TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The speech by Bogor Mayor Bima Arya, 42, at an international conference discussing 'Unity in Diversity' in Florence, Italy, last November 6, triggered quite a bit of criticism back home. It seems the mayor's speech extolled the religious tolerance in the city he governs, better known as the 'Rainy City'. But the fact is that Bogor is anything but an example of religious tolerance, while Mayor Bima himself is guilty of violating the right to freedom of religion.
At the conference attended by about 100 mayors from around the world, Bima shared his views on conflict management and maintaining religious freedom. He also stressed that Bogor was a city that never experienced serious social conflict that threatened its citizens.
Many regarded his speech as far from the truth. One example is that the problem over the controversial building of the Yasmin Church remains unresolved. Furthermore, people still have not forgotten that the mayor issued Decree No. 300/1321 to ban the Ashura festivities in Bogor. With the ban, Bima, who is an official of the National Mandate Party (PAN), is seen to have violated the right to freedom of religion and the rights of minority groups.
The decree is also seen as proof that Bima has bowed to the pressure from intolerant groups. But he claims to have a reason for his actions."The step was taken purely in the interest of security and order," Bima told Tempo reporters Tulus Wijanarko, Bagja Hidayat, Tito Sianipar, Isma Savitri and Raymundus Rikang, who met him at his Matahari Nusantara office in South Jakarta, last week. Excerpts of the interview :
* * * *
You issued a decree, essentially banning the Shia community from celebrating the religious festival of Ashura, yet not long after that, you spoke at a conference in which you praised pluralism. How do you explain this discrepancy?
My trip to Italy was at the invitation of Ibu Jamaluddin Suryohadikusumo (wife of the former environment and forestry minister) last month. At first, I wasn't sure I could go, given my busy schedule. She said I would be taking part in a world conference of mayors on the topic of pluralism. Not long after that, I received a personal invitation to attend the conference from the mayor of Florence himself.
What made you decide to go?
I considered the invitation as one way of maintaining the network previously built by Ibu Jamaluddin, nothing specific. As it happens, I'm active in the environmental forum and I know the former environment minister, Sarwono Kusumaatmadja, also Siti Nurbaya and Erna Witoelar. So the trip really had nothing to do with the Bogor administration.
But surely there were other local executives who were less controversial on the issue of pluralism?
Maybe it was because she knew me. If she'd known Azwar Anas, the regent of Banyuwangi, he would have gone. Or if she had known Jakarta Governor Ahok (Basuki Tjahaja Purnama), it would have been Ahok flying to Italy. Over there, my task was just to be there and exchange ideas. It was a well-attended conference. Dario Fo and Tawakkol Karman, Nobel Prize winners, were there, as well as the mayors of Palestine and Turkey (sic).
But how did you end up delivering a speech?
When the mayor of Florence welcomed me, he told me, "Tomorrow we're going to give a speech." I was shocked. There were about 100 mayors and leaders, but few of them wanted to speak or share their views in public. They gave me the opportunity because Indonesia was a big country. So, I spoke about Bogor.
At home, your speech was greeted with sneers.
It was a general forum. I didn't want to be seen as defending any one person, so the language I used was general in nature, so people could interpret in their own way. If there had been a more in-depth discussion, I would have explained further to anyone, at anytime and anywhere. Such a forum is not a place to explain sensitive issues in a number of paragraphs.
But was your speech factual?
I think the contents of my speech were not about a controversy involving the people of Bogor, because residents here have for years lived side by side peacefully. Yet there are other cities that were once considered peaceful and have now been destroyed by religious conflict. I'm proud to say that Bogor is nothing like that.
I also told the conference that managing a diversity of ethnic groups, religions and race was not without its challenges. For example, transnational way of thinking, which during the New Order was only limited to discussions, now seems to have become a source of power struggle. This is a big challenge for me. I am aware that as mayor, I may face difficult choices and that I may have to make decisions for the bigger interest, such as the current case.
If you believe there's a high sense of tolerance in Bogor, why did you issue that ban on the Ashura festivities?
I am fully aware that morality is not the domain of the mayor. I should not speak out, nor be judgemental about any religious faith. The mayor's domain is with the Leadership Council, to ensure order and security in the area. This often becomes a polemic because it creates the wrong impression about order and security. Many people see the decree as a stand-alone thing and they don't understand why it was issued in the first place.
What was the background of the decree?
I received many reviews and input from residents, religious and council leaders. But my main consideration is the leadership council, which comprises the military district commander, the local police chief as well as the chairman of the Political and People's Unity group, whose task is to observe the security situation on the ground.
I listened to their considerations. If I thought those recommendations came from people who didn't work on the ground, I would regard them as references based on nothing more than faith. The police force and the military provided viewpoints that became very important reference points. So I came to the conclusion that the situation was not normal, an emergency situation.
What kind of emergency?
Well, that's just it. This can lead to a debate on an emergency situation. Take the case involving the Bank Century bailout. Today we're still not sure what the emergency criteria were. Bank Indonesia Governor Boediono and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani said the situation was critical. But many disagreed. Everyone seems to have their own reasons. In my case, I had received information from the Leadership Council that if we did not take preparatory action, there would be mass mobilization. At first, the Asyura festival was to be held at another place but they had to be relocated because some people there rejected it. Essentially, the intelligence report indicated that the situation was worrying.
You believed that intelligence report 100 percent?
Something was different. I asked Abdullah Assegaf, the Shia leader who has lived in Bogor for the past 20 years, about it. He said they were planning an activity but it was to be an internal one. But this changed because there were outsiders wanting to join in. Perhaps their intention was to seek a meeting point because so much talk had been spread around, yet very few people knew what it was about. After a dialogue, he agreed to a ban because he was afraid something might happen.
Don't you think you could have sought other sources of information to balance that intelligence report?
There was little time. If we had more time, I could have discussed it everywhere. But this incident was a hard lesson for us, because my Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) friends later contacted me, asking why they were not involved in the dialogue and saying, "Why weren't we consulted yesterday?" The NU people are moderates in their thinking. For me, it was a lesson learned: I must have wider sources of information. (*)
Read the full interview in this week’s edition of Tempo English Magazine
