Discrimination in Constitution

I followed the lengthy debates held in various sessions concerning the amendments to be made to the Indonesian 1945 Constitution (UUD 45), one of which was of particular importance to me. As an expatriate married to an Indonesian, and because my two children were born in Bandung, I was wondering if it is still necessary for the president to be an Indonesia asli (native Indonesian)?

In this era of globalization, more and more countries are led by people who are not 100 percent indigenous to their own country. The best example being Fujimori of Peru. This president of a South American Republic is of Japanese descent.

I was very disappointed after the debates because the only change made to the Constitution in that respect was very small.

The change in question was from "orang Indonesia asli" (native person) to "warga negara Indonesia asli" (native Indonesian citizen). So in this era of openness, the Indonesian legislators decided not to eliminate the last trace of discrimination from their Constitution. This came as a disappointment to me and it shall be a disappointment for all Indonesian democrats. I truly hope that the legislators under the command of Amien Rais, Kwik Kian Gie and Matori Abdul Djalil will review this position.

To find someone who is "genuine", you should start by defining what "genuine" means in a country where you have so many different ethnic groups and so many mixed marriages. Since that would be too complicated, I strongly recommend the Constitution adopts the wording of "warga negara Indonesia" (Indonesian citizen). That would make sense.

YVAN MAGAIN

Bandung