印尼緣何對1965年屠殺保持沉默

The National Museum of Indonesia is packed with ceramics, maps and schoolchildren. When I visit, in search of information on the mass killings of 50 years ago, the director looks visibly put out.

印度尼西亞國家博物館滿是各種陶瓷製品、地圖，還有來此參觀的學生。當我來到這裏找尋50年前那場大屠殺的信息時，館長露出不悅的神情。

“Why are you writing about 1965?” Intan Mardiana asks. The museum covers pre-19th century history, she explains, not politics. “People here don’t know much about that.”

“你爲什麼要寫1965年？”因坦鬠豔覄娜(Intan Mardiana)問道。博物館收藏的都是19世紀以前的歷史，不包含政治，她解釋說，“這裏的人們不太瞭解那段歷史。”

Following a failed coup blamed on the Communist party of Indonesia (PKI), more than half a million people were killed between late 1965 and early 1966, part of a purge that targeted the ethnic Chinese, trade unionists and left-leaning artists as well as PKI members.

在發生了一場被歸咎於印尼共產黨(PKI)的未遂政變後，超過50萬人在1965年末至1966年初遭到殺害，成爲針對印尼華人、工會活動人士、左傾藝術家以及印尼共產黨員的整肅的犧牲品。

Co-ordinated by the military and local vigilante groups, the killings ushered in three decades of dictatorship by General Suharto. Half a century later, there is still little by way of acknowledgment, let alone retribution, in the nation that is now the world’s third-largest democracy.

在軍方與地方民團的相互配合下，這場屠殺開啓了蘇哈托(Suharto)長達30年的獨裁統治。半個世紀後，在這個當今世界第三大的民主國家，連承認屠殺事件的姿態都沒有，更不用說對行兇者進行懲罰了。

Ms Mardiana directs me to another museum dedicated to the late General Abdul Nasution, who having survived the 1965 coup led the fight to suppress communism.

瑪蒂安娜指引我參觀另一家爲已故的阿卜杜勒納蘇蒂安將軍(General Abdul Nasution)而建的博物館。納蘇蒂安在1965年的政變中倖存下來，隨後領導了鎮壓印尼共的行動。

I venture into the musty, deserted house where he had lived. There is no ticket office and no one else to be seen. A guard finally emerges in the living room, with its bright yellow walls and floral sofa, and hands me a leaflet that relates in Indonesian the story of the PKI’s raid on Nasution’s home, during which his daughter was killed. There was nothing about the mass murders that followed.

我來到了納蘇蒂安的故居，這裏散發着黴味，似乎沒人照看。沒有售票處，也看不到別的什麼人。在亮黃色牆壁和花卉圖案沙發的客廳裏，我終於見到一名保安。他遞給我一個小冊子，上面用印尼語記述了印尼共突襲納蘇蒂安宅邸的故事（在此次襲擊中，他女兒被殺）。沒有對隨後發生的大規模屠殺的任何記錄。

Since the fall of Suharto in 1998, freedom of speech has improved dramatically but debate about the killings still seems to take place mainly overseas. I learnt about them when I moved to Jakarta this year. A former correspondent recommended The Act of Killing , Joshua Oppenheimer’s 2014 Oscar-nominated documentary, in which men who took part in the executions re-enact their crimes. “When I approached them, I found that within minutes of meeting me they would launch into boasts of how they killed,” the director explains via Skype. Many of the perpetrators remain powerful in their communities, he says.

自1998年蘇哈托倒臺以來，印尼的言論自由已有顯著改善，但圍繞那場屠殺的辯論似乎仍主要侷限於海外。今年搬到雅加達後，我開始瞭解這些事件。一位前記者向我推薦了約書亞攠本海默(Joshua Oppenheimer)執導的、獲得2014年奧斯卡獎提名的紀錄片《殺戮時刻》(The Act of Killing) 。在片中，曾經參與處決的人再現了他們的罪行。“當我走近他們時，我發現，在見到我幾分鐘內，他們就開始炫耀自己如何殺人，”奧本海默通過Skype解釋道。他說，許多行兇者在當地仍保持強大的勢力。

The violence of the film forms a striking contrast to the image of gentle Javanese culture and Balinese spirituality. Along with The Look of Silence, a sequel, it has triggered international debate. But in Indonesia the documentaries — like the killings — are not widely discussed. Instead, the government has grown more suspicious of foreign journalists and wary that this year’s anniversary could raise fresh questions.

紀錄片中展現的暴力與爪哇文化的溫和形象以及巴厘島的宗教氛圍形成了鮮明對比。該片與其續集《沉默之像》(The Look of Silence)一道引發了國際辯論。但在印尼，這些紀錄片——像殺戮本身一樣——並未被廣泛討論。相反，印尼政府正越來越不信任外國記者，並擔心今年的週年紀念可能引發新的問題。

Officials dismissed the International People’s Tribunal that met in November in The Hague to shed light on the slaughter. In the city of Yogyakarta, a cultural centre in western Indonesia, officials have confiscated toys bearing Communist symbols and talks on 1965 were banned at this year’s Ubud Writers and Readers Festival. “I think they were just panicking,” says Janet DeNeefe, festival organiser.

今年11月，國際人民法庭(International People’s Tribunal)在海牙對這場屠殺進行了庭審，藉此吸引世人對這件事的關注，但印尼官員對此不予理會。在印尼西部的文化中心日惹市(Yogyakarta)，官員們沒收了帶有共產主義符號的玩具，今年的“烏布作家與讀者節”(Ubud Writers and Readers Festival)也被禁止討論1965年發生的事件。讀者節組織者Janet DeNeefe說：“我覺得他們只是感到恐慌。”

When President Joko Widodo swept to power last year, the first leader from outside the political and military elite, some hoped he would improve freedom of speech. These expectations were misguided, local friends tell me. Mr Widodo, who campaigned as a man of the people, is considered to share the views of those reluctant to revisit the wrongs of the past. The killings laid the foundations for Suharto’s rule, and schools have long presented 1965 as the defeat of a political faction that threatened the nation’s future.

印尼總統佐科維多多(Joko Widodo)——首位來自政治與軍事精英圈以外的領導人——去年上臺時，一些人希望他能改善言論自由。當地朋友告訴我，這種期望是誤導的。雖然維多多以親民形象投入競選，但據信他的看法與那些不願重新審視歷史錯誤的人並無二致。那場殺戮奠定了蘇哈托統治的基礎，印尼學校一直將1965年的事件描述爲挫敗了一個威脅國家未來的政治派別。

With foreigners raking over this violent past and chastising the government, some Indonesians are understandably prickly. One local historian started his testimony to The Hague tribunal with a disclaimer: “I am not here to make my country and people look bad.”

鑑於外國人士不斷抨擊這段暴力歷史並批評印尼政府，一些印尼人感到芒刺在背是可以理解的。一位當地歷史學家以一則免責聲明開始自己在海牙國際法庭的證詞：“我來這裏不是爲了讓我的國家和人民難堪。”

Ariel Heryanto, an academic at the Australian National University, says the silence is the result of official repression. “How many globally connected young people know about the Santa Cruz, Soweto, Khmer Rouge or Tiananmen Square killings?” he asks. “Young Germans feel sick of the national obsession with guilt and the endless discussion on the Holocaust.”

澳大利亞國立大學(Australian National University)學者Ariel Heryanto表示，沉默是政府壓制的結果。“在全球互聯的年輕人中，有多少人知道聖克魯斯(Santa Cruz)、索韋託(Soweto)、紅色高棉(Khmer Rouge)或天安門廣場的殺戮呢？”他反問道，“德國年輕人對於全民負罪以及對納粹大屠殺無休止的討論感到厭倦。”

Yet in Berlin, for example, there is no shortage of museums and lectures for those who want to know more.

但是，以柏林爲例，對於那些確實想深入瞭解歷史的人而言，這裏並不缺少博物館和講座。