Our country, right or wrong

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