Should foreigners speak out?

Should foreigners speak out?

In his article in The Jakarta Post on Oct. 2, 1999: Let
Indonesians choose a ruler, Nova Poerwadi responded to an article
I wrote about Megawati Soekarnoputri's recent efforts in Newsweek
to portray herself as a reform leader. My purpose in writing was
not to vilify Megawati, but to distinguish between her well-
established status as an opposition figure and her still-
undeserved reputation as a reformer. There is a difference.

So far Megawati has failed to declare herself in favor of
prosecuting Soeharto for corruption, or of eliminating the
military's dual function or of amending the Constitution. These
key reforms are strongly advocated by Indonesian reform analysts,
and the first two reforms have been demanded by a substantial
part of the populace. For Megawati not to lay her cards on the
table openly -- transparently -- is a retrograde posture to take
at a time when transparency itself is being demanded by greater
and greater numbers of Indonesians.

Unquestioning acceptance of Megawati as a reform figure,
like the automatic refusal to credit President Habibie's
reformist presidential actions, are examples of nonconstructive
political correctness. Mr. Poerwadi's article also states that
Megawati's claim to the reformist banner is the fact that Habibie
was very much a part of the Soeharto regime.

It is a fallacy of logic for Megawati's supporters to base her
credentials as a reformer on the status quo identity of others.
This type of illogic should cause Indonesians to examine the
Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle's (PDI Perjuangan)
political ideals and plans and their readiness to lead a modern
government. The chief point of Mr. Poerwadi's article seems to be
his general objection to foreigners who express opinions on
Indonesian politics. His objection seems based on an assumption
that foreigners speak from a superficial knowledge of Indonesian
society and politics based on news clippings and sound bytes.

Some foreigners may draw broad conclusions about Indonesian
politics based on superficial data, just as Mr. Poerwadi has
drawn a broad conclusion about foreigners. But there are others
who try to become better informed by turning to Indonesian
information sources beyond the news briefs and sound bytes. Mr.
Poerwadi would, it appears, relegate us to a role of silence. Is
this valid?

Must persons who live and conduct their economic lives
somewhere other than their home countries refrain from exercising
their mental or moral faculties or their voices? Expatriates come
to Indonesia for a variety of reasons: some were sent here by our
employers; some made investments here; some came as travelers but
loved the land and decided to stay and may have families here
now. We are not Indonesian citizens but we live here sometimes
for a year or two, sometimes for ten or fifteen years or longer.
Indonesia becomes our adopted home.

When we come here, we arrive body and soul. We don't leave our
intellects, our imaginations, our energies, our ethical
principles at home. If we do, dishonest silence in the face of
blatant misconduct results in travesties of truth like the World
Bank's long idealization of Soeharto's crimes.

Countries will host more and more expatriate residents in the
coming years of globalization, and the issue of expatriate
engagement in local issues may become more acute. Developing
countries should be looking not for expatriate robots, but for
thinking human beings. Yes, our status as guests calls for
sensitivity. But silence? I don't believe so.

DONNA K. WOODWARD

Medan, North Sumatra