A decree to end discrimination Yeremia Lalisang ;   The writer, who is pursuing his PhD at Xiamen University, China, is a member of the teaching staff at the international relations department of  the University of Indonesia

JAKARTA POST,  26 Maret 2014

                                      

                                                                                         

                                                      

Various opinions arise over the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 12/2014 that regulates the use of terminology referring to the People’s Republic of China and Indonesians of Chinese descent. Those who strongly support the policy say the decree indicates the Indonesian government’s commitment to the eradication of racial and ethnic discrimination and protection for minority groups. Others, while not rejecting the government’s move, believe such a decree is unnecessary because contemporary Indonesian society already has the capacity to behave maturely in the issue of intergroup relations. It should be noted as well that certain small minority groups are suspicious of the government’s move. They suspect the decree is merely a political ploy, given the fact that it was issued only just ahead of the legislative election and the end of the current administration’s tenure. The President claimed the decree was signed to put a halt to discriminative conduct targeting Chinese Indonesians, which are illustrated by the use of the word “Cina” in reference to the ethnic group. Linguistics as a science provides helpful insights into such a matter. According to Ferdinand de Saussure, a well-known linguist, a word can have a different meaning to different users, as it might signify dissimilar concepts. The way a word is related to the concept it signifies is arbitrary, rather than given. It is human agents who create signifier-signified relations that compose a word, while using the word in social interaction. “Democracy”, for example is understood differently, as it signifies dissimilar concepts, and thus, is practiced differently by various regimes around the world. Indonesia’s experience in practicing democracy is illustrative. It seems that we have had a relentless commitment to democracy since 1945, but it is clear that democracy was practiced differently in different eras, as the meaning of the word was viewed differently by each regime in power. In this regard the decree can therefore only regulate the use of a signifier, not the concept it signifies. We surely would note the absence of the word “Cina” on paper, but not necessarily the concept it has signified thus far. Considering the arbitrary relationship between signifier and signified that composes a word, the decree cannot on its own prevent the conduct of using another signifier to signify the discriminative concept that the word “Cina” previously implied. In other words, this decree clearly is incapable of guaranteeing that the use of the suggested preferable word “Tionghoa” will not be used in a discriminative manner to perform acts of discrimination. Moreover, it is in public life, not on paper, that people can clearly see and directly feel discriminatory practices through the use of words. The decree plays only a limited role in regulating the use of words beyond governmental bureaucracies. Consequently, this decree has a limited capacity to eradicate discrimination within society. It is true that in issuing the decree, the state — not only President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration — displays its commitment to the protection of minorities and the eradication of racial discrimination, although it still has so many things to do. In this regard, the government’s action should be welcomed. However, as I said, the decree only has limited capacity to affect the dynamics within society. It is therefore the people themselves who must do more. This is surely the challenge for Indonesian society. The upholders of the decree have to translate their support into relentless promotion of the ideal aim of the decree, namely an end to racial discrimination in Indonesia. Those who remain unconvinced actually have to prove how discrimination can possibly be ended without regulating the use of words. Despite the disagreement, both groups have the same objective, which is the end of discrimination against the ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. Their efforts to achieve such an aim could converge into the movement to educate the people, as it is society that uses the word and defines the relationship between the word and the concept it signifies. The presidential decree has done its part to show the state’s commitment to relentlessly preserving Indonesian unity, amid its diversity. It is now Indonesian society’s turn to act to show its commitment to unity regardless of racial and ethnic differences. Theoretically the synergy between both the state and society can lead to a better result. However, theoretical postulates can never be easily implemented. That is why this task is the lifelong duty of all Indonesians. As long as we still uphold the commitment to national unity, which considers the ethnic Chinese as an inseparable part of this nation, no form of discrimination should materialize in the first place, as our founding fathers envisioned. ●

ASEAN’s procrastination in the South China Sea

ASEAN’s procrastination in the South China Sea Yeremia Lalisang ;  Managing Director of the ASEAN Study Center at the University of Indonesia’s (UI) School of Social and Political Sciences in Depok, West Java

JAKARTA POST, 30 April 2013

“The South China Sea would certainly be regarded by China as a strategic interest in its energy security framework.”

A South China Sea discussion was expected to be the highlight of the 22nd ASEAN Summit in Bandar Seri Begawan last week, considering the increased assertiveness of both China and claimant states from Southeast Asia, but the discussion did not materialize.

The summit did not conclude with a strong statement on the issue, discouraging any future efforts to settle the dispute peacefully.

Scholars agree that ASEAN–China relations have never been better in the last 16 years. This is mainly a result of increased economic ties and the considerable growth in trade volume between the two parties.

Such a phenomenon is one of the most important pillars of both China and ASEAN member states’ economic growth. China is regarded as the new center of attraction, offering the member states wide-ranging flexibilities, fruitful economic relations and openness to multilateral frameworks that are significantly different from the US–Japan
alliance model.

However, China’s engagement with ASEAN states has been continuously limited and filled with uncertainty. Until now, the region has not fallen within Beijing’s sphere of influence. In this regard, ASEAN has been successful in restraining China’s influence in the region. ASEAN has relentlessly engaged China through institutional involvements and multilateral frameworks.

Within such limitations, China’s objectives remain clear and consistent. Chinese officials aim at create a stable periphery that would contribute positively to its economic growth. The quest for a strong economy has encouraged China to offer flexibility and be more accommodating in its interactions with Southeast Asian states.

In doing so, China expects to counter the “China threat theory” that finds fertile ground as its economic and military capability continues to grow. As former premier Wen Jianbao once said, China should be viewed as a “friendly elephant”. Such an image will support China’s long-term interests as a potential superpower in the international system.

The image of a “friendly elephant”, however, fails to manifest in the case of South China Sea disputes. While both sides took the confidence-building measure of signing the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties to the South China Sea in 2002, ASEAN states have been haunted by China’s pattern of assertiveness in managing the territorial disputes in which it is involved.

The Taiwan Missile Crisis in the mid-1990s and the occupation of Mischief Reef in 1995 and 1998 demonstrated the way an assertive China tends to deal with territorial disputes.

These examples suggest that it is even more plausible that a stronger China in the 21st century will use force as an instrument in the settlement of territorial disputes.

As if confirming such a belief, China declared in 2012 that the South China Sea was its “core interest”, meaning that China’s claim to the territory is non-negotiable. Beijing seems willing to use military force to respond to any party who challenges the status quo.

China’s policies and behavior in managing the recent disputes will prove how strong Beijing’s commitment is to maintaining stability in the region. In other words, they will test the lower limit of Beijing’s interest in its interactions with ASEAN.

The issue of national unity is frequently utilized by the nationalist faction in China’s domestic politics to push the government to be more assertive, which limits the flexibility of policymakers in Beijing. On the other hand, it is clear to them that such a move could be counterproductive to the country’s interests in advancing its national economy.

This highlights the urgency for ASEAN to push China to make significant progress in addressing the territorial disputes in the South China Sea for at least three reasons.

First, with regard to its slowing economic might, Beijing should be concerned with preventing any potential conflict on its periphery that could negatively impact its economic performance. In line with its significant role as a source of legitimacy, China’s economic development is still the priority of the Communist regime in Beijing.

Second, any non-cooperation measure leading to the failure of maintaining peace and stability in the region would allow other major powers, such as the US and Japan, to intensify their influence in the region, at the expense of Beijing’s leadership and position in the regional balance of power. Moreover, internationalizing the dispute is something that Beijing has always tried to avoid.

Finally, it would be better for ASEAN to accelerate its progress now before China grows even bigger, as its demand for energy will also increase to support its economic wheel. The South China Sea, with its potential energy reserves, would certainly be regarded by China as a strategic interest in its energy security framework.

In its relations with ASEAN, the way China manages the South China Sea issue will showcase how China, as a great power, treats its neighbors. Assertiveness and inflexibility would only create a negative image of China, which is projected to play a more considerable role in global affairs in the future.

On the other hand, how ASEAN proceeds in managing this dispute will show what kind of regional institution ASEAN is. Having failed to achieve any significant development last year in Phnom Penh with ASEAN unable to merge contending interests internally, less meaningful progress was made in Bandar Seri Begawan this year.

With both internal and external limitations facing policymakers in Beijing, ASEAN still appears reluctant to issue the kind of strong statements necessary to show its commitment to making significant progress in managing the dispute.

This strategy of buying time, from the perspective of ASEAN–China relations, will not result in peaceful dispute settlement. China is continuing to grow larger both militarily and economically.

Any further delay in settling this dispute will only allow China to raise its bargaining power relative to ASEAN’s.

When the situation arises in which ASEAN cannot catch up with China, that will be the time when peaceful dispute settlement is no longer plausible. ●