TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Battling for shared cultures
An unofficial advertisement for Malaysian tourism, which included the traditional Balinese Pendet dance, has triggered emotional responses from various groups of Indonesian people
Change Size
A
n unofficial advertisement for Malaysian tourism, which included the traditional Balinese Pendet dance, has triggered emotional responses from various groups of Indonesian people. It has been assumed by the Indonesian public an improper claim, as with traditional handicrafts such as batik and wayang.
Malaysia can diplomatically claim the song “Rasa Sayange” belongs to all, due to the anonymity of the composer and the song having long been a folk song for the Malay archipelago; but any outside claim to the Pendet dance is profoundly problematic because of the strong connection of the dance to Balinese culture.
Allegations of intensifying Malaysian claims to the Indonesian heritage have brought us to the question concerning Malaysian peculiarities in dealing with Indonesian interests in the context of mutual relations.
Malaysia has been trapped in the paradoxical position since it declared its ambition to become a developed nation by 2020.
Instead of fostering new cultural products to embody the Melayu Baru (New Malay) identity, Malaysian people tend to explore existing cultural products, which they share with Indonesians.
In the case of the Pendet, the suggested claim was tenuous at best. But Australian media reported on the story with the outspoken headline, “Malaysia ‘steals’ Bali dance” (The Australian, Aug. 26, 2009).
Data from the Indonesia Culture Forum shows there is a long list of Indonesian cultural artifacts that have allegedly been claimed by Malaysia.
Another peculiarity is the fact that Indonesians have been in Malaysia’s top three source markets of tourist arrivals from 1995-2005. Moreover, tourist numbers from Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei and China have registered substantial growth over the last decade.
But the disputed TV spot could potentially create a source of discontent among the Indonesian people and will certainly put Malaysia’s tourism industry at risk.
The Malaysian government has vigorously promoted tourism and has reaped a sevenfold profit since the 1980s. Tourism has become the most important source of foreign exchange for Malaysia after the manufacturing sector.
In addition, the recent attitude by some Malaysian employers toward Indonesian laborers shows contradicting inclinations. Malaysia’s large labor shortage in several sectors of the economy has been met by Indonesian workers. However, Malaysian employers of Indonesian laborers frequently demonstrate uncooperative relations.
On the one hand, Malaysia needs and takes advantage of the relations with Indonesia, and vice versa.
On the other hand, Malaysia can be said to have ignored the importance of Indonesia. This is the actual paradox in Malaysia-Indonesia relations.
Meanwhile, Indonesians have overreacted to Malaysia. They have not just demanded the end of diplomatic relations with Malaysia, but have also reproduces the old concept of konfrontasi (Confrontation) and the war cry, “Ganyang Malaysia” (Crush Malaysia).
In fact, the idea of konfrontasi and Ganyang Malaysia during Sukarno’s “Guided Democracy” was inspired by the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) in the interests of China. At that time, the campaign against Malaysia was not popular among some Indonesians, especially moderate intellectuals and conservative Muslims who were reluctant to speak out against a fellow Muslim-majority country.
An increasing level of hostility toward the neighboring country seemingly signifies the panic of Indonesians over something beyond their grasp. Moreover, they do not have sufficient interest in developing their own cultural heritage. For example, wayang shows are rarely performed or attended by large crowds, not least young spectators.
The government also played a significant role in de-legitimizing art and culture as national assets. For instance, only three provincial administrations – Bali, West Nusa Tenggara and Yogyakarta – have registered their traditional arts and culture to the Culture and Tourism Ministry since the ministry asked them to do so in 2007.
Beyond those factors, public awareness for appreciating national heritage is not formed seriously from the elementary level of education. Consequently, any appreciation by Indonesian people for their own arts and culture is not as high as that of “outsiders”.
No wonder, then, that people are shocked by the transfer of several items of national pride to the so-called “illegitimate heirs”. Artists and academics are in a panic over the alleged incomprehensible claims to Indonesian arts and cultures. As a result, an extreme attitude becomes their circumscribed choice in the absence of smart and creative responses.
The writer is a graduate of the Australian National University’s (ANU) Graduate School of Asian Studies, Canberra. The views expressed are his own.
