 Okay, I'm going to start now. I'm sorry if my voice is a bit funny and I'll be coughing and my ass is swollen because I just think it happened from COVID. But I'm negative, don't worry, so I'm not going to infect you. But I put as much as possible on my PowerPoint presentation, so just in case I can talk in the middle, you can just read the PowerPoint. So I want to save my voice a bit so I can answer questions. And today there's no chair as well. I'm not sure why. I think I don't know. It's perhaps related to COVID or what I'm not really sure. So I'm just going to keep going, you know, whether there's any chair or not. I'll just keep going. Okay, and please ask me as many questions as possible because this is a work in progress, which means that I just started this work. It's just the beginning. I've really just started, so I still don't really know where I'm going to go with this research. Let's wait for about one or two minutes because there's still people coming. I'll wait for about one or two minutes because I know some classes take a set of one or two minutes. Okay, let me start now by explaining what I mean by Indonesian political exile here. They are the people who identify themselves as such because the term Indonesian political exiles can be quite complicated, which I'm going to explain later. And just an overview. This is about Indonesians working or studying overseas whose citizenship was not by the embassies in the way of the imprisonment or embarrassment of millions of and alleged communists in Indonesia, known as the 1965 Jets. No, this is just the background of it. I'm going to start with Sukarno and the non-aligned movement. Okay, anyone know who Sukarno is here? Anyone doesn't know who Sukarno is? You don't know. Okay, I'm going to explain a bit. So Sukarno is the first president of Indonesia. He is known to be left-wing and pro-communist, but actually in the midst of Cold War, the first president of Indonesia, Sukarno at that time refused to align Indonesia with either side. So he refused to align with either left or right, and he also hosted the first Afro-African conference in 1951 in Bandung, West Java, and at the conference known as the Asian-African Conference, 29 nations present. They agreed to be abstained from aligning with either the western or eastern blocs. However, this neutrality did not satisfy many policymakers in the United States. So the policymakers in the United States once said to Sukarno was either you are on my side or not. Basically, they were implying something like that, and they started spying on you. Eventually, because of that, Sukarno was getting closer to the eastern bloc and the Indonesian Communist Party. Indonesia also had time special exchanges with several countries, including the communist countries. These exchanges allowed Indonesian students and journalists to travel abroad, such as to China and the US, Albania, and other communist countries. The exact numbers of Indonesians who were sent to the eastern bloc is not clear, but I'll just give you a small overview. By 1965, the total number of Indonesians sent to the Soviet Union during Sukarno's government is around 2000. The largest foreign student population in the Soviet Union. And then what happened is the generals of communist life-giving people and alleged communists. On the 1st of October, dawn, six top generals of Indonesian Army and 180 are murdered. On the 5th of October, the barrios of the generals, Suha Thong, who was general at that time and who later became the second president of Indonesia, claims the PKI, the Indonesian Communist Party, for what happened, propaganda against the PKI and the left-wing women's organization's threats. And soon after the mass murder of communist life-giving people and people associated with the PKI hit-ups. Now, from 1935 till 1967, approximately one to two million people were murdered by Suha Thong's army in the name of suppression of the communist party. The number is not here even now. So that was really, in a way, the sad thing that, you know, millions of people were murdered, but no one bothers finding out how many were actually murdered. Where millions of others were imprisoned, tortured and or raped. Soon after Suha Thong was appointed as acting president and elected as president in 1968. His regime is known as the new order. And when the Suha Thong regime started, Indonesia opened up investment to western countries. So companies like Freeport Exxon actually invest in Indonesia. And during the Sukarno, when these western companies, these giant companies wanted to invest in Indonesia, they at that time, one of the regions that they were, their favorite region is West Papua. Do you know why? Anyone knows why? Biggest gold mine in the world. So in Papua, West Papua, there's the biggest gold mine in the world. And at that time, when these foreign companies, these western companies wanted to invest in West Papua, Sukarno said, okay, fine, but you will get 30% and I will get 70% and at that time, you were sending lots and lots of students to go overseas because his plan is once they come back to Indonesia, then they will take over these foreign companies. That was his plan. Not to be, of course, because then Sukarno was toppled and then the foreign investment came. And can you guess during the Sukarno, during the agreement with the Sukarno, then what is the efficient? So during Sukarno, it was 30% for the western companies for Exxon and things like 30% sector percent for Indonesia. During Sukarno, can you guess how many percent, the percentage, anyone? Can you say anything? Over 90% for over 90%. Yeah. And the rest, like around 5 or 10%, what are those problems? So that's why it wasn't quite surprising in a way that recently classified documents reveal the active involvement of the British, American and several other Western governments in the mass murder to get rid of the left-leaning Sukarno with the more obedient Sukarno. The Indonesians overseas now during that period. Most students overseas during the so-called 1965 coup were perplexed by what happened in Indonesia because news about their country was rather conflicting. While curious, many students in Soviet Union could not get much information about Indonesia because the only radio channels were from the Russian government, not from other countries. The radio there only reported there was power struggle and the murder of generals without mentioning the PKI. So that's it. And what they told me was some students actually tried to get a radio channel somewhere else. So what they did was they were actually climbing. They were making all kinds of their climbing, like really tall building, and right at the top. So they brought the radio so they would get a channel there from somewhere else. It's really risky what they did because if they got caught, what should happen to them. And also climbing that high at nine was not fun. But they really wanted to know what happened in Indonesia. Not long after, they heard that on 11 March 1966, Sukarno even authorized Sukarno to take whatever measures Sukarno did necessary. Some of these Indonesians suspected that this was part of the coup plans against Sukarno. Then the embassy distributed statements to be signed by Indonesians overseas. It was a few months later actually. So it was around mid-66 until late-66. Different embassies and different forms, but the main idea was similar. The requirement to condemn the PKI as the captain of the chaos and the instability in Indonesia. And to support Sukarno's new government. Those who refused to sign had their passports confiscated. And of course there was no acknowledgement even now. Despite the promise of the recent president Jogowi, they would resolve past human rights cases. He still has not admitted that the genocide took place. The former history is the right largely maintains the new order version. That is the Indonesian Communist Party murder, the generals, and tried to carry out a coup. Therefore the mass murder of communist and alleged communist could be just a fact. So truth and reconciliation. Many of these, including the filmmaker Joshua Oppenheimer, have emphasized that there must be truth and reconciliation. Activists in Indonesia also asked for this movement the year after. So the truth is the future. However, as I was gathering data and testimonies from my respondents, I encountered many problems, especially when I read his testimonies and the intention of finding several accounts of the victims, survivors, and political exiles have now been published. However, there have been countless efforts to undermine these testimonies. There is an example is that of the Indonesian minister of medicine and investment advice, Blutbanje, that he has called them traitors. And of course he tried to emphasize the inconsistencies amongst the account and then he said, oh, they're just interpretations. They don't tell the truth, that's what it is. Of course the truth is you should expect it to be consistent, objective, precise, just like the saying the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Because this is what the activist in a way aimed at, taking those responsible just as we already have like the international people's type, you know, 65 as well in 2015 in the Hague. And it is important this thing to prove the whole truth and nothing but this problem however. The concept of the review of the truth is that if proportions correspond to reality then it's true if it does not then it's for. Now in relation to this objective notion of the truth, when we talk about identity then it is saying to correspond with the so-called a true or real identity, not a fake or manipulative one. One of the problem of this is what often emerge when I was interviewing my respondents was not the objective truth but more of a negotiation. So when they tell me story they would say, please write such and such and such. Is it the truth? It's not. Is it? Well what will I do? As a researcher, I could not reach confidence here. So in the end what I write is a metaphor negotiation. This is a problem. Even the term political exile itself is already quite problematic. First when I ask about the respondents about their definitions of a political exile, their responses were subjective. Okay. Considering that all of these people who identify themselves as Indonesian political exiles are now allowed to return to Indonesia, but an Indonesian exile can be viewed as paradoxical. On the one hand, the one exile emphasizes the notion of rejection and detachment from the country. However, as formally there has been an option for them to return to Indonesia and become Indonesian citizens again. They added this exiles and that's the challenge in this regard. Although, you know, it's not easy, but there is an opportunity now. It's not easy. Discussing the notion of belonging and national identity is Hamid Saidian. It's just the term diaspora for those who can move freely between nations because there's now no sanction for these Indonesian exiles upon entering Indonesia. The definition of exiles actually no longer suits them. That's how they identify themselves. So I interviewed 15 people who identify themselves as political exiles in the end of 2017 until June 2022. But actually the most intense one was June 2022 because in 2017 I was just talking with them about interviewing intensely. And all of these exiles, of course, now can return to Indonesia. Again, it's not easy, but they can. They won't. So in a way, the exiles can be challenged. But as I said, I used this definition because they identify themselves as political exiles. Now another problem of the two, when I met these exiles, several of them were quite hesitant in telling me their stories. Also, they wanted to find out who I was and what I would write about them. So trust is the issue here. Many also wanted to know at the beginning of the interview whether I can keep the secret and keep certain things confidential. So right from the beginning, the representation of these exiles at the beginning was an important issue. So they would try to find out who I was and they did admit that, actually. They would not refill their real identity to just anyone. They have to trust the person. And they say, not all of them are like that, but some of them, actually, most of them, actually, most of them say, well, if I'm a suspicious person, I'm not going to tell them that I'm like, son. Is it like that? I'm just going to tell them that I've been here for years. I studied here at that same. So that's what they say. So several of these exiles use different identities for different audiences. Now two exiles in Germany now. This is the beginning. There were two exiles in Germany who were not only willing, but also excited to be interviewed. I traveled from London to meet them and these entities were followed by phone calls. They talked on the phone for a long time. One of them, actually, was on the phone with me three times, three or four, even more than that, actually, lots, almost every week. He called me off. So it was like a long time. And when we talked, it could be nonstop. He would talk for two or three hours, talking about himself. So it was definitely so exciting. However, after I wrote about him and we negotiated what I had to write, he was still not happy because he thought it was not exactly like what he wanted. He wanted me to write quite a lot about the involvement of the US government in the 1960s of genocide in Indonesia. So what's wrong with spacing here? Now, another political, yeah, so he wanted me to write, okay, you have to include this on my biography. But I said, look, I'm going to put this on the introduction. And I cannot repeat it on your biography. And then he said, no, no, no, no, no. And in that case, then don't worry about it. No, I don't want you to write about it. Suddenly just say that. That's it. So is it time wasted or not? For me, there's no time wasted. For me, the process is, in a way, is for me to learn what they are like. And to discover that finding the truth is in a way, the whole truth. Because as you see, this is a matter of negotiation. When I write, when I talk to them, when I actually in the end have their story written, it's everything is a matter of negotiation. And it can be a very long negotiation. Another political exon decided to report because according to my writing was too political. So I'm really confused. No, no, no, this is too political. So you are a political exon. Yes, I was made into a political exon. But I was not actually political. And I think your writing is too political because I explained what it is about, what I'm discussing. And how I didn't have him travel from London to meet him in Germany. And he just said, no, after a long time. So that's why it takes pages in the end to get their stories. Now, this is another case, a female political exon, whose life story had been written by an author, but she thought he was not happy with what was written. I'm not going to mention her name and then the author's name as well. But she said, yeah, someone wrote it down. And then I wasn't happy. I told the author, I wasn't happy, but some of the other was not listening to me. And I get really upset with this author. Yeah, he said like that. She said like that. And then she said that when she took the piano, therefore, she was not sure whether she wanted to meet me. So we just talk on the phone at the beginning. She said, I don't know because this happened to me. And then, you know, now I don't know whether I want to meet you again, to meet someone else again, like a researcher or whatever. But then out of suddenly she said, yes, I want to meet you. Suddenly she said like that. So she agreed to meet me under the condition that I did not write about her. And we just had a chat. Finally. So we met and we have launched in August 2020 in Germany. I'm not going to mention the CD as well. Otherwise, you know, I just want to protect that. I don't think. Afterwards, when I was back to London, we kept in touch via WhatsApp. And in June 2022, when I went back to Germany, we met again. This time, she said I could write about her late husband who was also a chronic Alexa, other than about her husband. Fine, I said, yeah. So I stayed with her for three days, had long interviews with her about her husband. The interviews were quite full of a warning of what not to write. So she would say, I will tell you this, but please don't write me. I got quite confused sometimes because it got mixed up in the end. So I was like, which one to write and which one not to write. I got really confused. And she told me a lot about herself too. And the conversation about this could be nonstop as well. So a lot of them actually were desperate to talk about themselves. And I wanted to write about them and that's when they started getting quite nervous. Sometimes when we talk about ourselves, she would say, oh, why do I talk about myself? Isn't this supposed to be about my husband? Because that's what she asked me to do. So after I finished writing about her husband, because I couldn't avoid it, I couldn't avoid it not to write about her because it's her story about her husband. And I sent the writing to her about five days later, she called me and said there were things which she was worried that they could be misinterpreted by other people. And she also said, oh, I don't think this is embarrassing or there was just a lot of things in India. I got really confused. And then in the end, we just, yeah, we just agreed to just leave it. We just said, okay, let's just leave it for now. And then I just said, okay, let's say that. So that's what happened. Yeah, nothing again. Now, four political exiles were willing to open up this time. And they said, fine, you can even write our real names. And that's why I write down the names here. And they all live in Germany. Well, I think Germany, it's a long story, but there was a, because there was a, I was also somehow comparing between the Holocaust and the 65 genocide. Because that's why I thought Germany would be, in a way, a good choice in this case for me. Kind of like, not a good choice. So two in Berlin, one in Hunistar and one in Denmark. All of them hold general passports now, all of them studied in the U.S.S.R. when the 1960s were general, there was a tough place. And four of them lost their passports for not being willing to side with Suharto. So when I met them, as I expected, they talked about 1965 genocide quite a lot. However, another thing I noticed is how they related their identity to being a communist or not. Arif stated that although he did not join the communist party, he was pro-communist. Arif was born in 1945 in Sleman, Central Java. His father was leftist and politically active. He told me that he was inspired by the ideas of Chairman Manu. Whereas the other three, the other three exiles, let's get back to this one. So Wara No Mahdi and Suharto, both of them, when they met me, they said, I'm not communist, straight away. They said straight, I'm not communist. And Willie also said like that. He said he was not actually political and he was not communist. So it was clear right from the beginning, it's whether they were communist or not or something, or whether they're leftist or not. So it's really clear, they want to make that clear somehow. So as I said, Suharto Wara No Mahdi and Willie are quite different from Arif. And Willie described himself as political when he was young only later. After the Indonesian embassy refused to renew his passport and he had to get help from several parties and organizations in Germany, he became more interested in life being ideas. So it's quite alarming in this case. Their story is now concerning the 65. The four of them agreed that the army will go to Galpits along with Suharto in the US government. However, the narratives about communist people are quite different. Today, I will mainly compare and contest two people, Suharto and Arif Parasana because I don't have enough time. Suharto, born in 1945 in Solo, he specified that it was born in the same area as the town of St. Johoi and he went to study in the Navy Academy. He received a scholarship to study in the USSR in 1964. He said in 1963 the first Indonesian had the ambition that Indonesia should make their own atomic bombs to scare off Malaysia and he was sent off to the USSR to work in the field of atomic weapons. But he said actually Indonesia has no basic knowledge to make atomic bombs. We studied in the USSR but people there did not teach us much. Making atomic bombs was kept a secret from us so we only learned some basic things, not much. Sukarno also said he wanted to send people to outer space but that was just part of his propaganda. The Indonesian Navy also found it an institute of rocket science but there was no way we could make our own rockets. We only gathered used rockets from Russia which worked out into bits and pieces. Then we tried to put everything back to see when this worked. Anyway, he was making fun of Sukarno quite a bit actually when he heard about the so-called coup in 1965, Sufajor was told as to what really happened. In 1966 he and the other Navy students were required to sign a statement at the Navy organization in the USSR and because Sufajor chose Sukarno, his passport was on his cape. Sufajor tried to get refugee status from the USSR, whoever his request was rejected because according to him he was slammed by the leader of communist Indonesian students. Sufajor decided to move to Germany because there was a station in West Berlin called Chu where people could enter West Germany without being checked. So at Chu he started by becoming a beggar, homeless, no money he slept with other homeless people at the station. So if you believe me, I mean these people were in the way. I think that well a lot of Indonesians here and you know at that time when people were sending offices to study it was really prestigious. They were like support select team. But because of this then they became homeless at some point. They were just doing master's degree or they were doing post-graduate degree offices and then they had nothing, no money, no home. So that's what happened. Luckily another Indonesian spotted him and asked whether he was Indonesian and why he was there. And this Indonesian it's called I can't remember now, Johannes something. Sufajor said this Indonesian was a Chinese Indonesian who helped Sufajor so that he could find a combination, get a refugee visa and eventually get a job. Sufajor got quite lucky in this case. And besides having some of our negative opinions about Sukarno, he also has negative opinions about communist. So he said well 65 channel sub was not the fault of the Indonesian communist. He thought the BKI chairman I did make many mistakes. For instance he said I did was arrogant and be a fan of you. About the BKI he said the BKI liked to pick stupid people so they would be easily influenced and ordered around. Therefore they were recruiting people like farmers and laborers. And he said many like these do not like to talk with me because of my opinion because I said to them that strategies of communist and who's the environmentalist are similar. Now I'm Kharsana, completely different in a way when we talk about communism and Sukarno. His father was politically active especially in left-wing and socialist organizations and was an admirer of Sukarno. So after finishing high school I went to university in Yogyak, Gajah Mada. Then he was offered scholarship to study in the USSR. Hearing this news, Arif's father was really happy because he believed by going to the USSR Arif could learn more about Marxism. However Arif's mother was upset because this land that she had to split from her son for at least five years because he was really upset about it. It turned out that she had to be separated from her son not only for five years but 28 years. So Arif landed in Moscow on the 17th of September 65. Only a few days after he landed then he had about the 30th of September movement. So Arif told me that afterwards the student organization was split into three after that happened. The nationalist, the religious and the communist. The nationalist was from Sukarno. The pro-religious students finally accepted Sukarno and by exploiting a communist group clearly defended Sukarno as well. Arif remained active politically by demonstrating against Sukarno and condemned the mass murder of the communists and alleged communists in Indonesia. He and his friends concluded that Sukarno was responsible for this mass murder. The activities were supported by many students from other countries especially from Chumba. On 16th January 1967 Arif received a letter from the Indonesian embassy stating that his passport had been unknown just like that. The letter mentioned that there's the placement of the Indonesian student union in the USSR is unique. According to Arif, the Soviet Union did not care about the political turmoil in Indonesia so they made peace with Sukarno instead. After several students were in Sukarno's foreign group had arguments with communist group. Again this is still Arif's story though because there are different strategies in dealing with the political turmoil in Indonesia. So some still wanted to stay in the USSR, some wanted to go to China, some wanted to go to the West, some did a U-turn and sided with Suha. Arif continually studied and graduated. He really wanted to go back to Indonesia but was impossible. So he worked in the USSR as an engineering but he felt that the USSR didn't do much for Indonesia. He said they don't care. China actually cares more and the Chinese government makes more effort in defending the communist who had been completely suppressed in Indonesia. Arif describes the PKI very positively in relation to the farmers and laborers for instance. He insisted that the PKI wanted to educate them and to make them completely aware as well as he talked about land reform in Indonesia in which the government limited the size of land people could own. Those who owned all that they required to distribute the land to poorer people may be farmers who had worked on the land without owning land. In 1977 Arif decided to leave the USSR because if I continued living in the Soviet Union I would not have been able to return to Indonesia. So he asked the local government for a permit and travel with an expired passport by train via college. Then he got an actual station again because at that time it was the only station where no paper was checked so he could get through to West Germany and because he knew another political exile in Berlin, Arif stayed with him while trying to get a refugee visa as well as a job. Later he revealed another story. So at the beginning of the Arif Harsana was his real name but I told you these are the people who were willing to open up with their real names and actually it was. He started changing his name in the mid 1980s because he wanted to be politically active again. His real name was Suti Harsana then he used the name Suti Harsana separated and then later he started contacting other political exiles in Dortmund and later he changed his name again to Arif Harsana. Okay it was only later that he told me this and I said could I publish this, it's fine. So as you see when I talk to these political exiles after that they're always layers and layers and layers of identity that were you know kind of like there were real bits by bits by bits and then even now I don't know how many layers are still no I'm still there and after they're opened up and you know I don't know. So once you come into that these political exiles changed their names was silly. There was no need because the government was so interested in chasing them as long as they're in the offices recently. What's the hues? So there are already discrepancies between these two people who were not members of the Indonesian Communist Party. So Arif was not a member of Indonesian Communist Party. Supaja was not but you see the story is quite different. The ways in which the two discrepancies of the political exiles in Germany are very different. Supaja stated that because he was helped by other Indonesians when he just arrived in Berlin he was trying to have other political exiles too. However the political exiles in Germany often have arguments with each other. He said arguments after arguments especially the communist ones. After they met communist they forgot about me. He said although I helped them. I know many from Mao Zedong Indonesian friends here they are the same as those in Moscow in fact they don't know politics but they hostile to me. I have a communist Indonesian to come to Berlin but later he ignored me. Yeah so this oh my goodness sorry this gentleman here. So he went to Christmas party and I was left home early. So he talked about him quite again. Now Arif said that political exiles in Germany would unite it and they helped each other. Although there are arguments after that and then they were not very serious. They're really getting different strategies. And Arif told me the generosity of the political exiles. There's an exile in Dortmund who opened his house for students and anyone who wanted to stay. He said I've cooked for everyone who came. He bought huge pots and pans so that he could cook huge meals for everyone who came from the house. So it was that generous and actually I experienced the generosity as well. They were just incredible because they wanted there were just some of them really wanted to wanted to talk to Indonesian students especially during the new order because these Indonesian students have been brainwashed. They've been brainwashed by the new order by Suwarto regime. So that's what they were desperate to tell them about what happened in 1965. They were desperate to have discussion even so they just opened the house just like that. Some of them gave them meals three times a day. It was incredible actually. So the problem is the political exiles of the joint communist party of poor identified as communists are often secretive and do not want to be interviewed. They usually just talk to me but they just say no don't mention my name don't don't even mention my stories because they were still really frightened so I cannot even mention it here because I did need I did need some of them but I can't even mention anything about so does this mean this is the comeback of the postmodernist theory of there is no truth. I think that you are aware of postmodernist theory here postmodernism or anyone who doesn't know should not explain of it. So in general postmodernist see the truth as subjective just like there's no universal or objective criteria of beauty because beauty is really relative objective of not objective there's no universal or objective criteria of the truth that's postmodernist you know but of course this has been widely criticized. So the odd round has criticized the postmodernist theories. He argues that all the complete objectivity is impossible researchers have to aim as close as possible to that idea. Science works not because it produces unvised accounts but because its accounts are objective enough to be proved or disproved no matter what anyone wants to be to learn. Now get back to the political exiles. Many things are a lot clear including the incidents that caused the exiles. For instance who was the mastermind of the murder on the first of October? You still don't know yet. Memories can be inaccurate and can be planted, manipulated and or distorted and if we are too concerned about finding the truth in speaking with the survivors this also will not work. I cannot keep pushing them to be objective although I know they lie or they keep secret to be concentrated. So far the discussion has been mainly about scrutinizing the truth. The postmodernist also scrutinized the truth and inquiring what it is. What I want to pay attention to is the non-truth especially when dealing with traumatized victims and with authoritarian regimes whose cronies are still powerful. Non-truth can have many forms among others this manipulation deception. There's so many forms. So which one is and why? That's what I'm more interested in. So when I'm talking with these political exiles in the end I'm not going to search for the truth and nothing but the truth. No, I'm not going to do that but I'm aware that I'm searching probably the non-truth but I'm going to separate them and I'm going to find out why. Why in Vienna I have to keep negotiating their identity with me? And this is part of the reason the very beginning of their identity as political exiles is based on intimidation, terror and manipulation of power they were supposed to trust. They started being an exile when their passports were now. Personally they did not change. Personally they just at that time they thought they were being honest. They were still themselves. That's what they thought. However, by confiscating some papers, just papers which was something so when you see it's just bloody papers. It's just something, it's a construction, it's some sort of melody. It's in a way it's not part of your essential identity in a way, just papers. The author in the play Jim was able to make these Indonesians no longer who they were. You know, anything else doesn't matter whether you are fake or not, it doesn't matter. You have to have this paper. You want to change your identity. You want to do whatever you want. You want to change your name. You want to pretend to be someone else. It doesn't matter. The main thing is the papers. So there's so far been dependent not on their honesty or truthfulness but on the ability to work around the system and if necessary to manipulate them. This is the beginning of political exile. And as you know, this is the beginning of the refugee status too. So that's why now when the UK tried to ban illegal refugees for me, this is just bloody cruel. Because they become illegal as if because they're not honest. They become illegal as if because they don't have the right papers and then they are somehow criminals. But as you can see, this is just unbelievable what they've done because what happened to these political exiles, they become political exiles, they change their identities to become inner-world political exiles. They identify as political exiles because of this paper. So in discussing refugees and their home governments, I think there are lots and lots of sides. It is characteristic of the refugees that in these relations with the government fear has taken place of trust and hated the place of loyal people. So how can they tell the truth if they don't no longer trust who they were supposed to trust? Rather than trying to be concerned with a single truth, what I'm doing is just let them talk and compromise with what they want to write. But my question is why we cannot really get the whole truth from these political exiles? Why? The version considered as the truth in relation to 65 genocide in Indonesia has been around for a long time without being challenged. So in Indonesia, the truth was the version of Suharto. During 32 years, it was the truth version and they've been hardly competing discourses for a long time. To open up these other discourses within the hegemony, new order discourse is still hard for these people, especially if they still feel stick with us, intimidated and all threatened. So for me to open up discourses is more important than finding an objective truth. I let them talk because I said to them, this is your discourse. This is yours. This belongs to you. And that's why I let them talk for hours and hours and hours because I said, just stop, just speak. It is your chance to speak. So that's why when they talk to me for three hours, I let them just talk. It is their discourse. It is their chance to speak and they should be heard. Even in India, they don't want to be published. They don't want to be admitted. It is their discourse. And it is different from all of them, although they are different from each other. They're also different from the discourse of the new order. And now we have at least an option of seeing other discourses because the truth had been manipulated for so many years. And the so-called the truth had been clearly manipulated. And at times it was too intimidating for this exile to speak about the truth and nothing about the truth because the truth had been dominated by the new order is equal too long. Because if there was only a single truth, and then you just say, okay, you can talk and it can be something else. It was just, it can be really it can be really dispensable icing for these people sometimes. How? Discussing survivors' testimonies and acuberly has argued survivors of atrocities become deeply uncomfortable signifiers for the post atrocity societies within which they live, excessive structures of normality that privilege for getting getting over and getting on with things through the denial of the pattern of death. Of course, these political exiles may not have experienced atrocity, but it's in a way similar for their experience. It was quite destabilizing for them. It is thus impossible for many of these political exiles to speak openly and thoroughly sometimes. This has opened up opportunities for the new order promised to undermine their testimonies too. Because if you say, okay, we want to get the truth, it is then an opportunity for them to say, well, look, they speak about things differently. But yes, of course, these are different discourses. So when talking about an event that happened about 60 years ago, inter-creditation subjectivity and mis-creditation are avoidable, especially when dealing with traumatic experience. In this case, the way the victims and survivors described the 1960s, it also becomes a non-truth. Because many of you cannot know what the object is through this. They may also forget many details surrounding, did this during the span of time where I have been traumatized to remember happening here. So when people there slowly they are unavoidably immersed in the world of symbols and symbol cannot represent the whole event or events, but may be symbol partially only. And so as cultural beings, humans should be allowed to be subject or to be connected. So the danger of insisting on searching for the truth is that we can even survive in the accomplices of the other regimes, as well as of the governments who try to ban them, because the fear that as well as inaccuracy of the excess testimonies can give opportunities for others to claim that either the truth does not exist or these people are not telling the truth. Pretty side of the story is because of the inaccuracy was further shut them up, while the new order version of history has been allowed to spread widely for decades. So what I want to speak now is their version. It doesn't matter whether it's inaccurate award, I want to hear about their versions. Instead of trying to find the truth, I compare the contrast. These exile narratives as discrepancies within their respective accounts were influenced by negative and positive images. These exiles a chance to speak and a room to narrative experience to express their feelings and what they think instead of insisting on the truth. We still have need to differentiate between interpretation and manipulation and decompress the different forms of the non-truth and find out why they narrate these so-called non-truths. That's all for me. And ask me any question. Okay, you don't have to ask me any question. Maybe I'm not interested in what you said, thank you so much because initially I think I'm wanting to understand more about the history, but then you bring in the aspect of truth and non-truth and I think it's a true aspect that I have now and quite far from going. But what I want to ask is that as you are going through this study and research, how do you then consolidate all the changing narratives of a different perspective of the history of the world, whether it's the manipulation or the intimidation or how do you accommodate that with your own thought of what we had previously of the history? Because obviously when you started this research you must have had some thoughts about it before you come in and wish out to the people. So how do you consolidate the different narratives Okay, thank you. Yeah, I can always consolidate them of course. I can always compare and contrast them and then compare and contrast them with the researcher's findings. So that's why for me it's in a way of comparing and contrasting. But I consolidated each one of them of course it's impossible. But what I can consolidate is of course the new order history is manipulation that's really clear. So that's what I can consolidate. Whereas with these people what I can see is whether they have been in a way somehow influenced by this manipulation like when they meet me and then they suddenly identify themselves as being communists. Yeah, why? There's so many forms of identities but being communists and not communists even now is the important some of them. So I cannot consolidate everything. Actually when I was interviewing them at the beginning I thought okay yes I'm trying to find out about the so-called truth. At least that's what I was thinking. But as I kept going I realized this is too complicated because sometimes they all said oh no no no no don't talk about this. Oh no no no no no right like this right this way right it that way. That's usually what I asked them why. Because usually various reasons yeah some of them said so one one of the reason is they're afraid if this is read by people in Indonesia and this may harm their families and relatives in Indonesia. Because you know this history is not mass murder is still not acknowledged in Indonesia so that's why there's been worried of them relatives in Indonesia. If they feel something like for instance I'm just going to give you an example. There was this exile who was actually planning a revolution in Indonesia and he was actually at one point this exile went to Indonesia and five students in Indonesia and as when he was in Indonesia he could actually conclude that the only way is unrevolution. Unrevolution because otherwise it was impossible. It was so powerful that they must have been up there. And then and then when he went to Indonesia he realized that the Indonesian students he talked to were so brainwashed that they would not oppose Suharkov at that time. He was just so upset at that time and then he just said it was impossible. So he got back to Germany and he was still trying to think whatever and then he's and this kind of story was just for him it was impossible. Because if he said that he was really worried of family things like that. And another thing is just something that they considered to embarrassing. Which I'd rather not say that there were also like personal fights amongst the you know like there were not many women amongst the political exiles. So sometimes the fight is fight to get women things like that. It's like something personal because there were not many women at that time. And when they couldn't rebuild their identities to each other and then they rebuild their identities to themselves and they wanted to kind of like go out and then that's when the problem started. So from something very personal to something very political. And then the other one is of course the abuse of Marxism and communism. It couldn't be quiet. You know Marxism and communism could be interpreted differently as well. And they could have different opinions about Marxism and communism as well. I was wondering if you can turn much research into what Marxism circulated amongst students at the moment into which you mentioned the year of truth movement. And I wonder if there's something similar at the moment for the students interrogating the history that's being that's being shown in the museums at the moment. Is there an active effort to challenge that? When I was younger enough for a long time. Yeah it's good that you're still interested in Indonesia. Yes there are a lot of efforts at this time in Indonesia. There have been quite a lot. But the problem is the government still doesn't care. Although Jokowi at the beginning promised that we should have them humanize some violations in the past. But actually hasn't done much. So is the government still perpetuating this anti-conflict narrative? Well Jokowi was in a way he's quite ambivalent in this case. So during the international people's tribunal actually I know he let some people go. He didn't actually ban them. He didn't condemn them. He didn't say anything. He actually let them go. Yeah and even one of my friends and activists who came to the tribunal as one of the witnesses. She actually got a letter from Jokowi saying that yeah you can go. So a letter agreeing that she could actually leave. But when other people in the army condemned this international people's tribunal, he also didn't do anything. It was really like he tried to stand on two feet. You know what I mean in this case. And he also said I would best the PKI. One point he said like that. If there was any PKI I would best them. He tried to stand on two feet in this case. And then he also, oh that film the propaganda film made during the new order. I think you know that, right? So this propaganda film called the, what is it called? What's wrong with my head? The tragedy of the PKI movement, something like that. My head is a bit heavy today. So it was bad before. And then during Jokowi it was loud again. And it's not shown on TV. I think it is indeed extraordinary how little we know about what happened in 1965. She said we don't even know who organized the killings and what were the plans. Follow-ups. Also a new movement of the PKI you and I, we just don't know. And it's very hard to think of any other equally huge and significant events in history about which is, about which so there is no recent time. But one of the major international research initiatives in Indonesia before getting or less, as I'm sure you know, was the Cornell modern Indonesia. And our papers, yeah. Yeah, and which involved with the Gears, the Ferris-Santheboulders, Goldeterre, Ruth McVey, who was later on here, as I was teaching. And, and thus was. And they understand that they did try to make some attempt to find out what had really happened. Of course, as she emphasised, the government was very wedded to the official version and wasn't interested in finding out what really happened. But do you know what, what did Cornell find out and to bigger than anywhere? Yeah, so, so Benedict Anderson, Ben Anderson, he got the notes from the doctors of the corpses of the general. So at that time, Suharto was there when the doctor checked the corpses and and the report said that they had a mutilation, you know, eyes scorched and their penis got chopped off, things like that. And Ben Anderson got the notes from the doctor who was there, stating that there's no chopping off, there's no mutilation. Every, you know, like the the eyes, the penis were intact. And these people were shot from behind, many others. So that that was the paper. Regaining the involvement of the PKI in the coup, 1965 coup, there wasn't. So there was quite a lot of evidence that the PKI was not involved. Although some people, some researchers did say that there might be some, not the PKI itself, but some PKI members, some PKI leaders might have been involved. We don't know, you know, because some of the mention, I did not have the info, but there was no strong evidence, but definitely the PKI was not in it. Definitely. The questions here on, because this is hybrid. So then yeah. So yeah, I'm going to turn around to this one here, because they already put a lot of questions here. So as a researcher, how can you also have this knowledge to explore this topic? Because I believe that you also have a, maybe relatives from family in New Asia, maybe you were. Okay. How can you define your tradition as a researcher? Yeah, okay. Regaining courage. I'm not the only courageous one, you know, there are so many of them who've done the research. So I'm not going to call myself courageous. I'm not going to call myself brave, but if you ask me, you know, how I've been interested in this a lot, my father was a victim as well, because my father was imprisoned and tortured during 1965. He was, I was quite complicated if I tell you the story now, it will be a long story, but he was, he was basically, he was, he was imprisoned and tortured in 1965. But he was alive, so that's why I was born. Because he, because he was mad, he was, he was mad that I wouldn't have been here, would I? How can you position yourself in this, because you also have like this personal experience, personal advice, because your father directly involved in this situation, and how can you, you know, maybe consolidate or something, have a very objective view as a researcher, because it's like kind of traumatic experience as well, I believe. Well, as a researcher, you just have to try at your best to be objective by evidence, by trying to get evidence. So you, you base everything on evidence by comparing and contrasting and evidence, not just say whatever you want. And, you know, like the new order history is clearly manipulation, because it's, the evidence is not that, yeah. So that's it, it's clearly manipulation. But when I talk to these political exiles, when they say something, most of the time they, they do not want to manipulate things. What they want is actually, you know, they, they ask me to give something a second, it's because they think of other people. So this is for me, it's not manipulation, probably it's secrecy to protect themselves. They have to do it. Yeah. Or sometimes it's interpretation, you know, one say, one say this thing, one say another thing, it's a matter of interpretation, but not manipulation. Most of them are usually they don't tell me manipulated history. And probably they boast a bit. Yes, sometimes they do. But it's quite normal here because people, you know, human beings sometimes boast about yourself every now and then. So that's, that's for you as well. Can we turn to these questions here first? Yeah. So, okay, prior to the PKI 1960, America funded and trained Indonesian soldiers. Oh, this is just a comment. America funded and trained Indonesian soldiers to expel the Dutch from Papua. Would there be previous agreement that after the Dutch were expelled from Papua and entered Indonesia, America had the right to control code in Papua? Oh, okay. I'm just going to answer this quickly because this is not actually, this is not. So this, the question from Ari Munoz, this is not actually my field. But yes, there was an agreement at that time, which of course, benefited America a lot more. And the agreement lasted for 100 years, by the way. That's why you know why West Papua wanted to be independent because by being independent, they can actually annul the agreement before being independent, the agreement lasted for 100 years. That's why. Yeah. That's why they, yeah. So, another question from Fiona. Thank you so much for your important work. I would love to hear more about whether the political exiles have come together to form a diaspora community offices or definitely they have formed groups, they have had their own journals, they have been politically active, quite a bit actually. And the fact that they call themselves political exiles now. It is for them in a way, it is for me, it's another kind of community itself. Yeah. And another question, how do they negotiate their own diaspora identity or sense of national belonging? Having been forced to live outside of Indonesia for decades? Okay, this is quite interesting. So their sense of belonging, it's quite different actually, because any of them identify themselves as Indonesian when I ask them, you know, so how do you identify yourself? Indonesian, I'm Indonesian, lots of them actually, many of them. Only one, among these people, only one actually told me that my home is now Germany. It's waru Nomahdi, because he's quite open about it. I wrote about him in the Jakarta Post, why he said he was so much German. He was quite prestigious, he got a quite a strong business job in Germany. He was just very intelligent, this guy. He was a chemist as well as a linguist. He spoke how many languages, fluently, in Dutch, Indonesian, English, German, I can't remember how many languages, lots basically like five or six languages fluently. I think about six. And then he also did like, he also did Mandarin and basically two other languages. He reads them, so really, really talented. And he tried hard to actually get Indonesian citizens, because during Gustur, Gustur was the president, anyone else know who Gustur is? Or should I explain who Gustur is? Oh, so Gustur was the president after Sukano Suharto, and then Suharto was double, and then there was an incumbent president. And then after that was Gustur. Gustur also got double because he was, he tried to reduce the power of the army very quickly, because he was really progressive. Gustur at that time said to the Indonesian political exile, we will recover your citizenship and your passport, you will get them automatically, that's what he said. And he said, I'm going to admit that there was a mistake of the Indonesian government that they did atrocities, they did mass murder, and I'm going to apologize. Not to happen. It was toppled again. Quickly actually, quite quickly it was toppled. So when he promised that, Waruno Mahdi traveled from Germany to the Netherlands to meet the representative of Gustur, because he said, I want to get my Indonesian passport back, I want to be Indonesian again. And then Gustur was toppled, that's it. This promise was, you know, was not as well. Only at that time he just said, that's it, I'm fed up, he said. So he became a German citizen, and he said, because I'm now a German citizen, then my home is German. That's what he said, because he said Germany has done a lot of good things to me. They had given me home, they had given me a lot of things, and Max Planck actually treated him really well. He even still has an office, he's retired now, but he still has an office, and Max Planck, he's treated really well, so he just said, my home is German, I'm German. So only one person said that. The others, they're different, yeah. And most of them are still so much attached to Indonesia, and even many of them said, we want to be buried in Indonesia when we die, you know. So it's very strong attachment, it's incredible in a way. It becomes a kind of an obsession, because it was rejected, right? The Indonesians were rejected, so in the end for them it becomes an obsession. To be back to Indonesia, to become Indonesian again. So it's really sad when I heard about it, it was just really, I just can't believe it, you know, it's, they were rejected that much, but there's still this powerful, powerful desire to go home. And that's all I think. That's all really of the Q&A, and the question, please. Yes? Sorry, I have two questions, that's okay. Thank you, Dr. Martin, for your great research. I was just going to say, I used to be content. I was going to say, you mentioned you turn to Germany because of the interesting parallels between Holocaust survivors and real that you interested in, what was the confusion of that interest? Did you find any interesting results? Not yet at the moment. I've not gone there yet. So, because this is just the beginning. It takes a long time because of that, you know, like I interviewed them and they say, no, no, no, no, don't do anything. And I was like, what the hell am I going to write now? You know, but it's not, I don't think it's still in vain. So, I can learn from it as well. But no, I haven't, I haven't gone. But actually, the mass murder in Indonesia, the paramilitary adopted Nazi strategies, like even the name of the movement is Gestapo, it's from Gestapo. And the paramilitary has the so-called panzer group and it's for panzer, you know, what panzer is, panzer is the Nazi panzer, it's from there. So, that's how it's related. So, they adopted the strategies, you know, by using the mass people to actually attack. The communists were similar. In Germany, they actually used the people to attack the Jews. In the end, the Jews became the enemy of the people. The communists became the enemy of the people. So, in the end, Indonesia at the time was divided either into communist or non-communist. So, either you are communist or you are non-communist. And if you're communist, then you have to die. The approach that Germany took in healing its community after the Second World War has had an effect also on the political exile of Indonesia in Germany. Definitely. Yeah, definitely. Because this, when you talk about Germany, that's what he said. He said, no, I'm German. Because when I see Germany, I'm actually impressed by what they've done. Because they, you know, in the past, they committed children like Holocaust and smear them. It was an atrocity. They admitted it. They apologized. They compensated the victims. They did so a lot. Yeah, there was that like they punish the people responsible. Even now, they still do it. They even imprisoned a 90-year-old grandmother who acknowledged that Holocaust took place. So, they're still chasing these people even now. So, yeah, that has a big impact on them. But I was saying that I wasn't aware of any suggestion that the massacres in Indonesia in 1965 were ethnically driven. Now, of course, there was the element of the Chinese who were linked into it. But no one's saying that all the PKI members were ethnic Chinese. It was in a way, in some places, it was related to ethnic Chinese as well. Because at that time, the PKI was close to China. The PKI during that period was close to China. And so, the ethnic Chinese was considered to be the so-called tata. Tata was considered as the most ethnic, you know, like they still maintain the Chinese identity and their Chinese language, so these people were considered the real Chinese in Indonesia. And these Chinese were also targeted at that time because they were considered as link or related to communists or close to communist people. So, yeah, and as I said, not only communists were the victims but also alleged communists. So, for instance, usually what happened was the head of a village, for instance, or the head of a region, they got the mandate to point, you know, these people are communists, these, these, these, these, yeah, so they could actually point who communists were in the area. And sometimes, if this man fell in love with someone's wife, he just said, that man was communist, killed him, so he could get them. There was a huge amount of, I think, I mean, old scores being certain. Yeah, yeah, or something like, you know, someone owed money to someone and then because this person got the mandate to point who the PKI was, this doesn't, oh, that's, that's communist. He lived and that's it. This step is allowed, you know, easy. Something like that, something that personal or it's because of that, because of fighting for women or because, because other yeah, because so many other things, then you, you could become communist and you could be murdered. You know, in Germany, it was so, this is the difference. In Germany during the Holocaust, it was one system again. They had the family trees in Germany that actually wrote down, you know, each family has to have family tree. So if any in the family tree as Jewish, then you, you will get caught. In Indonesia, it was so healthy. It was not systematic at all. They just killed who often felt like sometimes. So that's the difference. In general, it was really systematic that it's just, you know, even the way they executed the people, you know, gas chamber was got a systematic, isn't it? In Indonesia, you could get killed like anywhere outside and then your head was on the river. It was more brutal, you know, you know, it was more brutal. And at some point, even some people didn't want to eat a fish because there were so many dead bodies in the river that the fish actually ate these dead bodies. And there were some news and it was actually true that someone chopped the fish and pound someone's finger inside the stomach of the fish. So people didn't want to eat fish for four years at that time. The river, just from the river, so they only ate the from soft water on it. So yeah, any other question? Check whether there are other questions here. Sound is not clear. Oh, sorry. I didn't read that. The sound is not clear. Hopefully the sound is clear now. Anything, any other question? Yeah. I just, my background is in psychology and so I'm really interested in like the accounts of like traumatic memories and a lot of like psychological research is around feelings of guilt and shame. And so to avoid feelings of shame around like the atrocities and like the trauma that kind of occurs in the individual, people choose feelings of guilt instead until they choose feelings of like, oh, I couldn't prevent what happened or I could have done something better to like a mental situation or I could have, you know, like saved myself and my family. And so then often like memories are put in a time-sweep order in that they think that they somehow could have predicted what would have happened and it could have been avoided. And so their memories are sort of scrambled to make a chronological sense of their guilt. As I'm wondering if you saw any instances of this or like how people negotiate around their guilt and their shame, how that kind of, not yet actually. But yeah, but that is actually true because, you know, many of them still feel guilty especially towards their families at home, you know, because they said, oh, you know, I feel guilty because I can't go home because I can't support them. I'm supposed to go home. Things like that. Yeah, but no, I haven't gone into that yet. But that's a very interesting point. And it is true actually that the sequence of the stories sometimes changes. Yeah, so one point they say this and another one they say that. And then it's not because they're trying to manipulate things, but because when you tell a story, you try to put things in sequence. And sometimes when something traumatic happens, everything goes kind of, yeah, and you don't know which one is which, which one happens first and which, you know, and sometimes they say, did it happen? No, they can't remember clearly. What came out of the, was it a human rights commission? Oh, it's international people's tribunal. So international people's I'm going to explain a bit about international people's tribunal. So international people's tribunal is, it's a court case basically, it's a tribunal court case. But usually court case is helped by the, in relation to human rights and criminals like that, it's usually helped by the country, the state. But if the state refuses to do it, like in this case Indonesia, the people then did it. So we did it. And by what I mean by we was, the coordinators at that time and the political exiles were involved. And yeah, so all of us did it together. And at that time, I was the British coordinator of that tribunal. So that's why I attended the tribunal. And yeah. And during that, was there any knowledge that by Britain or the US from any country? Yes. Yes. That was an acknowledgement. And Obama actually said that that was, yeah, that was an acknowledgement. The British government didn't say anything much. No, not the British government. The American government actually, Obama said something during the Obama. They didn't think he would sell that there was no, they just, they just admit that they haven't gone that far. But not the British government, I was wrong. The British government has not admitted it because I just said it on the Guardian shoot months ago that the British government should admit and apologize. The American government has not apologized, but they admitted it. What did they do in the way involved? Yeah, nothing specific. It was too great. But the British government has not admitted it. They actually, you know, the American, they trained the soldiers as well how to torture these communists. And they send names of communists to be murdered. So they faxed the names and they send money to the Indonesian military and weapons to fight against the communists. So it's a lot. And then what happened was, I don't know whether you know what happened in Chile. Do you know what happened in Chile? No. Okay. So in Chile, that was another left wing government democratically elected Alinde, Alinde. And of course, Alinde didn't really want to work together with the US government as well because he tried to, you know, to make the country more kind of like independent of these Western companies similar to Indonesia. And then because the strategy in Indonesia was so successful, it was exported to Chile. And there, you should Google it. It's called Operation Chakarta in Chile. It's called, Google it, Chile, Operation Chakarta. So Chakarta is quite famous in Chile. Because of that. I'm sorry that I'm sorry that I would be, actually I have done some experience with the, with some, where, with your perspective, you've done, with the victims, I've done some experience with some perpetrators in my undercarriage. Where was that? Can I ask? I'm sorry, I could not say that because, you know, we know there's some certain issues, but just, just, just to get, just to get some, just to get some few ideas. I mean, the first time I have done my undercarriage, I think about this the first and the most, most great the supposition comes actually from my parents. They just say, please do. They just say, please, please don't do this and something like that. But to be honest, the one that I'm about to, maybe the one point that I have to disagree with is actually the narrative that the Indonesian systematic killing sexually happened. Because one of my questions was like, why such sudden grace of blood in 1965? What leads to it? What kind of condition that leads to it? And then I'm stuck in a rabbit hole after that. Because understanding, I'd like the perpetrators asking about them, do you, well, with red or do you think it is something to be regrettable? And then they said, no, it's something, I mean, the, the process of killing something like that. They said that it was necessary. It was indeed necessary. And they, they, it's not just the system that it's not just, it's not just, which means the system does make them do the killings and stuff like the systematic killing, especially I'm into the plantation scene scheme, where especially they made the heart of the rural area where the killings actually took place, not in Jakarta, like Jakarta means same. I can affect that. Well, the rural area, it's not just the religious factors and stuff like that that was taken in place. But the fact that Pekai itself was something to, something that made them, something that made prior to from the 60s, 64, that made it more like, that made a more flagship in every, in every, in every way. I mean, like, later from, not just later information, I mean, back in my, back in my, back in my class in the plant, in the plantations, they said that Pekai used to usually to strikes and stuff like that, that usually not just simple strikes, are different strikes that leads to a high, a really, really, really high amount of social, social jealousy that grows within, within, within the, within the society and environment and itself. So I guess, Suharto, not just manipulated the history, but the way that he manipulates the students, the current situation in Indonesia back in 65, I think it's not just as simple as people carrying everywhere, but they have reasons to do it, not just because personal reasons. Of course, there are plenty of cases of personal reasons like families and then marital stuff and stuff like that. And in my place, they, they used the army to do the systematic elix and stuff like that, but there are, especially the methods of killing are very regional centers rather than, very sporadist rather than centralized, but I think I have to act then. On the reasons why particularly happens, not just based on the political reasons and stuff like that, it's just like even the word when they use Teka'i, I mean for a few of my, a few of my interviewees tell that Teka'i was part of the Ki'i Indonesia, right? Okay, so the statements of the interviewee or the Teka'i does manage and they took all the blame because they wanted, it's, it's, it's, it's like they're good people something and so I think there's a few. Sorry, sorry, they took the blame. I mean the Teka'i, they just took the blame because they have programs that, that they have programs that make them, they have programs that indeed they want to educate their civil servants and stuff like that, but they didn't, their level of education and the level of grassroots organization of the communist organization itself then went to the rural area was, was very, very pleased and even when it comes, they did not, the villagers, the villagers, the rural area people did not understand what Teka'i is, but they are there and somehow the villagers, the villagers discovered that by using Teka'i, it gives some kind of power and that's just makes things worse and started to get extreme. Okay, let me answer your questions now. By what I mean by systematic was the way they, you know, selected to murder. It was chaotic. It was really chaotic. Clearly, you know, it was big, pick it out, not, not, no, but as in Germany, it was clearly more systematic, yeah, family tree, you know, there was a system of finding out who the Jewish was. That's what I meant. Yeah, but the other one, of course, the other systems, of course, that you mentioned which so we were talking about two different things and we're getting the, the, the time grassroots, I disagree with you because the PKI actually went to grassroots more than, more than any organization now, I think, you know, they talk to farmers, they talk to laborers a lot. And have you seen the film, The Look of Silence? Sanyal, you know, it was, there were small farmers and the PKI went there. Were small farmers in a very secluded area, yeah, now it's not that much, but at that time it was quite secluded. The PKI went there. They educated the people and the left wing women, Garwani, actually, they opened up school to educate women who could not, illiterate women and the children, so definitely they went to the grassroots. And of course, not all grassroots people, PKI was quite clear, you know, they could not educate everyone. The PKI definitely, definitely they went to grassroots. That was quite clear. And at that time, the farmers and laborers were very political because, because the PKI educated them to be like that, you know, they were really, really political because I know, you know, Adi Rupun, the protagonist of the, of the film, The Look of Silence, I know him quite well and he told me actually, yeah, the farmers knew about politics, they knew what communism was, what Marxism was, and now you talk the farmers, they don't want to know about politics, you know, they don't care. They want to grow rice, they want to grow cows, and they want to have cows, keep cows, and then they want to sell them and they don't care, they don't really care. So any questions? Just because right now, I think the response of I mean, I was just talking to my relative friend of me that, you know, sometimes I think that you can talk about in Indonesia, like such and such about how many times you have to talk about whether it's good or bad, just to some of my questions and then what is it it's good that you kind of like bring up this issue, this course, and get the accounts about the people from good cows, people from different countries, but so at the end of the day, what do you hope to achieve out of the people and that what it was really nice in Indonesia to point more to me or do you hope that there's some good that come back to politics, what I want is, again, it's not the truth, yeah, because it's in a way it's not possible. What I want is these different discourses to come up, so people have a kind of options, not just one discourse, but more critical to different discourses, which is it's not the truth, but at least they should be able to differentiate, you know, that there's a manipulated one, it's clearly it's manipulation and these discourses, which may not be the truth, but it opens up another perspective, or other perspectives, it opens up other perspectives, so that's what I want, basically. There's a question here, how do you define, how do you build the opposition of truth and non-truth? In this case, I cannot really define that like in the clearly opposite, you know, completely opposite, but that's what I just rely on some theories, like postmodernist theories that say though there's no truth, and the other one that says this two opposite which I take from postmodernist, which is the opposite side that there's no truth, and the one that you swear in court, because the activist usually, when they say about the truth, they usually aim the truth to bring it to justice, and that's why this is how I take it, it's from the court, the same in the court, the truth and nothing but, yeah, so I try to make the oppositions on this. Any other question? How can you raise those issues or study this issue? When in Indonesia, we still have to know that we cannot talk about it, like tough embarrass, number 25, we still have that, and it's still, it's still, yeah, it's a signal for me, when you have to choose between law and humanity, choose humanity, whether you have to follow the law of humanity, which one you have to choose, humanity, who's up? Break the law, keep necessary, anytime, break the law. Yeah, but you can say that because your research here, but how can we, if I go back to Indonesia, raise one or raise this issue? That's my advice, break the law, break the law and choose humanity. So that's it, yeah, so that's why, you know, like Edward Snowden and you know, all of the whistleblowers, you know how they actually break the law to leak out some information? It's really important information, so I'm really, for them, you know, break the law anytime. If you have to choose between law and human, break the law. There should be no question of that, there should be no doubt about this. You must break the law anytime. If you have to choose between the law, the law and human. Are hiding who didn't want their names to be accomplished? It's from a friend and a friend, oh, it's really, it's a long story, but I know, I know some people would ask me this. It's a long story because I've been going back and forth to Germany a lot. Fortunately, my husband's research is also in Germany, so that's why when he goes to Germany, then I'll come with him and then I can get free accommodation sometimes, you know. Otherwise I have to spend a lot of money, you know. It's expensive, but it's a gun of research and, you know, at the size of the research money, he's getting all that stuff. So fortunately, I have to spend only, you know, like usually on the airfare, usually more sometimes I just pay for the airfare, so that's in a way, I'm lucky in that case. And so I knew the first political exile I knew was Ari Parsana, it's from a friend, because I was invited to give a talk in Germany. And when I gave a talk in Germany, at that time I was talking about the 1965, and that's why these political exiles in the way trusted me. So in a way I was lucky that way, yeah. So it was because I gave a talk and then I met these political exiles, and then from these political exiles, then I knew I'm the political exiles. I always talk on the phone, which is cheaper, but it's different. When you are there staying with them, what they tell you, it can be completely different, they can open up a lot more. So that's why I like to travel to Germany and meet them in person. They can be like, you know, just more open in the end with me. But yeah, it's expensive. But sometimes I want to, you know, like when I travel in Berlin to meet this Spatia and Varuno, I thought to make it, okay, Berlin meet two of them and then they say, right, so I save money. No, when I went to Berlin, I met Spatia Varuno and, you know, like his friend passed away. And then so he had to leave Berlin and then I couldn't meet him and I thought, okay, then I have to come back. So sometimes things like that happen. So I already stayed, I already, you know, traveled to Berlin, booked accommodation for a few nights to meet the two of them. No, I'll be back one. Okay, that's fine. Then I had to ask just one more question. That's it then. Thank you so much.