Rhadamanthus: The truth seeker

Incessant withholding

2012-01-03T23:14:00.001-08:00

The clock on my head tick.
It ticks so fast that I forget the trick.

It ticks so fast but I want it to stop.
Ticking, ticking, tick-tock, tick-tock.

Standing still, watching the clock.
Closing eyes, feeling the shock.

It does not matter in what dimension it is, the eyes are firmly fixated on the ticking.

The body stays still, the mind travels until.

The feeling is hatred, abhorrence, but the act is silence and fixation. Fixated to the hatred and abhorrence.

The body begs for movement, the mind affirms it, yet it is fixated. Fixated to the clock.

...ticking, ticking, tick-tock, tock-tock. Body screams, mind stays still.

Silent scream... incessantly craves for acting it, the mind affirms, but withholds.

It explodes but silently, creeping to the skin. Blinding the body. But the mind is still clear on its fixation.

Fixated on the clock... tick-tock, tick-tock... It then disappears, but the body succumbs to it nevertheless.

Do it... the mind knows it. The body awaits for the command. The mind is still fixated.

Fixated... on the clock.

Noodle and waiting

2012-01-03T23:13:00.000-08:00

2 January 2011, 18:11 to 19:36, Mie Goreng Aceh, Tanah Kusir

I am always fascinated by how people sit down in ordered tables and then wait for their foods. There are children, grandma, and a middle-aged. They are families, individuals, and they are waitresses.

One kid is playing a PS. He is very drawn into it. I am trying to observe what he is doing, trying to get into his head. Is that what I feel when I was small and played with a game gadget while going out with my parents? Of course, i am waiting for the food as well as i am also hungry. But it is just fun to be so engrossed into something i really like doing, something that takes my mind off of things. Like writing this piece. Writing this piece in such a mess of order is not something i usually do. I am a lawyer and a legal scholar. What we do is we must think of every possible structure, argument, and counter argument before even writing it. This piece is a mess in terms of structure and coherence. But i simply want to write something and then reflect on it.

Now the food has arrived. The kid is still playing with the PS while eating. His mom and 2 other aunties (seems to be) are eating with full consciousness of eating to get full. They have a shared plate which sort of indicates intimacy. They are chatting over some issues about their maids. It looks serious. But the kid does not respond to it whatsoever.

I, then, see right on their side, a man who seems to be the father of that kid. He is moving toward the kid's direction and eating up some of the kid's food. The guy seems to like it very much. Oh it turns out that he is waiting for his food to be delivered and decided to eat up some of the kid's food. He, then, went back to his cellphone, playing with a blackberry.

*Blackberry is a popular device in Indonesia by 2011.

Right now i am waiting for my food. The guy seems to forget that i have ordered my food (my noodle) and of course the egg (it is called telur mata sapi, which literally means cow's eyes as the egg resembles cow's eyes shape). I will usually be very mad about this as the cook delivered the food to the person who came later than I did. I think this may be a good way of living a different kind of life. You know, as a lawyer, I am typically all the efficient guy and righteous. I dont tolerate people being inefficient, not especially when he delivered someone's food first while i have ordered first. Now I am going to talk to him as I am hungry and I need to eat.

I have talked to the guy and it turns out that he was cooking a huge portion of noodle for roughly 8 plates. The reason why he delivered the food to someone else first is because that person ordered fried rice and it seems the stall has ready fried rice, but not noodles. So I was wrong to assume to he forgot my order. Now I would like to eat...

While I am eating, I see that kid does not finish the food. It looks like it is one-third of the original portion. He does not seem to be interested in the food anymore. He went back to his game gadget. Occasionally, he would take a small piece of his food and eat it while playing game. His grandma joked about him not wanting to finish the food. I wandered why his grandma was laughing at all. What is so funny about it? I suppose because his grandma thought he was a funny kid. I still wonder why the grandma was laughing at all.

I lit up a cigarette after I finish my food. I always have this precaution that some people are perhaps are not happy at all about me smoking. There are several reasons. One, perhaps, is because they dont like the smell of cigarette or second because they perceive smoke from cigarette to be unhealthy. I, then observe around me whether people are noticing me or not. They were 2 glances. And as a cultural convention, i suppose, it is not polite to stare at someone, so their stares usually end as soon as I glance back.

There is a big guy who just arrives at the restaurant. He seems to come alone and doesnt seem to be waiting for anyone. He is almost bald and his body is well-built. I suppose he is a body builder or an army member. There is another guy who has just come in. He was engrossed in his cell phone. He looks like a business person (not a wealthy one). He looks quite decent yet almost poor. But it does not make sense because he is holding a blackberry that i know is quite expensive. It perhaps costs more than Rp 5 million. But there are a lot of assumptions here. Credit system for blackberry is rampant. I mean he may be paying installments for that piece of blackberry or he may steal it. But I will assign benefit of doubt for him, that is to think that he did not steal that blackberry. I wonder what he is doing. He has been staring at the blackberry for more than 5 minutes. Now the big, almost bald, body-building guy is also playing with his cellphone. Ok, now he is eating. He looks very serious about the blackberry. It is as almost as something very urgent and important is going on. Perhaps, his business, family member problem? Oh, it turns out that he was waiting for his food for a take away. He is not eating in the restaurant.

He took out a Rp 50.000 piece of money, paid his food and then left. He took his car key out of his pocket. At least, it looks like a car key. Oh, it is a motorcycle key. The key just resembles a car key very much. He left using a motorbike without a helmet. I suppose in this are, people are accustomed to not using any helmet at all. It is not because they are just outlaws or because they do not dread the police officer arresting them and ticketing them. I guess it is because there is an established norm that in this are it is okay not to use helmet.

I was once ticketed by police around this area (it was 500 meters aways) because i did not use any helmet at all. But it was at 1 a.m. When i delivered my friend home. The police was conducting a December inspection (usually at year end, police conduct this special operation). It is a special operation where there are several police officers at certain locations they project many traffic violators would pass.

I saw a couple sitting beside me. I assume they are a couple because they look intimate. It is generally not the case of brother and sister because most likely they will not chat that much as they perhaps have known each other very well. It is a generally accepted notion that brother and sister are very close in Indonesia, hence, it is very likely that the two people sitting beside me are a couple. In addition, they dont seem to be an old friend meeting each other because they would have otherwise looked very enthusiastic about each other's story. They seem to know each other very well, just like a couple should be, and they yet seem a bit awkward about each other, with the shy look and almost attention-craving attitude. It looks to me that they know each other's story (at least most of it) but they still want to chat. The guy is laughing right now and the woman seems to be happily upset (she looked down on her food while making a face, with her lips tightened up and therefore looks bigger and forward from the original position). I think it is because he seems to be joking about her or her misfortune, yet the woman has mixed feeling about it because on the one hand she does not like to be 'bullied' and embarrassed but on the other hand the guy was happy and the joke becomes a conversation subject that keeps the situation alive. I suppose silence will be awfully awkward and unpleasant. Now the conversation seems to be serious. The woman keeps on looking down. She played with her food by using the spoon to take up a portion of rice while her spoon is already full. I dont know whether it is because she has not finished swallowing, not in mood to eat suddenly, Or whether is constantly thinking about something, hence she just needs an object to constantly jeep h body moving. She smiles a bit, not a bit laugh. Her lips just open a bit where I can see her teeth, quite white, clean and well structured. Of course, I occasionally have to look away while observing her and the conversation at her table which is just beside my table separated by 1 meter. Again, it is because it is not polite to stare. People may have several prejudices, e.g., I am a psycho, an impolite person, or attracted to the woman who already has a boyfriend or maybe a husband.

There is an old couple. I did not notice when they came into the restaurant, but they sat across me separated by roughly 2,5 meter. The guy seems like a tidy person. He wears casual attire yet he looks so tidy with the watch on his left hand and a polo shirt quite well dressed. His wife on the other hand looks very fancy with a brown bag and a seemingly expensive cloth or even if it is a cheap dress, she seems to act like it is an expensive cloth. Again perhaps it is just my assumption, she is perhaps attracted to fashion irrespective of whether the cloth is expensive or not. But under the circumstances judging from (although short amount of observation) the culture around here and her attitude, it does not seem that she appreciates fashion that much. She is more like a follower and trend-conformist rather than a fashionista or even a fashionista in progress. The guy looks very serious even when he is eating his food. Is that how I look when I live my bitter person character?

I am quite tired and my back is hurting. I suppose I need to pay for my food, stop typing this on my iPad2 (i love my iPad2) and go home to take a bath. Maybe it will make me feel better about my loved one being away on a vacation.

A piece of my comrade's beautiful expression of human's pain

2011-05-30T04:44:00.000-07:00

I am extending a beautiful piece of my comrade's beautiful expression of human's pain.

It captures some parts of me. Indeed, it is a translation of her state of mind and soul. Beauty in the presence of pain.

"Atrophy

By the cover of night, the demons prey
In chronic pain, the languishing physique
bears a soul which grows increasingly weak.
But then help arrives with the light of day
as unknowing angels flit closeby.
But in truth the forces at play are sly...
In these precious hours they're held at bay.
And temporarily, the spirit forgets,
putting aside what loneliness begets.
Soon enough they will come out to play.
As the presence of others wanes, It shines.
Precocious irrationality blurs lines.
Despite reality, be what it may,
unattended, the dark thoughts pervade.
Through the mind, the floods invade.
Though strong, they cannot possibly stay.
Still, this heart will be repeatedly torn;
the psyche, confused, now content, then forlorn."

Good bye and break up

2011-05-24T08:49:00.000-07:00

Good bye semantically denotes a wish that a physical separation from someone will be of a good nature. Good bye... wishing that after the separation one is still good and will be better off after it.

What language often fails to capture is the past and the future of the good bye. Context of goodbye differs from one person to another person and from one situation to another situation.

We will then ask ourselves: why do we say goodbye? what do we mean by good bye when we actually say it? Do we really wish someone a good life after that 'bye'?

Why do we care what kind of life that someone will face after the 'bye'? Do we distinguish the gradation of "good" from one person to another person? Is there a time when we wish someone a "good" bye with an expectation of a better life than the life of another person who we also "good" bye to?

What about a loved one in the sense of eros and amorous nature? What do we really mean by "good bye"?

Do we really wish he/she will be happier with someone else because we cannot provide such happiness in a silver plate? Do we honestly want her to be happier?

Then we ask ourselves, is it our failures that such happiness state cannot be achieved when the loved one was with us? Do we blame it on circumstances? Do we just give up on circumstances?

It is once postulated as a conventional wisdom that to love is to release, for in stranglehold one cannot breathe and remains in pain.

To love is to let go, but to love is also to long for companionship. Is it not paradoxical or even oxymoronic at the same time?

How can you want to die and at the same time want to live? How can black be white at the same space and time continuum, in the same respect?

Conundrum ...

I have said goodbye too many times that i lose track of what it shall mean. I have lost track of how to quantify and qualify the meaning of the word I have said. Perhaps it is a curse and a gift to provide meaning to the word. Perhaps, it is best to leave the word as a mystery. Looking out for it will do nothing good by entrapment in a labyrinth of conundrum.

Good bye, i guess. the best meaning i can assign is I have done all I can... Not cirucmstances nor cosmic conspiracy that compel a "bye", but it is you... I will revoltingly say "good" in the bye and sincerely mean it... because in the absence of my 5 senses of your future condition, i can only hope you do well... though it is out of my control... and as a selfish species of bacteria and a limit of memory and sense of observation, a "good bye" does nothing better than "utter silence", because a wish not realized and responded is as good as "a semantic glitch without substance"

the wise and the strong

2011-05-06T02:40:00.000-07:00

The wise and the strong make mistakes and fail miserably. But he will stand up and walk the same path again. and this process will repeat.

The fool and the weak make mistakes and fail miserably. And, she will deny such mistakes, and deny the chance for herself and him to stand up and walk the same path again.

a hope

2011-05-06T02:34:00.001-07:00

Dear myself again,

You can sustain all bumps, all strikes, all hardships... because you know there will be a beautiful end on this horrendous road, in entrapment with dolphin girl.

You can change, amorph, adapt, to anything... You are strong and plastic. You will change anything with or without great regrets for her happiness...

You have hope...

Hi there my self...

2011-05-06T02:09:00.000-07:00

Hi there myself. reflected in the mirror. You are my past, but closer in seconds than I am now.

We have argued hard, bled hard, hemorrhaged to death. Let's make a pact. One beyond fact. One with tact.

It is in hurting that we learn to feel. Maybe it is late... but it never dissipates.

What is real and not? Unfortunately, I cannot provide you the answer, myself. I cannot...

But we maintain what we feel and hold on to it, though we are being squeezed and tromped in the calamity of travelling back and forth between the dream land and the reality. Let it go... We cannot control everything... There is a leap of faith to take.

We may be hurt. We may fall down. We may be devastated. We may be crushed.

But what makes a life is to stand up afterwards... and walk in great agony.

And smile while doing that. Because life is too tasty for us to avoid the vinegar of life. Even when death is ready to pick us up, deliver with smile and chivalry.

Because that is the end of a worthy life, and the beginning of another beautiful journey with the dolphin girl...

a journey going back home...

2011-05-06T02:08:00.000-07:00

what can be lost can be found; what can be broken can be fixed; what can be hurt can feel; what can be dismayed can be rejoiced; what can be mourned can be reminisced; what can be erred can be repented...--- self-generated in contemplating misery and rancor

Schools of philosophy

2010-07-26T07:36:00.000-07:00

1. Solipsism: I am here, you said I am not. May be I am here and maybe I am not here?
2. Determinism: I am already here
3. Utilitarianism: Are you happy that I am here?
4. Epicureanism: Since I am here let s party and fornicate!
5. Positivism: How can you be sure that I am here?
6. Absurdism: Hey, positivism, you are not here and will never be here.
7. Objectivism: I am here, but “I” am not here.. Who am “I”?
8. Secular humanism: Nah, I dont believe it. I am not here
9. Nihilism: Argh...Here, not here... What s the difference?
10. Existentialism: I am here! Here I am! I am here, am I not?
11. Foolism: Huh? come again?

A fraction of memory...

2010-07-25T03:48:00.001-07:00

I am nothing but crystals of shattered glasses.
I take no form, no reflection, no substance, and no existence
I am seen but unseen... for there are many layers upon no layer
I must feel, but posited with no apparatus of feeling.

I envy but cannot feel...
It is non-existence of feeling... it is much worse than being numb.

The cosmic existence defines my non-existence?

I wander,through indefinite infinity...

Some people say I am dreaming...
but I dont dream... I am a dream... that is posited to be real when people sleep... and unposited when people wake up... I sleep to wake up...

I am a fraction of memory... I am the seen unseen beauty and pain..

Rancor

2010-07-20T10:53:00.000-07:00

Brooklyn's finest affirms my loathsome and feeds me with grander anger... YOU TURN THEM INTO MONSTERS... Gauge that pain and rancor... Of course none of you can, fucking lesser mortals! FUCKING Mediocre minds and FUCKING TIMID CONFORMIST!

2010-07-16T20:35:00.001-07:00

The paradox of beauty and the beast: Some people receive what they do not deserve, while some people do not receive what they deserve the most. We disguise this blatant evil under the banner of "luck

2010-07-16T20:34:00.000-07:00

Luck is an expression that calms the "supposed" losers in life competition. The evil defines luck as something out of your control, while in its actuality it is within such evil's control. Just another food for the day!

Exercise 2. regardez et penser

2010-07-09T23:27:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction

In logic, proof by contradiction is a form of proof that establishes the truth or validity of a proposition by showing that the proposition being false would imply a contradiction. Since by the law of bivalence a proposition must be either true or false, and its falsity has been shown impossible, the proposition must be true.

In other words, to prove by contradiction that P, show that or its equivalent . Then, since implies a contradiction, conclude P.

Proof by contradiction is also known as indirect proof, apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile. It is a particular kind of the more general form of argument known as reductio ad absurdum.

A classic proof by contradiction from mathematics is the proof that the square root of 2 is irrational. If it were rational, it could be expressed as a fraction a/b in lowest terms, where a and b are integers, at least one of which is odd. But if a/b = √2, then a2 = 2b2. Therefore a2 must be even. Because the square of an odd number is odd, that in turn implies that a is even. This means that b must be odd because a/b is in lowest terms.

On the other hand, if a is even, then a2 is a multiple of 4. If a2 is a multiple of 4 and a2 = 2b2, then 2b2 is a multiple of 4, and therefore b2 is even, and so is b.

So b is odd and even, a contradiction. Therefore the initial assumption—that √2 can be expressed as a fraction—must be false.

[edit]The length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two legs
The method of proof by contradiction has also been used to show that for any non-degenerate Right triangle, the length of the hypotenuse is less than the sum of the lengths of the two remaining sides. The proof relies on the Pythagorean theorem. Letting c be the length of the hypotenuse and a and b the lengths of the legs, the claim is that a + b > c. As usual, we start the proof by negating the claim and assuming that a + b ≤ c. The next step is to show that this leads to a contradiction. Squaring both sides, we have (a + b)2 ≤ c2 or, equivalently, a2 + 2ab + b2 ≤ c2. A triangle is non-degenerate if each edge has positive length, so we may assume that a and b are greater than 0. Therefore, a2 + b2 < a2 + 2ab + b2 ≤ c2. Taking out the middle term, we have a2 + b2 < c2. We know from the Pythagorean theorem that a2 + b2 = c2. We now have a contradiction since strict inequality and equality are mutually exclusive. The latter was a result of the Pythagorean theorem and the former the assumption that a + b ≤ c. The contradiction means that it is impossible for both to be true and we know that the Pythagorean theorem holds. It follows that our assumption that a + b ≤ c must be false and hence a + b > c, proving the claim.

[edit]In mathematics
Say we wish to disprove proposition p. The procedure is to show that assuming p leads to a logical contradiction. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, p must be false.

Say instead we wish to prove proposition p. We can proceed by assuming "not p" (i.e. that p is false), and show that it leads to a logical contradiction. Thus, according to the law of non-contradiction, "not p" must be false, and so, according to the law of the excluded middle, p is true.

In symbols:

To disprove p: one uses the tautology (p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → ¬p, where R is any proposition and the ∧ symbol is taken to mean "and". Assuming p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply ¬p.

To prove p: one uses the tautology (¬p → (R ∧ ¬R)) → p where R is any proposition. Assuming ¬p, one proves R and ¬R, and concludes from this that ¬p → (R ∧ ¬R). This and the tautology together imply p.

For a simple example of the first kind, consider the proposition, ¬p: "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0". In a proof by contradiction, we start by assuming the opposite, p: that there is a smallest rational number, say, r0.

Now let x = r0/2. Then x is a rational number greater than 0 and less than r0. (In the above symbolic argument, "x is the smallest rational number" would be R and "r0 (which is different from x) is the smallest rational number" would be ¬R.) But that contradicts our initial assumption, p, that r0 was the smallest rational number. So we can conclude that the original proposition, ¬p, must be true — "there is no smallest rational number greater than 0".

the choice of which statement is R and which is ¬R is arbitrary.]

It is common to use this first type of argument with propositions such as the one above, concerning the non-existence of some mathematical object. One assumes that such an object exists, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object does not exist. For other examples, see proof that the square root of 2 is not rational and Cantor's diagonal argument.

On the other hand, it is also common to use arguments of the second type concerning the existence of some mathematical object. One assumes that the object doesn't exist, and then proves that this would lead to a contradiction; thus, such an object must exist. Although it is quite freely used in mathematical proofs, not every school of mathematical thought accepts this kind of argument as universally valid. See further Nonconstructive proof.

In mathematical logic

In mathematical logic, the proof by contradiction is represented as:

if

then

or

if

then

In the above, p is the proposition we wish to prove or disprove; and S is a set of statements which are given as true — these could be, for example, the axioms of the theory we are working in, or earlier theorems we can build upon. We consider p, or the negation of p, in addition to S; if this leads to a logical contradiction F, then we can conclude that the statements in S lead to the negation of p, or p itself, respectively.

Note that the set-theoretic union, in some contexts closely related to logical disjunction (or), is used here for sets of statements in such a way that it is more related to logical conjunction (and).

Notation

Proofs by contradiction sometimes end with the word "Contradiction!". Isaac Barrow and Baermann used the notation Q.E.A., for "quod est absurdum" ("which is absurd"), along the lines of Q.E.D., but this notation is rarely used today.[1] A graphical symbol sometimes used for contradictions is a downwards zigzag arrow "lightning" symbol (U+21AF: ↯), for example in Davey and Priestley.[2] Others sometimes used include a pair of opposing arrows (as or ), struck-out arrows (), a stylized form of hash (such as U+2A33: ⨳), or the "reference mark" (U+203B: ※).[3][4] The "up tack" symbol (U+22A5: ⊥) used by philosophers and logicians (see contradiction) also appears, but is often avoided due to its usage for orthogonality.

Quotations

In the words of G. H. Hardy (A Mathematician's Apology), "Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game."

Logic lesson I must review before hitting the wonderland

2010-07-09T23:16:00.000-07:00

Imported from: wikipedia

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence

A common species of reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction (also called indirect proof) where a proposition is proven true by proving that it is impossible for it to be false. For example, if A is false, then B is also false; but B is true, therefore A cannot be false and therefore A is true.

Consider the following statement, attributed to physicist Niels Bohr: "The opposite of every great idea is another great idea." If this statement is true, then it would certainly qualify as a great idea - it would automatically lead to a corresponding great idea for every great idea already in existence. But if the statement itself is a great idea, its opposite ("the opposite of every great idea is not a great idea") must also be a great idea. Taken to its logical conclusion, the statement contradicts itself, being both true and untrue.[2]

Some legal usage, and some common usage, depends on a much wider definition of reductio ad absurdum than proof by contradiction, where it is argued a proposition should be rejected because it has merely undesirable (though perhaps not actually self-contradictory) consequences. In a strict logical sense, this might be reductio ad incommodum rather than ad absurdum - since in formal logic, 'absurdity' applies only to impossible self-contradiction.[1]

For example, consider the proposition Cuius est solum eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (literally: 'for whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell'). This is also known as ad coelum. A legal reductio ad absurdum argument against the proposition might be:

Suppose we take this proposition to a logical extreme. This would grant a land owner rights to everything in a cone from the center of the earth to an infinite distance out into space, and whatever was inside that cone, including stars and planets. It is absurd that someone who purchases land on earth should own other planets, therefore this proposition is wrong.

(This is a straw man fallacy if it is used to prove that the practical legal use of "ad coelum" is wrong, since ad coelum is only actually ever used to delineate rights in cases of tree branches that grow over boundary fences, mining rights, etc.[3] Reductio ad absurdum applied to ad coelum is, in this case, claiming that ad coelum is saying something that it is not. The reductio ad absurdum above argues only against taking ad coelum to its fullest extent.)

It is only in everyday usage that this could acceptably be called a reductio ad absurdum: it is simply reductio ad absurdum being applied to an originally flawed reductio ad absurdum argument where the extremes were not rational for the original proposition.

Reductio Ad Absurdum in Euclid's Elements

In his Elements, Book III Proposition 5, Euclid demonstrates that if two circles cut one another, they do not have the same center. He begins by assuming that the opposite is true, that two circles may cut one another and have the same center. He then shows that if this happen, the radius of one circle would be both equal to and less than the radius of the other, which is impossible.

Reductio Ad Absurdum in Popular Culture

In an episode of the American TV series The Big Bang Theory, Sheldon refers to a Reductio Ad Absurdum of Leonard's. It is a misuse of the term, which he defines as "The logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to ridiculous proportions and then criticizing the result." The fallacy he describes is actually an Appeal to Ridicule.

striking the equilibrium: the why and how?

2010-07-09T22:59:00.000-07:00

There was once in the past (when I was someone else) where my teacher told me that "Jo is a good buddy, he just intentionally shows his bad boy side all the times"

I think it is true. So often I find myself caught in a situation where opportunities of friendship and life joy present themselves, but I push them away, shun them under the notion (logically processed "foods") that they shun me anyway. Why should i learn to gravitate to their direction instead they to my direction? If compromise is the value, why should i gravitate there by exerting more effort?

The right and the fun are two mutually exclusive choice it seems.

Yin and yang tells me that life is right when i strike an equilibrium. in economics it s the precise price of goods where producers enjoy benefits, consumers enjoy proportional price and competition is protected and encouraged.

Damn, it s hard to strike such an equilibrium.

Perhaps I need to make a choice soon.. Humans are limited, i cant be the best at everything... Oh, that s crap.. I can even argue along that line much better than anyone else. It s the loser's argument...

sigh... I am completely aware of the consequences of choosing this path of life. or am i innately characterized this way? nobody can answer that, worst, nobody gives a damn about it...

Maybe one day we will all be able to achieve that state of equilibrium when we can sit down and feel content with whatever we have while still aggressively and passionately pursue the truth and the ultimate wisdom.

One thing I would really like to inquire Sidharta Gautama is "How can humans achieve equilibrium when inequilibrium is required to support equilibrium? Are u saying some humans must be sacrificed so that some can achieve enlightenment?"

You dont just sit up there or around us. You come down here and tell me.. explain to me... engross me in it...

I need answers.. in whatever form...

Decrypting the code

2010-07-08T19:20:00.000-07:00

imported from http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/07/might-there-have-been-just-nothing-at-all.html

Could There Have Been Just Nothing At All?
No doubt, things exist. At least I exist, and that suffices to show that something exists. But could it have been the case that nothing ever existed? Actually, there is something; but is it possible that there have been nothing? Or is it rather the case that necessarily there is something? Is it not only actually the case that there is something, but also necessarily the case that there is something? I will argue that there could not have been nothing and that therefore necessarily there is something. (Image credit.)

My thesis, then, is that necessarily, something (at least one thing) exists. I am using 'thing' as broadly as possible, to cover anything at all, of whatever category. If I am right, then it is impossible that there have been nothing at all. The type of modality in question is what is called 'broadly logical' or 'metaphysical.'

Note that Necessarily something exists does not entail Something necessarily exists. I am not asserting the second proposition, but only the first. The second says more than the first. In the patois of possible worlds, the second says that there is some one thing that exists in every possible world, whereas the first says only that every possible world is such that there is something or other in it. The first proposition is consistent with the proposition that every being is contingent, while the second is not. So the first and second propositions are logically distinct and the first does not entail the second. I am asserting only the first.

What I will be arguing, then, is not that there is a necessary being, some one being that exists in all possible worlds, but that every world has something or other in it: every possible circumstance or
situation is one in which something or other exists. That is, there is no possible world in which there is nothing at all.

You can think of merely possible worlds as maximal or total ways things might have been, and you can think of the actual world as the total way things are. My thesis is that there is no way things might have been such that nothing at all exists. But if you are uncomfortable with the jargon of possible worlds, I can translate out of it and say, simply, that it is impossible that there have been, or be, nothing at all. As a matter of metaphysical necessity, there must be something or other!

The content of my thesis now having been made clear, I proceed to give a reductio ad absurdum argument for thinking it true.

1. Let S = Something exists and N = Nothing exists, and assume for reductio that N is possibly true.
2. If N is possibly true, then S, which is true, and known to be true, is only contingently true.
Therefore
3. There are possible worlds in which S is false and possible worlds in which S is true. ( From 2, by definition of 'contingently true')
4. In the worlds in which S is true, something exists. (Because if 'Something exists' is true, then something exists.)
5. In the worlds in which S is false, it is also the case that something exists, namely, S. (For an item cannot have a property unless it exists, and so S cannot have the property of being false unless S exists)
6. Every proposition is either true, or if not true, then false. (Bivalence)

Therefore
7. Every world has something in it, hence there is no world in which nothing exists.
Therefore
8. N is not possibly true, and necessarily something exists.

If you disagree with my conclusion, then you must either show that one or more premises are either false or not reasonably maintained, or that one or more inferences are invalid, of that the argument rests on one or more dubious presuppositions

what i think, say and do

2010-07-08T19:19:00.000-07:00

Between thought and action lies speech, which can substitute for either. It can just as easily mask thoughtlessness as impede action.

Right speech, however, does not substitute for thought or action, but mediates them. Giving expression to thought, it enables intelligent action.

Pascal and Buber on the God of the Philosophers

2010-07-04T13:19:00.000-07:00

imported from: http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/06/pascal-and-buber-on-the-god-of-the-philosophers.html (Bill Vallicella)

"God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob -- not of the philosophers and scholars." Thus exclaimed Blaise Pascal in the famous memorial in which he recorded the overwhelming religious/mystical experience of the night of 23 November 1654. Martin Buber comments (Eclipse of God, Humanity Books, 1952, p. 49):

These words represent Pascal's change of heart. He turned, not from a state of being where there is no God to one where there is a God, but from the God of the philosophers to the God of Abraham. Overwhelmed by faith, he no longer knew what to do with the God of the philosophers; that is, with the God who occupies a definite position in a definite system of thought. The God of Abraham . . . is not suspectible of introduction into a system of thought precisely because He is God. He is beyond each and every one of those systems, absolutely and by virtue of his nature. What the philosophers describe by the name of God cannot be more than an idea. (emphasis added)

Buber Buber here expresses a sentiment often heard. We encountered it yesterday when we found Timothy Ware accusing late Scholastic theology of turning God into an abstract idea. But the sentiment is no less wrongheaded for being widespread. As I see it, it simply makes no sense to oppose the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- the God of religion -- to the God of philosophy. In fact, I am always astonished when otherwise distinguished thinkers retail this bogus distinction. Let's try to sort this out.

It is first of all obvious that God, if he exists, transcends every system of human thought, and cannot be reduced to any element internal to such a system whether it be a concept, a proposition, an argument, a set of arguments, etc. But by the same token, the chair I am sitting on cannot be reduced to my concept of it or the judgments I make about it. It too is transcendent of my conceptualizations and judgments. The transcendence of God, however, is a more radical form of transcendence, that of a person as opposed to that of a material object. And among persons, God is at the outer limit of transcendence.

Now if Buber were merely saying something along these lines then I would have no quarrel with him. But he is saying something more, namely, that when a philosopher in his capacity as philosopher conceptualizes God, he reduces him to a concept or idea, to something abstract, to something merely immanent to his thought, and therefore to something that is not God. In saying this, Buber commits a grotesque non sequitur. He moves from the unproblematically true

1. God by his very nature is transcendent of every system of thought or scheme of representation

to the breathtakingly false

2. Any thought about God or representation of God (such as we find, say in Aquinas's Summa Theologica) is not a thought or representation of God, but of a thought or representation, which, of course, by its very nature is not God.

As I said, I am astonished that anyone could fall into this error. When I think about something I don't in thinking about it turn it into a mere thought. When I think about my wife's body, for example, I don't turn it into a mere thought: it remains transcendent of my thought as a material thing. A fortiori, I am unable by thinking about my wife as a person, an other mind, to transmogrify her personhood into a mere concept in my mind. She remains in her interiority delightfully transcendent.

It is therefore bogus to oppose the God of the philosophers to the God of Abraham, et al. There is and can be only one God. But there are different approaches to this one God. By my count, there are four ways of approaching God: by reason, by faith, by mystical experience, and by our moral sense. To employ a hackneyed metaphor, if there are four routes to the summit of a mountain, it does not follow that there are four summits, with only one of them being genuine, the others being merely immanent to their respective routes.

I should think that direct acquaintance with God via mystical/religious experience is superior to contact via faith or reason or morality. It is better to taste food than to read about it on a menu. But that's not to say that the menu is about itself: it is about the very same stuff that one encounters by eating. The fact that it is better to eat food than read about it does not imply that when one is reading one is not reading about it.

Imagine how silly it would be be for me to exclaim, while seated before a delicacy: "Food of Wolfgang Puck, Food of Julia Childs, Food of Emeril Lagasse, not of the nutritionists and menu-writers!"

Capitalist = devil in disguise of a god?

2010-06-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

Watching Michael Moore's movie is more than just watching a movie, it is seeing through the anger and at the same time sincerity of a person i barely know.

Being born in a conservative Chinese family means money is the supreme value. It s the religion! It s the communal value! It is almost the presupposed norm. Questioning it is similar to a pagan questioning Christianity through science. It is a heresy. It is a sin. And a sin, as they promised or as prophesied, is punished severely.

Through this valley of shadow, I rebelled. I am frustrated, and hurt badly. I sense that something is wrong with it, but my whole limbs are cuffed. My community told me that money is almost the god. It is almost as I am being taught (or indoctrinated) that money is the god I must worship. Worshiping a god means I must obey non-conditionally to the end-purpose of being rich. Being rich means having the ability to devour fancy meals in fancy restaurants, to provide good (most of time excessive) prosperity to family members, to elevate social status and being respected, to become a successful individual, to be a well-rounded individual, to be the purpose of existing! and to stay in a comfort zone.

And since life is such a huge struggle, one must dare to sacrifice the others for him/herself. In a practical sense, it means employ people from the lowest caste (economic or social sense) and exploit them. Give them the hope that if you work really hard for me, you can be rich one days. It means (legally) steal from them by indirectly (provision of false hope) luring them to generate 100 for us and give them back 4 for their "salaries". It also means give them bigger hope but smaller reality for margin of self-improvement. We tell them that they can develop and improve themselves if they work/study hard. But we make sure their margin of development stays down, down there in such a way that they will never be anywhere around us to take over our business or profession. That s the way fucked up capitalists work!

That s the way big fat banks, lawfirms, financial consultants, corporations work! They enslave us under the false hope of prosperity.

Seriously, I know almost all the arguments for capitalists, efficiency, the fundamental essence of freedom, creativity, innovation, rights.. Blablabla. The idea is goddess, but severely abused in practice.

In a similar fashion, the idea and concept of most religions is good, but the goddess idea is severely abused and exploited by those in power for their pure evil greed!

I still retain a scintilla of hope for capitalism ideal. I believe there are some good left despite all the hemorrhage it suffers. But what I cannot stand is the capitalists! It s like an evil disguising itself in the form of a child. Using complete innocence for the most evil deed. It s like the most trusted father raping his own daughter. It s like the police who ought to "serve and protect" enslaving and torturing citizens.

Humans are the worst form of animals we may have ever witnessed. When someone does something immoral/socially deviant, we immediately associate him/her as an animal, with no conscience and barbaric.

You know what is worse than that animal? A fully functioning conscientious human performing more elaborate barbaric evil deeds!

East Versus West on the Trinity: The Filioque Controversy

2010-06-29T11:01:00.000-07:00

imported from http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/06/eastern-orthodoxy-on-the-trinity.html

Filioque Controversy Our meeting with the affable and stimulating Dale Tuggy on June 20th at St. Anthony's Greek Orthodox monastery a little south of Florence, Arizona, got me thinking about the Trinity again. So I pulled Timothy Ware's The Orthodox Church off the shelf wherein I found a discussion of the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman approaches to the doctrine. Let's take a look. Earlier this year, in January and February, we had a stimulating and deep-going discussion of Trinitarian topics which the interested reader can find here. But there was no discussion of the Orthodox line. It is high time to fill that lacuna.

East and West agree that there is exactly one God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They also agree that the Father is neither born of anything nor proceeds from anything, that the Son is born of the Father but does not proceed from the Father, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds but is not born. Bear in mind that 'born' and 'proceeds' in this context refer to relations that are internal to the triune Godhead, and are therefore eternal relations. I hope it is also clear that neither of these relations is one of creation. Each of the persons is eternal and uncreated.

The main difference between East and West concerns that from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. The West says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque), whereas the East says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. One can of course question whether this dispute has any clear sense, but let's assume that it does for the space of this post. I don't reckon there are any Stovian or other positivists hanging around this site. (If there are, I pronounce my anathema upon them.)

The question is whether there is any reason to prefer the one view over the other. Ware naturally thinks the Orthodox view superior (pp. 219-222). He thinks it is superior because it is able to account for the unity of the three persons without making of this unity something impersonal. His reasoning is as follows. The tripersonal God is one God, not three Gods. So the question arises as to the unity of the Godhead. What is the ground of God's unity? There is one God because there is one Father, the Father being the 'cause' or 'source' of Godhead, the principle (arche) of unity among the three. The Orthodox speak of the "monarchy of the Father." The other two persons originate from the Father. Because the principle of unity is the Father, and the Father is one of the divine persons, the principle of unity is personal in nature. So although there are three persons in one God, the unity of these three persons is itself a person, namely, the Father.

The Western view, however, issues in the result that the principle of unity is impersonal. The reasoning is along the following lines. If the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son, then "the Father ceases to be the unique source of Godhead, since the Son is also a source." (219) Consequently, "...Rome finds its principle of unity in the substance or essence which all three persons share." (219) This implies that, on the Roman Catholic view, the principle of unity is impersonal. (I am merely reporting Ware's reasoning here, not endorsing it.)

And that, Ware maintains, is not good. "Late Scholastic theology, emphasizing as it does the essence at the expense of the persons, comes near to turning God into an abstract idea." (222) The concrete and personal God with whom one can have a direct and living encounter gets transmogrified into a God of the philosophers (as opposed to the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), an impersonal being whose existence needs to be proved by metaphysical arguments.

And so the Orthodox "regard the filioque as dangerous and heretical. Filioquism confuses the persons, and destroys the proper balance between unity and diversity in the Godhead." (222) God is stripped of concrete personality and made into an abstract essence. And that's not all. The Roman view gives the Holy Spirit short shrift with the result that his role in the church and in the lives of believers is downplayed. What's more, this subordination of the Holy Spirit, together with an overemphasis on the divine unity, has deleterious consequences for ecclesiology. As a result of filioquism, the church in the West has become too worldly an institution, and the excessive emphasis on divine unity has led to too much centralization and too great an emphasis on papal authority. It is worth noting in this connection that the Orthodox reject papal infallibility while accepting the infallibility of the church.

You can see, then, that for the Orthodox the filioque is quite a big deal: it is not a mere theological Spitzfindigkeit.

Ware's exposition -- which I assume is a faithful representation of the Orthodox position -- saddles filioquism with a nasty dilemma: either ditheism or semi-Sabellianism. For if the Son as well as the Father is an arche, a principle of unity in the Godhead, then the upshot is ditheism, two-God-ism. But if it is said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son tamquam ex/ab uno principio, 'as from one principle,' then, as the Orthodox see it, the Father and the Son are confused and semi-Sabellianism is the upshot. (221)

Sabellianism or modalism is the view that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are modes or aspects of the deity. The East sees semi-Sabellianism in the West insofar as the Western view, in avoiding ditheism, merges Father and Son into one principle so that they become mere modes or aspect of that one principle.

That's the lay of the land as seen from the East. I have been concerned in this post with exposition only. Adjudication can wait for later. (He said magisterially.)

a happy family?

2010-06-28T20:00:00.000-07:00

capitalism: a love story...

socialism: an uptight father

existentialism: a wise grandmother

liberalism: a rebellious son

communism: a conformist mom to the uptight father

humanism: the uncle who stays with us at home because he doesnt have a job

A Difficulty With Haecceity Properties

2010-06-26T06:03:00.000-07:00

imported from http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/06/my-difficulty-with-haecceity-properties.html

By popular demand, here is revised version of a post that first appeared on the old blog in July of 2005.

Introduction. I find haecceity properties hard to accept, although I grant they they would do various useful jobs if they existed. ('Haecceity' from the Latin haecceitas, thisness.) In this post I explain one or two of my reasons for nonacceptance. If you know your Plantinga, you will know that he is my primary target in these notes. This post is not about Duns Scotus or any medieval.

Definition. Suppose we take on board for the space of this post the assumptions that (i) properties are abstract objects, that (ii) they can exist unexemplified, and that (iii) they are necessary beings. We may then define the subclass of haecceity properties as follows.

A haecceity is a property H of x such that: (i) H is essential to x; (ii) nothing distinct from x exemplifies H in the actual world; (iii) nothing distinct from x exemplifies H in any metaphysically possible world.

So if there is a property of Socrates that is his haecceity, then there is a property that individuates him, and indeed individuates him across all times and worlds at which he exists: it is a property that he must have, that nothing distinct from him has, and that nothing distinct from him could have. Call this property Socrateity. Being abstract and necessary, Socrateity is obviously distinct from Socrates, who is concrete and contingent. Socrateity exists in every world, but is exemplified (instantiated) in only some worlds. What's more, Socrateity exists at every time in every world that is temporally qualified, whereas Socrates exist in only some worlds and only at some times in the worlds in which he exists. Haecceity properties have various uses. I'll mention just one.

Use. Suppose I need to analyze 'Socrates might not have existed.' I start with the rewrite, 'Possibly, Socrates does not exist' which features a modal operator operating upon an unmodalized proposition. But 'Socrates does not exist,' being a negative existential proposition, gives rise to an ancient puzzle dating back to Plato. How is reference to the nonexistent possible? The sentence 'Socrates does not exist' is apparently about Socrates, but how so given that he does not exist? If the meaning of 'Socrates' is the name's referent, and nothing can be a referent of a term unless it exists, then Socrates must exist if he is to have nonexistence predicated of him. But the whole point of the sentence is to say that our man does not exist. How can one say of a thing that it does not exist without presupposing that it exists? Haecceities provide a solution. We can understand 'Socrates does not exist' to be about Socrateity rather than about Socrates, and to predicate of Socrateity the property of being exemplified. Recall that Socrateity, unlike Socrates, exists at every time and in every world. So this property, unlike Socrates, is always and necessarily available. Accordingly, we analyze 'Possibly, Socrates does not exist' as 'Possibly, Socrateity is not exemplified.' Socrates' possible nonexistence boils down to Socrateity's possible nonexemplification. It is a nice, elegant solution to the puzzle --assuming that there are haecceity properties.

Problem. One of the stumbling blocks for me, however, is the notion that the thisness of an individual could exist even if the individual whose thisness it is does not exist. Consider the time before Socrates existed. During that time, Socrateity existed. But what content could that property have during that time (or in those possible worlds) in which Socrates does not exist? Socrateity is identity-with-Socrates. Presumably, then, the property has two constituents: identity, a property had by everything, and Socrates. Now if Socrates is a constituent of identity-with-Socrates, then it seems quite obvious that Socrateity can exist only at those times and in those worlds at which Socrates exists. Socrateity would then be like Socrates' singleton, the set consisting of Socrates and Socrates alone: {Socrates}. Clearly, this set cannot exist unless Socrates exists. It is ontologically dependent on him. The same would be true of identity-with-Socrates if Socrates were a constituent of this property.

Problem Exacerbated. If, on the other hand, Socrates is not a constituent of Socrateity, then what gives identity-with-Socrates the individuating content that distinguishes it from identity-with-Plato and identity-with-Pegasus? Consider a possible world W in which Socrates, Plato, and Pegasus do not exist. In W, their haecceities exist since haecceities ex hypothesi exist in every world. What distinguishes these haecceities in W? Nothing that I can see. The only things that could distinguish them would be Socrates, Plato, and Pegasus; but these individuals do not exist in W. It might be said that haecceity properties are simple: identity-with-Socrates is not compounded of identity and Socrates, or of anything else. Different haecceities just differ and they have the content they do in an unanalyzable way. But on this suggestion haecceities seem wholly ungraspable or inconceivable or ineffable, and this militates against thinking of them as properties. I have no problem with the notion of a property that only one thing has, nor do I have a problem with a property that only one thing can have; but a property that I cannot grasp or understand or conceive or bring before my mind -- such an item does not count as a property in my book. It would be more like a bare particular and inherit mutatis mutandis the unintelligibility of bare particulars.

Haecceities must be nonqualitative. Consider a conjunctive property the conjuncts of which are all the mutiply exemplifiable properties a thing has in the actual world. Such a property would individuate its possessor in the actual world: it would be a property that its possessor and only its possessor would have in the actual world. Such a property is graspable in that I can grasp its components (say, being barefooted, being snubnosed, being married, etc.) and I can grasp its construction inasmuch as I understand property conjunction. But the only way I can grasp Socrateity is by grasping is as a compound of identity and Socrates -- which it cannot be for reasons given above.

Note that Socrateity is not equivalent to the big conjunctive property just mentioned. Take the conjunction of all of Socrates' properties in the actual world and call it K. In the actual world, Socrates has K. But there are possible worlds in which he exists but does not exemplify K. And there are possible worlds in which K is exemplified by someone distinct from him. So Socrateity and K are logically nonequivalent. What we need, then, if we are to construct a qualitative thisness or haecceity of Socrates is a monstrous disjunctive property D[soc] the disjuncts of which are all the K's Socrates has in all the possible worlds in which he exists. This monstrous disjunction of conjunctions is graspable, not in person so to speak, but via our grasp of the operations of conjunction and disjunction and in virtue of the fact that each component property is graspable. But D[soc] is not identical to Socrateity. The former is a qualitative thisness whereas the latter is a nonqualitative thisness. Unless the Identity of Indiscernibles is true, these two thisnesses are nonequivalent. And there are good reasons to think that the Identity of Indiscernibles is not true. (Max Black's iron spheres, etc.) So D[Soc] is not identical to Socrateity.

Conclusion. To compress my main point into one sentence: identity-with-Socrates is graspable only as a compound of identity and Socrates; but then this property cannot exist unexemplified. Hence haecceity properties as defined above do not exist.

COMMENT

Scotus actually says

...sensus non cognoscit obiectum in quantum est distinctum a quolibet quod non est unum ista unitate numerali; quod patet, quia nullus sensus distinguit hunc radium Solis differre numeraliter ab illo radio, cum tamen sint diversi per motum Solis, si circumscribantur omnia sensibilia communia, puta diversitas loci vel situs; et si ponerentur duo quanta simul omnino per potentiam divinam, quae essent omnino similia et aequalia in albedine et quantitate, visus non distingueret ibi esse duo alba; si tamen cognosceret alterum istorum, in quantum est unum unitate numerali, cognosceret ipsum in quantum distinctum numeraliter a quolibet alio

"...sense does not know an object insofar as it is distinct from whatever is not one by that numerical unity, which is clear, because no sense distinguishes this ray of the sun to differ numerically from that ray, even though they are diverse through the motion of the sun, if all common sensibilia are set aside (such as diversity of place or position). And if two quanta were supposed to be exactly together by divine power, which were entirely similar and equal in whiteness and quantity, sight would not distinguish two white things to be there. If nevertheless it were to know one or the other of those, insofar as it is one by numerical unity, it would know it insofar as [it is] distinct numerically from any other". (Super distinctione III. libri II. sententiarum
quaestio i)

Chinese still face discrimination in Indonesia

2010-06-20T17:48:00.000-07:00

http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2010/03/10/chinese_still_face_discrimination_in_indonesia/7057/

By Harjo Winoto
Guest Commentary

Jakarta, Indonesia — It is conventional wisdom that Indonesia’s education policy has traditionally discriminated against the Chinese minority living in the country. For a long time – especially before the 1998 downfall of President Suharto – the Chinese have not enjoyed equal educational opportunities.

For example, there would be a limited number of seats – or no seat at all – for Chinese on certain faculties; Chinese have had extreme difficulty in applying for scholarships; and they have faced impediments in seeking careers in state institutions such as the police, judiciary, legislature or government.

This phenomenon dates back to a post-1945 compromise in which Chinese were encouraged in economic activities while non-Chinese – especially the Javanese – had priority in running the country. A similar political compromise was made in Malaysia. Although in terms of its written laws discrimination has abated in Indonesia, in practice – with only trifling changes – discrimination is still rampant, particularly in Medan and cities far from Jakarta.

Given such circumstances, Chinese are inclined to seek better opportunities abroad if possible. Many Chinese do not want to stay in Indonesia to work, pay taxes and contribute their ideas and energy to the country.

It is a common secret, especially prior to 1998, that state universities have been exclusively reserved for non-Chinese. Since state universities are among the best schools, and it is expensive to study abroad, many young Chinese are denied access to the best education.

One outrageous story is that of a Chinese participant in the International Chemistry Olympics from my high school. Prior to qualifying for the international round, this student requested financial support and the use of school facilities from the Department of Education and his school. Both requests were declined. The department reasoned that he should seek such support from his own school, while his school reasoned that since he represented Indonesia he should seek support from the Department of Education.

In the end he had to raise funds on his own. Fortunately, he placed second in the competition. Noting his achievement, both the government and the school requested that his winner’s cup be placed in their “collection of achievements.” At the same time, a reputable university in Singapore offered him a full scholarship and financial support for his undergraduate degree under the condition that he register his cup under that university.

Some non-Chinese have faced a similar plight as the government simply does not fund such programs. But the reality is tougher for the Chinese.

Another story that may elicit similar outrage is the blatant discrimination in the faculty of medicine at one reputable university in North Sumatra. Many Chinese studying there have expressed outrage and discontent as to how placement tests were conducted. Out of 300, only 20 seats were available for Chinese until at least 2006. This limit was set before the test results were published. One non-Chinese student remarked, “Had the test results been transparantly disclosed, perhaps 70 to 80 percent of the seats would be assigned to Chinese.”

This is only a glimpse of the discrimination Chinese face with regard to access to education, either endorsed by law or condoned in practice.

Some people defend this reality, saying that discrimination is treating similar things differently; therefore it is not discrimination to treat Chinese differently from non-Chinese, as the two groups have unequal economic power. Second, even if there is discrimination, some argue that it aims to correct imbalances, hence it is justifiable. Third, it is the Chinese people’s fault if they are discriminated against, as they exhibit arrogance and ignorance toward the poor people.

The classic case for justifying discimination is that since the Chinese grew rich by stealing from others’ land – noting that they were originally immigrants and therefore not entitled to anything – it is fair to correct imbalances by discriminating in favor of the original inhabitants of the land.

There are generally two types of imbalance – one that is inherent or natural, and the other that is caused by certain actions. For example, men and women are innately different physically; therefore it is not discriminatory to establish separate divisions in sport for men and women. However, rich and poor are not innate conditions. If a person is poor because he or she is lazy, policies that favor such a person are discriminatory.

It is utterly unfair to punish hard workers for being rich and reward paupers for their sloth. Wealth is not given, it is achieved by hard work. Many Chinese came to Indonesia – as they did to many other countries – with little more than the clothes they were wearing. It is therefore a wrong assumption that all or even a substantial number of Chinese are rich.

Moreover, the Chinese have to pay the same taxes others do; in fact, in practice many bureaucrats blackmail the Chinese, who end up paying more than others due to lack of education and fear. How can this be construed as stealing when everyone pays the same tax and has equal opportunities? Simply some are more efficient in business than others.

If we assume that corrective measures should be taken with regard to economic imbalances, the government should tax the rich more and subsidize the poor. However, the government should tax the rich, not the Chinese, if the policy is aimed at correcting an imbalance in the distribution of wealth.

Before arguing that the Chinese are arrogant and ignorant, we must put ourselves in the Chinese people’s shoes. When almost every door to career development is closed, the only space the Chinese have to maneuver in is business. Given this restriction, the fact that some Chinese have built empires from scratch is a superb achievement. Without condoning or condemning, it is human to be arrogant to a certain extent. Arrogance is a characteristic of the rich, including non-Chinese. It is not justifiable to punish someone for arrogance.

The late U.S. President John F. Kennedy famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Many Indonesians feel that the Chinese are only taking from the country. But you cannot possibly ask someone to do something for you if you do nothing in return – or even worse, discriminate against them.

--

(Harjo Winoto is a final-year law student at the University of Indonesia and a paralegal in a top Jakarta law firm. He writes on various legal and social issues. ©Copyright Harjo Winoto.)

ASEAN-China free trade pact is not all bad

2010-06-20T17:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.upiasia.com/Economics/2010/03/29/asean-china_free_trade_pact_is_not_all_bad/2619/

By Harjo Winoto
Guest Commentary

Jakarta, Indonesia — How do we generally picture free trade or trade liberalization? We think of dreaded competition and lost jobs and livelihoods. To make matters worse, free traders and economists such as Paul Krugman claim that free trade is not concerned about “phony jobs” created or lost.

To the ears of common folks, this sounds pompous, nonchalant and merciless. Personally, I would call it an idea lost in translation. This is misquoted and largely misunderstood.

In Indonesia, there are two typical claims against free trade in general. First, usually cited in the context of trade with China, is the claim that we will import more than we export. In other words, we will spend more than we earn.

Second is the concept that free trade generates a larger economic “pie,” but it is not distributed proportionally to every segment of society. Hence, sacrificing jobs of the paupers for the benefit of the rich is not worthwhile. Even if free trade makes for a more efficient economy, most people prefer less efficiency if it helps the poor. In other words, it is better to have less money used for the needy rather than more money amassed in the pockets of the rich.

Actually, in the context of the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement, these two claims are not as bad as they sound. First, opposition to the ACFTA generally revolves around the fact that China’s manufacturing base is currently the largest in the world. Moreover, it is a fact that China can produce almost any goods or products. A Chinese saying suggests, “We can duplicate and produce anything except your mother.” Hence, by liberalizing trade, we will import more than we export.

What do we get when we import? Goods of all kinds – shoes, clothes, washing machines that are produced in China using resources from China or other countries. What do the Chinese get in return? Money – many pieces of paper – which they will use to buy oil or raw materials for the next wave of products. Of course, if we keep buying products from China, our money supplies will diminish, so we will need to print more money. This will erode the purchasing power of our currency.

Still, the question is how much do we lose compared to what we gain? We get all the goods we need for our daily lives and they in return receive astronomical quantities of money.

Will China use any of this money to purchase oil and raw materials for their manufacturing industry from Indonesia? Under ACFTA, will the money China receives from our consumers be used to purchase goods and services from us? If China buys oil or raw materials from other countries, the stored value is used against other countries.

In fact, we will not trade any of our goods with China. On the contrary, we will receive goods and give them pieces of money which will be used to purchase goods, such as oil and raw materials, from other countries.

Opponents of ACFTA and trade liberalization argue that many jobs will be lost because domestic industries, which should be producing goods for our own consumption, will go out of business.

But there are two negative implications to protecting noncompetitive jobs. First, it prevents increased productivity, and second, it penalizes the rest of the people, who must pay more than they should for goods they need. There is a double penalty for protecting jobs that produce basic goods and necessities such as food and clothes; both the economy and the people are penalized. Productivity suffers as there is no incentive for efficient production. Efficiently produced goods cannot compete with subsidized goods because their prices remain expensive relative to subsidized goods, thanks to tariffs.

I would argue that it is much better for the government to support the people who are losing their jobs domestically than to damage the economy and force them to pay more for basic goods and necessities.

A core question is what do jobs mean? Are they to generate money or to provide the people with dignity, pride and status – or both? If both, what is the priority? Would we still work at jobs for the purpose of dignity if they did not generate money?

In the government’s mind, jobs are meant to increase the people’s welfare and protect their livelihoods. Under this premise, wouldn’t it be better for farmers to lose their jobs if their children can go to school, and if when they are sick they have access to government-funded healthcare? Or better, farmers can look for alternative and more satisfying jobs through education or training.

We need to see clearly through the heavily fogged glass on the ACFTA issue. It is not all bad – in fact, it is not bad at all. Politics and vested interests should be set aside if we want this to work. In any case, Indonesia has already ratified the agreement and there is no way back. Therefore we should clear up the fog and take a clear look at what lies ahead.

--

(Harjo Winoto is a final-year law student at the University of Indonesia and a paralegal in a top Jakarta law firm. He writes on various legal and social issues. He can be contacted at harjo_winoto@hotmail.com. ©Copyright Harjo Winoto.)

tendentious coda

2010-06-19T21:06:00.001-07:00

the end?

The unexamined life is not worth living

2010-06-19T20:08:00.000-07:00

"The unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates

Dear Socrates,

I submit the following questions in my pursuit of understanding me, myself, and my being. I wish you were around, which sadly for the reason of "time and space" you cannot be around ergo I cannot communicate with "you" (being an independent existence, not a person). These questions have been examined and assessed for ages and I am aware there are no definite or easy answers for them. But, I just feel the need to inquire them. No matter who you are/what you are or where you are, it is my humble prayer to you that you listen, feel, and sense these questions. Bestow upon me, even the mere modicum of it, the wisdom to lead my life to a purpose, to something I can hold on, for hitherto I see myself in the mirror and I can see the abyss.

Yours,

"still searching for/examining it"

What is examine?
What is life?
what is life examination?
What is life not examined?
Why do we examine life?
Why do we not examine life?
How do we examine life?
How do we not examine life?
When and where do we examine life?
When and where do we not examine life?

Does the term "examine" refers to the process, the result or the whole sequence of input, process and result? Can we conclude that our life has been examined even if such examination is still in progress? Can we say the process of examination itself is a litmus test for the result?

Is it exclusive that unexamined life is not worth living? Why?

Is life more difficult and more beautiful at the same time when we start looking for the answers? Can be more difficult = more beautiful/meaningful?

What if the answers are not there? will the process still be meaningful? What if we are told they do not exist and they have been tested through time, so life is easier if we simply just accept such "preconceived notion" of answer provided by "them"?

What if the answers exist, but I am not looking for then? In the spectrum of time of space what meaning of life was lost?

Why do we need meaning?

Ignorant is a bliss... Are you blissful? Is meaning of life and bliss of life of two different nature? Can they be the same? are there situations where they are the same and not? Is it an innate circumstance? Can human change that nature or can we change the way we see that nature?

"the list still goes on... I am still examining..."

2010-06-19T19:44:00.000-07:00

Phenoumenal world and Noumenal World

Are they of different things? Do they have cut? Are they similar in the same respect?
Do they co-exist? Can they co-exist? Ought they co-exist?

When Flimsy Trust is Broken: A Letter to Israel

2010-06-19T01:33:00.000-07:00

http://en.hukumonline.com/app/dms/browser/detail/guid/lt4c1a15e93f6df
edited and polished by Eli Moselle

Thursday, 17 Jun 2010 | 19:40:11
Israel's Acts and Arrogance Impede Efforts to Bring Peace

Israeli Navy commandos stormed a Turkish flotilla last week (30/5), killing upwards of 9 passengers on a boat destined for Gaza with 10,000 tonnes of aid, sparking international condemnation and a diplomatic crisis. The tragedy is not just of 9 lost lives, but also of the damage to efforts to bring about peace in the region.

Israel-Palestine relations extend to many aspects of our modern politics; they represent the sharpest edges of two knives used by apparently opposite trends in the world to hurt each other. The discord is ageless, with both the Old Testament and Qur’an suggesting the land of Canaan belongs to one side or the other; the arbitrary, illogical basis for horrid wars throughout history.

At this point, the Israel-Palestine conflict has come to perfectly represent the complete degradation of politics.

People have had enough with pointless polemics; ‘liberalism versus communism,’ USSR and the United States, United States and North Korea, United States and the Middle East, and so on. Now, with the Israel-Palestine conflict, the cosmetic barriers being raised to differentiate Jew and Muslim – as if they really are that different – are simply a source of renewed disappointment.

Politics has strayed from its fundamental purpose, which is to promote peace and welbeing. The politics we behold in Israel-Palestine relations, which caricature international relations more broadly, is of greed, arrogance, and self-justification. In sum, these politics have only one basis – distrust of the ‘other’.

Meanwhile, we all dream of a peaceful world and put our trust in leaders who claim to know how to administer a government. It is trust which serves as the bond between government and society, and between governments and the international society.

At a time when collective unity is crucial to resolve global issues, the distrust between nations that is catalyzed by the Israel-Palestine conflict sets the canvas for international relations; a painting made with brushstrokes of suspicion and animosity. Such distrust is easily seen at international summits, the Copenhagen climate talks being a most clear example.

The argument here is that the enormous disappointment of the vast majority with their leaders in Copenhagen, an apparently ‘separate issue,’ is directly connected to distrust spawning from such conflicts as in Israel-Palestine. That conflict is simply toxic to international relations, and with the last incident against the Turkish flotilla, Israel has broken whatever semblance of flimsy trust existed of their integrity.

People can now only point their fingers to Israel as the culprit, whose exceedingly defensive manner ironically conveys nothing but an absolute expression of guilt. Even at the most objective level, what is happening in and to Gaza is a sin; Israel will have to bear it.

There may have been a time when Israel could justify its position to such allies as the United States, keeping its sins mostly unknown to the world, but it is over; a prototypic case of a snake biting the hands that feed it. With the latest attack, we see that not only does Israel resolutely fail to help people living in Gaza, it in fact intends that Gaza receive no help from others, destroying agents of aid in international waters.

8 out of 10 Gazans depend on foreign aid to survive. The World Food Program states that a minimum of 400 trucks a day into Gaza is required to meet basic nutritional needs, yet an average of 171 trucks of supplies enters Gaza per week.

We all sympathize with you for the holocaust, Israel. We do.

But we live in a dialectical world, one thing often giving rise to its opposite: if Israel acts as it has in the last several years, continuing to flagrantly abuse international laws and norms, and defecating on fundamental ideas of common decency, the cruel irony is that it comes ever-closer to becoming the contemporary Nazi that it claims to so despise. Cosmetic appearances aside, the purely objective self-justified evil underlying Israel’s current repertoire is palpable.

Mahatma Gandhi famously said that “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Israel may be blinded by its explicitly-stated eye-for-two-eye ‘disproportionate response’ policy with Gaza, but history books will see this conflict as clearly as they did the Nazi-perpretrated holocaust. The idea that history repeats itself will be more than vindicated.

Stop, Israel. Stop.

Although you have reached the last and final minute for action, there is still time to stop; still time to save face. This is an international conflict between elites, borne on the sweaty, bloodied backs of dead and dying paupers.

The world needs trust more than ever, and Israel, you bear that responsibility by being placed in such a strategic zone. Your actions indicate exclusive thinking about Israeli people only: but take a moment to really think for your people; what good has adversarial imposition brought to your people? Since 1947, we see the same destructive response to the same issues, an endless repetition with the expectation of somehow achieving a different result; the clinical definition of insanity.

If you really care about doing the best for your people, Israel, the diplomatic route is one of humility.

Think for one second how ridiculous it sounds when you say that Israeli soldiers were attacked when ordered to board a civilian ship in international waters; that ‘resisting passengers attacked without provocation’. I would not be the first to say that this is like a carjacker complaining to a policeman that the driver hit him with a crowbar under the seat. How could one possibly expect a violated innocent to acquiesce peacefully?

Israel dreams of peace, but constructs it upon a foundation of war and militarism; a twisted dialectical nightmare.

To Israel, I say this.

If you dream of peace, then stop. That you committed an attack is one thing, but to defensively deny the mistake is another. The world may pardon your mistakes, absent such arrogance. The international community needs you. Now more than ever. Come back to us. Come back to us, and compassion may be extended to the lost boy in the living parable of the prodigal son.

Harjo Winoto is a final year law student, researcher on competition law, and writer on various social issues. He can be reached at harjo_winoto@hotmail.com.

Purity: the innate quality we pursue

2010-06-08T18:15:00.000-07:00

Purity is the essence we pursue. We adore jewelries made of pure diamond, ruby, emerald, et cetera.

We also pursue medicines made of pure materials, pure from the nature.

We despise the artificial creation, including beauty.

We pursue the purity of feelings, such as love,sympathy. We loathe people extending their condolence along with financial motives. We hate people being nice to us just because we are rich. They come to us with the expectation that we can give something (financial or monetary) in return. We want the pure care and love, detached and cleaned from every other motive. It is love, pure and simple.

the irony is why are there so many of us who not want or love the purity of thought (knowledge, wisdom, whatever you term it)?

Purity of knowledge seems to be the lost in our civilization, wiped out form the picture, removed from the lexicon...

Purity...

I must know...

2010-05-26T18:44:00.000-07:00

Socrates once remarked (well not exactly, i just need to cite his name as an authority) " I know the most because i know that i dont know"

That s the theme of my day on Tuesday... I savored a really a mediocre ramen, but one that i really want to eat for quite sometimes..

My friend, Eli and I can finally meet up and 'travel' to the wonderland for 3 hours.. We 'talked' a lot about knowing..

The word know is so powerful and profound.. Throughout the discussion we discovered how much we knew... that we didnt know.

Some people come to me and complained that they are confused and that they are unhappy. Worse, some people are supposed to feel happy about their lives but they just feel something is missing.

Yes, I am referring to wealthy fellows who procure the 'Zara', 'Mango' or those luxurious stuffs and convince themselves that they are happy because of they can buy those things. Can you feel what they feel at that particular moment when they are holding the new Zara or Louis Vuitton?

They "ought" to feel happy because society tells them that to have the money and to be able to procure is a reason to be happy. That luxurious and wealthy life, are supposed to be a state of "happiness". While deep down there, when these supposedly wealthy guys sit down alone, they feel the subconscious urge that something is just missing.

They dont "know" that they are not happy..

One thing I am so proud of is that I know, not that I know all/many things, but that I Know I know nothing nothing... that I know I am lost... that I know that I am confused... that I know that I am not happy..

That makes a great and happy day to me

No one can gauge the depth of me

2010-05-18T13:00:00.000-07:00

Watching good will hunting (starring Matt Damon and Robin Williams) for another time after 6 years illuminated me of certain philisophies I couldn’t capture last 6 years. It stroke me hard, as if I am seeing myself, full of anger, disappointment, and discontent. I see the abyss of my reflection... The all-times-anger, pushing people away before they start leaving or hurting me. I am developing a huge distrust over anyone surrounding me. It’s classic. It’s called self-defense mechanism. But mine is much bigger than anyone else’s. I know, i know it very well.. it s called selfish. It’s called insensitive.
Perhaps, I need to sit down and figure who i was more clearly before i can figure out who i am. When i stand in that fancy room during the public lecture of Sri Mulyani, I can only tell myself.. i could have done a much better speech, it s an utterly/completely superficial word game. Articulation? I can do better, mimicking? I can do better. But why people listened to her and not me? Are people grading her for who she is rather than what she actually said?
Again, i know, i know... there are more to life than intelligence.. there are experiences, there are people skills. Seriously... i am fed up of it... i know the limit.. i know there are certain norms, courtesies, whatever bullshit meaningless dictions you want to assign to it. Nonetheless, it does not excuse you from being a complete failure... When i present good social skills, they tell me you are not intelligent enough, when i present magnificent intelligence, they tell me intelligence is no everything...
They tell me good is not enough and intelligent is not enough. It is not what i have that is not enough, it s what they have that is not enough AND because i have more than they do, they are fucking afraid of me...
I m sick of this hopeless world sometimes. It s even remote of any hope... Sick fucked up humans... Stupid fucking maggots... they will waste their whole lives living as a fucking slave in a jail
The irony is i m living in it. People (philosophers) coin it as a structure i can’t escape. It s a structure that defines me... I can't be a free person if i dont live in a jail, right? I can't be liberated if i have never been jailed, right?
The struggle is painful, fucking tormenting... To want friends and hate friends... to want love and hate love...
It s all so lonely... all the sounds and sights are just meaningless. My attempt to assign them meaning are not only difficult but also ridiculed...
Perhaps, i need to take a break... perhaps, complete insanity can liberate me from this jail? Just like leonardo di caprio in shutter island? Insanity liberates me from social norms, “people’s feelings”, pretense, hypocrisy, the want to be a conformist, the want to belong to a group (if not majority, certain class of people)... I need to be free... AND freedom to define “free”..

Democracy is Not a Luxury for the Paupers: The Case for Not Paying Tax

2010-05-14T08:53:00.000-07:00

http://en.hukumonline.com/app/dms/browser/detail/guid/lt4be3e57851f26

Friday, 07 May 2010 | 17:03:36

In the wake of the recent news reports of shocking corruption by Gayus Tambunan, an officer of the Tax Department, the Indonesian population has had its already flimsy trust in government diminished even further. Discontent has manifested in many Indonesians’ reluctance to pay tax. Gayus Tambunan is suspected to have embezzled IDR 28 billion (roughly USD 3.1 million). This is only the tip of the iceberg. This case is predicted to reveal more officers involved in the web of corruption. Democracy is being put to the test, and it appears to have failed once again.

Democracy now seems to be a golden ideal upon a pedestal; it is beautiful to behold, but it is never yours. Democracy, having its etymological root demos (common people, or ‘district’) and kratos (rule, or ‘strength’), is a form of struggle against the elite ruling power. In other words, democracy is a tool designated for ordinary people, with the connotation of being poor, uneducated or belonging to the lowest castes, to fight against the elite aristocrats with power, money and influence. In effect, democracy is the lever for the paupers to correct imbalances. One function of democracy is manifested in the State’s power to impose taxes. One of taxation’s raison d’être was to correct economic imbalances by distributing money from the rich to the poor in form of infrastructure, public works, and other projects. This is where the irony lies.

First, for the paupers in Indonesia, the taxation system is a nightmare. On the one hand, they barely have enough food to eat. On the other hand, taxes they pay are utilized for the benefit of economically privileged players. If we examine the National Budget Plan or ‘APBN’ as passed by parliament, budget allocation for the benefit of economically privileged players is more substantial than that for the benefit of the paupers. In practice, the situation is even worse. The education budget, for instance, is to be at least 20% of the state expenditure by constitutional mandate; the reality is that this money has always been reduced to 40% of that amount (i.e., less than 10% of the budget) in terms of what actually reaches the intended beneficiaries. Presumably, the rest goes to corrupt bureaucrats’ pockets or similar kinds of administration overhead.

In a nutshell, the poor are taxed, yet the money is allocated for the benefit of the businesses owned by the rich. Government will present the counter-argument that creation of big industries, in return, provides jobs for the paupers. This is not an excuse. If we draw the matrix of income or wealth distribution, it remains utterly unjust. How much of the money or other assets that should belong to the paupers are absorbed by the businesses of the rich in the process of translating tax receipts into the paupers’ prosperity? A lot. This theory works in the same fashion as price increases work: “The longer the distribution, the higher the price for consumers.” The fact that tax receipts take such a long path before they are eventually translated into daily needs is the crux of taxation issues in Indonesia, especially when the funds are circulated long enough among the upper-level players. If the premise is that democracy is manifested through, among other forms, taxation, then it has to provide wealth for all. Interesting to note, the substitute diction for state is commonwealth, inscribed to mean that the rationale for the creation of a state is to provide wealth for commoners. Since taxation does not create wealth for commoners in a fair sense, and ironically allocates money from the poor to the rich, it does not serve the democratic purpose. Therefore you cannot blame the paupers for not paying tax.

Second, for the middle or upper middle class, they are encouraged not to pay taxes and this is the reason why. First, since they can no longer trust government to redistributing the wealth for everyone’s sake, they should redistribute it by themselves. The idea is as simple as to “take over the government’s function,” which it fails to perform. Second, if the government argues that the money is needed for redistribution to the needy, you distribute it yourself. The dummy mathematical calculation would be “the money you should have paid for taxes,” you should distribute in your immediate surroundings, in particular, for the benefit of the needy. Buy them books, put them in schools, or provide a health service. If you think that the amount of tax you pay is too much or unreasonable, e.g. 5%, you cut it to 3% or 4% and distribute that money in any manifestation to the needy. I am certainly not advocating anarchy; I am saying that society may want to be part of the solution rather than being part of the problem.

The two points above conclude that “Democracy is not a luxury for the paupers.” This illustration improves along with improving economic conditions of a person or family. When people are poor, democracy is just a tool to climb up the social ladder. For those paupers, democracy is not about striking a balance of power or a healthy functioning government, it is simply how to survive until the next day. If you take a look at a popular political campaign, Indonesia has shifted from a dictatorship to uninformed general elections. The poor are either unaware or unable to do anything about it. For them, the choice is to eat to survive until the next day or die while trying to fight for their supposedly democratic rights. As a human being, I cannot imagine how to make such a choice and the mutually exclusive and exhaustive options are not their fault.

For the last remark describing the irony of democracy “Do not tell me “what you know about” and “how you think you can deal with” those paupers’ plight when you are sitting in five-star hotels in sumptuous and esoteric conferences conducted in the name of democratic government.”

Harjo Winoto is a final year law student, researcher on competition law, and writer on various social issues. He can be reached at harjo_winoto@hotmail.com.

Harjo Winoto: Maverick keen on studying the law

2010-04-01T05:49:00.001-07:00

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2006/09/27/harjo-winoto-maverick-keen-studying-law.html

The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Wed, 09/27/2006 8:00 AM

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

His decision in 2004 to study at law school meant he was seen as a maverick within his family.

While his parents wanted him to become either an accountant or a doctor, Harjo Winoto persisted with his choice.

Two years later, however, Harjo can now show his parents that his choice was the correct one, after all.

Harjo is one of four students from the University of Indonesia (UI) who won this year's Asia Cup International Mooting (debating) Competition in Japan.

Together with Melissa Butar Butar, Novriady Erman and Fitriani Chairani, Harjo defeated teams in August from prestigious universities in other Asian countries.

It was the first win since UI's first participation in the competition eight years ago.

The competition also placed Harjo as second-best orator, behind Australian Timothy Parker who represented the University of Hong Kong.

""The competition was very tough. Fortunately, we were able to succeed,"" Harjo told The Jakarta Post in an interview at the law school's vast library.

Competition success was not an overnight affair. It was the end result of a long journey, especially for Harjo.

After his graduation from senior high school in Medan, North Sumatra, in 2004, Harjo enrolled at North Sumatra University (USU) law school.

He made that decision despite a series of arguments with his parents, who wanted their son to study either economics or medicine.

According to Harjo, his parents perceived the law as ""a wrong path"" that would cause their son to become a corrupt individual after finishing his studies.

""Within the tradition of my extended family, law studies are not recommended. They say that law school is the first step on the path to becoming a corrupt individual,"" he said, adding that most of his relatives had studied medicine or economics.

Representing USU, he took part in 2004 in the national qualifying competition for the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition in the United States.

In the final round, however, his team was defeated by students from the University of Indonesia (UI). The UI team went to the U.S. for the competition.

The defeat left a deep impact on Harjo. He promised himself that he would move to UI.

The following year, he took another university entry test and passed. The UI students that had defeated him in 2004 now became his colleagues.

Harjo does not waste any time. As a UI student, he does not only attend classes regularly, but has also joined the International Law Moot Court Society (ILMCS), an organization in the school that prepares students for international competitions.

""We often spend time discussing current issues,"" he said.

The ILMCS selected the four students for the Asian competition. They participated in a series of discussions, debates and evaluations three months beforehand.

""We wrote our paper and sent it to Tokyo. The organizer selected us to represent Indonesia,"" Harjo said, adding that teams from Padjadjaran University (UNPAD) and Parahyangan University (UNPAR), both in Bandung, West Java, failed to qualify.

Since the moot court competition is an international event, the students must have good English-speaking skills. That is why they also improve their proficiency through reading literature and practicing public speaking under the guidance of seniors at ILMCS, many of whom are veterans of international competitions.

Several had represented UI in the Philip C Jessup Competition and been rated highly.

The three months of intensive preparation bore fruit. The UI team won first prize in the Asian competition.

""I'm happy because it made my parents proud of me,"" said Harjo, the eldest of three in his family.

His parents are not overdemanding on their children. They simply want them -- Harjo, Dwi Febriani and Jennifer -- to study hard and achieve good marks at the end of their studies.

That is why they did not introduce Harjo to literature from great writers -- except set student texts.

Harjo, however, was fortunate.

One of his teachers lent him a book by German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche when he was still at junior high school. Harjo also read Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.

""I'm interested in the history of Hitler. He adopted the thoughts of Nietzsche and wrote Mein Kampf, which later became the 'bible' of the Nazis,"" he said, adding that his obsession with the law grew after he watched television series The Practice and Boston Legal.

Both tell the story of law firms that fight for the rights of minority groups. Harjo said he hoped he could use his knowledge to help the weak.

During this interview, Harjo expressed concern at the failure of the Indonesian government to defend its claim over Sipadan and Ligitan islands. The government, he said, spent millions of dollars on lawyers from France and the United States.

Of 15 judges in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), only one ruled in favor of Indonesia. Consequently, Indonesia lost the two islands to Malaysia.

""We would not have suffered the loss if we had suitably qualified lawyers for international cases,"" said Harjo, who likes playing piano, computer games and chess in his spare time.

The lack of lawyers who can act in international disputes, he said, should not be blamed solely on the curriculum but also on students themselves.

Harjo criticized fellow students who prefer spending their money on clothes or parties rather than on books. ""They fritter it away on the latest fashions, cars or clubbing,"" he said.

They should improve themselves by reading books, he concluded, sagely.

A deeper analysis on free trade/trade liberalization concept: Why should we not fear ACFTA and how should we look at it?

2010-03-30T01:42:00.000-07:00

This is written as a tribute to Prof. Joseph H.H. Weiler’s lecture

Published in http://www.upiasia.com/Economics/2010/03/29/asean-china_free_trade_pact_is_not_all_bad/2619/

How do we generally picture free trade/trade liberalization? Dreadful competition, losing jobs and livelihoods. To make matters worst, freetraders and economists, such as Paul Krugman, claim free trade is not concerned of phony number of jobs created or lost. To the ears of commoners, this sounds pompous, non-chalant and remorseless, which I would personally call a lost in translation. This is misquoted and at large, misunderstood. There are two archetypal claims against free trade in general. First and in more specific context free trade with China, popular believers claim that we will buy more than we sell. Translating into economics term, we will import more than we export. This sounds bad in terms of productivity. It is bad in analagous sense that we spend more than we earn.
Second, a more subtle thinker against free trade would say perhaps free trade generates a larger “pie” of economy, but they are not distributed proportionally to every segment of the societies. Hence, sacrificing jobs of the paupers for the benefits of the rich is not worthy. They also note that, perhaps, the economics could have been more efficient if free trade is in the picture, but they prefer less efficiency as it helps the poor. In other words, it is better to have less money but used for the needy, rather than to have more money but amassed in the rich’s pockets.
Now, let me put this claim into a context of ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement and elaborate why those two claims are not as bad as they sound. First, claims against ACFTA generally revolves around the fact that China’s manufacture industries is by no doubt the largest in the world currently. Moreover, it is also a fact that China can produce almost any goods/products. Chinese anecdote suggests that “We can duplicate and produce anything except you mother.” Hence, by liberalizing trade, we will import more than export.
What do we get when we import? Goods of all kind, shoes, clothes, washing machines that are produced in China using either natural resources from China or other countries. What does China get in return? Money, many pieces of paper. They accept money because money represents the store of value which they will use to buy oil or raw materials for the next wave of productions. Of course, if we buy more products from China, the money in terms of quantity would diminish, so we will need to print more money. But you would not run out of papers to print money or another way of putting it, the intrinsic value of money is much smaller than the nominal value. If you print more money, your money gets weaker. In economics jargon, it is called inflation or erosion of purchasing power of your currency. So the question is how much do we lost compared to how much we got? We get all the goods useful for our daily lives and they in return receive astronomical number of pieces of money.
A more subtle argument is to examine whether the money China received would be used to purchase materials their nature does not provide. Will they purchase oil and raw materials for their manufature industries from Indonesia? Even if they do, how many percentage of oils and/or raw materials. The argument boils down into this precept: Money is of no value if there are no underlying substances, be it goods or services. We put values into money with the assumption that the same money can be used to buy other goods or services we need. So the underlying assumption is that there are more goods and services out there than the nominal value of money. Imagine if today, the world has foods only sufficient to feed 2 billions people, will money be of any worth? People will be accumulating foods rather than money. We used to barter goods for goods. So money represents the value of goods. Without those goods, money has no meaning/value.
Now, if we apply the same precept into ACFTA, what do we lose if we import substantially more than we import? The other factor, government must heed on carefully is whether the money China receives from our consumers will be used to purchase goods and services from us. If China buys oil or raw materials from other countries, the store value is used against other countries. In simpler explanation, we do not trade any of our goods with China. On the contrary, we receive goods and give them pieces of money which will be substantially used to purchase goods, such as oil and raw materials, from other countries.
Second, claims against ACFTA/trade liberalization subsequently argues: But many jobs will be lost because those industries that should be producing goods for our domestic consumption will run out of business.
There are two negative implications for protecting non-competitive jobs. First, you prevent increased productivity and second, you penalize the rest of the people to pay more than the should for goods they need. If you protect jobs which produce goods of basic and mass necessities such as food and clothes, you penalize yourself twice since you penalize your economy and your people. Productivity is prevented as there is no incentive to produce efficiently. Efficiently produced goods cannot compete with subsidized and less efficiently produced goods because their price remain expensive relative to subsidized goods thanks to tariffs.
I would argue that it is much better off for you to send a check at the home front of people losing jobs than damaging the economy and force them to pay more expensively than the should for goods serving basic and mass necessities.
The core question is what do jobs mean? Do jobs mean generator of money or dignity/pride/status of life or both? If both, which one remains the priority? Will we still work on jobs for the purpose of dignity if it does not generate money? The point is in government’s mind, jobs are meant to increase welfare and protect livelihood. Since such were the premise, wouldn’t it be better for farmers to lose their jobs but their children can go to school and when they are sick they are government funded health-care? Or better, farmers look for alternative jobs and train their human potentials through courses or education of sorts?
In the end, we need to see clearly through the heavily fogged glass on ACFTA issue. They are not all bad and in fact they are not bad at all. Politics and vested interest should be set aside if we want this to work. Anyway, Indonesia has ratified the agreement and there is no way back, so let’s look ahead clearly by clearing up the fog.

Natural Resources: The Curse of Developing Countries?

2010-03-24T03:03:00.000-07:00

Published in http://www.upiasia.com/Economics/2010/03/04/natural_resources_the_curse_of_developing_countries/1243/

Jakarta, Indonesia —
People are dying while sitting in a land full of riches. Perhaps this is the horrid yet true picture of reality in most developing countries in the world; certainly it is true in Indonesia.

Covering approximately 1.9 million square kilometers, Indonesia is extremely rich in natural resources. Due to active volcanic activity, its soil is fertile and resources are abundant. Salt, for instance, is believed to have originated in Indonesia. The term “salary” originates from salt because it was once used as a form of payment. In old times, the person sitting closest to the salt at a table held the highest rank.

Many Indonesians are proud of their motherland. Every elementary school student is taught that the country is rich in natural resources. The citizens’ pride is rooted in the fact that the country is geopolitically important and can survive on its own – unlike Singapore, for example, which basically lives from its neighbors’ resources.

Ironically, these same children have to grow up witnessing or experiencing extreme poverty. This is more painful given the dreams they hold after being taught about the tishness of their land.

There is a long list of cases in which corporations – local and foreign – exploited and polluted the land, leaving toxic waste behind for the local people. From the human rights violations and destruction of peoples’ livelihoods caused by mining companies Freeport and Newmont, to the environmental damage by the pulp industry in Sumatra, to a plethora of cases of mercuric materials in drinking reservoirs, corporations have brought evil consequences to Indonesian people.

This excrutiating picture is replicated the world over. John Perkins, in his “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” described foreign corporations’ agressive pursuit of oil and natural resources in Ecuador, Indonesia and Panama, where extraction plants are built for the benefit of elite groups of foreigners and their mercurial domestic counterparts while wastes and hazards are left behind for the locals.

Joseph Stiglitz, the 2001 Nobel Prize recipient for economic sciences, famously remarked, “Most countries with large (production) of natural resources do more poorly than those without, which is an irony.” The film “Blood Diamond” depicts a related situation in Africa, where exploration for diamonds institutes a civil war, disrupts a nation’s political stability and subjects its people to torment and anguish. One character vividly remarks, “I hope they do not find any more diamonds, otherwise we will start killing each other again.”

Though it may sound treacherous, at some points I almost wish this land were poor – and that may indeed be the wish of many Africans in Sierra Leone. The very inception of economic principles stems from resource scarcity; that is why their core mantra is one advocating efficiency in modes of production.

Imagine if the world provided sufficient natural resources that people could simply pick basic necessities – food, water, housing materials and clothes – from their immediate surroundings. In that scenario, economic principles may not even be needed. There are several caveats to ponder.

First, is it even true that our world does not provide sufficient resources to make this a reality? Is it even the case that resources are scarce, or is it human activity – greed, pure and simple – that makes it so? Humans always want to have what others have, even if they have more. Is it axiomatic that nature cannot naturally reproduce resources that humans have consumed?

Second, assuming that natural resources are scarce by nature, not by human greed, is it morally acceptable to suggest that those who are the most efficient at production get the biggest share of natural resources, while others who are less eficient should live at their mercy?

This is not to suggest that there is no place for economic principles, but they are not without flaws and not without vested interests. I would argue that those deficiencies manifest as the root cause of the torment many developing countries are suffering.

The very idea of insufficiency, or “resource scarcity,” pushes those with so-called “technology and capacity” to take over the management of the world’s resources; the idea of not having enough makes them look elsewhere. Natural resources become the prima donna, and everyone fights over her.

Without the technology and capacity developed countries command, developing countries will always lose in a game of resource management and accumulation. That is why in the fields of oil, gas and mineral exctraction, developing countries rabidly engage in joint venture agreements with foreign corporations from developed countries. The popular myth is that without foreign corporations, developing countries would not be able to extract these resources.

According to economic schemas imported by developed countries, developing countries would not be able to extract those things “efficiently.” In reality, the uneven playing field is exploited by huge corporations that wield mighty bargaining power in their domestic econo-political arrangements – which in Indonesia are called “corruption” and dictate the share division of natural resources and the procedural rules for their extraction.

The practical implications are not only frowned upon, but also suffered by many people in Indonesia. That is the cancer of the irony: people die sitting atop the riches of their lands, not because nature does not provide enough, but purely because of unrestrained human greed.

The Dark Ages return in Aceh

2010-03-24T03:02:00.001-07:00

Published in http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2009/09/30/the_dark_ages_return_in_aceh/9108/

The local House of Representatives in Aceh, Indonesia, has passed a new bill that allows anyone who commits adultery to be stoned to death. Anyone who engages in premarital sexual relations will be whipped 100 times.

This application of Shariah law, the Islamic religious code, goes into effect 30 days after its enactment on Sept. 15, and will apply to everyone within Aceh’s territory irrespective of origin and religion. Prior to this, Aceh had already implemented other Shariah rules, obliging every Muslim to pray five times a day, to offer “sedekah,” or alms to the poor, and every Muslim woman to cover her head with a veil.

Social resistance to this law has been strident across Indonesia, even among Muslims. The same was true during the drafting of an anti-pornography law that went into effect in November last year; many institutions and common people had voiced opposition to it. The anti-pornography law contains various Islamic principles from both the “hadith,” or teachings of the prophets, and the Koran.

This was an example of resistance on a national level to the imposition of certain religious values in Indonesia. Most citizens consider that religious activities fall within the realm of private rights and should not be of concern to the government.

In addition, the imposition of Islamic laws and values discriminates against non-Muslim citizens. There are five major religions in Indonesia – Buddhism, Hinduism, Protestant Christianity, Catholicism and Islam. Even though 80 percent of Indonesians are Muslim, it is unfair to impose their values and beliefs on others.

Many historians and legal scholars have affirmed that the first of the five principles – the Pancasila – that comprise the philosophy of the Indonesian state does not indicate that Indonesia is based on one religion. The first principle states that Indonesia is based on a belief in the one and only God Almighty. Scholars agree that this means Indonesia acknowledges the existence of God and of religions, and affirms its acceptance of different religious beliefs.

Historically, there was a proposal to amend this provision to “a belief in God Almighty and the obligation for Muslims to follow Islamic law.” However, the founding father of Indonesia considered that this text would promote social intolerance and imply that Indonesia was an Islamic state.

Moreover, one member of the drafting committee, Wongsonegoro, rejected these words because it would impose on all Muslims the obligation to follow Islamic law. He considered such an imposition improper, as religion falls within the private realm of each individual.

The new law in Aceh invites much opposition from many parties for many reasons. First, non-Muslims will be bound to comply with this law. Second, not all Muslims agree to such a strict imposition of Shariah law, since many aspects of the law are the result of extensive interpretation of the Koran. Third, the law would apply to all Indonesian citizens who travel to Aceh.

The imposition of Islamic law is not entirely for moral and religious objectives. Historically, the rebel movement in Aceh was triggered by discontent over the central government’s share of local resources. Aceh people considered that the central government was exploiting their natural resources without fair compensation. The special autonomy law was passed for economic purposes, in fact.

The imposition of Shariah law enables local bureaucrats to reap economic benefits from Islamic teachings. For example, one article in the autonomous law of Aceh states that “zakat” – the obligation for Muslims to share some of their wealth, similar to tithing one-tenth of one’s wealth in Christianity – is part of local income. There is certainly economic interest in the new law.

Furthermore, Aceh is not particularly clean of corruption. The Financial Auditing Institution, or Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan, experiences immense difficulty in auditing Aceh due to bureaucratic resistance. In addition, politicians in Aceh can maneuver easily since the Koran serves as a legal instrument. Hence, certain policies can be executed by instilling fear of breaching religious obligations. Religious breaches carry profound social sanctions in Indonesia.

Also, the new law is not legitimate under national law. Indonesia Law No.32/2004 concerning local government regulates that the central government retains authority in six areas, namely foreign policy, defense, security, the judiciary, monetary and national fiscal law, and religion. Since the judiciary remains under central government authority, criminal law is the domain of the central government.

Moreover, Law No. 18/2001 concerning the special autonomy of Aceh also regulates that the Indonesian Supreme Court acts as the supreme institution for appeals. The law does not grant local governments the right to pass criminal legislation. This means the law in Aceh must be governed by national legislation.

The new law in Aceh involves the creation of two separate criminal laws, as well as private law and administrative law, in Indonesia. This is inconsistent with the principles of international law as well as national law.

We have witnessed the unacceptable cruelty in Afghanistan, where a woman can be raped by 10 men if her brother rapes a woman from another tribe; where women are humiliated and stoned to death in public places for committing adultery; where women are deprived of various rights including legal title to property and even freedom of movement. In some parts of the country women may not appear in public unless they are accompanied by a male family member.

This is definitely not what most Indonesian citizens want. Religious belief falls within the realm of private life; the government has no right to force people to comply with religious obligations, especially when it comes to criminal prosecutions and extending Islamic law to non-Muslim citizens.

Religious schools are blasphemy to education

2010-03-24T02:55:00.000-07:00

Published in http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2009/09/14/religious_schools_are_blasphemy_to_education/3151/

karta, Indonesia — Schools and churches, alongside parents, are institutions with an obligation to instill respect, tolerance and moral standards in children. These institutions are trusted as safe places for children, as well as places for education and moral and spiritual guidance.

Across Indonesia, particularly in Medan and Jakarta, various schools are emblazoned with names that declare certain religious beliefs. For instance, Methodist schools offer Christian instruction, while the name Al-Azhar indicates a school that is run based on Islamic principles.

I argue that such emblems promote social intolerance in Indonesia.

First, religion advocates the value of the “one and only” truth. Children are taught from a young age to believe in one particular religious standard. Various religions – particularly Christianity and Islam – believe that the only path to salvation or heaven is through that particular religion. This ostracizes all other religions as viable choices of belief.

The Holy Bible indicates this exclusive religious standard. For example, in 1 Timothy 2:5, it is stated: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all.” Moreover, In John 14:6, Jesus says: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

As for Al-Quran, QS. Ali Imran : 19 and QS. An-Nuur : 39 indicate that the only godly religion is Islam and the “kafirs” – or non-Muslims – will not find the path to heaven open regardless of their good deeds.

I realize that these are incomplete citations from extremely complex and historically interpreted holy scriptures. However, it is conventional wisdom and accepted truth that Christians and Muslims believe in an exclusive path to heaven through their own religions.

Even in universities, students who adhere adamantly to certain religions tend to view that too much interaction with students of different religions, or non-religious students, can impair their beliefs. I would not discuss the merits of such claims; however, I am concerned that such beliefs destroy tolerance in society and can do damage, particularly to children.

Religions are judgmental. They adamantly declare what is wrong and what is right. Religious schools compel students and children to study only the one religion that the school endorses. Methodist schools provide compulsory Christian lessons; Al-Azhar provides compulsory Islamic lessons. Students are taught values that include exclusivity based on religion.

The problem with religious schools is that they deal with children or relatively young teenagers; this leads to my second point.

Second, children are susceptible to pressure. Religious schools create enormous pressure for children to accept and believe in their teachings; otherwise they become social outcasts. Although the same argument may be true for adults, at least adults can make informed choices and determine right and wrong values.

This is analogous to smoking, driving or drinking alcohol. Children are not allowed to decide on such issues because they are not wise enough to know wrong or right, bad or good. My personal experience in religious school taught me one thing: A good student is one who believes in the religion his school endorses.

Some schools will argue that they do not impose beliefs; however, most students come from families that share the religion the school endorses. Therefore social circles are built among those who embrace the same religion.

Students tend to ostracize classmates of a different religion, and worse, teachers do too. One person I interviewed told me that a teacher at a Christian school in Manado refused to give his sister first rank merely because she was a Muslim. Also, some Christian students will not invite students of a different religion to their birthday parties, for example.

Certainly I am not arguing against a teacher’s prerogative to decide on first rank, or a student’s right to decide who to invite to a birthday party. But to make such choices under the banner of religion is unjustifiable. Children are susceptible to such ostracism and this consequently creates enormous pressure to embrace religion, not because they believe in it but simply because they want to be accepted socially.

Third, schools have an important obligation to educate. This means more than providing informative lessons. It includes enabling children to grow in both cognitive and moral skills. To instill exclusive religious ideas is similar to a doctor executing a procedure without the informed consent of the patient. It is like imposing Sharia law on all Indonesian citizens, or requiring all women to wear veils.

The main problem is that religious schools force students to study only one religion. Also, students must score well in religion as it constitutes part of their academic assessment. Sometimes the assessment revolves around the quality of the students’ religious beliefs.

For example, in one Christian school in Medan, attending church on Sunday constitutes part of the assessment. This is why many non-Christian students attend church. Moreover, in several Methodist schools in Medan, students are encouraged to instill Christian values in their parents’ lives.

Christians believe they have a mission, originating from Jesus’ remark: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” (Mark 16:15) Some students would go home and tell their parents to convert to Christianity because that is the only way for salvation.

It certainly outrages some parents that their children judge their moral standards; some tell their children not to go to church any longer. Teachers would advise these students to pray for their parents; when parents find their children praying before they sleep that their parents be forgiven for their sins and ignorance, they are again outraged at being judged by their own children.

We all agree that companies should not be allowed to discriminate between employees based on their religion; then why are schools allowed to do so? Companies deal with adults who are capable of making decisions, yet discrimination is not allowed. Schools deal with children who cannot make informed decisions, yet they are exposed to great pressure to embrace religious ideas and faced with discrimination if they do not.

In the end, the argument here is not whether the religious schools promote the right moral values, but whether religious schools educate children to allow them to make informed choices concerning religion. Even if religions teach the right moral values, it is still wrong for schools to compel children to choose one particular religion. If all religions teach the right moral values, why not allow children to learn different religious ideas?

ask what you can do for your country? try it in my shoes!

2010-03-20T00:18:00.001-07:00

Published in http://www.upiasia.com/Society_Culture/2010/03/10/chinese_still_face_discrimination_in_indonesia/7057/

Jakarta, Indonesia — It is conventional wisdom that Indonesia’s education policy has traditionally discriminated against the Chinese minority living in the country. For a long time – especially before the 1998 downfall of President Suharto – the Chinese have not enjoyed equal educational opportunities.

For example, there would be a limited number of seats – or no seat at all – for Chinese on certain faculties; Chinese have had extreme difficulty in applying for scholarships; and they have faced impediments in seeking careers in state institutions such as the police, judiciary, legislature or government.

This phenomenon dates back to a post-1945 compromise in which Chinese were encouraged in economic activities while non-Chinese – especially the Javanese – had priority in running the country. A similar political compromise was made in Malaysia. Although in terms of its written laws discrimination has abated in Indonesia, in practice – with only trifling changes – discrimination is still rampant, particularly in Medan and cities far from Jakarta.

Given such circumstances, Chinese are inclined to seek better opportunities abroad if possible. Many Chinese do not want to stay in Indonesia to work, pay taxes and contribute their ideas and energy to the country.

It is a common secret, especially prior to 1998, that state universities have been exclusively reserved for non-Chinese. Since state universities are among the best schools, and it is expensive to study abroad, many young Chinese are denied access to the best education.

One outrageous story is that of a Chinese participant in the International Chemistry Olympics from my high school. Prior to qualifying for the international round, this student requested financial support and the use of school facilities from the Department of Education and his school. Both requests were declined. The department reasoned that he should seek such support from his own school, while his school reasoned that since he represented Indonesia he should seek support from the Department of Education.

In the end he had to raise funds on his own. Fortunately, he placed second in the competition. Noting his achievement, both the government and the school requested that his winner’s cup be placed in their “collection of achievements.” At the same time, a reputable university in Singapore offered him a full scholarship and financial support for his undergraduate degree under the condition that he register his cup under that university.

Some non-Chinese have faced a similar plight as the government simply does not fund such programs. But the reality is tougher for the Chinese.

Another story that may elicit similar outrage is the blatant discrimination in the faculty of medicine at one reputable university in North Sumatra. Many Chinese studying there have expressed outrage and discontent as to how placement tests were conducted. Out of 300, only 20 seats were available for Chinese until at least 2006. This limit was set before the test results were published. One non-Chinese student remarked, “Had the test results been transparantly disclosed, perhaps 70 to 80 percent of the seats would be assigned to Chinese.”

This is only a glimpse of the discrimination Chinese face with regard to access to education, either endorsed by law or condoned in practice.

Some people defend this reality, saying that discrimination is treating similar things differently; therefore it is not discrimination to treat Chinese differently from non-Chinese, as the two groups have unequal economic power. Second, even if there is discrimination, some argue that it aims to correct imbalances, hence it is justifiable. Third, it is the Chinese people’s fault if they are discriminated against, as they exhibit arrogance and ignorance toward the poor people.

The classic case for justifying discimination is that since the Chinese grew rich by stealing from others’ land – noting that they were originally immigrants and therefore not entitled to anything – it is fair to correct imbalances by discriminating in favor of the original inhabitants of the land.

There are generally two types of imbalance – one that is inherent or natural, and the other that is caused by certain actions. For example, men and women are innately different physically; therefore it is not discriminatory to establish separate divisions in sport for men and women. However, rich and poor are not innate conditions. If a person is poor because he or she is lazy, policies that favor such a person are discriminatory.

It is utterly unfair to punish hard workers for being rich and reward paupers for their sloth. Wealth is not given, it is achieved by hard work. Many Chinese came to Indonesia – as they did to many other countries – with little more than the clothes they were wearing. It is therefore a wrong assumption that all or even a substantial number of Chinese are rich.

Moreover, the Chinese have to pay the same taxes others do; in fact, in practice many bureaucrats blackmail the Chinese, who end up paying more than others due to lack of education and fear. How can this be construed as stealing when everyone pays the same tax and has equal opportunities? Simply some are more efficient in business than others.

If we assume that corrective measures should be taken with regard to economic imbalances, the government should tax the rich more and subsidize the poor. However, the government should tax the rich, not the Chinese, if the policy is aimed at correcting an imbalance in the distribution of wealth.

Before arguing that the Chinese are arrogant and ignorant, we must put ourselves in the Chinese people’s shoes. When almost every door to career development is closed, the only space the Chinese have to maneuver in is business. Given this restriction, the fact that some Chinese have built empires from scratch is a superb achievement. Without condoning or condemning, it is human to be arrogant to a certain extent. Arrogance is a characteristic of the rich, including non-Chinese. It is not justifiable to punish someone for arrogance.

The late U.S. President John F. Kennedy famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Many Indonesians feel that the Chinese are only taking from the country. But you cannot possibly ask someone to do something for you if you do nothing in return – or even worse, discriminate against them.

Indonesians discontent with ACFTA

2010-03-02T02:24:00.000-08:00

Jakarta, Indonesia — Thousands of workers protested outside the House of Representatives complex in Central Jakarta, Indonesia on Jan. 28, demanding that the government abolish the Association of Southeast Asian Nations-China Free Trade Agreement, as it badly impacts workers.

ACFTA contains mutual commitments by all ASEAN member states and China to liberalize their markets. Simply put, ASEAN and China are under international obligation to gradually eliminate all tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade. Such barriers include tax, regulatory measures and quantitative restrictions or quotas.

The agreement was ratified on Nov. 29, 2004 and as per Article 8 (1) of the preliminary agreement, obligations to liberalize markets are effective by 2010 for the ASEAN 6 group – Brunei, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand and 2015 for the ASEAN 4 group – Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

The public outcry in Jakarta rejecting the enforcement of ACFTA is due to at least two reasons: The Indonesian government’s failure to publicize the exact substance of the agreement and its inability to comprehend the consequences.

Free trade and ACFTA are two strenuous and delicate issues. It is impossible to expect a commoner to fully grasp what free trade is. Even if one reads the ACFTA, it is impossible to fully understand the intricate regime.

It is believed that the Indonesian government is not fully aware of the pertinent consequences or obligations it accepted when it ratified the agreement. For example, there was barely any published feasibility study of commitments undertaken within the ACFTA or public hearings before the agreement was ratified.

Second, the government’s support to fortify its domestic industries with comparative advantages is barely felt by any industry. This premise supports the conclusion in the previous paragraph.

Free trade is a tough game and therefore requires a country to prepare and contemplate the consequences carefully before liberalizing its market. For example, in a sprinting game an athlete can compete if he runs from the same starting point, using the same shoes, and has physical abilities relatively similar to other contestants. If any of such prerequisites are not met, it should come as no surprise if the athlete loses the race.

ACFTA was ratified in 2004. So the Indonesian government had some five years to improve its industrial competitiveness. But one is barely aware of any shocking revelation of economic strategy or industrial advancement in the international arena. In fact, Indonesia suffered from sugar and rice scarcities in 2008 and had to import both products despite being a major producer.

All the above explanations suggest that the Indonesian government does not know what it agreed to and has no idea how to tackle it now.

But when it figures out the danger, it surreptitiously conceals the information from the public. Think of it this way – the agreement was ratified during former President Megawati Sukarnoputri’s era but the effects of liberalization take place only in 2010. As Indonesia’s Constitution allows only a five-year term, assuming Megawati had won the 2004 election, she would not be responsible for the hardship faced by the 2010 administration.

Another possible scenario why President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s 2004-2009 administration did not pay much attention to advance local industries’ competitiveness is because there was a possibility that he would not have won the 2009 election.

One of my strongest criticisms of democracy is the risk of self-absorbing, selfish and short-term policies where a president or political leader is discharged of formal responsibility over consequences arising out of his or her decisions and subsequently assumed by the next administration.

Indonesian businessman Sofjan Wanandi, during a seminar held by HukumOnline, said that the Indonesian government is not serious, or is even nonchalant, about local industries’ competitiveness. For instance, he complained that China’s imported products evade the 10 percent value added tax by illegal means while local industries have to pay the same up front. This provides China a 10 percent head start in terms of price competitiveness. In addition, poor quality control, labor exploitation and copyright violations are additional factors that contribute toward making Chinese products cheap.

Assuming that Indonesia’s local industries and China’s industries compete cleanly, I strongly believe that numerous industries in Indonesia will shut down. Among the many reasons for such a premise are economics of scale and productivity. Industries can reduce production costs by enhancing production quantities, which in turn reduce marginal costs incurred for one additional unit of production.

Presently, China’s manufacturing base is without a doubt the largest in the world. For instance, according to a BBC report, part of a global drive toward trade liberalization has resulted in a huge increase in Chinese clothing exports, with sales of certain items to the European Union rising by up to 500 percent.

Consequently, the EU had to fence off its textile industry due to huge Chinese imports. Second, China is well known for its hardworking culture of 16-18 hours a day. An extremely competitive environment also drives this culture. The ratio of China’s productivity compared to Indonesia’s average productivity is approximately 4:1.

That means if a Chinese worker can produce four shoes per day, an Indonesian worker can only produce one, assuming the Chinese worker receives two and a half times more in salary than that paid to workers in Indonesia. It is a misleading myth that China is famous for its cheap labor. Rather it has effective and cheap labor.

In the final analysis, market liberalization could hurt Indonesia the most when it least expects to be hit.

the Absence of evidence is not Evidence of absence

2009-07-13T13:48:00.001-07:00

The hardcore line the Bush’s administration utilized as moral justification for the war in Iraq was “Absence of evidence is not Evidence of absence”. It is surprising to understand that public international law, criminal law, and civil law in general has been adhering to this principle for hundreds of years. I always believe that the law cannot keep pace with crimes and violations. This is the grand weakness of the so called codification style of legal formation. In civil law countries, we so often encounter these classical issues, especially for those countries which adhere strongly to legalism and codification as the principle of lawmaking.

The core idea of law is to line down clear playing grounds/rules so that when certain suspects are being convicted, there are justifiable grounds to do so. The technical term for this is legality principle or in latin phrase nullum delictum. However, we also understand that in order to provide clear rules/laws, it takes time. The grand debate within lawmaking framework is whether we should codify the existing living norms in societies or we modify the norms in accordance with certain set of moral values. In other words should “law be the tool of social engineering” or “the reflection of moral values and judgments of living society”? Now you see, even in a more subtle discussion, we encounter new questions, which society, what society, how do we identify what people deem as morally acceptable? In reality we have different segment of societies with different, sometimes opposing, values. Another question is: if law should be the tool of social engineering, who has the right to set the moral values? Is it not equally immoral if someone or a group of people orchestrate the moral values which apply to the rest of the world irrespective of whether the substance of the law is morally acceptable eventually? In a more legalist term, which one should be given more weight? The substance of the law or procedure of the law? Hans Nawiasky postulated the former through his nomodynamics theory. I contested to this really. What s the point of having majestic physical library while there are no books inside? What s the point having too much procedure if the substance of the law does not accomodate/reflect moral values of people legally bound by it.

In the end of the day, i believe these entire quandaries boil down into one question can we assert absence of evidence as the evidence of absence. The reason why Hans nawiasky postulated the above legal theory might be because there are fears as to how difficult it is to assess the absence of evidence of moral values. He then assumed that the absence of evidence should be evidence of absence. If the law should reflect moral judgment (substance wise), it would be extremely difficult for the law maker to consider at what point should be enact a law that is legally binding to everyone. Therefore, lawmaker always assume when procedure (formal requirements) are satisfied, so is the content of the law. In practice, one you are elected as Member of Parliament, you have the right to pass certain laws irrespective of the true representation of society moral values. The current legal system accentuates so much on procedural aspects for the law. I dearly miss the concept of court of equity in the old day which was separated from the court of law. At the same time, i also understand the lawmaker’s position that it court of equity requires absolutely people with integrity to represent the moral values of society.

Now you may ask, why the heck is this piece all about? I am telling you now that the philosophical debate here affects each walk of our daily lives. The generally accepted norm of the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is built on the philosophical ground of law as a formal/procedural tool. We all understand, and in fact this is a conventional wisdom which applies to supposedly the most democratic country in the world US, that parliament is so wrapped up with money and vested interest. Parliament members need to spend a lot of money for their political campaign. If you update yourself with Indonesian politics, we would understand that legislative political campaign is all about the money. This is true even in the case of presidential campaign, including the US’ presidential campaign. We are faced with the truth that Obama’s plan to spend less then USD 70 million simply is irrational. Hence, companies with all the money, become the most important donators. Since companies are economics creature (benefits), they donate for a purpose, lobbying the government to protect their vested interests. Can the president-elect betray companies’ interest? It is extremely difficult to run as corporations’ antagonistic president. Even if the president has the guts to, the president may reconsider such decision once he encounters the fact that he has to run for two terms period. If he betrays the corporations’ interest, he most likely will be not elected in the next term. This affects our daily lives. Consider labour rights now. Labour rights such as minimum wage, safety procedure, and health welfare are cost for corporations. Their lobbies revolve heavily around suppressing labour activities to demand the government to provide better protection. If your family members are labours the formal accentuation of the law will definitely affect your life.
Here are other examples: Criminalization on abortion, euthanasia and charity money to beggars in the street. It affects your civil liberties. In Jakarta, for instance, the local government now criminalizes the compassion for giving small change to beggars. I am not arguing this criminalization is wrong, i am arguing that the reason for this criminalization is wrong. The government does not consider the moral values of society in dealing with poverty. It considers and in fact Indonesian legal system allows this since it fulfills the formal requirements of lawmaking.

In the end of the day, i believe that the grand philosophical debate in terms of lawmaking affect many aspects of our daily walks of life. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that lawmaker cannot prove the moral justification for certain laws does not mean there is no justification. We condone this principle in the name of national security, efficiency in law making, and keeping law in pace, if not outpace, crimes and violations. I am not against that, i am against the idea that we fail to exhaust all possible alternatives to achieve national security, law making efficiency, and keeping the law in pace. We should probably rethink now. Probably!

Does life leave us a choice?

2009-06-25T21:13:00.000-07:00

People often say when bad things happen in our life, it is entirely our choice on how to act on it. We can keep mourning on it or try to see it from different perspective. We can aggravate on the bad consequences or try to pick up shattered pieces of positive thing out of it. I can argue this even better with an analogy, take one coin, on your side you can argue that that coin is 1 dollar, on the other side, your friend can argue that it is the picture of a bird. Both you and your friend are looking at the same object and both of your arguments are valid, nevertheless you still argue about it intensely and none is willing to give up. The moral of this story is that life always has at least two sides of the story. Similar to that, when bad things happen, there are at least two ways of seeing it, you can take the positive side and move on OR stay there and mourn why this should happen, why me, why now...

I argue that the above proposition is amazingly ridiculous in many walks of our lives. Here is how the picture painted. For the past 3 months, I have gone through numerous astounding experiences. Money or friend, competition or cooperation, kill or be killed, ignorant is a foolish bliss or knowledge is painful satisfaction.
For years in my life, noting that i am still young, i ve been trying hard to kill my emotions, compassion, pity on poor and people in needs. My cruel world taught me to be strong and cunning.

I help my best friend and at the bottom rock of my life, he/she stabs me in the back. Sometimes it is for personal gain, sometimes because he/she has no more viable option. For instance, if my friend does not cheat my money, his/her sister will not eat that day. He/she prioritizes his/her family more than me, which i would have most likely done if i were put in his/her position. If you were me, how would you react? (Noting that you are not rich either and that money is meant to put your sister/brother into school). Will you let it go because you understand he is in a dire need of money or will you pursue that money by any means (cruel one)?
Today, i am sitting alone in the airport for more than 4 hours, partially worried because I do not have much money with me. My friend is supposed to pay her debt to me, but she is late. So i decided to wait and we converse through phone. Later i found out that her mother is suffering from cancer and she is in need of money. Worse, she probably is cheated by her investment manager. I feel a spark of pity and compassion, which i have suppressed so aggressively in my life.

In my life, i have gone through extreme transformation from a devoted christian into an atheist and subsequently a spiritual agnostic. I grow much faster than people in my age. On the age of 17 I acquaint with 50+ years friends, hanging out in socrates cafe, reading nietzsche, socrates, plato, hegel, kant, thoreau, discussing philosophy and works life. Life teaches me one thing about choice, at some point there is no way back... During my childhood as a christian i was astounded and mesmerized by the concept of heaven reward... I worked my ass off to satisfy the FAKE GOD because I am so horrified by the idea of living in hell forever and ever. I am caged and prisoned with no room for questioning ( that s how religion operates isnt it?). My religious counsel at school often told me that God provides us a choice in life. That is the reason why he put that apple tree in eden garden and allow lucifer to tempt human. My religious counsel told me otherwise human is just as good as robots with no freedom to reason and think. THEREFORE, god also provides human with a chance to choose either to believe in him (by accepting jesus as out savior) and rewarded heavenly crown or disobey him and punished hellish condemnation. They said questioning to the core (like why should we believe in god) is an abomination. I started to question myself as I was trapped in this christian hellhole. What s the point of me doing all these charities and good deeds, obeying god’s rules (the ten commandment) ? Is it because I was too afraid to go to hell?
Christians told me that life is a choice. God sets a path for us to heaven, but the choice is ours... I said BULLSHIT! WE can choose what to believe but not the consequences? It is pre-existing values. Why can I not do what god doesnt want me to, yet rewarded heaven? Christians even told me that the path to salvation is like a small path in mountainous areas (lord of the ring, where frodo walked through this small path to destroy the ring). It s small, dangerous and difficult to got through. On the contrary, the path to hell is much smoother, easier to walk on, and comfortable. THEREFORE, logically speaking, there are more people going to hell than heaven. I am so outraged now whenever a christian told me this analogy. I SAID FUCK OFF. The concept of choice is “there are thousands way to rome”, so if god is a reasonable creature, a choice should mean that there are other ways to heaven, not his way. By setting a standard of getting to heaven ONLY by obeying him leaves us no choice and no room for argument BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WILL PUNISHED WITH ETERNAL HELLISH SUFFERING.

In the context of life, practical things, daily walks, we are preached that we can make any choice we want, to become a lawyer, a criminal, a monk, an honest or dishonest businessman. However, people often forget to tell you “oh by the way, you ll get into a shithole if you take that path”. I ve just watched several early editions of the practice. It is the serious version of Boston legal and it makes sense, very realistic. Your job compels you to choose your integrity or a young female future. He has to lie to his client, misrepresentation, violating his ethical codes, values he has been living with, values he has been preaching everyone with OR that little girl loses her life. IT s not a choice, it s like what Christianity does. Jesus says in one of the New Testaments “I am the only path of salvation, no one else go to Father if not from me”.

As Obama said in relation to Iran case, “I am outraged and appalled”. What THE FUCK ARE WE DOING? HUMANITY? FUCK IT... I am blaming all the hypocrisies and evil deeds many humans have done... LOOK at WHAT HUMAN does to people like hitler and stalin. YOU FORCE THEM to become a monster. YOU FUCKER. LIFE is a choice? YOU ARE FUCKIN CUNNING AND SLICK, hiding behind the mask of truthfulness and morality, while you are so corrupt. People like me are viewed and judged as corrupt individuals because I QUESTION THE TRUTH AND YOUR FUCKED MORAL STANDARD. LIFE leaves us a choice? You are kidding me. They always forget to tell you the consequences, dothey not? My parents say please do pursue your dream, go to law school, but we will not support you. A government says please do practice your freedom of expression, it s healthy for a well functioning democracy, but we are going to sue your sorry ass (JB J in singapore). ALL religious congregations say we appreciate differences, and other religions, BUT IT YOU ARE NOT PART OF OUR RELIGION THAN YOU ARE A SINNER, and you belong to hell. Quran says “to some people, the path of islam, will be closed forever”. Holy bible says “those who do not accept jesus christ as his saviour belongs to hell” IF I DON T FUCKIN ACCEPT YOUR VALUE THEN I AM A KAFIR/ A SINNER? You all put this fucking thick mask and pretend that you accept differences, but deep down there in your heart you are telling yourself “these people are going to hell” FUCK YOU!!
You push people like me to the corner where it is so close to falling down into a chasm and then threaten me that if I dont believe in you (mainstream values, conservative asian/javanese FUCKED UP values, religions), you will push me down. You leave me no choice but to transform into a leviathan beast to push you back and rip your heart apart for all oppressions you GAVE ME. WORSE YOU ARE SO SLICK ABOUT IT, NOT BEING UPFRONT!! This is at the point there is no way back, if i move back (if i go lenient by being compassionate) i ll die, falling down to the chasm so i have to strike to the front and kill those in my ways. KILL OR BE KILLED! Let s play your game asshole, I want to taste the sweet revenge to THE FUCKED UP MISERIES LIFE BRING UPON ME because I QUESTION. Is it not what you all have been teaching me through the history of mankind?

“Nothing else in the world satisfies human innate animal’s nature than revenge. It is the strongest motivation ever found on earth. The drive to destroy supersedes every other motivation and that include peace, social tolerance, betterment of human kind, improvement of health. That is the reason why an evil always outsmart the naive angel.”

World Trade Law: not the trade law of the world?

2009-06-09T08:18:00.000-07:00

WTO was born on two premises. First, it is a wealth creation concept due to efficiency and comparative advantage (for comparative advantage concept, refer to my paper on AEC). Free traders promise you to be richer not rich when you join free trade. Second, free trade promises that everyone/every country benefits absolutely from the world trade by the grand postulate ‘comparative advantage’. This postulate says develop the best industries you have, even if those industries are less efficient than similar industries in the rest of the countries in the world. The two premises, HOWEVER, presuppose the existence of an equal playing field. Joseph stiglitz already knew this much better than us. During his study and career in IMF and World Bank before 1998, he concluded that Free Trade is disadvantageous for many developing and underdeveloped countries because of unequal playing field. He was particularly concerned with the issue of information asymmetry. This work won him Economic Noble Laureate in 2001.

Now, my main contention is that World Trade Law concept fails to address unequal playing field issue. My first premise is that unequal playing field is an axiomatic situation, a reality, some realist would say. It is a situation we are born with, just like being born black, chinese, disabled, and women. I am trying to borrow the concept from human rights regime. Human rights discipline dissects protections of inalienable and alienable rights based on which situations human are innately born with. If human are born as a women, certain traits of women rights, which are conditions women are born with, become inalienable and vice versa. Since the unequal playing field is an innate circumstance, conceptually, the question is whether it is fair for such that we impose equal burden to everyone/every country or we should equalize the unequal playing field? This is conceptually very troublesome! The World has not decided on this matter, and as a matter of fact would not want to decide on this matter. On the one hand, developed countries say that unequal playing field is a situation everyone is born with, not a result of their bad deeds, including economic resources; therefore, it is not fair to ask U.S or E.C. to sacrifice this advantage for developing states to one point where developing states can compete on the same level as the developed states. This situation is similar to discrimination for stewardess jobs based on height. Caucasians are generally higher than Asians; therefore it is acceptable that airline companies do not hire Asians stewardess simply because they are Asians (not tall enough). On the other hand, developing and under developed countries say those innate circumstances should be remedy before the free trade is implemented, since the TWO PREMISES of free traders presuppose equal playing field. It is unfair to ask the Asians to compete with the US or EU for steward/ess jobs by measurement of height. The same principle applies to all industries with less cutting edge advantages not because developing countries are less efficient in production, but rather because of unequal playing field. In reality, developing countries such as China, wins the market competition by imposing awfully bad labor rights and environmental protection so COSTS can be squeezed. This means all products from China can be cheaper to compete with US’ products. China claims she did not exploit the environment in such severe manner as US did for 300 more years (subsequent to industrial revolution), therefore china retains the right to exploit the environment, while US has to start remedying the damaged environment. The US claims that this equal playing field should exist in market so China has to take EQUAL responsibility for preservation and protection of the environment. China says when she actually needs the environmental resources so dearly, she was required not to exploit the environment in 1980s (the booming of China economy). If the US wishes China to conserve the environment, preferential treatment and advantages have to be granted to China PROPORTIONALLY. This is similar to the following analogy. There are 10 breads to be divided for 2 persons. One is poor, while one is rich. Equality is to give the poor and rich 5 breads each, while proportionality means giving the poor 7 and the rich 3.

Above-like issues cannot be settled because there is no understanding as to what concept of equal playing field is required: innate circumstances are advantages, therefore no effort should be required to equalize such playing field OR innate circumstances are injustice, therefore efforts must be put to equalize such unequal playing field? Nonetheless, my first premise stands on the vagueness of the equality concept: is it congruent or proportional?

Second premise, assuming we come to an agreement to unequal playing field is unjust since it is innate circumstances, how can WTO principles draw a line between when positive discrimination for disadvantaged countries are enough? When enough is enough? If WTO is to create an equal playing field than current policies must discriminate advantaged countries (such as US and EU) in unequal manners to equalize the unequal playing fields. Now the biggest “catch” is how to determine to what point WTO will stop granting such positive discrimination. How to assess? Who to assess? In a simpler analogy of bread above, do we divide the breads into 8-2, 7-3, 6-4, or 9-1? This is a very delicate and complicated question no one can come out with a clear cut answer. The difficulty lies in states’ compromise to what industries (assuming US and EU are happy to do so) they should give up for other countries’ positive discrimination, foreseeability of such industries’ business potential, occurrence of urgent needs of the industrial products, and when do they stop granting such positive discrimination. Is it even possible to stop at that point of time?

All in all, the two premises I offered above paint you an ugly picture of the WTO reality. The accomplishments of the two dilemmas above are really strenuous since there are numerous political, business, and vested interest in local industry. Global Financial crisis adds up more salt to the open wound. WTO principle are currently dominated by superpower, striving very hard to maintain status quo as to information asymmetry and unequal playing field to be able to expose natural resources and economic disability of many third world countries and developing countries. As long as they maintain information and technological gaps, WTO is not a trade law of the world; it is a product of economics tyranny which is designed to pierce the economic wound of many countries in the world softly and sophisticatedly. The needle is too soft that when it gets under our skin, we do not realize it until it nearly kills us all by rupturing our vein.

Discrimination: Treating things equally? Think Again!

2009-06-04T02:47:00.000-07:00

One of professors I most respected in my life, Joseph Weiler, once asked: “What is discrimination?” Students in WTO class answered “Different Treatment by law”. Weiler said no. There is nothing wrong with treating people differently. Discrimination is treating similar things differently and different things similarly. Analogy... imagine now you are a policy maker, required to design policy concerning quantity of toilets in public places. Since male and female “peeability” is different, you have to discriminate male by creating more female toilets than male. If you realize in your daily lives in public places, be it in a restaurant, club, or malls, the line for female toilets are much longer and shifting of one female to another female using one toilet is much slower.

Now, we come to understand male and female are different in terms of “peeability”, therefore it is justifiable to differentiate treatment. Another VERY STRENOUS CONCEPT in discrimination issue. Male and female are different in “peeability” but not in terms of humanity, i.e. rights to breathe the air. Imagine if you are from outer space, as you get closer, you will see that human and animals are different, but you cant distinguish male and female. As you get even closer now you know human consists of male and female different skin colors, height, physiological characteristics. IF you get even closer, you will understand that even man is different in terms of sexual orientation (same thing as female). In philosophical diction, i call it comparator. What discriminates things depend on the comparator. You said male is different from female in terms of peeability not the right to breathe.

Issue of discrimination has been living side by side with human’s existence, yet little understanding and consensus is reached on this area. This is the root of many evils hitherto including Environmental protection under Kyoto Protocol, rights to legal aids, particularism versus universalism, torture, terrorism, child’s trafficking, gender discrimination, extreme poverty, illiteracy and freedom of expression. The biggest catch of environmental protection is States’ ego. U.S said China should have taken at least as much commitment as US does in reducing carbon emission. China said NO, US has been polluting our earth since industrial revolution in 17-18th century. It is not fair to ask China now (since china has just been emitting carbon few decades ago) to clean up the mess US caused by taking similar commitment. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

In gender issue, we are also confronted with many arguments, principally surrounding whether male and female are the same. If they are different, in what aspects they are different, i.e. physical abilities, leadership, rights to title of property or land? How to identify whether certain different treatments are due to different nature of male and female? Since physical abilities of male and female are different, we dissect Olympic competition into male and female category, especially for running and football.. But can physical abilities different justify difference in terms of rights to title of property or rights to freedom of speech? NO. This is an easy issue. What about different treatment in salary and career wise because women get pregnant and are physically weaker? So, even if a man and a woman are equally qualified for certain jobs, a boss differentiates their salaries and career development. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

Protection of aliens and citizens. States argue that citizens pay tax and are born with legal rights and obligations to the State, so it is fair to differentiate standard of treatment for aliens and citizens. Aliens/foreigners dont have to pay tax (VAT). If you travel to Europe and shop, you can claim for tax reimbursement in airport. The reason is because you are not enjoying the facilities the State provides for its citizen, such as free education, infrastructure, and housing subsidy. On the contrary, foreigners are discriminated in terms of quota of education in prestigious university in that country. Germany allows only 20% foreigners sitting in heidelberg (hypothetically), singapore puts quota on foreign students, irrespective of how smart the foreign student is! IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

Rights of disabled children. Government in many countries spent 20-30% of educational budget for infrastructure that is intended to accommodate students with disabilities. In that particular country as well, as many as 20 million children do not go to school because of poverty. Suppose building special elevators costs 1000 and providing free education for 1 child is 20. The result of special elevators project helps 50 children with disabilities, while if this money is spent for free education it results in 500 normal children at school. Now if government decides to allocate this money for 500 normal children, it is different treatment. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

Last point, WAR. I have much passion in this issue. Suppose State A attacks State B because of abundant oil reserves in State B. State A also attacks State C with more oil reserves. When State A attacks State B, its soldiers cruelly killed the citizen and soldiers of State B because they are of different religion, ALTHOUGH STATE B doesnt fight back! Historically State C has been in tension with State B because of different political beliefs. When State A attacks State C, State C resists and it results in a huge war, a lot of lives are lost (torture, extreme gross violation of human rights), buildings are destroyed, and economy is down. Ramifications are tremendous! State A is sued B and C before an international court. State A was punished with full reparation made to B and long life embarrassment, while in the case of State C, State A only has to make partial reparation and that s all. IS THIS DISCRIMINATION?

Now the most sensitive issue in Indonesia. Chinese Discrimination. Few days ago, i argued tensely with my friend that Chinese has been discriminated until now. He said no. Bataknese is also discriminated when they come to Jakarta and deal with Javanese officials. It is normal because every race feels this sense of chauvinism. This sense of chauvinism grows into the practice of collusion. So he said, since not only chinese who was treated differently in Java, but also bataknese, there is no discrimination. WRONG! Discrimination happens because of different treatment that is measured by damage and quality of hatred. If Chinese is no treated similar to bataknese in Java, there is no discrimination amonng bataknese and chinese, but there is discrimination against chinese in Java. Discrimination doesn t happen ONLY IF the JAVANESE is treated similarly in Java as well. Now my friend gets smarter. He said Chinese in 1960 enjoys all the economic facilities while indonesian (pribumi) enjoys political careers. This political and economics trade off is meant to maintain US' support to Indonesia by means of international recognition. If Indonesia places the Chinese in political structure, it will be viewed by US as communist country. SO indonesia decided not to. Therefore, Chinese should be treated differently in terms of economy right now, such as pay more for driving license, permit, identity card and passport (not entirely true, but it still happens!). Sigh, i said this is what is wrong. Differentiating Chinese and non Chinese for its political rights based on economy differences is not correct.You can differentiate treatment ONLY IF the difference you are using is relevant to the different treatment. FOr example peeability between male and female for different treatment if number of toilets, not the right to breathe!

The concept of discrimination is strenuous subject. As long as international community and human in general cannot strike a right balance, our world will be filled with homo homini lupus. The strong one eats the weak one. The strong one dictates human rights. The strong one tells the rest what is right and what is wrong. The weak one feels dissatisfied, outraged, rebel and WAR!
My quote “War is the child of every regime, be it classical democracy in Athens or John Locke/Montesquieu’ trias politica. It is meant to create confusion and blur the line of the perfect balance of rights. When confusion is in place, human is nothing else but animals!”

You can buy human rights! Money is not everything, but everything needs money.

2009-05-23T12:05:00.000-07:00

I have just watched the BORDER TOWN starring Jennifer Lopez. You have to watch it if you dare to claim that you care about human rights! This movie talks about the downsides of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and, best of all; it is based on true story. An American journalist (J-Lo) was assigned to digging up story about hundreds of murder and rape cases in Juarez, Mexico. Police officers in Mexico estimated 350 women were raped and killed, but the real estimation is close to 5000 women. She found out that the rapists are protected by highest rank public officials, including the chief of police department in Mexico. Since NAFTA, many corporations establish factories in Mexico because cost of production in cheaper there. This drives many workers from the whole Mexico to come to Juarez (as the central of factories in Mexico). One of Indian families has to move to Juarez to work because they cannot pay tax for their land. The Mexican government threatens that only if they work in Juarez and earns some money, they can reclaim their land. Many girls were raped and murdered in Juarez because of centralization of workers in Juarez. Worst the governments, both American and Mexican, do NOT want to do anything about it because bad press hinders for free trade expansion. So the Mexican government does not pursue these murderers and rapists. In addition, the underlying reason for not doing anything is because the rich people (noble families in Mexico) are involved in the murders and rapes. THEY FUCKING DO IT BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE GOVERNMENT OR POLICE WILL NOT PURSUE THEM!

To start this piece of writing, I need to say that money is not everything but everything needs money... Because only with money you can buy human rights, including its protection!! This world is so FUCKED UP because human rights protection depends so heavily only economic power, vested interests. RICH PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS GET AWAY WITH CRIMES because PROSECUTING IS BACKLASH TO GOVERNMENT. I was once involved in a TENSE discussion with my friend from Georgetown University concerning economy and development policy. I said the economy policy by incumbent world government is wrong because it seeks for instant solution and popular votes. Presidential or legislative candidates talk about human rights not because they necessarily care about it, but because it sells for their political campaign. Economics should be priority, FUCK YOUR MINISCULE WORK ON HUMAN RIGHTS IF YOU DONT HAVE MONEY! Look at China, they don’t preserve the environment before 1995 not because they don’t care but because they don’t have the money to do so. China is currently spending almost 20% of their national budget for human rights (including environmental protection). In fact, China is developing the most technologically advanced waste disposal system. The same thing happens in Mexico. The Mexican government does not have money and they need to benefit from free trade for this reason. Human rights violations are bad press. They cannot afford bad press for murders and rapes CAUSED by FREE TRADE! This vested interest SHUT THEIR FUCKING MOUTH UP!!

For those who are fighting against unjust and human rights violation, BE STRATEGIC and TACTICAL! Your miniscule work is not only worthless, but it also brings a backlash to the goal of human rights protection. In BORDER TOWN movie, J-Lo’s effort (which i consider quite big/significant) brings a backlash to the protection of human rights because it is not big enough to pressure the MEXICAN or AMERICAN government to deal with the crimes. The concept is similar to “if you dont have sufficient evidence, dont press charges because you will alert the perpetrator to run away or destroy the evidence or worst the case will be denied by the judge in a court and thanks to nebis in idem you cant press charges for the same allegation.” In politics, we understand that if you have information about the weakness of your political opponent, dont use it hastily, make sure you gather enough and use it in a timely fashion. Dan Brown says punch them in face, body, and hand at the same time, so they have to deal with all problems at the same time. If you have information about your political opponent sexual affair and educational policy, dont use them separately. Keep them. Better if you can get information about their corrupt leadership or their unwise economic policy. Use all of them at the same time, print it in the newspaper!!!

Those small damn workers of human rights are jeopardizing the fight against human rights violations because they punch slowly and softly. They use these “weapons” one by one... similar to the analogy of lawsuit or political maneuver. They are alerting the culprits to change certain policy to the grey area of the law, so it s difficult to file a lawsuit against them... I am especially outraged when people say my argument is inhumane because i dont appreciate the works of people with sincerity. I really do... But your damn miniscule and infinitely small works jeopardize the FIGHT as a whole! The next question is how to make it big? MONEY AND POWER. Imagine if the Indians family in the movie BORDER TOWN has money and power. They can push the Mexican government not to agree to the terms of Free Trade Agreement with U.S. Imagine if J-Lo has money and power, she can threatens the senator not to propose or vote for the bill otherwise J-Lo will not support (donate money) for his next political campaign. In addition, she can print all the reports about the cruelty in Mexico with her own publication company. SHE CANNOT BECAUSE SHE DOES NOT HAVE MONEY AND POWER!!!

In conclusion, HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTIONS NEEDS MONEY. MONEY BUYS EVERYTHING. WITH MONEY COMES POWER. WITH BOTH MONEY AND POWER YOU CAN PROTECT THE WEAKEST SEGMENT OF SOCIETY! You can prevent the murders and rapes of many Mexicans. BUT BEWARE OF YOUR INFINITELY SMALL AND MINISCULE WORKS. EVEN IT YOU HAVE A GOLDEN HEART TO HELP THESE PEOPLE, BUT THE RESULT IS THAT YOU ARE HELPING KILLING THEM. YOUR INTENTION DOES NOT FUCKING COUNT, SO BE REALISTIC DAMN IT! DO IT BIG OR DONT DO IT AT ALL!

How to make the WAR makes sense and humane?

2009-05-20T06:03:00.000-07:00

War in every essence is about revenge, demonstration of power, and military superiority and profit (of course the politically acceptable argument is that war is for protecting citizens’ safety, preventing further abuse of human rights and all heart-warming arguments). War policy maker has to set a clear and sharp objective. What to achieve? What to lose? Whom to attack? What is the message it wants to send to the world? I have just watched W today, an epic movie about George W Bush’s life, a story about the 200 years legacy of Bush. It depicts the very essence of internal struggle in Bush’s administration on the most astounding war in history.

*don’t stop reading until the last word, I will show you why my argument is very humane and reasonable!!

I think the biggest mistake of Bush’s administration is to set a dual-face objective on the war of Iraq. Freedom and Democracy, oil, and most importantly Americans’ safety from terrorist’s threat. This is why they lose ground and international support. This is why they get stuck in the ominous hellish circle of leaving Iraq with fragile democracy or seeing Americans’ soldiers and Iraqis’ civilians dying every day. War is the worst tragedy of human history. It does not sound, look, and feel good on human’s eyes. It brings unimaginable pain, chaos, destruction, and trauma. That s why I think if you need to wage a war, make it quick and hence less painful.

The biggest mistake of U.S. is not to go through the war quickly... War is like boxing and wrestling, the very essence of competition. The principle is “HIT YOUR ENEMY HARD AND FAST”. Hit them fast so that do not know where it is coming from, hit them hard so they cannot stand on their feet.

U.S. should have just come to Iraq with one message... Don’t fuck with my military power!! Don’t fuck with my citizens’ life. In reality, the U.S. doesn’t care about the freedom and democracy in Iraq. So why not just be honest about it? The problem with promising freedom and democracy is that U.S. knows it cannot possibly fulfill that. It s a different playing field in Iraq or any Middle East countries. Democracy is very much attached to local values, MOST IMPORTANTLY, democracy does not grow overnight (or in reality 4-5 years? How long can America stays in Iraq? Counts how much life and money they have spent during these 4-5 years). It is an impossible mission to bring freedom and democracy in Iraq.
Now you readers may say I am a heartless person for that despicable argument. I am saying setting the objective of the war as “DON’T FUCK WITH MY MILITARY POWER” is much better than “We would want to bring freedom and democracy before this land”. This is the calculation: If U.S. has come to Iraq by making sure Saddam is caught and killed... what they can do is bombard every single village and location suspected as Saddam’s nest. I understand that will kill a lot of civilians, but the war will end quick. In addition to above argument, you see, the nature of rebels or jihadist (as they say) is to grow exponentially out of anger, frustration, and oppression. The fact that U.S. plays it softly on war gives room and time for these potential jihadists who hate the Americans so much to grow. Suppose the inital Saddam’s supporters is 100,000 and the slow and soft war creates oppression and perpetual pain for the civilians who initially did not have anything against America, now this number (100.000) grows into 1,000,000 because the jihadists manage to persuade local Muslims to join their war fighting on the god’s path against the evil America. Slow and long agony change people’s mind, plus, the Iraqis and Muslims will tend to listen to their own kinds better than the U.S. Probably the Iraqis dreamt of freedom and democracy, but it changed because of their long agony. They now fight against U.S. Imagine if you were an Iraqi, you think dictatorship by Saddam is wrong, so you have sympathy to U.S.’s mission. During the war, your family is killed (dad, mom, sisters, brothers). You are left alone, in poverty, constant trauma, hunger, oppression. You will start hating the world! Here comes the jihadist, telling you that the culprit is U.S. and you should fight them in the name of Islam, you will definitely take it, because you have nothing to lose.
If U.S. came to Iraq with “hit them hard and fast”, killing, let s say, 200,000 civilians along with the Saddam’s cronies in 4-5 months, this tragedy doesn’t have to happen. It s cruel and against Geneva Convention and UN Charter, but practically speaking it s much better for humanity. Prolonging the war caused more civilians casualties out of suicide bombs, civil wars, more jihadists born and recruited. This number is growing exponentially into supposedly 1,000,000 now. Plus, the financial burden for war is huge... This war also costs constant political instability in Middle East politics. It also costs the significant and insane increase of oil price in the world. Money has significant co linearity to human rights. More money means less poverty, more stomach fed, less suffering, better education, better living standard.

In conclusion, if you are talking about humanity, about how many lives should not be lost, how much suffering we should ease off, how much political cost and security we should consider, how much money we should not have spent... U.S. should have just come to Iraq by the message of “DON’T FUCK WITH MY MILITARTY POWER”, hit the terrorist hard and fast, kill civilians if necessary!!! And pull off in 4-5 months. This is how the war can make sense. Most importantly, this is how the war can be much more humane and less costly!!!

Angry: unprofessional or sincere?

2009-05-18T04:36:00.001-07:00

Myriad examples show us that emotional behaviour is unacceptable, whether it is in professional world or personal interaction. Being angry is viewed as a defect in personality. Psychologists call this bad anger management. In real life, when we are faced with circumstances where we have to agree to unjust, i.e. your boss asks you to execute a business plan which in reality causes suffering to a lot people, be it environmental damage, human rights damage, or economics damage. This business plan is untouchable by the law due to technicalities. If you get emotional in rejecting such order, you will be considered unprofessional or psychologically incapable or socially disarmed.
In my world, this problem is a lot denser. Lawyers are demanded to act professionally even when he is fully aware of the crime his client has committed. In academics life, anger is viewed as incapability to blend in certain social circles. Few days ago, i chatted with my friend from Georgetown University in Washington D.C. (united states). As a prelude, racism is dense and disguised in United States. I experienced it, my friends in US experienced it. We know it... If you are an Asian and Arabics in US and have stayed there for 10 years or more, you can feel how disguised discrimination against Arabics or Asian American is so systematic and sophisticated. Now, as an academician, you will want to write something about it. You want to reveal how the law and policy work in the direction of discrimination. My friend experienced how the ‘real’ Americans will disregard your works. You get angry because you think it is unjust, but it is so difficult to prove before a court that certain policy discriminates against you or your race. If you do, the academics institution will take action against this. They can isolate you slowly by making sure that no international legal journal would accept you writing or any press would not publish your work. Worst, they start isolating you from any self establishment programs or forums, making sure you are not gaining popularity or any academics achievement so that what you say are not credible before the public.
You see how systematic people in power restrain freedom of speech? They said you are allowed to say whatever you think is right, but they ll make sure you are a discredited academicians so that whatever you say lose credibility. If you watch boston legal, or the insider (al pacino) or read john grisham novel, you will understand what i mean. Instead of attacking the credibility of the evidence, people will start attacking your personal credibility. The insider (al pacino) depicts that big corporation will dig up every single microscopic mistakes of your lives to make sure russel crowe’s public statement is discredited. This includes his bad marriage, his failure to pay alimony.. What the hell does that have to do with the credibility of his research on nicotine addictive substance? He is truly outraged that the tobacco companies have been manipulating the medical research on nicotine effect (before 1994 nicotine was not considered addictive).
If i were in harvard or yale right now, and i start getting outraged by the systematic and disguised discrimination those institutions are employing against people like me, i will never get the chance or very difficult chance to write in any international legal journal... If US has this chronic problem, you can imagine what happen in countries like Indonesia (or any developing States in the world)... Why sincerity cant be best expressed with anger. The court or the politicians will never listen to you.... We have to come with big smiles and stupid lies pretending we are professionals while arguing genocide before the ICJ because that s deem professional? I am fully aware that emotional per se is not a solution and many people use that as a weapon to move marginalized society to fight against the government... (such as separatist movement or any group without sincere goals)..
I M OUTRAGED BY HOW THE WORLD IS CONSTRUCTED. I AM OUTRAGED BECAUSE GETTING ANGRY MEANS UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNACCEPTABLE. I AM ANGRY BECAUSE SINCERITY IS NOT VALUED MUCH COMPARED TO BIG FAKE SMILES. Eventually, people like me who are fighting for deeds and values wear out, tired, isolated, discredited and go insane. I can feel what Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche felt, must be painful... his whole life... trying to tell the truth, trying to save those who do not want to be saved... trying to light a dark room where people in the room dont think they are in darkness..

Review Over Indonesia's Odyssey To Rule Of Law And Democracy: Focus on the development of press freedom and justice

2009-05-15T11:02:00.001-07:00

I. Introduction
Indonesia has long been known as “zamrud khatulistiwa” which means a diamond among States located along equator line. However, its legal system, among many things, does not seem to shine as bright as its rich natural resources. The complete absence of rule of law, corruption, autocratic regime and the unenforceable constitution are those reasons to support this proposition. During the period of the former President Soeharto’s regime (1966 - 1998), freedom of expression literally did not exist. Newspaper and radio station are completely banned from communicating any matter related to government affairs. Adding to the already aggravated situation, the government was actively abusing the anti-subversive law, which was similar to Internal Security Act (ISA) in Malaysia and Singapore, by illegal arrest and detention of government related press activities and even to enforced disappearance.
Although Indonesia has a written constitution (UUD 45), which embodies basic human rights rules, share of power among legislative, executive and judiciary and mandate of President, it was unenforceable. First, the judiciary was so corrupt that it was considered Soeharto’s crony. Second, even if the judiciary functioned well, there was no constitutional basis or jurisdiction for the Supreme Court to review the UUD 45 if there was any petition.
The most historical overturn in the 63 years existence of Indonesia took place in 1998 when university students’ discontent reached the peak point after government suppression against their reformation activities. They rallied on the street and in front of most governmental offices, including the House of Representative’s hall and president’s palace, petitioning the resignation of Soeharto. The overwhelming discontent has compelled Soeharto to resign from presidency. This event ended the 32 years autocratic ruling of Soeharto and opened a new chapter of Indonesia’s odyssey. The most notable reformation after 1998 was in judiciary and the right to freedom of press. Although it is still considered as fragile and unstable democracy, but Indonesia has moved to the right path. The amendment of UUD 45 was done four times, which resulted in the reformation of states organ composition, including the birth of constitutional court in 2004.
In this paper, I will argue that justice and freedom of press are two most important factors in creating a strong root of rule of law and democracy in Indonesia. First, I will briefly demonstrate the historical background including autocratic ruling of Soeharto’s regime, press freedom and the unenforceable constitution. Second, I will briefly summarize the birth process of constitutional court. Third, I will demonstrate that reformation in justice and right to freedom of press is the most crucial factor in achieving the democracy desired. Lastly, I will review several constitutional cases before the constitutional court to demonstrate the level of protection to freedom of press granted under post amendment UUD 45.

II. Historical background
a. Soeharto’s corrupt regime
Soeharto was a military politician; hence his administration was carried out in the same fashion. After the declaration of independence in 1945, unity remained fragile. Civil wars broke out in many remote areas as a consequence of plurality of Indonesia. Indonesia is an archipelago comprising 13,667 islands 105 covering a land area of 1,919,317 square kilometers including 93,000 square kilometers of inland seas. It has more than 200 local tribes with different culture and religious beliefs. Since Indonesia was caught in the middle of civil wars in the early years of his presidency, Soeharto’s military style of administration seemed to be the preferred model of governance. He needed to take immediate step by efficient use of force to curb civil wars and rebellious activities in many remote areas. This style of governance was employed through 1980s, where the geo-political situation had dramatically changed. Citizens were generally better educated and aware of the importance of a stable country. Civil wars and rebellious activities had significantly abated. As the saying goes “power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely”, Soeharto absolute military power continued to mark his regime. To maintain power, he employed repressive methods to all parties who were against him. As a corollary, press activities were heavily controlled since it was viewed as a threat to his administration. He enacted the License to Publish (SIT) policy to control all press activities. All press products were required to obtain this permit before they were published. All press activities were considered illegal without this permit. He also enacted the anti-subversive law which enabled him to curb any press activity that criticized him.
The Soeharto regime was completely corrupt since he virtually controlled all the legal machinery. To fully appreciate Soeharto’s corrupt, morally bankrupt regime, one only has to visit the Soeharto museum at Tam Mini, a park in Jakarta, which features exhibits from all regions of Indonesia. The Soeharto museum is filled with many gifts given to Soeharto during his reign. It is filled with priceless jade carvings, works of expensive art from all over the world owned by Soeharto and a floor devoted to Soeharto and his late wife Madame Tien.
In economic activity, the Soehartos made a massive number of improper loans to finance their cronies. Siti, Soeharto’s daughter, was known as "Madame Ten Percent", reflecting her share of all public contracts. Soeharto and his family accumulated a financial empire estimated at more than $25 billion. The Soehartos held an interest in major corporations controlling virtually every facet of daily life in Indonesia. It was virtually impossible to conduct business in Indonesia without dealing with Suharto, his family, and their business cronies. The Indonesian economic system was a complex web of corrupt deals and political payoffs.
Most natural resources were located in less populated areas. Soeharto extracted these resources for use in the more heavily populated areas, particularly Java. In the process, the central government controlled local revenues and finances leaving little power for provincial and local governments. The Indonesian banking sector was poorly supervised by the central bank, Bank of Indonesia. These circumstances led to the collapse of the Indonesian banking sector resulting in economic chaos in Indonesia. The effects of the financial collapse have included massive poverty, a high rate of unemployment, and starvation for millions of Indonesians. Deadly riots and political protests were common. Soeharto also controlled the legal system, including all judicial appointments. One author even asserts that judges earned a living by selling justice to the highest bidder. The legal system was simply another arm of Suharto's corrupt machine.
b. Historical perspective of Press Freedom during Soeharto regime
The Basic Press Law of 1966 (1966 Press Law) emerged under Soeharto's "New Order" Government in the midst of the attempted takeover by the Indonesian Communist Party and the restructuring of government. The 1966 Press Law guaranteed that journalists would not be subjected to censorship under Article 4. In addition, the first clause under Article 5 granted freedom of the press as a basic human right. The guarantees provided in Articles 4 and 5 were significantly undermined by Article 11 of the 1966 Press Law, which restricted publications only to those not contrary to "Pancasila". The 1966 Press Law further limited press freedom by requiring that every publication acquire a License to Publish (SIT), pursuant to Article 20.
Despite the seemingly broad guarantees grounded in Articles 4 and 5, the government's reaction to the press over the next sixteen years demonstrated a retreat from law that proved detrimental to journalists. In particular, the government banned many publications during this period either by revocation of licenses or by mandate from the Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order (Operational Command). Bans on publications were especially prevalent during elections and student demonstrations. Government officials both instructed journalists as to which current events they could report on and attacked journalists personally via imprisonment, detention, and warnings.
Act No. 21 of 1982 (1982 Press Law) incorporated and enacted revisions and amendments to the 1966 Press Law. An additional clause to Article 13 in the 1982 Press Law requires that press publications obtain a Press Publication Business License (SIUPP) from the Minister of Information. The Minister of Information leads the Press Council, which oversees the development and control of the National Press, by ensuring that the press preserves the national interests of Indonesia. The SIUPP clause replaced the SIT clause in Article 20 in the 1966 Press Law; however, the consequences of publishing without a license under either clause remained the same because both resulted in criminal penalties. In addition to granting SIUPPs, the Minister of Information may also revoke licenses pursuant to Article 33 of the Minister of Information Regulation No. 1 of 1984 (1984 Ministerial Decree).
Of even greater concern in the 1982 Press Law was the government's revised Paragraph 2 under Article 6 of the 1966 Press Law that expanded Press Council membership to include government officials. In effect, this revised clause "concerning membership of the Press Council made the Government's position stronger]in controlling the Council, and thereby the Press." Despite the enactment of the 1982 Press Law, limitations on reporting current events remained strong as the government continued to utilize similar tactics exercised under the 1966 Press Law to curb press freedom.

c. The Unenforceable Constitution
It seems that everybody knows that law in Indonesia, if enforced at all, is not enforced consistently. When it comes to constitutional law, however, the situation seems even worse. The courts, prior to 2004, do not even have jurisdiction, not even in theory, to hear any constitutional claims. The problem was not that courts failed to enforce the Constitution because of inefficiency, incompetence or corruption. Rather, the problem was that no court had jurisdiction to enforce constitutional law. There was no constitutional court in Indonesia until 2004 and the general courts, including the Mahkamah Agung [MA] or Supreme Court, lack constitutional jurisdiction. One could therefore say that constitutional law was unenforceable in Indonesia before 2004.
Gary Bell argues that it is possible to have a stable society and the Rule of Law without a fully enforceable constitution. He cited France experience. In France once a law is adopted, its validity can never be contested no matter how clearly unconstitutional the law is. The courts of law have essentially no constitutional jurisdiction (except for the review of search and seizures in the criminal process) and cannot review the constitutionality of laws or of government actions. Since 1958, there is in France a Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel) which may review bills before they become laws, but it may do so only at the request of politicians, not of ordinary citizens. Once a bill passes through Parliament, the Council has no jurisdiction. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen which is indirectly included in the French Constitution through a mention in its preamble cannot be invoked by citizens whose individual rights are violated. Notwithstanding this, no one would dare say that France does not respect the Rule of Law or that France has no constitution or no constitutional law. Unenforceable constitutions can be significant political and legal symbols.
I agree that it is possible to have a stable society in countries like France without fully enforceable constitution. However, when it comes to Indonesia prior to 2004, it is a different case. Freedom of press and judicial system are the two important factors that draw that line. First, starting from 1966, French has not been ruled by any autocratic regime, while Indonesia was ruled by Soeharto autocratic. Second, Soeharto actively invoked the anti-subversive law, while there was no similar law passed in France. Third, Indonesia judicial system was so corrupt during Soeharto’s regime that it was considered another arm of Soeharto’s corrupt machine. Even to date, similar nature of legal system still exists, though arguably to a lesser extent. Jared Levinson asserted that “In this republic, corruption is the child of every regime”. The unreliable nature of the Indonesian legal system has been a major factor cited by business people for not wanting to invest in the nation. In June 2000, Wahid (Indonesia former president) met with US businesspersons who demanded that the legal system be reformed before they would invest in Indonesia. Court decisions are mainly a function of money and politics, just as they were under the Suharto regime. A well-connected, well-financed insider is likely to prevail even if the written law is to the contrary.

III. The two most important pillars of rule of law and democracy in Indonesia: Justice and Freedom of Press
a. Press Freedom for democracy
I find that the development of democracy is very closely related to freedom of press. Press is the fourth estate after executive, legislative and judiciary. It is power. If a nation is to enjoy the political and economic advantages enabled by the rule of law, powerful institutions must be open to scrutiny by the people. If technology and science are to advance, ideas must be openly shared. To create a democratic society is, among many things, by creating accountable government. Freedom of the press and independent news are therefore essential to this process. That is why Thomas Jefferson, the primary drafter of the American Declaration of Independence, insisted that the U.S. Constitution include the public's right to free speech, a free press, and public assembly. "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter," he wrote in 1787. That is not to say that the newspapers were kind to him when he became president. He had his share of embarrassing exposés. But Jefferson remained steadfast in supporting even painful scrutiny by the media, because he recognized that without such accountability and unfettered flow of ideas, a nation's creative growth is stunted and its people are not free.
According to Ellen Hume, an independent media sector serves four vital roles in a democracy. First, it is a watchdog on the powerful, holding them accountable to the people. Second, it casts a spotlight on issues that need attention. Third, it educates the citizens so they can make political choices.
The U.S. experience in press freedom has, in one sense, been experienced by Indonesia after UU No.40/1999 was passed. This was shown by the rampant growth of press companies in Indonesia which is estimated to be more than 8,000 by now. This number is significantly high compared to the number of press companies during Soeharto regime which is estimated less than 15. Moreover, government has less control now evident by no-permit requirement of press activities. In Indonesia, press acted as a powerful watchdog during 2004 presidential election process. Press clearly described the necessary backgrounds, policy making orientation and leadership quality of all presidential candidates. This provides citizens with better information to choose which leader suits them the most. Press has essentially provided better political education for people during the 2004 election. Press function to cast spotlight on issues that need attention was demonstrated very well on the issue of Chinese minority discrimination in Indonesia. Before 1998, practice of Chinese culture, including language, cultural performance and the use of Chinese name were highly discouraged if not prohibited. During the 1998 financial crisis and reformation era, a shameful incident occurred where Chinese properties were looted and a lot rape cases to Chinese were reported. It is not that this discrimination did not happen in the past, but there is no means of dispatching such information nationally. After 1998, a lot of attention was brought to Chinese minority rights, therefore, effectively putting pressure on government to do something about it. During the President Abdurrahman Wahid administration, all discriminations, including prohibition to practice language were abandoned. All regulations which constitute this type of discrimination were revoked. Press ability to dispatch information about Chinese discrimination brought about sentiment among many people who think it is not right to do so, and therefore creating general consensus on what government should do.
In many examples, press has also put a great deal of pressure to public institutions, such as State Financial Auditor (BPK), Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and Supreme Court, which was untouchable by press in Soeharto regime. Sharp criticisms and expression of discontent are common in newspaper and television news editorial. The success of the 2004 first direct presidential election, which marked the democracy celebration in Indonesia, was also contribution of press. Although corruption still exists, but prosecution has been aggressively undertaken in recent years. People are generally aware of figures who are involved in corruption and hence creating bigger pressure for prosecution. In fact, harsh comments, such as alleging president of incompetency and violating constitution are made publicly available in newspaper with clear identity of the commentator.
b. Why press freedom and not economics first?
Some middle-low class income citizen argued that it much better to have no press freedom than to suffer from abject poverty. Some argued that reformation costs so expensively. It is a generally accepted fact that poverty and unemployment increased after 1998. One would argue that it was because the financial crisis took place. However, general argument to the contrary would be that democratization costs a lot. First, reformation requires reshuffling of many civil servants including the top officials. Since Indonesia recognizes life time pension, all downsized civil servants will be fed by the government for life time. Second, amendment of the constitution took most of the attention after 1998. It meant neglecting several ongoing financial projects and setting aside huge amount of national budget for all the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) meetings. MPR consisted of approximately 700 members all of whom are paid for regular meetings. Given the above explanation, it will be rationale to prioritize economics first post 1998. However, I will argue that press freedom is paramount to economics first argument.
Indonesia has impressive record on its natural resources, having oil and gas as the biggest export products. Moreover, its agricultural products are also abundant. The old saying goes “You can throw any remaining seeds you eat anywhere else in Indonesia and it will grow”. However, welfare of the citizen is not well reflected, not before 1998 or post 1998. The core of the problem is the complex web of corruption and inefficient bureaucracy. Imagine that gas natural resources are extracted from Papua. The result would have been going through several stages of administrative process before it reached the central government and reformulated in national budget. Given the fact that Indonesia has 13,000 islands, it is tremendously difficult to micro manage every sector. All these supposedly rich natural resources evaporated along the way to the central government.
Unlike its small manageable neighbor Singapore, Indonesia could not utilize economics first policy. First, the Singapore was not abundant in natural resources; therefore it was plausible in 1965 that the government decided to strengthen its economic policy. On the contrary, during the declaration of independence, Sukarno was very well aware that Indonesia was rich in natural resources, which made it the prime target of colonization. Second, all these resources were wasted because of corrupt individuals and ineffective bureaucracy; therefore, it is reasonable if all efforts are put in strengthening the rule of law and liberating press. If we draw a comparison to China, then will this argument crumble since China is big in size and rich in natural resources? China in its economic policy also resembles Singapore. China, as a socialist country, puts public welfare as its number one priority, therefore putting economics first for the many rather than press freedom for the few. What distinguishes Indonesia and China in this respect is the culture of ‘hard work’. It is well known that China used to and still has the cheapest and most effective labors. Given the large population in China, the number of manpower is also large. China’s capability to build its economics fast and resiliently gave it the advantage of being socialist and tyrannical. It abandoned environmental concern because it is expensive to preserve the environment. It abandoned human rights concern, good governance and so forth to focus all government policy to economics development. After this strong foundation of economics has been built, it started to use this financial power to fix what has been sacrificed for economics. For example, in 2006-2007, China spent almost 20% of its national budget to deal with sanitary and environmental issues, including major reconstruction on its sewer system, which was the major factor of SARS (avian flu) epidemic. After 1990, China started to liberate itself by exposing itself to international community. Press has increasingly been active. Humanitarian law became a serious concern. Environmental protection became an important agenda in government (ratification of Kyoto Protocol). In a short and simplified way of saying it, the choice is economics first or democracy first? If economics come first, then all other factors have to be removed from the picture, including democracy, environmental concern and human rights. In Indonesia context, it was unlikely to build the nation based on economics first policy because it lacks the advantage of hardworking culture and effective bureaucracy. China quickly achieved of economics power immediately after 1990 to prepare itself for globalization. This economics power was used to fix its environmental condition, human rights protection structure and compliance with international community value.
c. Judicial reform
A democratic nation will not function well if it is still governed by a cluster of corrupt individuals. Judicial reform is essential in achieving the true value of the rule of law. Constitution can only be protected by people with integrity. Although the picture of Indonesia judicial system is still tainted but significant improvement is noticeable. The rule of law can only be achieved if Indonesia continues its effort in judicial reform. As has been established in the previous section of this paper that judiciary in Indonesia is governed by a long tradition of corrupt judges.
The judiciary reform should focus on selection and individual welfare system not structural reformation. I assert that the current system in place is sufficient. The problem with the judiciary is only on its individuals. Best graduate law students from best law schools in Indonesia do not prefer judiciary career. This is a paradox to legal career in many countries including U.S. where judges are commonly appointed among successful and respectful lawyers or legal academicians. Incentives on judiciary careers should be strengthened, in the sense of welfare and prestige, so that young talented legal minds can find judiciary career worthy. Furthermore, there is an urgent need of major review on current judges as to their quality and competence. There should be a tighter and more sophisticated fit and proper test for judges and judiciary related career such as court clerks. At this point, Singapore’s approach to judiciary system is worth a lesson. The Chief of Supreme Court judge received approximately S$ 1 million annually on contractual basis. This amount is bigger than the accumulated amount of three chief Supreme Court justices of Canada, Australian and U.S. I am not suggesting that Indonesia chief justice should be paid that amount. I am suggesting that the current amount of salary does not create incentive basis for judiciary career. Magistrate Court Judges are treated as civil servants with average salary of Rp. 1 million to Rp. 2 million per month (which is equal to S$300-400). Under Law No.19/2008, the chief justice of Supreme Court in Indonesia receives approximately Rp.55 million a month (which is equal to S$ 7,000-8000), while an established lawyer in Indonesia can earn 10 to 20 times bigger than that amount per month. Moreover, the judiciary career in Indonesia is not viewed as a prestigious one. People generally avoid dealing with judges or courts. This is a negative factor to encouraging best law students to enroll as a judge.
IV. Conclusion
Indonesia historical background indicates the importance of press freedom and judiciary reform. Tyrannical and autocratic rulings of Suharto have created a long tradition of ‘political apathy’. Citizen need to be educated of their political rights. Government military system needs press to serve as a watchdog. Furthermore, the expansive geographical condition of Indonesia disabled fast and effective communication in the past. This serves as a detriment to democracy, as many people are simply not aware of what is happening within the central government, including the new law that is passed and court rulings. When press was liberated in 1999, significant improvement was noticeable. This improvement includes transparent court reports, spotlight on sensitive issues such as Chinese minority rights and pressure on legislative to pass laws that serve the needs of the many.
Judiciary reform is also necessary. This reform should focus on judiciary career welfare and selection system. Judges should be selected from the most capable individuals. This system will eventually create a strong incentive basis and therefore improves the overall image of judiciary career. Best graduate law students can then be encouraged to take part in judiciary career. The combination of these improvements will strengthen the rule of law and democracy in Indonesia

Hak Asasi Manusia Universal Yang Bersifat Lokal: Studi Terhadap Hak Kebebasan Berekspresi Dalam Pasal 19 ICCPR

2009-05-15T11:00:00.001-07:00

I. LATAR BELAKANG
Hak kebebasan berekspresi sangat erat kaitannya dengan nilai budaya, ideologi, dan agama sebuah negara. Misalnya, Singapura menganut prinsip perlindungan hak kebebasan berekspresi yang sangat minimum, terutama terkait dengan hak kebebasan berekspresi terhadap kinerja pemerintahnya. Sarjana hukum dalam bidang comparative constitutional law berpendapat bahwa alasan Singapura melindungi para pejabat negaranya adalah karena pencemaran nama baik terhadap pejabatnya mempunyai dampak yang besar terhadap kinerja pemerintahannya. Selain itu, pencemaran nama baik mempunyai dampak (damage) yang lebih besar terhadap seorang pejabat daripada seorang warga masyarakat biasa. Menurut Kausikan, pandangan ini berseberangan dengan prinsip yang dianut di Amerika Serikat yang berpendapat bahwa seorang pejabat publik (public figure) karena jabatannya harus menanggung resiko kritik dan pelanggaran privasi dari media massa. Oleh karena itu, pencemaran nama baik merupakan resiko yang akan sering menimpa seorang pejabat publik. Perbedaan ini terjadi karena alasan historis masing-masing negara Amerika Serikat dan Singapura dimana kesuksesan Singapura selalu dikaitkan dengan sifat diktator Lee Kuan Yew pada tahun 1960an, sementara Amerika Serikat sukses sebagai “champions of human rights” dikarenakan umur konstitusinya yang tua (350 tahun) dan reputasi Mahkamah Agung Amerika Serikat dalam pembentukkan nilai-nilai hak asasi manusia (HAM) internasional.
Contoh lain yang aktual di Indonesia adalah kebebasan berekspresi yang dibatasi dalam konteks memeluk sebuah agama atau aliran kepercayaan tertentu. Pada tahun 2008, pemerintah Indonesia mengeluarkan Surat Keputusan Bersama (SKB) Menteri Agama, Jaksa Agung, dan Menteri dalam negeri masing-masing No.03 Tahun 2008, No. KEP-033/A/JA/6/2008 dan No.199 Tahun 2008 tentang Peringatan dan Perintah Kepada Penganut, Anggota dan/atau Pengurus JAI dan Warga Masyarakat. SKB ini keluar sebagai respons terhadap kondisi masyarakat yang meresahkan. Kondisi ini disebabkan oleh ditetapkannya fatwa Majelis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) bahwa Ahmadiyah adalah salah satu aliran sesat dan menyesatkan. Fatwa MUI ini memicu terjadinya ketegangan antara penganut Ahmadiyah dengan warga Islam di sekitar tempat tinggal mereka yang berujung pada intimidasi terhadap para penganut Ahmadiyah, pengrusakan rumah ibadah mereka, tidak diizinkannya para penganut Ahmadiyah untuk beribadah di mesjid, dan tindakan kekerasan terhadap para penganut Ahmadiyah. Menurut hemat penulis, akar permasalahannya adalah pada intervensi pemerintah dan MUI dalam hal mengambil posisi mengkriminalisasi atau mengharamkan suatu kebebasan berekspresi agama. Hal ini tidak dilarang di negara yang lebih progresif seperti Amerika Serikat, dimana kepercayaan atau agama bukan merupakan urusan negara, sehingga aliran kepercayaan apapun tidak dilarang kecuali jika hal tersebut menyebabkan gangguan keamanan dan sosial yang signifikan. Perbedaan ini terjadi di Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat karena nilai hidup yang sangat berbeda dalam konteks nilai keagamaan.
Dari kedua contoh diatas, dapat disimpulkan bahwa dilema terbesar dalam hak kebebasan berekspresi adalah perbedaan nilai budaya, ideologi, dan religius sebuah negara yang menyebabkan perbedaan definisi, paradigma, dan tingkatan perlindungan hak kebebasan berekspresi. Hal yang harus diingat adalah bahwa Indonesia dan Amerika Serikat merupakan negara penandatangan International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Dalam makalah ini, penulis akan menjabarkan tinjauan historis terhadap terbentuknya hak kebebasan berekspresi dalam paradigma sarjana hukum internasional, pertentangan dua paham mainstream tentang HAM, dan memberikan masukan terhadap pentingnya pengaturan hukum internasional yang bersifat lokal dalam konteks hak kebebasan berekspresi.
II. MAKNA KEADILAN DALAM HAK ASASI MANUSIA UNTUK BEBAS BEREKSPRESI
A. Sejarah terbentuknya hak kebebasan berekspresi
Pasca Perang Dunia kedua dan tragedi Holocaust, disiplin HAM internasional menekankan pentingnya konsep non-diskriminasi sebagai prinsip yang fundamental. Prinsip ini terkandung dalam berbagai konvensi tentang HAM. Prinsip ini juga berlaku untuk semua orang dalam semua aspek sosial terutama melarang adanya diskriminasi berdasarkan jenis kelamin, ras, dan warna kulit. Prinsip non-diskriminasi ini disempurnakan oleh prinsip kesetaraan (equality), seperti bunyi pasal 1 Deklarasi Umum Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa (PBB) tentang HAM “Semua manusia dilahirkan bebas dan setara dalam hal harga diri dan haknya.” Pentingnya prinsip non-diskriminasi dalam hak asasi manusia dipahami dengan baik oleh banyak pihak. Alasan yang mendasari bersifat historis yaitu bahwa sejarah manusia kaya dengan tindakan diskriminatif dan tidak toleran yang menyebabkan terjadi genosida dan kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Oleh karena itu, pendapat bahwa diskriminasi dan rasisme merupakan pelanggaran harga diri manusia dan kesetaraan merupakan pendapat yang tidak mendapatkan pertentangan dari negara beradab manapun.
Hal yang tidak lumrah diketahui kebanyakan orang adalah bahwa institusi dan pengadilan internasional maupun nasional bersikeras bahwa hak kebebasan berekspresi merupakan unsur sentral dari rezim hak asasi manusia. Pendapat semacam ini muncul dari sejarah yang menggambarkan tragedi-tragedi terbesar di dunia untuk waktu beberapa abad yang dikarenakan kontrol absolut terhadap kebebasan berekspresi. Contoh dari tragedi tersebut adalah perbudakan dan perdagangan budak, metode penyiksaan dalam interogasi, Holocaust, genosida di Kamboja maupun Rwanda, rezim Stalin. Scammell berpendapat bahwa “kontrol terhadap kebebasan berekspresi merupakan alat penunjang kekuasaan. Tanpa alat tersebut, kekuasaan akan sangat susah untuk dipertahankan. Kontrol tersebut adalah alat untuk merebut dan mempertahankan kekuasaan baik kekuasaan seorang individu, institusi, maupun negara. Alat ini merupakan esktensi dan manifestasi dari kekuatan fisik ke dalam alam pikiran dan jiwa. Kontrol ini mencakup semua bentuk intervensi terhadap hak asasi individual untuk berpendapat dan mengungkapkannya tanpa rasa takut. Kontrol tersebut dapat dilakukan dengan lembaga sensor yang sangat sukar dan kompleks untuk diatasi.
B. Mengapa hak kebebasan berekspresi penting?
Memahami permasalahan yang dijelaskan dalam paragraf sebelumnya, pentingnya hak kebebasan berekspresi menjadi fokus pengaturan dalam berbagai pengadilan internasional atau institusi yang terkait. Pada tahun 1946, yang merupakan sesi pertama United Nations General Assembly (GA), GA mengadopsi Resolusi 59 (I) yang berbunyi “Kebebasan memperoleh informasi merupakan hak asasi manusia yang fundamental dan... pilar dari semua hak kebebasan yang dijunjung tinggi oleh PBB.” Hal senada juga disampaikan oleh beberapa pengadilan dan badan subsider PBB. Contoh, UN Human Rights Committee menyatakan bahwa “Hak kebebasan berekspresi merupakan hak prioritas dalam masyarakat yang demokratis.” Pentingnya hak kebebasan ekspresi juga diutarakan oleh The European Court dalam kasus Handyside, serta Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Jaminan terhadap kebebasan berekspresi mempunyai tingkatan pengaruh yang berbeda terhadap medianya. Media merupakan fokus penting dari perhatian para aktivis hak kebebasan berekspresi. Ini adalah medium pertama yang akan dikuasai pemerintah, kekuatan ekonomi, dan politik untuk mempertahankan kekuasaannya dan mematikan gerakan oposisi. Sebagai kunci utama dari kebebasan berkomunikasi dan berekspresi, kekuatan dari media untuk berfungsi secara independen sangat menentukan tingkat kebebasan berekspresi di sebuah masyarakat. Amyrta Sen membuktikan hal ini dengan mengambil contoh Chinese famine pada tahun 1958-1961, dimana sensor dan penghilangan akses kepada informasi berakibat sangat buruk bagi masyarakat miskin. Lebih buruknya lagi, hal tersebut menyebabkan pemerintah salah mengambil langkah dalam perumusan kebijakan yang berakibat pada meninggalnya jutaan jiwa. Amyrta Sen berpendapat bahwa “Tidak akan ada tragedi kelaparan jika ada kebebasan pers/media...”
Contoh bentuk sensor kepada media adalah dengan menentukan content yang diizinkan untuk dalam pemberitaan media massa, kepemilikan media massa, kontrol terhadap editorial, kontrol terhadap pihak yang mempunyai akses terhadap frekuensi radio dan jangka waktunya, serta apa yang boleh dipublikasikan serta apa yang tidak. Kebebasan berekspresi memungkinkan masyarakat untuk menuntut hak kesehatan, hak terhadap lingkungan yang lebih bersih dan kebijakan yang efektif dalam mengurangi angka kemiskinan. Hal ini juga meningkatkan kualitas demokrasi dan kepercayaan publik terhadap pemerintahan yang sedang berkuasa serta meningkatkan transparansi yang berakibat pada pencegahan terjadinya korupsi. Dengan kata lain ketika kekuatan media massa dikekang, maka realisasi dari perlindungan atas hak lainnya akan sulit.
III. PENGATURAN INTERNASIONAL HAK ASASI MANUSIA
Pengaturan dalam konvensi internasional yang hendak penulis angkat dalam tulisan ini dapat ditemukan pada pasal 19 ICCPR. Pasal 19 ICCPR menyatakan bahwa:
1. Setiap orang berhak mengeluarkan pendapat tanpa bentuk intervensi apapun.
2. Setiap orang mempunyai hak kebebasan berekspresi. Hak ini termasuk kebebasan untuk mencari, menerima, menyampaikan informasi tertentu dalam bentuk apapun baik secara lisan maupun tulisan, dalam bentuk seni atau media lainnya sesuai pilihan dan kehendak orang yang bersangkutan.
3. Hak kebebasan berekspresi yang dimaksud ayat 2 harus dilaksanakan dengan tanggung jawab tertentu. Oleh karena itu, boleh dibatasi, namun pembatasan ini harus dalam bentuk peraturan hukum dan perlu:
a. Untuk menghormati hak atau reputasi pihak yang lain
b. Untuk menjaga keamanan nasional, ketertiban umum, kesehatan publik, atau moral.

Salah satu permasalahan dengan pasal ini adalah (1) tidak ada pemisahan yang jelas antar hak mengeluarkan pendapat dengan hak (ayat 1) dengan hak berekspresi dan (2) diskresi ada di tangan penguasa untuk menentukan kondisi keamanan nasional, ketertiban umum, kesehatan publik, atau moral. Pengaturan terhadap syarat-syarat penguasa boleh mengecualikan hak kebebasan berekspresi adalah (1) tidak boleh membahayakan kelangsungan hak itu sendiri (2) pengecualian tersebut harus diatur oleh hukum (3) Pengecualian ini hanya boleh diterapkan kepada salah satu pasal ,19(3) (a) atau (b) (4) Harus ada alasan tentang pentingnya negara atau penguasa melakukan pengecualian tersebut.
Penulis berpendapat bahwa keempat faktor di atas merupakan masalah utama dari kompromi antara pengaturan universal ICCPR dengan penyesuaian dengan nilai lokal masing-masing negara anggota ICCPR. Pengaturan semacam pasal 19 ICCPR menciptakan dikhotomi dengan memberikan ruang interpretasi yang sangat besar bagi masing-masing negara anggota, namun di lain pihak juga menetapkan syarat-syarat yang ketat bagi pengecualian pelaksanaan hak kebebasan berekspresi.
IV. DILEMA PENGATURAN HAK ASASI MANUSIA DALAM KONTEKS HAK KEBEBASAN BEREKSPRESI
A. Universalist Versus Cultural Relativist
Pertentangan besar dalam rezim pengaturan HAM adalah antara penganut paham universalist dan cultural relativist. Paham universalist mengatakan HAM merupakan hak yang sangat mendasar dan pada hakekatnya pasti semua manusia memiliki nilai-nilai yang sama yaitu kemanusiaan. Contoh, tidak ada seorang manusia yang setuju kepada genosida, dimana 500.000 nyawa dibunuh hanya karena warna kulit, agama, ras, ataupun pandangan politik tertentu. Dasar inilah yang menjadikan nilai HAM pengaturannya harus universal. Sementara itu, penganut paham cultural relativist mengatakan bahwa diversitas kebudayaan merupakan sebuah realita. Universalisme tidak harus dipahami sebagai penyamarataan (uniformitas).
1. Prinsip ideal konsep universalisme
Pertanyaan utama adalah apakah semua prinsip hak asasi manusia benar-benar bersifat universal? Bagi sarjana negara Barat, relativisme budaya hanya merupakan justifikasi bagi para diktator untuk mempertahankan kekuasaannya. Para sarjana tersebut berpendapat bahwa para diktator yang melakukan pelanggaran HAM berat adalah sebagian dari kalangan yang mendukung argumen cultural relativist. Globalisasi atau modernisasi kebudayaan telah menyebabkan globalisasi nilai-nilai HAM. Oleh karena itu, tidak mungkin ada kebudayaan yang bertahan dalam bentuknya yang murni di negara manapun. Bukti dari pernyataan diatas adalah tidak ada sebuah negara pun yang menolak prinsip Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pengakuan terhadap diversitas kebudayaan sebagai fakta empiris tidak bisa menjustifikasi pelanggaran HAM berat. Pembunuhan adalah pembunuhan baik itu dilakukan di Amerika Serikat, Asia, atau Afrika. Tidak ada satupun negara di dunia yang mengklaim bahwa penyiksaan (torture) merupakan bagian dari warisan kebudayaan mereka. Semua orang mempunyai hak untuk diakui sebagai seorang manusia atau individu di hadapan hukum.
2. Tidak Semua HAM Bersifat Universal
Penulis berpendapat bahwa pandangan kaum sarjana Barat kurang tepat atau kurang spesifik dalam perumusan idenya. Alasannya adalah karena gradasi HAM sangat luas, mulai dari genosida, hak untuk tidak disiksa, atau didiskriminasi karena warna kulit, hak turut serta dalam pemerintahan, hak memeluk agama, hak mendapatkan pendidikan dan penghidupan yang layak dan wajar. Gradasi ini menyebabkan tingkat perlindungan yang berbeda-beda antara satu HAM dengan HAM lainnya. Contoh, genosida, kejahatan kemanusiaan, agresi militer, dan perang merupakan beberapa contoh kejahatan internasional (international crimes) berdasarkan pasal 5 Statuta International Criminal Court. Implikasi terhadap status atau label kejahatan internasional melahirkan prinsip jus cogens dan erga omnes obligations. Berdasarkan putusan International Court of Justice (ICJ) dalam kasus Barcelona Traction tahun 1980, ICJ menyatakan bahwa tergolongkannya sebuah kejahatan dalam kategori pelanggaran prinsip jus cogens melahirkan jurisdiksi universal terhadap kejahatan tersebut. Artinya, semua negara di dunia mempunyai hak dan kewajiban untuk menyidik dan menuntut pelaku kejahatan tersebut. Dalam kasus tersebut, ICJ juga menyatakan bahwa kejahatan yang menimbulkan kewajiban erga omnes adalah jenis kejahatan yang menyentak rasa kemanusiaan dan keadilan semua orang. Kejahatan yang dijelaskan di atas mempunyai gradasi yang berbeda dengan hak untuk mendapatkan perlakuan hukum yang sama. Perbedaannya adalah ICCPR tidak memberikan status jus cogens atau peremptory norms terhadap hak tersebut. Meskipun ada beberapa sarjana yang mengatakan bahwa hak mendapatkan perlakuan hukum yang sama diakui dalam hukum kebiasaan internasional (customary international law). Gradasi yang lebih rendah daripada hak persamaan hukum adalah hak berserikat (right to assembly) atau hak berkumpul, dimana perlindungan hak ini masuk dalam prioritas yang rendah. Artinya, jika terjadi konflik antara hak-hak di atas maka hak untuk tidak dibunuh karena ras (genosida) akan lebih diprioritaskan daripada hak untuk berserikat.
B. Dikhotomi Pemilahan HAM
Pandangan sarjana Barat tepat dalam konteks pelanggaran HAM berat atau prinsip jus cogens, namun tidak tepat untuk hak-hak seperti hak berserikat atau berekspresi. Kelemahan pendapat seperti itu adalah tidak cermatnya menarik garis pemisah antara hak yang bersifat universal dengan hak-hak yang sangat terkait dengan nilai kebudayaan, ideologi, dan agama sebuah negara. Pemilahan hak ini sangat penting dalam memberikan perspektif HAM internasional yang bersifat lokal. Kepentingan yang penulis maksud adalah terkait dengan perlindungan HAM itu sendiri. Jika pengaturan HAM bersifat terlalu universal dan sulit diterima oleh golongan tertentu, maka perlindungan HAM akan kehilangan maknanya dan cenderung bersifat protokoler, politis, elitis, dan rigid. Alasan perancang ICCPR memasukkan pasal 4 tentang pengecualian pemenuhan kewajiban ICCPR dalam kondisi public emergency adalah advokasi agar negara-negara di dunia terdorong untuk meratifikasi atau mengaksesi konvensi tersebut. Jika pandangan sarjana Barat itu diikuti dalam ICCPR secara absolut, maka akan terjadi kekacauan politik di arena internasional.
1. Hak Kebebasan Berekspresi di Singapura
Sarjana ASEAN yang senada dengan pendapat di atas, selain Kausikan adalah Li-ann Thio. Li-ann berpendapat bahwa pendapat sarjana Barat sangat kental dengan motif politik yang bertujuan untuk menekan negara-negara Asia dan ASEAN pada khususnya sehingga HAM tidak bertujuan untuk melindungi hak dasar manusia tapi digunakan sebagai senjata politik. Golongan ini, menurut Li-ann Thio adalah universalist pretention. Berkaitan dengan hak kebebasan berekspresi, Kausikan menjelaskan contoh kasus Dr.Lingle. Dalam kasus Dr Lingle, Amerika Serikat menuntut agar Singapura memberikan imunitas kepada warga negara Amerika Serikat di Singapura dari tindakan penyidikan atas kemungkinan contempt of court dan criminal defamation sistem peradilan Singapura. Argumen Amerika Serikat ini didasarkan pada pendapat bahwa perlindungan hak kebebasan berekspresi merupakan nilai HAM universal dan Singapura melanggar nilai tersebut. Kausikan berpendapat bahwa tidak mungkin Singapura mengundangkan dua hukum yang berbeda, di mana yang satunya mengikat warga negara Singapura dan yang lainnya mengikat warga negara non-Singapura atau Amerika Serikat. Kausikan juga berpendapat bahwa jika hal tersebut dilakukan Singapura maka mereka diskriminatif dalam perlakuan terhadap warga negara sendiri dan orang asing. Selain itu, tidak ada satupun negara di dunia yang bisa secara legal mendiskriminasi hak dari warga negaranya dengan warga negara lain.
2. Hak Kebebasan Berekspresi di Indonesia
Dalam konteks Indonesia, menurut hemat penulis, kebebasan berekspresi malah digunakan sebagai sarana mencari uang dan kekuasaan. Sudah menjadi rahasia umum, dalam kegiatan pers, banyak wartawan yang meminta atau bahkan memeras public figure atau institusi tertentu untuk membayar sejumlah uang agar editorial tidak memasukkan informasi yang menjelekkan orang ataupun institusi tersebut. Selain itu, dalam konteks pemilu, banyak jurnalis ataupun wartawan yang meliput profil seorang calon legislatif maupun calon eksekutif (gubernur, walikota, dan kepala camat) sebagai “pesanan” dari calon bersangkutan. Profil tersebut cenderung bias karena jurnalis yang menulis atau melaporkannya diberikan insentif tertentu. Hal ini gagal diakomodasi oleh Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor. 40 tahun 1999 tentang Pers.
Kasus lain yang menjadi permasalahan kronis hak kebebasan berekspresi adalah kasus Ahmadiyah, dimana pers digunakan sebagai media untuk mendiskriminasi dan memicu ketegangan antara umat Islam dengan penduduk minoritas Ahmadiyah. Hal ini dilakukan secara sistemik dan birokratis oleh penguasa dengan dikeluarkannya SKB yang melarang kegiatan ibadah maupun ritual keagamaan Ahmadiyah. Kasus semacam ini tidak bisa ditangani oleh ICCPR dan merupakan salah satu kelemahan utama ICCPR sehingga negara anggota bisa menyalahgunakan kekuasaan untuk menindas rakyat kecil dengan menggunakan media pers.
V. Kesimpulan
HAM merupakan hak yang sangat mendasar sehingga semua negara seharusnya sepaham dalam hal pengaturannya. Namun, diversitas budaya juga merupakan sebuah realita dan diversitas budaya mempengaruhi tingkatan perlindungan HAM yang diberikan masing-masing negara. Dalam konteks hak kebebasan berekspresi, penulis, berpendapat bahwa pasal 19 ICCPR masih perlu khasanah nilai lokal negara-negara anggota. Pembelajaran dari kasus Singapura dan Indonesia menunjukkan dua kasus ekstrem kelemahan ICCPR, dimana pada kasus Singapura kebebasan pers begitu dikekang sehingga muncul pendapat bahwa pemimpin Singapura seorang diktator, sementara itu, pers di Indonesia dipandang begitu liar dan tidak terkendali sehingga fungsi pers tidak sebagaimana yang dimaksud ICCPR, namun untuk tujuan yang politis. HAM merupakan disiplin ilmu yang kental dengan aspek sosiologisnya sehingga tidak tepat jika pengaturannya bersifat universal, namun, juga tidak tepat jika negara diberikan hak mengatur tingkat perlindungan kebebasan berekspresi sendiri. ICCPR perlu menjabarkan konsep irreducible core, dalam bahasa Kausikan, sebagai konsensus negara-negara anggota ICCPR atas beberapa nilai HAM yang universal dan mengatur dengan fleksibel, namun tegas dan jelas, hak lain yang sangat berkaitan dengan nilai budaya setempat, seperti hak kebebasan berekspresi. Seperti logo HSBC, penulis akan menutup karya tulis ini dengan slogan think globally act locally.

Indonesia's Membership In ASEAN Economic Community As A Proper Economy Strategy For Its Economy Sustainable Development

2009-05-15T10:58:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background
Free trade is an inevitable phenomenon at the present moment. Since David Ricardo, an English economist, postulates the theory of comparative advantage in 19th century, there has been considerable transformation in international trade values. Comparative advantage was subsequently polished by Paul L.Samuelson, who was silently anointed as the Founding Father of free trade community in 1947 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. He once remarked that the principle of comparative advantage was the only big idea that economics had produced that was both true and surprising. Subsequently, comparative advantage was regarded as a fundamental pillar World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994. In writer’s opinion, without the theory of comparative advantage, many States will not even bother to participate in WTO. This is evidenced by the fact hitherto there is country in this world which is not affiliated with any free trade agreement, both in WTO membership or free trade agreement.
In relation to the development of international trade, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) held the 12th Summit in January 2007 which envisages the ASEAN member States commitment to establish free trade area in 2015. This commitment was manifested in ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) blueprint. ASEAN vision in that blueprint is liberalization and transformation of ASEAN market into a region with free trade movement of goods, services, investment, skilled labor, and freer flow of capital.
Indonesia, as a member State of ASEAN also undertook the commitment to liberalize its market in that Summit. The obstacles of such membership are, including but not limited to, Indonesia’s industrial competitiveness, legal framework and bureaucracy which, in writer’s view, not sufficient to compete with other States in AEC. This condition is exacerbated by global financial crisis which devastates many States economy foundation, including Indonesia. Few immediate impacts of global financial crisis are drastic rate of unemployment, decrease in tax and customs. These impacts are due to the slowing down of export as well economy.
The other problem is internal preparation, which includes mental attitude of local industries, regulations, bureaucracy and human resources. Investors are complaining on uncertain legal policies, complicated industrial and business permit as well as numerous unrecorded fees they have to pay to corrupt bureaucrats. These complaints are merely the tip of the iceberg. The crux of the problem is that Indonesia is not willing to liberalize its market by loosening its protectionist policies, particularly when it comes to industries which deal with public interests. This problem is so fundamental since it is a compromise between Indonesia economy ideology embodied in article 33 of Indonesia Constitution (UUD 1945). Indonesia economy ideology as stated in Article 33 has the nuance of socialist ideology. Socialist system focuses on government role in the management of natural resources with public interest. If Indonesia undertake the commitment in AEC 2015, many parties are concerned with the dilution of Indonesia economy ideology.
In this paper, writer will focus his analysis on free trade philosophy, practical benefits of free trade, comparison between free trade and protectionist policy as well as reformation on Government, States Corporation (BUMN) and private entities Tripartite. This analysis will address economy problems in Indonesia, particularly on the issue of how to construct sustainable economy development in Indonesia.
B. Problems to Address.

1. How can free trade address Indonesia economy dilemmas, particularly in moment global financial crisis?
2. Are Tripartite Government, BUMN and private entities still relevant with Indonesia current economy development and how to adapt into international trade trend?
3. What is the proper political, economy and legal strategy of Indonesia in AEC so that Indonesia gain proportional benefits from its participation?

C. Purposes and Benefits of Research
1. Common Purpose
This paper is aims to analyze the benefits and harms of free trade and protectionism as well the relevance of tripartite. In particular, writer will address what Indonesia political, economy and legal strategy should be in AEC.
2. Specific Purposes
Based on the above mentioned common goal, there are three specific goals of this paper:
a. To explain the concept of free trade and protectionism as well the comparison between the both.
b. To lay down Indonesia fundamental economy dilemmas as well as analyzing how to gain benefits out of free trade in addressing some economy issues, particularly in global financial crisis.
c. To explain the relevance of tripartite in international trade trend currently and how to reinforce economy competitiveness of local industries as well as reformation policies needed for tripartite.
d. To provide recommendation for Indonesia with regards to what is the proper political, economy and legal strategy in AEC.

3. Benefits of the Research
Benefits of this research are as follows:
1. To provide recommendation for Indonesia government, particularly to Trade Department in conceptualizing the political, economy and legal strategy in AEC.
2. To provide research materials for academicians and common folks concerning the issue of free trade, its benefits and how to utilize it in times of global financial crisis.

CHAPTER II
RELATED LITERATURES
Writer uses several literatures in this paper, including:
1. Teaching materials of WTO in NYU compiled and written by J.H.H Weiler, with the title “International and Regional Trade Law: The Law of World Trade Organization, Unit I: Syntax and Grammar of International Trade Law.”
This journal comprehensively describes the historical perspective of free trade, its development, its philosophy and comparative advantage concept as well the proponent and opponent’s arguments on free trade concept. Comparative advantage theory underpins the economic case for free trade. Comparative advantage states that how countries can gain from trading with each other even if one of them is more efficient (it has an absolute advantage) in every sort of economic activity. Comparative advantage is about identifying which activities a country (or firm or individual) is most efficient at doing.
Moreover, this journal also describes the stage of economic integration, which consists of free trade, a customs union, a common market, an economic union and complete economic integration. In a free-trade area, tariffs (and quantitative restrictions) between the participating countries are abolished, but each country retains its own tariffs against nonmembers. Establishing a customs union involves, besides the suppression of discrimination in the field of commodity movements within the union, the equalization of tariffs in trade with nonmember countries. A higher form of economic integration is attained in a common market, where mot only trade restrictions but also restrictions on factor movements are abolished. An economic union, as distinct from a common market, combines the suppression of restrictions on commodity and factor movements with some degree of harmonization of national economic policies, in order to remove discrimination that was due to disparities in these policies. Finally, total economic integration presupposes the unification of monetary, fiscal, social, and countercyclical policies and requires the setting-up of a supra-national authority whose decisions are binding for the member states.
2. Jeff Vaux’s journal titled “The Case Against Free Trade.”
This journal describes in general arguments of opponent of free trade. The central of the argument is that free trade assumes the existence of equal playing field, while in reality there is no such equal playing field. First, each country has different market values and standards, hence free trace cannot be applied universally. Second, free trade causes children exploitation as workers in many unsafe factories.
3. David Vogel’s journal titled “The Case for Free Trade.”
This journal describes arguments of proponent of free trade, whose central argument is that free trade is a wealth creation concept. It is capable of escalating efficiency and eventually States’ economy.
4. Declan Hayes’s book titled “The Deregulation and Revitalization of Japanese Economy.”
This book describes Japanese economy policies liberalizing its market in 1990s, hence escalating its market efficiency. Hayes describes how inefficient Japanese market was in the past due to long chain of food distribution from producers to consumers. Hayes also came into conclusion because his observation tells him that the Japanese manage their farms individually, hence rice production for example is quantitatively small and that is a spendthrift. When Japan liberalized its market, the concept of economic of scale drastically alters the efficiency by enlarging the production capacity in one period of harvesting rice.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this research is a literature methodology. This type of research in its nature is a descriptive research, in its structure a prescriptive research, in its purpose a problem solution, in its implementation a problem focused research, and in its discipline a mono-disciplinary research.
The types of data used are secondary, consisting of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials, as follows:
a. Primary legal materials, specifically legal documents which are legally binding such as valid and applicable Indonesian laws and international legal instruments;
b. Secondary legal materials, that is, legal documents relevant and related to primary sources to facilitate the analysis, understanding and elaborating primary legal materials, such as theories advanced by scholars, or contained in books, the internet, scientific articles, newspapers, and journals;
c. Tertiary legal materials, or legal documents that provide further clarification, accounts and explanations on primary and secondary legal sources, such as encyclopedias or dictionaries.
As for data collection tools, in addition to the study of the available documents, the researcher interviewed resource relevant scholars to enrich the data gathered. The methodology in data analyses uses a qualitative analysis approach, resulting in a report that is analytical in nature.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
A. Free Trade Concept
Free Trade is an interchange of commodities across political boundaries without restrictions such as tariffs, quotas, or foreign exchange controls. This economic policy contrasts with protectionist policies which use trade restrictions to protect or stimulate domestic industries. The most fundamental pillar of free trade is the concept of comparative advantage which is introduced by David Ricardo (subsequently reinforced by Paul L. Samuelson). In writer’s opinion, this theory allures many States to participate in WTO, though there are some arguments against free trade.
1. Comparative Advantage

This theory shows how countries can gain from trading with each other even if one of them is more efficient (it has an absolute advantage) in every sort of economic activity. Comparative advantage is about identifying which activities a country (or firm or individual) is most efficient at doing. To see how this theory works imagine two countries, A and B. Each country has 1,000 workers and can make two goods, computers and cars. A’s economy is far more productive than B’s. To make a car, A needs two workers, compared with B’s four. To make a computer, A uses 10 workers, compared with B’s 100. If there is no trade, and in each country half the workers are in each industry, A produces 250 cars and 50 computers and B produces 125 cars and 5 computers. What if the two countries specialise? Although A makes both cars and computers more efficiently than B (it has an absolute advantage), it has a bigger edge in computer making. So it now devotes most of its resources to that industry, employing 700 workers to make computers and only 300 to make cars. This raises computer output to 70 and cuts car reduction to 150. B switches entirely to cars, turning out 250. World output of both goods has risen. Both countries can consume more of both if they trade, but at what price? Neither will want to import what it could make more cheaply at home. So A will want at least 5 cars per computer, and B will not give up more than 25 cars per computer. Suppose the terms of trade are fixed at 12 cars per computer and 120 cars are exchanged for 10 computers. Then A ends up with 270 cars and 60 computers, and B with 130 cars and 10 computers. Both are better off than they would be if they did not trade. This is true even though A has an absolute advantage in making both computers and cars. The reason is that each country has a different comparative advantage. A’s edge is greater in computers than in cars. B, although a costlier producer in both industries, is a less expensive maker of cars. If each country specialises in products in which it has a comparative advantage, both will gain from trade.
In essence, the theory of comparative advantage says that it pays countries to trade because they are different. It is impossible for a country to have no comparative advantage in anything. It may be the least efficient at everything, but it will still have a comparative advantage in the industry in which it is relatively least bad.

2. Stages of Economic Integration

In everyday usage the word “integration” denotes the bringing together of parts into a whole. In the economic literature the term “economic integration” does not have such a clear cut meaning. In interpreting this meaning, Weiler puts great focus on the distinction between integration and cooperation. The difference is qualitative as well as quantitative. Whereas cooperation includes actions aimed at lessening discrimination, the process of economic integration comprises measures that entail the suppression of some forms of discrimination. For example, international agreements on trade policies belong to the area of international cooperation, while the removal of trade barriers is an act of economic integration. Distinguishing between cooperation and integration, “writers” put the main characteristics of the latter, the abolition of discrimination within an area, into clearer focus and give the concept definite meaning without unnecessarily diluting it by the inclusion of diverse actions in the field of international cooperation
Economic integration, as defined here, can take several forms that represent varying degrees of integration. These are a free-trade area, a customs union, a common market, an economic union, and complete economic integration. In a free-trade area, tariffs (and quantitative restrictions) between the participating countries are abolished, but each country retains its own tariffs against nonmembers. Free trade flaw is that it may cause trade distortion. Therefore the idea of establishing a customs union is needed. Establishing a customs union involves, besides the suppression of discrimination in the field of commodity movements within the union, the equalization of tariffs in trade with nonmember countries. A higher form of economic integration is attained in a common market, where mot only trade restrictions but also restrictions on factor movements are abolished. An economic union, as distinct from a common market, combines the suppression of restrictions on commodity and factor movements with some degree of harmonization of national economic policies, in order to remove discrimination that was due to disparities in these policies. Finally, total economic integration presupposes the unification of monetary, fiscal, social, and countercyclical policies and requires the setting-up of a supra-national authority whose decisions are binding for the member states.
B. Arguments of Proponent and Opponent of Free Trade
1. Argument of Proponent of Free Trade
One of the most notable scholars who adhere to free trade concept is David Vogel. First, as explained in the previous paragraph, every State participating in free trade will absolutely gain benefits from such activity. The proponent of free trade promises that a State joining free trade will definitely be richer, though the proponent does not promise such State to be rich.
Second, States joining free trade will be more efficient in its course of production. A tariff is essentially a tax on consumption. It raises the prices of imported goods and services. When tariffs are reduced or eliminated, consumers benefit by being able to purchase goods produced in other countries more cheaply. This in turn forces domestic producers to be more efficient in order to remain competitive again benefiting consumers. Consider how inferior American cars would now be if the American automobile industry had not been forced to compete with the less expensive, better quality cars made in Japan during the 1970s. How much poorer Japanese consumers would be if Japan tried to be self-sufficient in food, instead of exporting automobiles and electronics to the United States and importing fruits and vegetables grown on more efficient American farms?
Trade restrictions impose considerable costs on consumers. In 1990 U.S. tariffs and other import restrictions cost American consumers about $70 billion by adding to the price of imported goods. Since 1990 the United States has entered into trade agreements that have substantially lowered the costs of many imported products. The increase in foreign competition in turn has made it more difficult for American firms to raise their prices, thus helping reduce inflation. By contrast, in 2000 food prices were 34 percent higher in the European Union (EU) and 134 percent higher in Japan than in the United States largely because the EU and Japan had higher tariffs on imported food.
In addition, trade makes it possible for businesses to choose from a wider variety of inputs (materials used to make goods) than would be possible if they relied solely on domestic suppliers. The freedom of firms to choose from an array of inputs improves efficiency, promotes innovation in technology and management, encourages the transfer of technology, and otherwise enhances the growth of productivity.
The benefits of free trade can be seen clearly in the case of the United States. In recent decades, the United States has become increasingly integrated into the global economy. As both U.S. and foreign trade barriers have declined, exports and imports have grown substantially. Heritage Foundation Fellow Daniel Mitchell argued this persuasively in The American Enterprise in 2000. From 1980 to 1998, U.S. exports increased from $272 billion to $934 billion, Mitchell argued, while imports grew from $292 billion to $1,100 billion. During the 1990s, a period when U.S. links with the global economy were more extensive than ever before, the United States had among the fastest growth rates of any major industrial nation.
The positive effects of trade on economic growth are confirmed by numerous studies. According to one study reported on by Mitchell, during the 1970s and 1980s, developing open economies (those with relatively free trade), such as Chile and South Korea, grew on average by 4.5 percent, while closed economies (those with restrictive trade policies), such as India and Cuba, grew by only 0.7 percent. A statistical study of 70 nations found that a 10 percent increase in tariffs on capital goods (goods that are used in the production of other goods) would cause the gross domestic product (GDP; the total value of all goods and services produced within a country) to grow by 0.2 percent less each year. An analysis of 93 countries revealed a close link between open economies and rates of productivity. Another statistical study, based on 123 nations, found that every percentage-point increase in total imports and exports leads to a 0.34 percent increase in per capita income (income per person). Over a period of years, small differences in economic growth such as these have a large impact on living standards.
The last three decades have seen a significant improvement in living standards for hundreds of millions of people. Without exception, the countries in which living standards have improved most rapidly have substantially reduced trade barriers and increased their exports. Since 1970 Asia’s “four little tigers”, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, have been transformed from impoverished areas into some of the world’s richest areas. Many of their citizens now enjoy living standards comparable to those of the United States and Europe. Not coincidentally, these four entities are among the 20 largest traders in the world
The positive impact of international trade on economic growth can be dramatically seen in China. From 1978 to 1998, China’s total imports and exports grew from $21 billion to $324 billion. During this same period, the country’s per capita income increased by more than 8 percent per year, helping raise some 200 million people out of absolute poverty. By contrast, India’s economic growth has been significantly reduced by the persistence of high tariffs and restrictions on foreign investment. Africa, the only continent whose citizens have experienced an absolute decline in living standards in recent decades, is also the region least involved in international trade. Economists point to many causes for Africa’s relatively poor economic growth, such as inadequate infrastructure, government corruption, and low levels of education, but most agree that international trade is vital to turning around the economic decline.
2. Argument of Opponent of Free Trade
One of the most notable scholars who disprove free trade concept is Jeff Faux. The central of this argument is that free trade will only benefit States assuming that there is an equal playing field. In reality, there is no such equal playing field.
First, different nations have different values. Regulating trade helps protect the standards that we set in our own domestic markets. For example, in order to protect public health, the United States government requires that food sold in our stores be fresh and clean, that toys be safe, and that products only be made in factories that do not pollute the environment. To protect workers from being exploited by business, the government sets minimum wages, defends the right of employees to bargain collectively through unions, and prohibits people from employing young children. To protect business, the government enforces commercial contracts and protects corporate trademarks and patents. This balance of protections for consumers, workers, and business has helped make America the world’s most successful economy.
Meeting labor and environmental standards often adds to the cost of production. Therefore, if businesses could lower their costs by not meeting the standards, they might make more profit and lower the price of their products. Yet most people in the United States believe it is worth protecting workers and our air and water, even if that makes goods and services produced in America more expensive. However consumers are economics creatures, therefore purchasing the least expensive items. This causes many products generated in U.S. with high standard of environmental and human rights protection, which are expensive, lose market. Consequently, many of US workers lose their jobs.
However, different nations have different values. Governments in many countries, especially those that are not democracies, often do not protect workers or the environment. The prices of goods imported from such nations will tend to be cheaper than goods produced in the United States. In that case, consumers who usually look for the lowest prices will buy foreign goods in preference to products made in the United States. As a result, U.S. workers will lose their jobs.
This is not a problem in markets for imports that the United States cannot produce much of here, such as bananas, coffee, or tea. It does become important for imported goods that compete against goods made in America, such as automobiles, clothing, or cameras. Placing tariffs on such imports adds to their price, thus making it easier for goods produced under U.S. standards to compete with imports.
Recent treaties signed by the U.S. government, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, have encouraged this shift of production from the United States to areas of the world with low standards. These include the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Mexico and Canada and the treaty establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) with 135 different nations.
These treaties are often called free trade agreements because the nations that signed them agree to reduce tariffs and quotas. Unfortunately, they also create new, unequal standards for the global economy by protecting business but not labor or the environment. For example, the WTO forbids a citizen of Mexico to copy a compact disc made in the United States without paying a fee to the U.S. Company that sells the compact disc. However, the WTO allows a U.S. company in Mexico to make compact discs in ways that pollute the air and water and treat workers unfairly.

Second, free trade has also encouraged the use of child labor. The International Labor Organization (ILO), an agency of the United Nations (UN), estimated in 1998 that there were at least 250 million children from the ages of 5 and 14 working for wages. Researchers at the University of Veracruz in Mexico recently reported that child workers there are exposed to dangerous chemicals, carry heavy loads, and do not get enough nutritious food to eat.
There are about two million child workers in Brazil. Many work 10 hours a day producing sisal for rugs, rope, and handbags sold in the United States. According to a report in 2000 in the Washington Post, “The sharp blades and processing machines used in the fields have left many children and their parents with punctured eyeballs, missing fingers and amputated arms.”
C. Tripartite Government, BUMN and Private Entities

1. Does Free Trade Contradict the Principle Embodied in Article 33(2) and (3) of UUD 1945?
Indonesia economy ideology is cooperation ideology. The main feature of this ideology is that important natural resources which concern public interest should be regulated and managed by the government. Two of the paragraphs within Article 33 UUD 1945 is the basis for the establishment of BUMN such Water Corporation (PAM), Electrical Corporation (PLN), and Oil and Gas Corporation (PERTAMINA).
Writer opines that in the early days of Indonesia’s independence, two of these paragraphs serve very important function of protecting Indonesia’s interests since as a newly independent State, Indonesia does not have proper and adequate economy structure. Every available natural resource must be secured as soon as possible before any private corporation took over the proprietorship. Therefore, many private corporations were nationalized, those include Dutch’s owned corporations which owned important natural resources (water, electricity and oil and gas). Control over these natural resources are important in those early days as Indonesia did not possess anything at hand, including reserve, fiscal, tax, national reserve for foods, oil and gas to run the economy of the country. At the present moment, circumstances have changed, it is reasonable that Indonesia has sufficient reserves in place after 63 years of independence. In addition, economy structure is sufficiently developed, unlike the early days of independence. Therefore, the principle contained in Article 33 (2) and (3) UUD 1945 should be compromised so that Indonesia is capable of adapting itself into international trend of economy and trade.
Many parties disprove liberalization of Indonesia’s market since it is against the economy principle embodied in Article 33 (2) and (3) UUD 1945. Writer differs on this point. If careful examination is conducted upon Indonesia’s constitution, it actually implies market liberalization in the context of free trade. Article 34 UUD 1945 stipulates “National economy is instituted with… efficiency, fairness…independence and self reliance.” The words “efficiency” and “self reliance” are two key words for concluding that Indonesia’s constitution implies market liberalization. The reason why Article 33 (2) and (3) implying protectionism and Article 33 (4) implying market liberalization were drafted that way is due to chronological structure. UUD 1945 understands that Indonesia needed protectionism in the early days since society economy needs were highly dependent on government’s management on natural resources. Only in the year of 2002 when economy necessity has shifted that the fourth paragraph was included in the fourth amendment of UUD 1945. In 2000, economy values have changed, hence market liberalization was included as one of the most fundamental pillars in Article 33 UUD 1945.
2. “Spoiled” BUMN
BUMN is a corporation which is wholly or partially owned by State by means of direct investment from separated national budget. This definition connotes the interest of State in the business course of BUMN. Logical consequence of this connotation is numerous government interventions in business decisions BUMN made, while in reality BUMN assumes a legal status under Indonesia law (Limited Liability Corporation). Some argue that BUMN’s primary function should be administering public interest, while benefits can be gained once the primary function is successfully accomplished and in the event that benefits purpose does not defeat the primary function. In writer’s view, this argument is not properly established from two observational standpoints, legalist and economy wise.
First, article 2 (1) Law Concerning BUMN which regulates the purpose of BUMN establishment prioritizes benefits purpose (b) above public interest (c). This is evidenced by the structure of the law which places b first before c.
Second, a benefit is the key feature of administering public interest so that public interest is well served. Benefits dictate efficiency and competition. Since corporations are economic creatures, which aim for benefits, they will employ economic principles and calculations. Economic principle advocates efficiency and competition which to produce the best and cheapest products so that those corporations can win competition and gain benefits. To achieve this, corporations will optimize all factors of productions, including raw materials, marketing, production process and transportation cost, in the most efficient fashion. Natural resources such as gas, oil, water and mining materials are not wasted because those corporations have to compete against other corporations. These corporations tend to prioritize consumers’ satisfaction as consumers are the relevant parties in benefits calculation.
The case study for the above proposition is TOTAL, a water company in France. Subsequent to France’s privatization on its water, TOTAL Company took over France’s government management and ownership on water. TOTAL employed very sophisticated technology so that the water produced has even higher standard than that imposed by World Health Organization (WHO). Although there are some complaints to the rather expensive price of the water, writer opines that this problem can be addressed by government intervention. For instance, market diversification, where TOTAL is obliged to produce water with less quality and cheaper than that of previous one. This policy is also consistent with corporations’ principle which is to identify and satisfy the market. In reality, consumers of cheap and less good water are much more in quantity than those consumers of expensive of good water. TOTAL will still gain a big market share by this policy. In short, market liberalization does not automatically bring in all harms which outweigh the benefits of liberalization.
Several reasons why writer asserts that BUMN are “spoiled”:
• Government protects BUMN by means of regulation. The most obvious example is the practice of government guarantee whereby State national budget (APBN) is used to guarantee loans of BUMN from other private entities. Consequently, large portion of the loans are inefficiently utilized. It is a common secret that BUMN is not effective and efficient. This is evidenced by numerous media publications on imprudent PERTAMINA business decisions, corruption cases in PERTAMINA, fraudulent large crude oil tender and ineffective oil distribution from PERTAMINA which has recently caused public unrest for oil rarity.
• Government grants considerable tax incentives to BUMN. In the recent global crisis phenomenon, government granted Rp 12.5 trillion to BUMN.
• BUMN’s assets cannot be confiscated for purpose of indemnity which is caused of breach of contract or bankruptcy proceedings. Consequently, when BUMN fails to pay its debt or obligation to third parties, there is no available legal channel for those parties to claim for indemnity or damage.

3. Harmful Impacts of Government Policies “Spoiling” BUMN
The immediate harmful impact of government protectionist policies is that no investors would want to invest his capital in industrial sectors which concern public interest; hence there is no transfer of technology and know-how. Industries which concern public interest such as oil, gas and electricity are typical industries craving for technologies since its production efficiency highly depends on the quality of technology. For instance, the efficiency of oil extraction depends on how much oil can be extracted in a short length of time and how fast and well can raw oils be transformed into ready-to-use oil. Government protectionist policies will kill investments enthusiasm, particularly during global financial crisis. This is unwise since Indonesia lacks capital and technology. In addition, it is of common knowledge among businessmen that investment in Indonesia is not safe due to uncertain legal policies and protectionist attitude towards local industries.
D. Benefits of Indonesia’s Participation in AEC, Particularly in Global Financial Crisis
In global financial crisis, economy activities generally slow down. This instigates low investment interest drastically. Numerous world class corporations such as Nike, Toyota and Starbucks companies have to shut down many factories in other countries. Writer opines that Indonesia’s participation in AEC is one the answers of economic crisis it is facing, especially in times of global financial crisis. In this part of paper, writer will explain his opinion and analysis on AEC policies, benefits of AEC’s membership and the harms of Indonesia’s position not participating in AEC.
1. AEC Policies
AEC policies are basically consistent with WTO discipline. The political and legalist rationale for this assertion is that all member States of ASEAN are member States of WTO; therefore if AEC policies are not consistent with WTO discipline, all ASEAN member States can be sued before Dispute Settlement Unite in WTO for their breach of international agreement.
AEC blueprint paragraph 8 stipulates that the AEC envisages the following key characteristics: (a) single market and production base, (b) a highly competitive economic region, (c) a region of equitable economic development, and (d) a region fully integrated into the global economy. These characteristics are inter-related and mutually reinforcing. Four of these integration processes in ASEAN are similar to those of WTO discipline. For instance, in point (a), paragraph of the blueprint explains further that the five primary elements of point (a) single market and production base are: (1) free flow of goods, (2) free flow of service, (3) freer flow of capital, (4) free flow of investment, (5) free flow of skilled labor. Concrete policy each member State has to take in realizing these five elements are elimination of trade restrictions, devising Rules of Origin, trade facilitation, customs integration and establishment of ASEAN Single Window.
2. Concerns on Harmful Impacts of Free Trade to Indonesia
Many parties are concerned with Indonesia’s lack to participate in AEC since Indonesia is simply not mature enough. Those lacks are: (1) uncertain legal policies, (2) competitiveness of local industries, (3) human resources readiness, and (4) bureaucracy maturity, particularly its corrupt behavior in permit application and illegal taxation. Professor Hikmahanto Juwana expressed that if Indonesia joins AEC, all big companies will allocate their factories in other countries such as Vietnam whose policies are very friendly to investors. Big companies used to establish factories in Indonesia because the factor of production (raw materials) can only be found or the cheapest in Indonesia, even when they are not content with Indonesia’s government policies. In addition, Indonesia is a big market for selling their products. If Indonesia liberalize its market, all these companies can still enjoy all the above mentioned benefits even if they allocate all their factories in Vietnam since free trade commitment obliges Indonesia to eliminate all trade restrictions. The impacts of these big companies shifting their course of production to Vietnam are huge rate of unemployment, the bankruptcy of many “related” industrial sectors, such as transportation for workers, foods and accommodation in the area around the factories. The other concern is that local industries which are in direct competition with these big companies will not be able to survive the competition against those big companies since they have much better technology and human resources.
In addition, Indonesia does not have skilled and trained scholars in the field of free trade or WTO discipline, which means that where dispute arises in AEC DSU, Indonesia will most likely lose. This is not unprecedented and in fact Indonesia has experienced “nightmare” for international dispute such as Sipadan and Ligitan dispute before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ in that case unequivocally voted 14 to 1 for Malaysia and consequently Indonesia lost two of its islands. Worst of all, Indonesia hired American and French lawyers with millions of US dollars fee.
Moreover, permit application in Indonesia is infamous for its extremely complicated procedures. Although article 1 (1) Indonesia Laws No.25 year 2007 concerning Investment has mandated one stop service of business permit institution, hitherto the concept has not been implemented comprehensively.
3. Benefits of Indonesia’s Participation in AEC
Free trade concept, similar to EU customs union, is to consolidate economy power within the region. This means that States with disadvantaged economy power will be enhanced by powerful States within the free trade institution. This is evidence by strong motivation driving Eastern European States like Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey to join EU. If Indonesia participates in AEC, Indonesia’s economy power will also be enhanced by more economically powerful States such as Singapore, the Philippines and Malaysia. Concrete example of this assertion is within the context of tariff concession negotiation and policy making in WTO against non-member States of AEC. The primary reason why US and EU are two of the States benefiting the most from WTO is because they have the strongest bargaining power against all States in the world. Uruguay Round and Doha Round are the most obvious experiment ground for this huge bargaining power. During the negotiation, States will strive to reduce tariffs on exported products where those States have absolute advantage. On the contrary, State will strive to maintain or even increase tariffs of imported products where they do not have absolute advantage. With such infinitely small economy power, Indonesia absolutely does not have any bargaining power against those economically powerful States to propose, let alone dictate its desire on certain tariffs. If Indonesia joins AEC, hence, AEC will represent the interest of Indonesia during the negotiation in WTO as one economy entity. This will definitely enlarges Indonesia’s bargaining power.
In addition, if Indonesia refuses to participate in AEC, other AEC members will most likely have sentiments against Indonesia. In business, the principle of “If you are not my ally, then you are my foe” dominates the market. If Indonesia is not an ally to ASEAN members, it must be foe for AEC members. This explanation is best described by the following analogy. Hypothetically, Indonesia is the main or sole producer of palm oil and Malaysia and the Philippines are the only market for palm oil products. Prior to establishment of AEC, Malaysia imposes 10% tariff on palm oil products, while the Philippines imposes 20%. Indonesia approaches the Philippines and negotiates for 15 % tariff for palm oil. If the Philippines reject this proposal, Indonesia can easily sell the whole products to Malaysia which offer better tariff. Imagine if both Malaysia and the Philippines belong to one economy blog. Both of them will dictate 20% tariff and Indonesia cannot do anything about such policy since palm oil market is only in Malaysia and the Philippines. If Indonesia does not want to sell these products with 20% tariff, then those products will rot and go wasteful.
E. An Analysis to GATT and WTO Principle to Protect Indonesia Agriculture Interest
Indonesia is well known as agricultural country, whose economy power revolves around agricultural activities. Writer opines that there are legal arguments Indonesia can employ to protect its agricultural interest if Indonesia participates in AEC. Since AEC has to adopt WTO principle consistently, analysis to WTO and GATT principle is relevant to analysis of AEC principle. In a nutshell, the argument is that WTO is very lenient in agricultural policy compliance with GATT.
First, article 3 of Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures stipulates that “Except as provided in the Agreement on Agriculture, the following subsidies, within the meaning of Article 1, shall be prohibited.” This provision indicates privilege for agricultural industry where a specific convention is drafted to protect agriculture interest of WTO member States.
Second, Article XXXVI GATT stipulates that States which are very dependent on agriculture industries are permitted to employ protectionist measures to stabilize and improve world trade condition, including the said State agriculture sustainability.

CHAPTER V
CLOSING

Conclusion and Recommentation

From the above explanation, there are several conclusions established:
1. Comparative advantage is the most fundamental pillar of WTO and free trade arrangements in general. This concept is postulated by David Ricardo, which is subsequently reinforced by Paul L. Samuelson, the noble prize winner for economy category in 1970 and the greatest economist in the 20th century. Both economists agree that theory of comparative advantage says that it pays countries to trade because they are different. It is impossible for a country to have no comparative advantage in anything. It may be the least efficient at everything, but it will still have a comparative advantage in the industry in which it is relatively least bad. Particularly in global financial crisis where investors are very reluctant to conduct investments (they have to close down many factories in fact), Indonesia should liberalize its market to seduce new and fresh investments. Indonesia core economic problem is the lack of capital, technology and know, all of which are the advantage gained from liberalizing its market.
2. Tripartite concept is protectionist in nature; hence it is not relevant any longer with Indonesia’s economic needs at the present date. Most importantly, protectionist policies are repugnant to many investors. Most parties’ concern on how liberalization of market is not consistent with economy ideology envisaged in Article 33 (2) and (3) UUD 1945 is also improper since Article 33 (4) UUD 1945 as the result of 2002 amendment advocates free trade as the relevant economy policies nowadays.
3. Indonesia needs to strategize its political, economy and legal position with regards to AEC membership. First, Indonesia needs to make a position joining AEC. Indonesia needs to conduct thorough reformation on human resources trained in free trade and WTO discipline. Second, Indonesia has to consider its revoking protectionist measures for BUMN and consider privatization for those sectors with minimum regulation to protect public interest.

Common, but Differentiated Responsibiliy in the Future Climate Change Regime : The Proposed Annex C and Annex C on Mitigation Fund as the Safeguard to

2009-05-15T10:56:00.000-07:00

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Background Of The Paper
The world has witnessed those of the worst natural disasters in recent decade: Tsunami (Aceh), Earthquake (Kobe) and Hurricane Katrina (New Orleans). Scientists have linked the increasing number of these disasters, such as hurricane, to global warming. During the observation, it was concluded in figure 1 and 2 the close link between the increase of ocean temperature with hurricane intensity and scale of destruction. In addition, number of heat-waves is projected to increase. The incidence of floods is expected to increase due an increase in the frequency of heavy precipitation events and changes in such major meteorological phenomena as El Nino are likely to increase the frequency and severity of droughts and floods. The most feared fact is that global warming can reach one point of irreversible impact.
This urges international community to take immediate actions to reduce the already severe impact of global warming or at the very least halt its destruction. The milestone of international commitment in reducing carbon emission was created at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, also commonly known as Earth Summit. The Summit was the initial point of the creation of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The Conference of the Parties subsequently gave birth to Kyoto Protocol, which was agreed on 11 December 1997 at the third Conference of the Parties. However, this protocol is toothless in its implementation. While it imposes the utopian idea of reducing carbon emission, it was also driven by political motives and tension. This is particularly true for United States’ failure to ratify the Kyoto protocol and China’s and India’s rejection to be included into Annex B of the Protocol as States committing to reduce its carbon emission. United States argued that it is unfair to expect it to reduce its carbon emission and jeopardize its economic growth while the rapid-developing States like China and India, which emit significant amount of carbon emission, do not have obligation to participate in the carbon emission reduction. China and India argued that United States has emitted carbon emission for several hundred years since industrial revolution while China and India have just started to excel in their economic growth for few years consequently emitting more carbon emission, yet they have to take equal responsibility to United States to reduce carbon emission
One of the novel idea proposed is the inclusion of the Annex C and annex C on mitigation fund, which will create a new list of States committing to reduce carbon emission with different level of commitment. The reasons why the inclusion of this list will bring it huge benefit for climate change: (1). China and India will be encouraged to commit themselves in reducing the carbon emission since the proposed annex C and annex C on mitigation fund provides different level of commitment, transfer of technology and mitigation fund; (2). United States’ main concern not ratifying Kyoto Protocol will be accomodated by emission reduction commitment taken by China and India. Furthermore, United States will be able to utilize Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to comply with its commitment under the Kyoto Protocol consequently pay far less than it should if it reduces carbon emission in its own territory
Moreover, the proposed inclusion of Annex C and Annex C on mitigation fund will then create a legal platform for States not listed in Annex B to participate in reducing carbon emission. United States as the 25% carbon emitter, as well as China and India will be encouraged to take part in carbon emission reduction. Under this scenario, the sustainable development will be safeguarded, principle of equity will be upheld. Conference of Parties in UNFCCC can focus more on the transfer of technology and mitigation fund, than to worry about the Kyoto Protocol failure to reduce carbon emission.
This paper will analyze Annex C and the Annex C Mitigation Fund, examines possible amendments to Kyoto Protocol from academic perspective and how it will encourage major carbon emitter States to take commitment in reducing emission. Furthermore, it will discuss how Indonesia can benefit from the inclusion of Annex C and Annex C on mitigation fund. In philosophical level, this paper will explain the integration of economy and ecology as the foundation stone of sustainable development concept and how economy and ecology can work as harmonious law.

B. Problems To Be Discussed
1. What are the underlying reasons of Kyoto Protocol’s failure to reduce carbon emission?
2. How can the proposed Annex C and Annex C on mitigation fund on Kyoto protocol cope with this failure?
3. How can Indonesia benefit from the inclusion of Annex C and annex C on mitigation fund?
C. Purposes and Benefits of the Research
1. General Purpose
The research is conducted to study the mechanism of carbon emission reduction under Kyoto Protocol, specifically regarding the failure on the current system to motivate political willingness in the global effort to reduce emission. The more specific focus is to introduce and analyze the proposed inclusion of annex C and annex C on mitigation fund in Kyoto Protocol and how it will effectively encourage major carbon emitter States to take commitment in reducing emission.
2. Specific purposes
There are three purposes extracted from the abovementioned general purpose, namely:
a. To elaborate the principle of common, but differentiated responsibility (CDBR) in the framework of sustainable development and its philosophical approach to reducing carbon emission;
b. To determine the obstacles of global effort to reduce carbon emission;
c. To introduce and analyze the proposed inclusion of annex C and annex C on mitigation fund as the most feasible solution to cope with such obstacles.
3. Benefits of the Research
The benefits of the research are:
a. To inform the public, generally, and academician, specifically, as to the imminent threat of global warming and urgent actions States in the world need to take to deal with it
b. To provide insight for Indonesia government with regards to the benefits it seeks to acquire from reducing carbon emission if annex C and annex C on mitigation fund proposal is realized.

CHAPTER II
RELATED LITERATURE
The purpose of Chapter II is to introduce the general theory on sustainable development, and irreversible impact on global warming. The introduction of the theory is to explain why sustainable development must be maintained and how this principle is the philosophy underlying States’ effort to reduce carbon emission. It will also elaborate on the related principles, which are intergenerational equity and intragenerational equity.
A. Why Sustainable Development?
Sustainable development is an expression of the dual recognition that development is essential and that from all possible forms that development could only take sustainable variety is desireable. Development may be unsustainable for many reasons, such as political, social and financial; but it is the interaction between economy and ecology that defines sustainable development. That implication is that an economy which disregards and undermines the ecology on which it is ultimately based is, in fact, undermining itself, no matter how robust it appears to be at the present. The relationship between economy and ecology is at the heart of sustainable development. The present part of the paper is aimed to explain why sustainable development is the underlying concept of States’ effort to reduce carbon emission.
1. Sustainable development promotes the Integration of Ecology and Economy
The staunchest opponent and constraint of ecology preservation is economy concern. Many developed States, including United States and Australia (Australia’s policy before Kevin Rudd was elected as the new prime minister), argued that signing Kyoto Protocol and taking commitment to reduce carbon emission will restrict its economy development. Former President Clinton (United States of America) particulary said that “Signing of the Kyoto Protocol is a threat to the property rights of all Americans, especially small business owners. Many small businesses will be forced to close their doors because of higher food and fuel prices”. If developed States would argue so, let alone developing States. Developing States that are struggling to escape poverty meet the growing aspirations to their still expanding populations find the concern for ecological soundness an added constraint to what is already a Herculian task. Apparently, the solution to this complicated situation is the concept of sustainable development.
There are two basic questions to the examine the validity of sustainable development concept. First, can the market be made to value, use efficiently and conserve ecological funtions and environmental services and their interactions? The answer is yes, provided that ecology can be brought into the domain of markets and translated into physical scarcity into economic scarcity and their physical interactions into market interactions through prices.
Second, how? A fundamental condition for the efficient functioning of markets is the existence of secure, exclusive, and enforceable property rights over all resources and the goods and services they produce. What is unowned is unmarketed, what is unmarketed is unpriced, what is unpriced is mismanaged, overused, and wasted. Thus, it all boils down to the fact that many natural resources, their ecological functions and amenity services are unowned and as a consequence free rather that economic goods. To bring them into the domain of markets, it is required to establish some form of secure, exclusive and enforceable property rights over them. Once all resources are securely owned, the economy is no longer the vicious enemy of ecology but its staunch protector, who makes everyone that protects and enhances it is duly rewarded. In return, ecology performs the vital functions of ecological balances, resilience, productivity for the economy as well as generates a steady stream of amenity values that enhance the quality of life and social welfare. The parsiminonious laws of nature become part of the laws of scarcity of the economy, the economy of nature becomes the nature of economy.
The concept of sustainable development is the foundation stone of UNFCCC and subsequently Kyoto Protocol. States are increasingly aware that the harmonious development of economy and ecology is the key to motivate them to reduce carbon emission. Once development of ecology means development of economy, States will no longer hesitate to reduce their carbon emission.
2. Sustainable development promotes Intergenerational equity and Intragenerational equity
The other constraint to ecology preservation is the inequality between what the present generation has to sacrifice for next generation and what one State has to sacrifice for another State emission of carbon emission. Sustainable development also serves as the answer to this concern of equity. This part of paper will elaborate on international community’s behaviour towards the principle of intergenerational equity and intragenerational equity and how sustainable development can promote this principle.
a. Intergenerational equity
The concept of inter-generational equity has been advanced to explain the optimum basis for the relationship between one generation and the next. The theory requires each generation to use and develop its natural and cultural resources in such a manner that it can be passed on to future generations in no worse condition that it was received. Central to this idea is the need to conserve options for the future use of resources, including their quality, and that of the natural environment. This concept is endorsed by international community evidenced of the inclusion of this principle in many declarations. The generational perspective underlies references in the 1972 Stockholm Declaration to human’s responsibility to protect the environment and the earth’s natural resources. Inter-generational equity is explicitly referred to in Principle 3 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, which provides for the right to development to be fulfilled “so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations.” It is reiterated in the same terms in the 1993 Vienna Declaration on Human Rights, while Article 3(1) of the 1992 Convention on Climate Change calls for inter-generational equity to be taken into account in decisions of the parties to that convention. These international declarations indicate the importance now attached in international policy to the protection of the environment for the benefit of future generations.
Brown-Weiss argues that inter-generational equity is already part of the fabric of international law. The policy which underlies a number of global environmental treaties is the avoidance of irreversible harm, as in the Ozone Convention, THe Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on Climate Change. The phasing out of dumping at sea, particularly of radioactive waste, the elaboration of a comprehensive regime of ecosystem protection for Antartica including the prohibition on mineral-related activities and the designation of the continent as a world park, and the adoption of further controls on whaling through the International Whaling Commission and regional conventions do point to a real concern for the interests of future generations. This reflects international community behaviour to favour intergenerational equity principle.
Next, although States’ behaviour favours intergenerational equity, but question seems to arise as to why the current generation has to sacrifice its economy advancement and usage of natural resources for the next generation. This problem is avoidable by the fusion of the sustainable development principle. Sustainable development, as explained above, is capable of bringing ecology into the regime of economy. Many mechanisms are developed under Kyoto Protocol, being: Joint implementation, Clean Development Mechanism and Carbon Trading, which provides great financial reward for environmental preservation. The essential point of the theory, that human has a responsibility for the future, and that this is an inherent component of sustainable development, is incontrovertible, however it is expressed. This point is best expressed in the following question. If sustainability means a sacrifice by the current generation of poor so that the next generation of poor would have a better standard of living, where is the intergenerational equity? If on the other hand, sustainability means that future generations should be able to enjoy the same poverty as the current generation, why sustain poverty? Clearly, sustainable development is meant to benefit both the current and future generations
b. Intragenerational Equity.
Intragenerational equity means that it is important for current generations to ensure that our finite resources are spent sensibly on solving environmental problems, taking into account the relative scale of the potential impacts and the distribution of risks and benefits. In both Brundtland Report and Agenda 21 adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992, there is no doubt that redressing the imbalance wealth between the developed and developing worlds and giving priority to the needs of the poor are important policy components of sustainability. Unlike intergenerational equity, intragenerational equity addresses inequity within the existing economic system. Several substantive provisions, and the Climate Change and Biological Diversity Conventions imply that intragenerational concerns are now an element of international environmental law.
Intragenerational equity particularly is the most controversial issue hitherto and is the core obstacle in global effort of reducing carbon emission. More specifically, the problem lies in the question of how to determine the extent of burden each State has to share. The general principle of common, but differentiated responsibilty is designed to address this issue. However, it lacks specific procedure on determining the extent of responsibility. Chapter four of this paper will address this issue by the proposed Annex C and Annex C on mitigation fund to draw a clearer line on the extent of each State burden to reduce carbon emission.
B. Global Warming With The Irreversible Environmental Impact
It is almost undisputed that the damage caused by global warming carries the risk of irreversible impact. United Nations’ report, World Wildlife Funds’s report, many columnists and scientists have confirmed the validity of this claim. According to Steve Connor of The Independent, rapid warming of Earth is irreversible and "past the point of no return." United Nations’ report titled 'Climate Change 2001’ predicts the new century will bring, 'large-scale and possibly irreversible changes affecting every last person on earth. WWF reported that ice levels in the Arctic polar region have idled at their lowest recorded levels for the past four years. Normally sea ice will recede in the summer and re-form in the winter. The ice has recently been receding but not returning. Reporters like Connor cite current simulated models that conservatively estimate the northern ice cap to completely melt by 2070.

CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this research is a literature methodology. This type of research is descriptive and analytical. The purpose is problem solution through a feasible proposal and in its discipline is a multi-disciplinary research.
The type of data used is secondary consisting of reports from relevant international organization and bureaus and international instruments relevant to facilitate the analysis, understanding and elaboration of the general theory asserted. It also relies on books, internet materials, scientific articles and journals

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS
The critical issue now is which countries should take the main responsibility for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next phase after 2012 when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol comes to an end. Is it sufficient to carry on with the existing Kyoto Protocol arrangement that the current Annex I Parties are to have more stringent commitments under Article 3 to be spelled out in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol? Or should the fast-growing, developing countries - which emit more Green House Gases (GHG) than several developed countries, such as India and China - also take on binding commitments for the second commitment period or soon thereafter?
Unfortunately, there seems to be a complete lack of leadership regarding this issue each time the Parties resume discussions. This occurred in Nairobi, Kenya, in November 2006, at the annual Conference of the Parties to the Climate Convention (COP) and the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP). Instead of resolving the problem, there is a constant effort to justify the lack of action by blaming others. Since the United States, which produces a quarter of the world's , is not a Party to the Kyoto Protocol, India and China argue that they should not have to agree to binding reduction commitments. The United States argues that because the fast-growing developing countries, emitting large amount of GHGs, have no binding commitments, the United States should not have any either. Even the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali 2007 from 3-15 December 2007 and the on-going Bangkok Climate Change Talks 2008 from 31 March-4 April 2008 did not seem to result in a clear framework to address the issue of inequity.
The goal of the international community is to move much more quickly to act on climate change, especially now that it does not have decades to determine what to do. Just as with the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the solution must be found by crafting equitable bargains, tailored to the issue of climate change, regarding economic and environmental issues between developed and developing countries. This paper proposes amending the Kyoto Protocol to incorporate "Annex C" which would include the fast-growing developing countries that emit large amounts of GHGs. Furthermore, a separate provision, Article 11-Bis, would be added to the Kyoto Protocol, entitled the "Annex C Mitigation Fund." This fund would specifically assist the fast-growing developing countries in achieving compliance with their new Kyoto Protocol commitments to be specified in AnnexC.

Amending the Kyoto Protocol by adding Annex C and the Annex C Mitigation Fund would create the needed equitable bargain between developed and developing countries. This bargain would balance the primary interests of developing countries, such as economic development to eradicate poverty and address debt issues, with the primary interest of the developed countries to protect the climate system. Furthermore, this bargain would operationalize the concept of sustainable development, which the international community agreed to implement through the Rio Declaration and Agenda 21 adopted at the Rio Conference in 1992. Amending the Kyoto Protocol by adding Annex C and the Annex C Mitigation Fund would reflect the principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities enunciated in the Rio Declaration. Ultimately, this proposal would promote sustainable development while upholding the stated objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: "stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."
This Chapter will explain the underlying constraint to the successful reduction of carbon emission in the context of international law, the principle of common, but differentiated responsibility and its operation under Kyoto Protocol and finally elaborate the proposed amendment of the Kyoto Protocol to include Annex C and the Annex C mitigation fund
A. Sovereign Equality And Equity - Asymmetrical Rights And Obligations
Under international law, countries have accepted the principle of sovereignty to include sovereign equality as reflected in the UN Charter, thereby giving all countries equal rights and obligations on the international plane. Addressing global environmental problems using treaties that require universal participation requires developed and developing countries to take on obligations. Yet, to encourage universal participation and reflect the principle of equity in international law, these environmental treaties must provide differentiated responsibilities for developing countries. This is because developing countries historically have not had the same economic growth and social benefits as developed countries, and they have contributed to a lesser degree to the environmental problems. This historical context, along with the developing countries' lack of capacity to address the environmental problems, have led to the idea of asymmetrical or differential rights and obligations for developing countries in international environmental law.
The depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer was the first environmental problem regarding the atmosphere that was tackled on a global scale using differential treatment for developing countries. In many ways, it was an easier problem to solve than climate change, since there were just a few manufacturers of ozone depleting substances, as opposed to all car drivers, for instance, being emitters of CO<2>, a GHG. Once they came up with a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the manufacturers were willing to produce it. Most of the countries that were big producers and consumers of CFCs ratified the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, followed by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. In the Montreal Protocol, the negotiating countries adopted an approach whereby all countries were to take action, but developing countries were to have a delayed compliance schedule. Shortly thereafter, the Montreal Protocol was amended to include a multilateral fund to facilitate the replacement of technology using CFCs in developing countries, thereby persuading India and China to become Parties to the Protocol
B. General Principle of Common, but Differentiated Responsibility
Historically, developing countries have had different developmental, social, and environmental needs and priorities and have not had the same economic benefits as the developed countries that degraded the global environment in their process of industrialization. However, the picture in China and India is rapidly changing as those countries are growing exponentially and experiencing immense environmental problems that need to be dealt with. Yet, they are much more aware of environmental degradation than were the developed countries when they began industrializing and, to a certain extent, they are addressing their environmental problems using a new, “cleaner” technology.
Even in this context, it is not equitable for developing countries to equally share the burden of controlling GHG emissions when, until recently, developed countries have done most of the polluting. This is because economic growth is still the primary strategy for eradicating poverty and should not be prohibitively restricted through the use of environmental controls. Due to this principle of equity, asymmetrical or differentiated obligations for developed and developing countries have become the norm in international environmental treaties. This equity principle is now often called "common, but differentiated responsibility" and is expressed in Rio Declaration Principle 7 as:
States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth's ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit to sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command.
Despite the fact that the CBDR principle is not considered binding international law, it has become a cornerstone of burden-sharing structures adopted in international environmental treaties. In the context of climate change, developed countries have historically contributed the most to the climate change problem and have the greater technological and economic capacity to address the problem, whereas developing countries have not significantly contributed to climate change and are more vulnerable to its impacts because they lack the resources to address the problem. As a result, developed countries should take primary responsibility for controlling Green House Gas emisions
The CBDR principle can also be seen as requiring obligations of solidarity assistance in the form of technology transfer and financial assistance. To do this, developing countries would make the implementation of their commitments in environmental treaties conditional on the receipt of assistance from developed countries. The Climate Convention reflects this theory: "the extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology."

The CBDR principle does have its limits. First, it is only meant to last for a limited time period to allow the developing countries to achieve the same level of economic growth as industrialized countries, while simultaneously addressing environmental issues. It is not supposed to institute a permanent arrangement. Once the differences between the countries cease to exist, differential treatment should no longer be used. Second, the CBDR principle should not be incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty in question. If implementation of the CBDR principle defeats the object and purpose of the treaty, it has gone beyond the limits of the treaty. For example, the object and purpose of the Climate Convention is "stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." This objective would be defeated if the developing countries' emissions of GHGs continue to grow to meet their development needs, leading to dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Thus, sustainable development requires that economic growth in all countries is balanced with the climate change objectives.
C. How to Operate Common, but Differentiated Responsibility in the Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol
Article 3 of the Climate Convention dictates that the CBDR principle is to be used as a guiding principle. By applying the CBDR principle, the Climate Convention specifically stipulates in Article 4 that the developed countries are to "take the lead." However, it does not give Annex I Parties (developed countries) any binding commitments; it only "urges" them to reduce their GHGs. Non-Annex I Parties (developing countries), however, were not given such an "aim" to reduce GHGs, but the Convention does specify that non-Annex I Parties can take on voluntary commitments to do so. However, all Parties were required to fulfill binding commitments to report on their national inventory of anthropogenic emissions and measures taken to implement the Climate Convention. The timetables for the reporting requirements were differentiated among the Parties: developed countries were given a six-month deadline, developing countries were given three years, and the least developed countries could report at their discretion.

At the first Conference of the Parties to the Climate Convention, COP-1, the Parties agreed in the Berlin Mandate that the commitments to reduce GHGs under the Climate Convention needed to be strengthened, but stipulated again that the Annex I Parties were to "take the lead." As a result, the developing countries were not given any binding commitments to reduce GHG emissions in what became the Kyoto Protocol
The core commitment of the Kyoto Protocol, stated in Article 3, also clearly captures the CBDR principle. That commitment requires Annex I Parties to reduce their overall emissions of GHGs by at least 5% below the 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012, in accordance with the reduction commitments specified in Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol. Only Annex I Parties were given binding reduction commitments while non-Annex I Parties were not given any targets.

The Kyoto Protocol also introduces three market-based mechanisms, Kyoto Mechanisms, to assist Annex I Parties in fulfilling their emission reduction commitments. These are important because Parties to the proposed Annex C of the Kyoto Protocol would be able to use all three mechanisms. The first mechanism, joint implementation, allows an Annex I Party to finance a project in the territory of another Annex I Party and get credits toward its own emissions reduction commitment. The second mechanism, emissions trading, allows an Annex I Party to buy credits or allowances from other Annex I countries to fulfill its emissions reduction commitments. The third mechanism, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), is currently the only market mechanism where the developing countries can participate in climate change mitigation efforts. With CDM, an Annex I Party finances a project in the territory of a non-Annex I Party and receives credit toward its emissions reduction commitment. The CDM provision specifies that the purpose of the CDM is to assist non-Annex I Parties in achieving sustainable development and contributing to the Climate Convention's objective, while at the same time assisting Annex I Parties to fulfill their emission reduction commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.
Looking at the planet as a whole, it makes no difference where the GHGs are reduced, because the atmosphere is one global system with no borders. However, reducing emissions in less developed countries is more cost effective due to the high marginal cost of GHG abatement in developed countries as compared to that of economies in transition (EIT) and developing countries. Nevertheless, there are limits to the use of the Kyoto Mechanisms as they are meant to be supplemental to domestic action and not the primary source of action.

D. Amendment of the Kyoto Protocol to Include Annex C and the Annex C Mitigation Fund as the Solution to Inequity
The Berlin Mandate and the Climate Convention both state that Annex I Parties should "take the lead." This can be interpreted as implying that developed countries are to take a leadership role based on the CBDR principle. However, the ordinary meaning of "to take the lead" also implies that once the Annex I Parties (developed countries) have taken the first step, namely to fulfill their commitments in the first commitment period, then non-Annex I Parties (developing countries), are to "follow" with their own binding reduction commitments. This interpretation is drawn from the context of the Climate Convention's object and purpose of "stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Not taking drastic action now to stabilize the GHGs will lead to dangerous interference with the climate system.

Assuming Annex B Parties actually take the lead by fulfilling their obligations during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, developing countries (at least those emitting large amounts of GHGs) then need to follow with commitments of their own during either the second or third commitment period. It is becoming quite clear that, in terms of development, some developing countries, such as China and India, are growing much more rapidly than they were at the time the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997. Consequently, they are emitting much greater amounts of GHGs than many developed countries. This new situation must be reflected in the Kyoto Protocol's commitments. Given the scientific indications that climate change needs to be addressed urgently, all Parties that are major emitters of GHGs (both Annex B Parties and countries like China and India) must have binding commitments. Otherwise the object and purpose of the Climate Convention would be defeated: the international community would not be able to stabilize GHGs at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system
If the major GHG-emitting developing countries are not given binding reduction commitments, the CBDR principle will have been taken beyond the limits of the object and purpose of the Climate Convention. However, it is important to stress that the assumption of binding commitments by major GHG-emitting developing countries is still contingent upon the actions of the developed countries. The developed countries still need to "take the lead" by reducing their emissions during the first commitment period as dictated in Annex B and by committing to new strengthened reduction targets for the second commitment period.

Using the Montreal Protocol as a model, the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol should amend the Kyoto Protocol to create Annex C, a new category of Parties with binding commitments. Annex C would include non-Annex I Parties with high levels of GHG emissions, such as China, India, and Brazil. Annex C Parties would have binding limitation or reduction commitments starting in the second (2013-2017) or third commitment period (2018-2022) with a five-year delayed compliance schedule.
The definitions in Article 1, Paragraph 7 of the Kyoto Protocol would also be amended to reflect the new Annex C. The definition of a "Party included in Annex I" (Annex I Parties) would now read "a Party included in Annex I to the [Climate] Convention ... or a Party listed under Annex C of this Protocol." Technically, Annex C Parties would be considered Annex I Parties in the context of the Kyoto Protocol, but not in the context of the Climate Convention, where they would remain non-Annex 1 Parties.
Furthermore, Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol, containing the core commitment, would be amended to include Annex C as follows: "The Parties included in Annex I shall ... ensure that their ... emissions ... do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B or Annex C." As they grow and emit greater amounts of GHGs, developing countries would graduate into the Annex C category. China and India would qualify right away to be included in Annex C. For some developing countries included in Annex C, there would only be a limitation on emission of GHGs and not a reduction requirement. Within Annex C, the amount of reductions or limitations would be differentiated, just as they are in Annex B among the developed countries.

An important question for further analysis is when the CBDR principle ceases to apply because the former developing country has reached a certain level of economic growth, no longer being different from developed countries. In regards to emissions, would the state then graduate from Annex C into the Annex B category, joining the other developed Parties? One would have to take into account the capacity of fast-growing countries to take on the same binding commitments as long-time developed countries. Furthermore, one would need to determine at what level of development China and India should leave the developing country classification and enter the ranks of developed countries
To complement Annex C, a new Annex C Mitigation Fund needs to be incorporated into the Kyoto Protocol as "Article 11Bis," placed right after Article 11, the financial provision. This amendment would be adopted simultaneously with Annex C in order to promote the early participation of Annex C Parties. This new arrangement would depend on the political will of the developed countries, since to a large extent they would be funding the Annex C Mitigation Fund. This fund would have to be substantial to help the Annex C Parties receive technology transfers and other assistance much faster than provided by the current financial mechanism under the Climate Convention and the Kyoto Protocol that is operated by the Global Environment Facility. The financing for the Annex C Mitigation Fund would come from a specific small fee charged in emission trading transactions. As a result, the funding would come from developed countries because Annex B Parties are currently the only Parties using the emissions trading mechanism. As Annex C Parties start to use the emissions trading mechanism, they would also participate in funding the Annex C Mitigation Fund.

Following the trend in the UN to partner with the private sector, the Annex C Mitigation Fund would not necessarily be run by the Global Environment Facility, but could be managed by an international private bank accountable to and guided by the COP/MOP of the Kyoto Protocol. The goal would be to use the more efficient private banking system to track, manage, and disperse the funds earmarked for the financing of the incremental costs of "clean" technology transfer and other assistance to Annex C countries. The chosen bank would already have adopted the Equator Principles.
One could argue that developing countries emitting large amounts of GHGs would be more likely to take on voluntary commitments than agree to Annex C. However, setting up a system in which developing countries are in a separate category seems more advantageous than subjecting them to the binding commitments under Annex B. Furthermore, the Annex C system includes the five-year delayed compliance schedule and the Annex C Mitigation Fund set up specifically for developing countries. The purpose of an Annex C Mitigation Fund is to facilitate the assumption of binding commitments by developing countries emitting large amount of GHGs without having to slow down their economic growth in any drastic way, thereby promoting sustainable development
Regarding the Kyoto Mechanisms, Annex C Parties would be able to take advantage of all the flexible mechanisms. Currently, developing countries can only participate in the clean development mechanism. Participating in all three mechanisms is important because being eligible to participate in emissions trading can help Annex C Parties economically while at the same time fulfilling their reduction commitments. For instance, when they use energy efficiency to cut back on GHG emissions, they can sell the surplus credits and then use the revenue to fund new cleaner energy technology. However, Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol would have to be amended to read as follows: "The Parties included in Annex B and Annex C may participate in emissions trading for the purposes of fulfilling their commitments under Article 3". In the same manner, joint implementation would give large GHG emitting developing countries the possibility of funding projects in the territory of other Annex I Parties and receiving credits toward their own commitment
In terms of the CDM, Annex C Parties, such as India with 33.02% of the program's projects, would likely want to carry on as host countries to projects carried out under the CDM. Yet, Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol specifically states that the mechanism shall assist Parties not included in Annex I. This provision would have to be amended because it is very important that Annex C Parties receive assistance in "achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention," as specified in Article 12. To achieve this, the text of Article 12 should be amended to read: "The purpose of the clean development mechanism shall be to assist Parties in Annex C and Parties not included in Annex I in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention, and to assist Parties included in Annex I in achieving compliance with their quantified emission reduction limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3." In other words, Annex C Parties could continue to host CDM projects, helping them achieve sustainable development. At the same time, these Annex C Parties could also carry out CDM projects in other developing countries and use the credits they receive to comply with their Annex C reduction commitments. For CDM projects carried out by Annex B Parties in the territory of Annex C Parties, the credits would go to the Annex B parties
In order to incorporate Annex C and the Annex C Mitigation Fund into the Kyoto Protocol, the Protocol would have to be amended by the Parties. Amending the Kyoto Protocol in order to incorporate the Annex C Mitigation Fund as Article 11Bis requires that a proposed amendment be sent to the Parties at least six months before the COP/MOP where it would be proposed for adoption. If the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol could not reach agreement by consensus, the amendment would be adopted by a three-fourths majority vote of the Parties. The amendment would enter into force for the Parties that accepted it ninety days after at least three-fourths of the Parties deposited their instrument of ratification. Adopting a new Annex C to the Kyoto Protocol would follow the same procedure as for an amendment to the Protocol.

Amending the Kyoto Protocol to incorporate the new Annex C and Annex C Mitigation Fund would only depend on the votes of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Parties to the Climate Convention that are not Parties to the Kyoto Protocol do not have a right to vote at the COP/MOP meetings. Thus, incorporating Annex C rather than expanding the list in Annex B avoids the need to amend the Climate Convention in order to add the developing countries to the Annex I list of the Convention. In this way, the only Parties that are necessary to vote on and accept the amendment would be Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
E. Forest First in the Fight Against Climate Change – How Can Indonesia Benefit from Annex C and Annex C on Mitigation Fund?
Global warming can not be avoided without action on deforestation, which causes 18-25% of global carbon emissions, second only to energy. Forests offer the single largest opportunity for cost-effective and immediate reductions of carbon emissions. This is confirmed by the Stern Report of 2006, and the Mc Kinsey and IPCC reports of 2007. The world’s forest trees and soils contain twice as much carbon as is in the Earth’s atmosphere. Tropical forests store 120-400 tonnes of carbon/hectare. Burning them contributes huge quantities of CO2 emissions (approximately 400 million tonnes/year from Brazil and 350 million tonnes/year from Indonesia). In short, this would mean that saving forest would probably save the world from the threat of global warming.
Despite this fact, Kyoto Protocol lacks support in forests fight. Article 12 Kyoto Protocol does not explicitly refer to “removal” or “sinks” as the primary activity. Historically, forestry CDM suffered from a numerous States’ rejection. European Union States, G77 States, including China, rejected forestry CDM. Even the world largest forestry States Brazil and Congo, rejected forestry CDM. In the 6th COP, forestry was incorporated in CDM, however it is only limited to reforestation and aforestation, while avoided deforestation was completely rejected.
Currently, Indonesia is the third largest forestry State and the third largest carbon emitter on the back of deforestation which contributes 85% of its emission. The forest burn in Indonesia in 1997/1998 was condemned to be the worst environmental damage ever caused in this century. With the on-going damage to Indonesia’s forestry, Indonesia is currently struggling to avoid deforestation. Unfortunately, this effort is not covered by CDM since avoided deforestation is not one of the programs. The only access to fresh fund developing States have is CDM and Indonesia is even denied the access to such fresh fund under current Kyoto Protocol system.
However, scintilla of hope was observed in recent years. In the recent COP in Bali 2007 from 3-15 December 2007 and the on-going Bangkok Climate Change Talks 2008 from 31 March-4 April 2008, forest fight was heavily discussed. It is not clear as to what extent, but it is certainly a good sign for Indonesia.
One of the core problems in environmental fight in Indonesia, aside from law enforcement, is lack of financial capability and technology. Inclusion of Annex C and Annex C on mitigation fund means that: 1. Avoided deforestation can be included in mitigation fund project. 2. Indonesia will receive substantial amount of fresh fund and technology transfer. Indonesia will also improve its participation in the global fight against global warming by taking a commitment under the new Kyoto Protocol system.

CHAPTER V
CLOSING
The deductive conclusions from this paper are:
1. The integration of economy and ecology is the heart of sustainable development. The harmonious advancement between these two variants will create intergenerational and intragenerational equity. International community has upheld this principle as a common value, in fact, Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol adopted this philosophy.
2. Climate change needs to be addressed much more aggressively than it has been, and solutions ought to include the participation of the whole international community The Stern Report also reinforced this claim stating that is would cost 1% of gross domestic product (GDP) each year to take action now on climate change, versus 20% of GDP each year to take action later. Kyoto Protocol’s failure in the past was due to its inability to persuade States to agree that intragenerational equity should apply in the way of common, but differentiated responsibility. Developed States are reluctant “to take the lead” as the Climate Convention art 4(2)(a) imposes by arguing that rapid-developing States also contributed carbon emission significantly.
3. The critical issue is determining which countries should take action after the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012. Under the principle of common, but differentiated responsibilities, it is imperative that the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol amend the Protocol to incorporate Annex C and the Annex C Mitigation Fund. Annex C would include the fast-growing developing countries emitting large amounts of GHGs. It would give them binding reduction commitments. The Annex C Mitigation Fund would enable developing countries emitting large amounts of GHGs to take on binding commitments without having to slow down their economic growth in any drastic way. At the same time, the Fund would reaffirm the developing countries' obligation to promote sustainable development.
4. The inclusion of annex C and annex C on mitigation fund will also accommodate Indonesia’s effort in reducing its carbon emission. This framework can include avoidance of deforestation as part of the mitigation fund allocation. Furthermore, it will also provide a legal platform on technological transfer and financial assistance from developed States. This is important since the current CDM mechanism, notably the only mechanism enabling Indonesia to participate in carbon reduction, does not favour avoidance on deforestation.

ASEAN value: Distinct ASEAN approach to human rights issues and democracy

2009-05-15T10:54:00.003-07:00

Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) merupakan disiplin yang dipopulerkan oleh bangsa Barat. Bangsa Barat mengklaim HAM sebagai sebuah ilmu yang mereka sumbangkan kepada umat manusia. Dalam diskursus politik hukum internasional publik, akademisi hukum tersebut menyadari bahwa nilai HAM universal sangat dipengaruhi oleh negara yang berkuasa secara politik. Dalam kaitannya dengan konteks di atas, perkembangan nilai HAM di dunia menunjukkan bahwa HAM bukan hanya milik bangsa Barat melainkan sudah tertanam erat di dalam filosofi dan ideologi hidup bangsa Timur seperti Singapura dan China. Prinsip demokrasi dan HAM di China dan Singapura sangat terkait erat dengan ajaran Konfusius. Aliran pemikiran ini populer dengan istilah Asian value.
Prinsip HAM yang dipropagandakan bangsa Barat adalah prinsip universalitas. Prinsip ini menyatakan bahwa nilai HAM seharusnya mempunyai makna yang sama di negara manapun di dunia karena semua manusia pasti memiliki rasa kemanusiaan dan rasa kemanusiaan ini merupakan pilar terbentuknya HAM. Pendapat tersebut kurang tepat karena nilai-nilai kemanusiaan tenyata sangat bergantung kepada nilai budaya, ideologi, dan agama setempat. Nilai universalisme mengadvokasi sebuah keragaman atau standardisasi, padahal universalitas tidak berarti uniformitas (keragaman). Prinsip universalitas menjadi tidak bertanggung jawab jika semua negara diwajibkan mematuhi nilai HAM tertentu, misalnya hak kebebasan berekspresi dalam pasal 19 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Salah satu utamanya adalah karena nilai-nilai yang terkandung dalam ICCPR sangat dipengaruhi oleh paham Barat terhadap nilai HAM, yang artinya tidak ada keseimbangan pengaturannya dalam mengakomodasi nilai-nilai HAM bangsa Timur. Hal ini bisa dikategorikan sebagai penjajahan nilai HAM.
Contoh kasus yang sangat berkaitan dengan konflik antara nilai HAM Barat dan Timur dalam konteks kebebasan berekspresi adalah kasus Dr. Lingle, seorang warga Amerika Serikat yang melayangkan kritik terhadap pemerintah Singapura yang diktator dan melanggar HAM dalam konteks kebebasan berekspresi. Amerika Serikat menuntut perlakuan hukum yang berbeda terhadap warganya dengan warga negara Amerika Serikat. Salah satu argumen dari Amerika Serikat adalah pemerintah Singapura merupakan negara yang barbar. Pemerintah Singapura mengatakan bahwa tidak ada negara di dunia ini yang memberlakukan hukum yang berbeda untuk warga negara yang berbeda. Semua orang di dalam jurisdiksi sebuah negara terikat oleh ketentuan hukum yang sama.
Meskipun Singapura menentang prinsip universalitas secara absolut, namun sarjana hukum Singapura setuju bahwa prinsip universalitas berlaku secara terbatas. Contoh semua manusia pasti tidak setuju terhadap diizinkannya genosida, penyiksaan, agresi, kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan, dan perdagangan orang. Konsep ini dikenal dengan irreducible core. Oleh karena itu, nilai HAM tidak seharusnya diseragamkan secara absolut. Ada beberapa nilai HAM yang berbeda antara satu negara dengan negara lain karena faktor budaya, ideologi, dan agama. Dalam nilai HAM setiap negara, kriminalisasi terhadap nilai HAM irreducible core juga dilakukan. Sehingga pengaturan HAM secara universal sebaiknya berangkat dari perspektif lokal.

A paradox: Why do i have to ask why?

2009-05-09T15:01:00.001-07:00

One of the most wonderful and tormenting things about life is paradox. The paradox of good and bad, big and small, white and black, concentration and division, solidity and void. This philosophy is best represented by the circle of yin and yang. I question why is life designed in such paradox? Why are we saying one thing and another thing contradictory?

When batman asked joker in the dark knight "why dont you just kill me?" Joker answered "Why should i kill you, you complete me." There is no bad, if there is no good and vice versa. There is no god if there is no evil.. THey co-exist, no one can exist without the other... Why should we have god creating this universe if that also bring along the evil?

why are we believing in eternal life through dead? why inconsistency is the most consistent thing? why are we so lonely when we have 8.5 billion people on earth? why do i feel lonely when i am in big cities (Newyork, Milan, and Philadephia) while i feel so besieged by friends when i am in a small place (singapore)? Note: i have relatively same amount of friends in both place..

I find life very difficult to comprehend because the answer of many questions is answered by questions... When consistency is an integral part of logic, by which the principle i am living, life is so inconsistent...

Paradox of hate and love: You cannot love someone without hating him/her and vice versa. You cannot think that we (human) are too small in the big universe, but you get bored with your surroundings because you think any sightseeing object is just as interesting as the previous one.

The most aggrieved part is why hardworking or genius people do not achieve their dreams, while ignorant and slothful people do... Why the best is not necessarily the best (champion).

Why the truth is the thing people hate listening the most? Why your enemies are your closest friends? (Don Corleone says Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer)...

Why do i have to ask why?

Why first born rules the world?

2009-05-05T09:33:00.000-07:00

We may somehow sense through our life experience, be it from newspaper, friends, social life, or even intuition that first born children tend to have better quality of life (financially, career wise, or happiness). I am not saying this as an absolute claim that there is no case where non-first born children are more successful than first born children. Examples of this case are abundant, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Lee Kuan Yew and Isaac Newton. I am the first born in my family. I experience (objectively), if not feel (subjectively), that as the first born I outsmart my younger siblings. Not only that I outsmart, but I also mature faster than all of them.
Here are few thoughts I have to rationalize why the above claim is valid:

1. Parenting skills and what first born has to learn himself. First born child must be born when their parents are at the youngest age. If we look to most traditions, particularly in the past, couple generally get married in the age of 20-27 and conceive first child also in between that age. Generally, couple who conceive their first child in that age lack parenting skills. I am 23 and I do not think I am ready to parent yet. First child is commonly parenting experiment. I understand that many parents prepare themselves prior to conceiving a child by either consulting to professionals or their own parents. However, experience counts a lot in parenting. Since parents most likely cannot provide that much help for first born in dealing with bullying, quest of life, and lots of questions wondering in children’s mind, first born child has to learn about them himself. Imagine that you are first born and your parents cannot help you much in how to deal with bully or specific stress you sustain out of mathematical figure at school, you have no one to turn into, therefore you have to struggle really hard to learn it yourself. This is why first born child generally has to work harder to adapt into their new environment. Parents (despite their education and maturity) can rarely provide comprehensive solution for a child to juggle with his daily activities.

2. Most importantly first born is generally conceived at the time his parents have to work hard for financial support. Besides, 20-27 is the age where most people are at the peak of their career or education. This means that parents most likely spend less time with their children. Some people may argue that some people are not concerned with money because those parents are inherently rich (parents whose parents are rich). My response is that how many segments of societies are rich? How many are not? Poor people always vastly outnumber rich people. This means that first born is generally conceived in a family where parents are concerned with financial condition. You may feel that you younger or youngest brother/sister is generally spoiled more than you are since your parents now have money and time to do that (assuming you differ 8-10 years in age from your brother/sister). Higher discipline and self-reliance are two features most first born are trained with as a direct consequence of such discrimination (first born usually does not get as much privilege, i.e. attention and toys, compared to his younger brother)

3. First born has to find answer on their own, while non-first born has better chance on getting those answers from his elder brother. Imagine you differ 4 years in age from your younger brother. Commonly, in elementary school, your brother has better chance of getting the answer of difficult math question from you. But, parents can give those answers because they have Ph.d in math.. That s not entirely true. You see... children can communicate better with other children. They speak the same language (sometimes you may even feel your professors are not speaking the “language” you understand). So, an elder brother can explain something better to his younger brother than their parents. There are also factors like familiarity to the said subject (probably his younger brother has done the same math question before), or proximity to the way teachers want students to study. The reason is probably the elder brother was once taught by the same teacher. Long story short, elder brother works harder to get the answer, while younger brother does not. This is a very important part of children cognitive development, where process counts... And the result becomes very a fruitful reward for the elder brother... It somehow creates sense of independency and self-esteem.

In a nutshell, first born has much more challenging playing field. These circumstances provide first born with more opportunities to learn “life” the hard way and on self-reliant fashion. Therefore, first born is generally more self-reliant, discipline, adaptive to environment, curious and mature. All of these are qualities of leaders, great scientists, and great philosophers. For reference read First born kid becomes CEO materials at http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2007-09-03-ceo-birth_N.htm

Human rights law versus "selfish" sovereignty!!!

2009-05-02T15:58:00.000-07:00

The essence of human rights law is establishing minimum protection of human rights. It leaves States the discretion to determine the maximum protection of human rights law. Example: International convention such as ICCPR usually sets a standard for arrest procedure or conviction. ICCPR says you may prosecute someone if he is arrested legally, he is granted the right to lawyer, and he may appeal the decision. These are minimum threshold. If State members of ICCPR wish to regulate that, in addition to the prerequisite above, the person prosecuted must also be given the right to meet his family and the right to recreation, this is entirely up to the State.

The grand debate here is what line should we draw here? Li-ann thio and many ASEAN legal scholars say that human rights law tend to create Universalist pretention. Some people say international human rights laws are the concept of irreducible core, where certain rights are just so fundamental that all human must view it the same way.

I AM OUTRAGED!!! By the conviction of Delara Derabi who is 17 years old. The death sentence was carried out by hunging at 22 of her age. The problems here are: (1) Iran prosecuted her without informing her lawyer, while probation period is still effective. (2) there was a phone conversation between Delara and her parents where she cried for help since the jail officers are ready to prosecute her. This phone conversation was cut off and the officer told Delara parents through the phone “We are going to prosecute her and nothing you can do about it.” This insinuates a great power of the officer, probably granted by some higher officials in the country. (3) No NEW Evidence may be presented with regards to claiming that the death penalty conviction is unjustifiable. The lawyer of Delara has submitted before the Court that new evidences (crucial one) are being prepared for Delara judicial review to the death penalty. (4) What the FUCK WITH IRAN. Subsequent to the execution of Delara, they act like they have sovereignty to do that. There is no shame or guilt. They dont give a damn to Amnesty International note.

I am not surprised and encourage Security Council to release Resolution is to authorize economic embargo to Iran, Sequestration of nuclear program, discrimination on trade before WTO, and bring all the relevant parties before International Criminal Court. This crime is not merely 2-4 jail officers’ doing, it involves systematic chain of command from the high rank officials. Iran is acting like children, the more you ask them not to, and the more they will do it. After doing it, they will look at you and ask so what?

Praktik beribadah Muslem dan Katolik adalah bukti betapa tidak tolerannya agama tersebut

2009-03-30T15:17:00.001-07:00

Salah satu hal yang membuatku sangat jengkel adalah harus terbangun pukul 3 pagi ketika aku harus ujian pukul 8 paginya dan baru tidur pukul 2. Di Depok terutama, orang-orang tak beretika dan berotak itu menggedor-gedor kamar kosan di pagi hari pukul 3 sambil berteriak sahur. Saya berpikir emang semua orang disini orang Islam? Sesuka hati anda menggedor kamar kosan. Yang lebih parahnya lagi adalah, mereka melakukan sholat dengan berteriak sekencang-kencangnya seakan-akan menyombongkan tuhannya di hadapan orang lain, seakan-akan mereka suci dan beragama sementara orang lain tidak. Dalam beberapa kesempatan, mereka memberikan mikofon kepada anak kecil yang kemudian dimain-mainkan sambil berteriak allaah huaakbar. Saya bilang itulah orang tak berpendidikan dan tak beradab.

Salah satu praktek ibadah paling tidak beretika adalah sholat, yaitu momen ketika semua mesjid meneriakan sekeras-kerasnya lantunan ibadah mereka melalui pengeras suara. Anda bisa menghitung jumlah mesjid di Jakarta. Bayangkan betapa bisingnya itu, terutama ketika anda tinggal di tempat yang agak pinggiran seperti Depok. Sama halnya dengan praktek ibadah katolik di Roma, mereka meneriakan ibadah mereka melalui pengeras suara seakan-akan semua orang harus tahu mereka sedang beribadah
Bagi orang Kristen (baru kali ini saya sepaham dengan Alkitab), diceritakan bahwa orang-orang yang berdoa sambil berteriak di tengah jalan adalah orang-orang Farisi yang menolak keberadaan yesus sebagai juruselamat. Itulah kira-kira gambaran orang yang berdoa sambil berteriak supaya semua orang tahu bahwa dia berdoa, farisi, munafik dan tidak mempunyai iman yang sesungguhnya. Padahal berdoa adalah hubungan pribadi dengan tuhan, kenapa harus diteriakan dengan keras?

Argumen teman islam saya adalah untuk mengingatkan umat muslim untuk sholat. Respon saya adalah emang tidak ada jam sekarang? Emang orang muslem tidak bisa mengatur dering jam weker? Kalaupun emang kebanyakan orang muslem tidak beradab seperti itu, bukankah doa hubungan personal dia dengan tuhan, kenapa harus ada campur tangan pihak ketiga? Orang berdoa karena merasa membutuhkan, merasa perlu berkomunikasi dan berhubungan intim secara spiritual dengan tuhan. Jadi tidak perlu diteriakan melalui pengeras suara.

Di inggris sekarang bahkan sistem alarm mobil harus dimatikan pada waktu malam hari karena waktu tidur merupakan momen yang sangat berharga dalam kehidupan yang tingkat kesibukannya begitu tinggi. Tidur nyenyak merupakan investasi yang sangat mahal. Hal itu sangat mempengaruhi kualitas kerja di pagi hari dan bahkan mempengaruhi mood sepanjang hari. Artinya kualitas tidur menentukan bahagia tidaknya hidup seseorang. Bayangkan anda tidur pukul 1 pagi dan dibangunkan pukul 3. Anda akan kesusahan untuk kembali tidur. Oleh karena itu, pemerintah inggris menetapkan denda yang sangat mahal untuk warganya yang tidak mematikan alarm mobil pada waktu malam hari.

Apakah anda (orang islam maupun katolik) mau diganggu tidurnya dan digedor-gedor kamarnya pukul 3 pagi untuk urusan ibadah agama lain? Bayangkan jika anda harus mengikuti interview kerja pukul 8 paginya dan hal itu menentukan nasib hidup anda. Kalau tidak mau, janganlah menggedor kamar orang lain pada pukul 3 pagi apalagi berteriak keras di pengeras suara. Anda tidak perlu menyombongkan ibadah anda!! Lakukan saja banyak kebajikan tidak perlu terlalu banyak bicara!

Sebuah kritik terhadap buku Pak Andjar tentang Hukum Koperasi Indonesia

2009-03-30T04:10:00.000-07:00

I. PENDAHULUAN
Meskipun Indonesia adalah Negara yang berbasiskan sistem ekonomi koperasi, namun fakta yang tidak bisa dinafikkan adalah bahwa kapitalisme menjadi nilai perdagangan dan ekonomi internasional sekarang. Terlepas dari kelebihan dan kekurangan masing-masing mazhab, baik itu kapitalisme maupun koperasi, penulis bermaksud untuk mengkontekstualisasikan kedua mazhab tersebut dengan argumen bahwa sistem ekonomi koperasi sudah kurang relevan untuk Indonesia sekarang. Kapitalisme sendiri terbagi dalam kapitalisme kooperatif, seperti yang dipraktekkan Jerman dari zaman Bismarck sampai kejatuhan Third Reich, dan kapitalisme kompetitif, seperti yang dipraktekkan Amerika Serikat.
Baik kapitalisme kooperatif maupun kompetitif menekankan pada kualitas persaingan. Seperti halnya dalam hukum persaingan usaha, persaingan usaha pada dasarnya meningkatkan efisiensi produksi, kualitas barang dan jasa yang dihasilkan dan efisiensi penggunaan bahan baku. Penulis berpendapat bahwa tingkat persaingan atau kompetisi inilah yang membedakan sistem ekonomi koperasi yang dianut di Indonesia (bukan di Swedia atau Finlandia) dengan sistem kapitalisme pada umumnya. Definisi koperasi menurut pasal 1 Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 25 tahun 1992 tentang Perkoperasian antara lain menyebutkan tentang prinsip koperasi yang berdasarkan asas kekeluargaan. Prinsip kekeluargaan ini pada prakteknya di Indonesia menyebabkan tingkat persaingan yang cukup rendah.
Pada bagian isi tulisan ini, penulis akan menggambarkan tentang sistem ekonomi kapitalisme dan koperasi serta perbandingan kelebihan dan kekurangannya masing-masing. Selanjutnya, penulis akan menjabarkan analisis terhadap kondisi ekonomi Indonesia dari tahun 2000 sampai sekarang dan mempertahankan argumen bahwa sistem ekonomi kapitalisme lebih relevan pada masa sekarang ini.
II. ISI
A. Sistem Ekonomi Kapitalisme
Kapitalisme adalah suatu ideologi atau paham yang percaya bahwa modal merupakan sumber utama untuk dapat menjalankan sistem perekonomian di suatu Negara. Dengan demikian, sistem ekonomi Negara tersebut bersumber pada pengelolaan modal, baik itu modal milik perorangan, milik sekelompok masyarakat, maupun milik perusahaan-perusahaan swasta. Kapitalisme tumbuh dan berkembang di dalam situasi dan kondisi ekonomi di abad ke-18; yaitu dalam era evolusi industri di Inggris. Penemuan penting seperti mesin uap oleh James Watt menjadi pendorong zaman industrialisasi. Dengan teknologi-teknologi tersebut, proses produksi di era itu menjadi jauh lebih efisien. Salah satu faktornya adalah digantikannya tenaga manusia dengan tenaga mesin. Biaya produksi yang dapat ditekan itu menyebabkan harga produk yang lebih murah. Selain itu, mesin juga mampu menghasilkan kualitas produk yang lebih baik dibandingkan hasil produksi manusia. Dengan adanya efisiensi ini, maka muncul keinginan para pemilik modal untuk mengembangkan usahanya yang sukses. Investasi ini menyebabkan multiplier effect yang maksudnya adalah timbulnya sektor-sektor usaha di bidang lain. Contoh: ketika sebuah pabrik baja berkembang dari pekerja yang jumlahnya 300 orang ke 3000 orang, maka jumlah penjaja makan siang di sekitar pabrik tersebut pasti meningkat. Selain itu, masih banyak jenis usaha lainnya yang akan muncul, seperti transportasi, pakaian tempat tinggal dan tempat rekreasi. Jenis usaha semacam ini menyebabkan timbulnya kesejahteraan masyarakat lokal serta perkembangan inovasi bisnis di area tujuan investasi tersebut.
B. Sistem Ekonomi Koperasi
Menurut Andjar Pachta, ide koperasi lahir dalam era kejayaan kapitalisme. Jika kapitalisme berpijak pada paham tentang pentingnya peranan modal dalam kegiatan ekonomi, maka koperasi lebih mengutamakan peranan manusia dalam memupuk modal. Dengan demikian, perbedaannya terletak pada penekanan faktor-faktor produksi dalam kegiatan ekonomi; koperasi pada manusianya, sedangkan kapitalisme mengutamakan dalam memupuk modal. Andjar lebih jauh menjelaskan bahwa dalam sistem ekonomi koperasi faktor produksi seperti modal masih diperlukan, hanya saja dalam sistem kapitalisme manusia hanyalah salah satu faktor produksi, sementara dalam sistem ekonomi koperasi, manusia adalah penggerak usahanya. Selain itu, Andjar Pachta juga berpendapat bahwa Negara-negara kapitalis banyak yang menyadari tentang pentingnya sistem ekonomi koperasi dalam meningkatkan tingkat hidupnya karena sistem koperasi mengajarkan mereka untuk bekerjasama satu dengan yang lain dalam suatu wadah yang diorganisir dan mempunyai program yang teratur dan dikelola secara bersama-sama secara demokratis.
Kritik penulis terhadap argumen di atas adalah kurang tepatnya pemahaman tentang filosofi sistem kapitalis. Andjar Pachta berasumsi bahwa (1) sistem kapitalis kurang manusiawi dibandingkan sistem koperasi; (2) sistem kapitalis tidak menekankan pada unsur kerjasama yang terorganisir serta demokrasi atau dalam sistem kapitalis unsur kerjasamanya lebih kecil atau kurang dibandingkan sistem ekonomi koperasi.
Kapitalisme dalam sejarahnya berawal dari ketidakpuasan kepada sistem diktator, monarki absolut dan totaliterianisme yang ada. Sampai pada abad ke 18, sebelum John Locke memprogandakan teori pemisahan kekuasaan, kebanyakan Negara (bangsa) masih mempraktekkan sistem kerajaan yang monarki dan diktator. Salah satu masalah penting pada masa ini adalah tidak adanya kepemilikan pribadi, baik tanah, rumah maupun properti yang lainnya. Kalaupun kerajaan mengizinkan adanya kepemilikan kepada kalangan bangsawan terbatas (baron dan duke), tidak ada mekanisme perlindungan properti tersebut. Artinya, pihak kerajaan bisa mencabut hak tersebut kapanpun mereka inginkan dan tidak ada jalur hukum yang bisa ditempuh oleh para bangsawan. Karena tekanan-tekanan sosial semacam inilah, terjadi ketidakpuasan terhadap sistem yang ada. Selanjutnya, terjadi pemberontakkan di banyak Negara-negara yang mempraktekkan sistem diktator (mirip esensinya dengan sosialisme). Rakyat merasa tidak adil karena hasil kerja keras mereka harus diberikan sebagai upeti dan hanya mendapatkan sedikit dari hasil kerja keras mereka. Pihak kerajaan berpendapat bahwa upeti itu pantas dibayar atas perlindungan kerajaan terhadap keselamatan rakyatnya.
Ketidakadilan dalam tatanan ekonomi pada masa itu menyebabkan adanya sentimen masyarakat dunia untuk melahirkan konsep kapitalisme dimana hak-hak individu akan kekayaannya dijamin oleh pihak penguasa. Bila dilihat dari perkembangan ini, maka: (1) sistem kapitalisme merupakan sistem yang lahir dari kelaliman sistem diktator yang intinya adalah untuk melindungi manusia dan hak asasinya; (2) sistem kapitalisme juga lahir dari kerjasama dan sentimen kebanyakan segmen masyarakat di dunia ini yang tidak puas dengan sifat diktator penguasa. Bahkan sebenarnya esensi dari sistem kapitalisme adalah demokrasi yaitu partisipasi rakyat dalam bidang kekuasaan Negara yang dalam konteks ini adalah perlindungan hak-hak ekonominya. Sistem kapitalisme bisa dikatakan sebagai pionir lahirnya konsep demokrasi klasik atau primitif di Athena (200 tahun sebelum masehi).
Kesimpulannya pada bagian ini adalah bahwa asumsi yang dipakai Andjar Pachta dalam bukunya kurang tepat karena tidak menjelaskan esensi sistem kapitalisme secara utuh, namun hanya melihat buruknya implementasi sistem kapitalisme. Hal ini sama dengan mengargumentasikan bahwa agama Islam jelek karena mengajarkan perang, balas dendam, pembunuhan dan kekerasan, padahal yang salah dalam hal ini adalah sekelompok minoritas yang salah mengartikan ajaran agamanya. Sebuah sistem (atau agama) tidak bisa disimpulkan buruk hanya karena segelintir orang dalam implementasinya menjadikannya jelek.
C. Perbandingan kelebihan dan kekurangan masing-masing sistem
Menurut Andjar Pachta, kelebihan sistem kapitalisme adalah antara lain :
1. Para pengusaha menjadi lebih dinamis
2. Adanya profit motive
3. Adanya pengakuan terhadap hak milik perseorangan
4. Diperbolehkan bersaing dengan bebas
Sedangkan keburukan-keburukan sistem kapitalis adalah diantaranya sebagai berikut:
1. Pertentangan antar penilaian berdasarkan atas uang dengan nilai kemanusiaan
2. Distribusi pemerataan yang tidak merata
3. Penghasilan tanpa kerja.
4. Monopolistik, pemborosan ekonomi, tidak adanya keseimbangan dan individualisme
Penulis berpendapat bahwa Andjar Pachta menyimpulkan kelebihan sistem koperasi sebagai berikut:
1. Usaha yang bersifat sosial dan bukan berorientasi pada keuntungan tapi pada kesejahteraan anggota
2. Diurus bersama dengan semangat kebersamaan dan gotong royong.
3. Netral, demokratis dan menghindari persaingan antaranggota
4. Moral, pendidikan dan kemandirian.
Andjar Pachta tidak mengakui bahwa sistem koperasi mempunyai kelemahan sama sekali. Bila dilihat dari paparan diatas, ada beberapa hal yang bisa diargumentasikan penulis.
Pertama, masalah kemanusiaan dan demokrasi. Hal ini sudah penulis bahas di bagian sebelumnya. Kedua, kelemahan sistem kapitalis distribusi pemerataan yang tidak merata. Kelemahan tidak sepenuhnya tepat dideskripsikan oleh Andjar Pachta. Esensi dari ekonomi dan bisnis adalah adanya keunggulan orang-orang tertentu yang disebabkan oleh kemampuan bisnisnya, kepintaran dan kemampuan beradaptasinya. Jadi, asumsi bahwa tingkat ekonomi yang ideal adalah semua orang harus memiliki tingkat kekayaan yang sama tidak tepat. Penulis juga mengakui bahwa harus ada intervensi pemerintah untuk menjamin kesejahteraan ekonomi yang mendasar seperti hak pendidikan, hidup yang layak, perumahan dan pekerjaan yang layak. Dalam konteks ini, sistem koperasi berideologi sosialis tepat argumentasinya. Akan tetapi, tidak tepat bahwa Negara punya hak untuk mengintervensi dan meregulasi kegiatan ekonomi unit ekonomi masyarakat secara absolut. Penulis menerima argumen bahwa Negara bisa mengintervensi sebatas pemenuhan kesejahteraan dasar ekonomi. Ketiga, penghasilan tanpa kerja merupakan keunggulan ekonomi seseorang tidak ada yang salah dengan hal tersebut. Seseorang dikatakan sukses dalam bidang ekonomi bila dia mampu menciptakan corong-corong uang yang artinya adalah kemampuan finansialnya meregenerasi tanpa kerja keras lagi. Orang-orang sukses seperti itu umumnya harus bekerja keras pada awalnya hingga terciptanya corong-corong uang tersebut. Sistem kapitalis ini menyebabkan tumbuh berkembangnya industri-industri di Amerika dan Jepang yang jauh lebih pesat daripada Negara lain pada tahun 1960an-2000. Keempat, monopolistik merupakan collateral damage dari sistem kapitalis, namun masalah ini juga sudah dijawab dengan perkembangan pesatnya hukum persaingan usaha yang pionirnya adalah dari Amerika Serikat. Penulis tidak mengerti apa yang dimaksud Andjar Pachta dengan pemborosan ekonomi yang dimaksud. Andjar Pachta menjelaskan tentang pemborosan dalam penggunaan teknologi karena persaingan menyebabkan pengusaha berlomba-lomba menciptakan dan menggunakan teknologi baru sehingga teknologi lama terbuang. Bukankah hal tersebut juga terjadi dalam sistem ekonomi sosialis dan koperasi? Andjar Pachta lebih jauh menjelaskan gaya hidup konsumtif yang dihasilkan oleh sistem kapitalis. Pertanyaannya adalah apakah Negara-negara Skandinavia, seperti Swedia dan Finlandia, yang menganut sistem koperasi tidak menganut gaya hidup yang konsumtif. Gaya hidup konsumtif bukan merupakan konsekuensi langsung atau akibat kausal dari sistem kapitalisme. Kalaupun benar, apakah ada kesalahan moral didalam konsumerisme? Dalam konteks tidak adanya keseimbangan dan individualism, penulis berpendapat bahwa ketidakseimbangan dalam hal ekonomi pasti dan harus terjadi. Analoginya adalah dalam sebuah kelas dalam konteks pendidikan, pasti ada siswa yang juara pertama dan juara terakhir. Hal ini mengindikasikan ketidakseimbangan dalam hal akses pendidikan, seperti buku, teknologi dan kualitas infrastruktur lainnya. Penulis mengakui bahwa dalam kenyataannya banyak anak miskin yang juga sanggup berprestasi, namun kecenderungannya adalah anak yang orang tuanya berpendidikan dan kaya cenderung mempunyai potensi sukses (dalam hal pendidikan) yang lebih besar daripada anak yang keluarganya miskin dan tidak berpendidikan. Kondisi semacam ini menggambarkan pasti adanya ketidakseimbangan dalam hal ekonomi. Analogi lainnya adalah masalah dimana sebuah Negara terletak. Negara-negara seperti Indonesia dan China yang karena letaknya mempunyai kekayaan alam yang jauh lebih besar daripada Negara-negara seperti Singapura. Hal ini juga mengindikasikan adanya ketidakseimbangan ekonomi.
Pertanyaan berikutnya adalah apakah semua keunggulan koperasi yang diuraikan oleh Andjar Pachta benar? Jikapun benar, apakah keunggulan tersebut tidak dimiliki oleh sistem kapitalis? Pertama dalam konteks koperasi tidak hanya mengejar keuntungan, namun lebih menitikberatkan pada kesejahteraan anggotanya. Apakah kesejahteraan secara ekonomi mungkin tercapai tanpa keuntungan? Keuntungan merupakan faktor utama yang menentukan kesejahteraan ekonomi. Dalam sistem kapitalis, kesejahteraan ekonomi anggota atau pekerjanya merupakan hal yang jauh lebih mungkin tercapai daripada pekerja dalam sistem koperasi. Alasannya adalah karena sistem ekonomi kapitalis menekankan pada meritocracy yaitu keunggulan kepintaran, manajemen, kreativitas, efisiensi dan efektivitas keputusan. Oleh karena itu, pekerja yang mempunyai keunggulan ini akan sejahtera secara ekonomi. Jika argumen Andjar Pachta selanjutnya adalah bahwa dalam sistem kapitalis hanya segelintir orang yang menikmatinya sementara lebih banyak yang tidak sejahtera, penulis juga sudah menjawab argumen ini. Bukankah dalam sistem koperasi ada pembagian sisa hasil usaha yang juga dinilai berdasarkan merits atau kontribusi masing-masing anggota? Hal ini berarti anggota yang kurang kreatif dan inovatif akan mendapatkan bagian uang yang sedikit. Orang yang unggul, pintar dan kreatif jumlahnya jauh lebih kecil daripada orang yang tidak sehingga secara kuantitas kesejahteraan ekonomi dalam sistem koperasi pun hanya akan dinikmati segelintir golongan.
Kedua, koperasi diurus bersama dengan semangat kebersamaan dan gotong royong. Apakah semangat kebersamaan dan gotong royong meningkatkan kesejahteraan ekonomi anggota koperasi secara kausal? Fakta menunjukkan bahwa tanpa sistem kompetisi atau persaingan, sebuah usaha tidak akan efisien dan efektif. Sikap gotong royong ini dalam pandangan penulis adalah sistem yang menyebabkan banyaknya ketidakpastian hukum dan friksi dalam kalangan ekonomi menengah ke bawah di Indonesia. Sistem gotong royong tidak menitikberatkan pada kontrak, perjanjian, kompetisi dan eksekusi penyitaan asset untuk kepentingan pembayaran hutang. Sistem litigasi adversarial ini adalah fitur utama Negara kapitalis seperti Amerika Serikat. Dalam sistem ini, kepastian hukum terjamin sehingga investor-investor asing merasa aman dengan investasinya. Persaingan adalah kunci utama peningkatan kesejahteraan ekonomi, inovasi, teknologi dan masih banyak lagi. Dengan kecenderungan gotong royong, maka anggotanya akan terjebak dalam self-complacency karena asumsi mereka adalah anggota lain koperasi akan membantu mereka dalam kesulitan sehingga mereka tidak perlu bersaing mati-matian. Ini adalah cara berpikir yang salah dalam konteks ekonomi dan pengusaha.
Ketiga, koperasi mempunyai ciri-ciri netral dan demokratis. Bukankah sejarah menunjukkan bahwa koperasi dipakai sebagai alat propaganda politik seperti halnya pada tahun 1970an ketika Soekarno sedang gencar-gencarnya menyerukan aliansi penentangan poros tengah komunisme? Banyak koperasi yang didirikan pada masa sebelum 1960 yang tujuannya adalah untuk menggalang dukungan masyarakat untuk menentang pemerintahan Belanda. Hal ini berarti koperasi di Indonesia banyak digunakan untuk kepentingan politik. Dalam kontek demokrasi, apakah adil jika seorang anggota yang kontribusinya sedikit mempunyai hak suara yang sama dengan anggota yang kontribusinya besar untuk menentukan arah dan nasib sebuah usaha dagang? Sistem ini sama halnya dengan pemegang saham, yang kekuatan suaranya tergantung pada jumlah saham atau kontribusi yang dia berikan kepada badan usaha tertentu.
Keempat, dalam hal moral, pendidikan dan kemandirian, penulis berpendapat bahwa pembuktian korupnya moral sebuah sistem tidak bisa dibuktikan oleh Andjar dalam bukunya. Sementara dalam hal pendidikan, anggaran yang dikeluarkan perusahaan multinasional untuk pelatihan ketrampilan jauh lebih besar dibandingkan koperasi besar di Indonesia. Selain itu, pendidikan merupakan kunci utama berkembangnya persaingan. Sistem kapitalis menitikberatkan pada kualitas persaingan. Oleh karena itu, pendidikan merupakan kenderaan penting sistem kapitalis dalam mencapai tujuan keuntungannya. Dalam hal kemandirian, penulis berpendapat bahwa kemandirian juga merupakan kunci utama dalam sistem kapitalis. Sistem koperasi di Indonesia banyak disubsidi pemerintah dalam hal insentif pajak yang lebih tinggi daripada P.T., kemudahan pengurusan izin dan dana bantuan ataupun pinjaman dari pemerintah serta perlindungan dalam hal regulasi, sementara P.T. yang berbasiskan sistem kapitalis tidak mendapatkan keuntungan tersebut. Apakah koperasi lebih mandiri daripada P.T. dalam konteks ini?
D. Analisis terhadap kondisi ekonomi indonesia di tahun 1999-2003
Kondisi perekonomian Indonesia secara umum adalah pertumbuhan ekonomi pada tahun 1999 adalah 0,79%; pada tahun 2000 sebesar 4,92%; pada tahun 2001 sebesar 3,44%; pada tahun 2002 sebesar 3,66%; pada tahun 2003 sebesar 4,10%. Hal ini secara konstan berlansung sampai pada tahun 2007. Pada tahun 2008 terjadi penurunan yang sangat signifikan di triwulan terakhir dan hal ini berlanjut sampai awal 2009. Adanya indikasi kuat terjadinya pemutusan hubungan kerja yang banyak karena terjadinya krisis ekonomi global dimana banyak perusahaan besar gulung tikar sehingga terjadi pemotongan faktor produksi dalam hal buruh. Selain itu, rendahnya tingkat investasi pada tahun 2000 diperparah dengan krisis ekonomi global yang menurunkan secara drastis jumlah investasi yang masuk ke Negara-negara pada umumnya. Pada tahun 1985, kurang lebih 10% foreign direct investment masuk ke Indonesia sementara 40%nya masuk ke China. Pada tahun 1995, Indonesia hanya bisa menyerap 5% dari total foreign direct investment yang masuk ke Asia. Pada tahun 2008-2009 angka ini jauh lebih kecil lagi.
Sementara itu, pemerintah juga sedang krisis APBN dikarenakan berbagai faktor terhadap inflasi berkepanjangan, subsidi Bantuan Langsung Tunai dan dana-dana talangan yang harus dikeluarkan untuk insiden-insiden seperti lumput Sidoarjo. Indonesia pada masa sekarang sedang mengalami krisis investasi dan modal.
E. Deduksi analitis terhadap argumen bahwa kapitalisme lebih relevan
Dengan kekayaan alam yang melimpah ruah, sangat ironis bila melihat kondisi di lapangan bahwa Indonesia kekurangan teknologi, know-how dan sumber daya manusia untuk mengelola kekayaan alam tersebut. Hal ini menyebabkan diperlukannya konsesi untuk perusahaan semacam Conocho Philips. Sementara untuk pariwisata serta transportasi umum (seperti monorail) juga banyak yang tidak berkembang karena rendahnya jumlah investasi di Indonesia. Karena sangat diperlukannya modal untuk mengelola sumber-sumber daya alam tersebut, maka Indonesia tidak bisa menetapkan kebijakan koperasi yang hanya menekankan kesejahteraan anggotanya, padahal modal segar dalam jumlah banyak diperlukan dalam waktu singkat.
Sistem ekonomi koperasi sangat diperlukan pada masa abad ke 18 dan di Indonesia pada masa abad ke 19 dan 20 karena kurang adanya perlindungan terhadap hak buruh. Koperasi didirikan pada masa itu untuk melindungi hak-hak buruh yang termaginalisasi. Pada masa sekarang perlindungan terhadap hak buruh sudah diatur dalam Undang-undang perburuhan yang antara lain memuat upah regional minimum, jaminan sosial, asuransi kesehatan, hak mogok dan hak serikat buruh. Dengan perlindungan semacam itu, maka salah satu tujuan didirikannya koperasi sudah kurang relevan sekarang.
Sistem ekonomi koperasi menekankan pada dana dan modal anggotanya. Dalam kondisi perkenomian sekarang maka jumlah modal yang dimiliki masyarakat local Indonesia sangat sedikit. Indonesia perlu mengembangkan kebijakan kapitalis yang mempunyai daya tarik yang tinggi untuk para investor. Negara juga perlu menekankan pada efisiensi kinerja birokrat yang sangat dibenci oleh investor-investor asing, Misalnya, sistem keamanan dan pungutan liar.
III. Simpulan
Dengan perkembangan ekonomi yang semakin pesat, sistem ekonomi koperasi sudah kehilangan esensinya. Perlindungan buruh dalam konteks badan usaha yang melindungi kesejahteraan anggotanya sudah diambil alih oleh adanya Undang-Undang tentang Perburuhan yang menjamin hak minimum regional dan ha keselamatan buruh.

Kindness is not what you say or feel: It s what you do!!

2009-03-29T10:04:00.001-07:00

The conventional wisdom (popular belief) of virtue or kindness is that you must have good faith and exhibit certain quality of sympathy. I personally do not think that is proper and in fact im inclined to say that is wrong.

Here is how it goes. I am an utilitarian, which means I m a person of result orientation not process (though in some aspects im on the other extreme, process oriented). I think what matters is how many children in Africa fed today, not how much you care about them or how much you pity them.

A rich businessman or politician may not have sympathy or love for children in Africa, but as long as he donated a big sum of money to feed those children, that is kindness and, in fact, a lot more useful than people who are extremely kind but poor. Even if the politicians or businessmen donate money for popularity purpose (it s good for his political campaign) and not for the sake of showing sympathy for these children, I think, objectively he has done a lot more virtue than extremely kind people who are poor.

My friends argued that “but helping people is also about self-satisfaction and process…” how selfish is that argument. See? You are not helping a lot, yet you are doing it so you feel satisfied about YOURSELF!!! In religious terms (especially Christian Buddhist and Islam), this is done so you receive “pahala” or reward when you pass away. The reward in commonly associated with ticket to heaven. This shows how selfish and hypocrite people are, especially those who claim themselves to be extremely kind or just kind.

Have you ever watched Boston Legal? If you do, you will know what i am saying. I am referring to Alan Shore, an obnoxious character in those series. He is infamous for his mean and unpleasant comment to a lot of things. His unorthodox approach to many issues bring him more foes than friends. The most important part of his character is that he doesnt proclaim himself to be a kind man... He doesnt even show it... But everyone watching that shows know exactly that he is the man of integrity, the one with strongest principles of life among all characters in Boston Legal. His principle is mainly helping poor and needy people without ever telling anyone or letting anyone knows. Unlike him, most people are overrating their kindness and their contribution to public. People gave "sedekah" or small change for paupers because they want to be seen as kind and nice people in public. Muslems gave zakat fitrah because they expect the heavenly crown or in quran terms pahala

Im sometimes sick with what im living in… people often say to me be part of the solution not the problem or think positively. I said no… without people like me nobody will ever realize how corrupt they are. Im not claiming im not corrupt (in wide sense), but at least im being honest about it…
Long live hypocrisy, because human kind loves you so much!! And went I come in to tell my friends that their volunteer works in asylum or children service are useless and infinitely small, they are mad at me… Kindness is best exhibited when you have money and power, even better when you do have the sympathy and love for those you help financially.

the debate on Al-Quran and Holy Bible: Texts to religion of war?

2009-03-22T12:30:00.000-07:00

Cafer says :
"Don't associate Islam with terrorism. It's really annoying.Makasi, it gets to a point where I have to explain Arabs and Pakistanis for political violence. It is so easy to blame our religion for imperfect human actions.No one is innocent? More like an excuse used to kill and murder civilians (or the more PC terminology, collateral damage).Oddly enough, the author of Body of Lies is the same asshole that cut off Erdogan at the Davos conference.I smell bullshit."

harjo says
"cafer, i don't take position for the author either. but i noted your point. That movie has America propaganda. However, my point is simply the war is the mistake of both, nobody can or should put their head straight up standing in either shoes the American (or UK or people claiming themselves as civilized nation) or the terrorist muslims (acknowledging some muslims practice "peaceful" religion.

Cafer says:
" mistake of both? No, I don't think so. One side chooses to engage in it, the other side does not have the option. You ignore the imbalances in power. ANd what do you mean SOME Muslims? Almost all Muslims life peaceful lives.It doesn't matter, you didn't address any of the points I made in my response. You are making the assumption that I am defending the conflict, when I am not.I am responding to the common conceptualization on "Muslim' terrorists, which I find offensive and I am tired of not speaking up and defending my din. I'll try to start from the beginning,
I have no problems w/ Harjo's initial statement.Yes, both sides are guilty in conflict.However, it is not that simple.There are varying degrees of complacency and a disproportionate power balance.In no way am I defending the actions of people that use violence on innocent civilians. At the same time, one side has a monopoly on state violence and the ability to manipulate politics in other countries (without consent from constituents).Because these situations arise, conflict springs up and both sides do repulsive acts.My problem stems again from the terminology. For a very long time, Muslims have been passive in the global media and we have not struggled against this "Muslim" terrorist association. As if people of faith are strongly inclined to use force, when in fact the actions are unduly unIslamic.This is the last point I have a problem with. But this is changing, more Muslims are speaking up and no longer letting others define us."

Harjo says:
personally find the text problematic in both Holy Bible and Al-Quran. I am aware that in Al-Quran there is part of the letter (surat) which reinforces the idea of jihad and martyr. This is consistent with the term used in Holy Bible. I can cite to you the Arabic and Hebrew language if I have time to research. My point is this language allows wars, killings and the use of force to defend the dignity of the religion if threatened. God (not capitalized because it loses my respect) in both text is described as vengeful and destructive. Holy Bible describes god’s anger when he swept out the whole mankind except Noah. This is not justifiable for whatever grave sins human has committed (it is said that god is forgiveful BIG JOKE). Another example is Sodom and GOmora incineration (can be found in Quran text as well). I find this god’s character, if not followed, interpreted extensively by both religions. No wonder, it incites so much vengeful character in both congregations
I note your point on power imbalances, and how one side started the war. I also note your point on how most not “all” muslims are living peacefully, yet severe oppression caused them to start speaking up. I have great appreciation to those people.
First, a power imbalance is not an excuse to kill enemies, if not muslims’ own kind. In the operation, the senior jihadist will kill his junior if the junior might be arrested. This is done to prevent information leakage. Bombs exploded in the centre of many Islamic cities. This character again stems from god’s character depicted in Quran. I am not saying there is not virtue in god described in Quran. I am saying the description is inconsistent and there is a minor flaw. God must be perfect, one flaw means he is not perfect, and if he is not perfect, it should not be god.
Take example from Buddist teaching. This is clear in Myanmar junta totalitarianism. Look at how those monks are killed yet they did not resist with violence. How many of them were killed? This is because they believe violence will not solve violence ( I bet many of you are sick reading these line), but it is relevant.

Second, I understand most muslims are living peacefully. I cant rebut you with many as I don’t have the statistic to argue. However, you must also note that many muslims live under the line of poverty. People with great agony in life tend to be more radicals. One of the factors is because they are paid and fed (including their families) when the decided to join jihad camps. The other factor is social pressure. You are viewed as the betrayer of its community if he doesn’t have the same view. Imagine life in Afganistan and you are a muslim male. Would dare to say to the radical jihadists that they interpret the Quran in a wrong, say improper, way? Would you dare to resist the peer pressure to support morally, if not physically of the jihadist movement? This is why I dare to use the word “many... ” and not “most”.

Third, I understand the oppression on Muslim side and I put a lot of angers in our world inherent unfair structure. I also understand the term muslim terrorist is offensive for most people. But that word technically refers only to muslims who are terrorist. In another word I can also say catholics terrorist, because they were once terrorists.
personally find the text problematic in both Holy Bible and Al-Quran. I am aware that in Al-Quran there is part of the letter (surat) which reinforces the idea of jihad and martyr. This is consistent with the term used in Holy Bible. I can cite to you the Arabic and Hebrew language if I have time to research. My point is this language allows wars, killings and the use of force to defend the dignity of the religion if threatened. God (not capitalized because it loses my respect) in both text is described as vengeful and destructive. Holy Bible describes god’s anger when he swept out the whole mankind except Noah. This is not justifiable for whatever grave sins human has committed (it is said that god is forgiveful BIG JOKE). Another example is Sodom and GOmora incineration (can be found in Quran text as well). I find this god’s character, if not followed, interpreted extensively by both religions. No wonder, it incites so much vengeful character in both congregations
I note your point on power imbalances, and how one side started the war. I also note your point on how most not “all” muslims are living peacefully, yet severe oppression caused them to start speaking up. I have great appreciation to those people.

Al-Quran and Holy Bible: Texts for Religion of War?

2009-03-22T08:03:00.000-07:00

I've just watched body of lies (Leonardo di Caprio) which is consistent with most stories i ve watched such as rendition. It strikes me an awe. It is not that i don't know that there has been tension between the US and most muslims, but i can't picture it that well before i watched these movies. The best quotes i got from body of lies "Nobody is innocent in this business of wars". It is true. No matter which side of the war you choose to stand on, both are guilty, either standing for the American or the alleged muslims terrorist.

If i am to make an inventory of wars (big one) in the history up to the present date, then i can point to Catholicism and Islam as the primary defendant on the war history. The great Cross war between the crusaders and the jihadist, the story of king arthur war and the muslims. Israel-Palestine and much more.

I was a christian, i studied bible (i dont claim to be an expert). I do understand in both Al-Quran and Holy Bible (both are derived from almost the same text), there was a message of an angry god (not capitalized because i dont believe in it, or in any event, he is a flawed god). he is a god of war. Holy Bible especially described in details how vengeful, jealous and power showy he is. Sodom and Gomora and the 10 curses he granted for the Egytians are the clear example of this angry god. I never see any virtue of god in the bible, or even if there is one, his anger and vengeful actions far exceeds his virtue.

This, if not the core of the Holy Bible and Al-Quran teaching, gives room to misinterpretation. Look at ourselves right now (Isreael-Palestine) US (Cristian) to Musliims sentiment. Where did it come from? I understand both have appealing arguments for justifying its actions. In rendition movie, the agent of jihadists once argued that we have no idea the oppression they suffered for centuries, living under the ceiling of fear and persecution, discriminated and jailed simply because of their race, name or colors (random check and therefore forceful rendition to guantnamo). The argument of the US is also appealing. They argued that "do not throw the blame to our face, we did this so that you can wake up in your bed in London or Paris safely in the morning and not to worry of the safety of your family, children or relatives, so stop complaining and let us do our job"

This world is probably much better off without you both. Your indoctrination if not repugnant, is unbelievably uncivilized. I can start understanding what Sigmund Freud has been so discontent about during his course of life ("civilization and its discontent")

Muslims killed their own kinds in the name of Allah and worse of all they think they will go to heaven (martyr). US on one side think they have the police power to standardized value in the world. Side note: they also impose unfair environmental value to developing states now after they caused of this mess to global warming thanks to their industrialization era in 18th century.

Really, we dont need you to tell us that we should fight (in war) each other, human is born with innate sense of war already. Thanks to your contribution to our mankind!!

"those to whom evil is done, do evil in return"

do you think what you think you think?

2009-03-20T22:07:00.000-07:00

Auguste Rodin crafted a famous statue called "thinking". In essence, it represents, that to be human you must think. Rene Descartes is also famous for his quote "cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore i am). I personally am a thinker (in any sense). I love philosophy and critical thinking skills

But am i thinking right? am i thinking what i think i think. We so often say and act not in accordance with what we think we do or say. I personally think what i think i think must be examined. The beauty of examination is well affirmed (which i very much adhered) by Socrates "unexamined life is not worth living. Therefore, a thought that is not examined is not worthy to be thought of.

Believe it or not, thinking is an art, just like playing music. I love playing piano. It is an art of interpreting a message in a song. That is what determines a shallow text based piano player and a good player. THinking also is an art which is not only measured by logic but metaphysics logic and observational skills. to see what a naked logic cannot see.

Imagine a cup of coffee when you are drinking with your friend. You can only see the side of cup, similar to a side of coin. Metaphysics logic allows you to see the other side of coin by observation of the surrounding of the coin without ever seeing the other side of the coin. We did every day in our lives, realizing it or not.

Isn't it beautiful?

why free trade

2009-02-27T03:10:00.000-08:00

WHY FREE TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION IS MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION’S BEST ALLIES?

The emergence of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) is often associated with globalization and free trade. Some thoughts in place question whether globalization stimulates the growth of many MNEs or vice versa. The interaction between both of these factors determines the success of countries capital flow to one country, which, in the present situation, determines level of economic stimulus. Certainly, some factors are also accountable in one country’s economy success when MNEs operate in one jurisdiction, such as technology transfer, know-how transfer, management skills transfer and infrastructure development. For this economy incentive, States (developing and underdeveloped) are willing to liberalize their markets as an attractive tool for MNEs. Globalization, in part, becomes the child of every MNE and so often of not governmental policy (such as health and terrorists regulation). This paper aims to analyze the interaction between globalization and MNEs and how globalization is often used by MNEs as the most lucrative strategy and hence forms a solid ally with MNEs.
1. THE EMERGENCE OF MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES (MNE)
The literal meaning of MNEs is that of corporations having commercial presence in more than one jurisdiction. Some authors identify MNE as an enterprise that controls and manages production units located in at least two countries. Vernon and Wells, use similar definition, when they refer to MNEs as a “cluster of affiliated firms located in a number of countries. One interesting point Caves points out is that when he discusses MNE’s definition he focuses on the control and management and does not explicitly mention ownership structure. Caves is concerned with the ambiguousness and arbitrariness in the distinction between direct investment and portfolio investment. However, for the purpose of this paper, the writer would operate on the assumption of MNEs having commercial presence (which is closer in generally accepted definition to direct investment).

2. FREE TRADE AND GLOBALIZATION: INCENTIVE TO MNES
The immediate effect of globalization in most common minds is trade liberalization. In public international trade law discourses, the terms free trade, custom union and common market enjoy different definition. However, for the purpose of this paper, the writer would not discuss them in details. In a free-trade area, tariffs (and quantitative restrictions) between the participating countries are abolished, but each country retains its own tariffs against nonmembers. Establishing a customs union involves, besides the suppression of discrimination in the field of commodity movements within the union, the equalization of tariffs in trade with nonmember countries. A higher form of economic integration is attained in a common market, where not only trade restrictions but also restrictions on factor movements are abolished. From the above definition, it is understood that free trade practically abolishes the transactional and fixed cost of corporations as tariffs are reduced into zero (ideally). When corporations expand their commercial presence to another country, their main concern (in economic sense) is the movement of capital between main company and sister company as well as costs incurred during the process. Another concern is, of course, tax and other forms of monetary restrictions they suffer when selling their products and services to multi jurisdictions. Globalization, which is the platform of free trade, provides panacea to all of these classic concerns. Furthermore, globalization affects distance and communication, which is the major part of transaction costs.
3. THE GOOD OLD TIMES VERSUS GLOBALIZATION
Prior to burgeoning MNEs in free trade context, they mostly remain local companies operating on the basis of local market. They certainly have built long lasting connection with the incumbent government, both in administrative and legal context. This provides familiarity and enables them to maneuver better in most administrative matters. Some companies enjoy great bargaining position and hence enable them to reap the benefits of those of the most corrupt systems (examples lenient waste and risk management, operational permit and social impact of companies operation). Globalization also brings the effect of more transparency and control to MNEs as companies are more exposed to multi legal regimes. Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) is a good example for the above mentioned point. ATCA allows non-US citizen to file a lawsuit for human rights abuses against mother companies in US for their sister companies’ act in another country. For example: citizens of Myanmar (Burma) filed a suit against Unocal, a U.S. company, for its role in supporting atrocities committed by the military against rural villagers.
Most MNEs which enjoy the old regime advantage are benefited more by globalization. As explained in previous sub-section, globalization abolishes all economic restrictions MNEs suffer in the old regime. Furthermore, globalization also promotes principle of meritocracy which means that the most efficient companies win the competition. Those of the most effectively managed companies will reap huge benefits from this scenario as they can map their battlefields more clearly with their competitors. This removes all disadvantages they suffer in the old regime, such as more lenient tax and regulations restrictions imposed to their competitors. Moreover, principle of meritocracy promotes the attitude of competitiveness. Companies compete to create the most inventive and economically efficient due to incentives in market share they receive. Since globalization means creating a more equal playing field and more transparent competition, innovations are more properly rewarded.
4. CONCLUSION
Globalization is a very powerful tool for MNEs as it abolishes all restrictions they can enjoy. MNEs are economic creatures, hence aiming for benefits. Benefits are increased if innovations are properly rewarded. Globalization stimulates companies to produce the most efficient products and services with the least cost. This brings benefits not only to companies but also market in certain jurisdictions where they operate. If globalization provides such alluring incentives, why not brings it in as ally?

Freedom Writers: Do it big or don't do it at all

2009-02-22T08:17:00.000-08:00

I have recently watched a very interesting true story movie: Freedom Writers, inspired by Erin Guewella’s teaching concept in room 203, long beach state school. My friends highly recommended me to watch it. At first, I thought it’s another tears and emotional exploitative movie for business purpose, but then I watched it. It made me think, when someone decides to do social works, be it civil rights movement, political movement, human rights movement, he/she mostly finds herself a lone fighter. I personally think that if we assess it in mathematical figure, that lone fighter’s work is as good as nothing in the end. The question is how much change he/she will bring if there is no resource supporting him/her. It s not that I have anything against people who have good intention to do social works, I just think in my environment (most environment in fact) my idealism of what is right will end up worthless to fight for because I am a student, with no financial resources, political power or policy power. I am fed up at one point in my life caring about the poor or rights abuse, be it due to bureaucratic procedure (identity card, where the Chinese have to pay a lot of money in the past, or registering a claim in a court, where you have to pay) or due to circumstances (poverty or racism). I cannot change it; I end up spending more energy than cultivating the result.
I guess the following analogy best represent my view. In mathematics discipline, we recognize the concept of “fitting in” (pembulatan). For example, 7.0001 will be fit in as 7. As a lone fighter, I always ended up generating 0.0001 in whatever idealism I am trying to uphold. It ends up fit in 7. It just doesn’t count.
Think about it carefully, how much change can we bring when are lone fighters. We need support from 10,000 more people to have it counted as 8. It is just damn difficult to do so in self-centered growing community. It is naïve to think a person is willing to dedicate his whole life solely for racist or poverty fight. He has a career to think of, probably sisters or brothers to support or family to support. He will end up doing a meager work and that will only be fit in into 7. Of course, there are cases when these fight work, but they are circumstantial. A 1 in 1 million probability. Take example of Martin Luther King, a civil right activist. I think he is lucky because the political environment was resentment to black enslavement. What I am saying is that enslavement is too cruel and too blatant to be tolerated. There was an atmosphere of resentment in many part of the world against apartheid policy, which eased his work and he did not work alone!! However, for issue in between a thin line of right or wrong such as helping the poor (how much money we should donate or the oil distribution system), we end up shouting in the street like one stupid activist!! Do people up there listen or even consider? We have to acquire the power to change to policy, but the ominous circle is always how to climb that politics social ladder?
In the end, I think what I am trying to say is do I big or don’t do it at all, most of you will end will disappointed just like me. It just doesn’t count!

Being a law student..

2007-10-29T20:51:00.001-07:00

Readers, i am a law student... it s been quite a fun and challenging 2 years since i moved in into the capital city of Indonesia, away from my family... I am faced with new environment and culture (as it quite differs from my hometown). But it s fun. Benign culture shock is inevitable i think. So far, i think i bode well enough with the lifestyle here. I managed to tread friendship with "people" here.