The PKS for All? Oh Come On!

(published by The Jakarta Post on 22 June 2010. Click here)


The new motto of the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS) that was recently announced at the party’s national congress in Jakarta was a surprise to all of us. The motto states “The PKS for All” and is intended to woo all elements of this nation to join the party. The motto constitutes an advertisement that the party is ready to switch from exclusivity to a more inclusive party.

Interestingly, the congress invited US Ambassador to Indonesia Cameron Hume to speak about “The US view of Islam”. The PKS admitted bilateral relations between Indonesia and the US were strategic and benefited both countries.
This is a rare occasion, but “surprising progress” since the PKS’ political stance is deemed anti-Western.

The party secretary-general, Anis Matta, said the party aimed to reach 2 million members from the current 800,000 members, and to pursue the top three parties in the 2014 election. Apparently, the PKS realized there was no history that parties with Islamic-based ideologies ever won elections. Although Indonesia is the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, nationalist-based parties gained the most votes.

Nevertheless, as the fourth-ranked party in the 2009 election, the PKS has a chance to go one step higher and snatch the third rank in 2014. However, it will not be as simple as flipping the palm because of the conservative principles label that has been stuck on the party. The PKS was known for a long time as the staunch promoter of upholding sharia in Indonesia. The party, since it was established, has several achievements to its credit such as the controversial pornography law, and many other “sharia- nuanced” bylaws in particular regions that are headed by the party’s members.

Another stumbling block that may hamper the “PKS for All” probably are several leaders within the party who are connected to a tendency to religious sentiments. We remember shortly after President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) picked Boediono as his running mate in the 2009 presidential election, the then PKS president Tifatul Sembiring blatantly questioned Boediono’s faith in Islam. Tifatul claimed, at that time, that the fact Boediono regularly attended Friday prayers at Bank Indonesia’s mosque was not enough to consider him a devout Muslim.

The second time, Tifatul (now the Communications and Information Technology Minister) gave a controversial statement was when he compared a sex tape scandal involving Ariel Peterpan, Luna Maya and Cut Tari look-alikes to the theological debate between Christians and Muslims about the death of Jesus Christ.

On Thursday, June 17, during a breakfast meeting at his office on the public debate over the sex tapes featuring people resembling the three national celebrities, Tifatul remarked that it was like the dispute between Muslims, who believe that Jesus Christ was not crucified but rather that someone resembling him was, and Christians, who believe that Jesus Christ was crucified. Although I believe (and hope) the majority of Christians will not feel too offended by Tifatul’s statement, we see such haphazard statements will be an obstacle to the “PKS for All” spirit.

The “PKS for All” motto is a brave move, since it means they will open the door for everyone, including non-Muslims, and as a consequence face challenges from members who want to keep the party “pure” of un-Islamic influences. The party executives even assured it would provide top posts on the central board for non-Muslims, however, what the PKS needs to show are the more essential things, such as how they are going to be more pluralistic as well as how they commit to protecting minorities.

The PKS may have made progress when they launched the “PKS for All” motto, however, if they are still reluctant to do a simple thing like greeting people over Christmas or on other religious occasions, is the party really for all? Oh, come on!

***
Serpong, 20 June 2010
Titus J.

The Celebrity Look-alikes

(published by The Jakarta Post on 16 June 2010. Click here)


People, including teenagers, were curious to watch the Indonesian sex videos that were circulated on the Internet last week. Although people accused Ariel Peterpan, Luna Maya and Cut Tari of having featured in the videos, the media, experts and police refrained from explicitly mentioning the names, instead they preferred to say the stars of the videos are national “celebrity look-alikes”. The three celebrities have denied all the allegations.

“They are just unlucky,” said a friend of mine referring to the “amateur sex video” stars whose names are suddenly positioned at the top of Internet search topics. The “unlucky” statement may be true, as many similar video tapes probably exist of other public figures but, luckily, have yet to be revealed in public. The latter are either clever in hiding the scandal, or even smarter by not allowing their secret life to be intentionally recorded.

As usual, the unlucky video stars are facing the hypocrisy of our society, as the public noisily condemned it as an immoral act, while, at the same time, searching for the video on the Internet and watching it in the name of curiosity. Housewives in my wife’s arisan (gathering) have been so excited to talk about the hot video and, thanks to BlackBerry technology which helps our gaptek society (gagap teknologi — lack of technological knowledge), easily share the video with each other and gossip about it at every meeting.

No matter whether the real Ariel, Luna or Cut Tari featured in the videos, we don’t know yet — although some experts found an 80 percent similarity after analyzing the tapes. However, suppose it is them, this is not our business but their own personal lives. Doesn’t everyone have the right to record every activity, even the most private ones, their sexual activities (if they want to)? As long as it does not enter the public domain, why bother about it? People do this without considering the risk of tape leakage, then get into trouble when their video is posted on the Internet due to their own stupidity.

The sex video of the national “celebrity look-alikes” became our problem after it had been circulated on the Internet and our children had access to it, and spread it among their friends via cell phone and email. The cell phone raids by police and teachers doing school to school searches recently found that about 80 percent of the students had the videos on their phones. For Indonesia, sex videos involving Indonesian celebrities are indeed more attractive than similar videos featuring foreign actors/actresses.

Instead of questioning the three actor/actresses, it would be better for police to hunt down the one responsible for uploading the videos onto the Internet. The perpetrator is more dangerous than the “celebrity look-alikes” who star in the videos.

So what the three “celebrity look-alikes” have done is considered their private domain, unfortunately, they may have been careless safeguarding the recorded material. Would there be any issue if their videos had not been revealed to the public? We wouldn’t know what they had done and our society would have remained at peace, right? We had better not waste time examining other people’s personal lives, no matter how dirty it is. We have the right to no longer respect them, but don’t be too surprised with the phenomenon of casual sex in our society nowadays.

My friend was correct when he said they were just unlucky. So if you like being naked before a camera or like to record your sexual activity, even with your legal spouse, and keep it in your computer, cell phone, on CD, flash disk or other storage device, you had better destroy it, before you are unlucky too.

***
Serpong, 14 June 2010
Titus J.

A Good Neighbor Should Not Kill The Other's Dog

(published by The Jakarta Post on 1 June 2010. Click here)

"I will slaughter the dog!" This was a threat written by my neighbor recently through a mailing list consisting of people in our neighborhood.
He expressed his vexation over somebody's dog, which cruises around our residential complex, going to the toilet on his front yard as well as other neighbors'. The dog keeps coming although he has pelted it with rubber slippers or shoes.

"I don't want to confront the owner, but if they cannot keep the dog from making our place dirty, don't blame me if the dog gets killed," he wrote, complaining about the smell. The residential gardeners also complained because they have to clean its excrement every day.

"You love your dog and can enjoy its cuteness, while we have to deal with its poo," the angry neighbor said in his complaint to the owner. Some in the mailing list suggested he trace who owns the dog, or address his complaint to security officers, but he insisted it was not his business to do that as the owner should not let the dog roam.

I can understand his complaint as I also experienced the same inconvenience sometime ago.
The residents in our complex should know and obey the rule, because there is a written rule enacted by the estate management toward all residents prior to the house occupation.
The rule says: "Whoever owns pets, such as birds, cats and dogs, should prevent pets from annoying others. "If someone has dogs, the dogs should be tied and not allowed to walk around inside the residential area freely. If dogs walk with their owner inside residential complexes, owners must clean up after them."

Living in residential areas can be tricky most times. Different lifestyles can spark neighborhood feuds that may last for weeks. It usually begins with small things such as noise from a renovated house, barking dogs, or cars parked in front of other neighbor's yards. Kids quarrel with each other or garbage creates smells, and, of course "naughty" dogs visiting neighbors leave unwanted "gifts".

In some circumstances, it may not cause harm. But in other cases, it causes tension in neighborhoods.

It is important to know our neighbors and be sociable with them. These actions are often forgotten in urban areas, where people easily become involved in their own quotidian affairs.
It is no wonder that anytime trouble arises, people often take shortcuts to the extreme, like in this case, killing the dog without having the will to talk to the owner.

We, urban dwellers, most of the time, only know our neighbors living next door, but we don't know those who are living several houses from our home.
In my community, although some of us actively organize activities to bring residents together, there are still only small numbers of us willing to join.

Since we are mostly busy with our daily jobs, we created a mailing list to keep communication going between us. In fact, a mailing list is a good solution to bridge distance as we rarely can meet physically amid our tight activities respectively.

Let's get back to the complaint about the dog.
If you know the naughty dog is owned by a good neighbor that you know very well, would you still get angry and want to slaughter the dog? I don't think so. It would be simpler to arrive at the dog owner's house and ask them politely to keep the dog tied at home. Unless your neighbor was truly selfish and foolish, you can always excuse the dog even if the dog continues its bad habit.

Or perhaps not?

***
Serpong, 7 May 2010
Titus J.