On an old soldier who faded away and then died

It's been quite a long time since I wrote something longer than 400 words. But here it is now--about Soeharto--a towering figure indeed, although not necessarily somebody I looked up to ...

===

Legacy

What kind of legacy did former president Soeharto leave behind for Indonesia? It would not be easy to answer such a question, mostly because Soeharto himself very rarely betrayed any emotion.

He had always been opaque, detached, aloof, and calm. Unlike his extrovert predecessor Sukarno, it was never easy to read and interpret the General of the Army who passed away in Jakarta on Jan. 27.

Probably that was also the reason that some adored him till the very end while others despised him. Some deemed him the country’s best president so far—as revealed by a survey conducted prior to his hospitalization on Jan. 4—while others considered him a ruthless ruler with bloody hands.

However, the fact is—for good or for bad—he was indeed a towering figure for the larger part of our life, even after he was toppled down by a popular revolt exactly 10 years ago.

Well, probably it is always the case with all great leaders. They have always been multi-faceted. The way we see them, actually also depends on how we interact with them. In the case of Soeharto, one facet would earn him the description he himself loved so much: Father of Development. Another one would be his bloody crackdown on the now defunct Indonesian Communist party (PKI) and its supporters. Between the two, there were also many other facets and all were—actually still are—open to various interpretations.

In other words, it is extremely difficult to pin down in one common term about the way Indonesians felt, or feel, about him.

But one thing for sure was his approach to ruling this sprawling and diverse country. It was nothing but a stern, yet benevolent father, who enjoyed delivering folksy advices and assistance to ordinary farmers, but would brook no criticism. A very paternalistic leadership style.

That’s why he could not take it when one criticized his immediate family circles for enriching themselves, even when they came from his closest aides. He simply turned a blind eye to his relatives' abuse of their connections to him to gain lucrative contracts and increasingly egregious deals. That’s why he could not stand opposition as well, because to him it was a challenge to his role as a father.

Following his fall, he became vulnerable to the “machinations” of his country’s elite politicians: his cabinet abandoned him and the military quarreled over who would take over. Ordinary people died in the crossfire and the students—who started all the calls for his resignation—were manipulated and then let down by the social climbers.

Even during his last hospitalization, he was still subjected to this machinations as evident from the request for pardons by even his harshest critics or from the demands that he was brought before the court for his sins by those who were not even “there” when pressures were mounting on him to relinquish his presidency back in 1998.

Therefore, the continuous pros and cons apparently will be his biggest legacy.

But, Indonesia, in our humble opinion, must be ready to move ahead and close its so-called Soeharto chapter. After all, there are still many obstacles that stand in the country’s way to welfare and prosperity.

It is true that we have been able to conduct direct and free elections—something that Soeharto did not intend to develop during his 32 year rule—but such elections must also lead to the delivery of social justice. If not, then surely more and more people will look at Soeharto’s era with nostalgic feelings. Those were the days of peaceful time when rice was plentiful and beggars were few while poverty was cut from almost 60% in 1970 to 15% by 1990.

After he quit office, Soeharto was charged with embezzling hundreds of millions of US dollars in state funds, but four presidents after him—including Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono who made the fight against graft his campaign promise back in 2004—were all unable to bring him before the court because of health reasons.

Last year, state prosecutors filed a civil suit seeking US$440 million of state funds and a further US$1 billion in damages for the alleged misuse of money held by one of his charitable foundations but this legal case is still pending to this date.

The government, meanwhile has declared seven-days of mourning following the official announcement of his demise.

Hopefully, after the mourning period is over, it will also be able to steer the nation away from its current problems, mainly by putting and end to the endemic corruption at all levels of the society.

Perang Paderi: The pros and cons continue ... (follow-up of a posting from last year)

Pada hari Selasa, 22 Januari 2008, bertempat di Gedung Arsip Nasional RI telah diselenggarakan Diskusi Panel mengenai PERANG PADERI, 1803-1838, ASPEK SOSIAL BUDAYA, SOSIAL PSIKOLOGI, AGAMA, DAN MANAJEMEN KONFLIK.

Diskusi ini dapat dikatakan suatu peristiwa yang bersejarah, karena untuk pertama kalinya konflik kekerasan yang terjadi di masa lalu yang melibatkan tiga etnis / suku, yaitu Minangkabau, Batak dan Melayu Riau, dibahas bersama dalam suasana keakraban dan persaudaraan dengan semangat menjaga keutuhan Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia.

Mungkin ini dapat menjadi “model penyelesaian” konflik yang terjadi antar etnis/suku lain di Indonesia.

Pembukaan oleh Kepala Arsip Nasional, Djoko Utomo.

Pembicara:

1) Prof Dr Taufik Abdullah, tentang dinamika konflik dan konsensus antara Adat dan Islam di Minangkabau.

2) Prof Dr Franz Magnis Suseno, tentang pengalaman Perang 30 Tahun antara penganut Protestan dan Katolik di Eropa Barat, 1618-1648, serta penyelesaiannya dalam Perjanjian Westphalia.

3) Prof Dr `Azyumardi Azra, M.A tentang aneka makna ”Adat Basandi Syarak, Syarak Basandi Kitabullah”.

4) Dari MUI, tentang Mazhab Hanbali dan Kaum Wahabi.

Paparan makalah dari masyarakat Minangkabau, baik dari Ranah di Sumatera Barat,maupun yang di Rantau, masyarakat Mandailing/Batak di Provinsi Sumatera Utara, dan masyarakat Melayu Riau di Provinsi Riau.

Makalah dari masyarakat Provinsi Sumatera Barat, disampaikan oleh:

1) Prof. Dr. Asmaniar Idris,M.A.

2) Bachtiar Abna, SH, MH, Dt Rajo Penghulu.

3) Drs. H.Sjafnir Aboe Nain.

Makalah dari masyarakat Mandailing/Batak disampaikan oleh:

1) Prof. H. Bismar Siregar, SH.

2) Batara R. Hutagalung.

Makalah yang mewakili Provinsi Riau, disampaikan oleh Prof. Dr. Suwardi M.S.

Acara ditutup oleh Mayjen TNI (Purn.) Asril Tanjung, Ketua Gebu Minang

Di bawah ini adalah kesimpulan sementara dari diskusi panel tersebut.

Arsip Nasional RI akan membukukan semua makalah.

Ringkasan buku Mangaraja Onggang Parlindungan: “Tuanku Rao. Teror Agama Islam Mazhab Hambali di Tanah Batak. 1816 – 1833” dan makalah yang disampaikan oleh Batara R. Hutagalung dalam diskusi panel tersebut, dapat dibaca di weblog http://batarahutagalung.blogspot.com.

Batara R. Hutagalung

================================================

TIM PERUMUS

DISKUSI PANEL PERANG PADERI, 1803-1838

ASPEK SOSIAL BUDAYA, SOSIAL PSIKOLOGI, AGAMA,

DAN MANAJEMEN KONFLIK

JAKARTA, 22 JANUARI 2008.

KESIMPULAN SEMENTARA

[Draft awal Kesimpulan Sementara ini disusun oleh Dr. Saafroedin Bahar, dan disunting pertama kali oleh Prof. Dr. Taufik Abdullah. Naskah yang sudah disunting ini dibahas lebih lanjut oleh Tim Perumus yang nama-nama dan tandatangannya tercantum di bagian akhir naskah ini. Kesimpulan ini kemudian dibacakan di depan Sidang Paripurna oleh Bp. H.Azaly Djohan S.H dari Sekretariat Nasional Masyarakat Hukum Adat, didamping oleh Batara R. Hutagalung dan Dr. Saafroedin Bahar.]

Suatu benang merah yang terlihat dengan jelas dalam demikian banyak cerita rakyat Indonesia di berbagai daerah adalah dambaan akan adanya suatu masyarakat yang damai, makmur, dan sejahtera dan dipimpin oleh pemimpin visioner yang memerintah dengan adil dan bijaksana.

Gerakan Paderi berlangsung selama 35 tahun, 1803-1838, di daerah-daerah yang sekarang merupakan bagian dari Provinsi Sumatera Barat, Provinsi Sumatera Utara, dan Provinsi Riau. Pada dasarnya Gerakan Paderi ini dapat dipandang sebagai bagian dari proses panjang penyesuaian antara adat dan budaya Minangkabau yang bersifat lokal dengan ajaran agama Islam yang bersifat universal.

Gerakan Paderi ini mencakup tiga babak, yaitu babak Gerakan Paderi 1803-1821 sebagai gerakan intelektual pemurnian agama Islam dari berbagai kebiasaan masyarakat yang dilarang agama; Perang Paderi 1821-1833 merupakan taraf awal dari peperangan melawan pemerintah kolonial Hindia Belanda; dan Perang Minangkabau, 1833-1838 sewaktu seluruh masyarakat Minangkabau bersatu untuk melakukan perlawanan bersenjata melawan pemerintah kolonial Hindia Belanda.

Dalam babak ketiga melawan pemerintah kolonial Hindia Belanda ini sangat terkenal peranan Tuanku Imam Bonjol di daerah Minangkabau dan Tuanku Tambusai di daerah Riau, sehingga dalam rangka pembangunan semangat kebangsaan pasca kemerdekaan, kedua beliau tersebut dianugerahi oleh Pemerintah dengan gelar “Pahlawan Nasional” dan sudah barang tentu merupakan kebanggaan dari penduduk di daerah asalnya masing-masing, dan tidak perlu dipermasalahkan karena sudah berkekuatan hukum.

Diskusi panel ini adalah upaya pertama kalinya untuk menjernihkan masalah kekerasan yang terjadi dalam sejarah masa lampau yang meliputi masyarakat beberapa daerah. Walaupun pada mulanya ada kekhawatiran akan terjadinya reaksi yang bersifat emosional terhadap beberapa hal yang dirasakan cukup peka, namun dari beberapa kali pertemuan pendahuluan yang dilaksanakan di beberapa daerah terbukti bahwa bukan saja masyarakat daerah sudah dapat bersikap dewasa, tetapi juga telah memberikan penafsiran yang lebih rasional—bahkan bantahan—terhadap pernyataan-pernyataan yang terdapat dalam beberapa buku dan artikel mengenai Perang Paderi ini.

Kajian yang dilakukan oleh beberapa pemakalah menunjukkan bahwa pada awalnya Gerakan Paderi bukanlah merupakan suatu gerakan bersenjata, tetapi merupakan cerminan dari revolusi intelektual yang keras untuk memurnikan pengamalan ajaran agama dalam masyarakat yang sudah menganut agama Islam selama lebih dari dua abad. Kekerasan yang terjadi kemudian adalah merupakan ekses dari fanatisme, yang baru disadari setelah amat terlambat. Dalam hubungan ini adalah juga amat menarik untuk diketahui, bahwa sambil melanjutkan perjuangan bersenjata melawan pemerintah kolonial Hindia Belanda, Tuanku Imam Bonjol dalam buku hariannya ternyata bukan saja mengadakan renungan ulang terhadap terjadinya kekerasan sesama penganut agama Islam, tetapi juga menyesalinya. Lebih dari itu beliau menyatakan bahwa perampasan, pembakaran, dan pembunuhan yang terjadi merupakan suatu hal yang tak diingini dan dilarang agama Islam terhadap sesama muslim. (Lihat makalah Drs. H. Sjafnir Aboe Nain Dt. Kando

Marajo, “Posisi Sumpah Sakti Bukit Marapalam sebagai Kesepakatan Paska Padri”, makalah pada Diskusi Panel Perang Paderi, 22 Januari 2008, h. 7.)

Adapun mengenai kesepakatan yang terdapat dalam Piagam Bukit Marapalam atau Sumpah Satie Bukik Marapalam, yang berisikan ajaran “Adat Basandi Syarak Syarak Basandi Kitabullah”—yang biasa disingkat sebagai ABS SBK dan biasanya dianggap disepakati pada tahun-tahun terakhir Perang Paderi sekitar tahun 1837—walaupun ada informasi bahwa ajaran tersebut sudah ada sejak tahun 1686, atau 151 tahun sebelumnya. Di Bukit Marapalam ini juga berlangsung beberapa kali pertemuan dengan tema serupa.

[Dengan demikian, kelihatannya posisi Bukit Marapalam pada saat itu bagaikan posisi Jenewa di zaman sekarang, yaitu sebagai lokasi terjadinya beberapa peristiwa besar. Drs. H. Sjafnir Aboe Nain Dt Kando Marajo, op.cit. h. 2, h.8. Amat menarik untuk diperhatikan bahwa masalah yang menjadi pusat perhatian ABS SBK ini adalah masalah harta pusaka dan harta pencaharian, yang ternyata masih menjadi masalah sampai saat ini.]

Kajian kesejarahan terhadap Perang Paderi ini bukan hanya bermanfaat untuk sekedar mengetahui kebenaran fakta-fakta sejarah masa lampau, tetapi juga untuk memantapkan identitas masyarakat dari masyarakat yang terkait.

Bagi masyarakat Batak, kajian kesejarahan terhadap Perang Paderi akan memberikan pencerahan bukan hanya tentang mengapa masyarakat Batak bagian utara beragama Kristen dan masyarakat Batak bagian selatan beragama Islam, tetapi juga untuk mengambil hikmah dari sejarah ketika kekerasan dilakukan atas nama sesuatu yang tidak bisa diperdebatkan.

Bagi masyarakat Minangkabau, kajian terhadap sejarah Gerakan Paderi ini bukan hanya menjelaskan tentang adanya tiga babak Gerakan Paderi tersebut, tetapi juga kenyataan bahwa adanya kesadaran pimpinan Paderi bahwa Islam adalah agama yang membawa kedamaian dan keadilan. Kajian ini memberi bahan bagi kaum terpelajar Sumatera Barat untuk membantu menyelesaikan draft pertama Kompilasi Hukum ABS SBK yang sudah dikumandangkan sebagai jati diri Minangkabau.

Pada masyarakat Melayu pada umumnya, kajian terhadap Perang Paderi ini lebih mengukuhkan kebanggaan terhadap Tuanku Tambusai, Panglima Perang Paderi terakhir, yang telah melanjutkan Perang Paderi dan tidak dapat ditundukkan oleh pemerintah kolonial Hindia Belanda.

Diskusi panel ini bukanlah akhir dari wacana mengenai Perang Paderi yang terjadi lebih dari 200 tahun yang lalu. Diskusi panel ini merupakan awal dari rangkaian kajian pendalaman demi membangun masa depan yang damai, makmur, dan sejahtera, sebagai bagian menyeluruh dari Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia yang kita bangun dan kembangkan bersama.

Kepada seluruh kalangan yang telah memungkinkan terlaksananya Diskusi Panel ini, khususnya kepada pimpinan dan jajaran Arsip Nasional, pimpinan Gebu Minang, Sekretariat Nasional Masyarakat Hukum Adat, para panelis, serta para donatur, atas nama seluruh peserta Diskusi Panel Tim Perumus mengucapkan terima kasih sebesar-besarnya.

Semoga Allah subhana wa taala menganugerahkan taufiq, hidayat, dan inayah-Nya kepada kita semua.

Jakarta, 22 Januari 2008.

TIM PERUMUS,

1. H.M. Azaly Djohan S.H. ,Sekr.Nasional M.H.A.

2. Batara R.Hutagalung.

3. Prof. Dr.Suwardi M.S.

4. Bachtiar Abna S.H., M.H. LKAAM Sumbar.

5. R.E. Ermansyah Yamin Gebu Minang

6. Drs. H.Sjafnir Aboe Nain, Penulis.

7. H.Mas’oed Abidin, PPIM

8. Drs. H. Farhan Moein Dt. Bagindo.

9. Prof.Dr. Syafrinaldi, S.H. MCL

10. Amrin Imran.

11. Dr. Saafroedin Bahar

Diketik kembali dengan suntingan redaksional seperlunya oleh Dr.Saafroedin Bahar

Jakarta, 23 Januari 2008.

Love thy neighbor ...

Tomorrow, on Jan. 17, the Jakarta City Administration plans to close down all the kiosks selling flowers and ornamental fishes on Jl. Barito, South Jakarta. These kiosks are located next to our office. Therefore, it is only logical that we have a "soft spot" in our heart about them--thus, the following Question & Answer as conducted by a colleague of mine.

===

‘You can be sure there's a conspiracy involving big capital behind it’

Time is running out for the flower and ornamental fish sellers at the end of Jl. Barito in South Jakarta. On the spot where their modest kiosks now stand, a park will soon be built. For residents who are familiar with the place, the demolition of the kiosks will be a loss. But those who stand to lose the most are of course the flower and ornamental fish vendors.

The sellers say that in as early as 2005 they heard from hearsay that the city administration was planning to rebuild the old Ayodia Park which once stood and fell into neglect on the spot where the kiosks now stand. At the beginning of 2006, Governor Sutiyoso issued Gubernatorial Instruction No.11/2006, ordering the relocation of the kiosks, but by Gubernatorial Decree No.1533/2006 the sellers were allowed to stay until a new location for their businesses was ready.

Now the vendors feel ignored and unappreciated—as citizens and as tax payers. “We know that a consortium of big businesses is planning to build a hotel across the street,” says Tedy Panji Waseda, chairman of the Organization of Flower Sellers on Jl. Barito. Following are excerpts of an interview we conducted recently with him:

Q: Going back to the beginning, how did your and your colleagues initially set up business here on the spot of the old Ayodia Park?

A: Back in 1968 we all sold flowers and plants in a location at the back of the Pertamina Hospital. In 1970, the South Jakarta mayor – Adiwijaya at the time—made us move here, and the location was officially opened by Governor Ali Sadikin. Our business ventures were officially coordinated by the Jakarta Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises, and for a while before that by the Jakarta Agency for Economy and Development. But for all the 37 years that we were here we never had their help in any form whatever. On the contrary, we had to pay them.

Q: What about management—the process of administration?

A: Everything was above board. Only a few of the now-elderly traders who were with us from the start are still here. But when I asked them about their papers they said they had lost them. But as officially recognized street vendors our permits were renewed every year by the governor.

Q: When did you first hear that all vendors here would be relocated?

A: Actually plans existed since 2000. The mayor at that time proposed a model for the park that was almost identical with the one we made, but it was rejected by the governor. Since then we had been asking ourselves, what actually was going on? Nothing happened for a long time, but then, on Jan. 9, 2006, we heard of an instruction from the governor to his subordinates to relocate us. The fire which broke out here in 2005 was used as another reason. We should have been relocated in August 2006, but we had made a huge flower arrangement to represent South Jakarta in the Jakarta anniversary celebrations that year, and it was a huge success. It won us an award from the Indonesian Museum of Records for the biggest flower arrangement at that time. It was 156 meters long and 3.5 meters high. Perhaps the city administration didn't feel comfortable relocating us at that time.

Q: And then, what?

A: Late last year, they mounted their pressure. Well, until the recent gubernatorial elections everything was quiet, but after that the pressure mounted.

Q: In what way? Did they explain things, or was there a warning, or what?

A: Besides spreading the news among us, they began building a new site for us on Jl. Radio Dalam. Only once did they come with an explanation and that was on Jan.4. The budget they had for this so-called socialization from January to December was Rp500 million. We did meet with them several times during that time, but we told them that wasn't socialization; we came to negotiate. Today, the City Council allocated Rp2 billion to build the kiosks at Jl. Radio Dalam, and fencing in this site will cost Rp500 million. I don't know where that money goes.

Q: What is it that you want to achieve by staying here?

A: I only want to act like a good citizen. We earned money for the South Jakarta mayoralty. We now want to hold a dialog with the governor as the one who gave us the permit. We too have a concept for the park, without removing people. And our plan was made by someone who is an expert in ecology. What we want the public to know is that we have made good and civilized efforts. When we know that we are right, we should have the courage to stand equal with anybody—no matter if they wear uniforms and are powerful.

Q: What is your final hope?

A: To meet the governor as the issuer of our permits. Couldn't he postpone and revise his decision? In his campaign speeches Pak Fauzi said Jakarta was for all of us. Well, shouldn't he be willing to receive his own citizens who are in trouble? But of course we know that there are other intentions behind it all. After all, isn't his governor an extension of Sutiyoso, who has to find money for the upcoming presidential election? We haven't seen the documents, but friends working in banks have told us that a certain consortium is planning to build a hotel on Langsat Park. Hasn't it always been like that? Whenever people are cleared off a site, you can be sure there's a conspiracy involving big capital behind it.

The second president of Indonesia

An editorial on Soeharto, by somebody in my office whose insight, journalistic, and writing skills never fail to amaze me …

Don’t know if he realizes it, though …

===

Soeharto

It is almost inevitable that former President Soeharto's illness has once again split his countrymen and women into two opposing camps: those who want to see his trial for corruption and human rights abuses resumed, and those who advise to simply pardon the 86-year-old former leader. And to be fair, both sides can make a valid point.

No one, not even his most ardent adversaries, can deny that it was Soeharto who in the late 1960s led the country away from the brink of economic collapse, ushering in more than three decades of relative prosperity for not only the already well-to-do, but for most of the Indonesian population as well. Under his regime, Indonesia attained self-sufficiency in rice and was help up by the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) as a model of success.

No less visible were the achievements in the industrial and services sectors. Banks and factories arose as foreign investments and loans poured into the country. Soeharto approached the problems of development with the same pragmatism and feel for tactics and strategy that had brought the five-star general success in the military field. Few Indonesians during those years knew, or cared, that much of the money used for development was borrowed money and would have at some point to be repaid.

But the country's per capita income surged, lifting Indonesia out of the rank of the poor countries of the world and into that of the middle-income countries. For that reason, his 32-year rule is still remembered by many Indonesians in the lower strata of society with a certain nostalgia. “Jobs were easy to get,” is now a familiar phrase among the millions of Indonesians who are denied the fruits of the reform era.

But in spite of all the good which Soeharto's New Order has brought, resentment had been simmering long before the Asian economic and financial crisis exposed the rot beneath the surface of progress, exemplified most of all by the sub-culture of corruption which 32 years of iron-fisted rule under Soeharto had created. Remembered too are the gross human rights abuses committed under his regime.

The question now is, should or shouldn't Soeharto's trial be resumed? Despite an earlier decision by the Attorney General's Office to halt all investigations into Soeharto's alleged wrongdoings during the 32 years that he was in power, demands are still strong that he be tried. On the other hand, however, there seem to be just as many who prefer to see the investigations halted.

We, for our part, share the view offered by our former President Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid, who has proposed that the investigation and trial of Soeharto be resumed, and then leave it to the people whether or not to pardon him.

In other words, let's have justice tempered by mercy. After all, much of the truth of what actually happened during the Soeharto years is still in the dark and needs to be uncovered—something that only an impartial trial could achieve.

Welcoming New Year with soaring crude prices

My first piece for 2008. Written amid increasing uncertainties around me ....

===

US$100

Crude prices on Thursday hit a record for the first time high at US$100 a barrel, although they dipped slightly to US$99.48 in the closing of the New York market. The hike took place amid worries about a weak dollar, tight supplies and geopolitical tensions.

U.S. light, sweet crude traded at US$ 99.76 a barrel on Thursday, while London Brent crude hit its own peak of US$98.26.

Some analysts questioned the validity of the record as it emerged because it was the result of one tiny, lone trade.

However, others also warned the prices could rise further to US$100-US$110 a barrel.

In Indonesia—unlike in most places across the world—the increase did not cause panic among the top decision makers with even Vice President Jusuf Kalla saying that “There is no problem with the prices. From the point of view of the state budget and expenditure (APBN) there is no problem with subsidies, either. If we experience surging inflation, it is mainly because of external factors.”

Well, the vice president could remain calm, but neither the Indonesian Stock Exchange nor the rupiah could and this was evident from their downward trend.

The only one who apparently was cautious over the developments was Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati who said the surge would certainly “exert an influence on state income and spending.”

She also said that she would continue to monitor the developments while preparing contingency steps with the global crude prices set an average of US$60, US$70, US$90, to US$100 per barrel.

While we certainly hope that the prices would not go beyond the US$100 barrier, we actually at the same time are wondering as well why all the figures in the 2008 APBN were based on the assumptions that the prices of oil would be hovering at US$60 per barrel only although the APBN was first formulated several months ago when crude was already priced at around US$90 per barrel.

Well, of course it is always good to be optimistic. But if we haven’t forgotten everything, it was our over optimism as well back in 1997 which led to our inability to anticipate the Asia financial crisis.

As a result, 10 years afterwards, we still have to grapple with its aftermaths while other countries are already back on their feet and running again.

In other words, today we still have a lot of problems to take care of. Certainly we do not want to see additional ones especially if they can actually be well-anticipated.

See ya’ in 2008

This is likely to be my last posting for 2007.

And I just feel like sharing one of my favorite pieces by the late Chairil Anwar …

When I started my career in journalism back in the early 80s, I often quoted and discussed this piece with friends in the office.

At the time, we—a bunch of young, foolish and arrogant journalists—thought we were the only ones in the huge office interested in this kind of literary product.

Cheers to the good old days!

DERAI DERAI CEMARA

cemara menderai sampai jauh
terasa hari akan jadi malam
ada beberapa dahan di tingkap merapuh
dipukul angin yang terpendam

aku sekarang orangnya bisa tahan
sudah berapa waktu bukan kanak lagi
tapi dulu memang ada suatu bahan
yang bukan dasar perhitungan kini

hidup hanya menunda kekalahan
tambah terasing dari cinta sekolah rendah
dan tahu, ada yang tetap tidak terucapkan
sebelum pada akhirnya kita menyerah

1949

PINES IN THE DISTANCE

Pines scatter in the distance,
as day becomes night,
branches slap weakly at the window,
pushed by a sultry wind.

I'm now a person who can survive,
so long ago I left childhood behind,
though once there was something,
that now counts for nothing at all.

Life is but postponement of defeat,
a growing estrangement from youth's unfettered love
a knowing there's always something left unsaid,
before we finally acquiesce.

1949

Azra on Ahmadiyah and the so-called deviant teachings

‘The first attack on Ahmadiyah was led by a descendant from Hadral Maut’

Violent clashes between sects within Islam are no longer unusual in Indonesia, a country, once known for its religious tolerance. The past months for example, saw several attacks made on the sect Ahmadiyah. The obvious question is: Why now? After all, the Ahmadiyah community has lived in peaceful co-existence with mainstream Muslims in this country ever since it was still a Dutch colony. Could it be because the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) declared it an “errant” and “deviant” sect? Or is it because the government has allowed violence to pass unpunished?

To get at the root of the problem, a colleague of mine, spoke to Azyumardi Azra, a professor of history and director of post-graduate studies at Jakarta's State Islamic University (UIN) Syarief Hidayatullah. Below are excerpts of the interview (with some minor editing from me):

Q: Do these conflicts have their root far back in the past, during the time of the Prophet Muhammad, or are there other reasons?

A: When we talk about frictions, conflicts and so forth, Islam is actually no different from other religions. To a certain degree, other religions, particularly Christianity, could be even worse. We can see this in Europe's history, what happened there when Protestantism became a religion apart from Catholicism. All religions are susceptible to break-ups because the principles laid down in the scriptures could be multi-interpretable. That creates differences in understanding, and often one understanding is held to be the truest by those who promulgate that interpretation. And so each sect, or school of thought, comes to see its own interpretation as the “most correct.” This happens especially because of the emergence of movements, or ideas, that are transnational in character and position themselves (in the case of Islam) as the only unadulterated teachings of Islam—or the Salafiah, the school of Salafi, in the popular vernacular. This movement is brought and disseminated here by descendants of people from Hadral Maut, in Yemen.

Q: Could you be a little more specific?

A: If we look at the attack on the first attack on Ahmadiyah in Parung, that was led by a descendant from Hadral Maut. I forgot his name. But that is the way they express themselves. They are different from NU (Nahdlatul Ulama) or Muhammadiyah—the country’s two largest Muslim organizations—which are more tolerant because their Islam is more in a social, cultural and political Indonesian context.

Q: What actually is the orientation, and the societal and social-political leaning of groups such as Hisbut Tahrir?

A: Hisbut Tahrir is one of the transnational movements of Islam that emerged in Syria, led by a sheik named Taqiuddin Adamhani, which separated from the original group, the Ihwanul Muslimin. He founded the Hisbut Tahrir. Its main idea is to set up a caliphate embracing all Muslims in the world. Second is to establish the sharia (Islamic law). In their belief, only the establishment of a caliphate can unite all Muslims in the world. Therefore, the establishment of a universal caliphate is a central issue for Hisbut Tahrir, although the idea of a caliphate has never been popular in Indonesia. It has never been an important issue within NU or Muhammadiyah. Actually, Hisbut Tahrir has existed since the late 1970s or early 1980s, although they did not dare to proclaim their existence openly. That only happened after the reform movement (reformasi).

Q: And what about Ahmadiyah?

A: Ahmadiyah already existed here during the Dutch colonial era, since the 1920s. And I know for sure that for more than 90%, both in practice and religious understanding, Ahmadiyah is identical with Sunni or Syiah. They are different only in one respect: that of Mirza Gulam Ahmad. Whether Ahmad is a “mujadid” (renewer) or a prophet. Yes, there is a group within Ahmadiyah which considers Ahmad to be a “prophet,” but not in the sense that he introduced a new sharia. Their sharia is still that of the Prophet Muhammad. Ahmad as a “prophet” only revitalized it. Our Dutch-educated Muslim leaders became familiar and studied Islam using Ahmadiyah books written in English. The interpretation of the Koran by Muhammad Ali, an Ahmadiyah follower—leaders like Muhammad Roem and Haji Agus Salim, used that to study Islam.

Q: So Ahmadiyah is not a new phenomenon. What about Wahabiah, or Wahabism?

A: Not at all. And generally they live in peace with the local population. But since the puritan teachings of Islam came to Indonesia and grew more immoderate, Ahmadiyah became a target. So there is a foreign, or transnational element. The arrival of Wahabism or Salafiah from the Middle East did sway certain people in certain organizations or joined the MUI, for example—and it was then that Ahmadiyah was decreed an aberrant sect. Wahabiah (Wahabism) is a sect within Islam which puts the emphasis on purifying the teachings of Islam. Under their societal idea, people who practice things that in their view is not in accordance with the teachings of Islam will be made their target. Maulid Nabi (the birth of the Prophet), for example, they consider it haram (forbidden) while in our villages it has become part of the people's tradition. It is these things that upset the stability of Islamic life in Indonesia, creating frictions and even growing violence.

Q: What can our Islamic leader and thinkers do to ensure that Islam in Indonesia can grow more tolerant and peaceful?

A: I am now criticizing MUI's fatwas that are based on a very rigid interpretation of the fiqih (Islamic law), such as the one which says that liberalism, pluralism and secularism are haram. Quite often their understanding is wrong, like equating pluralism with syncretism, so that accepting pluralism would mean mixing religions. Of course this is wrong, because pluralism is recognizing the existence of other religions and respecting their beliefs and being tolerant. That is what happens with MUI fatwas, which often depart from a wrong understanding, or from a rigid interpretation of the fiqih. They don't sufficiently take into account the social, cultural and political Indonesian context.

Q: As far as you know, does the government have any cultural program ready to cool down religious tension in this country?

A: I don't think they have. Generally speaking, the government has no firm policy or a clear direction to accomplish a healthier religious life. This is especially evident since a number of religious affairs ministers since the reform movement have said that Ahmadiyah should be banned. That shouldn't be the way to do it. The government is duty bound to protect its citizens. It is perfectly alright for a certain group to say that another group is aberrant, but that is no justification for violence or taking the law into one's own hands. That is where the weakness of two successive governments lies. They don't want to be firm in upholding the law, and so the Ahmadiyah people continue to be targets of violence.

Q: A while ago the Attorney General said that his institution cannot take any action until the MUI has issued its fatwa. What is your comment?

A: That is a good example of an official making a misguided statement. Apart from that he is putting the MUI in a wrong position. The MUI is not an official institution and it is not a government institution, and legally it has never been decided that it is the only one which is authorized to issue fatwas. An according to the fiqih (Islamic law), a fatwa is not binding. It is only one among several legal opinions that can either followed or not. So the Attorney General has made mistakes on several levels. First, Indonesia is not an Islamic state. There is no mufti. We have no ifta' which in Islamic countries has the sole authority to issue binding fatwas. MUI is not a formal institution. It is federation representing several Islamic organizations in Indonesia. In Indonesia, there are several kinds of fatwa, such as those from the Majlis Tarjjih Muhamaddiyah and NU's Bahsul Masa'il, and the ummat is free to decide which one to follow—or to follow none at all.

The assassination of Benazir Bhutto

Death

Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful. It's the transition that's troublesome. (Isaac Asimov, U.S. science fiction novelist and scholar, 1920 - 1992)

For Benazir Bhutto the “troublesome” part probably was the suicide bombing that eventually took her life on Thursday.

When the news about her death started to spread, people all over the world were filled with dismay especially because the country she loved so much was in the final stages of holding general elections.

But, Bhutto—although popular and charismatic—did have many enemies. Some members of Pakistan's intelligence establishment, for example, resented the idea of a woman leading a Muslim nation while there were Bhutto's verbal assaults as well against militant Muslims.

In the Pakistani (secret) agencies and in the army it is believed that there are many people who are not secular, who are fundamentalists and will help a suicide bomber to carry out his job.

A former Afghanistan Taliban intelligence official, Mullah Ehsanullah, earlier this year was quoted as saying that there were more than 500 men training as suicide bombers in 50 sites across the region in Pakistan and Afghanistan. “These camps are run by al Qaida and include Pakistani jihadis and Arab militants,” he said.

And Bhutto, being as outspoken as she had always been, on many occasions openly threatened these militants, something that led to an ever increasing hatred toward her especially because she had—rightly or wrongly—also been described as a U.S. ally.

And it was nothing but hatred that culminated in her assassination. But everything would not end there because even less than 24 hours after her death, Pakistan was already rocked by riots—dashing hopes for a smooth transition from a military dictatorship to democracy and raised the possibility of lasting chaos in the nuclear-armed nation. This should prompt us to—while mourning for Bhutto’s demise—clearly see how hatred sometimes does not only lead to the death of one person or more, but also of democracy.

The late Jim Morrison, the lead singer of the legendary rockband The Doors once said “hatred is a very underestimated emotion.” Are we going to continue underestimating it and let it kill democracy? That’s exactly the question each and everyone of us must be able to give an answer to.

Political parties under attack

Dissatisfaction

Indonesians are not so keen on political parties. At least that’s what a polling agency, IndoBarometer, recently stated after conducting a research on people’s perception about the performance of the country’s political parties.

No less than 54.6% of the respondents covered by the research said they were not satisfied with the existing political parties. It was not something new actually because about a month ago Transparency International-Indonesia (TII) also announced that in their perception index, political parties ranked the fourth on the list of most corrupt institutions in Indonesia.

But like it or not, this is really the era of political parties. There are so many of them today while during the authoritarian regime of ex-president Soeharto, there were only three.

Political parties were not only limited in number at the time but their growth was also strictly under control that on many occasions they could not name their own chairman as everybody holding such a “strategic” position must first of all earn the government’s “blessings.”

That’s no longer the case. They don’t need such blessings because they have become so powerful that—especially through the legislative rights at the House of Representatives (DPR)—they can practically interfere in each and every decision making process by the executive.

But has the power been truly dedicated to the people? Hasn’t the power been turned into something to benefit politicians, or their close circles, only?

The fact is, despite the euphoric emergence of political parties in the country, a very large number of people still live in poverty, economic growth has not been well distributed, education and health services are still scarce.

Of course, it is easy to say that the current administration should be held responsible for all the country’s major socio-economic problems. However, considering the fact that the legislative branch is holding a very big and influential power, probably it is high time to ask: what have the politicians—who represent political parties at the DPR—been doing all these times?

As the year 2007 almost comes to an end, we can only urge political parties to carry out some self-evaluation—introspection will be even better—on their roles. Otherwise, we can see a bigger number of people who are dissatisfied with their performance next year, something which can cost them a huge number of votes in the 2009 general elections.

Events we celebrate next year

100th and 10th anniversary

The year 2008 is only several days away. And we can expect the new year to be very colorful. After all, we are going the celebrate the 100th year of our national awakening and the 10th anniversary of the start of what has always been referred to as the reform era.

Both obviously are very important events. So much so that for the first, the logo of the 2008 Visit Indonesia Year is also highlighted by a phrase that says “celebrating 100 years of national awakening.”

The second, probably does not need any catch-phrase because it is still relatively fresh in our mind. But some also say that ten years—a decade—probably has erased a lot of things associated with reform because even today we can see that many same, old practices are still looming.

A clear example is our inability to produce new leaders, something that has resulted in the fact that most—if not all—of our public offices are still held by old-timers, those who were “already there” during the Soeharto regime.

Even worse is the fact that practically none of the current leaders are “men of vision” as they, intentionally or not, let themselves be trapped in short-term objectives under the pretext of democracy.

Of course, it is not fair to say that reform has brought nothing to the country and its people. We, for example, have enjoyed bigger press freedom and better law enforcement.

But probably what we need is not only something bigger, but something more meaningful and this can only be fulfilled with the emergence of young, new and aspiring, leaders.

Back in 1908 our leaders were all young but already thought about something visionary: national independence. Almost 10 years after we toppled Soeharto from his 32 years of authoritarian rule, we still haven’t clearly formulated, let alone commonly agree on, our next vision as a nation-state.

Therefore, as we are about to enter the year 2008, probably it is high time as well that we are not only planning the celebrations and ceremonies of the 100th National Awakening Day and the 10th Reform Anniversary, but also the best ways to groom leaders for the republic.

It is not important whether the leaders are born or made because it is for sure that if we continue to pin our hopes on the same, old, and tired faces, all the historic—even heroic—events of 100 and 10 years ago, will be just one of those moments to remember, but not to live by.

Aceh and Nias by end of 2007

Three years on

Three years ago a tsunami wrecked Aceh province and Nias district, killing over 100,000 people and practically wiped out all buildings, infrastructure, farm lands and public facilities.

If there was something that taught us about the major disaster—some say the biggest in the last 100 years—it must be about solidarity. As soon as the news about it spread, domestic and international humanitarian aid came although at first it was extremely difficult just to get access to the victims. The results—although still unsatisfactory to some people—today among other things are the construction of more than 100,000 houses to replace those destroyed in the disaster, over 2,000 kilometers of roads and about 800 schools. In total, international donors have spent no less than US$4.6 billion to rebuild Aceh and Nias while the government also poured in quite a large amount of funds.

All these have led to the revival of socio-economic activities in the tsunami-stricken areas. However, next year most of the volunteers and the donor agencies will wind up their activities and so will the Aceh-Nias Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency (Aceh-Nias BRR).

Therefore, unless a “transitional period” is well put in place, it is likely that the full recovery process will be affected.

Worries, after all, have been aired by a lot of people over the possibility that everything will crumble after the aid organizations—and their funds—are gone. In other words, it is imperative that Aceh and Nias start spinning their “development engines” by themselves.

And they can only do so when investments—not aid—do come. The challenge, therefore, is to lure investors quickly especially during the transitional period so when the Aceh-Nias BRR and all those donor agencies cease their activities, all socio-economic activities in the province and district can still run at the expected speed and level.

However, there is no new or magic formula in attracting investors. This means, Aceh and Nias must—like the rest of Indonesia—always make sure that all the laws are abided by, political squabbling is phased-out, graft is eradicated, infrastructure is available, land and property ownership is well-guaranteed, and bureaucracy is simplified.

Only with such measures that investors will be willing to come.

December notes…

And now the end (of 2007) is near…and so I face the final curtain (of 2007)…

Today is Dec. 25, the day of Christmas celebration for the Christians throughout the world. In our office, there are quite a number of Christians. I wish them the best and merriest Christmas of all although I know perfectly well that things have been very difficult for them in the last 12 months. Actually, I should have said “for us”—the whole team—as things have been really, really, rocky.

To a certain degree, all those hardships have even begun to affect our relationships, even friendship. I just hope that we—I—will be able to get over it soon so we can start 2008 with a renewed spirit and with something that will eventually lead to a real improvement to our die-hard endeavor to keep our ship floating.

On a more personal basis, I don’t know what has gotten into me in terms of health. Yes, I’m still blessed with the ability to professionally move things around despite what some people described as “incredible obstacles.” But, of course, there are also friends who have always been ready to lend a helping hand, without whom I don’t think I will survive this far.

However, in the last two months, I have to undergo a relatively lengthy medical treatment for my reproductive organ problem and asthma, reminding me of my “vulnerability” as well as “obligations” to take better care of my body (and soul?) if I wanted to take part in the activities to better move things around me.

I’m also glad that my first daughter managed to obtain her university degree as scheduled. The next challenge obviously is to compete in the job market. I can only wish her all the best although as a mom—probably not even a good mom—of course, I will never cease to give her all the necessary supports.

My nephew is going to get married early next year. It is supposed to be a big event in the family and I wish I could have supported him in a much more “meaningful way.” However, as some people say: there is always a gap between what we want to do and what the situation hands us.

On my way to the office this afternoon, the traffic was so smooth. It didn’t even feel like a Jakarta traffic. Apparently, it won’t be until the first week of January that all the congestion will reappear.

Things look and sound very quiet out there… From where I sit now, I can only see several tired faces … for which I think I have only myself to blame.

Sigh… what a night, what a Christmas …

The EU ban – Djamal’s side of the story

The ban is still on!

As we all are aware, the European Union (EU) has decided to maintain its ban on all of the country’s airlines from flying to its member countries.

This policy, obviously, caught many Indonesian authorities by surprise because before they were quite optimistic that the ban would be lifted in October or November this year.

As it turned out, it was not the case.

Following is a recently published interview conducted by a colleague of mine with Transport Minister Juman Syafii Djamal.

Of course, it reflects the Minister’s side of the story only.

If we want to see things in perspective, probably we should also take the following information into consideration (although it goes without saying that it will be difficult to verify whether this information is accurate or not):

1. The Air Transport Director General was asked to submit a detailed Corrective Action Plan about air transport safety improvements in Indonesia. He, instead, came up with the so-called a Road Map to Zero Accident, which of course was not what EU wanted to see.

2. Even then, the so-called Road Map was submitted later the initially agreed schedule.

3. Finally, there was also a problem of “language barrier.”

Pheew….what a mess!

“Frankly I’m confused myself”

Almost six months since the European Union (EU) announced its ban on Indonesian airlines to fly over Europe the situation has not gotten any better. Initially, there were letters from the EU addressed to the Indonesian authorities, expressing their concerns over a string of air accidents that had happened in Indonesia over the past three years, and asking whether those mishaps were pure accidents, or whether they were caused by systemic errors in our air transportation system.

At that point, the Transport Ministry was in a phase of reorganization, and possibly the Indonesian response did not come fast enough. But as soon as Jusman Syafii Djamal was named Transport Minister, he immediately sent his Director General of Air Transport to Europe to join the annual meeting of the International Air Transportation Association, but the Director General was rejected for unclear reasons.

Following excerpts of a recent interview with Djamal about the latest developments regarding the fly ban.

Q: Why has the EU still not lifted the flying ban?

A: Frankly, I am confused myself, because the ban was issued without their having carried out any audit at all. EU never created a set of procedure for decently barring airlines from flying, and they have no respect for other countries' sovereignty. They announced the ban directly over the Internet, on their website. Other countries would have sent their ambassador to see me in case there were any concerns about flight safety in our country. They always do that. That is the standard procedure in inter-state communication and international cooperation. But EU is different. They just issued their ban on the Internet.

Q: Is that the standard EU procedure or specifically in the case of Indonesia.

A: Specifically in the case of Indonesia, it seems. With other countries they deliver letters, as is usual. And there is also another difference (in treatment). With other countries their ban is applied to the airlines having flights to Europe only. However, with Indonesia it was aimed at all our airline companies, which they said were 51 in number whereas actually we had only 47. And they identified all our airline companies as “unknown airlines.”

Q: Unknown airlines?

A: That was what they said in their first announcement on their website. All of the 51 Indonesian airlines are unknown airlines. That was also what they said in their letter to the president and vice president, delivered through me. That clearly proves that their information is inaccurate—aside from the fact that they are not giving the Indonesian civil aviation authorities to say what they need to say.

Q: And what was your personal reaction as Transport Minister at that time?
A: Actually it's O.K. with me. At first, I thought, maybe we did have some shortcomings, or even faults. Something that happened because we were having a change of Transport Ministers. For that reason, we said we would hold a dialog and cooperate in the process of finding a solution. So we sent a special presidential team led by Chappy Hakim to the EU headquarters to tell them we shared their concerns about air safety. I myself also wrote a letter to the EU official who signed the ban, and that’s why we hoped we could cooperate with the EU. Air safety cannot be improved by bans, it must be done by international cooperation. That’s what we emphasized.

Q: What happened to the special presidential envoy and the team?

A: They were not received with the courtesy that befits a visiting team from a friendly country. They kept telling us this was a technical problem and asked the team members to sign all sorts of forms, just like we do when we want to get our ID cards. We did all that patiently, and finally they understood the situation of the air transportation in Indonesia. They followed that up by sending an audit team to Indonesia from Nov.5-9.

Q: The media made it sound as if their visit went fine.

A: We were very open about whatever they wanted to know. And at the end of their visit, in a letter addressed to me, they didn't indicate that anything was wrong. Other audit teams do it differently—like the American or Australian teams for example, who listed all the points that needed attention. But this team only said that everything had been observed, and that the frequency and intensity of the internal control at those airlines should be improved. So too with their recommendations to the Transport Ministry, in which they asked to step up the supervision over the civil aviation industry in Indonesia. Therefore, we assumed that air safety had sufficiently improved.

Q: And ... ?

A: Last Nov. 19-20 they met and we also were given a chance to speak, although for only for 20 minutes. It was the Director General or Air Transport who spoke. According to the reports we received from our ambassador, everything went well. They lauded the progress that had been made in air safety but asked for time to make sure that the improvements were permanent.

Q: So the latest ban was issued after that meeting that went so well?

A: Yes. They did not sent a letter to me but put the ban on their website. Up to this moment the EU ambassador has not come to see me to deliver a letter. This is uncommon in relations between two friendly states, or in the international air transport community.

Q: What will be our next step?

A: I conveyed all that information to the president, and he asked me for recommendations in my capacity as the Transport Minister. Four points received the president's approval: 1. We would send a letter to the EU to express our disappointment over the extension of the ban. 2. If the EU flight ban was continued, we would call off the talks about an open air policy because we consider it unfair that the EU should be given access to our airspace while we were barred from flying in theirs. 3. We want to learn from them because it could be that their standards are higher than ours, and so we want to exercise our right to carry out ramp checks, checks on the air safety systems on KLM and Lufthansa aircraft landing in Indonesia. For learning purposes, what's the difference between Garuda Indonesia’s and their aircraft. 4. The president will put off his scheduled visit to Europe.

Fire at Polonia

Human neglect

The country’s aviation industry has suffered from a lot of problems in the last two months. First there was a report about a part of an airplane wing belonging to Batavia Air which fell off while the airplane already took off. Second, the European Union decided to keep its ban on all Indonesian airline companies to fly to the air space of its member countries. Third, the domestic terminal of the Polonia Airport in Medan, North Sumatra, went up in flames. And then, the turnpike leading to Jakarta’s Soekarno-Hatta Airport was flooded.

Apparently, it is difficult to predict when the industry will really be free from serious problems that catch the attention of not only Indonesians, but the international community as well.

Among the recent incidents, obviously it was the fire at Polonia which made the most headlines. Fire broke out late on Dec. 1 at the airport of the country’s third largest city, destroying the domestic passenger terminal.

If we can still be glad of something, then it must be about the fact that international operations were not affected while domestic flights largely returned to normal on Dec. 2. as a temporary shelter was put up and tables set up as makeshift domestic check-in counters.

There was only one case of injury reported and the police immediately carried out a thorough investigation including on the possibility of an act of sabotage although so far it had only been said that electricity short circuit might be the cause.

Of course we all know that air travel has started to become a major form of domestic transportation in Indonesia, a sprawling nation of 235 million people spread over 17,500 islands.We might not be really prepared for the sudden surge in air travel demands. Still, it is difficult for us not to say that most—may be even all—of the accidents which had been taking place were related to human neglect.

And when we are talking about negligence, it does not mean that only the regulator, in this case the Transport Ministry, which must be held responsible. The operators and managers must also be made accountable to the airline passengers in particular, and the public in general.

Without sense of responsibility and accountability—that reflect the fact that we do value human lives—it is very likely that we will see more problems and accidents affecting the country’s aviation and its supporting industries.