Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia

Oleh Beni Bevly
Menarik dan sekaligus mengecewakan sekali setelah membaca ulasan mengenai biografi yang di-authorized oleh mantan presiden RI, Soeharto, “Soeharto, the Life and Legacy of Indonesia’s Second President“. Biografi yang ditulis oleh Retnowati Abdulgani-Knapp belum aku miliki dan tentunya belum dibaca. Tetapi dari ulasan-ulasan di beberpa media yang aku baca, aku bertanya dalam hati, apa maksudnya? Pertanyaan ini timbul karena ada kesan bahwa buku ini menyampaikan pesan-pesan yang agaknya bertentangan dengan semangat reformasi. Hal ini tercermin dari tiga hal di bawah:

Pertama, terlepas dari semua jasanya, Soeharto jelas adalah seorang pelanggar Hak Asasi Manusi (HAM), koruptor dan ditaktor. Hal ini tidak perlu dijelaskan lagi kita semua tahu akan hal ini. Tetapi dalam biografinya, oleh Retnowati Abdulgani-Knapp, Soeharto dilukiskan sebagai tokoh yang simpatik, taat terhadap agama dan ia dianggap sebagai orang yang tak berdosa dan hanya korban para kroninya (kolongmerat Chinese).

Di bawah adalah komentar yang aku kutip dari Barry Desker, head of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, dan former Singapore ambassador untuk Indonesia:

“While Soeharto and his family are portrayed sympathetically, the biography does not shy away from assessing that the core of public discontent centred on the control by Soeharto’s extended family and 50 other families of most of Indonesia’s economic successes.”

Kedua, aku memang tidak begitu tahu mengenai Retnowati Abdulgani-Knapp, putri Roeslan Abdulgani. Dalam hal ini aku hanya mempunyai kesan terhadap Roeslan Abdulgani, ayahnya sebagai seorang yang bersikap mendua dalam hal berpolitik (Ataukah hal ini memang hal yang lumrah bagi para politikus?).

Pada jaman Soekarno, Roeslan Abdulgani adalah pengikut dan ajudan setia Soekarno dan seingat aku, ia mempropagandakan NASAKOM dengan semangatnya. Tetapi setelah Soekarno jatuh, ia mendekati Soeharto dan berhasil mengambil hatinya dengan mempropagandakan Pancasila habis-habisan. Aku meragukan sikap politiknya yang berkesan oportunis. Apakah sikap seperti ini juga menurun pada putrinya, Retnowati Abdulgani-Knapp? Jika benar, maka tidaklah heran dengan tulisan dia di buku ini.

Ketiga, komentar Siswono Yudhohusodo (salah satu menteri jaman Orde Baru) dalam rangka peluncuran buku itu:

“Seperti Bung Karno, Soeharto naik (menjabat) dengan baik-baik tapi diturunkan dengan cara tidak baik.”

Bagaimana Siswono bisa meng-claim bahwa Soeharto “naik dengan baik-baik” jika ratusan ribu, bahkan ada yang menyebutkan jutaan jiwa melayang di tangannya dengan alasan mengamankan negara dari PKI? (baca: John Roosa, Pretext for Mass Murder, 2006).

Aku menilai bahwa isi buku ini terdapat kecenderungan untuk menghidupkan Orde Baru dan menghentikan langkah Reformasi. Mudah-mudahan aku salah.

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Image Source: web.centre.edu

By Beni Bevly
I used to subscribe quite many magazines, but nowadays there are only two of them come into my mail box frequently. They are The Week and Fortune. I consume the rest of the news from internet and CNN.

A couple days ago, I received Fortune with its the most prominent news, Fortune 500 Companies. Who can resist from reading that news? I opened it right away and found out my favorite pages. It showed that Exxon Mobil (Exxon) occupied no. 1 position in profit column. Again? I said “again” because I compared it to last year news. I really wanted to make sure that I got it right. I went over a pile of my old magazines. Yes, I was right, Exxon was there, at the same spot. Why does it matter to me? Of course it does and it also does matter to you too.

In the American society and government who are known for their “perfect” check and balance system compared to other countries, still, it shows a lot of unfair and unethical business practices. With less perfect check and balance system, Indonesia, the country where I was born, also practices this kind of business. Many Indonesia’s government officials and businesses also took advantage and conducted corruption at the largest energy company in Indonesia, PERTAMINA. Of course, I do not tolerate it.

What I would like to say is that America (the United States) is one of the countries that talks and promotes ethics, morality, humanity and democracy all the times in front of other countries, including Indonesia, but on the other hand, the United States government do not solve the Exxon’s phenomenon that took too much advantage and exploit Americans and other host countries seriously, while Americans and other people in the host countries suffer from Exxon’s operation. This negative case will be easily emulated by those corrupt people in the host countries.

Here are the points. First, Exxon is one of the companies who has influence to our life directly through its products, oil and energy. If we are talking about oil and energy, it will relate to our daily activity, from the moment we were in incubation, born and grown, and from the time we wake up, go to work, eat and sleep. All these activities relate to the use of oil and energy, the light we turn on, the car we drive, and the most important thing is the CO2 (Carbon dioxide: a heavy odorless colorless gas formed during respiration and by the decomposition of organic substances; absorbed from the air by plants in photosynthesis, dictionary.com) that we inhale every single second has been polluted. With Exxon’s enormous influence in our life, the question is do they contribute something to create a better quality of life?

If you visit their corporate web site, you will find out their very smart way to mention what they have contributed to this society with its no.1 profit. Do you feel the positive impact on us directly? I do not.

Second, there is an irony between American society and Exxon. While most Americans suffer from gas increase, Exxon is enjoying its extraordinary big amount of net profits. In 2005 Exxon’s net profit increased 42.6% and in 2006, it increased 9.3%. With these increases, Exxon made $39,500,000,000.00 net profits. This number is 32.2% from total of $122.9 billion of net profit in energy industry. If you compare to other industries, such as financial and consumer staple industries, Exxon did not only make the most money, but they also had the most profit in percentage in its industry. While the companies with no. 1 profits in financial industry, Citigroup made 8.3%, and in consumer staple industry, Altria made 15.3%.

How can Exxon keep increasing the price of gasoline and make tremendous of money, while most Americans does not experience in increasing their earnings. Most employers do not raise their employees’ salaries. They even do not adjust the salaries to inflation rate for these past years.

I know, the United States is a liberal and capitalistic country, but at the same time the United States is also a country that respects and believes in moral conscience, ethical value and people’s prosperity. I do not think that Exxon Mobil fits into these values. Therefore, my fellows in developing countries, including Indonesia, do not get trapped with this situation again. We have suffered enough. The suffering that created by small groups of corrupt people.

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Image source: aacu.org

Oleh Beni Bevly
Menyambut hari Kartini pada tanggal 21/4/2007 lalu, banyak orang membincangkan masalah perbedaan dan persamaan hak antara wanita dan pria, seperti dari Evelyn (Happy Kartini’s Day), Jennie S. Bev (Ibu Kartini dan Inspirasinya) dan lain-lain. Perbedaan antara hak atau perlakuan wanita dan pria disebabkan oleh banyak hal. Sebagian orang melihatnya sebagai sentimen pria yang menyebabakan wanita didiskriminasi. Tetapi ada faktor lain sehingga wanita di perlakukan lain dibandingkan perlakuan terhadap pria. “Faktor lain” ini direalisasikan dalam sistem penggajian di Amerika Serikat yang memberikan gaji lebih rendah kepada kaum wanita. Sampai sekarang hal ini belum ditemukan jalan keluarnya yang tepat. Tentu, suatu saat aku berharap ditemukan cara yang baik untuk mengatasi perbedaan ini.

Aku yakin issue ini juga terjadi di Indonesia, karena itu, penting bagi kita untuk mengetahui mengapa sistem penggajian yang lebih rendah diberlakukan bagi wanita.

Perlakuan ini sudah terjadi sejak ratusan tahun yang silam di Amerika Serikat. Para feminis di negeri ini yang dikenal memiliki lobby dan gerakan yang boleh dikatakan paling efektive di dunia masih tidak berdaya menghapi issue ini, yaitu perlakuan yang memberikan gaji lebih rendah terhadap wanita seperti yang aku kutip di bawah ini:

Women make only 80 percent of the salaries their male peers do one year after college; after 10 years in the work force, the gap between their pay widens further, according to a study released Monday (Ellen Simon, AP Business Writer, Yahoo.com, 4/23/2007).

Menurutku faktor utamanya adalah bahwa employer atau atasan (yang juga banyak yang wanita) melihat bahwa wanita dalam hal bekerja tidaklah seefektif dan seefisien pria. Pandangan ini terjadi karena keadaan fisik, seperti pria lebih kuat secara fisik. Oleh karena itu, pekerjaan yang membutuhkan kekuatan fisik, pria digaji lebih tinggi.

Masih berkaitan dengan fisik, pada periode tertentu, wanita mengalami menstruasi. Pada peride ini — yang tidak dialami oleh pria — secara umum, efektifitas dan effisiensi kerja wanita cenderung menurun.

Hal lain, hingga saat ini, termasuk di negara modern, wanita masih lebih memprioritaskan keluarga dan anak mereka dari pada pekerjaan. Sedangkan pria cenderung mendelegasikan tangung jawab terhadao anak pada isterinya. Dengan kondisi seperti ini, tentu saja pekerjaan sanf isteri menjadi terganggu.

Masih berkaitan dengan hal di atas, karena itu di mata employer, wanita tidak terlalu membutuhkan dan mementingkan karir.

Upaya mencari jalan keluar supaya wanita bisa bekerja seefektif pria memang sudah dan sedang dilakukan di Amerika Serikat, seperti menyediakan tempat penitipan anak kecil. Tetapi semua yang dilakukan belum maksimal dan memakan biaya yang cukup mahal bagi employer. Apakah masih ada upaya lain yang bisa dilakukan?

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan
Image Source: indonesiamatters.com

By Beni Bevly
Yesterday, I wrote “WHEN A SOCIETY IS TOO DULL: Cho Seung-Hui’s Case” with opening statement in my first paragragh,

“Normally, I only write the topic that relates to Indonesia, however I could not resist to discuss Cho Seung-Hui’s case.”

I was wrong. It did relate to Indonesia directly. According to International Herald Tribune, April 20, 2007, one of Indonesia’s sons, Partahi Mamora Halomoan Lumbantoruan, 34, known as Mora was one out of 32 Cho Seung-Hui’s victims. He was a civil engineering doctoral student at Virginia Tech. Mora had been studying in America since January 2005 and last contacted his family in West Medan, North Sumatra, to wish them a happy Easter on 8th April 2007 (indonesiamatters.com).

Here are some memories and thoughts shared on Partahi Lumbantoruan (New York Times):

I don’t know you, but I read about you in the newspaper today (kompas.com) saw your mom and dad crying ..
I’ll pray for you and your family.

Peace be with you

— Posted by Rudy

he is a smart, full of attention guy who loves his big family. Persuing his dreams by taking his Phd in Virginia tech, hoping that he could get his doctoral there. His parents had to sell almost all their belongings just to send him to study in Virginia. Just 2 semester left until he finish his study but God called him already. Rest in peace my friend we all gonna miss you specially your family.

— Posted by ana

Partahi was relentless in trying to get into the best university for his study in America and he chose Virginia Tech.
Before he went to VT on 2004, as far as I remember from reading some articles online, Partahi tried several times to get into the U.S. but failed because his visa application was rejected.
Partahi died pursuing his biggest dream.
Even though I never knew him, he shared the dreams of many Indonesians of having an education in America.
He showed through his perseverance that we can all realize our dreams.
God bless you and your family, may you rest in peace.

— Posted by Shanna

Dear Bang Mora, you are more then a real cousin for me, I know you like my pocket. When we lived in Jakarta for many years, I like to cook your favorite food “Arsik” (Indonesian Tradisional Food from Medan,North Sumatera), but now you make me cry my brother. You are so smart and generous. You always told me that I should not study too hard, though. God loves us much. Don’t worry, all our family will be fine, just sleep well, you’ve worked so hard. One day we will meet again. Rista, now graduate student studying in Taiwan.

— Posted by Rista

May god bless the family. This goes to prove that God only takes the finest…A candle goes out to you

— Posted by Brenda

My deepest condolence to the members of Partahi’s family.

Please share your memories and thoughts on Partahi Lumbantoruan by leaving comments on this article.

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

By Beni Bevly
Normally, I only write the topic that relates to Indonesia, however I could not resist to discuss Cho Seung-Hui’s case. After all, I realized that this tragedy (Cho Seung-Hui’s case) can happen anywhere, especially in diverse countries such as in the United States and Indonesia. Beside that, as Indonesians, we can learn from this tragedy.

This tragedy took place on Monday, 4/16/2007 at Virginia Tech or Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. Cho Seung-Hui, 23 years old shot 32 people to death and committed suicide in the deadliest one-man shooting rampage in modern U.S. history (Matt Apuzzo, Va. Tech Shooter was Laughed at, Yahoo! News, 4/19/2007). The reasons, according to Cho who sent his message to NBC, were to persecute and rant about rich kids. To achieve these goals why did Cho have to kill his classmates and then killed himself?

Now there are many analysts out there who are mentioning why Cho did such as thing, including an analysis that mentioning Cho was mentally ill. Regardless of what the analysts say, is Cho’s action something to do with social jealousy or American society overall?

Cho Seung-Hui came to the U.S. at about age 8 in 1992 and whose parents work at a dry cleaners in suburban Washington. He was a shy and quite boy. He did not speak a lot. There were several occasions at Westfield High School in Chantilly, Virginia where he went to, he was picked on.

Chris Davids, one of students at Virginia Tech and graduated from Westfield High School with Cho in 2003, recalled that Cho almost never opened his mouth and would ignore attempts to strike up a conversation.

Once, in English class, the teacher had the students read aloud, and when it was Cho’s turn, he just looked down in silence, Davids recalled. Finally, after the teacher threatened him with an F for participation, Cho started to read in a strange, deep voice that sounded “like he had something in his mouth,” Davids said.

Other source said that there were just some people who were really mean to him and they would push him down and laugh at him. He didn’t speak English really well and they would really make fun of him.

Behind Cho’s silence, it grew burning vengeance that he has to carry out. In a package that he sent to NBC on Wednesday, 4/18/2007 containing a rambling and often incoherent 23-page written statement from Cho, 28 video clips and 43 photos — many of them showing Cho, in a military-style vest and backward baseball cap, brandishing handguns, he mentioned, “You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today, but you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off.”

“Your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats. Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs. Your trust funds wasn’t enough. Your vodka and cognac wasn’t enough. All your debaucheries weren’t enough. Those weren’t enough to fulfill your hedonistic needs. You had everything.”

Finally, with his anger, he carried out his vengeance by killing 32 Virgin Tech students and himself. It seems that Cho Seung-Hui has accumulated his anger for years. He also was also trapped in a condition where there was nobody he could trust and talk to. In this case, the society to him was a pressure. It pressed him to a limit where he could not escape, unless with his vengeance.

I do not want to try to be an expert in this case. However, as an immigrant and from immigrant point of view, some times you find the fact that America is not the land of hope and the society is too dull to be your friend, even your parents and love one do not understand you. This situation could create tremendous frustration. For some people, they will find positive ways to overcome, for other, ending life is the only option. I hope Cho Seung-Hui’s case will not be a model and emulated by others.

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Image source: rudy.wahrweb.org

Oleh Beni Bevly
Pengalaman masa kecilku ternyata banyak mencerminkan kehidupan sosial politik masa lampau dan saat itu. Pengalaman menjelajah masuk ke “pedalaman” di Pontianak membuatku membuka mata bahwa kehidupan orang Cina dan pribumi sengaja dipisahkan oleh pemerintah. Mereka dianggap sebagai lidi oleh pemerintah. Jika bersatu mereka menjadi kuat dan jika dipisahkan akan mudah dipatahkan.

Di Pontianak, Kalimantan Barat, jiwa petualang dan menjelajah mulai tumbuh. Pada saat itu aku duduk di kelas lima SD, dan memasuki usia ke-12. Bersama dengan beberapa teman seusia, aku pergi ke “pedalaman” kota Pontianak yang disebut Pal Dua. Tujuan ku adalah berburuh burung dengan ketepel.

Kami berangkat sekitar jam 10 pagi, jalan yang kami tempuh pada mulanya beraspal, kemudian masuk ke gang kecil yang rumahnya mulai jarang. Pada siang hari kami telah sampai di tempat yang pohonya besar dan deselangi dengan ladang. Aku mengintai burung di bawah pohon yang teduh dan tinggi, tidak ada yang bicara, semua diam. Aku hanya mendengar dengusan nafasku, suara angin, daun pohon dan suara burung berkicau. Dengan pelahan aku arahkan ketepelku pada seekor burung, tarik sekuat tenaga dan ku lepaskan. Burung-burung tersebut berterbangan simpang siur. Ketepelku tidak mengenai sasaran. Beberap detik berlalu, suasan menjadi sepi sunyi kembali. Tiba-tiba terdengar suara bentakan nyaring, “Apa yang kau lakukan di sini. Ku bunuh kau!”

Aku terkejut dan melihat ke sumber suara tersebut. Seorang dewasa, dengan telanjang dada dan berkulit gelap, berlari mendekatiku sambil mengacungkan aritnya. Tanpa menunggu lagi, aku lari terbirit-birit ketakutan. Entah berapa lama aku lari, yang jelas napasku sangat memburu, tersengal-sengal dan kakiku mulai lemas kecapaian. Pada saat yang bersamaan hujan turun dengan deras disertai gemuruh guntur. Lalu aku dengar suara memanggil sayup-sayup dari arah kanan, “Jan-Jan, berhenti. Dia tak kejar kita lagi.” Jan-Jan adalah panggilan untuk ku dalam bahasa Cina Khek.

Sesampainya di rumah, pakaian yang kukenakan telah kering, aku menceritakan kejadian tersebut pada orang ayahku. Tentu saja aku mendapat teguran dan ancaman akan disabet rotan jika aku mengulangi kejadian itu. Pada saat itu, dia menceritakan bahwa sebelum aku lahir, ayah kami sekeluarga dan beserta orang-orang Cina yang di pedalaman diusir ke kota. Agaknya ayahku masih trauma dengan peristiwa itu, karena itulah aku mendapat teguran keras. Pada saat itu aku belum mengerti maksudnya.

Waktu berlalu, ketika aku dewas, perlahan aku menyadari bahwa ternyata keluargaku salah satu korban Peraturan Pemerintah No. 10 (PP 10) tahun 1959. Ayahku menyebutnya PP 10 dengan “ceu fung theu,” dialek Hakka yang jika diterjemahkan bebas berarti: “kabur karena kepala merah.”

Sebelum PP 10, orang Cina hidup damai di desa dan di pedalam Kalimantan dengan suku Dayak dan Melayu. Melalui PP 10, diintruksikan bahwa seluruh orang Cina harus meninggalkan desa atau pedalaman dan dikonsentrasikan di kota. Menurutku hal ini dilakukan supaya orang Cina tidak menjadi kekuatan di desa dan di pedalaman. Jika tinggal di kota maka orang Cina menjadi mudah diawasi.

Maka provokasipun dilakukan oleh pemerintah, ayahku dan kami sekeluarga diusir dan diancam akan dibunuh oleh penduduk pribumi yang mengenakan ikatan kain merah di kepala mereka. Rumah, tanah dan harta disita. Kabarnya kakekku menyembunyikan emas dan perhiasan di dalam tanah, di bawah kolong rumah.

Menurut cerita ayahku, keluargaku beruntung karena bisa meninggalkan tempat tersebut dengan membawa pakaian. Ada satu orang kenalan ayah yang meninggalkan kampung halamannya dengan hanya mengenekan celana dalam. Ayahku memberikannya baju untuk dipakai. Sejak saat itu mereka mengangkat diri menjadi saudara dan saling membantu dalam suka dan duka.

Orang Cina ditakuti atau dikwatirkan menguasai daerah pedalaman, lalu di usir ke daerah perkotaan. Ternyata di daerah perkotaan mereka juga survive. Apa yang ditakuti dari orang Cina ini? Jumlahnya? Senjatanya? Menurutku, jelas bukan itu. Agaknya pemerintah takut orang Cina bersahabat dengan pribumi, maka orang Cina dipisahkan darinya. Jika Cina dan pribumi bersatu, mereka bagaikan lidi-lidi yang diikat bersama. Bukankah lebih mudah mematahkan satu lidi, daripada mematahkan banyak lidi yang bersatu?

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Megawati Soekarnoputri,
The First Indonesian Female President
Image source: wikipedia.org

By Beni Bevly
Megawati Soekarnoputri, the first female politician leader who had achieved a milestone by reaching a presidential position in Indonesia in 2001. She was chosen to replace Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) by Indonesia House Representative. In 2004, she was defeated by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) in direct election. Many people said she failed to transform Indonesia to be the better one. Some of them thought because she was a female.

Lately, there was a bill which proposed that one at least must have a bachelor degree to be a president of Indonesia. According to some resources this bill was created to stop Megawati to run for president again, simply because she din not hold a bachelor degree. My question, is it something to do with gender, since she is a female? And did the party that wanted to stop her think she might not be an effective president?

These questions pushed me to do a mini research. Finally I found the “gender and leadership topic” in Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2003). Organizational Behavior. Boston, MA: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Kreitner & Kinicki concluded that female and male leaders were rated as equally effective.

Below is the comparison of female and male leadership that I compiled from them:

By reviewing Kreitner’s & Kinicki’s finding, I could tell that leadership is almost nothing to do with gender.

Recalling Megawati’s problem, it seems it is more to do with herself, her personality, her style of leadership and her intelligent. It is better for us, as Indonesians not to differentiate whether the candidate of a president is a female or male, but we have to evaluate him or her carefully as an individual.

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia>

Image source: mappa.blogsome.com

Oleh Beni Bevly
Bela diri tae kwon do (tkd) adalah hobiku yang tidak bisa ditinggal. Pada tahun 1987, tepatnya tahun petama di Universitas Indonesia, aku mulai latihan tkd dengan formal dan sungguh-sungguh. Sejak itu di manapun aku pergi, philosofi dan gerakan fisik tkd ikut bersamaku.

Suartu hari pada tahun 1990, sebagai pelatih dan ketua Unit Kegiatan Mahasiswa Tae Kwon Do Universitas Indonesia (UKM TKD UI), aku memimpin murid-muridku yang berjumlah sekitar 40 orang latihan dan gasuku kenaikan tingkat di Gunung Putri, Jawa Barat. Dalam kegiatan ini ada dua yang aku mau diskusikan. Pertama, mengenai mobil yang mogok. Kedua, mengenai jam tangan aku yang hilang. Dari kedua peristiwa ini akan direflesikan pada keadaan sosial, ekononi dan politik Indonesia.

Menegenai mobil yang mogok. Beberapa minggu sebelum anggota TKD UI berangkat ke Gunung Putri, aku dan beberapa temanku survei ke tempat itu. Kami mencarter sebuah mobil yang menurut pengamatan kami mobil itu reliable untuk dipakai naik ke Gunung Putri. Karena aku sering naik mobil kutu pulang pergi dari kampus UI Depok – Pasar Minggu, aku tahu bahwa mobil yang kami sewa itu sering kebut dan kecepatannya melebihi mobil sejenisnya.

Tetapi apa yang terjadi, ketika malam hari, mobil tersebut jalan tersendat-sendat di lereng Gunung Putri. Mesinnya keluar asap, sopirnya hendak nyerah dan mau meninggalkan kami, sedangkan tujuan masih jauh, jalan gelap gulita, hujan turun deras dan diselang sambaran petir. Aku bernegosiasi dengan mengatakan bahwa aku akan menambah uang sewa jika sampai tujuan dan memintanya untuk mendinginkan mesin. Akhirnya setelah berhenti beberapa kali dan mobil tersebut berjalan zikzak dengan lambat, kamipun sampai ke tujuan.

Pada hari pertama latihan, aku dan beberapa temanku sampai dahulu. Menurut jadwal, peserta yang lain mestinya sudah sampai sebelum jam 6 sore. Tetapi mereka baru nongol sekitar jam 9 malam. Ternyata metromini yang kami carter juga mengalami hal yang sama. Mogok!

Agaknya gejala ini mewakili kualitas yang rendah dari produk mobil secara khusus dan produk lainnya secara umum di Indonesia. Yang dimaksud dengan kualitas adalah bagaimana kemampuan suatu produk melakukan pekerjaan sesuai dengan tujuan dibuatnya. Dengan kata lain, kualitas berhubungan denga reliability atau kehandalan suatu produk. Jelas kedua mobil di atas tidak reliable atau rendah kualitasnya.

Adalah suatu hal lumrah bahwa produk dari negara maju terdiri dari tiga tingkat kualitas – A, B dan C grade. Kebiasaan yang diketemui, A grade diekspor ke sesama negara maju, B grade ke negara berkembang dan C grade ke negara terbelakang. Hal ini tergantung dari standar mutu pemerintah, kejelian dan negotition power pihak penerima produk. Tetapi yang menjadi issue utama bagaimana kerja sama pemerintah dan produsen dalam negeri dalam untuk berswadaya dengan memproduksi produk yang bermutu, harga terjangkau dan mempunyai daya saing di dalam dan di luar negeri.

Sebagai contoh, pemerintahan Cina dan Korea Utara bekerja sama dengan produsen mobil mereka dalam meningkatkan mutu. Salah satu caranya adalah mematok standar emisi. Kedua negara ini, yang tadinya dianggap remeh, kini telah berhasil melewati kualitas mobil Amerika. Bahkan, produsen Amerika tidak bisa menjual mobil di Cina, karena standar mutu lingkungannya yang rendah (Al Gore, dalam bukunya yang terkenal Inconvinience Truth: The Planet Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It (New York: Rodale. p. 272).

Perusahaan Otomobil Nasional (PROTON) dari Malaysia, walaupun belum mempunyai kedudukan yang sangat penting, tetapi mulai diperhitungkan di dunia internasional. Enam puluh percent dari mobil dalam negeri adalah produk independent PROTON. Diprediksikan bahwa pada tahun 2010, PROTON akan produksi 1 juta unit untuk pasar internasional (Pedal to the Metal, Far Eastern Economic Review, May 2, 1996. pp. 64-66).

Selama ini, produk otomobil dari Indonesia tidak terdengar di pasar Internasional. Pada masa menjelang kejatuhan Orde Baru, Tommy Suharto melalui perusahaan Timor yang bekerja sama dengan otomobil dari Korea berusaha mengembangkan produk mobil dalam negeri. Tetapi hal ini kandas karena kolusi dan ketidak-jujuran berbisnis. Lalu siapakah pemain yang bisa mengangkat nama Indonesia seperti Hyundai mengangkat nama Korea Selatan atau Proton mengangkat nama Malaysia?

Peristiwa lain yang aku alami saat gasukhu adalah jam tangan aku yang hilang. Setelah selesai gashuku, kami semua siap di dalam bis dan hendak pulang. Saat itu aku baru sadar bahwa jam tanganku tidak ada pergelangan tanganku. Aku pikir, jamku pasti ketinggalan di rumah penduduk tempat kami nginap.Aku tergesa-gesa hendak turun dan menanyakan hal itu pada pemilik rumah, tetapi seorang temanku mencegah dan bilang, “Jangan! Nanti kamu dikira menuduh mereka mencuri jam tangan kamu dan mereka bisa tersinggung dan marah.”

Aku ragu mengenai perkataan temanku. Teman-temanku yang lain membenarkan. Pada akhirnya aku memutuskan untuk melupakan jam tangan tersebut.

Aku mengerti maksud temanku mencegah aku balik ke rumah penduduk tersebut karena mereka hendak mencegah konflik yang mereka perkirakan akan terjadi. Memang konflik terhindari, tetapi masalah tidak terselesaikan. Ada dua hal yang aku tangkap dari peristiwa ini bahwa bangsa kita masih menganut budaya diam. Di lain pihak keterbukaan diperkirakan akan menjadi masalah.

Dalam demokrasi, budaya diam dan ketidak-terbukaan adalah hal yang harus dibuang jauh-jauh. Karena kommunikasi dan keterbukaanlah yang menjamin tumbuhnya demokrasi. Di negara maju yang telah menerapkan demokrasi, keterbukaan sangat dijunjung tinggi. Kritik dan mempertanyakan sesuatu pada pihak lain adalah hal yang wajar. Pihak yang ditanya atau dikritik lantas tidak menjadi marah, tersinggung, timbul konflik dan melakukan tindakan kekerasan.

Contohnya, awal tahun 2007, ketika aku berada di San Francisco, AS, aku melihat seseorang sedang mengkampanyekan untuk tidak melakukan hubungan sex sebelum menikah dan setia pada pasangannya. Hal itu, antara lain, dikatakan untuk mencegah penyakit AIDS.

Tiba-tiba datang seorang wanita dan menunjuk kepada orang yang sedang berkampanye tersebut sambil berkata, “You are crazy. You think you are an angle. You live in 21th century. Wake up!” Kemudian argumen berlanjut hingga beberapa menit. Tetapi setelah itu mereka pergi tanpa terjadi konflik fisik yang lebih jauh. Si tukang kampenyepun meneruskan usahanya.

Contoh lain, jika anda nonton tayangan iklan di saluran TV Amerika. Tidaklah heran jika anda menemukan bahwa satu merek dagang mengungkapkan kelebihan produk mereka dan menerangkan dengan rinci kekurangan produk pesaingnya. Hal yang serupa juga ditemukan dalam kampanye pemilihan presiden. Kubu Al Gore tidak segan menyerang kekurangan baik pribadi araupun kebijakan partai politik kubu George Bush. Tetapi setelah pemilihan, pihak yang kalah akan memberi selamat kepada pihak yang menang.

Keterbukaan dan kritikan menjadikan demokrasi mereka semakin kuat, karena kekurangan mereka terbongkar dan untuk survive, mereka harus memperbaiki. Selayaknya hal serupa pula yang mesti terjadi di Indonesia. Bukan hanya tersinggung, marah dan menghasut untuk menimbulkan kekerasan.

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Image source: npsnet.com

By Beni Bevly
This morning I turned on my computer and read several comments on Overseas Think Tank. I never moderate the comments, nor edit them. To me comments are the thoughts should be freely delivered and without getting censored, especially when the comments are written on a blog.

In reading comments, I several time come across with unexpected, yet excited idea. One of the comments on the article that I wrote (Can SBY Handle it?) triggered me to write this article. Here is the comment:

Indratno Widiarto said on April 10, 2007 at 1:24 am |
It seems that we have different point of views in seeing democracy
I couldn’t agree more with your three elements.
Adding my ‘ideas’ as you called it, to those three is, in my opinion, too premature.
Let’s take a look at history:
Singapore: Do you think it was built upon democracy?
Unites States Of America: Do you think it was built upon democracy? (please look back to the era of slavery for this matter)
UK, Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Spain….
Don’t you think that ‘they’ don’t take advantages of democracy just for their own benefit?
Who was supporting Batista? Shah Reza Pahlevi? Marcos? Soeharto? And all other corrupt regimes? That ‘democratic’ country, wasn’t it?
I dream about democracy day and night as you do…but not that fast and not as define by those who only takes benefit of it.
Kindly regards,
Indratno

Indratno, thank you for your comment. In responding his previous comment, I think I was not clear enough. Here is my point. I agree with Indratno’s statement, “The Indonesians are simply not ready yet for living the life of ‘democratic’ dreams and ideals.”

My discussion with Indratno reminds me the discussion between one of my American fellows who believe in American democracy and that democracy will be the panacea for every single politics problem in Indonesia. I am not trying to exaggerate what he said, but that was he meant. I was in the position who had the idea that Indonesia was not ready yet for American democracy. I also mentioned to him that democracy was just like a knife. You can use it to cut fruits and vegetables, or on the other hand, someone also can use it to kill people.

I still keep the documentation of my arguments as follows:

As you mentioned that American Democratic has been existing over 200 years. Do you realize that even though the United States has been practicing the same value and system of democracy, but the results were different from time to time? Why, because it was implemented by different people who had different moral. In this point, please note, that I do not or never suggest that democracy will change somebody’s moral. But politician’s or majority moral will influence how democracy implemented.

Below are several cases that support my argument and I would like you to know:

Joaquin Murietta
In 1850′s there was a law that created by Legislative, one of the American Democracy entities. This law did not allow Indian descendants to report, complain or sue Caucasian. This was exactly what happen to Joaquin Murietta who roamed from San Joaquin County, Sacramento, LA to Mexico in 1850s. He was an Indian descendant. One day, his gold that he mined was robed, his wife was raped, his brother hung to death. Can you imagine how he felt? He went to a sheriff to seek for justice and explained what happened. But what the sheriff said? “You are not covered by the law since you are an Indian. You have not right to seek for justice.”

Murietta was so mad. He decided to bring justice by himself to people who robed himself, raped his wife and murdered his brother. While doing that he also helped other Mexicans by giving them money and gold that he robed from Caucasians. In Caucasians point of view he was a bandit. But in Mexicans he was a hero. He became a legend. Now people call him “Zorro.”

The message from this case is in that society, legislative produced that kind of law that prohibited executive and judicative to help Joaquin Murietta seek justice. Why this case happened? Because most people in legislative and other branches did not have moral conscience to Indians, they thought Indians were not human being like them.

Bommingham
Judicative, one of the American Democracy branches, failed for many times to bring people who killed, terrorized, beat, kidnapped African Americans, set bombed and burned their houses to justice in early 1960s in Birmingham, Alabama. Because of that, Birmingham was called Bommingham. Judicative already had all the facts that the actors of the crime never could deny what they did. There was a law about not to harm people as well. But why did this judicative fail many times?

In American Judicial system, there are juries who decided whether alleged actor convicted or not. In early 1960s, majority of people in Birmingham did not have moral conscience for African Americans. They thought they were not part of the United States. They were excluded from most activities that involved Caucasians. These people with this kind of mentality were asked to be juries. Of course you can guess what the result.

Again, no matter how good this democracy system, but if run by these people, the democracy will be meaningless. Later on the output of Democracy system is getting better because of the moral movement from Martin Luther King Jr. His movement influenced and changed majority people’s moral.

Bush’s Government
In modern day, you still can see how American democracy is abused by politicians who have bad moral regardless how good the democracy system established. After Bush and Cheney won the election and led the United States to Iraq war, it is obvious how they took the advantage of the democracy system that had brought them to be President and Vice President.

There are two cases that prove how this president takes the advantage of American Democracy:

First, many sources mentioned that Bush and Cheney had been doling out multi-billion-dollar contracts to Halliburton and Bechtel because these two corporations had made million-dollar contributions to their political campaign. Also, these corporations have the close relationship with them, where they can have other financial gain indirectly.

Regardless the latest CBS News poll finds Bush’s approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, he is still sending troops to Iraq. Remember, in Democracy, power must be in majority of the people. In this case Bush does not care the majority. It means he does not car the democracy. Here is another prove that moral of politicians play important role in shaping better democracy.

You were doubt about, “What justification to be used to measure that a person is being and having good moral anyway? Is it social values or religious values? Is it Christian values, Islamic values, Hinduism values, Buddhism values, Jewish value, Javanese values, Maduranese value, Batak values?” There is a guideline called “the magnificent seven” to emphasize their timeless and worldwide relevance moral as follows (Hudgson, K. 1992. A Rack and a Hard Place: How to Make Ethical Business Decisions When the Choices are Tough. New York, NY: AMACOM):

1. Dignity of human life: The lives of people are to be respected. Human beings, by the fact of their existence, have value and dignity. We may not act in ways that directly intended to harm or kill an innocent person. Human beings have a right to live; we have an obligation to respect that right to life. Human life is to be preserved and treated as sacred.

2. Autonomy: All persons are intrinsically value and have the right to self-determination. We should act in ways that demonstrate each person’s worth, dignity, and right to free choice. We have a right to act in ways that assert our own worth and legitimate needs. We should not use others as mere “things” or only as means to an end. Each person has an equal right to basic human liberty, compatible with similar liberty for others.

3. Honesty: The truth should be told to those who have a right to know it. Honesty is also known as integrity, truth telling, and honor. One should speak and act so as to reflect the reality of the situation. Speaking and acting should mirror the way things really are. There are times when others have the right to hear the truth from us; there are times when they do not.
4. Loyalty: Promise, contract, and commitment should be honored. Loyalty includes fidelity, promise keeping, keeping the public trust, good citizenship, excellence in quality of work, reliability, commitment, and honoring just laws, rules, and policies.

5. Fairness: People should be treated justly. One has the right to be treated fairly, impartially, and equitably. One has the obligation to treat others fairly and justly. All have the right to the necessities of life—especially those in deep need and the helpless. Justice includes equal, impartial, unbiased treatment. Fairness tolerates diversity and accepts differences in people and their ideas.

6. Humaneness. There are two parts: (1) Our actions ought to accomplish good, and (2) we should avoid doing evil. We should do good to others and to ourselves. We should have concern for the well-being of others; usually, we show this concern in the form of compassion, giving, kindness, serving, and caring.

7. The common good: Actions should accomplish the “greatest good for the greatest number” of people. One should act and speak in ways that benefit the welfare of the largest number of people, while trying to protect the rights of individuals.

Indratno, to emphasize my thought that goes hand in hand with yours (hopefully), I have a hypothesis that I hope one day can be proved. By borrowing Vilfredo Pareto’s theory, I hypothetically say that only 20% of Indonesian politicians have good moral, ethics and dignity, the rest of them do not. This condition, I think, is contrary to the U.S., that’s why the democracy can run much better in the United States even though there are weaknesses such as the above examples.

______
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Image source: ylcf.org

Oleh Beni Bevly
Banyak yang aku dapati dari belajar di Cap Kauw atau SMA Negeri 19, daerah Perniagaan, Jakarta. Guru PMP dan geografi mengajar dengan tidak pernah membawa buku pegangan, tetapi mereka bisa menerangkan secara akurat apa yang ada di buku pegangan yang kami pakai. Guru bahas Indonesia dan Akuntansi adalah perancang kurikulum SMA nasional. Kepala sekolah Cap Kauw adalah penulis buku pegangan mata pelajaran ekonomi. Ada juga dari mereka yang lulusan UI. Banyak dari mereka adalah pengajar tradisional yang mewarisi sistem ajaran Cina. Konon, menurut angkatan yang lebih tua, Cap Kauw adalah terusan dari sekolah Cina sebelum tahun 1965. Ke-Cinaannya masih terpantul dari kursi dan meja di kantor staf pengajar yang berukirin karakter Cina.

Di samping keunggulan di atas, di Cap Kauw jugalah aku mulai mengenal hal-hal yang negatif dan tidak etis. Ada guru yang mengajar sambil tidur. Ada juga yang mendiktekan mata pelajaran matematika untuk dicatat murid. Juga ada seorang guru muda yang menarik tali BH teman perempuanku dan dijepretkan ke punggung pemakainya.

Dari sesama murid, aku mengenal dan hafal kata-kata seperti “ci bai” dan “lan ciau” dan kata-kata kotor lainnya dalam bahasa Cina Hokkian, daerah Jakarta dan Indonesia. Hampir setiap kalimat yang diucapkan sekelompok temanku, menyebutkan salah satu kedua kata itu. Contohnya, “Elu kayak ci bai aja, gua udah tungguin elu dari tadi. Kemana aja elu?”

Hal di atas jelas melanggar kesopanan dan etika, jika diteruskan maka moral dan hukum akan dilanggar. Agaknya etika yang diremehkan ini, telah membuat masyarakat Indonesia terjerumus ke dalam perbuatan illegal. Sebagai anggota keluarga yang bedagang di Tanah Abang, bukan suatu rahasia lagi jika dikatakan bahwa Medan Kui adalah penipu, hati-hati dengan cek kosong mereka. Hati-hati dengan tukang panggul Fan Kui, jika meleng maka barang danganmu akan lenyap. Keluarga kami menjadi objek cek kosong dan lenyapnya barang dangangan beberapa kali. Kenyataan seperti ini menjadi strereotype dan stereotype menjadi kenyataan.

Mana yang disebut etis atau tidak bagiku menjadi jelas ketika aku mengukiti kuliah Pengantar Hukum di Universitas Indonesia. Di kuliah umum yang berjumlah kurang lebih 400 mahasiswa itu, dosen itu mengajukan kasus untuk kami pelajari. Kasus tersebut adalah:

Untuk menutupi kekurangannya, seseorang bungkuk berfoto sambil naik kuda dan orang sumbing befoto sambil tersenyum dan menutupi mulutnya.

Mungkin kasus di atas tidak melanggar hukum, tetapi dati segi etika, ini adalah perbuatan yang tidak etis.

Untuk jelasnya di bawah adalah beberapa contoh tindakan yang bisa jadi legal tetapi jelas tidak etis (Brumback, G. Institutionalizing Ethics in Government, Public Personnel Management 20, no. 3 (1991)):

a. Mencari kambing hitam atas kegagalan sendiri.
Orang sering kali mencari alasan dan menjelaskan mengapa is gagal, tidak jarang mereka menggunakan alasan yang tidak pernah exist.

b. Menghindari tanggung jawab yang tidak menyenangkan.
Banyak orang melarikan diri dari tangung-jawab yang tidak menyenangkan dan memilih yang mereka sukai saja. Orang tipe ini biasAnya mempunyai seribu satu alasan mengapa mereka tidak mau menerima tanggung jawab tersebut.

c. Menuntut hal yang tidak masuk akal dari orang lain.
Untuk kepentingan mereka, orang tipe ini tidak malu-malu menuntut dari orang lain untuk mengerjakan sesuatu untuk mereka, walaupun tuntutan tersebut tidak masuk akal.

d. Melanggar janji.
Orang tertentu berpikir, adalah tidak menjadi soal untuk tidak memenuhi janji karena mereka memiliki hal yang lebih penting untuk dikerjakan atau “I am not in the mood.”

e. Menyelak
Menyelak, bagi orang tertentu, merupakaan hal yang exciting untuk dikerjakan. Mereka bilang, “Aku pintar, karena itu aku bisa melakukannya” atau “Gua nggak bisa menghabiskan waktu sia-sia, hanya untuk menunggu giliranku.”

f. Memberi tugas yang menyenangkan ke teman, sedangkan ada orang lain yang lebih qualified.
Untuk situasi tertentu, orang tidak menyadari atau tidak mau menyadari bahwa, “That’s what friend for” adalah tidak etis, khususnya dalam lingkungan profesional.

Yang lebih jeleknya lagi, gejala di masyarakat kita, menipu atau bahkan korupsi dianggap perbuatan yang pintar. Ngebut dalam keadaan mabuk, di anggap jago. Jelas tindakan ini tidak etis dan immoral dan melanggar hukum. Di bawah adalah prinsip-prinsip salah dan benar yang oleh setiap orang bisa dijadikan pegangan untuk bertindak:

1. Goden Rule: Berbuatlah terhadap mereka seperti apa yang engkau harapkan mereka akan berbuat terhadapmu.

2. Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Jika suatu tindakan tidak benar untuk semua orang, maka tindakan itu tidak benar bagi siapa saja.

3. Descartes’ rules of change: Jika suatu tindakan tidak dapat dilakukan berulang, maka tindakan itu tidak baik dilakukan.

4. Utilitarian Principle: Lakukan sesuatu yang pencapaiannya lebih tinggi atau lebih berharga.

5. Risk Aversion Principle: Ambil tindakan yang menghasilkan paling sedikit penderitaan atau paling sedikit potensi kerugiannya.

6. The ethical “no free lunch” rule: Berasumsi bahwa semua tangible dan intangeble objek dimiliki oleh orang lain, kecuali secara specific diberitahukan itu adalah free.

7. Confucius’ Analects: Hormati orang tua. Jangan berbuat terhadap orang lain seperti apa yang engkau tidak mau orang lain berbuat terhadapmu. Bagi penguasa: Memimpinlah dengan contoh daripada dengan kekerasan. Jika penguasa sudah menggunakan kekerasan maka ia sudah gagal.

Kembali ke streotype. Dikatakan bahwa kenyataan yang negatif pada suatu suku bangsa menjadi strereotype dan stereotype menjadi kenyataan. Bagiku, hal ini tentu suatu yang tidak baik, maka itu streotype harus dihapuskan. Caranya, pertama, jangan menciptakan kenyataan bahwa kita membenarkan dan ikut terlibat dalam tindakan yang tidak etis, immoral dan melanggar hukum. Jika kita tidak bisa membantu orang lain untuk berhenti bertindak demikian, maka paling sedikit yang bisa kita lakukan adalah tidak ikut-ikutan. Kedua, jika kita sebagai bagian dari satu suku bangsa yang telah terstrereotype, buktikanlah bahwa stereotype itu tidak berlaku untuk kita.

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Image source: totalwar.org

By Beni Bevly
To many people, the answer is as easy as flipping over the hand. Religion is a belief that teaches people to do good things, whereas evil persuades people to do bad things such as stealing, raping and killing. To me, the answer is not that simple. Especially when religion is related to its followers. The answer even gets more complicated if one religion is related to other religions and their followers. It becomes complex and is marked by conflicts. History showed that the religion conflicts had allowed the followers to kill millions of people. In this case, the question “what differentiates religion from evil?” is not that simple to answer.

Below are parts of what I mean by history showed that the religion conflicts had allowed the followers to kill millions of people. Thank you to James A. Haught who had compiled the history facts in “Religion’s Death Toll” that I presented below (http://www.theskepticalreview.com/).

The First Crusade was launched in 1095, thousands of whom were dragged from their homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive.

In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in 1191, he ordered 3,000 captives — many of them women and children — taken outside the city and slaughtered. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in launching the Second Crusade: “The Christian glories in the death of a pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified.”

There was a sect of Ismaili Shi’ite Muslims whose faith required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to 13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in Iran, Iraq and Syria. They finally were wiped out by conquering Mongols — but their vile name survives\d.

Throughout Europe, beginning in the 1100s, tales spread that Jews were abducting Christian children, sacrificing them, and using their blood in rituals. Hundreds of massacres stemmed from this “blood libel.” Some of the supposed sacrifice victims — Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, the holy child of LaGuardia, Simon of Trent — were beatified or commemorated with shrines that became sites of pilgrimages and miracles.

In 1209, Pope Innocent III launched an armed crusade against Albigenses Christians in southern France. When the besieged city of Beziers fell, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He commanded: “Kill them all. God will know his own.” Nearly 20,000 were slaughtered — many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.

The Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 proclaimed the doctrine of transubstantiation: that the host wafer miraculously turns into the body of Jesus during the mass. Soon rumors spread that Jews were stealing the sacred wafers and stabbing or driving nails through them to crucify Jesus again. Reports said that the pierced host bled, cried out, or emitted spirits. On this charge, Jews were burned at the stake in 1243 in Belitz, Germany — the first of many killings that continued into the 1800s. To avenge the tortured host, the German knight Rindfliesch led a brigade in 1298 that exterminated 146 defenseless Jewish communities in six months.

In the 1200s the Incas built their empire in Peru, a society dominated by priests reading daily magical signs and offering sacrifices to appease many gods. At major ceremonies up to 200 children were burned as offerings. Special “chosen women” — comely virgins without blemish — were strangled.

Also during the 1200s, the hunt for Albigensian heretics led to establishment of the Inquisition, which spread over Europe. Pope Innocent IV authorized torture. Under interrogation by Dominican priests, screaming victims were stretched, burned, pierced and broken on fiendish pain machines to make them confess to disbelief and to identify fellow transgressors. Inquisitor Robert le Bourge sent 183 people to the stake in a single week.

In Spain, where many Jews and Moors had converted to escape persecution, inquisitors sought those harboring their old faith. At least 2,000 Spanish backsliders were burned. Executions in other countries included the burning of scientists such as mathematician-philosopher Giordano Bruno, who espoused Copernicus’s theory that the planets orbit the sun.

When the Black Death swept Europe in 1348-1349, rumors alleged that it was caused by Jews poisoning wells. Hysterical mobs slaughtered thousands of Jews in several countries. In Speyer, Germany, the burned bodies were piled into giant wine casks and sent floating down the Rhine. In northern Germany Jews were walled up alive in their homes to suffocate or starve. The Flagellants, an army of penitents who whipped themselves bloody, stormed the Jewish quarter of Frankfurt in a gruesome massacre. The prince of Thuringia announced that he had burned his Jews for the honor of God.

The Aztecs began their elaborate theocracy in the 1300s and brought human sacrifice to a golden era. About 20,000 people were killed yearly to appease gods — especially the sun god, who needed daily “nourishment” of blood. Hearts of sacrifice victims were cut out, and some bodies were eaten ceremoniously. Other victims were drowned, beheaded, burned or dropped from heights. In a rite to the rain god, shrieking children were killed at several sites so that their tears might induce rain. In a rite to the maize goddess, a virgin danced for 24 hours, then was killed and skinned; her skin was worn by a priest in further dancing. One account says that at King Ahuitzotl’s coronation, 80,000 prisoners were butchered to please the gods.

In the 1400s, the Inquisition shifted its focus to witchcraft. Priests tortured untold thousands of women into confessing that they were witches who flew through the sky and engaged in sex with the devil — then they were burned or hanged for their confessions. Witch hysteria raged for three centuries in a dozen nations. Estimates of the number executed vary from 100,000 to 2 million. Whole villages were exterminated. In the first half of the 17th century, about 5,000 “witches” were put to death in the French province of Alsace, and 900 were burned in the Bavarian city of Bamberg. The witch craze was religious madness at its worst.

The “Protestant Inquisition” is a term applied to the severities of John Calvin in Geneva and Queen Elizabeth I in England during the 1500s. Calvin’s followers burned 58 “heretics,” including theologian Michael Servetus, who doubted the Trinity. Elizabeth I outlawed Catholicism and executed about 200 Catholics.

Protestant Huguenots grew into an aggressive minority in France in the 15OOs — until repeated Catholic reprisals smashed them. On Saint Bartholomew’s Day in 1572, Catherine de Medicis secretly authorized Catholic dukes to send their soldiers into Huguenot neighborhoods and slaughter families. This massacre touched off a six-week bloodbath in which Catholics murdered about 10,000 Huguenots. Other persecutions continued for two centuries, until the French Revolution. One group of Huguenots escaped to Florida; in 1565 a Spanish brigade discovered their colony, denounced their heresy, and killed them all.

Members of lndia’s Thuggee sect strangled people as sacrifices to appease the bloodthirsty goddess Kali, a practice beginning in the 1500s. The number of victims has been estimated to be as high as 2 million. Thugs were claiming about 20,000 lives a year in the 1800s until British rulers stamped them out. At a trial in 1840, one Thug was accused of killing 931 people. Today, some Hindu priests still sacrifice goats to Kali.

The Anabaptists, communal “rebaptizers,” were slaughtered by both Catholic and Protestant authorities. In Munster, Germany, Anabaptists took control of the city, drove out the clergymen, and proclaimed a New Zion. The bishop of Munster began an armed siege. While the townspeople starved, the Anabaptist leader proclaimed himself king and executed dissenters. When Munster finally fell, the chief Anabaptists were tortured to death with red-hot pincers and their bodies hung in iron cages from a church steeple.

Oliver Cromwell was deemed a moderate because he massacred only Catholics and Anglicans, not other Protestants. This Puritan general commanded Bible-carrying soldiers, whom he roused to religious fervor. After decimating an Anglican army, Cromwell said, “God made them as stubble to our swords.” He demanded the beheading of the defeated King Charles I, and made himself the holy dictator of England during the 1650s. When his army crushed the hated Irish Catholics, he ordered the execution of the surrendered defenders of Drogheda and their priests, calling it “a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches.”

Ukrainian Bogdan Chmielnicki was a Cossack Cromwell. He wore the banner of Eastern Orthodoxy in a holy war against Jews and Polish Catholics. More than 100,000 were killed in this 17th-century bloodbath, and the Ukraine was split away from Poland to become part of the Orthodox Russian empire.

The Thirty Years’ War produced the largest religious death toll of all time. It began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window into a dung heap. War flared between Catholic and Protestant princedoms, drawing in supportive religious armies from Germany, Spain, England, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, France and Italy. Sweden’s Protestant soldiers sang Martin Luther’s “Ein ‘Feste Burg” in battle. Three decades of combat turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery. One estimate states that Germany’s population dropped from 18 million to 4 million. In the end nothing was settled, and too few people remained to rebuild cities, plant fields, or conduct education.

When Puritans settled in Massachusetts in the 1600s, they created a religious police state where doctrinal deviation could lead to flogging, pillorying, hanging, cutting off ears, or boring through the tongue with a hot iron. Preaching Quaker beliefs was a capital offense. Four stubborn Quakers defied this law and were hanged. In the 1690s fear of witches seized the colony. Twenty alleged witches were killed and 150 others imprisoned.

In 1723 the bishop of Gdansk, Poland, demanded that all Jews be expelled from the city. The town council declined, but the bishop’s exhortations roused a mob that invaded the ghetto and beat the residents to death.

Islamic jihads (holy wars), it’s said mandated by the Koran, killed millions over 12 centuries. In early years, Muslim armies spread the faith rapidly: east to India and west to Morocco. Then splintering sects branded other Muslims as infidels and declared jihads against them. The Kharijis battled Sunni rulers. The Azariqis decreed death to all “sinners” and their families. In 1804 a Sudanese holy man, Usman dan Fodio, waged a bloody jihad that broke the religious sway of the Sultan of Gobir. In the 1850s another Sudanese mystic, Umar al-Hajj, led a barbaric jihad to convert pagan African tribes — with massacres, beheadings and a mass execution of 300 hostages. In the 1880s a third Sudanese holy man, Muhammad Ahmed, commanded a jihad that destroyed a 10,000-man Egyptian army and wiped out defenders of Khartoum led by British general Charles “Chinese” Gordon.

In 1801 Orthodox priests in Bucharest, Romania, revived the story that Jews sacrificed Christians and drank their blood. Enraged parishioners stormed the ghetto and cut the throats of 128 Jews.

When the Baha’i faith began in Persia in 1844, the Islamic regime sought to exterminate it. The Baha’i founder was imprisoned and executed in 1850. Two years later, the religious government massacred 20,000 Baha’is. Streets of Tehran were soaked with blood. The new Baha’i leader, Baha’ullah, was tortured and exiled in foreign Muslim prisons for the rest of his life.

Human sacrifices were still occurring in Buddhist Burma in the 1850s. When the capital was moved to Mandalay, 56 “spotless” men were buried beneath the new city walls to sanctify and protect the city. When two of the burial spots were later found empty, royal astrologers decreed that 500 men, women, boys, and girls must be killed and buried at once, or the capital must be abandoned. About 100 were actually buried before British governors stopped the ceremonies.

In 1857 both Muslim and Hindu taboos triggered the Sepoy Mutiny in India. British rulers had given their native soldiers new paper cartridges that had to be bitten open. The cartridges were greased with animal tallow. This enraged Muslims, to whom pigs are unclean, and Hindus, to whom cows are sacred. Troops of both faiths went into a crazed mutiny, killing Europeans wantonly. At Kanpur, hundreds of European women and children were massacred after being promised safe passage.

Late in the 19th century, with rebellion stirring in Russia, the czars attempted to divert public attention by helping anti-Semitic groups rouse Orthodox Christian hatred for Jews. Three waves of pogroms ensued — in the 1880s, from 1903 to 1906, and during the Russian Revolution. Each wave was increasingly murderous. During the final period, 530 communities were attacked and 60,000 Jews were killed.

In the early 1900s, Muslim Turks waged genocide against Christian Armenians, and Christian Greeks and Balkans warred against the Islamic Ottoman Empire.

When India finally won independence from Britain in 1947, the “great soul” of Mahatma Gandhi wasn’t able to prevent Hindus and Muslims from turning on one another in a killing frenzy that took perhaps 1 million lives. Even Gandhi was killed by a Hindu who thought him too pro-Muslim.

In the 1950s and 1960s, combat between Christians, animists and Muslims in Sudan killed more than 500,000.

In Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978, followers of the Rev. Jim Jones killed a visiting congressman and three newsmen, then administered cyanide to themselves and their children in a 900-person suicide that shocked the world.

Islamic religious law decrees that thieves shall have their hands or feet chopped off, and unmarried lovers shall be killed. In the Sudan in 1983 and 1984, 66 thieves were axed in public. A moderate Muslim leader, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, was hanged for heresy in 1985 because he opposed these amputations. In Saudi Arabia a teen-age princess and her lover were executed in public in 1977. In Pakistan in 1987, a 25-year-old carpenter’s daughter was sentenced to be stoned to death for engaging in unmarried sex. In the United Arab Emirates in 1984, a cook and a maid were sentenced to stoning for adultery — but, as a show of mercy, the execution was postponed until after the maid’s baby was born.

In 1983 in Darkley, Northern Ireland, Catholic terrorists with automatic weapons burst into a Protestant church on a Sunday morning and opened fire, killing three worshipers and wounding seven. It was just one of hundreds of Catholic-Protestant ambushes that have taken 2,600 lives in Ulster since age-old religious hostility turned violent again in 1969.

Hindu-Muslim bloodshed erupts randomly throughout India. More than 3,000 were killed in Assam province in 1983. In May 1984 Muslims hung dirty sandals on a Hindu leader’s portrait as a religious insult. This act triggered a week of arson riots that left 216 dead, 756 wounded, 13,000 homeless, and 4,100 in jail.

Religious tribalism — segregation of sects into hostile camps — has ravaged Lebanon continuously since 1975. News reports of the civil war tell of “Maronite Christian snipers,” “Sunni Muslim suicide bombers,” “Druze machine gunners,” “Shi’ite Muslim mortar fire,” and “Alawite Muslim shootings.” 130,000 people were dead and a once-lovely nation was laid waste.

In Nigeria in 1982, religious fanatic followers of Mallam Marwa killed and mutilated several hundred people as heretics and infidels. They drank the blood of some of the victims. When the militia arrived to quell the violence, the cultists sprinkled themselves with blessed powder that they thought would make them impervious to police bullets. It didn’t.

Today’s Shi’ite theocracy in Iran — “the government of God on earth” — decreed that Baha’i believers who won’t convert shall be killed. About 200 stubborn Baha’is were executed in the early 1980s, including women and teenagers. Up to 40,000 Baha’is fled the country. Sex taboos in Iran are so severe that: (1) any woman who shows a lock of hair is jailed; (2) Western magazines being shipped into the country first go to censors who laboriously black out all women’s photos except for faces; (3) women aren’t allowed to ski with men, but have a separate slope where they may ski in shrouds.

The lovely island nation of Sri Lanka has been turned hellish by ambushes and massacres between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils.

In 1983 a revered Muslim leader, Mufti Sheikh Sa’ad e-Din el’Alami of Jerusalem, issued a fatwa (an order of divine deliverance) promising an eternal place in paradise to any Muslim assassin who would kill President Hafiz al-Assad of Syria.

Sikhs want to create a separate theocracy, Khalistan (Land of the Pure), in the Punjab region of India. Many heed the late extremist preacher Jarnail Bhindranwale, who taught his followers that they have a “religious duty to send opponents to hell.” Throughout the 1980s they sporadically murdered Hindus to accomplish this goal. In 1984, after Sikh guards riddled prime minister Indira Gandhi with 50 bullets, Hindus went on a rampage that killed 5,000 Sikhs in three days. Mobs dragged Sikhs from homes, stores, buses and trains, chopping and pounding them to death. Some were burned alive; boys were castrated.

In 1984 Shi’ite fanatics who killed and tortured Americans on a hijacked Kuwaiti airliner at Tehran Airport said they did it “for the pleasure of God.”

Obviously, people who think religion is a force for good are looking only at Dr. Jekyll and ignoring Mr. Hyde. They don’t see the superstitious savagery pervading both history and current events.

During the past three centuries, religion gradually lost its power over life in Europe and America, and church horrors ended in the West. But the poison lingered. The Nazi Holocaust was rooted in centuries of religious hate. Historian Dagobert Runes said the long era of church persecution killed three and a half million Jews — and Hitler’s Final Solution was a secular continuation. Meanwhile, faith remains potent in the Third World, where it still produces familiar results.

I can add that followed by Suharto’s coup d’etat in Indonesia in 1965, about 3,000,000 people slaughtered. According Suharto’s regime, they were communists and atheists. Indonesia, a religious country, had no place for them.

Does the above discussion provide us with big enough picture on how many people died because of religion? How many people killed because of religion? Now, what do we think about religion that is a belief that teaches people to do good things, whereas evil persuades people to do bad things such as stealing, rapping and killing? How can we differentiate them?

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

By Beni Bevly
Since Home Affairs Minister Moh Ma`ruf installed Irwandi Yusuf and Muhammad Nazer as Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (NAD) governor and deputy governor at the Aceh provincial legislative building in Banda Aceh (Antara News, 02/08/07), all the issues are related to Aceh as if sunk in to the beneath of the ocean. It seems all the difficult tasks are done. Now everyone could go home and rest. Is that right? Dr. Edward Aspinall, Research Fellow, Department of Political and Social Change at Australian National University briefly discussed the politics prospect of Aceh on April 4, 2007 at the Stanford University, California, USA.

In the seminar “From Conflict to Compromise in War-torn Aceh, Indonesia” that I attended was featuring Dr. Aspinall and hosted by Donald Emerson (Director, Southeast Asia Forum, Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University). Dr. Aspinall who has research interests in Indonesian politics, especially the politics of democratization, civil society, social movements, labor and students as well as secessionist movements such as Aceh and the comparative politics of democratization in East Asia had successfully compiled a lot of politics information from former Free Aceh Movement (GAM) activists.

The peace talks in Helsinki between GAM activists and Jakarta officials produced the Memorandum of Understanding in August 2005. At the end of this process lead to an election in December 2006. The vote tallies from the province`s 21 districts and municipalities showed that Irwandi Yusuf and Muhammad Nazer who ran as an independent candidate for governor position won 768,745 votes, leaving behind his strongest rival Ahmad Humam Hamid in second place with 334,484 votes (16.62 percent) (Antara News, 02/08/07).

The victorious gubernatorial candidate, Irwandi Yusuf, was a guerrilla fighter in GAM. Captured by the Indonesian army, he escaped from his prison when it was wrecked during the Dec. 26, 2004 tsunami. He later joined the peace talks in Helsinki that produced the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

Irwandi Yusuf’s vice-governor is Muhammad Nazar, a skilled political organizer. After the downfall of the Suharto regime, Nazar emerged as leader of the umbrella group of Acehnese organizations campaigning for a referendum to decide Aceh’s future. One rally achieved a turnout of over a million people in Bandar Aceh, the region’s capital. Nazar was imprisoned for his activities, but was released along with most other Acehnese political prisoners and GAM fighters following the signing of the August 2005 (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2007).

The discussion in this seminar also mentioned about syariah or Islamic law that has been implemented in Aceh. This law so far only affected the poor, small gamblers and women. The elites in Aceh were not affected by this law. One of the law was shown on the street poster regarding dress guidelines. Women should wear “jilbab” or veil that cover the whole body and men should wear long sleeves with the black hat. Mini skirts that are identified as metropolitan culture, modernization or westernization are prohibited.

At the lower level of government (“kabupaten” or district) are also mainly occupied by former GAM members. Interestingly, according to Dr. Aspinall findings, most of them were not satisfied with Helsinki MOU. They said they had made mistake by signing the MOU. But when come to the conversation about “proyek” (projects), they became relax. Projects mean money from Jakarta.

Other issue that was also brought up by Dr. Apinall that many of former GAM members had their new houses, cars and other assets, while there were also a lot of formers GAM commanders did not as lucky as their colleagues. This issue is sensitive and could escalate if it is not solved within them properly.

Will this be the main issue in Aceh post conflict?

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

Image source: tempo.co.id

By Beni Bevly
The latest domestic politics development in Indonesia in relationship with the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution on Iran has attracted my attention. As I wrote in “Risk of Backing Iran in Nuclear Development” that Indonesian Government had signed the UNSC resolution to tighten sanctions on Iran over its uranium enrichment program, but on the other side the government also backed Iran in developing nuclear for peace purpose. This contradiction raised questions from other members of UNSC. The other members thought that Indonesia government did not support UNSC decision fully.

Interestingly, in domestic politics, many politicians and House of Representatives (DPR) members did not agree with government decision signing the resolution. They did not even mention and did not feel enough that Indonesian government had backed Iran’s nuclear development contradictorily. They only saw that the government had supported UNSC decision.

In this case, even former president Abdurrahman Wahid alias Gus Dur said he supported the intention of 183 DPR members to exercise their interpellation right over the government. Meanwhile, a DPR member of the National Awakening Party (PKB) faction, Effendy Choirie, said a written proposal for the exercise of the interpellation right over the government’s support to the UNSC resolution on Iran was now circulating among House members and was already signed by more than 75 legislators. The number was expected to increase in the coming days, he said. (Antara, 27/3 and 30/3/2007).

This would be a critical test case for Indonesian’s President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY). Would the exercise of interpellation right from DPR affect his next moves? Can he handle it? For people who support political reformation, SBY is considered too slow. He always tries keeping the balance of power. That’s why he is also considered too “soft.”

In changing society like in Indonesia, what type of leaders that can lead people to prosperity? In my opinion, transformational leader would be the best suit in this situation.

Bass, in his research Theory of Transformational and Transactional Leadership (1985, 1997), believed that transformational leaders possessed the following characteristics:

Vision
Transformational leaders are inherently future-oriented. They involve helping a group move “from here to there.” These types of leaders also recognize the shortcomings of present order and offer an imaginative vision to overcome them.

Rhetorical Skills
In addition to having vision, transformational leaders have superb rhetorical skills that heighten followers’ emotional levels and inspire them to embrace the vision. Many transformational leaders use speech techniques like repetition, rhythm, balance, and alliteration to strengthen the impact of their messages.

Image and trust building
Transformational leaders build trust in their leadership and attainability of their goals through an image of seemingly unshakable self-confidence, strength of moral conviction, personal example and self-sacrifice, and unconventional tactics or behaviors.

Personalized leadership
Transformational leaders share strong personal bonds with followers, even when the leader occupies a formal organizational role. Personalized leadership from these leaders has three important components. 1. Transformational leaders are sensitive to the emotional states of follower. 2. They also tend to be emotionally expressive. 3. They empower followers by building their self-efficacy.

The above characteristics put transformational leader in the picture that they serve to change the status quo by appealing to followers’ values an their sense of higher purpose. Where as transactional leaders occurred when leaders and followers were in some type of exchange relationship in order to get needs met. This type of leadership could be quite effective, it did not result in organizational or society change and instead tended to perpetuate and legitimize the status quo.

Does SBY fit into these characteristics? If so, the exercise of interpellation right from House of Representatives (DPR) will be easily managed by him.

_____
*Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and is a DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) candidate. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.