Harmony amid diversity

Harmony amid diversity

If publication of Masli Arman's work on July 30 represents the
newly expressed freedom of the press in Indonesia, it truly
represents a turn for the worse in political, cultural and social
terms, analogous to the country's recent economic turmoils. His
short-sighted, insular and bigoted views in vilifying the Chinese
demonstrate, thinly veiled, the same sort of hatred and distrust
shown by Germans in the 1930s against Jews. Furthermore, they
demonstrate disregard for the very principles of Pancasila upon
which limited peace and prosperity have been fostered since
Indonesia's independence.

Examples abound in world history of ethnic strife.
Scapegoating of the Chinese population in Indonesia has been
popular this century and contributes to such strife. Nowhere, and
in no era, have such ethnic prejudices contributed to the
strength or progress of a country or a society. Rather, much of
the strength, success, originality and color of life in the
United States, as well as in Australia, where Mr. Arman has
lived, is built upon the ethnic and cultural diversity in those
countries.

Indeed, such diversity brings with it some problems of
association and prejudice; but an enlightened approach and
constructive engagement of these issues encourages harmony amid
diversity. This, in turn, permits the true benefits of such
diversity to be enjoyed by all. Mr. Arman's approach, on the
other hand, encourages divisiveness, which will divert
potentially useful human energies from rebuilding the current
political-economic chaos to petty infighting, and worse, physical
harm and destruction.

Living in harmony amid diversity should be strongly
encouraged, while assimilation should be abhorred. This was
recognized by Indonesia's founders as they stressed acceptance of
other religious and cultural beliefs in the doctrine of
Pancasila. Forced assimilation, however, is the mark of a weak
and paranoid people. It is to lose the spirit and the color that
enhance and strengthen a multicultural society.

Each country's Chinatown contributes to a country's culture
and provides an anchor for Chinese communities around the world.
This should be encouraged here too, just as the Javanese wayang
kulit (leather shadow puppets), Batak music, Balinese dances,
etc. are encouraged.

The assertion that speaking Chinese contributes to separatism
is equally insular and false. Walk through neighborhoods of New
York City and you will hear Polish, German, Italian, Yiddish,
Spanish, Chinese, and a host of other languages. English, of
course, remains the native tongue. Closer to home, Singaporeans
pride themselves, and have found strength, in their diversity.
Malay, Tamil, English and Chinese can easily be heard in crowds
throughout the prosperous city-state. Similarly, Bahasa provides
a unifying communication for Indonesians of all cultural,
religious and ethnic origins. But Dutch being spoken by a group
of older pribumi (indigenous Indonesians), or the Moslem call to
prayer are hardly interpreted as separatist.

As the world's economies become more intertwined, as
traveling around the world is measured in hours rather than
weeks, the need to recognize and embrace the cultures and
traditions of other peoples should, at the same time, become more
urgent and more easy. I would hope that this would be true among
Indonesians, of all descent, as it should be around the world.

STEPHEN LEIBOVIC

Jakarta