KOMPAS.com – Beberapa waktu lalu, ada dua berita yang menarik. Pertama, mulai disidangkannya perkara korupsi Djoko Susilo. Kedua, gagalnya pelaksanaan eksekusi putusan perkara korupsi dengan terpidana Susno Duadji. Kedua jenderal itu sebelumnya adalah jenderal hebat di jajaran Polri.

Menyimak dakwaan penuntut umum KPK terhadap Djoko Susilo menunjukkan bahwa tindak pidana korupsi telah dilakukan oleh level jenderal. Membandingkan penyidikan KPK dan penyidikan Bareskrim (Polri) terhadap kasus yang sama tersebut, simulator SIM, terdapat isu yang menarik. Terlihat bahwa penyidikan yang dilakukan Bareskrim telah diarahkan untuk tidak menemukan pelaku korupsi yang sebenarnya.

Mengingat para penyidik kunci dari Bareskrim yang melakukan penyidikan tersebut adalah para mantan penyidik KPK, besar kemungkinan arahan penyidikan berasal dari pimpinan para penyidik tersebut, yang tentu saja berlevel jenderal. Ini merupakan petunjuk adanya obstruction of justice—tindakan menghalang-halangi proses penegakan hukum—setidaknya diketahui oleh level jenderal.

Pelaksanaan eksekusi terhadap Susno Duadji telah gagal dilaksanakan eksekutor dari kejaksaan. Kita masih ingat bahwa penyidikan terhadap Susno dulu dilakukan Bareskrim. Artinya, kegagalan eksekusi tersebut juga merupakan bentuk kegagalan penuntasan hasil kerja Bareskrim.

Pernyataan Firdaus Dewilmar selaku koordinator tim eksekutor kejaksaan bahwa upaya mengeksekusi Susno bukan gagal, melainkan digagalkan, merupakan petunjuk adanya obstruction of justice yang dilakukan Polri di tingkat Polda Jawa Barat. Ini pun setidaknya diketahui oleh level jenderal.

Kedua isu tersebut, pengarahan penyidikan dan penggagalan eksekusi, adalah dua isu krusial sebagai obstruction of justice.

Polri yang hebat

Pemisahan Polri dari ABRI, yang kemudian berhasil mendudukkan Polri dan TNI sebagai dua institusi yang terpisah dengan tugas dan tanggung jawab yang berbeda, telah berhasil dilakukan dengan baik. Tentu hal itu juga dimaksudkan agar kedua institusi tersebut menghasilkan kinerja yang maksimal untuk kepuasan rakyat.

Dengan melihat kedua isu obstruction of justice yang secara gamblang terlihat berkat kebebasan pers tersebut, perlu dilihat kemungkinan penyebab kedua isu tersebut terjadi. Selanjutnya perlu dilakukan penyesuaian tugas dan tanggung jawab pada institusi Polri agar para jenderal Polri lebih fokus menjalankan tugas dan tanggung jawabnya.

Pengarahan penyidikan secara tak tepat kemungkinan diakibatkan adanya konflik kepentingan. Guna menjaga agar konflik kepentingan seperti ini tidak merugikan nama baik Polri, ada baiknya—ke depan—Polri tidak diberi kewenangan melakukan penyidikan tindak pidana korupsi. Hal ini juga agar Polri bisa lebih berfokus meningkatkan kualitas penyidikan terhadap berbagai jenis tindak pidana lain. Kelebih-fokusan ini akan menghasilkan kualitas kinerja Polri menjadi lebih baik sehingga persepsi publik terhadap Polri juga akan jadi lebih baik. Kita semua ingin memiliki Polri yang hebat.

Mungkin para jenderal Polri juga terlalu banyak terbebani berbagai macam tugas sehingga tugas utama di area fungsi ”perpolisian” kurang terjaga kualitasnya. Penggagalan proses eksekusi merupakan bentuk negatif fungsi ”perpolisian”. Untuk mengatasi hal ini, ada baiknya, ke depan, tugas-tugas Polri yang tak merupakan bagian dari fungsi ”perpolisian” dipisahkan dari Polri. Ini juga bisa dipandang sebagai kelanjutan dari langkah pemisahan Polri dari ABRI yang dulu sudah berhasil dilakukan. Tugas berat Polri yang bukan merupakan bagian dari fungsi ”perpolisian”, salah satunya, adalah urusan STNK dan SIM. Karena itu, perlu dipikirkan ulang agar urusan STNK dan SIM ini dikeluarkan dari Polri agar para jenderal Polri lebih fokus dalam meningkatkan kualitas kinerjanya.

Legislator

Fakta di lapangan terkait pelaksanaan tugas dan tanggung jawab institusi Polri harus selalu jadi obyek utama yang diawasi para legislator di negara ini, khususnya anggota Komisi III DPR. Para legislator kiranya perlu melakukan penyesuaian undang- undang (UU) yang mengatur tugas dan tanggung jawab Polri.

Dengan mengamati dua isu obstruction of justice di atas, sudah waktunya para legislator membuat aturan dalam bentuk UU agar Polri tak lagi melakukan penyidikan terhadap tindak pidana korupsi dan tidak lagi menangani urusan STNK dan SIM. Dengan mengurangi beban tugas dan tanggung jawab Polri tersebut, bukankah itu berarti para legislator selalu menjaga agar institusi Polri tetap dinamis dan secara efektif dapat menghasilkan kinerja maksimal untuk kepuasan rakyat Indonesia.

Amien Sunaryadi Mantan Wakil Ketua KPK; Perancang Strategi Pemberantasan Korupsi Nasional 1999 BPKP

Masyarakat nampaknya bakal dikecewakan lagi terhadap calon wakil rakyat di Senayan pada Pemilu 2014 mendatang. Sebagian besar calon wakil rakyat berisi muka-muka lama. Kinerja anggota dewan periode 2009-2014 dinilai beberapa pihak jauh dari memuaskan. PSHK mencatat bahwa pada 2012, DPR dan Pemerintah menyelesaikan pembahasan 30 RUU menjadi UU. Sedangkan jumlah target UU yang disahkan pada 2012 adalah 69 UU, sehingga ada selisih sebanyak 39 UU yang tidak terealisasikan. UU yang dihasilkan kurang dari setengah target yang diharapkan. Itu pun dengan catatan, sebagian undang-undang yang dihasilkan tersebut digugurkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam judicial review.

KPU pada pertengahan akhir April ini menerima Daftar Caleg Sementara (DCS) dari partai politik peserta pemilu 2014. KPU secara resmi telah menutup pendaftaran Daftar Caleg Sementara (DCS) pada pukul 16.00 WIB, Senin, 22 April 2012. KPU menerima total jumlah bakal calon anggota DPR RI yang diajukan oleh 12 partai politik sebanyak 6.576 orang. Perempuan sebanyak 2.434 orang dan laki-laki sebanyak 4.142 orang. Dari 12 partai politik tersebut, 8 partai mengajukan bakal calon 560 orang atau 100 persen dari jumlah kursi yang tersedia. 4 partai lain mengajukan bakal calon kurang dari 560 orang atau tidak memanfaatkan 100 persen jumlah kursi yang tersedia. Dari daftar yang diterima KPU tersebut, hampir 90 persen calon wakil rakyat adalah anggota dewan periode sebelumnya.

Selain kinerja yang buruk, wajah baru yang ditampilkan juga jauh dari menjanjikan. Partai masih mengandalkan popularitas calon dalam mendongkrak suara daripada kualitas yang disodorkan. Dalam DCS terlihat partai masih doyan mengusung tokoh dan seleb. Mulai dari penyanyi dangdut hingga pemain sinetron, mulai dari pelawak hingga aktris film. Bak iklan permen, semuanya ada, tinggal pilih. Sayangnya, pemilih tidak disuguhi calon-calon berkualitas. Bila menilik kualitas, mereka sejatinya tak layak pilih. Lantas bila sudah begitu, apakah pemilih berhak untuk Golput? Tidak memilih pun adalah merupakan suatu pilihan. Jika tak ada kader bermutu, pemilih berhak untuk tidak memilih satupun.

Selain tak berkualitas, beberapa partai mendaftarkan calon-calon yang bermasalah dalam hukum. Bagaimana bisa pemilih mempercayai mereka duduk di kursi senayan mewakili suara mereka, jika legitimasi moral mereka rendah. ICW mencatat, sebagian dari mereka tersangkut kasus korupsi. Ada 977 anggota DPR/DPRD terlibat kasus korupsi dalam rentang 2002-2014. Ini sungguh memprihatinkan.

Menurut UU Pemilu Nomor 8 Tahun 2012, kandidat bermasalah memang tidak melanggar hukum, sejauh tidak menjalani hukuman atau dijatuhi pidana dengan ancaman hukuman lima tahun penjara. Bahkan Peraturan KPU Nomor 13 Tahun 2013 tentang Pencalonan Anggota DPR, DPD, dan DPRD membolehkan bekas narapidana mendaftar secagai calon. Walau secara hukum mereka tidak melanggar, tetapi legitimasi moral mereka jelas jauh dipertanyakan. Patut disayangkan jika parpol getol menyodorkan calon-calon dengan kualitas seperti ini. Apalagi bila majunya mereka dilandasi besaran setoran ke partai.

Partai politik masih memiliki kesempatan untuk mengubah DCS. Karena calon yang diajukan semua bersifat sementara. Partai politik harus lebih bisa memilah dan memilih mana calon yang yang layak ditawarkan ke pemilih. Kesempatan ini harus diambil dengan sebaik mungkin. Demi Indonesia yang lebih baik.

* peneliti senior di MTI

It is obvious why we keep checking off the names Muhammad Hatta, Gen. Hoegeng and Gen. Sudirman on lists noting exemplary figures. They are individuals whom we look up to on account of the values they stood up for: Hatta for his promotion of austerity, Hoegeng for averting graft despite having the chance to commit it and Sudirman for his unconditional love for this country.

If we look around us today, we cannot find these types of figures anymore. We are sorely lacking of good men, even if the standard has been lowered.

It is already difficult to find figures who can easily command our respect in public life, let alone in politics. In public life, it is rare to meet someone who can actually speak with moral authority in regards to occurrences in society.

It is much worse in politics. What we are currently seeing is a revolving door of power and money-hungry politicians, young and old, male and female, who pay no mind to ethics and moral principles, politicians who cut corners to get them to the top.

The problem is widespread. From the country’s highest institutions to roadside police stations, what we find are individuals who are ready to bend rules to further their individual or group’s interests.

We know there is a serious problem if those at the top are culpable of breaching the code of ethics and civility.

It is not only that they have the spotlight cast on them — which will make their wrongdoings and misconduct susceptible to exposure — but also because we consider them to be the crucible, people that we expect to uphold standards and the law as they are given a tremendous amount of power in their various positions.

Power tends to corrupt indeed, but the combination of power and ethics or goodwill, could make a difference, if not sweeping change.

Abraham Lincoln exploited, and may have abused the massive presidential power accorded to him, but he used that to achieve a noble objective, abolishing slavery.

Given his popularity, South African president Noble Laureate Nelson Mandela could have stayed on as the country’s leader for at least another term, but he voluntarily resigned from his presidency.

The lack of ethics-driven virtue in today’s leaders and politicos has created devastating results. We are now practically living in a lawless situation, a condition that Thomas Hobbes used to refer as nasty, brutish, although not necessarily short.

Not only do the strong prey on the weak but the weak feed off of their ilk simply to imitate what the powerful has done to them.

“Everybody else is doing it, so why can’t we,” is the most frequent answer that we get from people that break rules. If individuals in positions of power continue to violate the rules that they themselves made, why should regular folks play by the book? And with no punishment handed down to rule-breaking leaders, we can’t expect ordinary citizens to respect the law.

It is this degree of cynicism that has become the root of our lawless condition. Government officials never think twice about stealing money from state coffers, the way motorists never think twice about running a red light or disposing garbage from inside their moving vehicles.

They can violate the rules because no one is looking, because those who are supposed to watch over us are too busy looking after their own interests.

Politicos never think twice about violating political statutes because they are certain that rules and regulations could always be amended in response to the demands of the day.

Regardless, not everything is lost. There are still a number of institutions that we treat with respect, and it is with the utmost urgency that we must do everything we can to save these small numbers of institutions.

If we lose these last remaining defenders of ethics and morality, we could lose hope in the country’s future.

This is why the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), as the standard bearer of ethics and morality, has to be kept free from such ethical breaches. With the National Police and the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) dealing with internal corruption, the KPK is our only hope of eradicating graft. The standards for the KPK should always be set very high.

Crime happens when the benchmark is set too low. Corruption happens when the benefits and rewards from the offense outweighs the risk of getting caught.

The presence of the KPK has made the risk greater and such is the standard for the KPK. The anti-graft body can do no wrong, even when it concerns ethics, something that should be outside the purview of the law. There should be no impunity for ethical breaches.

The probe into the KPK ethical breach shows that people at the top can be held accountable for any possible wrongdoings, even if it concerns ethics. First it was ethics they violated, before long it will be rules and regulations.

The KPK, just like any other institution, is made up of people who can make mistakes. It is the willingness of the KPK to learn and correct mistakes that will make us all more optimistic for the future of the nation.

In the end, we have to bear in mind that social justice is a function of the rule of law that can only be ensured if our lawmakers and law enforcers set a high standard of ethics and integrity.

The writer is rector of Paramadina University. He recently served as Chairman of the Ethics Committee at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) will be realized by the end of 2015. This plan will bring Southeast Asian countries into one single block economic community.

However, there are so many concerns pertaining to the implementation of AEC especially in narrowing the development gap among member countries.

Not only is the gap higher between the CMLV (Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam) countries but also among ASEAN-6 countries.

This led ASEAN leaders to endorse the ASEAN Framework for Equitable Economic Development at the 19th ASEAN Summit in Bali, Indonesia, in November 2011. This document can be seen as the first step to inclusive and equitable development in the region.

For Indonesia, one of the challenges in realizing this framework is narrowing the development gap in the border areas that are directly adjacent to neighboring countries.

The province of West Kalimantan should be a concern given the province has a high level of connectivity to Sarawak, Malaysia, which is far more developed.

Despite sharing a border with Sarawak, West Kalimantan Province’s gross domestic product (GDP) is approximately US$1,000 a year lags far behind Sarawak with an approximate GDP of around $11,000
a year.

The development gap between Sarawak and West Kalimantan can be regarded as evidence of the inability of an ASEAN mechanism to be enjoyed by the broader community.

Furthermore, this development gap has been contextualized as a sovereignty issue both by public
officials and society.

Not surprisingly, the issue of the development gap between regions often causes tension between the countries and the development of border areas in Sarawak has been seen as a threat to Indonesia’s West Kalimantan.

Indeed, closer cooperation between West Kalimantan and Sarawak can actually stimulate economic growth in West Kalimantan so that the development gap between the two regions can be minimized.

For instance, the province can benefit from the Malaysian government’s initiation of a development corridor in Sarawak — Sarawak Corridor Renewable Energy (SCORE) — especially in terms of connectivity supply lines to inland and border areas that are still relatively isolated from local logistic lane connectivity within West Kalimantan.

Through the rapid development of infrastructure, energy and sea ports in Sarawak, the border areas in West Kalimantan are now connected with global logistic lines through Sarawak.

Moreover, through Sarawak, West Kalimantan can benefit from the influx of investment, especially in plantation and mining, resulting in local employment in the border areas.

In the short run, this development model might be working to address the development gap between West Kalimantan and Sarawak where Indonesia can utilize the infrastructure built in Sarawak to boost economic growth in West Kalimantan.

However, in the long term, the model might create a deeper gap between West Kalimantan and Sarawak.

As a result of the rapid economic growth of Sarawak followed by the opening of access in West Kalimantan, West Kalimantan will eventually be the hinterland of Sarawak.

This would not be a problem if Indonesia managed the conditions with a clear vision and a long-term result orientation.

From several case studies around the world, the border area could be the center of strategic growth for the two countries due to it being the midpoint of the two countries.

However, without any proper infrastructure development in the near future, it would be unlikely that West Kalimantan would catch up to Sarawak’s economic development since it will lose its competitiveness to compete in the AEC open market.

Hence, in order to address the development gap in the border region, the government needs to prioritize infrastructure development there.

Currently, there are efforts in process conducted by the government to address this situation in the
border areas.

For 2013, the budget allocation for infrastructure development in Kalimantan is around Rp 1.28 trillion (US$132 million). Even though the number is modest compared with the budget needed to develop the area, this plan should be appreciated.

Besides infrastructure development, the role of local government in the ASEAN mechanism is also critical. Many doubt the current ASEAN development model is able to narrow the development gap because of its elitist approaches, which lack the most crucial components that have brought success to similar regional organizations — namely general participation in the formation process. The integration process in ASEAN has been viewed as a capital city’s problem rather than a local government issue.

As argued by many scholars (Sánchez; 2011, Hessel; 2006, Hepburn; 2007), there is currently a major trend in the regional integration process in Europe and Latin America where there is an increased activity of local and regional authorities, which can be classified in the process of regional integration as the sub-state level.

Therefore, the trend of regional integration is going to be localized where the sub-state players, such as the local government, have a major role in the integration process.

This model might be an alternative development model for narrowing the development gap in the border areas. In order to realize this model, the central government should give more authority to the local government — especially when managing economic cooperation with its counterpart in Malaysia.

Moreover, the central government should be more responsive to dealing with the needs of the local government especially in providing the legal framework for cooperation with the local government.

For instance, the development of an inland port in Entikong, which was agreed by both West Kalimantan and Sarawak, is still running far from capacity due to the absence of a legal framework, since the concept of inland port is a new concept needing to be defined. Conversely, at the same time the Sarawak government built its own inland port in Tebedu, which generates benefits through tariffs imposed on Indonesian goods.

The AEC will be realized in two years from now.

We do hope that this community can address the development gap among its members. For Indonesia, the border areas should be a concern since the development gap with neighboring countries might create dissatisfaction of the central government.

Furthermore, developing border areas could create greater regional cooperation within ASEAN to
be a truly a regional economic community.

The writer is a member of the House of Representatives’ Commission XI overseeing national development planning.

Looking at the proposed state budget for 2013 which the House of Representatives expects to pass sometime in October, Indonesia’s fiscal policy for next year still needs improvement to stimulate a more dynamic economy, despite some progress.

One major concern is the revenue target. The government proposes to set the target for tax revenue at around Rp 1,179 trillion (US$125 billion), or 12.7 percent of GDP. Given the high economic growth for the last five years, it seems that there is room for the government to push the number to around 13 percent. This would require the government to seriously make an extra effort to eliminate problems in our national taxation system: lack of compliance and tax evasion.

Instead of having this modest revenue target, the government should increase revenue and avoid a “tax illusion”, which will occur if revenue increase is not followed by fiscal space increase.

Indonesia’s fiscal space has been stagnant at around 20-22 percent for the last five years. At the same time, tax revenue grew at an average of 15.5 percent per year. This figure indicates that tax revenue growth has not impacted fiscal space positively, merely offset growth of non-discretionary expenditure.

Just like the tax revenue projection, expected non-tax revenue (PNPB) for 2013 is a modest Rp 324.3 trillion, a significant decrease from the 2012 target of Rp 341.1 trillion. Hence, the projected contribution to total revenues declined from 25.1 percent to 21.5 percent. This was clearly an anomaly given the trend in non-tax revenues in recent five years has been positive at an average growth level of 11.4 percent per year. This downward target could indicate a lack of government effort to boost non-tax revenue.

There are several strategies that could increase non-tax revenues.

A serious revamp of government earnings from companies (state-owned enterprises as well as private) that manage natural resources, in a form of royalties and revenue sharing is needed.

Non-tax revenue from natural resources could be increased significantly if royalties were calculated accurately and transparently. A comprehensive audit is needed as well as a renegotiation of oil and mining contracts.

The government’s policy is to include 1.36 million barrels of oil equivalent per day of natural in the 2013 budget. This should encourage more transparent revenue calculations in the gas sector, which has not been the case for a long time. But this inclusion of gas in the budget should not be a justification for unlimited exploitation of gas without thought for the nation’s future energy supplies.

The government must realize that gas as an alternative energy not only increases state revenue, but strengthens economic development as it is a promising alternative energy that could preserve domestic interests.

Revenue from the non-oil/gas sector such as forestry, fisheries and geothermal power is still very low even though the potential is huge. To increase revenue from forestry, the government must reassess concessions already given to various companies so that revenue from forestry can be maximized.

Increasing revenue from fisheries requires an integrated maritime industry from upstream to downstream. As the largest archipelago in the world, Indonesia should take serious steps in building its blue economy,

Finally, we should all agree that boosting state revenue is not necessarily the panacea for Indonesia’s economy.

Many problems need to be solved in fiscal policy, such as the level of government spending and the quality of that spending. Boosting state revenue is the first step that should be taken to make the state budget work for the people.

The writer is a member of House of Representatives’ Commission on Finance, National Development Planning, Banking, and Non-Banking Institutions Affairs from the Prosperous Justice Party.

From June 20 to 22, more than one hundred of the world’s leaders gathered in Rio de Janeiro to discuss the future of the earth. The summit adopted an outcome agreement called “The Future We Want”, which primarily encourages the countries to implement a Green Economy within their overall economic policies. Many policy makers – albeit not all – see the Green Economy as an answer for future development, given the fact that economic growth in Asia, South America and Africa has had a deteriorating impact on the environment.

Even prior to the Rio+20 summit, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had given a statement that called on the world’s leaders to adopt the Green Economy as a new paradigm in development, which should be adopted immediately. His call won plaudits from many developed countries (The Jakarta Post, May 22).

In general, the Green Economy is an economic development concept that focuses on efforts to improve the quality of human life and simultaneously reduce harmful environmental impacts.

At a policy level, the Green Economy is an economic model that relies on three pillars of economic activity: Low carbon, natural resource efficiency, and socially inclusion.

Despite the excitement for this newly proposed concept, the Green Economy has been heavily criticized by a number of communities. Many groups, especially civil society entities, view the Green Economy with suspicion as they believe there is a hidden agenda behind the widespread endorsement by developed countries.

There are at least two main criticisms aimed at the concept. First, the Green Economy is seen merely as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, allowing capitalists to exploit Mother Earth. This criticism shows a strong bias toward the private sector, especially corporations that are seen as the main actors in implementing the concept. Second, it is criticized for the use of market instruments through the commoditization of nature in combating global warming as described via the REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) program, which are not entirely correct.

To be fair, these criticisms are, of course, acceptable. However, we need to bring about a more comprehensive understanding about the concept of the Green Economy. Indeed, within the Green Economy, corporations are expected to play a greater role in combating environmental degradation, though at the same time some of them are major exploiters of the environment. Giving the private sector a less meaningful role would not create a better situation, either.

The most important issue in the concept is that corporations must be held accountable for their activities relating to the environment.

In other words, they must undertake business models that favor and actively support environmental conservation.

Moreover, the so-called commoditization of nature in protecting the environment is basically the implementation of a common but differentiated responsibility principle, which was one of the main points in the 1992 Rio Declaration.

On the one hand, it may seem as though developed countries are obliged to provide financial contributions with the aim of protecting emerging countries’ forests. On the other hand, for those emerging countries, such efforts may be perceived as a mechanism that provides a fair instrument and advantages to encourage and assist in capacity building to maintain long-term conservation activities.

Hence, the question we need to address is, “How should we implement the Green Economy so that it delivers what it promises?” It seems to me that the concept on its own will not meet the need for future sustainability unless we agree to overcome several challenges.

The first is the commitment challenge. The success of the Green Economy relies heavily on the joint commitment by developed countries to deliver the financial contributions in order to provide continued support to developing countries over the long term.

In order to successfully implement green technology in our everyday business practices, we need to create the possible utilization of low carbon and resource efficiency; indeed, these are of critical importance. If the commitment to transfer green technology to developing countries is not in fact undertaken, then the Green Economy concept will become nothing more than nice-sounding words.

The second challenge is the institutional challenge. Just as with any other development model, this is a concept that is highly dependent on the role of the governments that have to create and maintain a regulatory framework and policies to produce value creations based on implementation programs.

However, there are certain points to note. On the one hand, as long as corruption remains rampant and greedy corporations are able to easily do deals with the government, the Green Economy might turn into what many environmental activists argue would be merely a new tool for capitalists to exploit the earth.

On the other hand, to ensure corporations take a larger and more active role in implementing the concept, the government should provide and support policies that can help businesses create sustainable development in the country.

It is expected that the government should be prepared to create policies that provide incentives to businesses to improve their best methods, including innovative technologies to achieve sustainable development.

The third is the challenge of selecting priorities. It is argued that this concept does not provide a clear solution for structural problems which, in Indonesia’s case, is endemic poverty. The reason is quite simple: the government has so far prioritized the implementation of this concept in the forestry sector rather than farming and agriculture. Indeed, this is currently the most feasible sector for the government to implement such a concept.

We argue, however, that in selecting priorities, consideration must be made about improving the livelihoods of the majority of impoverished people in the country.

For this to happen, creating sustainable agricultural development must be the top priority as it is the sector that contains the majority of the nation’s poor.

Investing more in agricultural infrastructure, such as dams, irrigation systems and land expansion, should be given top priority in the coming years. It is hoped that by adopting such a priority, the concept will also significantly contribute toward poverty alleviation, which is the most important problem to be solved in this country.

The key action to solving environmental problems depends on how quickly and decisively policies are implemented. Currently, we already have the right understanding of the concept to provide us with a clear road map for moving toward such action.

Ultimately, the Green Economy is just “a decision-making framework to foster an integrated consideration for sustainable development programs”. Eventually, it will be the implementation that we will need to watch closely.

The writer is a chairman of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Indonesia

During a previous working visit I went to Central Java to observe a state-owned enterprise engaged in the development of geothermal energy for electricity.

Though Indonesia has the largest geothermal potential in the world, covering nearly 40 percent of total world geothermal potential with unconfirmed potential of 40,000 MW and immediate utilization potential of 29,000 megawatts, it is only able to explore geothermal energy of around 1,189 megawatts a year.

The question that arises is why has Indonesia been unable to explore its geothermal potential for the benefit of its people? I argue that Indonesia could hardly develop its own capacity to explore geothermal energy due to certain structural constraints caused by government energy strategy, which is known as the fuel mix policy.

According to President Regulation No. 5/2006 which has become the basis of the fuel mix policy, in 2025 the main source of our energy will still heavily rely on non-renewable energy sources such as coal (33 percent) and petroleum (20 percent) while the utilization of renewable energy sources such as geothermal energy will only be around 5 percent of our total energy needs.

This fuel mix policy is simply trying to divert our dependence on oil to coal later in 2025, but will not solve our energy security issues in the future because our coal will only last for another approximate 40 years.

The implementation of a fuel mix policy has resulted in disincentives for the development of geothermal energy. According to data from the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources in 2010, sources of Indonesia’s electricity currently come from power plants fuelled by coal (±40 percent), oil (±30 percent), gas (±15 percent), geothermal (±3 percent), and hydro (±8 percent).

Although the use of petroleum is only 30 percent of the total national electrical energy demand, the cost of electricity generated from oil has claimed more than 78 percent of the total cost of electricity.

This means that more than 60 percent of the government subsidy for electricity has been used for the purchase of oil energy.

Furthermore, this policy has also caused the disincentive for the private sector to invest in geothermal energy. Undoubtedly, the initial investment in the geothermal sector is greater than other energy sectors, such as petroleum and coal. It takes capital expenditure of around $6-7 million in order to build a single well to capture geothermal energy.

However, this is not the case. Although initial investments needed to look huge, in the long run it’s not that big considering operational costs for geothermal power plants are not as expensive as other energies.

The lack of private investment in the geothermal sector is due to the low selling prices of electricity from geothermal energy set by the government. This has resulted in a lower internal rate of return (IRR) for investment and the longer payback period in the geothermal field.

Currently, PLN as a single buyer purchases electricity from geothermal energy at around 5 to 9.7 cents per kWh while at the same time PLN continues to buy electricity from petroleum at around 25-30 cents per kWh. With this policy, it is clear that the government continues to provide incentives for the use of oil for electricity rather than geothermal energy.

As long as our fuel mix policy still relies on non-renewable energy and there are disincentives for the private sector to invest in renewable energies, we will not be able to ensure our energy security based on renewable energy sources.

To anticipate this problem, there are several steps that should be taken by the government. First, the government should revise its energy roadmap by prioritizing Indonesia’s geothermal energy as the primary source of electricity in Indonesia.

In this roadmap, the government should encourage the private sector’s role in the electricity sector in Indonesia, especially in investing in the geothermal energy sector.

Second, there is a need for restructuring the electricity industry through a pricing mechanism which gives a more promising business climate for investors to invest their capital in geothermal energy.

The government, through PLN, should be able to change its pricing policy, which provides incentives for the development of geothermal energy and reduces dependence on petroleum.

In addition to pricing mechanisms, the government can encourage private involvement through the tax deduction policy for any private business to invest in geothermal energy. By so doing, thus, we can expect that geothermal energy will be the main source of our energy in the future.

The writer is a lawmaker from the Prosperous Justice Party and chairman of WWF Indonesia.

Finally, the House of Representatives has ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) more than a decade after the government signed the anti-nuclear accord.

The CTBT is an international treaty that regulates the prohibi-tion of all forms of nuclear testing for both military and civilian purposes.

Since the discovery of nuclear technology, at least 2,000 nuclear bombs have been detonated in various parts of the world either in the form of underground bombs, air bombs or underwater bombs.

As of 2010, more than 182 countries had signed the CTBT, with 151 of them having ratified it. However, the CTBT will not be acknowledged as a binding international law if all the 44 countries listed in the Annex 2 (states with nuclear potential) do not ratify the treaty.

Since Indonesia ratified the CTBT on Dec. 6, 2011, five Annex 2 states — China, Egypt, the United States, Israel and Iran — remain non-parties to the treaty.

Indonesia’s decision to join the club of parties to the CTBT demonstrates the nature of its foreign policy that is dedicated to world peace.

The ratification is not just a matter of Indonesia’s responsibility in advancing world peace, however, as there are some short-term strategic goals Indonesia can expect to reach.

First, by signing the treaty Indonesia can develop technology related to the verification of nuclear testing by utilizing technical assistance within the framework of the CTBT verification provided for countries that ratify the CTBT.

Furthermore, Indonesia can improve its human resources expertise through technology transfers in the fields of geophysics and verification of nuclear tests as well as increase opportunities to hold important
positions within the CTBT organization.

Second, Indonesia can play a strategic role as a prime mover of global efforts to push the US and other world powers to ratify the CTBT. Since the inception of the treaty, Indonesia had always opted to wait and see the US response to the treaty.

With the administration of President Barack Obama tending to urge the Congress to ratify the treaty, Indonesia’s ratification of the accord might encourage the US Congress to follow suit.

Debates have been rife within the US Congress whether the ratification would harm the country’s national interests. But Indonesia’s ratification might convince the Congress the treaty will do more good than harm.

China, India and Pakistan may soon ratify the CTBT. As suggested by Yukio Hatoyama, a former Japan prime minister, all this time, China is reluctant to ratify the CTBT as the US has not yet ratified it.

If only the US and China ratified the CTBT circumstances would certainly change. Furthermore, as suggested by Hans Blix, former UN Chief Weapons Inspector, “The reality is that if the US were to ratify (the CTBT), then China would. If China did, India would.

If India did, Pakistan would. If Pakistan did, then Iran would”. Ratification by other countries listed as Annex 2 countries is only a matter of time. Indonesia’s ratification of the CTBT might generate the requisite domino effect worldwide.

However, there are some challenges we must carefully consider relating to Indonesia’s ratification of the CTBT. First, by signing the treaty, it does not mean that other countries cannot develop nuclear technology.

The CTBT is aimed at creating nuclear weapons-free zones, but not zero nuclear technology. Hence ratification does not prevent Indonesia from developing nuclear technology.

Second, there must be assurances from nuclear-weapon countries that they will not use their weapons of mass destruction against non-nuclear armed countries under any circumstances.

Third, there must be a real effort to declare the Middle East as a nuclear free zone. In this process, there should be no double standards applied to Israel, which is suspected to have developed nuclear weapons without sanctions from the US and its allies.

These efforts will never succeed as long as there is no clarity regarding Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons. Moreover, Israel has not joined the NPT and until today does not intend to ratify the CTBT.

Countries in possession of nuclear power and especially the US must be able to put pressure on Israel over its nuclear-weapons possession. As long as Israel has nuclear weapons, the threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East will continue to haunt world peace.

Finally, for Indonesia, the ratification of the CTBT is an appropriate diplomatic strategy. This is in line with the principle of the government’s foreign policy of “A Million Friends and Zero Enemies”. This ratification once again will add to Indonesia’s high profile in the international arena.

The writer is chairman of the House of Representatives’ Commission I on foreign affairs and defense and a lawmaker from the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS)

Makin hari kegalauan itu tumbuh makin pesat, tetapi berhentilah mengatakan bangsa ini bobrok. Hentikan tudingan bahwa bangsa ini tenggelam. Tidak! Bangsa ini sedang bangkit dan akan makin tinggi berdirinya.

Lihatlah rakyat di sana-sini, bangun sebelum pagi, penuhi pasar rakyat, padati jalan dan kelas, menyongsong kehidupan. Dengan sinar lampu apa adanya mereka coba sinari masa depan sebisanya. Petani, guru, nelayan, pedagang, atau tentara di tepian republik jalani hidup berat penuh tanggung jawab. Di tengah kepulan polusi pekat, rakyat kota menyelempit mencari masa depan. Mereka rebut peluang, jalani segala kesulitan tanpa pidato keprihatinan. Rakyat yang tegar dan tangguh. Denyut geraknya membanggakan.

Kegalauan republik ini bukan bersumber pada rakyat, melainkan pada pengurus negara yang seakan berjalan tanpa target. Deretan agenda penting dan urgen jadi wacana, tetapi tidak kunjung jadi realitas.

Pengurus republik sukses membangun kekesalan kolektif dan menanam bibit pesimisme. Pimpinan kini menuai kekecewaan. Harapan, kepercayaan, pengertian, toleransi, kesabaran, dan permakluman rakyat kepada pemimpin dikuras terus. Apakah dikira stok permakluman itu tanpa batas?

Dengan hormat saya sampaikan: stok itu ada batasnya dan sudah menipis. Semua ingin lihat hasil. Tak mau lagi dengar keluh kesah, tak hendak dengar kata prihatin keluar dari pemimpin. Republik ini perlu pemimpin yang hadir untuk menggelorakan percaya diri, bukan menularkan keprihatinan. Pemimpin tak boleh kirim ratapan, pemimpin harus kirim harapan.

Sebatas pidato dan wacana

Hari ini Indonesia memasuki era demokrasi etape ketiga. Kepresidenan periode kedua. Tidak pernah ada dalam sejarah republik ini seorang anak bangsa dipilih jadi pemimpin dengan suara sebanyak saat Presiden Yudhoyono di tahun 2009. Semua persyaratan untuk melakukan dan menuntaskan langkah-langkah besar ada di sana. Tapi mana langkah besar itu: infrastruktur ekonomi? Kepastian hukum? Integritas di sekolah? Tegas kepada pengemplang pajak? Pemangkasan benalu APBN? Konsistensi kebijakan? Reformasi birokrasi? Jaminan kebinekaan bangsa? Perlindungan warga bangsa?

Harapan yang tinggi untuk membereskan agenda penting baru sebatas pidato dan wacana. Republik perlu realitas. Pemerintah memang punya capaian, tetapi jika ada keberanian untuk menggelontorkan terobosan-terobosan besar di sektor penting, maka capaian itu akan melonjak. Kekecewaan tumbuh bukan semata karena pemerintah tak membawa hasil, melainkan karena terlalu banyak peluang terobosan dan perubahan yang disia-siakan. Sebutlah soal energi atau infrastruktur sistem logistik (jalan, pelabuhan, bandara, dan lain-lain), terobosan di sini bisa membuat ekonomi melejit. Atau terobosan besar dalam penegakan hukum. Perusak kebinekaan didiamkan, pengemplang pajak tak dijerat. Hukum tegak kokoh tanpa kompromi bagi rakyat kecil, tapi hukum loyo lunglai di depan rakyat besar.

Ini semua dampak absennya keberanian menerobos. Semua serba alakadarnya. Amunisi politik yang dahsyat itu tak digunakan. Republik ini butuh pemimpin yang mau turun ke lapangan, pemimpin kerja dan bukan pemimpin upacara. Rakyat tidak perlu pengumuman hasil rapat, tapi ingin lihat implementasinya.

Lihat sejarah kita, gamblang sekali. Republik ini didirikan oleh orang-orang yang berintegritas. Integritas itu membuat mereka jadi pemberani dan tak gentar hadapi apa pun. Bukan pencitraan, tapi integritas dan keseharian yang apa adanya membuat mereka memesona. Mereka jadi cerita teladan di seantero negeri.

Kini republik membutuhkan pemimpin yang berani tegakkan integritas, berani perangi ”jual-beli” kebijakan dan jabatan, pemimpin yang mau bertindak tegas melihat APBN untuk rakyat ”dijarah” oleh mereka yang punya akses. Ya, pemimpin yang bernyali menebas penyeleweng tanpa pandang posisi atau partai, dan bukan pemimpin yang serba mendiamkan seakan tidak pernah terjadi apa-apa.

Republik ini perlu pemimpin yang mendorong yang macet, membongkar yang buntu, dan memangkas berbenalu. Pemimpin yang tanggap memutuskan, cepat bertindak, dan tidak toleran pada keterlambatan. Pemimpin yang siap untuk ”lecet-lecet” melawan status quo yang merugikan rakyat, berani bertarung untuk melunasi tiap janjinya. Republik ini perlu pemimpin yang memesona bukan saja saat dilihat dari jauh, tetapi pemimpin yang justru lebih memesona dari dekat dan saat kerja bersama.

Bukan pemimpin yang selalu enggan memutuskan dan suka melimpahkan kesalahan. Bukan pemimpin yang diam saat rakyat didera, lembek saat republik dihardik negara tetangga, tapi lantang dan keras justru saat diri pribadi atau keluarganya tersentuh. Pemimpin yang tak gentar dikatakan mengintervensi karena mengintervensi adalah bagian dari tugas pemimpin dan pembiaran tidak boleh masuk dalam daftar tugas seorang pemimpin.

Jika Presiden Yudhoyono tidak segera mengubah cara menjalankan pemerintahan, maka saya harus mengingatkan bahwa bangsa Indonesia bisa memasuki persimpangan jalan yang berbahaya.

Jalan pertama adalah meneruskan kepemimpinan sampai di 2014 agar proses demokrasi berjalan normal tapi rakyat mencicipi hasil yang alakadarnya, deretan peluang kemajuan hilang tanpa bekas. Keterlambatan dan pembiaran jadi ciri beberapa tahun ke depan. Bahkan lunglainya penegakan hukum adalah resep mujarab menuju negara kacau.

Jalan kedua mulai menyeruak. Jalan berbahaya tapi suara ini mulai berkembang sebagai respons atas kelambatan dan pembiaran sistemik ini: berhenti di tengah jalan dan berikan kepada orang lain untuk memimpin. Suara macam ini bisa merusak pranata siklus demokrasi yang dibangun dengan sangat susah payah. Suara ini tumbuh karena keyakinan bahwa lewat jalan terjal ini bisa terjadi pembongkaran atas pembiaran dan kelambanan; agar rakyat tak dirugikan terus-menerus.

Tak optimal

Semua tahu sistem presidensial menjamin presiden bisa bekerja sebagai eksekutor pemerintahan dan melindunginya agar tak dapat diberhentikan oleh alasan politis. Hari ini yang dihadapi Indonesia situasi sebaliknya. Periode dijamin aman oleh konstitusi, tetapi presiden tak optimal jalankan otoritasnya. Keterlambatan berjejer dan pembiaran berderet. Periode fixed lima tahun itu bukan mengamankan agar kerja cepat, kini malah jadi penyandera bangsa dari gerak kemajuan cepat.

Memang presiden bukan dewa atau superman. Tidak pantas semua masalah ditumpahkan ke pundak pemimpin. Akan tetapi, presiden bisa menentukan suasana republik. Pemimpin adalah dirigen yang menghadirkan energi, nuansa, dan aurora di republik ini. Pemimpin bisa fokus menguraikan masalah strategis dan urgen bagi percepatan pelunasan janji-janjinya.

Presiden Yudhoyono harus sadar bahwa caranya menjalankan pemerintahan itu memiliki efek tular. Kelugasan, ketegasan, keberanian, kecepatan, keterbukaan, kewajaran, kemauan buat terobosan, dan perlindungan kepada anak buah bahkan kesederhanaan protokoler itu semua menular. Tapi kebimbangan, kehati-hatian berlebih, kelambatan, ketertutupan, formalitas kaku, pembiaran masalah, orientasi kepada citra dan ketaatan buta pada prosedur itu juga menular. Menular jauh lebih cepat dan sangat sistemik.

Rakyat republik ini sudah kerja keras. Lihat di segala penjuru Indonesia. Mulai dari kampung kumuh-sumuk tak jauh dari istana, di puncak-puncak pegunungan dingin, di tepian pantai sebentangan khatulistiwa: rakyat republik ini serba kerja keras. Mereka mau maju, mereka mau hadirkan kehidupan yang lebih baik bagi anak cucunya. Dan, yang pasti mereka tak biasa tanya siapa yang jadi pemimpin. Buat rakyat banyak tak terlalu penting ”siapa”-nya, yang penting lunasi semua janjinya.

Ini adalah sebuah peringatan apa adanya, semata-mata agar Indonesia tidak menemui persimpangan jalan itu. Ingat, rakyat negeri ini sudah bekerja keras dan ”berlari” cepat. Pengurus negara harus memilih mengimbangi kecepatan rakyat atau ditinggalkan rakyat.

Anies Baswedan, Rektor Universitas Paramadina

Pemerintah akhirnya memutuskan untuk menarik kembali Draft RUU Tindak Pidana Korupsi (Tipikor) setelah mendapat kritik dari berbagai pihak. Padahal sebelumnya Draft RUU inisiatif pemerintah ini bahkan sudah sampai di meja Presiden SBY dan hampir melangkah mulus di DPR.

Dengan penarikan draf tersebut, ‘RUU siluman’ ini selanjutnya akan dimatangkan lagi di Kementerian Hukum dan HAM. Label ‘RUU siluman’ pantas dialamatkan pada draf RUU ini, karena proses penyusunan yang tertutup tanpa disertai keberadaan naskah akademik yang menjadi persyaratan mutlak sebuah undang-undang. Apa yang salah dari keberadaan RUU ini? Benarkah ada upaya pelemahan sistemik pada agenda pemberantasan korupsi dengan cara merubah (baca:mengkorupsi) pasal-pasal yang justru akan menguntungkan koruptor?

Itulah pertanyaan sekaligus kekhawatiran terbesar yang menggelayut di benak publik saat ini. Kekhawatiran publik tersebut sangat beralasan, mengingat UU Tipikor merupakan urat nadi pemberantasan korupsi. Sehingga sekecil apapun perubahan UU Tipikor akan sangat berpengaruh pada masa depan agenda pemberantasan korupsi di Indonesia.
Apa yang salah?

Jika dicermati lebih jeli, RUU versi pemerintah ini terlihat mencoba mengakomodir ketentuan-ketentuan dalam United Nation Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). Bahkan pasal-pasal yang ada dalam Draft RUU Tipikor yang ada merupakan terjemahan langsung dari Bab III UNCAC pada bagian  Criminalization and Law Enforcement. Padahal UNCAC pada dasarnya merupakan ketentuan yang hanya mengatur prinsip-prinsip yang harus disesuaikan dengan ciri khas hukum masing-masing negera.

Padahal sebagian besar delik yang diatur dalam UNCAC telah diatur juga sebagai  tindak pidana dalam hukum positif di Indonesia, khususnya dalam KUHP, UU Tipikor, UU Tindak Pidana Pencucian Uang serta UU Tindak Pidana Suap. Tindak pidana yang belum diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan Indonesia hanyalah Trading in Influence (Pasal 18 UNCAC) dan Illicit Enrichment (Pasal 20 UNCAC).

Dari aspek kuantitas hukuman, terdapat beberapa perubahan yang sangat signifikan dibandingkan UU Tipikor yang masih berlaku. Alih-alih berubah menjadi lebih baik, perubahan ada justru semakin meringankan pelaku korupsi. Menurut pantauan Masyarakat Transparansi Indonesia (MTI) setidaknya empat perubahan radikal pada ancaman hukuman yang cenderung mengabaikan efek jera bagi koruptor. Pertama, hilangnya ancaman pidana seumur hidup kecuali untuk penggelapan yang dilakukan oleh pejabat diatas lima miliar rupiah. Kedua,  berkurangnya ancaman pidana minimum untuk beberapa tindak pidana suap. Beberapa ancaman hukuman yang ‘dikorupsi’ dengan tidak memberikan ancaman minimum tersebut antara lain; kasus suap sektor swasta (Pasal 13 (1) a dan b), penyalahgunaan wewenang (Pasal 10), konflik kepentingan (Pasal 11), pencucian uang (Pasal Pasal 16), Menghalang-halangi penyidikan (Pasal 19), Pengaduan palsu (Pasal 18) serta Pelaporan LHKPN secara palsu (Pasal 21 (1) dan (2)). Ketiga, draf RUU ini menghilangkan pasal-pasal yang berkaitan dengan gratifikasi. Keempat, Hilangnya Pasal 2 UU Tipikor yang selama ini menjadi senjata ampuh bagi aparat penegak hukum untuk menjerat koruptor. Dalam draf yang baru pasal ini dilebur. Padahal, dalam pantauan MTI, pada tahun 2010 saja Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi menjerat lebih dari 42 tersangka korupsi dengan delik ”kerugian keuangan negara” ini. Pasal ini kemudian menjadi yang tertinggi kedua setelah pasal-pasal suap yang menjerat lebih dari 190 tersangka.

Dari sisi hukum acara, RUU ini memang masih mempertahankan sebagian besar UU Tipikor yang berlaku saat ini dan sedikit menambah beberapa ketentuan baru, seperti kadalwarsa masa penuntutan dan, penghapusan masa ijin pemeriksaan terhadap pejabat, perpanjangan masa penangkapan, dan ketentuan mengenai whistleblower. Satu perubahan kontroversial adalah penghentian penuntutan untuk korupsi dibawah 25 juta.

Melihat fenomena tersebut, sulit disangkal hal ini merupakan bagian dari skenario sistemik untuk membonsai agenda pemberantasan korupsi. Setidaknya ada tiga indikasi cacat bawaan lahirnya RUU ini. Pertama, RUU ini lahir bersamaan dengan berbagai pelemahan KPK. Sehingga kelahiran RUU ini diperkirakan merupakan salah satu babak baru pelemahan KPK. Kedua, RUU ini lahir secara prematur, terburu-buru dan terkesan dipaksakan. Mengingat lahirnya RUU ini tanpa disertai penyusunan naskah akademik yang menjadi syarat mutlak sebuah RUU. Ketiga, jika kita telisik lebih jauh, draf RUU versi pemerintah ini terkesan menjiplak ketentuan UNCAC. Dengan berbagai kelemahan tersebut, evaluasi draf RUU menjadi sebuah keniscayaan.

*Peneliti Masyarakat Transparansi Indonesia