Kecil-Kecil Jadi Pengusaha di Negara Jiran

Koran SINDO (original link, berlangganan)

Kamis, 26 February 2009

Patrick Grove mendirikan Catcha.com pada 1999 ketika berumur 23 tahun, tidak lama setelah lulus kuliah dan sempat pada portal internet teraktif dan paling ramai dikunjungi di Asia Tenggara. Perusahaannya pada 2002 banting setir ke majalah gaya hidup dan dalam lima tahun berkembang pesat menjadi grup media dengan dua puluh penerbitan di Malaysia, Singapura, dan Indonesia. Pada 2007 Patrick meluncurkan iProperty.com yang mempertemukan pembeli dan penjual di Singapura, Malaysia, Filipina, Hong Kong, dan Taiwan. Perusahaan yang telah terdaftar di Australian Stock Exchange ini memiliki 750.000 anggota dengan 100.000 item serta 4.000 agensi yang aktif melakukan bisnis.Tak aneh bila pendapatan tahunannya telah melebihi USD15 juta. World Economic Forum,pertemuan prestisius tahunan para pemimpin ekonomi dunia, mengakui Patrick sebagai salah satu dari 100Global Leaders for Tomorrow(GLT) pada 2001. Majalah Business Week menjuluki pria berumur 33 tahun ini sebagai salah satu Asia's Best Young Entrepreneurs 2008. Patrick adalah salah satu keberhasilan program Pemerintah Malaysia untuk mendorong kewirausahaan di kalangan pemuda. Program MSC Technopreneur Development (MTD) menjadi program andalan Malaysia untuk mendorong wirausaha di bidang teknologi dalam membangun sistem nasional inovasi seperti dikonsepkan Friedrich List (1789–1846) dalam mengembangkan industrialisasi di Jerman dalam mengatasi ketertinggalan dari Inggris. Rencana bisnis yang prospektif dapat memperoleh dana awal (seed fund) sampai 150.000 ringgit (Rp500 juta). Program kewirausahaan lalu dicanangkan Malaysia, misalnya Multimedia Super-Coridor (MSC) pada tahun 1995.Area seluas 750 kilometer persegi dekat Kuala Lumpur dilengkapi dengan kabel optik dan infrastruktur telekomunikasi canggih serta Multi- Media University (MMU) sebagai pusat riset dan penggerak kluster. Dengan target menjadi Silicon Valley di Asia, MSC merupakan special economic zone (SEZ) bagi produk high tech. Pemerintah Malaysia memberikan kemudahan fiskal dan peraturan serta infrastruktur sehingga berhasil menarik perusahaan ternama seperti Microsoft, Oracle, HP, Netscape, Ericsson, Intel, Nortel, Siemens, Fujitsu, dan masih banyak lagi. Bill Gates bahkan menjadi salah satu penasihat Mahathir Muhammad untuk kebijakan teknologi. Malaysia sadar bahwa mereka perlu berpindah dari ekonomi berbasis produk pertanian dan tambang seperti sawit, karet, dan timah (resource base eoconomy) ke ekonomi berbasis pengetahuan (knowledge base economy). Akumulasi skill, ilmu pengetahuan dan perilaku, serta jaringan menjadi basis menuju lepas landas menjadi industri maju pada 2020. Keberhasilan Malaysia yang merdeka 18 tahun setelah Indonesia untuk mencapai pendapatan hampir empat kali lipat dari Indonesia tidak dapat diabaikan. Kementerian Kewirausahaan dibentuk tahun 1995 untuk mengidentifikasi, melaksanakan, dan mengoordinasikan langkah-langkah yang diperlukan untuk meningkatkan kewirausahaan di Malaysia. Perhatian khusus diberikan untuk mendorong pemuda dan wanita masuk ke dunia wirausaha. *** Menurut hasil studi Small and Medium Industries Development Corporation (SMIDEC) dan National Productivity Corporation tahun 2004, sebagian besar usaha kecil dan mengengah (UKM) di Malaysia bergerak di bidang produksi makanan, olahan metal (18%),produk kayu (17%),dan metal dasar (4%). Hanya 26% yang melakukan ekspor, kebanyakan dari sektor high tech. Pada sistem ekonomi global seperti sekarang, peraih bagian keuntungan terbesar dari sistem produksi adalah entrepreneur sebagai pengambil risiko dan pemegang merek. Produksi bisa disubkontrakkan dan modal bisa didapat dari bank atau publik. Ada beberapa langkah Malaysia yang dapat dikembangkan oleh negara berkembang lain dalam memajukan kewirausahaan. Pertama, tingkatkan taraf pendidikan masyarakat. Kewirausahaan membutuhkan kompetensi yang umumnya baru didapatkan di tingkat pendidikan tersier. Pendapatan wirausahawan di Indonesia baru melebihi rata-rata nasional pada tingkat pendidikan setidaknya diploma. Ketertinggalan sumber daya manusia di Malaysia dikejar selama beberapa dekade terakhir dengan mendayagunakan guru dan dosen dari negara lain, termasuk Indonesia. Barro & Lee (2000) menemukan bahwa penduduk Malaysia mendapat pendidikan 36% lebih banyak dari Indonesia. Kedua, permudah dan turunkan biaya pengurusan usaha. Periode yang lama dan biaya yang tinggi akan menekan animo dari industri kreatif dan pemuda sehingga hanya orang dengan sumber modal kuat dan akses politik tinggi yang mau jadi pengusaha. Wirausahawan di Malaysia hanya membutuhkan 13 hari dan kurang dari 2 bulan pendapatan rata-rata untuk memulai usaha. Jauh lebih cepat dan murah dibandingkan 2,5 bulan dan 9 bulan pendapatan rata-rata di Indonesia. Pada 2008, Malaysia berada di urutan ke-20 Survei Global Kemudahan Usaha Bank Dunia dan peringkat ke-21 di Global Competitiveness Index, sementara Indonesia hanya di urutan ke-129 dan 55 di kedua studi itu. Ketiga, infrastruktur bisnis dan telekomunikasi. Malaysia menyediakan segenap spektrum sokongan untuk kewirausahaan dari pinjaman lunak, mentoring dengan pengusaha yang lebih senior,serta linkingdengan jaringan global sehingga lebih cepat dan lancar menjadi perusahaan yang matang. Infrastruktur minimum seperti listrik, jalan, dan air yang tertata adalah prasyarat yang tak bisa diabaikan. Pada 2005, hanya satu dari tiga orang di Indonesia yang memiliki telepon, sedangkan di Malaysia mencapai 92%. Lebih dari 40% populasi Malaysia mengakses internet secara reguler dan hanya 6% di Indonesia. Padahal internet adalah sumber inspirasi dan jalur pemasaran yang paling terjangkau. Terakhir, tapi tidak kalah penting adalah perubahan persepsi terhadap wirausaha. Presiden Soekarno kerap menekankan pentingnya membangun bangsa yang bermartabat dan punya harga diri. Wirausaha perlu ditampilkan sebagai profesi yang modern dan hip. Pengakuan Pemerintah Malaysia dan penampilan profil di media massa mendorong wirausaha menjadi role model bagi generasi muda. Tentu, tidak ada yang sempurna dan tiap negara perlu mengembangkan pendekatan sendiri yang cocok dengan kondisi dan karakternya. Namun kebijakan yang diambil Malaysia perlu dipelajari keberhasilannya karena kemiripan sebagai saudara serumpun. Jika dari kecil dapat menjadi pengusaha besar, mengapa harus menunggu hari tua?(*) Berly Martawardaya Kandidat Doktor Ekonomi di University of Siena, Italia dan Dosen FEUI

Democracy or Money-tocracy?

The Jakarta Post (original link)

Berly Martawardaya , Jakarta | Thu, 02/19/2009 2:13 PM | Opinion

There has been controversy recently over the Tax Directorate's request that those who contribute money to a political party posses a tax registration number (NPWP). The move is on the right track but misses the big picture. Its not just about registering additional taxpayers or getting more tax money, it's about the urgency of preventing a rise of a money-tocracy.

Campaign contributions are a delicate interaction between democracy and capitalism. In democracy, every citizen is equal and each eligible voter has only one vote. In capitalism, on the other hand, one dollar equals one vote and so the owner of the greatest share, even if its only one person, can determine the path of a company.

All would be fine if democracy was practiced only in politics and capitalism applied only in business.

But politics and political parties need money to organize, conduct activities and advertise to garner votes. If they are banned from collecting money then the political system as a whole would be weakened. But if no regulations are in place then democracy will turn into money-tocracy, and the side with the most money will win.

The classical, rational-choice theories of voter participation posit that individuals weigh the be-nefits of voting against the costs. The benefits of voting consist of the satisfaction of the act itself and the expected change in the outcome of the election that results from one vote.

The costs of voting include the time and effort required to actually cast a ballot - registering to vote, becoming informed about the position of candidates, finding the appropriate polling place, and queuing to vote, for example.

But more recent and realistic theories posit that elections are like a business. The investors and campaign contributors reap most of the benefits in the form of favorable policies once their candidates is elected and the workers, the regular voters, simply conduct their civil responsibilities.

In the U.S., one person can legally contribute no more than US$2,300 (Rp 25 million) to a political candidate and $28,500 (Rp 350 million) to a national party in one election cycle.

Corporations and labor organizations may not make contributions or expenditures in connection with federal elections, but they are allowed to establish political action committees (PAC) that can contribute to a candidate or national political party, but with a limit of $5000 (Rp 60 million) for individuals and $28,500 for parties.

In the United States, The McCain-Feingold Law was enacted to strengthen the role of small donors and dilute the influence of rich individuals. People are not permitted to be much more equal than other in terms of political influence just because of their wealth.

But what about Indonesia?

Indonesia's next election is expected to see the participation of more than 171 million registered voters and 34 political parties. Election law no 10/2008 stipulates that one person can give up to Rp 1 billion ($77,000) in campaign contributions - individual candidates and political parties are not separated. Furthermore, corporations and business entities are allowed to make campaign contributions of up to Rp 5 billion.

How can it be that with an income per capita almost one tenth that of America, Indonesians are allowed to give twice as much money per person and more than ten time as much per corporation? Are Indonesians one hundred times more honest and pure than Americans?

The Obama campaign got almost half of its staggering campaign funds from small donors. Instead of coddling big money interests, Indonesian politicians need to be directed to approach the people that they asking to vote for them for money.

Lowering the limit of campaign contributions and increasing transparency is a very important step to strengthening ownership of democracy and reducing cynicism toward politics. We should also require individual candidates to report the sources of their campaign funds and upload contributor lists to the Internet.

The Indonesian election is coming soon, may democracy win.

Where have all the businessmen gone?

Jakarta Post (original link)

Berly Martawardaya , Jakarta | Tue, 02/10/2009 2:40 PM | Opinion

Why is there so much fuss about, mostly, small companies in the midst of the global financial crisis? Shouldn't we focus on rescuing big companies that employ a large number of people?

A national economy is like a human body; to remain healthy it needs to get rid of old and dying cells and replace them with a new and vigorous business entity. In the best cases, life support would be better than revitalization. In the worst cases, aging cells could turn into a cancer that would weaken and suck energy from the whole body.

In the globalized world, capital can be obtained from banks or investors; production can be outsourced to China; administration can be done in India. But the largest part of the profit goes to the brand owner who focuses on product development and marketing.

Compare top American companies from the last decade to today; Google, Starbucks were not even on the list last decade, while the financial behemoths such as Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch no longer exist as independent entities today.

Do the same for Indonesia and, except for few who went bankrupt during the Asian crisis, the list today is almost identical to the last decade, with family-base conglomerates, albeit more streamlined, remaining on top of the game.

A global entrepreneurship study by Klapper and Delgado from the World Bank for the period 2003-5 covered 83 countries and concluded that Indonesia is in the group with the lowest entry rate for new industrial companies.

Eurobaromater, a major public opinion survey in the EU's 25 member countries, found in 2007 that 45 percent of Europeans would like to become their own boss. The figure is even higher for young people (15 - 24 years old). The corresponding numbers in the US are 61 percent and 42 percent.

Some would blame Indonesia's feudalistic culture and history, which indeed may play some role, but other changeable and impermanent factors are likely to be in play.

What if someone told you that to start a business it takes two and half months and a total cost of nine months of the average Indonesian's income?

The rational choice is to only start a business when you are sure that you will get a sustained high return, unless you have a way to get around the lengthy and costly procedures.

Thus, the entrepreneur option in Indonesia is heavily skewed toward the rich and highly connected. A deeper look at the National Labor Force Survey (Sakernas) revealed that on average, only an entrepreneur with tertiary education earned a more than average income.

Indonesia is ranked 129th among 181 countries surveyed on the aforementioned survey, on the ease of doing business. The government needs to reduce red tape and complicated bureaucracy.

Ha Joon Chang, the Korean-born economist from Cambridge pointed out in The East Asian Development Experience (2006) that the key to East Asia's achievement is selective government intervention and domestic protection to prepare local companies to compete globally. Large countries should not coddle its major industries with firewalls of protection, since doing so only leads to those companies growing lazy and focusing on milking the domestic market.

We need to look to neighboring Malaysia, where it takes only 13 days to start a business costing less than two months of a Malaysian's average income. They have even had a cabinet level ministry for entrepreneurs since 2004.

Indonesia is behind Malaysia because of using a small country strategy in a large country setting. We need a comprehensive package of financial support, skills training and export assistance for would-be entrepreneurs.

Let's do things right this time and let (at least) a thousand entrepreneurs bloom.