英文摘要 |
The presentation and historical interpretation of the events of post-Sukarno 1965 are often shrouded in fear and silence. Despite the efforts of NGOs, human rights groups and academics, attempts at reinterpretation or revising Indonesia’s past have often met with fierce opposition. Groups which are religiously- or militarily-affiliated often brand any such attempt at revising the history of 1965 as being a conspiracy to raise the flag of communism on Indonesia’s soil. Fringe groups such as the Front Pembela Islam (Islamic Defenders Front) and the Front Anti Komunis Indonesia (Anti-Communist Front) have been at the forefront of violently disruptive actions against exhibitions, movie screenings, or even discussions about that specific period. These groups often brand revisionist retellings of 1965 as arising from an ethereal bahaya laten (latent danger) or komunisme gaya baru (new-style communism).
This discourse bears an uncanny resemblance to the Orde Baru (New Order) regime’s paranoiac fears of organisasi tanpa bentuk (formless organisations) subverting the state from within. Using opaque language and taking advantage of a “ghostly lexicon” that have already existed within Indonesia, the New Order regime was able to create an atmosphere of fear and foreboding. Nonetheless, despite the overthrow of Suharto’s New Order regime, Indonesia continues to live amongst the shadows and phantasms which have yet to be exorcised even after nearly 20 years of democratic transition. This paper investigates the ghostly phenomena arising from the taboo-like nature of the events of 1965. I will specifically look at how spaces of past violence have been transformed into informal memorials testifying to Indonesia’s “silenced past.” I will also be investigating rumors and ghost stories hypothesizing that these elements represent a way in which the past expresses itself even as fringe factions and groups continue to maintain an “enforced silence” on the events of 1965. Through the investigation of these events and by presenting them as symbolic tropes, we can gain a deeper understanding of how nations and societies reconcile with their pasts in transitional contexts. |