How should we look at "illegal migration" between Indonesia and Malaysia?

Sri Palupi

Certain individuals among the Indonesian government officials indeed would like to have a better country, including on how overseas work should be managed. Such individual would show that there is a hope for change, like what we recently see how the Indonesian ambassador for Malaysia, former police general Da’i Bachtiar, indicates that he is not unaware that “illegal migrant workers are too many”. However, others see what the ambassador does is far from their expectation. Different responses appear in a mailing list on the appalling condition of the Indonesian migrant workers, particularly from among critical individuals, with the ending that such government official seem to asking all parties to work together.

Our law on the protection of migrant workers, however, has yet to include a stipulation that authorizes independent representatives of the interests of the workers be legally guaranteed of significant participation in the making of the public policies of manpower export management. The main problem apparently lies in whether we still consider those undocumented migrant workers be also the subjects of protection. Up to now, the law does not mention anything about them, while in fact, as the ambassador admits, they are “too many”. What would you respond? Here is one worth reading.

Many would eventually resort into victimizing those workers, while in fact, Indonesian migrant workers, either they are illegal or legal, have made the same economic benefits, either for Malaysia or Indonesia. Both therefore deserve protection. They strive fThey have sent back home foreign exchanges either for central government or at district or at provincial levels and, of course, for their families. We could not thereby half-heartedly look upon illegal migrant workers. This should have been tackled out of its problem roots.

It is virtually the results of the misguiding public policies of the governments. There are so many reasons that induce them into becoming illegal. Many of them choose to be illegal for having no money and other resources. Many of them are illegal for being cheated by the agencies, be they recruitment or placement, or by the employers. Many of them become illegal as a result of their efforts to escape from forced servitude. In short, illegal migrant workers are the victims of the mismanagement of labor migration in both countries.

In Malaysia, work permits have nearly grown into open businesses, particularly in the construction work sector. Official work permits for construction sector cost RM1,600, yet the workers have to pay it up to RM3,000 for the long chains of payment. A migrant worker in construction work may earn RM25 daily, apart from deduction for work permit fee, yet ironically, illegal workers could earn up to between RM40 to RM60 per day. Who would not one prefer to be illegal?

Everybody knows construction works are very brief. Generally less than one year the project exhausts. In fact most of the workers pay the work permit for the validity time of one year. Once the project is over, they are jobless and thereby penniless, while waiting for new projects. If other facilities and insurances received by illegal and legal workers are not even better, it is then more beneficial for them to take illegal modes. It is because Malaysia itself does not guarantee the implementation of the fulfillment of the workers' rights as stipulated in its law. How then the workers would take legal procedures? They learn from facts on the ground that the salary of those illegal is generally higher than those of legal ones. If there are no legal incentives for those who have taken legal routes, it is consequential that they take illegal ones.

In reality, if one becomes legal worker, there is no guarantee she or he would not be raided by civil volunteers Rela or police officers, because her/his documents are in the hand of the employer. While s/he knows illegal workers mostly carry their own documents. In Malaysia you can easily find legal migrant workers yet arrested by Rela gangs. In Semenyih detention center in the outskirt of Kuala Lumpur, there are now many legal workers detained while their employers retain their documents. Many employers do not take care of their detained workers. They instead find it beneficial because they are freed then from paying the salaries of the detained workers. Many employers suspend the salaries of their workers. They work for three months but paid only for one month. The two-month salaries are delayed or worse not paid eventually. Most of construction workers would figuratively say, "If you become legal worker, your neck could be strangled." Initially they have their complete documents in their hands but they later choose to be illegal because it is more beneficial.

Indonesian government is more than often too legalistic in their approaches. They virtually opt for putting pressure on their own citizens than taking resolute stance toward Malaysian parties. While Malaysian government does not take care even to the agreement they made themselves with their Indonesian counterparts. You may see the so-called memorandum of understanding between both countries, not even one point being followed suit or implemented by Malaysian parties. As a result, the agreement is more advantageous for the interests of the employers, and does not protect the workers.

Considering that the Malaysia's policies are more enslaving migrant workers, the country actually does not fulfill the basic requirements of migrant workers-receiving country. Yet we all know that Indonesia's poor rural condition is the main reason so that they work overseas. At least, most of them would think, with working in Malaysia, they still could feed their family, sending children to cheap schools, and if fortune smiles they could have some money to start small business at home.

The message is clear that we all should eradicate illegal migration from its root problems, with improving our public policies, while taking decisive bearing towards Malaysia. We are also challenged to prove to ourselves that we are a country of dignity, heralding the honor of our countrymen and women. Then we would stop victimizing those illegal workers.**

Read More...

Summary only...

Jika Tuhan memakai sepatu hak tinggi ..

Iswanti

Sepatuku baru, kubeli di salah satu mall di Orchad, Singapura.

Sepatu baruku memiliki hak tinggi, sekitar tujuh senti.

Walaupun hak tinggi, tapi rasanya nyaman sekali di kaki.

Teknologi tinggi memungkinkan membuat sepatu-sepatu yang nyaman di kaki, apalagi dengan bahan bagus, dan tentu saja harga bagus.

Aku mencoba sepatuku kupakai di trotoar Orchad.

Ternyata, yang bikin nyaman bukan hanya sepatunya, tetapi juga trotoar yang
memungkinkan kita berjalan menggunakan sepatu apa pun,
termasuk hak tinggi sepuluh senti sekalipun.

Hal yang tidak mungkin kulakukan di trotoar di Jakarta.
Masih untung jika ada trotoar ..

Trotoar di Jakarta sepertinya tak ada
yang cukup nyaman untuk dipakai pejalan kaki,
apalagi pakai sepatu dengan hak tinggi.

Untuk bisa berjalan di trotoar di Jakarta ..
kita harus berantem dengan sepeda motor yang naik ke trotoar,
bertoleransi dengan pedagang kaki lima,
atau banyak lubang mengangga
yang membuat kita mesti pasang mata hati-hati.

Ah susahnya berjalan kaki di Jakarta.

Ah, jika saja Tuhan memakai sepatu hak tinggi ..
mungkin kita akan agak perhatian dengan trotoar..
sebab katanya negara kita sangat berketuhanan.

Jadi kalau Tuhan senang mengenakan sepatu hak tinggi,
kita akan ramai-ramai membangun trotoar yang bagus.

Sayang ya, kita hanya menafsirkan Tuhan ada di rumah-rumah ibadah,
sehingga hanya rumah ibadah yang dipercantik.

Read More...

Summary only...

Aku terkejut membaca buku ini

“.. peran PKI dalam peristiwa itu hanyalah bagaikan pemuda bodoh yang berjalan dan melihat lampu hijau, lalu menyeberang jalan dan tertabrak oleh truk sampah yang pernah mereka lihat. Tragis.."

Sri Maryanti

Perang saudara pecah di negeri ini pada tahun 1965. Sekelompok pasukan militer mencoba merebut kekuasaan di ujung September tahun itu. Semua terjadi begitu cepat dan rumit. Tidak terpahami oleh jamak. Bahkan oleh para pelaku sejarah sendiri.

Aku terkejut membaca buku ini. Yang kubaca sangat jauh dari apa yang telah kumengerti sebelumnya. Apakah ini sesuatu yang benar? Ada kengerian sesaat waktu membaca bagian awal buku ini. Jangan-jangan buku ini menjebak. Sesaat seperti kehilangan pegangan tentang mana cerita yang benar.

Dalam hitungan jam kekuasaan lumpuh, banyak tokoh bingung dan kehilangan kendali kekuasaan. Para petinggi militer terbunuh di Jakarta. Soekarno terperangkap dalam keterbatasan informasi dan didesak mengamini sebuah ku-deta. Sementara dalam waktu yang singkat dan membingungkan itu deal-deal politik terjadi diam-diam. Dalam hitungan jam, angin berubah arah menghantam balik komplotan itu. Di hari-hari berikutnya pertumpahan darah terjadi merambah sampai ke desa-desa. Ratusan ribu orang menjadi terbunuh sia-sia. Demikian Benedict R O’G Anderson dan Ruth T McVey mengawali temuan awalnya dalam bukunya Analisis Awal Ku(-)deta 1 Oktober 1965.

**

Kuputuskan untuk terus membaca walau tetap dengan praduga. Pemahaman sejarahku mendadak terjungkir balik. Aku yakinkan diriku bahwa aku manusia dewasa yang bisa bebas membaca dan menilai. Selama membaca buku ini sulit untuk menghindari ingatan-ingatan saat pertama kali aku mengetahui peristiwa itu.

Aku lahir pada tahun 1977, kira-kira duabelas tahun setelah peristiwa itu terjadi. Mungkin aku adalah satu di antara jutaan anak lain yang tak menyaksikan peristiwa itu. Tapi sewaktu aku duduk di kelas satu SD, ada kabar kakak tingkat kelas lima dan enam diminta sekolah untuk nonton film tentang PKI di sebuah bioskop. PKI adalah singkatan dari Partai Komunis Indonesia. (Tapi, orang-orang di kampungku tidak mengujarkan persis dua bunyi vokal pertama dari kata ‘komunis’ itu. Mereka bilang ‘kuminés’, bukan ‘komunis’).

Seusai menonton mereka ramai bercerita tentang adegan-adegan yang jarang mereka tonton. Seorang anak membasuh mukanya dengan darah ayahnya, wajah-wajah penuh luka, tentang pembunuhan-pembunuhan sadis di waktu subuh. Mereka bilang itu kisah nyata. Aku jadi ingin tahu.

**

Tapi, buku ini menyampaikan informasi yang berbeda dari pemahamanku selama ini. Dari pelajaran sejarah yang kuperoleh di sekolah, aku hanya mengerti bahwa telah terjadi pemberontakan yang dilakukan dengan keji dan brutal yang didalangi oleh PKI. Peristiwa tersebut lalu melekat kuat dibenak semua orang dengan istilah Gestapu (Gerakan Tigapuluh September).

Lewat penelusuran pada laporan-laporan pers ibu kota maupun daerah tahun 1965, Ben dan kawan-kawan mengatakan sesuatu yang lain. Dengan jelas mereka menyimpulkan dengan perumpamaan bahwa peran PKI dalam peristiwa itu hanyalah bagaikan pemuda bodoh yang berjalan dan melihat lampu hijau, lalu menyeberang jalan dan tertabrak oleh truk sampah yang pernah mereka lihat. Tragis.

**

Seperti hari-hari lain aku santai di hadapan kotak bodoh yang disebut televisi itu bersama saudara-saudara di rumah. Lalu diputarlah film itu. Aku menyaksikannya walau tak mengerti benar isi film itu. Aku hanya ingat ada adegan-adegan penyiksaan kejam yang berdarah-darah. Tetangga-tetanggaku bilang pelakunya PKI. Yang terekam dalam benakku PKI adalah sesuatu yang mengerikan dan jahat. Selebihnya kesanku tentang film itu adalah ada kebiadaban yang pernah terjadi dan masih tetap mengancam sampai sekarang sehingga harus kita musuhi. Lalu pada masa kanak-kanak itu, di kampung kami setiap ada anak yang nakal dan berbuat jahat kami juluki PKI.

**

Tapi anehnya, buku tulisan pak Ben dan ibu Ruth ini menunjukkan fakta bahwa PKI hanya diseret-seret oleh sekelompok kekuatan di militer yang merasa tidak puas dengan kelompok yang menguasai pucuk pimpinan angkatan bersenjata saat itu.

Banyak data yang diangkat Ben dan Ruth untuk mendukung kesimpulannya. Fakta penting yang mendukung kesimpulan Ben adalah pengumuman ku-deta pertama lewat radio yang dibuat Untung (sapa lagi ya pemilik nama ini? O ternyata, katanya, pimpinan tertinggi pelaku kudeta) menyebutkan telah terjadi gerakan militer dalam tubuh Angkatan Darat. Pengumuman itu lebih memperlihatkan ketidakpuasan seorang prajurit pada gaya hidup para pimpinannya. Pengumuman itu sama sekali tidak menyebut-nyebut buruh atau petani yang merupakan simbol kekuatan PKI. Ini mengindikasikan bawah upaya “ku” tersebut di bawah kendali militer.

**

Masa sih begitu .. Sebab, saat kemampuanku membaca dan memahami tulisan mulai berkembang, aku menemukan sebuah tulisan tentang kekejaman PKI dari majalah milik tetangga. Ada gambar-gambar korban PKI dan cerita detail tentang penculikan yang dilakukan PKI. Aku mulai mengenali nama-nama sejumlah jenderal, tokoh PKI, tanggal kejadian, dan nama-nama tempat kejadian. Tulisan itu juga menceritakan urut-urutan peristiwanya. Betapa kejam dan menakutkan PKI itu, begitu pikirku. Bukankah ini semua berbalikan dengan yang pak Ben dan ibu Ruth bilang?

Aku juga menemukan tulisan-tulisan senada dalam buku biografi para pahlawan revolusi di perpustakaan sekolah SD. Jadi sewaktu guru PSPB (Pendidikan Sejarah Perjuangan Bangsa) di sekolah baru mulai mengajarkan tentang peristiwa itu, aku merasa sudah menguasainya.

**

Ben juga menunjukkan adanya informasi bahwa anggota Gerakan Wanita Indonesia (Gerwani) dan Pemuda Rakyat berada di Lubang Buaya saat para jenderal dibunuh dalam rangka latihan militer di bawah didikan Angkatan Udara. Mereka dibangunkan pagi-pagi seperti kebiasaan latihan. Mereka juga tidak tahu-menahu siapa yang tengah dibunuh. Seorang wanita hamil yang ada di situ menerima tamparan saat bertanya siapa mereka. Ini masuk akal karena para pimpinan PKI selalu tegas memerintahkan mereka untuk bekerja sama dengan tentara pelatih. Keberadaan mereka di sana sepenuhnya di bawah arahan tentara.

Ben juga melihat beberapa anggota Pemuda Rakyat yang tadinya membantu pasukan pemberontak di pusat kota. Namun setelah terjadi negosiasi antara Soeharto (anti-ku-deta) dengan satuan-satuan ini, mereka justru ditangkap oleh pasukan yang mereka bantu.

Keterlibatan sebagian Pemuda Rakyat dan Gerwani dalam peristiwa ini tak cukup untuk menyimpulkan bahwa PKI mendalangi perebutan kekuasaan tersebut. Kalaupun peristiwa itu didalangi PKI, hari itu pasti akan terjadi demonstrasi besar-besaran mendukung perebutan kekuasaan oleh massa PKI.

**

Anehnya, yang aku dengarkan dari cerita-cerita dari mulut ke mulut di kampungku kok lain. Mereka bilang bahwa pada jaman gestapu, PKI dan warga sering berkelahi. Perkelahian sering mengorbankan jiwa. Yang ada di benakku PKI memang seperti bukan bagian dari warga. Mereka adalah ancaman. Lantas orang berpendapat kalau memang pantas orang PKI itu dimusuhi.

Aku juga ingat tetanggaku disebut-sebut sebagai bekas orang PKI. Anaknya yang satu sekolah denganku dikabarkan akan sulit memperoleh pekerjaan. Aku tidak melihat masa depan lagi baginya. Kupikir akan sia-sia sekolahnya, karena masa depannya jelas-jelas suram.

Seingatku peristiwa tentang PKI kembali diajarkan di bangku SMP dan SMA lagi. Namun bumbu-bumbu tentang kekejaman PKI sudah mulai berkurang sewaktu aku belajar di bangku SMA.

**

Berikut ini ada bagian dari tulisan pak Ben dan ibu Ruth yang menarik. Soalnya, mereka ngrembuk soal apa yang dilakukan Soekarno hari itu. Pada waktu yang hampir bersamaan dengan pembunuhan para jdenderal, Sukarno dijemput oleh Untung dan dibawa ke Halim dengan alasan pengamanan. DN Aidit (pimpinan tertinggi PKI) juga dijemput dan hadir di sana. Soekarno dibawa ke tempat di mana ia terpisah dengan akses informasi tepercaya (para penasihat presiden dan kontak-kontaknya) untuk diyakinkan bahwa ku-deta itu sah dilakukan. Di sana Untung membutuhkan dukungannya atas ku-deta yang ia lakukan. Ini penting karena Soekarno saat itu memiliki dukungan besar dari masyarakat.

Sementara Aidit dihadirkan di sana agar lebih meyakinkan Soekarno dan mengesankan bahwa ku-deta tersebut didukung PKI sebagai salah satu partai besar itu. Penjemputan Aidit lebih merupakan kebutuhan legitimasi bagi tindakan Untung.

Lalu mengapa perpecahan internal di Angkatan Darat tersebut berbuntut perang saudara yang menumpahkan banyak darah? Untuk menjawab pertanyaan ini perhitungan waktu antarkejadian sangat diperhatikan oleh Ben dan Ruth. Pengumuman Untung yang pertama melalui siaran radio menyiratkan telah terjadi konflik internal di tubuh Angkatan Darat di Jakarta. Berita ini segera terdengar oleh rekan Untung di Resimen Diponegoro Semarang. Mereka kemudian mengikuti pola perebutan kekuasaan serupa di Semarang, Yogjakarta dan Solo.

Semarang, Salatiga, Solo dan Boyolali adalah wilayah yang kepala daerahnya orang PKI. Siaran Untung yang pernama mengumumkan dibentuknya Dewan Revolusi ditangkap oleh massa PKI sebagai sinyal telah terjadi angin ke arah revolusi. Beberapa koran haluan kiri terpancing memuat berita yang mendukung kelompok ku-deta. Walikota Solo memberikan pernyataan terbuka mendukung ku-deta. Mereka tidak menyadari bahwa kekuatan ku-deta di pusat telah dilumpuhkan pada hari yang sama.

Meskipun Aidit yang telah terlebih dahulu mengetahui ku-deta di Jakarta telah dilumpuhkan telah mencoba berkomunikasi dengan pimpinan partai di Jawa Tengah. Ia menekankan agar massanya tidak larut dan tetap netral dalam peristiwa ini, tetap saja ada gejolak di bawah yang tak terkendali bereaksi secara gegabah sebagai luapan semangat. Ini kemudian yang memicu kelompok-kelompok lain di daerah yang selama ini tersingkirkan oleh PKI ikut melakukan pemberangusan besar-besaran terhadap partai ini setelah keadaan dikuasai kembali oleh lawan.

**

Sudah lama sebenarnya aku mendengar tentang buku ini. Konon penulisnya pernah diusir dari Indonesia karena menulis buku ini. Tapi buku ini sering disebut-sebut orang sebagai buku yang menarik. Aku jadi ingin membacanya.

Tidak mudah mendapatkannya. Tak pernah kujumpai di toko buku. Beberapa perpustakaan terkemuka di Jakarta yang kutelpon mengatakan tak memiliki buku ini. Akhirnya kuperoleh versi Indonesianya di perpustakaan sebuah lembaga penelitian. Begitu masuk lebih dalam ke bacaan ini, pemahaman sejarahku serasa dijungkirbalikkan.

**

Ben dan Ruth dengan detail bisa menggambarkan nuansa psikis para pelaku sejarah dalam setiap pembicaraan dan pengambilan keputusan politik di saat genting tersebut. Mereka juga didukung data yang akurat hingga dinamika para tokoh pemberontak dan PKI selama di Jawa Tengah teridentifikasi dengan jelas. Bahkan sampai jenis alat transportasi dan nama tempat di mana mereka bergerak dan berada tersebutkan. Hal ini juga terlihat pada bagian yang menceritakan penculikan para jenderal.

Buku ini mengulas banyak hal menarik seperti sekilas kemungkinan pengaruh politik internasional saat itu, juga mengapa akhirnya PKI yang dijadikan pihak yang dituding bersalah, seperti apa posisi Soekarno yang menyadari dirinya berada di pusat wilayah pemberontak saat keamanan sepenuhnya di bawah kendali Soeharto. Banyak hal diungkap dalam buku ini.

Buku ini juga memuat beberapa dugaan alternatif tentang siapa yang ada di balik peristiwa berdarah tersebut. Bagian ini menyertakan argumen-argumen dengan hitungan yang detail dan hati-hati untuk menguji setiap dugaan yang muncul.

Seperti sebuah novel, akhir buku ini menyajikan kejutan tak terduga. Meskipun Nyono (anggota Politbiro PKI) memberikan pengakuan bahwa PKI mendalangi peristiwa berdarah dengan memaparkan sebuah skenario, Ben berhasil menelanjangi dan menunjukkan ketidakkonsistenan dari pengakuan Nyono tersebut.**

Lihat juga diskusi tentang topik ini:

• Beda G30S dan G30S/PKI
  
• Kita masih dibungkam
  
• Kalender Sejarah yang Berhubungan dengan TNI 1945-Sekarang
• Bedah 'Kudeta 1 Oktober 1965' di Pameran Buku, 10 Desember 2005
• Syafi'i Ma'arif, Mendiang Profesor Victor Mirosilav Fic, Republika 22 Nov 2005
• Menguak tabir peristiwa 1 Oktober 1965: Mencari Keadilan
• G30S/Soeharto, bukan G30S/PKI
• Asvi Warman Adam: Apakah Soekarno Terlibat G30S?
• Asvi lagi: Buku PKI, Bahasa Inggris Boleh, Indonesia Jangan
  
• Kumpulan opini Kompas tentang G30S (Umar Said)
• Buku tentang G30S/PKI yang subyektif
  

Read More...

Summary only...

Warning! Hutang Baru Indonesia: Berita via SMS

$US600 juta hutang baru Indonesia
Potensi kerugian negara di BP Migas: US$2,3milyar

SMS 1
Indonesia [meng]ajukan [h]utang baru ke Bank Dunia [sebanyak] 600 juta USD, dan mencari tambahan dari ADB dan negara-negara kreditor untuk memenuhi defisit APBN 2007 sebesar 1,75 milyar USD. Apa arti pembubaran CGI? Apa kerja tim ekonomi (menkeu) yang hanya bisa tambah utang untuk [men]utup defisit? Rejim [h]utang sama dengan rejim antek penjajah.

SMS 2
Daripada tambah utang yang akhirnya kita didikte, mestinya pemerintah segera menindaklanjuti temuan audit BPK atas potensi kerugian Negara di BP Migas sebesar US$2,3 milyar. Baca tulisan saya: (1) di koran Media Indonesia 3 April 2007, (2) tulisan saya di buku berjudul “Indonesia's Economic Outlook 2007”, terbitan Bisnis Indonesia, edt Kurtubi. Kalau kami dari students, ya bergerak advokasi jalanan. Harusnya reshuffle lebih [ke] tim ekonomi. Semoga bisa disinergikan dengan gerakan mbak .. [red: The Institute for Ecosoc Rights, maksudnya]

dari Nafis/Ismad

Read More...

Summary only...

Models of ending hunger in Indonesia

HERE are approaches to end hunger in Indonesia but all of them are separated one from the other with strong short-term projects as a dominant paradigm. Which one is the best? Looking into the nature of each and the possible supporting and team working relation among them may help us to figure out what kind of approach is suitable, effective and efficient in tackling hunger in Indonesia.

What likely needed at last is appropriated implementing media programs that bridge and unite all of those diverse existing hunger-fights efforts to be transformed into common lessons learned ..

First model is complementary food program, locally called Paket PMT. This program model identifies malnutrition and hunger as problem specifically struck each individual family and that the problem is strongly associated to “disaster” almost God made. None could be taken responsible for such widespread phenomenon of ‘malnutrition’ affecting infants. Hunger in East Nusa Tenggara, for instance, has been declared as “extra-ordinary happenings” (kejadian luar biasa) that the central government needs to address with parachuting helps and aids, particularly in the form of additional foods.

Families with malnourished infants are given foodstuffs or instant foods. Monitoring activities are conducted by health cadres from among the community members in cooperation with the sub-district health centre (puskesmas). Apart from the government, international bodies and international NGOs also actively conduct such model of ending hunger in East Nusa Tenggara with distributing biscuits, instant noodles, and instant porridges. This approach is rapid and short-term because if not promptly helped those malnourished infants may die tomorrow. However, since this model is mostly not followed by long-term activities, very few sustainable impacts could be expected from the hunger-stricken communities. Though very useful on the spot rescuing the hungry, this model tends to target poor people as merely aid objects, financially high cost, fails to develop the existing potential of the poor families and communities to resolve hunger and other related problems.

Second model is feeding center yet does not involve the families with malnourished infants to take part in it. Case study of this model found in Southern Timor Tengah (TTS) in NTT is not very different from the first one but the malnourished, sick infants were put in noutrient center and directly taken care by social health workers. This model has an effective impact as well, however high cost is unavoidable and also fails to empower poor families and communities. Women or mothers are not involved since this model opts for curative approach and that malnourished infants are specifically perceived as the problem of the concerned families only. In tackling hunger therefore it fails to involve other families in the community in which the distressed family lives. The positive impacts could only be seen among few families, yet paradoxically they realized that the hunger threats are lurking soon ahead.

Third model involves women or mothers’ role in the feeding center. Women are considerred as actors as you may see in a case conducted by a Belgian nurse in Sikka district. Social workers are not needed here as compared to the second model and local foodstuffs are strongly encouraged. Malnourised children are put in the center along with the families and other relatives responsible. In the center, mothers are briefed with diverse useful knowledge and relevant skills while asked to take care of their malnourished infants. Women and the families are expected to continue taking care in the same way after the sick infants recover. However, this program model takes the same high cost and larger communities have not been actively involved with. And it fails to develop the community’s capacity to improve itself. In the long run it is hard for local people to emulate such strong organization or institution to carry out a nutrient-focused center that needs large sums of financial resources.

Fourth model sets up community-based education groups. This kind of approach is tried out in West Sumba by Seraphine Foundation. Women groups are educated while conditioning the community’s initiatives. Nutrient and health education programs are held for women groups while developing local food cooking skills, small economic activities to improve their livelihood, and community organizing. Women group education is also made possible by demanding men or their husbands and other larger families to involve. Members of the communities are encourarged and conditioned to work together in building for instance the education center makeshifts. Men take care of infants while their wives join the education activities. Malnourished infants are tackled together along with the communities. This approach takes much less financial resources since it requires the community’s initiatives to contribute, while addressing other related dimensions needed for tackling hunger. For short-term, immediate activities, this model keenly relies on the role of the existing institutions such as the hospitals in the neighboring localities. It promises however sustainabilty in the future. However, this approach requires strong, highly committed local community organizers that may mobilize people’s initiatives and supports.

What likely needed at last is an appropriated implementing media programs that bridge and unite all of those diverse existing hunger-fights efforts to be transformed into common lessons learned that may be acknowledged and supported by all related stakeholders in the province, i.e. the government, religious groups, academicians, NGO activists, international NGOs, and international bodies that work in the province.

May be you may help them.***

Link
UNICEF's 2002 IDS: Evaluation of Posyandu Revitalization

Read More...

Summary only...

Exasperation in obtaining passports in Indonesia

Yulius Nurendra Efendi

MY EXPERIENCE in obtaining passports in Indonesia at the Surakarta immigration office has made me aware of how shoddy and corrupt this country is. It started when an overseas friend invited me to attend a meeting that later pushed me to have a passport document.

On October 18, 2006 I reached the Surakarta immigration office. I brought with me all required documents. In the front wall it was clearly mentioned the conditions, procedures, costs and fees required for having diverse migration-related documents. But you expected things would be clear and quick, certainly.

As I entered into the office, many brokers have already crowded the room. They offered service that promises to finish the passport making quicker. Of course this was not a free service but one would have to pay more to those brokers. Those brokers asked fees that were two times higher than normal, official one that was only Rp200.000. But because I wanted to do it myself since the beginning, I did not care about them. In fact if I take their service, they could help process only in one day. Yet, the official stipulation as mentioned in that front wall it needed two days to finish the passport.

First, I took the passport application form that cost me Rp10,000. I did not get any receipt for this payment. This is the first irregularity that I found.

After I completed the form, I submitted form including other required documents. In the further process, the officials verified the documents. Another irregularity soon took place. Although my documents were complete, it seemed to me the official would like to show me a loophole. I did not understand what he meant, actually. My birth certificate that I included as required was questioned. The official asked me to include my last education certificate. This meant that I had to get back to that office the day after because I did not bring with me that certificate. In fact as written in the announcement wall, birth and education certificates were only optional requirement. I should only submit either one.

The day after when I brought already my education certificate, the official even ignored that paper just like that. Not even once that certificate was asked. I felt a bit harassed. I became a bit nervous at the next step all my documents were almost lost as they were among other submitted applications. The official only started processing after I urged him, although for that I had to wait longer.

The next step concerned about the passport photo that I had to pay Rp55,000. Now I got a receipt for it. But I realized a weird thing happened as I saw another applicants who came much later than me yet he was given quicker turn to take picture. I realized then that the victims of brokerage were not only those who took the broker’s service but also other applicants who took normal procedure. We were put at farther turn at the back than those who paid more to the brokers.

After the picture was taken, the officials again seemed wanting to prolong time. With the pretext that the next step was to wait for the approval of the central immigration office in Jakarta, the officials asked me to wait for another week. At the time I fully understood as we, Indonesians, were approaching the high season of Idul Fitri.

I ponder upon what happened to me. My ignorance of the procedural process had pushed me to just say yes to what the officials asked. Many applicants must have endured bad experience like this. Because applicants could not monitor what happened to the submitted documents had turned them into a lame duck.

On October 30, 2006, as the officials had earlier promised, I went back to the office. Indeed the service flow was very slow. Now they gave an excuse that it had to be processed in several administration desks, I had to wait and wait again. It was an urge within me to ask them again and again while protesting the sluggish bureaucratic practice. How far my documents had been processed?

I think this is an institutional corruption. (comments from --ambar--)

I had to wait for four hours before the passport was completed. We had to pay Rp205,000 consisting of Rp200,000 for the cost of the passport document and Rp5,000 for the fingers print fee. If you count right from the beginning to the end, the total sum of fee required was Rp270,000. In fact the announcement says only Rp200,000. Only through normal, official procedures, you will have to pay more than actually required. What if you take the service of those brokers? I overheard them saying they paid from Rp500,000 to Rp600,000 to get the passport in one or two days. Is this my Indonesia?**

Read More...

Summary only...

Why Jakarta elite indifferent to their surroundings?

ALTHOUGH fully realize the on-going construction of the car park building on the formerly Persija soccer field at Menteng quarter of Central Jakarta plainly breaks the law, the residents of the city elite quarter living in its surrounding remain indifferent, environmentalist says.

“We realize the problem, but we cannot confront the city government face to face. It is your job as environmental activists to resolve this problem,” says Slamet Daroyni of the Indonesian environment organization of Walhi quoting the response of many Menteng residents when asked to engage the problem.

The soccer field was managed by the Jakarta Soccer Association of Persija but the Jakarta city government evicted it last year. Now the government assigns contractors to build a car park building.

Menteng residents consist of different groups, he says. “There are government officials, businessmen, academicians and professionals. Government officials and businessmen prefer to side for their personal security in this case. Those who fight for it mostly come from among academicians and professionals.”

We realize the problem, but we cannot confront the city government face to face. It is your job as environmental activists to resolve this problem.

Mrs. Pudji Siregar, a Menteng dweller, who admits herself as a housewife but actively protesting the construction raised similar remark. “It is indeed difficult to involve them to engage against the construction,” she reiterated. She added the elite quarter residents are difficult to unite. They have different interests.

The woman who graduated from a US university said that to successfully involve them into social movement one should show concrete results in advance. “I therefore hold activities like movie screening (layar tancap) that will be held on March 31, 2007 and the publication of Menteng Heritage bulletin in a bid to unite them before inviting them to move (against the construction),” she said. To her, it is difficult to ask them for engaging complicated matters like the controversy of the car park building, not to mention yet about the tedious legal battle.

After her house was flooded in February, this spirited woman filed to city police of charges of crimes against the environment against the car construction responsible, i.e. the city government.

In addition, according to Slamet of Walhi who actively represents the Menteng residents, the environmental assessment is not in accordance with the proper legal procedures, because the city government does not fully involve the residents during the planning process. He said it was against the Law No.23/1997 on the Environment Management and Government Rule No.27/1999 on the Environment Assessment.**

See Indonesian version.

Read More...

Summary only...

Why migrant workers remain poor back home?

Savitri Wisnuwardhani

My motivation to work abroad is to have money for buying a big house, land and improving my life. If I do not go, I can’t fulfill my dream. It’s hard to suffice my daily life’s needs.

An interview with an Indonesian migrant worker

POOR people in rural areas have been worse hit by the economic difficulties in third world counties like Indonesia. A case study conducted in migrant workers sending districts in the country features how the villages endure similar problems of poverty. Working overseas is among the solutions taken by poor villagers as almost all Indonesian women going to work overseas admit that their motivation is to improve their difficult life. They got a lot of earnings. But, how do they spend them? Why are they still poor and then go again to work overseas?

Many opinions say about the reasons why people work overseas. Poverty is one of the undeniable reasons. Difficulties to find a work at home countries push them to work overseas. But after returning to Indonesia, why are they still poor though they sent back quite sum of money? The Jember district branch of the Indonesian central bank recently informs that in the first semester of 2006 as many as Rp162 billions (over $US 17.6 millions) have been sent back as the remittance of the migrant workers originating from Jember district. About Rp27 billions a month is supposedly running into the villages in Jember.

Click the image to see it bigger.

The result of our research in 2005 on 92 Indonesian migrants working in Singapore may explain better the picture, saying that motivation of most migrant workers is to get money to buy land (13.7%) and to renovate their houses (19.5%) and for diverse home equipments mostly furniture and electronic products (10%). This tendency takes place because they admittedly want to pursue prestige and perceived success as they live in their villages with having a plot of land to build a good looking houses.

Case study that we conduct in a Jember village shows life’s success in the village is socially measured with having big and decent house. This is among what most migrant workers say when asked why they want to work overseas. No wonder that after returning to their village, they build houses that look like those in real estate. But most of their big, good-looking houses as you may see them from outside do not match with the inside condition. You would only find their genuine identity when you enter to their kitchen and bathroom as compared to their living rooms and the front face of their houses. You would see nearly a stark difference like luxury and simplicity.

This contrast likely shows that they are not well prepared to accept rapid social and economic changes, because they are nearly set up to imitate social trends of life style in big cities. There seems to be a cultural dominance that most people in the village unconsciously follow. Such cultural dominance has far affected their livelihood. Their earnings that they got from at least two-year working overseas would finish only in six months after living back in their origin country. Afterwards they would be back again into their usual condition of poverty.

Regarding rural life style, let’s say, most people in the village would like to behave as if people living in big cities. And they find urban style as if a ‘must-to-do’, something clearly incongruent to their surrounding but they are ready to pay it with high price. Such life style is indeed comparatively very costly that makes them quickly running out of money and understandably they would go working overseas again as unskilled migrant workers.

In this regard it is difficult not to say that in the present social context the TV programs like popular telenovelas have much affected their daily life. Most of the programs tantalize them with luxury and dreams of becoming rich people. Even people in remote areas in Jember district now would already have TV set in their home. Such a dream has unconsciously transformed into what they find it as their needs. You would find it then very contrasting with the actual simplicity of living in rural areas in Indonesia.

Social behavior that prefers of making nice impression than realistic attitude is apparently consequences of the inadequate education and trainings. They lack of proper information and skills on how to use their money to improve their livelihood.

In such a situation there appear overseas work placement sponsors who entice them to easily get a lot of money if they work like in Middle Eastern countries, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan. That kind of easy money is almost straightforwardly associated with what they have seen the like in the telenovelas. Sponsors almost always allure them with sweet promises of quick money disregarding social, cultural condition of their working places in other countries. As a result, they decided to go overseas without any further reasonable considerations such as improving skills and self-confidence in advance.

May be you ask when they could really improve their life and stop being poor? To my opinion, they will only succeed overcoming poverty if they spend their earnings more on small businesses, the benefit of which would directly support their livelihood. In fact there are only as low as five percents of migrant workers who spend their earnings for microfinance activities. As many as 43.2 percents of them, instead, spend their earnings for building comparatively expensive houses and equipments. If they were more interested in spending their money for their economic undertaking, their lives would predictably be better, having more balance with their social environment.**

Read More...

Summary only...

Interview: Lesson Learned from Hunger Fighter in East Nusa Tenggara of Indonesia

Maria Mediatrix Mali

Eradicating Poverty to Improve Children’s Welfare

SHE is strong, brown skinned and warm, tall and slim, yet her voice is clear and well heard. The same voice is often echoed in the local council’s parlors, or at the regent’s office, several important public services division heads of the local district administration in Sikka, in Flores island, East Nusa Tenggara of Indonesia. She has also participated in several important international fora for health development. Her name is Maria Mediatrix Mali. This 47-year woman has academic background in education science from teacher institute of IKIP Karang Malang in Yogyakarta in Java. Now she has worked for seven years developing the People Social Development Foundation (Yaspem) in Sikka. The foundation has successfully developed among the best local initiatives to resolve hunger and poverty in Indonesia. Below interview with her reveals inspiration for you to learn her concern and her works, and hopefully you may take important note for your concern in fighting against hunger and poverty.

In short, it should not be emergency and charitable programs only.

How did you join the People Social Development Foundation (Yaspem) in Sikka?

In 1997 I met catholic priest Father Heinrich Bollen SVD in Jakarta. He asked me to join his work with the foundation. I declined but after several times of his requests to join him, finally in 1999 I started working for Yaspem. He put me as the director of the foundation. Before assuming it, I got an opportunity to learn for myself from several organizations in Germany for three months. During my stay there I learned a lot about many donor institutions like Misereor, Missio, Kolping, Caritas of Auxburg and Freiburg, Kinder Mission Werk and Frauen Mission Werk.

What did you do for Yaspem after returning from Germany?

I started to improve Yaspem that was already seven years of nothing. When Father Bollen set up it in 1974, Yaspem had two main units of services that are commercial unit and community services unit. I made some improvement while establishing new programs. Commercial unit for instance covers lodging and mechanic workshop. The community services unit covers agricultural activities, orphanage, land terrace conservation, several workshops for people training, husbandry, literacy program, anti-malaria and anti-tuberculosis drives, children welfare and hunger fighting program.

When did Yaspem start the program of tackling hunger on children?

I restarted it since 2004 because Yaspem earlier had tackled hunger disaster and acute malnutrition at Wolofeo subdistrict in 1978. The earlier program was more emergency program in its character. We now make it more systematic and sustainable because malnutrition and hunger hit the communities again and again. We realize that emergency program is needed from time to time but we would like as much as possible to set up preventive measures than merely emergency healing program. In short, it should not be emergency and charitable programs only.

..we help poor families that have malnourished children with improving their health conditions and providing them with adequate knowledge of feeding pattern for their children.

What is the way? What kind of approach do you apply?

Apart from direct program to help the acute malnourished children, we also strengthen the families’ resilience. For tackling malnutrition on children I set up a big team consisting of smaller teams of sweeping malnourished children to be treated medically, social service team to organize social service activities along with doctors, training team that helps conducting trainings for anti-hunger cadres in the villages.

What do you mean with ‘resilience of the families’? How do you do it?

I mean that we help poor families that have malnourished children with improving their health conditions and providing them with adequate knowledge of feeding pattern for their children. For instance, we conduct improvement for women capacity in preparing variations of nutrient-rich foods, in maintaining hydroponic agriculture for vegetables, and how to keep the environment clean. Meanwhile, we also help facilitate household economic activities with skill improvement trainings and co-operatives. It is expected that the livelihood of the families would be fulfilled and therefore they would be able to maintain children’s health and growth. Hopefully hunger would disappear soon.

It seems you put women as a very potential group in dealing with malnutrition.

Right, because women play much role in nurturing children. And therefore in many activities, we should empower women. In our place, about 60 percent malnourished children come from illiterate women. Therefore in the learning workshop apart from conducting literacy program for those women, we also teach them with anti-malnutrition awareness, reproductive health, children protection, anti-violence against women, etc.

There are in fact many fund opportunities from the government but they are not yet maximally allocated and benefited for people’s good.

What is the men’s involvement in the programs?

It is very important to change society’s mind that is dominated by men. Men have also to take responsibility on matters of families, taking care of children, diverse household chores, etc. In the activities we conduct, men are involved in hydroponics program for agricultural activities to provide families with healthy vegetables. We involve the communities to keep the environment clean, to clean water-channels from mosquito’ larvae that may cause malaria, compost making, etc.

What is the engagement of the communities?

It is important to involve the communities. Apart from involving the communities in the villages, we also involve religious groups like the church. As many people realize the church has important role in East Nusa Tenggara’s societies. The church has the power to deliver important messages for the societies. Even she can motivate her congregations to realize the concrete situations that they face and push all people together to tackle existing problems.

Where does Yaspem get funds from for anti-malnutrition activities?

Although Yaspem has a business unit that supports its activities, the total sum of the revenue is very small. We have also aid funds but the sum is not that big, such as from Kinder Mission Werk that grants 18,000 euro (±US$24,171)for tackling malnutrition for over 1,000 children beneficiaries. From Frauen Mission Werk we only gets 3,000 euro for the business of ikat clothes that were sent and sold in Germany. We realize that the hunger fight can be sustained and therefore long-term design should be taken. We find it then important to improve education providing knowledge and skill to improve economic condition of the families. Therefore we keep widening teamwork with many parties. We provide knowledge about nutrients while practicing skills to make foods like chips (kripik), preserved fishes (ikan pindang), fermented coconut oil, growing vegetables, etc.

Who do you work with?

So far we work with diverse parties, such as related government offices like district office of health, of industry and trade, and of education divisions. For instance for tackling malnourished children we teamwork with the subdistrict health center of Puskesmas, local hospitals, and the district government office of health. We deal with the poor people’s health insurance of Askeskin, a government’s health program that may finance the medical treatment for sick and malnourished children. We work with the district government office of industry and trade for the productive skill trainings and the products marketing. We work with the district government office of education service to train and form nutrient-aware cadres in the villages.

What are the results with working with those parties so far?

There are collaborative efforts that can be developed and kept improving, for instance, the supports from the district government office of industry and trade for our small business units, like cooperatives. Yaspem’s cooperative, the Bintang Timur credit coop that is only two years old now has heaped about 700 members and the assets reach over Rp500 millions (US $ 54,347). Apart from supporting the Yaspem’s finance, this coop has become an education place and community development center. This coop has affiliated to umbrella cooperative at East Nusa Tenggara provincial level, and also at national level with the Inkopdit, even it has an international affiliation. We can get trainings for our members. Now our coop has developed some business units like education saving, voluntary saving, daily interest saving and skill improvement saving programs.

What kinds of difficulties that you face in dealing with hunger?

It is indeed not that easy but we have conviction that we have to be brave realizing that what we do is correct. Therefore way-outs are open ahead. Besides honesty needed, you shall not be afraid. Difficulties are abound, for example in getting the health insurance program of Askeskin from the government, in fact information is closed to the public. Such facility is even swindled by the hospital’s employees. The bureaucracy of health services is also very long overdue and complicated. We also often get improper services because they see it as merely public insurance, from which they will not get any money. Another difficulty is about regulation. There are not many public regulations that protect people’s interests, such as district regulation on the environment about how to manage wastes. There is no yet regulation on literacy policy. Some people have already prepared with proposed drafts of district regulations but the local councilors do not pay any heed, and therefore people get disappointed and nurture distrust against the establishment. It is too often that the councilors hurt people’s feeling because they break their own words. Another difficulty may come from local people’s leaders like village heads because some of them decline to support people’s activities because the heads realize there will be no financial benefits for themselves.

What should be done to stop hunger?

On public policy we should demand for the people’s participation in planning and the implementation process. There are quite many opportunities to stop hunger with collaborating with the governments. We should pressurize them continuously and invite the governments to work concretely along with the people. There are in fact many fund opportunities from the government but they are not yet maximally allocated and benefited for people’s good. From the people themselves, their good initiatives should be more encouraged. And finally, don’t stop informing and campaigning the importance of hunger fight. In short, we should voice out the hunger fight concern until the problems are resolved and the future of the children could really be saved.**

Links:
Yaspem
Sea World Club

Read More...

Summary only...

The strength of civil society in Bangkok

Millions of miles away
between Jakarta and Bangkok (7)

THE INCREASING recognition of the rights of the poor communities in Bangkok did not take place merely because of the good will and the positive concern of the government. The recognition has gradually taken place because of the pressure and long struggle of the poor communities that organize themselves, develop networking and accept large popular supports from NGOs, academicians, and proffesionals.

It is almost no distance between poor communities and middle class people. It is in fact not only NGOs that organize the poor but also academicians from the universities and other higher learning institutions. Lecturers and senior proffesors are not hesitant to hold discussions and mingle with the poor. At least 10 percents of academicians in Bangkok are involved with supporting the struggle of the poor to achieve their basic rights.

It is no longer surprising that a professor of the respected Tamasad University involves himself in organizing 13 poor communities in the city. Another lecturer from the Silapakorn University helps the Mahakan Fort community, the members of which are now threatened to be removed by the land and old building commercialization. Academicians, NGO and proffesionals groups like lawyers, architects, ect. along with the poor communities fight for pushing the recognition of the poor’s rights. The coalition among academicians, professionals, NGOs and the poor communities at the same time would become the controller of the city development direction.

My visit to those three communities that are threatened by eviction, i.e. the Wang Lee, Kratum Diew and Mahakan Fort communities, has convinced me about the comparative strength of the civil society in Bangkok. When the Wang Lee community that is situated at Charoen Krung soi 52, having a small alley (soi) close to Saphan Taksin bridge is threatened by eviction, resistance comes from diverse parties, including from the NGOs, professionals (architects, journalists and lawyers), academicians (anthropologists, sosiologists, cultural studies proffessors and historians) and the organizations of the poor communities from four regions in Bangkok.

The small community that has only 77 household members got large supports from middle class people of Bangkok. The concern with the life continuation of a small community that was channeled into a large support of middle class people has rendered the eviction issue mobilizing into significant pressurizing one: the publicly condemned issue of the eviction against national cultural site.

Why so? Because the house in which the community resides was constructed by a noted French architect in early 20th century. A small alley that is part of the community is also part of the history of the maritime trade and transportation industry in Bangkok. The alley cannot be separated from a ship-shaped momument at the Buddhist monastery situated next to it. Along the alley formerly lived first Chinese migrants from mainlain China. The issue of evicting such precious heritage was raised in diverse fora including discussion forum at Thammasat University. When the evictors wanted to forcefully destroy the old buildings, mass of people coming from diverse directions and walks of life thronged into it to stop the unwanted unilateral eviction.

Similar happening took place at the Kratum Diew and Mahakan Fort communties. At both cases, NGOs, academicians, proffesionals and poor communities joined hand in hand to fight against evictions. Group of professionals supported with providing alternative architectural and community life design when they overhauled and renovated the poor communties. The academicians built supporting arguments from social, economic, cultural and historical approaches. They joined the NGOs in organizing the poor people. Along with poor communities they held dialogues and negotiations with the government or land owners. To sum up, different ways were applied to find solutions and to stop evictions.

It is difficult yet to imagine that Jakartan academicians could work together and willingly mingle the poor communities like what I saw in Bangkok. Even toward different city issues that directly relate to their own public issues like acute traffic jam, sloppy public room use, improper fencing of public parks, misuse of public spaces, land and space over-commercialization, even there are very few academicians and proffesionals voice up their concerns. It is inimaginable that such group builds coalition to resistance for those causes. Jakartan civil society is fairly weak so that Jakarta remains sloppy. The city development is fully at the hand of political leaders and capital owners. The Jakarta residents are fragmented, easily twisted because they are weak.

The weakness of Jakarta’s civil society, apart for low awareness and short public concern and solidarity as common dwellers of the city, political system and the bureaucracy have made its citizens powerless and fragmented in distantiated social groupings one from the other. The contrary takes place in Bangkok, instead. Bangkok’s political and adminstration system has given spaces and opportunities and even encourages its residents to organize themselves. It can be seen at least from the policy of offering funds for organizing the communties. Poor communities that have organized their members register themselves to the Bangkok administration, and they get the status of formal community and they will have loan facilities for further development.

Apart from that, from Baan Mangkong program offers the opportunities for poor communities, academicians, professionals and local government unit to encounter to solve problems. Politicians can no longer boast only promises and object the poor only as their tool to get votes. The politicians are closely linked to the people as voters. They have actual constitutent base knowing most the members and on the other way arount the contituents have critical stance and integrity. They are not easy to be fooled around.

Finally control to the government and the politicians is well in function because the civil society also has actual command over them. This control has contributed in the toppling of former prime minister Thaksin Sinawatra late last year. Most people like street vendors, taxi drivers upto academicians did not want Taksin because he was utterly corrupt. On the other side it is a also know that Thaksin was quite popular among the poor.

After considering Bangkok as a city and from the point of view of the poor communities, there appears a question: Why Bangkok could sustain changes while Jakarta fails? In fact Bangkok once learned it from Jakarta. Bangkok also suffered from traffic jams as serious as in the present Jakarta, but after building a mass transportation means of skytrain, the traffic jams subsides. In the meantime there are many unresolved problems, starting from acute traffic jams, inorderly city management, flood, pollution, poverty, riots upto evictions. As a metropole Jakarta’s problems does not seem to diminish but intensified, even though at a certain point in the past both shared the same level of seriousness. It is surprising that Bangkok may resolve the troubles yet Jakarta even more entangled.

What is wrong with Jakarta? Perhaps both do not share the same line of history. Thailand has never been colonized by any foreign power, but Jakarta and Indonesia have never been really independent. Perhaps the difference stance in each independence has born different mentality. My first queston seems to be difficult to answer. It may be better to jump into the second one: What should we do? Let’s spend some time to think it over and do something for Jakarta. [End]**

Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (6)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (5)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (4)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (3)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (2)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (1)

Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Blinklist
Furl
Newsvine

english-version

Read More...

Summary only...

Kekuatan Civil Society

Berjuta Jarak antara Jakarta — Bangkok (7)

Pengakuan hak komunitas miskin atas kota yang semakin luas terjadi di Bangkok, tidak serta merta terwujud karena kebaikan atau kepedulian pemerintahnya. Pengakuan itu sedikit demi sedikit terjadi karena desakan dan perjuangan panjang komunitas-komunitas miskin yang mengorganisir diri, membangun jaringan dan mendapat dukungan luas dari NGO, akademisi dan kelompok profesi.

Nyaris tak ada jarak yang memisahkan antara komunitas miskin dengan kelas menengah yang ada di sana. Bukan hanya NGO yang mengorganisir komunitas miskin tetapi juga para akademisinya. Dosen dan profesor di sana tidak canggung berdiskusi dan bergaul dengan warga komunitas miskin. Sedikitnya 10% akademisi di sana terlibat dalam mendukung perjuangan komunitas miskin dalam memperoleh haknya. Seorang profesor dan dosen dari Universitas Tamasad yang saya temui, terlibat aktif dalam pengorganisasian 13 komunitas miskin. Seorang dosen lain dari universitas Silapakorn terlibat membantu komunitas Mahakan Fort yang sedang terancam digusur oleh komersialisasi lahan dan bangunan tua. Akademisi, NGO, kelompok profesi – seperti pengacara, arsitek, dll, bersama dengan komunitas miskin berjuang untuk mendesakkan pengakuan hak masyarakat miskin. Koalisi akademisi, progesi, NGO dan komunitas miskin ini sekaligus menjadi kekuatan pengontrol bagi arah pengembangan kota.

Kunjungan pada tiga komunitas yang terancam tergusur, yaitu komunitas ”Wang Lee”, ”Kratum Diew”, dan ”Mahakan Fort”, semakin menguatkan penilaian saya tentang betapa berdayanya civil society di Bangkok. Ketika komunitas Wang Lee yang terletak di Charoen Krung soi 52, sebuah gang (soi) dekat jembatan Saphan Taksin, terancam tergusur, perlawanan datang dari berbagai kalangan. Dari NGO, kelompok profesi (arsitek, jurnalis dan pengacara), akademisi (antropolog, sosiolog, budayawan dan sejarawan) dan organisasi komunitas miskin dari empat region di Bangkok. Komunitas kecil yang hanya beranggotakan 70 KK itu mendapat dukungan luas dari kelas menengah di Bangkok. Kepedulian atas kelangsungan hidup sebuah komunitas kecil dan dukungan luas dari kelas menengah mampu membuat isu penggusuran sebuah komunitas kecil di sebuah gang berkembang menjadi isu besar: penggusuran atas situs kebudayaan nasional. Mengapa? Sebab bangunan rumah tinggal komunitas itu dibangun oleh arsitek Perancis di awal abad 20. Gang yang menjadi habitat komunitas kecil itu juga adalah bagian dari sejarah perdagangan maritim dan industri transportasi di Bangkok. Gang itu juga tak bisa dipisahkan dari monumen berbentuk kapal pada vihara yang terletak bersebelahan dengan gang yang akan tergusur itu. Di gang itu pula dulu tinggal imigran pertama dari Cina. Isu penggusuran situs kebudayaan nasional itu diangkat di berbagai forum, termasuk forum diskusi di Universitas Thammasat. Ketika pihak penggusur hendak membongkar paksa bangunan tua yang dihuni komunitas Wang Lee itu, massa dari berbagai kalangan datang menghadang.

Hal senada terjadi pada komunitas Kratum Diew dan Mahakan Fort. Pada dua kasus ini, NGO, akademisi, profesi dan komunitas miskin bergandeng tangan melawan penggusuran. Kelompok profesi mendukung dengan alternatif rancang desain untuk merombak dan meremajakan komunitas miskin itu. Akademisi membangun argumen dari sisi sosial, ekonomi, budaya dan sejarah, serta bergabung bersama NGO dalam mengorganisir komunitas miskin. Bersama komunitas miskin mereka melakukan dialog dan negosiasi dengan pemerintah atau pemilik tanah. Pendek kata, berbagai cara ditempuh untuk mencari solusi dan menggagalkan penggusuran.

Sulit dibayangkan bahwa di Jakarta ini akademisi bisa bekerjasama, bergaul dan tak segan turun ke jalan bersama dengan warga komunitas miskin. Jangankan terhadap persoalan komunitas miskin, terhadap persoalan kota yang menyangkut kepentingan publik, seperti kemacetan, kesemrawutan, pemagaran taman, penyelewengan tata ruang, komersialisasi lahan dan ruang, tak banyak akademisi dan kelompok profesi yang bersuara, apalagi membangun koalisi untuk perlawanan. Civil society di Jakarta ini demikian lemahnya, hingga bisa dipahami kalau Jakarta bisa menjadi seperti sekarang. Pengembangan kota Jakarta ini sepenuhnya berada di tangan penguasa (politik dan pemilik modal). Sebab warganya terfragmentasi, mudah diperdaya karena memang tak berdaya.

Lemahnya civil society di Jakarta, selain karena minimnya kesadaran dan kepedulian akan hidup bersama sebagai komunitas kota, sistem politik dan pemerintahannya juga membuat masyarakat warga tak berdaya dan terfragmentasi dalam kelas-kelas sosial yang demikian berjarak satu dengan lainnya. Hal sebaliknya terjadi di Bangkok. Sistem politik dan pemerintahan Bangkok lebih memberi peluang dan bahkan mendorong warganya untuk mengorganisir diri. Ini setidaknya tampak dari adanya kebijakan untuk memberi fasilitas dana dukungan untuk pengembangan organisasi komunitas. Komunitas miskin yang telah mengorganisir diri, mendaftarkan komunitasnya pada pihak pemerintah Bangkok, dan memperoleh status sebagai komunitas yang formal, akan mendapat fasilitas dalam bentuk dana bantuan bagi pengembangan komunitas. Selain itu dari program Baan Mankong kita bisa lihat adanya peluang bagi komunitas miskin, akademisi, kelompok profesi dan pemerintah lokal untuk bertemu dan bersama-sama menyelesaikan masalah. Para politisinya pun tidak bisa dengan mudah mengobral janji dan menjadikan kaum miskin hanya sebagai alat untuk meraih suara. Sebab para politisi di sana terikat dengan komunitas. Mereka punya basis dan mengenal konstituennya, di samping konstituennya itu sendiri juga kritis dan tidak mudah dibodohi. Pada akhirnya kontrol terhadap pemerintah dan para politisinya berjalan karena civil society-nya memang berdaya. Kontrol ini pula yang sebenarnya menjatuhkan perdana menteri Taksin. Dari kaki lima, sopir taksi sampai akademisi menghendaki Taksin lengser karena korup. Padahal konon khabarnya Taksin populer di kalangan komunitas miskin.

Setelah melihat Bangkok dari sisi kota dan kaum miskinnya, mengalir di benak ini sebuah pertanyaan: mengapa Bangkok bisa seperti itu, sementara Jakarta tidak. Padahal Bangkok pernah belajar dari Jakarta. Bangkok juga pernah punya masalah kemacetan yang sama parahnya seperti Jakarta, namun dengan mengembangkan angkutan massal (skytrain) kemacetan di Bangkok mulai berkurang. Sementara begitu banyak masalah di Jakarta yang belum bisa diatasi: mulai dari kemacetan, kesemrawutan, banjir, polusi, kemiskinan, kerusuhan, sampai penggusuran. Sebagai kota metropolitan, masalah Jakarta rasanya bukannya semakin berkurang tapi malah bertambah. Padahal pada titik waktu tertentu Jakarta dan Bangkok punya masalah yang sama. Hebatnya, Bangkok bisa mengurai tali masalahnya, sementara Jakarta semakin terbelit masalah.

Apa yang salah dengan Jakarta? Barangkali perbedaan sejarah yang membuat jarak Jakarta – Bangkok sedemikian jauhnya. Bangkok tak pernah jadi negeri jajahan, sementara Indonesia belum pernah jadi bangsa yang sungguh-sungguh merdeka. Barangkali masalah kemerdekaan inilah yang melahirkan perbedaan mentalitas kedua bangsa. Barangkali. Pertanyaan pertama agaknya sulit dijawab. Mungkin kita harus beralih pada pertanyaan kedua: Apa yang masih bisa kita lakukan? Mari kita berpikir dan berbuat sesuatu untuk Jakarta. ***

Caption: Komunitas Wang Lee berada di sekitar kawasan business yang sibuk di kota Bangkok.

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)


See the English version of this post.

Read More...

Summary only...

Penggusuran Menjadi Masa Lalu

Berjuta Jarak antara Jakarta — Bangkok (6)

BERBEDA dengan Bangkok, Jakarta tak punya alternatif lain dalam menyelesaikan masalah kekumuhan selain penggusuran. Padahal di tahun 1960-an, Jakarta sudah mengembangkan program sejenis Baan Mankong, yaitu KIP (kampung improvement program). Program ini pernah populer di dunia internasional. Bahkan Somsook Boonyabancha, direktur CODI – lembaga pemerintah yang menangani program Baan Mankong, mengakui bahwa program Baan Mankong yang dikembangkan pemerintah Thai sebenarnya adalah hasil belajar dari program KIP yang pernah dijalankan pemerintah Jakarta. Sayangnya, di Jakarta sendiri program KIP telah menjadi masa lalu.

Hal sebaliknya terjadi di Bangkok. Bagi pemerintah Bangkok, penggusuran-lah yang menjadi masa lalu. Sebab penggusuran di Bangkok lebih banyak terjadi dalam kurun waktu 1960-1970, ketika peremajaan kota lebih dimaknai sebagai pembongkaran rumah-rumah tua dan pembangunan gedung-gedung bertingkat. Dalam kurun waktu ini penggusuran menjadi satu-satunya solusi bagi masalah pemukiman kumuh di kota. Pada akhir tahun 1970-an program peremajaan komunitas mulai dikenal di Bangkok dan tahun 1973 pemerintah Thai menjadikan penanganan masalah perumahan sebagai agenda nasional dengan membentuk National Housing Authority (NHA). Baru pada tahun 1977 pemerintah Thai untuk pertama kalinya menerapkan program peremajaan komunitas.

Perbandingan Jakarta - Bangkok dalam kebijakan terhadap kaum miskin kota

Klik bagan di bawah ini untuk memperbesarnya.
Meski pemerintah Bangkok sedapat mungkin menghindari penggusuran, namun gelombang komersialisasi lahan membuat Bangkok belum sepenuhnya dapat membebaskan diri dari masalah penggusuran. Coba bayangkan, harga sewa lahan untuk komunitas rata-rata hanya 20 Baht per meter per tahun. Sementara kalau lahan yang sama disewakan untuk kepentingan komersial harganya berlipat menjadi 375 Baht per meter per tahun. Meskipun Bangkok belum sepenuhnya dapat melepaskan dari penggusuran, namun ada perbedaan mencolok antara Jakarta dan Bangkok dalam menjalankan penggusuran. Misalnya saja dalam hal ganti rugi atau kompensasi, pengakuan dari pemimpin komunitas miskin yang menjadi korban penggusuran, aktivis NGO dan akademisi yang saya jumpai di sana menyebutkan, ada standar yang menetapkan ganti rugi penggusuran sebesar 10.000 Baht (300 USD) per rumah. Bahkan biasanya sebelum melakukan penggusuran, pihak penggusur terlebih dahulu menyediakan lahan pengganti. Penggusuran dengan tujuan untuk pembangunan infrastruktur, ganti ruginya bisa mencapai 10.000 USD. Besarnya ganti rugi ini menurut mereka tergantung dari lamanya negosiasi. Kalau pihak penggusur menginginkan warga segera meninggalkan lahan yang mereka tempati, maka pihak penggusur akan membayar tinggi kompensasi. Sebaliknya, bila pihak penggusur tidak bersedia membayar tinggi, maka warga pun akan tetap bertahan. Tentang detil perbedaan pelaksanaan penggusuran antara Jakarta – Bangkok, bisa kita baca dari tabel berikut.*

Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (7) — Kekuatan Civil Society
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)

Baca versi Inggrisnya.

Read More...

Summary only...

Program Baan Mankong

Berjuta Jarak antara Jakarta — Bangkok (5)

JANUARI 2003 pemerintah Thai mencanangkan kebijakan untuk mengatasi masalah perumahan bagi kaum miskin kota dengan menyediakan perumahan yang aman bagi sejuta keluarga miskin dalam kurun waktu lima tahun. Target ini ditempuh melalui dua program, yaitu: (1) the Baan Ua Arthron Program (program ”kami peduli Thai”), di mana Komisi Nasional untuk Perumahan (National Housing Authority) mendisain, merancang dan menjual rumah dan rumah susun bersubsidi bagi rumahtangga miskin dengan sistem angsuran sebesar 1.000 – 1.500 Baht (25 – 37 USD) per bulan.

Program ini mirip program perumnas dan rumah susun yang dijalankan pemerintah Indonesia; (2) Baan Mankong Program (”program rumah aman”), yaitu program penyaluran dana pemerintah dalam bentuk subsidi untuk pembangunan infrastruktur dan pinjaman lunak untuk pembangunan rumah bagi komunitas miskin. Dengan program ini, komunitas miskin mengelola secara bersama subsidi dan pinjaman lunak dari pemerintah untuk merancang dan melaksanakan sendiri perbaikan rumah, lingkungan fisik dan fasilitas dasar bagi komunitas mereka. Dengan program ini bukan lagi pemerintah Thai yang membangun rumah atau rumah susun untuk kemudian dijual atau disewakan pada rumahtangga miskin secara individual. Pemerintah menyerahkan pembangunan rumah-rumah tersebut pada komunitas miskin dan jaringannya. Dalam program ini pemerintah menempatkan komunitas miskin dan jaringan mereka sebagai aktor penting bagi proses pembangunan jangka panjang. Dengan cara ini pula pemerintah Thai tengah menjawab masalah tanah dan perumahan di kota secara lebih komprehensif, sustainable dan berbiaya relatif murah.

Dengan program Baan Mankong, pemerintah Thai hendak merombak cara berpikir konvensional dalam melihat dan mengatasi persoalan kota dan kemiskinan. Kaum miskin bukan lagi obyek melainkan subyek pembangunan. Sudut pandang ini tercermin dari berbagai peluang yang dimungkinkan dalam program tersebut. Pertama, Baan Mankong menjadikan kaum miskin kota sebagai pemilik proses peremajaan perumahan nasional. Program tersebut memungkinkan komunitas miskin melihat sendiri masalah perumahan beserta lingkungannya. Dengan dukungan subsidi dan pinjaman lunak dari pemerintah, mereka kemudian merancang sendiri rencana untuk mengatasi masalah tersebut secara bersama. Jadi dengan program ini, pemerintah hanya memfasilitasi sejumlah dana – dalam bentuk subsidi dan pinjaman lunak, sementara pelaksanaan pembangunan dan pengelolaan dananya diserahkan sepenuhnya pada komunitas miskin itu sendiri dan jaringannya.

Kedua, Baan Mankong menjadikan perbaikan fisik rumah dan lingkungan komunitas miskin sebagai langkah awal dari proses pembangunan komunitas yang lebih luas dan komprehensif. Dengan program ini, perbaikan rumah dan lingkungan fisiknya dijadikan sebagai pintu masuk bagi proses peningkatan kemampuan masyarakat miskin untuk mengelola secara kolektif kebutuhan mereka sendiri, seperti rumah, finansial, kredit, lingkungan, penciptaan pendapatan dan peningkatan kesejahteraan. Terbukti bahwa peremajaan pemukiman dan lingkungan fisik mampu menggerakkan masyarakat untuk melihat masalah yang mereka hadapi secara bersama karena peremajaan itu sendiri melibatkan dan menyentuh kehidupan setiap individu yang ada dalam komunitas, bukan hanya para pemimpinnya.

Ketiga, Baan Mankong menempatkan issu perumahan bagi komunitas miskin kota sebagai persoalan struktural yang hanya dapat diatasi melalui kemitraan berbagai pihak yang terkait dengan persoalan kota. Dengan menciptakan ruang bagi komunitas miskin, pemerintah/politisi lokal, profesional dan NGO untuk secara bersama melihat seluruh persoalan perumahan di kota, Baan Mankong menciptakan perubahan dalam mengatasi persoalan perumahan bagi kaum miskin. Solusi atas masalah perumahan bagi kaum miskin tidak lagi dilihat sebagai masalah karitatif atau hal memalukan yang pantas disembunyikan di bawah karpet.. Masalah rumah bagi kaum miskin ditempatkan sebagai masalah struktural yang dapat dipecahkan dan yang terkait dengan perkembangan kota secara keseluruhan.

Keempat, Baan Mankong menciptakan ruang bagi komunitas miskin untuk membangkitkan kembali partisipasi warga dalam pengembangan kota yang selama ini telah lumpuh dilindas liberalisasi ekonomi. Ketika komunitas miskin membaharui dirinya sendiri dan kerja mereka diakui oleh seluruh stakeholder kota, peremajaan itu menjadi sebuah proses yang melegitimasi status mereka sebagai bagian penting dari kota dan sekaligus membuktikan kapabilitas komunitas miskin sebagai partner stakeholder kota lainnya dalam mengelola masalah serius yang mempengaruhi kota secara keseluruhan: bukan hanya perumahan tetapi juga lingkungan, air, sampah dan kesejahteraan sosial. Selama ini liberalisasi ekonomi dan sistem pemerintahan yang top down mereka anggap telah membungkam suara warga sedemikian rupa sehingga untuk berbicara tentang lingkungannya sendiri mereka tak punya hak. Kini, Baan Mankong yang menggunakan pendekatan bottom up menjadi jalan alternatif untuk membangkitkan kembali partisipasi warga dalam pengembangan kota.*

Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (7) — Kekuatan Civil Society
Berjuta Jarak Jakarta-Bangkok (6) — Penggusuran Jadi Masa Lalu
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)

Baca versi Inggrisnya.

Read More...

Summary only...

Eviction 'policy' left in the past

Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (6)

DIFFERENT from Bangkok, Jakarta has no alternative in solving the problem of slum areas but simply evicting them away. In fact, in the 1960s Jakarta had developed a kind of program similar to Baan Mankong, i.e. the Kampung Improvement Program (KIP). This program was once very popular worldwide. Even Somsook Boonyabancha, the director of CODI, the government’s body running the Baan Mankong program, admits that the program is actually a lesson learned from the practice conducted by the Jakarta administration. Ironically Jakarta has left it in the past.

The contrary takes place in Bangkok, instead. For Bangkok administration, eviction ‘policy’ has been left behind. Evictions mostly took place during 1960s-1970s, when the city renovation was more understood as destroying old houses replaced by sky-scrappers constructions. At the period eviction was the only solution against slum areas. At the end of 1970s the community renovation programs were introduced in Bangkok and in 1973 the Thai government made the housing problem tackling as a national agenda with the setting up of the National Housing Authority (NHA). Only in 1977 Thai government for the first time applied the community renovation program.

However, although Bangkok takes the policy of resoting to eviction as the last option, land commercialization waves have made Bangkok unable to fully avoid evictions. You can imagine that land rent prices for the communities cost the yearly average of 20 Baht (±0.6$US) a meter square. In fact, if the same plot of land be rented for commercial purposes the price increases 18 times upto 375 Baht (±11.27$US) per sq meter yearly. Even though, there is still a clear difference between Jakarta and Bangkok when each takes the eviction options. For instance in compensating the damages, community leaders, NGO activists, and academicians admit there is a clear standard of 10,000 Baht (±300$US) each living place.

The difference between Jakarta and Bangkok
in their policy on dealing with slum areas:
Click the table to see it bigger.

Even before last minute of taking decision to evict slum areas, the executors provide the compensated land in advance. Eviction that aims at providing space of public infrastructural constructions, the financial compensation may reach about $US 10,000. The amount of the compensation depends on the length of the negotiation. If the eviction executors want that the identified people leave the areas, the executors will pay higher sum of money. On the contrary, if the evictors do not agree with paying higher price, they will agree the people to stay longer. See my table above explaining the comparison between both cities.*

Photo caption: A public meeting at Kratum Diew community in Bangkok, January 2007

See previous stories:
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (5)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (4)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (3)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (2)
Millions of miles away between Jakarta and Bangkok (1)

Read the Indonesian version.

Read More...

Summary only...