Eviction is the ‘Solution’: an Illusion to Govern

Dewi Susanti


AN ARTICLE in Kompas daily January 23, 2007 entitled “Mimpi Buruk Setelah 28 Tahun” (Nightmare after 28 Years) featured an eviction of 136 houses and 200 kiosks in Pedongkelan, Kelapa Gading area of North Jakarta by some 1,500 government officials. The area was illegally turned into vendors’ market some 28 years ago, and now with the plan to turn it into a flyover, the buildings were bulldozed over, leaving many inhabitants lose not only a place to live, but a place to earn a living.

Is there no other actual solution to overcome distribution of urban space but through eviction? I would argue that finding actual solutions are very possible, but they largely depend on the political will of those with power, i.e. the decision makers, be it government or private enterprises.

In a recent trip to Bangkok to conduct a research on public participation in urban planning and the rights of urban poor to urban space, conducted on behalf of the Institute of Ecosoc Rights, I met with various NGOs, government officials, academics, and community members. The consistent finding among all groups is that land disputes between illegal occupants and Thai government, both at local and national level*, most likely end with negotiated solutions that benefit both parties. This negotiation process also happens with private lands, although the rate of success is much lower than public lands, as success is almost always related to the benevolence of the land owners.

Three of the communities I visited squatted down lands that belonged to Railway Authority. Tubkaew community was threatened by eviction when the Railway Authority decided to develop the land they squatted on to make railway connection between Bangkok and the new Suvarnabhumi airport. The Railway Authority gave not only compensation based on the quality and size of the houses they demolished, but they gave the community a land close by the previous area to lease for 30-year period. Each member of the community was given around 40 meter square, which they distributed among themselves, and the whole community shared payment for open space and playgroup. The same happened to Wat Chong Leom and Bangramad communities who also squatted on Railway Authority lands.

Two other communities I visited, Bang Bua and Ruam Samakee, were developed under the widely-acclaimed Baan Mankong (Secure Housing) program conducted by Community Organizations Development Institute (CODI), a government unit under the Ministry of Social and Human Rights. An interview with CODI’s Director, Somsook Boonnyabancha, revealed that the program aimed to develop communities’ bargaining power by establishment of saving groups and organizations within and between communities. CODI’s solution to housing problems ranges from on-site upgrading, re-blocking, land sharing, or relocation, in addition to giving long-term loans to community with problems (defined as those facing eviction, very poor, or regularly flooded) so they can pay for either long-term rents and/or construction of houses.

Compare these Bangkok examples with the case of Pedongkelan, Jakarta, in which the government provided relocation area not too far from there, but in the size of two meters by 1.8 meter per inhabitant, or less than four meters sq, an area too small for most to move into. From the Kompas article, it was not clear if the occupants received any compensation from the government, but it was clear that they did not even received notification for the eviction, and most ended up losing their properties, opportunities to work, and rights to live in the city.

With the persistence of eviction by the government of Jakarta, it seems indeed that eviction has become the one ‘solution’ to overcome the bigger problem of rights for living and working in a city that should be made possible for all. Yet, is eviction a ‘solution’? Or is it just an illusion of the government that by evicting illegal inhabitants, the people and ‘their’ problem will just go away?**

*The communities I visited squatted on lands that belong to Bangkok Metropolitan Authority, Railway Authority, Port Authority, Treasury Department, Crown Property Bureau.

Read More...

Summary only...

The poor as actors

Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (3)

EITHER in Jakarta or in Bangkok, the poor dwell in marginal spaces such as in river banks, in the nearby of railways, on the sidewalks as street vendors or hawkers, and absentee plots of land owned by the government, private owners or by corporations. In both cities, in fact the access of the poor to city spaces and lands is very limitted. Both governments, meanwhile, target at having clean cities. Such policy of building clean cities so far tends to place the poor as the source of problems. It is because poverty is perceived as equal to dirty slump areas. To build a clean city, therefore, means to fight against such areas. So far actually there is no difference between Jakarta and Bangkok. Both fight against slump areas. The only difference is the ways in implementing such policy.

The ways of the fighting against slump areas of both cities relies on a very different paradigm. Jakarta fights it with evicting the poor through diverse ways like letting just them be, to conduct forced evictions, deliberate fires or arsons, up to people’s ID sweeping activities. In Jakarta, the poor are more seen of not having any contribution for the city development. Moreover, the poor are perceived as the city’s burden. This perception can be seen from the attitude and the actions taken by the Jakarta city authorities who tend not to have any concern when talking about the poor.

You may read to this quot as Jakarta governor as saying: “As the governor I feel embarassed to foreigners who visit Jakarta. After leaving of the airport [to the city], they are offered with the views of slump areas at the flood canal areas. The Jakarta administration itself performs the mandate to create an organized, safe, comfortable, clean and good-lookng capital city, so that Jakarta could represent [such as] a capital. The Jakarta administration, however, faces impediments of urbanization that can not be stopped and of the many people who have problems of social welfare [litterally to say ‘the poor’] who break the provincial law no. 11/1988. For this reason, the administration takes the option of law enforcement.” The governor delivered the statement at the hearing on February 7, 2002, with the Commission II of the national level legislators for the sub-commission of law and human rights in which he talked about the eviction incidents against the city poor.

The head of the North Jakarta district office for security and order Toni Budiono also said: ‘Arsons or scorch earth actions (bumi hangus) was one of the tactics in the operation of putting illegal constructions into order such as those at river banks. In a pitted situation, arsons against building are taken to easier conduct the evictions.’ (Kompas daily, November 21, 2001)

The central Jakarta vice district head Abdul Kahfi said something related: ‘The renovation program for slump areas into apartments, office and business districts, has successfully reduced the Jakarta population in the last six years.’ (Kompas daily, April 29, 1996)

In Bangkok, the poor have different experiences. The Bangkok administration sees the poor communities as actors who have considerable contributions for the city development. If there were no the city poor —who so far supply cheap labor forces and costless foods, the life cost in the city will certainly be very expensive. The Bangkok government elites and most city civil society retain this kind of understanding and awareness. They rather consider the existence of slump areas as a result of the lack of public infrastructural facilities, lack of services and social security in city’s marginal spaces in which the poor communities live. With such understanding, to solve the city slump areas is not by considering the poor as ‘the source of the city problems’ or ‘waste’ that can thereby be dumped just like that, but they are regarded as integral part of city development. Apart, the efforts to solve city poverty are also tightly coined with their efforts in solving the rural poverty problems. This is the least way the Thai government mitigates the flow of rural migration to the cities.*

Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (2)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (1)

See Indonesian version.

Read More...

Summary only...

Kaum Miskin sebagai Aktor

Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (3)

BAIK di Jakarta maupun di Bangkok, kaum miskin sama-sama menempati ruang-ruang marjinal, seperti pinggir kali, pinggir rel, trotoar bagi pedagang kaki lima (PKL) dan lahan-lahan kosong milik pemerintah, milik pribadi atau milik korporasi. Di kedua kota ini, akses masyarakat miskin atas ruang dan lahan kota sangat terbatas. Pemerintah Bangkok dan Jakarta sama-sama berorientasi pada terwujudnya kota yang bersih. Kebijakan membangun kota dengan paradigma kota yang bersih selama ini condong menempatkan kaum miskin sebagai sumber masalah. Sebab kemiskinan acapkali disejajarkan dengan kekumuhan. Membangun kota yang bersih berarti memerangi kekumuhan. Sampai pada titik ini, tak ada jarak berarti antara Jakarta – Bangkok. Keduanya sama-sama memerangi kekumuhan. Yang membedakan adalah caranya.

Cara memerangi kekumuhan disandarkan pada paradigma yang sangat berbeda antara Jakarta – Bangkok. Jakarta memerangi kekumuhan dengan mengusir kaum miskin, lewat beragam cara: mulai dari pengabaian, penggusuran, pembakaran, sampai operasi yustisi. Sebab bagi pemerintah Jakarta, kaum miskin dipandang sebagai yang tak punya andil bagi pengembangan kota. Bahkan lebih dari itu, kaum miskin diposisikan sebagai beban. Cara pandang demikian ini bisa kita baca dari sikap dan tindakan penguasa kota Jakarta, yang sedikit pun tak ada rasa peduli saat bicara soal kaum miskin di Jakarta:

Gubernur Sutiyoso:

Sebagai gubernur saya malu pada orang asing yang datang ke Jakarta. Setelah keluar dari bandara, mereka langsung disuguhi pemandangan kumuh di wilayah banjir kanal. Pemda DKI sendiri mengemban amanat untuk menciptakan ibukota yang tertib, aman, nyaman, bersih dan indah, sehingga Jakarta representatif sebagai ibukota. Namun Pemda DKI menghadapi kendala urbanisasi yang tak terbendung dan banyaknya PMKS (penyandang masalah kesejahteraan sosial) yang melanggar Perda 11/1988. Untuk itu, Pemda memilih upaya penegakan hukum.

Pernyataan ini diujarkan dalam pertemuan dengan Komisi II DPR RI Sub Komisi Hukum dan HAM membahas masalah penggusuran pemukiman miskin, 7 Februari 2002.

Kasudin Trantib Jakarta Utara Toni Budiono:

Pembakaran atau bumi hangus merupakan salah satu taktik dalam operasi penertiban bangunan liar seperti bantaran kali. Dalam keadaan terpaksa, pembakaran bangunan ditempuh untuk memudahkan operasi membongkar.

(Kompas, 21 Nopember 2001)

Walikota Jakarta Pusat Abdul Kahfi:

Program peremajaan lingkungan kumuh menjadi rumah susun, gedung pusat perkantoran dan sentra bisnis, telah berhasil mengurangi jumlah penduduk Jakarta Pusat dalam enam tahun terakhir.

(Kompas, 29 April 1996)

Di Bangkok, kaum miskin punya pengalaman yang sangat lain. Pemerintah Bangkok melihat komunitas miskin sebagai aktor yang punya andil besar bagi pengembangan kota. Andai tidak ada kelompok miskin kota – yang selama ini menyediakan buruh murah dan makanan murah, biaya hidup di Bangkok akan sangatlah mahal. Kesadaran semacam inilah yang ada di kepala pemerintah Bangkok dan civil society-nya. Persoalan kekumuhan mereka pandang sebagai dampak dari minimnya infrastruktur, pelayanan dan jaminan keamanan di ruang-ruang marjinal yang menjadi hunian bagi komunitas miskin. Dengan sudut pandang seperti ini, solusi atas masalah kekumuhan tidak lagi menempatkan kaum miskin sebagai ”sumber masalah” atau ”sampah” yang pantas disingkirkan, melainkan sebagai bagian dari pengembangan kota. Selain itu, upaya mengatasi masalah kemiskinan di kota juga mereka padukan dengan upaya mengatasi kemiskinan di pedesaan. Dengan cara inilah pemerintah Thai menghindari atau setidaknya mengurangi urbanisasi.* (bersambung)


Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (7) — Kekuatan Civil Society
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (6) — Penggusuran Jadi Masa Lalu
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (5) — Program Baan Mankong
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (4) — Kali dan Kaum Miskin
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (3) — Kaum Miskin sebagai Aktor
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (2) — City of Everything
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (1)

Lihat versi Inggris.

Read More...

Summary only...

City of Everything

Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (2)


BOTH BANGKOK and Jakarta are the same metropolitan cities that have nine millions of population. Apart from being dubbed as “Krung Thep” (city of angel), Bangkok has many epithets: ‘the happy city’, ‘the eternal jewel city’, ‘the impregnable city of God’, ‘city of everything’, etc. Guinness records Bangkok as having the longest multi-word place name in the world. Jakarta has meanwhile no epithet at all but formal label as ‘city of BMW’. This abbreviation has no connection with the lavish BMW car but represents an Indonesian acronym of the so-called ‘clean, human, and having authority’ (bersih, manusiawi, dan berwibawa). Is it not curious that they took such acronym insinuating the elite officials who created it as if paving their ways to easier embezzle public funds to have those Germany-made cars, a symbol of the elite groups? As metropolitan cities, both face similar problems, i.e. over-urbanization, over-population, excessive land commercialization, spatial difficult conflicts. However, they have very different responses in dealing those problems. Once you come to each city, you may sense it at once.

As compared to Jakarta, Bangkok is more comfortable and more organized. You find traffic jams in Bangkok, but not as serious as in Jakarta. Either pedestrians, public transportation user or private car owners hold the same rights over city spaces. Street sidewalks for pedestrians, parks, and street vendors are the same important parts of the city. The city maintains the traditional character attached such as to markets, buildings, and transportation means but also develops those modern ones like malls, hypermarkets, plazas, etc. Even though land commercialization could not be stopped, the people’s understanding over city's history and its values has hindered the city from being ravaged by unrelenting economic liberalization that has caused many public spaces sold up. In this country you can find ‘millions’ of Buddhist worship houses, state lands and royal lands cannot be put up for sale. Apart from that, in all city corners you can find different historical places or spaces represented in rivers, old buildings, open spaces, communities, traditional markets, street vendors, hawkers, etc.

It is indeed hard to find real, open sidewalks, or parks and streets that the public can freely use, in which the street vendors and hawkers are really accounted for as parts of the city development. In fact, Jakarta is not a friendly city for pedestrians. Many public spaces have been destroyed or barricaded by high fences. The street vendors and hawkers are routinely driven away. Public space and land commercialization have barred all having traditional and historical characters. Although the adage is “clean, human, and having authority”, physically Jakarta has never been hindered from floods and waste. It is appallingly poor of public spaces and disrespects its inhabitants as human being, and it treats worse the poor. It is also difficult to say that the city administration has properly exercised its ‘authority’ toward space and land commercialization. In Jakarta, you may sell nearly anything, including state land and even ‘regulation’.* (to be continued)

See Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (3)
See Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (1)

See Indonesian version.

english-version

Read More...

Summary only...

Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (1)

Sri Palupi

THE GEOGRAPHICAL distance between Jakarta and Bangkok is comparatively short from Jakarta. You can reach Bangkok from Jakarta only in three hours and a half. But in many other aspects the ‘live distance’ between both cities is indeed very far away. If I compare Bangkok to Jakarta, it is close to a dream. Why do I take Bangkok to compare it with Jakarta? To start with, in the United Nation’s Habitat conference in 1976 in Vancouver, Canada, — as a good starting point —, in which Indonesian government also took part, the international communities have been looking for different efforts to cope with housing problems and with the deterioration of human life condition of the city poor. Similar efforts have taken place in Thailand, particularly in Bangkok. Some failed but many succeeded. You can look now at success stories in Bangkok, yet worse stories in Jakarta instead.
The Thai government is currently impatient to implement city renewal programs with involving city poor communities as the main actors of changes. However, unlike the Bangkok administration’s, the Jakarta’s commitment in the Habitat meeting has no echo at all on anything. The improvement of city poor’s life condition has not become national agendas. Even what happens is the opposite as their lives become worse. You can see this from different incidents of forced evictions of city poor people from their dwelling in major big cities in Indonesia. Jakarta is the worse. All of those evictions reflect ‘bad paradigm and solutions’ that the government has taken in dealing with city poor people.

In Jakarta, for instance, during 2001-2003 at least 86 cases of forced evictions of city poor’s dwelling took place. As many as 74 cases of evictions against street vendors putting in ruin of the lives of hundreds of poor families. As many as 424 cases of arsons or fires gutted down simple (but meaningful for their lives) businesses of poor people, including several traditional markets. All of those evictions have caused 18,962 households representing 75,086 people driven away from their dwelling and living places. It is still difficult to actually count how many people have lost their living places as a result of arson or fire incidents and how many people have lost their works for the evictions and arsons or fires against their businesses.

Those evictions clearly go against the explicit commitment that the Indonesian government has helped proclaimed along with other nations in the UN Habitat meeting in finding solutions for serious problems that have long become the concerns of the international communities, i.e. how to fulfill the housing needs of the city poor people and how to include their participation as an integral part of the city development. This problem has motivated the Institute for Ecosoc Rights to conduct comparative research between Jakarta and Bangkok in how each includes public participation in city management and how each capital recognizes poor people’s political rights. Though quite a glance of observation in Bangkok, I have seen that big difference between Jakarta and Bangkok in understanding and dealing with city major problems and poverty phenomena in the city. What are the differences between both?**

Continue ..
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (2)

See: Indonesian version

english-version

Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Blinklist
Furl
Newsvine

Read More...

Summary only...

City of Everything

Berjuta Jarak Jakarta–Bangkok (2)

BANGKOK dan Jakarta sama-sama kota metropolitan yang berpenduduk lebih dari sembilan juta jiwa. Selain disebut sebagai “Krung Thep” (city of angel), Bangkok mendapat banyak sebutan: “the happy city”, “the eternal jewel city”, “the impregnable city of God”, dll. Dalam Guinness Book of Records kota Bangkok dikenal sebagai kota dengan nama terpanjang di dunia (multi-word place name). Sementara Jakarta tak punya sebutan apapun selain label resmi ”kota BMW” (bersih, manusiawi dan berwibawa). Sebagai kota metropolitan, keduanya menghadapi masalah yang sama: urbanisasi, kepadatan penduduk, komersialisasi lahan dan konflik ruang. Masalahnya memang sama, namun cara merespon masalah oleh pemerintah dan masyarakat di kedua kota itu sangatlah berbeda. Perbedaan itu sudah terasa saat saya mengalami ruang fisiknya.Dibandingkan Jakarta, Bangkok lebih nyaman dan tertata. Kemacetan tetap ada, namun tak separah Jakarta. Baik pejalan kaki, pengguna transportasi publik ataupun pemakai mobil pribadi, mendapat hak yang sama atas ruang kota. Pedestrian bagi pejalan kaki, taman dan kaki lima menjadi bagian penting dari kota. Yang tradisional (seperti pasar, bangunan, transportasi) dan yang modern (seperti mall, hypermarket, plaza, dll) sama-sama mendapat ruang. Betapapun kuatnya desakan komersialisasi lahan, namun kesadaran warga akan sejarah dan masa lampau-nya membuat kota ini tak sepenuhnya terjarah oleh liberalisasi ekonomi, yang terus memaksa agar segala hal bisa dijual. Terbukti, di negeri sejuta vihara ini, tanah negara dan tanah kerajaan tak boleh diperjualbelikan. Selain itu, di setiap sudut kota kita masih bisa temukan tempat atau ruang bersejarah dalam berbagai rupa: kali, bangunan tua, ruang publik, komunitas, pasar tradisional, kaki lima, dll.

Entah di bagian mana dari Jakarta ini yang memberi tempat bagi pejalan kaki, yang taman dan jalannya dihidupi sebagai ruang publik, dan yang kaki lima-nya diperhitungkan sebagai bagian dari perkembangan kota. Pada kenyataannya, Jakarta bukanlah tempat yang ramah bagi pejalan kaki, ruang publiknya banyak digusur atau dipagar tinggi dan kaki lima-nya pun cenderung diperangi. Komersialisasi ruang dan lahan tak lagi memberi tempat bagi segala hal yang berbau tradisional dan masa lampau. Meski punya moto ”Bersih–Manusiawi–Berwibawa (BMW)”, secara fisik Jakarta tak pernah bersih dari banjir dan sampah, miskin ruang publik dan tak manusiawi bagi segenap penghuninya – terlebih yang miskin, serta tak punya wibawa dalam menyikapi komersialisasi ruang dan lahan. Di Jakarta, segala hal bisa dijual, termasuk lahan (negara) dan peraturan.* (bersambung)

Keterangan foto: Seorang pedagang kaki lima di pasar jalan (street market) Bonglamphu, Bangkok. Pedagang kaki lima adalah bagian penting dalam pengembangan kota. Meski terbatas, mereka mendapatkan ruang sebagaimana para pelaku ekonomi lainnya.

Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (7) — Kekuatan Civil Society
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (6) — Penggusuran Jadi Masa Lalu
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (5) — Program Baan Mankong
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (4) — Kali dan Kaum Miskin
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (3) — Kaum Miskin sebagai Aktor
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (2) — City of Everything
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (1)

Read More...

Summary only...

Reka-reka BLT 'ajaib' ala Bappenas

DIAM-DIAM Bappenas sudah menyusun perbaikan program Bantuan Langsung Tunai (BLT) yang selama ini telah banyak dikecam masyarakat. Masyarakat jelas-jelas tidak diikutsertakan dalam penyusunan program yang sekarang disebut-sebut sebagai “Program Keluarga Harapan” yang tak lain adalah “BLT Bersyarat”. Mau tahu apa syaratnya?

Kalau BLT itu semula untuk “rumah tangga miskin” (RTM), nah, sekarang BLT “jenis baru” ini memang sasarannya tetap “orang miskin” namun syaratnya mereka harus “tidak miskin”. Bingung kan?

Program baru, yang disampaikan oleh tim setingkat direktorat Bappenas, Senin 15 Januari 2007, di Jakarta ini diarahkan untuk dua bidang yaitu kesehatan dan pendidikan. Siapa yang bisa memperoleh bantuan ini? Untuk bantuan di bidang kesehatan, mereka haruslah keluarga-keluarga yang memiliki 1) ibu hamil atau 2) anak usia 0 s.d. 6 tahun. Untuk bidang pendidikan haruslah keluarga yang memiliki anak-anak usia 6 s.d. 15 tahun atau lebih dari 15 tahun tapi belum menyelesaikan pendidikan dasar (SD, SMP).

Tapi anehnya tidak semua calon penerima bantuan yang telah memenuhi syarat-syarat di atas bisa mengakses program itu. Mengapa? Karena masih ada syarat-syarat berikutnya yang tak mudah dipenuhi.

Sebab, para ibu hamil itu juga harus: 1) menjalani pemeriksaan kehamilan minimal empat kali dan sudah mendapatkan supplemen zat besi, 2) proses kehamilan para ibu haruslah ditangani oleh para tenaga medis. 3) para ibu hamil itu harus mendapatkan kunjungan tenaga medis minimal dua kali setelah melahirkan.

Untuk anak-anak keluarga miskin, mereka juga harus mendapat imunisasi lengkap (BCG, DPT, polio, campak, hepatitis B bagi anak-anak berusia 11 bulan; dan pemantauan tumbuh kembang anak setiap bulan). Untuk anak-anak yang telah berusia 6 s.d. 11 bulan, mereka harus mendapatkan vitamin A dua kali setahun. Untuk anak-anak berusia 12-59 bulan, mereka harus mendapat imunisasi dan pemantauan tumbuh kembang setiap tiga bulan. Dan untuk anak-anak berusia 5 s.d. 6 tahun, mereka harus mendapatkan pemantauan tumbuh kembang.

Coba pikir, orang miskin mana, terutama di daerah-daerah terpencil, bisa memenuhi persyaratan seperti ini? Jangankan imunisasi lengkap, bukankah kita semua tahu bahwa di daerah-daerah terpencil itu miskin tenaga medis dan karenanya mayoritas orang miskin pergi ke dukun untuk melahirkan anak? Program ini dapat dipastikan hanya akan menjangkau orang miskin di daerah-daerah yang tidak terpencil. Program ini juga mempersyaratkan adanya pemerintah-pemerintah daerah yang bersedia menjalankannya. Dan mereka juga harus sudah siap dengan infrastruktur yang memungkinkan program ini bisa berjalan. Program ini memang berpretensi “mengentaskan kemiskinan”, tapi hanya bisa diakses oleh orang-orang yang sesungguhnya “tidak miskin”.

Buktinya, kriteria pemilihan lokasi sasaran program didasarkan, di antaranya, pada kesediaan atau komitmen pemerintah daerah dan kesiapan mereka dalam menyediakan pelayanan kesehatan dan pendidikan. Padahal problem orang miskin di daerah-daerah miskin adalah minimnya infrastruktur pelayanan kesehatan dan pendidikan serta langkanya infrastruktur transportasi. Jadi, kasihan dan malang benar orang-orang miskin yang pemerintah daerahnya tidak mau menjalankan program ini dan tidak mampu menyediakan infrastruktur pelayanan publik itu.

Memang ada sisi baiknya, yaitu bahwa pemerintah daerah didorong untuk mengembangkan alokasi dana APBD untuk sektor pelayanan kesehatan. Diandaikan para pejabat daerah berlomba-lomba putar otak dalam “mengelola” dana publik dan “mengurangi korupsi” supaya bisa memenuhi persyaratan yang berat itu. Tapi kenyataannya provinsi yang sudah teridentifikasi sebagai miskin yang sesungguhnya seperti Papua dan Nusa Tenggara Barat tidak masuk dalam daftar lokasi sasaran Bappenas. Sebaliknya, DKI Jakarta malah masuk dalam daftar. Belum lagi, hanya sebagian kecil saja dari kabupaten-kabupaten atau kota-kota di provinsi-provinsi terpilih masuk dalam daftar “ajaib” itu.

Meskipun belum dijalankan, kita bisa menebak udang jenis apa yang mengendap-endap di balik batu. Program ini tampaknya untuk menyelamatkan wajah bopeng pemerintah kita di hadapan dunia internasional dan di hadapan warga masyarakatnya sendiri. Di balik berbagai prasyarat berat itu, pemerintah sebenarnya hendak mencapai target Millenium Development Goals (MDGs), meskipun Bappenas mengelak jika program ini dikatakan untuk mencapai target MDGs. Padahal, kalau tujuannya sungguh-sungguh untuk memperbaiki program BLT —yang banyak menimbulkan konflik dan melemahkan semangat bekerja masyarakat itu— mestinya masyarakat juga benar-benar dilibatkan sejak awal tahap perencanaan program. Yang terjadi adalah bahwa program sudah dirancang dan masyarakat terpaksa menerima.

Undangan acara di kantor Bappenas 15 Januari 2007 adalah untuk membahas program BLT Bersyarat. Tapi nyatanya yang terjadi adalah justru sosialisasi program yang sudah tidak bisa diubah karena pada tahun ini juga program ajaib itu akan diujicobakan.

Ini baru dari aspek kesehatan lho .. Belum lagi aspek pendidikannya yang lebih mengharukan… Tunggu tanggal mainnya.**

Read More...

Summary only...