`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.