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