This 2-day joint conference by ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute and Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), aims to provide a platform for academic dialogue on multifaceted issues related to demographic diversity in Indonesia today.
ISEAS – BRIN JOINT HYBRID CONFERENCE
INDONESIA STUDIES PROGRAMME
Tuesday and Wednesday, 29 and 30 August 2023 – The hybrid conference on “Social Faultlines in Indonesia: Persistence and Change in an Evolving Landscape”, held on 29 and 30 August 2023, was jointly organised by ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute (ISEAS) and Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN), with support from Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS). A total of 33 physical participants and 283 online participants attended the two-day hybrid event.
The conference broadly covered seven main themes: (1) Social Divisions and Post-Reformasi Electoral Politics; (2) What It Means to be a Minority in Indonesia Today; (3) Religion and Ethnicity in the Age of Digital Disruption; (4) New Religious Identities and Order; (5) Migration and Demographic Diversity; (6) Economics and Politics of Social Inclusion/Exclusion; and (7) Mapping Heritage and Cultural Identities. These themes were discussed by 22 speakers and 7 moderators.
Welcome Remarks
Mr Choi Shing Kwok (Director and CEO of ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute) kicked off the conference by contextualising the theme of the conference. He noted that Indonesia has a unique diversity due to its fourth largest population in the world distributed over an archipelago. This diversity, coupled with its historical trajectory, has made Indonesia highly susceptible to challenges of social faultlines. These social faultlines are especially apparent during the national and regional elections. The aim of the conference was to examine these social faultlines and how they affect the political, economic and socio-cultural life of the nation. He went on to briefly detail the topics of each panel, noting that over 40 scholars were participating in this dialogue. Finally, he thanked the co-organiser, Indonesia’s National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) and sponsor, Konrad Adenauer Stiftung (KAS) for making this conference possible.
Mr Andreas Michael Klein (Director, Political Dialogue Asia, KAS) stated that while Indonesia was known as the largest Muslim-majority country in the world, much less is known about the plurality of Indonesia and Indonesian Islam. He looked forward to learning more about these topics through the lens of our distinguished experts. He mentioned that diversity, as much as it could give strength to society, had also contributed to polarisation and marginalisation. While decentralisation and regional autonomy had aimed to harness the strength of diversity within the country, it had also generated deep social faultlines which are increasingly used for identity politics, mainly to garner support for political candidates during elections. As such, by delving into these complexities, the conference would look at how these faultlines shaped national narratives, politics, the economy, and social landscapes.
Dr Laksana Tri Handoko (Chairman, BRIN) presented his welcome remarks virtually. He observed that this was a timely conference tracking the changes in Indonesia today. Indonesia, he stated, was highly susceptible to polarisation and social division due to ethnicity and class divides, and more recently, differences in education, gender and political ideology. This conference would look at how these issues shaped and affected Indonesian society from multifaceted angles, including digitally. He hoped that the conference would ignite stimulating and thought-provoking discussions. With this conference being the fifth such event BRIN was co-organising with ISEAS, he looked forward to the continuous strengthening of our partnership in the coming years.
Keynote speech 1: Social Faultlines in Indonesia: Persistence and Change in an Evolving Landscape
Dr Ali Said, director of Population and Labor Statistics, BPS (Statistics Indonesia), began his keynote speech with an overview of the most recent Indonesian national census. He clarified that the measurement changes across censuses had affected the type of data gathered. Comparing the socio-demographic diversity in Indonesia across censuses from 2000 to 2022, he noted the composition changes in population over the past two decades. Significantly, there was a general decline in population growth, fertility, and mortality in Indonesia. He further elaborated on a list of population trends in 4 categories: ethnicity and religious affiliation, social groups by socio-economic status, regional variation in social groups, and lastly the evolution of socio-demographic diversity. The 2022 census showed that the Javanese, Sundanese, Betawi, Batak, Malay and Madurese were the largest ethnic groups in Indonesia. He also highlighted that some ethnic groups, citing the Chinese, Minahasan, Balinese, Madurese and Javanese, are already experiencing ageing. He mentioned how migration had contributed to ethnic diversity and this had led to some degree of influence on welfare among social groups. Last, he shared about the relationship between ethnic diversity, inequality and poverty.
He fielded questions from the audience on matters such as how the census determined the ethnicity of offspring from mixed marriages, why certain ethnic groups such as the Madurese had lower education attainment but high levels of house ownership (while Chinese had higher education attainment but lower levels of house ownership), whether economic grievances from certain Muslim students were reflected in the census, and whether Arabic descent was within the ethnic classification and if Indonesians living abroad were factored into the census.
Panel 1: Social Divisions and Post-Reformasi Electoral Politics
The first speaker was Dr Ian Wilson (Indo-Pacific Research Centre, Murdoch University). Stating that his research was developed through fieldwork in Indonesia, he argued that there was a disjuncture between the rhetoric and analysis that Indonesia was facing socio-political polarisation. As identity was fluid and negotiable, the political construction of identity around Indonesia’s elections had little to no relation to how identity was experienced in the politics of everyday life. Polarisation was a collective response to windows of political opportunity and disappeared after its rupture. Dr Wilson noted that this response was not ideologically grounded, but an opportunity structure utilised by the people to negotiate their rights. He gave two examples to supplement his argument that polarisation was instrumental. First, the “212 Movement” of 2016/2017 that affected Kampung Akuarium saw residents enmeshed in political relationships after being evicted. This disappeared post-election, after the residents negotiated and regained their rights. Second, Dr Wilson noted the shifting construction of their Betawi identity from a hardened, militant image to one that was inclusive and protective of Jakarta’s heterogeneity. He concluded his presentation by urging the audience to think of political polarisation as a discursive space engaged with instrumentality.
Thereafter, Dr Riri Kusumarani (BRIN) shared research findings from her team of researchers on women politicians and their social media presence in the run-up to the 2024 Indonesian presidential election. She noted that social media was an essential mode of outreach for political figures in Indonesia. Her research focused on two women politicians who were active on certain social media platforms – East Java Governor Khofifah Indar Parawansa and Indonesia’s People’s Representative Council Speaker Puan Maharani. The team’s research looked at how these politicians portrayed themselves on certain platforms, how they were perceived, and how the news media portrayed them. Dr Riri acknowledged that the sample of 487 respondents was not necessarily representative, as most were young males located in Java. Dr Riri highlighted that women politicians seemed to use more emotionally charged language in comparison to their male counterparts. In the case of Khofifah, Islamic nuances were central to her discourse and focused on the spirit of the youth. In media, these women were however described or defined by their physical appearance and portrayed in a stereotypical manner. She concluded her presentation by suggesting three faultlines regarding Indonesian youth’s perception of women politicians, highlighting that more should be done to maximise the youth’s interests in politics.
Dr Muhammad Fajar (Atma Jaya Catholic University, Jakarta) presented his research with Yoes Kenawas on the gaps between Jakarta-based and other activist groups in their digital activism. He noted that digital technologies can facilitate better digital activism, but at the same time the structural problems that caused digital divides across urban-rural and other lines existed, including by region, gender, and class. According to their research, the digital divide between Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) in the more developed western part of Indonesia and the rest of Indonesia remained significant. Across CSOs, there were some similarities in institutionalisation, the usage of VPN and other technologies, and tools for campaign management. Their research looked at three areas of organisation in digital activism: content building, security building, and programme evaluations. In these three areas, CSOs in the West had more resources and capacity than those in the East. These inequalities exacerbated the democratic decline in Indonesia and complicated the promotion of progressive social and political agendas.
Dr Nawawi (BRIN) gave the final presentation on trade unions, Labor Party and electoral politics. He noted that his findings were still conditional as his survey was ongoing. As the labour movement in Indonesia improved conditions for organised trade unions, these unions could mobilise resources to engage in political activism. With the labour market ‘subject to government intervention’, workers and trade unions had become inevitably political. He contextualised the history of Indonesian political unionism before analysing the Labour Party (Partai Buruh) and its prospects for the 2024 elections. He noted that the unions may not be enough when it came to politics due to extreme organisational fragmentation, domination of old elites in union structures, and workers with no political identity. Thereafter, he addressed the opinions that proponents and opponents had toward the Labour Party.
After the presentations, the speakers discussed a range of topics such as the faultline model, the influence of unequal digital activism on electoral outcomes, the political performance of identity, differences between real and rhetorical polarisation, structural and organisational factors in digital activism, the strategies of trade unions and how to augment research capacity in studying women politicians or ministers. The panel was moderated by Ms Julia Lau (ISEAS).
Panel 2: What It Means to be a Minority in Indonesia Today
Ms Julia Lau (ISEAS) led with her presentation on queer activism and rights in Indonesia. She highlighted the sensitivity of her topic and elaborated on the evolving trends of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and gender diverse, Intersex, Queer and questioning (LGBTIQ) rights in Indonesia. Despite Indonesia being a democratic country, there were increasing instances of anti-LGBTIQ actions. Ms Lau listed a few recent events, notably the cancellation of the planned ASEAN SOGIE Caucus Meeting in Jakarta in July 2023. This event had received online hate and threats against the organisers, including death threats, which resulted in the relocation of this event to an undisclosed location outside of Indonesia. Through her limited survey and interview findings, given the nascent stage of her research, Ms Lau found that there were mixed views among activists on the progress of LGBTIQ rights in Indonesia. While one respondent had observed a decline in LGBTIQ rights protection, another, who had worked in such activism for longer, expressed optimism. Social media has helped to expand the activists’ networks and outreach, which arguably have aided in increasing the acceptance of LGBTIQ rights and individuals among certain sectors in Indonesian society. Ms Lau concluded with the limitations of and future directions for her research project, noting that she would hopefully conduct more interviews and gather more responses to better support her claims about the direction and prospects for LGBTIQ activism in Indonesia.
Dr Chiou Syuan-yuan (National Chengchi University, Taiwan) presented on –Indonesian Chinese’ encounters with religious pluralism. He first discussed the development of Chinese-Indonesian folk religions, which began in the Dutch colonial period with the emergence of Sam Kauw (or Tridharma – “the three teachings”). With the repression of Chinese religious practices during the New Order period, Indonesian Chinese were only able to re-engage with their religious practices after Reformasi. This led to new tendencies, such as renovating temples, re-networking with other temples, and resuming communal worship. New tensions and controversies also emerged. The burning of monasteries and pagodas in North Sumatra, protests from locals on the existence of the God of War statue (Kwan Sing Tee Koen) in East Java, the Meliana case in Tanjung Balai as well as the mysterious collapse of the Guan Gong statue in Tuban were some of the examples highlighted. Dr Chiou, therefore, believed that there was a need to allow migrants of different backgrounds to co-exist with the original residents. This included appropriately demarcating urban spaces and regulating usage of buildings/establishments by various religious groups for their religious practices, preventing potential conflicts.
Dr Erica M. Larson (National University of Singapore), with her co-author Mr Nono S.A.Sumampouw (Independent researcher), presented their paper on identity politics in North Sulawesi. Dr Larson began by illustrating North Sulawesi’s adat politics, focusing primarily on Minahasan’s adat organisations and their actions in relation to Basuki Tjahaja Purnama (“Ahok”)’s candidacy as governor until his imprisonment for alleged blasphemy. In particular, adat organisations in Manado were active in organising support for Ahok and protesting the then Front Pembela Islam (FPI) or any individuals perceived to be close to FPI. As such, they strongly identified themselves as an organisation that were against FPI for spreading hate among the community, not toward Islam. Dr Larson believed that their actions were closely linked to the notion of preserving Christianity in this region as resistance against the increasing Islamisation of Indonesia at the national level. However, Dr Larson highlighted that their approach could also be seen to enforce a ‘Christian majoritarianism’. This was to ensure that Christians in Manado could continue to set the tone for the region, making this region visibly and audibly Christian for the rest of Indonesia.
In the Q&A segment, speakers discussed topics such as the challenges of conducting LGBTIQ research in Indonesia and how to protect respondents’ identities given the sensitivities, the similarities between the tensions faced by Indonesia Chinese in Indonesia with that facing Muslims in Taiwan, the acceptance/rejection of Chinese symbols in Indonesia and the linkage of adat with religious identity. Prof Dr Ahmad Najib Burhani moderated this session (BRIN and ISEAS).
Panel 3: Religion and Ethnicity in the Age of Digital Disruption
Mr Yogi Febriandi (State Islamic Institute of Langsa (IAIN) Aceh) began with his presentation on digital activism and its influence on Islamic narratives in Aceh. After giving a general background, he stated that many Acehnese youths were increasingly using digital media to produce Islamic content. Focusing on two Muslim groups, LABPSA and the Leaders, his research showed that these youth groups often used YouTube to advocate notions of peace, tolerance and inclusion, given the channel’s wider outreach. It also allowed the Acehnese youths to showcase their thoughts and opinions through a more creative approach, developing alternative Islamic narratives that were beyond those of the state. Mr Febriandi, through his interviews, realised that the youths preferred to voice their views through online spaces, mainly because it was viewed as a safe space that was inclusive and allowed better connection with other groups. As such, social media had become a new space where young people could engage in significant societal issues, without the fear of state repression.
Dr Nor Ismah (Sunan Kalijaga State Islamic University (UIN), Yogyakarta) presented on female ulama and how they used social media platforms to issue fatwas (Islamic legal rulings). Focusing primarily on the “Swararahimadotcom” Youtube channel and interviews with female ulama from Rahima (an NGO founded in 2000), Dr Ismah found that Rahima’s female ulama aspired to construct an identity that revolved around an Islam that was women-friendly and gender-inclusive. As such, they tended to use different forms of expression to advocate key issues, such as using tones that were inclusive, non-confrontational, and uncontroversial. They also offered alternative perspectives to conservative viewpoints. As much as social media had aided these female ulama in increasing their outreach, virtual fatwa making had its risks, such as misinterpretation, harassment, and online backlash from conservative groups. Dr Ismah cautioned that social media could perpetuate existing biases and stereotypes related to gender and religion, which could impact the reception of female Islamic authority.
Ms Aqida Nuril Salma (Goethe University, Frankfurt) presented her research on Islamic movements in the current digital landscape. Setting the context, Ms Salma highlighted how the emergence of social media had given Islamic movements a transition point where it shifted from being an autonomous space for counter-cultural politics to a popular space for mass mobilisations. She elaborated this using two case studies. Using Laskar Jihad (LJ) as the first case study, Ms Salma highlighted how LJ viewed the internet as an independent space to create their own form of authentic communication. Apart from that, they emphasised an exclusive Muslim identity through this space, which contrasted with the majority’s perception of Indonesian Islam. However, in the current generation, Islamic movement had embraced a more techno-political orientation, viewing social media as the most convenient platform for activists to connect to the wider audience. The image portrayed had shifted to be more open, focusing on connecting with a broader population through the usage of hashtags, logos, and heavily edited short videos. She therefore concluded that Islamic movements in Indonesia had begun to exhibit significant similarities with global popular movements, potentially shaped by digital cultures in the global context.
In the Q&A session, speakers discussed topics ranging from Acehnese youths’ attitudes towards the new government, Indonesians’ acceptance of fatwas issued by female ulama and differences between fatwas issued by female ulama versus those issued by Islamic organisations, the effectiveness of mass movements driven by social media, the rise of digital ‘authoritarianism’ and how Islamic movements responded to this restriction. This session was moderated by Mr Rudy. H. Alam (BRIN).
DAY 2
Panel 4: New Religious Identities and Order
Dr Max Lane (ISEAS – Yusof Ishak Institute) presented his paper, which reflected on some popular academic arguments on Indonesia. Contrary to these, Dr Lane argued that the most fundamental process which was happening at a basic sociological level was the secularisation of society in Indonesia. By secularisation, he meant a secular consciousness where people may or may not have religious faiths or perspectives and did not view religion as the framework of people’s consciousness. Underpinning this non-ideological process was the significant socioeconomic change taking place in Indonesia during the 20th century. This included massive urbanisation, which resulted in a new hierarchy of the urban middle class and the urban precariat; the formation of new rational, utilitarian collectives which came together for survival in an increasingly atomised society; and the big expansion of the office middle class which consumed more products and cultural commodities. However, Dr Lane highlighted an important contradiction: on the one hand, a material-based process was creating a strong secular consciousness but with no systematic advocacy; on the other hand, the cultural political sector which included religious institutions was resisting the process. This contradiction raised the question of whether secularisation could produce spokespersons and advocates at some point in time.
Dr Emily Zoe Hertzman (Asia Research Institute, NUS) presented her research on Singkawang City, West Kalimantan, where she mapped and analysed local forms of Chinese religion. She found that a new class of spirits had ‘entered the scene’ and argued that they were connected to recent histories of inter-ethnic conflict in the province during the post-Suharto era. Being a Chinese-majority Indonesian city, in Singkawang Dr Hertzman found that there was a new system of deferential signaling through the inclusion of spirits derived from Dayak or mixed origins into the practices of Chinese spirit-mediums and their followers. To her, this suggested a softening of ethnic and inter-group boundaries. While these performances allowed the Chinese to demonstrate indigeneity, there was also a religious transformation occurring in the Dayak community because of Chinese religious practices.
In the Q&A session, Dr Norshahril Saat (ISEAS) as the moderator acknowledged the common ground between the two presentations, stating that dominant narratives were increasingly being challenged in different ways. The panel discussed how people would react in myriad ways to the secularisation of society in the absence of any strong and organised advocacy, the role of religion in an urban context and as a worldview or lifestyle, complex multicultural issues, stereotypes, and counter-efforts that lie beneath the apparent harmony of Singkawang City, and how Dayak and Chinese spirit mediums exchanged and shared techniques of getting in touch with spirits, while differentiating themselves from each other.
Panel 5: Migration and Demographic Diversity
Dr Sirojuddin Arif (Indonesian International Islamic University, UIII) presented on the effects of religious structure in friendship formation among students in Yogyakarta. His research found that while existing literature has shown that ethnicity and religious diversity can benefit social cohesion, students in Yogyakarta schools tended to make friends within the same religious boundaries. He compared this observation between students of private and public schools and noted that different schools demonstrated different degrees of religious similarity affecting friendship formation. Dr Sirojuddin found out that competition among students in terms of their academic scores had more influence on their friendship making. This was evident in public schools where the students were grouped according to their scores, resulting in a tendency to have friends within the same academic level. Dr Sirojuddin believed that when a school becomes less heterogeneous in terms of academic background, it would lead to a more segregated student population. Religious diversity, however, had no significant impact on friendship segregation by religion and network reachability among students, in contrast to Dr Sirojuddin’s initial hypothesis.
Mr. Made Supriatma (ISEAS) presented on recent developments in Papua, stating that Papua was still facing severe disturbances in its community. He listed the main sources of conflict, mainly between migrants and indigenous Papuans and among indigenous Papuans. Mr. Supriatma highlighted that in-migration had created a diversion between the migrants and Orang Asli Papuans (OPAs), which can be seen in the areas in which they live (urban areas for migrants versus mountainous areas for OPAs), the jobs they had (mining or plantation jobs for migrants versus subsistence farming for OPAs) and even the local human development index (HDI) which was higher for migrants. This inequality had led to rising anti-migrant sentiment, resulting in an increase in protests and rioting among the OPA population. Mr Supriatma believed that the solution to this problem was a political one where the Indonesian government needed to step in. One option was revising the Special Autonomy Law or simply interacting with the local Papuans to better understand the situation, to de-escalate the situation in Papua and improve the relationship between migrants and OPAs.
Mr Dicky Rachmawan (BRIN) elaborated on the conflict between indigenous communities on deforestation issues in Jambi, Indonesia. Through in-depth interviews, Dr Rachmawan found that the encroachment of customary forests was mainly by migrants who had moved to the region for work, mainly in the coffee farming industry. As such, conflicts tended to arise when the migrants tried to claim customary forest land that was not bound or covered by legal documents (read: land titles). This resulted in indigenous communities resorting to violence and putting in new mechanisms to protect their lands. However, the arrival of so-called ‘village demons’, mainly ex-bureaucrats who returned to their hometowns to open coffee plantations, had complicated the process as they were able to buy and sell forest lands. This had caused unhappiness among the local community which in turn disrupted collaboration between migrants and the indigenous community. Dr Rachmawan concluded that there was a need to manage this relationship between the migrants and local communities before it escalated in the future.
Ms Fitranita Ibnu (BRIN) presented on Indonesian nurses working in Japan and elaborated on the challenges these nurses faced once they returned to Indonesia. Due to the low absorption of nurses into Indonesia’s domestic labour market, Indonesian nurses were given opportunities to work in Japan mainly through the Indonesia-Japan Economic Partnership Agreement (IJEPA) scheme. However, most of these nurses worked as care workers in Japan, as many were not able to pass Japan’s difficult national certification as professional nurses or lacked the requisite Japanese language proficiency. Ms Fitranita also found out that, despite receiving higher wages in Japan’s healthcare industry, a majority of these nurses returned to Indonesia because of family matters. That being said, many nurses faced multiple challenges upon returning home, causing them to switch to a different industry. Many reasons were cited for this shift, such as their exceeding the age limit for hiring in Indonesian hospitals, de-skilling due to their lack of practice in nursing work while in Japan (if they did not qualify as nurses there) and Indonesian hospitals not recognising their work experience in Japan. Ms Fitranita believed that the Indonesian government needed to step in to remove the obstacles faced by these nurses and facilitate their return to Indonesia’s labour market.
In the Q&A session, the speakers discussed topics such as the job scope of Indonesian nurses working in Japan, the idea of factorisation and fragmentation among Yogyakarta’s students, migration and nationalism in Papua, whether Papua’s issues were sociological or political issues, Papuans’ attitudes toward the local elites and their corrupt practices, as well as grievances towards certain migrant groups within Papua. This session was moderated by Ms Meirina Ayumi Malamassam (BRIN).
Panel 6: Social Faultlines and the Economics and Politics of Social Inclusion/Exclusion
Ms Dian Wahyu Utami (BRIN) presented on infrastructural development and how the failure to understand its impact deepened existing disparities. Her two case studies were the toll road project in Banten Province which is on the national priorities programme, and reclamation in North Jakarta, which was established to promote residential and commercial development. The toll road in Banten passed through a government-owned forest upon which communities depended for their livelihood, while the reclamation project took place in a fishing area which impacted fisherfolks’ livelihoods as well as coral reefs. Ms Dian warned that both infrastructural development projects could result in the further marginalisation of local groups whose needs are not being met, causing deeper disparities in their access to socioeconomic opportunities.
Mr Zaki Arrobi (Utrecht University) discussed the role of territorial-based organisations in Tanah Abang, Jakarta. These include karang taruna (a youth organisation), Forum Betawi Rempug (FRB, a mass organisation), and Rukun Warga (a citizens’ association). Mr Zaki argued that territorial-based organisations have helped the marginalised, specifically Betawi residents who felt displaced on multiple fronts, to navigate various forms of urban precarity, following Jakarta’s urban transformation since the 1970s. Lower-class residents’ involvement in these territorial organisations could be read as an articulation of broader urban aspirations concerning a fairer, more equal economic redistribution in the area. They also fulfilled the function of cultural recognition using spatial politics, with order and value associated with Betawi identity and specific practices to reclaim space in the city observed. However, this sometimes exacerbated social divisions and excluded those who did not belong through differentiated categories.
Dr Lilis Mulyani (BRIN) virtually presented her co-authored research on border-making practices in indigenous communities. Understanding frontiers as a relational construct, Dr Lilis explained their findings that various enactments of law on property showed that “frontier” and “territory” were co-constitutive. By paying attention to the spatial and temporal dimensions of border-making and un-making practices in two case studies, Dr Lilis showed how communities defined and related to their land (e.g., the border follows nature; a border to unite, not to separate) which were often disregarded by the law and the state. She cited the Baduy community in Banten Province and elaborated on how they have reverted to the previous borders after receiving customary land rights in 2002. She also cited the Jatigede Dam where Cipaku Village, one of those evicted for the dam’s development, re-emerged as the water receded, making new borders where land ownership and demarcations were unclear. Dr Lilis concluded by underscoring how communities navigated as active citizens to exercise their rights to land and resources as well as advancing their definitions of borders and boundaries into the state system.
After these presentations, moderated by Dr Siwage Dharma Negara (ISEAS), the speakers discussed how the impacts of infrastructural development can be mitigated by doing prior research and ensuring compensation was commensurate with people’s needs. They also talked about how territorial contributions may be redistributive and open new avenues for negotiations with authorities. The speakers discussed how this negotiation could entrench certain power structures, which in turn may disproportionately impact marginalised groups in other ways.
Panel 7: Mapping Heritage and Cultural Identities
Dr Greg Acciaioli (The University of Western Australia) began this session with his presentation on festival performances in Central Sulawesi and how they are enacted and commodified for economic benefits. The locals, to attract tourists, began to market festivals as part of their attractions which included enacting rituals as their lived heritage. Dr Acciaioli cited the Festival of Lake Lindu as an example of how a commodified festival became a point of contestation. The re-enactment of the Bupati of Sigi had led to some unhappiness within the adat community who did not agree with its representation. Similarly, the decision to re-enact the Mobalia, a curing ceremony that involved possession, was highlighted as an issue as it became a real event with actual possession. Dr Acciaioli believed that there would be continued cultural contestation between local community and the government, especially when government agencies sought to ‘aestheticise’ local cultures while locals attempted to display their customs in a more authentic manner.
Dr Alan Darmawan (SOAS, University of London) presented on Malay cultural heritage-making in the Riau Islands. Setting the context, the displacement of local inhabitants in the Riau Islands in the 1970s and the Nativist movement had led to the formation of Malay consciousness. Citing the Riau Islands (Kepri) Province as an example, Dr Darmawan noted that the reconstruction of Malayness in the province had led to many initiatives of heritage-making. This included creating their own version of Malay cultural dance as well as documenting product and cultural heritage though national heritage platforms, the legal framework and a formal mechanism. This, however, led to competition among different ethnic groups in Riau for the recognition of their cultural products in the national heritage list. This was evident in the Mak Yong troupes in Kepri, which competed to be recognised as practising an “authentic” practice. Dr Darmawan concluded that while heritage formation could aid in facilitating cultural production, it could also lead to the exclusion of various unselected art genres, generating disparity and inequality.
Dr Syamsurijal (BRIN) elaborated on his research on the Bissu and how they had devised strategies to facilitate their recognition and social inclusion as a non-mainstream gender identity in Indonesia. Defining Bissu as ‘meta gender humans’ who encapsulate all gender identities, Dr Syamsurijal noted that they mainly led various local ritual ceremonies in the Bugis community. The Bissu are generally accepted in the Bugis community as guardians of tradition but faced rejection by more mainstream groups such as Wahhabis and Islamists. The Bissu have been socially included in the community, unlike individuals who identified as LGBTIQ. While calabai (transwomen) also had different sexual orientations from heterosexuals, Dr Syamsurijal said that they tended to live out their orientations within the boundaries of public sensibility. They also respected heteronormative marriage as a legitimate marital institution and did not seek the recognition or legalisation of their sexuality, unlike some LGBTIQ individuals. Because of their strong desire to be seen as part of Indonesian society, Bissu limited their freedoms so as to maintain harmony within mainstream norms. Dr Syamsurijal concluded that the Bissu community would continue to preserve their rights as a non-mainstream gender group but still respect the shared values held by the Muslim Bugis community (and Indonesia).
This session ended with a Q&A segment where the speakers discussed topics including co-existence between groups of different ethnic and religious backgrounds, the acceptance of ulama in the Bugis community, the government’s reactions in managing traditional practices in the Riau islands, and the differences between the Malay communities in Riau Island and Johor. Dr Hui Yew-Foong moderated this session (ISEAS).
The conference ended with a closed-door session of the convenors and the panel participants, where they discussed the forthcoming edited volume comprising chapters based on the papers presented.
