The question - how Indonesia can lay claim
to being a tolerant society based on pluralism when such practices continue
unchecked?
Security concerns have been growing in the
capital after the most recent anti-Ahok rally, which took place on Nov. 4,
descended into violence. (Antara Photo/Akbar Nugroho Gumay)
The blasphemy charge against the incumbent
Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahja Purnama has wittingly or
unwittingly unleashed a wave of anti-Chinese sentiments across the country. At
the 02/12 rally in Jakarta, an Islamic activist was filmed telling the crowds
that Basuki was “mata sipit [slitty-eyed], perut buncit
[pot-bellied], babi sudah [a pig].”
The unrelenting vengefulness against the
governor who is currently campaigning for his second term in the upcoming
gubernatorial election is, by any standard, exceptional. Not even the learned
opinion by former Muhammadiyah chairman KH Syafi’I Ma’arif that there was no
blasphemy in Basuki's “Al-Maidah” commentary could dissuade hundreds of
thousands of Muslims from descending on Jakarta recently. Amid the shouts of “kafir [infidel],”
it is difficult to avoid the impression that the protests were partly spurred
on by Basuki's status as a double minority of being a Chinese Indonesian
Christian.
More troubling still, there continue to be
signs that the case has also been hijacked to fan Sinophobia with a view to
fomenting public unrest.
Though making up less than 3 percent of
Indonesia’s population, Chinese Indonesians are a dominant force in Indonesia’s
economy. While no current statistics exist, a 1995 report by the East Asia
Analytical Unit of Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
estimated that Chinese Indonesians owned 68 percent of the top 300
conglomerates in the country.
Although this does not translate that
Chinese Indonesians control almost 70 percent of the economy, their share is
significant and statistically disproportionate to their population size. This
has understandably resulted in angst and in some cases resentment by the rest
of the country, a phenomenon often referred to during President Suharto’s rule
(1966-1998) as “social envy.”
Sinophobic sentiments in Indonesia are no
doubt aggravated by the fact that the majority of Chinese Indonesians belong to
minority religions, especially Christianity and Buddhism. By comparison,
Chinese Filipinos or Thais face less of a stigma because most of them embrace
the majority religions in both the Philippines and Thailand.
The “social envy’ persists today; in some
ways it has taken new dimensions given that since the fall of Suharto Chinese
Indonesians have since been granted leave to express their culture and identity
and are therefore more visible than ever.
At the plenary meeting of the Nadhatul
Ulema (NU) functionaries in July this year, former minister and Muslim scholar
Professor Rokhmin Dahuri said in his speech that: “The fact remains that even
though Muslims make up 87 percent of the country’s population they only control
12 percent of the Indonesian economy.” The statement reflects the ongoing
frustration by many Muslim Indonesians over the belief that the biggest slice
of the economic cake continues to elude them.
This is why the latest push in militant
Islamic identity politics — the overwhelming turn-out for both the 04/11 and
02/12 rallies suggest that it is no longer to be dismissed as a fringe movement
— has also rippled into economic issues. The calls to boycott bread
manufacturer Sari Roti in the wake of its denial of official sponsorship for
the 02/12 rally fit the bill, combining identity politics with economic bargaining
power. At its core is Muslim solidarity, which is reminiscent of the BDS
(Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against Israeli companies over
Palestine.
Interestingly, Muhammadiyah Council of
Economics and Entrepreneurship in Surabaya also launched a proposal to set up a
bakery — appropriately named Al-Maidah, after the section of the Hadith which
Basuki allegedly insulted — to rival Sari Roti and other unislamic
bread companies.
The new start-up is allegedly inspired by
the success story of Lampung’s Roti Surya and Roti Oemar, both owned by a
devout Muslim, Krisno, who told the press that his bakeries, “only use flour
manufactured by Muslim pribumi [indigenous Indonesian], not that
manufactured by the conglomerates.” Since the conglomerate groups which produce
wheat flour, notably the Salim-Group Bogasari, are owned by Chinese
Indonesians, it is again difficult to avoid the anti-Chinese sentiment here.
Not long after the Sari Roti boycott, the
city of Magelang in Central Java witnessed the installation of several street
banners urging Muslims to buy groceries from pribumi vendors instead of “asing [foreign]
or aseng [pejorative word play meaning Chinese].” One of the
banners was provocatively put up in front of a Chinese temple but was later dismantled
by the police.
While a greater portion of the economy in
the hands of the majority Muslim Indonesians can only be good for the nation in
the long run, using blatant racism to further the cause is definitely not the
way forward.
There is no reason to believe that Muslims
are being pushed out of the economic sector by Chinese Indonesians. In fact,
the reverse is true. The last decade has seen significant growth of Muslim
entrepreneurship in Indonesia, especially among the young. Sandiaga Uno, Jakarta
gubernatorial contender Anies Basweda’s running mate, is one clear example.
There is also great irony in the demand
for a greater share of the economy for Muslims while at the same time swatting
down the careers of Chinese Indonesians who have chosen professions outside
commerce, such as Basuki. One of the major reasons Chinese Indonesians are
dominant in the economic sector was because they were discouraged and in many
cases disbarred from careers in government or the military during the 32-year
rule of Suharto. So they had very little choice but to specialize in the only
area open to them: business and trade.
Surely the best way to reduce Chinese
Indonesian dominance in the economic sector is to open up other avenues of
profession to them, including politics and government. However, considering the
umbrage and paranoia Basuki's political success has generated so far, it
is safe to say that the movement to “empower” the majority is often fueled by
sheer racial and religious prejudice. The question remains how Indonesia can
lay claim to being a tolerant society based on pluralism when such practices
continue unchecked.
Johannes Nugroho
No comments:
Post a Comment