Debate on Pramoedya

I was surprised to read the statement published in Kompas on Aug. 6, 1995, by 26 artists/authors opposing the choice of Pramoedya Ananta Toer for the winner of the Magsaysay literary award.

First, it is really surprising why our authors have endlessly debated the same subject, whereas they are paying no attention to the greater and more urgent problem i.e. "what is the future of our national culture?" This question is left unanswered. So the public seem to be unable to follow the "honorable" writers. Should the case become a polemic, the debate must be carried out in a transparent way. In other words, each argument should be supported by clear facts, and not by reprimanding comments, as quoted in Kompas: "We fear that the Magsaysay award to Pramoedya at the same time implies that the Magsaysay Award Foundation is paying him for assaulting and suppressing freedom of creativity from the early 60s up to mid-60s in Indonesia."

Second, it would be much better if the public were given the opportunity to listen to a dialog or debate between the two conflicting parties. Through an open debate, the public would be able to perceive the problem proportionately. The younger generation would learn from the open dialog how to enrich their democratic life and attitude in the quest for truth. Also in the 50 years of Indonesia's independence, the younger generation will find the momentum to reflect on what the previous generation has done right or what it has done wrong, and try to find the best solution to future problems and challenges.

I wish that the honorable writers would not dwell merely on the issue of the literary award. Great writers of the caliber of Pramoedya and Mochtar Lubis were not writing with the intention of winning an award, but they wanted to contribute to the effort of solving humanitarian problems by means of literary work without resorting to sensational statements.

Third, it further surprises me that the role of Pramoedya is always regarded as uncommendable during the age of Guided Democracy, in which creativity was oppressed. If this is true, then we should also consider the role of many of the writers/artists during the occupation of the Japanese military regime in World War II. When seen from the humanitarian point of view, the atrocities of the Guided Democracy is nothing compared to those of the Japanese regime during World War II.

ASHOKA SIAHAAN

Jakarta