Allah tidak Sinis

epaperkompas.com. 24 Desember 2008

Mobil mewah dan korban busung lapar

Kesetiakawanan di tengah Krisis Global

Epaperkompas, Jumat, 19 Desember 2008; hlm. 6

Mitos Perbaikan Nasib TKI

Hari Migran Internasional

Ahmad Arif

”Suami saya dipecat dari pabrik. Anak kami tiga, masih sekolah semua. Saya ingin menjadi TKI, tapi takut ke Malaysia. Katanya, banyak TKI yang mati di sana. Saya ingin jadi TKI di Belanda. Kerja apa saja bisa...,” sepenggal surat itu dikirim ke meja saya beberapa hari lalu.

Surat dari perempuan yang mengaku bernama Anisa dari Cirebon itu adalah surat yang kedua dalam sebulan ini. Surat pertama dikirim seorang lelaki bernama Yayan, dari Jakarta. Inti suratnya sama: tuntutan hidup karena tak ada pekerjaan dan harapan untuk jadi tenaga kerja Indonesia (TKI) ke negeri orang.

Permintaan yang sama, dari puluhan orang lain, disampaikan lewat telepon setelah Kompas memuat tulisan tentang kehidupan TKI ilegal di Belanda, November 2008. Kisah-kisah pedih tentang penyiksaan TKI di luar negeri tak menyurutkan minat mereka. ”Lebih baik mencoba jadi TKI. Apa pun risikonya. Di sini sudah buntu,” kata Nina dari Serang.

Ratusan TKI mati

Di balik kisah sukses TKI, berulang kali kisah pedih tentang mereka telah disuarakan. Seperti disampaikan Sri Palupi dan kawan-kawannya dari Institute for Ecosoc Rights, yang memaparkan hasil penelitian mereka di Bentara Budaya, Jakarta, Rabu (17/12). Penelitian itu difokuskan terhadap TKI di Malaysia dan Singapura, tentang Kebijakan Ilegal Migrasi Buruh Migran dan Mitos Pembaharuan Kebijakan.

”Sudah dua tahun saya disiksa majikan dan sudah 10 bulan tidak dibagi makan nasi. Sehari-hari disuruh makan mi instan. Habis itu saya disiksa, ditendang di seluruh badan, diikat di kamar mandi. Telinga saya ditinju hingga keluar darah dari mulut saya,” kisah perempuan berusia 19 tahun, yang diwawancarai tim peneliti Institute for Ecosoc Rights, di penampungan KBRI Malaysia, April 2008.

Pada suatu malam, perempuan yang sudah tiga tahun bekerja di rumah majikannya itu akhirnya melarikan diri. Kisah-kisah pedih lainnya berserak dalam laporan penelitian itu, mulai dari kisah penyiksaan hingga pemerkosaan.

Tak hanya disiksa, ratusan TKI mati di negeri orang. Di Singapura, TKI yang mati sejak 1999 hingga 2007 tercatat 147 orang. Di Malaysia, menurut data KBRI Malaysia, dari Januari 2008 hingga November 2008 ini saja sudah 513 warga negara Indonesia yang mati, dan sebagian besar adalah TKI. Mereka mati dalam sunyi, sepi dari pemberitaan.

Angka-angka ini sering dikecilkan, dibandingkan jumlah TKI di Singapura yang mencapai 80.000 orang. Di Malaysia terdapat 2 juta TKI, sebanyak 1,2 orang di antaranya legal dan sekitar 800.000 TKI ilegal (baca: tanpa dokumen). ”Namun, kematian satu atau dua orang tetap berharga jika negara ini memang mau melindungi warganya,” kata Prasetyohadi, peneliti Institute for Ecosoc Rights.

Mitos pembaruan

Duta Besar RI untuk Singapura Wardana mengatakan, Singapura sekarang sudah berubah, misalnya perubahan dalam pembaruan kontrak kerja bagi pekerja rumah tangga (PRT) setelah masa kerja selama dua tahun habis. ”Kontrak kerja ini dilakukan oleh majikan dan TKI di depan staf KBRI Singapura. KBRI di Singapura juga sudah menata diri dengan perlindungan yang lebih baik kepada TKI. Kita membuka layanan pengaduan 24 jam untuk TKI di Singapura,” kata Wardana.

Namun, di mata Palupi, pembaruan di Singapura itu hanya polesan. Singapura tetap menolak memberikan hak libur secara resmi bagi PRT migran, setidaknya satu hari dalam sebulan.

Kebijakan pembaruan kontrak kerja itu, tambah Palupi, tidak bisa melindungi PRT dengan masa kerja satu tahun yang selama ini rentan terhadap kematian akibat bunuh diri dan ”kecelakaan kerja”. Sedangkan saluran pengaduan TKI itu dinilai masih belum memadai.

Nyatanya, angka kematian PRT di Singapura tetap tinggi. Tahun 2007, misalnya, ada 13 TKI yang mati di negeri ini. ”Mereka depresi karena tidak ada hari libur, beban kerja tinggi, waktu istirahat kurang, dan terkurung di rumah majikan,” ujar Palupi.

Malaysia tetap menjadi ladang pelecehan dan pembunuhan bagi TKI. Baik TKI yang legal maupun ilegal tak mendapat perlindungan hukum di Malaysia. Di negara itu TKI dihadapkan pada dua pilihan: bertahan pada majikan dengan risiko perbudakan atau lari dari majikan dengan risiko ilegal dan menghadapi perbudakan dalam bentuk lain.

Kegagalan negara

Riwanto Tirtosudarmo, ahli kependudukan dan migrasi dari Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, mengatakan, masalah-masalah terkait TKI yang membesar dari tahun ke tahun adalah puncak gunung es dari kegagalan negara menghidupi dan melindungi warganya. Masalah TKI yang diusir, disiksa, atau bunuh diri itu bermula dari masalah domestik di negeri ini.

Permasalahan itu, di antaranya, adalah sempitnya lapangan kerja dalam negeri, praktik pengiriman TKI yang tanpa dibekali pengetahuan dan kemampuan kerja yang tetap menjamur, serta lemahnya diplomasi Pemerintah Indonesia terhadap pemerintah di negara tujuan TKI.

”Seharusnya kita bisa menekan Singapura dan Malaysia untuk menghargai TKI kita karena mereka juga butuh tenaga kerja dari kita untuk menopang ekonomi mereka,” kata Riwanto.

Palupi mengatakan, perlindungan TKI harus integratif, di dalam negeri maupun luar negeri. ”Presiden harus bersikap tegas untuk melindungi buruh migran, seperti yang ditunjukkan Pemerintah Filipina terhadap pekerja migran mereka,” kata Palupi.

”Kemiskinan di tanah sendiri, tak membuat mereka (TKI) takut mati dan nyeri,” tulis Budi Hardiman dari STF Driyarkarya dalam pengantar buku Tubuh-Alat dalam Kebungkaman Ruang Privat: Problem PRT Indonesia di Singapura, 2005. Namun, akankah orang-orang yang disebut-sebut sebagai ”pahlawan devisa” itu terus dibiarkan mati terhina di negeri orang? (MH)

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/12/18/00455721/mitos.perbaikan.nasib.tki

"Aja Dumeh" Aparat

Menolong Bos Yes, Menolong Rakyat No!

Rabu, 19 November 2008 | 14:00 WIB

TEMPO Interaktif, Jakarta: "Masak, Bakrie hanya sedikit dibantu satu-dua hari tidak boleh. Tidak ada diskriminasi. Itu terlalu kecil bantuannya kalau hanya minta tolong diawasi jika dibanding yang lain," ujar Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla seperti ditulis Koran Tempo, 15 November 2008. Pernyataan itu sekaligus sebuah pengakuan bahwa pemerintah benar-benar telah menolong PT Bumi Resources, salah satu bagian Grup Bakrie, dari kebangkrutan.

Dalih nasionalisme pun dilontarkan oleh Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla untuk membenarkan tindakan tersebut. Logika yang dipakai adalah Grup Bakrie merupakan perusahaan nasional, maka wajar dibantu, apalagi korporasi tersebut juga merupakan pembayar pajak di negeri ini. Mungkin Wakil Presiden lupa bahwa bukan kali ini saja pemerintah "menolong" Grup Bakrie. Saat Lapindo, yang merupakan bagian dari Grup Bakrie, mengalami konflik dengan penduduk lokal Sidoarjo akibat semburan lumpur panas, pemerintah juga dengan sigap menolongnya.

Di saat ribuan warga Sidoarjo terusir dari tempat tinggalnya dan hidup dalam kondisi lingkungan yang buruk akibat semburan lumpur Lapindo, pemerintah dengan cepat mereduksi persoalan ganti rugi yang harus ditanggung oleh Lapindo menjadi sekadar jual-beli aset fisik korban. Akibatnya, kerugian warga yang berupa meningkatnya biaya kesehatan akibat semburan lumpur Lapindo tidak masuk hitungan. Padahal fakta di lapangan menunjukkan semburan lumpur panas itu telah berdampak buruk bagi lingkungan hidup dan kesehatan.

Akhir Agustus lalu, beberapa korban lumpur Lapindo mendatangi Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia untuk melakukan mediasi dengan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Djoko Kirmanto, yang juga Dewan Pengarah dari Badan Penanggulangan Lumpur Sidoarjo. Dengan disaksikan oleh anggota Komnas HAM dan beberapa wartawan, korban Lapindo mengeluhkan buruknya kondisi lingkungan hidup dan kesehatan setelah semburan lumpur panas muncul di Sidoarjo. Polusi udara dan sulitnya air bersih adalah bagian yang dikeluhkan warga pada saat itu. Menurut penuturan korban Lapindo, beberapa warga, bahkan anak balita, pun telah menjadi korban buruknya kondisi lingkungan hidup di kawasan Porong, Sidoarjo.

Pada saat itu Menteri Pekerjaan Umum Djoko Kirmanto berjanji akan menindaklanjuti keluhan warga korban Lapindo atas buruknya kondisi lingkungan hidup, di antaranya dengan memberikan air bersih. Namun, hingga tulisan ini dibuat, janji itu belum terwujud. Bahkan, dalam sebuah diskusi di Jakarta beberapa waktu yang lalu, salah satu anggota komisioner Komnas HAM, Ridha Saleh, mengatakan hasil mediasi tersebut di lapangan adalah nol besar alias tidak dilaksanakan.

Bayangkan, setelah Lapindo "dibebaskan" dari mengganti rugi dampak buruk lumpur panas bagi lingkungan hidup dan kesehatan, pemerintah pun enggan melaksanakan hasil mediasi dengan korban Lapindo untuk menyediakan air bersih bagi korban Lapindo.

Bukan itu saja kenikmatan yang diperoleh salah satu bagian Grup Bakrie tersebut. Sebelumnya, pemerintah juga, tanpa merasa bersalah, mengambil miliaran rupiah uang rakyat yang ada di APBN untuk ikut merehabilitasi infrastruktur dan kerugian publik lainnya di luar peta dampak yang seharusnya tak menjadi kewajiban pemerintah. Kucuran uang rakyat itu 100 persen gratis karena tidak ada kewajiban bagi Lapindo untuk menggantinya di kemudian hari.

Bahkan, jika dirunut ke belakang, pertolongan pemerintah kepada Lapindo itu telah ada jauh sebelum muncul semburan lumpur. Bagaimana tidak, Peraturan Daerah Mengenai Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah (RTRW) Kabupaten Sidoarjo Tahun 2003-2013 sebenarnya dengan jelas menyatakan bahwa kawasan Porong, khususnya wilayah Siring, Renokenongo, dan Tanggulangin, adalah wilayah permukiman dan budidaya pertanian. Namun, dengan berbagai argumentasi yang seakan-akan ilmiah dan masuk akal, RTRW Kabupaten Sidoarjo itu pun dilanggar. Izin untuk melakukan eksplorasi pertambangan di kawasan padat penduduk pun dikeluarkan. Akibatnya, bukan gas yang keluar, melainkan justru semburan lumpur panas yang muncul. Di saat semburan lumpur semakin besar dan dampak lingkungan semakin luas, dengan tanpa merasa bersalah pemerintah kembali menggelar karpet merah bagi Lapindo.

Dari uraian di atas, dengan jelas terlihat perbedaan perlakuan yang dilakukan pemerintah terhadap Grup Bakrie di satu sisi dan terhadap rakyat jelata di sisi lainnya. Begitu mudahnya tangan pemerintah diulurkan untuk menolong Grup Bakrie, namun begitu sulitnya tangan yang sama terulur untuk menolong rakyatnya yang menjadi korban lumpur Lapindo di Sidoarjo. Padahal korban Lapindo seharusnya lebih pantas mendapat pertolongan daripada sebuah korporasi yang telah bergelimang kekayaan. Kini korban Lapindo masih hidup di pengungsian dan rumah-rumah kontrakan, sementara pemilik korporasi yang ditolong pemerintah itu tetap tinggal dengan nyaman di rumah mewah dengan segala fasilitasnya.

Kebijakan pemerintah yang telah menolong Grup Bakrie untuk kesekian kalinya ini tak lebih merupakan ketidakadilan yang dipertontonkan kepada 200 juta lebih rakyat Indonesia secara telanjang. Sebagai rakyat yang memiliki kedaulatan di negeri ini, tentu kita harus bersikap atas hal itu. Pada Pemilu 2009, pejabat yang menjadi aktor ketidakadilan tersebut sudah saatnya tidak diberi kesempatan lagi memimpin negeri ini. *

Firdaus Cahyadi, pengamat lingkungan hidup, tinggal di Jakarta

http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/kolom/2008/11/19/kol,20081119-43,id.html

Altar di Ladang Rakyat

Jumat, 7 November 2008 | 00:58 WIB

Rikard Bagun

Altar dan mimbar yang selalu diagungkan di tempat yang tinggi telah diturunkan jauh ke bawah, ke ladang rakyat, ke tengah permukiman kumuh perkotaan dan lingkungan petani gurem di banyak negara Amerika Latin. Luar biasa!

Ayat-ayat suci pun dibahas dalam kesederhanaan bahasa rakyat di bawah pohon singkong, jagung, jeruk dan pisang, tidak jauh dari rumpun tomat dan sayur-sayuran sebagai tanaman kehidupan dalam arti sesungguhnya.

Percakapan tentang ayat suci, yang menjadi acuan utama dan pertama neososialisme Amerika Latin, semakin menggairahkan karena bersentuhan langsung dengan tanah sebagai ibu (motherland), ayah (fatherland), rumah (homeland), yang memiliki watak kesucian (holy land), sumber impian (dreamland), sumber nafkah yang sangat menjanjikan (promised land).

Ajaran agama benar-benar dibumikan. Namun, tantangan juga muncul karena tanah menjadi isu sensitif oleh struktur kepemilikan tidak adil seperti fenomen latifundista (kepemilikan tanah di atas 100 hektar), yang menjadi gejala umum di berbagai negara di Amerika Latin. Sekadar ilustrasi, 77 persen lahan Paraguay dikuasai hanya oleh 1 persen dari 6,5 juta penduduk.

Kontras dengan kehidupan para tuan tanah yang eksklusif, petani kecil dan gurem terus menghimpun diri dalam komunitas basis, berbincang tentang nasib dalam perspektif iman.

Tanpa harus menyebut neososialisme, anggota komunitas basis menjalankan prinsip kebersamaan, kepedulian, solidaritas, dan saling membantu, yang dalam budaya Indonesia disebut gotong royong.

Prinsip dasar, yang paralel dengan ajaran agama itu diikat kuat pada komitmen kegiatan harian pribadi dan kelompok pada lingkungan komunitas basis.

Spiritualitas keagamaan ditransformasikan menjadi praxis (refleksi dan praktik) sebagai pergulatan yang bersifat pragmatis untuk melawan kemelaratan dan kemiskinan.

Gerakan perlawanan terhadap kemiskinan dan kemelaratan pun dimulai dengan upaya memenuhi kebutuhan hidup sehari-hari, yang bagi masyarakat pedesaan tidak bisa lain harus melalui usaha menanam.

Pengaruhnya luar biasa. Anggota komunitas basis dapat menghasilkan sesuatu untuk dikonsumsi dan mengonsumsi apa yang dihasilkan. Kemandirian ekonomi pada level elementer pun terbentuk, yang bersinggungan langsung dengan peningkatan kesadaran iman pada kelompok alas rumput.

Orientasi yang begitu kuat pada tindakan, pragmatisme, dan praxis dalam kehidupan beragama di Amerika Latin membuat para agamawan meninggalkan retorika dan khotbah berpanjang-panjang. Ritual keagamaan di rumah-rumah ibadat berlangsung singkat, tetapi kuat menyapa kepentingan masyarakat.

Kecemasan tentang kemurnian ajaran agama tetap dianggap penting, tetapi lebih diperlukan lagi sensitivitas terhadap realitas kehidupan orang miskin dan menderita.

Lama sebelum terpilih menjadi presiden Paraguay tahun 2008 ini, Fernando Lugo pernah menggugat, mengapa kaum agamawan begitu cemas dengan ”rok mini”, tetapi tidak sensitif terhadap kemelaratan dan kemiskinan yang sangat menyiksa lahir batin rakyat.

Altar kurban

Ajaran agama telah menjadi sesuatu yang organik, hidup, dan dinamis dalam kehidupan sehari-hari masyarakat di banyak negara Amerika Latin, lebih-lebih belakangan ini.

Sudah terlalu lama, bahkan sampai ratusan tahun, ayat-ayat suci cenderung dimanipulasi sebagai retorika yang hanya menimbulkan gaung besar dan keasyikan bagi pemuka agama, tetapi kurang memberi makna bagi kehidupan rakyat banyak.

Arus balik terjadi tahun 1960-an saat kalangan agamawan menyadari betapa makna kehidupan beragama akan terancam, hambar, dan terasing jika masyarakat terus dikepung oleh kemiskinan, kesenjangan sosial, dan ketidakadilan.

Perubahan kesadaran itu tidak datang tiba-tiba, tetapi sebagai antitesis terhadap situasi tertekan yang berlangsung puluhan tahun, bahkan ratusan tahun, sejak zaman kolonial.

Namun, perkembangan itu tidak bisa dibayangkan jika tidak dikelola para agen perubahan yang berada di garis depan gerakan Teologi Pembebasan sejak awal tahun 1970-an.

Teologi Pembebasan antara lain bertujuan menyadarkan masyarakat bagaimana melepaskan diri dari kemiskinan. Namun, gerakan itu sempat menimbulkan kecurigaan di kalangan elite dan penguasa pada era Perang Dingin, lebih-lebih karena gugatan terhadap kesenjangan sosial, ketimpangan ekonomi, dan kemiskinan.

Bahkan, terkenal ucapan Dom Helder Camara dari Brasil, ”Ketika saya memberi makanan kepada orang miskin, saya dianggap orang baik. Tetapi, saat saya mempersoalkan kenapa mereka miskin, saya dituduh komunis.”

Camara dan para agamawan lainnya tergerak turun ke bawah, menyatu dalam pola hidup sederhana dengan masyarakat miskin dan menderita. Sikap pembelaan dan pemihakan terhadap kaum miskin dan terpinggirkan begitu jelas dan nyata.

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/07/00582339/altar.di.ladang.rakyat

Tuhan dimuliakan

Mulai dari Sila Keadilan

KOMPAS/WISNU WIDIANTORO / Kompas Images Pemulung cilik di Banjir Kanal Barat di kawasan Jati Petamburan, Jakarta Pusat, awal September 2008. Jumlah warga yang senasib dengan mereka cukup banyak dan seolah-olah sila keadilan sangat jauh dari lingkungan mereka sehari-hari.

Jumat, 7 November 2008 | 03:00 WIB

Wacana melaksanakan nilai-nilai Pancasila dengan urutan terbalik, mulai dari paling dasar, dari sila Keadilan Sosial, cenderung meluas. Lebih-lebih karena bersifat konkret.

paya menegakkan keadilan, terutama dalam bidang ekonomi, merupakan langkah nyata bagi pelaksanaan Pancasila. Nilai keadilan tidak hanya menjadi jargon, tetapi kenyataan dalam kehidupan berbangsa.

Selama Pancasila hanya digunakan dan diperalat untuk kepentingan politik dan bahan retorika, maknanya sebagai ideologi akan melorot dan hambar. Jauh lebih penting lagi, bagaimana keinginan itu tidak berhenti pada wacana atau retorika, tetapi benar-benar diikat dalam program aksi yang dapat dirasakan secara langsung oleh seluruh warga masyarakat.

Sekadar perbandingan, neososialisme di Amerika Latin menjadi kuat karena benar-benar dipraktikkan secara nyata untuk menjawab kebutuhan dan kepentingan rakyat banyak. Sebelumnya, neososialisme dicemooh karena hanya menciptakan retorika dan kesadaran palsu yang tidak membawa perubahan apa-apa bagi rakyat, terutama yang terpinggirkan.

Para pemimpin Amerika Latin, seperti Presiden Venezuela Hugo Chavez dan Presiden Paraguay Fernando Lugo, mengagumi ajaran Bung Karno tentang nasionalisme dan sosialisme. Pengalaman Amerika Latin, sejauh bidang dibanding-bandingkan, memperlihatkan bahwa nilai kemanusiaan harus dibangun di atas landasan ekonomi. Dalam kebutuhan ekonomi, seluruh manusia dipertemukan dan dipersatukan. Semua butuh makan.

Prinsip-prinsip Pancasila dikenal luas di Amerika Latin, terutama di kalangan yang mengenal para pendiri bangsa seperti Bung Karno. Namun, sampai sekarang ide-ide yang banyak memberikan inspirasi itu hanya menjadi kunyahan dan omongan.

Persoalan macam ini pernah dialami juga di Amerika Latin. Para pemimpin sangat pandai berbicara tentang kemajuan dan upaya memberantas korupsi dan kemiskinan, tetapi tidak ada perubahan.

Partai-partai juga hanya bicara visi dan misi, tetapi tidak melakukan pekerjaan lapangan. Hanya pandai berkata-kata, tetapi tidak mampu melakukan transformasi ide dan perilaku yang membebaskan rakyat dan bangsa dari keterbelakangan.

Panggilan sejarah telah mendorong para pemuka agama dan politisi di Amerika Latin berubah. Kata-kata dan ungkapan dijadikan kerja. Iman tidak hanya mencari ilmu pengetahuan, fides quarens intellectum, tetapi juga pencari kesejahteraan, bonum commune.

Gotong royong merupakan kata lain untuk solidaritas dalam melakukan pekerjaan. Keberadaan dan keberlangsungan hidup bangsa Indonesia antara lain karena mampu mempertahankan prinsip itu dalam praktik.

Ibarat anak tangga

Wacana untuk melaksanakan Pancasila dalam urutan terbalik, mulai dasar, dari sila Keadilan Sosial, cenderung berkembang luas, lebih-lebih belakangan ini. Argumennya tergolong kuat. Secara visual, ibarat anak tangga, sila kelima terletak paling bawah, yang perlu ditapaki pertama sebelum melangkah ke atas.

Secara sosiologis, keadilan sosial, terutama dalam bidang ekonomi, menjadi tuntutan fundamental. Kesenjangan sosial akan memberi komplikasi rumit bagi berbagai aspek kehidupan lainnya. Jika prinsip keadilan dan kesejahteraan ekonomi terjamin, jalan menuju sila ke-4, ke-3, ke-2 dan ke-1 menjadi lebih kuat dan lebih mantap.

Tidak terbayangkan kehidupan demokrasi yang dijamin oleh sila ke-4 jika kehidupan ekonomi masih morat-marit. Makna dan kualitas demokrasi akan rendah jika tidak diperkuat oleh kesejahteraan ekonomi.

Kehidupan demokrasi dalam situasi ketidakadilan sama sekali hambar. Orang sulit bersikap demokratis dalam situasi kemiskinan dan kesenjangan sosial ekonomi.

Tidak mungkin membayangkan sila keempat, Permusyawaratan Rakyat, jika dijalankan dalam perut lapar karena kesenjangan dan kemiskinan. Kualitas demokrasi antara lain ditentukan oleh kadar kemajuan ekonomi.

Proses demokrasi tidak dapat dijalankan dengan tenang dan aman jika perut lapar. Pembangunan ekonomi bersifat membebaskan dari kemiskinan, sekaligus memperkuat kadar demokrasi.

Basis yang kuat dalam bidang ekonomi akan memperkukuh pula penghayatan terhadap sila ketiga, kedua, dan pertama. Kunci masuk ke dalam Pancasila haruslah melalui sila kelima.

Jika pijakan sosial ekonomi kuat sesuai dengan sila ke-5 dan demokrasi kuat sesuai dengan sila ke-4, kegairahan hidup bersama dan persatuan yang ditegaskan dalam sila ke-3 akan menjadi kuat.

Keadilan sosial dan kehidupan yang demokratis akan memperkuat persatuan bangsa. Orang akan saling menghormati dan menghargai sebagai sesama warga masyarakat dalam semangat demokratis.

Jika sila ke-5, ke-4, dan ke-3 dilaksanakan, tangga sila ke-2 akan terlaksana dengan sendirinya. Kemanusiaan akan tercipta dalam keadilan sosial, demokrasi, dan persatuan.

Tidak mungkin kemanusiaan akan dihormati jika tidak ada keadilan sosial, tidak ada demokrasi, dan tidak ada persatuan. Perpecahan atau permusuhan akan membahayakan kemanusiaan.

Jika empat sila itu dilaksanakan dengan sungguh-sungguh, penghayatan sila Ketuhanan akan semakin kokoh. Rasa ketuhanan akan rendah jika orang terus bergulat dalam kemiskinan, tidak demokratis, tidak menghargai persatuan dan kemanusiaan.

Tuhan dimuliakan

Tuhan harus dimuliakan dalam perut yang kenyang, bukan dalam wajah yang muram oleh kelaparan dan kemiskinan. Luar biasa pikiran dan ide para pendiri bangsa yang telah merumuskan Pancasila dan Pembukaan UUD 1945, yang menunjukkan arah dan orientasi perjuangan.

Namun, dalam perkembangannya, ide-ide besar Pancasila dan Mukadimah UUD 1945 masih sebatas retorika dan jargon yang hanya membentuk kesadaran palsu dan sama sekali tidak menggerakkan tindakan nyata.

Namun, jauh lebih hebat lagi bagaimana mendapatkan makanan itu. Maka, kemandirian dan kedaulatan pangan diperjuangkan. Tidak gampang mengapai semua itu.

Bagi kelompok miskin yang baru berupaya mengapai kemajuan, makan memang sangat penting, tetapi jauh lebih penting bagaimana mengelola rasa lapar.

Persoalan makan dan kelaparan menjadi enteng jika semua orang mengembangkan semangat persaudaraan, persahabatan dan pertolongan, yang mengacu pada spiritualitas keagamaan. (rikard Bagun)

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/07/01375167/mulai.dari.sila.keadilan

Terperangah atas Asketisme Lugo

Jumat, 7 November 2008 | 01:37 WIB

Oleh Rikard Bagun

Sebagai tamu khusus, saya dan politisi muda Indonesia, Budiman Sudjatmiko, dapat berkali-kali memasuki rumah kediaman Presiden Paraguay Fernando Lugo di pinggiran Asuncion, ibu kota negara.

etiap kali masuk, kami berdua dibuat terperangah dan tidak habis pikir mengenai kondisi rumah berukuran sekitar 45 meter persegi itu. Citra kesederhanaan tidak hanya terlihat dari luar, tetapi terutama di dalam rumah warisan keluarga Lugo itu.

Sekalipun Lugo sudah terpilih sebagai presiden pada April lalu, kondisi rumahnya tidak berubah juga, sekurang-kurangnya sampai dua hari setelah dilantik tanggal 15 Agustus lalu.

Dengan diantar oleh Martin Bhisu asal Flores, Nusa Tenggara Timur, saya dan Budiman dapat memasuki rumah itu berkali-kali tanpa halangan sedikit pun.

Rasa terkejut bertambah karena Martin, mantan sekretaris pribadi Lugo, terkesan seenaknya mengajak kami berdua melihat- lihat seluruh ruangan, termasuk dapur dan kamar tidur Lugo.

Namun, belakangan baru diketahui, Martin sebagai mantan sekretaris pribadi Lugo sudah menyatu dengan budaya masyarakat Paraguay yang terkenal ramah terhadap tamu dan cenderung memperlakukan tamu sebagai anggota keluarga.

Tidak segan-segan orang Paraguay, pria atau perempuan, mengajak minum yerba mate, teh khas Paraguay, yang diminum bersama secara bergilir dari satu cangkir kayu. Jika sudah kenal, tamu bisa mengajak lihat dapur dan isi kulkas, bahkan tempat tidur.

Kehangatan macam itu juga terasa di rumah kediaman Lugo. Hanya bagi saya dan Budiman dengan latar belakang Indonesia, alangkah mengejutkan kondisi rumah kediaman presiden yang begitu sederhana, jauh dari kemewahan.

Jika di Indonesia, jangankan presiden, pelantikan seorang pejabat tinggi pun sudah memancing banyak orang yang berkepentingan untuk mengulurkan tangan, memberi bantuan, termasuk memperbaiki rumah.

Karangan bunga pun mengalir. Namun, dalam kasus Lugo, hal macam itu praktis tidak terlihat. Citra asketis sangat kuat pada Lugo, yang terefleksi jelas pada rumah kediamannya.

Cat kusam tetap menyelimuti dinding luar dan seluruh ruangan rumah. Sofa sederhana, yang terkesan agak kusam, tetap berada di ruang tamu yang menyatu dengan ruang makan. Terlihat pula sebuah perangkat TV tua.

Ekspresi kesederhanaan itu semakin terasa kuat pada meja makan. Setiap tamu, termasuk kami bertiga dari Indonesia (saya, Budiman, dan Martin), ikut menikmati makanan harian Lugo berupa singkong rebus, nasi putih, daun kol cacah (salad), dan ikan. Jenis makanan sehari-hari rakyat biasa di Paraguay. Tidak ada yang istimewa.

Sementara itu, di dinding ruang tamu yang kusam tampak tergantung bingkai sederhana berisi surat keputusan komisi pemilu atas kemenangan Lugo dalam pemilihan presiden. Juga terlihat foto pribadi Lugo yang sedang berpidato, yang dibingkai dengan sederhana pula.

Dalam lorong tangga menuju lantai dua terlihat tembok yang kusam terkena tirisan hujan. Potret kesederhanaan itu semakin terlihat pada kamar tidur Lugo yang kecil.

Ketika dilantik menjadi presiden, Lugo terlihat seperti menggunakan baju putih lengan panjang dan celana panjang krem yang sudah biasa dipakainya. Sama sekali tidak memakai seragam lengkap sipil.

Ajak ke istana

Selama menjadi tamu khusus, saya dan Budiman sering terkaget-kaget dengan kiprah Lugo yang terkesan tidak terikat dengan pakem protokoler seorang presiden.

Dua hari sebelum dilantik, Lugo, misalnya, tiba-tiba meminta Martin untuk mengantarnya ke Casa Sentral SVD. Dengan mobil setengah pikap, Lugo bersama kami bertiga dari Indonesia pergi di tengah larut malam ke Casa Sentral SVD di pinggiran Asuncion.

Dua hari setelah dilantik, Lugo tiba-tiba juga mengajak kami bertiga menaiki mobil yang dikemudikannya sendiri ke Istana Kepresidenan. Namun, ajakan itu batal karena kami menggunakan kendaraan lain agar leluasa bisa meninggalkan Kantor Kepresidenan. Akan tetapi, Lugo meminta agar kendaraan kami mengambil posisi langsung di belakang kendaraannya menuju istana.

Sesampai di Istana Kepresidenan, kami bertiga diajak Lugo untuk ikut melihat seluruh ruang kerja, termasuk ruang sidang kabinet dan kamar istirahat yang dilengkapi kasur.

Selama hari pertama mengantor itu, kami bertiga dipersilakan duduk sambil minum kopi dan teh di ruang kerjanya. Secara langsung kami bertiga dapat menyaksikan Presiden Lugo menerima sejumlah anggota kabinet sembari menandatangani sejumlah dekret penting.

Pada hari pertama kerja sebagai presiden itu, Lugo mendapat laporan, anggaran rumah tangga istana hanya tersisa sekitar 20.000 dollar AS untuk kebutuhan empat bulan ke depan. Sebagian dana sudah dihabiskan rezim terdahulu yang terkenal korup.

Sesekali Lugo dan anggota kabinetnya menanyakan situasi terkini Indonesia. Sehari sebelumnya kami bertiga juga diajak mengikuti acara syukuran di San Piedro, tempat Lugo menjadi uskup sebelum terjun ke dunia politik tahun 2006.

Ketika makan pagi, kami menyaksikan bagaimana Lugo bersama Presiden Venezuela Hugo Chavez menyantap makanan rakyat Amerika Latin, seperti ubi kayu, jagung, dan pisang rebus.

Salah satu karakter para pemimpin neososialis Amerika Latin memang kedekatan dengan rakyat. Sosialisme benar-benar dipraktikkan dalam kehidupan sehari-hari.

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/11/07/01373366/terperangah.atas.asketisme.lugo

Bringing God to the side of the poor

A conversation with Roger Friedland

“Making religion an instrument for social justice” is, according to Roger Friedland, who studies the relationship between religious phenomena and the public arena, the profound meaning of Obama’s relationship with faith. “On the one hand, the tradition that Bush follows, that has dominated the discourse of evangelical and fundamentalist communities” says the Professor from Santa Barbara University, “is that sin is located in the individual soul” (most consonant with a celebration of the market with its ethic of individual effort). Obama follows the traditions of the ‘social Gospel’, This is why he believes that the main sources of sin lies within society, in the way it robs individuals of dignity, of the possibility of making righteous choices.”

An interview by Elisabetta Ambrosi.

Obama lays claim to religion’s centrality in the public arena, rejecting all clear distinctions between the public and the private spheres. Do you believe that this position could be described as “post-secular”? Is this in line with Americans’ religious feelings?

Obama as a post-secular American politician? In spite of our strict constitutional separation between church and state, the prohibition against state establishment of religion, religion is and always has occupied a central place in the public sphere, in part because of the very competition and freedom for religious critique that this separation has made possible. More to the point it has never been possible for an American Presidential candidate to be truly secular. Americans believe in God; they believe in heaven and hell, (unlike the Italians, who only believe in hell); they have personal experience of Jesus. More than seventy percent of my countrymen are absolutely certain that God exists and about the same percentage believe that it is essential for a Presidential candidate to likewise believe. So you can see that an atheist cannot get elected President of the United States. At least you have to make the rite moves. Obama is not and cannot be post-secular because we’ve never had a secular electorate.

Is his position perhaps not more authentically religious and able to attract consensus compared to Hilary Clinton’s laicity, albeit favourable to religion?

Unlike Hillary Clinton and like Jimmy Carter, Obama is the real deal and very much like the electorate. Obama carries God in his heart; it is not just an arrow in his quiver of political instruments. The parallels and the differences with President Bush (the second one) are striking. Obama and Bush both found themselves through Jesus. For Bush, it was alcoholism and the prospect of marital and parental failure these portended, that brought him to Jesus who showed him the way. The difference is that Obama found Jesus while working with and for the poor in Chicago’s black South Side. "I learned that my sins could be redeemed,” Obama told the congregation at the United Church of Christ last year, explaining his own salvation experience. “I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him. And in time, I came to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world and in my own life…. It came about as a choice, and ... kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God's Spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works."

What is the significant difference between Bush and Obama as far as the subject of faith in God is concerned?

The difference between Bush and Obama points to a longstanding division on just how religion has been constituted in America. On the one hand, the tradition that Bush follows is that sin is located in the individual soul, in our weakness, following St. Paul, in our personal rebellion against God. It is this tradition that has dominated the discourse of evangelical and fundamentalist communities. It is this tradition that is most consonant with a celebration of the market with its ethic of individual effort and individual reward. On the other hand, there is the “social gospel” tradition which says that the primary sources of sin are located in the society, in the way it robs individuals of dignity, of the possibility of making righteous choices. Obama comes from this latter tradition. For Obama, being a Christian means fighting for social justice. It is the same tradition that fired the black Baptists who defied the white racists of the South and destroyed segregation. It is, indeed, the same tradition that sent Union soldiers into battle against the southern slave states and ended slavery.

What effect will claiming faith’s centrality in politics, in particular that of the Christian faith, have on other denominations, in particular on the Muslim faith? Will this attitude coexist peacefully with the protection of other denominations?

With a Muslim father and a country which has become increasingly suspicious of Muslims after 911, Obama has to tread carefully in order to get elected. The New Yorker cover showing him in Arab garb, poking fun at the unspeakable undercurrent of fear in our country, sparked a firestorm of controversy. But the basic structure of opinion in America among the followers of different religious faith is one of ecumenicism, of tolerance, of belief that all religions lead to the same God. People are tolerant of other religious traditions. They are less tolerant of those who do not believe. Among the devout, let’s say a Catholic, it is easier to talk to a Protestant, Muslim or a Jew, than it is to talk to somebody who does not believe. What Obama will do, and sincerely, is play on America’s religious cosmopolitanism as a model to think ethically about how we can live together in the world. America is a country with a miserable record in terms of how we treat our poorest citizens. The part of which we can be proud is the ways in which we have absorbed wave after wave of immigration from non-Protestant religious traditions and now non-Christian traditions, in which we all live together with relatively minor frictions. Seeing mobs attack the Roma communities in Italy, I increasingly understand how significant that achievement really is.

Will such a religious president be capable of making secular choices in favour of abortions, gay rights, new families in spite of the fact that the United States is an ethically pluralistic country?
I think what Obama is doing and has done on abortion is recognize that it does not parse easily as a question of citizenship rights, that it is just a matter of a woman having the right to control what happens in her body. He understands it is also a deep moral issue grounded in the definition of the human, of what is a life, of when life begins. Although he later condemned Congress’ passage of a ban on partial-birth abortions, when he had previously served in the Illinois legislature, he refused to vote against those who would ban partial-birth abortions, casting a vote of “present” as opposed to a “no.” (Partial birth abortion is a political term that refers to a late term abortion in which a viable fetus is partially extracted from the mother's stomach and then killed, typically in the second or early third trimester. President Clinton vetoed a bill banning them during his presidency and President Bush finally passed the ban into law in 2003, whose constitutionality was upheld in 2007 by the Supreme Court by just one vote. Thirty six states have bans on partial birth abortions.) I think he is going to work the divide between the personal, ethical-religious side and the institutional, citizenship rights side, in order to try to find a common ground. And most important, as I pointed out above, he is going to work the social gospel side of this, looking at the social conditions that lead to unwanted pregnancies. For a lot of young girls, it is powerlessness vis-à-vis boys that makes them vulnerable to sex without protection; it is the absence of job prospects that makes having a baby something cool to do.

In Obama’s speeches, religion is often a useful rhetorical weapon for emotionally involving the public and creating consensus. Do you believe this is an inappropriate weapon, or does the fact that the speeches made by the candidate for the presidency seem like sermons represent a new means of communication that is more engaging and warmer than Clinton-style intellectualism?

There is no question that religious talk, religious idiom, the insertion of faith, and of moral language is a way to connect with ordinary American people. All Hillary’s technocratic talk about policies doesn’t reach a lot of voters. What reached them was that she endured and maintained her dignity vis a vis a philandering husband, continued to be a good mother. A lot of women I know love her and I mean that literally. They feel her pain, the sexism to which she was subjected by the media. She is one of them. Americans relate to a candidate’s existential condition as much, if not more than, their policy positions. Obama is a guy whose father abandoned him, who nevertheless made it up on his own, who made himself into a successful American, head of the Harvard Law Review, a happily married guy who obviously loves his wife and his children, who reminds us that, given the opportunities, we can make of ourselves something, that we can love and work and be satisfied in life. He represents America’s greatness and we feel it. Religious language in America is not tied to doctrine, to dogma, to theology, but to spirituality, to one’s personal relation to God, to forces beyond us, to a recognition of the limits of our sovereignty as self-contained, autonomous selves who make rational choices like supermen. Religious talk in America is powerful because it taps and produces humility. That’s what Obama has going for him.

In one of his most famous essays, linguist George Lakoff wrote using the image of the “nourishing mother” for the Left and that of an "authoritarian father" for the Right. Where do you think Obama stands within this framework?

I don’t know about this momma-papa divide. Obama does fuse the promise to take care and the demand that we take responsibility. Obama was raised by women. The Reverend Wright was a kind of father-substitute, the man who shepherded him into adulthood, which is why it was so painful to have to repudiate him. Obama had the courage to speak to the black community and call its men to account this last Father’s Day, to say that too many men have gone missing, abandoning their children, just as he was abandoned. That took guts. Jessie Jackson was outraged. Not suspecting that his remarks were picked up by the microphone he said: "See, Barack [has] been talking down to black people . . . I wanna cut his nuts out." Jackson said. Obama has publicly declared that victimhood is not a perpetual possession, that it is time to care and demand personal responsibility in tandem. It is a call to all fathers, not just black ones, to take care. If that’s maternal-paternal, I guess it works.

I think that Obama’s run for Presidency has the potential to transform American politics. Religion is not going to go away. What Obama has the chance of doing is something that President Jimmy Carter, a Baptist, sought to do, to place God back on the side of social justice. This is going to be tough and slow. But there are already signs of movement this way. As of June, 2008, Obama was ahead of McCain among religious voters, by which I mean those who say they are affiliated with other denomination or another. The interesting thing to watch are the evangelical voters. You’ve got to remember that four out of every ten Bush voters last time were evangelicals. If McCain can’t bring them out again, or if he can’t make their loss up with Catholic voters, I don’t think he can win. Indeed, it is likely to be Catholic voters who will decide our future in this country, and hence the world’s future. About a quarter of the evangelicals support Obama now. What is important are the young evangelical voters who represent the future. They are moving much more rapidly than their parents either into the Obama camp or into the undecided camp. This is extraordinary because McCain is opposed to abortion and Obama is not. That was their big issue in the past. There is still a huge partisan division between those for whom religion is a central pillar in their lives and those for whom it is not. But I think that Obama has a chance of muddying the waters. And that would be a good thing.

20 Oct 2008

http://www.resetdoc.org/EN/Friedland-Ambrosi.php

Dua Indonesia, Satu Sumpah Pemuda

Rabu, 29 Oktober 2008 | 00:32 WIB

Oleh M Fadjroel Rachman

Apa gunanya merayakan 80 tahun Sumpah Pemuda bagi 52,1 juta buruh dan satu juta keluarga nelayan yang masih menerima upah kurang dari dua dollar AS per hari, bagi 13,7 juta kepala keluarga petani dengan lahan kurang dari 0,5 hektar, bagi 9.427.600 orang penganggur terbuka?

Jadi, apa gunanya Sumpah Pemuda bagi 52,1 juta buruh plus 68,5 juta petani (13,7 juta KK x 5 orang) plus lima juta nelayan (satu juta KK x 5 orang) = 125,6 juta orang ditambah 9.427.600 penganggur terbuka, di mana sebanyak 4.516.100 adalah lulusan SMA, SMK, program diploma, dan universitas. Mereka berpendapatan kurang dari 2 dollar AS per hari?

Secara sosial-ekonomi, mereka adalah warga negara Indonesia kelas dua. Partisipasi politik mereka disepelekan, hanya diperlukan untuk memilih calon presiden/wakil presiden dari partai politik dan independen (seyogianya dikabulkan Mahkamah Konstitusi agar 171 juta warganegara pemilih memiliki hak untuk dipilih sebagai calon presiden 2009 nanti dan seterusnya) serta anggota DPR/DPD/DPRD I/ DPRD II pada tahun 2009.

Diskriminasi sosial-ekonomi

Bila ada 125,6 juta orang ditambah 9.427.600 penganggur sebagai warga negara kelas II, lalu siapa warga negara kelas I secara sosial-ekonomi dan politik? Sepanjang empat tahun terakhir (2002-2006) 40 persen warga negara kelas II hanya menguasai pendapatan nasional sekitar 20,92 persen (2002), 20,57 persen (2003), 20,80 persen (2004), 18,81 persen (2005) dan 19,75 persen (2006), sedangkan 20 persen warga negara kelas satu menguasai pendapatan nasional sekitar 42,19 persen (2002), 42,33 persen (2003), 42,07 persen (2004), 44,78 persen (2005) dan 42,15 (2006) dari Income Distribution by Classification World Bank, BPS, 2002-2006.

Tentu ada segelintir puncaknya, misalnya untuk 40 konglomerat nilai kekayaan mereka 40,1 miliar dollar AS atau rata-rata 1 miliar dollar AS (Forbes Asia 2007, dan Tempo 18 Mei 2008), termasuk Wakil Presiden Jusuf Kalla di urutan ke-30 dengan kekayaan 230 juta dollar AS; Wakil Ketua MPR Aksa Mahmud 340 juta dollar AS. Dan, yang ada di puncak adalah keluarga Aburizal Bakrie (Menko Kesejahteraan Rakyat) sebesar 5,4 miliar dollar AS. Bahkan, Globe Asia (Mei 2008) menobatkannya terkaya nomor satu di Asia Tenggara dengan nilai 9,2 miliar dollar AS, jauh di atas Robert Kuok (Malaysia), 7,6 miliar dollar AS dan Ng Teng Pong (Singapura), 6,7 miliar dollar AS.

Kemiskinan akut dan ketimpangan sosial-ekonomi (antarpenduduk, daerah, Jawa versus Luar Jawa, serta sektoral) atau diskriminasi sosial-ekonomi. Inilah yang membelah dua wajah Indonesia, wajah 220.963.634 penduduk (BPS, 2004) di wilayah seluas 1.860.359,67 kilometer persegi. Kita memiliki manusia terkaya di Asia Tenggara tetapi juga dihantui kematian tragis empat anak berusia di bawah lima tahun atau balita penderita gizi buruk di Kabupaten Lebak, Banten (Kompas, 5/2).

Kata Muhammad Yunus, peraih Nobel Perdamaian 2006 sebagai perintis Bank Grameen di Banglades, ”Separuh penduduk dunia (tiga miliar jiwa) hidup dengan 2 dollar AS per hari. Lebih dari satu miliar dari mereka hidup dari pendapatan kurang dari 1 dollar AS per hari. Ini bukan formula perdamaian.” Berarti diskriminasi sosial-ekonomi di Indonesia sekarang juga bukan formula perdamaian.

Sumpah Pemuda

Diskriminasi sosial-ekonomi itu terjadi karena Sumpah Pemuda hanya dimaknai sekadar bertanah air Indonesia, berbangsa Indonesia, dan berbahasa Indonesia. Sekadar merasa bersatu secara kolektif dari sekelompok manusia sebagai sebuah keluarga besar (Gustavo de las Casas, Foreign Policy, 2008). Bila Sumpah Pemuda dimaknai ala kadarnya, nama Indonesia dapat saja lenyap seperti sebelum sebutan antropologis tahun 1850, ketika JR Logan memerlukan sebuah nama untuk menyebut penduduk serta kepulauan yang membentang antara benua Australia dan Asia.

Indonesia bukan sekadar kata, tetapi kumpulan makna dan cita-cita yang dipilih dengan kesadaran historis. Dari Kebangkitan Nasional, Sumpah Pemuda, Proklamasi dengan Pembukaan UUD 1945, setidaknya ada tiga makna tak terpisahkan yang merupakan upaya abadi manusia yang dikukuhkan founding mothers and fathers kita, yaitu emansipasi sosial dan emansipasi individual.

Makna praktis-visioner Indonesia itu berupa: Pertama, pembebasan nasional; Kedua, pembebasan sosial; Ketiga, pembebasan individual.

Makna pembebasan nasional dipertanyakan hari ini bila aset strategis sumber daya alam kita tak bermanfaat untuk kesejahteraan rakyat, sebagian besar hanya memperkaya korporasi global yang beroperasi di Indonesia, Untuk apa pembebasan nasional bila tidak diikuti pembebasan sosial dan individual, bila tidak menjamin setidaknya lima hak dasar warga negara (hak sipil, politik, ekonomi, sosial, dan budaya), bukankah lebih baik bangsa-bangsa pembentuk Indonesia berpisah, menciptakan demokrasi dan kesejahteraannya sendiri-sendiri?

Pilihan strategis untuk melakukan nasionalisasi selektif dan pajak progresif merupakan upaya menciptakan Indonesia tanpa kemiskinan, meminimalkan diskriminasi sosial-ekonomi yang membelah wajah Indonesia. Diskriminasi sosial-ekonomi itu pula yang menyumbang hancurnya solidaritas nasional di Indonesia: 69,5 persen (lemah), 27,0 persen (kuat), 3,5 persen (tidak tahu) karena tak ada toleransi antargolongan (kaya-miskin): 73,1 persen (lemah), 23,7 persen (kuat), 3,2 persen (tidak tahu) dari Jajak Pendapat Kompas 21-23 Mei 2008.

Regenerasi kepemimpinan nasional 2009 dan 2014, terutama kepada kaum muda-progresif, nanti hendaknya memberi makna Sumpah Pemuda sebagai pembebasan nasional, pembebasan sosial, dan pembebasan individual. Bila tidak, benarlah ucapan Bung Hatta, ”Revolusi kita menang dalam menegakkan negara baru, dalam menghidupkan kepribadian bangsa. Tetapi, revolusi kita kalah dalam melaksanakan cita-cita sosialnya.”

M Fadjroel Rachman Ketua Lembaga Pengkajian Demokrasi dan Negara Kesejahteraan (Pedoman Indonesia)

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/10/29/00321614/dua.indonesia.satu.sumpah.pemuda

An Interview with Miguel d'Escoto

From November 16, 1985

By Thomas H. Stahel | Archived Article

T his interview with Miguel d’Escoto, the President-elect of the U.N. General Assembly, was conducted in 1985 when d’Escoto was foreign minister for the Nicaraguan government of Daniel Ortega. At the time the relationship between the Reagan administration and the Ortega government was very strained, as there were suspicions (later confirmed) that the U.S. backed the revolutionary Contras against Ortega. D’Escoto himself was a figure of controversy within the church. A MaryKnoll priest, he had been told by the Vatican to cease celebrating Mass because of his political activities. Ortega served as president from 1985-1990, and was elected again in 2006. Among Ortega’s current supporters is Cardinal Miguel Obando Bravo, who has commended Ortega for his efforts to outlaw abortion. The cardinal was once a strong critic of the Ortega government.

On Oct. 19, 1985, Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, a Mary­knoll priest now serving as Foreign Minister of Nica­ragua, spoke with me in his room at the United Nations Plaza Hotel in New York City. He had accompanied Presi­dent Daniel Ortega Saavedra to the 40th anniversary ses­sion of the United Nations, where on Oct. 21 Mr. Ortega addressed the General Assembly.

The son of a Nicaraguan Ambassador to the United States, Father d'Escoto was born in Hollywood, Calif. He attended Maryknoll College in Glen Ellyn, Ill., spent a year in the novitiate and then studied theology at the Maryknoll Seminary in New York before being ordained in 1961. Immediately after ordination, he received an M.S. from the Columbia University School of Journalism.

As is well known, Pope John Paul II has long desired that Father d'Escoto relinquish his Government post, in accord with the new code of canon law. Because Father d'Escoto did not meet the deadline indicated by the Vatican in this matter, he has been required to relinquish, instead, the exercise of his priesthood until such time as he complies with canon law.

He discusses that issue in this interview, as well as the state of the church in Nicaragua, the recent suspension of civil liberties there and other issues touching on relations between the United States and Nicaragua.

You have lived for some years in the United States, I understand, and therefore you have the experience of living in the cultures of both North and Central America. Why is it that the statements of the Nicaraguan Government seem, from a North American point of view, to be so obsessed with the United States?

Well, more than any other country in continental Latin America, we have suffered the consequences of U.S. official interventionism. We have been invaded, we have been occupied time and time again. We suffered the imposition of one of the most hideous regimes in the history of Latin America for close to half a century, and we are at this present time experiencing a war that is characterized, even by people in the U.S. Congress, as not only illegal, but also immoral, and that has resulted in the systematic murder, kidnapping and torture of thousands upon thousands of our fellow citizens. I think we have reason to be concerned about the United States.

As a matter of fact, I many times wonder what the reaction of the United States would be if it were to find itself in our situation. For that to be a possibility, there would have to be a country that is as least a thousand times more powerful than the United States. Of course, there is no such country. But I wonder what would happen if there were a country a hundred times larger in territorial size (which is the least important thing), and thousands of times more powerful economically and politically, and if that country were to be clearly committed to the overthrow and the destruction of American society! What would be the reaction?

You spoke about immorality and illegality. That word “illegality" reminds me of the action in the World Court at the moment. May I ask, how did you conceive that idea? Was it your idea, in fact, to sue the United States in the World Court?

From the beginning of the application of Mr. Reagan's policy against the Nicaraguan revolution, it was quite clear to me that there was an illegality. But the United States has never been characterized by respect for law, in spite of the image that it likes to project internationally and within the United States. I think the fundamental principle is to do as much as you can possibly get away with. But you always try to keep a facade.

I had thought about going to the court, but never too seriously until the invasion of Grenada. But it was not the fact of the invasion that moved me to propose seriously to the President that we go to the court. It was that I decided to monitor American reaction to the invasion of Grenada, as presented mainly in editorials and op-ed pieces in the basic, leading newspapers across the country. I was concerned to see-there were a few notable and important exceptions-that the majority were willing to accept the fact of the invasion. They would formulate their argument in the following manner. They would say: "Surely, if one were to evaluate the decision to invade Grenada from the point of view of international law, this is an action outside the norms. But then again, international law has become obsolete"--I am summarizing. "Why? Because the interrelation between nations is increasing more and more, and as a result of this, one must redefine the principle of nonintervention. "

This is really what they were saying, the vast majority. That's what I saw reflected in the United States. Well, where does that leave the small countries of the world?

Then, during an afternoon walk with the President, I said: "Daniel, you know I seldom lose sleep about anything. But I am thinking and thinking that this is really something. With international law, there can be war; but without it, for sure there will be nothing but war." We have to have more than only law. We have to have justice also, and a new international economic order, and other things besides. But there can be no greater damage to international peace and security than the destruction of the international legal order. So I said: "I think, Daniel, we have to go to the World Court. I am very concerned; I am very afraid. What I see happening cannot be taken just as a Reagan move, because look at what he has done and look at the reaction."

The other thing that concerned me was that international public opinion kept rather quiet. I mean, President Reagan comes out and says the most flagrant things. For example, he says publicly, for the world to hear, that he believes in the right of the United States to utilize covert action, which is the euphemism to signify activities to destabilize or overthrow another government. He says that he believes in the right of the United States to utilize covert actions against another nation whenever, in the mind of the President of the United States, that serves the interests of the United States. And everyone keeps quiet!

About freedom of the church, another subject I wanted to raise with you: What is your view of the causes of the tension between the Nicaraguan hierarchy and the Government? Do you have better relations with some bishops than with others? It is well known that there is tension between Monsenor Obando y Bravo [Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, Archbishop of Managua] and the Government.

Well, it is a sad fact, but something that is a part of history, and undeniable: The church has never ever, as church, in our history in Latin America at least-and in the whole world, I think-supported profound changes in society that are being promoted precisely to benefit the majority of the people. On the contrary, the church historically-and this is sad-has defended the maintenance of the most un-Christian status quo by fomenting something that can only be characterized as sin, because the church has preached resignation in the face of exploitation and injustice. This is in total contradiction to Christ's mandate that we should be a leavening agent in society, a transforming agent. To transform what into what? Selfishness into brotherly concern for one another.

The Lord's words, "The poor you shall have always with you," are manipulated to justify a political quietism, which again is sinful. No wonder the church was characterized until not too long ago-even in the Rockefeller Report when Mr. Nixon became President-as one of the fundamental pillars of the maintenance of the system, together with the military.

How has this happened in practice? Well, just look at the time when we were trying to become independent from Spain. The Holy Father was Pope Pius VII-at that time he was living not in Rome, but in France. He received the emissary from Spain, heard one side of the story and wrote in the name of Christ to his dear children in the Lord, and ordered us to submit to the Spanish Crown and desist from trying to become independent. In the name of God. What abuse!

And you know what happened? We were on the verge of the biggest schism in the history of Christianity. For years we did not have bishops in Latin America, until Muzi finally came on his mission to Chile, you remember. [The Muzi Mission, 1823-25, by Giovanni Muzi, Bishop of Citta di Castello and first papal representative to the Americas. He came with faculties to name and consecrate bishops in the new Spanish American republics without further recourse to Rome.]

You know, Our Lord says He came to bring fire to the earth and that He wanted this fire to be enkindled-the fire of His transforming love, to push forward to new heights of brotherhood. But many of us church people have acted like frustrated firemen, putting out the fire. We question change, any change. Ffffftttt [sound and gesture of a fireman managing a firehose]. Dangerous, you know. So put it out with the hose.

It's not surprising that, in Nicaragua, where we are embarked at this time, also, on a profound change, you see a church whose leaders--like the rest of us priests--have been formed in a reactionary and anti-Communist tradition when it comes to social doctrine, and especially those who make it to higher echelons of authority within the church. Not all, of course, but a great majority are of that bent. I always say to newspeople that it is not worth commenting on, because if you tell me that there is a revolution somewhere and the church is against it, I will say, "What else is new?" I mean, what would be newsworthy is to tell me that the church is for it. So in Nicaragua the new thing is, and the question is: How come so much of the church is in favor of it [the revolution]? How come so many of the priests, even of the bishops?

Now, that was a question I wanted to ask: How many of the bishops?

I do not like to speak for the bishops, but I can tell you that, in my very serious opinion, the fundamental problems are in Managua and a couple of other dioceses, and that the rest of the bishops understand the situation quite well. Now, we have a difficulty in Nicaragua. You see, some of our bishops are not Nicaraguans. From our point of view as Christians, we should not even consider whether or not someone is Nicaraguan. But what is sad is that the local bishops really make the nonnationals feel that they are not Nicaraguans--although they have given their lives in our country because they came as missionaries and have been there a long time, 30 years or whatever. So they are intimidated, in the face of people like Monsenor Obando. I mention his name, because this is a fact.

As far as I know, we get the impression in this country that the Nicaraguan bishops speak as a unified bloc, under the leadership of Monsenor Obando y Bravo.

I have myself clearly established in many cases that at least some of the bishops knew nothing about these documents that have come out. They saw them only when they returned to the country, had never even read them, no draft being presented to them, or anything of that kind. Sometimes they are signed only by Monsenor Bosco Vivas, who is Auxiliary Bishop of Managua and acts as secretary to the bishops' conference. Oh, yes, that happens.

They have some kind of lamentable principle that any Christian should find hard to accept: They will not say something about a certain issue unless everyone says it. How can that be? That is, if one decides to keep quiet on something that another feels morally obliged to say something about, this other will not say it because there is an agreement not to say anything unless everyone agrees to it. We can't say that to our Lord on the day when we come to Him: "I kept quiet because the others didn't speak."

You are saying that the bishops, or some of them, are not speaking up as they ought.

They are not speaking up. They say it is very difficult; they are intimidated by Monsenor Obando. But of course in the final analysis the responsibility does not end with Monsenor Obando. There is an authority higher than his that has a very important responsibility in this whole issue.

Let me ask you another question about the freedom of the church. That was how we started this part of the discussion, and then I asked you about the bishops. How do you think the church will be affected by President Ortega's recent announcement about the suspension of civil liberties in Nicaragua? Will the Cardinal be prohibited from traveling around the country, as is said in some newspapers here?

No one is prohibited from traveling anywhere. There is no restriction on the mobility of people from one place to another.

What about a prohibition on his assemblies?

There is a prohibition on assemblies, but it must be clearly understood what is meant by that. It does not mean, for example, that if a political party wants to have an assembly tomorrow, it cannot have it. What it means is that now, because of certain things that are happening, they have to ask for permission, and they will get it. Now, let us say there is going to be a procession. They ask for it, and they will get it. But you can be sure that they will be told, again, that it has to be a religious procession, and not an occasion for political parties (and all those with whom the Cardinal is especially identified) to use the church. An abusive utilization especially of the Cardinal, to project him as a symbol--this really has been the role that the Central Intelligence Agency has assigned to Cardinal Obando. I’m sorry to say it, but I will say it here. This is his role, and it is not surprising that he got a medal from the C.I.A. Who is Constantine Menges?

Excuse me?

Who is Constantine Menges? The director of the C.I.A. in Latin America, or he was. Along with Michael Novak and other people, he created this Institute on Religion and Democracy. For what purpose? It has been amply written up in the United States. It is clearly a C.I.A.-front organization, and the first medal they gave was to Cardinal Obando. For what? He is regarded as their most valuable asset in Central America, and in Nicaragua in particular. Has he knowingly accepted this role? Is he being used? Well, a person does not make a long trip to get a medal without having investigated previously why they are giving him such an honor, and who it is that is giving him the honor.

The thing is this. Nicaragua will always have freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. Nicaragua is truly committed, not hypocritically committed, like Mr. Reagan, to democracy. We fought to overthrow a regime that was sponsored by the United States, because we could never have democracy under that regime. We are building our democracy. But even the most important of all human rights, which is the right to life, can have exceptions. Catholic morality accepts the principle that one can kill in self-defense, and talks about "just war." The U.S. Government throws its arms up to the skies in horror because of the limitation of rights in Nicaragua. But this is done precisely to defend our most basic right, which is to sovereignty and the life of our people. We will not allow the use of liberties that never existed in Nicaragua before, but that now exist because of the revolution, to reverse the revolutionary process-in the way, for example, that freedom of the press in Chile was used in EI Mercurio to do in President Allende [Salvador Allende Gossens, the democratically elected Marxist President of Chile, overthrown in a bloody coup in September 1973].

No one who is doing the proper type of activity has anything to fear, and as a matter of fact there is no properly religious activity that is in any way, shape or form going to be limited. But, of course, what we are talking about is not only not a religious activity, it is an activity that I myself--not the Government of Nicaragua, but I myself--call treasonous activity. And history will condemn the church, and the Cardinal-and not only the Cardinal, but many of the bishops-for having kept what I call a silence of complicity in the face of the aggression of the strongest and richest nation in the world against our people. Even the American bishops have said a few things against it. But what have the Nicaraguan bishops said? Nothing to condemn it, and a few things-some of them-to support it. I have spoken to certain bishops, and I have said: "Don't you see what you are doing to the church? Don't you see how you are hurting the church?" All they have acknowledged to me that that’s right. They do not know what to do because this other man won't move.

I am speaking more than I have ever spoken. But some bishops have acknowledged to me that they are very concerned about the future of the church. They are guilty of high treason by becoming accomplices of a foreign power in its efforts to destabilize and to overthrow our Government. And how are they manifesting this behavior now? At this point in time by going against the draft. What would the United States do if it were being attacked by another country and the church came out against the draft?

They say that the draft is to defend a party. Now they know that in Nicaragua we had elections that were broad based, and with great participation, for the first time in history. Every political party that wanted to participate could participate, and in fact seven participated. Unlike elections in other parts of Latin America, there were no candidates in jail, and no one was prohibited from becoming a candidate. It was a direct vote, by the people. So we had elections, and we have a Government that is the result of those elections. President Reagan has acknowledged that he is trying to overthrow that Government, and then the bishops have the gall to say that the army, in defending our Government, a system that was voted in democratically by the people, is being used to defend a party. You know, this is extremely damaging to the church. Anyway, the church may have betrayed the people, but we must defend the wishes of the people, and we must defend them legally, through the established Government, and we must not allow the church to blemish further the name of Christianity and abuse the cross of Christ to spread imperialistic ideals, political ideas that would have Nicaragua become submitted again to United States dictates. This was the position of the bishops during the colonial days, and that is why for many, many years there were no bishops after independence. They were total lackeys.

Let me put the question in another way. Some American bishops, as you say, have tried to speak out against U. S. interference in Nicaragua. But the deprivation of civil liberties—or whatever you want to call this statement by President Ortega on Tuesday, Oct. 15, 1985-makes it more difficult for U.S. bishops to defend Nicaragua's right to self-determination.

We don't want the American bishops to defend Nicaragua. We don't need the American bishops or anyone to defend us. We are more than able to defend ourselves. I would ask the American bishops to defend themselves and their own souls. The hands of every American are bloodied with the blood of innocent Nicaraguan people. The American Catholic Church is very big. It is also American. It is an accomplice, unless it protests. These are crimes in which every American citizen is implicated because this is--or isn't it?--a democracy. Is not everyone co-responsible?

What would happen if a few American bishops really wanted to put an end to these crimes that their country is committing in their name? If they decided to take some dramatic sort of action until the policies ended, and appealed to the rest of the American Catholics and community of believers to protest? They can do it. Especially since this President of the United States has the nerve to say that he does what he does to defend the most sacred values of our Judeo-Christian tradition. He is now the spokesperson, the defender of God. And he is allowed to play that role. He sprinkles all his speeches-I have heard him many times-with references to the Pope, and "God bless you" here and "God bless you" there, and he gets away with it. Let him take full responsibility for his actions but not implicate God, much less give an appearance that he is doing all this to defend persecuted Christians.

Some of the U. S. bishops might say, "We are trying to protest, but we have to do it through means of political discourse, and the suppression of civil rights in Nicaragua makes it more difficult for us."

Through means of political discourse? How did the prophets protest? No one is trying. Our Lord would say, "Close, but no cigar." They should protest. And one is better than none, and then maybe others will follow. But not only bishops.

How do you feel, as Foreign Minister, about the fact that this pronouncement by President Ortega about the suppression of civil liberties was made just before you and he came up to the United Nations? Do you find that an embarrassment? It seems from a political point of view such an odd moment to have made that pronouncement.

We are not in a propaganda campaign. Circumstances are there that oblige us to move. Others, more Madison Avenue-oriented, would have said: "Go to the United Nations, give a great exhibition, and then come back and do it." After all, that is the way some other Latin American countries have done things. No, we do things when we have to do them, and we have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Let me shift over to the matter of your Christian ministry. Is that an acceptable topic?

Any topic.

Do you feel you are exercising your priesthood in your present work?

I think so, in a unique, strange, unsought kind of way--a way that I never envisioned because it had never occurred to me.·Basically, as a priest, I must try to excel always in those virtues. that should be the virtues of a man, and especially of a man who is a Christian, because I am first a man, and a Christian, and then by the grace of God also a priest. Now, the specifically priestly functions, the sacramental ones, have been deprived me by wishes of the Holy Father-not by my Society, and not by my bishop in Nicaragua, who would not do that.

Who is your bishop in Nicaragua?

Ruben L6pez Ard6n, who is the Bishop of Esteli. He is the bishop with whom I have been associated in Nicaragua, and with whom I have most cordial, fraternal relations.

And the same with your Maryknoll superior?

By the grace of God I have never had any but the best relations with all my superiors. Now we very much wanted to speak to Rome--because this thing [the order to leave the Government post] came from Rome-and Rome ended up saying there was nothing to speak about, that the law was the law, and it must be complied with.

Well, if it comes to that, and with all due respect to canon law--which I do in fact respect and mean never to disrespect--if it comes to the law being the law, I have to establish a priority. And the law of God has to come before canon law. I find that I would be in radical violation of the law of God, which is basically to love my neighbor, if, in the situation where my country finds itself, I were to comply with canon law and leave this post, which I never sought, never wanted ... even now. They talk about the "honor." Where is the honor? It's work. To me there's no difference-and I say this before God, because it's true-between being a doorman or being a foreign minister. It's service.

I was asked at a certain point in time: "Would you help us do this? We need to establish decent and honorable and just relations with the international community. We need people to help us because of the conditions in Nicaragua, and the availability of human resources. We are among the privileged·few who have had an opportunity for some degree of formal education, and everyone has to pitch in. And to be a bridge of understanding between your nation and others is a very noble and also, in a sense, priestly work."

I am not in a parish, but I never have been in a parish since I was ordained. I do not know why this post should be less priestly than my work in Orbis Books [a Catholic publishing house run by Maryknoll in New York].

Is that what you did before?

I founded Orbis Books. I began it, and I was director of communications at Maryknoll, and before that in Chile I was giving technical assistance.

So, it's very, very sad. But even my bishop was angry when I opened up the subject once (not that I was saying that I was going to leave my post). He told me how much it would hurt the church and the people. That is what matters, because we are transitory. The Lord may call us-we do not know when, today, in a minute. And so my idea is this: If I were to leave my post in order to have the satisfaction of saying Mass, I could not have that satisfaction as a matter of fact.

Because you feel you could not celebrate the Mass?

No, I would be in sin. I would be a traitor. And there has never been anything more important to me in my whole life, since I was a young man, than the Holy Sacrifice.

From 1985, an interview with a retired priest and current president of the U.N. General Assembly

Do you look forward to resuming your sacramental priesthood someday?

Yes, but I am perhaps living that Mass now, with the pain, even more than if I did not have this difficulty. It is like the case of other priests who have been kept from saying Mass because they are in jail, for example. It is precisely in my fundamental commitment to living the Mass that I accept this prohibition from celebrating the Holy Sacrifice. Our Lord says, "Do this in commemoration of me." He did not mean that we repeat the words only, because we are not parrots, but that we repeat those words as human beings; that is to say, that we take on the inner dispositions that He had when He said, "This is my body and this is my blood." We make those inner dispositions our own, and then we say the words, because we speak as human beings, conveying what we feel. So, to live the Mass is to have that inner disposition of availability to God, including the giving of your life for the service of the people, and to ask to be strengthened in your love for the cross and the acceptance of the cross in whatever shape or form God decides you should carry it.

Thomas H. Stahel is a former associate editor of America.

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=10983

Kesetiaan "Pejuang" Tahu dan Tempe

Kedelai

KOMPAS/SOELASTRI SOEKIRNO / Kompas Images Industri kecil pembuatan tempe di Kelurahan Sirnagalih, Kecamatan Neglasari, Kota Tangerang, berdenyut lagi sejak harga kedelai turun menjadi Rp 5.800 sampai Rp 6.000 per kilogram. Seorang perajin, Senin (20/10), menata tempe setengah jadi.

Selasa, 21 Oktober 2008 | 00:18 WIB

Sarie Febriane

Matahari baru saja tergelincir. Aktivitas hidup manusia tentunya sedang giat-giatnya berlangsung. Namun, tidak di sentra perajin penganan rakyat ini. Produksi sudah selesai. Meski matahari tengah terik-teriknya, mendung bergayut di wajah para pejuang tahu dan tempe ini.

”Beginilah, biasanya magrib baru selesai. Sekarang lohor saja sudah kelar,” kata Wardi (48), sembari menyikat tahang, wadah kayu penampung bubur tahu.

Wardi, pria asal Pekalongan Jawa Tengah, itu adalah satu dari ratusan perajin tahu dan tempe skala mikro dan kecil di Kelurahan Tegal Parang, Jakarta Selatan. Meski harga kedelai tengah turun dan subsidi dari pemerintah masih berjalan, gairah usaha mereka tampak jelas melesu.

Penurunan harga dan subsidi kedelai tak juga mengoreksi iklim usaha mikro para perajin tahu dan tempe menjadi lebih bergairah. Kapasitas produksi kian merosot. Padahal, segala akrobat telah dilakukan. Minyak tanah diganti kayu bakar. Listrik dihemat. Buruh harian dikurangi.

Senang dengan turunnya harga kedelai? Wardi tersenyum tipis. Tanpa mengeluh, dia menjawab. ”Harus disyukuri, masih bisa produksi. Masih sisa empat pegawai dari delapan orang yang pernah ada,” ucap Wardi.

Pengurus Prima Koperasi Tahu Tempe Indonesia (Primkopti) Swakerta Jakarta Barat Handoko Mulyo menerangkan, saat ini harga kedelai di pasaran sebesar Rp 5.800-Rp 6.200 per kilogram. Turun sekitar Rp 1.000 per kg dari sebelumnya Rp 6.500-Rp 7.500 per kg.

Dulu, ketika kedelai masih di kisaran Rp 480.000 per kuintal (awal tahun 2008), Wardi mampu mengolah 2 kuintal kedelai per hari. Namun, ketika harga kedelai meroket hingga mencapai lebih dari Rp 700.000 per kuintal, Wardi dan ratusan pedagang lain kolaps. Demonstrasi digelar. Kebijakan dadakan dibuat. Kedelai disubsidi Rp 1.000 per kg dan akan berakhir pada pengujung tahun 2008 ini.

Untuk wilayah Jakarta saja dibutuhkan sedikitnya 5.000 ton kedelai setiap minggu. Ribuan ton kedelai itu diolah menjadi tahu dan tempe oleh sekitar 4.500 perajin di Ibu Kota ini.

Saat ini perajin menebus kedelai subsidi di harga Rp 500.000 per kuintal. Namun, kapasitas produksi para perajin tahu dan tempe hingga saat ini sudah merosot lebih dari 50 persen. Wardi, misalnya, kini hanya sanggup mengolah 80 kg kedelai setiap hari.

Lain lagi nasib Suwarno (48). Di tengah kondisi suram itu, tempat usaha tahunya—yang sudah dirintis 25 tahun—habis terbakar dua pekan lalu. Salah satu penyebabnya, kayu bakar yang menumpuk di pabriknya menyempurnakan ”pembakaran” tersebut.

”Kami ganti kayu bakar karena minyak tanah sudah tidak terjangkau. Pakai gas mimpi sajalah. Kayu bakar pun kami beli, tidak gratis,” kata Surani (35), adik ipar Suwarno. Tak dapat dipastikan kapan usaha Suwarno dapat berdiri lagi.

Siasat wong cilik

Sebagai gambaran, selain kedelai, komponen produksi tahu setiap kelompok perajin adalah kayu bakar Rp 700.000 per satu mobil bak. Sewa diesel untuk menggiling kedelai Rp 40.000 per kuintal. Solar Rp 6.500 per liter, sewa tempat kisaran Rp 450.000 per bulan, listrik Rp 250.000 per bulan per kelompok. Upah pegawai rata-rata Rp 15.000 per orang.

Dengan demikian, subsidi kedelai seolah seperti gula-gula sesaat bagi para perajin untuk bertahan. Sementara beban komponen produksi lainnya dipanggul mereka sepenuhnya. Dengan segala kecerdikan bersiasat khas wong cilik.

Soal solar, misalnya. Para perajin kini terpaksa membeli solar di atas harga resmi. Penyebabnya, petugas di stasiun pengisian bahan bakar untuk umum menolak perajin tahu dan tempe yang hendak membeli solar dengan jeriken. ”Harus ada izin. Macam-macam syaratnya. Kami mentok,” kata Sutarno (37), perajin tahu lainnya.

Akhirnya, para perajin saat ini titip beli pada truk atau bus yang mengisi solar (Rp 5.500 per liter) di SPBU. Baru kemudian, perajin menyedot solar dari tangki BBM bus atau truk tersebut. Dengan cara ini, solar terpaksa ditebus perajin seharga Rp 6.500 per liter.

Bagi Cahyoto (49), perajin tempe di Jalan N, Haji Ung, Kelurahan Utan Panjang, Jakarta Pusat, iklim usaha para perajin akan membaik lebih signifikan jika harga kedelai turun di kisaran Rp 3.000 per kg. Setidaknya, harga itu untuk kompensasi ongkos komponen produksi lainnya yang sudah sulit disiasati begitu rupa.

Cukup untuk makan

Meski kondisi belum menjanjikan, dibayangi rasa waswas, para pejuang tahu dan tempe ini tetaplah bersyukur. Begitu juga yang dirasakan para perajin tempe di Kelurahan Sirnagalih, Kecamatan Neglasari, dan Kelurahan Koang Jaya di Kecamatan Karawaci, keduanya di Kota Tangerang. Mereka merasa, setidaknya bisa bernapas lagi setelah sempat tercekik saat harga kedelai meroket tanpa ampun.

Perajin tempe, Riadi dan Tarmuji, misalnya, mengaku masih bisa meraih untung tipis dengan memproduksi 40 kg kedelai menjadi 320 lonjor tempe. Ukuran cukup bagi para perajin tahu dan tempe ini adalah, ”Cukup untuk bayar pegawai, listrik, dan makan sekeluarga,” kata Kartono, perajin tempe asal Pemalang yang menjadi ketua kelompok perajin tempe di Koang Jaya.

Kendati harga kedelai mulai turun, para perajin khawatir harga akan naik lagi. Terlebih, Amerika Serikat—negara asal kedelai yang mereka olah—tengah krisis finansial.

Di tengah kondisi yang dibayangi ketidakpastian ini, setidaknya masih ada satu hal yang pasti. Tiada lain, kesetiaan para perajin, yang masih terus tekun memproduksi penganan sumber protein rakyat paling terjangkau saat ini.

”Bikin tempe adalah takdir saya,” kata Robin (61), perajin tempe di Tegal Parang, sejak 40 tahun lalu. (NEL/TRI)

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/10/21/00181926/kesetiaan.pejuang.tahu.dan.tempe

Cerita Manis Itu Kini Berubah Duka

Jatuhnya Harga sawit

KOMPAS/SYAHNAN RANGKUTI / Kompas Images Anjloknya harga sawit sampai Rp 300 per kilogram dari harga sebelumnya mencapai Rp 2.000 per kg telah membuat petani, terutama petani swadaya (yang tidak memiliki kerja sama dengan perkebunan besar BUMN maupun swasta), babak belur.

Jumat, 17 Oktober 2008 | 03:00 WIB

Syahnan Rangkuti

Bahori (23) masih bisa tersenyum. Walau senyum itu kecut. Sesekali ia juga tertawa, tetapi ketawa itu pun sumbang. Ketika dijumpai di areal kebun kelapa sawit miliknya, ia baru saja menjual hasil panen tandan buah segar sawit sebanyak 1 ton.

Selasa, menjelang senja, ia sendiri saja di tengah kebunnya seluas 2 hektar di Desa Sialang Jaya, Kecamatan Rambah, Kabupaten Rokan Hulu, Riau—sekitar 200 kilometer dari Pekanbaru.

Dengan harga tandan buah segar (TBS) sekarang ini yang hanya Rp 300 per kilogram, ayah seorang bayi itu tentunya mendapat penghasilan Rp 300.000. Tetapi, tunggu dulu. Hitungan matematis itu belum putus. Bahori harus mengeluarkan uang Rp 50.000 untuk upah melangsir (membawa TBS dari kebunnya ke pinggir jalan besar dengan menggunakan kendaraan berpenggerak empat roda). Dia juga harus mengeluarkan uang Rp 300.000 untuk membayar upah tiga pekerja harian masing-masing Rp 100.000 untuk memanen selama dua hari. ”Saya nombok Rp 50.000. Namun, apa boleh buat. Saya memilih untuk tetap memanen karena kata orang, kalau tidak dipanen, nanti pohon sawit rusak dan tidak mau berbuah lagi,” kata Bahori.

Untuk menutup utang, Bahori kembali ke profesi lama, yaitu menjadi buruh di kebun orang lain. Sepanjang Selasa itu dia bekerja di kebun orang. Upahnya Rp 60.000 sehari. Alhasil, setelah membayar utang Rp 50.000, penghasilan bersihnya hari itu hanya Rp 10.000.

Syaifudin yang memiliki kebun seluas 5 hektar juga senasib dengan Bahori. Hari itu ia mempekerjakan enam orang untuk panen sebanyak 2 ton. Padahal, masih ada 2 ton lagi TBS siap panen.

”Biarlah 2 ton lagi itu tetap dipohonnya sampai panen dua minggu lagi. Mana tau harga bisa membaik. Kalau pohonnya mau rusak, biarlah. Asal jangan seluruhnya,” kata Syaifudin.

Syaifudin mengatakan, ia mendapat uang Rp 600.000 dari panen sebanyak 2 ton. Namun uang itu langsung dipotong Rp 240.000 untuk upah empat buruh angkut TBS ke tempat penumpukan dan Rp 140.000 lagi untuk upah dua pendodos (pemetik buah dari pohon). Pendapatannya masih berkurang lagi karena harus membayar upah melangsir dengan mobil Rp 100.000. Artinya, penghasilan bersih hari itu sebesar Rp 120.000 untuk hasil panen sebanyak 2 ton.

”Sebelum harga anjlok, biasanya saya mendapat uang minimal Rp 4 juta dari sekali panen. Dalam satu bulan panen dua kali atau Rp 8 juta sebulan. Sekarang ini hitung saja pendapatan saya,” kata Syaifudin.

Tentang upah melangsir yang mahal lebih disebabkan buruknya kondisi jalan ke perkebunan petani.

Tidak mengherankan bila biaya untuk mengangkut satu ton TBS dari kebun ke pinggir jalan yang berjarak sekitar 1 kilometer, petani harus membayar Rp 50.000 atau Rp 50 per kilogram.

Di sebuah desa eks transmigrasi, biaya transportasi bahkan mencapai Rp 200 per kilogram atau Rp 200.000 per ton. Hal itu disebabkan jalan hancur dan jaraknya lebih dari 5 kilometer.

Namun tidak semua jalan ke perkebunan petani di Rokan Hulu, begitu buruk. Di sebuah tempat tidak jauh dari kota Pasirpengarayan, ibu kota Kabupaten Rokan Hulu, jalan menuju perkebunan seorang kuat di Rokan Hulu ternyata diaspal hotmiks dengan lebar 12 meter.

Cerita manis pemilik kebun sawit di Riau tersebut saat ini sudah berubah menjadi cerita duka. Harga TBS Rp 300 per kilogram, menurut Ardiman Daulay, Ketua Asosiasi Petani Kelapa Sawit Indonesia (Apkasindo) Cabang Rokan Hulu, sama seperti kondisi 12 tahun lalu saat menjelang krisis moneter melanda Indonesia tahun 1997. ”Dulu sebelum krismon, harga sawit memang Rp 300 per kilogram, tetapi harga-harga barang masih jauh lebih murah dibandingkan sekarang. Waktu itu harga beras masih ada yang Rp 1.000 per kilogram. Pada saat krismon dahulu, petani kami justru menikmati hasil karena harga sawit naik menjadi Rp 800 sampai Rp 1.000 per kilogram. Sekarang ini petani sawit yang mengalami krisis,” kata Daulay yang memiliki 2.500 anggota dengan lahan 118.000 hektar.

Menurut Daulay, bukan hanya petani yang mengalami krisis. Pedagang pengumpul mengalami nasib sama. Kusno, seorang tauke sawit (sebutan untuk pedagang pengumpul), sudah meminta keringanan kepada Bank BRI setempat untuk menunda pembayaran cicilan utangnya.

Sebelum harga anjlok, Kusno meminjamkan uang kepada petani, nilainya Rp 200 juta. Ini biasa dilakukan toke sawit agar petani mau menjual buah kepada mereka. Seluruh uang berasal dari pinjaman di Bank BRI. Sekarang ini seluruh piutang Kusno tidak dapat ditagih, karena petani peminjam tidak mampu membayar. ”Kalau BRI tidak bersedia menunda cicilan, rumah Kusno akan segera disita bank,” ujar Daulay.

Menurut Daulay, petani dari Desa Tandun sampai mencoba bunuh diri, meminum obat serangga, karena dililit utang Rp 200 juta di bank dan tidak dapat membayar. Untungnya, niat bunuh diri cepat ketahuan keluarganya dan si petani dapat diselamatkan.

Krisis sawit seperti musim kemarau yang merontokkan segala sesuatu. Empat hari lalu, empat sepeda motor ditarik dealer karena petani menunggak cicilan. Lalu, dua pabrik kelapa sawit di Rokan Hulu, yaitu di Desa I, Ujung Batu, dan Petapahan, terpaksa pula ditutup karena cadangan CPO pabrik belum terjual.

Krisis keuangan global kali ini, eksesnya ternyata menjalar tanpa ampun kepada petani kecil. Sayangnya, 80 persen dari 2.500 anggota Apkasindo Rokan Hulu merupakan petani kecil dengan lahan rata-rata 2 hektar.

”Yang kami harapkan, pemerintah mau minta perbankan menunda pembayaran cicilan petani. Kalau tidak, akan lebih banyak petani sawit yang stres atau gila,” kata Daulay.

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2008/10/17/00422056/cerita.manis.itu.kini.berubah.duka