Our country, right or wrong

There are old customs in our culture. One goes by the name of siri in South Sulawesi, the other is called amok in Java. The term "to run amuck," indeed originated in Java. Siri is the right to kill anybody who insults the family, the village, or for that matter, the nation. What is considered as an insult depends upon conditions at a certain time. Therefore, even an appreciative look from a certain male at a female relative of a certain man at a certain time can lead to siri being committed. The murderer, even while in prison, will be revered as a great hero, a defender of his family's honor. In Java, one humiliation too many can cause a simple, quiet man to run amuck, killing everybody in his way.

These habits are far from dead, as we saw in the wake of the bloody, failed coup in 1965, instigated by another country. Our first president, Sukarno, admitted that more people were killed in those few weeks than during the entire Vietnam war. It is unexplainable why people killed each other at random simultaneously, nationwide. Emotions do things that reason does not understand.

Knowing this, I was shocked when I heard about the choice for one of the Nobel Peace Prize winners. I feared for a backlash in any form. Sure enough, a few days later, the Situbondo carnage was on every newspaper's front page. The burning of places of worship is unprecedented here. The masses must have copied it from somewhere else. Fortunately, due to the wisdom of our religious leaders, this catastrophe did not spread to other cities.

Our people are fiercely patriotic. "Right or wrong, my country" was also a maxim in a Western country during the previous century. Even when things are wrong, we do not take criticism from other countries easily. Let us clean our house ourselves, the way we want and at our own pace. This reminds me of yet another last straw that could break the camel's back.

The contribution of a very wealthy businessman of Chinese descent to the Clinton campaign. If it can be proven that the facilities he bought with the money earned here were not for Indonesia, but for his ancestral country -- while we are known to be a poor country, struggling to keep from perishing (for many people, literally!) -- the fear of a backlash becomes real.

One of this man's supporters suggested that he ought to be presented with a medal. Hold the medal; the camel's back is bent enough as it is! Other voices were heard to say that he did it to get leniency for East Timor, but that is too much honor for where it does not belong. There is logic, although regrettable reasons for what went wrong in East Timor (see H.W. Arndt's article in this daily on Oct. 21, 1996: Casting light on the Balibo incident. East Timor should not be used as the only yardstick to measure our achievements.

Of course, James Riady has the right to spend his money the way he sees fit, but considerations for the environment should come first.

Indeed, one needs a deep insight into the emotions of our people before one can sail in our waters without creating damage to our environment.

In all respect, the Committee for the Nobel Peace Prize 1996 does not have this insight.

INA SUMARSONO

Jakarta