Short History of Batik Pesindon Pekalongan

Pesindon is a village in pekalongan with batik as one of the local wisdom and practice. Many batik industries in pesindon have been established since 1950’s. The name of pesindon come from the word parsindo, one of the political party in 1950’s. The founder of this party lived in pesindon that formerly called kregon village. Batik in pesindon is the after effect of batik industry development since colonial era when Diponegoro army decided to stay in Pekalongan.


Government Role on Community Participation as One of the Decentralization Instrument, Study Case : Musrenbang

Musrenbang (Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan) is a concept that Indonesia governments choose to create democracy in planning through local participatory. This concept relies on the people’s need and aspiration to develop planning program. Basically this concept was an instrument of decentralization development to create transparency between governments to the community. Musrenbang briefly defined as a forum for every actor and stakeholder to formulate the development program, the stakeholder here including government and non-government actors including the community as the data sources (Wilson, Djani, and Madsuki, 2009).

It was a good concept actually but there are still some aspects that need to be improved especially in relation with community participation. In case of musrenbang, without participation and willingness of community the goal of it cannot be reached. So that encourage people in the community to participated must be done to support the goals and objectives of decentralization through musrenbang to reach good governance. Decentralization itself is a concept that definitely the reversed of centralized concept, it should be means as the changing from the top down concept to bottom up. Bottom up is not always means as every think about the program is done by the community, but in every step of development is done by the people’s needs so that they can develop themselves. It means that the main objectives here should be directed for public advantages not the individual or institutions benefit.

The idea of participation in musrenbang now is a bit vague, the reason is because there are some group of peoples that change the direction of the objectives. Some people with strong power try to driven the way of development to get personal or individual advantages (Wilson, Djani, and Madsuki, 2009). It was the main obstacle on musrenbang implementation now. Community is the main target to understand their needs on development but that kind of problem interrupted the communication between the government and the community. It created a fuss in what peoples think and trust to the government.

The problem of trust is already started before decentralization being adopted in 1999, it already began from the era of President Soeharto. The reason is the lack transparency of centralistic governmental concept that turned out into an authoritarian government (Pramusinto, 2010). Although peoples trust improved year by year after the emerging of new concept of decentralization that bring democracy to the community but these days people trust started to decreased. It caused by the same problem like what already stated before about strong power driven the direction of development.

For instance Musrenbang in Bandung seems only do jus for formality without any discussion between stakeholders. In this forum usually the government institution in charge on presentation of development program and then without any discussion the program will directly accepted and the forum finish. That kind of musrenbang definitely could not facilitate community aspiration and needs. The number of people come to this forum become another problem. This number could not represent all aspiration of the people. Small number of stakeholder seems only come and sits to fill the formality without any desire to argue the planning development and evaluate it to be better. Control is definitely needs so the musrenbang concept goes to the right direction.

Participation in Bandung for example is really different with what Thailand government does for their participatory development program. In Thailand community trust to government a little bit better than in Indonesia but the unwillingness still appear as problem. In slum upgrading program in Thailand government tends to approach the community step by step. First the community actors will be approached so that he or she could gives more understanding to their community neighborhood. By that they can gain community trust to them. After that many forum and meeting continuously do for indentified what the community wants and needs so that they can chooses the best way to do the development. From the description above we can see that Indonesian government not as patient as Thailand government, and lack of deep problem identification.

From the Thailand practices government role in this kind of participation concept is not only as the controller but also could serve as a facilitator although usually it’s already taken over by other institution such as NGO and consultants. Government as the institutions in charge of development have to get rid of the individual or institutional benefit perspectives especially related with money oriented. So that government could gain the community trust, it is the best advantages that government can get to do development. But for the condition now those kinds of perspectives is still difficult to reach. Especially when there are still many problem occurred because of function overlapping between government institutions.

There are some institutions that in charge in planning and public service providing in the government, Public Works ministry and BAPPENAS (national planning and development ministry). These two institutions sometimes have overlapping programs. So it would be better if those institutions started to discuss and formulated the best development based on their basic function. But until now Indonesia does not have a bridge for those two institutions. In my opinion a neutral institutions needed to facilitate the discussion. If the problem inside the government could be resolved so the people trust can gain and the people willingness to follow government program will increase. Increasing transparency and government reliability are also the best way to gain people trust.

These days, government reliability is always being a big question for the local community. It was a result of unimplemented program that often happened especially in rural area. Information media like newspaper, television, radio, and others media always bring reliability as their topic of discussion which is usually tends to talked about its negativity. This kind of information makes it even worsens. So for the better result of development this problem has to resolve immediately.

On the participation in community level people does not have enough knowledge about development and government program so that government have to find neutral and expert facilitator to give understanding to the community. Government also could take over the facilitator roles because government also consists of planning and development expert. But in Indonesia cases government tends to gives the job to the expert from consultant officer or to the academicians from the university. But basically even government or another expert the most important thing is the facilitator is neutral does not have tendency to driven the people aspiration to some individual or institutional advantages but more to find what people needs in real life.

When a facilitator who works with the community have other objectives that lead to the individual or institutional advantages will gives bad impact to the community itself. The bad impact here not always means decreasing of the community quality of life or welfare but more to the inappropriate support to community activities. And if the development in line with the community activities and life so more positive impact could get easily. Community especially in the rural area who does not have enough education usually easy to be driven by what facilitator says so that facilitator here has to be really patient and neutral.

So the main point of the discussion above is how the government could do participation as the best way to reach the goals and objectives of decentralization. Government role in increasing people trust and willingness, controller and facilitator is the best way to keep the development concept. Improving reliability and resolve internal problem will be useful so that the community would like to joint government program. But all people need have to be accommodate it have to filtered and prioritized so that the development could be controlled, because in some cases development could leads to bad impacts such as environmental impact. That’s why government has a big role on balancing and controlling development but still manage to fulfill the people needs through participatory concept.

References :

Green, Keith. 2009. Decentralization and Good Governance: The Case of Indonesia. UNPAN.

MCleod, Ross H and Harun. 2009. Memperbaiki tata kelola pemerintahan kabupaten dan kota di Indonesia: peran reformasi akuntansi sektor publik. Crawford School of Economics and Government.

Pramusinto, Agus. 2010. Building Good Governance in Indonesia Cases of Local Government Efforts to Enhance Transparency.

Wilson, Ian, Djani Luky, and Maduki Teten. 2009. Mengelola kepentingan politik dalam proses anggaran: Sebuah investigasi terhadap mekanisme akuntabilitas dalam pengalokasian anggaran pemerintah daerah di Indonesia. Crawford School of Economics and Government.

Sustainable Transportation towards Environmental Equity and Mobility (Study Case of Bike Activities in Amsterdam, Holland)

Mobility cannot be excluded from development because nowadays people especially in urban area are mobile and needs transportation facilities to support their activities (Rubini, 2010). Mobility definitely has big contributions on the environmental issues especially when the phenomenon of private vehicle uses increase. Pollution and traffic jam are two examples of transportation issues that can be easily found in the cities caused by private vehicle uses. Most cities in the world are vulnerable to this issues and sustainable transportation concept was an environmental friendly way to address all of those problems and create it becomes beneficial development for the city and its citizens. This essay was focused on the development of sustainable transportation toward environmental degradation issues, environmental equity issues and people mobility.

On brief definition sustainable transportation is a concept that provides a cheap transportation mode and system to support people activities which concerning on financial, social and environmental condition (Marks, 2011; Steg and Gifford, 2005). So from above statement can be concluded that this concept focused on transportation as the answer of rapid development of mobility using the general concept of sustainability on balancing three important sectors.

Integrated public transportation, non-motorized transportation use, pushing walking culture by creating a comfortable pedestrian ways are the example of plans to do to reach the big goal of this concept and some countries already started to build it (Artiningsih, 2009). Here integration is the big issue, every cities needs integration not only transportation but also many other sector to keep its development move forward. District function, activities, and mobility needs integration in supporting development. In transportation case, bus lines, railways, pedestrian ways network, bicycle track, and streets needs to be integrated too. Integration of all of these transportation facilities will creates intermoda phenomenon.

Intermoda as a concept of sustainable transportation can be found in some cities especially in Europe and USA. Intermoda is a transportation concept which highly related with transit oriented development or TOD concept as the central movement location. And bicycle in this development concept used as a feeder mode to facilitate peoples activities in the location that cannot be reach by trains and buses. Some cities like Paris in France, Amsterdam in Holland, San Diego and Somerville in USA are depending on transport integration in order to supporting people activity and mobility. Not only those cities in developed countries that realize the important of sustainable transportation on facing the environmental degradation these days, but also some cities in third world countries. Semarang in Indonesia is one city that starts looking for a suitable sustainable transportation to be applied and recently the local government decided to create bicycle tracks in the city.

One of the best examples on sustainable transportation implementation is Amsterdam City in Holland. Amsterdam is one of the busiest cities in the world especially with its tourism activity. Millions tourists come to Amsterdam every year and as one of the best tourist destination in the world Amsterdam not only famous with its life and beauty but also with their much love towards bicycle. This city probably one of the friendliest city in the world in term of the non-motorize transportation use.

Young people, old people, rich people, poor people, stylist or odd loved to bikes. Each person in Amsterdam at least has one bike to accommodate their activity. The only use public transport like train and tram when it does not possible to take their bike. They working, shopping, studying, and playing with their bike as their companion. Besides its citizen love towards bicycle, integrated bicycle track is the strongest part on bringing bicycle as a popular transportation mode here supported by another factors such as economic and health reasons.



Figure 1. Bike in Amsterdam, Holland

Bicycle track probably one of the image of Amsterdam in the eyes of many peoples who already come and see Amsterdam. Every street in this city not only facilitated by bicycle track but also another facilities for bicycle such as parking area and bike traffic light. Its citizen culture towards bike users also become one of the best thing in Amsterdam, bicycle is always become the first priority in the street so the other transportation users like motorcycle and car have to yield. Its citizen also tries to transmit their love to bike by creating some bicycle rent shop as one of tourist attraction.



Figure 2. Bike Parking Zones in Deventer and Appledorn Station, Holland

Park and ride is the concept Amsterdam use or maybe all cities in Holland use to facilitated commuters activities. It’s easy to move from one city to another in Holland, good integration of bike uses and trains lines is the answer. In Holland people take their bike from home to train station, then they park their bike on the parking zone that provide by the station and directly take the train to reach another cities in 15-90 minutes depends on distance. After arriving on their destination they can take city train, tram or bus, all of this mode are usually integrated in one central station.

Amsterdam not only one cities in Europe that tries to use sustainable transportation as their concept to reduce environmental degradation, another cities in Europe are move towards the same goals but using different concept of sustainable transportation. For example Germany and France that developing bike rent as their effort to introduce bike uses also some cities in US that created a bike friendly bus and train so that its citizens could bring their bike inside the public transportation. This entire concept is done for balancing human activities and environmental impact.

Although according to Feitelson (2002), the sustainable transportation concept still not concerning the broader environmental impact related with equity but only concern on emission reduction. Broader environmental impact in here means that there are still many affect that did not concern yet in the sustainable transportation development such as land use impact. Greene and Wegener (1997) cited in Feitelson stated that there should be at least three factors to be concern in sustainable transportation to reach environmental equity. There are “growth, inter-generational equity (environmental protection) and intra-generational equity”. If environmental equity factors are compare with the definition of sustainable transportation can be seen that there are fewer indicators of environmental equity issues inside this concept development. Just like what Feitelson stated that today transport development is only concerning on two factors, economic and emission reduction and broader environmental preservation is not being concern yet.

The discussion above should encourage researchers and engineers on developing transportation concept that more concerning on equity aspect that stated above because these days emissions issues are still becomes the biggest concern of every countries in the world. Besides all discussion about equity and broader impact, this concept is still a good effort on the early stage of environmental friendly development. Further research and findings about this equity matters should be completed the development of environmental friendly transportation concept.


  • La Ville Mobile By Constance Rubini, 2010
  • Sustainable Transport and Quality of Life by Linda Steg and Robert Gifford, 2005.
  • Introducing Environmental Equity Dimensions into the Sustainable Transport Discourse: Issues and Pitfalls by Eran Feitelson, 2002.
  • Sustainable Transportation for the Ocean State by Eugenia Marks, 2011.
  • Peluang Pengembangan Jalur Sepeda Pada Kota Yang Berwawasan Lingkungan by Artiningsih, 2009.