(PART 2)

We then walk in silence, holding hands. I couldn’t draw my hands of yours. That I think its fit perfectly. With the warmth of you beside me, my memory flew back years ago. Our days were so perfect and everything went good until that day, a woman who cut the loose came. Taking you away and leaving me heartache forever. It was that simple, you went away.

Now that you come again. All my fortresses are freezing into an ice and I am skating on that thin ice. Before, the itch was something easy to scratch and you changed everything.

“I don’t know why I left.” You start with words I prefer left unspoken.

Keep silent is my choice. I would never want to hurt myself by giving you any chance to make it verbal. I want you to put it –whatever you may say it, there far the day you went away.

“But I know.” Then, I stop walking not loosening my hands. I want you to see me in the eyes. Directly.

“Yeah, it was so clear anyway. I know I won’t be forgiven. I don’t ask for another chance either.” Your gaze stops at mine, looking for something you may find. A madness. Tears.

“I believe you did. Giving you chance will also cost me another wound that I perhaps can’t deal with.” I better kill myself rather than giving you a shot to shot me in the heart with all your capabilities letting me down.

“I am sorry.”

I then continue to walk, still with your hands holding mine. I don’t want to bother myself to ask this and that, questions remain unanswered. No, they are all answered by my analysis as someone who hurts to the bone.

“Nina,” The way you spell my name, I really hate to admit that I miss it so much. “I don’t know how to start this over again because I don’t know if its okay to start it.”

“Don’t start anything you’ve threw! I am broken, Jem.”

I spill your name out. My defense is totally crushed tonight. Then you stop. Drawing me to your arms again, –twice tonight– and bend your head kissing me. It is a gentle kiss. Stupid, I am crying.

It has been said and done. I. Belong. To. You.

The dream of being with you forever is still there. Waking up is hard because the limbo you’ve been building since we met is the beautiful thing I have.

I live in the dream. I don’t live my life. I am zombie in a day light with routine like a human being. Inside, I am broken. Nobody noticed, but myself. How hard you have tortured me. Its my time to revenge you. But not, I don’t have energy. Furthermore, I don’t own those capabilities like you did to leave someone you love.

It is me who break the kiss. Kiss that I’ve missed. Kiss that wakes my mind.

“Nina, bear with me and I will explain.”

Advertisements

2016 to 2017

2016 was over. It is January again. 2017.

To me, 2016 was full of things that has changed me more or less. Having a lot of decisions to be made and everything was going ups and downs. 2016 definitely gave its stroke that would be hard to forget.

Getting married was definitely not my intention in 2016, yet I did. I got married at last.

I was 25 years old when 2016 had its March. Since 2015 I’ve been living in Istanbul where I don’t think I belong there. Too many things happened there good and bad, I am aghast with Istanbul cruelty in determining who is friend or not. Then, let’s say those people don’t deserve any single sentences –but this, to be written for. Like 2016, I promise myself to let go off that irrelevant itchiness behind. I would try to be more go-ahead-no-turning-back person and less indecisive. Staying abroad, far from family, friend and food I used to be surrounded with has taught me lessons: intensifying the use of social media to communicate and cook better.

Well, back to the biggest decision I have ever made as now I have been living my life for a quarter half of a decade: marrying a man.

Knowing him for less than 3 years to finally tie the knot, I am sure that I will be definitely regretful if I didn’t. Never in my mind I will live my life seeing him happily with other woman. He is more than I deserve. Sound like I’m so in love with him? Indeed. If not then why on earth I married him? Too many things that he owns I need. His patience placed in the top of my never-will-end list. He always knows how to treat me and fulfill my irrational thought and will. So, how I think I could get another him if its not him? Even presuming it would take years. Staying in a marriage bond with him will be my lifetime resolution every year from now on.

So to speak, we only had less than a month to prepare everything for the wedding by ourselves. Well, literally it was me here in Indonesia having this and that going here and there. He was in Jeddah, crossing leg in his couch whatsapp-ing me how the preparation went. Yet, he was not. He didn’t have a plenty of time to help me, thus I summon up my squad to replace him doing his duty. Therefore, I thank my family and friends for my hectic last November. A lot. Keeping my good relationship with them definitely be my 2017 resolution

Talking about family and friends, I could say that I won’t be able to survive without them. My hard time was coming when I was in Istanbul trouble-ing myself to unnecessary thought that should be put million miles away. For those people who scratch my dignity, they are replaceable. Those kind of people would come and try to stay in my life, thus my obligation is to kick them out. Perhaps they would stay in my mind with their negativity, so I think I would give yoga a shot.

Health improvement also occupies my list for this year, I start to realize that healthy life is nothing but very important. So to decrease the minimum chance to get hospitalized or not able to live my life to the fullest, I will take everything seriously concerning healthy life. Trying this and that as a necessary tool for the good way of life.

As it might be seen, 2017 will come with its complexity. I am no longer as only a daughter or a sister, but also a wife. This year, I am planning to add a new tittle: a mother. Insha Allah.

This is my blog challenge with my lovely Meike ! Let’s spread the love together :p

Bravo!

I was thinking to step back when your smile filled up my brain. You know what, I’ve been busy altering my life, my future. And, simply you asked me to place you on top of my list. You asked me to make you my only one because you did the same way towards me. How dare you! Don’t you know that you already asked my only thing: my life.

Yet apparently, I did. I said a yes for it.

To bind our life together.

To be on the same road having each other.

And to abnegate our ego, okay my leviathan ego, in every possible way for one thing: a happiness.

Our path is crossing in a hallway where we shall consider as a coincidence. Anyway, I believe that there is no coincidence here and after. Thus, I see you as the way you see me. I have to admit you are so heartless dealing with my complexion making you an ace. Well, you’ve got my frailty and dealt with it victoriously. Nobody before you could step in this far.

And then you?

Why me? Why must me?

I can’t really ask. In return, I don’t have the answer.

But in the end, who need the answer of this whys? I won’t say it twice that I am really glad to have you having me like this. So, beware that our next level may be harder!

PS. I know that you love me. A lot.

 

(Part 1)

Standing there in front of me, a man with deep brown eyes and dark brown hair, and oh with his smile. My beating heart betrays me; it aches me knowing you are now back. My thought wanders a few years ago, when I saw you walking away. It hurt me thou, my heart was bleeding. A hard bleeding no bandage could stop. Oh, if only you were there seeing me after heartlessly you left me.

My body is shaking. I pray a lot for my legs not to collapse in a minute like a jelly on my weekend desert. And, my mouth is sealed. I look at those lips. Remembering I used to taste it and I still long for it. Until, you say something. “Hi, there.”

What do you want? my voice inside speaks. Instead, I reply “Hi.”

I think you don’t deserve my hi. I should walk away like what you did on a summer day five years ago. I was stoned that day. Consider that I would’ve die tomorrow when sun rose. But, it is cruel. I stay alive to watch you standing in front of me in this snowy afternoon.

“How are you?” You ask this silly question. Oh please don’t show that smile, smile that I always want to forget. I buried. I am just a few days away of my victory getting over you. I hope. You just break it, my hardwork, in a second. How powerful!

“Good.” Such a lie. “And you?” I can’t believe myself asking you back. You should run! I shout to myself. Again, my legs betray me. I stand still. Tell me, I hate how my body doesn’t work the way my thought. My body and my heart, likely, belong to you. Until this time. Really?

“Not too good, but it is okay.” That smile again. “Where are you heading? Can I walk you?”

No. No. No. “I am on my way home. Still waiting that bus. 62 bus.” That long answer I shouldn’t let spill out of my mouth. Hey, my lips! Stop betraying me, please! At least stay in my side.

Five seconds silent. Thanks God! Let me think for a while, preparing some wise words to say. A wise goodbye, a proper one from me. Can I?

“Would you allow me to see you in your door step?” You pull me back into my real in time situation. Mean time.

“Sure.” Well, I’ve just cursed myself.

That time, I hate myself more than I hate you.

“You do good? Still working hard, yeah?”

I can see your artery in your neck. I like the way your low voice reaches my ears.

“It’s been a year ago. I quit. I am now teaching.”

“Wow, it’s been a long time thou.” A silent that I can’t resist. “You know, I miss you Nina.”

Suddenly, you put me on your arms and hold me tight as I will run. That smell of sandalwood and red musk pushes into my lung. I can’t breathe. I can see my bus passes me. But, I enjoy this moment. Well, it seems like I can’t hate you.

To be continued, next day perhaps (?)

Rejecting Refugees: Political Asylum in the 21st Century by Carol Bohmer and Amy Schuman

Published in New York by Routlegde Press in 2007, 288 pp., ISBN 938 0 415 77376 8

 

Starting with the personal motivation, Carol Bohmer and Amy Schuman raise questions regarding the nations in accepting refugees. Along with the development of the policy of refugees’ countermeasure, they find that nations’ policy became more restrictive and burdensome. Therefore, in this book the question ‘how do the applicants of asylum construe their stories of persecution into an acceptable narrative to the officials?’ and ‘how do the officials determine whether to accept or not the application?’ would be answered.

They begin with the story of St. Louis that sailed from Germany in 1939 with more than 900 Jews fleeing away from Hitler’s persecution. When the passengers were not allowed to disembark in Cuba where they have the landing permission, St. Louis sailed back to Germany. No wonder why almost three-quarter of the passengers ended up in Nazi concentration camps. This refuge phenomenon as an old anomaly should be highlighted as the driven factor in creating promising laws for anyone fleeing from a persecution on the basis of conflict among races, political opinions, or social movements.

Rejecting Refugees is about the reciprocity between the asylum seekers and their upraised cases to be judged by United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK) autorities. Bohmer and Schumer criticize the hypocrisy between the ideal of the nations welcoming the asylum seekers and the actual practice. By comparing US and UK, they try to come up with the wider analysis of how the idea is presented in different actual policy. They align themselves along with the government of US and UK as one part, yet in the same time, they also show the disagreement with those governments’ policy.

As they illustrate, the stories became the emerging interaction between the asylum seekers who are considered suspicious and immigration bureaucracies who are enforced to apply the conservative immigration law. The interactions, somehow create very strange questions to be answered about for whom, why, and how the asylum claims should be given. Both authors address an aim to reveal the injustices in the asylum systems of US and UK, in particular for those indigent asylum seekers.

In the very beginning of the book, Bohmer and Schuman present the distinction between two terms: refugees and asylum seekers. The term ‘refugee’ is commonly used to describe anyone who flees his country unwillingly. He gets a legal status that allows him to be brought into a host country’s expense and benefits certain public rights (p.24). Meanwhile, asylum seekers are people who travel to US and UK under their own steam and apply for asylum (p.25). This is an important thing that makes Rejecting Refugees easier for the readers, who are not so knowledgeable this terms, to be understood. They also emphasize the asylum seekers as the subject of the book, thus, the readers would not be lost on the track.

In practices, both US and UK pull out the strict policy that cut the number of asylum seekers that succeeded the applications. Whether it is because the fear that asylum seekers are potential terrorists or job stealers, the number is getting decreased by days. Rejecting Refugees presents several asylum seekers experiences that vary in many process and results. Some of them get the benefit of legal aid that government provides, some of them not. In returns, many of them ended up with a rejection of application due to the lack of sufficient information and incapability to understand how the system works.

As US provides the 589 form for a claim, the UK has this SEF form. Both of this form is multi-paged but US’ 589 is less complicated compared to UK’s SEF. After completing this form, the asylum seekers should attend the interview and a hearing. Bohmer and Schumer also criticize this form, that seems so simple for us to be completed, but for the asylum seekers -that are displaced people- the form is very complicated. For instance, to claim an asylum, these people should provide the permanent address in order to be kept updated about the asylum process. The applicant would be informed about hearing after the assessment of their documents, which they have no idea when the exact date. The fact is, mostly they failed to attend the hearing because they missed the information after changing their addresses because they have to move since they have no permanent one. Bohmer and Schumer see this as the governments’ effort to keep these asylum seekers ‘illegal’.

Rejecting Refugees is an avant-garde in the sense of the interview with these asylum seekers who mostly seen as criminals or terrorists entering the border without the necessary document. The authors also raise up the possibility to suggest that the fear of persecution because having an ‘illegal entry’ could encourage a refugee to claim for an asylum. Yet, many of them ended up in a decision to stay ‘illegal’ because they were afraid of being deported. As Teinzin’s story (Chapter 3) was told, there is a possibility to succeed in claiming the asylum with expired deadline and no sufficient documents.

Rejecting Refugees also reveals the inconsistencies the states show regarding the asylum seeking process. Back to Nazi era, the asylum policies were developed to cater the humanity sense for those who suffered from Nazi and fled. Yet now, the present circumstance constructs the confusion and finally hinders the asylum process. Bohmer and Schumer also put altogether how the system fails: a gap in the production of knowledge; the reliance on narrative as a primary form of evidence; credibility, cultural differences; persecution description; law and policy implementation; and incompetence and inadequate resources.

This book is very informative and thorough to at least provide the basic information about what happens in the process of claiming asylum by analyzing cases of real life accounts. By that, I personally see that Rejecting Refugees is suitable for students of political science, international relations, sociology, anthropology, and law. It shows the sight from the refugees, the obstacle they face that mostly their stories are incoherent and undocumented in which caused them in a trouble. They are likely incapable of proving themselves as what they describe because there is no legal authentic document with them. This kind of story will be read almost in the entire cases this book presents. It also shows the stories from the lawyers’ perspective. Thus, the readers can have two sides in every case. In a nutshell, it does a great job in describing the asylum claiming process and system from both perspectives: the seekers and the lawyers with its biases.

The importance of identity is also covered very well in this book with the incapability of the several people who fled with the false document or even with none. Both in US and UK, the identity is very important in claiming asylum. In 2004, the UK passed a law that it is not possible to enter the border of UK with no passport of a false passport unless this person has a ‘reasonable excuse’ (p.96). As Bohmer and Schuman analyze, this is a violation of the 1951 UN Convention that forbids the imposition or penalty for illegal entry. This just is a prevent action for letting more refugees come.

The limitation that is faced by the asylum seekers left a question that Rejecting Refugees should answer, what is the most possible asylum system in this century? Bohmer and Schumer bring up the concern for the states providing a legal advice for asylum seekers who cannot afford to manage the laws and regulations. They appoint the double standard system that states create to protect their citizens from the arrivals of these asylum seekers in terms of economy while at the same time they have to obey their legal, moral, and treaty obligation to provide a help for those asylum seekers.

Istanbul: a Love-Hate-Daunt Relationship

Well, this is my second spring here in Istanbul. Just to realize that its more than a year I’ve been living in here. So many thing have changed into something more virtue compared to my real life that I am now in. Sum of everything has blown my mind into several words that even dictionary could never explain the exact means.

Living with a fear, fear of being a victim not for a heartbreaking thingy that I mostly avoid, but being a victim in what so called a terror. This ‘terror’ definitely hit the button. I am scared, in the sense of losing my life, my only one life. On Saturday March 16, 2015, when a bomb blasted in Istanbul, it was a nightmare.

One or two days before, there were a lot of messages reminding us not to go out if it is not so necessary. For us to avoiding crowded places, it is not a possible thing to do. I mean Istanbul itself is a crowded city, where every corners of this Istanbul is an elbow-to-elbow one. Let me see this as one thing: going everywhere by busses or subways, we are all sardined. So, would you please just let me know, cut the crap, and straight to the point to ask me to only stay home this day? Frankly, I am not the type of it, of staying home all day. That day I decided to watch a movie and have a lunch with my friend, but I canceled it after a bomb has blasted right in Taksim, the heart of Istanbul. Hard to admit, yet yes I was having a cold feet that time. “Don’t go out Dee, please!” This was what my friends exactly told me. Stay home and don’t go everywhere!

Anyway, I am raised with a wise saying: if someone or two tell you not to do something, just don’t. if you do, something bad will happen. Then, that day when my friends called only to make sure that I wouldn’t go out, I bowed to that honour advise.

Several were killed and injured, scared me as heaven. How if I walk out, waiting for my bus to come and a blast is 10 meters away or even just right to me? Or, I wait for my train and a blast is just in the seat I sit or in another car of the train? Or, I sit in the bus and a car is blown up just in front of my bus or beside or behind and I cannot definitely run away? Or let’s make it simple by saying that I will be the victim? Come on!

I never imagine this kind of thing could determine on how I will live my life from now on. I start to love Istanbul when it starts to freak me out.

Anyway, I should welcome the spring at least.

12494855_1225376254157192_7545192254819508960_n

Letter to Myself (?)

Hai D,

Gara-gara secangkir kopi caramel macchiato ukuran raksasa yang kamu pesan tadi sore, kamu berakhir dengan menatap layar laptopmu bukannya meringkuk di atas selimut. Salahkan dirimu sendiri! Untung saja asam lambungmu bisa diajak kerjasama, jika tidak ya salahkan dirimu sendiri lagi. Tidak peduli betapa kamu tidak berjodoh dengan kopi, tetap saja kamu sok menikmati. Akhirnya, flashback ke masa lalu ditambah dengan playlist lagu tahun gajah mengantarkanmu pada satu titik dimana kamu mempertanyakan esensi keberadaanmu.

Tepat 355 hari kamu telah berada di negara yang coba kamu cintai ini –dan, akhirnya iya–. Kamu menghitungnya, bukan? Kamu berencana merayakan anniversary kamu dan Istanbul esok hari, bukan? Betapa sentimentalnya dirimu. Dimana? Di salah satu sudut kota romantis ini? Dengan siapa? Dengan kesendirian yang coba kamu tanyakan apa gunanya?

Ahh, kamu terlalu berlebihan. Terlalu takut dengan masa depan yang begitu tidak jelas. Lepaskanlah! Berhentilah dengan semua kelatahan orang yang (hampir) membuatmu mati rasa! Kita tahu, sama-sama tahu, bahwa pernikahan adalah hal yang penting. Memangnya kenapa kalau mereka menikah lebih dulu daripada kamu? Kamu mau? Ssstt, ada kalanya Tuhan akan menjawab doa kita berbeda dengan orang lain. Kamu takut kecewa? Akupun demikian. Bersyukurlah Tuhan masih memberi kita waktu belajar dan menilai.

Keyakinanmu terhadap rencana Tuhan akan mengantarkanmu pada seseorang yang dijamin Tuhan akan membahagiakanmu. Tidak cukupkah itu membuatmu kembali pada semangat juangmu? Juga bahwa jauh di sana Ibumu telah membantumu dengan doanya yang sangat ampuh untuk tetap bahagia? Bahagialah demi dia. Yakinlah demi dia. Dan, hiduplah demi dia! Bukan demi memenuhi –entah­– targetmu sendiri.

Lupakah kamu dengan kesepakatan kita, bahwa dengan membahagiakan orang di sekitarmu maka kamu pun akan bahagia? Jangan! Peganglah itu!

Tidak akan pernah kamu terluka ketika kamu mencoba membahagiakan orang lain. Dan tidak pula kamu akan bahagia dengan melukai orang lain. Aku masih percaya itu. Kamu?

Mungkin, mereka tidak akan membalasnya dengan kebaikan yang –mungkin juga– kamu harapkan. Tidak selamanya orang akan membuatmu bahagia. Kamu harus melakukannya sendiri. Tuhan melihat itu dan Tuhan kita tidak diam. Dia akan mengirimkan malaikat yang akan membuatmu bahagia dengan cara-Nya sendiri. Sebentar lagi kamu akan pasti tertawa dengan surat emosional ini. Tapi, setidaknya aku bisa mengingatkanmu untuk tetap menjadi dirimu. Syukurlah kalau kamu ternyata tidak lupa. Tunggulah, Tuhan sedang menyiapkan seseorang untukmu.

With Love,

D.

Hobbes, Rousseau, and Kant’s Thoughts on Closed Borders of Gulf States for Syrian Refugees

The rise of Syrian refugees number in Turkey for instance, leads me into a very heart-breaking fact that they risk their life fleeing from their country to save their life. I see them in every corner in this city. That is such an irony. Syria’s neighbor like Turkey could provide shelter for the refugees who successfully make it to the borders. Even some other Europe states i.e. Germany, France, Sweden, Italy, and United Kingdom show a quite incredible number of refuges accepted. Yet, why the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the UAE), in which geographically close with Syria, precisely did not do the same thing? Why these Gulf States keep their doors shut for Syrian refugees?

According to BBC, the citizens of these Gulf States have collected charity individually or collectively with total around $900M (£600M) through charitable organizations, and individual donations.[1] Yet when it comes to open their doors for refugees, these Gulf States remain silent. I set these questions to keep me on track while comparing Thomas Hobbes, J.J. Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant thought. I would come up with a conclusion about them in a simple line.

For Hobbes, war is not only a physical thing, but also something to do with insecurity. Where this insecurity comes from? Please put aside the insecurity that is caused by the ability of killing each other within the states among its citizens, this ‘now’ insecurity is referred to the refugees entering the states. He believes that outside world is chaotic and full of anarchy like what is now happening, i.e. in Syria. It is also being emphasized on that fear of instability that makes the Gulf states are reluctant to release an explicit policy related to refugees until now. It needs to mention that mostly Syrians are Shia and those Gulf States citizens are Sunni, which is in Hobbes’ lens will be a cause of insecurity inside the territory. We also have to notice the long history of a long-run conflict between these two ideologies.

When Hobbes believes that when you keep your chaotic neighbors outside, you will be protected by what he called sovereign. It will put the anarchy outside the locked door. As long as those refugees (as I consider as the citizens of other state) do not enter the territory and the state remains in their territory, then peace is achieve-able. These Gulf States will enjoy the peace when their enemies keep fighting each other outside. He underlines the function of a government to provide the security for its citizens –or peace­– and that is exactly the Gulf States are doing right away, not to emphasize on the absolute power of the state. This reminds me that there are two main features that Hobbes always emphasizes: the absolute sovereignty from the inside manifested in a central authority and a strong kind of demarcation to outside anarchy. The first point I might not elaborate any further but second point is the most important. Keeping outside world as the common enemy for the ‘maintained’ peace inside is the best reason to stay in peace.

The capability of killing each other of Hobbes’ statement is challenged by Rousseau by saying that the first thing men would like to do when facing a danger is fleeing away. According to his statement, I will rather see that Rousseau points a pro with refugees. Rousseau agrees with refugees who flee to save their life. Yet when it comes to the peace itself, Rousseau believes that a peace could be asked from the society. If the society agrees to put their private interests behind and public interests in the front, then the peace is established. However, something bothered my mind when he states that the more state grows bigger in terms of territory or citizens, the clash of interests is more intense and the peace is disturbed. Connecting it to refugees issue, when a number of refugees enter the states there will be a clash of interests not only among the natives but also between the natives and refugees. The Gulf States are quite not sure about the chance they could manage these competing interests. Thus, he would be rather in the somewhere in between of agreeing the incoming refugees or not. But for this point, I consider that he is more moderate compare to Hobbes.

Not all the interruptions of peace will lead to war. Accepting refugees is considerable as long as they will not challenge the maintained peace within the states where I personally see it is quite impossible according to his proposed exception. Thus, he would say that the refugees might interrupt the peace in the Gulf States, yet it would not lead to war in those states. But when these states consider that all the refugees are enemies whom the states (or the citizens) never feel insecurity with, then states would have to decide whether to accept these enemies inside the border or keep them outside. This Rousseau’s standpoint is likely a flexible and confusing one compare to Hobbes and Kant.

Through the ideas of Kant, outlining his perspective on the need for hospitality for every refugee he considers that friendliness eventually becomes a way for a solidarity. It was born from an ancient intuition in man’s inner that according to Kant as a moral law. A deontological ethic that leads every good deed must help refugees. Kant assumes human behavior is always guided by the ancient intuition, a perspective of a very decent man, to treat the refugees not with hostility. In the term of morality compared to other two philosophers, Kant will be the top one. His idea affirms the metaphysical assumptions including the rights of cosmopolitan hospitality. Cosmopolitanism carries demand for a global federation to ensure that every person who visits or flee to another country should be treated graciously. He believes that nobody has the right for occupying any part of the earth, in this case I refer it to the states that are govern by human. However, Kant through reason and moral law also presupposes self-sufficiency in human beings, free from the confines of attitude structure and others. Man is expected to decide and build an understanding of autonomy with his rationalism.

Kant would definitely curse the policy of closing border for refugees that the Gulf States are doing right away. Even they offer the humanitarian help in some other forms, Kant still considers that Gulf States are not rational. The Gulf States possess no part on earth, they have borders but there is also a rational thinking that should be done by these states. There are questions they should answer, “What would they do if they are in the refugees’ shoes? What will they think and do if their neighbors close their door for them?”. If they follow their rationality, they will open their door. Yet, they do not open the door means they do not follow their rationality based on Kant.

So..

When I try to be in their point of views, I would say that mostly the context of the world and international relations now are different compared to their era. Yet, their thought somehow still fit for some cases, one of them is refugees issue. The common point that they have is put the human life (our life) in a very first place, yet they come up with different way to answer my questions with their different sight in seeing this issue. For me, Hobbes is very strict in this sense with his insecurity, Kant with his morality will come with a loose tight and Rousseau is in between them with his quite confused standpoint.

[1] BBC. Michael Stephen. 2015. Migrant crisis: Why the Gulf states are not letting Syrians. [Online] inhttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34173139. Accessed on November 29, 2015.

Blabber

Today was my first day on college after taking a long nap (read: summer break). Well, it is not a break I guess. I was working in OIC for months in Ankara as I could remember while everyone took their holiday. I would not talk about my torturing months in the capital city of Turkey, yet I really want to let you know, oh my dearest readers, that I am now in the gate of hard hard hard 12 weeks ahead.

Yes. I just will have 12 weeks of classes, papers, presentations, reading materials, discussions, and exams. 12 weeks. In the end of December, I will be free like a bird. But before? Do not give me a call for hanging around! I will be a totally nerd with very thick books and swollen eyes for maybe, crying. LOL.

Who said studying abroad with various classmates coming from a whole Europe from eastern to western and you are the only Asian in the class is a simple thing? Raise your hand and I will give you a short smile!

I am woman, well you can consider me also as a girl, psst I am still 20’s. Yuhuu..

I wear Hijab. I take two classes today and… I am the only one who wore Hijab. Do not tell that I am now in Istanbul, city of mosques.

I am taking master degree. It is very common thing yet, taking master far away from your home is a thing. You are dealing with something you can’t. Food, friends, and family. Those are things that you are separated by the distance. Long distance relationship with girl/boyfriend may be something hard. Yet with food, friends, and family? Do not ask. It is hardest.

Too much blabbering? Sorry!

I just really want to share. Share something that maybe can at least give me a little break by writing, or perhaps blabbering.

Thank you for reading until the last word. I really appreciate it. I am about to cry. LOL.

PS. About International Relations assignments, I wont upload it anymore since I knew some people copycat mine without even ask me. Okay, not ask, at least let me know that you take mine. But I realize that this is Alice in Wonderland internet version so you can freely access and imitate and show mine as yours. So, I really wont upload my opinion in IR things..

This blog will be totally personal blog. I mean it. I mean I mean it. *faked emotionally face and keyboard typing*

Parallel Universe of Mine

What if…

Konsep jagad yang paralel atau parallel universe mungkin adalah konsep yang cukup membingungkan bagi kita. Apakah ini takdir atau hanya kebetulan? Kebetulan saya mengenal orang ini, kebetulan saya menjatuhkan gelas itu, atau beberapa kebetulan lainnya. Namun, banyak pula yang meyakini bahwa “there is no accident.” Saya masih ingat cuplikan film Kungfu Panda pertama saat Master Shifu mempertanyakan keputusan Master Oogway yang menjadikan si Po sebagai the Dragon Warrior. Dengan bijaksana dia berkata tidak ada yang kebetulan. Kebetulan bahwa Po adalah panda gendut yang akan menjadi Pendekar Naga sama sekali bukan kebetulan.

Loh?

Maaf kalo contoh film yang saya mention sama sekali bukan film drama yang kaya akan quotes menyentuh. Tapi, saya begitu percaya dengan konsep Master Oogway itu. Seberapapun orang melihat ini hanya kebetulan apalagi kalau kebetulan itu sungguh tidak masuk akal, tetap saja kita ditakdirkan menjalani hal itu. Saya ingat salah satu hadits shahih (atau kutipan ayat), well saya gak akan ceramah kok, yang menyatakan bahwa tidak akan berubah takdir suatu kaum kecuali kaum itu mengubahnya. Ya kurang lebih demikian.

See, kita punya kesempatan mengubah apa takdir yang belum kita terima menjadi sesuatu yang pantas kita terima. Saya percaya itu. Sangat percaya. Bahwa setiap inch yang saja jalani, setiap lintasan yang saya tempuh, semuanya bermuara pada sebuah takdir yang telah di atur di langit karena usaha saya di bumi. Okay, sound’s weird?

Namun, ada kalanya saya kemudian berpikir bahwa semua yang saya dapat adalah jawaban doa orang tuaku (khususnya Ammi). Saya mempercayai ini. Ammi adalah orang yang paling ingin dan ingin sekali saya bisa menjalani keseharian dengan benar-benar baik. Berdoalah dan yakinlah, maka alam akan berkonspirasi mendukungmu. Totally forget, where in the earth I remembered hearing this saying. My acknowledgement for him.

Di samping saya saat ini, duduk seseorang yang sedang sibuk menulis thesis-nya. Dia akan menghadapi thesis defense bulan depan, Insha Allah. Well, seperti yang terjadi atas jawaban doa Ammiku. Kadang pula saya berpikir, diakah jawaban dari doaku? Cieileh.. Mampus.

Ingin sekali saya menuliskan banyak kisah yang kami lalui. Banyak hal yang kami telah hadapi. Banyak pula kata-kata yang menjadi keseharian bahkan yang tersimpan rapih di otak kami tanpa pernah terucap. Namun, sampai saat ini that click we really had is still staying there. Kebetulan kami berkenalan? Kebetulan kisah kasihnya tersandung? Kebetulan menghampiri saya?

Tidak.

I believe that every single particular action I did and he did constantly slowly and eventually brings us united. Yes. United. Thinking that I am so sentimental. Wait until you feel it yourself. As hard as I think back, how can I end up like this with him, I can’t find a satisfaction answer. It is because it has to be. Neither him nor me ignored this.

In a nutshell, I had mine.

For those who seek, for those who ask, for those who want.. Just let go off the past and move forward and move up. Keep praying and believing!

Drink coffee and smile!