Encouraging pluralism would create a richer RI culture

Encouraging pluralism would create a richer RI culture

JAKARTA (JP): A nation-building process is never ending.

"It's a struggle," says a seasoned political observer of the
Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Harry Tjan
Silalahi.

Back when Indonesia was ruled by the Dutch, social enclaves --
those already in existence or those created -- were maintained.

"That way, they could set the prize according to the entities
they were dealing with," Harry said.

It seems that such practices -- of ruling while not governing
-- are maintained to this day. Rulers try to serve their
political interests by way of discriminating against certain
social groups.

Chinese-Indonesians are among the most talked-about victims of
such a policy. Some say that, by issuing special coded identity
cards, bureaucrats know whether a person they are dealing with is
Chinese. They would also know how much money they could solicit
from the person.

To get more of an insight into the Chinese-Indonesian issue,
The Jakarta Post interviewed Harry on Wednesday. The following is
an excerpt.

Question: Why does the issue of assimilation of Chinese-
Indonesians here with the indigenous remain a problem even until
now?

Answer: The presence of Chinese in Southeast Asia,
particularly in Indonesia, has undergone a process. They used to
bind themselves to mainland China because China's politics of
nationality was a cultural one.

It means that no matter how diluted a Chinese's blood, he or
she will always be bound to mainland China. That's why they are
called hoachiau (which literally means a bridge to China),
overseas Chinese. And this (politics of nationality) was agreed
to in treaties between China and the West.

In Southeast Asia and Indonesia, which in the old days were
colonies of Western countries, there was a kind of agreement that
the Chinese identity, citizenship and legal protection were
guaranteed.

In Indonesia it was different from other Indonesians of
foreign descent, like Arabs, who did not have such protection.

This gave them (Arabs) no barriers to assimilate (with local
indigenous people), and things became easier because both Arabs
and the indigenous embraced the same religion.

But because the Chinese brought along their own culture and
"religion", they were considered a class of their own. The
situation was worsened by the fact that the Dutch came to
Indonesia to rule, not to govern ... they were merchants.

The Chinese maintained their cultural identity for the purpose
of mainly doing business with the Dutch trading company. No
efforts were made to make them citizens, or to encourage them to
assimilate with the indigenous locals.

Q: That's the history. Now, let's be more contemporary and
discuss the past 30 years or so. Many have said assimilation is
not working. Where do you think the problem lies? And given this
reform era, how should things work?

A: I think it hasn't worked over the past 32 years because
assimilation -- which by theory means efforts to eliminate
disintegrative factors, encouraging instead integrative factors
in the life of a nation -- has been emphasized more on the formal
(artificial) level. For instance, the Tionghoa (ethnic Chinese)
were only asked to change their Chinese names to Indonesian names
and were encouraged not to use anything Chinese like languages,
schools, newspapers or celebrate Chinese festivals. Inside, in
its essence, the government cultivated a type of disintegration
by creating a socioeconomic discrepancy, a widening gap. On the
one hand, it encouraged formal integrating factors, on the other
hand it ignored the material integrating factor. Here it's not
only between the Tionghoa and the indigenous, but also between
the rich and the poor. It appears as though the Tionghoa enjoy it
all (the riches) ... making it worse, some Tionghoa were used by
the rulers for a tactical sense and the rulers' self-interests --
to manage their corruption and vested interests in the economy,
thereby creating a type of collusion. And eventually it was all
Tionghoa who took the blame.

Q: So, in the present era, do you mean the formal integrating
factor and material factor must be encouraged simultaneously?

A: Yes, the principle remains the same: push the integrating
factor and eliminate the disintegrating factor. But it must not
be one-sided. It must be balanced. The essence must be achieved,
and the things that seem to be untouched are social justice and
equal business opportunity. Not only has it become of great
importance, but it must be made top priority.

Q: The policy to ban cultural celebrations...

A: No, that's not right. Even now, the world trend is toward
pluralism, multiculturalism. Maybe encouraging a pluralism which
is not fanatic, which does not encourage distinct differences,
will enrich the culture of Indonesia in general. This is actually
the Unity in Diversity of Indonesia.

Meaning any culture that can enrich the Indonesian culture
must be encouraged?

Yes, I think that must become a (cultural) strategy. But, not
a dividing factor mind you... one in which people are encouraged
to think of their group as the only one which is right and other
groups are minor, inferior. It's rather the secondary
distinctions which must be encouraged, ones like the way the
Javanese revere wayang, batik... to show their identity.

Q: What do you think of the use of the words Cina and Tionghoa?

A: Actually, this has something to do with feeling. Those who are
pro the terms refer to the Constitution, which does not mention
the word Cina, but calls the Tionghoa Indonesian citizens, so why
not be consequent and use Tionghoa? For those who have
objections, Tionghoa is considered softer, not derogatory. But,
of the young generation, the word Cina is just OK, what the heck?
After all, it's the Republic of China, not a Republic of
Tionghoa. However, in the past, the word Cina became formal when
it was used by the New Order deliberately for derogatory
purposes. It was agreed in 1966/1967 that the Cina in Indonesia
would be called Indonesians to differentiate between China's
Cina, who supported communism. But it failed, as it was the Cina
took the brunt. That's why, after reform, some demanded the word
Tionghoa be used.

Q: What's your evaluation of the present government's policy of
assimilation?

A: It's still very early to judge the government's policies, as
the present government is a transitory one. Thus people either
feel suspicions of the government or ask questions... like
whether what it is doing now, like addressing poverty, is sincere
or just a political gimmick to gain popularity and thus to rule
again? So, as an observer, I find it hard now to say how it has
performed so far.

Q: What are your expectations?

A: That the next government addresses more seriously the
questions of social justice, economic equality. This is a
conditio sine qua non for Indonesia to advance and to keep its
unity.

Q: Or else?

A: The country will disintegrate.

Q: Is the issue of Chinese-Indonesians just a tiny part of a
bigger problem?

A: Yes, it's just a speck. Although these specks are always
turned into triggers -- given the sociohistorical, tangible
conflict potential -- to cause the whole nation to explode. So,
it's important, but it must be addressed together with other
problems. (aan)