`Inul debate shows RI society maturing'

`Inul debate shows RI society maturing'

Born in Surakarta 55 years ago, Arswendo Atmowiloto dreamed of
being a dalang (story teller/puppeteer). He probably realized
that he had the talent and has remained true to his childhood
call.

Renowned in media circles as a straight-talker, Arswendo pays
serious attention to social problems and cultural matters.

His resolve, however, was tested in 1990 when he was editor of
the now defunct Monitor tabloid. The paper printed the results of
a popularity poll, which put the Prophet Muhammad in 11th place,
below local figures. The government banned the tabloid and sent
Arswendo to jail on charges of dishonoring Islam.

It is common knowledge in Indonesia's predominantly Muslim
society that religion is a sensitive issue, especially those
connected to Islam. Arswendo pushed the limits, even though he
honestly reported the outcome of the poll. However, the public,
apparently, was not yet ready to accept freedom of expression.

Today, freedom of expression has been once again put in doubt
with the controversy surrounding dangdut singer Inul Daratista.
Arswendo shares his views on the matter with The Jakarta Post's
Arya Abhiseka. Below are excerpts of the interview.

Question: What does freedom of expression mean with regard to the
entertainment industry and art?

Answer: I believe that freedom of expression is an integral part
of art.

It should not be absolute but one simply cannot stop art from
expressing itself.

The same goes for the entertainment industry, as it involves
music, acting and so on. It requires creativity and freedom to
create good shows. Therefore one just cannot suppress freedom of
expression in the entertainment industry.

Q: Shall we draw a limit on freedom of expression, in view that
we do not live in an established society yet?

A: At a certain point, self or publicly imposed limits or
boundaries will automatically come about after taking stock of
the public's ability to tolerate and cherish art, including those
presented in undesirable and unique forms. People tend to be
curious about new things.

The public will thus experience a process of justifying and
approving a new form of art, to a point where a new limit is set
as part of cultural progress.

Q: How do you view the Inul Daratista phenomena?

A: Inul is the real picture of dangdut. She came from a small
town, was poor and struggled to attain success. The industry was
not helpful towards her career as she was not the most beautiful
nor the most talented. Thus, she discovered her own style with
the "drilling" dance when performing her music.

The dangdut industry did not accommodate her. So, she has
every right to do whatever it takes to further her career and
life and she should not be denied her rights to express herself
and to make a living.

Q: Is she a threat to religious and moral values?

A: I'd like to offer my opinion, that in the case of Inul, it is
clearly a classic conflict of interests: A new star overshadowing
the old ones.

It just so happens that religion is being used as the pretext,
as it often has in the past.

Q: Given that example, is our society ready for Inul?

A: Our society is a society that mostly fears the truth and
reality being revealed publicly. We have always been in denial of
so many aspects of life. It is reflected in the case of Inul,
where there is evidence of acceptance towards sensuality from the
large number of people that support her.

We have been long in denial of sensuality, and only Inul has
the courage to be at the forefront, confronting the truth as if
testing the limit.

Q: How important is Inul as a figure for the cultural progress
you mentioned earlier?

A: Very important. There will always be people like her in every
society, who test the limits of culture to progress and to adopt
new values. It is the only way a culture can evolve.

Q: Does Inul's case contribute to the progress of our society?

A: A while ago, every time religion became an issue in any
profession, those involved faced a similar fate of facing a ban
from the public and the government.

But we have seen some progress in our society, as shown in the
case of Inul. A lot of people tolerate her performance as they
are aware that it is in fact harmless to society.

The public can now judge for themselves, what is actually good
or bad for them.

I can truly say that our society is moving in a more positive
direction.