gz re: banjar: can you defend this
GZ, most religions operate in Indonesia, even some that have been banned elsewhere, though under Suharto he shut down the more dodgy ones. As far as being told to stay away from places of worship, I found the opposite, though I wouldn't have a clue if it was a condition on any of my papers, I was regulary invited to participate on the more important occasions. Both the invitation and the acceptance were taken a a sign of mutual respect, and that applied to both faiths. I found that the fact that someone was a believer was a greater bond between people than whether it was the same god or not they were praying too. During Ramadan, with people I worked with, most started out fasting but many didn't go the full month. As one of my senior people explained it to me, according to his religion all of them had a primary responsibility to provide for their families. If someone got weak or sick and couldn't work, then they would be failing in their primary duty and god would understand. Nobody became upset about it, the fact that they tried was enough. They looked at it as a personal challenge, and if completed, made them a stronger, more self disciplined person, not a more dedicated follower. I agree that some things are happening now that previously had not, but I put a lot of that down to the absence of the firm control of Suharto, plus the economic crisis in the late 90's which took away a lot of the economic gains which had began to filter down to all levels. Suharto knew that political stability was needed before economic growth was possible. He had to rein in any unruly elements and those out of step in order to achieve that stability. Unfortunately, since then, the democracy that so called "friends" of Indonesia have pushed for has meant that many people feel that they are now free to walk to whatever beat they like. With a growing number of poor, it is easy for anyone with an different agenda to stir them up. I believe that the Suharto's priorities of political stability , leading to economic growth, would eventually lead to the people wanting a greater say . This is a natural progression, and once people begin to accumulate wealth or possessions and benefit from a better education, as well as wanting more freedom to enjoy them, they are also less inclined to get involved in activities where they risk losing it all. However, giving such freedom to a large population that still has nothing to lose achieves nothing and leaves them vunerable to exploitation as they seek to express their frustrations. Perhaps East Timor is a good example, independence and democracy, things they were told was their right and the key to the future, are not going them anywhere until someone can get them all kicking in the same direction, and it's hardly a revelation that the most successful coaches are often the toughest ones. Whilst we expect our sporting heros to forgo personal freedoms and strictly obey an authoritarian coach in order to be successfull, why then do we not accept that they same applies to an entire population, unless of course we don't want them to be successful, and that is always a possibility in world politics.
