Fixing the Hole - Mulai Dari Mana?

Awicaks

Di depan mata terhampar bentangan luas lahan kosong. Seperti tak berujung, dan rasanya matahari di atas kepala ada tiga. Panas luar biasa. Suhu panas juga disebabkan proses pengeringan gambut yang melepaskan jutaan ton karbondioksida (CO2). Sudah dua jam perjalanan, dan sepertinya tidak berujung.

"Dulu di sini adalah hamparan hutan. Dalam waktu kurang dari setahun hutan di sini dibersihkan, karena perusahaan sudah dapat HGU (Hak Guna Usaha) untuk memulai membangun kebun kelapa sawit." Ujar kawan yang menemani saya.

Itu perjalanan sebulan lalu di salah satu kawasan kaya karbon di Riau. Dan pemandangan yang saya lihat tadi hanya puncak dari gunung es. Riau adalah wilayah yang sudah luluh lantak oleh perkebunan besar tidak hanya akhir-akhir ini, bahkan sudah sejak abad ke-18, padsa masa pendudukan Belanda. Yang mengenaskan, keadaan dan modus operandi yang ada sekarang tidak berbeda dengan yang dilakukan pada masa pendudukan Belanda itu.

Sejalan dengan agresifitas pertumbuhan modal-modal besar, seluruh operasi yang "memakan" hutan pun berlangsung semakin efektif dan harus efisien. Atas nama batas-laba (profit margin) metoda pembukaan hutan dan penyiapan lahan paling murah pun dipilih: Membakar sisa-sisa hutan yang ditebang.

Tahun 1997 Riau merupakan salah satu wilayah yang paling mengenaskan dilanda bencana asap. Ratusan anak-anak menderita infeksi saluran pernapasan bagian atas (ISPA). Sarwono Kusumaatmadja, yang saat itu menjabat Menteri Lingkungan Hidup, tergerak untuk melakukan kerja-kerja di luar batas kewenangannya. Ia begitu tak sabar melihat ketidakpedulian kantor negara yang mestinya bertanggung jawab, seperti Departemen Kehutanan dan pemerintah daerah setempat.

Kebakaran lahan hutan tahun 1997 memang bukan yang terbesar, ada pula kebakaran tahun 1982 yang tak kalah hebat, dan sama-sama dibarengi dengan masa gelombang panas (El Nino). Akibatnya derita warga bertumpuk. Sudah terkena bencana asap, lalu mengalami pula kekeringan.

Di media massa para pejabat tak malu-malu menuding masyarakat sebagai penyulut kebakaran. "Mereka miskin, tak punya pilihan selain membakar hutan demi hidup." Sebuah ungkapan paling tolol yang pernah saya dengar. Sudut pandang sepihak dengan sikap lepas tanggung jawab merupakan ciri khas paling menonjol dari pejabat publik di negara ini.

Kebakaran 1997 yang melanda Sumatra dan Kalimantan itu menjadi penanda dari ambruknya rejim korup Orde Baru. Tak lama, setelah diselenggarakan pemilihan umum a la Orde Baru yang kembali mengantarkan Suharto menjadi presiden untuk kesekian kalinya, Sarwono pun tak tergusur dari jajaran elit Orde Baru. Yang menarik, itulah awal dari runtuhnya kepongahan Orde Baru Suharto.

Setelah Orde Baru tumbang, pada masa reformasi, kebakaran hutan menjadi prioritas penting rejim berikutnya. Namun, alih-alih menyelesaikan krisis, kebakaran hutan justru menjadi kerangka acuan (Terms of Reference, ToR) baru pengembangan proyek-proyek milyaran rupiah, baik yang berasal dari bantuan (tak gratis) negara-negara maju maupun proyek utang luar negeri. Ini memang ciri negeri amburadul ini. Krisis dipecahkan lewat proyek. Krisis tak selesai, pengelola proyek makin kaya!

Yang jelas bencana asap menjadi pemicu ucapan permintaan maaf setiap presiden yang berkuasa sejak Suharto kepada negara-negara tetangga, terutama Malaysia dan Singapura. ASEAN pun tergerak merumuskan sebuah perjanjian kerjasama penangangan bencana asap. Selesaikah krisis? Lagi-lagi ia hanya melahirkan proyek-proyek baru....

"Harusnya pemerintah Malaysia minta maaf kepada kita karena tak mampu mengontrol para pemodal mereka yang berinvestasi di perkebunan kelapa sawit di Sumatra dan Kalimantan," ujar seorang pejabat publik dari Departemen Kehutanan pada masa kepresidenan Megawati. Buruk rupa cermin dibelah!

Mungkin mudah bagi saya menulis, utamakan keselamatan warga dalam kebijakan-kebijakan publik! Tetapi dengan carut-marut struktur dan karakter pengurusan negara macam begini, ktia mesti mulai dari mana? Tanpa pemimpin-pemimpin bernyali, nothing to lose, warga Indonesia tak mungkin keluar dari lingkaran setan krisis. Percayalah!

The Economist's Tale

Ini bukan buku baru. Bahkan saya menemukannya di lemari arsip Zed Publisher. Petugas di Zed harus menmeriksa basis data di komputer apakah mereka bisa melepas buku ini untuk dijual. Setelah yakin bahwa mereka masih memiliki salinan lain, saya diperbolehkan membelinya. Pantang menyerah, saya minta potongan harga, karena buku ini sudah masuk arsip. Si petugas tertawa, "Nice try. I'll take a look whether you can get a discount or not." Ia pun mengecek ke komputernya kembali. "Okay, you can get 30% discount."

Sekali lagi, ini bukan buku baru. Diterbitkan pertama kali tahun 2003. Buku yang ditulis Peter Griffiths ini pun tidak menawarkan perspektif baru. Meski bercerita tentang hal yang sama, bahkan terbit lebih dulu, buku bertajuk "The Economist's Tale" ini tidak seberhasil buku John Perkins, "Confession of the Economic Hitman." Tetapi yang menarik dari "the Economist's Tale", ia menggunakan pendekatan bertutur, dan beropini secara jujur. Tidak ada teori-teori besar, atau kerangka ekonomi-poltik hegemonik seperti yang ditawarkan buku-buku serupa.

Buku ini lebih tepat disebut gerundelan seorang konsultan kebijakan pangan yang bekerja di Seirra Leone bernama Griffiths, yang merasa tidak nyaman karena kajian keahliannya digunakan secara "keliru" oleh Bank Dunia untuk mendorong perekonomian Sierra Leone lewat kebijakan produksi beras. Anda akan kecewa jika berharap memperoleh bahasan teknikal tentang ekonomi pangan. Anda pun tidak akan dirundung rasa tertekan membaca kejumawaan Bank Dunia dalam mendikte pengurus Negara Sierra Leone. Anda justru akan banyak tertawa, meski pahit, membaca tuturan Griffiths dengan kalimat-kalimat yang cerdas mengejek dirinya sendiri, mengejek kesoktahuan para penentu kebijakan di Bank Dunia tentang situasi ekonomi-politik Sierra Leone.

Yang membuat saya tercekat adalah, ketika menemukan bahwa rute camput-tangan kebijakan yang dilakukan Bank Dunia di Sierra Leone serupa dan sebangun dengan yang mereka lakukan di Indonesia. Dengan kondisi geografik yang berbeda, dengan latar sejarah berbeda, apalagi latar sosial-politik dan ekonomi-politik yang jauh dari sama, Bank Dunia memberlakukan resep yang plek sama antara Sierra Leone dengan Indonesia. Penghapusan subsidi atas bahan-bahan kebutuhan pokok, percepatan privatisasi, pembanjiran utang untuk mendongkrak anggaran rutin kepengurusan Negara, dan sebagainya. Ya ampun! Terlepas dari gaya bertuturnya yang lucu dan ringan, di balik itu saya tidak menemukan perbedaan antara kisah lucu nan pahit di Sierra Leone dengan Indonesia.

Griffiths berhasil memaparkan pengalamannya seperti halnya orang mendongeng. Ia sangat berhati-hati ketika menyisipkan kajian teknikalnya dan meletakkannya sebagai pendapat pribadi terhadap campur-tangan kebijakan Bank Dunia dan Dana Moneter Internasional (IMF), yang menurut penilaiannya absurd.

Sebagai sebuah dongeng yang lucu dan ringan, buku ini justru sangat menakutkan.
.

Pemilu Sembilan Bulan? Sinting!

Saya baru tersadar ketika tahu bahwa masa kampanye pemilihan umum tahun depan bisa memakan waktu sembilan bulan. Saya cuma geleng-geleng kepala. Apa isi kepala orang-orang sekolahan yang disewa untuk merumuskan peraturan perundangan ini? Kalau isi kepala para politikus sih saya sama sekali tidak tertarik untuk tahu, karena sudah terbaca dari perilaku dan biaya kelakuan mereka.

Coba mari telusuri berita-berita media sepanjang dua tahun terakhir. Mari perhatian kita pusatkan ke konflik-konflik yang timbul karena pemilihan kepala daerah (pilkada). Bentrokan antarmassa pendukung jelas tak terhindarkan, belum lagi ketidakpastian hukum karena pasti pihak yang tak terima atas kekalahan mereka akan mondar-mandir ke lembaga peradilan, entah itu Mahkamah Agung atau Mahkamah Konstitusi. Tambal sulam dan bengkel bongkar pasang jelas tak terhindarkan. Belum pula dihitung perdebatan-perdebatan di media massa diantara orang-orang sekolahan yang menjadi pengamat politik, serta para pelaku politik itu sendiri. Apalagi jika kita sudah bicara soal biaya. Baik biaya resmi maupun biaya-biaya silumannya. Dimana otak orang-orang itu?

Rasanya potret derita warga yang tak henti-hentinya diwartakan media massa tak mampu menyentuh syaraf dan sel-sel kelabu otak mereka. Ini negara mau dibawa kemana? Sudah porak poranda ekonominya, korup orang-orangnya, lah kok masih mau bermain-main dengan eksperimen politik yang lama, mahal (baik biaya moneter maupun biaya sosial dan politik). Saya pun bingung, kok tidak ada aktivis organiasi masyarakat sipil yang protes. Jangan-jangan mereka pun tergiur untuk ikut cawe-cawe di eksperimen paling gila ini?

Benar-benar edan!

Berkunjung ke the Corner House

Larry Lohmann dan Nick Hildyard kelihatan begitu bersemangat ketika mereka muncul di gerbang Stasiun Kereta Api Gillingham, Dorset, Jumat sore lalu. Saya yang masih kelelahan setelah pertemuan marathon di kantor Unilever di London, dilanjutkan dengan konsolidasi di kantor Greenpeace Inggris, kemudian lanjut dengan perjalanan kereta api dua jam hingga tiba di Gillingham, hanya bisa menyambut rangkulan hangat keduanya. Dengan Larry saya masih lumayan sering bertemu dibanding Nick. Terakhir kami sama-sama hadir dan aktif di lokakarya Durban Group beberapa hari sebelum Konferensi Perubahan Iklim di Bali dimulai, Desember 2007. Sedangkan Nick, terakhir saya bersama-sama dengan dia kira-kira tahun 2001, di Canada. Dan kunjungan ke kantor mereka, the Corner House, adalah yang pertama buat saya. Masih setengah jam lagi untuk mencapai kantor the Corner House yang melegenda itu di Sturminster Newton, Dorset, dari Stasiun Kereta Api Gillingham.

Kami menyempatkan kongkow di sebuah kedai minum pedesaan, di pinggiran kota Sturminster Newton. Udaranya sejuk, meski sinar matahari cukup menyengat sore itu. Tak lama setelah mendapat meja, yang pertama kali saya lakukan adalah memberi Nick rokok Ji-Sam-Soe, yang ia pesan lewat email. Bahagia sekali dia. Kami duduk di bagian belakang cafe, yang disebut smoking patio.

Larry bercerita tentang roadshow buku terakhirnya, Carbon Trading - Critical Conversation, selama dua bulan di sepanjang Amerika Utara, yang berakhir Februari lalu. Sementara berkisah tentang kemenangan kasus mereka melawan Pemerintah Inggris, terkait korupsi dalam perjanjian perdagangan senjata antara BAE System dengan Saudi Arabia. Meski itu adalah kemenangan besar buat the Corner House dan publik Inggris, tindak lanjut proses hukum oleh Pemerintah Inggris dinilai Nick dan Larry penuh dengan muslihat. Terkejut juga saya mendengarnya. Kok seperti di Indonesia ya?

Larry Lohmann adalah salah seorang pemikir dan penulis yang produktif yang tak lelah membuka mata para akademisi, aktivis serta para internasionalis tentang ketidakadilan global yang semakin hari semakin membahayakan. Hal yang paling dikhawatirkan Larry adalah, proses pembalikan alami, dimana di masa lalu bangsa Eropa begitu agresif menjajah dunia ketiga, di Asia, Afrika dan Pasifik, kini gelombang bangsa Asia, Afrika dan Pasifik ke negara-negara Eropa menjadi semacam karma. Yang jadi persoalan, gelombang aliran populasi itu tak pelak menimbulkan ketegangan sosial, yang membuat rasisme menjadi semakin nyata. Di sela ngobrol di kedai kopi di seberang the Corner House, saya menanyakan, apakah dia sadar bahwa tempat dia tinggal ternyata semuanya kulit putih. Sehingga saya sering kagok ketika memasuki tempat-tempat publik diikuti pandangan mata heran orang-orang di sekitar. Larry hanya tersenyum simpul.

Siapa Korban Paling Rentan?

Benarkah terjadi krisis pangan? Krisis pangan atau "krisis pangan"? Atau krisis konsumsi pangan?

Saya tak akan pernah lelah mengusung thesis lama, bahwa pengurus Negara tutup mata terhadap keselamatan warga. Warga harus bekerja sendiri menyelesaikan masalahnya tanpa bisa berharap uluran tangan pengurus Negara.

Krisis pangan hanya salah satu dari daftar panjang krisis dan bencana (catastrophes) yang mengancam dan menghantui kehidupan warga negeri kepulauan ini. Modus hidup warga Indonesia adalah bertahan hidup (survival). Tentu thesis ini tak berlaku bagi warga yang berkelebihan, yang lebih pusing memilih sepatu mana yang cocok dipakai saat mengenakan salah satu koleksi pakaian di lemari. Tololnya, yang disebut krisis di Indonesia adalah menyempitnya akses warga untuk memperoleh, mendapatkan dan memanfaatkan kebutuhan-kebutuhan dasar yang seharusnya dijamin Negara.

Kebijakan dadakan alias crash programme alias tambal sulam sudah jadi ciri pengurus negeri ini, selepas lengsernya alm. Eyang Kakung Suharto. Kebijakan-kebijakan Negara yang bersifat reaktif seringkali tak memperhitungkan dampaknya terhadap kehidupan warga. Atas nama menyeimbangkan anggaran Negara warga diminta berbesar hati merasakan dampak demi tujuan yang lebih besar. Terhadap apa yang sekarang ramai disebut krisis pangan pun sama. Toh terbukti tak satu rejim pengurus Negara mana pun di dunia ini yang mampu mengendalikan liarnya gerak pasar. Ancaman hukuman terhadap para penimbun bahan pokok, sebagai contoh, tak pernah berhasil menciptakan efek jera. Semakin pengurus Negara mencoba mengatur dan mengendalikan pasar, semakin kasatmata ketololan mereka.

Siapa pihak yang paling menderita dari cerita ini semua? Yang paling jelas adalah anak-anak dan kelompok perempuan. Mutu gizi anak-anak di negeri ini adalah data yang paling sering dimanipulasi demi menjaga citra positif kinerja ekonomi-makro Indonesia. Meski angka-angka balita kurang gizi pada Indeks Pembangunan Manusia (Human Development Index, HDI) dari UNDP sudah cukup horror, tetapi saya yakin data itu masih indikatif sifatnya dan terlalu konservatif. Ada banyak realita yang gagal ditangkap metoda-metoda canggih pengumpulan data HDI. Ambil contoh rangkaian proses dari keputusan rumah tangga mengorbankan biaya pendidikan anak atas nama pemenuhan konsumsi, yang berangkai dengan keputusan melibatkan sang anak dalam kegiatan-kegiatan produksi, baik sebagai buruh langsung maupun buruh tak langsung.

Mutu keselamatan dan kesehatan reproduksi perempuan juga adalah data yang paling sering disembunyikan di bawah karpet. Alih-alih menggambarkan angka laju kematian ibu melahirkan, yang justru disajikan adalah keberhasilan pengurus Negara menekan angka kelahiran. Bisajadi keduanya tak berhubungan langsung, tetapi akal sehat saya melihat keterkaitan yang tak terelakkan.

Apa yang akan kita hadapi di masa depan dengan situasi seperti ini? Yang jelas, kita akan memiliki generasi masa depan yang masa kecilnya hidup dengan rendahnya mutu gizi, pendidikan, dan kesehatan. Jangan-jangan negeri ini memang diarahkan untuk menjadi wilayah penyedia buruh murah (sweatshops' labour market)?

Corporate Social Responsibility? "Amoral!" Kata Friedman

Hakekat perusahaan (corporation) adalah menghidupkan dinamika ekonomik lewat kegiatan produksinya yang mampu menangguk laba agar perusahaan dapat bertahan hidup (survival) atau tumbuh dan meluas. DNA sebuah perusahaan adalah mencari laba. Memaksimalkan perolehan laba dalam konteks bersaing dengan perusahaan lain yang memiliki produk serupa merupakan keniscayaan bagi sebuah perusahaan. Maka ketika perusahaan tampil di depan publik dengan citra tanggung jawab sosial dan lingkungan, itu patut dipertanyakan. Bahkan Milton Friedman menyebutnya amoral!

Tentu saja kecaman Friedman, dan juga Noam Chomsky, bukan suatu pernyataan tunggal. Ada prasyarat yang mesti dipenuhi, yakni peran Negara yang optimal dalam menjamin keselamatan warga, produktifitas warga dalam memenuhi dan mempertahankan kualitas hidup terbaik mereka, serta kemampuan warga merawat dan menjaga fungsi-fungsi alam. Sehingga kewajiban Negara dalam menjamin akses warga kepada pelayanan kesehatan, pendidikan, sumber-sumber pangan dan air bersih yang terjangkau serta energi untuk keperluan kelangsungan hidup menjadi syarat mutlak agar peran perusahaan sebagai dinamisator ekonomi pun berlangsung optimal. Hal tersebut yang tak terjadi di negeri ini.

Pengurus Negara di Indonesia sibuk mengurusi dirinya sendiri. Menyeimbangkan anggaran demi menjaga citra kepengurusan dengan tampilan kinerja ekonomi-makro di hadapan lembaga-lembaga keuangan multilateral dengan mengorbankan keselamatan warga, seperti yang tampak jelas pada pencabutan subsidi BBM, harga gabah di tingkat petani dan sebagainya. Kewajiban Negara menyediakan pelayanan kesehatan dan pendidikan pun hampir bulat-bulat diserahkan kepada pasar, dengan maraknya swastanisasi klinik dan rumah sakit serta persekolahan yang tak bisa menghindari kalkulasi untung rugi menjadi utama dibandingkan aspek pelayanan warga. Jaminan Negara yang mestinya dibiayai dari perpajakan bisa dikatakan tak jalan di Indonesia karena berbagai faktor, dengan korupsi sebagai induk penting faktor penyebabnya. Akibatnya sosok perusahaan merambah hingga ke sektor pelayanan publik yang seharusnya menjadi kewajiban Negara.

"Perusahaan dibentuk untuk menangguk laba, bukan untuk tujuan sosial atau tujuan lainnya," kata Noam Chomsky. "Itu tanggung jawab Negara!" Logikanya, Negara mampu menegakkan mekanisme perpajakan dari dinamika ekonomi yang digerakkan perusahaan-perusahaan. Warga sebagai obyek hukum dan pajak serta pada saat yang sama adalah konsumen dari barang dan jasa industrial yang diproduksi perusahaan harus dijamin keselamatan, kesejahteraan dan produktifitasnya oleh Negara demi terjaganya keseimbangan sosial-politik-ekonomik. Tetapi pendapat normatif Eyang Chomsky dan Eyang Friedman jauh panggang dari api di negeri kepulauan yang amburadul ini.

Kemudahan pajak, penghapusan birokrasi pada penanaman modal (investasi), kemudahan memperoleh lahan serta ketersediaan buruh murah dalam jumlah yang besar menjadi paket kebijakan Negara yang membuat Indonesia menjadi surga bagi investor tetapi sekaligus neraka bagi warganya sendiri. Pada konteks Indonesia, perusahaan yang pada hakekatnya memaksimalkan perolehan laba dengan memperbesar ambang laba (profit margin) dengan meminimalkan eksternalitas dan liabilitasnya telah menjadikan kehidupan sosial dan lingkungan hidup sebagai tempat sampah mereka. Tempat sampah bagi eksternalitas, liabilitas serta resiko-resiko bisnis mereka. Dan hal itu sangat memungkinkan di Indonesia karena adanya kebijakan-kebijakan Negara yang memanjakan perusahaan-perusahaan.

Sehingga, ketika sebuah konsep tanggung jawab sosial perusahaan atau corporate social responsibility (CSR) didorong menjadi suatu tolok-ukur kinerja perusahaan, timbul pertanyaan sederhana, "Memang ada masalah apa kok perusahaan harus menampilkan sosok tanggung jawab mereka dalam hal sosial dan lingkungan?" Chomsky berpendapat, karena perusahaan tidak ingin menanggung beban baru, yakni keresahan dan konflik sosial dan politik, karena kenyataannya kualitas sosial dan lingkungan hidup terus merosot sementara perolehan laba perusahaan terus meroket. CSR adalah tabir asap (smoke-screen) liabilitas dan eksternalitas perusahaan yang selama ini disembunyikan di bawah karpet.

Jika perusahaan berproduksi dan saling bersaing secara sehat serta melaksanakan kewajiban pajak mereka, dan saat yang sama Negara menjamin keselamatan dan kesejahteraan warga, produktifitas warga untuk memenuhi dan mempertahankan kualitas hidup terbaik mereka, serta kemampuan warga merawat fungsi-fungsi alam, CSR sama sekali tidak dibutuhkan. CSR adalah penanda simbolik ketidakberesan bisnis sebuah perusahaan dan saat yang sama merupakan penanda bobroknya pengurusan Negara. Semakin mengkilat tampilan CSR sebuah perusahaan, mestinya kita semakin curiga, seberapa besar masalah yang disembunyikan di bawah karpet?

Paradoks Konsumsi

Orang-orang di Indonesia, tak cuma Jawa, tengah mabok kepayang pada barang-barang dan jasa industrial. Kemudahan mendapatkan barang-barang tersebut membuat kacau urutan kebutuhan dasar perseorangan dan keluarga. Teori Maslow berantakan. Tidak ada lagi yang namanya kebutuhan primer, sekunder dan tersier. Kalau perlu kualitas pangan untuk anak dikorbankan demi membeli sebuah telepon genggam model terbaru. Atau, tunggakan biaya sekolah anak bisa menunggu demi uang muka membeli sepeda motor buatan China, yang menurut iklan lebih unggul dibandingkan buatan Jepang.

Pertanyaan paling tolol dari kisah di atas, "Lalu bagaimana siklus produktifitas perseorangan atau keluarga demi menjaga kualitas hidup tidak merosot?" Saking tololnya kita tidak menyadari bahwa sekarang ini adalah zaman utang sudah bukan lagi sesuatu yang memalukan. Bahkan berutang di kalangan berpunya telah dikemas sedemikian rupa hingga ada peringkatnya: Silver, Gold, Platinum, dan seterusnya. Edan suredan!

Seorang sepupu saya dengan bangga memamerkan mobilnya yang terbaru, Grand Livina. Kemana mobilmu yang dulu (sebuah Toyota Avanza yang dikenal dengan sebutan mobil sejuta umat), tanya saya. "Tukar tambah lah Mas." Kemudian dia dengan fasih bicara panjang lebar, selayaknya seorang salesman mobil, tentang kemudahan-kemudahan fasilitas kredit yang ia gunakan. Luarbiasa pengetahuannya. Mungkin jika saat itu saya sela dengan pertanyaan, "Ngomong-ngomong kamu tahu nggak siapa itu Teras Narang?" Dia akan terbengong-bengong, dan balik tanya, "Siapa tuh? Apa ada hubungannya dengan fasilitas kredit mobil?"

Kemudahan memperoleh barang (lewat siasat-siasat kredit perbankan), gempuran iklan nan mengkilat, mendesah dan merayu, laju produksi dan distribusi barang dan jasa konsumsi yang meroket, agaknya tidak ada urusannya dengan potret nelangsa warga di desa-desa di Riau yang kebingungan dengan harga minyak goreng curah mencapai Rp 16.000/kg, padahal propinsi tersebut memiliki luas lahan perkebunan kelapa sawit terbesar di Indonesia. Juga tidak ada urusannya dengan warga di desa-desa di Sumatera Selatan, yang terkenal dengan sebutan "Lumbung Energi Nasional", berkeringat antri minyak tanah. Potret nelangsa tersebut pupus ketika kita ajak orang-orang yang antri tersebut bicara tentang jenis terbaru telepon genggam merek tertentu. Atau ajak mereka bicara tentang kelanjutan serial sinetron di stasiun televisi tertentu.

Pada sebuah perjalanan di Pulau Flores, akhir tahun 2005, saya terkejut disajikan fenomena luarbiasa. Warga di sebuah kecamatan ramai-ramai melepas dan menjual tanah untuk membeli sepeda motor buatan China. Saya sempat bertanya, apakah sepeda motor itu untuk keperluan transportasi keluarga atau untuk keperluan produksi. Jawaban beberapa diantara mereka sangat tegas, "Untuk ojek, Pak. Uangnya lebih cepat daripada bertani." Jika sebagian besar mereka menjual tanah untuk beli sepeda motor untuk ojek, lalu siapa penumpangnya? Booming cengkeh saja mendorong pemiskinan petani, apalagi booming sepeda motor...

Biadab: Absennya Sang Walikota

Cobalah Anda berkendara ke Bogor. Jika Anda berangkat dari Jakarta menggunakan jalan tol, setiba di mulut tol tepat di muka Terminal Baranangsiang, arahkan kendaraan Anda ke kanan. Ketika tiba di muka Pangrango Plaza jalan pecah menjadi dua. Ambil sebelah kanan. Ikuti jalan hingga tiba di pertigaan dengan sebuah monumen yang tak jelas maknanya, menggambarkan seorang pemuda berpakaian olahraga tetapi ada bentukan tabung dan jarum suntik, ambil jalan ke kiri, ke arah Jalan Raya Parung. Jalan tersebut dikenal dengan nama Jalan Baru. Ikuti jalan tersebut hingga melewati sebuah proyek terowongan di bawah rel kereta api. Sekarang saya ucapkan, "Selamat datang di neraka Bogor...."

Jika Anda penggemar olahraga otomotif offroad, mungkin Anda akan menemukan kenikmatan ketika melalui Jalan Baru. Lubang-lubang besar menganga di sana-sini menanti Anda. Amati kendaraan-kendaraan angkutan umum berwarna hijau dan biru, dikenal dengan sebutan angkot (angkutan kota), meliuk-liuk bermanuver mencoba mengatasi lubang-lubang tersebut. Jika Anda menggunakan kendaraan sedan, dijamin Anda harus memperbaiki perangkat kemudi serta kaki-kaki roda kendaraan Anda.

Saya tak pernah habis pikir dengan keadaan tersebut. Proyek perbaikan jalan biasanya mengikuti jadual anggaran. Menjelang tutup tahun anggaran, baru proyek perbaikan dikebut. Jangan ditanya soal kualitas bahan dan kualitas pengerjaan. Namanya juga proyek yang dipercepat. Yang penting platform anggaran tercapai dan selesai tepat waktu. (Saya coba tak berpretensi terjadi tindak penggelembungan nilai belanja proyek atau korupsi). Umur jalan dalam keadaan baik hanya sebentar. Begitu truk-truk besar dengan beban angkut yang (senantiasa) melewati batas sesuai ketentuan melalui Jalan Baru, butuh hanya dua minggu hingga sebulan untuk kembali ke keadaan hancur-hancuran.

Pernah seorang kawan berkata, "Wah, lumayan tuh lubang-lubang itu untuk menanam ikan lele...." Saya hanya tersenyum kecut dengan canda bernada sindiran itu. "Atau mungkin cocok untuk bertanam padi ya....." Kami pun tertawa kecut sambil menikmati guncangan-guncangan tak nyaman saat melalui Jalan Baru nan biadab. Kemana gerangan pejabat pengurus kota? Apakah mereka tak pernah melalui Jalan Baru?

Keadaan jalan seperti itu tidak dimonopoli Jalan Baru. Silakan Anda menjelajahi bagian lain Kota Bogor. Perumahan Taman Cimanggu misalnya. Atau ke arah perumahan TNI Angkatan Udara di daerah Semplak. Saya tak tahu bagaimana tingkat kecelakaan kendaraan bermotor akibat kualitas jalan raya Kota Bogor yang hancur-hancuran ini. Kemana gerangan sang Walikota? Apakah beliau tak pernah melalui jalan-jalan yang hancur itu?

Does Asia exist?

Economist.com - Apr 9th 2008

A new book suggests we are witnessing the creation

SAD to say, this column suffers occasional pangs of existential doubt. Is there really such a place as “Asia”? Of course there is, if you look at a map—though even there, definitions differ.

Does it include Australasia? How about what Europeans call “the Middle East”, known to South Asians and the United Nations as “West Asia”?

The Economist answers those questions “yes” and “no”, respectively. For us, Asia is everywhere east of Iran, including Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands (which in theory means we should call the six “stans”, more normally known as “Central Asia”, “West Asia”. But let it pass).

The more fundamental issue, though, is whether Asia is anything more than a handy cartographical term. Has it outgrown its ancient Greek origins, when it was used to mean everywhere east of that country? Should this column really be called Eastofgreece.view?

This is a long-running debate. In 1995, when he was foreign minister, Malaysia’s prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, was asked at a press conference whether Australia was part of Asia (as its government at the time very much wanted to be). “No”, he chided his Australian questioner, “look at a map.” He then used his arms to explain that Australia was way down there and Asia “up here”.

What he really seemed to mean was that Australia was largely inhabited by people of European descent. Look not at a map, but in the mirror. But an ethnic definition does not work either, since Asia is so diverse in that respect too.

This latest bout of questioning from Asia.view is inspired by a new book, “Rivals”, by Bill Emmott (who edited The Economist until 2006), which offers some timely reassurance.

The main theme of “Rivals” is explained in its subtitle: “How the power struggle between China, India and Japan will shape our next decade.” But before exploring the emerging relationship between Asia’s three giants, Mr Emmott argues that Asia is undergoing its “deepest and most extensive integration” ever (or at least since Genghis Khan’s time, which saw integration of a rather different sort). Indeed, we are witnessing “the very creation of Asia”.

That, as you can imagine, is a relief. Our doubts are misplaced if understandable. This is a column ahead of its time.

Before this column pats itself on its virtual back, however, it ought to examine some of the counter-arguments that Mr Emmott ably presents. Asia has been, as he notes, “not so much a continent as an array of subcontinents, or subregions, dotted across thousands of miles of ocean and land”.

The world’s highest mountain range separates two ancient civilisations: India and China. Languages on the Indian side are part of the “Indo-European” family rather than the “Sino-Tibetan” tongues of East Asia.

Buddhism spread from India all the way to Japan, but remains dominant only in smaller Asian countries: Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Sri Lanka and Laos. If religion defines Asia at all, Mr Emmott notes, it is more by tolerance than doctrine. “That is an admirable characteristic,” he says, “but it is not a unifying one.”

Mr Emmott argues that two forces are drawing today’s Asia together: a rapid economic integration, under which half the region’s merchandise exports go to other Asian countries; and an inchoate institutional process, notably through the “East Asia Summit”, which brings together India, Australia, New Zealand as well as the ten South-East Asian countries, China, Japan and South Korea.

One could question both parts of this. Some of the intra-regional trade is accounted for by parts of an export supply-chain generated by the West. And the East Asia Summit has done little more than meet. But why would Asia.view shoot itself in the foot?

Land Use Change and All Indonesian's Typical Bullshits

Corruption should inevitably be said as the primary driver of the sustainable deterioration of this archipelagic state. The revoke of protected forest in Bintan island for building the local government office complex is a common blemish in Indonesia and doesn't necessarily link to corruption conduct. But not for Al Amin, member of the Indonesian parliament, whose been caught in the act by the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) upon receiving graft at a stars hotel in Jakarta. He's accused of receiving graft for smoothing conversion of protected forest in Bintan for the development of the local government office. So what?

Several journalists called me and requested for phone interview and asked my opinion. A usual first response I gave, "Opinion on what?" It's a typical journalist question which isn't a question whatsoever. They didn't come up with stronger backgrounder and assumed that I share interest with other resources. Some of them need for some time to rearticulate the question as I clearly said, "I read that news, and have no comment since I consider that as common blemishes here in our country." I have to explain that they should interview resources from the Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) or Transparency International (TI) or Masyarakat Transparansi Indonesia (MTI) regarding the case. Until then finally they successfully built a better question, "Okay, could we have your opinion on conversion of protected forests in Indonesia, from your organisation perspective?"

Forest conversion or forest land use change is the top policy lies in this country. If you open the map of Indonesia with good segregation of layers based on land or spatial uses, you'll find pretty good portion of wide variety of areas designation, including the protected forest. According to the law, the protected forest is aimed at protecting integrity of the surrounding ecosystem and (hopefully aimed at) securing safety of the people. As a printed product, that map is pretty good for developing a proposal submitted to some bilateral and multilateral development assistance agencies for a what-so-called sustainable environmental projects. It has nothing to do with safety of the people (though it's always mentioned as one of key primary objectives in the proposal). But, in reality, the nice coloured layer on the map of the protected forest doesn't mean anything to the government but spare lands for any kind of new development.

It is not the community declaring the protected forest officially, unless those under customary laws that always been revoked by the State's law. And it is not the community that has power to convert land use of the protected forest. The government is the one who holds power to do that. One stupid question is, "If the government would anyway convert the land use of a protected forest, why did they set up the area as a protected forest?"

This morning a journalist called me and confirmed a research group from known university in Bogor, assigned by the Forestry Minister, just came up with conclusion that the protected forest in Bintan is eligible to convert, as the extent and diversity of natural mangrove ecosystems had long been destroyed, and the local community had also long been utilising the areas for years. My goodness. The most stupid morning ever in my life.... What kind of research is that? I thought research would always come up with more open, optional in nature and conditional answers, not with fabricated set of fixed answers. If the area had long been fucked up, would it only have one answer: Land use change? How about other possible answers like, "rehabilitation"? Or, "area management improvement"?

Friends, I have no intention disrupting your appetite for breakfast this morning. But I really have pretty bad Saturday morning at the moment...

Finally, A Home For Smokers

A bit annoying title I supposed, particularly for those, the hypocrites who publicly running a show of how they are defending the mother earth, and be superficially patriot of the environment, but vaguely put their position between workers for organizations and the activist ones. That's basically my concern. Employee versus activist....

So then a friend questioned my commitment. "For more than fifteen years you work for the environmental issue, how then you survive with your smoking habits? If you committed to the environment, you firstly should give up your bad habit!" Aside from semantic debate of that question, I won't be indifferent to that question and questions perhaps often raised by evangelists or Islamic hardliners. "If you do this, so you can't do that. And if you're that, so you can't do this," type of dogmatic statement and/or question.

I'd rather to counter the question by putting first the thorough atmosphere of our middle-class paradigm, particularly the raising new intellectual and critical urban and well informed group of young people, in the reality of an understanding of life's material progress and happiness. A new Nokia's PDA, a new gadget, a new software, a new elegant buzzword and terminology, a new indicator of advancement, a new social status, etc.. But, what's all about? Selfishness and strong desire for a acknowledgement and recognition!

I remember a paragraph from Graham Hancock's Lords of Poverty. I interpret that as "industrialized countries' originated development workers will put tenun-ikat and batik's ornament on wall of their house or apartment to show that they're belong to a new class of global societies of the development." They perhaps did noble activities down there in Uganda or Boznia or Tanzania or East Timor or Indonesia or else, whether on voluntary basis or as highly paid trainers or consultants hired by the development consulting agents under of what-so-called global development assistances' scheme. And perhaps they don't have bad intention and simply want to show off their particular, and far from the grandeur's strategy of global control over production and consumption imposed by complicated web of capital and power commonly represented by anything thing of multinationals, internationals, transnational, global, etc..

Excuse me, friends, I must catch my jet-
I'm off to join the Development Set;
My bags are packed, and I've had all my shots,
I have travelers' checks, and pi;;s for the trots

The Development Set is bright and noble,
Our thoughts are deep and our vision global;
Although we move with the better classes,
Our thoughts are always with the masses.

In Sheraton hotels in scattered nations,
We damn multinational corporations;
Injustice seems so easy to protest,
In such seething hotbeds of social rest.

We discuss malnutrition over steaks
And plan hunger talks during coffee breaks.
Whether Asian floods or African drought,
We face each issue with an open mouth.

We bring in consultants whose circumlocution
Raises difficulties for every solution-
Thus guaranteeing continued good eating
By showing the need for another meeting.

The language of the Development Set
Stretches the English alphabet;
We use swell eords like 'epigenetic',
'Micro', 'Macro'. and 'logarithmetic'.

Development Set homes are extremely chic,
Full of carvings, curios and draped with batik.
Eye-level photographs subtly assure
That your host is at home with the rich and the poor.

Enough of these verses -- on with the mission!
Our task is as broad as the human condition!
Just parry to God the biblical promise is true:
The poor ye shall always have with you.

(The Development Set, from Graham Hancock's book "Lords of Poverty").

So here we go. Crowds of people with consciousness of a better world and tireless of preaching about a new world with high taste of aesthetics, justice and peace. It's not about lifestyle. I'd rather call this a fast growing cult. And I certainly am not be able and can't afford to join the set. So, those who still love of having plastic flower in their pots, love instant coffee, smoke cigarettes, don't have any idea about wide variety of exotic Asian foods, and other low taste life style, welcome to our home. A home for low caste of smokers....

Kekerasan? Keras-Kerasan? Kerasan?

Kekerasan itu bisa ditafsir terlalu keras. Iya kah? Tapi ia sudah menjadi idiom umum aktivis masyarakat sipil di Indonesia sebagai padanan kata dari Bahasa Inggeris, violence. Tapi jadi berbeda ketika mendengar, "Eh, suaraku kekerasan ya?" Coba... Rumit juga.

Sering saya berpikir, apakah kekerasan versi para aktivis itu adalah sebuah kata tersendiri, atau ia kata berimbuhan dan berakhiran? Jika ia adalah sebuah kata dengan makna violence (Bahasa Inggeris), jelas ia tidak dibentuk oleh kata dasar keras. Tetapi jika ia adalah yang kedua, maka kedudukannya lebih kurang sama dengan kemalaman atau kelaparan dan sebagainya.

"Tindak kekerasan yang dilakukan aparat kepolisian..." Begitu saya baca kepala berita di sebuah koran harian Jakarta. Hmm, apakah itu bermakna bahwa aparat bertindak terlalu keras, atau aparat kepolisian telah melakukan tindak kekerasan (act of violence)? Bisa jadi kedua-duanya adalah tafsir kalimat tersebut. Hehehe...

Bagaimana dengan keras-kerasan? Ah itu jelas hal berbeda. Keras-kerasan bolehjadi setara dengan kuat-kuatan atau lapar-laparan, yang menggambarkan situasi persaingan. Eh, mana ada orang bersaing adu lapar? Bolehjadi ada. Namanya juga Indonesia. Negeri serba mungkin...

"Pasangan muda di apartemen no 1807 itu bertengkar hebat. Juga pasangan tak menikah di sebelahnya. Kedua pasangan itu keras-kerasan bertengkar. Heboh betul...."

Intinya kekerasan (untuk makna yang mana pun) dan keras-kerasan menggambarkan sesuatu yang keras.

Namun, bagaimana dengan kerasan? Ia bisa punya dua tafsir. Kerasan sebagai serapan kata asal Bahasa Jawa, yang artinya betah (halaah ini juga serapan dari Bahasa Jawa, gimana nih?), dan yang kedua sebagai ungkapan dari Bahasa Betawi atau bahasa pergaulan di kota-kota Jabodetabek (the Greater Jakarta), yang kerap digunakan untuk meminta supaya lebih keras lagi.

"Kerasan dong pukulannya.... Capek nih mungut bola di depan net terus-terusan...." Keluh Lim Swi Kee, pemain tangkis bulu, kepada Tauke Hidayat.

Tapi ia jadi berbeda kalau memperhatikan, "Bagaimana, kerasan tinggal di gubuk kami yang AC-nya cuma 1/2 PK ini?"

Hebatnya, saya jarang mendapati orang salah paham. Hebat juga ya. Atau saya saja yang kurang kerjaan memikirkan hal-hal yang seharusnya tidak perlu dipikirkan (taken for granted)?

30 Maret 2008

Riots, Terrorism etc

John Lanchester

Book Reviewed: Flat Earth News by Nick Davies

Original URL

‘Important’ is a cant word in book reviewing: it usually means something like ‘slightly above average’, or ‘I was at university with her,’ or ‘I couldn’t be bothered to read it so I’m giving a quote instead.’ Very occasionally it might be stretched to mean ‘a book likely to be referred to in the future by other people who write about the same subject’. Nick Davies’s Flat Earth News, however, is a genuinely important book, one which is likely to change, permanently, the way anyone who reads it looks at the British newspaper industry. Davies’s book explains something easy to notice and complain about but hard to understand: the sense of the increasing thinness and attenuation of the British press. It’s not literal thinness: the papers, physically, are bigger than ever. There just seems to be less in them than there once was: less news, less thought (as opposed to opinion), less density of engagement, less time spent finding things out. Davies looks into all those questions, confirms that the impression of thinness is correct, explains how this came about, and offers no hope that things will improve.

His book starts at the point at which he got interested in the story of what he calls ‘flat earth news’: ‘A story appears to be true. It is widely accepted as true. It becomes a heresy to suggest that it is not true – even if it is riddled with falsehood, distortion and propaganda.’ That’s flat earth news, and Davies became interested in the phenomenon, via the story of the millennium bug. How on earth did so many papers get sucked into producing so many millions of words of, it turns out, total nonsense about the impending implosion of all government, all commerce, all human activity, by the catastrophe which was going to be caused by the bug? ‘National Health Service patients could die’ (Telegraph); ‘Banks could collapse’ (Guardian); ‘Riots, terrorism and a health crisis’ (Sunday Mirror); ‘Pensions contributions could be wiped out’ (Independent); ‘Nato alert over Russian missile millennium bug’ (Times). The British government spent a figure variously reported as £396 million, £430 million and £788 million. And then, on the big night, a tide gauge failed in Portsmouth harbour. That was pretty much it. Countries which had spent next to nothing – Russia, for instance, whose government of 140 million citizens spent less on the bug than British Airways – had no problems.

There are several ways of looking at this story, which has some of the aspects of a panic and some of those of a hoax or job-creation scheme.[*] Davies chooses to focus on the fact that of the millions of words written about the bug, all of them were written by journalists who had no idea whether what they were writing was true. They simply didn’t know. Flat Earth News makes a great deal of this. The most basic function of journalism, in Davies’s view, is to check facts. Journalists don’t just pass on what they’re told without making an effort to check it first. At least, in theory they don’t. In practice, contemporary journalism has been corrupted by an endemic failure to verify facts and stories in a manner so fundamental that it almost defies belief. The consequences of that are pervasive and systemic.

Nick Davies is an unusual figure in British journalism, mainly because he has persisted in holding the admirable belief that reporting is the central task of the trade. Journalists report much less than they used to, and much less than they should, as the papers have switched over to a reliance on columnists and opinion. Back in the day, an ambitious young toad going into journalism would have seen All the President’s Men once too often, and would dream of bringing down governments with a single scoop. Good luck to them. Davies was like that. Today the equivalent ambitious young toad would dream of having a column with their picture at the top, as a precursor to a well-timed move to TV or politics or some other form of showbiz.

Davies, however, is still a believer in legwork and in getting the story first-hand. This led him to recruit researchers at Cardiff University’s school of journalism to quantify what was happening in the British press. The result is illuminating and grim. The team looked at a fortnight’s production from the posh papers and the Daily Mail, and analysed in the process 2207 UK news pieces. They focused on two things: the number of stories that were derived directly from press releases; and the number that were taken straight from the main British news agency, the Press Association. The results were amazing, and not in a good way.

They found that a massive 60 per cent of these quality-print stories consisted wholly or mainly of wire copy and/or PR material, and a further 20 per cent contained clear elements of wire copy and/or PR to which more or less other material had been added. With 8 per cent of the stories, they were unable to be sure about their source. That left only 12 per cent of stories where the researchers could say that all the material was generated by the reporters themselves. The highest quota proved to be in the Times, where 69 per cent of news stories were wholly or mainly wire copy and/or PR . . . The researchers went on to look at those stories which relied on a specific statement of fact and found that with a staggering 70 per cent of them, the claimed fact passed into print without any corroboration at all. Only 12 per cent of these stories showed evidence that the central statement had been thoroughly checked.

So only 12 per cent of what is in the papers consists of a story that a reporter has found out and pursued on her own initiative; and only 12 per cent of key facts are checked. The rest is all rewritten wire copy and PR. This remaining 88 per cent is, in Davies’s stinging coinage, ‘churnalism’. No wonder the papers feel a bit thin.

As for the wire copy, most of it comes from the Press Association:

When the queen wants to talk to the world, she gives a statement to the Press Association. When the poet laureate wants to publish a poem, he files it to the Press Association. Every government department, every major corporation, every police service and health trust and education authority delivers its official announcements to the Press Association. It is the primary conveyor belt along which information reaches national media in Britain.

The boffins in Cardiff found that 30 per cent of home news stories are direct rewrites of PA and other news agency copy; another 19 per cent are ‘largely reproduced’ from this copy; another 21 per cent ‘contained elements’ of it. That’s 70 per cent of news stories wholly or in part from wire copy. The general rule in journalism, increasingly honoured more in the breach than the observance, is that a story has to have two sources to be confirmed, but according to BBC guidelines, ‘the Press Association can be treated as a confirmed, single source.’ That practice is widespread.

As a result, it matters deeply what the PA actually does – and here Davies has more grimness to impart. The agency’s network of reporters is stretched increasingly thin, with, for instance, four reporters (including trainees) to cover the whole of Cardiff, South Wales and the Welsh Assembly. The staffers, according to one of them, write an average of ten stories in a single shift: ‘I don’t usually spend more than an hour on a story.’ The emphasis is on catching what people say accurately. As its editor, Jonathan Grun, puts it, ‘our role is attributable journalism – what someone has got to say. What is important is in quote marks.’ If the government says Saddam has WMD, that’s what the PA will report. Because the PA is the basis for such a huge proportion of what’s in the papers, and because its stories tend not to be checked, it is a highly effective way for PRs to plant stories across all the national media simultaneously. ‘It is infinitely preferable logistically to send it to the PA than to try and contact 150 journalists,’ one of Davies’s sources, a PR who works for one of the political parties, told him. ‘And we are rarely subjected to the sort of cross-examination that, say, the Sun or the Times would give us. PA does not do as much of the probing and difficult questions. They are journalists but to some extent they are an information service.’

So we have arrived at a place where ‘the heart of modern journalism’ has become ‘the rapid repackaging of largely unchecked second-hand material, much of it designed to service the political or commercial interests of those who provide it’. In the old days, at this point in the story, it would be time to Name the Guilty Men. They would once have been the evil proprietors, top-hatted cigar-smoking manipulators of public opinion. I don’t agree with the conspiracy theory of the proprietor press, nor does Davies: he thinks that it’s sheer commercial pressure that is to blame. It’s the pressure on costs – to produce more, cheaper copy – that is the ultimate culprit for the state of the modern press.

Flat Earth News breaks down the specific ways in which pressure is exerted on the practice of journalism, on a daily basis. Stories need to be cheap, meaning ‘quick to cover’, ‘safe to publish’; they need to ‘select safe facts’ preferably from official sources; they need to ‘avoid the electric fence’, sources of guaranteed trouble such as the libel laws and the Israel lobby; to be based on ‘safe ideas’ and contradict no loved prevailing wisdoms; to avoid complicated or context-rich problems; and always to ‘give both sides of the story’ (‘balance means never having to say you’re sorry – because you haven’t said anything’). And conversely, there are active pressures to pursue stories that tell people what they want to hear, to give them lots of celebrity and TV-based coverage, and to subscribe to every moral panic. That’s the effect on the texture of journalism, the culture of the newsroom. Of course, the pressure on costs has other, simpler effects too. There is more space to fill – in the British papers, three times as much – but no equivalent expansion of the resources to do the work. Elsewhere, the pressure on resources is just as bad. In 1970, CBS had three full-time correspondents in Rome alone: by 2006, the entire US media, print and broadcast, was supporting only 141 foreign correspondents to cover the whole world.

As the pressures on journalism have increased, so the PR industry has come along with what appears to be a solution. Want news? We’ll give it to you. Britain now has 47,800 PR people to 45,000 journalists. It isn’t the case that PRs just beg for coverage for their clients: they’re much more cunning than that. Once one grows alert to the question, you can see PR influence almost everywhere in the press. The greatly missed Auberon Waugh used to say that behind any claim in any way interesting, striking or surprising in the news, there was either someone demanding more government money or a press release. That is truer than ever, only these days the press release will announce the result of a survey (a favourite PR tactic) or a ‘release’ statement from a phoney pressure group, such as one of the many set up to create uncertainty over the question of climate change. These pressure groups are known as ‘astroturf’ in the PR industry, because their grass-roots are fake, but that doesn’t stop their statements and surveys from getting on the news.

PR is not exactly the villain of the piece, but Davies is persuasive about its all-pervading nature in modern journalism, and also about the increasing sophistication of its techniques. He cites the way the ‘NatWest Three’, the British bankers involved in the Enron frauds, managed to have themselves depicted as victims of the American legal system, with businessmen, civil rights pressure groups and MPs all campaigning on their behalf, when, in truth, they were total crooks. There are plenty of other examples in Flat Earth News. Davies, informed by his knowledge of PR, even has a fresh angle on Alastair Campbell and the Kelly affair. In his account, ‘Campbell used it as a decoy to distract attention from a highly embarrassing story, which was emerging slowly in May and June 2003, that the long-debated Iraqi weapons of mass destruction did not exist.’ Four weeks after the broadcast of Andrew Gilligan’s Today story, Campbell had not asked for an apology for it specifically, had not referred it to the BBC complaints department, and had not mentioned it at lunch with Gilligan’s boss, Richard Sambrook. But he then made ‘three key moves’: on 25 June he denounced Gilligan’s story to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs (‘Until the BBC acknowledges that is a lie, I will keep banging on’); on 26 June he wrote to Sambrook demanding a reply that same day, and released his own letter to the press; on 27 June he more or less invited himself onto Channel Four News to attack the BBC, live. Davies observes: ‘This move finally established the decoy story as the main media line. The original questions about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were shunted into the sidings. Several political reporters wrote at the time that this looked like a diversionary tactic. Nonetheless, all of them agreed to be diverted. PR works.’ This explains what Campbell meant, as recorded in his diary for 25 June: ‘Flank opened on the BBC.’

Davies adds a few chapters of detail on the ways in which the papers have gone astray: the industry-wide use of bent private detectives, the culture of error at the Daily Mail, the ease with which the government co-opted the Observer to make the case for war in Iraq. These chapters aren’t really necessary for the central thrust of the book, even though Davies’s specifics are uncheering. For instance, in Britain only the rich can sue for libel; everyone else has to seek remedy via the Press Complaints Commission, set up by the industry to regulate itself. But the PCC rejects 90.2 per cent of all complaints on technical grounds without investigation. Of the 28,227 complaints received by the commission over ten years, 197 were upheld by a PCC adjudication: 0.69 per cent. The one or two points at which Davies disses fellow investigative journalists have a strangely ad hominem feel; there are moments when it seems old grudges are playing a role. This has in turn led to something of a backlash in early reviews of Flat Earth News, including a bizarrely hostile (as opposed to merely negative) review by Peter Preston, editor of the Guardian, Davies’s paper, from 1975 to 1995. Preston had a number of harsh things to say about ‘Saint Nick’, one of which had some traction: that he exaggerates the extent to which there was once a golden age of the British press. True. But all these details are less shocking than the more general data about the broad trend towards churnalism.

So this is Davies’s ultra-bleak portrait. The British news media are crushed by commercial pressure, squeezed by the need for speed, corrupted by PR, indifferent to their own best traditions of independence, recklessly indifferent to the central functions of reporting and checking facts, systematically lied to by commercial interests and governments, and in far too many respects, simply indifferent to the truth. There is a growing, industry-wide failure to be sufficiently interested in reality. I would add a couple of details to the indictment, to do with the way in which the papers have succumbed to their own internal celebrity culture of columnists, most of whom make no attempt to report on the world, in favour of sermonising about it. I would also add – borrowing a point from a journalist I spoke to, who was in depressed and reluctant agreement with Flat Earth News – that the collapse in news leads to a huge knock-on in the rest of the papers. Most columns and features are hung on a news-related peg, so if the news isn’t fulfilling its basic function to report and to check, then nor is anything else. Davies doesn’t mention that, but it doesn’t matter much, since his portrait of the British media could scarcely be any darker, or more convincing. His conclusion is in the same key as the rest of the book. ‘I’m afraid that I think the truth is that, in trying to expose the weakness of the media, I am taking a snapshot of a cancer. Maybe it helps a little to be able to see the illness. At least that way we might know in theory what the cure might be. But I fear the illness is terminal.’

Note

*As a nerd, I feel a duty to point out that computers do sometimes have these problems. Nasa has never had a space shuttle in the air at the end of a year, over the transition from 31 December to 1 January, precisely because it’s not confident about the onboard software coping with the switch. (Nasa’s annual budget is $16 billion.) The truth, according to Davies, seems to be that the bug, while theoretically a problem, would only occur in computers which fitted all the following conditions: they a. had internal clocks (most big, ‘embedded’ systems don’t), b. had clocks which calculated time using an internal calendar, rather than just by measuring the gap between dates, c. used two rather than four digits to calculate the date and d. were in use by programmes which were calculating dates across that boundary. The number of computers that ticked all those boxes turned out to be vanishingly small.

John Lanchester is a contributing editor at the LRB. His latest book is Family Romance, a memoir.

Housmans - Radical booksellers since 1945

Housmans specialises in books and periodicals of radical interest and progressive politics.

Our stock includes:

• Wide coverage of politics, political theory, peace studies, and world current affairs.
• Material about - and in support of - campaigns for peace, the environment, human rights, sexual freedom, equitable and sustainable development, and a great deal more.
• General fiction and non-fiction.
• Many hard-to-find radical publications - and we can obtain most books to order within a few days.

For more details of our range of stock, and of the services we offer, please see the Books and Booklists sections of this website, particularly the Special Offers. And please note that most sections of our radical book stock are supplemented by a large assortment of pamphlets.

Housmans publishes an annual Peace Diary, including a unique World Peace Directory. Copies sent direct from Housmans will be supplied post free to any address in the world.

The World Peace Directory, included in the Housmans Peace Diary each year, includes contact details of almost 2000 national and international peace, green, and human rights organisations around the world. (For more details of the full World Peace Database, from which the directory in the Peace Diary is taken, please contact the Housmans Peace Resource Project - e-mail worldpeace@gn.apc.org.)

And we have the largest range of radical newsletters, newspapers and magazines of any shop in Britain - with editions of well over 200 different titles regularly in stock (and many others irregularly). These publications represent a vast diversity of (and within!) peace campaigns, left movements and parties, civil rights groups, environmental organisations, sexual freedom campaigns, secularist groups, anarchist networks, third world campaigns, alternative lifestyle movements, anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist groups, solidarity campaigns ... and much else.

We produce a monthly Newsletter, if you would like it e-mailed to you please contact andy@housmans.com.

Our basement is home to Porcupine second-hand books - specialists in Philosophy, Politics, History and Psychology.

Besides housing London's oldest independent political bookshop, our historic building in Caledonian Road is also home to our sibling company, the pacifist monthly Peace News, along with War Resisters' International and other peace and radical organisations.

We have regular events in the shop - see the events page. For details of Anne Aylor's creative writing course please see www.anneaylor.co.uk

Orders can be placed on this website via paypal (if you have a credit, debit, or charge card). Also, if you can't come into the shop in person, we are happy to accept orders by post, phone, fax, or e-mail (orders@housmans.com). See the Books page for details.

Volunteers: Housmans welcomes intelligent, reliable and enthusiastic volunteers with relevant skills, to help in its work. Which skills are "relevant" changes over time, but we can often use fairly routine help in and around the shop itself, or on bookstalls at events; we sometimes need technical computer skills, or help with the production of publications. In return there are occasional perks, and the chance to improve your own skills and experience - not to mention the satisfaction of supporting the last major non-sectarian radical bookshop in London.

We are open Monday to Friday 10am to 6.30pm, Saturday 10am to 6pm, and closed on Sunday. We sometimes have extra opening hours for special events - or just because we are able to - so ring us to check if you ever want to visit after our "official" closing time.

Please note that we welcome donations to support the work of Housmans. Trying to promote and supply peace movement and other varieties of radical literature is not the most commercially viable activity - and that's even without taking into account the notoriously unfair competition that all small independent shops face from the major high street bookshop chains. To support our work, you can click below and use your credit/debit/charge card, or you can send us a cheque made payable to Housmans. We also welcome donations of any of your unwanted books - we can often find them a home with a new generation of activists (and raise a little money for the shop at the same time).

 

Please visit us if you can - we're at 5 Caledonian Road, Kings Cross, London N1 (tel 020-7837 4473). The shop is within one block of 6 of the 12 London Underground lines (Kings Cross / St Pancras station).

The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary

The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary: Movements, Histories and Motivations by David E. Lowes

Zed Books, London, 2006

Pages: X+310. £16.99

Reviewed By: Yves Laberge

People and groups that oppose capitalism often contest other issues and principles like deregulation, the military-industrial complex, consumerism and corporate-lobby groups. These terms and almost 200 others are all commented upon and defined here. This Anti-Capitalist Dictionary is an original and rigorous reference book, containing useful definitions and accurate cross-references on alternative movements ('New Left', 'Non-Governmental Organizations', 'Students') and political and philosophical concepts ('Ideology', 'Utopia', 'Value'). Each entry is about two pages long and the focus is more about debates and issues than persons. Therefore there is no specific entry for director Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, for example, although they are mentioned in the appropriate places.

The main strength of the volume is that it always gives the arguments from both sides of a debate, and explains why some people protest about issues that, for many, should not be challenged. For instance: why do some critics oppose the strict protection of intellectual property? (p. 126); what are the real consequences of the cancellation of debt for poor countries? (p. 129); or who critiques the United Nations and for which reasons? (p. 264).

Another useful dimension is the inclusion of concepts that cannot always be found in common reference books (e.g. 'biopiracy'; 'genetic engineering'); and we are given a straightforward definition of 'Neo-Liberalism', that 'is promoted as orthodoxy by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization' (p. 170). Most definitions give the origins of an idea. For instance, the entry on 'Hegemony' reminds us that the term was first used about Bolsheviks by Georgi Plekhanov in 1905, and some twenty years later by Antonio Gramsci (p. 117). Not surprisingly, dozens of entries are related to environmental issues: 'Biodiversity' (p. 20), 'Deep Ecology' (p. 61), 'Global Warming' (p. 106), 'Kyoto Protocol' (p. 140), 'Sustainable Development' (p. 236), etc.

I would have liked an entry on anti-Americanism, movies and documentaries (the entry on media focuses on newspapers, conglomerates and the power of networks), but as with all good dictionaries, one does not seem to get enough! There is no mention of advocacy, but that topic is covered in the entry on 'Direct Action' (p. 73). Lowes' Anti-Capitalist Dictionary is the perfect complement (or prerequisite reading) to the Encyclopedia of Capitalism edited by Syed Hussein (NewYork, Facts on File, 2004), and both are essential for libraries. Both undergraduates and scholars will benefit from this excellent book - one always needs to get accurate definitions and clear arguments for every current issue.

The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary: Movements, Histories and Motivations

By Yves Laberge

The Anti-Capitalist Dictionary: Movements, Histories and Motivations by David E. Lowes
Zed Books, London, 2006
Pages: X+310. £16.99

People and groups that oppose capitalism often contest other issues and principles like deregulation, the military-industrial complex, consumerism and corporate-lobby groups. These terms and almost 200 others are all commented upon and defined here. This Anti-Capitalist Dictionary is an original and rigorous reference book, containing useful definitions and accurate cross-references on alternative movements ('New Left', 'Non-Governmental Organizations', 'Students') and political and philosophical concepts ('Ideology', 'Utopia', 'Value'). Each entry is about two pages long and the focus is more about debates and issues than persons. Therefore there is no specific entry for director Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, for example, although they are mentioned in the appropriate places.

The main strength of the volume is that it always gives the arguments from both sides of a debate, and explains why some people protest about issues that, for many, should not be challenged. For instance: why do some critics oppose the strict protection of intellectual property? (p. 126); what are the real consequences of the cancellation of debt for poor countries? (p. 129); or who critiques the United Nations and for which reasons? (p. 264).

Another useful dimension is the inclusion of concepts that cannot always be found in common reference books (e.g. 'biopiracy'; 'genetic engineering'); and we are given a straightforward definition of 'Neo-Liberalism', that 'is promoted as orthodoxy by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization' (p. 170). Most definitions give the origins of an idea. For instance, the entry on 'Hegemony' reminds us that the term was first used about Bolsheviks by Georgi Plekhanov in 1905, and some twenty years later by Antonio Gramsci (p. 117). Not surprisingly, dozens of entries are related to environmental issues: 'Biodiversity' (p. 20), 'Deep Ecology' (p. 61), 'Global Warming' (p. 106), 'Kyoto Protocol' (p. 140), 'Sustainable Development' (p. 236), etc.

I would have liked an entry on anti-Americanism, movies and documentaries (the entry on media focuses on newspapers, conglomerates and the power of networks), but as with all good dictionaries, one does not seem to get enough! There is no mention of advocacy, but that topic is covered in the entry on 'Direct Action' (p. 73). Lowes' Anti-Capitalist Dictionary is the perfect complement (or prerequisite reading) to the Encyclopedia of Capitalism edited by Syed Hussein (NewYork, Facts on File, 2004), and both are essential for libraries. Both undergraduates and scholars will benefit from this excellent book - one always needs to get accurate definitions and clear arguments for every current issue.

New fiction: The winds of war

Jan 24th 2008 From The Economist print edition

WERE it not for the author's photo on the jacket, few would guess that this war story was written by a woman. The details of RAF bombing missions over Germany are scrupulous. More impressive still, A.L. Kennedy has a keen feel for the jousting indirection of male banter. She skilfully depicts the discontinuity between the bursting emotions of men's interior life and the choked, inarticulate bleating that expresses them—or fails to. “Day” was published in Britain last year and well deserved to win the 2007 Costa book of the year award, announced this week. The novel has just come out in America.

Young and working class, Alfie Day is attached to his mother and fears he will no longer be able to protect her from his violent father when he enlists. Nevertheless, with suicidal bravado, he volunteers as a tail gunner. The countdown to flying the 30 missions that will complete his service to the crown recollects the same countdown in Joseph Heller's “Catch-22”: a race between luck and doom. Likewise, in portraying the airmen's distinctively intimate bond, “Day” is in some ways “Catch-22” with the humour removed. But then, both authors would concur that their central material isn't funny.

While on leave Alfie falls in love with a young woman in London. She is already married to a serviceman away at war. And it is a discipline not to permit himself the fantasy that he will survive to claim his small patch of ordinary happiness (perhaps too that the husband will not), when fantasising about surviving to next week seems an indulgence. Sure enough, on mission number 26 Alfie's bomber is downed. His comrades perish, and Alfie becomes a German prisoner of war.

Providing the novel with its sophisticated texture, the story alternates between war and the parody of war—in this case the set of a mocked-up POW camp, where Alfie is performing as an extra in a film five years after the armistice. Keeping track of these time shifts takes concentration, since the author will sometimes deliberately blur the line between war as grand drama and war as farce.

Ms Kennedy manages to make every battle truism fresh—in particular, the cliché about how “you never feel so alive”. Yet in rendering the guilt, numbness and bewilderment of its aftermath, she also kills off any foolish temptation to envy the intensity of warfare.

Inspiring Quotes

Archbishop Oscar Romero

"When I fed the poor they called me a saint. When I asked why they were poor they called me a communist."

Sun Tzu

"The good leader is the one the people adore; the wicked leader is the one the people despise; the great leader is the one the people say 'we did it ourselves.' "

James Lovelock

"We have grown in numbers to the point where our presence is perceptibly disabling the planet like a disease. As in human diseases there are four possible outcomes: destruction of the invading disease organisms; chronic infection; destruction of the host; or symbiosis - a lasting relationship of mutual benefit to the host and invader. I believe that we have the capacity to choose symbiosis over self-destruction. But we need a rapid, massive and global awakening at a personal level if we are not to go the way of any disease successfully thwarted by its host."

Duane Elgin

"Amid a frenzy of conspicuous consumption, an inconspicuous revolution has been stirring. A growing number of people are seeking a way of life that is more satisfying and sustainable. This quiet revolution is being called by many names, including voluntary simplicity and compassionate living. But whatever its name, its hallmark is a new common sense - namely, that life is too deep and consumerism is too shallow to provide soulful satisfaction."

Robert Putnam

"Humans are social beings, so it is little surprise that good relationships are one of the most important ingredients for a high quality of life."

South to South Film Festival - Vote for Life

Vote for Life, Memilih untuk Hidup
Update Jum'at, 28 Desember 2007

Apakah masyarakat sekitar tambang memiliki hak untuk memilih adanya perusahaan tambang di wilayah mereka? Jika masyarakat sekitar tambang telah tahu daya rusak yang diakibatkan oleh operasi tambang, lantas apakah mereka bisa memilih untuk menolak atau menerima?

Film *Sipakapa Is Not For Sale *memberi gambaran bagaimana masyarakat di kota Sipakapa, Guatemala berjuang untuk menentukan masa depan mereka, menerima atau menolak operasi tambang di wilayahnya lewat referendum.

Film ini telah masuk dalam beberapa festival, seperti Environmental Film festival di Toronto (2006), dan The Native Spirit Festival di London (2007).

Jangan lewatkan film di atas dan 15 film lainnya di South to South Film Festival di Goethe-Institut Jakarta, 25 ? 27 Januari 2008.
Info lengkapnya dapat dilihat di South to South Film Festival.
---------------------------------------------------
Panitia South to South Film Festival
d/a. Jl. Mampang Prapatan II/30 Jakarta Selatan
Telp. 021-7918 1683, Fax. 021-794 1559
Kontak : Luluk (0815 9480 246)

Nama Departemen

Oleh Jos Daniel Parera

Kompas, Jumat, 04 Januari 2008

Setiap kali terjadi penggantian rezim yang berkuasa, terjadi pula
penambahan atau perubahan departemen dengan nama yang menurut penguasa/pemerintah/kabinet cocok dengan misi yang diemban oleh departemen dan menterinya.

Berdasarkan catatan saya, bapak-bapak bangsa telah memberikan nama departemen atau kementerian yang cocok dan dekat kepada masyarakat dan rakyat Indonesia. Misalnya, Departemen Luar Negeri, Departemen Dalam Negeri, Departemen Perdagangan, Departemen Perindustrian, Departemen Penerangan, Departemen Pertambangan, Departemen Perburuhan, dan sebagainya. Nama-nama departemen tersebut memang mudah dimengerti oleh rakyat dan mudah dihafalkan oleh para siswa. Akan tetapi, dalam perjalanan waktu dan perubahan kabinet terdapat beberapa nama
departemen yang berubah.

Nama Departemen Perburuhan pada zaman Orde Lama telah diganti dengan nama Departemen Tenaga Kerja, lalu Departemen Tenaga Kerja dan Transmigrasi. Menurut saya, nama Departemen Tenaga Kerja merendah derajat manusia Indonesia. Tenaga kerja di sana merujuk kepada manusia. Seorang manusia Indonesia hanya dinilai dari tenaganya. Ia disamakan dengan tenaga listrik, tenaga uap, tenaga kuda, tenaga air, dan tenaga nuklir. Lahirlah tenaga kerja Indonesia (TKI) dan bukan manusia Indonesia. Pantas manusia Indonesia dihargai di luar negeri hanya karena ia menjual tenaganya. Akan tetapi, di dalam negeri terdapat organisasi buruh dan bukan tenaga kerja. Jika ada demonstrasi buruh ke Depnaker, Depnaker kurang tanggap karena Depnaker bukan mengurusi buruh, melainkan mengurusi tenaga kerja. "Masih punya tenaga atau tidak?" itulah mungkin pikiran para pejabat Depnaker. Mengapa tidak dikembalikan saja ke nama Departemen Perburuhan?

Departemen Pertambangan berubah nama dengan Departemen Energi dan Sumber Daya Mineral. Di sana terdapat dua kata serapan yang belum dekat dengan rakyat dan terasa asing: energi dan mineral. Kiranya energi dan mineral merupakan uraian kerja dari pertambangan. Makna atasannya adalah pertambangan. Mudah dipahami oleh rakyat dan dekat dengan rakyat.

Inilah nama departemen kecongkakan. Departemen Penerangan diganti dengan nama Departemen Komunikasi dan Informatika alias Depkominfo. Nama ini memang mentereng dan elitis, tetapi jauh dari daya tangkap masyarakat atau rakyat, sulit dihafal dan dimengerti oleh siswa.

Mungkin departemen ini bukan untuk rakyat. Lalu, apa yang terjadi?Lahirlah Direktorat Jenderal Sistem Komunikasi Diseminasi Informatika. Rakyat pasti bertanya-tanya apa arti semua itu. Jika kabar bahwa presiden RI menginginkan Depkominfo menjadi juru bicara negara benar, maka sebaiknya nama departemen tersebut dikembalikan saja ke nama Departemen Penerangan.