F

ollowing in the footsteps of Islamic countries in the Middle East, the government banned Hollywood biblical epic Noah on the grounds that the film'€™s content '€œcontradicts the holy book'€, as the Film Censorship Board (LSF) cited.

LSF officials fear the possible backlash from radical groups if the film starring Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connolly and Emma Watson, and directed by Darren Aronofsky is screened in the Muslim majority country. In Islam, visualization of a prophet is strictly forbidden.

In the US, the film based on the biblical tale of Noah'€™s ark has met strong objection from some Christian organizations because of the unconventional portrayal of the prophet recognized by both Muslims and Christians.

Although predictable from its religious overtones, the ban came as a slap in the face, a reminder that Indonesia, as the world'€™s third-largest democracy, still bridles intellectual and artistic freedom in the name of religion or politics. Moreover, Noah is not intended as a religious movie.

Often, LSF acts on external pressure, be it religious groups who deem a certain movie '€œun-Islamic'€ or from government bureaucrats who are worried that the movie portrays Indonesia as a '€œbad country'€ forgetting that works of art are not necessarily a true representation of what they portray. Perhaps the LSF, as a state institution, and religious institutions should learn from what Paramount Pictures and the US-based National Religious Broadcasters body have done to deal with the Noah controversy on its home soil. They agreed that Paramount will add an explanatory message to help audiences better understand that the film is a mere '€œdramatization of the major scriptural themes'€ allowing them to watch it with an open mind.

Banning a work of art on dubious religious and political grounds as the LSF did to Noah is potentially dangerous with regards to freedom of expression. People from the middle-upper class of society, who account for the bulk of such artistic performances, are already educated enough to set their own religious standard. If Islamic morality is the main yardstick, then the LSF should have also banned countless locally-made horror movies that exploit sex and violence.

 ***

Indonesia is yet to find a way to save Satinah, a migrant worker from Central Java, from being executed by way of beheading in Saudi Arabia on April 12.

She would be spared from the sword if she could give 7.5 million Saudi riyal (Rp 22.7 billion) '€” a fantastic amount of money that House Speaker Mazuki Alie likened to '€œextortion'€ from a maid '€” in blood money to the relatives of her employer she killed in 2007. The domestic helper was sentenced to death in 2010 after she pleaded guilty to murdering her 70-year-old female boss Nura Al Gharib and stole 37.97 Saudi riyal in cash from the family.

On Friday, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dispatched former religious affairs minister Maftuh Basyuni and director for Indonesians overseas Tatang Razak to meet with Al Gharib'€™s relatives. The Cabinet Secretary office in Jakarta said the delegates would deliver 5 million riyals of the 7.5 million riyals the victim'€™s family has demanded. In a press statement, the office said the family and the Indonesian government had agreed that the execution would be postponed for two years to allow the issue to be resolved properly after the money changed hands.

Satinah'€™s case is only the latest chapter in unskilled Indonesian workers'€™ untold sufferings in foreign lands, especially Saudi Arabia, and the inadequate legal protection that the Indonesian government is able to offer '€” a classic problem that remains unresolved to this day.

As in Satinah'€™s case, the government'€™s help came too late after the judges banged the gavel and the verdict exploded as a national issue. Official figures show that the 6.5 million unskilled workers living abroad like Satinah are sent home, amounting to Rp 80 trillion (US$7.04 billion) in remittance every year. These '€œforeign exchange heroes'€, as they are fondly called, deserve better legal protection.

 ***

After stealing the show with his horse-riding prowess last week, Gerindra Party chief patron and presidential hopeful Prabowo Subianto was publicly grandstanding once again on Thursday.

This time, he was leading a parade of dozens of retired military, police generals and officers who threw their weight behind his presidential bid. The event was obviously designed to demonstrate the scale of his strong support from the military and police while various polls indicated that Prabowo, whose candidacy has been tainted by past human rights abuses, was significantly behind Jakarta Governor Joko Widodo.

The parade seemed to be less impressive than his horse-riding show at the Senayan sports stadium. People know only too well that former Indonesian Military (TNI) and National Police generals are deeply divided when it comes to political loyalty. They are present in major political parties: the Golkar Party, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), the United Development Party (PPP) as well as in smaller parties like the Hanura Party and the Nasdem Party.

The backing from the retired generals and officers is unlikely to strengthen Prabowo'€™s standing in the presidential race due to their small numbers and limited network.

Besides, the law requires that only a political party, or a coalition of parties, which obtained 20 percent of the 560 legislative seats will be eligible to field a presidential candidate '€” a bar very high for Gerindra to achieve.

'€“ Pandaya