I feel grateful and honor for this award on March 2016. It was my second year of service in Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, so this is a shock for me. Thank you!
“Publish or perish” is a famous jargon in academia world, and yet, it is not well-known among Indonesian lecturers. Questions such “Why should we publish?”, “Why Scopus?” or “What is impact factor?” are common questions asked by Indonesian lecturers in facing a recent research regulation imposed by Indonesian higher education ministry.
Interestingly, the recent incentive scheme from the ministry, which will give Rp50 Million to Rp 100million per publication, attracts many attentions of Indonesian lecturers. The criterion is pretty easy: has impact factor than 0.1 and cited more than 3 times (for the Rp50million). Surprisingly, this criterion creates noise on social media among Indonesia lecturers. It goes to one conclusion which is many of Indonesian lecturers are still illiterate about the game of publication, and perhaps, the minister may also mislead this game of publication.
The main question in this game of publication is “why should we publish?” Idealistically, the findings of research are to improve the society. If there is no research about polio vaccine or green energy, what the world would be. Yet, this ideal situation has changed into a strange new direction. It forces academia to publish and publish for the sake of quantity. Look at the new regulation, such as professors have to have two publications, or doctorate candidate has to have one publication, or even undergraduate has to publish nowadays. Why? It is simply because of the university ranking game.
This upcoming Indonesia presidential election presents the issues of corporate political investment. For instance, many Islamic-based media and blogs accuse that one of the candidates, Joko Widodo, is prepared by catholic-Chinese group to be the next president for the sake of business interest. Similar condition is also faced by another candidate: Prabowo Subianto, where there are anonymous bloggers argued that gigantic corporation and corruption case-linked corporation are supporting him for the sake of penalty-free or legal suit-free. In short, whether it is right or gossip, there is an accusation of corporate involvement in the presidential election, which is well-known as corporate political investment.
What is corporate political investment? Does it true exist? How will it affect the election? What are the benefits of political investment for firms? This writing is corporate political investment 101 (for beginner) which introduces the corporate political investment by exploring its definition, its effects on politics and presidential campaign, and its cost-benefit for corporation. Continue reading
There is nothing wrong with graduating as doctoral degree within 1.5 years. I, myself, personally congratulate General Wiranto for his achievement in finishing his doctoral degree within 1.5 years.
Daniel Kahneman, a nobel winner for economy field in 2002, finished his doctoral study within 3 years from University of California. There are also nobel winners who need more than 3 years in finishing the doctoral degree (for example is Robert Laughlin who won physics noble). The length of study taken to finish a doctoral degree does not associate to the level of intellectual.
Doctoral degree is so far the most prestigious degree of formal education. Those who earn this doctoral title are perceived as “a genius”. Academician aims it for further promotion (being a professor). Non-academician, for instance politician, uses it for self-branding. Thus, what doctorate really means?, what is abracadrabra doctorate?, and what is the value of doctorate? Continue reading
Wokeh… tulisan ini dibuat pas maraknya upah buruh…Banyak seh yang nyinyir apakah upah buruh harus naik atau kagak. Untuk tau lebih jelasnya baca di http://www.analisadaily.com/news/60595/membongkar-dilema-upah-buruh
Tulisan ini dimuat di Koran Analisa tanggal 7 November 2013
Membongkar Dilema Upah Buruh
oleh Rayenda Brahmana
Dilema upah dapat didefinisikan sebagai masalah yang timbul antara keinginan buruh untuk menaikan upah dan keinginan pemerintah untuk meningkatkan pertumbuhan ekonomi melalui iklim usaha berbasis upah kompetitif. Demo buruh di Cikarang baru-baru ini adalah contoh yang baik untuk mendeskripsikan apa itu dilema upah. Continue reading
Buat yang tidak bisa baca WSJ, ini yang dimaksud sama Hatta Rajasa yang sedang kampanye kalau dia Nasionalis, bahkan mitra asing kepanasan akibat kebijakan dia.
The Politics of Indonesia’s Protectionism
Jakarta’s new policies aim to keep the ruling party in power, but might do just the opposite.
By KEVIN O’ROURKE
Indonesia has enjoyed a recent spell as a darling of global investors looking for promising alternatives to China and India. With a large pool of consumers boasting increasing incomes, rich natural resource endowments and a growth rate above 6%, it’s easy to see why. Yet lately a threat to this streak has emerged. Locals call it “Hatta-nomics.” Continue reading
One of basic purposes of a welfare state is how to generate more “income” or “wealth” to the people. Most countries had revolution because of the poverty and inequality issues. Just named it. From Indonesia in 1965 and 1998 to the Arab Spring in 2011 till today. Interestingly, if a nation wants to be a welfare state, why aren’t more countries run by economist? This topic is addressed by Washington Post (written by Brad Plumer). It is indeed a very interesting article. The writing is based on Mark Hallerberg and Joachim Wehner research paper. Please read it in this link http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/18/why-arent-more-countries-run-by-economists/
Why aren’t more countries run by economists?
Posted by Brad Plumer on February 18, 2013 at 1:19 pm
One of the main tasks of any modern government is to oversee a country’s economy. And yet, a great many nations are run by people with little or no economic expertise. Why is that?
Mark Hallerberg and Joachim Wehner have an interesting new paper trying to figure out “why governments sometimes appoint economic policymakers with economics training but often do not.” By studying the qualifications of more than 1,200 prime ministers, presidents, finance ministers, and central bankers in various democracies since the 1970s, they uncovered a few key patterns. Continue reading