Law stipulates equal treatment

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.