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