Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai pemikiran dari Kristeva dan Butler mengenai subjek. Kedua pemikir tersebut menggunakan pendekatan feminis postmodernisme untuk menentang gagasan esensialisme atas identitas. Analisa terhadap pengalaman konkrit ketubuhan diyakini sebagai sebuah sarana emansipatoris yang dapat digunakan untuk mendekonstruksi representasi sosial budaya patriarki. Kristeva dan Butler memiliki titik pijak yang berbeda dalam melihat posisi tubuh dalam pembentukan subjek dan identitas, namun demikian keduanya menawarkan sebuah logika penerimaan terhadap perbedaan. Keduanya mengajukan kritik terhadap subjek modernisme yang meyakini subjek sebagai sebuah pemaknaan yang utuh, tetap dan pasti. Kristeva dan Butler melihat bahwa subjek adalah sebuah pemaknaan yang cair dan berada di dalam proses. Implikasi filosofis dari dua model subjek yang ditawarkan pemikir tersebut adalah membawa tubuh dan hasrat ke dalam diskurusus subjek dan juga menunjukkan bahwa pluralitas subjek adalah kandungan subversif yang mampu membawa peradaban menuju sebuah perubahan ke arah yang toleran.

---

This thesis discusses the idea of Kristeva and Butler on the subject. Both of these thinkers use feminist postmodernism approach that can be used to challenge the essentialism notions of identity. The analysis on concrete body experiences as a tool of emancipatory is believed could be used to deconstruct patriarchal socio- cultural representation. Kristeva and Butler had a different starting point to see the position of the body in the formation of the subject and identity, yet both offer a logic of acceptance on difference. They propose a critique towards subject of modernism that assumed as unified and fixed significance. Kristeva and Butler convinced that the subject is a signification that is fluid and always processing. The philosophical implication from Kristeva and Butler?s thoughts is to bring the body and desires into discourses of subject and shows that plurality of subjects are subversive content which able to direct civilization to be more tolerant."

"Reengineering India explores Indias post-liberalization transformation through the lens of the software industry. It is an anthropological study of work, capital, and class in the software industry, viewed as a key site where novel forms of work and worker-subjects, dispositions, and social identities are being fashioned, and new aspirations and social imaginaries are introduced, worked out, contested, and often transformed. It traces the multiple genealogies of software capital and its modes of value generation and explores the production, shaping, and circulation of Indian information technology (IT) labour. Drawing on ethnographic research in Bangalores software companies, the book examines the organizational practices of these companies to unravel the conjunctions of work, power, culture, and subjectivity in these global workspaces. It also maps the interconnections between IT labour and capital, social mobility, and the reconstitution of the middle class, and explores the diverse lives of Indian culture and middle class identity as mobile IT professionals pursue their projects of self-fashioning and social mobility within a transnational social field. Highlighting the agency of IT workers, organizations, and entrepreneurs in Indias post-liberalization reconfiguration, the author argues that the forms and modalities of capital, work, identity, sociality, and subjectivity that have been forged in IT workspaces are not just by-products of globalization, but have been deeply shaped by the social and historical conditions of their making. Although the software industry has been central to the fashioning of a new India, it remains deeply embedded in older structures of inequality and modes of accumulation."

"ABSTRAKPenelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah penggunaan instrumen keuangan hybrid dapat dianggap sebagai bentuk penghindaran pajak di Indonesia, apakah ketentuan perpajakan Indonesia telah mengatur, mengetahui apakah tax treaty Indonesia dengan Belanda dan India telah mampu digunakan untuk menyelesaikan permasalahan dari penggunaan transaksi hybrid dalam cross border financing serta untuk mengetahui ketentuan penghindaran pajak yang saat ini dirumuskan oleh DJP apakah secara efektif mampu mencegah penggunaan transaksi hybrid sebagai abusive tax planning. Berdasarkan analisis yang dilakukan disimpulkan bahwa Indonesia belum memiliki ketentuan pencegahan penghindaran pajak baik secara khusus maupun umum yang dapat menangkal praktik penghindaran pajak atas instrumen keuangan hybrid. Ketentuan perpajakan Indonesia juga tidak secara spesifik mengatur perbedaan utang dan modal. Dengan tidak adanya peraturan yang dapat digunakan sebagai batasan antara utang dan modal menjadi kendala bagi kepastian hukum untuk menjustifikasi kewenangan otoritas pajak untuk merekarakterisasi instrumen hybrid. Rumusan dalam tax treaty Indonesia dengan India dan Belanda terkait definisi dividen dan bunga tidak dapat mengatasi masalah reklasifikasi karena masih memungkinkan terjadinya perbedaan interpretasi atas pengklasifikasian instrumen hybrid. Pencegahan penghindaran pajak atas instrumen hybrid membutuhkan harmonisasi kebijakan antarnegara sehingga jika ketentuan penghindaran Indonesia hanya diformulasikan dalam skala domestik maka efek negatif penggunaan instrumen keuangan hybrid masih tetap muncul.

---

ABSTRACTThis study aims to determine whether the use of hybrid financial instruments can be regarded as a form of tax avoidance in Indonesia, whether Indonesian tax regulations have regulate, determine whether Indonesian tax treaty with the Netherlands and India have been able to be used to solve the problems of the usage of hybrid transactions in cross-border financing and to determine the tax avoidance provisions that are currently defined by the DJP is effectively able to prevent the use of hybrid transactions as an abusive tax planning. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that Indonesia does not have a provision of tax avoidance prevention either specifically or generally to counteract tax avoidance practices on hybrid financial instruments. Indonesian tax regulations do not specifically regulate the differences in debt and equity. The absence of rules that can be used as the boundary between debt and equity becomes an obstacle for the rule of law to justify the authority of tax authorities to re-characterise the hybrid instruments. Formulation in Indonesian tax treaty with India and the Netherlands in the definition of dividends and interest can not solve the problem because it still allows the reclassification of the different interpretations of the hybrid instruments classification. Prevention of tax avoidance on hybrid instruments requires a state of harmonisation on policies between countries so that if Indonesia simply formulated tax avoidance provisions in the domestic scale, the negative effects of the usage of hybrid financial instrument will still persist."