CIDES's proposed affirmative action not racist<\/p>\n
By Irman G. Lanti<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The problem with indigenous and non-indigenous
\nrelations in Indonesia is evidently present and it should become
\nthe commitment of intellectuals to address the problems of the
\nnation with sound reasoning, fairness and openness.<\/p>\n
Benny Subianto, a Jakarta-based political observer, asserted
\nin his article published in The Jakarta Post on Nov. 14 that
\neconomic disparity was not the sole factor behind the numerous
\nrecent riots in Indonesia. However, he failed to appreciate the
\nextent of such disparity.<\/p>\n
Benny prepared the article to comment about a dialog held by
\nthe Center for Information and Development Studies (CIDES) on
\nindigenous and non-indigenous relations. The idea behind the
\ndialog was to observe and analyze the problem of such relations
\nin Indonesia, as well as to attempt to find a solution to the
\nproblem. It was a constructive idea and certainly far from racial
\ntenets.<\/p>\n
According to CIDES research, there were two types of cause to
\nthe riots -- the structural cause and the trigger.<\/p>\n
The trigger might be unrelated to economic disparity or racial
\nrelations but the pattern of target for destruction during the
\nriots showed that economic disparity, especially that between
\ngroups in the society, occupied a very significant part of the
\ncause.<\/p>\n
During many of the riots, the shops of ethnic Chinese traders
\nand churches (where many ethnic Chinese Christians go to worship)
\nwere always targeted by the rioters.<\/p>\n
The incidents were cause for great remorse but it was
\nunderstandable why ordinary people in small cities aimed at those
\nspecific targets. As far as CIDES was concerned, economic
\ndisparity among ethnic groups both at local and national levels
\nwas one of the most compelling reasons.<\/p>\n
While economic distribution data in Indonesia varies, it is
\nsafe to say, as quoted by speaker A. Dahana at the dialog, that
\nethnic Chinese in Indonesia comprise only around 4 percent of the
\nwhole Indonesian population, but they control around 50 percent
\nof the nation's economic assets and money in circulation. Benny
\neven came up with a figure of 60 percent. Even among
\nconglomerates that dominate the private sector economy, ethnic
\nChinese conglomerates have assets amounting to US$25.88 billion
\n(80 percent), while the indigenous ones control only $6.48
\nbillion or 20 percent of the whole conglomeration (as reported by
\nInfo Bisnis on Jan. 14, 1997).<\/p>\n
This is an unhealthy condition and greatly weakens Indonesia's
\ncompetitive advantage as it is approaching the era of economic
\nglobalization. Furthermore, accumulation of economic resources
\nwithin such a small group is dangerous because the group then has
\ntremendous leverage on governance and possesses the ability to
\ndisrupt the whole economy. Hence without regard to any specific
\nethnic group, this structure is perilous, undesirable and
\ncritically needs to be corrected.<\/p>\n
Benny was correct in asserting that it was government policies
\nthat had created this problem. In his words, \"Indeed, the New
\nOrder government's economic development policies have thus far
\nmarginalized small and medium-scale businesses owned or
\ncontrolled by Indonesians who are not of Chinese descent.\" But he
\nfailed to follow up on his own logic when he stated his
\ndisagreement with CIDES's proposed affirmative action policies.
\nHe said that it \"would... intensify government intervention in
\nthe economic and business sectors\".<\/p>\n
The function of government everywhere is to govern. Some do it
\ndirectly with their own apparatus, some regulate through
\npolicies. The wave of deregulations in Indonesia during the last
\ndecade aimed at minimizing the government's direct role in the
\neconomy and at loosening up the tight control of the economy.
\nNeedless to say, even in the most open economy, the role of the
\ngovernment remains to regulate the economy through policies.
\nCIDES's proposed affirmative action advised on such a mechanism.<\/p>\n
Bearing in mind the fact of economic possession across the
\ngroups above, CIDES's proposed affirmative action will certainly
\nbenefit indigenous Indonesians. This is not a racist approach due
\nto the fact that most small and medium entrepreneurs fall within
\nthat group.<\/p>\n
At the same time to most ethnic Chinese public offices seem to
\nbe off limits. In the Old Order era, there were some ministers of
\nChinese descent. The mistakes of the Chinese-dominated Baperki
\norganization which affiliated itself with the Indonesian
\nCommunist Party (PKI) in the 1960s seemed to cut off ethnic
\nChinese aspiration to public office.<\/p>\n
This was also an equally undesirable situation. It suggested
\nthat there were no equal rights among citizens of Indonesia
\nregardless of ethnicity. Furthermore, it put one or more ethnic
\ngroup in a difficult position when they tried to articulate their
\npublic interests.<\/p>\n
In Malaysia, whose affirmative action policies were declared
\nby Benny as \"racist\", for example, the Chinese and Indians own
\ninstitutions to channel their political aspirations (Malaysian
\nChinese Association and Malaysian Indian Association).<\/p>\n
In Indonesia, the political party system is not arranged
\naccording to primordial attributes and a relatively small number
\nof ethnic Chinese are involved. This condition also needs change.
\nIn order to balance the development equity side of its proposed
\naffirmative action policies, CIDES also proposed social
\nintegration through the opening up of public offices for non-
\nindigenous Indonesians, especially those of ethnic Chinese
\nbackground.<\/p>\n
As a rejoinder, it is true that there is no easy answer to
\nracial issues. But instead of sitting idle fearing to disrupt the
\nstatus quo, Indonesia must strive to address the problems in a
\nconsistent manner.<\/p>\n
CIDES is committed to a planned change in Indonesia and never
\npretends to have an easy answer for any developmental issues. But
\nit remains CIDES philosophy that an open, unobstructed dialog
\namong development actors that includes the government, business
\ncommunity, academics and nongovernmental organizations must be
\ninitiated.<\/p>\n
Through such an approach radical measures should be avoided
\nfor change that will only sacrifice the interests of ordinary
\npeople.<\/p>\n
The writer is head of the Research Department at the Center
\nfor Information and Development Studies, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/cidess-proposed-affirmative-action-not-racist-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}