Thomas Karsten (1885-1945): “Indonesia bersatoelah, Indonesia bermoelialah."

Thomas Herman Karsten adalah tokoh yang berperan besar dalam perencanaan kota di Indonesia. Ia memulai karirnya di Indonesia sebagai penasehat perencanaan di kota Semarang. Kemudian ia menjadi penasehat perencanaan kota Jakarta, Bandung, Magelang, Malang, Bogor, Madiun Cirebon, Jatinegara, Yogyakarta, Surakarta, Purwokerto, Palembang, Padang, Medan dan Banjarmasin. Sebagai arsitek ia diakui mampu memadukan unsur-unsur Indonesia dan Barat. Karya-karyanya tersebar di berbagai kota di Indonesia. Pasar Johar di Semarang yang terancam dibongkar adalah salah satunya.      

Yang sering dilupakan orang adalah kepedulian Karsten terhadap isu-isu sosial dan politik yang berkembang di masanya. Padahal, menurut Simon Karsten, anak laki-laki Thomas Karsten, untuk memahami karya-karya ayahnya konteks ini (dan kecintaan Karsten pada kebudayaan Indonesia dan pada istrinya) penting. Karsten mengakui bahwa kebudayaan Barat membawa kemajuan, tapi dalam pandangannya kebudayaan Barat sedang merosot.

Kebudayaan Timur, dan khususnya Indonesia, dengan spiritualisme dan ikatan sosialnya bisa menyelamatkan Barat dari kemerosotannya itu. Menurutnya, unsur-unsur terbaik Timur dan Barat bisa digabungkan untuk menghasilkan sesuatu yang lebih baik lagi serta membawa kemajuan bagi keduanya. Karsten mempunyai visi tentang Indonesia pasca penjajahan, suatu Indonesia di mana Timur dan Barat hidup bersama dan sederajat dalam masyarakat yang harmonis.

Amsterdam

Karsten berasal dari keluarga terpelajar yang mapan. Ayahnya pengajar filsafat dan rektor sebuah  hoogeschool. Dalam lingkungan keluarga inilah Karsten mulai mengenal gagasan-gagasan progresif. Sejak muda Karsten telah menunjukkan perhatiannya yang besar pada isu-isu sosial di Belanda. Pilihannya untuk belajar di fakultas bouwkunde di Technische Hogeschool di Delft  adalah salah satu bukti tentang kesadaran sosialnya itu. Fakultas yang baru didirikan itu menjadi tempat belajar orang-orang muda yang mempunyai keinginan memperbaiki kondisi sosial masyarakat.

Setelah lulus Karsten bergabung dengan Sociaal Technische Vereeneging, kelompok profesional muda yang progresif. Pada 1904 ia terlibat dalam proyek pembangunan rumah rakyat di Amsterdam, Volkshuisvesting in de Nieuwe Stad te Amsterdam. Amsterdam ketika itu adalah satu-satunya kota industri di Belanda. Di kota itu terdapat kesenjangan sosial, ekonomi, dan etnis yang parah. Di kota ini pula berkumpul para tokoh-tokoh pemikir radikal Belanda. Diprakarsai walikota Amsterdam yang sosialis, proyek besar ini bertujuan menyediakan perumahan layak di kawasan Amsterdam Selatan. Di daerah kumuh ini tinggal buruh pendatang dan masyarakat Yahudi miskin. Proyek inilah yang membentuk pandangan-pandangan idealistis dan ideologis Karsten selanjutnya.

Semarang

Atas undangan Henri Maclaine-Pont, temannya semasa kuliah di Delft, Karsten datang ke Semarang pada 1914. Semarang di masa itu adalah kota yang unik. Dibandingkan kota-kota lain, para pejabat di Semarang mempunyai wawasan yang lebih luas. Selain itu terdapat komunitas Tionghoa yang sangat kaya dan berpengaruh serta kelas menengah pribumi berpendidikan Barat yang aktif. Di sisi lain terdapat masyarakat  Indo dan Jawa kelas bawah yang miskin.

Meski menghadapi berbagai persoalan kota, kehidupan intelektual di Semarang ketika itu sangat bergairah. Suratkabar yang sangat berpengaruh di Hindia Belanda, “De Locomotief”, terbit di Semarang. Keadaan Semarang di awal abad 20 itu kondusif bagi munculnya gerakan-gerakan progresif dan radikal, seperti halnya Amsterdam yang baru ditinggalkan Karsten. Di Semarang Karsten menemukan lahan yang subur untuk merealisasikan gagasan-gagasannya di bidang perumahan rakyat dan perencanaan kota.

Melalui perencanaan kota Karsten berupaya untuk menyatukan masyarakat kolonial, untuk memberikan kesempatan pada semua penduduk tanpa melihat latarbelakang etnis mereka menikmati lingkungan sosial dan budaya yang sama, sesuai dengan tingkat perkembangan ekonomi dan sosial masing-masing. Menurutnya dalam masyarakat Indonesia modern bukan faktor etnis tapi faktor sosial-ekonomi yang menjadi penentu. Suatu lingkungan yang terencana akan memungkinkan penduduk hidup bersama membangun suatu masyarakat multi-kultural.

Setelah kariernya yang panjang sebagai konsultan untuk berbagai kota di Indonesia ide-ide Karsten mendapat pengakuan dari pemerintah kolonial di Batavia. Ia diangkat menjadi anggota komisi reformasi perkotaan (Bouwbeperkingscommisie (1930) yang pada 1934 berubah menjadi Stadsvormingscommissie). Tapi meski telah mendapatkan pengakuan pemerintah, usulan pengangkatan Karsten sebagai profesor di Technische Hoogeschool di Bandung (sekarang Institut Teknologi Bandung) ditolak. Karsten dianggap terlalu radikal dan terlalu kritis. Ironisnya, justru di kalangan nasionalis radikal Karsten dianggap terlalu kooperatif terhadap pemerintah. Visi Karsten tentang ‘asosiasi’ dan ‘fusi’ sosial, budaya, dan politik tidak mempunyai tempat dalam Indonesia Merdeka yang diperjuangkan kaum nasionalis revolusioner. Sementara menurut Karsten kemerdekaan Indonesia tidak perlu dicapai dengan revolusi, tapi dengan emansipasi rakyat melalui pendidikan.

Pangeran Mangkunagoro VII dan Soembinah

Karsten banyak berhubungan dengan para intelektual Indonesia. Salah satu diantaranya adalah Pangeran Mangkunagoro VII, penguasa Kadipaten Mangkunegaran di Surakarta. Selama lebih dari tiga puluh tahun Karsten mengadakan hubungan surat menyurat dengan Mangkunagoro VII. Di antara Mangkunagoro VII dan Karsten terjalin persahabatan yang didasari rasa saling hormat. Keduanya disatukan oleh kepedulian pada kebudayaan Jawa. Karsten melihat sosok Mangkunegoro VII sebagai model priyayi Jawa modern.

Mangkunagoro VII ketika masih bernama Raden Mas Soerio Soeparto tinggal lama di Belanda. Ia belajar bahasa di Universitas Leiden dan bertugas pada Haagsche Grenadier (pasukan elit pengawal ratu). Sebagai Mangkunagoro VII ia hadir pada pernikahan Putri Juliana dan menyajikan tari Sari Tunggal yang dibawakan Gusti Nurul puterinya sebagai hadiah perkawinan, sekaligus secara halus menunjukkan kebanggaannya pada budayanya sendiri.

Perkawinan Karsten pada 1921 dengan Soembinah, seorang perempuan pribumi semakin memperkuat ikatan Karsten dengan Indonesia.  Pengertian pribumi disini adalah dari sudut pandang hukum kolonial. Soembinah adalah cucu Heinrich Wieland, mantan tentara Swiss yang menetap di Wonosobo dan menikah dengan seorang perempuan Jawa. Dari perkawinan itu lahir sembilan anak, salah satunya Antje yang menikah dengan Mangunredjo, lurah di Dieng. Karena perkawinan itu status Antje berubah menjadi inlander. Dengan sendirinya anak-anak hasil perkawinan antara Mangunredjo dan Antje Wieland juga berstatus pribumi.

Pada masa itu sudah jarang laki-laki Belanda totok beristeri perempuan pribumi, meskipun di masa sebelumnya banyak yang mempunyai gundik atau nyai  pribumi. Tapi seorang nyai tidak pernah muncul di depan umum. Sebaliknya Soembinah belajar bahasa Belanda dan aktif dalam kegiatan-kegiatan di kalangan perempuan Eropa. Ia  menemani Karsten dalam perjalannya ke Eropa pada 1930. 
Besarnya peran Soembinah dalam kehidupannya diakui Karsten.

Karsten dan Soembinah mempunyai empat orang anak, salah satunya Simon yang mengikuti jejak ayahnya menjadi arsitek. Bahasa sehari-hari yang dipakai oleh keluarga Karsten adalah bahasa Belanda dan cara hidup mereka pada dasarnya cara hidup Eropa, Namun di rumah mereka terdapat seperangkat gamelan yang rutin dimainkan. Pada hari-hari penting keluarga Karsten juga mengadakan slametan seperti layaknya keluarga Jawa.

Buku Harian

Pada 1930 Karsten mulai mencatat gagasan-gagasannya dalam buku harian. Dalam keadaan sakit dalam tahanan Jepang di Cimahi ia masih mengisi buku hariannya itu. Dalam bukunya itu Karsten mencatat pemikiran-pemikiran para filsuf Eropa, perkembangan kapitalisme di Amerika Serikat, komunisme di Rusia dan fasisme di Eropa. Ia juga menuliskan pandangannya tentang agama-agama dan filsafat Timur.

Catatan terakhir Karsten ditulis pada 21 April 1945, hanya sesaat sebelum ia meninggal. Karena sudah terlalu lemah dan tidak mampu menulis, ia meminta bantuan dokternya yang juga sesama tahanan untuk mencatat kata-kata terakhirnya: “Indonesia bersatoelah, Indonesia bermoelialah."  

Wayang, Tolerance and the Internet

Wayang, Tolerance and the Internet

¹ Tjahjono Rahardjo, ² Dr. Ridwan Sanjaya, ³Dr. Rustina Untari,

¹Post Graduate Program on Environment and Urban Studies, Soegijapranata Catholic

University, Indonesia

²Faculty of Computer Science, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Indonesia

³Faculty of Economic and Business, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Indonesia

¹tjahjonorahardjo@yahoo.com,²ridwan.sanjaya@gmail.com,³r.untari@gmail.com

“The highest result of education is tolerance.” – Helen Keller

Abstract

For centuries wayang kulit has played an important role in shaping the world view of the Javanese, including the special kind of tolerance that the Javanese people have. In recent years, however, we have seen an erosion of this sense of tolerance amongst the Javanese. Because of this, a team of researchers from the Soegijapranata Catholic University in Semarang has introduced a portal dedicated the artist of wayang in Solo and Semarang. It is hoped that this portal will make wayang not only survive, but continue to be able to contribute in the development of a plural, tolerant and multi-cultural Indonesian society.

Keywords: internet, multi-culturalism, tolerance, wayang, wayang network

Introduction

A wayang [1] performance was first documented in sufficient detail in the Kakawin Arjuna Wiwaha, a narrative poems composed by Empu Kanwa in 1030 AD during the reign of King Airlangga in East Java. In stanza 59 Empu Kanwa wrote:

“Hanonton ringgit [2] manangis asekel muda hidepan, huwus wruh tuwin yan walulang unikir molah angucap, hatur neng wang tresnaning wisaya malaha tan wihikana, ri tat wan ya maya sahana hananing bawa siluman”.

"People who watch the puppets cry, laugh, marvel, and wonder, even though they know that what they see is only leather carved into human forms, made to move and talk. Those who are seeing puppets in such a way are like a man lusting over worldliness, being self-forgetful and not knowing it is just a ghost-like shadow.”

(Hazeu quoted in Soetarno, 2005).

Earlier, wayang was already hinted in an inscription dating from 907 AD issued by King Balitung of the Indic Mataram Kingdom in Central Java. The inscription reads:

“… Si Nalu macarita bhima kumaramangigal Kicaka si jaluk macarita ramayana mamirus mabanol si mukmuk si galigi mawayang buat thyang macarita bimma ya kumara…”

“…Si Nalu recited Bhimma Kumara (and) danced as Kicaka, Si Jaluk recited the Ramayana, Si Mukmuk play-acted and clowned, Si Galigi performed wayang for the gods, reciting the story of Bimma Kumara…”

(Soedarsono, 1984)

There are two opinions regarding to the origin of wayang. The first one is that wayang originated on the island of Java, specifically in East Java. This opinion is mainly shared by Indonesian scholars as well as Dutch scholars such as L.A. Brandes  J. Kats and specially G.A.J. Hazeau who defended this view in his dissertation ’Bijdrage tot de Kennis van het Javaansche Toneel’ (1897).  In 1931 W.H. Rasser wrote a book titled ’Over de Oorsprong van het Javaansche Toneel’ in which he contested Hazeau’s view. Rasser believes that wayang has its origin in India, and brought to Indonesia along with the Hinduism. Other scholars who support Rassers’ viewpoint include N.J. Krom, C. Poensen, and B.H. Goslings. (Soedarsono, 1984)

Wayang and Tolerance

Whatever the case may be, wayang became an important part of Javanese culture. For more than a thousand years it has developed to become “one of the world’s most complex and dramatic theatrical forms” (Brandon, 1970).  Wayang was not merely an entertainment. In the past, the dhalang (puppeteers) were regarded as a person who possessed extraordinary knowledge and power who transmitted moral and aesthetic values through their art.

The words and actions of comic characters (punakawan) representing the “ordinary person” have provided a vehicle for criticizing sensitive social and political issues. It is believed that these are the reasons why wayang has been able to survive over the centuries (UNESCO, 2008). Mangkunagara VII (1933) in his paper “Over de wajang-koelit (poerwa) in het algemeen en over de daarin voorkomende symbolische en mystieke elementen” published in the journal Djawa pointed out that for the Javanese people wayang had a philosophical, symbolic and mystical significance.

Wayang is usually seen as a conflict between good and evil.  However, as Brandon (1970) points out, the ethical cleavage between good and evil are not absolute. All the main characters (notwithstanding which side they belong to) have their good and bad traits. Therefore, Brandon maintains that in wayang there is no “good” and “evil”, only “better’ and “less good.”

In his book “Mythology and the Tolerance of the Javanese” (1976), Benedict R. O’G Anderson affirms the role of wayang as a metaphysical and ethical “system” in shaping the special kind of tolerance that the Javanese people have. But we have to take into account the fact that Anderson proposed his idea based on observations made in 1976. Since then, however, we have seen an erosion of this sense of tolerance amongst the Javanese. As Lindsay (2012) points out, we now are living in a much less tolerant period in history. This is, incidentally, taking place parallel with the decline of wayang.

Though seemingly still enjoying popularity, wayang performances nowadays tend to accentuate comic scenes at the expense of the story line.  Very few dhalangs adhere to wayang as philosophy, oral literature, and food for thought. As a consequence, wayang is no longer, in Anderson’s words “an almost universally accepted religious mythology which commands deep emotional and intellectual adherence.” The question is: Is there any correlation between the shift in the role of wayang, from that of metaphysical and ethical system to a mere entertainment with the decline of tolerance amongst the Javanese?

Indonesian Wayang Network

In July 2012 the celebrated comic artist Raden Ahmad Kosasih passed away at the age of 93. He is considered as the father of the art in Indonesia. Kosasih’s first work was published in 1953 and he continued to work till 1993. He is best known for his wayang comics, retelling the great Hindu epics, the Ramayana and Mahabarata. For three generations of Indonesian, their first encounter with wayang was through Kosasih’s comic books.  Comics in those days were considered a novelty and “modern.” The first comics introduced in Indonesia were American comics, such as Tarzan, Rip Kirby, Phantom and Johnny Hazard, which are seen as representing the “modern” West. Through this “modern” medium ancient local stories became available to a wide audience.

Compared to comics, the Internet can reach a much wider audience. So far, there has been no real attempt to use the Internet to disseminate knowledge about wayang to the general public, despite the potentials of the Internet to reach many people, especially the young who are by and large incredibly computer literate.

Young people recognize wayang as being one of Indonesia’s iconic art forms and become angry when it is claimed by other countries. However, they actually know very little about it (Sanjaya, 2012).

This is unfortunate because according to Mulyono (1989, quoted in Nurgiyantoro, 2003),  wayang, besides being a sophisticated art form, also contains in the stories conveyed philosophical ideas that are still relevant today.

Mastuti (2012) argues that wayang teaches us how to practice tolerance and how to address differences, Many aspects and values ​​of humanism can found in wayang. With this in mind, a team of researchers from the Soegijapranata Catholic University in Semarang has introduced a portal dedicated the artists of wayang in Solo and Semarang. The basic concept behind this portal is to train wayang performers and wayang studios on how they can use the Internet as a showcase of their arts, so that more people can learn about wayang and the artists involved. It is hoped that this portal will make wayang not only survive, but continue to be able to contribute in the development of a plural, tolerant and multi-cultural Indonesian society.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript is fully granted by Penelitian Unggulan Project on 2012 from the Directorate General of Higher Education of the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia under contract no. 011/O06.2/PP/SP/2012.

References

Anderson, Benedict R. O'G (1976) Mythology and the Tolerance of the Javanese Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell Modern Indonesia Project, Southeast Asia Program, Ithaca, NY, USA: Cornell University

Brandon, J. R. (1970) On Thrones of Gold: Three Javanese Shadow Plays, Cambridge, Mass, USA: Harvard University Press

Lindsay, J. (2012) Seni Pertunjukan Tradisi dan Diplomasi Antar Bangsa, paper presented to the Yayasan Pamulangan Beksa Sasminta Mardawa International Seminar “Menapak Jejak Meniti Harapan: Tantangan Seni Pertunjukan Tradisi di Masa Datang” 14 July 2012, Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta

Mangkunagara VII (1933) Over de Wajang-Koelit (Poerwa) in het algemeen en over de daarin vooromende Symbolische en Mystieke Elementen, in “Djawa”, XII, 1933

Sanjaya, R. (2012) Mengangkat Wayang lewat Internet, Suara Merdeka 22 July 2012. URL: http://blogridwan.sanjaya.org/2012/07/mengangkat-wayang-lewat-internet.html

Soedarsono (1984) Wayang Wong: The State Ritual Dance Drama in the Court of Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Gadjah Mada University Press

Soetarno (2005) Pertunjukan Wayang dan Makna Simbolik. Surakarta, Indonesia: STSI Press

UNESCO (2008) Wayang puppet theater, http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/en/RL/00063 downloaded 1 August 2012

Mastuti, W. (2012) Wayang dan Bayangan Kehidupan, http://www.sinarharapan.co.id/content/read/wayang-dan-bayangan-kehidupan/ downloaded 3 August 2012

Nurgiyantoro, B. (2003) “Wayang dalam Fiksi Indonesia” in Humaniora vol. XV No. 1/2003

Tjahjono Rahardjo is a lecturer at Post Graduate Program on Environment and Urban Studies, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang, Indonesia. He holds the Master degree in MA Urban Management and Development from Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam. His research interests are in Cultural Heritage and Urban Studies.

Ridwan Sanjaya has been working as a lecturer at  the Faculty of Computer Science in Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang, Indonesia since 2002. This author became a member of IEEE, IACSIT, and IEICE. He received the Master of Science in Internet and E-Commerce Technology (MS.IEC) degree and Ph.D. in Computer Information System (Ph.D.CIS) from Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand. He has been publishing more than 95 books related to computer area such as Web Development with JSP, Graphic Engineering using PHP, PDF Report Development with PHP 5.0, Cross-Platform Computer Network Administration, Creative Digital Marketing, Business-Driven Information System, etc. His research interests are in Internet Technology, Information System, and Creative Industries.    

Rustina Untari is a lecturer at Faculty of Economic and Business, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang, Indonesia. She holds the Doctoral degree in Management of Industry from Bandung Institute of Technology, Indonesia and a Master degree in the same field. Her research interests are in Small Medium Enterprises, Entrepreneurship, and Cluster Industries.

---

[1] The word “wayang” in this article, unless otherwise indicated, refers mainly to the Javanese wayang kulit purwa, wayang performed using flat leather puppets telling stories taken from the Ramayana and Mahabarata epics.

[2]“Ringgit” is the Old Javanese and High Javanese word for “wayang.”

Bahasa Jawa yang Egaliter

"Ternyata Kanjeng Gusti Pangeran Adipati Arya Mangkunegara VII adalah seorang yang berwajah cakep, ganteng, berkumis njlirit, tebal tapi kecil. Meskipun saya langsung merasakan wibawa beliau, wibawa itu tidak membuat orang merasa takut melainkan hormat. Saya terkejut mendengar kalimat beliau pertama kepada saya adalah dalam bahasa Belanda: “Hoe gat ‘t met U, Meneer Hardojo?"

Tulisan di atas dikutip dari novel “Para Priyayi” karya Umar Kayam (1993). Bagian ini menceritakan tentang Meneer Hardojo, seorang mantri guru sekolah desa di Wonogiri, yang diundang menghadap Mangkunegara VII. Hardojo terkejut, pleasantly surprised, karena semula menduga Mangkunegara VII, layaknya seorang raja Jawa kepada bawahannya, akan berbicara dalam bahasa Jawa Ngoko kepadanya. Sapaan dalam bahasa Belanda membuat Hardojo merasa dihargai, diuwongake, dan diperlakukan setara. Apalagi, dengan berbahasa Belanda otomatis berjongkok dan bersembah juga tidak berlaku.

Di zaman Belanda memang sudah terlihat kecenderungan orang-orang Jawa yang menguasai bahasa Belanda memilih bahasa itu, dan bukan bahasa Jawa, sebagai bahasa pengantar di antara mereka. Sedangkan di kalangan orang-orang Jawa yang tidak berbahasa Belanda, bahasa Melayu menjadi pilihan. Seperti telah diramalkan Soewardi Soerjaningrat dalam makalahnya pada Kongres Pengajaran Kolonial I di Den Haag, Agustus 1916: “Sebaliknja menurut penglihatan saja bahasa Melayu akan banyak dipakai oleh orang-orang Jawa, karena bahasa itu lebih demokratis daripada Bahasa Djawa jang indah itu.”

Dalam bahasa Melayu atau Belanda tingkat hormat cukup ditunjukkan dengan pilihan kata ganti orang. Sebaliknya, apabila berbahasa Jawa orang harus berhati-hati menimbang status sosial, usia, kedudukan, dan banyak hal lain dari lawan bicara, sebelum menentukan apakah akan menggunakan bahasa Jawa Krama, Ngoko, Madya atau salah satu dari belasan variannya; kekeliruan memilih bisa berdampak sangat serius. Tjipto Mangunkusumo, seorang yang sangat menentang budaya feodal Jawa, bahkan mengatakan bahasa Jawa harus “dibuang jauh-jauh”. Menurutnya, bahasa Jawa adalah hasil sistem perbudakan, dan dengan mempertahankannya masyarakat yang demokratis tidak mungkin terwujud. Meski ia seorang nasionalis, bagi Tjipto masih lebih baik menggunakan bahasa Belanda daripada mempertahankan bahasa Jawa (Soerjaningrat, 1916).

Gerakan “Djawa Dipa”

 Pada 1914 di Surabaya muncul gerakan “Djawa Dipa” yang berarti “Sinar Jawa.” Pelopornya adalah dua orang tokoh Serikat Islam Surabaya, Tjokrosoedarmo dan Tjokrodanoedjo. Gerakan ini bertujuan meningkatkan martabat masyarakat Jawa melalu reformasi bahasa Jawa. Ketika mendeklarasikan gerakan itu, Tjokrosoedarmo mengatakan bahwa “aturan bahasa Jawa, sekaligus tata kramanya, yang ada sekarang hanya membuat sengsara rakyat saja, dan menghambat kemajuan bangsa Jawa.” Gerakan “Djawa Dipa” menghendaki hapusnya bahasa Jawa Krama dan menjadikan bahasa Jawa Ngoko sebagai satu-satunya bentuk bahasa Jawa.

Dengan pemakaian bahasa yang egaliter diharapkan muncul pula keberanian untuk melawan ketidak-adilan. Selain itu, “Djawa Dipa” juga menghendaki semua gelar kebangsawanan diganti dengan sebutan ‘wira’ untuk laki-laki, ‘wara’ untuk perempuan bersuami, dan ‘rara’ untuk perempuan lajang (Soyomukti, 2009). Saat ini muncul keprihatinan karena bahasa Jawa semakin ditinggalkan penuturnya, terutama generasi muda. Sebenarnya, seperti diuraikan di atas, hal ini bukan gejala baru tapi telah berlangsung lama. Dan proses ini tidak akan berhenti, bahkan akan semakin cepat mengingat masyarakat kita juga semakin demokratis. Akibatnya, bahasa Jawa dalam bentuknya sekarang dengan hirarkinya yang rumit akan menjadi semakin tidak relevan dan anakronistik.

Sekarang, pertanyaannya apa yang harus kita lakukan. Apa kita biarkan saja bahasa Jawa mati dengan sendirinya, ataukah kita berusaha melestarikannya? Apabila pelestarian menjadi pilihan mau tidak mau bahasa Jawa harus direformasi agar sesuai dengan suasana zaman yang menghendaki kesetaraan di antara semua orang. Artinya, seperti telah dipelopori oleh gerakan “Djawa Dipa” bahasa Jawa harus disederhanakan dan unsur-unsur feodalnya dihilangkan.

 Memang, ada sekelompok orang yang melihat adanya tingkatan dalam bahasa Jawa sebagai “keunggulan.” Mereka bahkan sering mengolok-olok penggunaan bahasa Jawa yang keliru, terutama oleh orang-orang muda, seperti misalnya kalimat: “Kula badhe dhahar”(“Saya mau makan”), yang seharusnya: “Kula badhe nedha.” Di sisi lain, mereka juga sering menggunakan bahasa Jawa yang rumit, yang sulit difahami orang kebanyakan, konon untuk menunjukkan “keindahan” bahasa Jawa.

Namun, saya pikir itu semua kontra-produktif. Kalau memang ingin mempertahankan eksistensi bahasa Jawa sebagai bahasa yang hidup, lebih baik segera dilakukan upaya untuk membuatnya lebih demokratis dan egaliter. Sebenarnya bahasa Jawa yang egaliter bukan hal baru asal kita tidak hanya berkiblat ke Surakarta atau Yogyakarta. Kita bisa menemukannya di Surabaya, Banyumas, Tegal, masyarakat Jawa di Suriname, komunitas Sedulur Sikep (Samin), kalangan anak-anak muda dengan bahasa Jawa ‘gaul’ mereka, dan masih banyak lagi.

Kepustakaan: 

 Kayam, Umar (1993) Para Priyayi, Sebuah Novel, Jakarta: Pustaka Grafiti

Soerjaningrat, Soewardi (1916) Welke plaats behooren bij het onderwijs in te nemen, eensdeel de Inheemsche talen (ook het Chineesch en Arabisch), anderdeels het Nederlandsch?, makalah dipaparkan pada Kongres Pengajaran Kolonial I di Den Haag, 28 Agustus 1916

Soyomukti, Nurani (2009) Dari Surabaya Menuju Bahasa Persatuan, Kompas Jatim, 23 Oktober 2009

The Semarang Environmental Agenda: a stimulus to targeted capacity building among the stakeholders

Habitat International 24 (2000) 443-453

Tjahjono Rahardjo

Centre for Urban Studies, Soegijapranata Catholic University, Semarang, Indonesia

Abstract

Recently, a sustainable development action plan was prepared for the city of Semarang, Indonesia. An essential component of this action plan was the building up of an effective partnership among the diverse stakeholders to ensure their commitment. Such an approach in which the city's stakeholders are actively involved in decision making was new for Semarang. This paper describes the roles and attitudes of the different stakeholders in the development of the action plan, and the complex and difficult process to forge partnerships between them. The paper explores the constraints faced during this participatory process, and suggests that there is a need to build the capacity of all stakeholders involved * local government, civil society and the private sector * so that they will be able to play their envisaged respective roles better.

Keywords: Local government; Partnerships; Sustainable development; Capacity building; Local agenda 21; Indonesia

1. Introduction

The 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro called on local governments to prepare their own sustainable development action plans in consultation and partnership with their respective communities. Semarang was one of the first Indonesian cities to prepare such a plan. The preparation of the plan was designed to involve all relevant stakeholders. This was an unusual approach in Indonesia at that time, and valuable lessons were learned from the process.

It was, for example, discovered that there is a need for capacity building measures at the local level, aimed to help the various stakeholders to play their roles more effectively. Besides acquiring new skills, it was felt that changes in their attitudes were required, in particular those of local government officials. This paper attempts to identify the capacity building initiatives needed to respond to the demand for a more responsive, effective and efficient urban management practice.

The first part of this paper briefly describes the city of Semarang and the main problems it faces, which is followed by an account of the preparation of the Action Plan entitled the Semarang Environmental Agenda. The next part focuses on the capacity building initiatives needed to improve the quality of stakeholder involvement in Semarang. The concluding part summarises the lessons learned during the process. The constraints and shortcomings which were encountered are listed, as well as the prospects of the new opportunities that might now be feasible given the democratisation process currently taking place in Indonesia.

2. Semarang: growth, environmental degradation and poverty

Located on the low northern coastal plain of Java, Semarang is inhabited by 1.4 million people (1998), making it Indonesia's fifth most populous city. The population is expected to reach nearly 1.7 million in 2008. Besides the rapid growth of its population, in the last three decades Semarang has also experienced constant economic growth. However, this often has been at the expense of the existing ecosystems and community systems.

Indiscriminate development of housing estates on the hills surrounding the city, for example, has resulted in serious monsoon flooding in low-lying areas. Excessive coastal land reclamation has caused tidewater inundation in areas near the coast, including the historic old town. Overexploitation of the groundwater for industrial, commercial and residential purposes has caused acute land subsidence in many parts of the city as well as seawater intrusion reaching up to several kilometres inland.

The benefits of Semarang's economic development have not been equitably distributed either. The unprecedented economic growth has created a small privileged group of &new rich', while the gap between poor and rich has widened. Even worse, government interventions, supposedly to alleviate poverty, have often undermined existing traditional social networks, the very ties which, in the current economic crisis, proved to be crucial elements of the coping strategy of the poor (Jellinek and Rustanto, 1999). According to official figures 3% of Semarang's population lives in absolute poverty. Unofficial sources give somewhat higher figures. Some have calculated that around 10% of the population are living in absolute poverty, with an additional 15% being `near poor’. Thus, the total percentage of those living in poverty may have been as high as 25%, and this was before the economic crisis. The crisis has added a substantial number of `new poor’ to the already large number of urban poor. One source has calculated that about 50 - 60% of the population is now poor.

3. The Semarang environmental agenda

Officially, the initiator of Semarang's environmental agenda is the local Environmental Impact Management Agency (better known by its Indonesian acronym: Bapedalda), but in reality it was the World Bank through the Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Project (MEIP) that first suggested the idea. MEIP had been trying to sell the idea of preparing a sustainable development action plan for Semarang to different local government agencies but the only one showing any interest was Bapedalda.

The Bank suggested that Bapedalda work together with a local university to form a Joint Team. The Centre for Urban Studies*Soegijapranata Catholic University, which already had had some experiences working with Bapedalda, was subsequently selected. The task of the joint Bapedalda-Soegijapranata team would be mainly to set up the process of stakeholder involvement.

Bapedalda was rather apprehensive about using the title `Semarang Local Agenda 21a. It feared that other local government agencies might think that Bapedalda was trying to meddle in their a!airs. It was decided that the title `Semarang Environmental Agendaa would generate fewer objections, as the word `environmentala would justify Bapedalda taking the lead.[1]

Referring to the Agenda 21 Indonesia, the Semarang Development Guideline, and the Semarang Five-year Development Plan, the Joint Team prepared a rough, tentative list of environmental issues in Semarang. This draft &Environmental Agenda' was distributed to organisations and institutions seen to represent the various stakeholders. It should be noted that they were more or less arbitrarily selected.[2]

All relevant local government agencies were selected to participate, and so were the universities in Semarang, the business community and various non-governmental organisations. The business community consists of the Chamber of Commerce, the local chapter of the Real Estate Indonesia (the association of Indonesian real estate developers) and two major manufacturing companies.

Non-governmental organisations were selected on the basis of their "eld of activities,[3] which, in practice meant all those being involved in environmental issues and related fields. Various youth, student, women and professional groups (including the Semarang Legal Aid Foundation, the Consumers Group and the Journalist Association) were included in this category. The involvement of community-based organisations was restricted to those having `city widea activities.[4] Those that covered only limited areas, such as neighbourhood associations (rukun tetangga)[5], were not included, as their sheer number made it impractical to do so. In total, 66 organisations, 22 of which were local government agencies and the rest representing the business community and civil society, were invited to take part in the process to develop the Semarang Environmental Agenda.

All stakeholders were then requested to present their reactions to the draft ‘Environmental Agenda'. The Joint Team felt that it would be better to organise two separate meetings to do this.

The first one was for local government agencies, the second for the private sector and the community. The reason for this was that it would allow the local government agencies to first agree among themselves (or to use a favourite expression among Indonesian bureaucrats: `to arrive at a common perceptions’) before meeting the other actors. Non-governmental stakeholder representatives were invited for the second meeting.

It is interesting to note the distinctly different tones of the two meetings. The firrst meeting mainly focused on issues like establishing tasks and responsibilities: which agency is or should be responsible for a certain affair. Also, statistical figures such as the number of poor people, the volume of uncollected garbage, the extent of flooding, etc. were commented upon and discussed at great length. Each agency had its own, sometimes conflicting, figures.

Participants of the second meeting, while expressing their appreciation for being invited to participate,[6] were not interested in such details. Their main concern was with the implementation of the agenda once it was formulated. They strongly questioned the local government's commitment because all too often they had witnessed the government breaking its own promises. The two meetings made it clear that in Semarang at that time, (i) there was no real trust yet between the stakeholders, (ii) the role of the local government was very dominant, and that (iii) the concept of sustainable development was not as yet widely understood.

The Joint Team integrated the inputs gained from these two meetings into a report. The plan was to have more meetings with the two groups of stakeholders followed by a joint plenary discussion.

At the end of this process a stakeholder dialogue forum was to be set up. In the mean time, the MEIP was consulted and asked to comment on the draft report. The MEIP felt that the report was too formal and too academic, and, consequently, not very interesting. The agency was of the opinion that it would not serve the purpose of raising the awareness of and stimulating continued dialogue between the stakeholders. Bapedalda's head, on the other hand, wanted to have something tangible to show to the mayor, a document of some kind, and not just a report on a vague conceptual process. She was rather impatient with the series of meetings and consultations, and suggested that the consultation sessions be skipped except for the plenary session. As a compromise, it was finally agreed that separate consultations with the stakeholders would be organized after the plenary session.

4. The local government of Semarang and its partners

Local governments in Indonesia, following current trends, are trying to move from the role of `providers to that of `enablers. Semarang is no exception as its local government is now expected to create an enabling environment for other actors. As enablers, the local government should facilitate the efforts of and to build on the potentials of other actors by `setting up and jointly managing partnerships, but without having overall controls (Bailey, Barber & MacDonald, 1995).

According to Holmes and Krishna (1996): “By engaging a wide range of stakeholders, the pool of resources available to support decision-making is enlarged, ownership is generated, capacity and learning are enhanced and the quality of performance is enhanced.”

To be able to act as an enabler, local governments according to Yap and Mohit (1998) should at least be able to:

• Understand and assess the existing conditions;
• Identify the urban actors locally involved and to understand their interests and motives;
• Develop policies in consultation with all stakeholders;
• Identify partners and determine what each partner can do;
• Negotiate and mediate partnerships to address the problems, and
• Monitor the process and evaluate the impact.

If these yardsticks are applied to the preparation of the Semarang Environmental Agenda, Semarang has not fared very well.

To understand and assess the existing conditions, for example, accurate, up to date information is needed. But in Semarang there was a serious scarcity of reliable data and information. It is true that most of the needed information was ultimately collected, but it proved very cumbersome to gather it from different sources. Besides, its accuracy was often questionable. Data on the same subject but coming from different sources often gave different, and sometimes even contradicting figures.

Above all, it was found that forging partnerships with other stakeholders was definitely not one of the strong points of Semarang's local government. From the beginning, it had difficulties to identify its partners, to understand their motives and interests, not to mention to determine what each partner can do and to jointly develop relevant policies. Instead of trying to adopt a participatory attitude necessary to establishing partnerships, local government staff often assumed a paternalistic attitude towards other urban actors. Apart from that, a supportive legal, institutional and financial framework was clearly missing.

Mutual trust amongst the parties involved is the most essential foundation for partnerships. Before any real dialogue can take place the parties will have to be able to overcome feelings of suspicion and to treat each other as equals. During the preparation of the Agenda, however, this element of trust, understanding and respect among the stakeholders was conspicuously missing.

To support efforts to build trust and to engage the participation of the stakeholders, there should be a flow of information. In this respect the role of the local government in preparing information and to disseminate this to the widest possible audience is very important. This information should be interesting, imaginative and easy to understand. But as was mentioned earlier, initially there was criticism on the way the first draft of the Agenda was presented. It was just like any other official document: formal, dull and often obscure, not exactly something that the public would easily understand.

For the general public it was also difficult to convey their views to the government as there was no e!ective forum for this purpose. Of course the government of Indonesia has always encouraged its citizens to `participate’ in development. This, however, is interpreted as the people participating in programmes initiated by government in a top-down way. The people are expected to at least give their consent; and, even better, to donate their time, labour and money. Seldom, if ever, are they invited to share their ideas and knowledge. This so-called `participation’ is not based on the concept of co-operation, of partnership, but rather on the concept of mobilisation of people's resources.

This top-down approach has been practised in all aspects of life in Indonesia. Because of the government's very powerful position, civil society is usually left out of the planning and decision making process of development programmes.

This is also true for the Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Programme (IUIDP), which has been hailed as an innovative urban management approach in Indonesia. One of the reasons for this claim is that the programme has changed the government's approach in urban infrastructure planning and programming from a sectoral and top}down one to a more integrated bottom-up approach. However, the term `bottom-up’ here is misleading as it does not mean real involvement and participation of ordinary citizens at the grass-roots; it only means more local government administrative responsibilities (vis-à-vis the central and provincial governments). The preparation of the Medium-term Investment Plan,[7] the main planning tool of IUIDP, hardly involves the community. This plan is prepared by local governments, and is appraised by provincial and central government agencies.[8]

In view of the key role of the local government in the process of drafting the Environmental Agenda, considerable attention has been given to its role. However, this does not mean that the roles of other urban actors in Semarang are not worth discussing. First, let us briefly consider the private sector. One thing to note here is that some private sector enterprises can afford to be less efficient and cost-effective as they are involved in informal deals, make use of informal contacts and engaged in corrupt practices. Corruption is widespread in Indonesia, and companies try to build rent-seeking `partnerships’ with influential and well-connected elements of the local government.

This misinterpretation of the meaning of partnership has caused distortions in Semarang's development as environmental, social and legal costs are often externalised causing the worsening of environmental degradation and social disparity in the city.

The weakest group of stakeholders in Semarang are those loosely grouped under the heading civil society. Their weak bargaining position has not helped them in negotiations with other stakeholders. Their position is further negatively affected by the fact that there is no real democratic representation. Members of the handpicked city council do not have real constituents and are only accountable to their respective parties (which in reality are only government sponsored ersatz parties). Meanwhile, there is no channel for the rukun tetanggas or neighbourhood associations to be involved in decision making processes at the city level; besides, their interests tend to be limited to neighbourhood wide issues.[9]

The new laws on local autonomy and revenue sharing will enable local authorities to draw up their own pay scales, instead of following the uniform one now effective nation wide. Some natural-resource-rich regions are already trying to attract professionals in central government organisations with offers of attractive salaries.

5. The present and future needs for capacity building in the context of the Semarang environmental agenda

The preparation of the Semarang Environmental Agenda has brought out several weak points as regards the roles, attitudes and modes of operation of all stakeholders involved in the process, but particularly on the part of the key player: the local government. A distinction can be made in this respect between more intangible issues such as a lack of trust and credibility on the one hand, and a more concrete lack of capacities and skills which are required to successfully bring a participatory planning process to a good end. However, it is argued that these issues are linked in many ways: a bureaucracy will only be credible and be trusted as a partner if it is characterised by integrity as well as capability.

Let us first consider the issue of trust and credibility. It was shown that there was a lack of trust among the stakeholders, stemming from the local government's low credibility. One sign of this was sharp rivalry among local government agencies, clearly demonstrated during the preparation of the Semarang Agenda. Government credibility is also undermined by the lack of creativity and the tendency of bureaucrats to avoid responsibility by passing on decision making to higher levels in the hierarchy. Given the lack of confidence in the government on the one hand, and the pivotal role it plays on the other hand, the main priority for capacity building relates to rebuilding the credibility of the local governments. Attention should be given to the creation of a strong organisational culture, good management practices, and effective communication networks, in addition to improving rules and regulations or procedures and pay scales, as Peltenburg, Davidson, Teerlink and Wakely (1996) point out. Of course, it would be too much to expect that the building of a strong organisational culture and shared norms and values would eliminate rivalry altogether, but it can help (various agencies of) local government to develop a common vision based on which it can perform a common mission.

Building up the credibility of the local government would also require improving the quality of its employees. It is widely acknowledged that the number of civil servants in Indonesia, which includes local government personnel, is too large. The government had previously adopted a `zero-growtha policy, and later even a `minus-growtha policy for its civil servants, and has stopped recruiting new personnel. It has not yet gone as far as to lay o! redundant staff, but retired personnel are replaced only in very special cases.

A leaner (and more efficient) workforce would make higher salaries possible. The very low pay of civil servants is often used as an excuse for the rampant corruption in Indonesia, giving it the dubious reputation as one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Higher salaries will attract better qualified person to work in local government agencies.[10] Meanwhile, for the remaining staff, there is a need for re-training to improve their quality. From the perspective of staff members, another attraction would be a merit-based career prospective; this should replace present payment and promotion practices based on seniority or on personal connections. These measures to enhance the quality of staff will be important in the future when new people can be again appointed.

In sum, what is urgently needed now is a strategy to develop the capacity of the local government in all three dimensions: human resource development, organisational development and developing and adjusting the institutional and legal framework of local governments. This will enhance local government capacity in general, and the capacity to stimulate and facilitate stakeholders' participation in specific. It will also help local governments to change their attitudes. To paraphrase John F. C. Turner, their attitude should be a willingness to work with the people, instead of for the people, and certainly not for their own vested interests. New skills such as information and communication skills, including the use of modern media like the Internet, will be useful in building awareness and stimulating further participation of stakeholders. To support this it is necessary is to establish an accurate database on the various aspects of urban development, easily accessible to all relevant parties.

But it is not only local governments where more capacity and changed attitudes are required. The private sector needs to understand the importance of being able to compete fairly and openly. The patronage of government officials should not be relied upon anymore. Private companies will have to be able to compete not just with local, but also (in this era of globalisation) with international and multinational competitors.

And finally, turning to civil society, it is imperative that support is given to strengthen its bargaining position. This can be done by giving support to (i) help raise awareness and confidence amongst NGOs and local level and community organisations (ii) show what opportunities are available and (iii) build a network of similar, likeminded organisations which can speak with one voice. Local government can certainly play a role here in terms of providing relevant information and technical and management assistance. But for the time being it may be more realistic to rely on organisations such as the Legal Aid Foundation, the Consumers Group, and other advocacy groups, non-governmental organisations and universities. Capacity building for the people, however, should not be merely focused on their perceived weakness but should also, or perhaps in the first place, address the need to reinforce their existing strength (Aede, 1997).

To summarise, there are clear and urgent capacity building requirements relating both to the local government, the private sector and civil society. The question is whether and how the authorities will respond to these requirements. Before considering the prospects for this, recent political developments in Indonesia are briefly reviewed; developments which have a direct bearing also on the issue of local administrative and political change.

6. A changing context: political change in Indonesia

The preparation of the Semarang Environmental Agenda coincided with a period of fundamental changes in Indonesia. The preparation process started in early 1997; the full impact of the Asian economic crisis had yet to hit Indonesia. President Suharto, who had been in power for three decades, was still in full control of the country. By the end of 1997 Indonesia's economy was in ruins and the value of its currency, the rupiah, fell to a record low. In May 1998 Suharto was forced to resign and in June 1999 a fair and free election was conducted for the first time since 1955.

These changes offer vast opportunities, but the challenges are also overwhelming. The multidimensional crisis has forced the Indonesian people to look back and do some soul searching to try to find out what had gone wrong. Many ideas have been thrown around to solve Indonesia's woes. They have touched on issues that used to be taboo, such as amending the constitution, restricting the role of the military and having a federal instead of a unitary state. There is no doubt that these changes will affect the way Indonesian cities, including Semarang, are managed. For example, as a result of the elections, the city of Semarang, like other local entities in Indonesia, will have a democratically elected city council and mayor. Being more legitimate, they will theoretically be more credible. The introduction of new laws that give local governments extensive political responsibility and fiscal authority[11] will make them even stronger.

The citizens, however, have also become more outspoken in their demand for a local government that can deliver services, deliver them equitably, quickly and inexpensively, and without the people having to pay bribes. The cry for `reformasi’ (reforms), following the severe economic crisis and the even more serious political and social crises, have made the people more aware of their rights. Like people elsewhere in Indonesia, people in Semarang want much more say in a!airs influencing their life. And as part of the political reform, the people have been demanding for a more transparent, responsive and accountable government at all levels.

Despite all that, however, the management of the city will continue to depend on the old bureaucracy for some time to come; a bureaucracy that, besides showing little ability to develop partnerships with other urban actors, is also notoriously corrupt. The local government, its agencies and its staff are ill prepared to deal with the challenges posed by new situation. Though there have been some half-hearted attempts at reforms, the bureaucracy basically still clings to its old ineficient, heavy-handed ways. Its attitude of `business as usual’, acting as if oblivious to the fact that Indonesia is facing a terrible crisis, arguably the worst in its history, has been widely criticised.

This has been the reason why the civil society continues to distrust the local government. Even international donor agencies - though not saying it openly - seem to share this view. The implementation of social safety net programmes for people hardest hit by the crisis brought this out very clearly. The donors practically by-passed local government agencies and went directly to non-governmental and community based organisations instead.

Therefore, with reformasi there is an even more pressing need for the local government to change, if it is to regain its credibility. The process of preparing the Environmental Agenda showed, however, that it is not very likely that the local government will change from within under its own initiative. It needs urging (from powerful bodies such as the World Bank for example); and it also needs critical inputs from partners such as non-governmental organisations, universities and other civil society organisations.

The new city council as a democratically elected legislative body will of course play a central role in controlling the local government. But at the moment there are many people who worry about the quality of the city's new legislators. A majority of them are from newly formed parties. In addition to their lack of experiences, their education level is also generally low. Their counterparts in the local government have much more experience and are better educated. Therefore, without strengthening the capacity of Semarang's City Council, it may not be realistic to expect it to become an e!ective guardian of the people's interests.

7. Conclusion[12]

For the urban stakeholders at the local level in Indonesia to be able to e!ectively respond to the challenges and new opportunities, they will have to develop new attitudes, internalise new knowledge and information and acquire new skills. Hence, there is a clear need for capacity building. But is the supply side ready to meet this demand? Is there enough political will to implement change, to adjust organisations and the institutional context? Are national and local training institutions ready; what can international training institution do; what are the actual options?

In Indonesia, there are some promising developments in the area of human resource development. Many local government staff have realised that there is a need to improve their capacity and have, on their own initiatives, enrolled in various training programmes.[13] There are indications that the national government is starting to realise that there is a need to change the attitude of the bureaucracy. It has, for example introduced changes in the way skills up-grading courses are conducted for civil servants who are to be promoted. In the past, these regional and national level courses tended to be indoctrinative in nature. Indeed, they were deliberately designed to assure loyalty of civil servants to the (old) regime. Quite recently the concept of entrepreneurial government a` la Osborne and Gaebler (1992) has been introduced in these courses, which is undoubtedly related to the change in the political environment. Yet these are only superficial changes which need to be followed up by more fundamental changes. Whether these will take place very much depends on the outcome of still unpredictable political developments.

The current changes in the political situation in Indonesian will hopefully lead to a truly democratic society in which there are partnerships between and mechanisms of `checks and balances' among the urban actors. Otherwise, Semarang and other cities in the country will continue to face the problems similar to those described in this paper, problems which threaten their sustainability: a widening gap between poor and rich and continued environmental degradation.

Solving these problems is constrained by a serious lack of trust amongst the city's stakeholders, a lack of confidence in the local government, widespread corruption and the weak position of civil society organisations in relation to other actors.

The establishment of a credible government will help bring about urgently needed policy changes in the areas of human resource development, organisational development and in institutional and legal frameworks. Only with improved governance is there a chance for more attention for capacity building for improved governance, which can respond to the urgent capacity building requirements identified in this paper. And only then there is hope that Semarang and other Indonesian cities will not have to face far more serious social, economical and ecological problems then they are now already facing.

References

Aede, D. (1997). Capacity Building: An Approach to People-Centred Development. Oxford: Oxfam.

Bailey, N., Barber, A., & MacDonald, K. (1995). Partnership Agencies in British Urban Policy. Toronto: UCL Press.

Holmes, M., & Krishna, A. (1996). Public sector management and participation: institutional support for sustainable development. In: Rietsberger-McCraker, J. (Ed.), Participation in Practice: The Experience of the World Bank and Other Stakeholders World Bank Discussion Paper no. 333. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Jellinek, L., & Rustanto, B. (1999). Survival Strategies of the Javanese during the Economic Crisis. Unpublished Preliminary Report.

Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing Government. Reading: Addison-Wesley, MA.

Peltenburg, M., Davidson, F., Teerlink, H., & Wakely, P. (1996). Building Capacity for Better Cities. Rotterdam: IHS.

Yap, K. S., & Mohit, R. S. (1998). Reinventing Local Government for Sustainable Cities in Asia: Implementing the Habitat II agenda in education and training. Regional Development Dialogue, 19(1), 87}94.

Further reading

Anonymous (1979). Semarang: Masa Lalu, Masa Sekarang dan Masa Mendatang. Pemerintah Kotamadya Daerah Tingkat II Semarang, Semarang.

Anonymous (1997). Agenda 21 Indonesia*Strategi Nasional untuk Pembangunan Berkelanjutan. Kantor Menteri Negara Lingkungan Hidup, Jakarta.

Anonymous (1998). Agenda Lingkungan Semarang: Menuju kota yang berkelanjutan 1998}2003. Pemerintah Kotamadya Daerah Tingkat II Semarang dan Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Katolik Soegijapranata, Semarang.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiative (1996). The Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning. ICLEI, IDRC, UNEP, Toronto.

Jellinek, L. (1991). The Wheels of Fortune. Sydney: Allen and Unwin,

Lanti, A., & van der Hoff, R. (1997). 'The Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development Programme (IUIDP) in Indonesia'. In K. Singh, et al., Integrated Urban Infrastructure Development in Asia. New Delhi and Oxford: IBH Publishing.

Project INS/90/026 Formulation of Provincial Shelter Strategies to Strengthen the National Shelter Strategy of Indonesia (1993). Recommended Provincial Shelter Strategies for Central Java. UNDP and the Ministry of Housing, Jakarta.

---

[1] The Badan Pengendali Dampak Lingkungan Daerah (Bapedalda) is a local government agency responsible for environmental related issues. Its head reports directly to the mayor. However, within the local government there is also an environmental division (Bagian Lingkungan Hidup) whose responsibilities often overlap Bapedalda's.

[2] The local government played a dominant role in the selection of stakeholder representatives. For instance, only those non-governmental organisations not too critical to the government were invited. The three government-sanctioned parties were not invited, as they had no real political influence and were set up merely as proof that Indonesia was a democracy.

[3] At first Bapedalda was not comfortable with the idea of involving non-government institutions in the preparation of the Agenda, but eventually it was convinced of the potential benefits of this approach.

[4] Only one CBO actually fulfilled this criterion. In Semarang there is no real city-wide community-based organisation. What was here considered as such was an association of community-based housing groups that actually only represented a small number of people scattered all over the city.

[5] The rukun tetangga is found in every community in Indonesia. Its voluntary leadership is elected directly by heads of households in the particular neighbourhood, making it one of the more democratic institutions in Indonesia under the New Order regime. It is, though, still male biased, as heads of households tend to be male. It was originally set up by the Japanese occupation government during World War II to mobilise and control the populace; it was revived in 1969 to stimulate community development. Each RT consists of about 30 households.

[6] A number of them acknowledged that this was the first time they were invited to take part in a discussion on policy issues by the local government. Originally, it was feared that the Bapedalda would suggest that the government controlled local legislative body represent the stakeholders.

[7] Program Jangka Menengah (PJM) in Indonesian

[8] In practice, as they lack the required capacity, local governments appoint consultants to do the job. This often gives

[9] The new law on local government has tried to address this issue by stipulating that at the village (rural and urban) level there will be a directly elected legislative body. In the old system the lowest legislative body is at the city level that was in reality a mere rubber stamp body.

[10] The new laws on local autonomy and revenue sharing will enable local authorities to draw up their own pay scales, instead of following the uniform one now e!ective nation wide. Some natural-resource-rich regions are already trying to attract professionals in central government organisations with o!ers of attractive salaries.

[11] Two new national laws have recently been passed. Thefirst one will give wider decision making power to the local government, while at the same time making them more accountable to their constituents. The local legislative body, which in the past was considered part of the local government, is now seen as a separate entity. The second law will give local governments considerably more revenue sharing power.

[12] I am indebted to Cor Dijkgraaf of IHS for the insights he gave me for this section. However, the views expressed are entirely my own

[13] There have been many cases, however, when these people become disappointed after returning to their regular working environment. The high hopes they had to be able to do something worthwhile with their newly acquired knowledge are often not in line with the rigid bureaucratic system.