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