Race means different things in RI and S'pore

A recent remark by President B.J. Habibie in the Taiwan media concerning the Singapore Armed Forces' policy towards its Malay constituents has stirred up a controversy. Sociologist Ariel Heryanto of the Jakarta-based feminist journal Jurnal Perempuan argues that the problem lies in inter-cultural miscommunication.

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia and Singapore are immediate neighbors. Yet, political cultures in the two countries are so different that it is easy for us to misunderstand each other. This is vividly illustrated in the recent furor in Singapore over President Habibie's statement that there is no longer racial discrimination in Indonesia, and Singaporeans are actually the "real racists". While many rebuked him for the statement, one wonders how many see that inter-cultural miscommunication has taken place.

In an interview, Habibie asserted that ethnic Malays have been under-represented in Singapore's top government and military posts. In no time the Singaporean press published rebuttals from journalists, commentators and letters to editors, all castigating Habibie for his statement.

Most pointed out Habibie's two mistakes. First, his statements are factually incorrect; a substantial number of ethnic Malays occupy important positions in the government and the military, and second, Habibie's critics find it utterly inappropriate of him to make such a statement, especially when the context of his interview did not call for such a comparison.

While these criticisms are well-taken, the broader and more important issues may have escaped from the public view. Race is understood differently in contemporary Indonesia and Singapore. And so is the notion and practice of "racial discrimination" or "ethnic harmony". Equally important is the difference between the political culture in Indonesia and Singapore. And so are their styles of journalism. Rather than strongly disagreeing with each other, Habibie and his critics may in fact have had little to communicate mutually.

Racial issues are generally more serious in Singapore and Malaysia than in Indonesia. Apparently this is more so than Singaporeans want to admit, and than Habibie is aware of. Singapore and Malaysia rightly take pride in managing racial differences in their countries. But this has come only with years of great effort. Maintaining racial peace requires extra effort.

In Singapore and Malaysia, the Malays are conditioned to be more "Malay" in appearance, practice and consciousness than their Indonesian counterparts, the Chinese more "Chinese" and the Indians more "Indian". In Indonesia construction of ethnic authenticity exists mainly in the theme park Taman Mini Indonesia Indah and official speeches. Despite the gross violence with racial overtones that has swept across Indonesia's archipelago in the past months, racial difference is a less serious and sensitive matter in the everyday life of Indonesians.

That difference is an index of the different style and effectiveness of respective governments in managing the races. The strength of Singapore's government, and the small size of its territory and population, help explain its success in engineering racial integration. Indonesia's New Order government was no less ambitious in managing racial differences, but aiming at an assimilationist, rather than the fashionable "integralist" or "multiculturalist", model. Fortunately, the government lacked the necessary resources in the face of the enormous size of its territory, large and heterogeneous population, and poor state apparatus.

The Indonesian government legislates some blatantly racist policies. Officials make racist-sounding statements. But they fall short of effectiveness in actual practice. Life for most ordinary Indonesians is generally less racialized and more hybridized than that in Malaysia and Singapore. Compared to their neighbors, Indonesians are generally more independent of governmental patronage and intervention.

In Malaysia and Singapore it takes a strong government's top- down measures to create and maintain racial integration for the sake of long-term national resilience. In Indonesia it takes a top-down measure to provoke widespread racial violence for the short-term political agenda of rival groups in the elite vying to fill the state power vacuum in times of crisis such as now.

Habibie's recent statement has been rejected on the basis of numerical facts or abstract principles of diplomatic ethics. We need to go further, because numerical facts mean different things in the various political cultures. Habibie is wrong not only in his accusation about Singapore's treatment of the Malay minority. He is also wrong about many more things with reference to Indonesia than his critics are ready to indicate. Chinese Indonesians have been targets of racial discrimination not only in negative terms. Their business tycoons have enjoyed positive racial discrimination for decades from the same regime that brought Habibie to power unelected.

For years many Singaporeans, and until recently Malaysians, identified themselves with their governments almost unreservedly. These governments become a source of national pride and protection. The same governments have been the main providers of education, information, and employment. They articulate the most authoritative stance on many issues. It is not surprising if any of these nationals take Habibie, a president of a gigantic nation-state, and his statements more seriously than many Indonesians themselves would do.

Among Indonesians Habibie appears frequently in anecdotes, Internet jokes, comic T-shirt designs, caricatures, stickers, staged comedies. Habibie does not seem to mind all this. He is neither greatly admired, nor deeply hated. Domestically he is seen as harmless and much less significant than when viewed by those he intimidates overseas. By taking him too seriously, foreigners may run the risk of missing the more consequential and diverse voices of Indonesians.