Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia

(Image Source: Asia Sentinel)

by Jennie S. Bev

Monday, 12 January 2009

Sometimes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is observed in the breach

On December 10, the world commemorated the 60th year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Joseph Saunders, the deputy program director of Human Rights Watch in New York, who lived in Indonesia for two and a half years in the 1990s, answered this question: Do human rights violators today face more intense pressure when they trample on rights than they did 60 years ago? The answer, he said, is a resounding yes.

However, Indonesia’s posture in terms of respect for and adherence to human rights principles needs to be examined critically, and, given the ominous attacks on minority religions over 2008, the country has to look critically at worsening intolerance on the part of hard-line fundamentalists.

Historically speaking, the human rights movement has come a long way and today it has become a strong feature of most of the world’s constitutions, observed or not. Also, many governments have created human rights ministries and signed international treaties as supported by the United Nations Human Rights Council and the UN Human Rights Commissioner for Human Rights. And the establishment of the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands is one great leap forward in protecting fundamental human rights.

In Indonesia, the Constitution Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 acknowledges at least 15 human rights principles: self-determination (Preamble and article 1), citizenship (article 26), equality before the law (article 27), work (article 27), decent life (article 27), association (article 28), express an opinion (article 28), religion (article 29), national defense (article 30), education (article 31), social welfare (article 33), social security (article 34), independent judiciary (elucidation of articles 24 and 25), preserve cultural traditions (elucidation of article 32), and preserve local language (elucidation of article 31).

Indonesia is also an elected member of United Nations Human Rights Council among 47 members of 63 contenders, of which other 12 Asian countries are Bangladesh, Bahrain, China, India, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka. Thus it looks good on paper.

On April 11, 2002, The Rome Statute 1998 was ratified by 60 states which brought the International Criminal Court being. However, Indonesia has yet to ratify this statute, regardless of the current 56 ratifications and 62 signatures from other states. In 2004, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono adopted a National Plan of Action on Human Rights, which states that Indonesia intends to ratify the Rome Statute in 2008.

The International Criminal Court has been making significant progress in its five years of operation. It is the first permanent court mandated to prosecute the perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and “crime of aggression.” On crime of aggression, there will be no prosecutions until the states come into an agreeable definition. Saunders said it is expected that the first trial will get underway this year although the court has been under attack in recent months following the issuance of an arrest warrant for President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan on charges pertaining to genocide in Darfur.

While today we can see noteworthy progress in human rights adherence and protection, particularly after the overthrow of the strongman General Suharto in 1998, the pace of progress needs to be accelerated. One bit of significant progress was the prosecution for the poisoning murder of the human rights lawyer Munir Said Thalib, despite the justice system’s failure to prove the former Indonesian intelligence figure Muchdi Purwopranojo responsible for this high-profile assassination.

Other than that, impunity is still the nagging keyword. Conscientious people are still waiting anxiously to hear news on thorough investigations and prosecutions of the greatest massacre of the 20th century, which occurred in 1965-1966 in the name of “communist eradication” in which an estimated 500,000 people were killed in Indonesia without fair trials as well as the May 1998 riots in the wake of the Asian Financial crisis, the Semanggi Tragedy I and II in which university students were shot, the East Timor massacre and religious killings in Aceh.

Freedom of religion, also one of basic human rights acknowledged in the Indonesian constitution (article 29), seems to be a continuing concern requiring immediate attention. Last September, the unorthodox Muslim sect Ahmadiyah was banned in South Sumatra with a provincial decree. In June, Ahmadiyah followers were prohibited from expressing their religious activities publicly or face up to five years of imprisonment. Many Ahmadiyah mosques throughout Indonesia have been attacked and the followers intimidated physically.

Another Islamic sect Al-Qiyadah Al-Islamiyah has also been labeled “heretical” and its founder Abdul Salam was sentenced for four years in April 2008, under accusations of blasphemy. In July, a 20-year old Christian theology school was attacked in East Jakarta, forcing an involuntary closing. In January 2008, a Hindu temple in West Lombok was burnt down by a mob.

At this point, the Indonesian government leadership seem to be wearing their best tuxedos while smiling meaningfully to look good on paper and to make strong political statements that Indonesia is a country where human rights are guaranteed and respected. We, the people, must make sure that those are not killers’ smiles and torturers’ faux friendliness. The time to act is now. And it does not take a person of Munir’s caliber to be an activist or even a dissident.

Jennie S. Bev is an Indonesian-born author and columnist who contributes to the Jakarta Globe and Jakarta Post. She is a former law lecturer and composition adjunct professor. This article was previously published by Asia Sentinel (China).

Image Source: militaryphotos.net

By Evan A. Laksmana

The Indonesian Military (TNI) celebrated its 63rd anniversary on Oct. 5. Its formal commemoration, however, will be held on Oct. 14 because the original date was too close with Idul Fitri, which fell on Oct. 1.

Sixty-three years after its inception and ten years after the birth of the reform order, the complex challenge of repositioning the military in Indonesia’s democratic setting and building a professional military to tackle the changing security environment remains.

On the domestic front, several contentious issues seem unsettled, including past abuses of military force, despite significant and commendable progress in internal reforms. Meanwhile, the traditional challenge of fighting a conventional war is compounded by an array of modern security issues such as terrorism, disaster relief and illegal fishing.

Richard D. Kohn, a professor at the University of North Carolina, contends that creating a strategic and professional military means dealing with three challenges: the intellectual, political and moral.

The intellectual challenge deals with how to prepare the military to operate successfully in a variety of security environments. For the TNI, this would amount to providing the intellectual foundation for officers to be repositioned.

Despite commendable legal efforts to do so, the intellectual challenge of tackling traditional and modern security challenges in a democratic setting enables us to reconstruct the mind-set of the officer corps by reconsidering the military education and training system along with the military’s basic doctrine.

The former might involve a revamp of previous curricula and teaching methods, since the legacy of the old system preparing officers to play a sociopolitical role, under the now-defunct dual function doctrine, might still linger.

For example, we could consider increasing and refining core military subjects, such as geopolitics and modern warfare, while further improving existing key nonmilitary subjects, such as history, humanitarian law and international relations.

This would not only lay a stronger intellectual foundation for officers by exposing them to critical thinking, but it could also pave the way to civilianize the teaching staff as the courses could be taught by numerous qualified civilian instructors. Plus, more officers could be sent abroad for further education to expose them to other militaries, providing them with a broader strategic perspective.

Although the TNI’s external defense role is legally prescribed, given the low military budget and domestic economic problems, efforts to assist the people is commendable. After all, the devil gives work to idle hands, as the old saying goes.

However, given history, where such “civic missions” were misused by president Soeharto for his own political purposes, a continued persistence on domestic operations might raise concern about possible excesses in the future.

One often overlooked external mission might be considered to help downplay the problem of “idle capacity”, namely international peacekeeping operations. Not only is the TNI’s track record excellent in this regard, but such operations have the potential to replace domestic operations as a key consideration in career promotions while boosting Indonesia’s international image.

However, a modification of the military’s basic doctrine of Total People’s Defense — born from Indonesia’s guerrilla warfare against the Dutch in the 1940s — might be needed to complement any education and training efforts.

One could argue that an archaic formula assuming the TNI to be underdeveloped to face an external attack, and therefore needs to “prepare” the people for guerrilla warfare, could hamper the dynamic and critical thinking necessary to tackle more complicated security challenges, especially in the realm of modern security.

Meanwhile, the political challenge is the military’s political neutrality and subordination to the legally constituted civilian authority. Considering Indonesia’s turbulent civilian-military relationship, this challenge is perhaps the least clear cut.

Thus, a civilian defense community is needed to create a triangular balance and achieve the so-called concordance civil-military relations where the government, officer corps and civil society have a cooperative relationship stressing dialogue, accommodation and shared values.

This could be done through several steps.

First, the government could reduce suspicion and grievances within the officer corps by not politicizing the military, especially on the eve of next year’s elections, and by not interfering excessively in internal military affairs.

Second, the military could maintain the trust extended by the political leadership by continuing the momentum of military reform.

Finally, the moral challenge addresses the internal honor and integrity of the officer corps.

Polls have shown that the military’s public image has significantly improved over the past decade, largely due to perceived civilian corruption and political bickering. However, the recent spat between the National Commission for Human Rights and retired officers regarding investigation into past human rights abuses by the military suggests that a perceived “culture of impunity” might become a “pebble in the shoe” for the military’s public image.

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

Judul: Aku Orang Cina?: Narasi Pemikiran Politik Plus dari Seorang Tionghoa
Penulis: Dr. Beni Bevly
Genre: Politik
Spesiifikasi: 168 hlm; 6 x 9 inci; soft cover
Harga: $12.00 (BELI/BUY)

Buku Aku Orang Cina? Narasi Pemikiran Politik Plus dari Seorang Tionghoa karya Beni Bevly memperkenalkan pandangan dan persepsi pemikiran politik dari salah satu di antara sekian juta etnis Tionghoa yang beragam di Indonesia. Sesuai dengan kata plus di judul buku ini, penulis tidak hanya menarasikan pemikiran politik, tetapi ia juga menuturkan pemikiran ekonomi, manajemen dan kepemimpinan organisasi dan aplikasinya di Indonesia. Pemikiran plus ini mengisi sisi ilmu politik yang cenderung science for science atau ilmu murni. Sedangkan ilmu ekonomi, manajemen dan kepemimpinan organisasi cenderung mengarah ke aplikasi. Pemikiran politik plus berhasil diangkat kepermukaan karena penulis memiliki belakang pendidikan yang multidisiplin.

Hal lain bahwa penulis berhasil menarasikan fenomena sosial politik dan ekonomi Indonesia yang kompleks menjadi sederhana. Ia mengaitkan hampir setiap topik yang ia bahas dengan metafor kejadian sederhana sehari-hari yang ia alami. Hal ini membuat bahasan pemikiran politiknya menjadi mudah dimengerti.

Ciri khas pendekatan narasi pemikiran politik yang multidisiplin dan mengangkatnya dari metafor kejadian sehari-hari inilah yang membedakan buku Aku Orang Cina? Narasi Pemikiran Politik Plus dari Seorang Tionghoa dari buku lain yang sejenis.

Dengan bertambahnya satu lagi koleksi buku yang berkaitan dengan etnis Tionghoa, diharapkan membantu masyarkat bisa semakin memahami seperti apa sesungguhnya pemikiran manusia yang beretniskan Tionghoa secara umum dan beretniskan Hakka secara khusus. Perlu ditekankan karena sangat beragamnya etnis Tionghoa di Indonesia, maka penulis tidak bisa mengklaim bahwa narasi pemikiran politik plus di buku ini mewakili seluruh etnis Tionghoa.

Keasingan dan ketidak-tahuan akan sesuatu cenderung menimbulkan rasa curiga dan takut. Secara naluri, perasaan ini menimbulkan sifat ingin bertahan. Seringkali orang menterjemahkan bahwa pertahanan yang terbaik adalah menyerang. Tentu saja kita tidak mau hal seperti ini terjadi di antara etnis di Indonesia. Dengan penerbitan buku ini, penulis berharap bahwa etnis Tionghoa tidak terlalu menjadi mahluk asing di Indonesia sehingga apa yang seperti di prediksikan oleh Huntington, S. P. (2003, p. 28) dalam The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order yaitu meningkatnya clash of ethnicity pada post cold war di tingkat domestik suatu negara seperti yang telah terjadi di Indonesia tidak terulangi lagi.

(BELI/BUY)

Air Mata Kami Belum Kering
Oleh Mutiara Andalas, S.J.

“Ya Allah, anakku ke mana, anakku ke mana, saya ke mana, ke mana perginya anakku? Ia anak laki-lakiku satu-satunya. Ya Allah, anakku ditemukan udah seperti kayak ayam panggang. Anakku, Mis, pulang sudah menjadi mayat. Aku minta pemerintah mengungkap provokator Mei 1998. Ia masih tinggal bersama keluarga kami seandainya para provokator tidak membakar Jogja Plaza,” demikian penuturan Bu Kus, salah seorang keluarga korban tragedi Mei 1998.

Merengkuh Kemanusiaan

Kebenaran mengenai tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998 masih tertutup gumpalan awan hitam kebohongan. Menjelang peringatan 10 tahun tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998, sebagian masyarakat menanyakan kebenaran fakta tragedi ini, pelaku kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan, dan akses masyarakat terhadap informasi sekitar korban. Negara memahami tragedi Mei sebagai kerusuhan politik, mendakwa mayoritas korban yang meninggal dini di pusat-pusat ekonomi sebagai penjarah, dan mengungkapkan kesulitan untuk menemukan fakta kekerasan seksual massal terhadap perempuan etnis Tionghoa. Akademisi politik juga menawarkan beragam skenario untuk memahami tragedi kemanusiaan ini secara komprehensif. Paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban Mei 1998 merupakan suara lain (oppositional voice) yang sering terlupakan, bahkan dibungkam secara paksa.

Tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998 melucuti kemanusiaan dan bahasa korban. Embrio paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban adalah merengkuh kembali kemanusiaan mereka yang dirampas paksa, dan kemudian menuntut para pelaku penjahat terhadap kemanusiaan mereka. Perengkuhan kembali kemanusiaan seringkali berlangsung dalam jeda waktu yang relatif lama pasca-tragedi karena trauma itu disintegratif terhadap kemanusiaan korban. Keheningan dan air mata menjadi bahasa utama paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban pasca-tragedi. Paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban seringkali menuliskan kisah mereka dengan abjad air mata. Suara lirih mereka hanya akan sampai kepada telinga kita jika kita solider dengan mereka.

Wajah Baru Dosa

Gustavo Gutierrez, salah seorang penggiat teologi pembebasan, mengundang publik untuk mengindahkan suara lirih korban. Suara korban memiliki kuasa mewartakan kabar gembira kehidupan (the evangelizing power of the poor). Air mata korban hendaknya mempengaruhi politik negara dan agama demi peradaban yang lebih manusiawi. Kita sering mengabaikan fakta bahwa mayoritas korban tragedi Mei adalah kaum miskin dan beriman. Paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban Gereja untuk melukis ulang citra dirinya sebagai Gereja para korban (Church of the victim). Mereka juga mengundang komunitas-komunitas beriman lain untuk mengeluarkan diskursus dosa dari belenggu spiritualisme. Kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan merupakan wajah baru dosa dalam masyarakat kontemporer.

Paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban prihatin karena negara justru semakin mengabaikan kasus mereka. Negara menempatkan korban sebagai catatan kaki sejarah Indonesia menjelang era reformasi. Ia bahkan menjegal usaha paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban untuk meraih keadilan di ruang hukum terhadap kasus tragedi ini. Korban meninggal di pusat-pusat penjarah dibaptis dengan stigma penjarah. Korban perkosaan massal justru didakwa menyebarkan kebohongan kepada publik dengan kisah fiktifnya. Negara secara sistematis hendak menghapus kenangan masyarakat Indonesia terhadap korban tragedi Mei. Tragedi kemanusiaan Mei mengalami pendangkalan karena negara secara sistematis menutup ruang suara korban. ‘Kerusuhan’, ‘penjarah’, ‘definisi perkosaan’, dan ‘Cina’ merupakan istilah-istilah politik ciptaan negara yang menggagahi kemanusiaan korban dan memojokkan mereka di hadapan publik.

“Bantuan atau ganti rugi ekonomi tak menebus kematian mereka. Saya tak pernah menjual kehidupan anak-anak saya….Saya berharap penuntasan kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan. Saat ini saya sungguh khawatir akan penyelesaiannya…Islah tak mungkin tercipta tanpa keadilan. Kami menderita terus-menerus. Kami menjadi korban terus-menerus. Bapak Wiranto harus bertanggung jawab atas peristiwa Mei 1998,” tutur Pak Mamang capai.

Penggelapan kisah korban telah menciptakan keraguan, bahkan akhirnya ketidakpercayaan masyarakat terhadap kebenaran tragedi Mei 1998 yang dikisahkan paguyuban. Solidaritas masyarakat, termasuk komunitas beriman, tinggal sekerdip lilin. Masyarakat semakin kebal terhadap air mata korban. Kita memandang tragedi kemanusiaan ini sebagai persoalan paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban. Kita melepaskan solidaritas kita dengan korban dan tuntutan kepada negara karena merasa bahwa tragedi ini hanya merusak kemanusiaan korban. Kita gagal melihat bahwa tragedi kemanusiaan ini mencederai kemanusiaan Indonesia.

Paguyuban keluarga korban mengalami diri mereka semakin berjalan sendirian dalam memperjuangkan kemanusiaan korban demi humanisasi Indonesia. Perjuangan untuk meraih keadilan memang harus tumbuh dari paguyuban, namun membutuhkan solidaritas dari komunitas non-korban. Jalan terjal menuju keadilan korban menyurutkan langkah sebagian anggota paguyuban dan pendampingnya untuk meneruskan perjuangan. Kita harus berpaling kembali kepada paguyuban korban dan keluarga korban karena mereka merupakan kenangan terakhir kita terhadap tragedi kemanusiaan ini.

Indonesia Baru

Peringatan 10 tahun tragedi Mei 1998 merupakan undangan kepada kita semua untuk menciptakan Indonesia baru tanpa kekerasan dan diskriminasi. Kita menolak setiap bentuk perendahan kemanusiaan berdasarkan suku, agama, ras, dan antar budaya yang dilakukan atau didukung negara. Aparat negara bertanggung jawab mengusut tuntas tragedi ini dan mengadili para pelaku kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaannya. Impunitas terhadap pelaku kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan dan pelupaan sosial terhadap tragedi mengubur identitas korban pada nisan anonimitas. Kekerasan terhadap terhadap korban di masa lalu mencederai kemanusiaan kita di masa kini da masa mendatang. Keberadaban kita sebagai bangsa Indonesia akan ditera dari keberpalingan kita terhadap korban. Air mata korban dan keluarga korban belum kering karena kita belum solider, bahkan mulai melupakan mereka.[]

Mutiara Andalas, SJ adalah Rohaniwan Katolik yang menulis Politik Anamnesis: Teologi Politik Kemanusiaan di Negara Kriminal (Jakarta: BPK Gunung Mulia, 2008), dan terlibat dalam merumuskan petisi “Menuju Indonesia Baru tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi” dalam rangka peringatan 10 Tahun Tragedi Mei 1998. Ia kini tengah menyelesaikan disertasi doktoral Teologi di Berkeley, California.

Tunjukkanlah solidaritas kita semua terhadap para korban Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 dengan menandatangani Petisi di PeacefulIndonesia.com. Ciptakan Indonesia baru yang damai tanpa kekerasan dan diskriminasi. (Setelah memasukkan petisi, jangan lupa mengkonfirmasikannya via e-mail. Terima kasih.)

Background

“Around 11:30am, I saw several people of a large crowd hijacked a car and forced the passengers to come out of the car. They pulled two women out of the car and stripped them naked. They gang raped them. Those two girls tried to fight while shouting with fear, but failed,” said an eyewitness in Muara Angke, Jakarta on May 14, 1998.

Almost 100 Indonesian females of Chinese ethnicity suffered from sexual abuse and 1,339 Indonesians died during the tragedy of humanity May 13-15, 1998. Many deaths occurred in malls set on fire by the mobilized crowd. Shooting of four Trisakti University students occurred prior. The afternoon cloud of Jakarta went dark and the midnight sky went bright flaming red due to fires set ablazed. There were 5,723 properties, 1,948 private vehicles, and 516 public transportations costing inconceivable amount of casualties had resulted. Similar incidents also occurred in other cities simultaneously, such as Surabaya, Palembang, Solo, and Lampung (Jusuf, Timbul, Gultom & Frishka, 2007).

After ten years of May 1998 tragedy, we can still listen to cries from victims’ families, “My heart is hurt. My life doesn’t mean anything, void. Until the end of time, I won’t forget how such inhumane incident that has cost my son’s life. He was accused as a rioter, but he was actually a victim. Where can I ask for justice? Why did it happen?”

Such violence and discrimination incidents like May 1998 Tragedy of Humanity had occurred in Indonesia for more than 300 years. In 1740, Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC) under General Governor Adriaan Valckenier has massacred 10,000 people of Chinese ethnicity in Batavia (read: Batavia was the former name of Jakarta) (Setiono, 2003).

On October 31, 1918, as the result of divide at impera imperialism political strategy by the Dutch, properties belong to people of Chinese ethnicity in Kudus were mobbed and set on fire by thousands of mobilized crowds from Mayong, Jepara, Pati, Demak, and vicinity. Hundreds of people of Chinese ethnicity were injured and 16 died.

When the Dutch lost in World War II, they destructed, looted, and destroyed a massive number of houses, shops, and hundreds of factories belong to people of Chinese ethnicity in Indonesia. Many people used the Dutch’s derogatory behaviors as examples at that moment and at a later date.

The Japanese colonized Indonesia after the Dutch’s failure. They also performed violence and discrimination. They created strong divide between Indonesian natives and the minorities. One of the massacres occurred in October 1943 was known as “Pontianak Affair,” in which 1,500 people were killed, of which 854 were of Chinese ethnicity (Purdey, 2006).

With the Japanese retreated from Indonesia, the Dutch returned as NICA soldiers (Nederlandsch Indie Civil Administration). They succeeded in their divide-and-conquer efforts. In May 1946, there were 635 Chinese people killed and some of them burnt alive, including 136 women and children in Tangerang, which is located a few kilometers west of Jakarta, and vicinity. One thousand two hundred and sixty eight houses were burned and 236 were destructed (Setiono, 2006a).

Following those incidents were more massacres, lootings, and burnings of properties, shops, factories, and vehicles in Bagan Siapi-Api, Kuningan, Majalengka, Indramayu, Pekalongan, Tegal, Purwokerto, Purbalingga, Bobotsari, Gombong, Lumajang, Jember, Malang, Lawang, Singosari, and other regions.

After Indonesia’s independence, many more violent and discrimination-based incidents kept occurring. On May 10, 1963, anarchic incidents occurred again. Started with a motorcycle bumping into a college student, provoked crowd immediately looted, destructed, and burned properties and automobiles in Bandung, which later spread to neighboring regions, such as Tasikmalaya, Garut, Cianjur, and Sukabumi.

Military operation against those who were accused, of which many of them were wrongfully, of being involved in G30S (30 September Movement) was started in 1965. Such operation had resulted in deaths millions of men and women of all ages, minorities and majorities, Muslim and non-Muslim. Millions of deaths without any fair trial. In 1967, with objective of eradicating Serawak People Guerilla Troop (Pasukan Gerilyawan Rakyat Serawak PGRS), the crowd was mobilized again to massacre the villagers of West Kalimantan, of which many of them were of Chinese ethnicity. Tens of thousands of people sought refuge in Singkawang and Pontianak.

On January 15, 1974, a protest occurred that later was known as Malari Incident started a series of lootings, burnings, and attacks toward shops and shop owners who were of Chinese ethnicity in Pasar Senen and Blok M areas, Jakarta.

We can also recall how we have noted the numerous victims of violence, who were our brothers and sisters, in the Mysterious Shootings in Tanjung Priok 1984, Talangsari 1989, and Activist Kidnappings 1997-1998.

Prior to the retrieval of Indonesian National Military (Tentara Nasional Indonesia or TNI) in Timor Leste by the end of 1999, mass killings, burnings, destructions, and lootings occurred. During the conflict period and TNI colonization, 125,000 Timor Leste residents were killed (Vickers, 2007).

More incidents of violence and discrimination in large or small scales, both locally and nationally, based on ethnicity and religion, political and non-political, as those previous occurrences have the potential to happen again in the future if we allow those believers in violence and discrimination to perform the gross violence against humanity.

Such incidents of violence and discrimination were orchestrated as vehicles in the tug-of-war of power among those who are power hungry. For such political goal, they utilized divide-and-conquer strategy by exploiting ethnicity, religion, race, and cultural sentiments. As a strong supporter of new Indonesia without violence, we must end such actions of gross violations against humanity.

Our ancestors have lived their lives marked with incidents of violence and discrimination, while long prior to that they had lived in harmony with people of other races and had chosen to live in Nusantara, the land prior to Indonesia’s independence. All of us long to live together in harmony and peacefully for the unity of our people.

Almost a thousand of years ago, people of Chinese ethnicity have taught many indigenous people in the pre-independence Indonesia to make bricks and roof tiles for their houses. Living together in harmony side-by-side had also allowed the transfer of all kinds of knowledge, such as how to use needle, make clothings, and plant food crops to occur seamlessly (Adam, 2002).

In togetherness, we also fostered collaborations with external sources, such as with China, to build war ships and assemble gunpowder technology. Because of such collaborations, Indonesian ancestors were able to unite pre-independence Indonesia under the ruling of Majapahit Kingdom.

With collaborations with Cheng Ho Admiral and some of Wali Songo, who were Islamic leaders of China origin, Islam set foot in pre-independence Indonesia. By the same token, Wali Songo, among which include Sunan Bonang (Bong Ang), Sunan Kalijaga (Gan Si Cang), Sunan Ampel (Bong Swi Hoo), and Sunan Jati (Toh A Bo), established the first Islamic kingdom in Demak. The first sultan Raden Patah was also known as Jin Bun or Cek Ko Po (Qurtuby, 2003).

Harmonious collaborations between “indigenous” Indonesians and people of Chinese ethnicity have resulted in winning the independence war against the Dutch, which was evident in the Java War (1825-1830). In that war, Tan Djin Sing actively helped Prince of Diponegoro by contributing in the forms of expenses, horses, and training the members of the troop with martial arts (Setiono, 2006b).

Those who had gone before us had set an example of harmonious living in light of unifying modern Indonesia under the slogan “One Nation, One People, and One Language” on October 28, 1928. Sin Po newspaper was the first publication that published Indonesia Raya national anthem and helped with propaganda for using “Indonesia” as a term that substituted “Hindia Belanda,” which was the official name during Dutch colonization. Kwee Thiam Hong (Daud Budiman), Ong Khai Siang, Jong Liaw Thoan Hok, Thio Jin Kwee, and Muhammad Chai were involved in Sumpah Pemud, which was a national plead for unity (Wijayakusuma, 1999).

Liem Koen Hian, Oei Tjong Hauw, Oei Tiang Tjoei, and Tan Eng Hoa were also actively involved in the drafting of Indonesia’s Fundamental Laws (Undang-Undang Dasar RI) in 1945 (Suryadinata, 2005).

The long struggle of the Republic of Indonesia to this very day has been the result of harmonious collaborations of those who call themselves “indigenous” Indonesians and people of Chinese ethnicity. Therefore, whoever lives in Indonesia or become Indonesian citizen regardless of their ethnicities and origins have the fundamental rights to receive humane treatments, without violence and discrimination whatsoever.

In the 10th anniversary of May 1998 tragedy of humanity, we urge the government of the Republic of Indonesia to thoroughly investigate the series of atrocities in May 1998 that occurred throughout Indonesia, and to bring the perpetrators to justice without any exception or reservation.

We urge the government of the Republic of Indonesia to lawfully bring to justice any individual(s) and/or group(s) that have been exploiting the issues of ethnicity, religion, race, and culture toward victims of violence and discrimination.

We invite all citizens of Indonesia and citizens of the world to take part and show solidarity in light of establishing a new Indonesia without any violence and discrimination.

Name of Activity

We call this activity of commemorating the 10th year of May 1998 Tragedy of Humanity as “Worldwide Vigil for Humanity.”

Objectives

This Worldwide Vigil for Humanity has three objectives:

Fisrst, to urge the government of the Republic of Indonesia to fully investigate the May 1998 Tragedy of Humanity and to bring the perpetrators to justice without any exception or reservation.

Second, to urge the government of the Republic of Indonesia to enforce the laws and bring to justice individual(s) and/or group(s) that exploit ethnicity, religion, race, and culture toward victims of violence and discrimination.

Third, to invite all citizens of Indonesia and citizens of the world in establishing new Indonesia without violence and discrimination.

Executor and Originator

The people behind this activity or executors are those individuals and organizations that support the goals of this action and sign the petition “Toward New Indonesia without Violence and Discrimination” as set forth on PeacefulIndonesia.com (http://www.peacefulindonesia.com/petition/).

The originator of this activity is Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia (OTTI) (http://www.overseasthinktankforindonesia.com), an informal study group focusing on Indonesia issues from the perspective of activist-scholar of humanity based in California, the United States.

Scope, Timeframe, and Place of Activities

The scope, timeframe, and place of activities of Worldwide Vigil for Humanity comprise of signing the petition and becoming the doers or executors for the activity, disseminating information on activities, conducting the worldwide vigil of humanity followed by oration, conducting seminar or discussion, and delivering the petition.

First, we urge you to support and become a part of this human rights activism by joining the “Toward New Indonesia without Violence and Discrimination” petition, which can be done through Peaceful Indonesia Web Site by clicking “Sign the Petition” (http://www.peacefulindonesia.com/petition/) between March 24 to May 1, 2008.

Second, we urge you to install Worldwide Vigil of 10 Years for Humanity Tragedy in May 1998 banner on your blog or web site. You will be able to download the banners of your choices by clicking “Banners” (http://www.peacefulindonesia.com/banners/) on Peaceful Indonesia web site.

Third, we urge you to send in plans and execution of activities in commemorating 10 years of May 1998 Humanity Tragedy in forms of text/article, graphic and or video/film to Peaceful Indonesia web site with attention to peacefulindonesia[at]gmail.com.

Fourth, we urge you to conduct Worldwide Vigil for Humanity by enunciating the “Toward New Indonesia without Violence and Discrimination” petition (as attached) followed by oration between May 13-15, 2008 worldwide or at wherever you conduct your activity.

Fifth, we urge you to conduct seminar or discussion on “Toward New Indonesia without Violence and Discrimination” in May 1998.

Sixth, we will deliver the petition to the President of Republic of Indonesia and carbon copy it to all institutions, organizations and individuals related to May 1998 Humanity Tragedy in Indonesia and overseas by May 10, 2008.

We invite and urge you as concerned citizens of the world to act individually or within groups or organizations, which is symbolized by signing “Toward New Indonesia without Violence and Discrimination” petition.

Closing

We hope that all concerned citizens of Indonesia and citizens of the world, who are moved heartily and mindfully to urge the government of the Republic of Indonesia to thoroughly investigate and bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes against humanity, include May 1998 Humanity Tragedy and to re-create a new Indonesia without violence and discrimination.

We urge all concerned citizens of Indonesia and citizens of the world to visit PeacefulIndonesia.com (http://www.peacefulindonesia.com) and sign the petition page.

For further information, please contact Mutiara Andalas, SJ and Dr. Beni Bevly at peacefulindonesia[at]gmail.com.

Faithfully yours,

Mutiara Andalas, SJ dan Dr. Beni Bevly
Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia
Berkeley, Friday, Maret 41, 2008

References

Adam, A. W. (2002, 12 Februari). Cina Absen Dalam Pelajaran Sejarah. Koran Tempo.

Jusuf, E.I., Timbul, H., Gultom, O., & Frishka. (2007). Kerusuhan Mei 1998, Fakta, Data & Analisa. Jakarta, Indonesia: SNB, APHI dan TIFA.

Purdey, J. (2006). Anti-Chinese Violence in Indonesia, 1996-1999. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.

Qurtuby, S.A. (2003). Arus Cina-Islam-Jawa. Jakarta, Indonesia: Inspeal Ahimsakarya Press.

Setiono, G. (2003).Tionghoa dalam Pusaran Politik. Jakarta, Indonesia: ELKASA.

Setiono, G. (2006a, Mei). Peristiwa 13-15 Mai 1998 Puncak Kekerasan Anti Tionghoa di Indonesia. Makalah dalam rangka seminar di ICAA, Los Angeles, 13 Mei 2006 dan ICANet, San Francisco, 14 Mei 2006.

Setiono, G. (2006b, Mei). Tionghoa di Indonesia. Makalah dalam rangka seminar di Sebring Group di Toronto, Canada, 20 Mei 2006.

Suryadinata, L. (2005). Pemikiran Politik Etnis Tionghoa Indonesia 1900-2002. Jakarta, Indonesia: INTI-LP3ES.

Vickers, A. (2007). A History of Modern Indonesia. New York, NY: Cambrige University Press.

Wijayakusuma, H. (1999, Mei). Warga Tionghoa Juga Anak Bangsa. Tabloid Suar 168. minggu ketiga.

Attachment
Proposal of Worldwide Vigil
10th Year Commemoration of May 1998 Tragedy

“Toward New Indonesia without Violence and Discrimination” petition

“Around 11:30am, I saw several people of a large crowd hijacked a car and forced the passengers to come out of the car. They pulled two women out of the car and stripped them naked. They gang raped them. Those two girls tried to fight while shouting with fear, but failed,” said an eyewitness in Muara Angke, Jakarta on May 14, 1998.

“My heart is hurt. My life doesn’t mean anything, void. Until the end of time, I won’t forget how such inhumane incident that has cost my son’s life. He was accused as a rioter, but he was actually a victim. Where can I ask for justice? Why did it happen?” said a mother of a victim in May 1998 Humanity Tragedy.

Ninety two Indonesian females of Chinese ethnicity were sexually abused, 1,338 were killed, and unaccounted private and public properties were destroyed in May 1998 Tragedy that occurred in Jakarta, Surabaya, Palembang, Solo, and Lampung.

Incidents of violence and discrimination have occurred in Indonesia for more than 300 years. In 1740, more than 10,000 people of Chinese ethnicity were massacred and the females sexually abused by Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC) under the ruling of General Governor Adriaan Valckenier

On October 31, 1918, as the result of divide-and-conquer Dutch colonial political strategy, thousands of mobilized crowd from Mayong, Jepara, Pati, Demak, and others destructed shops and housings of those belong to people of Chinese ethnicity in Kudus. Hundreds of people were injured and 16 of them were killed.

The colonial political strategies involving mobilized crowd to perform orchestrated violence toward minority groups, who have been scapegoated as “threats,” have been adopted by post-independence regime(s). The politics of scapegoating a particular minority group, such as G30S, for instance, had caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands to millions of men and women, minorities and majorities, Muslims and non-Muslims.

Incidents of violence and discrimination in various scales have occurred due to ethnicity, religion, racial, and cultural issues. Eruptions of violence have the potential to re-emerge in the future if we allow perpetrators of gross violators of crimes against humanity to walk free from justice and if we refuse to empathize with the victims and survivors.

Those who had gone before us have pioneered a pluralistic Indonesia that comprises of various ethnicities, religions, races, and cultures. They have worked together hand-in-hand in defending themselves against all kinds of inhumane and derogatory treatments in the forms of colonization, violence, racial discrimination, and others. They have taken oath that we are all one nation, one people, and one language. Indonesia.

In this 10th year commemoration of May 1998 Tragedy, we urge the government of Republic of Indonesia to fully investigate May 1998 Tragedy and bring the perpetrators to justice.

We urge the government of Republic of Indonesia to prosecute to the fullest extend of the law any individual(s) or group(s) that exploit the issues of ethnicity, religion, race, and culture to the victims.

We urge all concerned citizens of Indonesia and concerned citizens of the world to show solidarity to Indonesian people and victims of crimes against humanity in light of creating a new Indonesia without violence and discrimination.[]

Latar Belakang

“Sekitar jam 11.30, saya melihat beberapa orang di antara massa mencegat sebuah mobil dan memaksa penumpang turun, kemudian menarik dua orang gadis keluar. Mereka mulai melucuti pakaian kedua gadis itu dan memperkosanya beramai-ramai. Kedua gadis itu coba melawan sambil menjerit ketakutan, namun sia-sia,” tutur seorang saksi mata di Muara Angke, Jakarta pada tanggal 14 Mei 1998.

Hampir seratus perempuan Indonesia etnis Tionghoa menderita kekerasan seksual dalam tragedi kemanusiaan 13-15 Mei 1998 dan 1.339 warga Indonesia menderita kematian dini di beberapa supermarket yang dibakar gerakan massa. Penembakan yang menyebabkan kematian dini empat mahasiswa Universitas Trisakti mendahului tragedi Mei. Langit siang Jakarta menjadi gelap dan langit malam menjadi merah membara oleh kobaran asap dan pembakaran terhadap lebih dari 5.723 bangunan, 1948 kendaraan dan 516 fasilitas umum dengan total kerugian material, moral dan jiwa yang tak terhargai. Kekerasan serupa juga berlangsung di beberapa kota lain, seperti Surabaya, Palembang, Solo dan Lampung (Jusuf, Timbul, Gultom & Frishka, 2007).

Sepuluh tahun pasca-tragedi Mei 1998, kita mendengar ratapan keluarga korban, “Hati saya masih sangat perih. Hidup saya tak berarti, hampa. Sampai kapan pun saya tidak akan dapat melupakan peristiwa biadab yang merengut nyawa anak saya dalam tragedi Mei 1998. Dia dituduh penjarah, padahal ia korban. Saya hendak mencari keadilan, tetapi kepada siapa? Mengapa ini harus terjadi?”

Kekerasan dan diskriminasi seperti Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 telah berlangsung di pertiwi Indonesia lebih dari tiga ratus tahun. Pada tahun 1740, Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC) di bawah pimpinan Gubernur Jenderal Adriaan Valckenier membantai lebih dari 10.000 warga Nusantara di Batavia (Setiono, 2003).

Pada tanggal 31 Oktober 1918, sebagai akibat politik adu domba pemerintah kolonial Belanda, rumah-rumah dan toko-toko di kota Kudus dijarah dan dibakar habis oleh ribuan massa yang datang dari Mayong, Jepara, Pati, Demak dan daerah sekitarnya. Ratusan warga Nusantara menderita luka-luka dan enam belas meninggal dunia secara dini.

Ketika kalah perang dan menarik diri pada Perang Dunia II, tentara Belanda mendobrak, menjarah, dan menghancurkan banyak rumah, toko dan ratusan pabrik milik penduduk Indonesia. Sebagian rakyat Indonesia meniru perbuatan yang merendahkan kemanusiaan ini.

Jepang menggantikan Belanda sebagai penjajah Indonesia. Mereka juga menggelar kekerasan dan diskriminasi. Mereka memutus ikatan komunitas antara warga minoritas dan mayoritas Indonesia. Salah satu pembantaian terjadi pada akhir Oktober 1943, yang dikenal dengan “Pontianak Affair” dimana sebanyak 1.500 jiwa melayang, 854 di antaranya minoritas (Purdey, 2006).

Dengan mundurnya Jepang dari bumi Indonesia, Belanda ingin kembali lagi melalui tentara NICA (Nederlandsch Indie Civil Administration). Mereka berhasil mengadu domba rakyat Indonesia. Pada Mei 1946, sebanyak 635 orang, termasuk 136 perempuan dan anak-anak di daerah Tangerang dan sekitarnya menjadi korban pembunuhan. 1.268 rumah dibakar dan 236 juga mengalami kerusakan (Setiono, 2006a).

Kemudian berlangsung rangkaian pembantaian, penjarahan dan pembakaran atas rumah-rumah, tokoh-tokoh, pabrik-pabrik dan kendaraan-kendaraan di Bagan Siapi-Api, Kuningan, Majelengka, Indramayu, Pekalongan, tegal, Purwokerto, Purbalingga, Bobotsari, Gombong, Lumajang, Jember, Malang, Lawang, Singosari, dan sebagainya.

Kekerasan dan diskriminasi belum usai pasca-kemerdekaan. Pada 10 Mei 1963, tindakan anarkis kembali terjadi. Akibat senggolan motor terhadap seorang mahasiswa, massa yang mengalami provokasi melakukan aksi penjarahan, perusakan, dan pembakaran di Bandung, dan kemudian meluas ke kota-kota sekitarnya, seperti Tasikmalaya, Garut, Cianjur dan Sukabumi.

Operasi militer terhadap mereka yang didakwa terlibat dalam G30S (Gerakan 30 September) yang dimulai pada tahun 1965 mengakibatkan jatuhnya korban jiwa laki-laki dan perempuan, minoritas dan mayoritas, Muslim dan non-Muslim dalam jumlah jutaan. Pada tahun 1967, dengan alasan menumpas Pasukan Gerilyawan Rakyat Serawak (PGRS) — kembali lagi tebukti betapa rapuhnya persaudaran kita sebagai rakyat Indonesia — kita berhasil diprovokasi sehingga terjadi aksi pembantaian di desa-desa pedalaman Kalimantan Barat yang mengakibatkan puluhan ribu orang mengungsi ke Singkawang dan Pontianak.

Pada tanggal 15 Januari 1974 protes yang kemudian dikenal dengan peristiwa Malari meluas menjadi aksi penjarahan, pembakaran dan serangan terhadap pertokoan dan penghuninya di Glodok, pasar Senen dan Blok M, Jakarta.

Kita masih mencatat saudara-saudari kita yang menjadi korban kekerasan, seperti dalam peristiwa Penembakan Misterius, Tanjung Priok 1984, Talangsari 1989, dan Penculikan Aktivis 1997-1998.

Menjelang penarikan Tentara nasional Indonesia (TNI) di Timor Leste pada akhir tahun 1999, berlangsung pembunuhan, pembakaran, pengrusakan dan penjarahan massal. Selama konflik dan pendudukan TNI, sebanyak 125.000 warga Timor Leste diperkirakan meninggal secara dini (Vickers, 2007).

Kekerasan dan diskriminasi baik dalam skala besar dan kecil, lokal dan nasional, besifat ras dan agama, politik dan non-politik seperti di atas masih mungkin berlangsung di masa depan jika kita, bangsa Indonesia, membiarkan para pemeluk berhala kekerasan dan diskriminasi menjalankan aksinya.

Kekerasan dan diskriminasi berlangsung karena individu atau kelompok orang yang memperebutkan dan mempertahankan kekuasanaan mereka secara rakus. Untuk tujuan politik ini, mereka mengadu domba warga Indonesia dengan mengeksploitasi sentimen suku, agama, ras, dan antarbudaya. Sebagai pencinta Indonesia baru tanpa kekerasan, kita harus menghentikan tindakan yang melanggar kemanusiaan ini.

Selain warna kehidupan yang penuh dengan kekerasan dan diskriminasi, kita tahu bahwa nenek moyang kita pernah hidup dengan rukun dengan bangsa lain yang menetap dan menjadi penduduk Nusantara. Kita merindukan dan menyerukan untuk hidup bersama secara damai demi kesatuan bangsa.

Hampir ribuan tahun silam penduduk Nusantara membuahkan karya pembuatan batu bata dan genting guna membangun rumah. Kehidupan bersama yang damai juga menelurkan penggunaan jarum untuk membuat pakaian dan menghasilkan cocok tanam dan pengelolaan padi secara lebih efisien untuk kelangsungan hidup (Adam, 2002).

Kita juga menjalin kerja sama dengan para pendatang dari luar untuk membangun galangan kapal perang dan merakit teknologi mesiu dan meriam secara bersama. Karena itulah, nenek moyong kita berhasil mempersatukan Nusantara di bawah Kerajaan Majapahit.

Melalui kerja sama dengan Laksaman Cheng Ho dan para Wali Songo, Islam merasuki bumi Nusantara. Pada kesempatan itu pula, para wali, diantaranya Sunan Bonang (Bong Ang), Sunan Kalijaga (Gan Si Cang), Sunan Ampel ((Bong Swi Hoo) dan Sunan Jati (Toh A Bo), mendirikan kerajaan Islam pertama di Demak. Sultan pertama kerajaan Islam Demak, Raden Patah juga dikenal sebagai Jin Bun atau Cek Ko Po (Qurtuby, 2003).

Kerja sama yang harmonis untuk mengusir penjajah dari muka bumi Nusantara juga terlihat dalam Perang Jawa (1825-1830). Dalam perang ini, Tan Djin Sing secara aktif membantu Pangeran Diponegoro antara lain dengan memberikan sumbangan dana, kuda kesayangannya untuk Pangeran Diponegoro dan melatih para pemimpin pasukannya dengan ilmu bela diri (Setiono, 2006b).

Para pendahulu kita telah bekerja sama secara harmonis untuk menyatukan Indonesia modern di bawah Satu Nusa, Satu Bangsa dan Satu Bahasa Indonesia pada tanggal 28 Oktober 1928. Harian Sin Po untuk pertama kalinya menerbitkan lirik lagu Indonesia Raya dan mempropagandakan penggunaan nama “Indonesia” untuk menggantikan “Hindia Belanda”. Kwee Thiam Hong (Daud Budiman), Ong Khai Siang, Jong Liaw Thoan Hok, Thio Jin Kwee dan Muhammad Chai terlibat dalam Sumpah Pemuda (Wijayakusuma, 1999).

Liem Koen Hian, Oei Tjong Hauw, Oei Tiang Tjoei dan Tan Eng Hoa juga terlibat aktif dalam merumuskan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara RI pada tahun 1945 (Suryadinata, 2005).

Perjuangan panjang Republik Indonesia hingga saat ini adalah hasil kerja sama yang harmonis dari para pendahulu kita. Oleh karena itu, siapa saja yang tinggal di Indonesia atau menjadi warga negara Indonesia berhak menerima perlakuan yang berperikemanusiaan, tanpa kekerasan dan diskriminasi.

Pada peringatan 10 tahun tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998, kami mendorong pemerintah Republik Indonesia untuk mengusut tuntas tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998, dan mengadili para pelakunya.

Kami mendorong pemerintah Republik Indonesia untuk menindak secara hukum individu atau kelompok yang mengeksploitasi suku, agama, ras, dan antarbudaya untuk kekerasan dan diskriminasi terhadap target korbannya.

Kami mengundang semua warga Indonesia dan warga dunia yang peduli Indonesia untuk menciptakan Indonesia baru tanpa kekerasan dan diskriminasi

Nama Kegiatan

Kami menamakan kegiatan dalam rangka memperingati 10 tahun Tragedi Mei 1998 “Renungan Kemanusiaan Sedunia”.

Tujuan Kegiatan

Renungan Kemanusiaan Sedunia mempunyai tiga tujuan utama, yaitu:

Pertama, mendorong pemerintah Republik Indonesia untuk mengusut tuntas tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998, dan mengadili para pelakunya.

Kedua, mendorong pemerintah Republik Indonesia untuk menindak secara hukum individu atau kelompok yang mengeksploitasi suku, agama, ras, dan antarbudaya untuk kekerasan dan diskriminasi terhadap target korbannya.

Ketiga, mengundang semua warga Indonesia dan warga dunia yang peduli Indonesia untuk menciptakan Indonesia baru tanpa kekerasan dan diskriminasi.

Pelaksana dan Penggagas Kegiatan

Pelaksana kegiatan adalah semua pihak, baik individu maupun organisasi yang mendukung tujuan kegiatan ini dan mencatatkan diri dalam petisi “Menuju Indonesia Baru Tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi” seperti terlampir melalui website Peaceful Indonesia (http://www.peacefulindonesia.com/).

Penggagas kegiatan ini adalah Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia/OTTI (http://www.overseasthinktankforindonesia.com/), suatu paguyuban lingkar studi mengenai Indonesia dari perspektif akademisi-aktivis kemanusiaan yang berpusat di Kalifornia, Amerika Serikat.

Cakupan, Waktu dan Tempat Kegiatan

Cakupan, waktu dan tempat kegiatan Renungan Kemanusiaan Sedunia terdiri dari pencatatan diri sebagai peserta petisi dan peserta kegiatan, penginformasian rencana kegiatan dan kegiatan, renungan kemanusiaan sedunia diikuti oleh orasi, seminar atau diskusi, dan pengiriman petisi.

Pertama, kami menghimbau anda untuk mendukung dan menjadi peserta dari kegiatan ini dengan memasukkan petisi Menuju Indonesia Baru Tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi” melalui web site Peaceful Indonesia dengan mengklik “Masukkan Petisi” (http://www.peacefulindonesia.com/petition/) antara tanggal 24 Maret 2008 sampai tanggal 1 Mei 2008.

Kedua, kami mendorong Anda untuk memasang banner Renungan Sedunia 10 Tahun Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 di web site atau di blog masing-masing. Pilihan banner ini bisa di-download dengan meng-klik “Banners” (http://www.peacefulindonesia.com/banners/) di web site Peaceful Indonesia.

Ketiga, kami mengharapkan Anda untuk mengirimkan informasi rencana kegiatan dan kegiatan peringatan 10 tahun Tragedi Kemanusiaan Mei 1998 berupa teks/tulisan, gambar dan atau video/film ke web site Peaceful Indonesia dengan ditujukan ke peacefulindonesia[at]gmail.com

Kempat, kami meminta Anda untuk melakukan Renungan Kemanusiaan Sedunia dengan membacakan petisi “Menuju Indonesia Baru Tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi” (seperti terlampir) dan diikuti oleh orasi yang diadakan pada tanggal 13-15 Mei 2008 di seluruh dunia di wilayah atau negara masing-masing.

Kelima, kami mendorong Anda untuk mengadakan seminar atau diskusi mengenai “Menuju Indonesia Baru Tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi” pada bulan Mei 2008.

Keenam, kami akan mengirimkan petisi kepada Presiden Republik Indonesia dan meneruskannya ke semua instansi, organisasi dan individu yang terkait di Indonesia dan di luar Indonesia. Kami memperkirakan semua pihak terkait sudah menerima petisi ini pada tanggal 10 Mei 2008.

Kami menyerahkan teknis pelaksanaan kegiatan di lapangan sepenunya kepada masing-masing individu dan organisasi yang bergabung dalam petisi “Menuju Indonesia Baru Tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi.”

Penutup

Demikian proposal kami. Kami berharap semua pihak terpanggil dan tergerak dalam mendorong pemerintah Republik Indonesia untuk mengusut tuntas dan mengadili para pelaku kejahatan kemanusiaan, termasuk Tragedi Kemusiaan Mei 1998, dan menciptakan tatanan hidup bersama menuju Indonesia baru tanpa kekerasan dan diskriminasi.

Kami mengundang sudara-saudari untuk mengunjungi web site Peaceful Indonesia (http://www.peacefulindonesia.com/) dan mengisi lembaran petisi “Menuju Indonesia Baru Tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi.”

Untuk keterangan lebih lanjut, kami mempersilahkan saudara-saudari untuk menghubungi Mutiara Andalas, SJ, dan Dr. Beni Bevly di peacefulindonesia[at]gmail[dot]com.

Hormat Kami,

Mutiara Andalas, SJ dan Dr. Beni Bevly
Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia
Berkeley, Jumat, 14 Maret 2008

Daftar Pustaka

Adam, A. W. (2002, 12 Februari). Cina Absen Dalam Pelajaran Sejarah. Koran Tempo.

Jusuf, E.I., Timbul, H., Gultom, O., & Frishka. (2007). Kerusuhan Mei 1998, Fakta, Data & Analisa. Jakarta, Indonesia: SNB, APHI dan TIFA.

Purdey, J. (2006). Anti-Chinese Violence in Indonesia, 1996-1999. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.

Qurtuby, S.A. (2003). Arus Cina-Islam-Jawa. Jakarta, Indonesia: Inspeal Ahimsakarya Press.

Setiono, G. (2003).Tionghoa dalam Pusaran Politik. Jakarta, Indonesia: ELKASA.

Setiono, G. (2006a, Mei). Peristiwa 13-15 Mei 1998 Puncak Kekerasan Anti Tionghoa di Indonesia. Makalah dalam rangka seminar di ICAA, Los Angeles, 13 Mei 2006 dan ICANet, San Francisco, 14 Mei 2006.

Setiono, G. (2006b, Mei). Tionghoa di Indonesia. Makalah dalam rangka seminar di Sebring Group di Toronto, Canada, 20 Mei 2006.

Suryadinata, L. (2005). Pemikiran Politik Etnis Tionghoa Indonesia 1900-2002. Jakarta, Indonesia: INTI-LP3ES.

Vickers, A. (2007). A History of Modern Indonesia. New York, NY: Cambrige University Press.

Wijayakusuma, H. (1999, Mei). Warga Tionghoa Juga Anak Bangsa. Tabloid Suar 168. minggu ketiga.

Lampiran
Proposal Renungan Kemanusiaan Sedunia
Dalam Memperingati 10 tahun Tragedi Mei 1998

Petisi “Menuju Indonesia Baru Tanpa Kekerasan dan Diskriminasi”

“Sekitar jam 11.30, saya melihat beberapa orang di antara massa mencegat sebuah mobil dan memaksa penumpang turun, kemudian menarik dua orang gadis keluar. Mereka mulai melucuti pakaian kedua gadis itu dan memperkosanya beramai-ramai. Kedua gadis itu coba melawan sambil menjerit ketakutan, namun sia-sia,” tutur seorang saksi mata di Muara Angke, Jakarta pada tanggal 14 Mei 1998.

“Hati saya masih sangat perih. Hidup saya tak berarti, hampa. Sampai kapanpun saya tidak akan bisa melupakan peristiwa biadab yang merengut nyawa anak saya dalam Tragedi Mei 1998. Dia dituduh penjarah, padahal ia korban. Saya hendak mencari keadilan, tapi kepada siapa? Mengapa ini harus terjadi?” tutur seorang ibu korban tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998.

92 perempuan Indonesia etnis Tionghoa menderita kekerasan seksual, 1.338 warga Indonesia menderita kematian dini di pusat-pusat perbelanjaan umum, dan tak terhitung fasilitas pribadi dan umum rusak dalam tragedi Mei 1998 yang berlangsung di Jakarta, Surabaya, Palembang, Solo, dan Lampung.

Kekerasan dan diskriminasi, seperti Tragedi Mei 1998, telah berlangsung di pertiwi Indonesia lebih dari tiga ratus tahun. Pada tahun 1740, lebih dari 10.000 warga Nusantara etnis Tionghoa menderita kematian dini karena pembantaian dan karena kekerasan seksual terhadap para perempuannya oleh Verenigde Oost-Indische Compagnie (VOC) atas perintah Gubernur Jenderal Adriaan Valckenier.

Pada tanggal 31 Oktober 1918, sebagai akibat politik adu domba rezim kolonial Belanda, ribuan massa dari Mayong, Jepara, Pati, Demak, dan sekitarnya merusak kawasan pertokoan dan pemukiman warga Nusantara etnis Tionghoa di Kudus. Ratusan warga Nusantara etnis Tionghoa menderita luka dan enam belas dari mereka menderita kematian dini.

Praktek rezim kolonial Belanda yang melibatkan massa untuk melangsungkan kekerasan terhadap kelompok masyarakat yang dikambinghitamkan sebagai ancaman diadopsi oleh rezim penguasa Indonesia pasca-kemerdekaan. Politik kambing hitam terhadap G30S (Gerakan 30 September), misalnya, menelan korban dalam rentang ratusan ribu hingga jutaan korban laki-laki dan perempuan, minoritas dan mayoritas, Muslim dan non-Muslim.

Kekerasan dan diskriminasi lainnya dalam skala yang beragam telah berlangsung karena isu-isu suku, agama, ras, dan antarbudaya. Ledakan kekerasan masih berpotensi berlangsung di masa depan jika kita membiarkan para pelaku kejahatan terhadap kemanusiaan lolos dari tuntutan hukum dan jika kita menolak berbela rasa dengan para korban.

Para pendahulu bangsa Indonesia telah mengawali terciptanya Nusantara-Indonesia yang menghargai pluralitas suku, agama, ras, dan antar budaya. Mereka bahu-membahu melawan setiap bentuk perendahan kemanusiaan dalam wujud kolonialisme, kekerasan, diskriminasi rasial, dan sebagainya. Mereka mengikrarkan satu nusa, satu bangsa, dan satu bahasa Indonesia.

Pada peringatan 10 tahun tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998, kami mendorong pemerintah Republik Indonesia untuk mengusut tuntas tragedi kemanusiaan Mei 1998, dan mengadili para pelakunya.

Kami mendorong pemerintah Republik Indonesia untuk menindak secara hukum individu atau kelompok yang mengeksploitasi suku, agama, ras, dan antarbudaya untuk kekerasan dan diskriminasi terhadap target korbannya.

Kami mengundang semua warga Indonesia dan warga dunia yang peduli Indonesia untuk menciptakan Indonesia baru tanpa kekerasan dan diskriminasi [].

Sumber gambar: LA Times

Oleh Beni Bevly

Surat Keputusan (SK) Walikota Pontianak No. 127 tahun 2008 tentang Jual Beli, Pemasangan Petasan dan Pelaksanaan Arakan Naga, Barongsai Dalam Wilayah Kota Pontianak tertanggal 5 Februari 2008 ternyata menjadi isu nasional. Pasalnya, isi SK ini sungguh menggelitik yang antara lain menyatakan bahwa dalam melaksanakan perayaan Imlek dan Cap Go Meh dilarang melakuakan arakan naga dan barongsai di jalan umum dan fasilitas umum yang bersifat terbuka. Permainan naga dan barongsai hanya dapat dilakukan di Stadion Sultan Syarif Abdurrahman Pontianak.

Sikap pro dan kontrapun terjadi. Sikap kontra dari sebagian mayarakat tergambar dari pendapat yang menyatakan bahwa isi SK ini tidak sesuai dengan semangat reformasi dan bertentangan dengan Keppres No. 6 tahun 2000 yang diberlakukan pada masa pemerintahan Abdurrahman Wahid yang mengizinkan untuk merayakan Imlek secara terbuka di ruang publik dan keputusan mantan presiden Megawati Sukarnoputri yang menetapkan Tahun Baru Imlek sebagai hari libur nasional.

Di pihak lain yang bersikap pro melangkah lebih jauh dari isi SK ini. Mereka meminta barongsai dan naga tidak main di Kota Pontianak, walaupun di tempat yang tertutup, dengan alasan bahwa barongsai dan naga bukan merupakan bagian budaya Indonesia. Ada juga yang mengkaitkan hal ini dengan nasionalisme dan berkata, “Di mana bumi dipijak, di situ langit dijunjung sehingga tercipta akulturasi budaya secara harmonis”

Adalah sangat menarik untuk mendiskusikan kata akulturasi budaya yang dikutip dari ucapkan di atas. Apakah sesungguhnya makna dibalik kata ini? Benarkah akulturasi akan menjamin kehidupan bermasyarkat secara harmonis dan nasionalis? Apakah kaitan akulturasi dan multikuturalisme?

Akulturasi dan Asimilasi

Sesuai dengan the Oxford English Dictionary, kata acculturation (akulturasi) di pakai pertama kali dalam bahasa Inggris pada tahun 1880 oleh John Wesley Powell (24 Maret 1834 – 23 September 1902), seorang prajurit AS dan geologis untuk mendeskripsikan perubahan dalam bahasa Indian. Ia mengatakan, “Pemaksaan akulturasi dengan kehadiran berlebihan oleh jutaan orang Eropa telah membawa perubahan besar”.

Powell (1883) menjelaskan lebih jauh bahwa, asal “akulturasi” mengacu pada ide koloni rasis yang biadab (savages) di mana mereka berangapan bahwa manusia yang lebih rendah (lower people) mengalami evolusi mental ketika manusia yang lebih rendah ini meniru manusia yang lebih beradab atau yang lebih tinggi (higher people).

Dalam sejarah kolonialisasi, akulturasi seperti ini banyak dipakai dengan cara dipaksakan. Contohnya, orang kulit putih di Amerika Serikat terhadap suku Indian, orang kulit putih di Australia terhadap suku Aborigin, dan orang Spanyol di Filipina terhadap Philipino.

Di Indonesia, dalam batas tertentu Belanda juga menerapkan politik dengan merekrut rakyat Indonesia menjadi KNIL dan memaksakan cara dan budaya mereka. Penjajah setelah Belanda, yaitu Jepang agaknya lebih intens menjalankan politik ini. Dengan program tentara Pembela Tanah Air (PETA), mereka menerapkan sistem militernya dengan memberi pangkat pada pemuda Indonesia yang bergabung, yaitu Daidancho, Chudancho dan Shodancho (komandan batalion, kompi dan pleton).

Dalam rangka politik akulturasi ini, Jepang menunjukkan betapa unggulnya budaya militer mereka sehingga bisa mengalahkan tentara barat. Pada kenyataanya, memang banyak pemuda Indonesia yang terpesona dan meleburkan diri menjadi tentara PETA. Untuk tingkat tertentu dengan politik akulturasinya, Jepang telah menguasai dan mengendalikan para pemuda untuk loyal dan membela penjajah ini. Tetapi kekuasaan Jepang yang dibantu dengan politik akulturasi tidak langeng juga.

Bagaimana perjalanan politik akulturasi setelah penjajah hengkang dari muka bumi Indonesia? Ternyata setelah Indonesia merdeka, pada hakekatnya politik ini masih tetap dijalankan. Hanya istilahnya yang dirubah menjadi asimilasi. Politik akulturasi kali ini ditujukan pada kaum Tionghoa.

Pada tahun 1960 di Star Weekly, sepuluh intelektual Tionghoa di antaranya adalah Drs. Lauchuanto (Drs. Junus Jahja) dan Ong Hok Ham (Dr. Onghokham) menerbitkan artikel yang berjudul “Menuju ke Asimilasi yang Wajar”. Drs. Junus Jahja secara terang-terangan menyatakan bahwa untuk mengatasi “permasalahan Cina”, orang Tionghoa harus memeluk agama moyoritas, yaitu Islam. Kelompok ini meyakini satu-satunya jalan agar Tionghoa menjadi loyal kepada negara adalah dengan meninggalkan kedudukannya sebagai minoritas dan melakukan asimilasi atau peleburan seratus persen menjadi orang Indonesia “asli”.

Di January 1961 diadakan suatu seminar di Bandung (Ambarawa) yang menelurkan Piagam Asimilasi dan ditanda-tangani oleh tiga puluh orang, 26 di antaranya adalah peranakan Tionghoa, termasuk Ong Hok Ham, Lauwchuantho dan Kwik Hway Gwan (ayah Drs.Kwik Kian Gie). Pada intinya, piagam ini menekankan bahwa syarat mutlak untuk mencapai suatu bangsa dengan masyarakat yang adil dan makmur serta negara yang kuat dan penuh dinamika sehingga dapat menjalankan peranan wajar dalam dunia internasional sesuai dengan panggilan jaman, satu-satunya jalan ke arah pengejawantahan cita-cita tersebut adalah dengan proses asimilasi yang diartikan masuk dan diterimanya seorang yang berasal keturunan Tionghoa ke dalam tubuh bangsa Indonesia tunggal sedemikian rupa sehingga akhirnya golongan semula yang khas tak ada lagi.

Singkatnya, pernyataan dalam Piagam Asimilasi ini terus dipergunakan dan diterapkan oleh pemerintahan Orde Baru melalui Badan Komunikasi Penghayatan Kesatuan Bangsa atau Bakom PKB dengan K. Sindhunata sebagai ketua pertamanya.

Pertanyaan berikutnya, apakah asimilasi — yang mempunyai kemiripan dengan sejarah akulturasi ini — merupakan alat yang tepat untuk mencapai masyarakat adil dan makmur? Ternyata dalam penerapannya selama puluhan tahun tetap tidak membawa hasil yang memuaskan, bahkan tetap terjadi kesenjangan hampir di segala bidang kehidupan dan tidak jarang terjadi konflik berdarah di mana minoritas Tionghoa sebagai korbannya.

Integrasi dan Multikulturalisme

Alternatif konsep integrasi pernah ditawarkan oleh Siauw Giok Tjan, ketua Badan Permusyawaratan Kewarganegaraan Indonesia (Baperki) pada tahun 1950’an. Ia menerangkan bahwa etnis Tionghoa harus diterima apa adanya dan tidak perlu membuang seluruh identitas, nama, agama dan tradisinya, apalagi sampai harus meleburkan seluruh ciri-ciri biologis dan fisiknya agar dapat diterima sebagai bangsa Indonesia, karena hal tersebut merupakan pelanggaran atas hak-hak asasi manusia.

Untuk diterima menjadi bangsa Indonesia, etnis Tionghoa harus menerjunkan diri dalam perjuangan seluruh rakyat Indonesia dalam mencapai masyarakat sosialis yang adil dan makmur. Etnis Tionghoa harus selalu peduli dan membuktikan sumbangsihnya kepada perjuangan bangsa dan negara serta menunjukkan sikap empati kepada penderitaan bangsa dan rakyat Indonesia.
Tetapi konsep integrasi ini mati dan tenggelam karena ditantang oleh kelompok piagam asimilasi.

Bagaimanakah sesungguhnya konsep di belakang kata integrasi ini? Peter Philipp, seorang korespondent dari media Deutsche Welle’s, Jerman mempermudah kita untuk mengerti konsep integrasi. Menurutnya, integrasi dapat diartikah bahwa setiap orang di suatu negara mempunyai bagian dalam keseluruhan sistem, tanpa memperdulikan asal usul mereka.

Dengan kata lain, jika seseorang telah terintegrasi dalam suatu sistem, dalam hal ini system kenegaraan, dan telah menjalankan perannya sebagai warga negara, tanpa perlu mengorbankan identitas budaya dan fisiknya, maka ia adalah warga negara yang baik.

Dalam konteks sistem kemasyrakatan dan kenegaraan, seorang sosiolog funsionalis terkenal, Robert K Melton percaya bahwa suatu masyarakat yang baik adalah masyarakat yang terbentuk dari bagian yang saling ketergantungan di mana mereka bekerja sama untuk memenuhi fungsi mereka demi kelanjutan masyarakat itu secara keseluruhan. Dari pernyataan ini, jelas Melton mengarah dan mendukung konsep integrasi.

Gabungan konsep funsionalis Melton dan konsep integrasi agaknya melahirkan apa yang sering kita dengar sekarang, mutikulturalisme, yaitu suatu konsep yang melampaui pluralisme. Konsep multikulturalisme ini menyarankan agar seluruh lapisan masyarakat yang beragam bersikap lebih dari sekedar toleran, tetapi menerima perbedaan, bahkan ikut mendukung mengembangkan perbedaan sebagai asset masyarakat, dan menjalankan fungsi masing-masing secara baik dan benar.

Kembali kepertanyaan dalam konteks perdebatan SK No. 127 yang berlaku di kota Pontianak – suatu kota dengan pemeluk agama Buddha dan kepercayaan Kong Hu Cu atau etnis Tionghoa sebanyak 23,2% — benarkah akulturasi akan menjamin kehidupan bermasyarkat secara harmonis dan nasionalis? Melihat diskusi di atas, agaknya akulturasi telah ketinggalan jaman di masa reformasi ini dan memang patut ditingalkan. Sudah tiba saatnya penerapan konsep lain dipacu lebih kencang, seperti konsep multikulturalisme.

_____
Dr. Beni Bevly holds BA in Political Science, MBA in Marketing, and DBA in Organizational Leadership. He is the founder of Overseas Think Tank for Indonesia.

[Previously published by The Jakarta Post. Read directly here.
Download PDF file Islam and Competing in Doing Good (The Jakarta Post)]

Islam and competing in doing good
Opinion
Monday, March 3, 2008

Jennie S. Bev, San Francisco

Indonesia is a country with three legal systems: civil (continental), Islamic and adat (customary). Above all, Indonesia is said to be a country based on the concept of rule of law, which is reflected in the 1945 Constitution. But there are also gray areas throughout, and this unique environment serves as a fertile breeding ground for multitudes of interpretations in legal, political and cultural domains.

Based on the rule of law, no one is above the law and the truth occupies the highest form of intent. The continental legal system in Indonesia, which originated from the Dutch imperialism era, is based on this principle.

However, according to Seyyed Hossein Nasr, an Islamic scholar who was educated at MIT and Harvard, in The Heart of Islam (pg. 288), “The rights of God stand above the rights of human beings.”

It is clear that these two systems interpret justice based on different standards. In Islam, there is an absolute body outside the realm of human beings, which is called God, whose final verdicts can never be contested. In short, the Islamic judicial system acknowledges the concepts of absolutism and absolute power.

In a country with three legal systems, whose historical origins and notions of justice differ significantly from one another, it would take a group of people with mantic capacities to push the country forward in light of being accepted as a part of international society with universal humanitarian standards. Because unless this occurs brazenly in continuum, Indonesia might need to accept the fact that it may degrade itself into the darkness.

A few Islamic scholars and activists have taken their stance in showing the world how Islam is a tolerant religion and that Islamic laws and jurisprudence are adaptable in modern society. Other than our own Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, Azyumardi Azra and a few pluralistic ulema and scholars, professor of law at Emory University, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, and a research fellow at the Lokahi Foundation in Switzerland, Tariq Ramadan, who is nicknamed the “Martin Luther of Islam”, are two other examples of outspoken moderates whose voices are heard by the world, including leaders in Western countries.

The world needs more people like them to break the silence of the moderate Muslim majority and to embrace the notions of diversity and tolerance, which the Koran has been preaching to the world but are rarely heard.

It would not be fair for Islam as an institution to be “represented” in the world by noisy fundamentalists and extremists. Because, after all, most Muslims long to live in peaceful coexistence with others.

Tariq Ramadan is one exemplary moderate scholar and preacher. In his book Western Muslims and the Future of Islam (pg. 202), he encourages interfaith and interreligious dialogue, as he believes that it is how God wants the totality of humankind to behave.

Ramadan explains, “If there were no differences between people, if power were in the hands of one group alone (one nation, one race, one religion), the earth would be corrupt because human beings need others to limit their impulsive desire for expansion and domination. So, just as diversity is the source of our test, the balance of power is a requirement for our destiny.”

This statement is so beautiful that I would contemplate its profound meanings every night before going to bed. Islam is, indeed, a great religion for acknowledging the rainbow of humankind in a balanced mind-and-heart perspective.

Realistically speaking, back to Indonesia, the gray areas in the intertwining legal systems have proven to be very costly. This was evident when Home Minister Mardiyanto did not have a second thought in declaring that the government did not see any need to revise the 600 sharia-based and sharia-inspired bylaws, regardless of the catastrophic consequences that might follow, including opening a Pandora’s box to an unjust society and to the end of a democratic republic.

This is quite bothersome because both the people and the religion of peace itself are greatly affected.

A good analysis was put forth by Prof. Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im in Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law (pg. 8-9): “If historical Shari’a is applied today, the population of Muslim countries would lose the most significant benefits of secularization. Even Muslim men, who are the only full citizens of an Islamic state under Sharia, stand to lose some of their fundamental constitutional rights if Shari’a is restored as the public law of the land.”

Under sharia public law, freedom of belief, expression and association of Muslim men would be greatly affected by the law of apostasy and the ruler’s powers.

This is a valid argument, as Indonesian analysts point out that substance-wise the sharia-inspired bylaws go against the democratic principles contained in the 1945 Constitution. Articles 28D and 28I state everyone should be free from discrimination and entitled to equal treatment before the law.

An-Na’im also offered a solution that we all need to ponder upon: “The only way to reconcile these competing imperatives for change in the public law of Muslim countries is to develop a version of Islamic public law which is compatible with modern standards of constitutionalism, criminal justice, international law, and human rights.”

While An-Na’im gave examples of Islamic countries, which Indonesia is clearly not, Indonesia should be able to grasp the insightful statements as a way to resolve the gray areas between national civil law and Islamic public law.

The 1945 Constitution, in fact, was the brainchild of our founding fathers, most of whom were well-educated and broad-minded moderate Muslims. Thus, in the case of Indonesia as a modern nation, there is no need to reformulate another version of Islamic public law.

For Indonesia to stand tall and be accepted as a member of the international community, which is dignified and democratic with high humanitarian standards, we need to remember that God intended to create communities so we all can compete in doing good for one another and to be each other’s check-and-balance. After all, the world does not revolve around Indonesia; Indonesia revolves around the world.

The writer is a columnist, a former law lecturer and an adjunct professor based in Northern California. She graduated from University of Indonesia Law School. She can be found at JennieSBev.com.

[Previously published by Asia Sentinel (Hong Kong, China).
Read directly here.
Download PDF file Pandora’s Box: Shariah Law in Indonesia by Jennie S. Bev (Asia Sentinel, Hong Kong)]

OPINION
Pandora’s Box: Shariah Law in Indonesia

26 February 2008
Special to Asia Sentinel (Hong Kong)
by Jennie S. Bev

A declaration that existing local shariah laws can stay in place could generate more shariah laws.

In November 2007, Indonesia won the prestigious Democracy Award from the International Association of Political Consultants (IAPC) for its peaceful transition into democracy over the last nine years. It was the first time the award, whose previous recipients had been Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Ky, had ever been given to an entire nation.

The association’s award, however seems a bit hollow after Home Affairs Minister Mardiyanto declared recently that the government sees no need to nullify some 600 shariah-based and -inspired bylaws passed by individual governments across the thousands of islands that make up the archipelago.

Mardiyanto’s decision was the culmination of a June 6 request to his predecessor to look into the issue of shariah law following a petition by Indonesian lawmakers urging the government to void such religious laws in local jurisdictions because they discriminate against non-Muslims. The decision by Mardiyanto to let them stand is being looked upon with alarm by moderates Indonesia because of the possibility that other local jurisdictions will be encouraged to switch to shariah laws.

Indonesia was established in 1945 by Sukarno as a secular nation under so-called Pancasila, a Sanskrit word meaning five principles. They included national unity, internationalism, representative democracy, social justice and secular theism. In addition, the country has not one but three officially acknowledged justice systems. The most common is the civil continental system, a derivative of the European or continental legal system. The second is the native Adat or tribal system, a complex system of community rights common throughout Southeast Asia. The third is shariah law, the Islamic legal system, which holds that there is an absolute body of laws outside the realm of human beings, ordained by God, whose final verdicts can never be contested.

Thus, since absolutism and absolute power are prevalent, such Islamic bylaws are in opposition of the 1945 Constitution established by Sukarno for Indonesia as a democracy. Articles 28D and 28I enshrine democratic principles in law, including freedom of association and assembly as well as the right to express thoughts by speech and writing.

Constitutional scholars say Islamic law does not fit into Indonesia’s democratic framework.

For instance, an Islamic law scholar, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, in Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and International Law, wrote that, “If historical shariah is applied today, the population of Muslim countries would lose the most significant benefits of secularization. Even Muslim men, who are the only full citizens of an Islamic state under shariah stand to lose some of their fundamental constitutional rights if shariah is restored as the public law of the land.” Under shariah public law, freedom of belief, expression and association of Muslim men would be greatly affected by the law of apostasy and the ruler’s supremacy and power over the society.

When such bylaws are imposed in Indonesia, non-Muslims are considered second class citizens, in which fair treatment is hard to conceive. They would need to live under pledges of security or safe-conduct from Muslims. And with absolutism in the air, those who hold power absolute tend to absolute corruption, as Lord Action famously noted.

There are already examples. In the Padang municipality in West Sumatra, but female Muslims and non-Muslim women as well are obliged to wear the hijab, or headscarf. In Tangerang, located just a few kilometers from the capital city Jakarta, bylaws restrict women from walking alone in the streets after 10pm, or they face charges of prostitution. There have been incidents of wrongful arrests of female factory laborers who worked night shifts.

Although Aceh is so far the only province completely governed by shariah law, more than 50 regencies already are enforcing it. And with the Indonesian government’s failure to distinguish religion from state affairs, democracy is on a dwindling down path into the darkness.

Statistically speaking, although Indonesia is nominally 90 percent Muslim, fewer than 10 percent of them are fundamentalists. However, the silence of the moderates may imply agreement and with the government seemingly unwilling to maintain the country’s heterogeneous equilibrium, it would be naïve the world to sit back and believe that the world and things in general are heading for the better. A democracy award might have been too early, too soon, and too naïve.

The writer is a former law lecturer and an opinion columnist for The Jakarta Post.

[Read directly from Asia Blogging Network
Download PDF file The Urgency of Teaching Political Literacy by Jennie S. Bev (Asia Blogging Network)]

The Urgency of Teaching Political Literacy
Special to Asia Blogging Network

by Jennie S. Bev on Tuesday, February 19th, 2008

Recently, we have been hearing about many things in Indonesian political arena. Most of them call themselves as participants in Indonesia’s reformation era. All consider themselves as noble participants. They want Indonesia to be a better place. A better place for those who believe in their causes.

Such occurrences are understandable, even when fundamentalism and radicalism movements find it an opportunity to use the momentum in making their marks. The fall of Suharto in 1998, which was believed to be the best thing that ever happened to Indonesia at that time, has not been able to create a more trustworthy government today, despite the recent Democracy Award.

Today, it is very hard for citizens to trust their well-being in the hands of central and local government officials whose integrity is questionable. It is known that not all Indonesian officials are corrupt or untrustworthy, but a simple poll or survey could have been proven the assertion that many, if not most, of them are. It is an embarrassing fact that many officials, including those who are posted in foreign countries –thus are assumed to be of “international standard” in handling diplomatic issues with the host country and Indonesian community members residing there—have yet to show their best qualities.

Last year, in a World Affairs Forum seminar in San Francisco, in which Prof. Donald Emmerson of Stanford University’s SEAF was present, the current Indonesian Ambassador to the United States Sudjadnan Parnohadingningrat, was asked a simple question, “How is the current state of minorities in Indonesia?” He answered in an astonishing manner, which was an affront to his own intelligence, “There is no more minority issue, we now have Imlek (Chinese New Year) celebration.” Sure, it is a good point and it is well taken.

Another question was asked on the raise of radicalism and fundamentalism movements in Indonesia, which he answered, “Only one percent of radicals and fundamentalists in the midst of more than 230 million people who are moderates, so why bother? Let ‘the market’ determines.” As concerned citizens, the seminar participants were astonished. One of them was surprised, “Does it mean anarchy?” Still, he reiterated his answer.

Many of the seminar participants were politically literate people and we were disappointed to hear that. We know what to expect when one asks such a question. Alas, the Excellency Mr. Ambassador perhaps has been used to with constituents who are not politically literate, which could be in the number of hundreds of millions in Indonesia.

For us all, the citizens of Indonesia and the world, to understand how we are represented by the government, we need to educate ourselves to become literate politically. At this point, it might be a wishful thinking for Indonesian government to educate us because, apparently, many of the officials are not statesmen in the truest meaning of the word. It is very hard to find honest statesmen like the late founding father Dr. Muhammad Hatta and Prof. Dr. Daoed Joesoef nowadays.

Educating ourselves to be politically literate in a democratic country is quite simple. And by “political literacy,” it refers to a set of skills necessary for citizens to participate in society’s government. In short, there are abilities what we all need to master, so we can stand tall in front of those government officials who may have prejudices against their constituents and behave not in a respectable manner. It does not mean we aim to be a career politician, but to think and to act as an informed constituent. After all, those government officials cannot become who they are without us.

First and foremost, representation. A citizen is the one with power, hence being a constituent. The notion of a “government official” should be separated from the notion a “government.” In the minds of constituents, it is imperative that we see the “government” as a group of people who have received a special mandate from the people to act on their behalf. Thus, the real power lies in the hands of the people, in our hands.

Second, participation. In a democratic country, no matter how patriarchy the culture is, every individual regardless of age, gender, and other social backgrounds is equal before the law. Thus, when there are laws that do not adhere to this fundamental principle, they are not acceptable and we can change them with a strong will that are channeled properly. In the United States, the power of writing is one of the most useful. With people-managed petitions, there are many things that can be accomplished. Perseverance, of course, is likely to pay off. The key is a winner’s mentality in attesting our conviction.

Third, recognizing biased and “framing” statements. Politicians are notorious for their ability to say things with metaphors and pretentious dictions, as George Orwell said in his masterpiece Politics and the English Language. He said, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.”

Fourth, the rule of law and legal systems. The simplest form of the rule of law is that no one is above the law. And the highest form of ethics is the truth. Truth must be honored in the highest manner, not dishonesty in any manner. In Indonesia, there are three legal systems –western continental, Islamic, and native adat — that clearly show how the society is not only stratified but compartmentalized. Horizontally and vertically. Understanding the history and how each legal system came into existence is key in understanding the current and predicting the future state of Indonesian laws and regulations. After all, a civilized society is one that is ruled by law.

At last, let me cite John Wayne who said to John F. Kennedy, the elected president whom he did not vote, “I didn’t vote for him, but he is my president. I hope he does a good job.” And by being politically literate constituents, we are one step closer to a more just society where people’s equality is not merely rhetoric but a reality for all to enjoy.

Jennie S. Bev is an author, entrepreneur, and educator based in San Francisco Bay Area. She has over 1,000 articles and 60+ print and electronic books published in America and Asia under her belt and was named an EPPIE Award finalist for excellence in electronic publishing under Non-Fiction How-To category. Among others, she has written articles for, been featured and quoted in Entrepreneur, Canadian Business, San Francisco Chronicle, The Independent, Teen People, Home Business, Audrey, The Jakarta Post, About.com, FabSugar.com, Femina, Fit, and Dong (France and Germany). She is a regular columnist for several publications and can be found at JennieSBev.com.