In the first edition of this Report, an appeal was made for the governments of the three countries to welcome at least the local boom Chinese as citizens. It was argued that although adoption of the iussoli principle alone would not solve all the problems, it was a necessary first step. In the present edition, it has been seen that the liberalization of access to citizenship for the Chinese in the Philippines and Indonesia has gone some distance toward bringing them into line with Malaysia, thereby reducing the size of their alien minorities. Although this process could (and may well) go much further, the central issue in all three countries is increasingly similar the extent to which their governments discriminate between those of their citizens who are of Chinese descent and those who are not. The goals of national policy in the three countries are frequently contradictory and inconsistent. On the other hand, a desire for a rapid economic development which can help to alleviate poverty suggests that the governments should make the best use possible of Chinese resources, both of skill and of capital, with their established network of relationships with Chinese elsewhere in the region, including those in Singapore. Although this is consistent with a growing regional integration among the ASEAN countries, it is inconsistent with separate economic nationalism in those countries. It also conflicts with the desire of governments to provide special opportunities for indigenous people to share in the benefits of economic growth. On the other hand, where they make special provision for access of the indigenous population to certain areas of the economy and educational institutions (or restrict the access of Chinese to them to bring about the same result) they depart from the principles of non-discrimination among citizens regardless of race or ethnic origin to which they claim to adhere. Discriminatory policies, however benign in intent, make it necessary to classify citizens in separate groups and this in turn conflicts with the goal of achieving national unity. Please note that the terminology in the fields of minority rights and indigenous peoples’ rights has changed over time. MRG strives to reflect these changes as well as respect the right to self-identification on the part of minorities and indigenous peoples. At the same time, after over 50 years’ work, we know that our archive is of considerable interest to activists and researchers. Therefore, we make available as much of our back catalogue as possible, while being aware that the language used may not reflect current thinking on these issues.

Modern nation states do not constitute closed entities. This is true especially in Southeast Asia, where Chinese migrants have continued to make their new homes over a long period of time, resulting in many different ethnic groups co-existing in new nation states. Focusing on the consequences of migration, and cultural contact between the various ethnic groups, this book describes and analyses the nature of ethnic identity and state of ethnic relations, both historically and in the present day, in multi-ethnic, pluralistic nation states in Southeast Asia. Drawing on extensive primary fieldwork in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Burma, Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines, the book examines the mediations, and transformation of ethnic identity and the social incorporation, tensions and conflicts and the construction of new social worlds resulting from cultural contact among different ethnic groups.

This volume honours, and reflects on, the life and work of the Australian Indonesianist, Charles A. Coppel. His interests -- reflected in this volume -- are broad, ranging from history, politics, legal issues, and violence against the Chinese, through to culture and religion. The chapters in the volume, contributed by scholars from Australia, Indonesia, Europe, and Singapore, also all reflect a theme, inspired by Charles Coppels expression, remembering, distorting, forgetting, by which he drew attention to misrepresentations of the Chinese, seeking to locate the realities behind the myths that form the basis for the racism and xenophobia the Chinese have often experienced in Indonesia.

Selfish, obscenely rich, insular, and opportunistic: these remain how Chinese minorities in Indonesia are perceived by the indigenous population. However, far from being passive victims of discrimination and marginalisation, Chong presents a forceful case in which Chinese Indonesians possess the agency to shape their future in the country, particularly in the changing political, business, and socio-cultural environment after the fall of Suharto. While a lack of good governance that promotes the rule of law and accountability allows or even encourages some Chinese to maintain the status quo by perpetuating corrupt business practices inherited from Suharto’s New Order regime, there are other Chinese Indonesians who make full use of the democratic space opened up under the new administrations, acting as agents of reform by participating in electoral politics and establishing inter-ethnic socio-cultural organisations. Building on Anthony Giddens’s structure-agency theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s notions of habitus and field, Chong shows that the Chinese minorities have played an active role in the democratic process, even though they continue to occupy an ambivalent position in Indonesia. The Chinese Indonesians’ diverse strategies to safeguard their personal interests and cultural identities make a stimulating case study of what an ethnic minority could do to make a difference. ‘Backed by formidable research, Chong has produced an intriguing and original view of the political, social, and economic activity of the still precariously placed Chinese minority in Indonesia.’ —Donald L. Horowitz, Duke University; author of Constitutional Change and Democracy in Indonesia ‘In this illuminating study, Chong traces the political economy of Indonesia’s ethnic Chinese minority as they navigate the country’s post-1998 politics, which is more free but still lacks strong rule of law. Focusing especially on Medan and Surabaya, she analyses how some have strongly supported reforms while many continue old practices of surviving and profiting by participating in massive corruption and extortion.’ —Jeffrey A. Winters, Northwestern University; author of Oligarchy