UU BHP Chapter 1: Membangun Ruang Publik yang Tanpa Hati

”a spatial concept, the social site or arena where meanings are articulated, distributed and negotiated, as well as constituted body, by in this process, the public”

Begitulah jurgen habermas mendefinisikan sebuah konsep yang kini kita kenal dengan sebutan public sphere. Atau dalam bahasa persatuan kita, ruang publik. Ruang publik secara simplistis, mencoba menyarikan konsep habermas, adalah tempat bagi pemikiran, gagasan dan pengetahuan untuk dipertukarkan. Konsep ini merupakan jawaban habermas bagi kebutuhan akan hadirnya ruang kolektif yang mampu mengungkapkan segenap kepentingan masyarakat secara gamblang.
Menurut habermas, masyarakat selalu memiliki tiga kepentingan, yaitu kepentingan teknis akan penyediaan sumber daya natural, kepentingan praktis untuk berinteraksi dengan sesamanya, dan akhirnya, kepentingan kekuasaan. Masyarakat selalu mengandung ketiga jenis kepentingan ini. Pertentangan antar kepentingan-kepentingan yang ada, hanya dapat diselesaikan tanpa dominasi salah satu kepentingan di atas yang lain, melalui perdebatan yang rasional. Bagi habermas, Ruang Publik adalah wahana di mana setiap kepentingan terungkap secara gamblang, setiap warga masyarakat memiliki akses yang sama untuk berpartisipasi, kemudian mereka terdorong untuk mendahulukan kepentingan bersama dan mencapai konsensus mengenai arah masyarakat tersebut ke depan dan menemukan solusi bersama dalam memecahkan maasalah-masalah yang mereka hadapi.
Pendidikan, dengan segala aspeknya tidak dapat kita lepaskan dari konsep ruang publik. Melalui pendidikan, ilmu pengetahuan dipertukarkan tidak hanya sebagai sebuah komoditi, atau aset intagible menurut ilmu ekonomi, namun lebih dari itu, sebagai sebuah sarana enkulturisasi dan sosialisasi untuk membentuk insan-insan yang lebih berdaya dan mampu memberdayakan, hal ini sesuai dengan konsep ruang publik, di mana melalui pendidikan pada tataran ideal, masyarakat diharapkan dapat mencapai konsensus serta menciptakan solusi untuk mengatasi masalah bersama melalui ruang publik.
Lalu bagaimana kita dapat mendefinisikan pendidikan yang telah memenuhi kualifikasi ruang publik yang ideal? Jawabannya pun telah sedikit diuraikan di atas, yani ketika pendidikan mampu menjamin aksebilitas setiap elemen masyarakat untuk memperolehnya.
Pertanyaan kunci berikutnya adalah, sudahkah pendidikan di Indonesia terjamin aksebilitasnya? Hari ini, inilah pertanyaan yang menggelayuti dunia pendidikan kita, ketika Undang-Undang BHP (Badan Hukum Pendidikan) muncul sebagai sebuah upaya sistemik liberalisasi pendidikan. Melalui konstruksinya, UU BHP menisbikan peran negara dalam penyediaan pendidikan bagi seluruh rakyat. Terdegradasinya peran negara (deregulasi) adalah salah satu ciri utama liberalisasi yang percaya bahwa keterlibatan negara akan menjadi variabel penghambat efisiensi yang terpolarisasi melalui dinamika pasar, hal ini pada gilirannya akan mengakibatkan tergusurnya pendidikan dari ranah publik ke ranah privat. Sebuah kesesatan berpikir yang nyata, mengingat tidak logis untuk memprivatisasi sektor yang seharusnya bebas dari kompetisi, karena secara struktural, hanya kompetisi yang dapat menekan harga ke tingkat yang lebih rendah. Inilah akar persoalan yang mengakibatkan banyak anak bangsa yang harus mengubur dalam-dalam keinginan luhurnya untuk mengenyam pendidikan karena faktor ketidaktersediaan modal.
Maka, haruskah kita diam? Atau terus berjuang karena Undang-Undang ini kini tengah berada dalam proses Judicial Review, yang akan segera diputus oleh MK (Mahkamah Konstitusi) dalam waktu dekat. Pilihan itu sudah begitu nyata, seterang surya di atas mega, mari rapatkan barisan untuk sebuah perjuangan!HIDUP PENDIDIKAN RAKYAT INDONESIA!

The Case of Century: Enlightenment in The Middle of Storm

For everything that we got, we must lost something, and for everything that lost we will receive something (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Every decision has its own risk whether it is positive or negative, life is about taking choices, we manage to established progress in our life with the decision that we’ve made as the catalyst. So do in the case of Century bank, which rises above as a populist case recently. Many people blame the decision to save the Century bank and accuse it as a systemically arrange corruption, at least the legislative body in Senayan clearly believe that the decision isn’t necessary to be made. That’s the risk of a decision, every people in this democratic republic has their own freedom to share opinions. For me, before I state mine, let’s take a closer look to the variables that construct the decision, in an objective point of view.

Move backward, the decision to bailout the Century bank was made in the middle of the financial crisis storm started in United States of America (U.S.A.), because the failure to pay the debt of housing credit happened massively in there. This brings a domino effect to countries along the world, including Asia. Based on the assessment of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in November 2008, Japan will achieve a negative 0,2 % economic growth, while China and India will get ahead of a decreasing economic growth in the same period. In Dow Jones, Hansen, Nikkei and other important stocks exchange across the globe hit by a rapid slump of the exchange rate. In Indonesia, by that time the IHSG (Indeks Harga Saham Gabungan) sharply move downward from 2830 in January 2008 to 1155 in November. This is signs that financial crisis is a factual threat. Other variant of indicators also affirm it, when our foreign exchange reserve decline to 12% only from September to November 2008, and our CDS (Credit Default Swap) getting higher constantly, this indicates that Indonesia is in an unsafe financial circumstances.
In this stormy condition, Century bank rises as a problematic bank because of its financial disability. After numbers of meeting between Bank Indonesia (B.I.) and the minister of finance, from 13th to 19th of November 2008, B.I. then as K.S.S.K with the minister of finance as the head of the body to conduct a meeting in order to make an overview over Century bank situation ann take actions to solve it. Finally after the process, K.S.S.K. declares Century bank as a fail bank with a systemic impact. The fed of Indonesia then ask L.P.S. (Lembaga Penjamin Simpanan) to take over the process related to Century bank.

Based on Perpu (peraturan pemerintah pengganti undang-undang) JPSK (Jaring Pengaman Sistem Keuangan), a systemic impact is a difficult condition causes by banks, non bank financial institution and/or financial market fluctuation which if it doesn’t be solve will causes failure for other banks and non bank financial institutions which will lead to distrust for Indonesian’s financial system and national economy. In Indonesia, to assess a bank as a systemic bank, the central bank uses two basic variables:
• Too big to fail: When a bank has a big volume of many aspects such as the value of its assets and the value of its transaction.
• Too interconnected to fail: When a bank has a enormous interconnection with other banks and financial institution.
According to the variables, there are 15 banks included to SIB (Systemically Important Bank), in here; Century bank doesn’t include in the list. But during the time of crisis, this measurement definitely needs to be adjusted. Because in the bank industry, trust is a very essential factor which define the persistence of a bank. This factor has a strong and relevant correlation with human nature that disposed to avoid risk, not to mention the asymmetric information received by the customer about the real situation of the bank. This can guide the market to an over reacted response, therefore to decide about the possibility of systemic impact, he psychological situation of the financial market needs to be calculate to.

Other characteristic of bank industry is that a bank has to manage the maturity mismatch between the customer’s funds which move in a short period traffic, compare to the funds, the bank gives to its creditor which move in a long term traffic. IN normal term, banks will manage the maturity to make the customers keep saving their money. But in the term of crisis, when deterioration rises to a bank, related to its liquidity, the market will distrust the bank, this in its turn will causes rush in the bank industry. In crisis, this bad perception can contaminate the whole sector and causes the same thing (rush) in other banks, even the healthy one. This is a really dangerous prospect to the bank industry.

This is the main reason why Century has to be saved. Because by that time K.S.S.K decide, Century’s CAR (Capital Adequacy Ratio) already fell down to negative 3, 5 %. This is a frail condition that as explained above can bring a contagious effect to other banks, especially peer banks with identical volume. B.I. calculates in the period, there are 23 peer banks exist with less more same liquidity problem, thus the central bank believes that closes the Century bank will affects other banks and elaborate the crisis widely.

So, after the outlook above, it is clear that the decision was made as an optimal effort of those who have the authority to guard the national financial circumstances and monetary balance. Every fraud happened during the process must be revealed of course, in the name of justice. Every party that took what they shouldn’t must responsible to the law. But the policy itself is a different thing, it was built upon a logical assessment with a right philosophic value. Every people stands for the decision doesn’t have to be accused for corruption, they only do what they got to do.