The P-4 course<\/p>\n
The government has decided to cancel the seminar on first
\nPresident Sukarno's 1966 accountability speech before the
\nProvisional People's Consultative Assembly (Nawaksara) although I
\ndo not know whether it is temporary or otherwise.<\/p>\n
I believe the seminar, if held, would only create turmoil and
\nwould be of no benefit. Whatever the reasons for canceling it, I
\nthink the prevailing opinion is that any historical event should
\nonly be judged by the individual. Someone may learn about a
\nhistorical event by studying it or reading a book or an article
\nby reliable historians, or through open group discussion. The end
\nresult is a more honest opinion as it is not engineered.<\/p>\n
A seminar on a certain historical event is only valid if there
\nis a definite guarantee that the attendants are allowed to talk
\nfreely and openly without any fear of being detained and
\nquestioned or facing an unknown risk.<\/p>\n
But there is the surprising news that the assembly will become
\none of many subjects in the Guide on Perception and Practice of
\nPancasila (P-4 course). The government wants people to have a
\ncommon perception of the assembly. People believe the P-4 course
\nis not just an effort to build the nation anew, a nation which
\nupholds high morals in its fight against corruption and
\ncollusion. The Nawaksara is therefore also expected to achieve a
\ncertain political goal. People might question the idea behind the
\ninclusion of the Nawaksara in the P-4 course.<\/p>\n
Why does the top-down process still linger? If we want to
\nsucceed in the 21st century, the era of globalization and
\ninformation, I believe the bottom-up process should be the first
\nchoice. We should start respecting differences of opinion and
\nperceptions. To be different does not necessarily mean to be in
\nconflict.<\/p>\n
The West has different perceptions on the crusade, which is
\nitself a significant part of history. There are two groups of
\ncrusade historians, the traditionalist and the pluralist. The
\ntraditionalists regard the crusade as those expeditions which
\nwere launched with the intention of defending or recovering the
\nHoly Land. Pluralists, by contrast, look for papal validation,
\nthe granting of crusade status, preaching, and evidence of
\nrecruitment. If such features are present, then a crusade took
\nplace, irrespective of where the war was fought, of the nature of
\nthe conflict, and of the offense caused to modern sensibilities,
\nfor which the term "crusade" still carries a cargo of value
\njudgments equaled only by the word "chivalry" (The Later Crusades
\nfrom Lyon to Alcazar 1274-1580 by Norman Housley).<\/p>\n
There is no effort to compromise differences between the
\ntraditionalists and the pluralists, since differences enrich the
\nmind. The traditionalists judge the crusades differently from the
\npluralists, and nobody feels it is necessary to make both groups
\nhave similar perceptions.<\/p>\n
W. PIENANDORO<\/p>\n
Bogor, West Java<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-p-4-course-1447899208", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }