Discrimination in Constitution

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