Cultural preservation draft law that was initiated by Commission X of the House of Representatives still needs improvement. Some material in the bill is seen as weak.
UGM archaeologist, Dr Daud Aris Tanudirjo, sees at least 3 parts need to be improved. In addition to the conceptual framework, the article by article proposition and general recommendations needs to be discussed collectively.
Daud admitted there are differences of paradigm in looking at the cultural preservation. The articles in the draft just showed some material that could be called cultural preservation. If the draft was given the name “Cultural preservation”, it will certainly lead to imbalances. "We know the cultural preservation includes tangible and intangible materials. Both simply can not be separated, thus it would be ideal if the tangible and intangible materials are both accommodated here," he said in the Multimedia Room UGM, Saturday (9/10).
In the public test of the draft, Daud assessed that the substance of this draft seems to cover only about the preservation of tangible heritage, or in other words, corporeal, solid, material or visual aids. So, the substance of the draft does not accommodate the intangible ones. "The intangible is not much mentioned, this raises the question of what the definition of cultural preservation is. Therefore, it's necessary to narrow down from the title first," he said.
Related to the concepts of conservation, Daud pointed out that preservation is not merely to preserve the material but to obtain benefits, such as the values. For example, Borobudur and Prambanan and others that indicate a diversity or inter-religion pattern in them. The most important is not the building of the temple, but the values that can be obtained. "But, in fact, the articles of the bill were highlighted or emphasized less on who should be served and has the obligation to convey this kind of values to the society. The bill should be affirmative, that the important values which should be disclosed. Hence we will make suggestions, one example of how empowering the role of museums. Of how the museum functioning to communicate the important values, " he said.
Related to the principle, Daud does not see the five principles of Pancasila contained in this draft. These need to be included. "As a philosophy and direction of life, Pancasila is not included in the bill, while when we look at the history, the Five Principles is an extraordinary product of culture," he explained. In front of the House of Representatives led by Haeri Achmadi, Daud said that the draft of the bill has the impression of being too difficult to relate one to another, because there are some parts left out.
Meanwhile, Dedy Suwandi Gumelar, familiarly called Miing Bagito, admitted that as the initiator of the draft bill, members of House of Representatives still need inputs. “We have started the public tests from Makassar, Denpasar, Aceh and Yogyakarta. In fact, in this city of cultural and historical heritage, we conducted the tests twice," he said.
With input from the cultural stakeholders, such as UGM scholars, experts and communities will enhance the dignity of the nation through this Bill in the future, because, the dimension of a civilized nation can be judged from the remaining of the cultural civilization.
Together with the other 13 members of the drafter team, he gained much input to improve this draft starting from the title, the scope, to the definition of cultural preservation objects. "There was input from the public to include the intangible material; but the intangible material actually points to the system, behavior system, and belief system, more likely to a culture while the draft of the bill is more on objects of cultural preservation." The intangible material is planned to be regulated on a bigger Cultural Law. This is specific to the tangible material. Related to the principles, we admit that we have not included the five principles of Pancasila. Subsequently, in this gathering, we accommodate the good values, "he concluded.