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)