Monas constitutes the stamp of Sukarno’s character. That was what Roosseno Soerjohadikoesoemo said. That day, September 13, 1962, Roosseno was delivering his speech as the promoter for the conferring of the honoris causa doctorate degree in technology by Bandung Institute of Technology to President Sukarno. The event took place about a year after the constructionof the first pile of the National Monument (Monas) conducted by President Sukarno on August 17, 1961.

Roosseno, the Indonesian expert on concrete casting explained that there were four reasons why Sukarno deserved the honorary degree; one of them was because he “as an engineer-cum-architect has played a significant role in begeesteren [inspiring] and encouraging the Indonesian Engineer Corps to take part enthusiastically in developing the country.” It was also mentioned that Sukarno has “brought alive the sfeer [atmosphere] of modern technology, in which the technicians, especially the engineers, have the chance to increase their knowledge and broaden their experience in matters of new techniques.”

While Monas constituted the stamp of Sukarno’s character, one must also remember that Sukarno’s character had also been shaped by history. As an actor of history, Sukarno dealt with history, and analyzed and judged his socio-historical environment with the perspective of history. He admitted of being a person with “historisch denken”—Dutch for “historical thinking”—or someone who viewed things with the perspective of history. However, according to the historian Taufik Abdullah, for Sukarno the factual truth of history was less important than the inspirations that history might generate. “Since I was young, I’ve enjoyed learning history very much; I enjoy drawing lessons from history. I’m a history-inspired visionary and optimist,” admitted Sukarno in 1964, when he received the honoris causa doctorate degree for history from Padjajaran University, Bandung, West Java. In this context, what are important in history are its socio-political functions that areable to direct our vision and inspire a sense of pride and optimism about a bright future ahead.

It was the ideas that he had as a history-inspired visionary and optimist that Sukarno then combined with his talent as an architect-cum-president with the grand vision of “linking Jakarta with the development of the nation... to build Jakarta, to build our land, our country, our people.” The historian Abidin Kusno correctly says that for Sukarno, building Jakarta means building the nation’s collective identity. At this point, history becomes an important issue.

Statues, buildings, hotels, shopping centers, monuments, boulevards: all of them were linked to history, and they would be present not only as symbolical representations, but also historicalones. This was especially apparent in Sukarno’s initiatives and concept to build the Room for National History at Monas. This was where Sukarno’s dreams soared, with regards tothe development of the Indonesian nation and the process to become Indonesia. In this case, there would be no other medium that was stronger and more fitting to serve as the symbolic and historical representations for the nation, which was able to meet Sukarno’s vision to make history as a source of inspirations. Diorama is the strongest, most capable, and most reliable medium that could present the atmosphere and scenes of relevant eras, stirring up emotions and shaping the beliefs of all who come to see it.

It is true that the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Sukarno, formed in 1964 the Committee for the National History Museum, chaired by Priyono, the then Minister of Education and an important figure of the communist-nationalist Murba Party. However, to make sure that the dioramaswould be made according to his historical vision, Sukarno wanted to be involved directly in the process to check all the written descriptions and the scenes for the diorama. As scheduled, after a year the committee was able to finish the written descriptions and prepare the drawings for the dioramas that would be installed in the 80x80 m² rooms located three meters under the National Monument. However, before Sukarno had the time to check and approve the descriptions and drawings, the September 30 Movement took place in 1965, which brought all Sukarno’s political, cultural, and social experiments to a halt.

After the September 30 Movement, the construction of the National Monument slackened. Apart from the political turmoil, there was also the matter of declining funds. Some of the construction work went on, however; for example the laying of the marble tiles, and the work for electrical installation, street lighting, the improvements on the floor and ceiling of the Meditation Room (Ruang Tenang) and the improvements on the ceiling over the 48 diorama domes in the Museum of History. The construction work went on until March 1967, when Sukarno was forced to step down, and eventually it stopped completely.

Not long after Soeharto came to power, his politics of legitimacy that viewed history as an important tool of power immediately placed the Monas Museum of History as one of the things that must be taken care of. On December 5, 1968, the Decree of Republic of Indonesia No. 314 in the year of 1968 about the establishment of the Steering Committee for the National Monument was issued, ordering the committee to finish, maintain, and develop the National Monument and foster its use for the public. With regards to the funding required to finish the dioramas, an amount of money was earmarked from the budget for the Five-Yearly Development Plan, under the National Cultural Development program. The State Secretariat played a key role in the committee, alongside the Department of Security and Defense, which contributed the most personnel to the committee. It was the two institutions that David Jenkins—the most ambitious of Soeharto’s biographers—called as the most important institutions that served as the machinery to protect Soeharto in his military rule.[1]

On March 19, 1969, Mashuri as the Minister for Education and Culture was formally appointed as the Chairman for the Steering Committee for the National Monument. In fact, however, it was the State Secretary and the Department of Security and Defense who were at the wheel—these were the two state institutions that since the early days of the New Order Regime to the days when the regime was firmly established had played a role in forging an image for the regime and in transforming the collective memory of the nation by scraping off the nation’s collective memory that Sukarno had shaped. This was immediately obvious in the composition of the Design Team for the National History Museum that replaced the Committee for National History Museum established by Sukarno. According to an edict from the Chairman of the Steering Committee for the National Monument No. 06/Kpts/68, dated on December 30, 1969, Nugroho Notosusanto was appointed as the chairman-cum-member of the Team.

In her book, Katharine E. McGregor calls Nugroho Notosusanto as the most important propagandist of the New Order Regime, who had unceasingly promoted the heroism of the Indonesian military through museums, docudramas, and text books.[2] Nugroho was initially known as a gifted writer, but he would subsequently be recognized more as a historian who had been selected in 1964 by A.H. Nasution—whom H.A.J. Klooster dubs “the father of military historiography”—to sit in the team to research and write the history of the armed resistance of the Indonesian nation, in the effort to counter the publication of a history book on national movements bythe Indonesian Communist Party, PKI. The military considered PKI’s book as “an offensive strategy by the PKI in the arena of history.”

It was during the research days alongside Nasution, which began in 1964, that Nugroho Notosusanto’s nationalistic stance toward history—which he presented at the end of the fifties in a series of debates about the direction to take for the study of history—underwent a shift. During that period, in terms of history, Nugroho actually remained in the same path with Sukarno: both lay the emphasis on nationalistic history. Nugroho’s ideas about nationalistic history, however, shifted toward the militaristic history, in line with his great admiration for Nasution.

Nugroho soon finished the task that Nasution had entrusted to him. After three months, still in 1964, the book Sejarah Singkat Perjuangan Bersenjata Bangsa Indonesia (A Brief History of the Armed Resistance of the Indonesian Nation) was published. According to McGregor, this was the book that marked Nugroho’s debut as the official expert on military history. The book went on to inspire the entire formatsof Indonesian history according to the New Order regime. It also strongly influenced the presentation of history at the Monas Museum of History.

From the new ABRI (Indonesian Armed Forces) Center for History on Medan Merdeka Barat No. 2, near Monas, Nugroho led the effort to re-arrange the scenes to be presented in 48 dioramas at the Museum of History at the National Monument. The edict mentioned that Nugroho should not be restricted by the decisions taken by the old Steering Committee for the National Monument. If one cares to read the book: Tugu Nasional: Laporan Pembangunan 1961 – 1971 (National Monument: Construction Report, 1961 – 1971), it would transpire that the rearranged scenes certainly would no longer refer to the work of the previous committee, because the terms of reference had been set as follows:

1. The dioramas should be inspirational, in the sense that it should inspire the struggle of Indonesia at present and in the future, as the nation strives to achieve the national objectives as mentioned in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution
2. The dioramas should generate an awareness of the National Principles of Pancasila
3. The dioramas should constitute a historical landmark for the leaders of the New Order regime, in accordance with the Decrees of the Fourth and Fifth General Assembly of the People’s Representative Assembly and the Temporary People’s Representative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia.

In this context, the dioramas that had been designed during Sukarno’s reign were never installed at the Museum of the Indonesian National History. Furthermore, it was clear from the Laporan Lengkap Lukisan Sejarah Visuil Museum Sejarah Tugu Nasional (Complete Report of the Visual Presentations of the Museum of History at the National Monument, 1964) that the key themes that had shaped Sukarno’s vision about Indonesia’s past were the progress toward a bright future marked by Indonesian socialism, referring all the while to the model of the inspirationalhistory about the brilliance of the Indonesian nation.

Nugroho actually followed Sukarno’s centralistic and eschatological approach toward historiography. Nugroho Notosusanto, however, brought in a new ideology to all the known national trajectories of history and made the New Order era as the end point, narrating how the state experience turbulent infighting and was then saved by Soeharto’s military power. For this last section, Nugroho was directly involved in the writing, while for the earlier historical trajectories, he used the following stages as described in Sejarah Singkat Perjuangan Bersenjata Bangsa Indonesia:

1. “The glory of the golden age” that tells of the kingdom of Sriwijaya as the symbol of maritime might, and of the majesty of the temple of Borobudur, and especially of Majapahit, complete with the unification role played by Gajah Mada (Picture 1).
2. “The prelude to independence” that focuses on armed resistances and mentions only scant information about the role of the intellectuals as manifested by the nationalist, communist, and political Islam movements.
3. “The independence revolution” that focuses on the central role of the military before and after the independence; the National Heroes’ Day (Hari Pahlawan); resistance against the Dutch military aggressions; and the contribution of General Sudirman (Picture 2).
4.  “Enhancing the defense for the revolution” that tells of the events in 1959, especially in relation with the liberation of West Irian.

In Nugroho’s team, the historians from the University of Indonesia played a dominant role. They were: Marwati D. Poeponegoro, Harsja W. Bachtiar, Sumartini, Bambang Sumadio, Buchari, Abdurachman, Moela Marboen, Lili Manus, Amir Sutaarga, and I Gusti Ng. Rai Miskun. They were given a three-month time from the time of their official appointment in early January 1970. Their first meeting took place on January 27, 1970, at the Work Room of the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Culture, on Jalan Cilacap No. 4, Jakarta. On April 8, 1970, the team conducted their last meeting and finished their task to formulate the scenes for 48 dioramas to be installed at the Museum of History at the National Monument. From the agreed scenes, it was clear that Nugroho’s concept of history that he presented in Sejarah Singkat Perjuangan Bersenjata Bangsa Indonesia was used as the absolute reference, not only in terms of the stages of history but also the ideas and meanings to be conveyed, as evidenced in the selection of events to be displayed. This was thus one of the first and most important moments from the birth of the historical experts who officially served to present the justification of the military role in the national leadership, although this was an exaggerated—if not altogether false—role.

That was thus the prevailing atmosphere that would immediately transpire as one reads the formulation of visual history as written by the Design Team for the Contents of the Museum of History, established by the New Order regime. To quote McGregor,[3] Nugroho’s version about the national past as presented in the diorama scenes focuses on the superiority of the Indonesian military, the disgust toward socialism, and the belittling of Sukarno’s historical role. This went hand in hand with the instruction by President Soeharto, ordering that in terms of the museum display, the museum committee should show the changes in the national direction, in accordance with the mission given to the New Order politicians in the meetings of the Provisional People’s Consultative Assembly (MPRS) held in the transitional years of 1966 – 1969. The decisions taken during those meetings were, among others: to increase the role of the military in politics, to discard socialism as the national objective, to ban communist parties and ideology, and to strip Sukarno of his titles. Implied here was the decision to repress the political role of religions.

In short, the new vision of the past as presented in the museum actually reflect the important theme as proposed by Ali Murtopo, New Order’s important ideologue, namely that New Order itself constituted a denial of the Old Order, a renovation of sorts that followed novel patterns and paths, and especially the reformed values.

In order to generate the positive image of the military role in Indonesia’s long history, extravagant historical contrivances were inevitable, as the military was only established during the revolution era of 1945. A military atmosphere was prevalent in Section B of the South Diorama Room, which one can consider a room for war dioramas as more than half of the dioramas present war scenes.

Here, Nugroho and his team did not follow the descriptions prepared by the committee in Sukarno’s era, which only presented Diponegoro, Pattimura, Imam Bonjol, and Sisingamangaraja as individual heroes who fought against colonialism. Rather, Nugroho and his team transformed these individual heroes into military figures. The titles of the scenes which in 1964 had been “Diponegoro the Hero”, “Pattimura the Hero”, etc, were changed, replacing “hero” with “war”, thus producing such titles as “Diponegoro War” and “Pattimura War” (Pictures 3 and 4). With such changes, Nugroho and his team successfully created far-flung historical legitimacy, which the military could use as their social and political capitals while they were strengthening their role in the political map during the early days of the New Order regime.

The military role was further linked historically to the Majapahit era, in the colossal depiction of Majapahit army (Picture 5), as an effort to seek the root of the chivalric tradition to legitimize the important role of the military in the effort to attain greatness. Even the scene titled “The Birth of ABRI, October 5, 1945” was intriguingly modified by placing the Borobudur Temple as the background setting for General Sudirman and his army (Picture 6). This was an effort to spice up history with imaginations of dubious truth, but it clearly created a strong dramatic effect. This diorama certainly had a great strength to serve as an interesting symbol, creating an impression for the audience that the Indonesian military history went back across centuries and was immediately linked with the past when the ancestors of the Indonesian nation were in their period of glory, in the golden age. Besides, by situating the military alongside Borobudur temple, which is the national, non-Moslem icon, the New Order regime wished to say how Islam was the military’s greatest political enemy.

According to the New Order regime, the ideal diversity was one that supported the ideology of unity and harmony. Therefore, the scenes of togetherness presented in the diorama are those of “The Javanese temple, a combination of Sivaism and Buddhism” (Picture 7); “Islamic schools that unite the Indonesian nation” (Picture 8), “The Roman Catholic in the process of uniting the nation” (Picture 9), “The activities of the Protestant Church in the process of uniting the nation in the twentieth century” (Picture 10). As common in the historiography of the New Order, the one that threatened the unity was the communists, which were also the enemy of the religious people. That was thus how the radical nature of the religion was directed. The religious groups were the best anticommunist allies of the New Order regime, especially in relation with their cooperation in wiping out the PKI and overthrowing President Sukarno.

Sukarno was a figure that had been marginalized in the New Order history. The dioramas were arranged in the best possible way not only to erase his ideological influences in the preparation for the Museum of History, but also to erase Sukarno’s role as an actor of history. Sukarno had become an idol, a cult hero of sorts, and thus the influences of Sukarno and his ideology posed a threat for the New Order, and steps needed to be taken to belittle his role, even through character assassination.

Several diorama scenes had been contrived to reduce—if not altogether erasing it—Sukarno’s historical role that was seen as a threat that could set aflame resistance movements, for example the scene of Sukarno before the Dutch court of justice, in which he presented his famous defense speech Indonesia Menggugat (Indonesia Accuses); the scene in which Sukarno presented the Presidential Decree of July 5, 1959; and the diorama about the Games of the New Emerging Forces. Another of such scenes was presented in the diorama that in the 1964 version was given the title of “The birth of Pancasila”.

The diorama of “The birth of Pancasila” had been prepared to depict the situation when Sukarno for the first time presented the five principles of Pancasila on June 1, 1945. To diminish Sukarno’s historical role, however, the scene was revised by the New Order team, not only by changing the title into “The formal acceptance of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution”, but also by remaking the diorama altogether, following the historical path of the origin of Pancasila as Nugroho Notosusanto deemed correct. According to Nugroho, it was not only Sukarno who had researched and explored the ideas of Pancasila; rather, two other people were also involved. Besides, the true birthday of Pancasila was August 18, 1945, which was the day when Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution was formally enforced.

Whatever Nugroho’s train of logic, there had only been one objective: to detach Sukarno from Pancasila, so that the New Order regime could claim that Pancasila was a legacy of the past, which had been corrupted and reclaimed by the New Order, who was the only one capable of reclaiming it and then to apply it according to its original, pure intentions.

The New Order had been so enthusiastic in its effort to diminish Sukarno’s historical role, and even the diorama in the Independence Room, which in Sukarno’s initial idea would serve as an inseparable part of the whole dioramas—functioning like a historical conclusion—was altered. The diorama, which originally would present the reading of the independence proclamation text by Sukarno, was replaced by the installation of the Red-and-White flag of the Republic of Indonesia on the wall. This act also had the function to cover the proclamation text that had been placed on the wall before. It was Nugroho Notosusanto and Amir Sutaarga who initiated this alteration. They presented the idea when President Soeharto conducted his first inspection of work for the first time to the National Monument. They argued that the flag had been known in the land long before the Independence Proclamation. To bring about this idea, the State Secretariat allocated a fund of Rp40 millions, and President Soeharto also contributed Rp30 millions.

Hand in hand with Nugroho Notosusanto’s attempts to lessen Sukarno’s role was the excessive admiration for Soeharto’s historical role, which even lead to an effort to create a hero cult. He inserted Soeharto and other military figures in new scenes. In Nugroho’s design, Soeharto would appear in three scenes: “The liberation of Irian Jaya, May 1, 1963” (Picture 12); “Hari Kesaktian Pancasila 1 Oktober 1965” (Pancasila Victory Day, October 1, 1965; Picture 13); and “The Decree of March 11, 1966” (Picture 14). In the original design prepared in 1964, there had been no scenes presenting Soeharto’s historical role. It is true that Soeharto had played a role in all those events, but in the dioramas, Nugroho used the approach of “the history of the great men”. The effort to present Soeharto in a hero worship was thus obvious, as if Soeharto himself was the root cause and the driver of the historical events.

The “hero worship” scenes of Soeharto and the glorification of the New Order history are strongly present in the North Diorama Room, the section which in the 1964 design had been specifically designed, by direct order from Sukarno, to remain empty, so that future generations could contribute to the presentations, displaying the historical achievements of the Indonesian nation after Sukarno. This section eventually presented total historical legitimacyfor the New Order. The diorama of “Hari Kesaktian Pancasila” (Pancasila Victory Day), for example, presented the effort to defeat the attempt that they dubbed the “Coup d’état of October 1, 1965”, an alleged attempt to undermine the “supernatural power” of Pancasila (Picture 13).[4] This was thus the diorama that was designed to impress on the audience’s mind about the malevolence of Sukarno’s era and how the politics in Sukarno’s time had deviated from the ideas of Pancasila. According to this diorama, it was the New Order who was endowed with the supernatural power from Pancasila and able to reclaim it back and apply it according to its pure and original intentions. Such propaganda scenes had been designed and prepared from the beginning of the New Order regime, by unceasingly presenting the gruesome event at the Lubang Buaya, when the remains of the murdered generals were found and taken from the well, with Soeharto handsomely looking on in his striped uniform complete with sunglasses, standing straight, arms akimbo.

Another example was the scene titled “The Three Demands of the People”, focused on the students’ protests against Sukarno (Picture 14). To create a dramatic effect, the scene deliberately ignored historical facts. The diorama presents a group of students in yellow jackets demonstrating in front of the National Monument, carrying posters with their demands. In front of them is the fully armed Cakrabirawa troop. There is also the blood-stained shirt, which we can presume as representing the student martyr, Arif Rahman Hakim.

The New Order tried to present the historical role of the students, who had been renowned as moral forces. This was an effort to legitimatize the New Order’s role as a moral force, especially in the struggle to fight against the leftists and the communists. Indeed, the alliance between the New Order and the students who had collaborated in toppling Sukarno did not only constitute physical and mass political powers, but also ones that were intellectual and ideological in nature, as evident in the moniker of “Pancasilaist alliance”.

The last scene that serves to confirm New Order’s historical role is presented in the diorama of “The Decree of March 11, 1966” (Picture 15). This was the zenith of the conflict and significantly represented the birth of the New Order; and in this scene the emphasis is on the warning about the permanent threats to destroy the unity of the nation and to deviate from Pancasila principles, and that everyone should be prepared and remain alert to these threats and to those who would put Pancasila at risk. President Soeharto gave a special attention for this scene. The committee’s record shows that President Soeharto’s direct involvement in the preparation for this particular diorama scene was the most important event in the history of the National Monument in 1976 – 1977.

On March 11, 1977, President Soeharto led the inspection to check the improvements in the diorama of “the Decree of March 11, 1966”. However, the president became angry as it turned out that the diorama room, which is situated three meter below the ground, was flooded and the water went as high as 30 cm, due to the outpouring of rain in Jakarta the night before the inspection. All efforts had been taken to enable the presidential inspection. Unfortunately, despite the hours of extraordinary work of the Firefighting Agency and the Hygiene Agency of the Special Capital Territory of Jakarta, the inspection could not take place according to schedule. One significant moment in the effort of historical contrivances to legitimatize the New Order regime must thus be postponed to the subsequent week, March 18, 1977. That day, the diorama of “the Decree of March 11, 1966” was deemed as appropriate and fulfilled President Soeharto’s demands. The event also represented the moment when all the scenes in the Museum of History at the National Monument had been approved and accepted.

The important moment had been missed, but an effort of historical contrivance in order to gain historical legitimacy by inculcating its versions about the past had begun and was consistently applied by the New Order. A series of regulations were issued, obliging people to visit the Monas Museum of History to view the dioramas, which indeed had the nature of being one of the strongest media to create and shape collective memory.

When it was opened, the Monas Museum of History immediately welcomed 28,367 visitors, which increased to 43,287 visitors, and increased again in the subsequent years to 59,739; 78,358; and 99,416 visitors. To boost the number of visitors, the Edict No. D.1111/3923/d/6/’75 dated on July 12, 1975 was issued, obliging school students to visit the Monas Museum of History.

The regime started to direct the people’s collective memory, leading to the institutionalization of the official memory regarding the significant role of the soldiers as the controller of the people. This was a process that occurred all across Indonesia, with the constructions of similar movements and museums like the National Monument and its Museum of History. The Monas Museum of History, however, was important (alongside the later museums such as the Museum of the Indonesian Armed Forces, Satria Mandala; the Monument for the Victorious Pancasila at Lubang Buaya; Waspada Purbawisesa Museum; Soldiers’ Museum; and the Museum of the Betrayal of PKI) in the sense that due to its place in Jakarta, it became the most effective means for the inculcation, as people, to borrow the expression by the author Pramoedya Ananata Toer, “do not feel that they have become truly Indonesians before they see Jakarta”. In its long history of existence, there was also the saying of “You haven’t been to Jakarta if you haven’t been to Monas”. In this context, the New Order regime had not only wiped out the entire collective identity and symbolical and historical representations of Jakarta as established by Sukarno, but also offered—if not forcing them—new values and perspectives about what it took to be Indonesians: the militaristic tradition of being Indonesian.

After 1998, with the demise of Soeharto and the return of the soldiers to the barracks, the New Order’s version of national history lost its bearing. Immediately debates arose regarding a number of sensitive historical issues and the mass media reported widely about them. The book stores are inundated by books about the historical themes that had been considered as taboo, and even books that question New Order’s past. This was something that had never happened before and constituted an assault to New Order’s historical credibility, especially with regards to Soeharto’s role in history. The historical scenes that present Soeharto (alongside the military) as the causa prima of Indonesia’s excellence were questioned, considered as lies of history and exaggeration that was not based on factual truth but rather on normative and ideological truth.

Certain turmoil ensued in Indonesia. On the one hand, the teachers found it difficult to answer the questions of the shrewd students regarding the early days and the establishment of the New Order regime and the roles played by Soeharto and the military. On the other hand, the media created a room for efforts to clarify the history, which is important especially because the efforts to revise the national history books were thwarted because a number of critical historians did not view the government and the historians who generally work with the New Order to be serious in their efforts to make fundamental changes. There has been a dearth of critical and thorough analyses about the post-colonial character of the official historiography; a lack of analyses that go beyond the effort to deal with a number of historical controversies.

As we wait for the new historiography agenda (in the situation which could also be called a vacuum), while history is no longer an important issue for the new power, everything related to the media that convey the past takes its own different paths. Like many other museums that are experiencing a stasis, in which neither initiatives nor creativities could be expected, the Monas Museum of History faces a similar fate. The debates about the postreform national history are detached from the work and the activities done in the museum. There is no special attention given to it. The dioramas are left dirty and not taken care of; some of them are even empty. A miniature about the transportation pattern of Jakarta residents use a quarter of the space in a pattern that deviates from its surrounding. The Monas Museum of History awaits its new task of history, but it is clear that for a long time in the future it will remain as “the old gramps” who keeps on telling stories about the New Order’s historical lies to millions of school children who come each year from all over the country.***




Depok, June 2010




JJ RIZAL was born in Jakarta, 1975. He studied at the Department of History, Faculty of Literature, University of Indonesia. After graduating in 1998, he founded the Komunitas Bambu publishing house, which publishes liberal arts books. The publishing house grew and in 2005 produced an imprint of Masup Jakarta, which specifically publishes books of Jakarta history and literature. Apart from working as a book editor, he also writes for a range of mass media. In 2001 – 2006, he was a columnist for Moesson Het Indisch Maandblad, a Dutch publication, for which he wrote about the history of Jakarta. His works have been published in the compilation of Politik Kota Kita (Our City Politics, Penerbit Kompas, 2006), Onze Ong: Onghokham dalam Kenangan (Our Ong: Onghokham in Memory; Komunitas Bambu, 2006), and Sejarah yang Memihak: Mengenang Sartono Kartodirdjo (Ombak Publishing, 2008). Today he also writes as a columnist in Djakarta! Magazine.