 Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening, wherever you are. I'm Christian Lutzenitz and the senior lecturer in the Batman Buddhist art here at Sours. And I'm kind of welcoming you to this kind of series of two talks in my role as interim chair of the Research and Publication Support of the Southeast Asian Art Academic Program and also in the name of the Sours Center of Southeast Asian Studies Seminar Series. We are here kind of together to celebrate one of the first volume of a publication series that has been put together by Saab and the National University of Singapore Press, namely the book on returning Southeast Asia's past objects, museums and constitution, which is, of course, edited by the two chairs of today's and tomorrow's talk. And so today's lecture will be chaired by Bangar Adyansha, who is a PhD candidate of the History of Art and Archaeology at Sours in his kind of approaching his second year. His main interest is on the afterlife and knowledge production of Hindu Buddhist materials in Indonesia, which brings him to read with passion and colonial, on colonial collection practices and object restitution, as well as historiography of modern Indonesia. His PhD research focuses on how the Hindu Buddhist materials in Indonesia produced during the so-called classical period between the 5th and 15th centuries were repurposed and reused during the so-called Islamic period, ranging from the 16th to the 18th century. So, I give over to the chair of this session. Thank you, Christians, and hello, everybody. And glad to see a big number of attendees now today for this morning, or this morning, London time talk. But before I start introducing the panel today, first of all, personally, I would like to extend my gratitude to Mr. Ramoh Arif Rahman, the education and cultural attaché at the Indonesian Embassy in London, who I believe is among the attendees today. Who has been very helpful in designing and making this panel happen. So, thank you, Arif. Okay, so today's panel is titled The Politics of Restitutions, and the idea is to consider different kinds of modalities, as well as the nature of cultural diplomacy that has enabled or would engender object restitution. And in this regards, it is my pleasure to introduce the speaker for today. So, first of all, we have Dr. Jos van Burdens, who is a researcher of colonial cultural collections and restitution issue, affiliated to the Frey University Amsterdam. In June, or next month actually, he spoke title in Dutch, but I believe the English translation would be uncomfortable heritage, colonial collection and restitution in the Netherlands and Belgium will come out. But in the past, his pioneering study, the treasures in dusted hands, negociating the future of colonial cultural objects, was nominated for the NWO Bookman Desertation Prize, and has been published in 2017. He has also written several other books on issues related to restitution. He is also running the mailing list and Facebook page RM, or Restitution Matters with news clipping about restitution of colonial collection. So, thank you, Jos, for being with us today. The next speaker is actually a very special one. We have Mr. Malvari, he is a cultural, sorry, he is a historian and cultural activist. In the 1970s, he was active in the pro-democracy movement, and he is also a founding member of Jaringan Kerja Budaya, a collective of artists and cultural workers in the early 1990s, and also the Institute of Indonesian Social History in 2000. He taught historian cultural studies at the Jakarta Art Institute and University of Indonesia for several years. He received his PhD from the National University of Singapore and wrote his thesis on Pramodaya Natatur and the politics of decolonization in Indonesia. He has been an active member of the Asian Regional Exchange for New Alternatives, or ARENA, and the Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Society. On December 2015, after a long selection process, he was appointed as, and I believe as still is, the Director General for Cultures at the Ministry of Education and Cultures of the Republic of Indonesia. So, Pailmar, thank you for being with us today. Last but not least, our discussion for today's panel is Seyang Sokka. He studied archaeology for his bachelor degree at the Royal University of Fine Arts in Cambodia. Between 2006 and 2013, he worked as a language and epigraph researchers for the Research Center for Computational Linguistics in Bangkok. He received a two-master degree. The first one is in Southeast Asian Studies at Sri Lankan University, Bangkok. And the second one is the History of Art and Archaeology at Soas University of London. Between 2016 and 2018, he was a researcher for the Inventory and Registration Office of the National Museum of Cambodia. Currently, he is a 30-year PhD student of the Department of History of Art and Archaeology here at Soas. So, Sokka, good afternoon. I'm glad you can join us from Nongpen. So, let's move on to our panel today. First of all, first, sorry, first talks just will present his presentations on Lessons for the Futures, Returns by the Netherlands, Indonesia in the 2010s and in the 1970s. So, between 1949 and 1975, Indonesia and the Netherlands negotiated the returns of a number of cultural and historical objects lost during the colonial era. And the time, the Netherlands was praised internationally for these returns. So, but how do we look at it now? Just ask. In 2013, the municipality of Delf made a generous offer to Indonesia, the reputation of the bigger part of the collection of the Diffang Nusantara Museum, some 15,000 objects. Finally, in December 2019, only 1,500 of them were shipped to Indonesia. What actually happened in between? And how generous was the Dutch people? If return of an involuntary loss heritage is meant to heal a relationship that was violated and to undo some of the injustice from the colonial past, what can we learn from these two returns? Jos, screen is yours. Thank you very much, Panga. First of all, I would like to congratulate you, Panga, and also Luisa Tittacott, for your hard work for this beautiful and rich volume returning Southeast Asia past. It's really a useful contribution to the literature that exists. And I also thank you for allowing me to say a few words about returns by the Netherlands to Indonesia. And it's a pleasure to do so in dialogue with Director General Hilmar Farid and Siang Sokka. And Mr Farid, I can say that I read all Palm's books, but in the 1970s, I remember, you know, and I was fascinated by them. The books he wrote on the island of Buru. Okay, good. But there is a change, there seems to be a change in Europe in the form of colonial powers. Both the authorities and museums, they are changing their views on how to deal with collections from colonial contexts. But the question is whether this is a trend that only reassures the people in the global north, or whether it is a tipping point that really changes the relationship between former colonized and colonizes. Now we will know the answer to this question only in the future, but to deal with the future, we have to understand the past. And that's where I go now. I go to the 1970s. It took the Netherlands and Indonesia over a quarter century to come to an agreement on the return of cultural objects. Belgium and the Democratic Republic of Congo needed 10 years. Australia and Papua New Guinea only a few years. Why did it take so long? I think there are a few reasons for that. And if possible, it would be nice if the slideshow could start, the PowerPoint. But I would just, yeah, there it comes, good. And go to the next slide, please. You know, first of all, there were on both sides, there were wounds because of the 1945-1949 violent period and the war of independence. And it was really hard. You know, there was a very poor relationship between Indonesia's President Sukarno and the Dutch government. There was, you know, the Netherlands, they had charged in the negotiations in Indonesia with an enormous amount of debt as compensation for lost Dutch interests. And that meant that political independence was not accompanied by economic independence. Indonesia was holding back, did not trust the Netherlands. And on the slide on your right side, you see that some assistance are carrying away portraits of governor generals of Indonesia. All in all, in fact, you know, the strange thing was that Indonesia was the first of the two countries that returned objects to the other. And they returned over 60 portraits of these colonial officials. But the picture also gives me a feeling, you know, they just wanted to get rid of them. They had to go away, go away. So in 1949, the two countries agreed formally to Indonesia's independence during a roundtable conference. And at that roundtable conference, one of the subcommittees was on cultural affairs. Now this subcommittee was charged with the task of preparing a cultural agreement. And the cultural agreement included an article, Article 19, on restitution. Unfortunately, it was quite good thing, but it never became effective. And then we went to the, you know, I make a big leap, next slide please, we go to 1968. Because between 1949 and 1968, not much happened. There were all sorts of problems. One was that, you know, there was the Papua Christi, the Dutch tried to get to keep hold on it. And they gave in only in 1962. There was the 1965 coup d'etat in Indonesia, which aroused quite some indignity in the Netherlands. And there were all sorts of friction. And, but finally, you know, the two parties, they remained in touch with each other. And especially on archives, they came to an agreement. And in general, you can say that in negotiations, post-colonial negotiations on restitution, archives are easier to deal with than objects. Objects are more touching. So in 1968, there was a cultural agreement. And what was striking in the agreement was, it was on archives, but also where the Dutch were pushing for the principle of reciprocity. It meant that, you know, if I give something to you, you give something to me. And that's also a change from today, because nowadays we say, well, the way we were dealing with objects, with archives, with human remains at a time, you know, has been some or other form of injustice. And this injustice has to be made undone. So big changes. At that time, we were talking about reciprocity. Nowadays, they, we wouldn't do that anymore. And one of the reasons behind this reciprocity was that some of these colonial archives, they contained information, which was very negative about the Netherlands. They contained information about military operations, for instance. And the Dutch wanted to have it back. So finally, they discussed this, and they finally agreed that, you know, normally with archives, they go to the successor state. So that means all Dutch colonial archives would have to go to Indonesia, also the Japanese. And, but finally they said, well, let's be pragmatic. And, you know, we are going to make copies of all the archives, make them available to two sides. And there has been quite some fruitful cooperation between the National in Jakarta and the National Archive in the Hague. And you even could say that the cultural agreement on archive on archival cooperation has been some sort of a warming up for agreement about cultural objects. Now, in preparation, the next slide, please, you know, both sides, they did certain things like the Netherlands, they sent a high ranking official of the Dutch Ministry of Culture, a lady to Indonesia on a secret mission. And she did go there as a member of the Dutch, the Netherlands Association of Housewives. So she didn't say I'm an I'm an official, but in the meantime, she was looking around how is the current government in Indonesia, the then government dealing with cultural institutions dealing with cultural objects with exhibitions, etc, etc. And she was reporting at home. But Indonesia was also doing things. In 1971 already, they sent some officials of the embassy in the Hague, for instance to the military museum in Arnhem Museum Brombeg, which has a large collection of say dubiously acquired colonial objects. And they made an inventory there. But then there was another thing which is maybe also typical Dutch, without the foreign ministry knowing it, the municipality of Amsterdam, which is often a bit more progressive than other authorities in the Netherlands. They invited a delegation of a foundation of Jakarta. And it was some sort of housing foundation. And I think the Lord Mayor of Jakarta or the former Lord Mayor, he was part of it. And three of them came to the Netherlands, and they arranged, you know, that they could visit all the museums or public museums with colonial collections. They're underground stores, and they make notes, notes, notes, they made photographs, etc. And they made a long list. And at the end of the visit, they had a list of 10,000 objects. And we call that a wish list. And this wish list became the basis for the negotiations in 1975. But if when the Dutch Foreign Ministry heard about it, they were really upset. They said, you know, why didn't we know about this visit. And secondly, they were worried about the list. Because in the list, there were many, many objects. And you know, if they would have to struggle with Indonesia, you know, whether to give them back or not, there would be big losses for the Netherlands. And so the Dutch Foreign Ministry in the Netherlands started their own investigation, made their own investigation. And in their report, they admitted that private people, colonial officials, military and so, had, you know, acquired unlawful appropriations. And you see it too, I've shown you two Buddha heads. They're both from the Borobudu, and one is in the gray one is in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, the brown one is in the tropemuseum. And they admitted that private people had acquired objects which they never should have acquired a metal smuggling something like it. And at the same time, you see our Foreign Minister Adam Malik and our Foreign Minister of the time, Mark van der Stool, they got along quite well. And van der Stool was, he was in Indonesia at the end of 1974. And he thought, well, you know, it's a burning issue in Indonesia, and we have to do something in order to keep the relation well. So that was that. That was the secret mission was, and it was the preparation also for the, for the negotiations. Then the next slide please. And, you know, to, there were two teams each government appointed a team of experts with people from archaeology museums, academics, archives, and officials, etc. And they came together in November, 75 in Jakarta. They were spent two weeks together, doing a lot of socializing, but they were also negotiating. Now these negotiations, they were quite complicated because Indonesia started with a list of 10,000 objects. And the Netherlands started with an offer. Well, you know, we are willing to, to return a few things, but not so many. So, you know, there was no progress in the whole thing. And at a certain moment, the two parties didn't know what to do. And then something happened, you know, which sometimes helps in this sort of negotiations. They, the two delegations, the two teams of teams of experts, they went to the Minister of Education and Culture, Mr. Tayyip. Mr. Tayyip said, 10,000, you know, where do work and I keep them, you know. And that was a breakthrough when the Minister said this is too difficult. And then the short list of the Netherlands was accepted. And the two parties came to joint recommendations concerning cultural cooperation in the field of museum and archives, including the transfer of objects. I've written down here a few of the stipulations from few recommendations. You know, the return of the Prajnaparamitra, a part of the pieces of the Lombok fashion and objects related to national heroes, such as Dipo Nagore. And among these objects was the Chris, which, which nobody knew where it was. And the Netherlands also helped promise to help locate non-state possessors, such as Buddha heads coming from the Borobudu temple complex. So that was quite interesting. These joint recommendations were accepted by both sides, but the Netherlands did not really implement them. The next slide, please. Because what they did not do, you know, they never tried to find until recently, the Chris of Dipo Nagoro. They never encouraged private owners, for instance, of these Buddha heads of the Borobudu or other statues to to reconsider their possession and maybe to return. And to Indonesia. And they also in the joint recommendations they had said we have to decide who is the owner of the Java men, you know, the old Java men from, from, from Java, you know, very old fossils. And so there were several things that several appointments that the Netherlands had missed it had not done anything. But as many of you might know, in March last year, all at once, there was a press release from the Dutch Ministry of Culture, saying that the Chris of Dipo Nagoro had been found and had been returned. I want to say a few words about this Chris. Because, you know, the Chris, it was always there. And it was not there. It had popping up and disappearing. And no one really knew how it looked like and what it was. But twice, a Dutch ambassador in Jakarta in the 1980s, suggested to return the Chris to Indonesia. Once, in 1984, the director of Museum Volkenkunde, the ethnographic museum in Leiden, thought he had found it. In the 1990s, Queen Beatrix, when she was, went on a state visit to Indonesia, it was suggested to her to take the Chris back to Indonesia. But then the, the assistants of Museum, the ethnographic museum in Leiden, they said, oh, we cannot find it. They could not find it. And then, but in fact, the museum at that time was uncooperative in enabling researchers to look for the Chris. You know, I experienced it myself. I approached them several times, you know, do you really not have it. But then, you know, the atmosphere was changing through the years. And in 2017, the museum decided to reopen the search for the Chris. You know, under pressure of the media, academic world and also because of their own ethnic for changing. And then it still took two and a half years to find it, whereas it was in their own underground stores. And when it was transferred to Indonesia, the Dutch ministers for culture argument was compliance with an international agreement. And so far, about the, the 1970s return. Now we turn to the 2010s, the next slide please. And that's a very different story. You know, most colonizers they had their own educational institutions for future colonial officials. The Netherlands had one in Delft, in the city of Delft. And it had many teachers, many students. And when they went to the Dutch Indies or to Indonesia, they sent back objects, which they found in there. They bought at markets or maybe they, they stole them, we don't know. And they send them back and quickly the museum, the institution called a very large collection of objects, and it set up a specific museum for it. The museum Musantara. And the Delft municipality was the owner of it. It's important. In 1901, the educational institution was stopped, but the museum continued to exist. And it consists, and it has continued for over a century. But in 2012, Delft Museum, Delft municipality decided to close the museum, you know, the Delft was in big financial trouble. So we had to cut down the budget of culture. And the number of visitors was not increasing anymore. You know, and you know, people didn't really know what is the future of this museum. And then there was the problem, the next slide please. The problem was that, you know, this museum they had 18,000 objects, mostly from the Dutch East Indies. They had thousands of photographs and books, all in all some 40,000 items. And then the problem is, where do we find a new home for these objects, especially. The interesting thing at that time, which was at that time it was rather progressive, 2013 was that the municipality said, repatriate as many objects to Indonesia as possible. And the Museum Musantara, you know, engaged the ethnographic museum in Leiden to help, you know, to get rid of these 18,000 objects. And they had this apart, you know, they had these two aims in their mind, they wanted to keep the whole collection in the public domain in public museums, and not to let it go to auction houses because then it would disappear, and to repatriate as many as possible. You know, there were some very serious obstacles. And that is, you know, of the over, I think there were 18,576 objects, something like that. You know, not all of them could go to Indonesia. So, there was for instance 500 objects, they were returned to people who had donated or given them on the long term long. There were objects of which Delft City said, well, this is our heritage. It's related to the Dutch East India Company. Delft was a chamber of the Dutch East India Company, and we want to keep them here. But that was another problem. And that's the Dutch heritage role. And that stipulates that before a museum deaccessions an object, it has to be determined whether it belongs to the Dutch National Collection. And when, you know, some of the curators they were charged to find out which of these objects were part of the Dutch collection. And they said, they said, well, maybe 10%, maybe 1800 or something. But when they started to work, it turned out to be almost 3200. So that was a large, a large cut in the whole collection. And there were some other, can I have the next slide please. Well, then you see what the communication between Delft and Indonesia. I think it's very fascinating. Fascinating. Initially, the director general for the then director general for culture, Katoom Marijan and Museum National they were enthusiastic about the Dutch repatriation officer. And a delegation came to Delft and an oral agreement was concluded, photos were made. And Delft put the agreement on paper and send it to Jakarta for a signature, but then no reaction came. And a few months later, the new director general, Hilmar Fari, he sent a brief message rejecting Delft's repatriation. And in the Netherlands we were wondering what is happening. You know, because the director general had not indicated the reason for not accepting it. He felt and just listening here and in Jakarta, you know, I found that probably but maybe Hilmar Fari wants to react on that later. Indonesia had to accept the remaining collection in its totality. So it was everything or nothing. And it also had to pay for the transport from Delft to Jakarta, which is quite, quite a lot of money. Indonesia was maybe upset. Since the best item items would remain in the Netherlands and you know the leftovers so called will be for them. And most objects had very little documentation so what would be the value for Indonesia. And of course there were storage problems, not to, if you have to put somewhere 15,000 objects. It is really, it is very, very hard. Then, after this reaction, the next slide please, there was a confusing situation because Delft had to restart the deaccessioning new. It put thousands of objects on a database and enabled museums in the Netherlands to choose objects. Then for the remaining objects approach museums in Europe and Asia. In the meantime, but not everybody knew that the Ministry of Culture and the Museum National and the people in the Netherlands, they had remained in touch with each other. And you know, there were, there was some diplomatic talks, you know, some pressure from here and there. And that finally resulted in a wish at the Indonesian side to get back 1500 objects maximum. They had to be selected by Indonesia themselves. And, you know, and this is what happened. And there was much relief in Leiden and in Delft and Leiden because, you know, the initial aim of repatriation at least was, was reached for a certain extent. And as a token on the picture you see that our Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, hands over an ancient book in his crease to President Joko Widoro. But there were also worries as museums in the Netherlands, Europe, Asia and Asia were redirected to the waiting room. Next slide, please. So, finally, they, there was this agreement. And if you look, you know, if you have to find new homes for 18,000 objects, it's really a complicated thing. So finally they went to, apart from what went to Museum National and Jakarta to nine museums in the Netherlands, two in Europe and three in Asia. So the objects were kept in the public domain. But the bigger part of the collection did not go to Indonesia. And remarkably, the biggest receiver became the Asia Cultural Center Center in Guangzhou in South Korea, with almost 50% of the total collection. And it's clear that if you want to do a deaccession, a return, a restitution, you know, it takes time, it takes money, and it takes personnel. Now, let me go to the lessons that last slide please. And I jump immediately to the last one because I think my time is almost over. You know, what struck me in the, in the, in the repatriation of the new Santara collection is that Indonesia was not so much interested in the way we had acquired the Netherlands had acquired these objects, you know, whether they had been, you know, taken against the will and without compensation of the original owners. They were much more interested in what they needed, they said, you know, we have certain gaps in our museums, and we look for objects to fill those gaps. And that differs from what other countries in the south are doing, you know, they're more after undoing, in undoing injustice, if you look at China, Nigeria, the Benin kingdom to Ethiopia, etc. Then you see they are, they are still angry about the injustice for Indonesia that seems to be different. And I think one of the main issues between in these negotiations has to do with equality. Are you able to, to, to dialogue as equal partners, and what has to be done to be for becoming equal partners, that's really hard. Finally, I would like to say that, of course, return is about objects about human remains and archives, but it is also a recognition of injustices from the past. The aim of return is also to heal a relationship to return dignity to restore trust or maybe to diminish distrust and to reduce inequality. Thank you very much. Unmute yourself. Yeah, issue in sumbo. Yes. Yeah, so thank you just for very insightful comments and presentations and in comparing the returns of from the Netherlands to Indonesia in the 1970s and in 2010s. A lot of interesting facts that could be further discussed, but before that, let's switch our discussion forward to the futures, at least from the from the Indonesian side. We would like to hear what sort of considerations and platform are being discussed right now to engender institutions and to Indonesia, one of the object back in the country. Thank you very much. Over to you. Thank you, Banga. And first of all, I congratulate you and all of the orders of that excellent collection of essays. I've read it before this seminar and also thank you just for providing a historical outline of the repatriation program since the round table conference in 1949. I actually I read your dissertation as well. It's very useful and thank you also for your email updates. They are very, very helpful. I'm going to focus on the returning of objects from the new Santara museum in Delft, since you already talked about that so I'm going to provide a few details like additional details to the story. And also about the Chris DiPonogoro. That was last year and the third part would be about what we are going to do now. We have established a committee in response to the new program from the Dutch government about returning objects from museums in the Netherlands. So, let me start with this basic idea of the return of objects. Yeah, because sometimes these objects for many of us were working in the museum sector in the cultural sector. They're objects that belong to a museum collection. But if you look at the biographies of these objects, sometimes they have like different values and meanings for the original owners know, and their descendants of course, for ritual purposes, other cultural purposes. So they are not necessarily museum objects as we understand them. So, and there have been concerns in the public debate about the returning of the objects, both in Indonesia and I think in the different parts of the world as you document very well in that collection of essays. So there have been concerns among the ear of these objects. If they are going to be returned to Indonesia, where are they be placed, a national museum or are they are going back to the original owners, the rightful owners and all these discussions know. So, really it's not simply about objects, but it's about history, historical injustice, cultural identity, national identity, etc. And here we deal really with some fundamental important questions to whom are we actually returning these objects. Yeah. Of course, we can say like simply to the rightful owner, but who is that you know the agent state. Yeah. It didn't exist when most of these objects were taken. And these objects may have different meanings for the state, the people, the descendants of the original owners, etc, etc. So what is needed here, research, no, but by whom. Providence research is one, but we also need to think really about these difficult issues that I mentioned about. Yeah, and I think we have to involve like interdisciplinary approaches now to really look at these issues like thoroughly. So let me start with the Delft Nusantara Museum. I think what I outlined before about these difficult issues to be discussed that was absent during the return of the collections from the Nusantara Museum. For your information, I know this, the Delft Nusantara Museum by heart. Actually, when I was a child, I used to spend my holiday at the museum. Yeah, my aunt actually worked there for many, many years. So I know the collection like quite well as a child, of course. And I've been following the news that when the museum was closed in 2013 by the city of Delft in April 2014 it decided to split up the collection between different museums in the Netherlands. And only in October 2015, our staff were actually contacted to discuss this. So that's not part of our restitution process. The museum wanted to give away the collection because the museum was closed to find a new home like you said like earlier. And initially it offered 18,000 objects. And that was the first meeting. Yeah, it went down to 15,000 objects in the second meeting. And then down to 11,000 objects in the third meeting. And little information was provided about the collection itself. Yeah, our staff later on like approach the Museum of Museum Falcon Kunde for some information they got for some of the items in the collection but not everything. So what I understand that that providing information about these objects where they are from what they actually mean etc etc was absent. It was not really part of the process. So I came in in January 2016. And what I saw at that time that we were not standing at on an equal footing. And that was my conclusion. Yeah, from the reports that were received from my staff. And I thought that this was not good. Yeah, and the number of items in the collection kept rindling because of the new law 2016 as just has mentioned earlier. And finally down to 1500 objects from 15,000 18,000 sorry. Yeah. So, and on top of that, Indonesia was to pay for the storage where the where the collection is kept, you know, after the museum was closed. So my initial reaction was of course no. Yeah, why would you. And it's not a preparation process as you said before there was no discussion about what he's collected, where the items actually come from how they were acquired at that time as a set. So, all these fundamental questions were absent during the return of the objects. Yeah, it was more like a gift. Return to Indonesia from the question which is nice. I have. No group yes no objects of 1500 items that were later on return actually we created a very beautiful exhibition out of that but in our context in the context of our discussion today. Yeah, the repatriation all these difficult questions about decolonizing museums that was not really the case. It was a different each one together. Second, the Christie Ponegoro. Similarly we were approached several weeks before the Chris was actually returned to Indonesia. The last preference research was already conducted by the museum called Vulcan kind of where the Chris was actually kept. Yeah, and as you just mentioned earlier, they were for several years if not decades, they were not able to find that Chris, or decide which one was actually the Chris of tip no God. So that was preference research, a well written research I read the research, I talked to the research as an order. Some Indonesians were involved, a creator from the, from Austria, Indonesia residing in Austria was already already also in for involved in the preference research. I discussed some of the findings with her. So it was a good research. But, to be honest, the ministry was not in. Yeah, we were already given the final result the conclusion of the proponents research later on. Yeah, like several weeks before the actual returning of the of the Chris. So, no discussion. Yeah, about what this was actually meant to Indonesia. Yeah. And actually the interesting discussion took place after return after the return, not before. Yeah. And the interesting question was raised by the public is, is this really the Chris of tip no God, or that was like missing for, for, for several decades. No. Of course, I trust the conclusion of the research is rare written and basically it concludes that from the available documentation. The conclusion could only be that this is actually the place of it. Yeah, there was a letter from rather than solid signifying that. Quoting central telepathy. Information from some telepathy and so on. So, all the details were there I'm convinced I was convinced. Yeah, everyone else in the team was convinced that yes, this is the case but that took place after the return of the object. So this brings me to the third part, or the conclusion of what I'm going to say. So what are we doing. Are we going to do now. Yeah, well, we start with research. Yeah we conduct research. Let's determine together, which object should be our focus. And I'm not talking about quality of the items in the collection. Yeah, but it's more for me. It's not simply about returning of objects. It is about knowledge production. Yeah, it is about rewriting of history. It's about dealing with past injustices. So that's where I would locate the discussion of returning the objects. And I'm going to share a few slides with you. Take a while. So this is this is from the most entire museum. Yeah. So some of them are well documented. We have all the information about the objects, but not about how they were actually fired. We're talking about like after it was donated to the museum or after it, it arrived in the Netherlands. So that's where the story of most of these objects actually sparked, including this. Yeah. And as you can see that, yeah, we were not involved. Yeah, in the entire process. And this is what we are going to do now. Yeah, you sit together, and we define which objects would be of interest in Indonesia. Like considering all these important basic fundamental questions that I mentioned before. Yeah, and start from there. Like many, many years. Yeah, to actually make some progress. So anyone would was more interested in the amount of things that are going to be so it might be disappointed. Because for me, this is an ongoing thing. It's also not simply about like historical research and so on. It's about a relationship between people of different cultures and countries. It is about the common understanding of the past. Yeah, a common position about, yeah, our current situation, and also about the future. So it's part of a much larger process. Yeah. I think it's important for us really to start for something from something concrete. Yeah, like this in the shift was, of course, it. I'm familiar with my Christopher Freddy Koch from the archivore back in the 19th century, early 20th century. So you can guess how the flag actually arrived in the Netherlands and what it meant to people in the past. I mean, if you look at the flag itself, it's probably not the most interesting, a beautiful, aesthetically object in the collection. But I think for many people here is important to really understand what it signified in the past. So these are kind of objects that we are interested in. And why I'm very bad, of course, beautiful as always. Yeah. So it's a combination of all these things. Yeah, that I think is really important for us to consider to have people who are interested in museum collections, history, culture in general, that should be involved in the process of the discussion. So I thank you for organizing this, but I really hope that we can also extend our discussion. Thank you to the audience to really get response from them, because during the exhibition of the Nusantara Museum collection and also the Chris Dipponogoro that was in October 2019. We got really interesting responses. Yeah, I can tell you from the Chris Dipponogoro. So there was a small group of students, high school students, teens, actually, know, went to the exhibition, they were inspired by that. They went back to the school and like weeks after that, they called me up. Yeah. But can we actually organize something about Chris Dipponogoro? Yeah, of course you can. Yeah. And I thought this was just like a small group of high school students interested in history. But actually they managed to organize an online discussion about this and 1000 students actually attended that. Yeah, all interested in different parts, different aspects, dimensions of the Chris. So not really about history itself, but yeah, to their own creative imaginative questions. And this is, I think, for me, what is probably the most important part of doing this. Yeah, that it actually can inspire a generation about history, about past wrongdoings, about how to deal with all these like past injustices, and how to think about a better future. So I'm going to stop here. And thank you, Banga, for organizing this. Thank you. Thank you for a very interesting talk and also for highlighting the need for equal dialogue in the process of restitution or object restitution in the future as well. We will have a discussion for now. If you have any questions or comments, please put them in the Q&A box where we'll address them. But after we have the response from our discussion, Siang Sokka. So to discuss some of the issues that are already raised by the both speakers and also to provide comparison with the perspective from Cambodia, I would like to invite Sokka to also give his response, sort of response. Sokka, do you want to chime in now? Hi. It's okay. Okay. Thank you, Banga, for your. Okay, rather than, sorry, I will not have slide. So we just talk. So, rather than... So rather than, like Banga said, rather than continue talking about the restitution story in Indonesia, here I would like to talk about that issue in Cambodia, so that the audience can have a comparative view on the issue in both countries. I have a very short time, so I'm going to focus here on what I consider as a kind of battle, a battle or narrative, a topic I believe to be very important when it comes to restitution of cultural objects to the country of the origin. So, first, let me give you an overview of how the object was taken out of Cambodia, which can be divided into two periods. The first is colonial period from 1863 to 1954. The second is post-colonial period or after independent, which lasts until now. The colonial period can be divided further into at least two groups, one of which were objects that were collected by colonial officers, such as LaVita Rapport or friend residents or tourists, researcher, friend institutions and so on. These objects are still currently in the museum or private collection in France, especially in the Gimé museum. The other group is those objects that were put on sale in Cambodia by the friend authority to tourists and obviously institutions during the 1920s and 1940s. At first, this object was supposed to be those of less important value, for example, a broken piece, a piece of arm and so on. The purpose was to let the world know about the Khmer culture and at the same time kind of preventing the trafficking of important piece. Unfortunately, it got our hand. A few masterpieces were being sold to institutes abroad, such as the bus of Hewakura currently displayed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. There has never been any discussion on the legality of the exportation of this object from Cambodia during the colonial period, which count for a few hundred of masterpieces. On the other hand, the object that was taken from the country during the post-independent, which could be hundreds of thousands, both large and small, most of them can be considered outright looted objects from the country during this difficult time. In Indonesia, we see the return of many objects taken out from the country during the Dutch colonial period. There has been no object return to Cambodia from the French colonial period. So far, only five or six hundred pieces looted from the post-independent that have been returned. And this number probably account to less than one percent of what probably have been lost. So why can't we have never tried to ask a friend for the return of the casual object? There are probably several reasons for that. I could think of at least three important reasons. So one is the persistent colonial narrative of on-go where many many objects were taken. The second is the a journey to a journey to hail the loot objects of the post-independent and to protect what we had still held in the country. And another one is the legal difficulty in ask for the return of the object. Okay, now is anyone who is familiar, I'm going to start talking about another thing. So now if anyone who is familiar with on-go, you probably learn from the greatest media book. Whether it is in French, English, Thai, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, whatever. All those media repeat the same story. On-go was discovered by Henry Mo. And recently some scholars use the term rediscovery instead of discovery. This is because some Europeans have arrived and made the record about on-go before Mo. The term discovery and rediscovery narrative gives the perception that on-go was abundant, forgotten, hidden, and lost. This is not true, but it's still a pure narrative among almost everyone. Such narrative was intentionally made by the French colonial researcher and authority. There are several evidence to prove that, for example, in the very work of Henry Mo, supposedly the French discoverer of on-go. Some of his drawing were excluded. The following are the local inhabitants and home at the site in on-go. An American who arrived before Mo even took some photographs of a village in on-go or temple itself. And also various names of the temple at the site itself were not a new name. This is given to the temple by the French or the Khmer in the 19th century. For example, Bakhen, which located in the very center of on-go, was an old name recorded in the 16th century and continued being used until today. There are just a few examples that show that on-go was never a forgotten, abandoned, or hidden, or lost place, or capital as a claim by colonial narrative. However, by using these terms such as forgotten discover, not only romanticize or stir the western public imagination of the site in the 19th century, actually even now. It also gave French the credit, the one who discovered Cambodian lost glory past. And during it almost 100 years of control of Cambodia, several local institutions such as that of Buddhist institutions which supervised by the French translate into Khmer several French research work, emphasize such narrative, which resulting in that the narrative, the abandoned capital was to the not only Cambodian intellectual, but also to the common people. To give you an example just of just how successful this narrative is a phrase in our national anthem, which our kids have to sing every morning and evening, is that stone temple hidden in the forest. This is referred to exactly on-go, the narrative that French tried during their control of Cambodia. The song was composed in the last year of French colonization in Cambodia by a famous Khmer man. So for Cambodia, we somehow we don't, we do not, we don't really reason the friend colonization that's my probably all claim to that kind of narrative that the friend discover of our glory past and another narrative which the friend is the saviour of Cambodia during its weakness, which is sandwiched by two powerful and expanding neighbor Vietnam and Thailand during the 17th and 18th century, and also the local leader which embraced the friend culture after the independence. There is however a blip about an anti-friend in Cambodia media around 1960, such as a novel based on fact called The Beast Village narrating the cruelty of friend tag collector. Unfortunately anti past colonial power really started in Cambodia, as it went through other unfortunate circumstance in the American Vietnamese war, and after that coup beta, and after that genocide after that Vietnamese occupation of Cambodia, and after that civil war, which last until 1998, around 20 years ago. So, during this post-colonial period that we saw many cultural objects looted from country. So after stabilization, Cambodia has to first all protect what are left in the country, not an easy task considering the lack of human resource, lack of fun, and extensify and property to be protected. And in the last two decades, Cambodia has involved in a lot of mission to recover the loot object during the post-independent back home. So from this perspective, the treasure at home and the loot treasure in market are obviously more urgent and important to protect or claim back than those objects taken during the colonial period, which we know where they are. Regarding the legal process, it is very difficult battle. It's difficult for Cambodia to win any of that. It is result intensive, expensive, and time consuming. It is very likely that we cannot win through the court because we do not have written record or evidence of provenance, also the case. And that is why Cambodia prefer strategy of one diplomacy, which we are disneyed country or our loot object to have through various agreement, for example, with the United States in recent year. They have Cambodia a lot in finding those objects, suing and sessing the object without proper document on behalf of Cambodia. They did ask Cambodia to show the provenance when the object dim, dim, dim object that, sorry, to show that they did ask Cambodia to show the provenance so that they can return it. Most of the time, we cannot show provenance, but because of good cooperation and intention to help from the US, they still return it regardless. But the second strategy is to negotiate. So, with the private collector, which has always been quite successful in in correction, the return of our object. One in a while there's a ceremony and photo of showing the return of the object to the museum with Cambodia. If you see minister or minister come to join the ceremony. Just to be clear, though, I do not mean that the legal process or court process is impossible. It is just difficult to achieve and consider 100 or 1000 objects out there. Mostly we do not have document. It is difficult to fight for the government. For example, regarding the certificate, the famous case. Sometimes people think that the Cambodian government sued them to return those objects. That's not necessarily true. We did bring them to the court, but it never concluded. They gave up. Before, so to be gave up several museum in the US gave up the object in their position which come from the same place. And those museum worry about their reputation. It would be very difficult to find a moral and ethical ground to keep displaying this object in their gallery as the case had been brought to life and everyone discuss about it. And when the museum, the US Museum gave up their position to uphold their principle is put a lot of pressure on so to be to do the same. So to me, successful resolution story is not based on strong or powerful legal, whether again, everyone who possess our object legally or illegally. It's more of a narrative battle which could be assisted by diplomacy, negotiation and media. Without the narrative that the object in several US Museum were bloody station. I heavily might doubt that they would willingly return them. Okay. Finally, I would like to bring everyone back to the command object at the give me a museum which is collected during the colonial period. I'm sorry to, to, to the stuff at the music, the be made museum but I had to put that put all of them on spot here and at any opportunity I have for several years now the be made museum have tried to present the collection. The object from Cambodia as positive, or even glorifying it, especially by the week the lab board. In a series of special exhibition such as ongoing the birth of a meet with the report and Cambodia, we. Rather than talk about the object, it not only was to show off how amazing entirely the week that I bought was when collecting the command object. I perceive this personally as an effort to be in to try again reason trend in this diffusion by Western countries to a former colony. I would like to give you a moral and ethical ground for email museum to stand on in displaying object, not legal but ethical and moral ground. So not to fall into dilemma of the museum in the US I mentioned earlier. There are some other quote from recent publication, the researcher from the GMA, I will not say who. So, for example, collecting status, collecting statuary was not then illegal according to colonial regulation. I doubt that he, he can spin it whatever he wants. And another one, for example, the object has no value. So collecting them was okay. So this referring to the, the, the period colonial narrative about uncle as a place as an abundant place. That's why I mentioned it earlier about it. So how, how was the object has no value. From my perspective that because the GMA researcher does not understand the culture. Regarding this temple, the committee did not think of them in term of monetary value. They thought of it as a spiritual place, not to be disturbed, not be touched without justify reason. That's why some temple was less untouched because they are how a spirit ancestor goals, God and so on. And in fact, several of them were not let alone people live in that area. I hope the friend researcher at the GMA stop this, this regard to my people living there in the past and now. And we are living in a different world. We are not living in the 19th century. So please stop that it is an opportunity to reconcile not to impose another wheel or nothing. This is another quote from the start of the museum, which the lab or got permission from the king to collect objects from Uncle what that is true. Nothing as a Cambodian we can do to argue again that what I would like to remind everyone that when the king did not agree to another friend the main in approximately the same year 1984. Uncle and friend guns man was sent to the royal palace to force the king to find to my own agreement. You asked me, and it is also important to mention that seem to be an uncle, we are, we are on goal is back then was not even under the jurisdiction of the Khmer King. It was under the Thai King. So this makes this agreement illegal. So like that recently another published work, the same researchers stated, we developed made an oral agreement with the Thai and the British on the spot at the time, without any quotation. It just an assumption to justify the collection. For the local, it is clearly demonstrated in even in the note of the legal report himself that the man who lived at the site is not agree to the collection. But then again, the legal report went to see him with agreement from the Khmer King gunboat and military. All right, finally, just for the content, even the place, the same real place was under the title each turn at the time. When the Thai King in in the 1850, several years before more than with the report send 300 laborer, and he said when to dismantle the temple to transport them to Bangkok, all of them were massacre. All of them were killed. That's why King Moon good decided to instead to make a small replica of ongoing which is played in the Thai Royal Palace until today. So, that. So the point I try to make is it's. I'm concerned about the narrative, the sort of narrative that is kind of like go against the trend. And I think we should. I mean, like, everyone, I mean, if you work in Southeast Asia, you on on the Southeast Asian side, you should keep your eye on because this sometimes it go very quietly, silently, and, and at one point everyone going to keep repeated, repeat until it become a big cheetahs, like, like, repeat until it like it's back just like the narrative about the, the abundant capital of uncle friend discovery and stuff like that. So thank you, that's all that I have. Thank you. Thank you so far for such a fairly comments and so, so for highlighting the, the important of narrative actually and I mentioned about the narrative of loss and abandonment and also, of course, that kind of narratives also present in Indonesia right now, particularly relating to the narrative for ancient Hindu Buddhist temples and materials that sort of become the, the main reason for, for the Dutch colonizer at the time in the colonial period to, to, to collect or to just accumulate all these objects from Indonesia and take back to Europe right now. So just to further this discussion on the narrative then I'm going to start taking questions from the attendees, and I'm going to start by taking question for my humor actually on the question of to whom we are returning objects, and there is a question by Sadiah Bundstra. Sadiah asked, in making the selection returning objects to Indonesia, who gets to decide what is important for whom within Indonesia, who gets to speak for whom in making these selections, and how to make this process as inclusive as possible. Well thank you Sadiah as inclusive as you want to be. Of course there are limitations right I mean you have to go like through representations of representatives of voices. The good thing here in Indonesia is that I've received questions. Also, ideas from different parts of the country. Some of them claim claiming to be the original owners or descendants of the original owners and the general public says it's pretty much alive. We have formed a committee that will look into the proponents research and to decide like which objects are going to return all. And they are now engaged in smaller discussions with experts represented of civil society organizations or that. We cannot claim that this is already like inclusive enough that we want to do more of course. But I think with the course of time, we are going to open up this process to make it more transparent so to say, and organize like public discussions about that by focusing on several issues that I raised before in my presentation. But to make it work. I think we really have to focus on several issues, objects and really to see the dynamics that will follow from that process. Otherwise you would end up trying to do too many things at the same time trying to involve too many people at the same time and that, yeah, and then regenerating to make it unmanageable. So that's more or less the approach that we are going to do. I hope that answer your question. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. I think just want to respond to that comment as well but before I went to George, I go to George, I want to just throw in another question from the attendees, this one from Heidi Tan. Because when we talk about that if of course, and we want if you want to make it as inclusive as possible, of course, our basis would be the provenance of the object itself. And that's become the basis of the fundamental basis of how we then we tell stories about the objects, the provenance that we should do for the connected object. So Heidi asked about this kind of collaborative research about provenance, and how then this quality collaborative research is geared towards exhibition that focus on quote, beautiful and quote objects, and that the present that the process itself ends with the exhibition How can then the archival research be sustained over the longer terms. How can database be shared after that, and then is pandemic, good opportunity to recalibrate or thinking about archival documentation and provenance research. And I think just as done many archival research in the past before highlighting all this interesting part in the in this lecture before this. So I just want to have his comment as well on this matter. And also, maybe after that I will go to Soka also because he also has worked in the registration and inventory office in the National Museum of Cambodia. So first, George, please. I would like to go back to the to whom question, because, you know, if, if Europe is willing to make a move, then the next question is the to whom question. I was very encouraged by a seminar a few weeks ago, in which Professor Schimar Gono participated. He is a member of the committee, and he spoke about the same issue. And I was delighted to hear what he was saying. Now, my thought at that time and I want to put that to you, Hilmar is, is, is there not a South South consultation needed. It's a very sensitive issue. It's very complicated. And as far as I can see, in Nigeria, which is not next door to Indonesia, but it's, you know, they are in the process of solving it with a legacy restoration trust, the federal government, the state government and the Benin Kingdom work together to decide about the future of the Benin objects. And it's the only formal construction that I know of at the moment, which is working. So, but I also think you know that it should be a South South consultation, and we should keep out of it. What is your thought about it. So, you know, a situation here with the palace of Karangasam in Bali. There is this like particular object. And I actually, I was referring it, also not like directly to that case. Since to them, it's not a museum object. Right. It belongs to a part of the regalia and all that. So what we are going to do is we include that into the list of things that we are going to examine, so to say, no, and then trying to involve, of course, representatives from there. I understand there was a attachment if I'm mistaken, involved in that. But of course we want to hear directly from the people of the palace themselves, and also representatives from the local government, because if it's going to return, or if it goes to the museum area, then it would involve them as well. So, through that process, we hope to find patterns that we can actually trying to begin to identify like how to deal with all these difficult questions, if they are put in a real context. And I don't have the answer right now, because the discussion hasn't actually started. But this is, I think, the direction that we are moving into. Yeah, but I really don't know what Margono said before. It's in the same spirit. Yeah, yeah. You were talking about, you know, doing provenance research at an equal level. Yeah. And could you transpone that also to Indonesia itself. Yeah, also what I'm saying, because I understand that in the Netherlands, if people do provenance research together, it's easier to let things go, to let objects go. Because you feel the emotion, the knowledge, the dedication, the link of the other. Yeah, okay. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, that's enough. So Ka, any comments on the archival research on your experience on how we do it and how we should sustain it in the longer period. I know you have a, you have a project now with the itself as well. Sorry, what your question again. Yeah, so, so there's a question about how the archival research stop when the presentation of the return objects as exhibition in the country very long. But then again, how then we sustain archive research into more prolonged time. And then also for the difficulty of actually, is it actually viable to do provenance research. Both inside Southeast Asia, and also in Europe as well. From your experience. So, for the object that were collected by the, by the frame, he probably has more, more chance to find a car or document about it, but if we're talking about the object that are in the market now, most of them, like, we don't know where they come from, because they are, most of them were looted. Also came here was like, never got the chance to actually do like documentation. You know, that thousand one or two or three thousand ten points and it really hard. So even like some object that we we put on the display sometime we just say provenance on now. So, provenance isn't, it's really difficult for Cambodians to be honest. So, like, the case like about the one that we got, that is just very specific case. It's like very unique case that we somehow may need to trace it like nowhere to come from and stuff like that. But most of them we just don't know. That's why we, we are more like, like Cambodia is more rather than, you know, if you know the problem and you have ever done it easier to take someone to the court to ask them back and stuff like that. But in Cambodia, you know, it's not that's why we prefer negotiation and diplomacy and also put the pressure on like many and stuff like that. Okay. Thank you, Sokka. So, yeah, I'm going to take up the issue of cooperation's agreements. And there's also question about international policy for the Patriations Restitution. And for those who haven't recognized yet, there is a actually a UNESCO convention on 1970 on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. That is, sometimes being used by the Cambodian government as well to negotiate the return of the objects from to Cambodia. The funny thing is that Indonesia has not yet signed that convention. So my question is actually to Bhayumar, do you think we need to, Indonesia needs to sign that or we should explore other alternative options on the agreement or more bilateral agreement that we saw between Indonesia and the Netherlands. That is more of a tool for you. Well, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is looking into that. From their perspective, it's disadvantages. I mean, that's what I'm told. We are talking about 1970, right? Illicit trafficking convention, yeah. So that's the response from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Okay. So I guess it's, Indonesia should explore alternative than using the 1970 convention. So I'm going to take question again from the Q&A box. There's one question that I get to just mainly about the restitution of history, collection and human remains. And maybe you could probably provide examples of that. I know that in your presentation, you talk about the repatriation of human remains from, I believe, from Indian Dubois. Government, yeah. That hasn't been returned by the Netherlands or Indonesia. But can you probably provide examples of human remains that have been returned from other countries? I think in general, museums and institutions in Europe are more advanced in the repatriation of human remains than in the repatriation of objects. So it's the opposite as if I have understood the question well in the chat box. And why is it because they, you know, after the Second World War, when we had this horrible Holocaust, we just started to rethink about racist theories, which had been practiced by Germany. And we felt that they were in some way akin to what we had been doing in all the colonial possessions, you know, taking skulls and body parts, whole bodies and so, and in a very disrespectful way. So already in, in 1951, UNESCO accepted a new definition of race, you know, and they said there's only one race, there are no racial differences, so trying to get rid of all forms of racism. And through the years, there have been a number of quite important repatriations of human remains. And I think the best organized again, you know, is from New Zealand. You know, they're after tattooed Maori heads. And I know that in the Netherlands. In 2005, one majority had was returned and in 2019 the second one. I think there are no other ones. But why is it successful. The same, you know, because there is a close cooperation between the national government, the National Museum, and the Maori communities. And they have really defined their roles and it took a long time to do that because it was complicated for all sorts of reasons. But they also that now they have a very ambitious project, you know, in getting back all these Maori heads the same for Australia, you know, where Aboriginal groups are really playing their role in repatriation efforts. So, you know, what I like about Hilmar's presentation is that Indonesia really has a policy. And what I miss in Cambodia is, you know, we have a policy. And what we need, I mean, if we want to advance with repatriation, we need strong counterparts. Very strong counterparts who are well organized, and who have a policy who have priorities, you know, and then you can talk with the other sides. And if you do it like you see them. I expect that this year or next year, the first Benin objects will go back to Nigeria. You know, Hilmar, you're making a priorities, you know what what are our needs. And what and from that part, we are going to ask the Netherlands, for instance, you know, for repatriation. And that's what we need. So my answer I'm giving two answers to two questions in fact but sorry, but you know there are quite successful repatriations of human remains, particularly to New Zealand and to Australia. The problem with Indonesia is that, you know, we have been so so greedy, trying to get so many that we don't know where they come from. And that's the same for Germany, for instance, you know, which has schools from from Tanzania and from Namibia, and they feel ashamed now because they say well we don't know anymore from where they come from. So you cannot return a school which might be from Tanzania and give it back to Namibia it's very painful. So that's also, you know why I think that in our countries we need some sort of memory places to respect these anonymous people, because we will never know their names. Sometimes we know the island, for instance, but not even the region on the island, and we have to respect these people. It's a very poor answer but that's what I want to say. Can I say something to that as well? Yes, of human remains, but this is a completely different case. It's the human remains of Japanese soldiers during World War II in Papua. In the last five years, there has been like research being done conducted by Japanese scholars working together with people in our office and to think about ways of returning these human remains because as you know the law in Indonesia says like once it's established as a chagarbudaya as a heritage that it cannot be transferred to cross the borders of Indonesia. Only for educational research, exhibition purposes and so on. So that was like a delicate question like how to deal with that. Because from my perspective, as I said before, this is about emotions, history, people, like real people and all that. And for the Japanese descendants of these soldiers, it means a lot to get the reins of the soldiers back and bring them back to have a proper burial and all that. So the way we dealt with that issue was also not easy. So my point is that this is not only a problem in Europe, like even us here in Asia, but we are approached. So what I'm trying to say here that's really a problem for each administration dealing with these issues. And it was difficult in Japan, because in Papua, the remains of these soldiers, the entire like complex of the World War Two has become kind of a tourist attraction of which the remains are part of that attraction. So if you are now trying to send them back to Japan, it means it will separate it from that tourist attraction. It will devalue the tourist attraction itself. So from Papuan perspective is that now no, we cannot let them bring them back. I mean, it belongs here. And the law says that actually once it's declared as a cultural heritage, it's a charitable diet and it should stay. And there was a negotiation process. And for me, that was a very important process, probably much more than the returning of the object themselves. Because it brings up a lot of issues that makes us understand the complexity of these issues. And of course, there's no single solution to that. We continue doing research and there was a, of course, like little hiccups here and there because the Papuans were promised by Japanese families and families from off the soldiers that they will be supported, they provided and all that, that they've never materialized and their disappointment and that added to the complexity of the problem. So we are dealing here with a very real situation in which I think the best of policies, the best of quality knowledge would not be able to solve them altogether. So our discussion and our approaches here, like policy or scholarly or otherwise, I think would help us to think about these issues, not to provide a clear solution to that. I mean, the clear solution in the end of the day will be on the ground. Perspectives and all that very important, of course, policies, beautiful, but at the end of the day you have really to deal with a lot of issues and yeah, if you're dealing with that then be ready for that. So that is basically a point to make based on the discussion about human remains. Okay, thank you very much. Just to respond to your point on dealing with issues that are in the ground. There is a question by Mulaikah Jass in the Q&A box asking about or saying a little more about the context of Central Museum, PRV, Regional Ones in Indonesia, and she is wondering specifically about the Rio Cougar, which is exhibited at the National Museum, while the Rio Museum as a replica. So, is there a demand from the regional authorities for the return of these objects? Probably not just Rio Cougar, but also other objects as well that originated from other provinces in Jakarta, in National Museum. And what is the central government position for that kind of demand? Yeah, so yeah, there have been requests from different regional museums to exhibit items from the collection of the National Museum, sometimes also demands that they should be returned. But the beautiful thing here in Malaysia that if it belongs to the state, then it's barang milik negara, it belongs to the state. The difference only is that where is it actually, what is that, registered, right? Is it registered by the National Museum or regional museum? But they are equally barang milik negara. So the idea now, with the new institutional setting of the National Museum, which has become a Bayalu public service institution, is that we are going to encourage circulation. Of items in the collection. So they will circulate. Yeah. But there will be a single registration for all these barang milik negara, the state owned assets that belong to the state. So, in that way, we think of the regional museums and the national museums as one. Right. So they are all connected. And the idea really is to encourage circulation so that more and more can be displayed because the National Museum is limited. It has more than 200,000, 200,000 items, but it doesn't have the space to display them all. I actually calculated that and it requires like 150 years really to exhibit everything that they own. So it's impossible basically. So the idea really is to, if we have many of these, like several particular collections or items, then we will allow them to circulate. In that way, of course, it will also help museums, regional museums to enhance the capacity, institutional capacity and all that when it comes to safety, transporting and so on. So that way, I think it will help not only to solve or at least the deal with this issue of owning items of inner collection, but also to make it more accessible to the general public. Okay. Thank you. And this will be the last issue that we're going to discuss in the seminar, because we are closing up soon, I guess, because of the time, but the pilot already brought up the issue of access and of course, repatriating objects to one country and then just put it in the storage, no use at all. We need to provide access to the people so that the object can be of use, can be meaningful to them and then can talk to the people as well in the community. So there's also a question about digital access, about digital restitution as well. So, first of all, I would like to ask just for this, for his opinions, whether digital restitution is also a way to correct corneal injustice and also inequality, do you think, George? I have great difficulty with this. I think digital repatriation is for the documentation about an object, and whether an object is restituted or not as up to the country of origin in dialogue with the country where it is at the moment at an equal level. So, you know, for a long time I thought that digital repatriation is favored by people who want to avoid the restitution issue, and they don't want to give back in fact. And I think, you know, again, as I said in my presentation also, what is the purpose of return? The purpose of return is to heal a relationship that has been violated. And if you do that healing by digital repatriation, it's okay to me, but then you need the approval of both sides and especially of the country of origin. I think that's clear. The archives it's different, because you see now, sorry to finish this, I see that for instance between Belgium and Rwanda, they're discussing archives about political military issues and social economic issues, basically about minerals. And they're still in Brussels. I have agreed on digital repatriation, but Rwanda is a very pragmatic country that just want to have the information so they can work, but it's their decision to accept it. And then, for me, it's acceptable. But if we decide if the global North decide, you know, or we'll repatriate it digitally. No, it's over. It's 21st century. Yeah, by the more any sort of that, particularly with the with the object in Indonesia. Yeah, well, I tend to agree with yours. Yeah, digitization is one thing it would open up access and also enhance our knowledge about the different items in the collection right very important of course and I see here that digitization is about shared manage and shared control. By the way, Alex, how are you. So, it's very important, yeah, to have that kind of equal access and also production of knowledge and all that, but it cannot substitute I think the symbolic value of returning actual objects, even if it's one. Right. So, that dimension is very important if you want to talk about like larger context about, again, I mean, I'm going back to what I said earlier, it's not about returning objects, but it's about the symbolic value of that act itself that matters So, of course, in the in that process, I think digitization can be very, very helpful. I really actually want to see a crowdsourced provenance research know to open up really like people have knowledge I mean they're everywhere in the world without we even knowing them. So if we can open up such a process that be wonderful. But again, it would not be able to substitute to replace the symbolic symbolic value of the actual returning of knowledge. That would be my response. I was very succinctly encapsulate the, the kind of, yeah, the kind of embodied experience that that were to be experienced from returning the objects to one country actually. So, one last time. It could be helpful but I agree with him on that regard I mean like for Cambodia like every time we, we get the object return we always have the ceremony we are talking about the return of spirit and, and reconciled now with the past, the violent path is like that. It's very important for the object to return. And it is like, sometimes, what about we replica and mean that probably another issue we will be talking about digital repatriation and I don't know it's just, I just feel like it's better to return the objects. Okay, to return object. It's better to return it in original form, not in replica. Okay, thank you. It's like, sorry, like I talked earlier about the Cambodian culture the Cambodian perception about all those I mean we are the temple we are the spirit stay in all of that so the Cambodian perspective of course is connected to the socio-cultural metrics or context in Cambodia right now with NECTA with the data. So just for the context like even now like when we before we do excavation, we had to ask permission to do that. When we do restoration at the temple, we had to ask permission to do that. Even we do like conservation work in the museum, like you had to destroy some part of the object or stuff like that. You had to ask permission. So every step that you appropriate the object, you had to ask permission. So from our perspective it's kind of like a spirit, a living thing. And we also have an issue with like how we, I think, sometimes we were talking about living thing but how are we going to present it in the museum. Nowadays we just copy what the Western do just display it as an artifact display it as a dead object, but that's not what we're supposed to do but it's more complicated to because it's also got to do with the money and how are you like we have a lot of objects how are we going to like present them as like you know in a natural form. Yeah, that's just also one difficulty of it. On that hard note, I guess we should finish the seminar today. Thank you very much for yours. Thank you very much for buying more for thank you. Thank you here and then discussing this thing with us. Thank you so cow for joining from no pen. Yep. You should say to the audience that today's webinar was a man's affair, but tomorrow it's a women's affair. Oh, yes. We do that actually. Yeah, we've talked about gender about the gender of this, this, this back to back seminar and yeah, this is my number. Tomorrow is a woman's affair so I'm a bit sorry about that. But tomorrow is also promised to be very interesting discussion as well about the identity, the culture and also the restitution. Mainly we'll talk about context in Thailand and also in Myanmar. Okay. Again, thank you for us for by Mars for so far for being here. Thank you for Anna was managing this webinar on the background for the smooth running of this seminars and thank you for all the attendees. We have a very high number of participants actually the highest we have in this seminar series so thank you very much for that. And see you tomorrow I guess. Bye. Thank you, everyone stay safe, stay healthy. Thank you. Good to get to see you. Bye Dan.