Finally, it is resolved. A piece of hijab that has been circulating\nbetween campuses and ministries, from press releases to social media\nover the last few days, has finally found its rightful place: a written\nregulation.<\/p>\n
As we know, this issue regarding the hijab emerged after Asma Wafa\nAhdinayang resigned as a student of the Defence University of Indonesia\ndue to hijab-related issues. She believed her decision was part of an\neffort to uphold her religious teachings.<\/p>\n
Responding to public demands, the Rector of the Defence University of\nIndonesia has issued a Circular Letter regarding the Use of the Hijab\nwithin the Unhan environment. It officially provides normative certainty\nthat Muslim female undergraduate and diploma students are permitted to\nwear the hijab in all educational and training activities at Unhan\nRI.<\/p>\n
The Circular Letter serves as a written legal product at the\nuniversity level that can be read, understood, and used as a shared\noperational guideline. It moves from the passive phrasing of \u201cthere is\nno prohibition\u201d to the explicit affirmation of \u201cis permitted\u201d; from a\ngrey area prone to multiple interpretations to a clear regulatory\nsentence.<\/p>\n
In practical government bureaucracy, such a change in phrasing is not\na trivial matter. A single piece of written legal documentation is far\nmore valuable than a thousand verbal explanations. Normative documents\nare institutionally binding and can be read by all levels of the\nhierarchy, whereas personal interpretations are at risk of being\nmisconstrued.<\/p>\n
However, a fundamental question now arises that is far more troubling\nin our public governance. We must ask why a country that has undergone\nsuch a long democratic process must still continuously drain national\nenergy to resolve administrative polemics that follow a repetitive\npattern?<\/p>\n
Historical records bring memories of past governance to mind. On 17\nMarch 1982, the government, through the Decree of the Director General\nof Primary and Secondary Education Number 052\/C\/Kep\/D.82, established\nnational school uniform guidelines. In the text of that regulation, the\ndecree did not explicitly contain a clause stating \u201chijab is\nprohibited.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, the lack of explicit tension and the absence of clear legal\nnorms were instead interpreted by school authorities at the time as a\nlegal basis to prohibit Muslim female students from wearing the hijab.\nThe impact lasted for a long time. Polemics ensued for almost a decade,\nand demonstrations erupted.<\/p>\n
Matters regarding the hijab or headscarf triggered social tension,\ndebates in the public sphere, and even forced female students to choose\nbetween their right to access education or maintaining their faith. It\nwas only in 1991, a decade later, that the government issued Decree\nNumber 100\/C\/Kep\/D\/1991, which firmly allowed Muslim students to wear\nthe hijab in public schools.<\/p>\n
Sociologically and legally, the issue of uniforms in public\neducational institutions was considered resolved at that time. However,\nmore than four decades after the 1982 uniform decree, or thirty-five\nyears after the 1991 decree was issued, our social-policy dynamics have\nsuddenly encountered a similar fragment of the problem.<\/p>\n
The difference now lies in the locus and the institution. While the\nhijab polemic previously revolved around the general secondary school\nenvironment of the New Order era, the issue has now emerged at the\nDefence University. This is despite the fact that the political system\nhas undergone much more modern governance consolidation, and eras and\ntimes have long since changed.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-hijab-issue-finally-resolved-1788318015", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }