Assimilation vs. Isolation: Chinese Indonesians in Indonesia
Chinese Indonesians, a minority ethnic group, significantly contribute to Indonesia’s economy. Comprising individuals with Chinese ancestry, often spanning the third or fourth generation of their Indonesian residency. As a Chinese Indonesian, I’ve been fortunate to enjoy a comfortable life for the past 18 years. However, I’m aware that this ease of life was not the same for my great-grandparents and grandparents, who faced significant challenges, particularly in the past.
Historically, the Indonesian government did not grant Chinese Indonesians the respect or priority we deserved. Vizal’s article noted that “our opportunities to work in government positions such as civil service, law enforcement, or the military are severely limited,” a situation that persisted for decades. It is important to note, though, that this situation has shown signs of improvement, largely due to the emergence of reputable Chinese-Indonesian family-owned businesses.
In the past, Chinese Indonesians were excluded from government roles, though this has been changing over the last decade. While it remains an unspoken rule that Chinese Indonesians may never attain the presidency or vice-presidency of Indonesia, there is clear evidence of improvements in the Indonesian government’s dynamics. A notable example illustrating this transformation is Indonesia’s former governor, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, commonly known as Ahok. He served as Indonesia’s governor from 2014 to 2019 and played a pivotal role in challenging Indonesia’s systematic discrimination against Chinese Indonesians.
Chinese Indonesians began facing discrimination when the Indonesian government implemented policies in the 1960s and 1970s that restricted Chinese culture and businesses. This led to widespread economic and social marginalization, exacerbated by suspicions of loyalty to China rather than Indonesia, particularly during President Suharto’s regime.
During Suharto’s leadership, his administration enacted several discriminatory laws aimed at Chinese Indonesians. One such regulation was one which strongly encouraged Chinese residents in Indonesia to adopt Indonesian-sounding names, departing from their traditional three-word or two-word Chinese names. This period also saw many Indonesians doubting Chinese Indonesians, suspecting hidden agendas and disloyalty towards Indonesia. Suharto and the political establishment were convinced that Chinese Indonesians would align politically with China and, consequently, forbade the public practice of Chinese traditions.
Faced with such discrimination, Chinese Indonesians had no choice but to exert extra effort and fend for themselves. Just as Vizal mentioned in her article, “the result [of the lack of opportunities and discrimination] is a culture of self-sufficiency, where we take charge of our own fate and build for ourselves what we need.” She further noted, “our parents’ solution to the lack of opportunities was to establish their own businesses,” which resonates with the experiences of most Chinese-Indonesian families, including my own. This marked the beginning of the rise of well-respected Chinese-Indonesian-owned companies. However, success was far from smooth due to the prevalent prejudice and inequity during that era.
In Vizal’s article, she mentioned that “following the traumatic 1998 revolution, Chinese-Indonesians sought improved security in the city.” The events of May 1998, known as the 1998 tragedy, encompassed mass violence, protests, and civil unrest. The root causes of these riots were multifaceted, including corruption and severe economic issues such as food shortages and widespread unemployment.
Ultimately, these events led to the resignation of President Suharto and the collapse of his government, which had been in power for 32 years. Ethnic Chinese Indonesians were the primary targets of violence, due to the increase in success for their businesses. This resulted in the destruction of many Chinese-Indonesian-owned small businesses and numerous casualties.
Vizal accurately pointed out that in the past, Chinese Indonesians had to “rely on [their] own community and create [their] way of life due to discrimination and prejudice” within the Indonesian government and society. This self-sufficiency, however, often led to questions about loyalty, nationalism, and belonging in Indonesia.
Additionally, throughout the years, we’ve been gradually distancing ourselves from the political landscape of our home country, understanding that, no matter how ardently we participate in the electoral process, Indonesian politicians will always receive preferential treatment over Chinese-Indonesian politicians. Therefore, what Vizal asserts about Chinese-Indonesians becoming “disillusioned with politics” and adopting an “apathetic stance” towards it is undeniably accurate to a certain extent. This is a consequence of the historical inequities within Indonesia.
As a result of these factors, Chinese-Indonesians undoubtedly feel more detached from the broader Indonesian community compared to the local populace. But again, this detachment often prompts questions about our loyalty. Consequently, I align with Vizal’s perspective because it raises the question: What actions should we undertake to be deemed “right” by the Indonesian government and the local population?
In Vizal’s article, she concludes with her own thoughts, mentioning that “we are trapped in a cycle of proving our patriotism to a country that continues to marginalize us.” I concur that it is indeed challenging for Chinese-Indonesians to demonstrate our patriotism to Indonesia after enduring the hardships we’ve faced. We believe that we have attained our current standing through our dedicated efforts and hard work, and consequently, we don’t feel indebted to the country or its government in any way.
However, Vizal’s account primarily focused on the challenges faced by Chinese Indonesians without highlighting recent improvements. Over the last decade, Chinese-Indonesian-owned businesses have thrived, significantly contributing to Indonesia’s economy. Many of the largest companies in Indonesia are now owned by Chinese Indonesians, leading to greater recognition for their contributions. Following the 1998 riots, subsequent Indonesian presidents have taken steps to eliminate discriminatory regulations, further improving the situation.
While discrimination still exists, and the presidency and vice presidency remain elusive for Chinese Indonesians, we are gradually gaining the respect we deserve. More Chinese Indonesians are now being appointed to government roles, signaling progress in the fight against systemic discrimination in Indonesia.
In conclusion, Vizal’s article raises valid points about discrimination against Chinese Indonesians. However, it lacks a balanced perspective and fails to acknowledge the recent positive changes. The article focuses on the challenges faced by Chinese-Indonesians without highlighting their contributions to the nation’s prosperity. I believe that it is essential to recognize both the hardships and successes of Chinese-Indonesians to provide a complete understanding of their experiences.
