Press Release

Editorial Suara Publik Edisi Desember 2007

2008-10-18T04:56:00.000-07:00

Pembaca yang budiman,

Menutup tahun 2007, Badan Metereologi dan Geofisika (BMG) mengeluarkan ramalan bernada ancaman. Disebutkan antara tanggal 22 sampai 26 Desember 2007, gelombang laut setinggi 2 sampai 3 meter akan melanda pantai utara Jawa, termasuk Jakarta. Lembaga pengamat dan pencatat cuaca ini memperkirakan hujan dengan skala sedang sampai tinggi akan berlangsung sampai Februari 2008. BMG juga memperkirakan sejumlah wilayah ditengarai akan dilewati potensi bencana seperti banjir, longsor, dan angin kencang, termasuk ibukota Jakarta.

BMG tentunya bukan sedang menakut-nakuti, melainkan mengingatkan supaya kita lebih waspada dan bersiap-siap mengahdapi berbagai kemungkinan. Saat ini saja, sebagian wilayah Jakarta Utara sudah tergenang oleh gelombang pasang laut atau rob yang merendam perumahan warga, jalan raya, kawasan industri, dan mengganggu aktivitas kegiatan warga, menghambat kerja pemerintahan.

Inilah ironisnya ibukota. Kota nomor satu di Indonesia ini ternyata mengidap penyakit banjir yang akut. Jika sebelumnya ancaman banjir datang dari wilayah selatan (hulu) seperti Bogor dan Puncak, ancaman banjir kali ini datang dari laut yang yang menyimpan sumber air tak terbatas. Agak miris membayangkan jika gelombang pasang benar-benar menerjang ibukota. Ingat banjir besar awal Februari 2007, yang merenggut 55 nyawa dan memaksa puluhan ribu warga Jakarta mengungsi? Bayangkan jika gelombang laut datang menyerbu Jakarta bersamaan dengan banjir kiriman dari Bogor. Tidakkah Jakarta bisa tenggelam?

Kita patut miris melihat kesiapan pemerintah DKI dengan kebijakan wait and see, daripada melakukan upaya preventif penanggulangan banjir. Proyek Banjir Kanal Timur (BKT) yang masih dalam pengerjaan itupun tidak menjanjikan bisa mengatasi banjir di Jakarta. Oleh karena itu, upaya meninggikan dan membangun tanggul baru yang kokoh di pesisir utara Jakarta harus menjadi prioritas. Ini memang bukan proyek untung seperti membangun jaringan busway. Tetapi jelas ini lebih esensial karena menyangkut keselamatan jutaan warga kota.

Keterbatasan anggaran tidak boleh dijadikan alasan mengingat pemerintah Jakarta mampu membangun jaringan busway dengan dana ratusan miliar. Pemerintah juga mengizinkan berdirinya mal-mal dan bangunan beton berskala raksasa di sekitar pesisir utara yang menyebabkan berkurangnya daerah resapan air. Untuk soal anggaran, pemerintah DKI bisa meminta anggaran dari pemerintah pusat sebagai upaya mempertahankan eksistensi ibukota negara dari bencana banjir.
Menghadapi ancaman banjir besar, pemerintah Jakarta selayaknya menyiapkan respon dan persiapan yang meyakinkan. Bukan hanya mengeluarkan imbauan standar seperti waspadai “ancaman banjir”.

Penanganan banjir di ibukota memang kompleks dan berbiaya mahal. Tapi itu gunanya kita punya pemerintahan agar bisa melindungi warganya ancaman bencana. Peringatan bahaya banjir telah diluncurkan. Sekarang terserah kita, apakah memilih "sedia payung sebelum hujan", ataukah memilih "menunggu Jakarta tenggelam oleh banjir besar". (***).

sumber: Suara Publik

PERNYATAAN SIKAP "Aliansi Nasional Reformasi Hukum Telematika Indonesia"

2008-05-05T12:33:00.000-07:00

Aliansi Nasional Reformasi Hukum Telematika Indonesia (Aliansi) sangat prihatin dengan keinginan pemerintah untuk mengontrol kembali kebebasan-kebebasan dasar yang telah mendapatkan jaminan konstitusional di Indonesia.

Kontrol ini sebagian telah terlaksana melalui tangan Departemen Komunikasi dan Informatika dengan 4 PP Penyiaran yang memangkas kewenangan Komisi Penyiaran Indonesia, Kewajiban Registrasi Nomor Telepon Seluler Pra Bayar, UU Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik (UU ITE), UU Keterbukaan Informasi Publik (UU KIP).

Negara Republik Indonesia selain telah menjamin Hak Asasi Manusia dalam Perubahan II UUD 1945, Pemerintah juga telah meratifikasi Kovenan Internasional Hak-hak Sipil dan Politik, yang tentunya membawa kewajiban Internasional untuk melakukan harmonisasi peraturan perundang-undangan Indonesia.

Namun UU ITE telah jelas tidak mengakui perhormatan, pemajuan, dan perlindungan Hak Asasi Manusia, dan mengabaikan UU No 10 Tahun 2004 tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan yang mewajibkan agar setiap materi muatan peraturan perundang-undangan menceminkan perlindungan dan penghormatan hak asasi manusia. Dalam Konsideran Mengingat UU ITE sama sekali tidak mencantumkan ketentuan apapun tentang Hak Asasi Manusia, oleh karena itu dalam pandangan Aliansi UU ini telah menunjukkan watak aslinya yang mengabaikan Hak Asasi Manusia

UU ITE ini juga tidak mempunyai kejelasan tujuan yang hendak dicapai sebagaimana yang disyaratkan dalam UU No 10 Tahun 2004 Tentang Pembentukan Peraturan Perundang-undangan. UU ini telah jauh melenceng dari misi awalnya yang hendak melindungi perdagangan dan transaksi elektronik. UU ITE malah melangkah jauh dengan mencampuri hak-hak sipil yang merupakan bagian dari kebebasan dasar yang harus dapat dinikmati oleh setiap orang yaitu kemerdekaan berpendapat

Aliansi memperkirakan setidaknya ada 7 ketentuan dalam UU ITE yang berpotensi mengancam diantarnya adalah Pasal 27 ayat (1), Pasal 27 ayat (3), Pasal 28 ayat (2), Pasal 31 ayat (3), Pasal 40 ayat (2), Pasal 45 ayat (1), dan Pasal 45 ayat (2).

Sementara itu UU ITE juga memberikan cek kosong dalam bentuk Peraturan Pemerintah untuk melaksanakan implementasi dari Pasal 31 ayat (3) dan Pasal 40 ayat (2).

UU ITE ini juga mengesahkan perluasan kembali kewenangan Depkominfo yang sangat ditolak oleh kalangan media. Aparat Depkominfo akan menjadi Penyidik Pegawai Negeri Sipil, disamping Penyidik Polri, untuk melakukan penyidikan tindak pidana di bidang Teknologi Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik. Dalam pandangan Aliansi ini adalah upaya sistematis dari Depkominfo untuk mengembalikan kejayaan pada saat Depkominfo masih bernama Departemen Penerangan.

Selain UU ITE, Pemerintah dan DPR juga sedang membahas RUU Tindak Pidana Teknologi Informasi (RUU TIPITI) yang RUU dan naskah akademiknya di siapkan oleh Global Internet Policy Initiative - Indonesia, Cyber Policy Club, dan Indonesia Media Law and Policy Center. Sebuah RUU yang juga tak kalah mengancam kemerdekaan berpendapat dan kebebasan berekspresi di Indonesia.

Oleh karena itu, kami, Aliansi Nasional Reformasi Hukum Telematika Indonesia menyatakan sikap:

1. Menolak kontrol negara atas kemerdekaan berpendapat, kemerdekaan pers, dan kebebasan berekspresi dalam segala bentuknya di Indonesia
2. Mengecam ketentuan-ketentuan dalam UU ITE yang mengancam kemerdekaan berpendapat, kemerdekaan pers, dan kebebasan berekspresi dalam UU ITE
3. Mendesak agar pemerintah segera melakukan amandemen terhadap UU ITE agar sesuai dengan kewajiban-kewajiban Internasional Indonesia dalam konteks hak asasi manusia dan juga tidak melanjutkan pembahasan RUU TIPITI yang sangat mengancam kemerdekaan berpendapat, kemerdekaan pers, dan kebebasan berekspresi di Indonesia
4. Menyerukan agar seluruh komponen masyarakat sipil di Indonesia untuk mengawasi dengan ketat setiap pembuatan peraturan perundang-undangan di DPR agar tidak bertabrakan dengan ketentuan-ketentuan tentang Hak Asasi Manusia

Jakarta, April 2008

Aliansi Nasional Reformasi Hukum Telematika Indonesia

Perhimpunan Bantuan Hukum dan HAM Indonesia (PBHI)
Lembaga Bantuan Hukum Pers (LBH Pers)
Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat (ELSAM)
Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (ICJR)
Komunitas Bloger Benteng Cisadane (KBBC)
Center for Democratic and Transparency (CDT)
Perhimpunan Pendidikan Demokrasi (P2D)

Dikirim Oleh: anggara@anggara.org

A “how to” guide to CSR

2008-04-26T13:04:00.000-07:00

by: Stephen Frost*

One of CSR Asia’s messages in its corporate training across Asia is that Corporate Social Responsibility should be based on what stakeholders believe makes a good company. Enterprises that rely on textbook definitions of CSR – although useful – run the risk of missing the point about what CSR should really be about: engaging with the communities in which they do business and profit from. Knowing what stakeholders think is the essential foundation for CSR. And if stakeholder engagement is the foundation, then it is clear that CSR will be different for each company because different stakeholders have different ideas about how companies should behave responsibly.

Knowing what stakeholders believe makes a good company need not necessarily make doing the right thing any easier (stakeholders often disagree or don’t want to engage), but it does provide a solid base on which to build good CSR strategies. Understanding who stakeholders are should be a first step, after which companies can start to talk and listen (and then make informed decisions on that dialogue).

The other benefit of making stakeholder dialogue (or engagement) the starting point for CSR is that it helps companies to focus on the community rather than simply focusing on the (admittedly important) question of “How much is this going to cost us?” Being a socially responsible company does not come without a cost, but reducing CSR to a business case often misses the big picture, which is that companies should examine their role in society and whether they are playing in a part in national development (political, social and economic).

So my message here today is not so much to present the business case (although I will raise it later on), but to link CSR to reputation and ask whether it might be more useful to think about the costs of not doing CSR. Companies sometimes spend far too much time trying to quantify the cost of doing CSR (as do those of us building CSR capacity in companies) rather than looking into the future and considering the costs of failing to engage stakeholders. It is sometimes hard to measure benefits, and sometimes it’s easier to measure costs when things go wrong. It might be useful to link CSR to reputation to help make that equation easier to calculate. Which means that the question is: How does a company build a better reputation?

I certainly don’t want to suggest that companies should only do CSR to protect or enhance their reputations. This will open them up to justifiable claims of “window dressing” (of only doing CSR to look good), but actually doing very little to move beyond legal compliance. Nevertheless, it is also true that knowing how to engage with stakeholders is an important aspect of CSR. One of the keys to linking CSR to reputation is through developing partnerships
and stakeholder dialogue.

To survive and prosper business needs to be up to date. There are numerous ways to do this, but one of the cheapest and most effective is to simply engage with stakeholders. There is always a need for good public relations and market research, which implies a good knowledge of stakeholder views. “Public relations” are exactly that: a relationship with the public. Companies can learn a tremendous amount from focus groups that bring together stakeholders with opposing views. They can conduct interviews and maintain contact over an extended period with stakeholders to keep up with the latest information.

Dialogue with the public is important because business has power, and with this power comes obligations to the communities in which they operate. Companies that ignore community and stakeholder concerns run a twofold risk: one, they run the risk of hurting their reputation; and two, they fail to gain access to groups of people who could assist them become better organisations. Being an ethical business has significant payoffs; listening to employees, NGOs, shareholders, consumers, and so on provides companies with an expanded set of ideas that could prove fruitful.

Many companies are intimidated by the thought of engaging stakeholder or developing partnerships, but there are a number of clear steps they can take to make it work. First, companies need to define their stakeholders. This is not as easy as it sounds, but nor need it be overly complex. Some companies tell us that they talk to their stakeholders all the time, but what they really mean is they talk to a limited number of people with whom they engage in business. Stakeholders are diverse, and should include the entire range of organisations or individuals whose lives and/or business are in some way impacted on by a company’s operations. Of course, not all stakeholders are legitimate (would you engage with stakeholders who want to harm you)? And nor are all stakeholders of equal importance (but how do you define the most important)?

There are a range of tools available to companies (including CSR Asia’s own “Double Triple-I) that allow them to assess priorities and impact on business. Companies need to manage stakeholder demands and dialogue (particularly if they disagree). This means that companies should be honest about whether they can meet stakeholder expectations (don’t over-promise), and be prepared to say no. And after having done all this, companies need to constantly monitor and respond to priorities as outlined by stakeholders). The process of engagement requires companies to be in dialogue constantly, not simply when it suits them (eg, once a year).

Having defined their stakeholders, companies should prioritise their most trusted stakeholders. Once again, they are confronted with the problem of deciding with whom to engage. Companies should not feel compelled to engage with everyone, but they need to have clear values and policies that enable people to know why they have engaged with this or that organisation. Shared values are key means by which to choose partnerships, which can in the long run be extremely valuable. But companies (as well as their partners) should think carefully about the strategic fit. For instance, at first glance, there seems to be few links between the Body Shop, American Express and

Amnesty International. Yet American Express has a well developed and deep set of policies on domestic violence (violence against women). The Body Shop sells mainly to women (and has rolled out policies on domestic violence, too). Amnesty International is a human rights organisation, and violence against women is a key concern. The fit is strategic and strong.

NGOs will often approach companies because they need money. Companies are often put off by this approach, and they need to be careful. But it should be remembered that building a good reputation requires legitimacy and the right partners can provide them with that. Like any relationship though, partners can embarrass you. Companies need to have exit strategies in place in case things go wrong. It all comes back to homework – choose partners carefully. The second key to linking CSR to reputation is through building a good image through good CSR practices. There are four aspects to this: internal aspects, external aspects, corporate citizenship, and accountability and reporting. Internal aspects include things like written policies on non-discrimination in the workplace, equal opportunities statements and implementation plans, statement on normal working hours, maximum overtime and fair wage structures, staff development, in-house education and vocational training, the right of freedom of association, collective bargaining and complaints procedures, and the protection of human rights within the company’s own operations. Most large companies incorporate these and more in internal company documents.

External aspects include things like policies on labour standards adopted by suppliers in developing countries, policies on restrictions on the use of child labour by suppliers, a commitment to the protection of human rights in the company’s sphere of influence, the inspection of suppliers’ facilities for health, safety and environmental aspects, a commitment to local community protection and engagement, policies on responding to stakeholders including procedures for the resolution of complaints, policies on fair trade, equitable trade and end-price auditing, policies on the protection of indigenous populations and their rights, and codes of ethics (including bribery and corruption).

By corporate citizenship I mean the direct support for third party social and sustainable development related initiatives, educational programmes for the promotion of corporate citizenship, external campaign programmes for raising social and sustainable development issues, and so on.

Accountability refers commitment to reporting on corporate social responsibility and/or sustainable development and policies and procedures for engaging a wide range of stakeholders in two way dialogue. The third key to linking CSR to reputation is engaging employees in CSR Activities. When it comes to CSR, employees like to be engaged, and they want to work for companies they can respect. However, one of the mistakes companies make is to assume all workers have the same motivations; they don’t. For every employee interested in planting trees or cleaning up the beach, there are others who want to get involved in human trafficking or HIV/AIDS.

Study after study have shown that the benefits of engaging employees are substantial: increased commitment, increased trust, motivation, new ideas, reduced turnover, reduced absenteeism, productivity. A failure to engage employees may lead to organisations being little more than “networks of complaints”; hardly the most positive workplace environment for creativity, productivity and loyalty.

Creating employee buy-in is not easy, however. It requires companies to demonstrate leadership and commitment to CSR initiatives (managers who are enthused one day over a CSR project but have lost interest the next send the wrong signals to staff). To avoid these problems it is essential to consult staff – ask them for ideas and find out what they think the company should be doing. Remember, “With every pair of hands you get a free brain”. This is an old saying, but true. You might hire people for what they can do, but we should never lose sight of what they can offer us with creativity and ideas. Employees often come up with great ideas when given the opportunity to be part of a company and feel a sense of “ownership” in the company’s future direction. Companies can involve “willing helpers”; employees who are keen to take the lead or teach other staff how to do things.

Through all of this, companies should communicate progress to all employees so that people know what is happening, that the company is still committed, and so on. Employee volunteering is also another way to help staff develop a sense of belonging. Allowing staff a half day off per month (or one day per three months, etc) to work on community projects can be a win-win situation. Companies can demonstrate commitment to the community whilst at the same time creating employee buy-in into CSR programs with all the benefits they entail.

It should be remembered that the business case for CSR is not always positive. Small enterprises in particular sectors will find it difficult (if not impossible) to perform well in many areas. But this is not the case across the board. There are benefits (sometimes intangible and non-measurable), but there also risks of not doing CSR (sometimes tangible and measurable). Each company will have to determine what is possible. Nowadays, however, those decisions need to be made in consultation with stakeholders; many of them are watching companies much more closely. And they have the means to tell others what they see.

*CSR Asia, Hong Kong
CSR Asia is a social enterprise that strives to be the leading provider of information about Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in the Asia-Pacific region. CSR Asia builds capacity in companies and their supply chains to promote awareness of CSR in order to advance sustainable development across the region.

Effects Of Global Warming

2008-04-26T12:54:00.000-07:00

Global warming is a phrase that many of us have heard of. There are numerous groups of people and articles which deal with the disastrous effects of global warming. As we go about our daily lives we seldom think how the way that we live affects the environment around us.

While we may think for a few minutes that we need to be more environmentally conscious there are very few of us who actually take the time which is needed. The different reports about the effects of global warming needs our consideration as some of the causes of global warming are caused by us.

You may ask how this is possible. The answers are all staring us in the face if we just choose to look at them. The first place to look for some of the causes and effects of global warming is in our cities.

Whenever you drive on the roads your car is sending out emissions of carbon monoxide. You just have to multiple this effect with that of the numerous other vehicles to understand that driving a fuel engine vehicle does contribute to global warming. This is just one small examples of how the effects of global warming can be caused by the way that we live.

There are numerous activities that we take part in, which in turn have some effect on the growth of global warming. You will find that there are documents which state that deforestation has the effect of causing partial global warming. While the cutting down of trees is one aspect of this cause there are others that we don’t think about.

When some forests are denuded of their trees, the needed trees are carted off to the lumber farms. The excess trees which are not needed at all are then burned. This large scale burning of trees causes an enormous amount of carbon laden air to fill the sky.

This is how the deforestation effects of global warming arise. The other causes and effects of global warming occur closer to home. For instance you will see that the number of cars and other vehicles are on the increase. While this spells good news to the automobile industry it also means lots of carbon emissions.

The city gridlocks which have a tendency to occur during rush hours also allows us to see the effects of global warming. All in all we can see these effects of global warming happening everywhere that we look. The end result of this warming trend affects not only us but plants and animals the world over are affected.

The effects of global warming can also be seen in the many weather disasters which seem to be on the increase. These changes can make a relatively mild hurricane turn into a category 4 – very dangerous – storm. Perhaps the only way out of the effects of global warming and the predicament that we have gotten into is for us to change the way that we live.

The real causes of Global Warming - Find out how our daily habits have disastrous effects for the planet

2008-04-26T12:49:00.000-07:00

by: Christophe Catesson*

The two major greenhouse gases are the carbon dioxide that contributes to the greenhouse effect to a height of 60% and methane. While methane has only a weak life span in the atmosphere, the carbon dioxide there remains for more than a century. why we focus mostly on the reduction of the emission of carbon dioxide.

When we use fossil energies, such as coal, the oil or the gas, we burn carbon, adding thus carbon dioxide into the atmosphere: about 20 billion tons per year in the world. The oceans and the forests and the plants; do away with about the half of this excess of carbon dioxide. However, this concentration does not stop growing: from 0.028% fifty years ago to 0.0365% today.

An additional greenhouse gas is the methane (CH4), of which the concentration has doubled since the industrial revolution. The sources are the paddy fields, garbage dumps, bovine farms, and the exploitation of gas and coal. The nitrous oxide (N2O) is another greenhouse gas that comes from certain industries such as fertilizers.

As we go about our daily lives we rarely reflect how our lifestyles influence the environment. While we may consider for a few instants that we need to be more environmentally conscious, there are very few of us who truly take the time which is due. The environmental science has made dramatic breakthrough in determining the causes of global warming. The comprehensive information about global warming requires our mindfulness as many of the causes of global warming are due to us and that the global environmental outlook is getting worse.

How is this conceivable? The answers are all staring us in the face if we accept to look at them.

The first place to look for some of the causes of global warming is in our food choices. Livestock farming contributes more to global warming than all other factors combined. While it takes on average 24 of gallons of water to create one pound vegetable, 5,200 gallons of water are needed to create one pound of beef, which strains extremely the water resources as we hear more and more in the news. Comparably, it takes two calories of fuel to produce one calorie of soybean, 54 calories of fuel are necessary to generate one calorie from beef. Deforestation, is another biggie, the livestock growth has created seven times more deforestation than the one caused by all other human activities. Water pollution, heath issues, lost of biodiversity, the release of toxins, antibiotics, GMO, pesticides, sewage, air pollution... are other factors that make livestock farming so detrimental to the environment. Researchers evaluate that 2.5 acres of land can meet the food requirement of twenty two vegetarians, but only two people eating meet, chicken, eggs or dairy products. Marc Reisner author of the Cadillac Desert, sums it up in these words "The West's water crisis and many other environmental problems as well can be summed up by one word: livestock".

Another area to look into is in our cities. Each time you drive, your car is emitting carbon monoxide. Multiply that pollution with the hundreds of millions of other vehicles and you can clearly see that driving a fuel engine vehicle does add to global warming.

One more manner that we contribute towards the causes of global warming is by deforestation. The trees in the forests, jungles and rainforests are the lungs of the world. By cutting down a great amount of trees the restorative ability of these areas are lessened.

Trees need carbon dioxide to live. When big tracts of trees are cut down in one place the balance is gone astray. The left over trees can't take in all of the carbon which is in the atmosphere. Due to this reality, the carbon rises in large quantity in the atmosphere. This is also why deforestation can be seen as one of the main causes of global warming.

Aside from these factors, chemicals like methane and nitrous oxide are as well causes of global warming. These chemicals while in small amounts are not enough to cause deterioration to the atmosphere and environment. They can be considered as causes of global warming when they are used for an array of man needed activities. These activities include the raising of domestic animals such as cows. Other chemical contributing to the global warming are artificial fertilizers.

When all of these events are taken independently you may believe they cannot cause global warming. There is however lots of scientific substantiation which supports this case. In order to impede the dreadful aftermath of global warming you should look at the different global warming causes and see what steps you can take to circumvent them.

The more we appreciate these facts, the faster we can halt the escalation of global warming. We should not continue too long as nature will not wait for us to get our acts straightened out. The effects of global warming are warnings to us to adjust our ways of living.

*Communication Manager for www.theglobalwarmingoverview.com.

Surat Dari IRE

2008-04-26T08:58:00.000-07:00

Tangerang, 22 April 2008

No: 89/SD-Tangerang/04/2008
Hal: Undangan Peserta Sekolah Demokrasi
Lamp: Formulir dan Leaflet

Kepada Yth,

Bapak Gatot Yan S

Direktur Eksekutif Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi Kebijakan Publik

LANSKAP Tangerang

Dengan hormat,

INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EMPOWERMENT (IRE) adalah sebuah lembaga independen, nonpartisan, dan nonprofit yang berbasis pada komunitas akademik di Yogyakarta. Fokus kegiatan IRE adalah pengembangan good governance dan demokrasi melalui penguatan gagasan, sikap kritis, serta tindakan taktis elemen masyarakat sipil, masyarakat politik, masyarakat ekonomi, dan negara.

Terkait dengan ditunjuknya IRE sebagai lembaga pelaksana program Sekolah Demokrasi di Kabupaten Tangerang oleh Komunitas Indonesia untuk Demokrasi (KID) yang bersekretariat di Jl. Tirtayasa VII No.1 Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta, kami bermaksud untuk meminta kesediaan pengurus LANSKAP untuk berkenan mengirimkan perwakilannya, guna mengikuti program Sekolah Demokrasi untuk Tahun ke-2, dengan kriteria sbb:

1) Berusia 21 – 40 tahun
2) Pendidikan formal setingkat SMU
3) Domisili dan/atau berkarya di Kabupaten Tangerang
4) Membuat tulisan 2 hal A4 tentang kebijakan/pelayanan publik di Kabupaten Tangerang
5) Mendapatkan referensi dari individu atau lembaga lokal

Program Tahun ke-2 akan dimulai pada bulan Mei dan berakhir pada bulan Desember. Pelatihan diadakan sebanyak 29 kali pertemuan, setiap hari Sabtu – Minggu, jam 09.00 – 17.00 WIB, bertempat di Sekretariat Sekolah Demokrasi Tangerang, Citra Raya. Pendaftaran kami tutup pada 30 April 2008. Selama perekrutan dan pelaksanaan pelatihan peserta tidak kami pungut biaya.

Kami sangat berharap LANSKAP dan Komunitas yang didampingi bisa mengirimkan wakilnya (dengan perimbangan perempuan dan lelaki), serta memberikan juga surat refferensi. Kami menunggu kabar selanjutnya dari Bapak, dan kami dapat dihubungi di nomor (telp dan fax) sekretariat 021-98494763 / 5961198, atau ke nomer 0813-16632633 (Willy Aditya, S.Fil) atau 0815-85713184 (Budhi Fahlevi, SIP). Dapat juga dengan mengirim email ke: simpul_tangerang@yahoo.com

Atas perhatian dan kerjasama yang diberikan, kami mengucapkan banyak terima kasih.

Hormat kami,

Willy Aditya, S.Fil
Program Officer

SEMINAR PILKADA

2008-02-28T08:07:00.000-08:00

UNDANGAN TERBUKA

Dalam Upaya mendorong terselenggaranya PILKADA Kota Tangerang yang Bersih, Jujur & Demokratis, LANSKAP bekerjasama dengan BEM-FAI UNIS, SEMA-FISIP UNIS dan STISIP YUPENTEK menyelenggarakan SEMINAR PILKADA yang akan diselenggarakan Pada:

Hari/Tanggal : Rabu, 5 Maret 2008
Waktu : Pukul 09.00 WIB s/d selesai
Tempat : Aula Utama UNIS Tangerang, Jl. Maulana Yusuf, Kota Tangerang

Tema :
"Mengevaluasi Pilkada Kabupaten untuk mengawal Pilkada Kota Tangerang"

Keynote Speakers : H. WAHIDIN HALIM (Walikota Tangerang)

Nara Sumber :
1. Drs. H.M. Krisna Gunata (Ketua DPRD Kota Tangerang)
2. Drs. H. Aris Gumilar, MM (Purek III UNIS Tangerang)
3. Drs. Erik Sihabudin, MM (Pakar Politik UNIS Tangerang)
4. Gatot Yan. S (Direktur Eksekutif LANSKAP)
5. Siswanto (Presiden BEM-FAI UNIS Tangerang)

Demikian Undangan Terbuka ini kami sampaikan, atas perhatiannya diucapkan terima kasih.

JANGKAR DIKUNJUNGI PENELITI KYOTO UNIVERSITY

2008-02-20T11:07:00.000-08:00

Tidak hanya menarik perhatian stakeholder lokal, Kiprah JANGKAR PILKADA ternyata selama ini juga diamati oleh Lembaga Internasional, CSEAS (Center for Southeast Asian Studies) adalah salah satunya. Lembaga yang bermarkas di Kyoto University, Jepang ini diam-diam memantau secara serius sepak terjang Jangkar melalui situs www.jangkarpilkada.blogspot.com.

Tertarik dan ingin mengenal lebih dekat keberadaan JANGKAR, Associate Professor CSEAS, Okamoto Masaaki terbang dari Kyoto mengunjungi Media Center JANGKAR di Lantai 2 Gedung FAI UNIS Tangerang. Okamoto yang didampingi oleh Dosen Fisip UI, Abdul Hamid, tiba di UNIS Senin (28/1) pukul 12.15 WIB.

Pria Jepang yang ternyata fasih berbahasa indonesia ini adalah peneliti CSEAS untuk wilayah Indonesia. Dalam perbincangan hangat selama lebih dari 2 jam itu, Okamoto menggali berbagai hal seputar Pilkada Tangerang, termasuk menanyakan bagaimana Jangkar dapat eksis menjalankan kegiatan secara netral dan independen tanpa dukungan dana dari pihak manapun.

Menurut pria yang kerap diminta mempresentasikan Indonesia dikalangan pengusaha Jepang ini, dibandingkan dengan beberapa negara Asean lainnya, Pilkada di Indonesia secara keseluruhan tergolong cukup baik dan kondusif. “Di Filipina, Pilkada kerap diwarnai aksi kekerasan, bahkan banyak kandidat yang ditembak mati jika dianggap sulit ditandingi” demikian kata Okamoto.

Lebih lanjut Okamoto berharap agar Jangkar tidak hanya melakukan pemantauan saat pelaksanaan Pilkada saja namun juga memantau kinerja pemerintahan hasil Pilkada. “yang juga penting dilakukan adalah memantau fase antara satu pilkada ke pilkada berikutnya agar harapan rakyat terhadap pemimpin yang dipilihnya dapat terpenuhi” imbuh Okamoto.

Sementara itu, pengamat politik yang juga dosen Fisip UI, Abdul Hamid menyampaikan kekagumannya atas kiprah Jangkar dalam Pilkada Tangerang ini. “kalau bisa Jangkar juga melakukan survei secara berkala tentang kepuasan masyarakat atas kinerja kepala daerah hasil pilkada” ungkap Hamid.

Direktur Eksekutif Jangkar, Gatot Yan. S yang didampingi Program officer, Hamdan Bhaskara dan Presiden BEM-FAI UNIS, Siswanto menyampaikan terima kasihnya atas perhatian yang diberikan CSEAS hingga mau datang jauh-jauh dari Jepang mengunjungi Jangkar. “semoga apresiasi CSEAS ini dapat memacu semangat kawan-kawan untuk terus memainkan perannya sebagai pelaku sosial kontrol” demikian tutup Gatot.

Pilkada Tangerang