by Aimee Dawis
The 14-year-old girl cowered in fear as terror erupted outside of her family’s Chinese medicine shop. Screams of people fleeing for their lives could be heard clearly as angry mobs hunted down the Chinese, burning and looting their shops and houses. She wanted to help those people outside but she was afraid to leave the shop. She knew that the pandemonium outside was a horrible sight to behold. She took a peek out of the window while her mother was not looking and saw countless bodies, many without heads, cluttered all over the sidewalk.
The girl’s parents had taken in many of their relatives seeking refuge; their shops and houses set on fire just hours before they ran to her family’s medicine shop. It was as if they knew that her parents’ medicine shop would not be disturbed. The girl wondered if it was because her father prayed to Kuan Kung (the warrior god) every 15 minutes, asking him to ward off evil and to protect their family during this time of crisis.
The year was 1965 and the city was Medan in North Sumatra, Indonesia. The ethnic Chinese were the targets in the aftermath of a failed attempted coup that was allegedly masterminded by the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party). Because China was suspected of backing the PKI, the political instability that occurred between 1965 and 1966 caused the masses to unleash their animosity toward the ethnic Chinese.
When the riots had cooled down in the following weeks, the girl and many of her schoolmates could not return to school. The Chinese schools they attended were closed by the government and they were not welcome in the indigenous schools. Consequently, the girl chose to help her parents’ Chinese medicine business instead of going back to school. Meanwhile, her brothers attended Indonesian schools when they were open to Chinese children. There would be no more Chinese schools after 1965.
The government also prohibited the use of Chinese characters in public spaces, the import of Chinese-language publications, and all forms and expressions that can be traced to be of Chinese cultural origin, such as the public celebration of the Lunar New Year. Furthermore, a tract issued by the government in 1968 stipulated that the Chinese would have to substitute Indonesian for Chinese names to show their commitment to their country. As a result of these restrictions, most Chinese children born after 1966 speak, write, and read only the Indonesian language (Bahasa Indonesia).
Although Chinese-Indonesians adhered to this policy of forced assimilation for 33 years, there is evidence that the pribumi (the indigenous population) still see the Chinese as not fully integrated into the Indonesian society. The Chinese have been envied and vilified for their economic prowess as they are believed to control 70 percent of the country’s private economic sector and make up only 3 percent of the 240 million people who reside in Indonesia. This imbalance of economic power relative to their size, along with suspicion of pribumi leaders regarding their loyalty to an external power (before Indonesian independence, to the Dutch colonialist or China; and after independence, to China) are some of the reasons why the Chinese often became the targets of violence during each event of political turbulence in Indonesia’s history.
The most recent example occurred in May 1998. Following the revolution that removed Suharto at the helm of power in May 1998, riots erupted in Jakarta where mobs robbed, murdered, and raped hundreds of Chinese individuals. They also destroyed and pillaged Chinese homes and establishments. The May 1998 riots sadly revealed that the Chinese remained an unwanted part of Indonesian racial/cultural make-up despite their adherence to Suharto’s policy of assimilation. No matter how long they have spent in the country, the loyalties of the Chinese would always be questioned by most of the pribumi. Historian William H. Skinner refers to this as the “Once a Jew, always a Jew” syndrome.
Because of extensive media coverage of the May 1998 tragedy, the atrocities of the riots were condemned by the international community. It was partly because of the international condemnation of the May 1998 riots that the fall of Suharto in 1998 saw the dawn of an era of Reformasi (Reformation). This era seeks to correct the many instances of injustice targeted against the Chinese of Indonesia.
When Abdurrahman Wahid served as the President of Indonesia between November 1999 and August 2001, he abolished the Presidential Instruction Number 14, signed in 1967 by Suharto, which restricted the practice of Chinese customs and religions to private domain. Following this abolition, he signed the Presidential Instruction Number 6, stipulated in the year 2000, which allows the public celebration of the Chinese New Year. Megawati took a step further by declaring Chinese New Year as a national holiday in 2003.
One of the most revolutionary steps that the government took to revoke discriminatory practices against the Chinese and to uphold human rights is the promulgation of a ‘Circulation Letter of the Directorate-General of Immigration of the Department of Justice and Human Rights no. P.U.M. 01.10.0626, dated April 14, 2004 on SBKRI for the Application of a Passport of the Republic of Indonesia.’ The SBKRI (Surat Bukti Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia) or the Proof of Indonesian Citizenship has been an ongoing problem for Chinese-Indonesians because they had to show this document whenever they had to apply for a passport.
According to Frans H. Winarta, a leading human rights lawyer in Indonesia, in his essay, “No More Discrimination Against the Chinese,” many aspects of Chinese-Indonesians’ life, such as legal interests, economical interests, and the application of citizenship have been hampered because of the SBKRI. This regulation has clearly violated the 1945 Indonesian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. Since it only affects Chinese-Indonesians, the SBKRI is a form of apartheid (segregation) or state racial discrimination. Moreover, SBKRI has also caused bureaucrats and civil servants to constantly and shamelessly ask for bribes from Chinese-Indonesians who cannot present their SBKRI.
Although many of the discriminatory regulations targeting Chinese-Indonesians have been annulled by the government, discrimination still exists in practice. For example, government officials still ask for the SBKRI when Chinese-Indonesians apply for a passport. Several letters to the editor, published in The Jakarta Post during Chinese New Year celebrations in February 2009, also voice the opinions of several readers that the Chinese are still deemed as ‘exclusive’ and not contributing enough to their country. It is clear that these readers are not aware that the Chinese have formed hundreds of social organizations that channel aid to victims of natural disasters and the building of Muslim schools. Although the organizations’ contributions are widely reported by Chinese newspapers, they rarely appear on national newspapers such as The Jakarta Post or Kompas.
As Natalia Soebagjo, the co-founder and vice-chair for the University of Indonesia’s Center for Chinese Studies points out in her essay, “Love-Hate Relationship of Ethnic Chinese and Ethnic Indonesians,” solving the ‘Chinese problem’ is part of the unresolved challenge of Indonesia’s ongoing nation building process. According to Soebagjo, “Unless Indonesians – Chinese and non-Chinese alike – are able to shed misperceptions and stereotyping, create a more equitable society, overcome corruption, improve governance, and tighten law enforcement as part of its long ‘to do’ list, it will take longer to delete the separating line” between the Chinese and indigenous Indonesians.
Along with improving governance and tightening law enforcement, I would add education to her ‘to do’ list. In order to eradicate discrimination and uphold human rights in Indonesia, the younger generation has to learn to be tolerant of their country’s rich diversity and be taught not to stereotype by encouraging them to befriend people from all kinds of ethnicities. After all, the personality of the individual should be the key to maintaining a friendship, not our ethnic origins.[]
This article is exclusively published by Center for Minority, Gender, and Human Rights.