Race means different things in RI and S'pore

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.