Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss 
The angry protests against Ahok weren’t about his race. Instead they were aimed at bringing him down for his efforts against religious groups and their illegal cash flows, writes Russell Dunne. The question now is, can Jakarta’s governor survive in a gangster’s paradise?
The lack of love between Jakarta governor Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, or ‘Ahok’, and fundamentalist Islam is not news.
During the 2012 gubernatorial campaign Ahok was targeted in a smear campaign that attacked not only his Chinese ethnicity but also his Christian background. This is odd, because Christians in high places in Indonesia are not particularly unknown. In 1964 Sukarno installed the artist Henk Ngantung as governor of Jakarta. Ngantung like Ahok was both Christian and not from Jakarta. Suharto also promoted Benny Murdani a Christian from Central Java to run the Indonesian military.
Ahok’s race isn’t the issue for Islamic fundamentalist groups such as the Front Pembela Islam (FPI or Islamic Defenders Front). Instead they are targeting his religion. The Indonesian constitution is structured so that it is impossible for a non-Muslim to become president, meaning Ahok has risen as far as he is ever likely to go in Indonesian politics. Ahok who is known for his blunt language and inability to tolerate both the corrupt and the incompetent is being accused by his enemies of committing blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad.
The fact that the FPI and other Islamist groups were able to organise a protest on 4 November that brought an estimated 200,000 people onto the streets of Central Jakarta decrying Ahok and his rumoured blasphemy is nothing short of amazing. This is even more so when it’s remembered that the protests when Ahok first became governor in 2014 drew less than 10,000 people.
Next year’s vote for Jakarta governor, and the promise of the presidency after that, also has a lot to do with the recent popular outpouring of outrage.
Ahok, along with Agus Yudhoyono, the son of former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is a candidate in the February 2017 gubernatorial elections. Yudhoyono, unlike Ahok is also almost certainly campaigning with an eye on securing candidacy for the 2019 presidential elections. Ethnic Chinese Christians from Jakarta visiting Australia over the weekend of November 5-8 told me that there is the understanding in Jakarta that the anti-Ahok rally was simply part of the process of politics.
There is clearly more to it than religion. In the past with President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo as his immediate boss, Ahok has been a nuisance for certain elements in Indonesia. Until now Ahok has been protected. With the 2017 gubernatorial election in play that protection has been significantly reduced. In order to be seen as democratic Jokowi cannot overtly protect or favour his friend. The President has already indicated that he won’t “intervene” in the blasphemy probe.
Ahok has been busy as both a friend to ‘Jokowi’ and as a governor. He has cleaned out canals, which has limited the usual monsoon-related flooding of Jakarta. Ahok has also threatened to turn Jakarta’s red light district into a park. He has also continued Jokowi’s campaigns against corruption and has pursued the relocation of street markets into Tanah Abang, a modern market with an estimated $US 19 million per day turn over.
Between them, Ahok and Jokowi have been relocating street vendors into modern centralised and government supervised centres — centres that the Preman, members of Indonesia’s organised crime groups, don’t control. By relocating hawker stalls and street vendors into properly run and policed centres such as Tanah Abang, Ahok is effectively targeting the revenue stream of Preman groups such as the FPI and corrupt officials in local government.
The FPI have long been associated with gangsters. Greg Fealy and Sally White tell us in Expressing Islam: Religious Life and Politics in Indonesia, the FPI also engages in “morality racketeering”. As Ian Wilson notes, this sees the group use vigilantism and populist Islamic militancy to build and enforce a socially conservative agenda against the perceived liberal excesses and moral corruption of contemporary Indonesian society, while also capturing and keeping control of local neighbourhoods.
And this is the real reason why 200,000 people were on the streets of Jakarta on a sticky Friday afternoon. Ahok is being Ahok. He is being honest, blunt and effective. Ahok like Jokowi, the previous incumbent of his job, is enforcing laws. In being effective at his job Ahok is hitting the FPI and their Preman associates where it hurts them the most — in their wallets. If Ahok was either incompetent and or corrupt, the FPI and other Preman would be able to buy him off or dismiss him.
Because Ahok is popular, honest and effective, and as a result is affecting Preman-FPI cash flows, the FPI and Ahok’s political opponents have to find another tactic to prevent him from becoming governor in 2017. If the FPI announced that they were protesting against Ahok because he was hurting their cash flow no one would care. Ahok committing blasphemy and being an evil ‘kaffir’ is something that serious Muslims in Jakarta care about. It is literally the only way that Ahok as the effective governor that he is can be dealt with by his opponents.
We should expect to see more of this in the coming months.
Russell Dunne is studying for a Masters of International Relations at Monash University, and holds a specialist Indonesia BA and honours degree from the same university.
This statement is wrong
“The Indonesian constitution is structured so that it is impossible for a non-Muslim to become president, meaning Ahok has risen as far as he is ever likely to go in Indonesian politics.”
The Indonesian constitution isn’t structured in a way that makes it impossible for a non-Muslim to be President. The Constitution does not even contain the word Islam or Muslim in it. Here are the criteria for becoming the President of Indonesia.
http://www.dpr.go.id/jdih/uu1945
“(1) Calon Presiden dan calon Wakil Presiden harus seorang warga negara Indonesia sejak kelahirannya dan tidak pernah menerima kewarganegaraan lain karena kehendaknya sendiri, tidak pernah mengkhianati negara, serta mampu secara rohani dan jasmani untuk melaksanakan tugas dan kewajiban sebagai Presiden dan Wakil Presiden. ***)”
(2) Syaratsyarat untuk menjadi Presiden dan Wakil Presiden diatur lebih lanjut dengan undangundang. ***)
The Indonesian Constitution isn’t structured in a way that makes it impossible for a non-Muslim to be President.
There are many factions involved in the protect against AHOK, and even within the Premen itself there are national level and city level. Here are some of the players
City Level Opponents
1) DPRD
2) Betawi / Local Premen
3) People without Jakarta KTP evicted
National Level Opponents (that may be target Jokowi also)
1) SBY
2) National level groups like FPI
3) Muslim organization like MUI
The whole race for Jakarta is high stakes national politics, and is vastly different from what it was 4.5 years ago, before Jokowi entered the race. here is Jakarta TV live programming, interviewing potential independent candidates for Governor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzPZiF2oPFY
Its very low budget,
There are bigger players involved than just FPI and preman.
0
0
Wrong analysis, IMO. It is less about his Christian religion than his strict anti-corruption stance. Ahok is famous for his strict anti-corruption in his governance as well as complying to the law. Even legislative representation in DPRD can no longer continue milking money from state projects’ budget. Ahok is not popular among the “old-guards”, but he’s very popular among the young and rational people, those who got tired of corruptions, collusions, nepotisms (KKN) that lead to slow growth. Jakarta’s fast development ever since Jokowi and then Ahok became governor is the proof. This religion defamation issue is brought up so that these young people, especially Muslims, no longer backing Ahok as the next governor.
0
0
We’re just not ready for it. This sudden change cannot be don’t overnight as 70% of us Indonesians will die of a heart attack. It seems good in the outside but will create chaos in the country and it may even cause blood shed. My arguement is: How can a baby walk if he have not started to crawl. Change is good for us but not too sudden. The iron fist era is over and surely the least we need is an outragous article like this to add salt to the wound. Reading about Indonesia but not living here does not make you a Mr. Know all about my country. Don’t judge us as you please and influence others in what you believe. That’s what you and the radicals have in common, just hate and no hope for Peace. Once in awhile you have haters of race and religion not only muslims and doesn’t have to be just Christians that are being victimised. We had cases happening to Vice- Versa but the bottom line is it’s just a simple quarell in the family, will soon be resolve like it did a million times before. Do not fall prey to this article, a picture may depict a thousand words but the words in this article does not depict Indonesia. Let me remind you that Jakarta alone is not Indonesia. So save jakarta and protect the rest of Indonesia.
0
0
Rocky, and exactly with this attitude indonesia will never be able to stand up for themself. Don,t excuse the lethargy with time. It,s been 18 years since Suharto and things are worse then ever. People have to wake up eventually sometime. Ahok has become a symbol and the struggle is real and its not only about ,old, vs ,new, but also secretarian vs democracy.
0
0
Bang Jak, What you’ve said is also true, but the minorities are fearing for our lives too. Do you mean we should take this one big step once and for all, putting the cost of many life to be lost at risk while only the politician walks away as winners. Futhermore he Ahok as a brilliant politician should have known not to touch on sensitive topics like to quote the Quranic Verses. In fact I did a check and this verse or similar to it appears about nine times. He is sure no islamic scholar. It was not used by someone as he said but used by Allah as the muslims claim. On the other hand the other end of the wing exploited it.
So, I am for change but it has to be the right of reasons. Over the past decade I have seen changes and no Indonesian should be in denial. Except for Roam was not built in a day.
The demonstrations on the 4th and Ahok being a suspect is an act of our people standing up for our rights. Ahok being guilty or not guilty will be another right of the people. But if hells breaks lose after the verdict than we are force to bring out the Iron Fist.
0
0
What is the truth ?
If you believe this is the truth then it is the truth.
Is he wrong ?
When everyone wants and comfortable that he is wrong then he is wrong.
Bottom line it is pure money and politic in nature. Politic is about compromise and self-gains not about country gain, this is especially true for developing/3rd world countries. We have lost Timor Timur and it is so easily forgotten and no politicians or “them” even care to remember, worse still as if it was never there. But words are cheap in politic and the best term for Indonesia right now is “time will tell”
0
0
I find many statements in this article problematic:
1. Unlike the portrayal of the author, Ahok is not without his fault. In fact, it does not take much to raise questions about some of his policies and practices (reclamation & forced eviction for instance; not to mention the fact that many people question the effectiveness of his Ciliwung embankment project, or even the street vendor relocation project that the author mentioned). The fact that the author does not address any of the common criticism of Ahok in his analysis gives the impression that he’s either unaware of them or he’s partisan.
3. It is unclear what the author is trying to argue with “race” and “Christian background.” The article opens with “it’s not about his race,” and then it changed to “not only his Chinese ethnicity but also his Christian background.” And then it raises the point about how it is odd that some people find his Christian background objectionable. This is immediately followed with the assertion that Christianity is the problem. I find this rather confusing. Why does the answer have to be clear-cut? Does the author know that the FPI constantly referred to Ahok using his Chinese name instead of his Indonesian name throughout their anti-Ahok campaign? Pribumi is a word which constantly appeared as well. How is this not about race? Some form of nativism is clearly at play.
4. Henk Ngantung’s appointment as governor was controversial on many fronts, and the fact that he was only governor for a year doesn’t help your case either. Contrary to your claim, it is not odd at all that some people might find it problematic to have Christians occupying key positions in the government. There’s a long history of “fearing Christianisation” and the contestation between Christian, Muslim, and nationalist minded factions within state apparatus or local politics has always been present. For example: http://megapolitan.kompas.com/read/2015/01/05/15045441/Gantikan.Susan.Ini.Prioritas.Lurah.Lenteng.Agung.yang.Baru.
5. Tanah abang is not “a modern market with an estimated $US 19 million per day turn over.” It is a subdistrict in central Jakarta. There are many different preman organisations operating in Tanah Abang, which cover a wide range of actors including Lulung Lunggana DPRD DKI, some from East Timor, and some Betawi groups…etc. I am not sure what your source is, but it is not at all clear to me that FPI relies on rent-seeking from the street vendors whom are affected by Ahok’s relocation policy. To me, the more relevant factor is Ahok’s attempt to ban FPI, something that the author surprisingly failed to include in his analysis.
6. The author seems to argue that the story behind the 200,000-strong 411 demonstration is “FPI and its preman associates’ economic grievance toward Ahok.” This is unconvincing because it is doubtful that FPI is capable of mobilisation people of that number, especially when the author argues that grievance is related to FPI’s street-level racketeering. While there’s no study on this, I think it is safe to say that most people who attended the demonstration are not from FPI background. In fact, that’s intriguing about the 411 was how the issue was able to attract people from wildly different backgrounds – from FPI ranks and files to physicians providing free medical service to the demonstrators. Why would the middle-class people who harbour distrust or hostility toward Ahok be sympathetic to FPI’s racketeering? I’d argue that many who would have attended the demonstration were probably put off by the prominent role the FPI played in mobilising the 411. The author’s racketeer-centric explanation also glosses over the different groups which participated in the mobilisation leading up to the demonstration. Why would Abdullah Gymnastiar or Arifin Ilham and their supporters care about FPI losing some of its income from the relocated street vendors (if indeed that’s the case at all)?
7. The author’s suggestion that FPI would be able to “buy off” politicians who are corrupted is baseless and somewhat fantastical. We know that the FPI is under the payroll of some state actors. Not the other way around. I’m not suggesting that it is not possible, but given that such claim contradicts what we know about the group, I think the author has the onus to give us something more substantive than a speculation.
0
0
Let’s look at this fairly from an educated mind. To prove this in court, 1stly you need to prove: words spoken have insulted the believers (victims) feelings. 2ndly – it is said with intentional purpose of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things; profane talk.
These are things hard to judge. Even I would not trust a small group of judges to make the decision of whether A Hok has committed Blasphemy.
To be fair, simply let all the public vote – Those or the victims (believers) should not vote A Hok in the election if they believe he/she has been insulted as a result of his accused Blasphemy. This is because if majority did not feel insulted and a small group has, then in democracy world a small group need to follow the larger group and accept his pardon. This is in line with law as you need to prove there is a victim.
2ndly, Whether it was his intentional purpose of speaking sacrilegiously about God or sacred things? you need to look at why those words are spoken. For What Reasons? For his election purposes or Simply to insult the believers or the religions itself? This in healthy mind should have an answer by themselves.
0
0
I don’t know that the appointment of Christians Henk Ngantung and Benny Murdani more than 50 years ago during Soeharto’s abangan period are relevant to events in this era of democracy – and the FPI.
0
0