The Pandemic and Job Creation Law
A reader views that the Job Creation Law should have involved a comprehensive study and discussing all clusters.
The Pandemic and Job Creation Law
THE year 2020 was a trying one. While several countries swiftly dealt with the Covid-19 pandemic, the Indonesia government did the opposite. The government was less responsive in controlling the pandemic as it was late to issue derivative regulations concerning health quarantine. The government even deemed the endorsement of the Job Creation Law more important than the pandemic control. Simultaneous regional elections were also carried out.
It reminds me of the postulate salus populi suprema lex esto (people’s safety is the supreme law). But the reality has been negligence of public safety and interests. In fact, in the current pandemic period, the role of the government along with the House of Representatives (DPR) is very crucial in the mitigation efforts. The synergy between the government and the DPR is needed. The government and the DPR should adopt policies with accurate targets. Such well-targeted policies will accommodate and reflect public aspirations, rather than the ones which cater to individual or group, even oligarchic, interests.
It is hard to logically understand the passage of the Job Creation Law by the method of omnibus law within a relatively short time, as this law is directed at several major issues like investment ecosystem enhancement, manpower affairs, and business facilities. The Job Creation Law should have involved a comprehensive study and discussing all clusters.
Besides, there should have been earlier dissemination of the omnibus law method and the targets of the Job Creation Law. The law’s problems can also be viewed from its formal aspect that does not embrace all stakeholders impacted, when in fact, this law has affirmed the participation of society.
As for participation, it certainly has correlation with openness or transparency. In the context of the Job Creation Law, in fact the process of legislation was not conducted transparently, which is reflected when the draft of the law had its pages and articles changed several times.
Samarinda, East Kalimantan
The Infrastructure Development Dilemma
DEVELOPMENT requires extensive spaces, thus slashing vast areas of agricultural land. In 2018 rice fields covered a total area of about 7.1 million hectares, down from 7.75 million hectares in the previous year. Meanwhile, when agricultural areas have become toll roads, only a handful of car owners can enjoy the development.
Development is a two-edged knife. Only a small number of people receive benefit from infrastructure while the rest merely serve as bystanders. Rice fields should constitute an important environment to be utilized for food supply. Unsurprisingly, we once achieved food self-sufficiency in the 1980s.
No less important is that infrastructure also supports such utilization. However, once again, which urgency is considered more crucial, agricultural land use or infrastructure development? This is a dilemma demanding correct and accurate decision-making. We should be able to judge rightly so that no more one-sided decisions are made.
Mojokerto, East Java
The Problem of Tuberculosis in Indonesia
ACCORDING to the World Health Organization (WHO), tuberculosis (TB) is one of the 10 diseases causing the highest mortality in the world. Based on Global Report TB 2019, tuberculosis cases in 2018 totaled 10 million with 1.5 million deaths. Eight countries contributed two thirds of the total global TB. Indonesia ranked second after India.
The high TB incidence in Indonesia may be due to various factors. The risk factors affecting the high TB prevalence in Indonesia are the history of contact with TB patients, the behavior of patients when clearing phlegm, the smoking habit, and environmental conditions.
On average, a TB patient can infect two to three people at home. The contact history has a 5.4-time risk, followed by 2.4 times for the smoking habit. The environmental factor also affects its incidence. Many houses fail to meet the requirement for 61.8 percent room lighting. This lighting factor has a three-to-seven-time risk of infection.
Sesar Dayu Pralambang