Law stipulates equal treatment

By Benny Subianto

JAKARTA (JP): In his article published in The Jakarta Post on Dec. 3, 1997, Irman G. Lanti argued that CIDES' proposal of affirmative action policy is not racist as I had suggested in my article published on Nov. 13 in this newspaper.

I highly appreciate Irman's response as the head of the research department at the Center for Information and Development Studies, thus initiating a public debate on this serious issue. However, I feel that Irman has failed to respond to the substance of CIDES' racist presumption. He commented instead on some side issues of my article.

CIDES' proposed affirmative action policy obviously treats Indonesian citizens of Chinese descent in a different way from other Indonesian citizens, particularly in business preference. Three out of four points of CIDES' policy recommendations stipulate that the government should favor Indonesian businesspeople.

Apparently, CIDES presumes that Indonesians of Chinese descent control the Indonesian economy and, therefore, restricting the businesses of those of Chinese descent will create social justice and lessen economic disparity.

Regretfully, CIDES' good intention to strengthen the position of Indonesian businessmen is based on racial lines instead of economic ones. Indeed, the racial category often overlaps the economic category, however, disparity and social justice are more economic and political problems rather than racial and ethnic ones.

Apparently, CIDES categorizes the actors of the Indonesian economy into two categories: Indonesians and Indonesians of Chinese descent. What is the basis of such categorization?

Neither the Indonesian Constitution nor laws distinguish between the two categories. However, some government regulations, unofficial and unstated regulations, treat those of Chinese descent unequally compared to their fellow Indonesians. Many believe that such regulations should be abandoned, since they obviously violate the Constitution, laws, and human rights.

Furthermore, Irman argues that "Accumulation of economic resources within such as small group is dangerous because the group then has tremendous governance leverage and possesses the ability to disrupt the whole economy. Hence without regard to any specific group, this structure is perilous, undesirable, and critically needs to be corrected."

It is understandable that Irman is worried about the "domination" of the tycoons of Chinese descent in the Indonesian economy, and that this might create social injustice.

Recently, Kwik Kian Gie, a critical economist, was questioned about such "domination". He argued that many Indonesian business people are actually behind the Chinese tycoons' companies.

Even more, some Chinese businessmen are actually the operators of businesses and companies belonging to Indonesians. At the same time he wonders why people still question the relations between those of Chinese descent and Indonesian businesses (Merdeka, Nov. 23, 1997).

There is no doubt that CIDES' policy recommendation which aims at promoting social justice and lessening economic disparity must be welcomed and supported. Social justice, however, must be applied to all Indonesians. In this regard, it would make more sense if CIDES' proposed affirmative action policy were favorable to the underdog and underprivileged groups in the society regardless their origins, race, ethnicity, religion, belief and customs.

Such a policy will automatically restrict the opportunity of those of Chinese descent in business, since they have enjoyed privileges and favoritism from the government for a long period.

If CIDES' policy recommendation is implemented, to what sort of Indonesian businessman will the government's favor go? It might go to the small and underprivileged businessmen, but at the same time it might go to influential businesspeople who have enormous leverage with the political elite.

Even worse, some of those of Chinese descent might name Indonesians as the "official owner" of the company they control. Such practice is widely known as "Ali Baba" and was quite common during the Benteng Politics in the 1950s.

Unfortunately, CIDES launched the affirmative action policy at an inappropriate time since Indonesia is facing a serious monetary crisis. This implies that government intervention should be reduced.

On the other hand, one of CIDES' proposals was that the government provide huge tracts of land to Indonesian developers instead of the ones of Chinese descent. This might sound good, but at the same time we realize that the property sector is in serious trouble, so the government should provide tracts of land to any businesspeople who have a feasible project and are capable in terms of business.

A policy recommendation which clearly takes the side of the underprivileged will be more effective in creating social justice and lessening disparity. At the same time it should be far from racist, and guarantee that facilities and privileges will go to those who deserve them.

Based on CIDES' research, Irman argued that economic disparity between Indonesians and those of Chinese descent was one of the most compelling reasons behind the recent riots. Such an argument is still debatable. Nevertheless, as I suggested in my previous article, economic disparity has no direct causal relation with the riots which rocked many parts of this country in the last few years, it is just a factor of precondition.

Findings from field research on the riots in Tasikmalaya and Rengasdengklok which was conducted a few weeks after the riots broke out, showed that although economic disparity was actually present in the two small towns, the people attacking the Chinese houses, shops, temples and churches were far from thinking about that disparity.

Both victims and rioters of the Rengasdengklok asserted that disparity has existed since the colonial period. They also argued that economic disparity is present in many parts of the world.

CIDES seems to exaggerate the disparity as the prime cause of the riots. In addition, if CIDES' hypothesis is right, more riots would have occurred in Jakarta, since disparity in the city is wider than any other place in this country.

Putting it in another way, more riots would have broken out in the late 1970s and 1980s when disparity was wider than now in the 1990s.

Research on the recent riots suggests that the lack of a political outlet to channel people's aspirations is a significant reason why people resort to attacking other people. Violence has been the only way to express political dissatisfaction and frustration or in solving social conflict.

At the same time, people (the rioters) no longer trust the state apparatus who are supposed to handle conflicts. This can be traced back to some attacks against police, military, and government offices, at least over the last two years.

The Chinese and other minority groups become the intermediate target of the riots simply because of their vulnerability in politics. Based on field research, there is no convincing findings which prove that the rioters attacked the victims because of their racial, ethnic, or religious sentiment.

On the other hand, a feeling of injustice is a compelling reason for causing people's anger to boil over. This apparently suggests that any solution based on social justice is more appropriate than one based on a racial line.

Concerning people's lack of trust in the state apparatus, it is pertinent to think of ways to make civil servants more respected and trusted by the people. One possibility is to provide them with a decent salary which will enable them to survive without engaging in corruption and collusion.

If the state apparatus works well, is impartial and all citizens are treated equally, the practice of collusion committed by those of Chinese descent will lessen. At the same time government favor to the underprivileged will produce social justice among the people.

Racial relations are a problem in Indonesia. Such racial relations problems often relate and overlap with economic and social justice issues, however, we should avoid confusing the two categories in our analysis.

It is commonly agreed that economic problems cannot be solved through a racial approach, and the other way round. CIDES' good intention should be welcomed, but at the same time we should stick to the idea that all citizens should be treated equally.

The writer is an observer of political affairs based in Jakarta.