National economic interest
National economic interest
The Minister of Home Affairs, Yogie S. Memed, repeatedly
warned Indonesian Chinese businessmen in December 1995 against
taking part in the World Chinese Entrepreneurs Convention, an
organization founded by Singapore's former prime minister, Lee
Kwan Yew, in 1991. The minister urged the businessmen to maintain
a high degree of nationalism and reaffirmed that Indonesia does
not recognize the concept of "overseas Chinese", because of its
dual loyalty connotation.
Two months ago, Minister of Defense and Security Edi Sudradjat
also warned that nationalism must not be eclipsed by business
interests (The Jakarta Post, May 14, 1996). He told local
entrepreneurs, particularly those active in international
ventures, to always uphold a strong sense of nationalism and
added that "These businesspeople are part of the nation's
potential only if their success is oriented towards the national
economic interest."
Yet, in complete disregard of and direct contradiction to
Minister Yogie's declaration, an Indonesian economist of Chinese
descent (The Jakarta Post, Jan. 3, 1996) said that Indonesia
should actively court the investment funds of the overseas
Chinese from Southeast Asia and elsewhere. I am not sure whether
the economist was speaking out of purely economic consideration
or some ulterior motives. But as an economist, he should know
that any economic policy will only be ethically correct and
politically acceptable if it is capable of producing the greatest
amount of benefits to the greatest number of people. Obviously,
an undue reliance on the overseas Chinese, whose loyalty is
suspect, is not likely to bring about the desirable results just
mentioned. Indeed, I am certain that by following the economist's
suggestion, we would only play ourselves into the hands of those
who want to dominate us in some way.
Now that Minister Edi Sudradjat has also called upon
Indonesian entrepreneurs to hold nationalism above purely
commercial interests, I, also, would urge business conglomerates
like Liem Sioe Liong to divest their investments in China and
Hong Kong and reinvest the funds in Indonesia. It is certainly
not in Indonesia's national interest that these people should
help -- using money derived from Indonesia -- in the development
and reconstruction of China, a country whose future intentions
towards Indonesia may not be so friendly. Besides, such
involvement by those who are of Chinese descent could rekindle
any lingering loyalty they may have towards their ancestral
homeland.
Regarding Eddy Tansil, I must mention here two of his
idiosyncrasies which unfortunately were overlooked by Arief
Budiman in his recent apologia for the criminal (The Jakarta
Post, May 20, 1996). First, like Liem Sioe Liong and others, Eddy
Tansil also has factories and other investments in China as a
token of loyalty to his country of origin. Second, his young
daughter, like the children of tycoon Eka Tjipta Widjaya and
others, was also sent to a school in Singapore primarily to learn
Mandarin. It is true that Mandarin is not taught in the
Indonesian school system. But as citizens of Indonesia, why
should they be so obsessed with the language and prepared to
circumvent the system by going overseas to learn it? Besides,
Indonesian children of primary and high school age should receive
their education here in Indonesia, where they can also be
nurtured, at that impressionable age, to love the country and its
culture and gain a better command of Bahasa Indonesia at the same
time.
The point is this: a convicted Indonesian criminal, regardless
of whether or not he is merely a product of corrupt circumstances
(as discussed by Arief Budiman) will not -- if he is loyal to
this country -- invest his money in China. Nor will he send his
young children overseas to learn Mandarin.
MASLI ARMAN
Jakarta