Race And Socio-Economic Status Case Study

Race and socio-economic status should not define citizenship. Every individual has the right to exercise citizenship regardless his/her race, ethnicity, wealth, education, or social standing. Many have argued for the cause, yet to date, the reality seems bleak. In this essay, I will discuss on the tensions caused by race and socio-economic status and its relation to citizenship. To do this, I will provide a case-study, based on my observation of Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia.
Jakarta is a microcosm of Indonesia. Indonesians from all across the country dream of moving to Jakarta, which promises upwards socio-economic mobility. Based on a data from the Indonesia’s Central Bureau of Statistics, Jakarta’s contribution towards Indonesia’s GDP reached 16.9% in 2005, while another report projected an increase up to 20% in
2030. This humongous economic share has drawn more than 11 million people to inhabit the 664 km2 city.
This share of economy however does not translate into welfare enjoyed by everyone.
A gini coefficient of 0.43 puts Jakarta as the city with highest inequality. The picture portrays this condition. Record-breaking skyscrapers stand proudly while right across the river, a network of slums houses the Jakarta’s poor. The poor does not even have the opportunity to see this disparity, the 46th floor restaurant charges $30 a plate. That price is astronomical for most Jakartans, mainly working in the informal sector, who make a paltry $1 per day.
Food, healthcare, education are just some of the basic necessities for an individual to climb out of poverty. For many Jakartans, these are privileges that they can only dream of. The free education provided by the municipality only allows them to attend second-rate educational institutions, while the upper-middle and rich class enjoy the benefits of attending private international schools with additional private tutorials on the side. Since Jakartan poor mostly work in the informal sector, many of them could not participate in the government’s social welfare programs. Then how does this relate to
citizenship?
First, the socio-economic condition does not allow for equal opportunity. It is a vicious cycle, where the rich is the one able to afford good education, making them eligible for a stable career, thus maintaining their status quo. Second, in term of political representation, the poor does not have the chance to change the system. It is known that to run for office in Indonesia, a large sum of capital is required. Meanwhile, the poor already has his hands full trying to make ends meet to actively participate in politics. These two small examples relate to the next point on race and citizenship.
More than 300 ethnic groups reside in Indonesia, this diversity is shown in Jakarta. From the traditional inhabitant, the Betawi; the majority, the Javanese; to the minority, the Chinese. The latter two are important, and they relate closely in defining citizenship. The Javanese make 30% of Jakarta population, while the Chinese compose 5% of the population. However, looking at Indonesia’s richest lists, the Chinese dominate the top 50. It is noticeable as well in Jakarta, with many of its upscale housing and apartment complexes are home to many Chinese. While the Javanese make the majority of the informal workers and slum dwellers. Although it starts as a form of economic grievance, this difference quickly change into racial tension which culminated in the 1997-1998 riot where many Chinese were killed, raped, or forced to flee to neighboring Singapore.
The general argument eerily resembles to what many immigrants encounter in Western countries. “They do not belong here, they should return to China.” Considering the Chinese’ distinct features and how prominent the Chinese are in the economy, the Chinese become an easy scapegoat for Jakarta’s unequal society. In turn, this notion goes the other way around. From my interaction, I learned that the Chinese refer to Javanese, or other Indonesian ethnicities, as “huan kia” which means the aboriginal or indigenous but in modern time usually implies derogatory meaning. Thus, the interaction between the two become more limited.
The negative sentiment towards the Chinese has halted their representation in politics. Since the Chinese only forms a fraction of the population, it is difficult to compete with Javanese candidates. This, and the tradition within Chinese-Indonesian community of survival by means of trading, pushes the Chinese to limiting their activities in business. In the end, their strong network and business acumen make the Chinese thrive even more, thus repeating the economic dominance.
From the case study it can be concluded that indeed first, that the poor is trapped in the informal sector, or the “soulless wasteland”. The state could and should try to create an inclusive economy, where informal sector workers can be accommodated and have the opportunity to make an upward social mobility. Second, there is a tendency to designate a label to “the others”, which can be triggered by inequality. There is no inherent hatred based on different facial features, the reason why many Indonesians turn into racism is the ever present socio-economic inequality.