The New Banknotes: The Importance of Acknowledging Pluralism in Indonesia’s History

It seems that 2017 would not be to friendly towards tolerance culture in Indonesia. By the end of 2016, Indonesians have experienced persistent intolerance issues. It was started in Bandung where a Christmas event held by a Christian group was forcefully disbanded by a hard-liner group. As time went on, during the Christmas time, there were also few cases reported regarding the arrogance of Islamic Defender Front (FPI) to do sweeping in some places to uphold the Indonesia Ulema Council (MUI) fatwa regarding Christmas attribute. The GKI Yasmin people, the intolerant case that seems to go nowhere, also had to celebrate their Christmas in front of the State Palace because of their building permit issue. Sadly, this intolerance case does not stop at the level of building permit and Christmas celebration. Another issue that has just recently sparked Indonesians in social media is a statement from a legislative candidate who protested about the presence of “kafir” national heroes in the new Indonesia’s banknotes.

The last case is quite interesting. She rises the protest because she thinks that it is for the interest of the majority. Although she does not deny the fact that there are national heroes who had minority background, it would be good not to include national heroes whom she regards as “kafir.” This case has brought intolerance case in Indonesia to a new level because now intolerance case is not only confined in building permit issues but also has another objective in building an intolerant perspective for the history of Indonesia. This is a worse situation since by changing the perspective of Indonesia’s history, minority voices would probably no longer be heard. A question then may be asked: what kind of history that is actually at stake?

I am pretty sure the deliberation process regarding who should appear in the brand-new Indonesia banknotes was a long and exhaustive one. It is because the banknote should be the representation of Indonesia as a whole nation and not only represent it in particular. Since diversity cannot be taken away from Indonesia, putting on “kafir” national heroes is indeed a good idea since it means that the nation recognizes their service for the country. What is then the importance of this?

People across the world are aware that Indonesia is the country with the largest Moslem population. However, they may not be aware that Indonesia is actually also comprised of people from different background: people that we call minority in this country. By saying so, it is very easy to assume that the Indonesia history should be full with heroes with Islamic background. Thus say, very few people, even among Indonesians, are aware that we actually have people who have given their lives for this country who come from minority background. And as people use banknotes in a daily basis -even for tourists who are visiting our country-, they may then be exposed to the fact that diversity really builds this country as represented by the national heroes appearing on the notes. They may then start to look for an information about the heroes whom they do not know before and then be aware what kind of service that they have given to Indonesia. Hence, diversity posed in the brand-new banknote is actually a very effective way in promoting tolerance culture because Indonesians can then learn about their history from another perspective: a perspective that they might not be aware of before about the presence of non-Moslem national heroes.

However, this move would be at stake when some people start to rise a protest about the appearance of “kafir” national heroes on banknotes. This is because they are trying to alter Indonesia’s history in only one direction and not the other. Isaiah Berlin, a British philosopher, once argues about the importance of plurality in history. This is because human beings are very capable of creating a story that does make sense for them although the cause and effect between each particular case sometimes is not indeed necessary. Having said that, it does then make sense to build an Indonesian history that is solely based on one single component: Islam and Moslem people. It is because majority of the Indonesians are Moslem. However, by neglecting another historical perspective and solely clinging to one perspective, Indonesians may then be misled to think that only Moslem people were actually struggling for Indonesia. We then can easily neglect the fact that people from minority background have also contributed in building Indonesia. In fact, what is actually happening is most Indonesians just never hear about another historical perspective from a minority who has served this country. Their services to the country get blurred by the insistence to only put some figures that may be regarded as majority. They never have any chance to tell their story because there is rarely no any chance to have a plurality in Indonesia’s history.

If this situation continues to happen, we are just worsening our intolerance culture because now it has been brought to a national level with justification from a historical point of view. This phenomenon can also be misused to justify the importance of changing Indonesia’s ideology from Pancasila to be an Islamic state. Sadly, such an attempt to alter the importance of pluralism in our history was conducted by a legislative candidate who is supposed to represent Indonesia as a whole nation.

It is then Indonesian’s responsibility to maintain plurality in Indonesia history. This is because it is important to maintain pluralism in Indonesia and to build a tolerance culture. At the very least, the government has tried by exposing the relatively non-well-known and “kafir” national heroes on the notes. By doing so, the government has unconsciously promoted pluralism and thus not letting the minority’s voice to be shut off. The only task remaining for Indonesians is to further enhance this effort. We must be aware the pluralism of Indonesia history not only from the Islamic-based perspective. Starting to learn history from minority’s perspective is a good way to understand Indonesia better regarding its diversity. We should not let any hard-liner sweep away the pluralism existing in Indonesia’s history. And by doing so, pluralism in Indonesia can hopefully be maintained.

Notes: I actually intended to publish this opinion when the new banknotes were firstly issued. However, since I did not manage to do that, I hope that my thought could still be relevant for other issues.

Advertisements

The Parenting Paradox: Where the Love-Hate Relationship towards Family is Built Up

A couple of days ago, I had a chat with one of my friends. The topic was around the paradox in family, in particular about parenting. Our discussion was about the paradox in parenting and how it can influence the kids once they grow up.

Our discussion started by him saying that he dislikes their parents as much as he loves them. When asked about the reason, he further said that it was primarily because he thought that there is a bipolar nature in any parenting. He then recalled his memory when he was in junior and senior high school. During that time, it was very difficult for him to obtain a permission from his parents if he wanted to join any club. “Although the fact is there is no something wrong with the club, my parent just did not allow me to join,” he said to me. I then continued to ask him what is the reason of his parents to not allow him to join the club. He answered that it is for the interest of safety. In short, he thought that his parents did not allow him to do something that was challenging at that time while in fact he actually loves adventure and trying something new.

He then went on to say that, “even when I started my college, my parents were still over protective to me. I do not know what the reason is but my mother in particular kept saying to me that do not join any activity that will potentially harm you.” He then argued that it does not make any sense at all for him since he was already an adult and really would like to try lots of different things.

Unfortunately, he could do nothing for one reason: dependency.

The story then went on from hate to love. After complaining about how overprotective their parent, and his mother in particular, I then asked him why he could not do something on it. The answer was very straightforward. It was because he was dependent towards their parent at that time.

“If you want to join any club, for sure you have to spend some money to purchase the essential things. Since I did not have enough money to do that, I would just end up for not being able to do something. My saving was not enough to buy me complete essential things. Then I just decided that I would not join the club because even my parents would not give me a penny were I ask them what the money was for.”

I continued to ask him what about other things. And he answered undoubtedly, “extremely generous.” He said that his parents would like to try their best to fulfil what he needed at that time. Tuition fees, foods, transportation, room rent, clothes, books and the list still goes on. His parent and in particular his mother just did not want him to involve in any activity that they consider risk his own life while on the other hand, he really loved it. So that is the beginning of our discussion: the parenting paradox.

The parenting paradox

In general, family is a place where you can lay your back and trust on. It is the one who loves you as who you are. In particular, people start this feeling when they were kids. They knew that their parents love them since they care so much for them. A mother in particular, probably has stronger affinity with her kids since she is the person who gives birth, breastfeeds, and watching closely as her kids grow up.

I then remember reading a book about becoming a man some years ago written by a Jesuit priest. In the book, he admits that there is a stark difference between parenting as a mother and a father. A mother tends to be protective while a father tends to let his kids explore. I cannot remember exactly the example given in the book but it was about how to responding to a simple accident. For instance, when watching their kids falling off from a bicycle, a mother will be very likely to approach the kids and to protect them, even to say that not to try it again because it is dangerous. In contrast, a father has a tendency to say that that is just normal and encourages his kids to try again. He is still going to take care of anything injured but not to discourage and become overprotective. When recalling about reading the book, I was then not surprised hearing my friend’s story complaining about her mother in particular.

So the question is: is there really a win-win solution for such parenting? The problem here is about my friend who has started to hate their family while at the same time loving them as well. Since he is now living apart from his parents, he said that,

“Sometimes I just think that I am very grateful to live alone here while not really establishing any contact with my parents. I start to think that my family is actually just an obstacle for me to reach my dreams. I really hate myself, especially remembering that I was not allowed to join a club that I wanted when I was teenager and when I was in the college. I really hate them but I know at the same time I just cannot ignore them because they actually have showered me with love that I cannot probably get from somewhere else.”

Since I am not a parent yet, I could barely give him any advice. I could only say to him that he has learnt a lot from his experience how hurtful it can be to be overprotective to your own kids. While at the same time showering them with love, it just makes an inconsistency which can be problematic once the kids grow up, like what is happening to himself. I then said to him that even God cannot change any past so the only thing that he could so is to just go on with it. But he has to remember that once he becomes a parent, it is not a good thing to be overprotective. As long as he is sure that his kids will not do any wrong like becoming a drug dealer or something that is prohibited by law, what he can do is to support and also to provide safety net if considered necessary.

At the end of the conversation, he was then wondering how normal it is to have such a hate-love relationship with the family like this. I can only answer to him, “You know how hurtful it is, so just contribute to not make it a normal condition once you become a parent.”

On Suicidal Phenomenon: a Useless Religious and Weak Person Judgement

Sadly speaking, it seems that suicide is becoming a new trend in Indonesia. Just recently, a video went viral showing two siblings committed a suicide by jumping off from an apartment in Bandung. People then started to argue that the siblings actually had a mental illness after their mother passed away several years ago. Such a grievance then led to depression and it seemed that the burden just became unbearable leading them to commit suicide.

However, what I would like to discuss here is not about whether they had made a right decision by committing suicide. After the incident occurred, I just surfed some online forums in Indonesia. From what I read during the time, quite significant number of people are able to say things such as ‘lacking of religious faith that leads to suicide’ or ‘hell is waiting for them’ and other varieties of religious-based saying. Such judgements actually imply that (1) they did suicide because they were not religious enough or not close enough to God and by doing so (2) there will be no place for them in heaven. The question is:is this something really appropriate to shout out such judgement?

In this discussion, I would not like to discuss whether suicide is actually allowed from religious point of view. I am pretty sure such a question leads to a definitive final answer. My discussion here is more about the appropriateness to handle suicide problem. Although I am not an expert in this area, I am pretty sure that a humanist approach is undoubtedly universal rather than making a bias judgement.

One day I had a chat with my friend talking about suicide. I said that if life is so unbearable, suicidal thinking can easily come across. Then my friend argued that it cannot be if you are religious enough. In addition, he said to me that such a thinking may probably never come to me considering that I am religious enough and keep myself close to God. My experience does not then significantly differ from what I read on online forums after the suicide phenomenon I described above. I also had a similar experience when talking about that. Even anyone can experience it when talking with their parents.

Form my perspective, suicidal thinking is actually a really difficult situation because a person maybe in his/her lowest state. The most important thing when finding someone who has a suicidal thought is just to talk to them and listen. I do not think such people really need any judgements from us, in particular a judgement saying how far they are to God. I won’t say that religious consultation does not work. I would rather say it is just not for everyone. If they think that they might get relieved after going to a church or a mosque, then there we are to help. But if it is not, who we are to say that they are not close enough to God and the hell is waiting for them? What we actually need to do is to find the most appropriate intervention to prevent them from committing suicide.

A weak person (?)

Another point to highlight aside from judging them from religious point of view is how a person who would like to commit a suicide is often regarded as being weak. From my point of view, to some extent a bravery is actually apparent from such a person.

First of all, they have been actually bearing the burdens that they think are no longer bearable. We might not know completely how much is it the burden but bearing a burden and facing it even for a moment in life requires strength and bravery. Another thing, I just never think committing suicide is easy. They really have to think to choose the least painful option. But what are the least painful option? Even the most instant and calmest way to kill yourself requires time to get the result out. And do we really think that during this period, the victim does not feel any pain at all? They must face that crucial moment with bravery since they know they will end up their lives. The last point is to think in the opposite way. If, normally speaking, we want to live and enjoy more from our lives and they think to end up their lives, is it not a bravery? They even choose to do something that we avoid. Therefore, I do not think such people are really weak: they are actually strong enough to have a suicidal thought.

Thus say, neither religious nor weak person judgement really helps at all. What we actually need to do is to help them and find any appropriate intervention so they might get relieved from their burdens. Only by doing so we have made a positive contribution to someone else’s life. If we are to judge, we just have to make a judgement that is useful to contribute to make them better and not worsening their current condition.

Note: Into the Light Indonesia actually opens its hand for anyone who has any suicidal though.

The Changing Nature of Human Beings: a Journey to Find Right and Wrong

This story occurred last week when I was just came back home after attending a weekly mass in a nearby church. Upon arrival, I had a short yet deep conversation with one of my friends. He firstly asked me where I was from and the conversation ended up talking about the recent issue engulfing Catholic religion.

In short, he criticized Catholic priests who are involved in sexual scandal. He argued that this might be caused by the fact that Catholic priests are not allowed to get married. Although he did not say that allowing the priests to get married will completely eliminate the case, he went on to say that such a change in policy will probably reduce the sexual scandal case. “After all, we are all human beings who are made from flesh and thus also prone to any temptation. I just feel such a change in policy might help to reduce the sexual scandal in the Catholic church.”

At that time, I said that I do not agree with his standpoint. In short, I argued that as a Catholic priest, you have to devote all your life to the church. It is as if you have decided to take the church as your eternal wife. Although it is true that human beings are made from flesh and prone to temptations, it just indicates that becoming a Catholic priest is not an easy matter and requires high degree of discipline.

However, what is more interesting about the conversation was not about the discussion of Catholic priests and their sexual scandal. It is more about the aftermath of the conversation. My friend went on to say that, “Well, above all of this, despite your disagreement, I would just want to highlight that we are only human beings who are prone to make any mistake. So, later on you need not to be surprised if it is your priest who will be implicated with such a scandal. We are just human beings and our mind can easily swift from one position to another. Maybe at that time, your priest think that this is the right thing that he would like to do. And probably, the Catholic church itself may see it as the right thing”

Human beings and change: between right and wrong

It is a fact that long time ago, Catholic priests were allowed to get married before the celibacy policy were universally applied to all Catholic priests. This policy itself has actually demonstrated the dynamic nature of what is right and wrong within the Catholic church itself. Thus, even a huge religious institution like a Catholic church should admit the necessity of change. This then somehow triggers us to ask: is there anything that is absolutely right and wrong if our simple conversation just revealed that even religious institution does not immune to change its standpoint?

In this regard, I said to him that my position is yes: there must be an absolute right and wrong. However, I am more in line with what Plato teaches us. This right and wrong are actually an ideal that I think cannot be completely realized in this mundane world. From my perspective, human beings are always like the people chained in the Plato’s cave. We can never fully grasp the idea of right and wrong despite the fact that the idea does actually exist. Even if someone might come to us and say that they have actually grasped the ideal and want to share it with us, we are still reluctant to accept the idea. Then, does it mean that we are actually indifferent towards what is right and wring? This is the point where we actually have to play our role as human beings.

The dynamic nature of human beings is actually a blessing that should be effectively utilized. In this case, such a dynamic nature should be able to lead human beings to be better, including a better person who is able to differentiate what is right and wrong. It is more like what Hegel teaches us: when a thesis meets an antitheses, synthesis is formed. This is actually the nature of change. We cannot infinitely hold on to one theses. Since once we have found its antitheses, a synthesis must form and its degree should be above both the theses and antitheses. This dialectic process must then lead human beings to be better and get closer to the ideal world of right and wrong. And this is why communicative action and deliberation process are essential for human beings because only by doing so, we can get closer to the ideal condition of right and wrong, even though, from my perspective, we won’t be able to reach it since our nature that continuously changes.

Then a question related to my previous conversation might be asked: why then a religious institution does not immune for such a thing? This type of question does actually makes sense since religious institutions always deal with something that transcends us, namely God and it is often argued that the nature of God is absolute. The answer for such question is indeed very simple and straightforward: because such an institution is comprised of human beings as well. As what my friend clearly noted from our conversation, regardless of our status, we are all human beings who are made from flesh. Thus, as long as the human beings status is still with us, we really have to change and so does the religious institution. In regard of this, there must be a limitation on to what extent the religious institution should change since it not only deals with this mundane world but also to the world that transcends our nature. But, it is definitely out of my scope to talk about to what extent religious institutions should change. The only thing that I can underline, however, is to encourage any religious institutions to keep open-minded and maintain dialogue between religions and even towards unbeliever. Because only by such communicative actions do we able to be better human beings.

So, won’t I then be surprised if later on Catholic church changes its policy and allows their priests to get married? As long as it has been rationally deliberated from different perspectives, I might not be then surprised. After all, neither Catholic church, any religious institutions, and ourselves are perfect. We are just pure human beings who are prone to make any mistakes and are always constantly exposed to the dynamic nature of the world. But as long as human beings do not deny this condition, they are actually constantly marching towards the better and more ideal condition.

Paying Fine to Trespass Transjakarta Lane: Is It a Good Idea?

It is interesting to follow political condition in Indonesia especially during the turmoil between Police and Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). However, current writing is not devoted to this particular issue. I would rather talk about recent issue in Jakarta with its current governor, Basuki Tjahja Purnama, who is also very well-known as Ahok. Just recently, he has sparked a further debate about allowing very-rich people living in Jakarta with their luxury cars for being able to go through the Transjakarta bus line provided that they will pay sufficient amount of money which will then be used as Jakarta’s revenue. Further clarification coming from Ahok saying that the essence of this policy is not to “merely allow” the luxury-car owners to have special treatment; rather, more importantly, it is about deterrent effect that is going to be exploited: the amount of money that should be paid will be increased as long as there are still people who are courage enough to trespass the bus lane. To be fair, such a policy is quite unique since Ahok can actually generate money from the very-rich people by exploiting the possibility of them to avoid traffic jam in Jakarta. Despite of his seriousness in applying this policy or his actual meaning in saying the statement, there is one question to be asked is: is it really a good idea for citizen in Jakarta and Indonesia in general?

It is true that such a policy has sparked debate and controversy. Some agree and some do not. A simple reflection can lead people to rethink about the goodness of the policy. A simple question can then be asked: what condition that will lead us to be a good citizen in ideal condition?

In answering this question, I would like to refer to john Rawls about his theory of justice. Rawls says that behind the veil of ignorance, people will be very likely to prefer a policy that sides with people with high vulnerability. Thus, for example, justice will be preserved by alleviating people who are living in dire circumstances. Only by doing so a country can be considered as just. The main reason behind this idea is clear: because we choose a basis in which we know nothing about our current condition in real world, we will then try to avoid to have a policy that will not support people living in dire conditions. Of course, people living in such conditions do need our help and as we do not know exactly about our outcome, we tend to choose the policy. Generally speaking, equality is much more preferable in preserving justice. Of course in actual circumstance, we cannot have such a veil of ignorance. But it does not mean that we can just ignore such a preposition. In this case, there is one thing important that can be adopted: the importance of equality to preserve justice.

If we take back this theory with Jakarta current case, it is then clear that in we live in unequal condition. This is proven by, for example, a Gini coefficient. Some people are very rich and some of them are very poor and the rest are moderate. However, will this condition justify the way we obey law? Law is made to preserve justice and to ensure that everyone is bound to it. Punishment is then necessary to insist people so they obey the law even though, according to Rawls, in very high degree of civilization, punishment is indeed not necessary because people have trusted each other and no one would like to breach the principle of justice. It is then clear from the point of view of justice that avoiding traffic jam by going through Transjakarta bus lane and paying fine can actually be considered as unequal condition that only sides with very rich people. Those who are very rich can easily say that the fine is actually nothing thanks to their very high income. The situation will be different for people with moderate income since they will be very burdened by the fine that they should pay. In this case, it is clear that justice is not preserved to the very least group. Rather it only accommodates very rich people who can afford in paying fine.

Furthermore, it also negates the essence of fine itself. Since fine is correlated with punishment because of breaching laws, having such a policy will only say that: as long as you have enough money to pay the fine, you will be fine. Of course this is not the case of building a good country. Punishment should be made in order to increase awareness degree of any citizen that it is also their duty to preserve justice as mandated by laws. Otherwise, punishment will only get sharp to the very vulnerable groups and not to the very-rich ones. This will eventually lead to the negation of principle of justice as stated above.

It is quite good actually to fine people who dare to breach Transjakarta lane. However, this should be done indiscriminately. And one thing important to note here is: fine is not a mean to let very-rich people avoid traffic jam in Jakarta. Thus, the most important thing is not to increase the fine amount. Because even if you put fine for 1 billion rupiah, I am quite sure that there are still few people dare to breach the law as long as what they have in mind is: as long as I can pay, I can breach the law. Thus, what is more important is deployment of law enforcers to prevent such drivers breach Transjakarta lane. This is more effective to increase the awareness of any drivers that they are strictly prohibited to use Transjakarta lane.

Last but not least, I think Jakarta already has sufficient revenue. Even recent news have also showed that only around 59% of city’s budget was effectively absorbed last year. This clearly indicates that Jakarta is not that in dire condition in craving for money. What is more important is to increase awareness of people living in Jakarta that if you want to avoid traffic jam, you have to switch to public transportation in order to reduce the vehicle volume in the roads. Of course, this has also to be incentivized by improving the public transportation service. Without doing so, traffic jam will still be a persistent problem for the city.