Power Shifting and Racial Violence: Anti-Chinese Riots in Indonesian Modern History

Power Shifting and Racial Violence: Anti-Chinese Riots in Indonesian Modern History Tsung-Rong Edwin Yang Introduction Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to have the opportunity to do this presentation. Today I am going to talk about an unpleasant and difficult issue. It s riots.. Riots is an unpleasant topic because of the nature of violence. It is a difficult because topic because of the lack of documentation in most cases. Particularly in Indonesian modern history, riots have a very violent history, and one of poor documentation. My topic for today s presentation is Power Shifting and Racial Violence: Anti- Chinese Riots in Indonesian Modern History. I will address the questions: Why do so many anti-chinese riots happen in Indonesia? What is the nature of anti- Chinese riots? Can we get an overall picture of Indonesian riots by researching the history of riots in this country? Please look at this handout. The first page of the handout is the outline. The following pages are tables of riots in different periods of time. Page 6 is a glossary, which contains Indonesian terminology. The Jakarta May Riot, 1998 Let me begin with 'Jakarta May Riot' of 1998, in which women of ethnic Chinese origin were targeted for gang-rape. I understand that many people in Hong Kong were very concerned about this issue. But this matter remains a mystery. So far we don t know what was going on and what was behind the scenes. 1 We cannot really know what happened before new evidence is released. However, we may attempt to identify the causes of the Jakarta May Riot. 1 The widespread report of involvement of Kopasus, Indonesian Special Force, has not been confirmed. The commander in charge was Prabowa Subianto. He denied his involvement and went into exile to Jordan for a while to avoid further inquiry. Now he has come back to Indonesia and continues to deny anything related to rioting. No one was arrested or charged in this case. For the time being there is no any further inquiry on this case. It perhaps involves military or other political groups. 1

Theories to explain anti-chinese Riots There are two kinds of explanations available in the popular reports. The first theory treats anti-chinese sentiment as the main reason for anti-chinese riots; the second theory sees economic inequalities as leading to anti-chinese riots. Many popular discourses combine these two theories. The first theory emphasizes racial difference. Here the difference could be skin colour, culture and custom or religion. I would call it as theory of ethnicity. The second theory emphasizes class difference. I would call it as theory of class. Both are very powerful theory. [this is nice and clear] I will refer here to the testament of Vivian. The was the very first article to report this case on the Internet in Indonesian language. I treat it as a historical document, and published it in a newsletter in Academia Sinica and translated it into Chinese. You can also find its English translation from the Internet. One point in this article is shown on page 2 of the handout. The article states that All rapists started the action by shouting, 'Allahu Akbar.' (Arabic word: God the greatest). If we use the theory of ethnicity, it is a Muslim element involved. We may think that there are anti-chinese sentiments among Muslim. They use this chance to hit out at the Chinese community. But I don t consider this is evidence that Muslim groups targeted ethnic Chinese. We should consider that if this theory were true, Muslim groups may show this kind of sentiment. On the contrary, most Muslim leaders condemned the rape soon after the news was released. The Indonesian President Habibie commented on this matter in this way: This is the most humiliating event in Indonesian history. This would be the strongest statement which a President can make. Habibie was the leader of a Muslim group, ICMI. It is unusual for Muslims to do this kind of thing. Rape, even of the enemy, for Muslims is a matter of sin. Let me give you more examples to think about. If we consider the racial conflict between Malay Muslims and ethnic Chinese in Malaysia, 2

gang-rape never became a common form of violence. Another example is the serious unrest between Muslims and Christians in Ambon in the last two years. The killings were very fierce but never turned to gang-rape. This kind of violence is not common practice for Muslims. In this case, the theory of ethnicity is not good enough. The theory of ethnicity is not good enough. If we look very carefully, we will find that the rioters and the people who came out to help ethnic Chinese in most cases of riots in the 1990s were pribumi. The anti-chinese theory cannot provide a good explanation and leads to misunderstanding about the ethnic relationship between Chinese and pribumi. This theory easily mixes different kinds of riots. For example, the riots in the 1940s and the 1990s are different in term of issues involved, social structure and ethnic relationship. This theory would treat them as having the same cause. The theory of class is not good enough to explain this single case. If this theory applies, then the big businessmen may be attacked during this period. The real situation was that the anti-chinese rape only happened in relatively poor areas in Jakarta, in Northern and Western areas, like Pancolan, Mitra Bahari, and Tanggerang. Even many areas in which urban middle class Chinese gather were not the targets in that riot. It is difficult to explain this matter only by the theory of class. The class theory also oversimplifies the issues of anti-chinese riots. Many reports on anti-chinese riots would add one sentence in the end, Chinese in Indonesia only consist of 3 percent of the population but control 70 percent of national wealth. This kind of report implies that economic inequality is the main reason for anti-chinese riots. The problem is that the main victims in most cases were small shop owners in small towns or countryside. The real rich people and urban middle classes, were rarely attacked. So the theory fails to explain why anti-chinese riots happened in such ways. Furthermore, the theory became a myth in local discourse to legitimise anti-chinese riots. We should not continue to reinforce this kind of discourse. Another way to consider this matter is an historical approach toward anti-chinese riots in Indonesia. If we look at all kinds of anti-chinese riots in Indonesia which 3

were shown in the handout, we will find that it is rare to have gang-rape. It shows that the May Riot is a special case. It is very possible, as some reports suggested, that there may be a political conspiracy behind this matter. But I don t want to go too far unless we get some more evidence. This analysis of the May Riot shows that we cannot understand one individual case well without having a whole picture of riot history. An historical approach would be helpful to consider the social factors of anti- Chinese riots since the nation has experienced frequent riots in modern history. The social aspect may not help us to explain every single case. But it can help us to understand the nature of riots in Indonesia and to get a deeper explanation. The definition of riots and other terms As a general term, riot falls somewhere between crime and war. Riot is not crime. If one person loots a shop, it is crime. If many person organised to loot a shop, it is still crime. But if many unorganised people suddenly loot every shop in a place, it becomes a riot. There must be some reasons which mobilize common people to become rioters. Riots only last a short time. Otherwise, they could become war. If you can continuely mobilize ordinary people to fight, for example, by ideology or by racial hatred, it s war, for example, the violence in Palestine. Riots, in this sense, need always explanations from social factors. The riots that have taken place in Indonesia have their own, uniquely complicated, socio-economic and political dynamic which needs to be understood. The Indonesian terms for riot in English were kerusuhan or huru-hara. They all contain meanings of unrest, chaos, and vandalism. In this context, riots mean that in a period of time, one group of people were mobilized by issues or characteristics of the group to take collective action of violence on the life or property of another group. Riots can be raised among unorganised people to join collective actions of violence, so riots always have underlying social causes. Riots can be classified by immediate causes, like hunger, poverty, inflation, discrimination or revenge. Riots can also be grouped by the nature of the rioters soldiers, peasants, workers or minorities. In this paper, I take all kinds of riots into 4

account. Riots can also be grouped by results, such as property destruction, deaths, or overthrown rulers. If any riots contain anti-chinese elements in causes or results, even at a superficial level, I will treat them as anti-chinese riots in this paper. 2 The Study of Riots in Indonesia In a country like Indonesia, riots of all kinds happened frequently in the modern era. We may ask why there is so little research done on this issue. 3 Because the mainstream concern of Indonesian studies has been dominated by major political change, like decolonization, nationalism, cold war, or authoritarianism and so on, there is no room for the study of anti-chinese riots in academic circles. For a long time, the anti-chinese riots were given the label of so-called Chinese problem (masalah Cina) in Indonesia. It has traditionally been seen as a question of national integration. The Chinese are seen as unintegrated and so they caused the problem and, by extension, the riots. 4 At the same time, because this issue touches on so many sensitive issues, including ethnic relations, the study of anti-chinese riots has remained untouchable to Indonesian scholars and been avoided by foreigners. I argue that although the particular causes or incidents behind anti-chinese violence have undeniably varied from location to location, there does seem to be an overall pattern throughout modern Indonesian history. The ethnic Chinese easily become scapegoats as they are seen to represent the old regime in times of power struggle. There have been four major periods of political change in Indonesia: the Japanese occupation (1942), revolution and independence (1945-1949), the September 30 Incident and the fall of Sukarno (1965-1967) and the end of Soeharto's New Order (1998). A series of anti-chinese riots appeared in the archipelago during the process 2 Some may be religious or anti-governmental at heart and really have nothing at all to do with race. If the result affects Chinese in loss of life or property-destruction, these riots may have profound consequences for ethnic relations. We should take them into account. 3 The study of riots is very important for historical inquiry. Historians have long recognized that the study of riots is essential. Riots reflect significant social contradictions and even people s perception. The ones that occurred during the French Revolution, in Tokugawa Japan, or as part of the American civil rights struggle are widely regarded as turning points in the history of those countries. 4 W. D. Sukisman, Masalah Cina di Indonesia. (Jakarta: Yayasan Penilitian Masalah Asia, 1975), Z. M. Hidayat, Masalah Cina di Indonesia. (Bandung: Lembaga Kebudayaan Universitas Pedjadjaran, 1976), A. B. Tangdililing, Tinjauan Empiris Integrasi Nasional Sumatra dan Kalimantan. Intetasi Nasional: Teori, Masalah dan Strategi. (1987) 5

of a power shift each time. The four major periods of ethnic unrest will be discussed in order. What is important to note at the outset is that all four waves involved periods of power transition. I will examine the 'contagious riots' in each period and the main theme for the power struggle. Because so many riots have happened in Indonesia, I may not have time to go through all of them. I personally think each case needs a detailed investigation. I have done one book, several academic papers, and more than twenty commentaries in newspapers or magazines on this topic. If you are interested in any single case, I can tell you more detailed information in question time. The Origin of Contagious Riots Some studies have noted riots that happened earlier than 1942. 5 However, I would argue that those events were highly localized, involving religious and economic conflict particularly. They were not contagious at the sense we use here and involved isolated cases. 6 When would be the beginning of contagious riots? Decolonialization and Middlemen, (Japanese Era, 1942-1945) The anti-chinese riots of March 1942 happened after Dutch administrators were evacuated, just after Japanese soldiers had landed but before they were in full control. The riots were quite widespread on Sumatra and Java at a time during the power vacuum. Many Chinese shops and factories were looted. In some cases, the looting were actually initiated by fleeing Dutch soldiers. In other cases, the doors of warehouses and factories were initially broken opened by Japanese soldiers. In either case, Chinese property became an easy target for thieves. The loss was estimated at least 100 million East Indies dollars while the total casualty list remains unknown. 5 For example, Leo Suryadinata reported the outbursts of violence in Solo and Surabaya in 1912 and Kahin reported riots in Koedoes in 1918. Leo Suryadinata, Paranakan Chinese Politics in Java, 1917-1942. George Mcturnan Kahin, Nationalism and Revolution in Indonesia. (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University, 1952), p. 66. 6 For example, the Koedoes Incident in 1918, which resulted in 11 Chinese businessmen killed and many houses burnt, resulted from a conflict between Chinese and Muslim merchants. The violence seems not to have spread further. It was only an isolated case. 6

In material published after the Japanese occupation, Chinese leaders said how surprised they were and that such violence toward Chinese had been unprecedented under the Dutch. There was no sign of anti-chinese sentiment among pribumi in Java before the Japanese arrived. A story in Tan Kah Kee s memoir also showed this was a new relationship between Chinese and pribumi. The Japanese changed their policy after they controlled the situation and soon set firm rules with severe punishments by kenpeitai, a move welcomed by Chinese residents. The Japanese army established law and order after they controlled the whole island of Java. But the events of March 1942 introduced large-scale anti-chinese rioting to modern Indonesia. Although their duration was very short, the effects have proven to be long lasting. Since then Chinese property was targeted in the scorched-earth policy during the struggle for politic power. Nationalism and Scorched Earth Policy, (Indonesian Revolution, 1945-1949) A series of violent events occurred during the struggle for independence, 1945-1949. Most cases took place in areas of Java and Sumatra. They were actively contested by Dutch and Indonesian forces. These major anti-chinese violence are shown in page 3 of the handout. Although all of the events can be related to the independence struggle, they do not seem to have been part of a deliberate policy. Rather, they were carried out by pribumi in areas where Dutch authority was weak or absent and, later, in the context of various police actions, when there were few republican elements around. Perhaps it was their intention to cause maximum disruption. But given the context of the times, the force of anti-colonial sentiments, and all of the international complications, it is difficult to say to what extent the violence or property destruction was specifically anti-chinese. Although Chinese-language sources naturally emphasize 7

the racial character of the riots, it must be acknowledged that pribumi undoubtedly suffered more, per capita, in the revolution. Cold War and Massacre, (Gestapu, 1965-1967) Gestapu is a Indonesian term, literally meaning the Incident of 30 September or the movement of 30 September. It was an attempt at a coup by a few mid-level military officers in 30 September 1965. Because they were members of the PKI, the Indonesian Communist Party, a large-scale massacre of Communists and leftists by the military and by ordinary people in rural areas followed. The precise number of people killed, is still uncertain. Common estimates for the total dead range are from 500,000 to 1,000,000. Some recent reports repeatedly mentioned ethnic Chinese were the main victims in this massacre. It is not true. There is no question that some Chinese died, although their percentage of the total has long been exaggerated. Most of the killing took place at the village level where leftists or those perceived to be pro- Communist were rounded up and killed. Again, riots soon took on a more overtly anti-chinese character, spreading from Java and Sumatra to the outer islands, because many reports in Indonesia indicated that the Chinese Communist Party gave an instruction to the Indonesian Communist Party to conduct this attempt coup. Anti-Chinese rioting mainly caused by large-scale demonstrations in major urban areas against the Chinese consul of the People s Republic of China. But Chinese were confronted mainly by demonstrations, not massacre. The massacre mainly happened in rural areas. All this time very few Chinese lived in rural areas because the 1959 Presidential Decree no. 10 banned Chinese traders from rural areas. This ban was actually a discrimination against Indonesian citizens of ethnic Chinese origin, but in the end saved Chinese lives. The main target was the PKI. At that time, PKI was the biggest Communist party in the world, with a very small number of ethnic Chinese members. Many Chinese people managed to leave the country to seek shelter. Many of them are actually in Hong Kong now. Chinese language sources estimated that, from October 1965 through the change of 8

government in 1967, the period of greatest political instability, as many as 100,000 Chinese perished. They had been largely the victims of factors beyond their control, caught as they were between communism and pribumi nationalism, the People s Republic of China and the Indonesian military. There was two cases in this period that ethnic Chinese became main victims. They were the violence in West Kalimantan in 1967 by local indigenous people, Dayaks, and members of Baperki were targeted in Jakarta. 7 They were both involved in the issue of Communist party. Economic Crisis and Anti-Governance of Orde Baru, (1994-1998) Now we move to the recent anti-chinese violence in the 1990s. There are four waves. It began in Medan in 1994, a workers protest turned to riots. The shops which was destroyed were mainly owned by ethnic Chinese. Moreover, there was an obvious connection between economic grieveance and ethnic scapegoating. By the end of the year, Chinese property was under attack in many locations because of price rises and the rapidly collapsing Indonesian economy. Before long, the entire country was experiencing various degrees of unrest which culminated in the student demonstrations of May 1998 and large-scale outrages against the Chinese community. Conclusion: Power Shifting and Racial Violence In this paper, I suggest that the anti-chinese riots in Indonesia cannot be understood only from aspects of current ethnic relations or class structure. These two kinds of theories would easily turn to Victim-Blaming. Much previous research on this issue only applies these two powerful theories. It implies that if ethnicity causes problems, 7 Both were involving other factors. The violence in West Kalimantan in 1967 had strong military elements behind the scene because of communist guerrilla in Sarawak. Some leaders of Baperki supported PKI. The New Order government quickly closed Chinese schools and newspapers and took a strong assimilation policy towards ethnic Chinese by giving the impression that Chineseness was an evil to be eliminated. Charles A. Coppel, Indonesian Chinese in Crisis. (Kuala Lumpur: OUP, 1983) 9

then to downplay the ethnic feature would be a solution. This resulted in the assimilation policy applied to ethnic Chinese after Suharto took power. If economic inequality causes problems, then to push Chinese people to donate money would be the answer to reduce the tension. It was the usual practice and led to a corrupt system during the New Order regime. My conclusion is that the historical approach offers us better understanding of anti- Chinese riots in Indonesia. The four periods of riots have some common characteristics. First, every period when there was persistent and widespread rioting coincided with a time of political transformation. From the early stages of the Japanese occupation to Soeharto s resignation, political change has been accompanied by violence that has affected the Chinese community. Second, ethnic Chinese were placed in a vulnerable or disadvantageous position in each period of political uncertainty. They were seen as affiliated with the old regime. 8 The Chinese have, time after time, found themselves on the losing side. It should go without saying that the Chinese easily become scapegoats in times of social turmoil. Third, although there has unfortunately been considerable loss of life, the main losses in anti-chinese roits have been largely property. Chinese casualties are not really disproportionate when compared with pribumi Indonesians in similar crisis situations. Thus, it is hard to conclude that rioting is a racially-motivated phenomenon or that there is a deep hatred of the Chinese. Fourth, ethnic relations have changed over time, and the socio-political context has been different in each period. The basic characteristics of the political system are the same. The transfer of power has been complicated by invasion, by revolution, by anti-communist champions, and by Democratization. The new power would always accuse ethnic Chinese of supporting the old regime before the new power won the political struggle. However, after they win, the new regime would try to be close to ethnic Chinese. The reasons are obvious. Ethnic Chinese have no political power but 8 They were viewed as pro-dutch during the Japanese occupation and independence struggle. In the 1960s they were seen as associated with communist party. In the 1990s, Chinese was seen as affiliated to Orde Baru regime. 10

have access to resources. The nature of modern Indonesian politics is winner-take-all. No political power would let ethnic Chinese support other groups. Chinese often pay money to the authorities to reinforce their affiliation with the regime in power. Then all kinds of grievances are released against ethnic Chinese because of their affiliation with the old regime during a transfer of power. It is why Chinese were always victimized over different periods of time. It seems to be a cycle in Indonesian history. The anti-chinese outbreaks should not be seen as a minority problem but as a major problem for the nation. The so-called Chinese problem really is an Indonesian problem. In Indonesian terms, Kambing Hitam means scapegoat. Kambing means goat or sheep. Hitam means black. Chinese are black sheep. Black sheep are easy to be blame because their colour is different. But the real matter is not colour. We should expect a better system, not to concern people s colour. Thank you. 11