The Pitcairn Perspectives by Philip Spires - HTML preview

Interview with Dr. Sarnu Onggo, Head of National Archaeology, University of Yogyakarta, Java, Indonesia, an encounter with Wendy Davis, features reporter, The News

´Honorary Hackney resident´ is how we have come to refer to Professor Sarnu Onggo, the Indonesian archaeologist. Now in his mid-forties, he is about to return to our borough not only as a part-time resident, but also now as an investor, since the family-owned business of which he is part is the leading light in constructing the planned Uking Palace project.

A diminutive man in terms of height, Sarnu is almost as broad as he his high and so cuts a powerful figure, a pocket battleship of restrained power. His round, moustachioed face with its chin strands of wispy beard is what might be described as full, his black, apparently oversized songkok always appearing to be precariously perched atop. His large, black-framed spectacles sit high on his nose, their thick, light sensitive lenses often revealing a purplish tinge, reminding us that they are usually worn in sunnier climes than ours. For all his contact with London, he still speaks his perfect English in that attractive Malay-speaker’s accent, where some vowels seem unusually stretched between clipped consonants. Sarnu Onggo, above all, is aware of his status and position, and the power of his personality is almost tangible.

He began an extended visit to our shores last week, a visit during which he will spend most of his time at his alma mater, Hackney Metro University, with whom his family’s company is establishing a partnership. I caught up with him last Thursday for this interview, which we had to squeeze in between meetings.

Dr. Sarnu, please tell us first something about yourself and your family

It is very complicated... The sixties were a difficult time for my country and a very difficult time for my parents. I was born at the end of that decade, so I was never really exposed to those problems. But for my parents, the difficulties of the sixties became paramount and changed the assumptions they made about their lives. Previously they and their ancestors had lived mainly, perhaps exclusively within their Chinese culture. My family emigrated to Indonesia generations ago. Our oral history suggests we have been there since the eighteenth century, but in reality, none of us knows much about our family before about 1900. I personally knew my great grandparents, but the written records do not even go back beyond their childhood. The family had been successful as traders, really successful, even compared to other members of our community. But my parents described their status as that of living in a kind of ghetto. It was as if the wider society demanded that we stay within the narrow confines that were defined by them for us. The family business was tolerated and wider society engaged with it, but my parents say that we simply had no role in wider Indonesian society, and we were, like the rest of our community, regarded as a race apart from real Indonesians.

By the end of the sixties, there were new possibilities. My family changed their religion and their name. They wanted to integrate, to participate in the whole range of activities, cultural life, commerce, politics. It was at that time they began to widen the family’s business interests, took on national partners, and so on. It was then that I came along. I was rather a late child for my parents.

And what about your education?

I was thus a member of the first generation of my family that did not exclusively go to Chinese school. I attended two sets of schools - perhaps three! One was a state school where I studied in Bahasa Indonesia and followed a national curriculum which, in those days, was more a function of the school you attended rather than countrywide prescriptions. I also went to Chinese school for the language, of course, but also for history and culture. My horizons were automatically totally different from those of my parents. What I have described illustrates that I was a member of the first generation of our family that grew up with a real choice to make about our careers. The past was no longer going to determine who I was and what I should do with my life.

What attracted you to your chosen discipline of archaeology?

Now I should remind you of what I said earlier. My family was consciously trying to integrate more with the wider, Indonesian society. We were participating in many activities for the first time and, at least for my parents, previously they had not really wanted to do so. It was all relatively new, new for me, but also completely new for my parents, uncharted territory for them. I was the first of the family’s sons to grow up speaking Bahasa on a par with Chinese. Until then my family had followed Chinese traditions, perhaps to the exclusion of others, often not even recognizing, let alone sharing the celebrations of the wider society. Frankly, I doubt whether my parents had ever visited other parts of Indonesia. They knew eastern Java and that was all. When I came along, accompanied by a new level of success for the business, we started going on family holidays to Bali, the Spice Islands, to Sulawesi. And it was on one of those trips that we visited a site where evidence of the Taolean Culture had only recently been excavated. And I must stress that, since I could speak Bahasa Indonesia both correctly and fluently and because I had also been to state school, I almost played the role of interpreter for them. They never did really become totally comfortable with the identity they had adopted.

I think I must also have been conscious of my cultural identity. I was Chinese. I was Indonesian. I spoke Bahasa. I spoke Mandarin, well it was more like Hakka, actually... I was Muslim. I was a child of Buddhist parents who had converted. I was rich. Others were poor. I was different, but yet shared a common identity with both the community of my birth and my adopted Indonesian nationality. I now saw Buddhist and Hindu temples in Bali, evangelical Christians touting bibles in the bus queues, and yet, here in Sulawesi on that particular holiday, there was yet another identity, another culture, long gone, visible only in artefacts, bones and tools, that had provided people with a sense of being, a sense of community and a sense of belonging. Who were these people? How did they live? How did they organise their lives? Did they make art? Were they, like my parents, treated like a race apart? To say I was immediately fascinated would be an understatement.

I was full of questions. And luckily, my father was able to arrange for me to meet the team of archaeologists. They were Australian and it was a wonderful chance to practice my English. That was the third school I attended, incidentally, private English classes.

I went to that site every day of our holiday in Sulawesi. By the end of the week, I had received a crash course in practical research, had done some excavating of my own and had even found some objects, which the researchers allowed me to keep, once they had been photographed and catalogued, of course! I still have them, incidentally. They have pride of place in my personal collection. I had cave art explained to me. I had understood how stone tools could be classified according to the way they had been produced. What I learned from those wonderful Australians has stayed with me all my life. I can remember it like it was yesterday. And at the age of eight I was hooked.

I was taken in hand by a man named Clark. To this day I don’t know him by any other name. I don’t even know if Clark was his surname or his first name! And try as I might over the years, I have never managed to trace him. He was probably not one of the academics, just a student or even a volunteer on a short-term visit to the dig. But it was that man who turned me into an archaeologist. After that experience, it was literally the only thing I ever wanted to do.

And just how did you end up in Hackney?

My family had assumed and continued to assume that I would join the business, perhaps via an MBA at Cornell, or an accountancy or law degree, but I suddenly had other ideas. For the rest of my secondary education, archaeology was the career I identified for myself, and I worked towards it with a single mind.

My family had always envisaged I would study abroad and in English. They clearly wanted me in the USA, but then I wanted to do archaeology and the qualifications I had did not meet what the US universities asked for. I tried Australia, but my parents did not think that would be suitable. Somehow, though I am not sure how, my application to Queensland brought a reply from Professor Edward Pitcairn, noting my interest in archaeology, and asking me if I or my family had considered London as a place to study. I remember my father clearly regarded the opportunity as a second best, but an acceptable second best. So, I went to London to study with Professor Pitcairn at Hackney Metro. I took a first and then stayed on for a doctorate. The rest you know.

And you have maintained that contact with London?

Very much so. I was here for six years as a student. Professor Pitcairn and I became very close friends as well as colleagues. He introduced me to many of London’s hidden secrets, only some of them archaeological! He shared much of his Watulapitiyalu work with me, so I felt actively involved in his research, even in my undergraduate days. I owe everything I have become to my relationship with Edward Pitcairn, even my love of London.

And that involvement is about to take on a new dimension with Uking Palace?

Yes, and no. Yes, Uking Palace is a new initiative and a significant project, both for Hackney Metro and Uking Terbuka. But also, I must answer ‘no’, because I am not directly involved!

But it is a Uking Terbuka project and that is still a largely family business.

Yes, that is true. I am part-owner of the company, but I have no executive role, no part to play in day-to-day management or strategic decisions. My role is only that of a shareholder.

But a significant one...

It depends on what you consider ‘significant’.

Around ten per cent?

I would not argue with that.

And you must realize that the development has become, shall we say, contentious?

As I said, I am not in a position to offer opinions on Uking affairs. I am not directly involved. But what I can say is that due process has been followed throughout. The project cannot be undertaken without proper consent and of course the company is adhering to and will always adhere to the law. Uking Palace will contribute to the local economy, it will bring new people to the area who will enhance the community via the resources they bring, and all of this will secure a healthy and bright future for an expanding Hackney Metro University. It seems that everyone wins.

And can you confirm that Uking made a donation to a political party in return for the relaxation of planning rules?

Uking Terbuka is a private company, listed on the Djakarta Stock Exchange, with subsidiaries in several countries. Wherever it does business, the company adheres to the local law, whatever that law might be. It does not engage in politics or lobbying. As a commercial organization, we operate according to our international, global strategy and objectives, but always in accordance with local rules. In some countries, though not all, the rules allow us to donate to charitable causes, sometimes political parties, sometimes to state institutions that have the same goals as ourselves. Uking Terbuka is nothing special in this regard. We operate like every other company and always follow local rules. And - and I say this without reservation or apology - we, as a commercial operation, can and will continue to choose to support those who support us. This is not bribery, but it is recognition, perhaps gratitude. It is the way the world works.

But what about reports that company executives and their wives have made donations to political parties just to play golf with particular individuals or to be photographed sitting next to them at private functions?

I am not aware of Uking Terbuka having done anything illegal. If you, personally, know something that I do not, then I suggest you publish it. We can check its veracity in the courts, if necessary.

And what about China?

I can state without further qualification that one fifth of the world’s population and one sixth of the international economy is not involved within the limits of a student accommodation development in east London.

So there is no Chinese involvement?

Why do you ask the question? You, like anyone else, can read the official press releases. Uking Palace is a cooperative venture between Uking Terbuka, Hackney Metro University and a regional development fund in Xiamen. The relationship is declared explicitly on all published documents relating to the project, on all planning applications and is known to anyone willing to read. What precisely is your problem with this?

I did ask about Chinese involvement a moment ago and you did not answer the question.

You asked, “What about China?” and I answered. The country is not part of the construction project.

But you say there is a Chinese interest?

As I indicated, a partner in the project is a regional development fund in Xiamen. Hackney Metro University is also a partner. Does that make the whole project British?

It is the foreign interest that concerns local residents.

And the fact that, like the Dutch who colonised my country, the British sailed and marched across the globe, stealing, killing, and planting their sterile Union Jacks, does that never trouble you?

That was in the past.

Yes, but too often the ownership is still very much in the present. At least what we are doing here is legal, peaceful, declared and will be achieved without killing a single indigenous person, or indeed suppressing anyone’s culture, unlike the practices in the British Empire. If you want a second opinion on the matter, I suggest you interview my old teacher and colleague, Professor Edward Pitcairn, on his attitude towards British colonial policies in Australia.

But what about the environmental impact of Uking Palace?

And building projects by British people do not have their own environmental impact, only those of foreigners? The environmental rules have been observed. The development is entirely legal. Planning applications have been made and published. We are doing everything according to British law. I repeat that Uking Palace will benefit everyone involved. It will assist the future development of Hackney Metro. It will help to bring prosperity to the area. It will assist further cooperation between east London and a wealthy, ambitious Chinese region, so there will be benefits in the future, both financial and cultural, if the cooperation were to blossom into other areas.

But what do you say to those who are both concerned about the environment and also want to see local development?

We are all concerned about the environment. And there is no single way to look after it, no matter what particular interest groups want to claim. As an archaeologist, I can cite as many examples as you like of cultures that destroyed their environments, and also of cultures that were themselves destroyed by environmental change. If you think our culture in any different from those that preceded it, you are deluding yourself. The real difference is that now we also have science and technology. Human beings are perhaps the only animals who know for sure they are going to die, that their participation in time is temporary, that their dominion over the earth is characterized by stewardship, not ownership. If we all follow good practice and observe the constraints on our behaviour that creates, then we can all benefit. And as for local control, it is an illusion. We live in a world where cooperation between people and countries, between those wishing to develop commercial partnerships is not only inevitable, but also desirable. I became the person I am, a friend of Britain, a friend of Hackney Metro, and a successful archaeologist because of such cooperation. I am about to give my name to a previously unknown species of human being, and that name will forever be linked to a relationship that developed across countries, generations, institutions and cultures. I am eternally grateful for the opportunity that Professor Pitcairn and Hackney Metro gave me. And the links created in the future by our development will benefit everyone, you, me, the university, the community and the environment, which, in the case of Uking Terbuka’s development of the particular area of east London, is definitely going to be improved. The area was and is still in a state of dilapidation and dereliction. And it has been in that state for a generation or more. So much for local concern...

Thank you, Professor Sarnu, for your detailed and truthful answers to difficult questions. Is there anything you would like to add?

Yes. I hope I have made the position of Uking Terbuka clear. But I have to stress that I speak not on behalf of the company, but only myself. And, as myself, as Sarnu Onggo, graduate of Hackney Metro University, friend of London, Professor of Archaeology, Indonesian nationalist but at the same time citizen of the world, I have one last announcement to make here. The News is a national newspaper, I know, but it is not an inappropriate place for me to make a statement to all residents of Hackney, Bethnal Green, Whitechapel, Wapping, Bow, Stratford and beyond. I would like to take this opportunity to claim that the Uking Palace development has the potential to make a significant difference to the profile of the whole area, especially in how it is perceived by people from East Asia who may be considering a move to London. The development is nothing less than prestigious and our company’s goal is to raise the profile of the whole area of east London with a view to continuing and perhaps further investment. And, in honour of the project’s status, and also in honour of the origins of my family’s connection to Hackney, Uking Terbuka will announce tomorrow that it’s joint venture with Hackney Metro will henceforth be named, in honour of my great, great mentor, Pitcairn Towers.