It's so difficult to comment objectively on minority treatment. It has become so ubiquitous that speaking of a particular case would seem hypocritical.
Most newspapers comment about the hurdles and exclusion that Christian communities face in Indonesia, which isn't hard to do considering that they're a minority in most places. Furthermore, high-profile hardliner groups like FPI has become more prominent in many places, while some states and cities with Muslim majorities openly denounce other faiths.
Of course, in a country where more than 97% of the population are Muslim, it's not hard to point out the numerous cases just because of the sheer numbers.
But let's look at the other side: in southeastern Indonesian cities such as Kupang, where the majority of the population is Christian, the Muslim population are also facing hurdles.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
How can we fight for equality if we only fight for one side? It's very easy to say that the other party is at fault merely because being a minority gives you the impression that you are being abused exclusively. It's easy to observe Christian advocates and hardliners condemning the Muslim hardliners' actions in banning churches, and who could blame them? It's not as if it isn't true.
However, before preaching for equality in such a way, would it not be wise to advocate for them to advocate for the Muslim communities facing difficulties in building mosques as well? The sheer scale of published cases of churches being banned raises questions as to whether Christian communities banning mosques are being persecuted as well.
It's true that it's unfair for churches to be banned, however, would they have allowed mosques to be built had they been the majority instead of the minority? We cannot simply condemn injustice that we practice ourselves.
It's also true that the communities are completely unrelated (geographically) to each other. The Christian whose churches are being banned in Bogor and Aceh aren't the same Christians who prevented mosques from being built in Kupang. One is a minority and one is the majority. The same way we can say that the Muslims who banned churches aren't the same community of Muslims whose mosques were banned.
Articles advocating their "brothers'" fight against injustice seem so hypocritical just because every majority always practice exclusion of the minority. It is unfair to say that Christians are being treated unfairly when they're treating Muslims unfairly and vice versa.
Brothers of the same faith? Anyone putting that before the good of everyone in their community (objectively) is violating the very principle our nation was built upon. Why bring the name of God into the conflict of men?
Subjectivity is disgusting, as much as it is inevitable. While most major newspapers reported the fact that GKI Yasmin in Bogor had initially received consent to be built (as well as receiving consent from the Supreme Court when its case was taken to court), a Muslim newspaper did not mention this fact at all. On the other hand, they spotlighted the fact that the mayor and his administration was against the church being built and that the church was violating the mayor's rules. They also mentioned that they were concerned that there might be 200 churches built in Bogor while the majority of the population wasn't Christian.
On the case of the mosque being banned in Batuplat, both the Jakarta Post and the VOA Islam mentioned the fact that the mosque had received consent from the local government, however the Jakarta Post raised the argument that the Christian community felt cheated that their opinion was never taken into account before the signing of the consent. Furthermore, they also highlighted an abduction incident and murder threats against a church member.
VOA Islam hailed the mayor of Kupang, a Christian, as a great figure who even gave land for the building of mosques. This comes from the same newspaper who condemned the building of churches consented by the supreme court. I would have to agree with the tolerant mayor, but must we only highlight things that are supportive of our argument? Must we only focus on the violence of others and turn a blind eye towards our own violence?
To each their own plight.
It's very difficult to achieve peace if we keep on portraying each other as invaders and terrorists. It's very difficult if each community insists on being completely partial. Arguably, it may be too much to ask religious writers to be impartial towards their own religion as it seems to defeat their cause. But is not the cause of every man his compassion?
How can we condemn others and save ourselves? How can we protest the banning of our house of worship and hail the banning of other houses of worship? Are we not free to choose our own faith as much as others are free to choose theirs?
Are we not all entitled to our own opinions as long as they do not bring physical harm to others? Are we so insecure of our beliefs that we have come to fear other beliefs?
It's the same as the Lady Gaga case. Are we so weak in our belief that we could be so easily swayed from our faith? Because that's what is implied in the Religious Minister's argument. To be able to claim that Lady Gaga is a "satanists" who will sway the faith of Indonesia's youth simply projects the belief that their fear outweighs their belief.
Not only the religious minister, various churches all over Indonesia also condemn Lady Gaga as a minion of Satan. The bride of Satan or something of the sort. If your faith in your God is so weak that your idea of Satan could overpower it, you are faithless.
Is your faith in kindness and compassion overpowered by your fear of others?
A few months ago I read an article calling Indonesia a fascist country and I couldn't resist the urge to email the journalist involved with the article to point out that we are (and should be) a democracy. (I emailed him partially because I felt his data were too old to base a report on, some of the main issues he argued for have been dealt with and were used only to support his argument.)
A few days ago news reported a book-burning incident incited by protests by the FPI, who claimed that the book, which allegedly called the Prophet Muhammad a pirate, was defacing the name of Islam and was thus against the law. The FPI did not burn the books, the publisher did.
Book-burning. In this day and age. No wonder they call us fascists.
A nun who had written about contemporary interpretations of love and hetero/homosexuality in the bible was also condemned by the Catholic church as misrepresentative of the religion. She contended that her book was not meant to align with the views of the church, but as an alternative view of religion and love.
Has tolerance been limited by didacticism? Has our love of humanity been overshadowed by our fear of differences?
Persecution of minority remains at large today. Protests against a mosque in New York. Protests against Christians in Egypt. For a world who condemns the practices of the medieval ages, we haven't progressed very far.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
a step ahead, you are always. carefully treading, and ever so carefully it looks almost careless.
like biting into air, I pause and hope for something.
there is nothing but a careful snap and gritted feelings,
squirming in my chest, fluttering in my stomach.
a step ahead, you are,
too transparent, hesitant.
you lead me nowhere and beyond,
to letters written in water
on papers that have long dried up.
The Faithless
Recently, it's always one of those days when I get into semi-serious conversations with my friends. It's probably the college-made-me-an-activist mode activated a tad too late into my college career. Either way, these conversations are always enjoyable because for some strange reason none of us (though we all had somewhat similar upbringings) have the same sentiments towards our home country.
The worst part is, none of us seem to have positive, full-of-hope sentiments at all.
One of my friends conjectured that there'll probably be another case of 1998 in the next decade or so. With all the extremist minority threatening other minorities at the moment, it's not exactly impossible. We haven't been so good with minority rights at all. Not even mentioning the decades before 1998 and the fall of the New Order, we've had plenty of aggression towards minorities in the past few years.
Talk about unity in diversity.
For example, army violations of human rights in conflict-ridden regions such as Papua is common. A video of them torching a hostage from the Papuan liberation group went viral a few years ago. In the latest, less-extreme case, religious hardliner groups rallied and cancelled the Lady Gaga concert scheduled for earlier this month WITH the consent and support of the government. In fact, our religion minister (the controversial figure, as always) released a statement to the press claiming that she should be denied entrance because she is a "satanist". Wow. Seriously?
Government support, in fact, seem to be crucial in oppressing minorities. Big supporters of it, in fact. When the government declared a certain Muslim sect illegal, a small scale massacre occurred of members of those sects. When the bystanders were questioned, they merely implied that they had to cleanse their village of dirty things.
Oh, and the perpetrators got a teeny few months in jail. On that note, a child who stole a pair of sandals from a police officer was threatened with 5 years in jail.
Bravo. Catching petty criminals and denouncing satanists by their wardrobe choice seem to be a more pressing issue in our country.
Some municipalities are even openly denouncing minority religions, refusing a court order that demanded them to allow church constructions. Said municipality also banned churches from streets with Muslim names.
Arguably, I'm attacking the other side too much. Violence perpetrated by minorities also occur, however, they are less often, considering the lack in numbers and authority. In truth, minorities probably react just as hardly towards majorities and other minorities. Government support, I tell you.
I mean, what kind of government would openly agree with a controversial, hardliner group? Our government, apparently.
Of course, we could argue that many of my friends are minorities, including the friend who mentioned the possibility of another riot. However, another friend, who was the epitome of the majority, also said that our country is hopeless.
In fact, he said we were doomed from the start. Let's not even get to minority oppression, oppression and fights also occur between sub-groups within the majority. Why force together a country with so many different ethnicities and beliefs?
Religion and ethnicity is never to blame. I believe that every civilization teaches love and compassion. It's the people who are to blame.
Of course, it's too wide a generalization for me to antagonize the majority. Not all of them are like that. Perhaps it could even be said that the perpetrators are a minority within the majority.
It's just scary that they're getting away with it. I've heard stories of people being herded into warehouses and burnt. I've heard various stories about people being forced into cars doused in gasoline then burnt. I've heard stories of people being beheaded and put on display.
It's just like the Rape of Nanking. The Holocaust. The Crusades. Another piece of history. These atrocities, however, are never admitted in government records. In fact, no statement has been publicly made admitting the riots. Of course, the anti-fascist demonstrations that happened in the same week was recorded so fervently, but none was written about the massacre, the rapes.
My mom listened to the radio, hearing people calling for help. Hearing people scream. She said the worst part was listening to the silence that ensued.
There shouldn't be a best part to these riots. But where there is cruelty, there is always kindness. There is always humanity.
I heard many stories about people being saved and hidden, passed off as a member of the ethnic majority. I've heard stories of victims being kindly offered refuge. Kindness is universal. There will always be those who will put themselves in danger in order to save.
And those are the people we should put our faith in. Not in things that make us fear, but things that make us believe in the power of kindness. There are still those who believe inherently that there is unity in diversity.
In times of trouble, there is always room to believe in altruism.
The worst part is, none of us seem to have positive, full-of-hope sentiments at all.
One of my friends conjectured that there'll probably be another case of 1998 in the next decade or so. With all the extremist minority threatening other minorities at the moment, it's not exactly impossible. We haven't been so good with minority rights at all. Not even mentioning the decades before 1998 and the fall of the New Order, we've had plenty of aggression towards minorities in the past few years.
Talk about unity in diversity.
For example, army violations of human rights in conflict-ridden regions such as Papua is common. A video of them torching a hostage from the Papuan liberation group went viral a few years ago. In the latest, less-extreme case, religious hardliner groups rallied and cancelled the Lady Gaga concert scheduled for earlier this month WITH the consent and support of the government. In fact, our religion minister (the controversial figure, as always) released a statement to the press claiming that she should be denied entrance because she is a "satanist". Wow. Seriously?
Government support, in fact, seem to be crucial in oppressing minorities. Big supporters of it, in fact. When the government declared a certain Muslim sect illegal, a small scale massacre occurred of members of those sects. When the bystanders were questioned, they merely implied that they had to cleanse their village of dirty things.
Oh, and the perpetrators got a teeny few months in jail. On that note, a child who stole a pair of sandals from a police officer was threatened with 5 years in jail.
Bravo. Catching petty criminals and denouncing satanists by their wardrobe choice seem to be a more pressing issue in our country.
Some municipalities are even openly denouncing minority religions, refusing a court order that demanded them to allow church constructions. Said municipality also banned churches from streets with Muslim names.
Arguably, I'm attacking the other side too much. Violence perpetrated by minorities also occur, however, they are less often, considering the lack in numbers and authority. In truth, minorities probably react just as hardly towards majorities and other minorities. Government support, I tell you.
I mean, what kind of government would openly agree with a controversial, hardliner group? Our government, apparently.
Of course, we could argue that many of my friends are minorities, including the friend who mentioned the possibility of another riot. However, another friend, who was the epitome of the majority, also said that our country is hopeless.
In fact, he said we were doomed from the start. Let's not even get to minority oppression, oppression and fights also occur between sub-groups within the majority. Why force together a country with so many different ethnicities and beliefs?
Religion and ethnicity is never to blame. I believe that every civilization teaches love and compassion. It's the people who are to blame.
Of course, it's too wide a generalization for me to antagonize the majority. Not all of them are like that. Perhaps it could even be said that the perpetrators are a minority within the majority.
It's just scary that they're getting away with it. I've heard stories of people being herded into warehouses and burnt. I've heard various stories about people being forced into cars doused in gasoline then burnt. I've heard stories of people being beheaded and put on display.
It's just like the Rape of Nanking. The Holocaust. The Crusades. Another piece of history. These atrocities, however, are never admitted in government records. In fact, no statement has been publicly made admitting the riots. Of course, the anti-fascist demonstrations that happened in the same week was recorded so fervently, but none was written about the massacre, the rapes.
My mom listened to the radio, hearing people calling for help. Hearing people scream. She said the worst part was listening to the silence that ensued.
There shouldn't be a best part to these riots. But where there is cruelty, there is always kindness. There is always humanity.
I heard many stories about people being saved and hidden, passed off as a member of the ethnic majority. I've heard stories of victims being kindly offered refuge. Kindness is universal. There will always be those who will put themselves in danger in order to save.
And those are the people we should put our faith in. Not in things that make us fear, but things that make us believe in the power of kindness. There are still those who believe inherently that there is unity in diversity.
In times of trouble, there is always room to believe in altruism.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Dirty Dancing
All the drafts I wanted to post in the beginning of April sort of piled up and made their way to mid-June, so in another edition of my old-news-update, I just wanted to draw attention to the current fad of turning waste into power (and money).
We can all agree this is a universally-beneficial idea. Nobody likes waste, we want them gone. Now whether them being gone benefits someone else monetarily is another thing, but we all agree that if waste itself could be annihilated by putting them to good use, everyone's happy, yes?
I don't imagine a lot of people complaining, "hey, you're making money off my poo!" and being honestly offended by the idea that he's not being compensated for the loss of his poo. I mean, it would be great (maybe) if we had a market for human waste, but I think it's good enough that we're able to reprocess them.
Either way, I wanted to discuss these two articles, the first which was published on National Geographic early april, and the second, which was published sometimes mid-May on CNN.
The first article talked about the possibility of using bacteria (thriving off agglomeration wastes) as a microbial fuel cell to generate electricity while simultaneously ridding the water of these bacteria. While such a prototype has been experimented with for a while, scientists claim that this prototype is more efficient and cost-minimizing in the process, making its commercialization viable. The drawback is that the current model can only reduce 97% of harmful bacteria from the water, while the requirement for drinkable water is 99.99%. That said, wouldn't it be revolutionary if we could generate electricity off something we have in abundance and would love to get rid of?
For instance, that means we'll have clean rivers. Furthermore, any more waste thrown in the river will be processed into electricity! The very picture of an ideal world.
Imagine getting rid of all that (unregulated, lol) industrial waste. Imagine being able to bathe and wash your clothes in clean water, without having to worry about how many people have relieved themselves upstream?
On second thought, that pooping business is still a problem. In less-developed nations, slums don't have proper toilets. If you can't even build a house, how do you expect running water and waste-management infrastructure? A lot steal electricity off other people's lines (apparently someone ended up with a monstrous bill and found out that an entire community was leeching off him after the electricity company launched an investigation) and a lot tap water by drilling holes into established pipes.
However, how does one construct a toilet with nowhere to go?
Well, they don't. They poo and pee and bathe and wash in the nearest flowing water source. Some even go au natural and dig a hole. And worst, some do not. Port-a-pottys are also uncommon due to the difficulty in managing them. Who wants to clean after a whole shantytown?
That's where the second article comes in. The second article talks about the slums in Nairobi, where there are (apparently) two options to relieve yourself: perch perilously on a pit above a river (which is a common sight all over the world) or the "flying toilet". Now when I saw the headline I had to ponder upon the meaning of flying toilet.
Apparently it meant relieving yourself in a plastic bag and "throwing the offending item on the street."
MAJOR EW FACTOR. I thought the days of emptying chamberpots out the window were over.
Well here's our solution. A company plans to make our chamberpot into a pot of gold. They're planning to "collect human waste in a series of custom-built toilets before transforming it into compost and fertilizer products that can be sold to the local agriculture industry."Hence, everyone gets toilets and they get a product!
That is, assuming that there is a market for products deriving from human waste. It's a lot more common for animal waste to be processed and turned into fertilizers and whatnot, but the thought of treading on human waste is usually a bit more disturbing for most of us. But for the long run, if the product is accepted by the market, then it would provide toilets to solve the sanitation problems while providing economic opportunities for both local entrepreneurs and the managing company.
Lovely thought. The company also plans to use the waste to generate electricity once the project is widely applied.
They said that they'll be looking to do it next year. Or sometime soon like that.
A toast to humanity, ladies and gentlemen. To the power of people and mutual symbiosis.
We can all agree this is a universally-beneficial idea. Nobody likes waste, we want them gone. Now whether them being gone benefits someone else monetarily is another thing, but we all agree that if waste itself could be annihilated by putting them to good use, everyone's happy, yes?
I don't imagine a lot of people complaining, "hey, you're making money off my poo!" and being honestly offended by the idea that he's not being compensated for the loss of his poo. I mean, it would be great (maybe) if we had a market for human waste, but I think it's good enough that we're able to reprocess them.
Either way, I wanted to discuss these two articles, the first which was published on National Geographic early april, and the second, which was published sometimes mid-May on CNN.
The first article talked about the possibility of using bacteria (thriving off agglomeration wastes) as a microbial fuel cell to generate electricity while simultaneously ridding the water of these bacteria. While such a prototype has been experimented with for a while, scientists claim that this prototype is more efficient and cost-minimizing in the process, making its commercialization viable. The drawback is that the current model can only reduce 97% of harmful bacteria from the water, while the requirement for drinkable water is 99.99%. That said, wouldn't it be revolutionary if we could generate electricity off something we have in abundance and would love to get rid of?
For instance, that means we'll have clean rivers. Furthermore, any more waste thrown in the river will be processed into electricity! The very picture of an ideal world.
Imagine getting rid of all that (unregulated, lol) industrial waste. Imagine being able to bathe and wash your clothes in clean water, without having to worry about how many people have relieved themselves upstream?
On second thought, that pooping business is still a problem. In less-developed nations, slums don't have proper toilets. If you can't even build a house, how do you expect running water and waste-management infrastructure? A lot steal electricity off other people's lines (apparently someone ended up with a monstrous bill and found out that an entire community was leeching off him after the electricity company launched an investigation) and a lot tap water by drilling holes into established pipes.
However, how does one construct a toilet with nowhere to go?
Well, they don't. They poo and pee and bathe and wash in the nearest flowing water source. Some even go au natural and dig a hole. And worst, some do not. Port-a-pottys are also uncommon due to the difficulty in managing them. Who wants to clean after a whole shantytown?
That's where the second article comes in. The second article talks about the slums in Nairobi, where there are (apparently) two options to relieve yourself: perch perilously on a pit above a river (which is a common sight all over the world) or the "flying toilet". Now when I saw the headline I had to ponder upon the meaning of flying toilet.
Apparently it meant relieving yourself in a plastic bag and "throwing the offending item on the street."
MAJOR EW FACTOR. I thought the days of emptying chamberpots out the window were over.
Well here's our solution. A company plans to make our chamberpot into a pot of gold. They're planning to "collect human waste in a series of custom-built toilets before transforming it into compost and fertilizer products that can be sold to the local agriculture industry."Hence, everyone gets toilets and they get a product!
That is, assuming that there is a market for products deriving from human waste. It's a lot more common for animal waste to be processed and turned into fertilizers and whatnot, but the thought of treading on human waste is usually a bit more disturbing for most of us. But for the long run, if the product is accepted by the market, then it would provide toilets to solve the sanitation problems while providing economic opportunities for both local entrepreneurs and the managing company.
Lovely thought. The company also plans to use the waste to generate electricity once the project is widely applied.
They said that they'll be looking to do it next year. Or sometime soon like that.
A toast to humanity, ladies and gentlemen. To the power of people and mutual symbiosis.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Perspective
The challenge of democracy is providing enough benefit to ordinary citizens to make its preservation a matter of urgency to themselves, said Harold Laski.
For all the twelve years of schooling I had back home, I don't think that anyone's really ever explained the meaning of democracy to me. We vote, yes we do, but what for? What is the purpose in voting?
To avoid another dictatorship, I guess. I feel like I've been taking the right to vote for granted, as if it's always been there, as if it's negligible. Because I feel that the results do not really affect me.
But do they? Do they affect the millions of people who voted out there? Will it change anything?
What is the benefit? Where is the reform? Effects are often so insubstantial and isolated from our daily lives. But maybe it's just me and my ignorance.
Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.
We were raised without concern of political stances or race, we were raised to be indiscriminate, as a minority where everyone else is a minority. I didn't even know of race until my pre-teen years. Those who do not know others will fear, and indeed I did not grow to fear others.
It is difficult to condemn people you know. And it is difficult to understand why people condemn those they don't know.
In an ideal world, we would all be united under a cause, not separated under political parties. Our allegiance would be to a united front for all races and ethnicities to be in equal standing, whether that concerns minority rights or economical opportunities. We all be universally concerned about improving infant healthcare and pensions and infrastructure and whatnot.
In the midst of the bickering between political parties, it seems that in their deals and compromises to please each other, the population have been isolated. I simply don't understand why we are divided into race, and in those race and beliefs, each party hold their own.
Yes, an equal representation. Of what? Of race? Of religion? Should we not have an equal representation of causes devoted to communal good? Should we not benefit all members of the population equally and focus on these benefits instead of how each party can benefit their own little following?
Of course, without these incentives, who would support their own parties? But if each party were devoted to a singular cause that everyone else shares, then what is the reason of our bickering and argument?
If each party is devoted to their own manner of problem solving and is devoted to improving the country, why must they affiliate parties with religion and race? Will being a Christian make you do a better job in feeding the hungry? Will being a Muslim make you do a better job in improving minority rights?
Of course they all have their own agendas, but shouldn't the agendas be to everyone's benefit? Ideally, we should have a set of universal causes. Causes that provide equal benefits to all to make the preservation of the current government structure a critical issue.
Who, after all, would live under a government that placed them at a disadvantage? Especially when their political ideology supports the idea of the self-governing, informed citizenry.
It is a scary idea to think that there are those bent on extreme ideologies. It is scary to think that we would sacrifice the common good in order to satisfy the differences.
It is scary to think that we are different when we are not.
For all the twelve years of schooling I had back home, I don't think that anyone's really ever explained the meaning of democracy to me. We vote, yes we do, but what for? What is the purpose in voting?
To avoid another dictatorship, I guess. I feel like I've been taking the right to vote for granted, as if it's always been there, as if it's negligible. Because I feel that the results do not really affect me.
But do they? Do they affect the millions of people who voted out there? Will it change anything?
What is the benefit? Where is the reform? Effects are often so insubstantial and isolated from our daily lives. But maybe it's just me and my ignorance.
Ignorance is, indeed, bliss.
We were raised without concern of political stances or race, we were raised to be indiscriminate, as a minority where everyone else is a minority. I didn't even know of race until my pre-teen years. Those who do not know others will fear, and indeed I did not grow to fear others.
It is difficult to condemn people you know. And it is difficult to understand why people condemn those they don't know.
In an ideal world, we would all be united under a cause, not separated under political parties. Our allegiance would be to a united front for all races and ethnicities to be in equal standing, whether that concerns minority rights or economical opportunities. We all be universally concerned about improving infant healthcare and pensions and infrastructure and whatnot.
In the midst of the bickering between political parties, it seems that in their deals and compromises to please each other, the population have been isolated. I simply don't understand why we are divided into race, and in those race and beliefs, each party hold their own.
Yes, an equal representation. Of what? Of race? Of religion? Should we not have an equal representation of causes devoted to communal good? Should we not benefit all members of the population equally and focus on these benefits instead of how each party can benefit their own little following?
Of course, without these incentives, who would support their own parties? But if each party were devoted to a singular cause that everyone else shares, then what is the reason of our bickering and argument?
If each party is devoted to their own manner of problem solving and is devoted to improving the country, why must they affiliate parties with religion and race? Will being a Christian make you do a better job in feeding the hungry? Will being a Muslim make you do a better job in improving minority rights?
Of course they all have their own agendas, but shouldn't the agendas be to everyone's benefit? Ideally, we should have a set of universal causes. Causes that provide equal benefits to all to make the preservation of the current government structure a critical issue.
Who, after all, would live under a government that placed them at a disadvantage? Especially when their political ideology supports the idea of the self-governing, informed citizenry.
It is a scary idea to think that there are those bent on extreme ideologies. It is scary to think that we would sacrifice the common good in order to satisfy the differences.
It is scary to think that we are different when we are not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)