Nasionalisme Milik Siapa?

“Lebih baik hujan batu di negeri sendiri daripada hujan emas di negeri orang(?)”

Di tengah era globalisasi yang melanda dunia tidak bisa dielakkan banyaknya kaum muda Indonesia yang menginginkan untuk mendapatkan pendidikan lanjutan di luar negeri (LN). Terutama Eropa dan USA.

Banyak faktor yang mempengaruhi keinginan tersebut. Seperti nama harum yang dimiliki oleh universitas-universitas LN, keinginan untuk mempelajari bahasa asing langsung di negaranya, keinginan untuk mencoba sesuatu yang baru atau sekedar keinginan untuk belajar hidup jauh dari orang tua. Ke semua faktor tersebut dapat diterima dan ke semuanya akan membawa dampak positif bagi peningkatan kualitas diri. Tentunya kalau dijalankan dengan sungguh-sungguh.

Krisis ekonomi yang melanda Indonesia di tahun 1997 pun tidak mampu menghalangi niat kaum muda. Termasuk orang tua mereka. Untuk tetap meraih cita-cita tinggi di LN.

Ditambah dengan kejadian 11 September 2001 yang menyebabkan pemerintah USA dan banyak negara Eropa seperti kebakaran jenggot dan ingin segera memadamkannya dengan mempersulit keinginan orang luar untuk memasuki negara mereka. Terlebih kalau orang tersebut berasal dari negara yang dianggap berpotensi untuk menciptakan teroris-teroris handal.

Berbagai cara dilakukan oleh mereka. Salah satunya adalah meningkatkan nilai jaminan yang wajib ditaruh di bank seandainya pelajar tersebut membiayai hidupnya dengan uang pribadi.

Pada tahun 1999 untuk mendapatkan visa studi ke Jerman pelajar hanya diminta menunjukkan bahwa mereka memiliki uang yang cukup (sekitar Rp 60 juta) untuk membiayai hidupnya minimum satu tahun ke depan. Sekarang, selain diminta untuk menunjukkan jumlahnya pun ditambah (sekitar Rp 85 juta, sumber:website kedutaan Jerman). Uang tersebut harus segera ditransfer ke rekening pelajar di Jerman.

Sesulit apa pun peraturan yang diterapkan setiap tahunnya Indonesia tetap mampu mengirimkan aset-aset terbaik mereka untuk menempuh pendidikan ke LN. Baik itu dengan uang pribadi atau bea siswa.

Masalahnya sekarang setelah lulus dengan segudang ilmu di kepalanya apa yang harus mereka lakukan? Haruskah mereka menjaga "nasionalisme" mereka dengan kembali ke Indonesia dan membangun Indonesia dari dalam. Apa pun risiko dan kenyataan yang ada? Ataukah bebas menerima setiap tawaran yang dapat berguna bagi kehidupan pribadi?

Pertanyaan yang sederhana tapi sulit untuk dijawab. Apalagi kalau sudah dihadapkan dengan masalah nasionalisme. Tidak ada satu pun warga negara yang ingin dicap tidak nasionalis. Termasuk eks tapol yang terpaksa mengungsi ke LN pun tidak sudi dicap tidak nasionalis.

Tetapi, seandainya seorang lulusan LN memutuskan untuk menerima tawaran bekerja di LN karena dapat memperbaiki kehidupan pribadinya apakah itu berarti orang tersebut tidak nasionalis? Bukankah mereka juga merupakan orang-orang nasionalis yang menjadi pahlawan devisa negara sekaligus perpanjangan tangan pemerintah dalam berurusan dengan pihak luar?

Di bidang ekonomi hal ini dapat dibuktikan dengan kemajuan yang dialami Cina dan India saat ini yang tidak lepas dari adanya peran aktif penduduknya yang menempati posisi-posisi penting di LN. Di bidang politik, dicontohkan oleh negara kecil Israel yang memiliki dukungan politik kuat dari USA dan Eropa. Ini juga tidak lepas dari peran kaum intelektual mereka yang tersebar di mancanegara.

Seiring dengan perkembangan teknologi batasan-batasan psikis negara yang pada zaman pertengahan dulu begitu jelas tergambar sekarang ini semakin kabur. Pengiriman berita antar benua yang dulu dapat memakan waktu 2-3 minggu kini hanya berlangsung dalam bilangan detik.

Teknologi transportasi yang semakin canggih memungkinkan kita berkelana dari satu benua ke benua lain dalam hitungan jam. Faktor-faktor ini menyebabkan terjadinya pergeseran arti nasionalisme. Nasionalisme tidak lagi dilihat dalam artian yang sempit melainkan dalam artian yang lebih luas.

Semakin terbukanya kesempatan untuk bekerja di LN dengan imbalan memperoleh pengalaman, kestabilan iklim kerja, dan gaji yang relatif besar, salah satunya disebabkan keuntungan kurs, semakin mengubah pola pikir sebagian besar lulusan LN untuk mencoba dulu peruntungan dengan bekerja beberapa tahun di LN.

Banyak yang pada awalnya hanya berkeinginan 2 tahun bekerja berakhir dengan menetap 10 tahun bahkan selamanya. Ketidakstabilan politik, tingkat KKN yang tinggi menjadi momok yang membuat para lulusan baru ini, yang biasanya idealis, takut untuk kembali ke Indonesia.

Pertanyaan 'apa yang bisa kulakukan di Indonesia?' memenuhi benak para lulusan LN. Jadi tidak selalu uang yang menjadi alasan. Ketidakmampuan pemerintah untuk menciptakan lapangan pekerjaan yang sesuai dengan tingkat pendidikan para lulusan LN. Juga tidak bisa dipungkiri menjadi alasan utama. Semakin tinggi tingkat pendidikan yang dimiliki semakin sulit untuk bisa mendapatkan pekerjaan yang sesuai.

Tingkat penyaringan karyawan yang tidak transparan serta ketidakseriusan perusahaan dalam menanggapi surat lamaran menjadikan setiap pelamar malas untuk berkorespondensi. Sebagian perusahaan hanya mau membalas surat lamaran bagi pelamar yang diterima. Tidak bagi pelamar yang tidak diterima.

Kemalasan ini berpengaruh bukan saja bagi lulusan baru tapi juga bagi lulusan LN yang sudah lama bekerja di LN dan ingin mencari jalan untuk kembali ke Indonesia. Seandainya mendapat surat panggilan untuk wawancara pun masalah tidak berhenti sampai di sini.

Bagaimana seorang lulusan LN yang sedang aktif bekerja di LN dapat meluangkan waktunya untuk melakukan wawancara kerja di Indonesia? Berapa biaya yang harus dikeluarkan hanya untuk transportasi saja? Dan jaminan diterima pun belum ada.

Sementara itu, dari sisi lulusan LN, keputusan untuk bekerja di LN tidaklah dicapai dengan mudah mengingat mereka akan dihadapkan dengan banyaknya persoalan-persoalan non teknis seperti penyesuaian cuaca, kultur, karakter perusahaan, karakter manusia.

Ditambah dengan rasa rindu tanah air dan keluarga yang sering melanda menjadikan bekerja di LN tidak semudah yang dibayangkan. Contoh yang sangat sederhana adalah makanan. Setiap pulang berlibur, kopor-kopor akan dipenuhi dengan berbagai jenis makanan Indonesia.

Seandainya boleh memilih, banyak diantara lulusan LN yang lebih memilih bekerja di Indonesia, seandainya ada lapangan pekerjaan yang sesuai dan tentunya penghasilan yang memadai. Penghasilan di sini tidak perlu diartikan dalam jumlah yang sama dengan yang diterima di LN. Paling tidak seimbang dengan tingkatan ilmu dan pengalaman yang dimiliki. Tetapi, dengan tingkat pengangguran sebanyak 10,6 juta orang diakhir tahun 2007 (data BPS 2007, sumber:http://www.bps.go.id/sector/employ/table4.shtml), rasanya sangat sulit untuk mengharapkan hal ini.

Kesulitan lain yang dihadapi para pekerja di LN adalah semakin lama mereka bekerja di LN. Semakin kecil kemungkinan mereka untuk pulang. Usia dan kestabilan keluarga merupakan faktor utama. Dengan usia diatas 40 tahun tidak banyak yang masih memiliki semangat untuk memulai sesuatu yang baru apalagi kalau harus memulai dari awal.

Bagi yang memiliki anak, terlebih kalau anak tersebut lahir di LN, akan lebih sulit lagi. Di sekolah, si anak tentunya memiliki lingkungan pergaulan dan bahasa tersendiri.

Ketika orang tua memutuskan untuk pulang, tentunya ini bukan merupakan hal yang mudah bagi sang anak. Akhirnya mereka ibarat memakan buah simalakama, pulang ke Indonesia salah, tidak pulang pun harus menghadapi risiko menghabiskan hari tua sendiri di negeri orang, jauh dari keluarga besar.

Pemerintah sudah selayaknya tidak tinggal diam dengan masalah-masalah ini. Biar bagaimana pun para lulusan LN yang tersebar di berbagai negara merupakan aset utama bangsa. Di tengah tingkat kesulitan para lulusan LN untuk kembali ke tanah air sudah saatnya pemerintah memberikan kemudahan-kemudahan misalnya dengan mendirikan lembaga yang khusus mengurusi masalah ini.

Lembaga ini dapat ditempatkan di bawah salah satu departemen terkait. Ironisnya, lembaga-lembaga yang memberi kemudahan bagi para lulusan LN justru tidak datang dari Indonesia sendiri melainkan dari negara lain.

Di Jerman misalnya, terdapat sebuah organisasi ZAV (Zentrale Auslands-und Fachvermittlung), yang khusus membantu para lulusan Jerman dari negara berkembang untuk mendapatkan pekerjaan di negara asalnya. Bukan hanya bantuan dalam bentuk saran lembaga ini bahkan memberikan bantuan uang yang relatif besar bagi para lulusan tersebut untuk memulai kehidupan baru di negara asalnya.

Lembaga seperti ZAV dan banyak lainnya tentunya tidak tanpa maksud melakukan hal ini. Pemerintah mereka memiliki pandangan yang jauh ke depan dan menganggap para lulusan ini sebagai mitra kerja masa depan yang berkualitas dan menjanjikan.

Seandainya pemerintah Indonesia juga memiliki pandangan yang sama dan memberikan kemudahan, paling tidak dalam hal mencarikan pekerjaan yang sesuai tanpa prosedur yang berbelit-belit, maka tendensi lulusan LN yang pulang ke Indonesia dan membangun Indonesia dari dalam akan semakin meningkat.

Sekarang keputusan berada ditangan pemerintah. Maukah pemerintah kita menjemput bola?

The G-20 Summit: A Vote of Confidence for Capitalism?

The global financial crisis has produced a wide array of critics, but no pairing has been stranger than what you might call the capitalism-in-crisis coalition. Anti-government ideologues on the right and anti-business activists on the left are both arguing that capitalism is under threat, though from very different forces. The right-wingers fear that federal market intervention is just the tip of a socialist spear, while the left-wingers gleefully declare that the crisis is proof of capitalism's inherent failure.

Yet even as these ad hoc partners cry foul, another set of odd allies getting together this weekend, November 15, 2008, in Washington may well prove them wrong. The leaders of the U.K., France, Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, Indonesia and 10 other developed and developing economies are meeting in Washington at the invitation of President George W. Bush. And the main thing these so-called G-20 members are likely to achieve is a declaration of continuing support for the international free-market system.

You wouldn't know that, however, from Bush's tone in the run-up to the summit. In his weekly Saturday radio address, the text of which was released Friday, Bush cast himself in the role of defender of free-market capitalism, as if its very existence were on the table this weekend. “This is a decisive moment for the global economy,” Bush said. “In the wake of the financial crisis, voices from the left and right are equating the free-enterprise system with greed, exploitation and failure ... But the crisis was not a failure of the free-market system. And the answer is not to try to reinvent that system.”

In fact, the G-20 leaders seem to agree with him already — at least in principle. From the Europeans, one hears the expected vague, warm rumblings of cooperation. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for strengthening structures like the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Forum that support the international free-market system, boosting transparency, integration and accountability. French President Nicolas Sarkozy likewise talks of defending and strengthening the system to ensure that another market free fall doesn't happen again.

Even old communist adversaries like Russia and China are on board. Rather than shunning the club of capitalists, China is seeking more power within it, especially at institutions like the International Monetary Fund, where it would like a greater say in macroeconomic lending policies. And Russia is blunt in its embrace of the system it once resisted. “It's not a struggle between ideologies,” says one Kremlin official. “The struggle of ideologies is a thing of the past.”

Of course, there are a few in the world who still claim the end of capitalism is nigh, like the leaders of Iran and Venezuela and Georgia Congressman Paul Broun, who sees Marxism in Barack Obama's mainstream policies. But if the G-20 countries, which represent some 85%-90% of the global economy, are all on board for capitalism's preservation, why does Bush feel the need to defend it?

With less than two months to go as President, Bush faces few opportunities to change history's judgment of him, including his policies of lax regulation that helped create the crisis with which the world is now struggling. Painting a picture of himself rallying the world to the defense of free-market capitalism is a natural response to his diminished stature, and the G-20 summit is one of his last moments to gain attention on the global stage.

But Bush's last-minute preaching to the choir about the benefits of free enterprise isn't going to help minimize the damage caused by the global financial crisis. It is the potential for a unified response by the G-20 countries that will — like coordinating accounting standards, increasing transparency and launching coordinated economic stimulus programs. Whether or not they manage that remains up in the air; the conference is more likely to produce a predictable statement of principles rather than any new concrete actions. But if they do manage to blunt the effects of the crisis, it will be capitalism that saves Bush, not the other way around.

Buyology: Theory of a Neuromarketing

Why do people usually become an impulsive buyer when they got stress? Or, is there any reaction in consumer's brain when they loves new Nokia cell phone, hang out on Starbucks Coffee, or maybe hear the sound of Harley Davidson's machine? Let say the doctor are scanning consumer's brain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), so we know the brain's reaction.

It turns out that there are very good reasons we all "buy" what we do: a subconscious emotional drivers of designs. Reasons that are tied into our biology, culture, and our individual manner of nurture.

I first became aware of this kind of thinking when accompanying my best friend to go shopping. More stress, more buying. Now, comes author Martin Lindstrom, a native Denmark, with an amazing new lense on the topic, using neuroscience to get an even tighter perspective.

Marketing expert Martin Lindstrom is that scientist, caught up in the excitement of research in his new book, Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. Lindstrom first became aware of neurological marketing research through a Forbes magazine article, "In Search of the Buy Button."

What do Rosary Beads and Red Bull have in common? A lot, it seems. Marketing guru Lindstrom and his team hooked up 65 people to special MRI machines to find out what their brains revealed about the connection between religion and brand loyalty.

For days, the researchers ran images--like those of the Pope and a bottle of Coca-Cola--by the wired subjects. The resulting brain scans were arresting. It turns out that there is virtually no difference between the way the brain reacts to religious icons or figures and powerful brands. Nike is a goddess, after all.

The experiment is quintessential Lindstrom. The author, who spends 300 days a year on the road, teaching major companies how to market their brands, has an original, inquisitive mind. His new book is a fascinating look at how consumers perceive logos, ads, commercials, brands and products.

Lindstrom conducted a three-year, $7 million neuromarketing study (sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline and Bertelsmann, among others) that measured the brain activity of 2,000 volunteers from around the world. Well, I think if he did the research in my country, I will tell my best friend to be his first respondent hehehe...

Some of the results confirmed marketing-industry hunches; others flew in the face of conventional wisdom. A difficulty of standard marketing research, Lindstrom says, is that people will not — or cannot — provide accurate information about their mental states.

Two technologies were used in Lindstrom's studies: SST (Steady State Topography) and fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging). In a series of tests spanning three years and more than 2,000 subjects, he concluded:

• Warning labels on cigarettes don't work. They stimulate activity in the part of a smoker's brain linked to cravings.
• Traditional advertisements no longer create lasting impressions. By age 66, most people with a TV will have seen nearly 2 million commercials. That makes it hard for an ad to increase a viewer's memory of a brand, despite the millions spent.
• Product placement only works when fully integrated. It works when Coke-bottle-shaped furniture is part of the set design on American Idol, for example, or when Reese's Pieces candy was used for bait in the movie E.T. However, when a product is not integrated, such as FedEx packages appearing in the background of Casino Royale, there is no measurable effect with regard to viewer recollection of brand.
• Sex sells itself. Viewers of sexually suggestive ads did pay attention, but more to the sex than the ad. In one study, fewer than 1-in-10 men who saw a sexually suggestive ad could recall the product, while twice as many remembered the product in non-sexually suggestive ads.
• Successful branding functions like religion. Simple rituals, such as putting a lime wedge in a Corona or slowly pouring a Guinness, give the brand added cachet. Brands attract zealous followers — "I'm a Mac; I'm a PC." Scans using fMRI technology showed that some viewers had the same neurological response to strong brands that they did to religious iconography.
• Subliminal advertising can be highly effective. When watching an advertisement, viewers automatically raise their guard against its message. With subliminal advertisements, viewers' guards are down, so their responses are more direct.
• Marketing isn't restricted to the visual. Many companies use smells to sell products. Fast-food restaurants and supermarket bakeries use artificial fresh-cooked food smells. Sounds also effect buying. A study showed shoppers purchased French or German wine depending on which nationality's music was playing on store speakers.

Lindstrom's research should be of interest to any company launching a new product or brand. “Eight out of 10 products launched in the United States are destined to fail,” Lindstrom writes. He continued, “Roughly 21,000 new brands are introduced worldwide per year, yet history tells us that more than 90% of them are gone from the shelf a year later.” Oo-o..

The Word

Was born in the blood.
Grew in the dark body, beating,
And took fight through the lips and mouth.

Farther away and nearer,

Still, still it come

From dead father and from wandering races,

From lands which had turned to stone,

Lands weary of their poor tribes,

For when grief took to the roads.

The people set out and arrived

And married new land and water

To grow their words again,

And so this is the inheritance;

This is the wavelength which connects us

With dead men and the dawning

Of new beings not yet come to light.

By: Pablo Neruda, from The Word. Fully empowered.

Our Word is Our Weapon

Adalah kata-kata yang memberi bentuk
pada sesuatu yang masuk dan keluar dari diri kita.

Adalah kata-kata yang menjadi jembatan
untuk menyeberang ke tempat lain.
Ketika tetap diam, kita akan tetap sendirian.
Berbicara kita mengobati rasa sakit.
Berbicara kita membangun persahabatan dengan yang lain.
Para penguasa menggunakan kata-kata
untuk menyusun imperium diam...
Kita menggunakan kata-kata untuk memperbarui diri kita...
Inilah senjata kita saudara-saudara.

Kata adalah senjata.


Taken from Our Word is Our Weapon by Subcomandante Marcos of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. October 12^th, 1995.

Journalists should practice what they preach

You remember the time when mom used to tell not to talk on the phone while ironing clothes lest you make a mistake and burn yourself. And then one day she forgot to practice what she was preaching and… Well a funny situation like this has occurred in the business world too.

Journalists have been warning their readers against the hazard of not taking backups of computer files. So much so that in article published by them. However, they 'likened backups to flossing - everyone knows it's important, but few devote enough thought or energy to it. And one fine day, the magazine's editorial system crashed, nullifying the work done for the latest issue. The backup server failed to back up. The page layouts had to be totally redone from scratch.

Or, when journalists have been warning their readers not to keep all eggs on one basket. As a business magazine readers, you might understand what I meant. But, yes, journalists do not have enough.. well.. money to do investment. Well, I cannot blame that Indonesian journalists are underpaid, so they cannot afford to buy gold, blue chips shares (unless they are journalists whose working on stock exchange desk), or bonds.

Sometimes, it is fun when we were writing about a trillion rupiah business deal or income. However we have never had or touched or counted or even seen that BIG amount. Sometimes, we must imagine to be a rich man or think as a businessman.

Yes, it is difficult to practice what we usually write on article. But we are not a liar hehehehe...

Good News for Social Networking Sites Lovers

Good news for workers addicted to Facebook, Bebo, Yahoo! Messenger, and MySpace like me. A British think-tank says bosses should not stop their staff using social networking sites because they could actually benefit their firms.

The report by Demos said encouraging employees to use networking technologies to build relationships and closer links with colleagues and customers could help businesses rather than damage them. Author Peter Bradwell said that while companies were using specific systems to share information, online social networking sites could also play a role, helping with productivity, innovation and democratic working. However, he said there should be practical guidelines to limit non-work usage.

"Bans on Facebook or YouTube are in any case almost impossible to enforce; firms may as well try to put a time limit on the numbers of minutes allowed each day for gossiping," he wrote. The answer is not to close down staff access to social network platforms, nor is it investing blindly in collaborative platforms. Rather, they argue that their need to understand how, once we accept the implications of social networks, we can manage the new challenges and trade-offs.

His research concluded that trying to control the use of sites such as Facebook, which alone boasts more than 100 million users worldwide, could even harm organizations. "Smart" businesses recognized that social networking could not easily be separated from "professional" networking, he argued. "In today's difficult business environment, the instinctive reaction can be to batten down the hatches and return to the traditional 'command and control' techniques that enable managers to closely monitor and measure productivity," he said.

Allowing workers to have more freedom and flexibility might seem counterintuitive, but it appears to create business more capable of maintaining stability.

Robert Ainger, Corporate Director of Orange Business which co-produced the report, said it would be wrong of businesses to ignore the importance of networking in the current economic climate. "The report points out that the value of networking within an economic downturn is perhaps more important than ever and I believe it could mean the difference between a business collapsing or capitalizing on the tricky conditions," he said.