Banning scholars from entering the country undemocratic
Banning scholars from entering the country undemocratic
By Benny Subianto
JAKARTA (JP): No clear reason has been provided as to why Yoshihara Kunio, an historian at the Southeast Asian Studies Center at Kyoto University, was refused entry at Soekarno-Hatta International Airport on March 14.
Banning of foreign scholars and journalists was common during former president Soeharto's New Order regime. The most recent ban maintains New Order politics and calls into question President B.J. Habibie's reform administration as an emerging democratic government.
Early this month, leading Indonesianist, Benedict Anderson of Cornell University was allowed to visit Indonesia after being barred for 26 years.
Anderson was banished from Indonesia, after he and colleagues Ruth McVey and Frederick Bunnel from Cornell University published a paper disputing the New Order's claim that the Sept. 30, 1965 Movement was the work of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) with support from Beijing.
The Cornell paper argued that events on Sept. 30, 1965 were the result of the culmination of internal conflicts within The Army. The paper suggested a conspiracy involving the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Anderson visited Indonesia in 1967, 1968 and 1972. His last visit was interrupted and he was forced to leave the country.
Anderson testified before the United States House of Representatives' Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and the United Nations on human rights in Indonesia.
His constant advocacy for human rights in East Timor, after the former Portuguese colony was integrated into Indonesia, was perceived by the Soeharto regime as a deliberate effort to undermine Indonesia. Accordingly, the New Order government justified the banning of Anderson for "national security reasons", reasons which are yet to be explained.
Anderson's banishment until the collapse of the New Order regime, provides an example of the relationship between scholars and regimes.
His political courage was not only evident in the tension he aroused in the Indonesian government. Ever since his first Congressional testimony in 1976, Washington State Department officials have been challenged by Anderson's unrelenting protests.
His activism was directed toward U.S. involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. administration's justification for "resuming" weapon deliveries to Indonesia during the East Timor civil war, and the unwillingness of U.S. Ambassador Edward Masters to report the enormous death toll in East Timor from September 1978.
The New Order regime and some Indonesian scholars and politicians described Anderson as a national political enemy, who deserved to be treated with contempt.
In 1981, Anderson obtained a visa to enter Indonesia for the purpose of attending a conference. At Soekarno-Hatta International Airport's immigration check desk, a group of plainclothes officers ushered him into a room. Immigration informed Anderson that his arrival had been anticipated for two weeks but that his visa was now invalid.
The harassment was clear but the explanations were unclear. Anderson, armed with a visa was forcibly and impolitely requested to immediately leave the country.
Kunio's ban is more puzzling. He is not known as a staunch critic of either the Soeharto or Habibie governments. He has never issued statements that damaged Indonesia's reputation.
The only "sin" was his 1988 book, The Rise of Ersatz Capitalism in Southeast Asia, which provided a wealth of data on the business networks of the Soeharto family and their cronies. The New Order government said the book undermined Soeharto's credibility. It was not surprising that the Indonesian translation of his book was banned by the attorney general soon after it's release. Despite the ban, Kunio was allowed to enter Indonesia a couple of times in the early 1990s.
Habibie's government is yet to openly and transparently revoke its predecessor's book banning rule. However, many critical books, studies, papers and pamphlets, taboo during the Soeharto regime, are now legally available in bookstores or news-stands. Kunio's data on the Soehartos' and their cronies' business networks is unremarkable in comparison to many recent publications on the same subject, which are widely distributed.
Soon after the fall of Soeharto, Indonesian people openly and legally accessed information concerning these business networks. These contradictions make it difficult to understand why the new government, which is desperately seeking support from the international community for its democratization process, maintains its predecessor's irresponsible politics.
The director general of immigration's official statement that Kunio was banned from entering Indonesia at the request of Armed Forces (ABRI) Commander Gen. Wiranto, for national security reasons, is not viable for, at least, two reasons.
First, in tracing Kunio's past activities, there is no indication that he might endanger Indonesia's interests, either at home or overseas.
Second, he is not a member of any international conspiracy group, who may plan subversive activities in Indonesia.
His banning will most likely convey an image that substantial political change in Indonesia is yet to occur. Such a perception will make the international community doubtful about the process of democratization and the sincerity of Habibie's political commitment to reform. At the same time, it will discourage investment in Indonesia by the Japanese business community.
The New Order regime's habit of labeling and stigmatizing its critics as "communist", "anti-Pancasila", "subversive against the state" and "undermining the President and government officials" is no longer a viable strategy. The labeling and stigmatization of critics only created a "political specter".
The methodology was effective during the Soeharto regime to legitimize its repressive authoritarianism. However, the practice was not watertight: some scholars continued to criticize the regime's politics.
Foreign scholars barred from entering the country kept on researching Indonesian politics and the economy, and disseminating research findings through the print or cyber media.
In point of fact, the government should not be concerned with criticisms: no scholar or scholarly work can topple a regime.
Scholars are neither saints nor angels. They are only human beings following their own interests and pretensions.
Some scholars and scholarly works may cause a regime to feel uneasy, simply because they debunk realities which the regime wants to keep hidden. Or they provide information and analysis that invoke guilt or embarrassment for the regime. Think how an authoritarian ruler responds to scholars who disclose his or her political crimes or scandalous corruption practices.
Conversely, some scholars and scholarly works can be essential for a government. One classic example is the role of George Kahin and his scholarly work, Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia during the Indonesian revolution (1945-1949).
Kahin, the first Indonesianist outside the circle of Dutch Indologists, conducted research in Java during the revolution and became a staunch defender of Indonesian aspirations. In addition, he played an important role in promoting Indonesia by setting up an Indonesian lobby in the United States during the revolution.
Since Habibie has loudly claimed participation in the democratization process, it is not necessary for his government to bar foreign scholars. The Indonesian people and the government should be prepared to counter incorrect information and analyses produced by foreign scholars, without refusing them entry to the country.
The writer is a researcher based in Jakarta.