Bagai sulap, ternyata buku manual itu ada!

Polisi dan jaksa benar-benar dibuat terperangah dan kehabisan kata-kata saat terdakwa Charlie 'iPad' Sianipar mampu menunjukan buku manual berbahasa Indonesia di pengadilan. Sebab, buku itulah yang menjadi sebab musabab kenapa Charlie dituduh melanggar UU Perlindungan Konsumen dengan tidak mampu menunjukan ke polisi saat digeledah di tokonya, di Mall Ambasador November tahun lalu.

"Apakah bapak pernah melihat ini? Buku manual berbahasa Indonesia untuk menggunakan iPad?" tanya kuasa hukum Charlie, Andi Simangunsong, kepada polisi yang menggeledah toko Charlie, Brigadir Satu (Briptu) Atang Setiawan saat sidang di PN Jakarta Selatan, Jl Ampera Raya, Rabu (21/9/2011).

"Ya. Tapi itu tidak ada dalam dus kemasan iPad," jawab Briptu Atang dengan mata kaget.

"Apakah bapak tahu, ini bisa diperoleh dengan mendownload begitu konsumen beli iPad?" cecar Andi.

"Saya tidak tahu. Buku manual itu berupa lembaran, di dalam dus," jawab Atang.

"Dalam peraturan menyebutkan bahwa kewajiban menyertakan buku petunjuk manual berbahasa Indonesia atau 'dalam bentuk lain'. Apakah Saudara tidak tahu 'bentuk lain' tersebut bisa berupa digital, didownload versi pdf? " tandas Andi sambil mengangkat 209 halaman buku petunjuk yang telah di-print dari versi pdf.

"Saya tidak mempelajari. Saya hanya menjalankan perintah atasan," jawab Briptu Atang.

Sementara saksi kedua yang merupakan rekan Briptu Atang, Aiptu Yeni Dwiningsih mengaku hal serupa. Aiptu Yeni menyatakan telah menggeledah toko Charlie yang kemudian membawa 14 unit iPad sebagai barang bukti, tanpa menanyakan secara detail apakah iPad mempunyai buku petunjuk berbahasa Indonesia.

"Saya hanya menjalankan perintah atasan. Saya habis apel pagi, dapat perintah langsung laksanakan," jawab Aiptu Yeni di depan ketua majelis hakim Yonisman.

Sementara di meja penuntut umum, jaksa hanya diam. Jaksa mengalihkan perhatian dengan mengangkat faktur pembelian iPad yag digeledah di toko Charlie. Faktur tersebut yang dianggap jaksa sebagai bukti telah terjadi transaksi penjual dan konsumen seperti dalam dakwaan.

Rencananya, sidang akan dilanjutkan Rabu pekan depan dengan memeriksa saksi-saksi yang di surat dakwaan. Sementara usai sidang, Andi menyatakan ketidakpahaman polisi yang membuat Charlie sampai berurusan dengan pengadilan yang tidak perlu tersebut.

"Sangat disayangkan, polisi tidak memahami versi digital manual book. Ini justru paperless, go green. Dengan ini, hutan kita terselamatkan dari penebangan untuk bubur kertas," tukas Andi.


(Ari/irw)

Excerpt from detiknews.com. Oh what I would give to see the expression on Briptu Atang's face.

1 comments:

Law on Formation of Laws (UU No. 12/2011)

Here's a quote from West Wing:

"Law is like sausages. You don't wanna know how they're made."

Ever wonder? I can tell you that even lawyers don't necessarily know how law is made. Most of us probably breezed through that class back in law school with just enough to pass. Most of us are now probably apathetic and resigned to gloom over the idea that the illuminating minds at DPR are in charge of law-making. Or jaded because every day a new law comes out and we are left to sort out the mess of its implementation, or lack thereof. And even if we attended class diligently and passed with class honors, there are those tripes and intestines chopped up and hidden in the sausage which they didn't teach us in class; the stakeholders, the lobbying, the arbitrary determination of sociological value.

But at least there are a few things I think are slight improvements in the new Law compared to previous UU 10/2004:

1. Public participation

Previous law says "The people are entitled to provide written or verbal input on draft laws and regional regulations". Period.

New law expands that entitlement to all draft regulations (presumably everything from UU, PP, Perpres, PerMen, Perda, etc etc.) How? Through public hearings, work visitations, socialization, and seminars / discussions.

And to make this easy for us, every draft regulation must be "easily accessible to the people".

This is a basic civic right and it is about time this were clearly regulated. But the idea needs to be fluffed out and detailed in implementing regulations.

How wonderful life would be if every draft regulation that gets submitted to DPR/President is also simultaneously posted on the SekNeg/ Depkumham website, downloadable together with its Academic Brief, and the following notification:

"Public discussion on this draft will be held at [venue to be confirmed] 30 days from the date this draft is uploaded. Seats are limited. Please register your name/institution and a brief description of the relevance of the draft to your interests, to the following email address..."

*sigh*

2. Academic Brief

Academic Briefs (Naskah Akademis) are now required to be attached when submitting a draft Law to DPR/President, and the things it must generally contain are also now regulated. It ideally contains the academic research and "philosophical, sociological, judicial" considerations that went into the draft law so that reviewers can have a better idea as to what, why, and how. To be fair Academic Briefs have been around before, but inconsistently. Presumably because previous Law 10/2004 did not make it mandatory nor mention it.

One comment: "sociological" aspects are meant to include the kind of added value to society the draft law purports to impart. I personally think this should be framed as a cost-effective value: including cost-benefit analysis, methodological research into the economic cost of status quo and calculations of intended future economic benefit to society. How else would anyone plan for the success of a policy with only limited resources?

3. Formulation Team

The "pioneer" or the party that came up with the idea of having a new regulation has to form an inter-ministerial and/or non-governmental committee to prepare the draft. This departs from previous which requires only that the "minister or chief of non-departmental authority" prepare the draft. Hopefully this bodes well for a future of regulations that don't overlap, compete, or conflict with other ministries as they currently do.

Amen.



0 comments:

Recycling Stations

"@MissLaiLai: I love seeing Recycling Stations, like the ones in JIS (saw during TEDxJakarta last week). Hey @TizaMafira any chance you know where else they have these in town? :D"

The Recycling station she was referring to looks like this:


















Which reminds me a lot, I'm rather proud to say, of the ones at my almamater law school at University of Indonesia:





















The name "Recycling Station" is a bit snazzy and elaborate, they really are just a row of rubbish bins. But there is a reason why it's called "recycling" and that is to enforce the idea that Every. Single. Piece of. Garbage. Can be. Recycled.

Every single piece of garbage can be recycled. But. Ah there's a but! Of course there's a but.

BUT only if the garbage in question manages to find its way into the right hands. Hence the compartment separation, because mixed-up garbage is a pain to sort and will eventually probably not get sorted and sent to the right recyclers. Of course the complexity of the rubbish supply chain from user to scavenger to dump site to recyclers is another matter which merits another blog post.

To answer MissLaiLai's question, we have these kinds of rubbish bins all over town and you must have seen them before:



















I found the above picture from Pandji's blog and the problem, as he puts it, is in the design. I completely agree. If not entirely compelling and decorated with taglines that call out to your conscience and morality, at the very least be informative. Having one blue and one orange is an interesting study in color-mixing but does nothing to tell you where to put your empty can.

Granted, the above bins are anomalous. Maybe the procurement dudes happened to pick a vendor that wasn't big on labels (like me... I'm really not into relationship labels these days, um, but anyways.) Tons of other similar rubbish bins have these labels: "Wet" and "Dry", or "Organic" and "Non-Organic".

A recurring complaint from friends is that these labels are also not helpful.

"I'm throwing away this bread. I'm pretty sure it's not organic since it didn't grow out of soil."

"So my wet tissue goes into 'WET', right?"

(In case you were wondering, the response to both the above quotes is "Wrong")

JIS labels theirs with a (i) Metal, glass, & plastics, (ii) Organic, and (iii) General. Other bins I've seen are categorized (i) Plastic, (ii) Paper, (iii) Organic. Sometimes "Glass" is in there somewhere. Sometimes "Metal" also, which messes with everyone's head when you need to throw away a piece of paper with staples on it. Or a tin of sardines with a paper label on it.

So, not only is the problem in the design, but also on the uniformity of the design. Separating garbage is counter-intuitive sometimes: why take the chicken bones out of the KFC box if I can just chuck the whole damn box with the bones in it?

If there was a uniformity and consistency in the way bins and labels are designed and we're constantly being fed with this simple information like a relentless propaganda drumming into our thick heads, I think most of us would finally get the point. Uniformity requires policy.

When talking policy I can head all sorts of directions. For the time being let me just really really answer MissLaiLai's question and then get back to my day job:

Answer: "You can find recycling stations in your house and mine."

Because it's pretty easy to start one at home :-)

PS: Give the contents of your "paper" bin to Pak Salam at Kedai Daur Ulang, Mampang Prapatan.


*first two photos from SunhYoung's blog and Nisaa's blog.


1 comments:

On the Waste Management draft government regulation

Finally, coffee, and time to read. So I sit back and discover this rather aggravating teaser of an article: Business Rejects Draft Waste Regulation

I've searched high and low for this elusive draft Government Regulation on Waste Management. I see no reason why industry stakeholders have managed to get a hold of it and I can’t. If a supposedly public draft regulation can’t be found on Google (nor by the paralegal at the law firm where I work, for that matter) then it’s not effing public is it?

“Kalau Rancangan PP itu mood-mood-an Mbak, kadang dipasang di website, kadang engga”, she said.

But it seems the main controversy focuses on these five “leaked” clauses:

Article 8 requires manufacturers to prepare a plan and program to reduce waste incurring from its activities and is obliged to produce packaging that is easily biodegradable.

Article 9 requires manufacturers to recycle and use recyclable raw materials. It also requires producers to reclaim rubbish from their own packaging for recycling.

Article 10 allows the appointment of a third party to implement Article 9.

Article 11 stipulates that producers that re-use waste must recall the resulting rubbish and packaging.

Article 12 requires producers to implement a mechanism for withdrawal of their products and packaging from the rubbish pile.

Manufacturers are in an uproar, saying it is financially impossible, ridiculous, unheard of, and will ultimately put them out of business. It is, in fact, none of the above, if they would just calm down and think it through for a bit. Also not sure how the government has been briefing them, but I’m guessing they could have made the unnecessary blunder of ignoring this rule in green advocacy:

Frame it as an opportunity, not a cost.

Granted, extended producer responsibility (EPR), which is what it really is, is at face value a strategy to shift waste management costs from the government to the private sector. By the way I don’t see anything wrong with that. Attractive bright colored plastic packaging for groceries is not a public facility we asked for. I’d like to know my taxes are being used properly to clean up the neighborhood, but not that it is being disproportionately used to process unnecessary waste.

But there are also so many opportunities to be explored in using less packaging or recycling (ie. cutting down packaging costs, less dependency on raw materials, reputational value). It will also be a gradual transition which will allow for adjustment – even if a transition period weren’t regulated, enforcement is always slow anyway especially for new concepts. The regulation should be clear about what types of rubbish the producers must recall. For example, recalling electronic components and bottles would make sense given (i) the sheer toxicity of electronic waste and lack of technology available to deal with it, or (ii) the relatively easy recyclability of glass / plastic bottles (as opposed to soggy plastic bags etc). Perhaps the most harmful rubbish could be prioritized before incrementally “graduating” to other types.

At the end of the day this will force companies to rethink their use of resources for packaging – have they been efficient, is it a sustainable method in the long run, are there less costly alternatives? It’s an opportunity born simply out of the realization that pretty packaging is high maintenance.

0 comments:

Waste Law No. 18/2008

Several thing depress me about Law No. 18 of 2008 on Waste ("Waste Law"). One of those things being how good it is. Because it is, as far as laws are concerned, pretty straightforward and comprehensive. But in Indonesia because of the hierarchy of laws, a Law (Undang-Undang) will always be a clawless paper tiger until its implementing regulations come out.

Here's a few tantalizing non-manifestations in the form of OBLIGATIONS:

Article 12 - Everyone must reduce and manage household waste in an environmentally friendly manner.

Article 13 - Managers of residence areas, commercial areas. special areas, industrial areas, public/social facilities, must provide waste-separation facilities.

Article 14 - Producers must put labels on their products relating to waste reduction/management.

Article 15 - Producers must process the packaging and/or goods it manufactures (which is difficult / impossible to degrade).

Not only are there obligations, but the government apparently should also give (i) incentives to those who reduce waste, and (ii) disincentives to those who do not! (Article 21).

It's also got all sorts of warm and fuzzy democratic undertones allowing for civic participation, eg public-private partnership in managing waste, acknowledging citizens rights to provide suggestions and input and take part in policy-making. (Article 27, 28).

It FORBIDS waste importation, waste processing that causes environmental damage, open waste management sites, waste-burning practices. (Article 29) Regional governments are expected to close down all open-sites by 2013 (Article 44).

I read all this slightly mystified. Only slightly, because I'm used to this by now. The catch is in the sentence "this shall be further regulated in....". And although the Law says that implementing regulations should be issued within one year, this has not happened, and there exists no penalty for lateness.

One thing that particularly interests me is this clause:

Article 36 - communities harmed by a tort relating to waste management may file a class action lawsuit.

I have searched jurisprudence files for such a class action lawsuit and have not found any. Has nobody ever thought of claiming damages over open waste management site landslides or river-waste induced dysentery outbreaks? I'm still searching, but if anybody has any info on this I'd be very happy :)

Article 15 is also much talked about these days by virtue of its sheer impotence. We really don't see producers collecting the residues of their products/packaging for recycling (with the exception of a few, like The Bodyshop retailers that have a basket where you can return used Bodyshop containers).

This becomes particularly concerning when we are talking about electronic waste, which is still severely under-managed in the waste world because it is a sum of complicated and different toxic parts. Some discussions on e-waste here: Sampah Elektronik Mau Dibuang Kemana
and here: More Regulations Urged for Indonesia's Hazardous E-Waste

Also cropping up in a discussion with friend Marc, is a dilemma with Article 15's scope of responsibility being limited only to non-degradable packaging. Producers who can claim to use biodegradable plastic bags are exempt from this obligation, and will continue churning out vast amounts of plastic which will continue to pollute rivers, be burnt, clog sewers, etc, without proper management.

Another problem with Article 15 (supposing it is even enforced), is that it inadvertently justifies the churning out of inefficient packaging and tons of plastic waste that will continue to pollute, with the idea that it is offset by producers being responsible for waste-processing. I think we can agree that reducing waste is vastly better than recycling, and if you don't agree yet please read this: Plastic and the Great Recycling Swindle

Speaking of plastic, the Law doesn't seem to provide an umbrella clause that could allow for a nationwide ban on plastic bags. It provides for regional governments to do their own thing, but only specifically mentions "supervision", "partner with waste management business entities". The possible hook is Article 20, which says the government and regional government must have a target for gradual reduction of waste within a certain timeframe. This, again, to be further elaborated in a currently-embryonic implementing regulation.

The gossip is that Jakarta is preparing a policy, flagging it Plastic Free Jakarta 2011. I haven't heard any more news of this since this MoU was signed in 2010.

Enter Draft Government Regulation on the Reduction of Waste, drafted in 2009 and as of today the latest update is that it is sitting on the President's desk. Of course, the plastic bag industry is highly opposed to this draft, with reasonings that sound desperate, I might add.

More on this draft later after I read the academic review.

0 comments:

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)