 Ladies and gentlemen, it's Honour Maher. Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Good morning. The Honourable Director of the Center for Democratic Institution, Australian National University, Dr. Stephen Scheller. The Indigenous Guests and Participants of the Conference, First of all, I would like to say thank you to the CDI-AIU that invite me as the speaker in this conference. The topic that I should present in this conference is relevant with the problem faced by Indonesian people that is pluralism and politics. More specifically, the title of my speech is pluralism versus intolerance, review, big point of Indonesian constitution and law. Before presenting my speech, I must nominate and apologize to all of you that my English is not as good as Australian. Please forgive me if I make some mistakes in pronouncing someone in my speech. Indonesia is country with a very high degree of plurality and diversity. Its population consists of approximately 1,129 ethnic groups with different religions, cultures, languages, customs and other stretches. It has been due to such plurality that Indonesia is often regarded as an ideal laboratory. Four stars is one pluralism. Such plurality has been well preserved for decades. Tolerance and mutual respect have become internalized and implemented in people's everyday life. However, Indonesia's social cohesion has been weakening lately due to frequent social conflicts tricked by differences. There has been a certain crisis among the people in the form of a tendency reducing to expect and tolerate differences. This has been considered as a sign that tolerance in Indonesia is moving to a lower level as compared to the previous period of time. As a country with heterogeneous population and currently in the process of rearranging democracy, pluralism has become crucial for Indonesia. Crisis is certainly a serious obstacle of democratization, especially in view of the fact that in the course of its development the crisis of pluralism in Indonesia at the present time is now no longer related only to ethnicity and ethnic groups as it used to be in the past. But it is also related to issues of religion and belief. Differences in understanding believe in perspective or issues, particularly those related to religion and faith can easily lead to intolerant actions. Viewed in the context in Indonesia's current in divorce to regarding its democracy, the culture of intolerance and denial of differences will only hamper the consolidation of democracy. Without the support of pluralism and culture of tolerance, democracy is unlikely to be ever consolidated. After all, one of the core values of democracy is the willingness to accept each other and accommodate diversity. Pluralism, respect and tolerance of difference. I would like now to start my presentation with the definition of pluralism in the sense that I'm using it. Pluralism is commonly understood as a framework for interaction whereby every person and group demonstrate respect and tolerance for each other. All in other words, pluralism is an attitude that promotes and respect differences and social diversity rather than treating them as mere discourses without an actual action to materialize them in their life behavior. Parents and mutual respect are the most important aspects which need to be emphasized in pluralism. The Holy Magdib, an Indonesian Muslim scholar, defined pluralism is a beautiful sentence, namely a genuine engagement of diversity within the bounds of civility. In line with that definition, Abdulrahman Wahi described pluralism in a more simple way. As a viewing this country as a house with many rooms which are applied by different entities, having differences not only in their religion but also in any other aspects. For the sake of unity in that house, each person occupying the rooms must respect and appreciate each other without anyone considering himself or herself as the rightful and true owner of the house. This analogy may appear to be simple, yet it is of extraordinary significance in understanding pluralism. Under such logic, pluralism offers a comfortable space for differences because differences constitute a fundamental entity of an individual or an individual's humanity. Therefore, if rejection of pluralism is still to be found, it's merely caught by misunderstanding which can still be spread out. One of the examples that comes to mind is the debate regarding the concept of religious pluralism. The purpose of pluralism is not to relativize or to mix up religions. Religious pluralism has never intended to say that all religions are the same. Respecting the followers of the teaching of other religions has no relation to the saying and understanding that all religions are the same. Differences in religious teachings clearly indicate the differences between one religion and another. Every religion has its own context of particularity. Hence, it is impossible for our religion to be the same and completely identical. One of the intentions of pluralism in religious life in an active, is an active commitment and respect for other religions. A person must respect the existence of the other religions as he respects the extension of his own religion. In order to ensure that pluralism serves as an agent of national prosperity, there are at least three universal values that need to be fulfilled, namely freedom, justice and deliberation. Freedom is a prayer quest for pluralism in addition to their life to live being protected. The various entities should also be given the opportunity to express their identity in the public space. In this case, the citizen's human life must be granted without exception. There should be no discrimination against anyone in expressing their optional aspirations to show their existence insofar as it is done in a responsible manner. For the sake of creating justice, the dichotomy between minority and majority must be eliminated. Such dichotomy does not only pose a threat on justice, it can also lead to disintegration. Pluralism does not only require willingness to acknowledge the right of existence of other religious groups but also the willingness to be fair to other groups based on peace and mutual respect. Deliberation requires awareness and participation. This man is living in harmony not only socially and practically but also theologically. Tolerance must be existed. It should not be limited to merely accepting plurality but it should also include effort to ensure that shared plurality brings benefit. All this client pluralism has been understood merely as a form of recognition of the existing differences. However, it has not taken the form of a statement of stance with regard to shared differences. Whereas in fact any statement of differences with such stance is extremely dangerous as it can potentially lead to conflict. From the perspective of Indonesia's history, pluralism is the main platform on which the state of Indonesia was established. Furthermore, pluralism was firmly adopted by the drafters of the constitution during the formulation of the 1945 constitution in 1945. Therefore, it can be safely said that the 1945 constitution is a pillar of convergence of existing differences. Based on the research of various literatures, I can state that the founding fathers of Indonesian state had initially varying ideas on the national characteristics to be materialized in accordance with their respective background. However, they finally reached a consensus due to their willingness to respect each other and appreciate other groups. Among the members of the committee 9 of the BPUPKI, the BUPKH Committee for Republicary War for Indonesian Independence, which was designed to prepare the tremble of the 1945 constitution, differences were finally resolved based on shared consensus whereby our part is war. It was then set forth in the third paragraph of the tremble of the 1945 constitution which raised as follows by the grace of God, the Almighty, and motivated by the noble desire to live the free and eternal life. The people of Indonesia thereby declared their independence. The main idea of this paragraph reflects the convergence of ideas from two political views prevailing in Indonesia at that time, namely, secular nationalist and Islamic nationalist. Secular nationalist was striving to set the foundation for a more free and eternal life separating the state and religion. Why Islamic nationalist wanted to have Islamic teachings as the foundation of their strata? Such convergence led to the agreement that Indonesia is not a secular state and it is not a religion based state either. Or in scientific terms, Indonesia is referred to as a religious nation state. This has been the best middle way solution and according to the 1945 constitution does not prescribe a religion based state because it would only lead to tyranny due to the domination of a certain religion which denies plurality. According to the national philosophy, according to the national philosophy, except forth in the tremble of 1945 constitution, pluralism is one of the main foundation. The question of belief in the one and only God affirms that characteristic of Indonesia is a religious nation state. The second thing, just as civilized humanity can be construed to make the Indonesian citizenship of a fair and civilized treatment. At the same time, in the broadest sense, this nation highly upholds the values of humanity so that every person has equal rights and obligation without any discrimination. Rather than the unity of Indonesian states that this nation is a single unity based on the awareness of and respect for differences and diversity of backgrounds. This has been due to the fact that from the beginning, there has been an understanding that it was a diversity that fully supported the establishment of this state. Therefore, the democracy guided by the inner wisdom of deliberations amounts to presently describe the unique character and value in this nation, namely togetherness and prioritizing deliberations in making any decision for mutual interest. And the fifth and social justice for all the people of Indonesia include three forms of justice, namely distributive, legal and cognitive justice. In the 1945 constitution, the principle of pluralism has the space of place. And it is basically confirmed through fresh, through fresh in the provision of the 1945 constitution such as the state self acknowledge, maintain, maintain, respect, and provide protection for the diversity of the Indonesian nation. This can be found in Article 18, Article 20 and Article 29 of the 1945 constitution. Article 18, for example, provides for the acknowledgement, respect, as well as attention to the existence of special character and plurality of regions in Indonesia, granting for the fair arrangement of financial relations, the utilization of natural resources and other economic resources between the general government, and the regional government is provided for in Article 18A paragraph two. At the same time, the recognition of specific or special regular governmental units is provided for under Article 18B paragraph one. In addition to the above, the recognition of customary law communities as well as their living customary rights are clearly set for in Article 18B paragraph two, including the granting of the rules possible autonomy to regions. There are three persons, as used in the Article regarding human rights in 1945 constitution indicated in 1945 constitution provides guarantee and protection for every citizen regardless of his or her differences and background. Article 20E paragraph one, for example, states that every person shall be free to embrace his or her religion and to practice worship according to his or her religion. This provision indicates that the state grants such freedom to every person without exception. Similarly, it states in Article 29 paragraph two of the 1945 constitution that the state shall grant the freedom of every citizen to embrace his or her religion and to practice worship according to his or her religion and belief. From this perspective, freedom of religion is quite clear and obtuse. The state is guaranteed by the state of the freedom to embrace a religion and worship according to his or her religion and belief is proved that 1945 constitution accepts, recognizes and at the same time adapts to religion. Based on the aforementioned profession of the 1945 constitution or Indonesian citizen of any cultural identity and ethnicity, gender and religion must be guaranteed and protected by the state. This also means that the state might not discriminate against its citizen under any pretext or for any reason whatsoever. Therefore, if there is still a person who with his or her ideas and attitude does not know it or deny to a reason either basically or openly implies at least two negative matters. The first one is from the perspective of the regional principle denial of pluralism is the rejection of the principle of Benikara, Tunggakita. Benikara Tunggakita means united in diversity. It means that those who get pluralism do not fully understand that Pancasila in the 1945 constitution are consensus arising from the tolerance of the founding fathers. And this can form the perspective of democracy and constitution. Those who reject pluralism do not understand the very sense of the existence of the state and all the current condition of democracy. Democracy upholds pluralism whereby the rights and freedoms of citizens are protected by the 1945 constitution and the denial of pluralism reflects a weak national vision which can drive the nation into failure in achieving the ideas of democracy as intended in the 1945 constitution. Tolerance in the freedom of religion. As I mentioned earlier, the current crisis of pluralism in Indonesia has been more often related to issues of religion. That is why I would also like to put some emphasis on the principle of freedom of religion in Indonesia. Because it is big on this principle of freedom of religion that tolerance should rise and then be developed for further application in practice. Tolerance aims at establishing peaceful life among famous community groups from different regions, culture and identity backgrounds. Tolerance is not something that should be fought, it is something that springs from awareness and sincerity. Tolerance has the potential to bring about the acceptance of difference, recognition and respect for the existence and life of other people. And enthusiastically supporting the diversity of God's creation. In this part I would like to elaborate on the fact that the drafters of the 1945 constitution demonstrated that with tolerance they have left behind selfishness and were willing to compromise to eventually reach and accept mutual consensus. After having conducted a historical tracing of the 1945 constitution, especially in relation to the principle of freedom of religion, I have reached several conclusions like that. First in discussing article related to freedom of religion, there was no significant debate in terms of substance in the 1945 constitution. Basically the drafters of the constitution agreed to the idea to accommodate the principle of freedom of religion for every citizen. And with all Muslims are the majority, even though Muslims are majority in Indonesia. I repeat basically the drafters of the constitution agreed to the idea to accommodate the principle of freedom of religion for every citizen, even though Muslims are the majority in Indonesia. There was a commonly shared reason that freedom of religion had to be accommodated in the constitution which was being drafter, bearing in mind the diverse anthropological and sociological backgrounds of the nation. Second, even though Islam is the religion of the majority in Indonesia, at the same the constitution was drafter, Islamic groups did not wish to play a law that was exclusively applicable to the Muslims only. On the contrary, they had the awareness of not limiting the people's freedom to embrace religions other than Islam. They agreed to the name of ensuring the freedom to every citizen to follow and practice religion and worship according to their respective religion and faith. Third, if we observe Article 929, paragraph 2 of the constitution, in part of that the phrase, the freedom of worship each according to his or her own religion or belief. It's actually an affirmation that the concept of freedom of religion and faith meant that the citizens are ensured freedom to embrace religion but it gives no opportunity for attachment or entire religion propaganda, entire religion propaganda in Indonesia. Back on the conclusion of the above historical tracing, it is quite confused that the drafters of the constitution decide the 1945 constitution which recognized and guarantees the freedom of religion and faith. In an explicit manner, Article 28e and Article 29, paragraph 2 of the 1945 constitution expressly stated that the state guarantees the freedom of religion and faith. Article 28e, paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of the 1945 constitution stated that every person should be free to choose and to practice the religion of his or her choice to choose one's education, to choose one's employment, to choose one's citizenship and to choose one's place of residence within the state. To live it and to subject to any written way. Every person self have the right to the freedom to believe his or her faith and to express his or her views and thought in accordance with his or her conscience. The four mentioned provisions state two freedoms namely the freedom to choose religion and the freedom to practice the religion of a person's choice. Moreover, Article 29 of the 1945 constitution affirms that the freedom of religion cannot be diminished under any circumstances whatsoever. This implies an actual affirmation that under any circumstances the state might not limit the right of freedom of religion as an intrinsic right of appreciation. In this context embracing a religion and the freedom to practice the religion of a person's choice is a free man's right. The right of freedom of religion and faith is a human right which might not be reduced under any circumstances whatsoever. However, we certainly cannot implement the above pension profession in the same way as western countries which tend to be secluded. The implementation of human rights in Indonesia must be in line with the philosophy, culture and social structure of Indonesia which is principally religious. Philosophy of context, the fulfillment of human rights must always be based on the principle of balance with fundamental obligations. Human rights will be fulfilled when people also fulfill their fundamental obligations. In other words, the upholding of human rights in their mind by the upholding of the principle of balance between human rights and fundamental obligations and at the same time itself as an indicator of the people's moral degree and dignity. For the more article 29 of the 1945 constitution states as follows, the state shall be based upon the belief in the one and only God. The state shall guarantee all persons the freedom of worship according to his or her own religion or belief. The forming synaptical of one that duty and responsibility of the state to protect the freedom of religion and the freedom of worship for Indonesian citizens. In the context of the state of Indonesia that recognize the significance and position of religion, in my view, the protection of the freedom of religion must be combined with the protection of the purity of religious decay. This means that while there is a need to guarantee the freedom of religion, the freedom of religion which deviates from the right path cannot be allowed. Therefore, the state's responsibility toward religion is not merely providing protection to citizens to freely embrace religion but also providing service to the followers of religion and at the same time protecting the purity of religious decay against or kinds of deviation. In general, article 29 of the 1945 constitution needs to be understood to mean that the state guarantees and manage relations among religious followers so as not to disturb life as stated. While this will recognize and protect religious diversity in Indonesia, it is also entitled to require religious followers to unite in building the state and the nation. Therefore, freedom of religion under 1945 constitution does not only lie on whether or not religion is right or wrong but it also concerns the manner in which the willingness to appreciate and accept the existence of other people with different religions and faith with different religion and faith is developed. According to religious ritual practices by religious institutions whether with their followers are not only an assertion of the belief in God but they should also consolidate unity and brotherhood of the state and should not trigger any conflict, resolving the problem of tolerance. By reading the provision of the 1945 constitution it becomes in them that the principle of religious freedom is absolutely clear at the constitutional level. Therefore, although religious freedom related problems are still frequently occurring, the issue is not at the conceptual level of the 1945 constitution so the issue is not at the conceptual level of the 1945 constitution but rather at the implementation level. In the reform era, religious freedom related problems still frequently occur, particularly in the form of discrimination against minority religions. Discrimination is actualized in various forms of acts, ranging from sermons of writing using a tone which clarifies certain groups the closing of places of worships, attacked against a genre of certain religion, physical and psychological intimidation as well as compulsion to follow the main religious orientation. Up to that is one of the religious edicts which are considered intolerance. Incidence has an effect on the Indonesian Ahmadiyya congregation, the parliament of Indonesian Christian Church in Boko, the class ensemble which indicate the nuance of conflict between the Shia and Sunni religious orientation are some concrete examples of the implementation of religious freedom principle. In addition to that, the Zirpuler Retter which only recognize 6 official religions is another example of discrimination. Pushing to the aforementioned Retter, pushing to the aforementioned Zirpuler Retter, persons or communities outside the official religions are categorized as having no religion. Why do you think the level of an official recognized religion makes it difficult for such persons or communities to receive or obtain services from the state and obtain civil rights as citizens? Similarly, the acts of violence committed in the name of religion by certain religious community organizations also constitute an issue in the application for the principle of the religious. Community organizations with common acts of violence usually tend to put a stronger emphasis on the aspect of religious formality and negation, resulting in the attitude of exclusivity. In addition to that, such community organizations cannot avoid the reality of the trap of the all political paradigm as a result of such paradigm. Community organizations compete with each other in the war to demonstrate their existence. Consequently, they often come face to face with the force of other community organizations or community ailments causing friction followed by intolerant act and behavior. Reality strongly indicates the incompatibility of the guarantee of religious freedom under the 1945 constitution in the implementation of state law. Instead of bringing tolerance, religious freedom creates intolerance. This fact indicates that the guarantee of religious freedom under the 1945 constitution is yet to be truly materialized. If we observe first, we can see that one of the fundamental issues is the narconism of laws and regulations under the 1945 constitution. Numerous laws and regulations are not synchronized. That's resulting in these common parts. Harmonization and synchronization of little rules related to religious freedom have been conducted. However, it has not been of the norm. The fact is that the issues of religious freedom and interfere relations highly depend on such harmonization. One of the laws and regulations which are still in fact is law number one. 1965, concerning the prevention of the misuse and discretion of religion. The substance of this law basically prohibits people from making religious interpretations and conducting religious activities with deviate from the principles of religious thinking. Such professions actually represent the state's intention to protect Indonesian citizens by protecting religious thinking against misuse and discretion. At the same time, the state also has the intention to show a bit other religious orientation from making interpretations outside the conventional teachings. However, the formation law has resented in Palmyk due to different interpretations. Some people have requested that the law be refuerced. Others have requested that it be maintained. And some others have requested that it be refuerced. This image when the law was petitioned for judicial review at the constitutional court in 2010, the petition consisted of several NGOs and individuals requested that the law be refuerced on the ground that the law was inconstitucional since it was contradictory to the spirit of religious freedom as provided for under the 1945 constitution. Moreover, the law was also considered as a form of the state's unnecessary intervention in religious freedom. At the same time, some other parties stated that the law had to be maintained in order to preserve harmony among religious people. In the season number 140, pronounced on April 19, 2010, the constitution rejected the petition of the petitioner. The consideration given by the constitutional court was that the state itself, the role of ensuring that in the implementation of religious freedom, a person does not harm the religious freedom of others. The constitutional court stated that the law does not limit religious freedom. Instead, this law prohibits a person from expressing feelings which are hostile in nature to other religions or constitute the desecration of religions of principle of the teaching of religions existing in Indonesia. In this regard, although the interpretation of the belief in religious teaching is part of the freedom existing with him, interpretation must be in accordance with the principles of religious teaching by the proper methodology based on the sources of the relevant religious teaching, namely the only book of each religion. Therefore, the freedom to make interpretations of religion is not absolute in nature. An interpretation which is not based on the methodology generally known by the adherents of the religion concept and is not based on the relevant holy book shows is likely to pose a reaction to which created public security and order if such interpretation is stated or practiced by it in public. No one's ideas have a bench stating that religious desecration should not be regulated by the state or, in other words, the state should not interfere with matter of belief of its essence. The argument supporting those ideas is that the state must be neutral to our religions and it must not prohibit the creation of any local belief or religion. Sequence. If there is a group intended to establish its own religion, the state cannot prohibit it. According to the proponents of this idea, law number one, 1965, is no longer named since the freedom of expression and the freedom to hold a belief which are inherent. Cannot be limited, cannot be postponed, and cannot be forfeited. In my opinion, I wonder if the lack of regulation by the state will further guarantee a religious freedom. Will it, will it not be the boundary in which the implication will be worse? This is because, in my opinion, with the regulation by the state, acts of violent committed in the name of religion will increase in state. The reason for this is that a person's sensitivity towards a person's religion tends to be very hard, particularly when a person's religion is being criticised or given desecrated. The lack of regulation by the state will in fact open up the opportunity for flexible interpretation of matter considered to be the desecration of religion. It would make it easy for people to create rules solely with own subjectivity and according to their respective religion with different standard of belief. The phenomenon of punishing does consider to be non-compliant with the mainstream will occur easily with other domains and methods instructed in the religion. And the last legal rules of this state are still in. In order to uphold the religious freedom, under the 1945 constitution, the state must continue to participate in regulating religious life through legal rules. The instrument of such legal rules I made it for, as I have stated earlier, accepting that the state's responsibilities are not merely to provide recognition and protection of religious freedom, but also to protect the purity of religious religions against becoming corrupted or against deviation, as well as to strengthen unity and fraternity. Therefore, in making legal rules concerning religious freedom, the state must consistently refer to and deserate the fundamentals of the state of Indonesia which has established four legal guiding norms. The norm constitutes the norm constituted by the consequence of the status of Pancasina as a legal idea, which serves as the fundamental and objective of every law in Indonesia. The guiding norms are no other thing, but the regulation rules must have the objective of and guarantee the integration of the nation both territorially as well as ideologically. Laws in Indonesia might not have any substance which can potentially cause territorial and ideologically disintegration. The second law must simultaneously develop democracy and democracy. Laws in Indonesia cannot be made solely based on the highest number of supporters, but rather they must also be derived from the philosophy of Pancasina and proper procedures. Third, develop social justice. The creation of laws which encourage or allow socio-economic gap due to the exploitation of the will by the strong without the state's protection cannot be justified. And the fourth, developing civilized religious tolerance. The laws must not give pre-friends to or discriminate certain groups based on the number of adherents of religion. State laws might not require the application of religious laws, however the state must facilitate the state must facilitate and guarantee the safety of its nation in fact facing the religious teaching that on their own beliefs and consciousness. Legal rules, legal rules which are made to regulate religious freedom must at least have the objective of and guarantee the integration of the nation as well as developing civilized religious tolerance. We need to be aware that religion in the sense of underneath lies within the private domain. Thus the state does not have the authority to regulate it. Therefore regulation is limited to the manner in which any person expresses a person's belief as a way of ensuring that it does not impair or valid other people's right. The legal rules should only be regulating social life, the interaction and interrelation among citizens and delving to different religious in the community, national and state life. This means that religious legal rules are not met in the context of regulating religious activities and religious life as individuals and in the internal community of the dance of religions nor to regulate religious activities related to the experience, sacredness and racial accordion to the belief of its respective religion. Thus they must not make legal rules which obligate something which has been obligated in the religious teachings or vice versa, which prohibits something which has really been prohibited by the religion consent. In order to further guarantee the formation of legal rules concerning religious freedom in accordance with such law principally, the state can make regulation or even restriction with regard to the freedom to act. However, not in issues concerning the right to religious freedom and to what a belief in the sense of the freedom to be. The regulation by the state in terms of religious life is meant in the context of providing protection of the situation, protection of the citizen, not as a form of intervention to the freedom of expression and the freedom to what a belief. As an example, in resolving the issue of Jama'at Ahmadiyya on June 9 of 2009, the state issued a joint decree of the Minister of Religious Affairs, the Attorney General and the Minister of Home Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia concerning the warning and order to the adherents, members and or members of the executive body of Jama'at Ahmadiyya and the citizen. This one of the joint decree was not intended to discriminate against Jama'at Ahmadiyya but rather it was intended to maintain harmony among citizens to prevent deviant interpretation of religious preaching as well as to protect the Ahmadiyya congregation. The joint decree basically orders the adherents of Ahmadiyya to stop all of the activities which are contradictory of Islamic teaching although it does not prohibit the existence of the adherents of Ahmadiyya in Indonesia. Back on the foreign sense example, legal rules are important as instruments for certain that religious freedom has its limits which must be considered including public safety, public order, health, morality and decency and what is equally important. Religious freedom must not interfere with and imply other people's rights. With such understanding religious freedom will not be implemented out of control and haphazardly but rather it will be harmonized with the principles of the 1945 Constitution. It must be avoided and in correct understanding of the religious freedom principle results in acts of intolerance and victory to the 1945 Constitution and hinders democratization in Indonesia. Thank you. We have some interpreters. Sue Piper and Philip Gould will be able to interpret questions for answers. Make three points before we start. Can I please ask that you give your name and affiliations and have a courtesy to ask your question. And secondly, remember, a short question is a good question. So let's take some questions. Thank you, Mama Fu. My name is Ayuz. I'm doing PhD here at NU in the Department of Religious and Social Change. My question is about the 282 local bylaws that was according to National Commission on Women's Rights or Communist from Point is discriminating women. Just yesterday we were just celebrating the International Day for Financing as Women. So my question would be to you. I mean, some of the women's groups including Communist from Point has put this list of bylaws to be reviewed. But there are some controversy whether this is discriminating women or it's actually protecting the women's rights. So it's quite hilarious for me. So the broader thing is that's one thing, protecting or discriminating women. But the other thing is whether it's actually attention between the Islamic nation state that you were saying with the liberal democracy that we are adopting since 1998 which benefiting the misogyny and the violation of Islam but discriminating women in the other side. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm from Japan. I'm going to answer the question in my language that will be answered by the Japanese government. It's true that some of the women who came to me were not to express their opinions but to convey the results of their decisions about what they said as discriminating women. It's true that a while back the National Commission of Women's Rights came to me not in order to put forward a legal case but to give this data resulting from some research regarding this. They also pointed out to me how many women who came to me with more than 150 women in the National Commission of Women's Rights with the basis of non-discrimination in Indonesia. They also showed me more than 150 rules which according to the Commission of Women's Rights were in contradiction to the rights of non-discrimination which lay down in the Indonesian constitution. I said that now in the era of reformation Indonesia is open as the possibility to make improvements in laws which are considered to be discriminatory. And for that reason I offered two parts which could be taken. The first one would be to put an application for a judicial review not to the constitutional court but to the Supreme Court because the regulations they had put to me were not legislated once but they were regulations from governments and from regions. Also what I secondly said I offered that they or I put forward the suggestion that they take up the role the path of political movement for legislative review through the National Parliament or the National Commission of Women's Rights in Indonesia. And I said that I would like to put forward the suggestion that they take up the role the path of political movement for legislative review through the National Parliament or the Regional Parliament. So there is this option to take the legal or constitutional route to try to correct those kinds of difficulties with regulations. City Jones from the International Crisis Group you said that it is the role of the state to protect the purity of religious teachings and yet don't you think that there is a difference of opinion frequently on what is pure. Take for example the role of Shiism in Indonesia where you have Surya Dharma Ali saying it's Seisat and you have other people saying it's not. So I think my opinion is that it's dangerous for the state to try to do that when you have many different interpretations of purity so I would like your comments on that. Thank you. Just one more word. It's like deviant. It's really difficult for us in Indonesia because all of those rules are against the law enforcement which is the most difficult. The law enforcement is the most difficult. So it's a problem. For the government the law enforcement is the most difficult and the law enforcement is the most difficult. That's good City Jones. Bringing up the question of the essence of interpretation and purity. So who is to interpret what is correct? Well really that is a difficult thing for us in Indonesia because we have all these different streams of thought and they all recognize the original source so it becomes a problem then in the implementation. So all of the religious teachings go back from these various religious streams of thought go back to that original source. And for that reason two years ago there were two main points decided on by the constitutional court. Firstly, there cannot be a conflict between the government and the law enforcement. Firstly, there cannot be a conflict between society because of the differences of interpretation. There has to be the power of the state to guarantee security within society. There cannot be anarchy at that level and the society or the community cannot take the law into its own hands. While a constitution is demonstrated by a criminal organisation. Like the Christian Muslim group for Islam is a joint group of groups. Then the Christian religion and the Christian religion. Regarding the original correct interpretation of religions, the constitutional court said The constitutional court said that that's really up to the consultative councils and agencies of the various religions, for example the MUI, in the case of Islam, social organisations, church councils and so on. And in our opinion that's the best choice among difficult choices, that is to maintain order and to uphold the rule of law. Even so, we also said in the decision of the constitution that the law can be improved and improved so that the legislative council can act accordingly. It can be more accommodative towards various religious interests. The pity is that the constitutional court cannot regulate these matters, it only has the power to withdraw the laws or cancel the laws or to say that they can be continued. Quite a few people are curing, but I'll take a question over here, please. Hello, my name is Ray, I'm a student at the AU. I would like to get you to perhaps comment on the case of Abraham, a young civil servant or former civil servant I should say, who's currently serving a two and a half year sentence for posting on a Facebook page dedicated for atheist community about the question of the existence of God and sharing images that are considered insulting to Islam. And I'm just wondering in your opinion, do you see a problem with the Indonesian government's position regarding the impossibility of an Indonesian citizen to register him or herself as non-affiliated to any particular religion and that it is, well, given in the light of the sentence of Alexander Ahlan, would you say that it's virtually impossible to have any academic discussions about the existence of God and the positions of atheism whatsoever? Thank you. I haven't answered the question of the two of you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I touched on that briefly in my speech earlier. Indonesia is a country which is based on the Almighty God or belief in the Almighty God, in other words, a belief in God, and that takes its institutional form in various religions. And when I met with the German Chancellor, Agedda Merkel, she brought up the same issue. She asked, well, people in Indonesia who are not religious, can they live in Indonesia? And my answer to her at that time was people who are not religious or who are atheists or communists, yes, they can live in Indonesia, but they cannot propagate their beliefs. And as far as people who are communists or atheists, as far as they don't try to teach other people their beliefs, that is their human right. And there is an Indonesian member of the national parliament who proudly stated that he is a communist. However, Indonesia allowed him to be a member of the parliament and that person was not in prison. So as of this prohibition on people being communists or atheists in Indonesia, that's only if they try to spread those teachings to other people, that is by the Indonesian law and constitution. If it's just that belief, those beliefs are just for themselves, just for their life at home or in their bedroom world, that's not really an issue. And so finally, that is some homework for Indonesia to deal with. We have to do some further regulation in order to be more commentative towards these people's human rights. Thank you, sir. My question is, do you think that the education system in Indonesia accommodates pluralism and tolerance enough? If yes, what is your opinion about the changing of the curriculum that kind of have less stressing on science and social sciences? My second question is regarding the drafting of the gender equality law. I'm very supportive of that law because there are two strong points in the gender equality law under discussion. The first one is that the nation has a responsibility to create an environment that doesn't discriminate women. And the second one is that the citizen also has a responsibility to teach their children to be gender sensitive or to promote gender equality. Thank you. Mr. President, in terms of human rights, I don't think there are two levels in my paper. If we want to understand the constitution in Indonesia, the main one is the constitution and the law. It is already clear that the constitution of the human rights is very important. Then, at the level of representation, there is a responsibility. And at the level of representation, too, we are now preparing several tools to solve the problems that arise. In the Indonesian constitution and Indonesian law, it's clear that they do protect human rights. But then as to the implementation and violations of those rights, we are preparing at various levels to try to improve those or make improvements in those areas which you mentioned. And this is sure to be issues which will be debated because in Indonesia we are a very pluralistic place and our thoughts get mixed with other thoughts and always there is a difference of opinion which arise. And regarding the second issue of the draft law on gender equality, that is definitely at the moment a very big or the topic of very big polemic in Indonesia. One important issue in the draft law is whether people should be allowed to marry those of the same gender, male with a male, female with a female. The first issue is that the issue of homosexuality or lesbianism is related to human rights. And at the moment, one point of difference of opinion is one on the issue of whether homosexuality or lesbianism is a human rights issue. But other groups say that human rights in Indonesia are limited by law, limited in the sense of because of religious teachings, morality or public order. That is regulated in section 28 by Romans 2 of the Constitution. And that's been dealt with at the moment so we'll see how that debate ends. Thank you. I think I've discriminated against the less populated part of the field in Indonesia. Are there any questions from the city of those sitting here? Speak down, forever hold your place, all right. Up there at the top. Sorry, in the very background. Return to the things that are populated in Indonesia. It's working. Yes. I'm Henry Zittoros. I'm a PhD student here at the University of Sri Lanka. I think you mentioned about the cognition of minority, but my question is also, there are a lot of non-conclusion of indigenous people, religion. I think that is very common that they had to mention the religion as the one listed in pipe religion, Christian, Muslim etc. So I think that's one problem. Another thing is that on indigenous people is also a problem of their customary law because there are a lot of issues that their right to resources such as land or poorest has to be marginalized. And my next question is that the problem of implementation I think is the problem of leadership. So I think now there are a lot of claim that Indonesia is having leadership crisis. What do you think? Thank you. I'd probably prefer not to comment on the last question but just on the local matters. So in Indonesia there are traditional societies that have their own religions as in West Java and East Java that have problems such as the ones you mentioned. So one of the problems is when they get married because their religion is not one of the officially recognized religions by the state. They are unable to get a copy of a marriage certificate. And of course that creates a large problem also for their offspring because it means that they are unable to obtain a birth certificate. And also it creates difficulties for them to enter school and to enter avenues of work that are provided by the state. Sorry, my pen is just running. So around six months ago I coordinated a meeting to discuss such matters with the relevant authorities. And so for the time being until we obtain a law which provides some sort of legal certainty to people of these religious backgrounds it has been decided that for such people they will be able to obtain a birth certificate that does not mention the date of their marriage nor notice down their religion. And as far as I know the government is in the process of preparing the administrative apparatus before this improvement to the law of residency is achieved. In Indonesia this is very important to the protection of human rights. And that has been put into the law of residency which is one of the most important issues in the country. It has been a key issue in the law of residency in the DPR with me. And as I promulgated in the law of citizenship and in fact we have one of the special committee members here Mr. Slumman Effendi Youssef who is a member of that special committee in Parliament to get with myself. Yes, please. Your microphone is coming. Thank you. My name is Manipuri and I went from there to you. And pass up with your explanation. Because in the beginning you listed a number of serious issues like Ahmadiyya, Greta Yasmin, conflict between CIA and Sunni. We saw it already cost so many fixed inputs. But on the other hand you mentioned that legal framework is sufficient to protect the rights of Indonesian citizens and to exercise the freedom of religion. If legal framework is using sufficient what would be the problem of the unresolved religious conflict in Indonesia which you already mentioned is continuous. And also the fact that which I understand cannot keep operating without any restraints from the government. So my question to you would be what would be your suggestions to the current SBY finishing government to resolve this issue of becoming a government of Indonesia. Thank you. So the protection of human rights is clearly protected under the constitution under our laws and the system of regulations that we have to protect human rights in Indonesia. We just take the law. But this conflict in Indonesia cannot just be purely settled through law which is why the government has set up a reconciliation team and also meetings between social leaders and religious leaders. Not just a legal settlement because sometimes these groups also feel that it's difficult for them to get a settlement, the sort of resolution they require through the law. And this is not surprising that the settlement or satisfaction cannot just be reached by through legal regulations because people have different social aspirations. And the law is not the only way to settle these things. We should also be looking at political and social approaches. But no matter what, we are convinced that the law must be upheld against those who conduct acts of violence against other groups. Thank you. Thank you very clearly from ANU. And if I understood what you said correctly in your speech, you felt that the restriction to six acknowledged religions, the Suda Ida Ram that you mentioned from Kemenang, was discriminatory. And I would like to have a further explanation of why it's discriminatory in the cases of religions that are not on that list. But you also seem to be saying that it was appropriate for the state to, if not ban, at least heavily restrict faith communities such as Ahmadiyya, or indeed we could expand that to the Jewish community, which is Ahl al-Kitab and some people in the book. You mentioned about their been proper methodology about deciding what is a pure religion and the like. So it's very hard to see on any grounds other than political grounds why Jews would not be on that list if we're talking theology and methodology, but also why is it acceptable to restrict religions such as Ahmadiyya or even a number of other religions by eyes and the like. Why is that not also discriminatory then? There is a misperception, a social misperception of people applying to the court about the matter of the law number one, 1965, that there are only six recognized religions in Indonesia and actually that is not true. The law number one says that the government has the obligation to protect and to provide guidance to all religions such as Christianity, Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism. And the next article states that other religions are bound to exist as they are. And the word to allow has been interpreted to me not to protect. Whereas in fact the meaning of to allow in 1965 was not to obstruct, not to disturb. So the true meaning of the other religions being allowed to exist means that they are allowed to, they're not forbidden, but they have a right to exist in Indonesia. And I'd like to remind you in the modern Indonesian we know really had its beginnings in 1973. So that in 1965 we had a case of Indonesian being influenced by regional languages or regional law, foreign languages, and therefore we have some sort of inaccurate words in this law number one of 1965. And that is being clearly stated in the verdict of the constitutional court that all religions are in fact allowed in Indonesia. So the problem with the Ahmadiyya in Indonesia is that the Muslims in Indonesia were not obstruct the existence of Ahmadiyya in Indonesia, provided it's faithful to the Muslim faith, provided it doesn't use the name Islam. So in other words, Ahmadiyya can remain existing in Indonesia will not be disturbed by the Muslims, but don't use the word, don't use the name religion of Islam. And this is not just my personal opinion, it's also people's opinion. And this is not just my personal opinion, it's also the opinion of the Majlis of Ullama in Indonesia. That as far as other religions are concerned, don't use the, if there's a religion that already has mainstream teachings and it's very clear what the religion is, don't take over that religion because we could see that to be a desecration or less. But we have a problem here because the right to use the name is also a human right. So this is what we're trying to process in Indonesia to work out some sort of balance between threats against religion. Okay, we're almost out of time but I'm going to take two more questions from the crowd at the end. So what I'm going to do is ask the two people, yes, you with your hand up please, thank you and everyone there in the grey shirt. I'm going to ask you both to give your questions and then we'll hear from the Chief Justice. I'm a student here at the A&U. My question is, I think, I wanted contradictive, because earlier you said that doesn't have the right to decide on the different interpretation of religion. And you said that these different interpretations should be discussed continually through MUI and other religious organizations. But then, on the other hand, what we see is the increasing role of Bakar Pakam. And I found it, we found that the increasing role of Bakar Pakam is very disturbing because they pursue the persecution of religion. They just dream that they define, they define as the, for example, like the Asgabedika M3, the persecution of al-Qaida. And it was based on the recommendation of Bakar Pakam. So if you say that it should be neutral and has the right to interfere on this matter. How do you justify this very democratic practice of Bakar Pakam role? So Bakar Pakam is just a state, it's not even through style of democratic channels. Thank you. We'll just take the other question. Hello, I'm Wira from Crawford. My question is, based on the Pantasila as well as the UwU No. 165, don't you think that the state has been systematically discriminatory against Buddhism in the sense that the first standard of Pantasila says Ketua Re Maesa, which means one through God. Whereas for thousands of years, traditionally people in Indonesia have believed in many gods in different kinds, even animistic. But why are we so high historic? And as you can see, the monotheistic religions only came to Indonesia in the last 600 years. So even in the first UwU No. 165, it says, religions which are similar to the 6 mentioned, and which animism and politicism in its diversity does not, you know, is very different to it. Thank you. So your question was about the impact of the Pantasila. So your question was about the implementational reactions of the coordinating board for monitoring faith beliefs. And you see a contraindication here as to the freedom of belief that has been held by the state since the law No. 195. So the purpose of this body that I mentioned earlier is to support the law so that the various religious groups in faith do not take part in actually blaspheming or desecrating their respective religions. And it should be remembered that the members of these bodies are not just from government authorities and law enforcement agencies, but also from religious leaders who are there to discuss the way out of conflict. And for the time being, these are the agencies that we are relying on. In addition to the joint degree of the three ministers, the Wakod Pakon is what we are relying on in discussions of the government as we're looking towards the revision and improvement of the laws with respect to these human rights matters. And of course you will understand the state has to take into needs to be proactive against the members of society who are taking the law into their own hands. So this is why law No. 195 which is given birth to this Wakod Pakon, which provides us with guidance for the time being. At least when we have to face these conflicts between religious groups. And I urge you to read the degree or the judgment of the Constitutional Court where it is stated that we very much recommend a revision of the Wakod Pakon and the Undam Satu Law No. 1. And then there was a question about Indonesian state ideology or pancha-sila and the first one being of course a belief in a unitary God and therefore with the reference to monotheistic religions. And the question is are animism and other faiths that exist in Indonesia are they not considered to be recognized by the state in Indonesia as faiths? As I said before animism can be considered as atheism in other words not to the religion. And as I said before if it's just for personal, you are a personal adherence in this faith and used for your own personal use but there is no sort of social propagandizing of the religion it's not forbidden. Really you can say nowadays in reality there is no animism remaining in Indonesia. So that the previous adherence of these faiths in carrying out their traditional rituals in fact they carry out these rituals as adherence of various existing religions. So these historical remnants or cultural remnants no longer have any implication towards the religions of Indonesia. For example in Propolingo and East Java each year there are offerings made to Mount Merapi within a form of fruit and also cattle that are surrendered to the crater of the volcano there. But those carrying out those offerings and rituals are all Muslims. So animism is really just a customary faith but no longer part of the strong and religious culture of Indonesia. But with regard to the merits that I mentioned earlier the solution is being prepared by the coordinating Minister for Economic and Political Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs. Well thank you very much for your generosity.