Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia

Judul: KESUCIAN POLITIK
Agama dan Politik di Tengah Krisis Kemanusiaan
Penulis: P. Mutiara Andalas, SJ
Pengantar: Christianto Wibisono
Spesiifikasi: xvi + 254 hlm; 14 x 21 cm; soft cover
Harga: Rp. 45.000,-

Peresensi: Y. Prayoga
Resensi dimuat dalam Majalah HIDUP 24 Agustus 2008
Diketik ulang oleh P. Mutiara Andalas, S.J.

Tragedi Mei 1998 meninggalkan tubuh korban yang rusak. Wajah beberapa korban hampir tak dikenali lagi. Tragedi itu meninggalkan luka dan penderitaan. Peristiwa yang memberikan jejak pelucutan atas kemanusiaan. Melihat korban yang mengerikan itu, mengingatkan kita pada sosok Pontius Pilatus saat mempertontonkan Yesus sebelum mengundinya dengan Barabas di hadapan massa, “Pandanglah manusia yang rusak itu!” ucapnya.

Menolak Lupa

Mei 1998 adalah sejarah berdarah yang seharusnya selalu dikenang rakyat Indonesia. Kecuali mereka yang dengan sengaja menutupi dan melupakannya. Mei 1998 menjadi titik balik politik Indonesia, setelah dibisukan rezim otoriter yang pecah dalam perlawanan mengusung bendera reformasi. Kebisuan berhasil dipecahkan,. Reformasi 1998 pun menagih nyawa sebagai biaya politik. Ribuan nyawa hilang dalam kesewenang-wenangan amuk massa. Ribuan perempuan, terutama etnis Tionghoa dirobek batin dan tubuhnya oleh kebengisan missal. Orang tua harus merelakan anak-anaknya menjadi jasad yang tak dikenali.

Penulis buku ini mencoba menghimpun kembali daya yang masih tersisa dalam perjuangan melawan politik lupa. Pastor Patrisius Mutiara Andalas SJ pernah mendampingi Paguyuban keluarga Korban Mei-Semanggi. Paguyuban ini terus setia dalam panggilan nurani kemanusiaan. Mereka berjuang bagi orang-orang yang mereka cintai. Mereka terus melawan pelupaan pada korban sejarah perubahan bangsa ini. Bukan untuk menggulingkan kekuasaan, namun untuk mengingatkan bahwa martabat kemanusiaan pernah dilecehkan di negara ini.

Merangkul Korban

Kesewenang kekuasaan tidak hanya terjadi di Indonesia. Itu adalah sejarah kelam bangsa-bangsa di dunia. Penulis merajut kisah-kisah korban dalam suatu dialog imajiner. Kisah-kisah itu membawa pembaca pada satu kesadaran bahwa kita pernah dan hampir melupakan suara-suara korban itu. Melalui kisah-kisah pergumulan kemanusiaan yang terentang dari para ibu Plaza de Mayo, Rigoberta Menchu, Aung San Suu Kyi, Elie Wiesel, Hannah Arendt, Jon Sobrino, dan keluarga korban tragedi kemanusiaan di Indonesia, penulis mengajak pembaca untuk mendekati tragedi kemanusiaan dari perspektif iman.

Elie Wiesel, seorang korban hidup tragedi Holocaust, menolak berbicara mengenai Tuhan saat mendiskusikan tragedi kemanusiaan Holocaust. Wiesel khawatir, komunitas agama akan memberi kiat agar para korban melarikan diri pada Tuhan dan melupakan semua. Namun, Wiesel mengundang komunitas agama sebagai saksi kemanusiaan, agar ikut menghentikan atau menahan laju pelupaan pada korban.

Sementara Jon Sobrino mengusulkan agar bela rasa menjadi paradigma baru bagi komunitas agama di tengah krisis kemanusiaan. Bela rasa muncul dari rahim perjumpaan dengan penderitaan korban. Agama membuka diri untuk disentuh korban. Perjumpaan dengan korban menumbuhkan persaudaraan dan mendorong komunitas agama menjadi pelaku dalam membangun dunia yang lebih humanis.

Tragedi kemanusiaan mengundang komunitas agama keluar dari altar menuju pelataran. Menjumpai Tuhan dalam diri korban. Tuhan kehidupan yang memanggul penderitaan korban. Seperti teks Kitab Suci yang mengundang komunitas beriman agar berani memanggul salib bersama Yesus yang juga telah menjadi korban.

Namun, komunitas agama seringkali mencerabut persoalan ini dari wilayah agama, karena menganggap sebagai aktivitas politik. Kecerobohan komunitas agama ini berakibat fatal terhadap kemanusiaan korban. Komunitas agama perlu kembali kepada habitat sosialnya, yakni menjadi pelaku politik. Komunitas agama perlu merangkul korban dan mendampingi perjuangan kemanusiaan mereka, untuk mengetuk nurani bangsa Indonesia.

Tragedi Mei 1998 telah berlalu sepuluh tahun lalu. Paguyuban keluarga korban masih terus berjuang demi keadilan dan humanisasi di Indonesia. Tragedi Mei 1998 seharusnya membangunkan kesadaran komunitas agama, bahwa perilaku negara dapat berubah. Dari pengayom dan pelindung warga, menjadi pelaku pembiaran, kekerasan, dan diskriminasi. Stigma negara terhadap korban telah menghancurkan jembatan solidaritas dengan korban.

Peresensi: Steve Gaspersz
Sumber: theologianatcalvary.blogspot.com

Bulan Mei merupakan bulan yang bersejarah bagi rakyat Indonesia. Sejarah yang “cerah” dan sejarah yang “kelam”. Sejarah yang cerah mengimplikasikan suatu momentum historis yang membawa rakyat Indonesia ke suatu paradigma kebangsaan yang baru – sebuah cara pandang bermartabat terhadap nasionnya sendiri. Itulah yang kemudian kita peringati sebagai momentum kebangkitan nasional setiap 20 Mei. Tahun 2008 momentum kebangkitan nasional diperingati dalam kurun 100 tahun (1908-2008).

Namun, bulan Mei juga mencatat sejarah yang kelam. Mei 1998 menjadi sebuah momentum berdarah yang selalu dikenang oleh setiap rakyat Indonesia – kecuali mereka yang ingin sengaja menutupinya atau melupakannya. Sebuah titik balik politik Indonesia yang sebelumnya dibisukan oleh rezim otoriter, yang pecah dalam perlawanan massal mengusung bendera reformasi. Kebisuan sosial berhasil dipecahkan, penguasa digulingkan, tetapi rezim otoriter itu sendiri tak mampu ditaklukkan. Titik balik atau reformasi 1998 pun menagih nyawa sebagai ongkos politiknya. Ribuan nyawa anak bangsa kehilangan raga dalam kesewenang-wenangan amuk massa, ribuan perempuan dirobek-robek batin dan tubuhnya oleh kebengisan syahwat massal, orangtua-orangtua melepas anak-anaknya dalam jasad tak berwujud – hangus dan hilang. Reformasi 1998 berutang nyawa dan darah anak-anak bangsa ini.

Sejarah kelam Mei 1998 sangat menyakitkan. Apalagi menggeliat selama sepuluh tahun [1998-2008] reformasi itu ternyata masih setengah hati. Rakyat boleh berteriak tetapi faktanya hanya untuk mereka dengar sendiri; rakyat boleh mengkritik tetapi untuk kesalahan mereka sendiri; rakyat boleh menuntut tetapi tidak boleh lebih tinggi harganya dari harga BBM dan kebutuhan pokok yang makin mencakar langit; rakyat boleh marah tetapi hanya kepada nasib mereka sendiri. Sementara kaum punggawa tetap bertahta dalam kenyamanan karena reformasi membuka celah-celah memutarbalik hukum untuk bersembunyi dan cuci tangan. Rakyat tetap adalah “kambing-hitam”; rakyat tetap harus menjadi tumbal dan korban dari perubahan; rakyat tetap keset bagi sepatu lars rezim yang masih otoriter – karena itu semua yang berkaitan dengan derita dan keluh rakyat sah-sah saja untuk dilupakan. Rezim otoriter memutuskan untuk berpolitik lupa (amnesia).

Buku ini merupakan suatu refleksi perlawanan korban Mei 1998 terhadap politik lupa yang sedang dan terus-menerus dirayakan oleh rezim dalam kemasan simbolik “reformasi” dan “peradaban bangsa”. Slogan “bersama kita bisa” mengambang dalam tujuan dan visi politik bangsa yang kabur dan berkabut kepentingan. Faktanya, pergantian penguasa negara makin menumpulkan harapan, dan kita gagal menjadi bangsa yang besar karena tidak menghargai rakyatnya sendiri.

Penulis buku ini mencoba menghimpun kembali energi yang masih tersisa dalam perjuangan melawan politik lupa oleh rezim otoriter negeri ini. Paguyuban korban yang setia pada panggilan nurani kemanusiaan bertekad menentang arus kenyamanan hidup agar tidak terseret dan terhempas untuk lupa bahwa orang-orang yang mereka cintai pernah menjadi tumbal sejarah perubahan bangsa ini. Tidak semua mampu bertahan, hanya segelintir yang memilih tetap mementaskan kelaliman; bukan untuk menggulingkan kekuasaan tetapi untuk selalu mengingatkan bahwa ada martabat kemanusiaan yang diperkosa di dalamnya. Dan itu tidak boleh dibiarkan. Sekali dibiarkan, maka akan menjadi sebuah kebiasaan.

Toh, kesewenang-wenangan kekuasaan bukan hanya sejarah kelam Indonesia. Itu adalah sejarah kelam bangsa-bangsa di dunia. Sejarah yang juga melahirkan paguyuban korban yang berjuang melawan pelupaan historis. Mutiara Andalas merajut cerita-cerita korban – yang nyaris tak tercatat dalam buku-buku sejarah resmi – dalam suatu dialog imajiner yang membawa kita – orang-orang yang menolak lupa – terhenyak dalam kesadaran yang bisa jadi makin meredup bahwa kita hampir lupa suara-suara korban itu.

Pelekatan “politik” pada judulnya mengundang kita masuk dalam ruang gelap yang kerap membuat kita meraba-raba tak tentu arah. Tetapi jika kita terbiasa di dalam ruang gelap itu mata-nurani kita akan makin terbiasa untuk berjalan dalam gelap dengan senantiasa waspada terhadap lubang yang mungkin berada di jalan setapak yang kita langkahi. Politik bukan sekadar teori. Politik adalah praksis kekuasaan.

Dalam buku ini, Mutiara Andalas menyajikan politik sebagai praksis kekuasaan, yang dalam proses teorisasinya kerap tercecer cerita-cerita korban, cerita-cerita rakyat. Rakyat bukanlah objek politik, meski dalam teori politik rakyat sering dibendakan dalam alur perakitan sistem politik suatu negara. Rakyat adalah subjek politik. Rakyat berpolitik, tetapi dalam caranya sendiri. Rakyat berpolitik dalam kepolosan hidup, bukan dengan ketrampilan berdiplomasi. Rakyat berpolitik karena merekalah energi yang menggerakkan negara, bukan karena sekadar berafiliasi dalam partai politik.

Kalau bagi penguasa, politik adalah seni menguasai dan berkuasa; bagi rakyat, politik adalah hidup untuk bertahan dalam kerentanan. Kalau karena kesalahkaprahan politik telah membawa kita melihat politik sebagai “najis” dan “kotor”, maka sebenarnya buku ini membentangkan kepada kita bahwa politik rakyat – khususnya mereka yang dikorbankan oleh rezim otoriter – adalah suatu meditasi dan praksis kontemplatif untuk menyucikan politik agar tidak “berbohong” dan “melupakan” para korban.

By Jennie S. Bev

I once attended Robert “Hollywood Guru” McKee’s screenwriting class in downtown San Francisco. During the analysis session Casablanca (starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid) was played on the projection screen.

I was taken to Casablanca in the 1940s, but the movie was in fact shot in a studio, Van Nuys airport and Rick’s Cafe, which belonged to Rick Blaine played by Bogart.

In one of the first few scenes, McKee emphasized the importance of viewing films critically. This Oscar-winning film is full of symbols, hence the notion of films as symbolism in action. And one of the most remarkable symbols was the upside-down lamp shade. I was astonished as I had not paid attention to that small detail until he mentioned it.

From the beginning, the skillful cinematographer Arthur Edeson (who was also nominated for an Oscar) wished to convey a strong message: Casablanca was an upside-down society at that time. Of course, this was seen through the eyes of a western filmmaker, whose values and lifestyle were likely to be opposite to that which he was portraying.

Today, I see the world the way I analyze films, only the scenes are alive and the actors and actresses are real people. Scenes, plot, and chapters will eventually create internal and external structures intertwined in a manner which may or may not construct an enjoyable film.

This year, Indonesia is celebrating its 63rd anniversary of independence — a big number for a populous country. If Indonesia were a person, he or she would be a grandparent with much wisdom to share with his or her grandchildren. And it is pertinent to recall John F. “Camelot” Kennedy’s classic inauguration speech made Jan. 20, 1961, “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country”.

Very romantic. Now let’s be realistic. It is now more relevant than ever, to reflect on what Indonesia has become after 63 years of independence. Are we going somewhere? Anywhere? Are we all completely free in this state of “independence”?

To answer such questions, Edmund Burke suggests: “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely”. While this may seem to contradict Kennedy’s wise words, Burke makes a lot of sense. A country, after all, is no more than a social contract among individuals residing in a particular region and as Benedict Anderson attested, nationality is an imagined community. Remove these concepts, what do we get? Random crowds in some accidental regions.

Still, we have unconditional love for our country, just like our love for our parents and children. Good or bad, they are our family. Sometimes we encounter individuals who are very hard to love, but we still love them anyway. We have no other choice but to love them, as part of our predetermined destiny. Just like this old adage, “right or wrong, it is my country”.

This kind of love is the foundation for layers of other types of love — earned and reflective ones. Both must exist for a complete circle to materialize.

Blind love for a country is as venomous as it is to spoil a child. Patriotism should be based on reflective actions, so the ideal and the reality are aligned with each other, as Dinesh D’Souza elucidated in What’s So Great about America. Thus, pride and nationalism come with substance, not merely empty rhetoric.

An ideal love for a country is because it is mine and because it is also lovely. That black-and-white movie titled Casablanca speaks volumes on choosing between love and virtue. In the end, virtue wins. The same also rings true with our love for our country. Is love what it takes to move forward and carry Indonesia to a higher ground? Or virtue? Or both?

I believe in the power of virtue and the mother of all virtues is compassion. If we love Indonesia, there is one single thing we can do to express and internalize it within our soul — to show compassion to our fellow countrymen and women, whoever they are, regardless of their differences — to treat others just like we treat ourselves. It is that simple.

The greatest country, after all, is one that respects and protects minorities. The opposite of compassion should not be used as the basis for policy making, since it would breed evil offspring and create more violence, chaos, and anarchy. Policy makers must be aware of such consequences and should emphasize virtuous politics with substance.

In my simplistic and idealistic mind, a philosopher-ruler like Marcus Aurelius would be ideal. He once said, “Live not as though there were a thousand years ahead of you. Fate is at your elbow; make yourself good while life and power are still yours”. Simple advice that still rings true today.

Until Indonesia is free from persecuting its minorities, I can only love Indonesia because it is mine. I will reserve my other love for loveliness — after all minorities can live and breathe without bending. Till then.

_____
The writer is an author and columnist based in Northern California. This article was published by the Jakarta Post with the title of Contemplating our own Independence Day

Image Source: gio.gov.tw

In order to avoid inaccurate perceptions regarding the internal reform of the Indonesian Military (TNI), the answer to the article, “Indonesian Military returns to politics?” by Evan A. Laksmana (The Jakarta Post, Aug. 12), is the TNI will not be back in politics.

The TNI of today functions as the state defense apparatus and is not involved in security and socio-political activities as was the former Indonesian armed forces. It continues to maintain its relationships and emotional ties with its seniors — individually as well as through the retired servicemen’s association — but without organizational linkages.

If the TNI’s retirees are involved in politics as political party executives or as candidates for president/vice president, legislators or regional heads, it is because they are Indonesian citizens, and therefore have the same rights as their fellow countrymen. Their success in entering political affairs depends on the Indonesian people, not on the TNI institution or their former military service.

The TNI’s duties are to safeguard the state’s sovereignty, maintain the integrity and unity of the Republic of Indonesia and protect the country. This requires the TNI to have political awareness while observing restrictions stipulated by law. It is impossible for the TNI to execute its duty properly without understanding the vision, struggle and interests of the nation.

The TNI no longer operates with a territorial command structure because in 2002 it was changed to regional command and, obviously, now has no direct involvement in the social, political and business affairs in their areas of operation. In addition to warfare knowledge, soldiers’ socio-political knowledge relevant to military operations is required by law.

SAGOM TAMBOEN S. IP
Vice Marshal
TNI Chief Spokesman
Jakarta

_____
This letter was published on Jakarta Post

Image Source: picasaweb.google.com

By Evan A. Laksmana

In the past few weeks, a debate surrounding the 2009 general elections has revolved around the role of the Indonesian Military (TNI) in political parties where almost every major political party has former military officers sitting as board members or as chairman.

For example, the Golkar Party is now spearheaded by Vice President Jusuf Kalla as chairman and Lt. Gen. (ret) Sumarsono as secretary-general, while former military officers are filling the Hanura and Gerindra party leadership under retired generals Wiranto and Prabowo, respectively.

In addition, this military “comeback” coincides with the growing trend of former military men contesting local elections. Marcus Mietzner, a lecturer at the Australian National University, found that in 2006, 8 percent of the candidates contesting 50 local polls were retired military and police officers.

This begs the question: Is the Indonesian Military returning to politics? Although officially banned from day-to-day politics, the military has always been considered Indonesia’s most powerful political institution by virtue of its institutional strength, especially its territorial command structure.

In this regard, it might not be a question of whether the military has returned to politics, but a question of how it plays politics under the new rules of the game. In other words, one could argue it never actually left the political scene.

If this is the case, what then explains the phenomenon of an apparent military “comeback” in politics?

First, as argued by Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, a professor at the National Institute of Sciences, it might be an indication of a post-power syndrome among officers who were once part of the ruling elite — or it might only involve a handful of high-ranking former officers rather than indicate a general trend plaguing the entire officer corps.

Second, it could also be seen as the result of politicization, and even commercialization, of the officer corps, which is instigated not only by the political leadership’s intervention in internal military affairs — as was the case during the terms of presidents Sukarno, Soeharto, and Abdurrahman Wahid — but also due to the nature of the military education and its territorial command system.

The fact that the majority of the Army is utilized for staff positions in the territorial command structure suggests that the career experience of the majority of the officer corps is actually related to social, business, and political issues in the regions.

Although the process of military education reform is currently underway, the curricula at the military academies all the way through the staff and command colleges since the 1960s have always emphasized social-political subjects. This suggests that some, if not most, military officers would be prepared for “sociopolitical” tasks, and hence, by implication, might not be well trained in other skills required for an alternative livelihood after retirement other than politics or business.

Finally, the military prevalence in politics highlights the failure of the civilian leadership — whether to provide stability and improve welfare, or to overcome their lack of political confidence — because they continue to drag the military back in.

On the one hand, we hear the oft-repeated accusation from the military establishment that the civilian politicians are a prime source of the nation’s problems — which the public seems to agree with. A Kompas poll in 2007 noted that 46.6 percent of the public would vote for a military figure as the next president. On the other hand, the charge might not have credibility had it not been for the fact that corruption among civilian politicians is increasing while basic prices are skyrocketing.

Meanwhile, the “inferiority syndrome” suffered by civilian politicians highlights two points: First, the weakness of the civilian defense community to adequately support the civilian leadership; and second, the cliche that military men are financially and politically omnipotent — regardless of the current debate challenging the leadership skills possessed by former military officers.

What does all this mean for Indonesia’s fledgling military reform and delicate civilian-military relations?

First, although the focus on removing the military from day-to-day politics and regulating their commercial activities is certainly a worthy cause, the issue of military education reform should be the top priority of decision makers in Jakarta.

Without a complete overhaul and integration of the military curricula — as well as a civilian teaching staff — military officers will always reserve the potential to play a sociopolitical role.

Second, although the territorial command structure cannot be plausibly erased entirely due to the prevalence of internal security threats and separatism, a mechanism should be enforced within the existing regulations to “isolate” military men assigned to regional staff positions to prevent them from being utilized or dragged into local social, political and business activities.

When it comes to civilian-military relations, observers have noted this “comeback” phenomenon could be seen positively as far as military politics are concerned because with former generals running their own campaigns, the military might not be able to present a unified front. Hence, as the argument goes, civilian leadership could be strengthened at the expense of a “fractured” military establishment.

However, a strong civilian leadership cannot be fully achieved without the strengthening of a civilian defense community that could bridge the civilian-military divide while assisting both sides in dealing with national security issues. At the same time, the civilian leadership also needs to overcome its “inferiority syndrome” and stop bringing the military back into politics.

Finally, public exhaustion over corrupt civilian politicians might lead to disillusionment with democratic ideals and civilian supremacy over the military — premised upon distinct “civilian” and “military” realms.

Eventually, if this dichotomy is increasingly blurred, a reconsideration of civilian-military relations that for the past decade has been centered upon establishing a civilian supremacy over the military might be required.

In the end, whether a civilian-military “partnership” would be the best form of relationship and whether such partnership would prove more productive for Indonesia’s future in the long run remains to be seen.

______
The writer is a research analyst at the Indonesia Programme, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. This article was publish by The Jakarta Post.

Image Source: english.china.com

By Jennie S. Bev

“One world, one dream” is the official slogan of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. It is said to reflect these six values: unity, friendship, progress, harmony, participation and dreaming. It also expresses the common desire of people all over the world who strive for a common goal: a bright future for humankind.

Friendship, after all, is what unites people, and what is more fun than playing some games with our friends? But is this sporting event really about friendship? Isn’t it about power as well? Perhaps, considering China is now more an awakened dragon than an emerging market.

Many people residing outside China — including the 40 million overseas Chinese in the world, approximately 7 million of those in Indonesia — might be seeing China acting politically through this international event, especially considering Tibetans have not been granted the autonomy– not independence — they have been asking for.

Human rights violations have been occurring in China to this very day and it seems human rights advocates have made scant progress. Many Tibetan monks have abandoned their nonviolent vow and others are trying to gain some pre-Olympics momentum with their demonstrations and campaigning.

Many human rights advocates have been pressuring China’s government to rectify its record of human rights abuses, particularly in the detention of political dissidents, human rights advocates and religious activists as well as the persecutions of religious believers and forced abortions under the one-child rule. George W. Bush, who arrived in Beijing on August 7, 2008, conveyed the same message.

Many people agree that China has a political agenda to address during the Beijing Olympics and many also use this moment to politicize their side.

Joan Chen, a Shanghainese actress and director based in San Francisco who was born during the Cultural Revolution, wrote an op-ed piece in The Washington Post in response to Chris Daly, a member of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. Daly had demonstrated against the Olympic torch and called for a resolution to “provide the people of San Francisco with a lifetime opportunity to help 1.3 billion Chinese people gain more freedom and rights”. The resolution was not signed by San Francisco’s mayor Gavin Newsom.

Despite her family hardships during the revolution, in which her grandfather was wrongfully accused of being a counterrevolutionary and a foreign spy, resulting in his suicide and her family home being confiscated, Chen did not seem to agree with Daly and millions of others. She said, “The Chinese are a proud people. They want freedom and greater rights, but they know they must fight for them from within. They know no one can grant them freedom and rights from afar.”

And I cannot agree more with Joan. The Chinese are a proud people and, while things might be moving at a snail’s pace in China, we cannot discount the fact Chinese society has undergone and will continue to undergo metamorphoses. For now, China’s economy is its primary asset with technology coming in second. Later, when its political power is ready to be redirected, we might very well see a far different China, one whose power might overwhelm everyone, even the United States.

The Beijing Olympics might be seen as “too political”, bringing too much publicity, both good and bad, but it is probably one of the best tools for building understanding among peoples.

At least for now.

If China were a person, it would be one of the nouveau riche with a bright future ahead as its financial resources look so promising. And in that role, China may influence the world in an unprecedented way. Perhaps that is exactly China’s place in the world: a strong influencer.

Empirically speaking, Chinese civilization has contributed to the world’s inventions of astrology, banknotes, drills, forks, gunpowder, noodles, paper, printing, toothbrushes, wine and many other things including the discovery of the American continent, which later was claimed to have been discovered by Columbus.

As a citizen of the world who happens to be an overseas Chinese, I sincerely wish China’s return to power will be used for the betterment of humankind, just as it was in ancient times. After all, politics can be used for either good or bad intentions. And the highest power of all comes from good deeds.

I cite Joan Chen again, “Times are changing. We need to be open-minded and farsighted. We need to make more friends than enemies.” Let’s enjoy the Games and be merry.

We can make either friends or foes with politics. And we definitely prefer the former.

_____

The writer is an author and columnist in northern California. This article was published by the Jakarta Post