New approach urged on East Timor

East Timor Bishop Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo made headlines last week after a German magazine published his interview which allegedly putting Indonesia in a bad light. Sociologist Sardjono Jatiman looks at the issue from a wider context.

Question: Bishop Belo's alleged critical remarks in Der Spiegel magazine have caused an uproar, your comments?

Answer: I think it's normal. When unpleasant things about your country is exposed in another country, you will react that way. It does not only happen to Indonesians. People from other countries will also react in the same way under equal circumstances. If they do not, something must be wrong.

The problem is, the issue itself is not clear yet. I myself have not yet read the article, nor most of those which condemned the bishop, I suppose. That's why, regardless of whether the remarks are true or not, I am afraid the angry response is influenced more by relentless media exposure than by the remarks themselves.

Such a reaction manifested itself on previous issues such as that concerning (Supreme Court justice) Adi Andojo, the Situbondo incident (mass riot), the assassination of a journalist in Yogyakarta, the death of a criminal suspect in a police precinct, etc. You name it. So, what I see here is that there is an awareness among our citizens that something is not right and therefore something has to be done about it.

Q: There is now a tendency for people to be easily incited, be swift in judging others and they tend to do it in unison. What do you think about that?

A: When there is public uproar, what we have to do is find the explanation based on each level of the community who react. For example, what is the reaction of the intellectuals, politicians, what are the youth thinking, what about those of other groups in society, etc.?

Unfortunately, here I cannot make such an explanation. We do not have the data. What I find is only news in the papers. Every statement I read or hear from printed or electronic media is always preceded by a sentence such as: "We will see later ..." or "If it is true...". There is no convincing statement.

Q: There are those who say we are losing our debating culture. Is it true?

A: Did we ever have that culture? A feudalistic community never allows any difference in opinion. In the Javanese community, with its feudalistic structure, the young are always told to agree with their elders. There can be no difference in opinion between a superior and a subordinate, or even between a teacher and student, etc. Differences in opinion might occur only in a more elite community. For example, when our founding fathers were debating the drafting of our constitutions.

Q: Does this theory explain the tendency of people reacting the same way to a certain issue?

A: We have what we call a silent mass. They do have their own opinion, but they do not voice it. So, what seems to be the public's opinion at one time does not always reflect the reality. It is a common thing. Above all, we have these media, both printed and electronic, which often makes a person's opinion look like most people's.

Q: Talking about difference of opinion, isn't it considered common to have it in a country like Indonesia which claims to be a democracy?

A: Yes, of course. Every democratic country should recognize difference of opinion. What makes it different is the way you state it. We have a certain norm to do it. Of course you may argue with your parents, but you can state your argument in a polite way, in a way that does not hurt them.

I think, it is not the difference of opinion that matters, but the way we act to bridge the difference. Most people in Indonesia do not have the capability of dealing with such a difference. So, there is a tendency to consider differences as dislike. We also fail to differentiate the person from what he says. In the context of democracy, there is no need to have such a thing. Every person has his or her own opinion which we should appreciate. Whether or not we agree with it is a different matter.

Q: In Bishop Belo's case, what do you think we should do?

A: Cool down. We have to be able to think about it with a cool head. Let's see the problem more clearly, for it is also possible that the people's reaction right now is an accumulation of previous events. So, do not look at it as an isolated problem.

It's been a long time since East Timor was integrated into Indonesia. Yet there are still problems to solve. Here we probably have to pay more attention to micro-problems as well. Are we applying an appropriate approach in developing that province? It is true there has been enormous physical development there, but it is not the most important aspect of development. There are also many important aspects beyond that, especially the cultural one.

I think it's about time for the government to handle problems that have caused cultural shocks. Not only in East Timor, but in other provinces as well. Nipah or Kedungombo cases are some examples. So, every development has to be seen not only from an economical point of view but also from sociocultural ones. This should be designed right from the beginning by experienced professionals, not amateurs.

Q: What if the result of the review and the discussion on East Timor is to give up the province?

A: Oh... no, we have to start with a commitment that East Timor is part of us, part of Indonesia. Do not ever consider it anything else. We have to treat the development issue in the province as our internal affair. Therefore, we will not let anyone else or any other country interfere. (swa)

Dr. Sardjono Jatiman is a senior lecturer in sociology at University of Indonesia.