Washington Report, May/June 2006, pages 39, 52

Islam and the Near East in the Far East

Legal Religious Coercion Opposed in Indonesia

By John Gee

SINCE the fall of the Suharto regime in 1998, Indonesia has had a free press. A by-product of the new freedom of expression was the appearance of magazines and newspapers that sought to boost sales through the use of sensationalism, including sexual imagery that most of the population found offensive. Pornography also became more easily available.

Many Indonesians dislike such publications and would like to see the more offensive magazines banned and others made to observe certain clearly defined standards based on public acceptability. Three years ago, therefore, when a delegation from the Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) met the then-speaker of parliament, Akbar Tanjung, to complain about the spread of pornography, he probably thought it would do no harm when he proposed that they should draft legislation against it.

MUI is one of the more conservative and intolerant forces among Indonesian Muslims. Last July, it issued a fatwa (religious ruling) denouncing pluralism, liberalism and secularism as being against Islam. A week later, a mob led by the violent Islamic Defenders Front attempted an assault on the headquarters of the Liberal Islam Network (JIL), one of the targets of MUI’s hostility. They were held back by students, local residents, police and members of security groups linked to two Muslim mass organizations, Nahdlatul Ulama and Muhammadiyah—the latter despite the fact that MUI’s general chairman, Professor Din Syamsuddin, had just been elected its chairman. JIL members have received many death threats since the fatwa was issued, as reported, for example, in Merle Ricklefs’ article in the Aug. 29, 2005 Straits Times, “Hard-line Islam on the March in Indonesia.”

More vulnerable were members of the Ahmadiyah, who number around 200,000 in Indonesia. Although they consider themselves to be Muslims, the great majority of Muslim authorities disagree, saying that the Ahmadis’ treatment of their founder as a prophet contradicts Muslim belief that Muhammad was the “seal of the prophets,” through whom God completed the revelation of his message to humanity. Though MUI declared the Ahmadis to be outside Islam in 1980, they generally were able to continue practicing their beliefs with few serious problems, apart from a spate of violence against them in 2002. Then, in July 2005, MUI issued a fatwa declaring their beliefs to be heretical and the Ahmadis to be apostates. This proved to be the trigger for a new wave of violence against the group in some parts of Indonesia, particularly in the western part of Java.

When it came to the “anti-pornography” bill, MUI expanded the target of its attack far beyond pornographic publications. Under the Anti-Pornography and Pornographic Acts Bill, kissing in public could result in a five-year prison sentence or heavy fines. Art works considered “sensual” were to be banned, including all nudity. The display of “sensual body parts” would also be an offense, attracting a five-year prison term and fines of up to two billion rupiahs (US$215,000). Though not precisely defined, this term seems to include bare shoulders, midriffs and thighs.

There were strong reactions to the bill from predominantly non-Muslim areas, such as Bali, where 80 percent of the population is Hindu and traditional women’s dress exposes the midriff, and West Papua, where, in rural areas, women generally are bare breasted and men wear little apart from groin sheaths. While many there see the law as an attempt to impose Muslim values upon them, opponents of the bill among Indonesia’s Muslim majority regard it as part of an effort by religious conservatives to impose their beliefs on a society that is mostly prepared to take a “live and let live” attitude in matters of personal behavior.

A recent incident in Tangerang, a town near Jakarta, set alarm bells ringing. Its mayor, Wahidin Halim, courting the votes of conservative Muslims, brought in an ordinance supposedly aimed at banning prostitution but which also contained bans on hugging or kissing in public places or places open to the public, such as hotel lobbies or restaurants. Under the ordinance, a pregnant teacher who had been working late one evening was arrested for “prostitution” while waiting at the side of the road for her husband to pick her up. A local court fined her 300,000 rupiahs (US$33) and jailed her when she couldn’t pay.

The incident received considerable publicity, and seemed like a foretaste of what would happen throughout the country if the “anti-pornography bill” was passed as it stood.

The two largest parties in parliament, Golkar and the Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle, as well as Nahdlatul Ulama—with 40 million members the largest Muslim organization in Indonesia—declared their opposition to the bill as it stood. It also was criticized by women’s organizations and many individuals involved in the arts and the media. By mid-March, most of the bill’s supporters had recognized that it would have to be amended to remove its most contentious clauses if it is to stand a chance of being passed when submitted to parliament in June.

Trapped in an Israeli Settlement

Foreign workers in Israeli settlements on the “Palestinian side” of the West Bank wall are probably in a worse position than those who used to work in the Gaza Strip’s Jewish colonies. Those officially responsible for ensuring their well-being are very reluctant to travel to these localities for reasons of personal safety, and so the workers are exposed to greater risks of mistreatment than those working either inside Israel or in the West Bank settlements on the wall’s “Israeli side.”

The settlement of Shavei Shomron is located deep inside the West Bank, next to the junction of the Tulkarm-Nablus and Jenin-Nablus roads. Given its isolation within an overwhelmingly Palestinian region, it is an obvious candidate for removal under the Israeli government’s selective unilateral withdrawal plans. Between 1994 and 2004 its population declined from 606 to 539, and there appears to be little rationale for its existence except as a means through which communications between three major Palestinian towns can be disrupted on “security” grounds.

The January activity report of the Israeli workers’ rights organization Kav L’Oved described the case of two Thai men who were transferred to an employer who lives in this settlement. The workers found themselves staying in unheated living quarters in the middle of a cold, wet and windy West Bank winter. They had to shower in cold water and had no way to dry their washed clothes. As a kitchen, they had a space with a roof but no walls. They were not provided with food, and the only place to buy any was at a very expensive grocery store. They called Kav L’Oved for help.

After the organization raised the case with the Ministry of  Industry, Trade and Labor, their employer gave the workers a sack of rice, but warned them not to complain again. The workers hoped that someone would come to check on their conditions, but inspectors refuse to go to isolated settlements such as Shavei Shomron, believing that their lives could be in danger from Palestinian attack. Eventually, Kav L’Oved found a taxi driver who was willing to drive to the settlement, and the two Thai workers were brought out.

The Jewish settlers in Gaza at least had a reputation among the Thais for treating their workers comparatively well, but they relied heavily upon them as replacement laborers for Palestinians in their greenhouses and fields. Except in the Jordan Valley, agriculture is a far less important part of the West Bank settlement economy, and so foreign workers are less likely to be offered attractive employment conditions.

John Gee is a free-lance journalist based in Singapore and the author of Unequal Conflict: The Palestinians and Israel, available from the AET Book Club.

< Prev		Next >