It was totally unexpected.

I was just finishing an afternoon prayer in the mosque nearby Faculty of Economics at the University of Brawijaya. The meeting in the mountainous city of East Java brings together cool heads of Economics and Development students all over Indonesia together. We were on the verge of establishing a national organization for Economics and Development students.

Students in this major are proud for their fellow alumni and lecturers as they are known as a driving force in national and regional planning agencies as well as expert members of most of welfare and economic related policy committees. And some of them become top executives or lawmakers. Moreover, TV shows and newspapers are not complete without economic section.

Considering the enormity of tasks in setting up development plans, which usually fall into alumni of 70+ public universities in Indonesia with Economics major, with ten percent of them doing most of the heavy lifting, it is imperative that during studentship period that we get to know each other to build networks early on.

Little did I know that at I was bumping into a different kind of wall soon after.

A group of female students from Andalas University in West Sumatra, based in Padang the hometown of my tribe, looked at me curiously and braced themselves to ask a question. One of them said, “What are you doing in a mosque?”

I told them that I had just finished praying and she responded, ”Oh, I didn’t thought that you are Moslem since you look like a Chinese.”

I defended myself by explaining that I have a mixed blood of Padangnese from West Sumatra and Sundanese West Java, both of which have reputation of fair skin, then it is natural that my skin is even fairer than most Indonesian people.

They smiled to me and afterward the group’s behavior was growing warmer toward me. Having good-looking girls behaving nice is not usually a circumstance that makes me complain. But it did have me wondering.

Two strands occurred in my minds. First, why they changed behavior. Second, why I felt the strong urge to ‘defend’ myself.

I have an impeccable credential as a pribumi, translated literally into son of the earth, Indonesian. As I mentioned before, my parents are both from Indonesian tribes with no traceable of intermarriage with western or far east blood. Not only I am a Moslem but a leader of local chapter of Islamic Association of University Student (HMI), which has the largest number of student in the world among student associations in a single country. I even have, albeit weak, acquaintances with leaders of revivalist and progressive Islamic movements in the country.

Not that I have prejudices or bad experiences with minority in Indonesia. Some of my fondest childhood memories were during my three-year stay in Riau Island near Singapore where many of the inhabitants were Chinese descent.

Every time I saw a red envelope, it reminds of me of a well-kept tradition in Chinese New Year where children in a neighborhood will be given angpao, money in such envelope. Until now, I still count kwe tiaw (Chinese flat noodle) with seafood sauce as one of my favorite meals. And yes, I developed close friendship with a Chinese boy of my age whose photo still adorns my album and my mother still sometimes proudly shows to visitors of our house.

So why I have the need to differentiate myself and my identify that I am not one of “them”?

As much as having progressive and nationalistic parents could have impact, I could not escape influences of the media and community.  I am still a product of my generation.

In a way, it’s not totally the mistake of Chinese Indonesians. The Dutch colonial system that lasted more than three centuries in some areas of Java created a hierarchy of population. They and other European descendants were at the top of pyramid with all the power and perks that ensued while the pribumi were placed at the bottom of the vertical stratifications.

A few pribumis with royal blood or special circumstances could get Dutch education and even went all the way to study in Holland, but they retained little illusion that the barrier could go away longer than a flicker of moments. But there was also the second layer.

As the Netherlands was very far away from Indonesia and the state of sea transportation at the time was far from convenient, their number was too small for an effective power over economic and political matter in the archipelago. While they hold close to political power, the economic side was not held to close to the chest and many of trading activities were given up. Of course some of the spoil would reach them eventually.

Arab and Chinese descendants were classified as the second layer of population class. This arrangement had added benefits by making the pribumi saw that the Dutch was not the only group higher in hierarchy thus making their position even weaker.

The Arab had an advantage with having similar religious and cultural backgrounds with most of Indonesian population. With intermarriage often occurred, Arabian descendants had been accepted as a part of Indonesian diverse richness.

While there have been heroic cases of Chinese Indonesian fight against the Dutch colonial system, the main impression is how the group was privileged over suffering of pribumi Indonesia. Furthermore, Christianity was brought by Dutch and Portuguese to Indonesian archipelago and is still seen with suspicion of being external agents and less than fully loyal to Indonesia.

Some historians said that female Chinese prevented their males to convert to Islam for fear of the husband taking a second, a third or fourth wives that are allowed in mainstream Islam. Anyhow, the low percentage of Moslems in Chinese Indonesians made the group a triple minority in terms of ethnic, religion,  and wealth.

Being suspected as part of coup movement to oust Sukarno, the first president of Indonesia, certainly wasn’t helpful to the cause of integration. Chinese schools and newspapers were banned,  and people who were using Chinese names were forced to adopt proper Indonesian names.

During the New Order under Suharto, the marginalization of Chinese Indonesians reached a new height. One would be very hard pressed to find one member in government office or military. Chinese Indonesians were ghetto-ized into  businesses activities which fed into vicious cycles of resentment as the group grew richer. The riots of May 1998 were the culmination of that resentment. The harrowing stories of the incident will forever be kept in the conscience of Indonesians.

But it was not without any upside.

The president after the 1999 election was Gus Dur, who was a strong civil society leader and an avid defender of minorities. Chinese newspapers and daily news in Mandarin on a major national TV station and Chinese culture flourished again under his administration, while the next president did nothing to stem the tide.

Now the Chinese New Year is again a festivity of sight and sound. Who can forget barongsai dance with two persons in a dragon costume doing acrobatic feats, once you have seen them? Now I am happy that my children will not be barred from such amazing sight.

In retrospect, I wish I had echoed Collin Powell when he endorsed Obama for  president over John McCain in the eve of 2009 election. I would have said, “What if I am a Chinese Indonesian? Is there something wrong with being a Chinese Indonesian in this country?”

I expect that there will be time, not very far from now, when the question will meet a resounding no by all Indonesians. An individual should not be judged by the color of skin, religion, and racial heritage or wealth, but by the content of character and contribution to common good.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

No related posts.

One hundred bare-chested men in sarong (traditional cloth featuring batik prints) burst into the scene, chanting ancient Balinese songs.  In a matter of minutes, they were sitting in a large circle, their bodies and hands moving rhythmically to the chants, which sounded more like mantras to call forth the heavenly spirits.

A beautiful couple emerged and danced blissfully in the middle of the chanting men.  They were in full regalia, which indicated that they belonged to the royal family. Alas! A monster came and took the beautiful lady away with him, to the anguish of the prince.  A mystical white monkey, hanuman, came to the aid of the prince, who had to fight the monster’s barong, a frightening creature.  The spectacular performance reached its climax as the prince defeated the monster and rescued his princess.

This was the Balinese ketjak dance performance – one of the most stunning cultural performances in the world that is uniquely Indonesian.   The first time I watched a live ketjak performance was not at Bali or at the Indonesian National Theater.  It was at the tenth anniversary celebration of Perhimpunan INTI (The Chinese-Indonesian Association) at Istora Senayan, Jakarta, on June 23, 2009.

During the celebration, which was attended by 10,000 people and graced by the presence of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Jakarta Governor, Fauzi Bowo, and a host of cabinet ministers, the notion of Bhinneka Tunggal Ika (United in Diversity) permeated every performance.  Originally banned in the 33 years of New Order era under Soeharto, at least 50 barongsai (lion dance) performed.  A tarian nusantara (national dance) was also one of the highlights of the evening.  The performance was a medley of Indonesian colors and flavors, in vibrant costumes from Minangkabau, Java, the Moluccas islands, Papua and Kalimantan.  The dance was performed by Chinese-Indonesian and pribumi (indigenous) youth.

During his opening speech at the beginning of the celebration, President Yudhoyono lauded the organizing committee’s theme of Menghayati Kebhinekaan¸ Memperkokoh Persatuan (Appreciating Diversity, Strengthening Unity).  He stated that

“it is important for the Indonesian nation to appreciate our rich cultural heritage and diversity.  We need to work hand-in-hand to build a harmonious nation and embrace the differences in our society…discrimination is a thing of the past; our future is colored with tolerance and harmony.”

The president’s rhetoric was apt for the celebration that marked the first decade of INTI’s existence as a major Chinese-Indonesian organization.  INTI was formed in the wake of the May 1998 riots.  These riots were so horrendous, from massive looting and burning of Chinese-owned properties and businesses to the rapes of Chinese women, that these events, according to sociologist Mely G. Tan, “jolted the ethnic Chinese from their attitude of compliance to an attitude of greater assertiveness, expressed in more active participation in political activities.”

Although Chinese political parties fizzled in the first decade of the Reformasi (post-Soeharto) era, Chinese-Indonesians became more active in the 2009 parliamentary and presidential elections.  Singapore’s The Straits Times reports that at least 12 ethnic Chinese politicians, mostly from secular nationalist parties, have secured places in the 560-seat national Parliament after the April 9, 2009 legislative elections, compared with 13 in the 2004 election and six in the 1999 polls.  Moreover, it is significant to note that all vice-presidential candidates requested to meet with the largest Chinese organizations – INTI and PSMTI (Paguyuban Sosial Marga Tionghoa Indonesia or the Chinese-Indonesian Social Organization), whose membership is in the thousands.  Chinese-Indonesians also turned out in droves on July 8, 2009 to vote for their preferred presidential candidate.

As of July 9, 2009, quick counts of the presidential election showed that Yudhoyono would win the election by a landslide.  Although formal counting would be conducted between July 20 and July 24, 2009, the nation was already celebrating Yudhoyono’s triumph.

Yudhoyono’s second term as the president of Indonesia is encouraging for minority groups such as the Chinese in Indonesia.  Throughout his first term, he had always stressed that Indonesia should be seen as a home to many ethnic groups that have worked together hand in hand to build a better future.  After all, diversity has always colored the rich tapestry of Indonesia’s socio-cultural landscape.  From Sabang to Merauke (West to East of Indonesia), spanning 13,677 islands and 5,150 kilometers, more than 300 ethnic groups have lived side by side for centuries.

At one of the first major Chinese-Indonesian events he attended, such as the Chinese New Year celebration at the Jakarta Fair Ground on February 28, 2009, Yudhoyono declared that the enactment of the Presidential Decree Number 12, signed in 2006 means that legal discrimination against non-indigenous Indonesians, which mostly affects the Indonesian Chinese, was no longer acceptable.  There was now only one way to refer to citizens of Indonesia: as Indonesians.

In my earlier entry for this column, I have discussed that, although discriminatory policies against the Chinese have been eradicated on a judicial level, they are still very much in practice in real-life.  It will take intensive training and education to erode prejudice against the Chinese in Indonesia.  A government that is supportive of multiculturalism, led by Yudhoyono, is thus imperative to push the nation forward towards tolerance and racial harmony.

On the part of the Chinese, social organizations that flourished in the Reformasi era have worked hard to expunge the notion of exclusivity by  helping to alleviate the nation’s burden in times of need, especially by providing aid (monetary or otherwise) in the aftermath of natural disasters.  They have also supported education not just for the Chinese but for Muslim children.  An example of this would be the contribution of several school buildings made by the Teochew Association to the Muhammadiyah school in West Kalimantan.  Through these activities and many others, it is clear that these organizations are united in their orientation and loyalty towards Indonesia.

As we celebrate Indonesia’s 64^th year as an independent nation, we should be mindful of our nation’s “rich cultural heritage and diversity.”  Repression of cultural expressions and values, which occurred during Soeharto’s New Order, should never be repeated.  As a nation, we ought to learn from Budi S. Tanuwibowo, the president of Indonesia’s Confucian Association, INTI’s secretary-general and the head of the organizing committee for INTI’s tenth anniversary.  He promotes the cultivation of pluralism and mutual understanding in his stirring poem about nationalism, the national elections and diversity (reproduced here both in Bahasa Indonesia and English (my translation)):

Indonesiaku, Indonesia Kita

Meski Pemilu mengkotakkan kita,
Namun merah putih tetap berkibar di dada,
Meski Pilpres memisahkan kau dan aku,
Namun hati kita tetap menyatu…

Wahai Saudaraku,
Garudaku adalah Garudamu,
Benderaku juga Benderamu,
Pancasilaku Pancasilamu,
Indonesiaku pasti Indonesiamu,
Indonesia kita yang terus bertahta,
Dalam hati sanubari, Dalam jiwa dan sukma,
Dalam kehormatan kita sebagai manusia…

Saudaraku,
Pilihan kita boleh berbeda,
Namun kita tetap bersaudara,
Saatnya berpeluk hangat tanpa jarak,
Atas nama Indonesia,
Atas nama harkat martabat kita…

Ayo Saudaraku,
Ibu Pertiwi tlah lama menunggu…

Salam Kebangsaan Indonesia,

Budi S. Tanuwibowo

My Indonesia, Our Indonesia

Although elections force us to be in a box,
Red and white are still rippling in our chest.
Although elections divide you and me,
Our hearts are still one.

Dear brothers and sisters,
My Garuda is your Garuda,
My flag is your flag,
My Pancasila is your Pancasila,
My Indonesia must be your Indonesia,
Our Indonesia that has always be enthroned
In our deepest hearts, In our souls and spirits,
In our pride as human beings…

My brothers and sisters,
Our choices may be different,
But we are all still connected,
It is time for us to embrace without distance,
In the name of Indonesia,
In the name of our dignity and self-respect.

Come, my brothers and sisters,
Our motherland has been waiting for a long time…

My national regards,
Budi S. Tanuwibowo

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

No related posts.

It was merely two years before the Indonesian independence was announced that Inggit had to witness her husband taking another much younger woman.  Soekarno, who had been married to Inggit for about two decades, decided to take another wife, Fatmah or Fatmawati.

Although Inggit refused to stay with Soekarno and his Fatmah in a polygamous relationship, Inggit had to leave without creating any conflict, as was portrayed by the autobiographical book of Inggit, Kuantar ke Gerbang which was written by Ramadhan KH.  Her son in law then said:

Ini jalan satu-satunya, Bu.  Negeri kita memerlukan Bapak.  Dia kepunyaan kita semua.  Rakyat memerlukan Bapak sebagai pemimpinnya, tidak yang lain.  Dan apa yang akan terjadi dengan Indonesia, kalau Bapak hancur?

[This is the only way, Mother.  Our country needs Father.  He belongs to all of us.  The people need Father as their leader, not anyone else.  And what will happen to Indonesia, if Father is destroyed?] (Ganarsih, 1988; 291).

For the sake of the people, a man’s ego must be supported with a woman’s sacrifice. It was Soekarno who could do something for the nation.  It was Soekarno who was important for the nation, not Inggit.  Although she was the one who accompanied Sukarno and had even funded his activism, when facing the conflict between the two, Inggit’s merits were not to be regarded seriously.  As a woman, she had to keep making self-sacrifices for the benefit of the country.

However, while this sacrifice may imply Inggit’s submissiveness to Soekarno, her sacrifice may make her greater than Soekarno.  If it were not for Inggit, the nation would crumble.  In this case, Inggit’s sacrifice is not only for one man, but for the entire nation.  Inggit, who had given moral and financial supports to Soekarno.  She was the one who had smuggled books, newspapers, letters and various information from Soekarno’s political mates when he was imprisoned.  She was the one who had winded up her brain to insert codes and messages in the prison.  Inggit, who bravely accompanied Sukarno in his exile and suffered with him there, was no longer with her husband when he was about to reap the rewards of their long struggles and sufferings.

Rob Willer states that individuals are encouraged to make sacrifice for the greater goods of the society, because the promise of higher status or respect.  The reward for Soekarno, the man, is a national recognition and status, as the first President of Indonesia and the Father of the nation.  And the reward for Inggit?

For her sacrifice, Inggit is elevated more than the other wives of Soekarno, as Poeradisastra states in the introduction:

Inilah bedanya Inggit dari yang lain-lain: naraka katut, suarga ora nunut. . . .  Dengan kebesaran jiwa Inggit memaafkan “Fatimah” [Fatmah], bekas anak angkatnya, yang menjalin kasih sayang dengan ayah angkatnya.

[This is the difference between Inggit and the other (wives): carried to hell, but not following to heaven . . . With her big heart, Inggit forgives “Fatimah” (Fatmah), her ex-adopted daughter, who had had a love affair with her adopted father] (Ganarsih, 1988; ix).

In this case, Inggit is judged by her reaction to Soekarno’s infidelity.  She is considered more prominent than other women (that is, the other wives of Soekarno) because of these characteristics.  In this “competition”, a woman’s merit is thus based upon her service to her husband.  The woman who shows the most devotion will be appreciated, not the one who rebels and transgresses.  It is Inggit who “wins” the “competition” because she has proved to be the most dedicated in relation to her husband Soekarno.

Hence, the picture of Inggit that the text produces is still mainly that of a faithful woman who is devoted and caring to her only lover, Soekarno.  And this is the irony: that while Soekarno claimed that he promoted women’s rights and supported the growth of women’s organisations, the interest of his own wife was somehow ignored.  While his view on women was quite progressive for that era, he did not seem to apply the idea of gender equality in his own house.  Soekarno entered the palace with Fatmawati, whereas Inggit had to return to her simple home in a village in Bandung.

Somehow the portrayal of Inggit in this biographical book is what has been popularised in public and the expectancy of women to self-sacrice for the sake of men becomes a kind of a norm.

This “legacy” is to be found nowadays, when women are to be at the background, when their role in politics is merely as the supporter of men.  When their role in politics is still discouraged.  Although the 30% quota for women was finally introduced, this was without a struggle and the result was rather disapointing – as many feminists still found out that the patriarchal ideology still plays a huge role in controlling who could or could not be selected.  As after the quota, several women who are involved in politics have not been active in voicing women’s rights.  Many elected female legislative members are merely ornaments who could get the top because of their skill in attracting publicity and funding for their campaign.  The majority of women can still only win the heart of the society if they conform to rather than rebel against patriarchal system.  For this reason, we also found that many women were in support the anti-pornographic law and also of polygamy.  Women have still been competing in pleasing the men and supporting the patriarchal culture around them.

Indonesia’s independence has indeed not been the privilege of all of its citizens![]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

Related posts:

1. Between God and women

Indonesia’s history is one of the struggle for freedom from oppression. From its ancient feudal origins, characterised by hereditary rule of small fiefdoms and conquest as the result of rivalries among warlords, the road to democracy in the archipelago once called Nusantara has been a rocky one.

After they were stumbled upon by European explorers, the islands were quickly colonised by traders in the spices that grew so abundantly in the lush tropical climate. First the English and then the Dutch exercised their power with varying degrees of brutality as they exploited the people, the islands, and the spices they coveted. Right up to the 20^th Century, the Dutch continued to rule the islands as the “Dutch East Indies”, until the Japanese wrested control as part of their empire building in Southeast Asia in the early years of World War II. The Japanese conquerors were known neither for their benevolent gentleness nor their adherence to principles of human rights.

Indonesia’s post-war history starts with Soekarno, her first home-grown dictator, who was later deposed by a cartel of his generals led by Soeharto, as part of a vicious and bloody “anti-communist” purge that saw as many as 1,000,000 Indonesian citizens slaughtered, with more imprisoned in concentration camps, ostensibly for their communist leanings.

Soeharto himself, once his power was consolidated, ruled the country for thirty years with any serious opposition tending to disappear in the night after visits from his military forces. With the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990’s Soeharto’s power base began to crumble; in the midst of the instability, riots racked Jakarta, with the police and military standing by observing as gang rapes of ethnic Chinese Indonesian women, beatings, looting, and brutal atrocities were committed.

In the handful of years since then, Indonesia has undergone a relatively steady progression toward democracy. In a reaction to Soeharto’s iron rule from Jakarta, decentralisation became the order of the day, with great power and autonomy being delegated with little accountability to the provinces, regencies, and villages. After a series of party-appointed heads of state, the country held its first direct presidential election and the people overwhelmingly swept former Soeharto soldier, ex-general Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono into power in 2004.

While the results are not yet official as this is being written, SBY appears to have won a second mandate in a landslide, beating his opponents Jusuf Kalla (his own vice-president) and accused human rights violator ex-general Wiranto on one ticket, and Megawati Soekarnoputri, daughter of the country’s erstwhile dictator Soekarno, and accused human rights violator ex-general Prabowo Subianto on the other opposing ticket.

As we approach August 17, Indonesia’s celebration of its independence, it’s worth considering just how far the country has come since Soekarno made political authoritarian control a home-grown rather than an imported commodity.

At the national political level, not that far, I’m afraid. Although SBY trounced his rivals, he has been remarkably reticent to address the issues of human rights, he has done little or nothing to deal with human rights abuses by his fellow military officers, he has done nothing to pursue any prosecutions of his former mentor Soeharto, and he turns a blind eye to the recurring allegations of rights abuses by his military in Papua and elsewhere.

SBY supported, or at least didn’t oppose, the enactment of the draconian anti-pornography bill which violates every principal of freedom of expression. Under his watch, the investigation and prosecution of the murderers of human rights activist Munir languishes, although it’s an open secret that he was murdered by military intelligence agents. Also under his watch, just this month, the police in Kupang submitted to the prosecutor’s office a dossier on certain religious figures who, in their assessment, committed religious blasphemy. In this case they are accused of having deviated from orthodox Christian doctrine and face five years imprisonment if convicted. This, of course, is in direct contradiction to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration to which Indonesia ostensibly subscribes.

It’s unlikely that SBY will focus any attention on human rights, given that it wasn’t a campaign issue, and he managed to acquire an overwhelming mandate despite his record of neglecting to address human rights in any real way. The fact that two vice presidential candidates who are seen internationally as gross violators of human rights contested the election, with their brutal records scarcely mentioned in the domestic press, suggests that human rights ranks fairly low on the agenda of the Indonesian people.

Indeed, it’s at the grassroots level that Indonesia needs to focus on human rights; the political leaders are, after all only a reflection of those whom they represent. That an enlightened view of human rights is alien at that grassroots level is exemplified in the following admittedly anecdotal illustration.

Just last week, my wife and I were in an outlying province to say goodbye to a dying grandmother and to arrange her funeral. While we were there, we were approached by the people of her extended family who wanted us to adopt a baby that had recently been orphaned and was being raised by a distant relative who didn’t want the illegitimate four month old boy. As we have been trying unsuccessfully to have a child for some time, we were delighted by the opportunity both to rescue a baby who was ostracised by his own people and to adopt a child for ourselves. We vowed to be the best parents possible for this little baby.

After the adoption paperwork had been started, baby supplies bought, a bedroom prepared for our new child, the family decided that they were entitled to a profit out of the exchange. As soon as they recognised that we were happy with the idea of caring for the baby, they reneged on the agreement and demanded a great deal of money to sign the adoption papers.

We explained that we would certainly do our best over the years to provide financial assistance to the extended family, but that we couldn’t become involved with the sale of a human being. The “guardians” of the child saw this as an initial negotiating position and offered the baby for sale at a discount, or alternatively, on layaway terms.

Unable to stomach the idea of buying a child, we turned down the offer, torn between leaving the little baby to the care of these people, on the one hand, and rescuing a baby in distress on the other. With many tears and uncertainties, we ultimately decided that we couldn’t be involved in the purchase and sale of a human being, no matter how noble our intentions. Human trafficking is an abomination and a violation of human rights under any circumstances.

Human rights are clearly still not a priority in Indonesia. Until the people of Indonesia develop a sense of responsibility to humanity as a whole and a fundamental recognition that each person, no matter how poor or marginalised, simply by virtue of being a member of the human family, has dignity and inherent rights, there is little hope that the country’s politicians will prioritise those rights.

With independence, democracy came within the reach of the people of Indonesia. Human rights are still not within their grasp.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

Related posts:

1. Overview of human rights issues in Indonesia
2. Human rights and the Chinese in Indonesia

I was driving with my eighty-year-old mother to our monthly family gathering at my cousin’s the other Sunday when I related to her how Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s stand on same-sex marriage had surpassed President Obama’s. She responded by saying that she could understand Cheney’s stand because his second daughter, Mary, is lesbian. We then discussed Mary’s pregnancy, whether it was by artificial insemination (who could be the sperm donor?) or by actual sexual intercourse with a friend.

Then all of a sudden my mother asked me, “Don’t you want to have children?” It threw me off balance for a moment, but then I gave my usual retort when people ask me the question. “Come on, I’m so busy, who’d take care of the kids?” Well, the truth is, I’ve never really liked children, so perhaps even if I were not gay, I would not care to have any.

I’ve been reflecting on that little conversation, and realize that on the surface the question is one that grandparents often ask, but in our case the question is posed in a completely different context, one that would have been unthinkable one hundred years ago. My parents have always accepted my sexual orientation, had good relations with my partners, and I’ve been an out gay person and an activist since I came out in the early 1980s. This is certainly a new phenomenon in any human society.

As an early activist, promoting homosexual emancipation and sexual diversity and debating with society, I was fully aware that I was trying to change society. I later realized how my cultural position as a Peranakan (mestizo) Chinese helped me immensely, having been partly uprooted from “traditional” Chinese culture but also inheriting the values of the early twentieth-century rationalist reform strong among my Peranakan ancestors, having been kind of rejected by “traditional” Javanese culture as people from across the seas (read: uncouth) but then not falling into the oppressive hypocritical trappings of those traditions, and having embraced the values of the Enlightenment and the new values of independent Indonesia. It helped also that partly because of Chinese religious pragmatism my father left the Pentecostal Church early in his youth and my mother was never thrilled by the guilt tripping of the Catholic nuns of her early education.

As I matured in my activism and social thinking, I’ve mellowed out a great deal, but the question still bugs me: why can my people change so that having a homosexual son, after the initial worries, is not really a big deal, and why do others, even to this day, still cannot shake off their heteronormative cultural shackles?

Just the other day a gay friend asked me to accompany him to look at batik material before he takes his fiancée to buy some for their wedding day later in the year. Ahmad (not his real name) hails from a devout but moderate Nahdliyyin Muslim culture, known for tolerating homosexual acts and relations in their boarding schools and transgendering in their communities. He has come out to his sister and widowed mother (now this is something new), who in typical Nahdliyyin fashion are not excessively bothered by his homosexuality, but have not stopped nagging him (his sister being less insistent) about getting married (the heterosexual way, that is), which is why he’s seriously dating his fiancée. But his intention to marry and form a family is sincere. On the other hand, these months he said he’s enjoying every last moment of “freedom.” He’s planning to have one last vacation in Bali, to hit all the gay bars, cafés, cabaret lounges and beaches.

As a gay activist should I be bothered by what guys like Ahmad plan to do? Should I rely on cultural relativism to respect the fact that in his culture gay men do marry heterosexually and form a family, whereas in my culture I might marry (in a gender-neutral way) and have children too, but not in the way he’s doing it? My feminist side, though, is screaming murder. Ahmad has not told his wife (am I being ethnocentric by even mentioning this?) that he’s gay. He said he’d stop having sex with men and falling in love with them. But I know that such a vow is more easily made than fulfilled. Could I again hold on to cultural relativism and compare Ahmad to the philandering or polygamous guy (many of whom have sex or form relations with transgenders and other men)? But don’t the women have any say?

In my activism, I must confess, I’ve been vacillating between militantly wanting to change society and hesitantly respecting local values. Does Ahmad honestly know what he’s getting himself and his fiancée into? On the other hand, should we be so rational and plan our lives? The compromise we’ve taken in our LGBTIQ movement in Indonesia so far has been that one should be honest to everyone involved and respect the principle of consent in matters of heterosexual or gender-neutral marriage, ménages à trois and other polyamorous queer relationships, and so on and so forth.

Indeed the heteronormative pressure to marry and form a family is the strongest obstacle to many lesbians and gay men in Indonesian society, and to a lesser extent to transgenders, in pursuing happiness and well being. Perhaps the Indonesian LGBTIQ movement should set ideal standards of pride, honesty, and equality, but should also be sensitive to cultural impediments, while at the same time working hard to change that culture. Certainly we should be there for our fellow queers who are going through the tribulations of following the call of their hearts in new constructions of gender identities and sexualities not accommodated yet, let alone accepted, by the imaginings of an old guard dominating our society.

If I were in my twenties, I might have written this piece differently (I used to do so thirty years ago). Perhaps age and social science have mellowed me out. But my friend Ahmad is only twenty-eight.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

No related posts.

With the image of Islam being a bearded bomber who seeks to destroy the USA while he is not indulging in the honor killings of the wayward female members of his family, it is widely believed that Islam does not respect basic human rights. Islamophobes like the Dutchman Geert Wilders scan through the Qur’an and find verses that order the killing of apostates and infidels and the covering up of women to support their views. However a closer examination of the Qur’an and also a wider perspective of Islamic traditions would reveal that although some patriarchal and tribal expressions of Islam disregard human rights this situation is by no means the rule. For many Indonesian Muslims who have for generations experienced the fact that some members of their families might choose other religions, the notion that Islam should be expressed through the curtailing women’s rights and executing apostates is absolutely horrifying.

The valiant Cut Nya’ Dien of the Aceh wars at the end of the 19^th century is a famous national heroine and leader of men who was inspired by Islam. The formidable Eni Rukmini Sekarningrat, is a devout Muslim lady who was a frontline fighter in the independence wars against the Dutch in the late 1940s. Currently she is the Grand Mistress of the Panglipur pencak silat martial arts school, with students all over the world. At her 94 years of age she can still throw a young male fighter down with ease. Millions of other Muslim women in Indonesia are the main economic pillars of their families who have the final say in family decisions. These Muslim women are in no way anomalies, nor do they find inspiration from obscure sections of Islamic traditions, for they can look directly to the first mother of Muslims, who was the Prophet Muhammad’s Boss and later beloved wife and confidant, Khadijah.

The tradition of tolerance and gender equality in Indonesian Islam has in the recent years been systematically eroded by puritan and trans-national, well funded, propaganda. However, Islamism is not the only reason why we are seeing a rise in bigotry. Sudden and drastic changes in the economic rhythm of villages, caused by the introduction of genetically modified seeds and agricultural chemicals in fertilizers and pesticides, did not only created widespread unemployment in villages but also killed off many communal ceremonies related to the cycles of life, which traditionally were the vehicles of communal wisdom.

Before the “Green Revolution” in agriculture, the Javanese peasant, for example, would in her or his daily life be exposed to spiritual enlightenment through Islamic traditions, local myth and legends, and the Islamized versions of the Hindu Mahabharata and Ramayana. The Green Revolution, introduced at the beginning of the New Order regime, rendered village traditions connected to the old ways of life unpractical and uneconomic. Currently, most local myths and legends and Hindu epics have been forgotten. So in times of personal crisis the Javanese peasant currently has only Islamic traditions to refer to, and with trans-national Islamist funding and activism taking over many traditionalist mosques all over the country, often the only accessible spiritual guidance comes from Islamist activists.

Rapid industrialization during the New Order, characterized by the mushrooming of factories around big cities, further wrenched people from their cultural roots. It is no coincidence that the brothers who became the Bali bombers grew up in Lamongan, a small town at the edge of the industrial complexes of nearby Gresik, or that they were affiliated to Abu Bakar Ba’asyir’s school in Ngruki, in the industrialized district of Sukoharjo in the outskirts of Solo. Nor is it a coincidence that the bulk of the Islam Defenders Front (FPI) thugs are unemployed and marginalized young men from Jakarta.

In areas where traditions are still relatively strong, such as in Yogyakarta, violent Islamism tends not to flourish, even though the headquarters of the Mujahidin Council that inspires the jihad recruitment website is in that city. The ideas and networks of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood which have morphed into the Prosperous Justice Party here, are also strongest amongst the urban educated, especially amongst those who study pure sciences rather than letters, who are alienated from both their deep traditions and the shallow consumerism of the mainstream culture.

Within Islam’s traditions and texts there are strong foundations for developing human rights based cultures than can be perfectly compatible with 21^st century values, but trans-national puritanical propaganda gets the upper hand when development uproots communities from their cultures and marginalizes people’s lives. Therefore any comprehensive effort to curb the growth of puritanical Islamism in Indonesia must also address the issue of cultural disenfranchisement brought about by rapid economic development and alien education systems and curriculums that give inadequate attention to local cultures and the universal humanities. We must find elements that exist within our cultures that may be enhanced to produce strategies that will preserve our traditional tolerance and compassion for all Creation.

Gamelan music is one such cultural element that can be explored with the aim of enhancing traditional tolerance. The use of gamelan orchestras to help people with learning difficulties and anti-social tendencies is explored with much more earnest in schools and prisons in the West than it is in Indonesia. Unlike Western musical instruments, the instruments in the gamelan orchestra cannot be played solo, and are not tools of self expression. To play well the gamelan orchestra one does not require musical, technical skills, because it is not possible to hit a false note. The gamelan orchestra is a tool of worship and community building, and to play well social and spiritual skills are more important than musical skills.

Sadly there are currently very few gamelan orchestras in schools and in communities outside of Bali, and when there are accessible orchestras, the method of teaching is reduced to rote learning. This kills the genius of the gamelan orchestra, which when used properly accommodates the young and old, poor and wealthy, intelligent and not so intelligent, in a communal effort to produce harmonious music. With such cultural gems as the gamelan orchestra, violent and bigoted expressions of Islam can only flourish in Indonesia if they are encouraged to.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

No related posts.

The 14-year-old girl cowered in fear as terror erupted outside of her family’s Chinese medicine shop.  Screams of people fleeing for their lives could be heard clearly as angry mobs hunted down the Chinese, burning and looting their shops and houses.  She wanted to help those people outside but she was afraid to leave the shop.  She knew that the pandemonium outside was a horrible sight to behold.  She took a peek out of the window while her mother was not looking and saw countless bodies, many without heads, cluttered all over the sidewalk.

The girl’s parents had taken in many of their relatives seeking refuge; their shops and houses set on fire just hours before they ran to her family’s medicine shop.  It was as if they knew that her parents’ medicine shop would not be disturbed.  The girl wondered if it was because her father prayed to Kuan Kung (the warrior god) every 15 minutes, asking him to ward off evil and to protect their family during this time of crisis.

The year was 1965 and the city was Medan in North Sumatra, Indonesia.  The ethnic Chinese were the targets in the aftermath of a failed attempted coup that was allegedly masterminded by the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party). Because China was suspected of backing the PKI, the political instability that occurred between 1965 and 1966 caused the masses to unleash their animosity toward the ethnic Chinese.

When the riots had cooled down in the following weeks, the girl and many of her schoolmates could not return to school.  The Chinese schools they attended were closed by the government and they were not welcome in the indigenous schools.  Consequently, the girl chose to help her parents’ Chinese medicine business instead of going back to school.  Meanwhile, her brothers attended Indonesian schools when they were open to Chinese children.  There would be no more Chinese schools after 1965.

The government also prohibited the use of Chinese characters in public spaces, the import of Chinese-language publications, and all forms and expressions that can be traced to be of Chinese cultural origin, such as the public celebration of the Lunar New Year.   Furthermore, a tract issued by the government in 1968 stipulated that the Chinese would have to substitute Indonesian for Chinese names to show their commitment to their country.  As a result of these restrictions, most Chinese children born after 1966 speak, write, and read only the Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia).

Although Chinese-Indonesians adhered to this policy of forced assimilation for 33 years, there is evidence that the pribumi (the indigenous population) still see the Chinese as not fully integrated into the Indonesian society.  The Chinese have been envied and vilified for their economic prowess as they are believed to control 70 percent of the country’s private economic sector and make up only 3 percent of the 240 million people who reside in Indonesia.  This imbalance of economic power relative to their size, along with suspicion of pribumi leaders regarding their loyalty to an external power (before Indonesian independence, to the Dutch colonialist or China; and after independence, to China) are some of the reasons why the Chinese often became the targets of violence during each event of political turbulence in Indonesia’s history.

The most recent example occurred in May 1998.  Following the revolution that removed Suharto at the helm of power in May 1998, riots erupted in Jakarta where mobs robbed, murdered, and raped hundreds of Chinese individuals.  They also destroyed and pillaged Chinese homes and establishments.  The May 1998 riots sadly revealed that the Chinese remained an unwanted part of Indonesian racial/cultural make-up despite their adherence to Suharto’s policy of assimilation.  No matter how long they have spent in the country, the loyalties of the Chinese would always be questioned by most of the pribumi.  Historian William H. Skinner refers to this as the “Once a Jew, always a Jew” syndrome.

Because of extensive media coverage of the May 1998 tragedy, the atrocities of the riots were condemned by the international community.  It was partly because of the international condemnation of the May 1998 riots that the fall of Suharto in 1998 saw the dawn of an era of Reformasi (Reformation).  This era seeks to correct the many instances of injustice targeted against the Chinese of Indonesia.

When Abdurrahman Wahid served as the President of Indonesia between November 1999 and August 2001, he abolished the Presidential Instruction Number 14, signed in 1967 by Suharto, which restricted the practice of Chinese customs and religions to private domain. Following this abolition, he signed the Presidential Instruction Number 6, stipulated in the year 2000, which allows the public celebration of the Chinese New Year. Megawati took a step further by declaring Chinese New Year as a national holiday in 2003.

One of the most revolutionary steps that the government took to revoke discriminatory practices against the Chinese and to uphold human rights is the promulgation of a ‘Circulation Letter of the Directorate-General of Immigration of the Department of Justice and Human Rights no. P.U.M. 01.10.0626, dated April 14, 2004 on SBKRI for the Application of a Passport of the Republic of Indonesia.’  The SBKRI (Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia) or the Proof of Indonesian Citizenship has been an ongoing problem for Chinese-Indonesians because they had to show this document whenever they had to apply for a passport.

According to Frans H. Winarta, a leading human rights lawyer in Indonesia, in his essay, “No More Discrimination Against the Chinese,” many aspects of Chinese-Indonesians’ life, such as legal interests, economical interests, and the application of citizenship have been hampered because of the SBKRI.   This regulation has clearly violated the 1945 Indonesian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.  Since it only affects Chinese-Indonesians, the SBKRI is a form of apartheid (segregation) or state racial discrimination.  Moreover, SBKRI has also caused bureaucrats and civil servants to constantly and shamelessly ask for bribes from Chinese-Indonesians who cannot present their SBKRI.

Although many of the discriminatory regulations targeting Chinese-Indonesians have been annulled by the government, discrimination still exists in practice. For example, government officials still ask for the SBKRI when Chinese-Indonesians apply for a passport.  Several letters to the editor, published in The Jakarta Post during Chinese New Year celebrations in February 2009, also voice the opinions of several readers that the Chinese are still deemed as ‘exclusive’ and not contributing enough to their country.  It is clear that these readers are not aware that the Chinese have formed hundreds of social organizations that channel aid to victims of natural disasters and the building of Muslim schools.  Although the organizations’ contributions are widely reported by Chinese newspapers, they rarely appear on national newspapers such as The Jakarta Post or Kompas.

As Natalia Soebagjo, the co-founder and vice-chair for the University of Indonesia’s Center for Chinese Studies points out in her essay, “Love-Hate Relationship of Ethnic Chinese and Ethnic Indonesians,” solving the ‘Chinese problem’ is part of the unresolved challenge of Indonesia’s ongoing nation building process.  According to Soebagjo, “Unless Indonesians – Chinese and non-Chinese alike – are able to shed misperceptions and stereotyping, create a more equitable society, overcome corruption, improve governance, and tighten law enforcement as part of its long ‘to do’ list, it will take longer to delete the separating line” between the Chinese and indigenous Indonesians.

Along with improving governance and tightening law enforcement, I would add education to her ‘to do’ list.  In order to eradicate discrimination and uphold human rights in Indonesia, the younger generation has to learn to be tolerant of their country’s rich diversity and be taught not to stereotype by encouraging them to befriend people from all kinds of ethnicities.  After all, the personality of the individual should be the key to maintaining a friendship, not our ethnic origins.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

Related posts:

1. Overview of human rights issues in Indonesia

Darwin under Scrutiny

Once when I was in Indonesia, I was trying to defend Darwin’s theory in front of several people who rejected it completely because of their religious views.  One of them asked me: “But as a feminist, shouldn’t you be against Darwin as well?  Doesn’t Darwin discriminate women, whereas all (male and female) are equal in God’s eye?”.

Indeed, Darwin’s theory generally has been viewed to be quite problematic by religious fundamentalists as well as feminists.  The argument of humans deriving from monkeys does not seem to make sense for people who are strongly convinced that the human was uniquely created by God and in God’s image.  In the USA, Darwin’s theory of evolution has even been banned by several schools.

As Darwin’s theory states the importance of survival of the fittest in nature, this also induces the idea that men are considered to be evolutionary advanced because in general, they are bigger and stronger. In The Origin of Species, Darwin states that because males are always in competition to get their females, they are required to get better and better, whereas the weaker males are eliminated by not producing as many offspring because of their lack of ability to get a partner.  In other words, inequalities of the sexes are considered natural, and can even be justified.  Male aggressiveness and domination over females are often understood in this light.

At this point, the religious fundamentalists and feminists seem to have a similar stance – the refusal of Darwin’s theory.  Both have claimed to have been ignored and underestimated by the followers of Darwin. Indeed, discrimination against women and God in Darwin’s theory is sometimes seen to overlap.  Jerry Bergman in his article “The history of the teaching of human female inferiority in Darwinism”, begins with the argument that discrimination against women is one of the main themes in Darwin’s theory.  According to Bergman, because men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, in Darwin’s theory, they have been conditioned to be more evolutionary advanced than female.  Bergman concludes that the cause of this sexism is Darwin’s disappointment with God: “A critical reason for Darwin’s conclusion was his rejection of the biblical account, which taught that man and woman were specific creations of God, made not to dominate but to complement each other”.

Both the feminists and religious groups have argued against Darwin’s theory based on the inaccuracy of human perception.  However, I want to emphasise the distinctions between the religious fundamentalists from the feminists regarding Darwin.

The Distinctions

While several religious denominations have been avoiding Darwin by either prohibiting or shutting themselves from his theory, more and more feminist groups are getting closer to science, to prove the blemish in interpreting Darwin’s theory.  As some feminists are now using the theory of evolution to claim a more “equal” place for women.  In other words, they are using science to scrutinise science.

Sarah Hrdy, who is known as a Darwinian feminist, demystifies sexist stereotypes by applying the logic of the survival of the fittest.  Reflecting on her research on bonobo monkeys, she notices that females who have the advantage of reproduction (as she carries the baby in her womb), are also more able to confuse the males and dominate them.

Sharing more than 98 percent of human genetic profile, bonobos are thus one of our closest “relatives”.  They enjoy sex all day long, and seem to use it not only for procreation but also for attachment with others.  Females often hang out together and engage in homosexual activities – this cement the bonds amongst them and in some ways allow them to form alliances against males.

In mating, the females are not hesitant in approaching the males and they can be quite promiscuous in doing so.  As females have multiple partners, the males do not know which offspring are theirs. The status of a male also depends on the position of his mother, to whom he remains closely bonded for her entire life.

The theory of evolution can thus be interpreted in such a way that the species characters are never fixed.  Indeed, Darwin’s theory can also open a new interpretation as he implies that the variation of species is not limited, so there is a possibility of an open-ended becoming.  Such a transformation in some ways explains why bonobo monkeys are different from their closest relative chimpanzees, in which males dominate the group and are quite patriarchal.  As the open-ended becoming is possible in Darwin’s theory, male dominance is thus no longer a law or a condition, but rather a process.  As such, different genders or sexes have the chance or opportunity to swap positions: the possibility of fluidity is huge.

The patriarchal notions of Darwin’s theory have been further challenged after the discovery of cloning.  In brief, cloning is a sexless way to create an exact genetic progeny.  The argument nearly swung the other way around, as with the cloning of Dolly, females can thus reproduce themselves.  If we are to follow the rationale of “the survival of the fittest”, that is, the main aim of living organisms is to sustain its species by reproduction, males do not have any importance in this regeneration, as females can sustain the generation on their own.  However, recent finding has revealed that males may also be cloned.

The case of Darwin in relation to gender theories in some ways can be compared with the debate between Einstein and Bohr, instead of between Darwin and religion.  When Bohr disputed Einstein’s theory, he was using Einstein’s theory of relativity to prove it.

They have not been running away from evidence, but are inspecting it.  By doing this, they can see it from different perspectives, instead of avoiding it completely.  On the other hand, the religious groups which maintain the arguments that the earth is only 6000 years old and that humans were created in God’s image rather than a result of the evolution from monkeys, is rather similar to insisting that the earth is the centre of the Universe.  These people do not base their argument on human lack of objectivity.  Rather, they insist on their views without being bothered scrutinizing them properly.

Indeed, isn’t it the paradox of science that the more the scientists research and observe, the more they will find inaccuracy in their observation?  In other words, the more you inquire it, the more you are aware of human lack of objectivity.  It is only through inquiring, researching and investigating that Copernicus came to the conclusion that the centre of the Universe is no longer the Earth but the Sun. This finding brought an awareness that human observation of the space could be deceiving – as from where they are, humans will easily conclude that the heavenly bodies all go around the planet they live.

Einstein could claim “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one” only after he studied science scrupulously.  As scientific tools were progressing, Niels Bohr further found out that absolute objectivity in science was doubtful, as the role of the observer cannot be disregarded in any scientific conclusion.  Accordingly, as most scientific observers have been males (and only recently do women have more opportunities to take part in science), it is no wonder that the conclusion often leans towards supporting a patriarchal system.  The inclusion of women’s points of view will transform the perspectives in science as well.

Such acknowledgment of scientific partiality was however achieved not via accusation or assumption without any detailed study.  Human awareness can only be better attained or at least learnt by endless analysis, which results in more exactness and meticulousness – this often includes the understanding of its lack and shortcomings.

In this view, Darwinian feminists have revealed that Darwin’s theory can offer various possibilities.  They have offered different perspectives, without ostracizing science.  On the other hand, while the religious groups seem to base their counter-argument against Darwin on the illusion of reality and human objectivity, the insistence of their own belief without allowing any scrutiny is also a form of persistence on human arrogance and it is an argument which in the end beats itself off.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

Related posts:

1. Indonesian independence and the sacrifice of women

When we read about the Indonesian national independence movement, whether in the official historiography of the State or that of Indonesianists, there is a total silence on homosexual women and men and transgendered people. We do not know if among the pemuda (youths) who kidnapped Soekarno and Hatta and forced them to proclaim independence on 17 August 1945, and the millions of others who had been active in the nationalist movement before them and took part in the independence war afterwards, those studied and adulated by the likes of Benedict Anderson, there were pemuda who loved one another or who were transgendered.

We do get glimpses of gender bending in Soekarno: An Autobiography, As Told to Cindy Adams (1965), of the nationalist leader as a young man cross-dressing in a ludruk theatre performance typical of East Java, in which he took part as a female character. But almost in the same breath we read about his disgust and condescension towards Dutch gay men who would go to such performances accompanied by young Indonesian men. This aversion to transgendered people and homosexuals was also found amongst communist leaders by James L. Peacock in his study of ludruk in the 1960s (Rites of Modernization: Symbolic and Social Aspects of Indonesian Proletarian Drama, 1968). They urged cross-dressing ludruk actors to consult a psychiatrist to be cured. Later we learned from the work of Saskia E. Wieringa (Politicization of Gender Relations in Indonesia: The Indonesian Women’s Movement and Gerwani Until the New Order State, 1995) that the leftist women’s organization, Gerwani, purged its chairwoman in the 1950s because she was a lesbian.

The only obscure piece of good news we hear from Benedict Anderson, in his foreword to my collected writings, Memberi Suara pada Yang Bisu (Giving Voice to the Mute, 2001), is about the nationalist leader, Arnold Mononutu, who later became a minister in many of the early administrations of the republic. Apparently many of his comrades knew about Uncle Arnold’s homosexuality, and yet they respected and accepted him.

Given such a situation, we wonder as today’s Indonesian lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people what kind of place we have after our founding fathers and mothers, some of whom might have been homosexual like Uncle Arnold, or transgendered, took us across the golden bridge of independence.

We could cynically state that it was Dutch colonialism that gave us a penal code based on the Code Napoléon in the 19^th century, in which homosexual acts by consenting adults is not criminalized. We could then continue that today’s apparent independence, which in political economic terms is really but a newer version of colonialism anyway, after the fall of the Soeharto regime in 1998 put us in jeopardy, with attacks by Islamist vigilante groups and local shari’ah-based ordinances criminalizing homosexual acts such as those in the City of Palembang and the Province of South Sumatra, not to mention the impending draft qanun being debated in the provincial parliament of Aceh.

It is exactly when we think about the dilemma between the independence of our nation and our personal freedom as LGBT people that we need to think clearly and strategically, especially as the LGBT movement in Indonesia grows in size and importance.

The spirit of our nationalist movement was the struggle for economic independence. The means to attain that was understood as political or national independence. Nationalism has a weakness in that it diverted attention from class divisions to those between colonial nations and colonized ones. In its name, those who are seen as nationals are almost automatically embraced as sons and daughters of the soil, without examining their ulterior class-based motives. Some of them then subverted the original goals of the nationalist movement to benefit their class or even themselves. One of the founding fathers of the republic, Sutan Sjahrir, feared that this would be the case, and he was proven right in the last quarter of 1965, when what Soekarno termed neocolonialist-imperialist forces worked through their Indonesian lackeys to open our doors totally to foreign investment and exploitation again.

Now many, if not most, Indonesian lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgendered people and other men who have sex and women who have sex with women are as poor as other Indonesians. The typical Indonesian lesbian or woman who has sex with women, in addition to being trapped in an oppressive marriage, for instance, is most likely also disenfranchised economically, perhaps exactly because of the heteronormative trap. Yes, we certainly need our gender and sexual rights, but the fulfilment of those rights cannot be separated from the betterment of our livelihood.

Most LGBT activists do not realize that the gender and sexual oppression they live under are directly linked to such issues as poverty. The lessons learned from developed societies should show us that economic development could translate into the freedom to determine the way we live based on our gender identity and sexual orientation.

Thus the writing on the wall is clear: Yes, we can emulate the admirable high spirit and passion of our erstwhile nationalist leaders. We could not really blame them for silencing LGBT people among them and in the ranks of the people. It’s a generational thing: Identity politics based on gender identity and sexual orientation was then not yet a human rights issue, was not their cup of tea, as it were, but now it is for us, and for contemporary nationalist leaders like Nelson Mandela, and it is really up to us LGBT activists to join hands with other progressive elements in society to continue the struggle towards a better future in material and immaterial terms, not just one or the other. After all, the goal of our independence movement is a just and prosperous society. These days justice is increasingly understood as involving rights to diverse gender identities and sexual orientations.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

No related posts.

Ever since our founding fathers decided to drop the “seven words” from the Jakarta Charter, there have been Islamist groups who have been struggling to get them back into the Constitution. These “seven words” were originally part of the Pancasila State philosophy, namely the first point; “Belief in One God”. The seven words that were dropped translate as … “and Muslims are obliged to implement Sharia.”  The reason for dropping these words in 1945 was to accommodate the feelings of the non-Muslim people of Eastern Indonesia.  After the “Reformasi” in 1998, Islamist groups tried to but could not gain enough support in Parliament to bring back the “seven words” in to the Constitution.  Amongst Islamic circles there were also discussions and debates on what really constitutes as Sharia. The problem with the State implementing Sharia is that there are as many interpretations of Sharia as there are interpretations of Islam.

After the “Reformasi” numerous Islamist groups that hitherto had been underground surfaced and began to openly, and eventually successfully, challenge the law that stipulated that every political party and mass-organization had to acknowledge the State philosophy, Pancasila, as their basic philosophy.  The most vicious attack on the Pancasila philosophy was probably the attacks carried out by the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) on the peaceful, pro-pluralism demonstration on the birthday of Pancasila last year. Although many people were seriously injured, the perpetrators of the attacks were given lenient sentences by judges, and had ministers and celebrities visiting them in their jail cells, where television crews followed them as if they were pop-stars.  Although the political efforts to have Sharia enshrined as the law of the land have subsided, the dream to make Indonesia a Sharia state has not been, and probably will never be, vanquished.

Some transnational political groups who want to make Indonesia a Sharia state, such as the Hizbut Tahrir (HT) are active and vocal in Indonesia, and our openness makes their development traceable. However the more shadowy transnational organizations like Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) or the Ikhwanul Muslimin (IM) do not trust the open and democratic atmosphere we have nurtured since 1998, and as they work underground their ups and downs are more difficult to follow.  The few indicators that we can observe to gauge their developments, such as relatively frequent the arrests made by the police of suspected JI terrorists, or the rare press appearances of IM’s leader here, the blind cleric Al Habsyi, can only give a blurred picture of the Islamic underground.  Al Habsyi, who is a staunch supporter of the FPI and was imprisoned for life by Suharto for his involvement in the bombing of the Borobudur in 1985 and pardoned  by Habibie in 1999, is recorded to mingle in high society.  Together with the support we have seen given by several cabinet ministers to HT’s activities and to FPI’s leadership, these things indicate that the Islamist ideology has sympathizers amongst the Indonesian elite.  The question is, to what extent does Islamism currently penetrate and influence the Indonesian elite?

Considering  how the FPI morphed from the Pam-Swakarsa militia formed by the then General Wiranto during the downfall of his master, Suharto, the question to ask is do the Indonesian elite really support Islamist ideas or do they court the Islamist only for practical political purposes?  The Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) grew out of IM’s cells amongst university students but now that it hungers for power it is keen to shed the image of Islamism. Researchers have also discovered an interesting phenomenon in which the ruling classes in Java, which traditionally are associated with Javanese interpretations of Islam, have become keen to observe a more puritan expression of Islam. This is obvious in the long sentences of Arabic now habitually said in the openings of formal speeches and the building of prayer rooms in homes, replacing the traditional “empty room” traditionally reserved for the rice goddess Dewi Sri.  On the other hand the younger generation of Islamic scholars, children of respected leaders and heads of religious institutions, are keen to study English and the humanities in the West and have been the driving force behind the development of the Liberal Islam Network (JIL) in Indonesia.  Meanwhile, though several regions have adopted elements of Sharia in their bye-laws, there is serious discussion about the legality of districts adopting laws that might contradict our Constitution.  Indonesians also tend to vote for secular parties in general elections.

These phenomena indicate that although there is a growth of Islamism in Indonesia, and although most Indonesian Muslims are keen to observe their religion in their daily lives, the majority currently do not agree with the idea of having a Sharia based state.  This condition, summed up by the late Nurcholis Madjid in his slogan “Islam Yes, Islamic Parties, No”, baffles Islamists like Irfan Suryahadi Awwas, a senior member of the Indonesian Council of Mujahidin (MMI) who asks why Indonesian Muslims don’t want Sharia implemented by the State when they marry under the Sharia and want to be buried according to Sharia when they die.

This uniquely Indonesian condition is an asset that the newly elected government should employ to the full in its effort to implement the Constitution’s mission statement of playing an active role in building peace, within our borders and also in the wider Islamic world. The government should not be afraid of the hardcore and vocal Islamist groups who attack minorities and pose as if they are widely supported because they are not.   The implementation of universal values of justice and compassion in dealing with conflicts in areas such as Papua, where State violence continues to strengthen the separatist movement there, would strengthen the moral stature of our nation at home and abroad.  While our country is rife with poverty, corruption, injustice, and State violence, the form of peaceful Islam that has been developing over centuries here will remain impotent, unable to influence the world in any way, and the specter of Islamist Puritanism will continue to haunt us.[]

This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.

Related posts:

1. Indonesian cultures can curb trans-national Islamist bigotry