JURNAL ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA – BEREBUT KAMPUNG

Berita Berebut Tanah: Beberapa Kajian Berperspektif Kampus dan Kampung 10 Maret 2003 diselenggarakan oleh: Jurnal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA KARSA (Lingkar untuk Pembaruan Desa dan Agraria) INSIST PRESS Yogyakarta Bekerjasama dengan Kedutaan Besar Finlandia Penerbitan buku Berebut Tanah: Beberapa Kajian Berperspektif Kampus dan Kampung, merupakan salah satu hasil dari Simposium Internasional Ke-3 Jurnal Antropologi Indonesia pada tanggal 16–19 Juli 2002 di Kampus Universitas Udayana, Denpasar, Bali. Tema panel yang menjadi materi tulisan dalam buku tersebut yaitu Land Rights and Cultural Diversity in Indonesia yang dikoordinatori oleh R. Yando Zakaria dan Anu Lounela. Panel tersebut mencoba mendiskusikan hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan kepemilikan tanah, hak pengelolaan sumber daya alam, dan lainnya dalam berbagai perspektif, yang terjadi setelah jatuhnya rezim Orde Baru di bawah pemerintahan presiden Soeharto pada tahun 1998. Buku Berebut Tanah tersebut diterbitkan pertama kali pada bulan November 2002, yang kemudian diperbaharui dengan edisi bulan Maret 2003, atas kerjasama antara Jurnal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA, Karsa (Lingkar untuk Pembaruan Desa dan Agraria), dan INSIST Press Yogyakarta. Adapun acara peluncuran dan bedah buku Berebut Tanah, sedianya akan dilakukan di 4 kota terpisah, dengan diawali di kampus FISIP UI Depok sebagai pembuka. Redaksi Jurnal Antropologi Indonesia yang mendapat kepercayaan untuk mengawali peluncuran buku di lingkungan kampus FISIP Universitas Indonesia di Depok tersebut menghadirkan editor buku, yaitu Anu Lounela dan R. Yando Zakaria; kontributor yang diwakili oleh George Junus Adtjondro; dan reviewer atau pembedah buku, yaitu Maria S.W. Soemardjono. Acara peluncuran dan bedah buku tersebut dimoderatori oleh Iwan Tjitradaja dari Departemen Antropologi FISIP UI. Pada awal acara, Anu Lounela sebagai editor menguraikan bahwa sesuai dengan tujuan panel simposium, buku Berebut Tanah tersebut diharapkan dapat menjawab beberapa pertanyaan pokok, yaitu: • apakah regulasi atas hak tanah di tingkat lokal, nasional, dan internasional saling konflik? • proses legislasi apa yang mendefinisikan kepemilikan tanah di Indonesia? • proses historis dan sosial apa yang menciptakan pengertian mengenai hak tanah di tingkat

86

ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA 71, 2003

•

nasional dan lokal? dan bagaimana wacana lokal, nasional, dan internasional tentang hak tanah dan adat tanah merefleksikan terjadinya konflik tanah?

Dalam melihat masalah tanah di Indonesia, Anu meminjam perspektif James C. Scott (1995) tentang konsep ‘simplifikasi negara’, yaitu negara cenderung melegislasi dan meregulasi pengelolaan dan penguasaan tanah yang terlalu ketat dan seragam untuk kepentingannya sendiri, di tengah kelompok-kelompok masyarakat yang berbeda-beda karena pluralitas kebudayaan. Negara dapat kuat atau lemah tergantung pada birokrasi yang mengontrol dan mengimplementasikan kebijakan pemerintah. Dalam hal ini, tantangan bagi para antropolog adalah bagaimana mereka dapat melihat hubungan-hubungan yang lebih luas baik di tingkat lokal, nasional, maupun internasional dalam masalah tanah. Merekapun harus dapat mengkaji hubungan atau relasi kekuasaan seperti yang dikemukakan Foucault. Bagaimana dan di mana posisi masyarakat ketika bertemu dengan negara dalam menegosiasikan hak-haknya, masalah long distance nationalism yang tidak tergantung pada tempat atau lokasi, dan sebagainya. Dalam uraian pengantar editor, Yando Zakaria juga menambahkan bahwa buku Berebut Tanah juga dirancang untuk menjembatani hubungan yang terputus sekaligus membuka ruang dialog antara dunia kampus dan gerakan sosial dalam mengkaji masalah pertanahan di Indonesia. Adanya keterputusan hubungan antara dunia akademik dan aktivis sosial tersebut sebenarnya pernah disinggung oleh Dove (1985), Kleden (1997), dan Aditjondro (1997) yang menyatakan bahwa keterputusan hubungan tersebut harus segera diakhiri karena tidak menguntungkan situasi akademik maupun masyarakat. Oleh sebab itu, Buku Berebut Tanah ini mengambil dua perspektif, yaitu perspektif ‘kampus’ untuk menyebut mereka yang beraktivitas sebagai dosen ataupun peneliti-peneliti profesional, dan perspektif ‘kampung’ untuk menyebut mereka yang lebih banyak beraktivitas dalam dunia gerakan. George Aditjondro, dalam uraiannya secara khusus menyoroti bahwa konflik-konflik horizontal tentang tanah di masyarakat masih kurang mendapat perhatian termasuk dalam tulisan di buku tersebut. Kurangnya perhatian terhadap konflik horizontal menurutnya disebabkan oleh dua hal, yaitu lebih kompleks atau rumitnya permasalahan tersebut daripada konflik vertikal seperti konflik rakyat melawan negara, dan kedua masalah keberpihakan. Para peneliti maupun aktivis takut atau risih dengan tuduhan ataupun khawatir tergiring dalam sentimen yang bersifat sektarian. Padahal menurut pengamatannya, konflik-konflik horizontal sering berakar pada masalah kelas atau perebutan sumber daya ekonomi. Kasus konflik sosial di Ambon dan Poso misalnya, terjadi karena penduduk asli Poso merasa kalah bersaing dengan migran atau pendatang yang dianggap lebih berhasil dalam menguasai sumber daya ekonomi di daerah tersebut. Para migran mendominasi pasar tanaman coklat dan lebih dapat memanfaatkan jalan raya trans Sulawesi. Secara khusus, Aditjondro menekankan bahwa berkaitan dengan permasalahan pertanahan ini, moda-moda produksi lokal yang biasa diliput dalam kajian antropologi semestinya dapat diangkat dan dikembangkan sebagai alternatif dari sistem ekonomi neo-liberal atau kapitalisme global yang selama ini menghegemoni. Sebagai contoh, bagaimana hutan di Kalimantan dapat dikelola oleh masyarakat adat setempat, laut di Maluku dapat dikelola oleh nelayan setempat dan bukan oleh korporasi. Oleh sebab itu dapat dikampanyekan perlunya partai lokal seperti partai


87

Kalimantan Hijau atau partai Maluku Biru. Partai-partai lokal tersebut diperlukan untuk memperjuangkan kedaulatan atau hak rakyat setempat atas sumber daya alam yang dimilikinya dari eksploitasi yang dilakukan oleh perselingkuhan negara dengan modal-modal besar yang selama ini terjadi. Tentunya hal ini menjadi tantangan bagi antropolog untuk bekerjasama dengan para ekonom dan ahli politik dalam pengembangannya. Menurut pengamatan Aditjondro, masalah tanah dan petani perlu dilihat sebagai masalah lintas lokasi. Di sinilah perlunya perkawinan antara intelektual tradisional yang berbasis di kampus dengan intelektual organik yang punya basis dalam dunia gerakan sosial. Beberapa contohnya yaitu kampanye aktivis WALHI untuk membubarkan Perhutani—yang selama ini hanya meminggirkan penduduk setempat—dan kampanye yang dilakukan Aditjondro dan kawankawannya sendiri yang menyerukan pembubaran taman nasional di Sulawesi karena hanya menyediakan orang kota yang banyak uang untuk berwisata ria dan mengusir penduduk setempat yang dianggap sebagai perusak lingkungan. Maria S.W. Soemardjono yang bertindak sebagai reviewer dalam bedah buku tersebut, secara kritis mencoba untuk mensinergikan berbagai masalah yang muncul dalam buku Berebut Tanah tersebut dengan peranan Badan Pertanahan Nasional RI dari perspektif hukum dan birokrasi. Maria Soemardjono menilai bahwa perspektif kampus dan kampung saja belum cukup untuk mengkaji masalah pertanahan secara komprehensif. Ia mengusulkan bahwa diperlukan perspektif birokrasi atau pemerintah karena dalam banyak kasus, ia memiliki peran ganda baik sebagai regulator maupun aktor dalam konflik tanah. Menurutnya, konflik pertanahan yang disoroti dan diulas dalam buku tersebut meliputi sebagian kecil saja dari ragam pola konflik yang terjadi di Indonesia. Maria sendiri secara garis besar membagi tipologi sengketa tanah menjadi 5 kelompok, yaitu: • kasus-kasus berkenaan dengan penggarapan rakyat atas areal perkebunan, kehutanan, dll; • kasus-kasus berkenaan dengan pelanggaran peraturan landreform; • kasus-kasus berkenaan dengan ekses-ekses dalam penyediaan tanah untuk pembangunan; • sengketa perdata berkenaan dengan masalah tanah; dan • sengketa berkenaan dengan tanah ulayat. Secara umum, lepas dari kekurangan-kekurangan—seperti masih banyaknya misspelling, kutipan isi peraturan perundangan yang tidak tepat, penataan bab buku yang kurang informatif— menurut Maria, buku Berebut Tanah tersebut memberikan sumbangan yang berarti bagi pemahaman permasalahan pertanahan di Indonesia, dengan menyajikan akar permasalahan, intensitas konflik, aktor-aktor yang terkait, dan landasan hukum dari kasus-kasus konflik pertanahan yang terjadi di beberapa daerah di Indonesia. Dalam uraiannya, Maria secara khusus mengomentari mengenai Peraturan Daerah (Perda) no.22 tahun 2001 tentang Wonosobo yang kasusnya ditulis dalam dua artikel dalam buku tersebut. Proses kelahiran dari perda itu sendiri sebenarnya telah partisipatif, yaitu sebagai upaya untuk memberdayakan masyarakat dalam mengelola hutan yang dikuasai oleh Perhutani. Namun karena berbagai alasan akhirnya pemerintah pusat membatalkannya. Sebenarnya, bila pemerintah daerah (pemda) tidak menerima pembatalan oleh pemerintah pusat, pemda berhak untuk mengajukan judicial review untuk mempertanyakan atau menggugat apakah menteri dalam negeri (mendagri) berhak membatalkan perda dan apa alasannya perda tersebut dibatalkan. Di sinilah pentingnya

88


bahwa peraturan seharusnya tidak multitafsir. Bila peraturan multitafsir maka akan merugikan pihak-pihak yang tidak memiliki kewenangan menafsirkan, dalam hal ini masyarakat. Selanjutnya, Maria juga menyoroti tentang hak atas tanah ulayat bagi penduduk lokal. Selama pemerintahan Orde Baru tanah ulayat langsung diklaim sebagai milik negara. Baru pada tahun 1998 setelah reformasi bergulir ada kesadaran terhadap hak tanah ulayat ini. Perhatian dan pengakuan terhadap hak tanah ulayat ini perlu diperhatikan karena hak-hak adat dihormati dan dilindungi oleh berbagai konvensi internasional. Oleh sebab itu, pemerintah reformasi telah melengkapi berbagai peraturan untuk melindungi hak ulayat tersebut, di antaranya yaitu: • Amandemen kedua UUD 1945, yaitu pasal 18 B ayat 2: ‘Negara mengakui dan menghormati kesatuan-kesatuan masyarakat hukum adat beserta hak-hak tradisionalnya sepanjang masih hidup dan sesuai dengan perkembangan masyarakat dan prinsip negara kesatuan RI yang diatur dalam UU’; juga pasal 28 I ayat 3: ‘ Identitas budaya dan hak masyarakat tradisional dihormati selaras dengan perkembangan zaman dan peradaban’. • Tap MPR no.IX/MPR/2001 tentang pembaruan agraria dan pengelolaan SDA. Pasal 4: Pembaruan agraria dan pengelolaan SDA harus dilaksanakan sesuai dengan prinsip-prinsip dalam ayat (j), yaitu: mengakui, menghormati, dan melindungi hak masyarakat hukum adat dan keragaman budaya bangsa atas sumber daya agraria/alam. • UU no.39 tahun 1999 tentang hak asasi manusia, yaitu: pasal 5 ayat 3; pasal 6 ayat 1 dan ayat 2. • Peraturan menteri negara agraria/kepala BPN no.5 tahun 1999 tentang pedoman penyelesaian masalah hak ulayat masyarakat hukum adat. • UU no.25 tahun 2000 tentang program pembangunan nasional tahun 2000–2004. Sayangnya dalam acara bedah buku tersebut, para peserta sebagian besar belum membaca isi buku yang dibedah sehingga kurang bisa membahas dan mengelaborasi permasalahan pertanahan yang diangkatnya. Berdasarkan diskusi yang berkembang dalam acara tersebut, juga terungkap bahwa minat kalangan perguruan tinggi atau kampus masih rendah dalam mengkaji masalah pertanahan. Padahal masalah konflik tanah ini—sebagaimana diungkapkan Yando Zakaria dalam penutupnya—posisinya sangat penting karena menyangkut eksistensi bangsa Indonesia ke depan. Boleh jadi banyaknya kasus sengketa atau konflik tanah yang marak di tanah air saat ini turut semakin memperbesar sentimen gerakan separatisme yang semakin meluas pasca runtuhnya Orde Baru. Misalnya, kasus masyarakat Aceh, Papua, Kalimantan, dan sebagainya. Oleh sebab itu, buku Berebut Tanah tersebut dapat menjadi salah satu simpul belajar yang dimaksudkan untuk mengembangkan masalah pertanahan di Indonesia. Dilaporkan oleh: Iwan Tjitradjaja Raymond Michael M. Cecep Rukendi


89

Multicultural Education in Southeast Asia: Sharing Experiences 17–19 June 2003, University of Indonesia, Depok organized by: Jurnal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA Southeast Asian Studies Regional Exchange Program (SEASREP) The Ford Foundation. In the discussions during the series of International Symposia held in Makassar 2000, Padang 2001, and Denpasar 2002 organized by the Journal ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA, Department of Anthropology, University of Indonesia, insights on some important issues emerged, such as democracy, human rights, citizenship, education, nationalism, social conflict, identity problems and ethnicity, power relations and diverse local responses, etc. Some scholars perceive these issues as part of the major one in relation to the complexity of people's life consisting of various groups and cultures. Diverse groups and cultures that would like to co-exist peacefully have to deal with those complex issues. However, many parties argue that it is not at all easy to accept differences and live with them as a multicultural society. Multiculturalism does not simply mean numerical plurality of different cultures, but rather a society that creates, guarantees, and encourages spaces within which different communities are able to grow at their pace. The nations of Southeast Asia display immense cultural diversity and possess various historical backgrounds. Each nation is facing relatively similar challenges in developing their respective countries and uplifting the nation's quality of life within the larger framework of creating a more prosperous region based on common and mutual understanding. Many of the problems are related to the existence of diverse social, ethnic and religious groups, and to the nature of relations between one another that have been formed throughout each nation's history under various social-cultural-political circumstances. More importantly, each nation has its own unique experience in dealing with such complex issues and problems. Discussions during the aforementioned symposia reveal that education is an important aspect that has to be taken into account in addressing multiculturalism. Many practitioners of education as well as many scholars examining education conceptualize the issue of a multicultural education purely in terms of student and faculty quotas, making it essentially a recruitment problem. Others tend to focus on the curriculum and infuse a wider representation of perspectives. However, Giroux (1992) notes that ‘[a] multicultural curriculum must address how to articulate a relationship between unity and difference that moves beyond simplistic binarisms.’ He adds that multiculturalism should not be defined simply as against unity or simply for difference, and that ‘it is crucial for educators to develop a unity-in-difference position in which new forms of democratic representation, participation, and citizenship provide

90


a forum for creating unity without denying the particular, the multiple, and the specific.’ The interrelationship of different cultures and identities thus become ‘borderlands, sites of crossing, negotiation, translation, and dialog’ (Giroux 1992). The creation of a multicultural environment can only be achieved through a combination of practices in recruitment, faculty and staff development, pedagogy, curriculum development, as well as the development and maintenance of the needed structure, organizational values, and culture. Within the context of diversity in Southeast Asia, these practices can only realistically be carried out when the needs and desires of each nation has been fully understood by others. Multiculturalism is relatively novel term, yet certain practices of the past and present may be labeled as multicultural. Civic education in the Indonesian curriculum, for example, was geared towards the formation of a society based on common and mutual understanding among and between diverse groups living in unity. Nevertheless, it was not appropriately developed in line with the multiculturalism paradigm. It has not been successful as a fundamental curriculum that aims to form the multicultural perspective of the Indonesian people. Furthermore, social and political unrests have also proved that the formal education in Indonesia failed to strongly build a multicultural society. The problem is not restricted to Indonesia either, and there are indications that the situations turn for worse. A solution is needed, especially within the present social and political climate of Southeast Asia that is marked by the increasing movement of individuals and populations. Should understanding be cultivated among all groups in Southeast Asia, or should multiculturalism be defined in terms of the political and administrative borders of nation-states? Whatever the consensus, the values underlying either route must be instilled through an education of the masses. A workshop on multicultural education among the Southeast Asian nations would thus increase the understanding of the recent conditions in diverse neighbouring countries. The special case of Indonesia would enrich the understanding more, in particular to the aims and objectives of developing a multicultural education in the near future. A thorough examination and analysis of various cases of multicultural education in diverse social-cultural-political-economic context in Southeast Asia region is an urgent need. This workshop on multicultural education is conceived as an initial step in shedding light on the issues presented above. It will provide a forum in which academics, practitioners and other stakeholders can discuss the issues of multiculturalism and multicultural education and its contextual factors, as well as to learn from the successes and failures of other nations in their efforts of developing multicultural education. Case studies from each Southeast Asian country will be presented and discussed. Potentials and constraints on the development of multicultural education will be examined to identify those that are country-specific or otherwise, i.e. revealing similarities among nations. The workshop will also lead to a common understanding of the basic premises of multiculturalism within and across nations, so as to be developed further in each country's multicultural education program. There are 15 papers presented in the workshop, with 21 main participants from Australia, Indonesia, Cambodia, Malaysia, the Phillipines, Singapore, and Thailand. There are a total of 62 participants from various occupations mainly lecturers, NGO workers and students attended the workshop.


91

The workshop was organized by Journal Antropologi Indonesia, Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Indonesia, in collaboration with Southeast Asian Studies Regional Exchange Program (SEASREP), and The Ford Foundation.

Some important issues All of the discussions is divided into two sessions of theoretical and practical sessions. The question of how to approach Southeast Asia by multicultural perspective is become the central question. James Fox (The Australian National University) tried to seek out proper concept for multiculturalism from his perspective as an anthropologist which particularly influenced by linguistic approach which he gained genealogically from Boas, Kroeber and Saphir-Whorf. According to him, Southeast Asia is one of the richest region of language diversity in the world and since culture is formed within language, he believes that multiculturalism should be approached starting with language diversity. By taking numerous data from ethnic language distribution, he believes that language including local dialects is a main vehicle for multiculturality. Moreover, studying dialects in one particular language is important to understand political process of differential identity. Multiculturalism is closely related with social and cultural differences. Melani Budianta (University of Indonesia) developed her arguments by providing key concepts of identity which is formed through a set of power relations in the society. She pointed out clearly that whatever model of Multiculturalism is, most of those have a kind of a political overcast. It almost unavoidably political in over tone now to use Multiculturalism. It comes with a certain amount of political baggage. That is why multiculturalism can lead to conflicts and violence without understanding the concept of solidarity, hybridity, citizenship and how to manage diversities. The important question is: how multiculturalism and multicultural Education not only thrive horizontally between different groups of people, but in contextual and historical way within the context of how vertically the state and the society actually works in actual daily lives of people. In corresponding with Indonesian experience, Azyumardi Azra (State Islamic University) came with the idea of multicultural education through civic educational program. But, he noted some resistance from civic educators in Indonesia and the ministry of education, that multiculturalism might lead to the idea of separatism because it challenges the idea of common identity, and reject the idea of common values. In order to have civic education or citizen awareness as an important component of education, we must prepare all of our citizen and youth to a point where they will be able to recognize and see through of their kind of political system, to appreciate exactly what they want to make of a country. It is very valuable for every nation to have a pluralized system, not homogenized. Multicultural Education should be integrated with civic education as the starting point to understand differences. However, it needs to be parallel with particular Indonesian context to promote gender issues, human right issues, national identity and tolerance. In addition, according to Kamanto Sunarto (University of Indonesia) in light of the alarming levels of intergroup violence in Indonesia, especially during the last five years, multicultural education should aim towards the nurturance and maintenance of intergroup harmony and tolerance, and the reduction of negative attitudes and behaviors toward members of other cultural groups. It should also address disparities in access to schooling, educational

92


attainment, and educational achievement which were found to related to social class, gender, and residence (urban-rural, center-periphery). Based on his research in 5 provinces in Indonesia: Central Sulawesi, North Sulawesi, Southeast Sulawesi, East Kalimantan, and South Kalimantan, A.F. Saifuddin (University of Indonesia) investigates constraints in introducing multicultural perspective in education. Education autonomy concept has been frequently mentioned in public, but it seems only few officials in the province and districts have sufficient understanding of the ideas. In practice, shifting paradigm from centralistic curriculum to regional based curriculum is not accompanied with adequate knowledge of the ideas. In one hand, the autonomy of education can give more room for community based curriculum which more parents are involved, but on the other hand, community members (especially parents) have perceived school as an institution having fully responsible for educating their children. Another problem is how to dealing with ethnic stereotypes. The stereotypes are not only expressed in teaching-learning process as the teachers regard the children of the migrants are smarter than the natives', but also embodied in relationship between parents and schools. Anthropologically, multicultural education can be defined as the process whereby a person ‘develops competencies in multiple systems of standards for perceiving, evaluating, believing, and doing’. Since individuals have varying degrees of competence in varying numbers of dialects or languages, and varying understandings of the situations in which each is appropriate, they have varying degrees of competence in varying numbers of cultures. Basically, multiculturalism is developed within this environment where the members of any given ethnic group will represent a range of cultures. Such a perspective, if adopted by proponents of multicultural education programs, it would alleviate the tendency to stereotype students according to ethnic identities and would promote a fuller exploration of the similarities and differences between students of different ethnic groups. In multicultural countries, the state has the unenviable task of constructing commonalities and yet conceding to diversity. However, it is constantly haunted by the perceived instability and threats to social cohesion that concessions to multiculturalism may bring. This is what happened in Malaysia and many postcolonial countries according to W.S. Koon (University of Sains Malaysia). The narrative of nation-formation in the years following 1957 was a unitary tale fashioned by the first ‘architects’ of nation (Malay). It covered over the layers of different stories of a multicultural society should be. In the context of developing multicultural education, the dominance of one culture is often masked under rhetoric, which repeats the need for a common curriculum, a common pedagogy and common examination. Gender issues, ethnic differences (mostly Malay), stereotypes, and transnational migration complicate the challenges of identity constitution and reconstitution in multiethnic Malaysia. This is represented in students' way of thinking and Malay contemporary literatures of the issue. From Thailand, Charnvit Kasetsiri (Thammasat University) brought the case of political turmoil in his country and how it has affected on the developing of national curriculum. In 1990s there was also a massive popular and loud demand for a total reform for Thailand. There is a close relationship between demand for education improvement, on one hand, and political and government changes, on the other. In many respect the demand of total political reformation is a way for the new emerging Thai middle class to push the military and corrupt politicians aside and restoring curriculum to a more democratic outlook if not traditional and conservative. First, in


93

1997 a new and liberal democratic Constitution was won and second, in 1999 a new Education Law was an outcome. Third, this was followed up, in 2001, by a new curriculum and textbooks. A positive progress should happen after Khurusapha, an affiliate organization of the Ministry of Education executed the new education policy where schools and teachers are allowed to develop their own curriculum and texts. It is optimistically meant to liberate up-country schools and teachers from the domination of Bangkok. Interesting enough, in 2002, out of 36,791 all over the country, around 2,000 primary-secondary schools participated in this experiment of new curriculum and new freedom. However, after one year of experiment, the Ministry of Education came to a new conclusion. To them local schools and teachers do not know how to develop their own curriculum nor texts. Therefore, it must be partly planned from Bangkok. Instead of giving a blank check, it is now 70% from the Ministry and 30% locally. In summary, the participants of the workshop agreed that there are a number of issues, among other things, that are need to be elaborated further. Aris Pongtuluran (Jakarta State University) points out that the problem of multicultural education is rooted in the primary and secondary education, which people tend to overlook. Usman Pelly (Medan State University) reminds us that we still need a solid concept about Multiculturalism and Multicultural Education, therefore another discussion about this issue is urgently needed. Clarry Sada (Pastor Bonus Institute of Theology), Charnvit Kasetsiri, Melani Budianta, and Rose Llanes, agreed that it is imperative to involve the local government and/or regional institution (e.g. ASEAN) if we would like to effectively implement the idea of multiculturalism/multicultural education. But before stepping further into that, all of the participants admit that this issue is still in need of more extensive explorations. Both in the extent of discourse in the academic community, such as workshop, seminars, and by more collaborative research between scholars/universities in Southeast Asia. The papers in this workshop will be published as proceedings and working papers, and will be disseminated to Southeast Asian scholars/academicians, policy makers, bureaucrats in the Ministry of Education in each country, and other experts. The manuscripts will be also published as a book to reach wider international readers, including media, to allow them to participate in disseminating the ideas of multiculturalism and multicultural education in Southeast Asian regions and the other parts of the world. Dilaporkan oleh: Iwan Meulia Pirous Bayu Aji Wicaksono

94


JURNAL ANTROPOLOGI INDONESIA – BEREBUT KAMPUNG

Recommend Documents