Racism revisited

Racism revisited

In response to the article by Arief Budiman (The Jakarta Post,
April 19, 1996) I think the most important fact is that
indigenous Indonesians constitute 97 percent of the population
and have inhabited this archipelago for thousands of years. The
remaining 3 percent are non-indigenous Indonesians who came to
this country 100 years ago or so. It is natural that the Chinese,
being relatively new "guests" to the country, should comply with
the rules, ways, aspirations and culture of their host.

How can it be otherwise? What is so objectionable about the
government's policy of assimilating the Chinese into Indonesian
society?

Having the rights and obligations of Indonesian citizens and
the freedom to carry out their business, why should they also
insist on carrying on the culture and traditions of the ancestral
homeland they know little about? It would appear from the article
that some Indonesian Chinese, to paraphrase an English saying,
are determined to have their cake and eat it too.

The United States and Malaysia were given as examples in which
the Chinese have been allowed to flourish, allegedly without
resulting in any dual loyalty. While the indigenous American
Indians have almost disappeared in the U.S., the English, Irish,
Italians, Africans, Hispanics and Chinese are all descendants of
recent migrants and are therefore more or less on equal footing
with respect to each other. The indigenous and non-indigenous
peoples of Indonesia are not equal. Granting that those various
cultures are allowed to grow, I cannot substantiate, nor can
Arief Budiman, that such cultural liberality has not resulted in
the Chinese having dual loyalty. I think such dual loyalty is
rather immaterial to the United States because the possibility of
attack from China is so remote that the question whether the
American Chinese would be influenced by any anti-American
propaganda from China would not arise.

In the case of Malaysia, the population mix of 62 percent
Malay, 30 percent Chinese and 8 percent Indians explains why it
had to make cultural and political allowances for the non-
indigenous population. Having lived in Malaysia for many years, I
know for certain that the sanctions and privileges granted to the
Chinese and Indians have not always resulted in strong loyalty.

It is not easy to obtain the loyalty of a non-indigenous
population. Contrary to what Arief Budiman seems to imply,
Malaysia's New Economic Policy has succeeded in increasing the
Malay's share in commercial and industrial activities from 3
percent in 1970 to approximately 25 percent in 1990. The
Indonesian government could learn from this outstanding
achievement.

What we have in Indonesia is not a racial situation as alleged
by Arief Budiman, but a case in which the government has
committed itself to assimilate the non-indigenous population. The
great majority of indigenous Indonesians do not object to seeing
some Indonesian Chinese becoming wealthy as long as they think,
feel and act like Indonesians. I urge the government to continue
to enforce Presidential Instruction No.14, 1967, and all other
legislation that prohibits various public manifestations of
Chinese culture in Indonesia.

MASLI ARMAN

Jakarta