Have a look at this interesting clip:



Same old question.

Let me put it another way.
1. Is education a commodity? You'd probably say no. But hey, why do we need to pay for piano and language courses? They should be freely provided by the state, no?

2. Is health service a commodity? If no, then why do you have to pay your health insurance?

3. Is water a commodity? If no, then why do we need to pay for coca cola, starbucks and all those beverages in Tesco's shelves?

If no water can be commodified, every bartender in this earth will lose their jobs. No one can open a Cafe' because all the drinks should be for free.

Now you probably said: no, because they are "processed". Those who process them added the value of water, and is entitled for their labor. But drinking water should be free.

Now wait a minute here. Aren't drinking water "processed" too? If you ask me to get you a bucket of water from uphill, aren't you supposed to pay me for my work? Those plumbing and water treatment plants need funds too, no? The tap's going have to come from somewhere.

But I agree that in some instances water should be provided for free by the state. In times of emergencies, natural disaster or for people in prison, the state should provide them with adequate and safe water. Also for those who can't afford to pay it. Subsidy measures should be available, or payment in arrears facility, or solidarity tariffs.

But we cannot say that water entirely cannot be commodified. Humans are not commodities, that I fully agree, both morally and legally. Sex should not be a commodity too, at least, morally. But some people think it differently. As such there are differences of opinion on whether the commodification of sex should be prohibited by the state.

That human is not a commodity is universal. But whether water is a commodity or not is highly contextual. It depends on what sort of water and in which situation.

The Indonesian Attorney General Office has started to investigate the allegation of corruption in the water sector. The amount money involved is 1 billion IDR. The project, which is fully funded by Makassar's regional budget is supposed to improve Makassar city's water supply. Read more (in Bahasa)

There is an interesting op-ed in today's Jakarta Post about Water Resources. The author argues:

There are three main reasons for the emergence of shadow users and the disappearance of water from the water table.

1. First, on face value, unlike countries that face water scarcity, Indonesia has abundant and easily accessible water resources.
2. Second, a small handful of non-state actors and activist organizations are not pluralistic by definition. These actors are politically driven, weak and sparse. Promoting a consensus based pluralistic dialogue and discourse is not their main agenda.
3. Third, both at the national and local levels, there are gaps in linking public policy-making with regulatory frameworks.

Can't agree more with the 2nd point. The water resources discourse in Indonesia is quite monolithic: it's either you are pro public ownership or pro privatization. I don't think this will get us anywhere.

Quick blogging. The controversial blasphemy law verdict by the Indonesian Constitutional Court has been published. You can download it here.

What do you think about the verdict?

Have your say.





 

For those of you interested in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), have a look at a 2007 sylabus for the course at Florida International University here. There are some links to downloadable materials, papers and lecture notes too.

Big Hat Tip to the author of our brotherly blog who send me the link to this free ebook from the FAO. The title of the book is Law for water management: a guide to concepts and effective approaches. If you are a water law aficionado, download freely here (and save it to your hard drive, before the link is broken!)

It's been decided a few hours ago. The Constitutional Court ruled with one concurring opinion (Harjono) and one dissenting opinion (Maria) that the blasphemy law is here to stay. I do not think that this ruling with outlaw the possibility to submit another judicial review in the future. In the mean time, it might be worth to have a look at the Court's Decision (its not yet online -- will provide a link when it is) and Justice Maria's Dissenting Opinion.

See my recent working paper on the constitutionality of the Indonesian Blasphemy Law at the SSRN.

See related news at Detik (in Bahasa).