Akses Internet Dari Indonesia Makin Sedikit Jumlahnya !!!

Semakin menurunnya orang2 di Indonesia yang bisa akses ke Internet
terutama sekali tentunya disebabkan permasalahan ekonomi. Selain
harus berlangganan provider Internet yang bayarnya dihitung
berdasarkan waktu, juga ongkos telepon atau saluran Internetnya juga
terpisah sewanya dan juga harus dibayarkan berdasarkan waktu yang
digunakan.

Berbeda terbalik dengan di Amerika dan negara2 maju, masyarakat makin
bertambah banyak memanfaatkan internet dalam semua kegiatan dan
aktivitasnya karena ongkos atau biayanya makin kecil dengan
menggunakan internet. Makin banyak internet yang gratis aksesnya
misalnya disemua perpustakaan, disemua Public School, disemua College,
dan disemua University. Bahkan setiap laptop standard memiliki
wireless connection yang bisa mengakses networking yang gratis seperti
networking city. Tetapi untuk mengakses networking perusahaan
tentunya harus ada izin dari perusahaan bersangkutan yang umumnya cuma
pegawainya saja yang bisa. Tapi ada juga beberapa perusahaan yang
membuka akses ke networkingnya sehingga bisa dimanfaatkan para pemilik
laptop untuk mengaksesnya ke Internet.

Di Indonesia, kebanyakan hanya swasta2 saja yang banyak menggunakan
internet, sedangkan pemerintah sendiri memang berusaha menyediakan
semua fasilitas ini, namun hampir 100% menggunakan software2 bajakan.
Akibatnya, dengan technologi sekarang ini, Microsoft sudah mampu
mendeteksi software2 bajakan disetiap komputer yang mengakses ke
Internet. Apabila ditemukan software2 bajakan, maka akan diserbu oleh
berbagai macam virus, atau hanya diban dalam mengakses website
tertentu. Akibatnya, kalo kita menggunakan komputer2 pemerintah untuk
mengakses Internet akan banyak gangguannya, mulai mendadak putus,
freeze, atau semua email yang dikirimkan tidak pernah tiba
ditujuannya. Jadi meskipun kelihatannya bisa surfing di Internet,
namun sebenarnya tidaklah demikian karena tidak bisa dimanfaatkan
untuk jual beli maupun mencari info2 penting.

Akibat pengaruh hal2 diatas inilah, kita sama2 menyaksikan bagaimana
jumlah pembaca maupun penulis diberbagai millis termasuk di Yahoo
Group mengalami penurunan sangat drastis. Bahkan banyak moderator2
pemilik millist2 ini kehilangan kontrolnya. Tidak kalah pentingnya,
dengan kemajuan teknologi maupun makin tersebarnya pengetahuan
mengenai internet dan networking ini, hampir semua administrator
perusahaan2 di Indonesia membuat pembatasan2 sehingga pegawai2nya
hanya bisa mengakses situs2 tertentu saja yang digunakan oleh
perusahaan ybs sedangkan situs2 diluarnya diblokade tidak bisa bebas
dimasuki oleh semua pegawai2nya.

Namun, diluar semua itu, di Indonesia tersebar tempat penyewaan
internet yang bayarannya juga berdasarkan jumlah jam yang digunakan,
namun setiap tempat penyewaan ternyata tidak sama kualitasnya sehingga
tempat2 penyewaan yang lebih murah kebanyakan sangatlah parah
aksesnya sehingga harus berulangkali booting yang memakan waktu yang
tetap harus dibayar.

Demikianlah, dengan adanya internet ternyata membuat bangsa Indonesia
justru makin tertinggal karena orang2 diluar Indonesia justru
sebaliknya bisa lebih maju karena kemudahan komunikasinya yang makin
lebar keseluruh dunia. Pembandingnya bukan cuma negara2 tetangga yang
jauh lebih maju seperti Malaysia, Phillipina, Singapore, dan VietNam,
tetapi juga China dan India yang dulunya sangat terkebelakang namun
sekarang kedua raksasa ini sudah berhasil menyediakan fasilitas
internet yang murah yang sama seperti yang didapatkan oleh masyarakat
disemua negara2 maju baik yang diAmerika maupun di Eropah.

Ny. Muslim binti Muskitawati.


Jangan charge HP anda semalaman dan JANGAN ditaruh dekat anda ketika mencharge
Jangan pernah menjawab panggilan masuk ke HP saat sedang di charge!!
Beberapa hari yang lalu , seorang laki2 sedang mencharge HP di rumahnya .
Disaat yang bersamaan , ada telepon masuk dan dia menjawabnya saat HP tersebut masih tersambung ke kontak listrik .
Setelah beberapa detik , arus listrik masuk ke HP tanpa kendali dan pria muda tersebut terlempar ke lantai dengan kerasnya .
Orangtuanya bergegas datang ke kamarnya dan menemukan dirinya pingsan , dengan detak jantung yang lemah dan jari terbakar .

Dia dilarikan kerumah sakit terdekat , tapi jiwanya sudah tak tertolong lagi ketika sampai dirumah sakit .

HP ada penemuan modern yang sangat berguna .
Tapi , kita harus berhati2 karena HP bisa menjadi penyebab kematian .
Jangan pernah menggunakan HP bila masih tersambung ke kontak listrik !!


The Essence of Leadership
By Pete Smith
President & CEO Private Sector Council

I'm honored to deliver this year's Medina Lecture, and to share the evening with three fine awardees - each of whom exemplifies excellence in leadership.

My remarks tonight stem from a career in which leadership has been a central interest. For over 30 years, I've watched private executives struggle with the challenges of leading in times of change. For the past four years, I've focused on federal leadership, watching the government work its way through some of the most sweeping changes in its history.
All of this "leader watching" has led me to some biases about leadership:
• First, leaders exist at all levels - not just at the top.
• Second, leadership is a personal thing - there's no secret formula.
• Third, leadership will fail unless it's built on strong and genuine values. Norm Schwarzkopf said, "Leadership is a combination of strategy and character. If you must be without one, be without the strategy."
• And, finally, with one notable exception - the military - the public sector needs to do a much better job of developing leaders.

So, on point one: who are leaders? Robert Jarvik, who invented the artificial heart, said "Leaders are visionaries with a poorly developed sense of fear and no concept of the odds against them." I like to think of leaders as people at any level who can drive the achievement of significant goals - people without whose vision, motivation, encouragement, and support, the goals would not be achieved - people who can persuade others to change the way they think and act.

And these leaders do not have to come from the top. In most organizations today, people work in collaboration, in teams. During my career at Watson Wyatt, highly motivated, creative individuals who were a part of much larger teams often took the initiative to create substantial change - in one case, building our Tokyo office to a strong market position in Japan, in another, creating a dominant U.S. flexible benefits practice. Wherever you are, you have the potential for leadership, too.

In this regard, Peter Drucker said: "No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings."

My second point is that leadership is derived from the personal abilities and traits of the individuals doing the leading - there is no set model for successful leadership.
There are 76,000 volumes on leadership listed on Amazon - ranging from "Leadership Secrets of Attila the Hun" to "Primal Leadership: Recognizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence" to a book entitled "Leading Ladies: Transformative Biblical Images for Women's Leadership" - which among other things extols the leadership virtues of Mother Teresa.
So that's it - if we can only find the common thread between Attila the Hun and Mother Teresa, we'll know the true secret of leadership.

In fact, one of Amazon's featured volumes is entitled "The 21 Indispensable Qualities of a Leader." Twenty-one indispensable qualities!. . . . . The list isn't intimidating, just long: character, charisma, commitment, communication, competence, courage, discernment, focus, generosity, initiative, listening, passion, positive attitude, problem-solving, relationships, responsibility, security, self-discipline, servanthood, teachability, and vision.

These books can give you ideas, maybe inspiration, perhaps a hint or two. But can you imagine Jack Welch running around with this list, berating himself at the end of the day because maybe he paid too little attention to generosity?

Let's apply this list to other renowned leaders. Did Winston Churchill have outstanding listening skills? I'm not so sure about that. Was John F. Kennedy a model of self-discipline? Did Harry Truman promote a broad, far-reaching vision?

Books about leadership don't give you the answers. What differentiates great leaders is not style, image, process. In these respects, successful leaders are often very different.
Then what do they have in common? My list, based on leaders I have known and watched, is fairly short:

First, they have integrity of mission. They have a genuine, deep concern for an important, worthwhile mission - there's nothing false or contrived - and the vision is so strong that it can easily be felt by others. It's tangible, it's exciting, it draws people in.

Second, the mission is more important than the leader. The best leaders I've known are not self-promoters. While they are comfortable with power and authority, they do not abuse their position, or emphasize the perquisites of their office, or use their status to distance themselves from others. In fact, most of them greatly enjoy interacting with the rank and file, being where the real work is done.

If you want role models for this, you don't have to go any further than Admiral Loy at DHS, or former IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti, or David Walker at GAO.
Third, great leaders have a genuine interest in the views of others. They can empathize. There was an excellent example of this recently in the "NOVA" public television special about NASA's successful landing on Mars. NASA's leadership was divided on the best landing sites - the scientists looking for science-rich environments, with lots of wind and geology and the potential for showing past forms of life; the engineers looking for a flat, windless plain where the risks of a landing failure were far less. It was an understanding of these differing, valid points of view that enabled NASA's leaders to work out solutions that achieved both objectives.

Fourth, the most successful leaders are adept at understanding people's individual skills and deploying them in the right places.

At Watson Wyatt, this was demonstrated to me with remarkable clarity in a training session where teams of our consultants (in groups of six each) competed in a task assembling cut-up shapes into perfect squares. Each member of each team was given an envelope containing the shapes and two rules: 1) there could be no written or verbal communication during the competition, and 2) the team that assembled all their squares first was the winner.

I watched as the consultants each struggled with their own pieces, trying to make their individual squares. One consultant, an actuary named Diane, assembled hers in less than two minutes. Then another consultant on her team, whose name was Gus and who was getting nowhere with his shapes, pushed them all in front of Diane. She completed his square in another minute or two, during which Gus encouraged, with emphatic body language, the other four consultants on his team to let Diane do their squares. Which she did, in record time. When she finished, the second place team had only two squares done.

Until this experience, I hadn't had much respect for Gus, even though he reported directly to me and managed one of our most important consulting teams. He worked 9-5; I was a workaholic. He delegated tough work to others; I rolled up my sleeves and jumped right in. His idea of impressing clients was to take them to a football game; mine was to do good work.
But - and you know this is coming, of course - Gus' team was one of the stars in our company, primarily because he respected his people, knew their strengths, allocated work where it would be done best, and got out of the way.

Finally, the best leaders deal decisively with difficult personnel problems. In Casey Stengel's terms, this meant - and I quote - "keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided."

Another sports example comes from football coach Lou Holtz, who was once asked how he developed such extraordinary motivation on his teams. "It's easy," Holtz replied. "We just get rid of the ones who aren't motivated."

These comments reflect important aspects of leadership - recognizing that the goal is not personal popularity, and having the courage to deal with poor performance. And it's with these qualities that I would like now to turn your attention to the challenges of leading in the public sector.

First, as to popularity. In making decisions, public administrators face a massive overlay of political considerations that often either slow the process or lead to poor outcomes. Slowing the process is not always a bad thing, especially when it relates to key policy issues. Should we invade Iraq? Increase foreign aid? Tighten environmental regulations? These decisions should not be made swiftly or in a vacuum.

But political considerations often intrude on management issues, and it requires exceptionally strong leadership to stay the course and make the right decisions.
Think of the challenges involved in creating the Department of Homeland Security or transforming the Department of Defense. The paths forward for things such as new HR programs are relatively clear, and in the private sector they would not be all that controversial. But the political implications are so powerful that the decision-making undergoes long delays, leaving antiquated programs and processes in place for years beyond their useful life.

When it comes to management, the politically correct answer isn't always the right one. Rosalynn Carter said, "A leader takes people where they want to go. A great leader takes people where they don't necessarily want to go but ought to be."

Leaders in the public sector often fail to deal with problem employees, as well. The rationale usually is that regulations make the process difficult. Well, firing someone should be difficult - in any sector. But it's important that it be done. Poor performers reduce productivity and lower morale.

In the private sector, no one understands this better than GE. Among GE's many excellent HR policies is the expectation that their performance ratings will be distributed on a forced curve, with 10 percent of professionals each year rated at the bottom level.

This sounds harsh, but in practice, it is very well accepted within GE. As it works out, usually a third of those rated as poor performers admit they're in the wrong job, and voluntarily either leave the company or move to another position. Another third successfully challenge the rating, and are moved up to a higher level. Thus, only about a third of those with the lowest rating - 3 percent overall - are fired each year.

What's more important is how GE treats the remaining 90 percent. For these people, there are only two performance levels: highly valued and exceptional. There are many opportunities for training, job rotation, and mentoring, and the concept that "we can't guarantee you employment, but we will do our best to guarantee you employability" is integral to GE's culture.
But leadership development is rarely integral in public sector cultures. I find it curious that the Defense Department can do such an excellent job of educating and developing military officers in all the services, even across the services, while most other federal agencies have relatively weak leadership development programs. Training budgets are tight, programs aren't supported, and when executives are invited to attend top-ranked academic or private sector courses, permission is often denied.

The creation of the Senior Executive Service and the Federal Executive Institute were supposed to address this problem. There are some great leaders in the SES, and valuable training is done at the FEI, but neither organization is seen as a renowned source of leadership. Mobility - and with it the opportunity for growth - is discouraged. Succession planning is dismissed as "pre-selection. "
Think of yourself. Do you think this government is committed to developing your leadership to its full potential?

A friend of mine was asked last year to educate the Chinese government on how the best U. S. companies develop leaders. In Beijing, he expected to find relatively basic management training, if that. Instead, he found a government strongly focused, from the highest levels, on advanced leadership development - selecting the top one percent of graduates from the best schools, paying them competitively, giving them significant training from day one and lengthy rotational assignments thereafter, and evaluating performance regularly.

Returning to the United States, he asked rhetorically "Fifty years from now, as the world continues to shrink, which government will be most prepared to compete - theirs, or ours?"

One issue that affects any government - and represents perhaps the biggest difference between public and private sectors - is rotation at the top. In the federal government, the average tenure for agency heads is about two years, and political appointees at the undersecretary level move in and out of government much more often than administrations change. There's a similar churn in state and local governments.

Now this is a huge challenge. Creating change takes many years of consistent leadership. People naturally resist change, and if they can avoid it by outlasting the current crop of leaders, they will.

Incoming leaders like change, of course, and often sweep everything out with the new broom - sometimes sweeping out the good with the bad. How much of the good work done by the Clinton/Gore National Performance Review survived into the current administration? And how many of the excellent initiatives that have come out of President Bush's Management Agenda will survive into the next administration?

This puts enormous responsibility on the shoulders of career leaders. It's your responsibility to carry good change initiatives forward from one administration to the next, to help employees in your agency and their new leaders understand the value of the changes, to capture progress made, and to keep things moving forward.

So leadership in the public sector involves special challenges: overcoming political pressures, weak management, inadequate training, and revolving leadership. The good news is that these challenges are surmountable, largely because of one other very important difference between the private and public sectors: strength of mission.

In my work with federal agencies, I'm constantly impressed by the integrity of public servants and by their focus on mission. I see it in people committed to improving inner-city education, protecting our natural resources, preventing and curing disease, protecting our homeland. Last year, I saw it first-hand on special assignment in Iraq, where thousands of people with different backgrounds and political views were pulling together as one to help Iraq rebuild.

Integrity of mission in the public sector is palpable, and it is a vital element of leadership. Rarely is it as strong in the private sector. Art Friedson, the HR director of CDW, said "In the private sector, we're trying to motivate people to increase quarterly profits. In the public sector, you have 'truth, justice, and the American way!'"
That's a very strong platform on which to build leaders.

MITOS Tentang ENTREPRENEUR Lainnya...

Dear All,

Semakin maraknya semangat entrepreneurship di negeri ini, sungguh sangat membanggakan. Berbagai macam seminar dan workshop mengenai cara-cara memulai dan mengembangkan suatu usaha sudah begitu banyak diselenggarakan. Animo masyarakat untuk mengikuti seminar dan workshop entrepreneurship, patut diacungi dua jempol tangan, sungguh menggembirakan.

Sebagai seorang entrepreneur, saya juga sering terlibat di seminar maupun workshop tentang entrepreneurship, yang saya selenggarakan sendiri, maupun yang diselenggarakan oleh institusi lain, baik institusi bisnis maupun lembaga pendidikan. Sungguh sangat menyenangkan, saya bisa ikut memberikan motivasi, wawasan dan kiat-kiat memulai sebuah bisnis mandiri.

Dalam berbagai seminar dan workshop, yang saya terlibat di dalamnya, ada satu hal menjadi perhatian saya tentang dunia entrepreneurship ini. Sebagian peserta selalu memberikan asumsi bahwa seorang entrepreneur itu adalah seorang yang mudah mencari uang dan kekayaan lainnya. Entrepreneur merupakan sosok manusia yang bisa bebas menggunakan waktunya, tanpa khawatir kehabisan uangnya. Enak ya jadi seorang entrepreneur, begitu kata mereka.

Asumsi mereka sesungguhnya benar adanya, memang enak menjadi entrepreneur. Akan tetapi, dalam pembicaraan selanjutnya timbul kesan pada diri mereka, yang menganggap bahwa seorang entrepreneur bisa dengan mudah begitu saja memperoleh kesuksesan dalam bisnisnya. Entrepreneur bisa melajukan bisnisnya secara lancar tanpa hambatan berarti. Singkatnya, menjadi seorang entrepreneur bisa saja secara INSTAN…langsung sukses! Dan, dengan cepat bisa meraih milyaran rupiah. Begitu kesan yang mereka sampaikan ke saya.

Saya mencoba memaklumi mereka tentang kesan entrepreneur instan ini, dengan menanyakan penyebab bisa memunculkan kesan instan tersebut. Mereka memberikan jawaban beragam berkaitan dengan proses instan seorang entrepreneur ini.

Sebagian dari mereka menerangkan pernah hadir di seminar dan ada testimonial atau kesaksian seorang entrepreneur muda, yang mengatakan bahwa dia memulai bisnisnya tanpa modal uang sama sekali, alias modal dengkul, dan bisnisnya jalan lancar sangat menguntungkan menghasilkan uang. Ada juga kesaksian tentang mengawali bisnisnya dengan cara membeli property seperti Ruko, Rukan atau Rumah bahkan Apartemen, juga tanpa modal uang sama sekali, bahkan dia malah dapat uang, nggak keluar uang tapi malah dapat uang. Bahkan kesaksian tentang sukses bisnis property ini sudah semakin bombastis belakangan ini.

Saya katakan kepada peserta seminar dan workshop entrepreneurship, memang mungkin saja benar kesaksian tersebut. Tetapi, saya ingatkan bahwa kesaksian tersebut saya yakin tidaklah mengungkap hal sebenarnya…di dalam prosesnya. Selalu ada yang ditutupi oleh para pemberi testimonial sukses tersebut. Mereka cenderung memberikan testimonial yang tidak sebenarnya, yang bukan kondisi proses sesungguhnya. Mereka lebih memberikan kesaksian hasil akhir saja. Para pemberi testimonial sukses ini ingin dilihat sebagai orang yang benar-benar sukses tanpa modal uang, supaya memberikan kesan WAH HEBAT… kepada peserta seminar atau workshop.

Tentu saja para peserta seminar atau workshop entrepreneurship, akan takjub dengan berbagai testimonial sukses itu, karena peserta jelas tidak tahu hal sebenarnya, bukan? Dan saya juga sangat menyayangkan, para pembicara atau trainer tentang entrepreneurship, yang memberikan contoh testimonial sukses secara TIDAK LENGKAP. Bagi saya, testimonial sukses yang dikisahkan secara tidak lengkap seperti itu, saya sebut sebagai TESTIMONIAL PALSU.

TESTIMONIAL PALSU semacam itu sangat bisa menyesatkan pikiran para calon entrepreneur, bahkan bisa membuat calon entrepreneur menjadi gampang stress. Bagaimana tidak? Testimonial palsu dari para entrepreneur pemula, yang mengatakan bahwa dia bisa tanpa modal uang sama sekali bisa berbisnis dengan hasil selalu menguntungkan, akan sangat menyesatkan calon entrepreneur, karena alasan berbisnis awal tanpa modal uang dan bisa sukses ini tidak pernah diceritakan secara lengkap.

Latar belakang si entrepreneur pemula tanpa modal uang inipun seringkali ditutupinya. Lebih sering dikatakan dia hanya berasal dari keluarga miskin-papa. Tidak pernah dikisahkan secara lengkap, bagaimana kok dia sampai dipercaya orang lain sehingga orang lain tersebut menyerahkan modal uangnya kepada dia. Siapa dibalik itu yang mendukungnya agar orang lain juga percaya kepadanya…juga tidak pernah disebutkan, mengingat dia kan barusan jadi entrepreneur… belum punya `track record' positif dalam dunia bisnis.

TESTIMONIAL PALSU lainnya adalah tentang bisnis property seorang entrepreneur pemula, yang tanpa modal uang sama sekali, tetapi dia malah dapat uang dari hasil membeli property tanpa uang itu. Kisah ini sering ditampilkan dalam berbagai versi dengan beragam orangnya.

Intinya adalah, si entrepreneur pemula ini, yang bahkan namanya saja tidak pernah dikenal oleh dunia perbankan, begitu mudahnya memperoleh kredit dari Bank, untuk membayar property yang dibelinya, dan dia membayar angsurannya dari hasil pemasukan property nya tersebut. Jadi dia tidak pernah keluar uang sepeserpun untuk membayar angsurannya di Bank.

Inipun tidak pernah dikisahkan secara lengkap, siapa saja yang terlibat dalam proses pembelian property sampai cairnya kredit Bank; mengingat si entrepreneur pemula belum pernah dikenal namanya di dunia perbankan, yang tentu saja tidak mungkin Bank begitu saja mempercayai dia dengan mengucurkan kredit uang. Juga tidak pernah disinggung proses `appraisal' property nya. Pokoknya hanya dikisahkan, jika mereka mengikuti cara-caranya, maka akan menuai sukses juga…dan banyak orang akhirnya menjadi kecewa!

Hal-hal semacam itulah yang sangat saya sayangkan. Memang boleh saja bermaksud untuk memotivasi semangat kewirausahaan para peserta seminar atau workshop. Tetapi jika mereka selalu memberikan testimonial palsu seperti tersebut tadi, akan sangat menyesatkan pikiran dan kejiwaan orang lain, yang belum paham betul, apa dan bagaimana sebenarnya dunia entrepreneurship itu.

Menjadi entrepreneur tanpa perlu menjalani proses belajar secara berkesinambungan, alias bisa secara instan bisa langsung sukses besar…itu adalah MITOS yang harus diwaspadai. Karena untuk menjadi seorang entrepreneur sejati itu diperlukan suatu proses yang berlandaskan kecakapan, ketrampilan, ilmu pengetahuan, latihan, disamping juga keberanian…secara berkesinambungan.



Editorial: Religious persecution

Fri, 04/18/2008 10:05 AM | Opinion

Here is an important announcement. Indonesia has officially stopped being the tolerant nation it has always proclaimed to be, especially when it comes to religion. The country with the world's largest Muslim population, one that has long prided itself for its diversity and peaceful coexistence between people of different faiths, is no longer a safe place, particularly for religious minorities.

Never mind what the Constitution and the state ideology Pancasila say -- that freedom of religion is guaranteed and that citizens are protected to practice their faith. Today, those are mere ornamental words. The reality on the ground is the state has started to persecute people for their religious beliefs.

On Wednesday, a government panel decided that Ahmadiyah, a Muslim sect that has its origins in India but now has followers worldwide, including in Indonesia, is heretic and contravenes the tenets of Islam. The Coordinating Board for Monitoring Mystical Beliefs -- comprising government prosecutors, police and officials of the religious affairs and home ministries -- issued a recommendation that Ahmadiyah, as a religious organization, be banned, along with all its activities.

The ball is in President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's court, being the person authorized to ban any organization. But there is real fear that before he makes his ruling, the recommendation itself will be sufficient for various vigilante groups to start attacking and harassing followers of Ahmadiyah.

Many followers of Ahmadiyah have already had to live in makeshift shelters after coming under violent attacks in recent years from vigilante groups who acted on the fatwa (religious edict) of the Indonesian Ulema Council declaring Ahmadiyah heretic. The police, whose duty it is to ensure that every religious minority is protected, did not make much of an effort to prevent the violence. Typically, they only evacuated Ahmadiyah followers to safety and then gave the thugs free reign to destroy and burn down property belonging to the group.

Now, the same vigilante groups and many others like them will be encouraged to resume their attacks. Even the police will be required to act upon a ban and start rounding up the followers of Ahmadiyah. If this is not state-sanctioned religious persecution, then we don't know what is.

No wonder the first reaction from Ahmadiyah leaders when the ban recommendation came Wednesday was to brace themselves for violent attacks and to defend themselves. They knew too that they no longer could count on the protection of the state and the police against future attacks.

What is most disturbing is the way representatives of the conservative Muslims flexed their muscles to secure the ban, at times using violent language, forcing the government to comply.

This is the first time in the republic's history that the state, which proclaims to be neither theocratic nor secular, has interfered in the substance of the religion. In the past, the state restricted its role to ensuring freedom of religion and the right for everyone to practice their faith. It leaves the question of the right or wrong of particular teachings to religious leaders. Wednesday's recommendation broke the long-held taboo and clearly shows the state siding with the Muslim conservatives by agreeing Ahmadiyah is heresy and contravenes the tenets of Islam.

This is setting a dangerous precedent, for no religion is safe now from the possibility of having its beliefs probed and judged to contravene Islam. That literally means just about every existing religion. One wonders, now that the conservative Muslims have had their way, who they will target next. They know the state will again be submissive to their will.

This is the state playing God, a dangerous game that would spell the end of the religious diversity that has always underpinned this republic. We may as well declare Indonesia an Islamic state. At least the rules of the game for the religious minorities are clear. Today, we have a government that is failing in its constitutional duty to protect the religious minorities.

It is encouraging to see that Muslim leaders from the moderate camp quickly distanced themselves from the recommendation by the government panel and denounced it as a violation of the Constitution (which, incidentally, is an impeachable offense).

Former Muhammadiyah chairman Syafii Ma'arif and leading Islamic scholar Azyumardi Azra both said the recommendation reflects the views of "extremist" elements in Islam rather than the "moderate" that continue to preach peace, tolerance and respect for religious differences.

More of them should come out of their shell and speak out about the real Islam.

If the state can no longer be counted on to defend Ahmadiyah followers, then the task should be taken up by moderate and peace-loving Muslims. They, along with leaders of religious minorities, should join hands in fighting religious extremists in our society (and apparently, in our government) and prevent this country from degenerating into a lawless state.

This republic was built upon, among other things, religious diversity and religious freedom. You take those away and you may as well forget about the republic. May God be with us.