Paying Fine to Trespass Transjakarta Lane: Is It a Good Idea?

It is interesting to follow political condition in Indonesia especially during the turmoil between Police and Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). However, current writing is not devoted to this particular issue. I would rather talk about recent issue in Jakarta with its current governor, Basuki Tjahja Purnama, who is also very well-known as Ahok. Just recently, he has sparked a further debate about allowing very-rich people living in Jakarta with their luxury cars for being able to go through the Transjakarta bus line provided that they will pay sufficient amount of money which will then be used as Jakarta’s revenue. Further clarification coming from Ahok saying that the essence of this policy is not to “merely allow” the luxury-car owners to have special treatment; rather, more importantly, it is about deterrent effect that is going to be exploited: the amount of money that should be paid will be increased as long as there are still people who are courage enough to trespass the bus lane. To be fair, such a policy is quite unique since Ahok can actually generate money from the very-rich people by exploiting the possibility of them to avoid traffic jam in Jakarta. Despite of his seriousness in applying this policy or his actual meaning in saying the statement, there is one question to be asked is: is it really a good idea for citizen in Jakarta and Indonesia in general?

It is true that such a policy has sparked debate and controversy. Some agree and some do not. A simple reflection can lead people to rethink about the goodness of the policy. A simple question can then be asked: what condition that will lead us to be a good citizen in ideal condition?

In answering this question, I would like to refer to john Rawls about his theory of justice. Rawls says that behind the veil of ignorance, people will be very likely to prefer a policy that sides with people with high vulnerability. Thus, for example, justice will be preserved by alleviating people who are living in dire circumstances. Only by doing so a country can be considered as just. The main reason behind this idea is clear: because we choose a basis in which we know nothing about our current condition in real world, we will then try to avoid to have a policy that will not support people living in dire conditions. Of course, people living in such conditions do need our help and as we do not know exactly about our outcome, we tend to choose the policy. Generally speaking, equality is much more preferable in preserving justice. Of course in actual circumstance, we cannot have such a veil of ignorance. But it does not mean that we can just ignore such a preposition. In this case, there is one thing important that can be adopted: the importance of equality to preserve justice.

If we take back this theory with Jakarta current case, it is then clear that in we live in unequal condition. This is proven by, for example, a Gini coefficient. Some people are very rich and some of them are very poor and the rest are moderate. However, will this condition justify the way we obey law? Law is made to preserve justice and to ensure that everyone is bound to it. Punishment is then necessary to insist people so they obey the law even though, according to Rawls, in very high degree of civilization, punishment is indeed not necessary because people have trusted each other and no one would like to breach the principle of justice. It is then clear from the point of view of justice that avoiding traffic jam by going through Transjakarta bus lane and paying fine can actually be considered as unequal condition that only sides with very rich people. Those who are very rich can easily say that the fine is actually nothing thanks to their very high income. The situation will be different for people with moderate income since they will be very burdened by the fine that they should pay. In this case, it is clear that justice is not preserved to the very least group. Rather it only accommodates very rich people who can afford in paying fine.

Furthermore, it also negates the essence of fine itself. Since fine is correlated with punishment because of breaching laws, having such a policy will only say that: as long as you have enough money to pay the fine, you will be fine. Of course this is not the case of building a good country. Punishment should be made in order to increase awareness degree of any citizen that it is also their duty to preserve justice as mandated by laws. Otherwise, punishment will only get sharp to the very vulnerable groups and not to the very-rich ones. This will eventually lead to the negation of principle of justice as stated above.

It is quite good actually to fine people who dare to breach Transjakarta lane. However, this should be done indiscriminately. And one thing important to note here is: fine is not a mean to let very-rich people avoid traffic jam in Jakarta. Thus, the most important thing is not to increase the fine amount. Because even if you put fine for 1 billion rupiah, I am quite sure that there are still few people dare to breach the law as long as what they have in mind is: as long as I can pay, I can breach the law. Thus, what is more important is deployment of law enforcers to prevent such drivers breach Transjakarta lane. This is more effective to increase the awareness of any drivers that they are strictly prohibited to use Transjakarta lane.

Last but not least, I think Jakarta already has sufficient revenue. Even recent news have also showed that only around 59% of city’s budget was effectively absorbed last year. This clearly indicates that Jakarta is not that in dire condition in craving for money. What is more important is to increase awareness of people living in Jakarta that if you want to avoid traffic jam, you have to switch to public transportation in order to reduce the vehicle volume in the roads. Of course, this has also to be incentivized by improving the public transportation service. Without doing so, traffic jam will still be a persistent problem for the city.

Horizontal Conflict and Social Contract Problem

The progress of a case when a mother killed in an uprising event against Islamic Defender Front (FPI) in Sukorejo is still continuing. Many discussions have been held either formally or informally. Social media has also become part of the public space where people are continuously giving their points of view regarding the case. Some people insist that Indonesia government should be firmer in dealing with FPI. On the other hand, another recent report also shows that the actual driver is not an FPI member; hence there is no firm ground to denounce FPI. Furthermore, there is also an argument stating that “if you were on the driver’s seat, facing the uncontrollable mob throwing stone toward your car, you would do the same thing: you could not control your car and you would not know what you were currently doing and driving toward to.”

Cases related to FPI do seem very hard to be dealt with. Indonesia government seems reluctant to dismiss the group despite many evidences have clearly shown brutal attacks conducted by the group; aside from its social role as the guardian of moral and also several social activities that has been successfully conducted. A crucial question then arises: in this democratic regime, where people can easily and freely express their opinion regarding any cases, why should horizontal conflicts should remain exist?

Problem of justice

In order to determine the root cause of conflict, it can be traced back to the problem of justice when collective living is conducted. It can be then correlated to the case of social contract where every individual in a society agree to be bound by a contract that will act as the main principle in a society. The contract is also then about preserving justice since it is the only way to build just society. It can be considered as such because the contract is made in order to avoid conflict to happen in the future.

In every contract built, the most important point is where people involved in the contract lay aside their individuality to build a more integral society that is not bounded by differences. Since human beings are keen to preserve their ego in their nature, there will be a strong need to build a body that will legitimately act as a guardian of the contract. This body is well-known as government.

Any government is then a protector of its own contract since it has acquired its legitimacy from the people proposing the contract. Furthermore, government is the only legal body that can use harsh punishment in order to preserve the contract since, if we back to the premise above, a contract is the single source where justice is preserved in a collective living. Thus, when a government fails to guard the contract, it will also become the time where horizontal conflicts begin to appear and everyone seeks his/her own path of justice, regardless the means they use.

The problem of contract

The problem of justice is valid as long as it is assumed that the contract produced has accommodated the interest of the people involved and thus creating the common good. But horizontal conflict may also arise if the contract made does not accommodate the interest of the people.

This condition can be easily seen in Egypt’s current crisis where Morsi was still in throne. When the parliament constructed the contract that was considered too subjective, people living inside Egypt yearn for more participation and accommodation when finally the social contract was legally established. This demand then continued until now in an uprising resulting in horizontal clash between those who support Morsi and those who do not.

In such a circumstance, horizontal conflict appears not to preserve justice by everyone’s way. It is more than that namely to preserve justice as just as possible by establishing a contract that is not subjective. The conflict happens as a long to build a just society not as a part to divide the society apart.

From this part, it is clear that a good contract should be able to accommodate the interest of the people living bound by the contract. It will be then considered as just. But, forcing one’s preferences too much above others is not also a good choice since it will only lead to another uprising demanding more participation and less-subjective contract. There should be then a balance between one’s interest and the common good in order to preserve justice.

Indonesia

How about Indonesia and its horizontal conflicts? What I do believe is Indonesia’s current contract is indeed an outstanding contract, if it cannot be described as excellent. It acknowledges differences while preserving unity and preventing social injustice. From my point of view, the compromise when this contract was being deliberated was indeed a good one so such an outstanding contract could be eventually produced.

Thus, if we bring this premise to Indonesia’s current context, it is absolutely clear that actually the Indonesia’s contract (Pancasila) is not well-preserved. Social injustice can be traced everywhere as can be clearly seen in Papua where huge disparity appears since its minerals are easily extracted but its population is left behind. Indonesia’s Gini Ratio has also risen above 0.4 means that one percent of Indonesia’s wealthiest persons have accumulated wealth equivalent with 40% of Indonesians’ overall wealth.

Another clear example can be seen where politic is no longer about making a policy better. Politic is merely about extracting money and corrupting tax paid by the people. There is no longer deliberative conducted in parliament since many of them are absent or taking a nap during meeting. What is the point of democracy then? Or you could see many law enforcers can be easily bribed despite the fact that they are the front line in guarding Indonesia’s social contract. In this regard, our level of civilization is then doubted.

Furthermore, if Indonesia government cannot deal with religious differences, for example, it should not be a strange thing to see how many religious affiliations groups fight each other because each of them yearns for identity and preserving justice to be also recognized in this country. Moreover, if the government is also reluctant to deal with any hard-liner group who wish to challenge Indonesia’s social contract, people will then take the role and preserve their own justice by throwing stone and preventing such a group to get in. Furthermore, if Indonesia government cannot also preserve well-being for its population, it should not be a weird thing to see people conflicting each other just to get enough food to eat. And I do believe that there are much more “if outside there that are potentially happen if Indonesia government fails to act.

Indonesia has actually had the power to be a civilized country. Its contract has acknowledged that difference should be preserved and social equality is guaranteed. The problem now is about the implementation. As long as Indonesia government is reluctant to be firmer unto groups who has not accepted the contract, we will always be in stagnant position since we will always deal with the same problem every day without have any interest in clearing and finding solution. Indonesia is then no longer just for collective living and this can be a plausible reason why horizontal conflicts often appear. If Indonesia government cannot preserve the contract, the society living inside the country will then walk back to the primitive era where the contract had not been established yet. In such a circumstance, people can easily kill others just because they have different views about something. One person can also kill another as a mode of retaliation. In this bleak condition, what is longed for by the society is the same: justice. And the only way to deal with this matter is clear: Indonesia government should take back its role as the guardian of the social contract.

Will We Face “The Price of Everything” Era?

There are two current cases that finally drive me to write down this article. First of all, when one of my friends gave me a screenshot picture about those who offer service to be your couple when you are going to a wedding party or other parties that you have foreseen that you will be asked about “when you get married?” The second case does seem more serious than the former. I took the case from the BBC website telling a story in Dubai that the government there offers one gram of gold for those who are success in reducing one kilogram of their body weight in a 30-day of exercise. The Dubai government thinks that this incentive will work to fight against obesity that lingering the country.

At a glance, it does seem that there is no something to be objected in regard with both of the cases. Is it wrong to pay someone to be your couple just for a while? Since you pay him/her for both of your good, could it be considered as wrong action? Furthermore, by giving gold as incentive, is not it a good idea to drive people to hinder obesity and drive them to a more healthy life? But both cases cannot be only highlighted from such a point of view. There is a more deep strong objection, as Michael Sandel strongly puts it, namely a society that is currently paving its way toward a market-society rather than market economy.

What Money Can’t Buy?

The subtitle of this article is actually derived from the book written by Michael Sandel. For those who never read the book, let me give you a brief view about the book. In the book, Michael Sandel says that actually we are now living not only in a market economy but also in a market society. Market society can be easily described as society that is driven mainly by the market mechanism and it could be said: money.

Market society strongly depends upon cost-benefit analysis but the analysis’ basis is money. Thus, you must put a price tag for every single thing that you have in your life including a price tag for yourself when you are dead or when you are suffering severe injury by accident, for example. In a market society, everything is valued by money. The more valuable the things, the more expensive it will be paid.

The interesting parts of the book lay on the examples Sandel gives to his readers. But, for me individually, the most interesting example lies not in the book rather to his former book “Justice” in regard with the case of Ford Pinto gasoline tank. For those who are interested to know the detail of the case, it can be easily found out by google. There you could find many articles describing the case, including the ethical issue of the case. But in order to explain briefly the case, I would like to give you a short explanation.

Engineers in Ford had been aware the vulnerability of the gasoline tank of the Ford Pinto when it collided with another car coming from the rear. But, “company executives has conducted a cost-benefit analysis and determined that the benefits of fixing it were not worth the eleven dollars per car it would have cost to equip each car with a device that would have made the gas tank safer.” To sum up the cost-benefit analysis, this is the calculation posed by Sandel in his book.

 

Benefit

Cost

Occasion

Price

Occasion

Price

Life lost

$200,000/life

Adding safety device

$11/car

Injury

$67,000/injury

Estimation Number of life lost

180

Amount of cars

12,5 million

Estimation Number of injury

180

Total

Around $49,5 million

Total

$137,5 million

 

From the table, it is clear that the cost outweigh the benefit that will reap. Based upon this calculation then the company decided not to adding a safety device and this case went to surface after “more than five hundred people died when their Pintos burst into flames and many more suffered severe burn injuries and then one of the burn victims sued Ford Motor companies for the faulty design.”

In Indonesia, there are also real examples when money can buy everything including justice. Corruptors in this country can easily bribe judges in order to flee from law enforcement. There are also cases where our corruptors’ prisons are indeed very luxurious just because they can pay much money. Prison that should have to be a place where justice is preserved is then altered to a place where injustice is hold up. It does seem that prison can be more correctly said as the place of perversion of justice.

When we back to the above cases, it is clear that money does seem can buy everything. It can buy a couple just for several hours and also to be used as incentive to a healthy lifestyle. The question is: is a couple a matter of money? Will there be a moment where I could use my own money to buy my future wife? Furthermore, should I always be incentivized by money in order to preserve my own good life? Should I release my consciousness and succumb to the money in order to achieve healthy life?

Human beings and their dignity

When we talk about human beings, there is something that is currently often neglected: human dignity. It is often get disappeared because of we are now living in a market society where dignity can be simply quantified by money. Thus, what does matter is no longer about dignity but rather about how much money I should pay equivalent with your dignity.

A question about human beings’ dignity can be proposed by a simple question: when there is a human being died, why do not we consume his/her flesh? Tracing his/her evolution pathway, is it correct that human beings are the latest evolution of animal? And why does, on the other hand, we can easily consume steak made from cow, chicken, and so on? Do we actually have the same nature, namely animal? Why should put differences to human beings?

Consider this thing: if we value an animal is merely a thing that can be utilized to be consumed, we want them to be formed as what we desire. Thus, no problem will arise, for example, when they died since we will freely consume them. But, if we exalt an animal as our god, for example, we are very reluctant to kill them. We rather choose other animals to be consumed. Even the dead-body of such an animal will be well-cured and should naturally diminish. What is the thing that we can actually pick up in this matter?

The answer lays in the dignity and how we put others in this matter, especially human beings in our current circumstances. When we put a non-utilization paradigm upon others, we are very reluctant to utilize others since we know that it will harm their dignity. The case is same with human beings. Human beings are not merely things that can be freely utilized by others as Kant points out: human beings cannot be utilized as means to achieve end. Rather, human beings are end in themselves. Human beings cannot be considered based upon what they are useful for. They should be valued in a more transcendental and holistic way since possibilities is always within them. This means that human beings are free and can choose their own path to achieve their good equipped with reasons, affection, and so on. Hence, we exalted them because they are priceless by their dignity. The further question is then: why should we are nowadays put price tag on human dignity?

The answer can be put upon the fact that our current circumstance does not realize the moral limit of the market as Sandel points out. When everyone thinks that he/she could buy other’s dignity and utilize them to his/her individual end, everyone will follow. This is a vicious circle. Since no one is reluctant to live alone and rather follow their peers, everyone will also follow majority who think that money can but everything. This then puts market society in the rise.

A further question will be asked: why can people put dignity as a commodity? The answer lays in the fact that we are now living in what Erich Fromm calls a having-mode structure. We are now overwhelmed with the paradigm that we are what we have and not we are what we are. With the premise that “we are what we have,” it is clear that I will be valued based upon what I have rather than what I should be as human beings. It may be very potential then to throw away dignity in order to have material things so we will not be viewed as inferior by others.

This is the simple example of vicious circle that lingers our society: having-mode structure will lead people to become greed since the more I have, the more other will value me. Thus, those who have much means will do everything efficiently to use other to have more. And on the other side, those who lack of means will sell everything include their dignity to have more means to have more. Indeed, both of them are downgrading their value as human beings since they neglect their dignity as human beings that are actually priceless and not based upon material things.

Thus, should we always walk in this kind of market society? Should we always put a price tag in everything? I am no longer amazed then if one day no one will do anything voluntarily just because they are not incentivized. No one will think about how to be a good human being by conducting healthy lifestyle except one gram of gold will be given upon them and also no one will think to find his/her own couple that he/she will spend the rest of his/her life since they may think that everything can be bought including couple. No one will value love as a transcendental value and no one will value human dignity as priceless either. In such a future, everything will be price tagged and there is a guide book named “The price of everything” that will be a guide to make a policy, to conduct justice, and so on. And in that era, we never remember what we ought to be as human beings.

 

Rethinking Current Students’ Future: Would You Pay Them Back?

As a final year student, it is very common for my friends and me talking about the future: what kind of future that we do really hope? Such a conversation is actually booming nowadays among my friends as many of them have tried their very best to achieve their desired job with a competitive salary offered. This writing will then talk about future as I am also a final year student when writing this article. But, as my previous works, I will not let you go with my final decisions. This writing, I do really hope, will bring you think more clearly about future and the most important point: to get the other side of the common, to consider the anti-mainstream side.

Contrasting future

When talking about future, as fresh graduates coming from reputable universities, it is very common to seek jobs that offer high salary. Oil and gas companies are always on the top of the list. Ten million rupiah of monthly salary is indeed very common for graduates working for such companies. Moreover, the amount can be higher if graduates are placed in an isolated area. The salary offered is indeed very competitive and that is the reason why many persons will be queuing in front of the desk of the companies in any kind of job fair.

Salary will then become a natural benchmark for students seeking jobs when they are going to be graduated. Several students may talk about how high salary that is offered by a company combined with premium facilities such as fitness center, transportation fee, incentives and so on. That is also why I was not amazed when one of my lecturers said that actually there was a graduate from my university who did not accept a job offered by a local company based upon the reason that the salary offered was considered too low. High salary seeker does seem very likely to be a propensity for fresh graduate students. A critical question that will be arising then: is it wrong to put a high salary as a benchmark? Should we only consider money in this life?

I will not answer such a question explicitly; rather I will bring all of you to think the other way. That is why I give the subtitle for this section is: contrasting future.

I have several friends who do not have any kind of background in engineering as my friend at my current campus. Some of them may have social science in background or have not yet earned any bachelor degree. And my friends of this type are currently working as activists. There are some of them who stand and strive for women’s rights in Indonesia, advocating to Indonesia government to not forgetting the 1998 and Munir -a well-known Indonesia activist- tragedy, building an inter-religions network for peaceful society and so on.

When I was just in my second year at this campus, I had an opportunity to have internship at a local daily as a journalist. I then had earned enormous and invaluable experiences that I thought that I could not get it anywhere else. It was not just about interesting stories to attend press conference in some new areas but rather about a network built among journalists and how they viewed lives. Let me tell you some of the stories.

When I was conducting my internship there, I met a woman photographer from the same daily. We were given a task to make news in a public hospital in Jakarta. I then talked to her about her experiences as photo-journalist. At a glance, I was amazed when she said, “My salary is not that high. To be honest with you, it is only about 3 million rupiah for a month. But I have invaluable experiences by becoming journalist. One of the most important is that I can become a channel between people and government, to create awareness about something that our government is reluctant to hear about by photo. I can take picture that will say everything. And lastly, it is about my freedom and independence. The daily never neglects  my independence” My mentor in the daily also said, “Do not think to be rich if you choose to be a journalist but you will be very proud because you work for people and live for them not for yourself.”

On the day, I also realized that how small the salary given to the journalist compared with those who work in oil companies, as an example. But I did find an extraordinary philosophical background in every step they take. At the very least, it is not the salary that becomes the driving force; rather it is mainly about their irrational side of human that deliver them to take a risk, working for people and justice. I know that they could have earned more money if they resigned but I do realize that they are not that susceptible.

My journey expanded when I met several social activists in Indonesia. One day I was assigned to by the daily to cover news about Yap Thiam Hien Award, an award dedicated to human rights activist to honor Yap Thiam Hien who was a great lawyer coming from Chinese minority and Christian background. In the session, there was a woman talked about the case of her son that was still not clear and unfortunately when I was writing this article, the condition still unchanged. She told how she and several activists always tried to ask attention from government to clear the 1998 case and the case for her son. Every Thursday, she and many social activists stand in front of Presidential Palace and the case is well-known as “Kamisan.” Every activist in this country should have known very well about the regular action and they should have also known how hard-hearted our government really is to clear the case.

As my relation expanded, several social activists also told their story about how to ask for justice in the country, about clearing human rights abuse that happened in 1998, asking for tolerance by praying in front of Presidential Palace for GKI Yasmin people even though I know very well that some of them Muslim but they fight for minorities’ rights and many examples depicting how irrational they are. They could have got a better job, I know for sure. But when I dived down into their circumstances, I never reached my rational mind about their thoughts in their lives. One day, one of my friends asked me about how could they survive and the best answer that I could give was only to say that “I really do not know. But what I believe is they can still survive almost without something that we are struggling for, namely money. And I always respect them, I salute them.”

What is your goal?

One day I was watching a television program broadcasting a story about two lawyers. The first one is a lawyer who, having been graduated, dedicates himself to work for others, namely to pursue justice for those who are very vulnerable without asking much money to be paid. When a reporter covering the news was invited to his house, the pictures taken were so real. He has no any kind of luxurious things in his modest house. Another lawyer comes from different background. In his early era, he decided to build up his fame in order to earn money and it could be clearly seen when a reporter covering how his house is fulfilled with luxurious things. But nowadays, he then told the reporter that he had changed his mind to “help vulnerable people” since he eventually realized that this opportunity would also bring his fame to constantly increase.

What I would like to tell you in the story above is about your goal. The former lawyer has pure tendency in his conscience that he should help other people because it is the right thing to do so. In contrast, the latter feels that helping the vulnerable will help him to increase his popularity. Based upon the Kantian ethic, the former is indeed the more ethical person since he do not use others as mean to achieve his goal. On the other hand, the latter use others to achieve his goal. It could also be further said that the former knows the substance of becoming a moral person while the latter not, based upon Kantian ethic. Thus, what is the important point that I would really like to deliver?

In every journey to pursue a goal, every person should sacrifice something; at the very least they will sacrifice their time to work restlessly. But will they remember that there is something that is often forgotten and the worse fact is this condition is actually not realized?

When I first encountered my seniors in orientation weeks, they talked about young generation, especially student coming from public universities, to give their should bearing responsibility in order to pave the way for advancing the country and releasing anxiety from people living under poverty. The question is: why should those people? Why the responsibility cannot be placed upon others, who come, let say, from private universities?

As people living in one country, responsibility should be actually taken by everyone in this country. Each of us should contribute to build this nation and guarantee that no one will go to their bed while still hungry: this is the very least goal. By doing this, our solidarity as Indonesians is likely to get stronger.

But, as the two lawyers story that I have just told, student graduated from public universities will have more “burden” to take the responsibility since part of the cost for conducting their study will be extracted from taxpayers. Thus, it is clear that students from such universities owe to the Indonesians people as a whole. The next question is: how will be it paid back? Should they just give the money in the same amount of the subsidized value? The calculation of the payback is not actually that easy. A comprehensive balance should be made.

If a person coming from reputable university, he/she will be automatically attracted to well-known companies and such an opportunity cannot be easily gained by those who do not come from public universities. How could a person pay this opportunity to taxpayers? Furthermore, based upon my own experience, studying at public reputable university will broaden your mind about the actual condition of Indonesia and become more critical about the policies undertaken in the country. How could a price tag be put on such thing? I do not think I could.

There are many more priceless experiences that actually can be taken when studying in such a university that I thought will only strengthen the burden to pay back for this country and also to the taxpayers who have paid part of my cost but then opening many doors of opportunities. The question is: would these students be the second lawyer who only think about preserving themselves and then just utilizing taxpayers as a mean to achieve their end, namely to be rich? Or would these students be the first lawyer who will dedicate themselves to build up this country and preserving justice for all Indonesians like the activists regardless of how much money they will earn?

Sometimes I am just ashamed because those who never experience of studying at my university will stand to demand justice of those who are oppressed without have to worry about millions of rupiah waiting ahead while students coming from the university think about how much money they will get from companies. Do we realize that it is actually very often we use our people as means to accomplish our desire? Have we realized that actually these are the people who actually pay some of our education and they also deserve to get theirs back?

If Indonesia government nowadays cannot successfully preserve justice for them, then it will be the homework for the generations to come to accomplish it. Some of them will choose the way to be activist as done by several of my friends and everyone will have the freedom to choose their unique path that actually can be realized. But one thing that should be remembered: future is not only about us, it is about the whole people who have indirectly get interaction with us and especially Indonesians.

They need these young generations as well as these generations need them to open for them big opportunities while studying at their campuses. Thus, will you pay it back as your future dream? It depends upon you since as a free person I have no right to insist anything upon you who read this article. I just give another view about future and about those who are really anti-mainstream in our current circumstances.