnya. Tetapi, untuk melihat Indonesia menepati posisi itu, kita masih harus banyak bersabar.
Tidak ada yang instan dalam proses ini -bandingkan usia kita dalam berdemokrasi yang baru sekitar 11 tahun dengan AS yang sudah mencapai lebih dari 230 tahun. Tetapi, jika kita pelihara dan kembangkan potensi ini, paling tidak Indonesia bisa menjadi superpower di wilayah Asia, walau agaknya masih sulit untuk menjadi world super- power.
Pertanyaan besarnya adalah bagaimana kita mengembangkan potensi ini menjadikan kekuatan yang sesungguhnya, sehingga kita dapat berdiri sejajar dengan (atau malah di atas) Tiongkok, India, Rusia, dan AS? Ini adalah pertanyaan dan pekerjaan rumah besar yang menjadi tanggung jawab seluruh bangsa Indonesia.
Hadianto Wirajuda adalah kandidat PhD dari LSE London School of Economics and Political Science, UK. Diaz Hendropriyono adalah kandidat PhD dari Virginia Tech University, USA. Keduanya adalah pemrakarsa Youth Initiative for Indonesia's Democracy and Development (YIDD)
Diambil dari Situs: http://www.suarapembaruan.com/index.php?modul=news&detail=true&id=12086
It May Not Be Soon, But We Can Become an Asian Superpower
22 November 2009
Hadianto Wirajuda and Diaz Hendropriyono
London-Washington
It is a fact that we live in a world surrounded by superpowers. In the Far East, we have China, the third-largest economy and whose economic growth is expected to surpass 10 percent in the fourth quarter of this year.
A little bit further west is the nuclear-armed India, one of the world's largest military forces and among the world's fastest-growing economies. Over to the south, we are the immediate neighbor of Asia's middle power, Australia, considered an advanced economy by the IMF, and whose major cities rank highly on quality-of-life surveys. Above all, we are a world citizen with the US and EU as the only superpowers.
Now, let's reflect internally on our capacity as a world citizen. With what we have, is there a reason for the optimism to see Indonesia as a world superpower?
In his 1996 book Indonesia's Foreign Policy Under Soeharto, Suryadinata argues on several factors that underpin Indonesia's international credibility. Writing at the time of the New Order regime, he makes the following points:
First, Indonesia is geographically the largest country in ASEAN. Demographically, Indonesia earns a nod as the world's fourth most populous country, after China, India and the United States.
Second, Indonesia is considered an emerging Asian economy, hence the epithet "Asian tiger". Indonesia's economy grew sustainably at an average 7 percent annually in the 1990s. If not for the Asian financial crisis in 1997/1998, our economic growth, let alone political development, would have been a different story.
Third, Indonesia's military is arguably the strongest in Southeast Asia.
It is for all these reasons that Michael Leifer labeled the republic "regional entitlement".
The Soeharto regime is now part of Indonesian history. We are now in a new league, one that demands economic prosperity on one hand and political freedom on the other; a league that demands leadership as opposed to land mass; and a league that demands coexistence of values in society.
Indonesia's size remains unchanged from what it was during Soeharto's period. It is still the biggest in Southeast Asia and still the world's fourth most populous country. More than 230 million of the 570 million people in ASEAN live in this country. Economically, Indonesia's resistance to the current global economic crisis has made it the only member of the G20 from Southeast Asia.
On the political front, Indonesia is a strong proponent of ASEAN's political development. As we all know, ASEAN's cooperation largely emphasizes the promotion of economic growth, while political integration remains a peripheral agenda. This is not surprising, considering that ASEAN, unlike the EU, consists of different political systems ranging from a military junta to full-fledged democracies. It is of course not an easy effort to promote political freedom in the region, but Indonesia has taken a significant role in raising the issue.
And despite the challenges faced by the government both at home and from the region itself, Indonesia's advocacy of ASEAN political integration remains strong. In this light, it is worth recalling Indonesia's stance from being an opponent of Western democratic values by arguing that they went against Asian values, to being the champion of democracy in the region. A transformation in need is a transformation indeed.
Additionally, Indonesia is the third-largest democracy in the world after India and the United States, and the world's largest Muslim-majority country. It is widely recognized as a place where Islam, modernity and democracy coexist peacefully in society.
Indeed, there are still some challenges that need to be overcome. These include partially horizontal tensions within society and other issues such as terrorism and radicalism.
Corruption also remains a problem in the country. The country's Corruption Perception Index as published by Transparency International puts us on the same level as Libya, Ethiopia and Uganda. Yet with the country's persistent efforts in eradicating corruption, the index has improved by 37 percent since 2002.
Other than that, according to Reporters Without Borders, freedom of expression in Indonesia has actually worsened since 2002, placing it on the same level as Guinea and Mauritania.
However, Indonesia's overall ranking has improved significantly over the past year, from 111th spot to 100th, showing greater guarantees of freedom of expression.
While the poverty and unemployment rates remain high, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's administration has gradually brought them down over the past five years, to around 14 percent and 9 percent respectively.
In conclusion, referring to all these features, it is certainly not an exaggerated hope to argue that Indonesia has all the potential needed to be recognized as a world superpower.
We believe we have the right ingredients to be considered a super power. It may not be soon, but if we can nurture all the potentials that we embrace, Indonesia can become an Asian superpower, while to add the word "world" before "superpower" to Indonesia's international stature may still need an extra effort by all Indonesians.
Because a challenge remains: How do we translate these potentials into real power that can compete with China, India, Russia and, most of all, the United States? Indeed, this is a question for all Indonesians who share our optimism that Indonesia can and will be a world superpower.
Hadianto Wirajuda is a PhD candidate at the London School of Economics and Political Science, UK; Diaz Hendropriyono is a PhD candidate at Virginia Tech, US; Both are founders of the Youth Initiative for Indonesia's Democracy and Development (YIDD)
Taken from
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/11/22/it-may-not-be-soon-we-can-become-asian-superpower.html
Diaz Hendropriyono's Interview - KPK vs POLRI
Cicak, Buaya, Kambing Hitam, dan Adu Domba
November 18, 2009
Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC
Kasus KPK vs. POLRI semakin hari semakin “seru” untuk diikuti. Kasus ini bermula saat Kabareskrim Komjen Susno Duaji menangkap dua wakil KPK Bidang Penindakan Bibit Riyanto dan Bidang Pencegahan Chandra Hamzah karena penyalahgunaan wewenang, dengan ancaman enam tahun penjara, terkait pencekalan Direktur PT Masaro, Anggoro Widjojo,tersangka kasus korupsi di Departemen Kehutanan, dan pencabutan pencekalan Direktur PT Era Giat Prima, Djoko Chandra, tersangka kasus cessie Bank Bali. Dalam hal ini, polisi berpegangan pada Pasal 21 Ayat 5 UU No 30/2002 tentang KPK yang mengharuskan keputusan pencekalan pimpinan KPK harus bersifat kolektif, tidak hanya tergantung pada keputusan Bibit dan Chandra. Belakangan, pasal yang disangkakan oleh Polisi berubah dari penyalahgunaan kewenangan, penyuapan, pencobaan pemerasan, dan pemerasan.
Misteri langsung berkembang apakah penangkapan ini terkait tindakan balas dendam Susno yang mengetahui bahwa dirinya sedang disadap oleh KPK terkait kasus Bank Century. Adapun kasus ini berawal saat Susno diberitakan meminta fee 10% dari jumlah uang sebesar US$18 juta milik Boedi Sampoerna, jika Susno bisa mengambil uang tersebut dari bank yang saat itu sedang dilanda beberapa masalah, termasuk masalah likuiditas dan penggelapan uang oleh pemiliknya sendiri, yaitu Robert Tantular. Dugaan balas dendam atau rivalitas antar dua lembaga ini pun terus berkembang di masyarakat seiring dengan sebutan “Cicak vs Buaya” yang di sempat lontarkan oleh Susno. Publik pun tidak tinggal diam. Berbagai organisasi dan masyarakat luaspun memprotes keras penahanan kedua pimpinan KPK ini—sebut saja, antara lain, Pusat Kajian Antikorupsi Universitas Gajah Mada, Koalisi Masyarakat Sipil Anti Korupsi, Komunitas Cinta Indonesia Cinta KPK dan Gerakan Sejuta Facebookers Pendukung KPK. Bahkan, Presiden SBY pun ikut turun tangan dengan membentuk satu tim independen bersifat ad-hoc yang diketuai Adnan Buyung Nasution untuk menelusuri kasus ini.
Karena tuduhan Polisi terhadap Bibit dan Chandra yang tidak konsisten—ditambah lagi penetapan tersangka yang diputuskan dalam hitungan jam, dari penetapan sebagai saksi—publik pun dibuat bingung. Jika memang proses pencekalan yang dipermasalahkan, seharusnya kasus ini dibawa ke Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Dan yang seharusnya keberatan dan menjadi pelapor adalah pihak yang dicekal. Tetapi, Polisi bersikeras bahwa kasus ini bisa di bawa ke pengadilan atas tuduhan penyuapan seperti yang dilaporkan oleh mantan Ketua KPK Antasari Azhar, yang sekarang sedang menjadi tersangka kasus pembunuhan PT Putra Rajawali Banjaran Nasruddin Zulkarnaen.
Dengan semakin populernya dua nama binatang, “Cicak” dan “Buaya”, yang di sangkutkan pada kasus tersebut, semoga saja nama binatang-binatang lain tidak akan muncul didalam kasus ini, khususnya “Kambing Hitam”. Sayangnya, ada kemungkinan bahwa nama binatang tersebut akan muncul ke permukaan. Pertanyaannya sekarang, yaitu siapa yang akan memerankan tokoh tersebut. Seperti diketahui, berdasarkan informasi yang berkembang di masyarakat, Anggoro menyuruh adiknya, Anggodo Widjojo untuk menyuap petinggi KPK agar pencekalan Anggoro dicabut. Anggodo diberitakan memberikan uang suap ke pimpinan KPK senilai Rp. 5,150,000,000 melalui perantara Ari Muladi.
Pembayaran dilakukan tiga tahap. Pertama, pada bulan Juli 2008, Anggodo memberikan Ari Muladi Rp. 3,750,000,000 (dalam bentuk US Dollar dan Rupiah) di Deluxe Karaoke Hotel Penninsula, yang sore harinya, melalui perantara Yulianto, langsung di berikan ke Deputi Penindakan KPK Ade Raharja—untuk selanjutnya diberikan ke Wakil Ketua KPK Bidang Pencegahan M. Jasin, senilai Rp. 1 milyar—di café Bakul Kopi Bellagio Kuningan. Dua hari setelah itu, menurut Ari Muladi, ia kembali mempercayakan Yulianto untuk memberikan Rp. 1,5 milyar kepada dua orang di Pasar Festival , yang diperkirakan Bibit Riyanto dan Chandra Hamzah. Tahap kedua, Anggodo memberikan Rp. 400 juta ke Ari beberapa saat setelah pemberian pertama. Dan pada Februari 2009, Anggodo mempercayakan Rp. 1 milyar (dalam bentuk Singapore Dollar) kepada Ari, yang diberikan kepada Yulianto di Kafe Trattoria di Wisma Karya, untuk akhirnya diberikan ke Direktur Penyidikan KPK Bambang Widaryatmo. Uang Rp. 250 juta belakangan di kabarkan untuk diberikan ke media. (Tidak diketahui kemana larinya sisa uang milik Anggodo Rp. 1,4 milyar yang sudah diberikan ke Ari).
Tokoh-tokoh “Kambing Hitam”
Jika memang ini merupakan scenario besar yang sengaja dibuat oleh POLRI untuk menjatuhkan KPK, kemungkinan tokoh “Kambing Hitam” akan diperankan oleh Anggodo. Menurut berita yang beredar di media, Anggodo, lantaran kesal karena telah menyuap KPK namun pencabutan Anggoro masih juga belum dicabut, mencoba untuk mengkriminalisasikan KPK dengan bantuan polisi. Dalam hal ini, polisi memang sudah lama mau menggembosi sebuah lembaga “superbody” tersebut yang telah menimbulkan kecemburuan diantara lembaga penegak hukum. Tetapi pada akhirnya, bukan tidak mungkin bahwa Anggodo yang akan ditangkap dengan tuduhan penyuapan.
Tokoh “Kambing Hitam” juga bisa diperankan oleh Antasari Azhar. Bukti kriminalisasi KPKpun agaknya menguat setelah tersangka Wiliardi Wizar mengakui bahwa BAP di tanda tangani olehnya karena ada intimidasi dari petinggi kepolisian untuk menjerat Antasari. Agaknya, jika Antasari bisa lepas dari tuduhan ini, Wiliardi lah yang di jadikan “Kambing Hitam”.
Tetapi jika scenario penggembosan KPK oleh POLRI memang hanya suatu dugaan yang mengada-ada, nantinya akan terlihat bahwa POLRI lah sebenarnya yang dijadikan “Kambing Hitam.” Seperti diketahui, sewaktu KPK mau menyelidiki kasus Bank Century, karena ada kejanggalan dalam pencairan dana, Polisi langsung memeriksa para pejabat KPK terkait kasus penyalahgunaan wewenang dan penyuapan. Yang dikhawatirkan disini ialah dugaan bahwa Polisi sebenarnya hanya digunakan untuk menutupi apa sebenarnya yang terjadi di Bank Century, yang menerima kucuran dana pemerintah sebesar Rp. 6,7 triliun. Opini kemudian dilemparkan ke publik bahwa ada persaingan antar lembaga, agar masyarakat tidak terfokus pada masalah Century yang mungkin melibatkan pejabat-pejabat negara lainnya.
“Adu Domba”
Walau kemunculan “kambing hitam” sangat disayangkan, namun lebih disayangkan lagi jika ternyata ada scenario “adu domba” di kasus tersebut, dimana kepolisian memang di “adu domba” dengan KPK. Disini berarti ada pihak ketiga yang memiliki kepentingan lain. Siapakah tokoh yang akan memerankan “pengadu domba” disini? Memang belum terlihat jelas, namun para koruptor sedang menari-nari diatas kesedihan institusi negara yang sedang mengalami krisis tersebut.
Diambil dari situs:
Diaz Hendropriyono's Interview - Obama's Nobel Peace Prize
Obama’s Peace Prize as Bad News
October 11, 2009
Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC
A few days ago, US President Barack Obama delivered a brief self-deprecatory remark in the Rose Garden of the White House after being awarded the Nobel Peace prize, an honor that often comes with a great celebration of the culmination of one’s achievement. Yet, the reward—elevating Obama’s position on the world stage as he joined other transformative figures including Nelson Mandela, Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, Mother Teresa, and Martin Luther King Jr.—brought gasps of surprise and was not without a controversy.
The prize, which Obama plans to personally pick up in Oslo later in December and comes with $1.4 million windfall which the president plans to donate to charity, was perhaps announced prematurely to the novice president. Obama, the third sitting U.S. President to receive such recognition after Teddy Roosevelt in 1906 and Woodrow Wilson in 1919, has only been in office for nine months. Furthermore, the deadline for the select number of qualified people to submit nomination to the five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee—in which at the time it received 205 names to consider—was February 1 of this year, on the very twelfth day of his presidency.
To compare, former President Jimmy Carter was given the Nobel twenty one years after stepping down from this highest post and former Vice President Al Gore received his just two years ago. Several former U.S. Secretary of State including Elihu Root, Frank Kellog, Cordell Hull, and George Marshall, were rewarded after they left office. And Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson were given the honor during their second terms.
The more important issue is that Obama has not delivered any concrete result. Charles Dawes, later became US Vice President, earned his Peace prize in mid 1920s for creating the WWI reparations plan. Foreign policy czar Henry Kissinger got his Nobel for establishing the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 to end the Vietnam Conflict. While Teddy Roosevelt had helped brought an end to the Japan-Russian war, Woodrow Wilson had founded the League of Nations, the precursor of the United Nations, before getting the reward.
Obama’s selection reportedly also came at the expense of at least two other nominees who have endured some suffering. It includes Zimbabwe’s Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai—who had been beaten, harassed and arrested under President Robert Mugabe—and Chinese human rights activist Hu Jia, who is now in prison for the fifth time for challenging the Communist party.
Clearly, Obama does not need to get such a beating or spend time in jail before he can be awarded. Yet, Obama until this moment has not fulfilled many of his campaign promises. Attorney General Eric Holder recently acknowledged that the January 2010 deadline to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp—where suspected terrorists are placed for years, mostly without charge—is unlikely to be met. With only twenty detainees being moved out of the Bay since the beginning of Obama’s administration, and leaving 221 inmates to be relocated in three months; it is a tough call. In the Middle East, Obama’s promise of peace is for certain not coming anytime soon after failing to stop Israel from continuing settlement construction in the West Bank and east Jerusalem, while the Palestinians insist that the latter should be made as its capital, wanting to return to the 1967 borders. Iran, which Obama promised to negotiate “without any precondition”, continues its uranium enrichment in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions.
Fortunately, relation with Russia has softened as Obama dumped the Bush plan to construct missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, and so has relation with North Korea, as it has agreed to return to the six-party talks to discuss nuclear disarmament. However, peace is still not at hand in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan, perhaps the more problematic of the two. The prize would undoubtedly make it harder for the president to approve the additional troop increase—vital to maintain stability in the region—recently requested by the Commander of the US Forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal.
Regardless of what he has or has not done in this short time, it actually poses political risks to Obama’s presidency, as he now has a higher wall to climb and more things to prove. Also, the selection of Obama has brought a mixed reaction about the validity of the Nobel Committee’s decision. The Committee acknowledged that Obama was not chosen for substantive accomplishments, but for inspiring hope, as it added, “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.” However, Alfred Nobel himself wrote in 1895 that the peace prize must be given “to the person who shall have done [emphasis added] the most or the best work for fraternity between nations… and the formation and spreading of peace congresses.”
Simply put, the prize is actually bad news for both Obama, as he is now faced with more pressure to fulfill his pledges, and the Nobel Committee, as it now faces criticisms regarding the selection and its processes. Most unfortunate, the prize has come too soon.
Indonesia Should Bring Back Hambali
March 11, 2009
Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC
Fulfilling his campaign promise, and having pledged to fight terrorism in a manner consistent with American values, US President Barack Obama signed an executive order in January requiring the Pentagon to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility within the year.
The notorious prison, known for the practice of inhumane interrogation techniques, has spurred condemnation toward the United States. Constructed in April 2002 on Cuban land leased to the United States following the Spanish-American War in the early 1900s, the site currently houses 245 detainees, after some 500 others were repatriated or sent to a third country during the Bush administration. Many of these remaining individuals linked to al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been held for years without charge, trial, or access to legal assistance.
Several key terror suspects imprisoned at the camp include the following, among others: al-Qaeda’s Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 attacks lynchpin, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was supposed to be the “20th hijacker”, Abu Zubaydah, who ran al-Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan, and Hambali, who headed the regional group of the once most dangerous terror group in Southeast Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah.
In closing Gitmo, the Obama administration is now seeking help from foreign countries to resettle these prisoners. Particularly, it is concerned about the 60 and 120 international prisoners who have been cleared for release, and deemed low-threat, but risk prosecution, or worse, if repatriated to their country of origin.
Fortunately, several European countries are willing to help. For example, France is ready to receive three Algerian captives as political refugees. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says that Germany could bring the 17 Chinese Uighur Muslims detained at the camp to Munich, fearing that these separatists from the Xinjiang province would be tortured, or even killed, if returned to China. Wanting to improve the chilly relations with the United States, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos has stated that his country is ready to take a number of inmates as long as legal conditions are acceptable.
While Portugal, Lithuania, Italy, Ireland and Finland have also stated their interest to host these individuals, other European Union nations such as Austria, the Netherlands, Poland, Denmark and Sweden, as well as Australia are against accepting these detainees. In Canada, opposition leaders have written a formal letter to President Obama requesting a return of its citizen Omar Khadr, the only Westerner left in the camp. Meanwhile, Britain has recently accepted the return of its resident, Binyam Mohamed, the first prisoner transferred by the Obama administration.
Indonesia should take advantage of the Gitmo closure to extradite the Indonesian-born Hambali, who was moved from one overseas secret prison to another before finally being placed at the Bay three years ago.
Born Encep Nurjaman a.k.a. Riduan Isamuddin, he went to perform jihad in Afghanistan the first time in the mid-1980s. He later served as the main liaison between al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. To illustrate, Hambali met Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – who allegedly funneled US$50,000 to Hambali after the first Bali bombing – at least twice in the late 1990s and early 2000s in Karachi to formalize training assistance between the two terror groups. Furthermore, he helped al-Qaeda find an operative to cultivate anthrax at its Kandahar laboratory. Hambali, who met Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in early 2001, also hosted several al-Qaeda figures during their trip to Malaysia, two of them were later to be 9/11 hijackers. Moreover, he reportedly served as the only non-Arab in al-Qaeda’s advisory council.
Although Hambali was not being discussed during the recent meeting between Indonesia’s Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the former is open to the possibility of sending Indonesian officials to meet Hambali at Gitmo. Indeed, Indonesian Police chief Bambang Hendarso Danuri stated in January that he would discuss Hambali’s extradition with other agencies, especially the State Intelligence Agency (BIN), and send a formal request to the United States to interrogate this “high-value” detainee.
However, repatriating the man allegedly involved in the 2002 Bali bombings, the J.W. Marriott attack and the Christmas Eve bombings to Indonesia may be easier said than done.
For example, there may be a problem of returning him as he used a Spanish passport when captured in the CIA-led operation in Thailand six years ago. His return may also depend on how much access to Hambali the United States would give Indonesia and whether the Obama administration sees Hambali in the same light as the previous administration.
In addition, the vagaries of the Indonesian judicial system as well as the absence of the Internal Security Act in Indonesia, unlike that in neighboring Malaysia and Singapore, would perhaps make the United States reluctant to hand over Hambali.
There is also the unwanted possibility that Hambali would be hailed as a hero by some once he returns, and could gain celebrity status like the former Jemaah Islamiyah emir, Abu Bakar Ba’asyir.
Finally, if he is later proven innocent and freed at home, there is always a chance that he might return to terrorism. In fact, around 62 former Guantanamo inmates who were returned to their country of origin under the Bush administration have returned to terrorism. These include Said Ali al-Shihri and Mohammad al-Awfi, who left their home country Saudi Arabia to rejoin al-Qaeda in neighboring Yemen, and Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi, who returned to terrorism, after four years in Gitmo, by blowing himself up near Mosul, killing 13 Iraqi soldiers.
Indonesia should be aware of all the above consequences and the difficulties of extraditing Hambali. Yet, efforts still need to be put forth to get Hambali home to stand trial, not only to bring justice to the victims of the bombings, but perhaps also to give evidence against his ex-boss to get him a tougher sentence.
For a start, Indonesia should keep pushing the United States for greater access to the man that the United States is probably unable to try under American law.
The writer is a PhD Candidate at the Center for Public Administration and Policy, Virginia Tech University
Taken from:
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/03/12/indonesia-should-bring-back-hambali.html
Bahasa Indonesia is Immature
February 5, 2009Diaz Hendropriyono
Washington, DC
Washington, DC
I am not a big soccer fan. However, when I read the newspapers every morning, inadvertently, I always read the sports section, especially during the World Cup and the Euro Cup. While not interested specifically in the soccer news, I notice from those articles that there is no conistent way of writing and spelling the name of a foreign country.
Take, for example, Česká Republika or Czech Republic as written in English. Following the dissolution of Československo (or Czechokoslovakia in English) in 1993, Česká Republika peacefully split from Slovenská Republika. Since its founding, the Czech government thought to assign a short form of the country’s name, mainly for marketing purpose. Like the latter, which is shortened to Slovensko (or Slovak Republik shortened to Slovakia, as written in English), the short form of Česká Republika is given as Česko.
In the English language, the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs promoted the one-word name Czechia to be used in all cases, while urging the use of the longer and more “political” the Czech Republic in official documents. (Yet, some still mistakenly refer to the country simply as the adjective word Czech without the word Republic after it).
In Bahasa Indonesia, the writing of this country’s name has been a source of confusion and debate. Generally speaking, the two countries that split from Cekoslowakia are referred to as Republik Ceko and Republik Slowakia. Like in the Czech and English language, in Bahasa Indonesia, these two countries are given a short name, Ceko and Slowakia.
What is saddening is that there is no consistency in referring to the spelling and writing of the Czech Republic in Bahasa Indonesia. An English-Indonesian dictionary, written by John Echols and Hassan Shadily, as well as several online dictionaries—such as dicts.info, sederet.com, and xamus.com—translate it as Ceko. Likewise, the Indonesian Foreign Ministry uses Republik Ceko and its short form Ceko.
Yet, some insist to call it Republik Ceska, which is then shortened to Ceska. For example, various Indonesian newspapers, such as Bola, Sinar Harapan, and Kompas, to name a few, like to identify it as such. Note that, the word Česká Republika in the Czech language is in the feminine form that cannot stand alone by itself. So, calling it Ceska (as opposed to Česko) without the word Republik that follows it is incorrect. Furthermore, as others may have argued, the writing of Republik Ceska in Bahasa Indonesia is confusing because it consists of half Bahasa Indonesia and half Czech. The word “Republik” is Indonesian and “Ceska” is Czech (or čeština).
To make matters worse, Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (Fourth Edition) refers to it as Republik Cheska or Republik Cek.
It is true that several foreign countries are still debating what to call Česká Republika in their own language. However, what they are arguing is whether to use the long or short form of that country’s name. For example, like the English speakers, who are still more comfortable to use the longer name Czech Republic rather than Czechia, the Italians feel better with the name La Repubblica Ceca, and not Cechia. Furthermore, the Czech themselves initially refused the usage of Česko and preferred the longer version. On the other hand, the Russians and Germans are happy with the short form Чехия and Tschechien, respectively. And the Spanish are comfortable enough to use both forms Chequia and República Checa.
In Bahasa Indonesia, the focus of the debate is a little different. We do not argue whether to use the long or short form of the country’s name. Rather, we seem not to know what to call Česká Republika in Bahasa Indonesia—whether it is Republik Ceko, Republik Ceska, Republik Cheska, or Republik Cek.
I would not blame anybody to use any of that name since they can argue that they get it from a supposedly reliable source. However, the problem is that there are several formal sources and institutions calling the same subject differently. The many ways of spelling and writing of a foreign country’s name, notably Česká Republika, among a few others, in Bahasa Indonesia is a proof that Bahasa Indonesia itself is still not developed. Our language still has a double, or multiple, standard in labeling a foreign country. Without any agreement in assigning a definite name for a foreign country, Bahasa Indonesia will probably stay immature.
Author is a PhD Candidate at the Center for Public Administration and Policy at Virginia Tech University
This article is taken from: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/02/05/bahasa-indonesia-immature.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
