Transnational Networks, People’s Theater and Radical Opposition in the New Order Indonesia

Transnational Networks, People’s Theater and Radical Opposition in the New Order Indonesia
Muhammad FEBRIANSYAH

Prior to the Philippines “People Power” in 1986, a group of Indonesian political activists and cultural workers frequented the Philippines to participate in political organizing among its grassroots communities by drawing on Filipino popular theater. These activists and cultural workers who attended workshops held by the Philippines Educational Theater Association (PETA) and Asian Council for People’s Culture (ACPC) later dedicated their attention to lower-class cultural production by using theater as an instrument to address and disseminate concerns on the socially and politically repressive condition of the New Order (1966-1998). Their main objective was to break the culture of silence. Theater artists attempted to expose this culture by encouraging the oppressed to speak for themselves through dialogues and cooperation. Such experience, as well as a network of activists formed through transnational relations, quickly gained importance in the process of establishing a new type of political movement against the New Order. Compared to previously student-dominated opposition, the new movement has drawn its strength from the lower class and employed a more militant approach.

Introduction

The massacre of more than a million people allegedly communist supporters in Indonesia in 1965-1968 had inflicted a long-term trauma on the people. Performance arts, especially people’s theater, were not spared by the trauma. Nearly all cultural production activities were halted after the 1965 political tragedy— leading to the establishment of the New Order and the rise of Suharto. One cultural organization, the Indonesian Institute of People’s Culture (Lekra), which 20221031shared a similar ideological leaning with the Communist Party of Indonesia (PKI) was later banned. Lekra was an art organization advocating artists’ responsibilities in developing class consciousness and anti-imperial Indonesian culture (Foulcher 1986, 1). It was politically oriented and aware of the influence of popular theater in realizing political objectives. The organization focused on rural areas with the intention to consolidate and strengthen peasant organizations. Their performances, presented in various political gatherings in years before 1965, proved to be very popular among the people (Peacock 1968; van Erven 1992; Hatley 2008).

Many Indonesian left-wing writers and performers were either killed, jailed, or exiled in post-1965 period, which had a significant impact on Indonesia. Within the cultural realm, nearly all activities were stagnated due to the fear among people to attend any public gathering after dark, let alone holding a performance. It took several years for theater groups to recover from the violent repression during that time. The early 1970s saw the emergence of professional traditional theater performances such as ludruk and ketoprak that are closely related to the military or government institutions (Hatley 1994, 220). The traditional art performance was utilized as a form of propaganda by the New Order to instill the important progress and development of the nation through the sacrifice of its people (Lindsay 2005, 5).

Nevertheless, Indonesian theater started to reclaim its political nature in the early 1980s. As noted by Ariel Heryanto (2012, 17), “the period witnessed a remarkable growth of theatrical works in Indonesia that has had no parallels ever since. Didacticism and political engagement have been prominent features of artistic works in the entire history of Indonesia, making it impossible for theater artists to be apolitical, or seen as such by others, even if they tried.” Many artists at that time felt that their artworks would be more profound if they could somehow reveal the social reality of the society by communicating with them (Hooker and Dick 1993, 2). These artists criticized the unequal economic distributions and social problems caused by policies of the New Order through artworks based on the social injustice theme. The late 1980s saw heightened social anxiety, and it was within this period that there was an increase in protest forms of arts created by activists.

By the 1990s, activists and cultural workers have assumed a prominent role in the opposition movement in Indonesia. They were of diverse backgrounds such as laborers and peasants who organized their movement through artistic and cultural fields (Mandal 2003, 351). This growth was further nourished by the presence of literature communities coming from both middle and lower class (labors and urban poor) (Budianta and Gunadi 1998). At that time, artistic activities among the laborers reached a height where they functioned as a form of social activities that influenced the process of political, social, and cultural change in Indonesia (Bodden 1997, 38).

One noteworthy development in the late 1980s and early 1990s was the emergence of an increasingly radical opposition movement. Compared to previously student-dominated opposition, the new movement has drawn its strength from the lower class. Their ideas and political activities quickly spread and assumed a more militant approach (Heryanto 1996, 262).

One factor influencing this development was the various series of events occurring in the Philippines during the same period. Indonesian activists looked up to the “People Power” in the Philippines as an exciting example of what could be achieved by mass action (Aspinall 2005). To add, groups of Indonesian political activists and cultural workers have already frequented the Philippines to participate in political organizing among its grassroots communities by drawing on Filipino popular theater prior to the Philippines “People Power” in 1986. This paper will discuss the transnational network between Indonesian political activists and cultural workers with their counterparts in the Philippines and how theater contributed to the building of a popular political movement in Indonesia in the period of the 1980s and 1990s. This article will not be discussing specific theater production or performance but grounding its focus on methods and approaches of such theater, specifically related to the invisible theater introduced by Augusto Boal which was used as a tool to break the culture of silence among Indonesian society under the New Order regime.

Indonesia and the Philippines: Blood Brothers

Compared to other Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia and the Philippines seem to share many similarities in terms of the nation-building process. Both countries have a long history of colonialism, with nationalism playing a crucial role in their struggle for independence. As with the case of most postcolonial countries, Indonesia and the Philippines were used to be subjected to a dictatorial regime. Nevertheless, both countries were unique in the sense that, contrary to others, Marcos (1965-1986) and Suharto (1966-1998) were considered a form of sultanistic dictatorial regime (Winters 2011; Fukuoka 2015). Both dictators relied heavily on foreign political and capital support from the United States (US). In the context of the cold war, the support from superpowers such as the US functioned to curb the spread of communist influence in the region where Indonesia and the Philippines were the largest communist base in Southeast Asia. At the time when Indonesian communism was violently exterminated by Suharto’s regime in 1965, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) has yet to be established. After CPP’s establishment in 1968, the party later grew into a prominent opposition against Marcos’ regime. On the other hand, leftists in Indonesia regained their momentum in the mid-1990s with the establishment of the People’s Democratic Party (PRD), which later played a crucial role in toppling Suharto (Lane 2008). The fall of Suharto in 1998 completed the list of similarities between the two countries where both dictators were toppled by the people’s power.

Many scholars have conducted comparative studies on the character of the regime and its opposition during Marcos and Suharto’s era (Boudreau 1999; Winters 2011; Fukuoka 2015). The latest study by Ramon Guilermo (2018) shows the significant role of the Indonesian communist movement in the formation of Jose Maria Sison as a leading Filipino Marxist radical and its possible influence on the founding of CPP in 1968. Nevertheless, I argue, the reemergence of Indonesian leftist influence in the 1980s after its demise in 1965 owes to the Philippines’ experience. In the wake of the People Power, a group of Indonesian student activists from various social backgrounds received a chance to actively participate in pro-democracy movements in the Philippines under invitations by Filipino NGOs or churches (Halimah 1996, 6). One of the Indonesian military officers in 1996, Lieutenant General Syarwan Hamid, states that a number of 60 activists who later became PRD members used to learn from the People Power in the Philippines (Human Rights Watch/Asia 1996, 16). My interviews with several former PRD leaderships also reveal that they were specifically involved with Bayan (New Patriotic Alliance), a left-wing organization against Marcos Dictatorship (Indrakusuma 2007, 2014; Warouw 2014; Vidiarina 2014). Other than organizational and mass movement techniques, they also learned the live-in method where they were required to actually live and struggle together with the people. This technique was largely practiced by student activists in the late 1980s. People Power in the Philippines taught them that change can only be realized by directly including the oppressed society such as peasants and laborers into the movement.

Evidently, the development of Filipino politics not only inspired Indonesian political activists. Cultural workers, too, learned to organize the lower class by drawing on Filipino popular theater. In 1979, a member of the Philippines Educational Theater Association (PETA), Remmy Rikken, visited Yogyakarta and invited the leader of Arena Theater, Fred Wibowo, along with his three actors to attend a theater workshop organized by PETA (van Erven 1992, 187). PETA, founded in 1967, is a pioneer for liberation theater in Southeast Asia. A decade after its establishment, PETA has already been involved in the spread of alternative theater by encouraging students, laborers, and peasants to practice theater based on their real-life experience (Hatley 2008, 134). The organization applied a Freirean liberation method in its theater education. By analyzing and addressing their social concerns, communities would eventually be more aware of their problems, united as an entity, and gain confidence to usher in change.

Until 1981, PETA through Asia Theater Forum Partnership has been involved in providing training on techniques for grassroots theater to cultural workers in South and Southeast Asia. The workshops were also attended by Indonesian cultural workers; amongst others were Emha Ainun Nadjib and Simon Hate from Dynasty Theater, as well as Fred Wibowo from Arena Theater (Hatley 2008, 135; Bodden 2010, 60). After a month of training, workshop participants from Indonesia were sent to several villages in the Philippines to live-in with them, collect data, and organize a theater project (Bodden 2010, 60). Halim HD who used to be a participant in the PETA workshop deemed that PETA might have learned some techniques from Lekra, realizing how arts can be a tool to mobilize people. At that time, Indonesian artists were still caught in their slumber and selfcontemplation (Halim HD 2014). Experience attending these workshops made them realize the importance of autonomy of the community, with theater at its center. After the workshop ended, they returned home and practiced liberation theater as well as establishing their theater communities through workshops in rural areas in Indonesia.

The already established network between Indonesian and Filipino cultural workers expanded to include other artistic organizations. When Asian Council for People’s Culture (ACPC), located in Manila, planned to organize an international art tour to Europe, Cry of Asia! in 1989, they engaged with Emha Ainun Nadjib and Halim HD—both were former participants in PETA workshop—as the contact persons for Indonesia (Halim HD 2014). After Cry of Asia!, ACPC invited other Indonesian artists to participate in their workshops. In one ACPC workshop in the Philippines, artists, Moelyono, received a lesson on methods of liberation theater, collective paintings, i.e., murals and woodcutting as an educational medium for the community. Throughout the workshop, participants were also invited to join demonstrations organized by the urban poor to demand land reform (Moelyono 2005, 33). Apart from experience and ideas that have been benefitted from the workshop, Moelyono also acquired technical expertise in black and white murals and woodcutting along with books and tools related to woodcutting. Wiji Thukul participated in the Training and Trainer Cultural Workers in Maepo, South Korea under invitation by ACPC and Korean Nationalistic Artist Federation (KNAF) in the following year (Gojek 1991). Cultural workers who attended workshops organized by these two Filipino art organizations later dedicated their works and energy to lower-class cultural production. Moelyono himself organized cultural activities among the people of Wonorejo in East Java who were victims of the land dispute over the construction of the Japanese-financed Wonorejo Dam; while Wiji Thukul, on his part, worked with children and local theater groups in his neighborhood.

Without receiving wide media coverage, liberation theater activities continued to expand their network, especially in Java. In 1987, about 50 social workers from all over Indonesia participated in a two-week workshop organized by Arena Theater. Participants received training on the process of liberation theater, then returned to their respective communities and set up their own theater groups. They convened an international seminar on the subject of “Development Support Communication in Indonesia” in October of the same year (Oepen and Kingham 1988). Participants attempted to come up with people-centered communication strategies and community organizing measures that could assist to break the culture of silence.

Breaking the Culture of Silence

The culture of silence is a condition in which alienated and oppressed people are not heard by the dominant members of their society and are incapable of speaking for themselves (Freire 1968). Works carried out by theater artists from the seminar attempted to expose the presence of this culture by encouraging the oppressed to speak on their behalf through dialogues and cooperation. The works appeared to acquire great success in increasing lower-class engagement in economic, political, and social issues through their own cultural activities. The emergence of the worker’s theater in the early 1990s was one example of such collaborations between cultural workers and worker communities where the former was able to facilitate the political awareness of the latter through performance (Bodden 1997).

To break away from the culture of silence in an oppressed society, Freire suggested educational and cultural movement as a medium for liberation for the lower class. His theoretical foundation was used and furthered by a Brazilian theater artist, Augusto Boal, who used theater as a medium to conscientize the lower class. This section discusses how the method was utilized by cultural workers in Indonesia to organize the workers.

Elaborating on the preceding concerns, this section also explores Wiji Thukul’s art and political activities as a case study. Thukul was a poet as well as a political activist. He employed his poems and theater performances as an instrument to disseminate his concerns on the socially and politically repressive condition under the New Order. Thukul’s radical cultural activities caused him to be a constant target of surveillance and repressive measures by police and the military. His whereabouts are unknown for many years now. It is presumed that he was kidnapped by the state security apparatuses prior to the rise of student demonstrations leading to the fall of Suharto in May 1998. Human rights advocates have declared that he was one of the 14 activists who were kidnapped and killed by the state (Kontras 2000).

I focus on Thukul’s artistic and political activities for two main reasons. First, artists during the New Order period were typically categorized as middleclass public intellectuals (Heryanto 2003, 55; Mandal 2003, 367). In this respect, the middle class position is defined within the social and cultural aspect rather than a purely economic term. Associating activist’ arts with the middle-class label is problematic because it overlooks the activism of artists such as Thukul who occupied the lower class position in social and economic terms. Exploring his activism would likely bring a different understanding of the relationship between arts and politics in Indonesia. Thukul practiced the arts of resistance by involving workers and other marginalized groups. He wrote and read his political poems, in addition to performing theatrical works with the workers. Undoubtedly, Thukul represents the working-class segment in this respect. Secondly, Thukul strongly and persistently engaged in political and social empowerment of the lower class. As a way of articulating his commitment, he joined the PRD, which was then a leftist political party struggling for the realization of total democracy in Indonesia.

As mentioned before, several Indonesian political activists have visited the Philippines in the 1980s. The experience gained from interaction with organizations such as Bayan inspired them to organize the lower-class community. The most radical of this group later founded PRD where Wiji Thukul was one of the leaders. Despite never visited the Philippines, Thukul had the experience of participating in and establishing intensive communication with alumni from PETA workshops. His two-week participation in a worker’s theater workshop organized by ACPC in Maepo, South Korea exposed him to the people’s theater and Augusto Boal’s invisible theater. Member of Puskat Studio, Maria Pakpahan, who attended the workshop with Thukul explains:

The workshop was about arts and labor, liberation as such. We learned about people’s theater. We observed how they used the tools on the streets. For instance, in shopping centers suddenly there was a performance. We observed how the people willingly participated and became a part of the performance. They were not a passive audience. In exposure to Kwangju, we observed the workers’ strike and also participated in it. There was a session on how to establish relations with trade unions, and showing solidarity with their strike. Then with a group of people’s theater, there was the physical rehearsal and others. (Pakpahan 2008)

His two-week experience in the workshop as well as intensive interactions with Indonesian radical activists who used to be with Bayan in the Philippines, contributed to Thukul’s political consciousness. His house in a poor village in Solo was used by these activists as a live-in place. Activists focusing on the growing lower class saw Thukul’s artistic potential as crucial for their political movement. They regarded Thukul as an icon for people’s arts, which would benefit the movement (Nugroho 2007). After a series of live-in and interactions with workers, peasants, and the poor, they gained an in-depth understanding of the real issues pertaining to workers whereby they were still shackled by the culture of silence. The situation persisted due to a low level of education among the working class in Indonesia (Cahyono 1997, 106). They were continuously forced to accept any condition put forward by employers. This situation greatly benefitted the government who wished to maintain the low wage system to attract foreign investments. This also made them scared to discuss and demand their rights.

One of the effective ways to liberate workers who remained shackled in the culture of silence was through education and culture. Thus, they were encouraged to practice artistic activities. To achieve this, Thukul involved them in the preparation for theater performances. One of PRD leaderships, Danial Indrakusuma, explains:

Icebreaking breaks the culture of silence among workers. It was his [Thukul] method. Let me give you one example. Eti was a quiet worker. Passive. Even after a month of being facilitated by Thukul, she remained quiet. However, after the icebreaking succeeded, Eti turned out capable of taking any role, as scriptwriter, director. I still have her videos. She was taught to sing, compose songs. With this, the workers speak for themselves, their words. Not Thukul’s words, but their words themselves, arranging them collectively together. Some [ideas] were rejected, some were accepted, and they composed their own songs, workers, as a collective. Create a play. Sometimes in the jungle or hidden places because it was illegal then. He visited various organizations to organize the workers. (Indrakusuma 2007)

After a successful icebreaking, workers would have more courage and be open to express their thoughts, and more receptive in discussions to address their concerns. An open mind also released them from taboos or sanctions imposed by family and society especially for female workers, thus enabling the dissemination of ideas of resistance.

From several conscientization methods, Thukul favored Augustus Boal’s approach as his key method in organizing the worker’s community through theater. Boal in his Theater of the Oppressed (1979) wishes the audience to place their sole attention on the act itself. The audience does not surrender their power to actors to act and think on behalf of them but

On the contrary, the audience itself takes up the role of the protagonist, alter the dramatic acts, discuss plans for its short alterations, train themselves for the real action. In this case, the theater itself might not be revolutionary, yet it is clearly a rehearsal for a revolution. Audience, liberated as a full and concrete self, move to act. While the act fictive, what is important is the action! (Boal 1979, 95)

In the end, Boal aspires for a form of invisible theater where the audience would be involved in the theater drama without them even realizing it because what is being spoken by the protagonist actor directly addresses the issues related to their daily lives. If a drama is performed before the workers, then the drama would address issues related to the workers.

It is of utmost importance for actors to not express themselves as the actor. It is here that lies the veiled aspect of the theater. Thus, the invisible character would allow the audience to act freely and to the fullest. It is almost like they are in a real situation—and truly, it is a real situation. (Boal 1979, 120)

Thukul attempted to apply this method with the children in his neighborhood. In 1989, Thukul opened his house where he lived with Halim HD, who is also a PETA workshop alumnus, as a place for children to play and practice theater. How Thukul attempted to apply Boal’s invisible theater is explained by an Australian scholar, Richard Curtis (1997, 44), who conducted participatory research with Thukul:

On one occasion, Thukul suggested himself, the children, and I to invade an up-market department store where the children with masks on would ask me in loud voice about things beyond their means, what they were, and how much their cost. This would be the stimulus that Thukul could use to involve the unsuspecting public in protest theater. In the conservative persona of Solo, these shock tactics might have created something more than I could handle so I put off agreeing to his suggestion.

The method produced a real impact when practiced by Thukul in organizing the workers. Along with other PRD activists, he organized Sritex workers, a textile factory where a portion of its share was owned by President Suharto’s family members. The factory located in Solo, where Thukul lived, made military and government uniforms as well as supplying uniforms to NATO’s international military. Applying Boal’s Theater of the Oppressed approach, Thukul managed to form a worker’s community in the factory (Nugroho 2007). His art and political works with the workers can be considered a success. On 11 December 1995, some 15,000 factory workers held a strike, which was also one of the largest strikes in the history of the New Order (Wilson 2010). A PRD member recalled his experience organizing Sritex workers with Thukul:

After organizing the peasants, I was tasked by the party [PRD] to organize Sritex workers with him [Wiji Thukul]. We tried Augusto Boal’s approach in Sritex. We established contact with two workers, and we livein. Initially, it was difficult to penetrate the workers. Considering Sritex was owned by Harmoko, Cendana, Ibu Tien [Suharto’s family members and cronies]. At that time, the factory was guarded by the military. Nevertheless, we managed to get inside. It started with workers’ theater activity with him [Thukul]. We live-in, continued to map or identify existing concerns together. Then, the rehearsal for the role play. We did not immediately perform the theater but talked about it. But because the workers were happy, we create the workers’ theater, but with concerns related to the workers. We live-in and slept at the workers’ housings. (Nugroho 2007)

The biggest challenge in organizing Sritex workers was the objective condition of the factory workers themselves who have yet to have experience and record of organizing large strikes. This means that the culture of silence still persisted in shackling the workers. This is where Thukul’s experience in creating consciousness became important. In the end, Sritex’s strikes were one of the largest workers strikes ever organized by PRD. Activists from PRD Solo led some 14,000 workers for a long march to the local parliament building. Other than to demand for workers’ rights in minimum wages and freedom to establish trade unions, the strike also put forth political demands which later were included in PRD’s political programs (Wilson 2010, 174).

The strike enhanced PRD’s profile as the most militant left-wing group opposing Suharto’s regime. The regime itself admitted that they were very clever and intelligent young people. One of the military generals said: “They were not only theoretically brilliant, rivaling any scholar, but also threw themselves into the field. Wherever there were leaflets and actions of over 1,000 people, it is the PRD behind them” (Halimah 1996). Protests organized by PRD since the early 1990s played a huge role in normalizing the demonstration as a part of a political act, which reached its peak in the Reformasi movement that toppled Suharto. Behind protests and mass actions involving thousands of workers, there existed the role of people’s theater such as practiced by Wiji Thukul. PRD views cultural movement as a crucial part of any political movement. When a political approach fails to organize the workers, they were often preceded by cultural education (Danial Indrakusuma 2007). Artists like Thukul are considered to occupy a crucial role in taking up the task. This view is also shared by the regime. Thus, Thukul always became a target of arrest and abuse. In the Sritex’s strike, he was beaten up by the military that caused blindness to one of his eyes. Nearing the fall of Suharto in 1998, he was kidnapped by the military and has never been seen ever since.

Conclusion

Ramon Guilermo’s (2018) study finds Jose Maria Sison’s stay in Indonesia during the 1960s a formative period for the latter’s development as a Marxist. After the demise of PKI, the then third-largest communist party in the world at the hand of Suharto who was assisted by the US, the base for communism in Southeast Asia shifted to the Philippines under the leadership of Sison. The new generation of Indonesian political activists, alienated from their past by the trauma of the 1965 massacre, once again leaned to the left ideology by learning from the Philippines experience. In the artistic field, other than CPP and NPA, PETA and ACPC played a crucial role in introducing liberation theater, which had been practiced by Lekra earlier before 1965. When the regime shut down access to the past by historical manipulation, violent trauma, and strict monitoring and laws, the new generation of Indonesian political activists learned their nation’s history through the other. Theater became an effective medium to express lower-class aspirations amid tightly closed political space. In the hand of Wiji Thukul, people’s theater not only functioned as a community performance and empowerment but also became a political weapon. In the words of Augusto Boal, theater is a rehearsal for a revolution. In Indonesia, such a thing has already come to a realization.

References

• Aspinall, Edward. 2005. Opposing Suharto: Compromise, Resistance, and Regime Change in Indonesia. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Boal, Augusto. 1979. Theater of the Oppressed. New York: Urizen Books.
• Bodden, Michael H. 1997. “Workers’ Theater and Theater About Workers in 1990s Indonesia.” RIMA 31: 37-78.
• Bodden, Michael H. 2010. Resistance on the National Stage: Theater and Politics in Late New Order Indonesia. Athens: Center for International Studies, Ohio University.
• Boudreau, Vincent. 1999. “Diffusion Democracy? People Power in Indonesia and the Philippines.” Critical Asian Studies 31 (4): 3-18.
• Budianta, Melani, and Iwan Gunadi. 1998. Pemetaan Komunitas Sastra di Jakarta, Bogor, Tangerang, dan Bekasi. Tangerang: Komunitas Sastra Indonesia.
• Cahyono, Edi. 1997. “The Unjuk Rasa Movement.” In State and Labour in New Order Indonesia, Robert Lambert, 105-122. Nedlands: University of Western Australia Press.
• Curtis, Richard. 1997. “People, Poets, Puppets: Popular Performance and Wong Cilik in Contemporary Java.” diss., School of Social Sciences and Asian Language, Curtin University of Technology.
• Foulcher, Keith. 1986. Social Commitment in Literature and the Arts: The Indonesian Institute of People’s Culture 1950-1956. Victoria: Monash University.
• Freire, Paulo. 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppresed. New York: Seabury Press.
• Fukuoka, Yuri. 2015. “Who Brought Down the Dictator? A Critical Reassesment of So-called ‘People Power’ Revolutions in the Philippines and Indonesia.” The Pacific Review 28 (3): 411-433.
• Gojek Joko Santosa. 1991. “Suara Hati Thukul.” Suara Merdeka, May 10.
• Guilermo, Ramon. 2018. “Blood Brothers: The Communist Party of the Philippines and the Partai Komunis Indonesia.” Southeast Asian Studies 7 (1): 13-38.
• Halimah. 1996. “PRD Memang Kiri.” Pembebasan 1: 6.
• Hatley, Barbara. 1994. “Cultural Expression.” In Indonesia’s New Order: The Dynamics of Socio-Economic Transformation, edited by Hall Hill, 216-266. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
• Hatley, Barbara. 2008. Javanese Performances on an Indonesian Stage. Singapore: NUS Press.
• Heryanto, Ariel. 1996. “Indonesian Middle-Class Oppositions in 1990s.” In Political Opposition in Industrialising Asia, edited by Gary Rodan, 241-271. London: Routledge.
• Heryanto, Ariel. 2003. “Publik Intellectuals, Media, and Democratisation.” In Challenging authoritarianism in Southeast Asia: Comparing Indonesia and Malaysia, edited by Ariel Heryanto and S. K. Mandal, 24-59. New York and London: Routledge Curzon.
• Heryanto, Ariel. 2012. “New Tradition in a Modernity-Deficit Postcolony.” ACCESS Critical Perspective on Communication, Cultural and Policy Studies 31 (2): 15-26.
• Hooker, Virginia M, and Howard Dick. 1993. “Introduction.” In Culture and Society in New Order Indonesia, edited by Virginia M. Hooker, 1-14. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press.
• Human Rights Watch/Asia. 1996. Indonesia: Tough International Response Needed to Widening Crackdown. New York: Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights.
• Kontras. 2000. “Siaran Pers Tentang Hilangnya Wiji Thukul.” Kontras, April 3. https://kontras.org/2000/04/03/hilangnya-wiji-thukul/
• Lane, Max. 2008. Unfinished Nation: Indonesia Before and After Suharto. London: Verso.
• Lindsay, Jennifer. 2005. Performing in the 2004 Indonesian Elections. Asia Research Institute Working Paper Series, no. 45. Singapore: Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.
• Mandal, S. K. 2003. “Creativity in Protest: Arts Workers and the Recasting of Politics and Society in Indonesia and Malaysia.” In Challenging authoritarianism in Southeast Asia: Comparing Indonesia and Malaysia, edited by A. Heryanto and S. K. Mandal, 178-210. New York and London: Routledge Curzon.
• Moelyono. 2005. Pak Moel Guru Nggambar. Yogyakarta: Insist Press.
• Oepen, Manfred, and Robert Kingham. 1988. Development Support Communication in Indonesia. Jakarta: Friedrich Naumann-Stiftung.
• Peacock, James. 1968. Rites of Modernization: Symbolic and Social Aspects of Indonesian Proletarian Drama. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Van Erven, Eugene. 1992. The playful Revolution: The Popular Theater and Liberation in Asia. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Wilson. 2010. A Luta Continua! Jakarta: Penerbit Tanah Lapang.
• Winters, Jeffrey. 2011. Oligarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Interview

Danial Indrakusuma (People’s Democratic Party). 2007. Interview. Yogyakarta, September 11.
Danial Indrakusuma (People’s Democratic Party). 2014. Interview. Bekasi, November 14 November.
Halim HD (cultural networker). 2014. Interview. Solo, November 20.
Juli Eko Nugroho (People’s Democratic Party). 2007. Yogyakarta, September 11.
Maria Pakpahan (Puskat Studio). 2008. Yogyakarta, July 8.
Vidiarina (People’s Democratic Party). 2014. Jakarta, November 18.
Weby Warouw (People’s Democratic Party). 2014. Jakarta, November 18.