N

ever before has a person'€™s loyalty to a nation been as thoroughly questioned, doubted and put under public scrutiny as when Anggun C. Sasmi, an Indonesian-born French singer, decided to support a drug trafficker.

It all started with the letter she wrote to President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo. In her letter, she stated, among other things, that she opposed the death penalty against drug trafficking. She also referred to the Indonesian law regarding that particular issue as obsolete.

However, and to a lot of people'€™s surprise, the point of her letter was to ask the President to pardon only one convicted drug trafficker, the French citizen, Serge Atlaoui.

She declared how honest and sincere Atlaoui was and without providing any supporting evidence she also questioned whether the whole legal procedure was free of corruption. It appeared she had this unwavering faith that Atlaoui was indeed innocent and deserved clemency.

The public reacted immediately. Very few people applauded Anggun for her audacity to speak her mind. This kind of bluntness and nonconformist way of thinking is not easily accepted in a society in which everyone prefers to be silent rather than be seen as different.

Nevertheless, the majority of the public blasted her, questioning where her loyalty lies. They are aware that Anggun gave up her Indonesian citizenship decades ago to become a French citizen to pursue her singing career and eventually start a family.

So why, many asked, is it that she, the person who always declares how truly Indonesian she is, all of a sudden is defending a convicted French citizen?

 The public outrage is essentially boiling down to one fundamental issue '€” that of roots versus citizenship.

Anggun repeatedly declares how purely and truly Indonesian she is because despite living abroad, she eats rice every day, she speaks Indonesian to her daughter, she treasures her dark skin and keeps her black hair; that is her way of keeping her roots intact.

That is her means of staying connected with her blood and her heritage, which has nothing to do with nationalism.

It is a great marketing tool to cultivate her Indonesian fan base if she presents herself as one of them.

However, when Anggun consciously and deliberately chose to campaign, rally, speak up and advocate on behalf of Atlaoui, she acted as a citizen of France and that is an issue of nationalism.

The same concept applied when she competed in the 2012 Eurovision song contest as a French citizen and not as an Indonesian.

Therefore her defensiveness and denial that this case was not an issue of nationalism, sounded a little awkward. Because if it were true, why did only this individual receive Anggun'€™s special attention, whereas there were also other convicted drug traffickers from Australia, Brazil, Nigeria and even Indonesia, facing the firing squad on the same charges as Atlaoui?

As much as I admire Anggun'€™s good heart and generosity for using her celebrity status and fame for good causes, I can'€™t help but feel taken back with her lapse of judgment.

It appeared that she allowed herself to be used as an instrument in a bargaining deal without thoroughly assessing the consequences and risks involved.

She has put herself into a very difficult position in a complicated political scheme; and being a highly respected public figure, she could have treated this issue with more sensitivity and chosen her way to communicate her message clearly and effectively to avoid this kind of public blunder.

It is not her stand that caused people to question her genuine motive on the issue of the death penalty, but her ambiguity.

Therefore, Anggun should be more considerate in positioning herself in these matters, while being clear and consistent in doing so.
____________________________

The writer is the founder and director of Dahuni Foundation, a scholarship foundation providing tuition fees for underprivileged students in Southeast Asia. She holds a master'€™s degree in public relations from the University of Houston in the US.