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

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

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.

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

By Dr. Muhamad Ali

The recently issued joint ministerial decree reprimanding and instructing Jamaah Ahmadiyah to end their religious activities and interpretations, which suggest a prophet exists following the Prophet Muhammad, is in my view an unwelcome product of collaboration between the discriminatory state and the compulsory faith.

The decree clearly favors the mainstream yet particular Islamic interpretation of the meaning of Islam and prophethood, as well as of the Constitution and Pancasila state ideology. The decree symbolically recognizes religious freedom but prohibits “an interpretation of a religion in Indonesia which is deviant from the fundamental doctrines of that religion”.

In the case of Ahmadiyah, the decree charged that their religious interpretation and activities “could harm social order”. The first statement shows the government officials have interfered with an internal theological dispute and endorsed favoritism toward the dominant interpretation, rather than leaving the difference to democratic procedures among Muslim groups.

The second statement indicates the government’s prejudice that the group has already harmed or could harm social order. Here interpretations, rather than actions, have become the criteria.

The decree is in my view based on a narrow and exclusive understanding of the Islamic notion of prophethood and revelation. The mainstream idea of prophethood has been taken for granted even by religious scholars.

Although not stated in the decree, it is proclaimed by many religious leaders, scholars and ordinary people that Ahmadiyah has committed “religious blasphemy” (penodaan agama) and heresy (aqida). These charges of religious blasphemy and heresy are not based on a sound understanding of the Koran.

Khatam al-anbiyya may carry the meaning that Muhammad was the last prophet to receive God’s revelation, but this is not the only possible interpretation, because the Koranic language has multiple meanings. Some Koranic verses clearly suggest the universality of God’s revelation and prophethood throughout human history.

God’s revelation is not confined to the Prophet Muhammad. God’s guidance is universal and not restricted to a particular age and nation. “And there is no nation wherein a warner has not come” (35:24). “For every people a guide has been provided.” (13:7). Prophets speak the language of their own nations.

The logical interpretation is that prophets were not only Arab; they could be Indian, Chinese, African and so forth, as long as they preached the existence of the divine and the good. The Koranic prophethood is inclusive: submission to God, judgment day and commitment to good works.

Many claim that prophets unmentioned in the Koran were only applicable to the period before Muhammad. This interpretation contradicts the other verses (Ghafir:78, An-Nisa:164) which clearly state there are numerous prophets untold in the Koran irrespective of time. Traditionally, Muslim scholars have made a distinction, saying that a nabi is a divine envoy without a law and a revealed book, whereas rasul means one with a law and a revealed book; but the Koran often uses both terms interchangeably. The meaning of prophethood is complex and nuanced, not to be limited to only the Prophet Muhammad.

If the Sabeans, the Jews and Christians are mentioned in Sura Al-Baqara:62 to gain God’s rewards and salvation as long as they believe in God and judgment day and do good works, then why do we pretend to be so absolute in judging an Ahmadi — who believes in God and even in the prophethood of Muhammad while believing in another prophet or reformist — will not be rewarded by God?

Defining Islam as the religion of the Prophet Muhammad is historical yet specific. Islam also means submission to God and good works. If Islam is the religion of all true prophets, then there is the possibility of an interpretation suggesting a prophet who follows Muhammad.

A “solution” offered by some is that Ahmadiyah should exist as a new religion, separate from Islam. This is an erroneous view and religious fallacy.

The Koran clearly states there is no compulsion in religion (Al-Baqarah:256). God gives freedom to anyone to believe and not believe in Him. Religion is based on faith and will, and these would be meaningless if induced by force, as Koranic commentator Abdullah Yusuf Ali has said.

Many say there has been a consensus (ijma’) among Muslim scholars about the heresy of Ahmadiyah, and that the argument is taken for granted as an absolute truth. The fact is that a consensus is never completely a consensus because there are so many Muslims in the world. There is no consensus that consensus (ijma’) is part of the source of Islam. Definitions and manifestations of Islam remain plural.

K.H. Ahmad Dahlan, K.H. Hasyim Asy’ari, Hamka and M. Quraish Shihab, to mention only a few, do not share the belief and interpretation with Ahmadiyah but they recognize difference in interpretations and have never advocated the restriction of the movement in Indonesia. It is only now that such intolerant pressure emerged in the escalated politics of “religious purity” and “closed identity”, unfortunately based on narrow-minded interpretations, insensitive to goodness and justice.

In the history of all religions, orthodoxy and heterodoxy are always judged by the dominant power, never from the minority or subjugated groups. Religious heresy seen by the mainstream is not necessarily a threat to social order. Charges and campaigns against religious heresy being harmful to the social order is a narrowed-minded political act.

The Koran states that disputes in theological matters will be settled by God alone, not here in this world where human knowledge is truly limited (Al-Maidah:48). Even when one has the right to invite others, the Koran suggests inviting them with wisdom, not by political pressure or discrimination, let alone banning. Invite the people to the way of Allah with wisdom and beautiful teaching, and argue with them in ways that are best, for the Lord knows best who has strayed from his path and who receive guidance (Surah An-Nahl:125).

When there is conflict of interpretation, the Koran asks not to judge the faith of the other but to compete with one another in goodness (fastabiqul khairat:Al-Maidah:48). There are many paths to God and many ways to be Muslim. Many religious individuals forget and do not care about their intolerant actions; they are quick to spread injustice, physically or psychologically, to those who happen to have different interpretations.

Indonesians should have resumed dialog as exemplified by A. Hassan and an Ahmadi leader in Java facilitated by colonial officials. The key point here is that the state should not but respect different religious interpretations. Faith should not be compulsory, and the state should not take side in any religious interpretation, mainstream or marginal.

______
The writer is an assistant professor at the religious studies department of the University of California, Riverside. This article was published by Jakarta Post.

By Jennie S. Bev

Post Sept. 11, the world is getting more polarized and more religious as well as anti-religious. This tiny blue planet is getting more divided and Indonesia is no exception. It is a reality check to acknowledge, to reflect and to act upon. It is true that we do not live in a utopia, but we certainly can do our best, no matter how small, to bridge differences and to develop better understanding between each other.

It might sound aggrandizing to say: Let’s make the world a better place, one breath at a time. But it is, contrary to unpopular belief, doable. By you and me.

Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said, “We do no great things, only small things with great love.”

The concept of citizen diplomacy pivots around the notion that any individual has the right and the capacity to shape the course of history by engaging in politics directly and indirectly. And one of the best avenues is through humanitarian and human relations efforts. Oprah Winfrey, Lance Armstrong and Maya Angelou are excellent examples of very successful citizen diplomats, as they bridge differences and spread kindness and other positive traits without having to sacrifice their lifestyles.

One can work in any profession and be passionate about anything while making a splash worldwide. And with the burgeoning of the Internet, any linguistically and digitally literate individual has a good chance to make great leaps.

A good example is a Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez (desdecuba.com/generaciony) who was named one of 2008 Time magazine’s Top 100 Most Influential People. She writes her daily musings in Havana, Cuba.

Indonesians abroad, such as those who work in academia, as entrepreneurs or executives, indirectly represent Indonesia in the international arena, regardless of the negative label they are given — “brain drain”. This term is degrading and baseless, for only those who have never experienced the hardship of living away from one’s homeland would have said it out loud.

Other than derogatory, brain drain is also an obsolete pessimistic concept based on parochial nationalism, in which a person’s worth and nationalism is simply seen as where one resides, geographically. While I have never claimed to be a patriot, I have lived outside Indonesia long enough to acknowledge and admire those who thrive, not merely survive, with dignity.

After all, impressive language skills are not the only requirement. A strong work ethic, strong mental stamina, cultural awareness and adhering to the rules in addition to lifelong self-improvement are.

The opposite concept is “brain gain”, which is a notion that acknowledges the dynamic exchanges of human capital across borders. It is a beautiful concept as it provides plenty of room to grow and that by having people abroad means more bridges have been built.

Now what matters is how those bridges can be used for the betterment of mankind, referring to the whole human civilization. After all, no people, no nation, no country can live as a lone tree. We are all part of something greater: the human race.

Understanding the need to build bridges between civilizations, particularly between the often-misunderstood Islam and the West, a group of U.S.-based Ph.D. students who belong to Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), a large moderate Islamic organization in Indonesia, established American NU Community last week. Ulil Abshar-Abdalla (Harvard), Sumanto Al Qurtuby (Boston) and Ahmad Munjid (Temple) are among the founders. According to them, this community is a new NU generation.

This new generation claims that NU-ness is a commitment to a set of ideas and thoughts, such as that Islam should be re-interpreted in such a way that corresponds with the current challenges; that Islam is compatible with democracy and human rights; that Islam should work will all religions to come to term with global injustices; and that Islam should engage in a serious and productive dialogue with other faiths and religions.

An accolade must also be given to Eddie Lembong, an exemplary Chinese Indonesian cultural activist, who founded Nabil, a nation building organization based in Jakarta and Beni Bevly of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia based in Northern California, whose idealism includes the so-called “cross-cultural pollination.”

Using flowers as an anecdote, every culture has its strengths and weaknesses, including cultures and subcultures belonging to Indonesia’s majority and its minorities, and these are collective treasures of Indonesia as a whole. It would be favorable for each community, which is represented by a flower, to spread its pollen to other communities and vice versa.

By understanding how things work, it is more than possible to study strengths of other cultures and accept them to fortify our own communities. For example, learning the collective industriousness and strong survival skills of the Chinese has united Chinese communities around the globe instead of dividing them under the notion of diaspora. By acknowledging human propensity in exchanging ideas, we all can learn from each other in a dignified way without having to spoon-feed each other.

The good thing is that being a citizen diplomat does not require any formal training or special connections to those who sit at high places, but it does require a heightened awareness of the world’s plight for mutual respect and understanding, being the best one can be to set an example to peers, and being open to new possibilities within and without.

Without having to wait for the government to act on behalf of our ideal notions on how the world should be and could be, it is an action ready to be done. Right here, right now.

At last, do things with compassion, because it is what makes us true human beings.

_____
The writer is an author and columnist based in Northern California. This article was published by Jakarta Post.

Agaknya Delapan Kecenderungan Utama di Indonesia 2008 yang aku tulis awal tahun ini menjadi kenyataan. Hal ini menandakan bahwa perdamaian untuk semua semakin jauh dari jangkauan. Padahal dalam hatiku, aku berharap bahwa logikaku yang melihat adanya kecerderungan seperti itu salah.

Kecenderungan yang aku maksud secara khusus adalah:

Kedua, tingkat kekerasan dan intoleransi akan semakin tinggi, berulang kali dan memakan korban jiwa. Kekerasan ini bukan hanya terjadi secara vertikal, yaitu konflik negara dan rakyat, dan secara horizontal, yaitu konflik antara kelompok masyarakat, tetapi juga terjadi dengan cara kombinasi konflik vertikal dan horizontal. Agaknya, konflik dan intoleransi akan dipakai lagi untuk memperebutkan kursi kepresidenan pada 2009. Yang menjadi pertanyaan adalah berapa besar skalanya.

Ketiga, berkurangnya “perlindungan” negara terhadap minoritas. Sejak berguliranya isu reformasi dan demokrasi, perlindungan tidak otomatis bisa didapatkan lebih mudah. Bahkan beberapa tahun terakhir ini memperlihatkan gejala berkurangnya perlindungan dari pemerintah. Salah satu sebabnya adalah penafsiran yang salah dari arti reformasi dan demokrasi.

Keempat, kecenderungan peningkatan paham kedaerahan, golongan dan agama. Pada sisi tertentu pemisahan Timor-Timur dari Indonesia bisa dilihat sebagai pelopor dari kecenderungan ini. Hal ini kemudian diikuti oleh Aceh dengan menerapkan Hukum Syariah.

Kecenderungan di atas sedang mengkristal yang ditunjukkan dengan kenyataan di lapangan. Paling tidak terdapat tiga kasus gunung es yang bisa dipaparkan dari kenyataan di lapangan. Pertama, berita kekerasan terhadap para pengikut Ahmadiyah dan legitimasi dari pemerintah melarang kebebasan beragama terhadap saudara kita ini ternyata secara potensial semakin memberi angin kepada kaum extrimist untuk bertindak dengan kekerasan.

Kedua, terlihat adanya gejala bahwa hukum Syariat di Aceh memicu kekerasan penduduk lokal desa Manyang, Kecamatan Meura Muliah, Aceh Utara. Hal ini terlihat dengan adanya usaha memotong tangan seorang pencuri yang bernama Saidan.

Ketiga, pada awal Mey lalu, kekerasan dan intoleransi juga terjadi di Horale, Pulau Seram di Provinsi Maluku. Sebanyak 120 rumah, 3 gereja dan sekolah dibakar karena para penghuninya beragama SKristen. Empat orang Kristen terbunuh dan 56 luka-luka. Lima belas hektar pertanian dihancurkan, sebanyak 20 kapal nelayan dan 2 kendaraan bermotor mengalami nasib yang sama.

Dalam kondisi seperti ini adalah sangat bijak untuk mendengar perkataan sahabat Muslim saya, Muhamad Ali di Jakarta Post:

When there is conflict of interpretation, the Koran asks not to judge the faith of the other but to compete with one another in goodness (fastabiqul khairat:Al-Maidah:48). There are many paths to God and many ways to be Muslim. Many religious individuals forget and do not care about their intolerant actions; they are quick to spread injustice, physically or psychologically, to those who happen to have different interpretations.

Marilah kita melunakkan hati kita dan semaikan cinta kasih seperti ajakan Maya Rumantir di bawah, supaya perdamaian untuk semua tidak semakin jauh.

_______
Dr. Beni Bevly adalah aktivis intelektual, pendiri Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia, lingkar studi tantang Indonesia di Kalifornia. Penulis buku “Aku Orang Cina? Narasi Pemikiran Politik Plus dari Seorang Tionghoa”

Seminar Memperingati 10 Tahun Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 di Amerika Utara dilakukan di delapan kota utama, yaitu San Francisco, San Leandro, Sacramento, Los Angeles Area, Atlanta, Dallas, Washington DC dan Toronto yang dimulai dari tanggal 10 Mei 2008 hingga 25 Mei 2008. Dengan diprakarsai oleh Media Indonesia, dan berkoalisi dengan organisasi Human Rights di Amerika Utara menampilkan Drs. Eddie Lembong, Founding Chairman Yayasan Nation Building (Nabil) sebagai pembicara utama. Beberapa organisasi di kota tertentu menampilkan topik “Menuju Undonesia Baru Tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi.”

Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia (OTTI) – Mutiara Andalas SJ dan Dr. Beni Bevly bekerja sama dengan Indonesia Media — Arnold Lukito dan Dr. Irawan, Indonesian Chinese American Network (ICANet) — Peter Phwan, Chinese Community of San Leandro (CCSL) — Hendy Wijaya, Bolaang Mongondow - Sangihe Talaud - Minahasa (BOSAMI) — Tony Lolong, Jakarta Butuh Revolusi Budaya (JBRB) — Tasa Nugraza Barley, MBA dan para individu yang terdiri dari Herning Grissom, Laura Lumenta, Surya Sitanggang, Hock Chuan dan Susanne Setijadi menggelar seminar dan renungan ini di Sacramento, San Leandro, dan San Francisco.

Topik Presentasi

Berikut adalah topik presentasi yang dibawakan oleh masing-masing pembicara:

Drs. Eddie Lembong. Sebagai ketua Yayasan Nabil, ia menampilkan pendekatan sejarah dalam membahas Tragedi Mei 1998. Ia membahas sejarah Indonesia masa lalu, keadaan masa kini dan prospek masa depan dalam kaitannya dengan posisi etnis Tionghoa di Indonesia. Salah satu paper dari Drs. Eddie Lembong yang berjudul “Mengenang Tragedi Mei 1998, Memahami Masa Kini, dan Merancang Hari Depan yang Lebih Baik” bisa diakses dengan mengklik Mengenang Tragedi Mei 1998.

H. Yudhistiranto Sungadi. Sungadi pada saat ini menjabat sebagai Konsul Jenderal Republik Indonesia San Francisco. Pembahasannya menitik beratkan pada perkembangan Indonesia paska Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998. Semenjak tragedy yang membawa Indonesia ke titik terendah dalam hampir setiap bidang, telah banyak kemajuaan yang dicapai oleh pemerintahan Indonesia. Secara khusus ia menampilkan kemajuan dalam bidang hak asasi manusia dan menjamin kebebasan etnis Tionghoa untuk berekspresi termasuk mengekpresikan budaya Tionghoa. Dalam bidang politik, pemerintah telah menciptakan iklim yang kondusif bagi etnis Tinghoa untuk berperan, di antaranya dengan diberlakukannya UU Kewarga-Negaraan yang baru. Di akhir presentasinya, Sungadi memberikan beberapa masukan bagaimana supaya antar etnis di Indonesia bisa hidup berdampingan secara damai.

Dr. Muhamad Ali. Ali yang mengajar di Religious Studies Department di UC Riverside dan juga penulis buku “Teologi Pluralisme Multikultural” menampilkan topic “Dari Kekerasan Menuju Kedamaian.” Ia memulai pembahasannya dengan melihat pola kerusuhan massa di Indonesia, lalu ia masuk dalam topik kekerasan, secara spesifik melihat hal-hal yang menyebabkan terjadinya kekerasan termasuk Tragedy Mei 1998, dan bagaimana strategi mengatasi kekerasan. Poin-poin yang dikemukan Ali bisa ditemukan dengan cara mengklik Dari Kekerasan Menuju Damai.

Mutiara Andalas, SJ. Romo Andy, begitu panggilan akrabnya, adalah pendamping para korban Tragedy Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 di Indonesia. Selain itu, ia juga analist dari Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia dan penulis buku “Kesucian Politik: Agama dan Politik di Tengah Krisis Kemanusiaan”. Ia sangat dekat dan merasakan secara langsung penderitaan para korban dan keluarga korban. Pembahasannya menempat manusia sebagai manusia seutuhnya. Seperti judul bukunya, papernya pun mempunyai judul yang serupa, yaitu “Kesucian Politik: Agama dan Politik di Tengah Krisis Kemanusiaan” menggambarkan bagaimana pengalaman pribadinya berjumpa dengan mayat-mayat korban yang terbakar hangus, bagaimana peranan negara yang secara sistematis memojokkan para korban dan para aktivis sehingga masyarakat awam dan bahkan kaum religius agaknya secara tidak sadar ikut menyalahkan para korban dan melupakan tragedi kemanusiaan ini begitu saja, tanpa ada jalan keluar yang adil. Untuk membaca paper Romo Andy lebih jauh bisa diklik Kesucian Politik

Dr. Beni Bevly. Bevly dikenal sebagai aktivis intelektual alumnus Jurusan Ilmu Politik Universitas Indonesia. Ia adalah pendiri Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia, lingkar studi tantang Indonesia. Penulis buku “Aku Orang Cina? Narasi Pemikiran Politik Plus dari Seorang Tionghoa” ini menampilkan paper yang berjudul “Memperingati 10 Tahun Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998: Mengerti Masa Lalu dan Kini untuk Meniti Masa Depan yang Damai”. Paper ini disusun atas permintaan koordinator “Prayer for Human Right in Indonesia” berdasarkan kerangka presentasi Drs. Eddie Lembong, ketua Nabil pada “Seminar Menuju Indonesia Baru” di San Leandro, CA tanggal 11 Mei 2008 seperti dijelaskan di atas. Paper tersebut bisa diakses dengan mengklik Memperingati 10 Tahun Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998

Di bawah adalah laporan singkat kegiatan seminar memperingati 10 Tahun Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 di Sacramento, San Leandro dan San Francisco.

Sacramento

Seminar dan Renungan di Sacramento difasilitasi oleh Herning Grissom pada Tanggal 10 Mei 2008 menampilan:

Dr. Muhamad Ali dari Religious (Pengajar di Studies Department, University of California Riverside, Penulis buku “Teologi Pluralisme Multikultural”)

Mutiara Andalas, SJ (Rohaniawan, penulis buku “Kesucian Politik: Agama dan Politik di Tengah Krisis Kemanusiaan”)

Mediator, Dr. Aart van Beek (Counseling Training Director, penulis buku “Life in Javanese Kraton”dan “Cross Cultural Counseling”)

Moderator, Dr. Beni Bevly (Analist dari Overseas Think tank for Indonesia, penulis buku “Aku Orang Cina? Narasi Pemikiran Politik Plus dari Seorang Tionghoa”).

Seminar dan renungan ini dihadiri eleh sekitar 40 peserta yang terdiri dari beragam etnis Indonesia dan Amerika.

Suasana ramah-tamah sebelum acara dimulai. Terlihat pameran foto di latar belakang peserta.

Sambutan dari tuan rumah, Herning Grissom (kanan). Dari kiri adalah pembicara Dr. Muhamad Ali dan Mutiara Andalas, SJ beserta moderator Dr. Beni Bevly. Terlihat sebagian buku yang berkaitan dengan Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 didisplay (kanan bawah).

Dr. Aart van Beek sebagai mediator memberikan pandangan empiris dan netral.

Vigil sebagai penutup seminar dan renungan.

San Leandro

Pada tanggal 11 Mei 2008, bertempat di San Leandro, dihadirkan:

Drs. Eddie Lembong (Founding Chairman of Yayasan Nation Building/NABIL, Indonesia)

H. Yudhistiranto Sungadi (Konsulat Jenderal Republik Indonesia San Francisco)

Dr. Muhamad Ali dari Religious (Pengajar di Studies Department, University of California Riverside, Penulis buku “Teologi Pluralisme Multikultural”)

Mutiara Andalas, SJ (Rohaniawan, penulis buku “Kesucian Politik: Agama dan Politik di Tengah Krisis Kemanusiaan”)

Moderator, Dr. Beni Bevly (Analist dari Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia, penulis buku “Aku Orang Cina? Narasi Pemikiran Politik Plus dari Seorang Tionghoa”).

Para pembicara dari kiri Dr. Muhamad Ali, Drs. Addie Lembong, Dr. Beni Bevly (moderator), H. Yudhistiranto Sungadi dan Mutiara Andalas, SJ.

Lebih dari 160 peserta di San Leandro mengikuti seminar secara seksama.

Penyerahan Petisi Menuju Indonesia Baru kepada Konsul Jenderal RI San Francisco, H. Yudhistiranto Sungadi.

Wartawan dari Bay Area San Francisco (kanan) meliput kegiatan di San Leandro.

San Francisco

Bertempat di San Francisco, Forum Komunikasi Gereja-Gereja Indonesia di Bay Area mengadakan “Prayer for Human Right in Indonesia” pada tanggal 17 Mei 2008 dengan menampilkan pembicara Dr. Beni Bevly.

Renungan dan doa dipimpin oleh Tony Lolong, Pdt. Matthew Wakkary, Pdt. Fenina Mundisugih (Afen), Pdt. Johanes Sudarma, Pdt. Sugi Hendric, Pdt. Solaiman Ishak, Pdt. Edwin Katuk, Pdt. Hengki Suryantio dan Tony Bastaman.

Sambutan dari Tony Lolong di FKGI.

Renungan dan doa bersama untuk perdamaian di Idonesia.

Dr. Beni Bevly membahas tragedy kemanusiaan dari pendekatan historis.

Doa bersama yang dipimpin oleh setiap pendeta secara bergiliran.

Liputan dari The Argus

Surat kabar, The Argus meliput kegiatan Peringatan Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 di Bay Area San Francisco. Harian ini menempatkan laporkan kegiatan ini di halaman depan.

Liputan di front page surat kabar “the Argus”

By Evan A. Laksmana

The fuel prices rise of almost 30 percent was finally announced last week. This highly unpopular move will certainly affect all people, especially the poor, in the country.

The policy indicates the growing gap between the political elite and Indonesian people. Another indication was the “study trip” by Indonesian legislators to Latin America costing tax payers thousands of dollars amidst the government’s plan to raise fuel prices.

After ten years of political reform, why is the gap between the political elites and the people increasing? Shouldn’t a democracy reflect proximity between the elected officials and their constituents?

Moreover, the current political system was supposed to help solve the multidimensional crisis that hit Indonesia over a decade ago. What is the hold up?

A closer look at the political process and public sentiment beyond the elections of the past decade allows us to discern several possible answers behind this democratic veil.

First, the nature of the political transition after the fall of Soeharto in 1998 created a window of opportunity. Old political elites have been able to extricate and reconstitute themselves within the new system characterized by political parties and parliament. It was basically a transition from a “sultanistic” authoritarian regime to an oligarchic system ruled by political party bosses. In other words, we went from a rock to hard place.

Second, it seems “democracy” has become a buzzword diverting attention from the more crucial issue of good governance and a pretext for “horse-trading” politics among local and national elites. This has led to public resentment, which, if not remedied, could erode public trust in the idea of democracy itself.

Third, a decentralized democratic political system has never fully materialized because local elites continue to jockey for power and wealth, and the economic sector and welfare continues to deteriorate. This is the opposite to the initial vision of regional autonomy where officials tended to local constituents, who were often neglected by the Jakarta-based political elites.

Finally, despite the argument favoring a consociational political system aimed at achieving stability, the result has been the opposite. The political system is now more unstable and unpredictable because of the predatory nature of the oligarchic post-Soeharto system, which has meant that short-term realpolitik, rather than political party platforms, is the norm.

These are the main reasons why we are witnessing a growing gap between the political elite and the people in general.

Moreover, it appears that political liberalization, as indicated by the hundreds of new political parties, has not been followed by proper political management and regulation. This is perhaps the main reason why elites continue to strive for their own benefit as the people continues to suffer.

Therefore, despite the significant progress of political reform over the past decade, a stable political system that is accountable to its constituents and is focused on good governance remains an elusive notion.

Although some have argued that the new election laws were aimed at creating a stable multiparty system based around seven to eight major political factions in parliament, how this will be implemented remains to be seen.

Therefore, the next phase in Indonesia’s democratic development should be to focus on the issue of democratic good governance, which would shift the oligarchic nature of the political system and the power of party bosses to the people.

How should we go about doing this though? There is no easy answer or a handbook to tackle this question as all the above mentioned problems are structural. The fact that the current system entrenches the entire political elite makes it hard for any significant progress in the near future.

One alternative solution is to remedy the process of regional autonomy to truly follow the spirit of democratic decentralization. One could argue that this has not been the case because local officials “owe” their election to the Jakarta-based political parties supporting their candidacy. Thus, one could debate whether a local political party is the answer to this conundrum.

However, another possible long-term solution is the academic, civic and political education of the younger generation. More and more, the younger generation are becoming more skeptical about the political process, which they see as corrupt and a waste of their time.

Moreover, some of the Indonesia’s best and brightest are actually being lured out of the country by better opportunities abroad. Unfortunately, without these future leaders, Indonesia’s political system will remain locked in a cycle of corruption.

The growing gap between the political elites at the national and local level and the people at large remains Indonesia’s biggest political challenge. The oligarchic nature of the current system excludes genuine representation of a wide array of citizens and the vast majority of the population. As long as these issues are not addressed it seems absurd to continue calling Indonesia a “democratic country.”

________

*This article was previously published by The Jakarta Post.

The writer is a research analyst for the Indonesia program at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. He can be reached at isevan@ntu.edu.sg

SAN LEANDRO
Lilly Lim expected at least a semblance of normalcy when she went to work at a suburban Jakarta shipping company on a spring day 10 years ago.

Lim, then a 28-year-old self-identified Chinese-Indonesian accountant, had her worries the day after six student demonstrators protesting government corruption were shot dead on a Jakarta college campus.

She now acknowledges that clinging to the hope that May 13 would be just another day went against everything a lifetime of discrimination in her personal life and more than 200 years of history had told her.

Her worst fears materialized quickly. The first sign was the odor and thick smoke from a torched gas station a few blocks away. Typically bustling streets were deserted at noon.

Riots would soon plunge an already unstable nation into disarray, with racially targeted attacks against Chinese Indonesians that by several accounts left more than 1,300 people dead.

“Nobody knew it would be so chaotic,” she said. “After that moment, everything changed.” Like many Chinese Indonesians, Lim left the country in the riot’s aftermath.

Now a Menlo Park resident, Lim was among 300 or so Chinese Indonesians who attended a Sunday gathering at St. Leander Church in San Leandro commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the May 1998 riots.

A coalition of Chinese-Indonesian human rights groups organized such events throughout North America this week. The San Leandro event was the only one in the Bay Area.

The groups blame the Indonesian leaders for fostering an environment that precipitated the riots and pervasive racial hostility against people of Chinese descent, who make up just 5 percent of the nation’s population but are disproportionately wealthy.

“The most important reason we’re having this is for people to remember what happened, because people are starting to forget,” said event organizer Beni Bevly, who heads the Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

“A lot of people know what’s going on Myanmar and a lot of people know what’s going on in China with Tibet, but do people know what’s going on in Indonesia? No, because this story has been suppressed by our (Indonesian) government.” Bevly said. “This problem has never been solved.”

The 1998 riots were just the most recent chapter in the densely populated nation’s bloody history that Bevly said includes government-led mass anti-communist killings in the 1960’s. He said targeted killings of Chinese Indonesians date back to the 18th century.

Lim said she’d been subjected to harassment and racial epithets her entire life. She was a newlywed and had just given birth to her baby daughter, Vira, when the unrest broke out. “It was so scary,” she said, her voice quivering as she pointed to Vira, who is now 11. “We just didn’t go out.” Lim said her husband, Vincent Lie, barely survived a close call with rioters who attacked his car on his way home from work.

She said the riots illustrate the devastating consequences of racial hatred.
“If the government is leading it, the people will follow,” she said. “People have to know, that’s what (racism) leads to.”

Gideon Rubin can be reached at 510-293-2469 or grubin@bayareanewsgroup.com.