Asia Blogging Network

[The writer is a columnist and an adjunct professor based in Northern California. She can be found at JennieSBev.com.]

Modern lifestyle is known to be quite monotonous and routine. Many people work, live, and even breathe on cruise-control auto-pilot mode. Those who follow the rules are oftentimes stamped as “good gatekeepers” and those who despise and challenge the rules are known as “rebels” and “dissidents.” Just like a driving recommendation by California State’s Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV), in which a driver must follow the current freeway traffic speed to avoid accidents regardless of the official speed limit, living has been more or less quite like that.

Living a drone-like existence might not be inevitable, but human beings are, by nature, restless creatures, who would need to find a balance between mind and heart, between righteousness and wickedness, between banality and pertinence, and between savagery and compassion. When it is time to choose, oftentimes theology comes into play. Without a balanced perspective between intellect and affection in understanding theology, which is oftentimes regarded as the “divine voices”, many people have been victimized by dogmatic elements, leaving helplessness and restlessness to widespread even deeper.

The phrase “banality of evil” was coined by Hannah Arendt in 1963 to describe the notion of ordinary people who have consciously or subconsciously accepted the premises of their state and participated actively without questioning the overlaying principles. A corrupt and self-righteous world that we live in today is a clear example of how the majority of human beings have accepted this concept without much reservation, or at least, without much contemplation on the true purposes of life.

And it is saddening that in this 21^st century, in which humankind has proven the heresy by Galileo that the earth is not the center of the universe to be true, to hear from those who are fluent and call themselves “experts” in theology approving the killings of and hating our neighbors as if they were the only ones who are entitled to the world. Good thing is, we do not need to simply be silent and accept banality as the norm to follow without any reservation. After all, human beings are both intellect and affective beings. We think and feel at the same time and we have strong empathy towards others, whoever they are.

Karen Armstrong, a prolific author in religion once wrote in The Spiral Staircase (pg. 293), “The one and only test of a valid religious idea, doctrinal statement, spiritual experience, or devotional practice was that it must lead directly to practical compassion. If your understanding of the divine made you kinder, more empathetic, and impelled you to express this sympathy in concrete acts of loving-kindness, this was good theology. But if your notion of God made you unkind, belligerent, cruel, or self-righteous, or if it led you to kill in God’s name, it was bad theology”.

And faith, whatever ours is, was designed to unfold our childlike innocent, positive, and upbeat qualities, regardless of our age and experiences. Good theology would assist in our journey to find our inner child. A child who is accepting to goodness and believes in the goodness of others and him or herself. After all, we were designed to operate on old-fashioned manual mode: by thinking, reflecting, and contemplating, not on cruise-control automated mode.

Whether you believe in Judgment Day, Reincarnation, or Nirvana, think before saying or doing anything. Those Neuro Linguistic Programmers (NLP) might call it re-wiring our mind through thoughts. Whatever you believe, do not disappoint yourself now or later. “You only live once, if you do it right, once is enough,” said the late silver screen actress, playwright, and screenwriter siren Mae West.

Today’s clashes of things, a terminology coined by the famous and, at the same time, notorious Samuel Huntington, might not need to occur in the first place provided that we were aware of the choices we could have made as the most intelligent creature on planet earth. And it is still not too late to criticize ourselves and to make amends when it is still possible. The clashes can and will be stopped because there are no other alternatives if we are to prevail as human race without being self-destructive.

It might be hard to criticize ourselves without criticizing others, but it can be done with awareness and peaceful opened heart and mind. Any preconceived notion of anything should not be used against our future, but should be consciously constructed to channel our inner wisdom. It certainly does not require a degree in theology to practice good theology. A simple common sense would do just fine.

At last, do not preach, just do good things. Be good ambassadors of our faiths and communities. Be aware and be mindful of consequences. And whenever you are in doubt, do not choose banality. Choose compassion.

Note: Show our solidarity to victims and survivors of May 1998 Tragedy in Indonesia by signing the petition at PeacefulIndonesia.com/petition/

March 8th is international women’s day.

Indonesian culture and laws reflect a utopian message that men and women live in harmony, in an environment that each gender understands and executes their responsibilities wisely. In this notion, men serve as the heads of the family, the protectors, and the breadwinners, while women as the caretakers of the family members and caring mothers. Alas, not everyone is wise both as a person and an individual of a certain gender, the world is not perfect, and Indonesia is not a utopia, thus such image of perfection is merely a mirage, which comes with consequences.

Today is the 21st century, the era of globalization that Joseph E. Stiglitz has been advocating for fair trade. It is the era in which Web 2.0 citizen journalism has emerged into citizen diplomacy with its real-time technological apparatus that have changed the global culture on digerati and quotidian communities’ levels. It is the era in which women have to work as hard as, or even harder than men, to make differences at world level, not merely for their own families. It is the era that women are equally important politically, socially, economically, and individually.

Yet we can see clearly that Indonesia has not reached a point where both genders unite as one to thrust the nation’s well-being through individual contributions, as there are discriminatory laws and discriminatory actions against women based on various imbalanced, unjust, and unfair fundamentals. Such conditions hinder Indonesia as a nation to strive forward by optimizing, if not maximizing its human capital, of which half of the population are females, as cited from CIA Factbook.

According to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), Indonesia’s constitution guarantees the equality of women, which is good news. However, there are many laws that clearly discriminate women from the other gender. Cited from UNIFEM, “These laws include family and marriage, including polygamy; age for marriage; divorce and the requirement that a wife obtain her husband’s consent for a passport; economic rights, including ownership and inheritance of land; access to loans and credits; entitlement to social, health and other benefits in the labor sector and the requirement that a wife obtain her husband’s consent for night employment; health, including the requirement that the wife obtain her husband’s consent with regard to sterilization or abortion, even when her life is in danger. As workers, women generally receive lower wages than men; in some industries, female employees are hired as daily laborers, allowing employers to avoid the extension of benefits. Women’s literacy rates and health status are generally lower than men’s. Muslim women face particular obstacles to equality before shari’a courts.”

Working women of all socio-economic-religio statuses also must face higher taxation according to Law no. 17/2000, in which they will be paying the undeducted tax rate as “singles” unless they can show a proof, which must be signed and approved by their husbands and sub-district authorities that they indeed carry the financial burden of the family.

Based on the required consent from husbands for married women to engage in public and private agreements while men have full authority to act on their own without any restrictions, it is evident that the Indonesian law, which is a reflection of the culture, places men’s status above women. In short, women in Indonesia are “the other gender.” The sidekick. The helper. The assistant. The one who must obey.

Does it make any sense in today’s world? There are some arguments as of why women are placed “under the protection” of men. Women have reproductive functions that should be protected. Women are “weaker” biologically. Women are destined by the Divine Power, whoever or whatever the definition is, to be the gatekeeper and the caretaker of homes and families. Women are men’s lovers; women are men’s sweethearts whom they adore so much, thus should always be within the protection, care, and supervision of men so they can make sure that women are taken care for.

Those arguments may sound making some sense to those who romanticize gender relationship. Nonetheless, they place women in the so-called “golden cage,” or better yet “invisible cage.” Such arguments usually serve as the foundations of religious, legal, and cultural acts against women, be they acknowledged officially, consciously, or not. And such cage is confinement in its full meaning of the word.

Indonesia has ratified UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1980. CEDAW itself is adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly and often described as an international bill of rights for women. It consists of a preamble and 30 articles, and defines what constitutes discrimination against women. In addition, it sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination.

Cited from the United Nation’s site, The Convention defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”

Thus, the logical and legal consequence of accepting the Convention is committing itself to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms.

First, to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women. Second, to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination. At last, to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises. We are yet to see the first measure to take place.

At last, while it may take years for Indonesian government to make changes and adjustments to existing laws, the society should be aware of shifting roles between the two genders. The old paradigm that the man of the house is the sole provider and the sole protector of the family should be mindfully and wisely changed, even though not in all families. Many women have to become breadwinners, be they choose so or not. And whatever their reasons are, it is time for the society to accept this phenomenon and to acknowledge them as equal partners.

It is not about being feminists, but more urgently, is about being acknowledged as equal human beings. In addition, today’s men should also be aware of their share in the role shift: the rise of masculinism.

A true man is not one who loves his woman by confining her with his authority, but one who frees her and wishes her a responsible independence.

Recently, we have been hearing about many things in Indonesian political arena. Most of them call themselves as participants in Indonesia’s reformation era. All consider themselves as noble participants. They want Indonesia to be a better place. A better place for those who believe in their causes.

Such occurrences are understandable, even when fundamentalism and radicalism movements find it an opportunity to use the momentum in making their marks. The fall of Suharto in 1998, which was believed to be the best thing that ever happened to Indonesia at that time, has not been able to create a more trustworthy government today, despite the recent Democracy Award.

Today, it is very hard for citizens to trust their well-being in the hands of central and local government officials whose integrity is questionable. It is known that not all Indonesian officials are corrupt or untrustworthy, but a simple poll or survey could have been proven the assertion that many, if not most, of them are. It is an embarrassing fact that many officials, including those who are posted in foreign countries –thus are assumed to be of “international standard” in handling diplomatic issues with the host country and Indonesian community members residing there—have yet to show their best qualities.

Last year, in a World Affairs Forum seminar in San Francisco, in which Prof. Donald Emmerson of Stanford University’s SEAF was present, the current Indonesian Ambassador to the United States Sudjadnan Parnohadingningrat, was asked a simple question, “How is the current state of minorities in Indonesia?” He answered in an astonishing manner, which was an affront to his own intelligence, “There is no more minority issue, we now have Imlek (Chinese New Year) celebration.” Sure, it is a good point and it is well taken.

Another question was asked on the raise of radicalism and fundamentalism movements in Indonesia, which he answered, “Only one percent of radicals and fundamentalists in the midst of more than 230 million people who are moderates, so why bother? Let ‘the market’ determines.” As concerned citizens, the seminar participants were astonished. One of them was surprised, “Does it mean anarchy?” Still, he reiterated his answer.

Many of the seminar participants were politically literate people and we were disappointed to hear that. We know what to expect when one asks such a question. Alas, the Excellency Mr. Ambassador perhaps has been used to with constituents who are not politically literate, which could be in the number of hundreds of millions in Indonesia.

For us all, the citizens of Indonesia and the world, to understand how we are represented by the government, we need to educate ourselves to become literate politically. At this point, it might be a wishful thinking for Indonesian government to educate us because, apparently, many of the officials are not statesmen in the truest meaning of the word. It is very hard to find honest statesmen like the late founding father Dr. Muhammad Hatta and Prof. Dr. Daoed Joesoef nowadays.

Educating ourselves to be politically literate in a democratic country is quite simple. And by “political literacy,” it refers to a set of skills necessary for citizens to participate in society’s government. In short, there are abilities what we all need to master, so we can stand tall in front of those government officials who may have prejudices against their constituents and behave not in a respectable manner. It does not mean we aim to be a career politician, but to think and to act as an informed constituent. After all, those government officials cannot become who they are without us.

First and foremost, representation. A citizen is the one with power, hence being a constituent. The notion of a “government official” should be separated from the notion a “government.” In the minds of constituents, it is imperative that we see the “government” as a group of people who have received a special mandate from the people to act on their behalf. Thus, the real power lies in the hands of the people, in our hands.

Second, participation. In a democratic country, no matter how patriarchy the culture is, every individual regardless of age, gender, and other social backgrounds is equal before the law. Thus, when there are laws that do not adhere to this fundamental principle, they are not acceptable and we can change them with a strong will that are channeled properly. In the United States, the power of writing is one of the most useful. With people-managed petitions, there are many things that can be accomplished. Perseverance, of course, is likely to pay off. The key is a winner’s mentality in attesting our conviction.

Third, recognizing bias and “framing” statements. Politicians are notorious for their ability to say things with metaphors and pretentious dictions, as George Orwell said in his masterpiece Politics and the English Language. He said, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation, even among people who should and do know better.”

Fourth, the rule of law and legal systems. The simplest form of the rule of law is that no one is above the law. And the highest form of ethics is the truth. Truth must be honored in the highest manner, not dishonesty in any manner. In Indonesia, there are three legal systems –western continental, Islamic, and native adat — that clearly show how the society is not only stratified but compartmentalized. Horizontally and vertically. Understanding the history and how each legal system came into existence is key in understanding the current and predicting the future state of Indonesian laws and regulations. After all, a civilized society is one that is ruled by law.

At last, let me cite John Wayne who said to John F. Kennedy, the elected president whom he did not vote, “I didn’t vote for him, but he is my president. I hope he does a good job.” And by being politically literate constituents, we are one step closer to a more just society where people’s equality is not merely rhetoric but a reality for all to enjoy.

In 1983, Howard Gardner, a Harvard professor, shook the world with his Multiple Intelligences theory in Frames of Mind, later in 1993 with Multiple Intelligences: New Horizon, and lately with Five Minds for the Future. He has re-shaped how we think about our potentials and how we see the world. He has shown us how we are multi-dimensional human beings and that we can tap into whatever we own inside to succeed.

Based on his works, many researchers have used it as the foundation of other fascinating theories, such as Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence: Why It May Be More Important than IQ. One of the latest works that has been receiving numerous accolades is Karl Albrecht’s Social Intelligence: The New Science of Success. (Note: This Karl Albrecht is not the 87-year old #15 billionaire in 2007 according to Forbes, however. Same name, different person.)

(more…)

“Be one in a million, not one of a million” may not sound profound, especially if you are an English as a second or a foreign language speaker. Despite the subtle nuance, both have different meanings and we can learn to be aware of the significance by making a mental comparison. Which one are you? One “in” a million or “of” a million?

“One in a million” literally means being a special one among a million, while “one of a million” simply translates as being an ordinary person among a million. Many of us believe that we are simply a part of the statistics, which means being an ordinary person among a million or even billions. We go to work, go back home, and do it all over again the next day. Routine has become a habit and a habit has defined who we are, more likely.

We oftentimes forget how special and how powerful our mind and heart are, especially when we conscientiously combine them and make them work in alignment. Such synergy can be extremely powerful beyond measure. Yet we might not realize it and overlook many things, just because. Now, what makes us so special, we may ask?

We might think that there are so many people like us. For instance, there are so many people all over the world who receive similar trainings and were brought up in similar environments. There are so many things around us that cloud our own reflection in the mirror without being distracted and seeing a compromised version.

We admit that we often forget how we were born as special beings. I am not going to repeat things we have known, but let us ponder upon the elements around us that frequently creating a veil over our feelings of being special. Being created, designed, and born one of a kind.

In certain cultures, acknowledging how special we are is oftentimes considered pompous and arrogant. There is, on the other hand, a thin line between being “confident” and being “arrogant.” In most Asian countries, it is always preferred to keep a low-key profile and not to outshine others. There is an Indonesian adage that says, “The higher you have become, the more you need to bow down.”

Sure, it makes a lot of sense because there is no doubt humility will go a long way, even in this highly wired modern world. Still, many people misunderstood it as “lowering ourselves as low as others or lower than others, so we do not threaten other people by being ourselves.” That is a total misconception.

The fine line between being “confident” and being “arrogant” is an awareness of self and how one relates to the environment. A confident person accepts accolades with grace, strives to better themselves and their surroundings with dignified efforts. They do not take things, either tangible or intangible, from others. They know where they stand and how to get where they are heading in life. An arrogant person behaves differently: they do not accept things with grace, even take things that do not belong to them, and tend to belittle others in order to elevate themselves.

One thing that we should not forget as special beings is that we are all born with multiple intelligences. According to Howard Gardner, there are at least eleven types of intelligence:

1. Linguistic intelligence
2. Logical-mathematical intelligence
3. Spatial intelligence
4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence
5. Musical intelligence
6. Naturalistic intelligence
7. Interpersonal intelligence
8. Intrapersonal intelligence
9. Spiritual intelligence
10. Existential intelligence
11. Moral intelligence

What we need to be aware here is that everybody has a concoction of special intelligences. We all have our strong and weak traits. Simply do not focus on what you do not have, but instead hone whatever you have at hand. I personally prefer, however, focusing on what I can do best because that is my “niche” in the world. Whatever is easy for me might not be that easy for other people, which is awesome.

At last, let us all be aware of how special we are. Because, after all, we are one in a million, not one of a million. Let us be special persons with a lot of grace. Let us be confident and accept our strengths and weaknesses that make us superstars in our niche. We are all born special, so let us live as special individuals. Unabashedly, yet with a lot of humility.

Both Lance Armstrong and Seth Godin are superstars in their fields, who deserve their own sparkling stars on the Walk of Fame of Human Civilization.

Both names oftentimes trigger light bulb moments in others and are associated with redefining human beings’ capacity to be extraordinary. Lance has triumphed over deadly cancer and later proven his physical and mental stoutness as an athlete. Seth is one of the most notable contemporary thinkers and doers in our lifetime. Both have their own philosophy over what constitutes failing and quitting.

Lance Armstrong once said, “Live strong. Failure is not an option.” It may sound cliché, but this professional cyclist truly meant what he said, which explained how he won all those world-class titles. He made achieving looked effortless and remarkably easy to do. It is crystal clear that he does not believe in failing and the only way to be is winning.

Seth Godin, on the other hand, believes in quitting. In fact, he wrote in his latest mind-bending and thought-provoking tiny book entitled The Dip: A Little Book that Teaches You When to Quit (and When to Stick), “Winners quit all the time.” This adage contradicts Vince Lombardi’s, “Quitters never win and winners never quit.”

Apparently this bold bald guy believes in something quite astonishingly “taboo” among winners. Does it mean he believes in failure? If he does, does it mean he opposes Armstrong’s belief as he opposes Lombardi’s? (more…)