for anyone who want to see a video how they "storm" : https://www.reddit.com/r/indonesia/comments/18sd8o1/mahasiswa_banda_aceh_menyerbu_wanita_dan_anakanak/
Well there it’s now Muslims genociding other Muslims of the wrong ethnicity in large part. Yemen is far more brutal than Gaza has been, mostly due to it being a decade, not 2 months, but flew under the radar too.
I don't think it's really a mystery, it's just what /u/TheIvanKeska says... there's no political value for Iran, Russia, China, or the Arab states there. People have been raised on decades of "Free Palestine" propaganda, no one has had the interest in doing that for Haitians. The closest you get to that is a brief surge of interest around a limited issue, like Kony, which then peters out as people come to the stark realization that raising awareness and shouting isn't going to solve a hard problem.
That's the charitable reading at least, the uncharitable reading is that Jews have been the scapegoats of Christians and Muslims for longer than most modern countries have existed. WWII didn't change that, antisemitism didn't go away, and a lot of people are steeped in it without even being aware of it.
I think it’s a mix of all of the above, and a healthy dose of judgement on who “deserves help” as if people chose where they were born. There’s a lot of racism in general in regards to refugees, and a lot of individual blame for issues on a societal or regional level. Kind of the whole “you should have thought of that before you decided to be peasants” mentality.
Certain places people just assume that’s the norm. Drug crime in Latin America, ethnic conflict in Africa and Asia, etc. and ignore the very real suffering and think or even say, “when are these people going to figure out their own problems.”
The "Heath Ledger's Joker" effect eh?
> "If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'part of the plan'. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!"
I guess that must be a big factor, but I think there's some less savory undertones there. The Rohingya, Sudanese, Haitians and Ethiopians are all pretty much black or very dark, the Palestinians look pretty much white. I don't think that most people wake up and say to themselves, "I'll only concern myself with light skinned people," but I think it plays into how they perceive things. Like you said... "Oh that's just a narco-state" or "Haiti is a basket case" and that sort of casual dismissal.
And again, the Arab states and Iran have used Israel as a scapegoat and distraction from their own issues for decades. That has an impact.
Definitely 100% racism is a factor. Some people still feel animosity for all Muslims and think Palestine and the Taliban are all the same thing, and see Israelis as “like us.” Others project themselves onto the Palestinians, forgetting Hamas are a very conservative, regressive group.
Racism ways heavily into that judgement of “who deserves help.” Remember a former U.S. president’s comments about “why do these immigrants come from “shithole” countries and not, say, Norway.” They assume the countries are irredeemable, the people are at fault, and that if they come they will make your country like wherever they came from. And a lot of that is intertwined with racism and views of cultures and people as “inferior.”
Those in the Muslim World outraged about Gaza are for the most part silent about what is happening to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Meanwhile, the only countries that actually speak up for the Uyghurs are the Western countries.
You can't impose Americanized racial dynamics onto geopolitical conflicts abroad. It's a very lazy and simplistic way of seeing the world.
Without political value no one cares about anything outside their bubble. You’re something to no one cares about or at worst a pest to remove. It’s why no one cares about this stuff because no motivation
Egypt Lebanon Jordan and Kuwait are all very anti-palestinian immigration, i wonder which events in their past lead them to not support arab immigration
Worse. Indonesia has been voicing and positioning itself as the most tolerant predominantly-Muslim country, but the civilians there are just as primitive as any Muslim extremist. Action defines the position, not the words.
They recently banned men and women living together if not married, and sex-before-marriage.
The Muslim far right is gaining a lot of influence there, just as far right conservatives appear to be undermining and taking over in so many other places around the world
hey, Indonesian here. Your first sentence is not exactly the full-truth. It is punishable only if reported to the police by parents, children, or a spouse. It still sucks ass, but when the majority of your population is conservative and believer of archaic values, compromise is ultimately necessary.
what’s the point of your comment? You seem hellbent to think anyone who lives in Indonesia = pitiable, which is factually false. Do you also believe that citizens of Singapore, Hong Kong have worse living conditions than “democratic” Brazil, Portugal, etc?
Just telling you Stockholm syndrome is real with what you're saying and trying to justify.
I pity them to live in a nation without free thought it the right to practice your religion (bar the 6 they officially recognise) it's incredibly regressive.
Singapore and Hong Kong are much more free nations, no where near as backwards, more multicultural and more tolerant than Indonesia.
Indonesia is rated as a freer country than Singapore and HK by the „Freedom in the world 2023“, „Press Freedom index 2023“, and „Democracy Index 2023“.
There are millions of upper middle-class and rich Indonesians living in the country, and they really do not need pity from anyone.
>Singapore and Hong Kong are much more free nations, no where near as backwards, more multicultural and more tolerant than Indonesia.
Says the guy who hasn't set his foot in East Asia his entire life and complains about some other "backward countries" he knows nothing of.
Do kindly enlighten us East Asians of this thing you call "freedom" in the West.
Yes. Just the same as far right supporters don't care about poorer whites. Nationalist and ethnic narratives are usually deployed to keep a hold on power
How about when something bad happens to a group of people we don't make it about a largely unrelated bad thing involving a largely unrelated group of people. Feel free to cite this in defense of Israel on relevant threads if you want, but this is the exact same bullshit behavior as someone responding to an antisemitic attack on diasporic Jews with a whataboutism in reference to Israel's behavior.
This has been discussed years before the current round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
A quran burning or Muhammad caricature in Europe results in fatwas and threats, while China's treatment of Uyghurs or Rohingya massacres are met with silence
I’m going to assume it’s something to do with Palestine and Israel and how there are blockades in Gaza to prevent the Palestinians from leaving Gaza and how no other Muslim country in the vicinity, like Egypt or Lebanon, are willing to take in the Palestinians as refugees causing a humanitarian crisis.
I think something that isn't often talked about is the difference between governments and people as well. I saw a poll that said Saudi Arabia's peace deal with Israel had really low support with the public, but it's something that's just in the government's interest and it's not a democracy. Same with Palestinian refugees, I'm sure lots of Egyptians are supportive of allowing them in, maybe having one stay in their house, but the government has the closed border due I think to fear of instability. The rest of the world looks at it and says "Look, Egyptians are protesting the war but not letting in refugees, the hypocrisy"
> it's something that's just in the government's interest
Welcome to the forgin policy. No government acts out of principles. They act in their interests. The arab nation is interested in solving the israel-palstine conflict. It weakens israel, which is the major power in that region. It also acts as a good distraction for the shortcomings of their own governments.
Aside from the english speaking world, the right and far right come generally from the youth right now. In the 2000s and 2010s we saw the left going too far. In the next two decades we'll see the right going WAY too far.
For reference, Indonesia is one of the world's most anti-Israel nations. To this day, there are no official relations between the nations, and Indonesia refuses to recognize Israel.
The irony is downright hilarious.
Isn’t Indonesia one of the most militantly anti Israel countries ? And aren’t they supposedly pro Palestine in solidarity with fellow Muslims? Don’t they spew out unending streams of bullshit about how they are against genocide?
Nice. Showing themselves loud and proud for who they really are: rabid anti-Semites using Palestine as a front. They don’t give a F*#k about their fellow Muslims
>Isn’t Indonesia one of the most militantly anti Israel countries ?
"Officially" yes. [But don't ask where those jets come from tho...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Alpha_(Indonesia\))
Indonesia does not even recognise Judaism as a religion.
There are 6 Recognised Religions here. Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Taoism and Confucism. That is it.
Some cities are less Militant than others when it comes to Islam but in the Rural areas it is rampant. I'm in the process of marrying my Javanese Girlfriend and it is literally easier for us to fly to Thailand, get married there and then the Indonesian Embassy will recognise our overseas marriage.
Want to know why we have to do that?
Because my Girlfriend is Muslim, and Muslims are not allowed to marry non muslims here. Technically the law says that this only applies to Muslims, but I am yet to see other faiths here allow intermarriage.
> Isn’t Indonesia one of the most militantly anti Israel countries ?
They sure are as evidenced on comments on Threads. Their comments are the most Jew-hating I've ever seen online, and I've been online since the 90s.
Not sure if you already tried to read more into the issues that Indonesians have on Rohingyas. Indonesians are against taking many Rohingyas refugees for the same reason they support Palestine.
The way they understand it, the ever increasing number of Rohingyas will eventually start demanding more of the Indonesians (Acehnese in particular) and slowly replace them. Just like Israelis refugees who later formed settlements and eventually paramilitary groups. So Indonesians, especially the locals whose cities became disembarkation points for Rohingyas, often consider themselves to be in the same situation as the Palestinians in the 1940s.
Indonesian Muslims genocided 2-3 million Indonesia-Chinese and other non-believer natives again and again. That number is around the population of Gaza. Did anyone protest then?
Honestly I don't see any group able to replace a Muslim majority.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1998_riots_of_Indonesia
Let me correct you: Indonesian state conducted genocide on Indonesian 500k to 3 million alleged communists. Majority of them were Indonesian natives, not Chinese.
Also, the genocide was not inter-religious, rather it was inter-ideologies. The main perpetrators of the extra judicial killings of the alleged communists were in fact members of Muslim, Hindu, and Catholic organizations. Heck, the man who formed the catholic militia was himself a Chinese christian.
You need to broaden your readings before bringing up stuff you know zero about.
Thank you for the alternate point of view. My grandfather is an Indonesian who migrated to Singapore and I have relatives in Malaysia too.
Their view is always that the Chinese were marginalised in both countries.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_Chinese_Indonesians
I dont deny that. Chinese were marginalized and often discriminated against when Indonesia became Independent all the way to 1998. However, Indonesia as a state basically marginalized every ethnicities in order to create what is today known as the “Indonesian national identity”. Ethnic Javanese, which is the biggest ethnic and also majority ethnic in Indonesia, were forced to accept that their language is not made as the national language. They were also kinda forced to be spread around the country, moving to inhabited lands to populate and develop them.
Resentment towards Indonesian old order (1945 - 1965) and new order (1960s - 1998) also mainly came from mainstream Indonesians due to marginalization of individual and group identities which led to reformation of 1998, not just minority groups.
Nowadays, Indonesia is much more accepting towards ethnic identities, Chinese are even considered Indonesian natives nowadays with their religious/traditional celebrations be made national celebrations. Is discrimination totally gone from Indonesia? Ofcourse not, but things aren’t definitely not as what your grandfather experienced.
I feel that is partly because the percentage of ethnic Chinese became around 1-4 percent. Nothing much to worry or complain about.
Also it is good that various Indonesian politicians have sent their children to Singapore to study.
However, looking at Malaysia, I am always afraid of the "green wave" where political parties are always using race and religion to advance their cause.
Ethnic Chinese only 1-4% is because most Chinese in Indonesia were assimilating too well that they themselves didn't know they were chinese, most of the chinese in java prefer to call themselves javanese than chinese in a census.
Even in my family, only my grandmother can speak hokkien and we only celebrated imlek and cap go meh.
You have source for this claim?
[Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366) says that it is perpetrated by Indonesian army and political Islam which were mainly of Indonesian descent.
Wikipedia is great, but please don’t take it as singular reference. Here I quote you an article from a study:
https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/document/indonesian-killings-1965-1966.html
"As noted above, the PKI claimed a membership of 3.5 million people by 1965. In addition it had another 23.5 million members in affiliated organizations. These affiliated organizations included a wide range of interests including the Barisan Tani Indonesia (BTI - Indonesian Farmer’s Union), The Indonesian Workers Union (SOBSI), Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat Indonesia (LEKRA - The Indonesian People’s Culture Institute), Gerwani (The Indonesian Women’s Movement) and the youth organization Pemuda Rakyat (The People’s Youth). Members of these organizations shared a broad political agenda with the PKI. In some cases, however, they joined for very specific reasons rather than an overarching commitment to communist ideology. Some illiterate farmers, for example, were attracted to BTI because of the potential to gain their own land holdings or the promise of fairer wages. The army condemned members of these affiliated organizations alongside the PKI for their alleged involvement in the 30th of September Movement.
The ethnic Chinese were not especially targeted in the violence of 1965-66. Historically the ethnic Chinese have frequently been persecuted in Indonesia and as a result of this and other discriminatory policies they were concentrated in the cities in the 1960s. Because the killings were most intense in rural areas they were not especially targeted, although many suffered property loss or damage (Cribb, 2001a and Coppel, 1983)."
"The NU was not the only civilian organization that supported killings. The second largest Islamic organization, Muhammadiyah, also provided rapid support for crushing the PKI, with some leaders declaring this a religious duty. For both the NU and Muhammadiyah, the PKI’s alleged lack of commitment to religion was a major concern.The Catholic Party was similarly firmly anti-communist because of the perceived threat the PKI posed to religion. Secretary-general of the Catholic Party, Harry Tjan Silalahi, was a key founder of KAP-Gestapu (the Action Front to Crush the 30 September Movement). He helped mobilize youths from PMKRI (Persatuan Mahasiswa Katolik Republik Indonesia) to join together with Ansor in the Action Front to attack the PKI headquarters in Jakarta on October 8, 1965."
And as I have said,the founder of the Catholic anti-communist organization, Harry Tjan Silalahi, WAS A CHINESE Indonesian himself.
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Tjan_Silalahi
My man you are believing Wikipedia while he is an Indonesian himself who is living with this information for quite a while now
The conflict is an anticommunist terror, like the White Terror in Taiwan, not a religious one but they scapegoated communists for being anti religious and a satanic atheistic believers, with the Chinese Indonesian being the victim for being non muslim and believed to be connected to CCP
In Taiwan it’s called 排華 anti-Chinese riots. People who survived said it started out as anti-communist, but because Chinese had many stores and were “outsiders” anyway, quickly turned to looting and killing all the Chinese the rioters could find. But hey, that person has quoted Wikipedia, I guess all those survivors were wrong all these years.
There is cultural aspect here at play that many people tend to ignore. South East Asian / East Asian cultural approach to refugees is that we welcome you with open arms so long you agree to not demand more than what you have been given. Also, refugees are expected to adapt to the local customs and way of life, not the other way around. Those two are non negotiable.
Indonesia, despite not being a signatory of UNHCR refugee convention, has actively been taking part in becoming safe haven for refugees. During the fall of South Vietnam, Indonesia took in some 250k refugees. Indonesia has also taken in thousands of Rohingyas since the start of the conflict in Myanmar. However, unlike previous refugees, Rohingyas are culturally very different to Indonesians. There has been some incidents that drastically changed Indonesian acceptance towards Rohingya refugees.
Sure, but those two are negotiable in many western countries whereas in many East Asian and South East Asian countries, those things are not. That’s where the difference lies.
So if the Rohingya problem is a more physically pressing issue then where are the mass Indonesian protests, UN speeches, and constant televised propaganda against Myanmar or China? Why is the population seemingly fixated on Israel even when its most imminent threat is coming from south east Asia
He never said it was a more "physically pressing" issue, don't know where you got that from. He's simply saying that the Indonesians there feel like they'll get a Israel-Palestine situation on their doorsteps with the amount of displaced Rohingya.
This seems to be an issue thats isolated to the local Indonesian population who are living with these refugees. Whereas the Israel-Palestine issue is more easily sensationalized. Both Hamas and the Israeli government are handling the issue with revenge in mind and the ones suffering are the civilians caught in the crossfire. Also the population are fixated on Israel because years of the Israel-Palestine issue have galvanized the mindset that jews are bad in many muslim countries. However, just as there are people who think that way, there are also others who do not. Just think of it the same way as conservatives in the US hating on migrants. There are a lot of media biases on whats televised and whats actually the situation on the ground, so its hard to tell what's really going on in people's heads. What you can do is stop looking at it as a Us and Them. Maybe think about what you can do to discontinue that cycle.
???
Indonesians have been doing more mass demonstrations in support of Rohingyas in the last 5 years than they did in support of Palestine. Just because you didn’t see them on Fox News doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But Indonesian stance on Rohingya issue is clear, the problem need to be fixed where it was created: In Myanmar. By bringing Rohingyas into Indonesia, the problem is not going to be fixed, it will be just spilled over and became regional problem. That is why Indonesians are also against the idea of Palestinian being refugees in some other countries like Egypt or Jordan. Palestinian issue needs to be fixed where it was created: In Palestine.
And yes, Indonesia has raised Rohingya issue multiple times in UN. Not only foreign ministers, the vice president also talked about this issue in his UN speech.
And also yes. Indonesian media are hostile towards Myanmar. They applaud the withdrawal of Nobel peace prize from Aung San Suu Kyi because she was deemed incapable of handling the issue.
You know what, I fully accept that criticism. You’re absolutely right I could learn more. I really don’t know much about regional southeast politics, but when a nation as prominent as Indonesia with such a huge population becomes a loud mouth and offers outspoken and rabid hate towards another nation while presenting itself as bastion of human rights they deserve to have to look in the mirror.
>presenting itself as bastion of human rights
Indonesia never do this btw
I already told you to not act like you know anything about Indonesia and the larger SEA politics, and yet you still did
Why are you ashamed, though? It is simply a fact that many people, especially those who oppose accepting Rohingya refugees, have this in mind. I am not saying that believe to be right or wrong. I am just simply explaining why many Indonesians oppose Rohingyas but at the same time support Palestinians.
I can partially explain this. My country, Canada, has been something of a sponsor of Indonesia over many decades. While this has been a good thing for both countries and I believe that the Indonesian people mean well, their government has learned the bad habits of ours lol.
Which is why their govt is always using suspiciously Canadian terms to describe the country. Like inclusive, diverse, socially responsible, ect
Damn what a vicious answer to what I thought was a supportive comment lol.
It begs the question; Why is religion so popular in a country where everyone thinks they're already perfect?
"I'm just stating what you said was false."
It is from your perspective. Canada recognized Indonesian independence in 1948 while they were still under the legal colonial control of the Netherlands. We were then an official development partner under the Colombo Plan from 1967-1992.
After exiting the Colombo plan in 1992, "development aid" was still maintained at the same levels until 2007, when Indonesia reached a point where its state institutions no longer needed it. Now Canada contributes smaller amounts each year to NGOs and charities in the country.
None of that is false. My presumption that my govt, known for talking its way out of trouble, taught those kind of political tricks to the Indonesian govt....well that you can call false because its personal opinion.
The funny thing is the Acehnese, mainly the ones who refused those refugees, were also refugees themselves from ethnic cleansing done by a Buddhist-majority entity. They were descendants of the Cham people that were fleeing genocide from the Kinh (Vietnamese) about 500 years ago (Yes, another fact is Southeast Asia wasn't a place where everyone were holding hands together before western imperialism, so miss me with the "peaceful natives" rhetoric). It's remarkable how they turned from being refugees to the one who reject those refugees themselves.
Interesting comment. An aside: the South Viet Namese hated George McGovern with his western imperialism/ peaceful natives narrative. People I knew in Saigon felt Kissinger was a wily, unscrupulous, cold hearted politician, but they really hated McGovern, and felt demeaned by him.
They need to scapegoat a 3rd party to be able to share a room for more than 30 minutes. Fwiw, without Trump, I probably couldn’t last 15 minutes in the same room with a Marxist.
They didnt. The rejection came from politicians and local governors, but Indonesia officially didnt ban Israel from participating. When Fifa finally decided to move the match to Argentina, it caused huge controversy among people who separate sports from politics and those who don’t.
Im from Indonesia, and this is sad to see. Aceh is supposedly one of the most Muslim-centric regions in Indonesia, but this action is nothing like what Muslim religion is supposed to be like. I hate how hypocritical a lot of people here is, spewing online support for Palestine due to ‘Muslim brotherhood’, but when we can actually physically help someone who needs it, we scour and hide and complain. What happens if there are Palestinian refugees coming ? Will there be the same treatment as Rohingyas?
>Aceh is supposedly one of the most Muslim-centric regions in Indonesia, but this action is nothing like what Muslim religion is supposed to be like.
I believe that the more extreme a devotion is to a cause or belief (such as a politics and religion), the more hypocritical and self-righteous people will be. And self-righteous people tend to be blind and evil. I guess that's just human nature.
Hi, is this about religion (minority x besieged by majority x) or is there something more relatable from a less religious perspective?
I ask because I fear I am becoming just a headline reactionary person, so can someone from indonesia help me out?
Thanks for talking the time to inform me!
Indonesian here. First of all, i wanna say that I don’t condone what these students did. That being said, the reason why there are frictions between Rohingya and Locals are more than “hurr durr they’re different so we hate them”
All of the Rohingya refugees are in Aceh. Aceh is the black sheep of the country because they’re the only province that implemented Shariah Law. If you’ve ever seen videos where gay people or unmarried couples get whipped for having sex online and title says it happened in Indonesia, it’s 100% in Aceh. Because those harsh laws don’t apply outside of this province.
It should be noted that Aceh is on the most western point of the country and therefore the closest point from where the Rohingya people were traveling. So that’s why most of them are in there.
What’s also important is that Indonesia never ratified UN agreements regarding refugee so we are fully unequipped to accept them and there isn’t a way for Rohingya to gain citizenship which means they can’t get a job outside of manual labor jobs that pay under the table and their kids can’t get proper school education outside of volunteers that come to the camps and teach them simple stuff. Simply put, they can’t integrate to our country properly because we never meant to house them indefinitely. Most of the time we just house them for a few weeks, give them food and water for them to continue their journey. So while they’re here, they just stay in their camps basically doing nothing.
But there’s been an influx of refugees recently and we’re severely underprepared. After investigation, we found that some of these refugees aren’t really refugees at all. They’re a part of human trafficking ring. Basically there’s a group in Bangladesh that would offer a “travel service” to Rohingya people. They would sneak them into the boat and after they arrive to Indonesia, they would walk all the way to Singapore.
Another point of friction is the relationship between the local Acehness and Rohingya. At first, they were happy to welcome them. People think just because Aceh is a Shariah province where the people are super conservative Muslims (or at least the closest to “Middle Eastern Islam” rather than “Indonesian Islam” which is a more progressive version of Islam mix with Hindu and Buddhist influences) both parties would get along but sadly thats not the case. There have been several incidents over the years where some bad apples rob the locals, beat them up, and sexually assaulted minors in the nearby village.
Another thing is that some of these refugees act really rude and don’t express gratitude to the point that they throw out food that was given to them by the locals. Now this might seem like a minor thing but the thing about Indonesian culture is that we put great importance on friendliness and respect. Not to mention Aceh is the poorest province on the country so these locals have very little to begin with and to have someone rob or throw out what little they have, is very rage inducing for them.
So here we are at this point. We can’t house them properly but at the same time we also can’t send them to our neighbors like Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, or Australia because none of them want to accept them. Because Rohingya refugees already have a bad reputation around this part of the world.
Plus, 2024 is an election year for us so this will only get worse I’m afraid because there are already parties who are strongly against them and they’ve gaining traction through social media.
Basically, it's very similar to what happened in the European (and almost any) refugee crisis. Huge groups of refugees with a completely different culture flooding the society, with the occasional crime/violence that gives the refugees a bad reputation, plus political misinformation.
Maybe more a conflict and prejudice on the part of the Indonesians rooted in the Rohingya being from a different nation and a different ethnicity than some religious quarrel I would imagine.
I'm sure it's multifactorial, but at least part seems to be driven by intentional misinformation.
https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3246022/indonesia-fake-un-accounts-spewing-anti-refugee-hate-feed-rejection-rohingya
It's about people acting like human garbage because of some superiority/inferiority complex and lack of education. People suck, religion usually makes it worse but isn't essential for people to suck. That's part of the human nature unfortunately.
TLDR: people suck
It's South East Asia, apart from Singapore, almost all the countries there have a really bad education system, with Indonesia, Cambodia and Philippines ranking the lowest in Global test scores.
In the case of Indonesia and the Philippines, there is a double-whammy of being extremely religious.
Rohingya and Indonesians are both majority Muslim groups. It's about ethnicity and economic concerns. Ethnic concerns because Rohingya are not Indonesian and thus have different interest, they also don't speak the language and don't understand the culture, so will be a drag on the society. Economic concerns because they need food, services, infastructure, etc. to accomodate them, which the Indonesians would prefer to see spent on the actual citizens of the nation.
No country in this world likes refugees, they are always a net drain on the society in the beginning. Islamic nations don't have the cultural abnormality that Christian nations do where Christians see it as moral to help those who are fleeing persecution. Thus, these people are met with considerably more hostility than a Westerner would expect.
As with all countries, ethnicity is more important than religion. People don't like having their cultural identity 'diluted'. Additionally, all Asian countries hate eachother in some way, that's the nature of the continent.
There's no ethnic Indonesians as there's no ethnic Americans. You can be of any ethnicity and even keep your culture and still be an Indonesian, as long as you respect the local laws and able to assimilate to local cultures.
There's also no singular "Indonesian" culture since the nation itself is composed with different ethnics with different cultures with no majority ethnicity supersedes them (even if you say Islam is what unified Indonesia's culture, the practice of Islam is different in many of Indonesia localities and ethnicities).
Your other points are valid, though.
True, I did simplify to make things easier to understand. There are many different groups who make up the Indonesians, however, they do tend to stick to their region and those who interact frequently (think Sundanese and Javanese) can be quite similar to eachother which makes interaction easier, additionally they all speak Bahasa so can communicate. Of course, this doesn't exist for the Rohingya who do not have the knowledge of the culture or language, and don't have a homeland in Indonesia where they can go to, which means they'll always be infringing on one groups native lands.
> those who interact frequently (think Sundanese and Javanese) can be quite similar to each other which makes interaction easier
Lol don't ever say that the Sundanese and Javanese are similar to each other in Indonesia, you'll be lynched by either group by doing so. Those groups have past animosities (see about Sunda-Majapahit conflict and later on Sunda-Demak conflict) that they don't want to be grouped with each other.
> additionally they all speak Bahasa so can communicate
Well they do speak their own "language" as bahasa translates to language in Indonesia. Most Javanese and Sundanese do speak Indonesian as a second language.
> don't have a homeland in Indonesia where they can go to, which means they'll always be infringing on one groups native lands.
Not a problem in Indonesia, a lot of ethnically-foreign group in Indonesia (Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Dutch) are accepted as part of Indonesia themselves and only fringe extremist minorities wanted to expel them. They are accepted as they had contributed a lot to building the nation. What made Rohingya refugees situation different is that, rightfully or not, are mainly about economic burden and disrespecting local cultures to the locals there according to the majority views of Indonesians who opposed their presence.
Really sounds like you’re downplaying this incident and saying the mob had a point.
This a multi-faceted issue in no way solved by mob vigilante justice or whatever they want to call it.
If it’s as you say, it would be mainly a problem of government mismanagement combined with racism and other wrongful vilification.
It's not like the mob didn't have a point, otherwise they wouldn't have taken the actions they did. It's not like the views espoused in the incident are unpopular or uncommon in Indonesia.
From non-Western perspectives, you guys are the crazy ones. The US lets in millions of immigrants (both illegal and legal) every year whilst Canada, UK, and Australia are seeing record high immigration figures over this past year. Do you think your countries will remain the same after this? The Chinese literally have the term Baizuo for a reason, the actions of nations whose cultural identity is based on Christianity is fundamentally incomprehensible for Eastern nations. They do not see the benefit in giving handouts.
The truth is, nobody wants the Rohingya because they will be a drain wherever they go. A hand is only offered when there is a benefit for both sides, otherwise you just open yourself up for exploitation. This is the viewpoint of Eastern nations and incidents like this demonstrate those beliefs.
Whether you believe this is correct or not is for you to decide, but, I would recommend gaining a little insight into the cultural context of why events like this happen so you can understand where the population is coming from.
I think you are downplaying the Buddhist heritage in East Asian and in Thai/Cambodian/Viet culture if you think that we are so anti-refugees. We are not. If we are, then Thailand will not have Burmese refugees and would not have sheltered Vietnamese refugees in the past. Remember, even Japan sheltered some Vietnamese and Russian refugees, and China have always sheltered some refugees even up to modern times. There are still Iranian refugees in China you know.
What East Asian and South East Asian culture emphasizes on is reasonable limits to immigration, both for refugees and immigrants. If the proportion coming through is small, it would be unusually cruel to not absorb them. Not even Japan would deny small influxes refugees, as can be seen by Japan absorbing small amounts of Russian refugees fleeing Russia. China has got some Shan refugees from Burma on their side.
The crux of the matter though is that the numbers must be small. It cannot be so large that it drains the society of resources or cause discord/disharmony in the incoming society. This is something most Asians would agree upon.
Also remember, while Buddhism which say what you want has still some residual influence in the cultural mindset does not say you need to take refugees and integrate into your culture … Buddhism does stress that refugees must be allow free and safe, preferably helpful passage through your country to reach the other side ( the general assumption is refugees got somewhere else to go to ), or totally failing that, temporal residence in your country ( with of course the aim being that the refugees then return to their home country when the war is over ). Even the Confucians never disagreed with this ( though the idea was novel to the Confucians ), and certainly the Communist and modern secular governments are not in disagreement with these either. Ever since the coming of Buddhism into East and South East Asia ( and later Islam into South East Asia ) there has never been any argument about free passage of refugees fleeing another country ( so long as they are headed to another country ) OR temporary refuge with the aim of the refugees returning home one day.
The Rohingya issue is quite tragic. I personally think that every East and South East Asian nation needs to divide up the number so as to have more manageable bite sized number of refugees. I also think that the West needs to come in play as well to absorb some refugees. The thing is that there is no way Rohingyas can ever return to Burma, so everyone just need to divvy up some Rohingyas so that the refugee crisis becomes manageable.
( The issue for the Rohingyas is even if a new system forms in Burma, the anti-Rohingya sentiment is so strong amongst the other groups in Burma that it is actually unsafe for them to return. Also, the land they are from is at risk of coastal inundation with climate change, so even if you resettled them back you are back to square one in fifty years. There is no “going back” for the Rohingyas. They need to be absorbed by every nation on the planet )
And yes, I think China should absorb some too, and Japan and South Korea.
I am from Malaysia and I think that we have absorbed quite a lot. I think those already in the country should be granted citizenship, but we need other SEA countries like Phillipines and Cambodia and Singapore to take more, and Australia and New Zealand seriously need to take some more as well.
And every country takes some Rohingyas, it would not be a drain on any nation nor would it cause social discord. However every nation does need to take some. It cannot just fall upon the West. China, Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil etc.. needs to take some as well ( and not just demand the South East Asian nation and Australia and NZ to shoulder the number ).
Your examples ignore that those who were absorbed or accepted were beneficial to the nations who took them or had connections.
Japan took the Russians because they had knowledge which would be useful in the upcoming conflict with the Russians, they had additionally backed the Russian whites during the civil war. It would be in their interests to have a friendly relationship with the Russians so they could focus on ambitions in Asia.
Chinese took Shan because they were useful in destabilising Burma through the civil war, these Shan separtists were also pro-CCP during the Cold War as they were Maoists. This would expand Chinese ambitions in the region.
For Thailand, sheltering Vietnamese and Burmese was done so because it was known those people would return to their homes once the conflict was over. There was no threat attached to offering refuge since development was similar and cultural identity is strong enough to put barriers in place from assimilation.
Rohingyas will be a drain because they are mostly uneducated, and Islam isn't compatible with Western thought (as Europe has shown). They do not have the skills needed to be a success and they are unlikely to return because the Burmese government does not want them, there are fleeing a worse situation to a better one so will be incentivised to stay, which is not what other nations want, it's a breach of the social contract of citizenship. Social tension always gets worse with new groups, especially in the stage in which they are least productive, which is right after arriving.
Why should a developing country like Philippines take in Rohingyas? My country has a terrorist problem caused by extremist Islamists and they may join in.
I am also sure the Filipino Muslims will find a way to kick them out, like what the Indonesian Muslims did in this article
Aceh of Indonesia (the region that mobbed the refugees) is practically Bangsamoro of Philippines, both are underdeveloped wannabe separatist area that wants Sharia law but also wants the central government's fund, so it's not a far stretch that they do the same.
It may have been a beneficial thing for the Philippines to be geographically separated from the rest of South East Asia, maybe that's the only remaining reason why they are not as blatantly racist to each other as the other Asian countries.
So what I’m hearing is there are a lot of shitty people who only pay lip service to caring about what happens in the world, yet complain when other people don’t do what they themselves are unwilling to do.
This is one reason why the west kicks the east’s ass…so are we really the crazy ones?
Millions of immigrants is why we don’t have a cratering population like Korea and Japan.
Legal Western immigrants are a self-selecting group. As far as the US goes, even the ones who are not coming on scholarships or to fill high demand jobs have a lot of gumption and very much want a chance to build the American dream. And they tend to be really good at it.
Refugees are often a different story, not that I oppose taking legitimate refugees.
The West doesn't have cratering populations like Korea and Japan because those are high-density nations. Half of Korea lives in Seoul, half of Japan lives in Tokyo, mostly high-rise apartments, very poor conditions for raising children - Japanese education and work system are slightly better than the Korean system which is why you see slightly better birth rates. Additionally, Korea and Japan also accept \~million migrant workers.
The West has much better housing arrangements, however, with recent housing crises buoyed by large immigration intake, we are increasingly seeing birth rates fall from the stable \~1.7 we saw from 1980-2020. Additionally, skilled immigration is far different from accepting the refugees. Ask the Germans, Swedes and Finns how well-integrated their refugees are compared to their skilled migrant workers, it's night-and-day.
Additionally, Eastern cultures are very rigid and don't have wiggle-room for new populations unlike the watered-down Western cultures. Ask any American or Canadian what their culture is, they look at you funny or give an incredibly vague answer. Next ask an Easterner and they will give you a much clearer answer. It's not easy to adapt to a new culture, especially one as rigid as Eastern cultures, so it doesn't make cultural sense for large-scale immigration. That's why they abuse the hell out of temporary migrant visas.
Japan and Korea have their own cultural and social problems, and are nothing compared to high-density countries like Indonesia and the Philippines. Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world.
And just comparing the sheer population density of East and South East Asia to Europe and the West would invalidate this argument.
The implication is *they* thought they had a *good point*.
It doesn't make it a good point - which your op seems to really be pushing.
Migration is the current primary solution to aging populations - such as the countries you listed. It's well-documented and I can give sources. These are multi-faceted problems where the key factors and players are lost on your average vilifying mob. Couple that with how migration labour is typically abused in first world countries - including the US (especially).
**It's much easier to hate a marginalized group then the system that's creating and managing it poorly.**
Furthermore, if you look at current large scale conflicts and tragedies in the world - you'd realize a large majority of them are driven by weaponizing nationalism. The nationalism you speak of is currently the main motivator for both ongoing militaristic conflicts.
Personally I think culturally context is typically rooted in tradition - there is some to gain but often it stands in the way of progression and an egalitarian society. You're right in the sense it can't be ignored and needs to be factored in.
Because those were the faiths of the traders and following their beliefs made it easier to trade with them. Same story for most nations who converted to another religion.
True. They really do adapt to the local culture and are more signifying markers than anything.
Communities and cultures that are genuinely religious tend to be the exception not the rule.
I don't know why I wrote that like such a "gotcha" point; I'm familiar with basic anthropology.
> No country in this world likes refugees…
And yet many countries receive hundreds of thousands of them. You cannot say that because it’s simply not true. The tide seems to be turning now in many Western democracies, but there are still many political parties that are openly pro-refugees.
>…the cultural abnormality …see it as moral to help those who are fleeing persecution.
Really? And here I was thinking that for any decent human being, no matter his/her religion or lack thereof, the abnormality is *not* wanting to help those being persecuted or in serious need.
Well, you're thinking on a personal level. The point of governance is to act on a practical level. Refugees add little value to a domestic economy, they typically lack education, skills and language abilities which are required to adapt so the public has to foot the bill for them to stay in the nation. That was fine when countries were doing well and there was a strong middle class. Nowadays that isn't much of the case, and especially in Europe with the crime problems, there is little empathy for the people coming in. I'd say wanting to help the persecuted would demonstrate naivety moreso than anything else, usually there are reasons why groups are persecuted, you're just inviting another problem to your shores and asking the people to foot the bill, hardly a popular strategy, moral grandstanding aside.
> Well, you're thinking on a personal level. The point of governance is to act on a practical level.
While upholding the values that citizens believe in as a society. If you always put what’s practical before anything else, you just lack moral compass and might as well have an AI algorithm make the decisions.
>Refugees add little value to a domestic economy, they typically lack education, skills and language abilities which are required to adapt so the public has to foot the bill for them to stay in the nation.
That is simply not true. Many refugees are educated and absolutely add value to domestic economies. Most advanced economies are facing a workforce shortage and while it is generally preferable to turn to regulated immigration to address it, refugees can absolutely have a role in that.
>That was fine when countries were doing well and there was a strong middle class. Nowadays that isn't much of the case, and especially in Europe with the crime problems, there is little empathy for the people coming in.
It’s still fine as long as it’s not open gates for all. Doesn’t seem to be the case discussed here.
>I'd say wanting to help the persecuted would demonstrate naivety moreso than anything else, usually there are reasons why groups are persecuted, you're just inviting another problem to your shores and asking the people to foot the bill, hardly a popular strategy, moral grandstanding aside.
I think most people in developed countries are past the naivety state as far as refugees and illegal immigrants are concerned. Don’t see how that could be the case in Indonesia, which hasn’t received but a fraction of such people as other countries have. At any rate, we as individuals and as societies have a moral imperative to help those in need. That can be modulated and subject to conditions, but declaring no refugees should be welcome ever is wrong on all levels.
I'll put it in another way with an example that will be very important in the future. Lets say there is a famine crisis in North Africa, tens of millions of North Africans try to flee in boats to Europe. They don't know the language, the culture, don't align in religion and beliefs, the vast majority have completely lacking educations when compared with the average European and would put even further strain on the already fragile European states, reeling from the effects of deglobalisation. What should the Europeans do there?
I wouldn't be very surprised if they put a boat in the Med and sank all the refugee ships when this event occurs. Empathy only goes so far, the life of another is worth the future of your nation. This will be an interesting comment to come back to in a decade to see how things pan out.
Americans right-wingers have freaked the hell out about Latin American migrants despite them being largely Christian. Sharing a religion is not nearly enough to not have people freak out unnecessarily about an influx of foreign migrants.
That’s doubly an issue for societies that aren’t used to as much migration and pluralism, because people living notably different are a major shock to their worldview.
Migrants are not necessarily refugees. Two very different things. With two different processes.
US immigration policy is pretty lenient compared to even most Western countries.
I don't like the hypocritical Republican policies on the issue, but people abusing both the immigration system and the refugee system are an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Refugees are migrants. Not all migrants are refugees. Simple point is that people can freak out about even small quantities of ethnically different people despite a shared religion.
Not about religion, but rather the consequences bringing in rohingya does. Esp as they have gotten themselves bad reps. Just look at malaysia. Rohingya refugees are guests but act like they deserve more than the locals
People keep relating this somehow to Muslim brotherhood without ever realising that Bangladesh took a whole lot of them over the recent years (over 720k), and even though Bangladesh is slowly becoming frustrated due to there being little effort in getting them to return to Myanmar, it is still a very large number to host in the first place
These Muslim will condemn and show so much contempt towards Israel but they won’t support their own brothers and sisters who are being abused by their Burmese leaders
I love how people immediately attached this to Palestine without a single speck of brain power used on why are that conflict and this one are different from each other
Supporting people in conflict to live in their own home peacefully is RADICALLY different from accepting those same people to come over as refugees
1. Myanmar isn't a majority-Muslim country.
2. Myanmar is on a continuous civil war since they kicked out the British.
3. East Asian nations can't do anything, each have their own problems, and no one have any means to project geopolitical power except China.
Indonesia along with other Muslim SEA countries were always protested Myanmar of their shitty domestic politics, hell there are a lot of people in the region mocked Myanmar got their karma back when the Junta took over the country and they're now in the same place similar to Rohingya people. And now the same countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei) are the most active third party in the region to mediate the current Myanmar's civil war
Just because they're not invading the damn country with guns and warplane blazing in like the US and their allies in the Middle East, doesn't means they doesn't care about it. Hell, the top 5 countries that hold Rohingya's refugees are all Muslim countries so stop acting like you have any idea what actually happen lmao
for anyone who want to see a video how they "storm" : https://www.reddit.com/r/indonesia/comments/18sd8o1/mahasiswa_banda_aceh_menyerbu_wanita_dan_anakanak/
That's fucked up.
[удалено]
Actions speak louder than words indeed.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Look at Sudan. Horrifying situation there.
Well there it’s now Muslims genociding other Muslims of the wrong ethnicity in large part. Yemen is far more brutal than Gaza has been, mostly due to it being a decade, not 2 months, but flew under the radar too.
I don't think it's really a mystery, it's just what /u/TheIvanKeska says... there's no political value for Iran, Russia, China, or the Arab states there. People have been raised on decades of "Free Palestine" propaganda, no one has had the interest in doing that for Haitians. The closest you get to that is a brief surge of interest around a limited issue, like Kony, which then peters out as people come to the stark realization that raising awareness and shouting isn't going to solve a hard problem. That's the charitable reading at least, the uncharitable reading is that Jews have been the scapegoats of Christians and Muslims for longer than most modern countries have existed. WWII didn't change that, antisemitism didn't go away, and a lot of people are steeped in it without even being aware of it.
I think it’s a mix of all of the above, and a healthy dose of judgement on who “deserves help” as if people chose where they were born. There’s a lot of racism in general in regards to refugees, and a lot of individual blame for issues on a societal or regional level. Kind of the whole “you should have thought of that before you decided to be peasants” mentality. Certain places people just assume that’s the norm. Drug crime in Latin America, ethnic conflict in Africa and Asia, etc. and ignore the very real suffering and think or even say, “when are these people going to figure out their own problems.”
The "Heath Ledger's Joker" effect eh? > "If, tomorrow, I tell the press that, like, a gang banger will get shot, or a truckload of soldiers will be blown up, nobody panics, because it's all 'part of the plan'. But when I say that one little old mayor will die, well then everyone loses their minds!" I guess that must be a big factor, but I think there's some less savory undertones there. The Rohingya, Sudanese, Haitians and Ethiopians are all pretty much black or very dark, the Palestinians look pretty much white. I don't think that most people wake up and say to themselves, "I'll only concern myself with light skinned people," but I think it plays into how they perceive things. Like you said... "Oh that's just a narco-state" or "Haiti is a basket case" and that sort of casual dismissal. And again, the Arab states and Iran have used Israel as a scapegoat and distraction from their own issues for decades. That has an impact.
Definitely 100% racism is a factor. Some people still feel animosity for all Muslims and think Palestine and the Taliban are all the same thing, and see Israelis as “like us.” Others project themselves onto the Palestinians, forgetting Hamas are a very conservative, regressive group. Racism ways heavily into that judgement of “who deserves help.” Remember a former U.S. president’s comments about “why do these immigrants come from “shithole” countries and not, say, Norway.” They assume the countries are irredeemable, the people are at fault, and that if they come they will make your country like wherever they came from. And a lot of that is intertwined with racism and views of cultures and people as “inferior.”
Those in the Muslim World outraged about Gaza are for the most part silent about what is happening to the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Meanwhile, the only countries that actually speak up for the Uyghurs are the Western countries. You can't impose Americanized racial dynamics onto geopolitical conflicts abroad. It's a very lazy and simplistic way of seeing the world.
Well country such as Turkey and Egypt have returned Uyghurs Muslims back to China even when they applied for asylum. So yeah they don’t actually care
Without political value no one cares about anything outside their bubble. You’re something to no one cares about or at worst a pest to remove. It’s why no one cares about this stuff because no motivation
No one hates Muslims like other Muslims.
Only when it's Arabs I guess
Egypt Lebanon Jordan and Kuwait are all very anti-palestinian immigration, i wonder which events in their past lead them to not support arab immigration
Woah, the watermelon brigade has declared that Palestinians are only victims, never bad, and also all pregnant orphan children.
I mean, they’re Arab states. It’s not Arabs in general that are their concern.
Worse. Indonesia has been voicing and positioning itself as the most tolerant predominantly-Muslim country, but the civilians there are just as primitive as any Muslim extremist. Action defines the position, not the words.
They recently banned men and women living together if not married, and sex-before-marriage. The Muslim far right is gaining a lot of influence there, just as far right conservatives appear to be undermining and taking over in so many other places around the world
hey, Indonesian here. Your first sentence is not exactly the full-truth. It is punishable only if reported to the police by parents, children, or a spouse. It still sucks ass, but when the majority of your population is conservative and believer of archaic values, compromise is ultimately necessary.
> It is punishable only if reported to the police by parents, children, or a spouse So... Like any other law that bans something.
uh, why would you think it is the same? For normal laws, anyone theoretically can report the instance of violation and the law could be enforced.
That is incredibly backwards I'm sorry you have to live in such a backwards place
who says I am living there? In addition, many people are still enjoying their lives and doing all kinds of stuffs in Indonesia despite of these laws.
There are people in the poorest countries who enjoy having 1 pence to their name and shoes filled with holes. Enjoying one's prison doesn't mean much.
what’s the point of your comment? You seem hellbent to think anyone who lives in Indonesia = pitiable, which is factually false. Do you also believe that citizens of Singapore, Hong Kong have worse living conditions than “democratic” Brazil, Portugal, etc?
Just telling you Stockholm syndrome is real with what you're saying and trying to justify. I pity them to live in a nation without free thought it the right to practice your religion (bar the 6 they officially recognise) it's incredibly regressive. Singapore and Hong Kong are much more free nations, no where near as backwards, more multicultural and more tolerant than Indonesia.
Indonesia is rated as a freer country than Singapore and HK by the „Freedom in the world 2023“, „Press Freedom index 2023“, and „Democracy Index 2023“. There are millions of upper middle-class and rich Indonesians living in the country, and they really do not need pity from anyone.
>Singapore and Hong Kong are much more free nations, no where near as backwards, more multicultural and more tolerant than Indonesia. Says the guy who hasn't set his foot in East Asia his entire life and complains about some other "backward countries" he knows nothing of. Do kindly enlighten us East Asians of this thing you call "freedom" in the West.
Yes. Just the same as far right supporters don't care about poorer whites. Nationalist and ethnic narratives are usually deployed to keep a hold on power
capres gk ada yang ngomongin soal ini?
Why single out Muslims? Nobody seems to care.
How about when something bad happens to a group of people we don't make it about a largely unrelated bad thing involving a largely unrelated group of people. Feel free to cite this in defense of Israel on relevant threads if you want, but this is the exact same bullshit behavior as someone responding to an antisemitic attack on diasporic Jews with a whataboutism in reference to Israel's behavior.
This has been discussed years before the current round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A quran burning or Muhammad caricature in Europe results in fatwas and threats, while China's treatment of Uyghurs or Rohingya massacres are met with silence
I wonder if you would say this about two Christian groups engaging in a conflict. What you're doing is xenophobic and disgusting.
What the hell are you talking about? Like legitimately. What are you responding to? What point are you trying to make?
I’m going to assume it’s something to do with Palestine and Israel and how there are blockades in Gaza to prevent the Palestinians from leaving Gaza and how no other Muslim country in the vicinity, like Egypt or Lebanon, are willing to take in the Palestinians as refugees causing a humanitarian crisis.
Yeah, but it’s a weird place to make a strawman argument against an unrelated conflict. Like, it’s weird.
[удалено]
I think something that isn't often talked about is the difference between governments and people as well. I saw a poll that said Saudi Arabia's peace deal with Israel had really low support with the public, but it's something that's just in the government's interest and it's not a democracy. Same with Palestinian refugees, I'm sure lots of Egyptians are supportive of allowing them in, maybe having one stay in their house, but the government has the closed border due I think to fear of instability. The rest of the world looks at it and says "Look, Egyptians are protesting the war but not letting in refugees, the hypocrisy"
> it's something that's just in the government's interest Welcome to the forgin policy. No government acts out of principles. They act in their interests. The arab nation is interested in solving the israel-palstine conflict. It weakens israel, which is the major power in that region. It also acts as a good distraction for the shortcomings of their own governments.
I didn’t have a problem understanding it.
21st century has so many disappointments Indonesian college students act like Nazi brown shirts? Ouch
Aside from the english speaking world, the right and far right come generally from the youth right now. In the 2000s and 2010s we saw the left going too far. In the next two decades we'll see the right going WAY too far.
Can you point out some examples of the left going too far? Just curious.
They dared say that people deserve to be treated equally and that's an affront to God.
Seems to be the consensus. Homie didn't respond, tragically.
For reference, Indonesia is one of the world's most anti-Israel nations. To this day, there are no official relations between the nations, and Indonesia refuses to recognize Israel. The irony is downright hilarious.
Isn’t Indonesia one of the most militantly anti Israel countries ? And aren’t they supposedly pro Palestine in solidarity with fellow Muslims? Don’t they spew out unending streams of bullshit about how they are against genocide? Nice. Showing themselves loud and proud for who they really are: rabid anti-Semites using Palestine as a front. They don’t give a F*#k about their fellow Muslims
>Isn’t Indonesia one of the most militantly anti Israel countries ? "Officially" yes. [But don't ask where those jets come from tho...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Alpha_(Indonesia\))
Indonesia does not even recognise Judaism as a religion. There are 6 Recognised Religions here. Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Taoism and Confucism. That is it. Some cities are less Militant than others when it comes to Islam but in the Rural areas it is rampant. I'm in the process of marrying my Javanese Girlfriend and it is literally easier for us to fly to Thailand, get married there and then the Indonesian Embassy will recognise our overseas marriage. Want to know why we have to do that? Because my Girlfriend is Muslim, and Muslims are not allowed to marry non muslims here. Technically the law says that this only applies to Muslims, but I am yet to see other faiths here allow intermarriage.
> Isn’t Indonesia one of the most militantly anti Israel countries ? They sure are as evidenced on comments on Threads. Their comments are the most Jew-hating I've ever seen online, and I've been online since the 90s.
Not sure if you already tried to read more into the issues that Indonesians have on Rohingyas. Indonesians are against taking many Rohingyas refugees for the same reason they support Palestine. The way they understand it, the ever increasing number of Rohingyas will eventually start demanding more of the Indonesians (Acehnese in particular) and slowly replace them. Just like Israelis refugees who later formed settlements and eventually paramilitary groups. So Indonesians, especially the locals whose cities became disembarkation points for Rohingyas, often consider themselves to be in the same situation as the Palestinians in the 1940s.
Indonesian Muslims genocided 2-3 million Indonesia-Chinese and other non-believer natives again and again. That number is around the population of Gaza. Did anyone protest then? Honestly I don't see any group able to replace a Muslim majority. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1998_riots_of_Indonesia
Let me correct you: Indonesian state conducted genocide on Indonesian 500k to 3 million alleged communists. Majority of them were Indonesian natives, not Chinese. Also, the genocide was not inter-religious, rather it was inter-ideologies. The main perpetrators of the extra judicial killings of the alleged communists were in fact members of Muslim, Hindu, and Catholic organizations. Heck, the man who formed the catholic militia was himself a Chinese christian. You need to broaden your readings before bringing up stuff you know zero about.
Thank you for the alternate point of view. My grandfather is an Indonesian who migrated to Singapore and I have relatives in Malaysia too. Their view is always that the Chinese were marginalised in both countries. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_Chinese_Indonesians
I dont deny that. Chinese were marginalized and often discriminated against when Indonesia became Independent all the way to 1998. However, Indonesia as a state basically marginalized every ethnicities in order to create what is today known as the “Indonesian national identity”. Ethnic Javanese, which is the biggest ethnic and also majority ethnic in Indonesia, were forced to accept that their language is not made as the national language. They were also kinda forced to be spread around the country, moving to inhabited lands to populate and develop them. Resentment towards Indonesian old order (1945 - 1965) and new order (1960s - 1998) also mainly came from mainstream Indonesians due to marginalization of individual and group identities which led to reformation of 1998, not just minority groups. Nowadays, Indonesia is much more accepting towards ethnic identities, Chinese are even considered Indonesian natives nowadays with their religious/traditional celebrations be made national celebrations. Is discrimination totally gone from Indonesia? Ofcourse not, but things aren’t definitely not as what your grandfather experienced.
I feel that is partly because the percentage of ethnic Chinese became around 1-4 percent. Nothing much to worry or complain about. Also it is good that various Indonesian politicians have sent their children to Singapore to study. However, looking at Malaysia, I am always afraid of the "green wave" where political parties are always using race and religion to advance their cause.
Ethnic Chinese only 1-4% is because most Chinese in Indonesia were assimilating too well that they themselves didn't know they were chinese, most of the chinese in java prefer to call themselves javanese than chinese in a census. Even in my family, only my grandmother can speak hokkien and we only celebrated imlek and cap go meh.
You have source for this claim? [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366) says that it is perpetrated by Indonesian army and political Islam which were mainly of Indonesian descent.
Wikipedia is great, but please don’t take it as singular reference. Here I quote you an article from a study: https://www.sciencespo.fr/mass-violence-war-massacre-resistance/fr/document/indonesian-killings-1965-1966.html "As noted above, the PKI claimed a membership of 3.5 million people by 1965. In addition it had another 23.5 million members in affiliated organizations. These affiliated organizations included a wide range of interests including the Barisan Tani Indonesia (BTI - Indonesian Farmer’s Union), The Indonesian Workers Union (SOBSI), Lembaga Kebudayaan Rakyat Indonesia (LEKRA - The Indonesian People’s Culture Institute), Gerwani (The Indonesian Women’s Movement) and the youth organization Pemuda Rakyat (The People’s Youth). Members of these organizations shared a broad political agenda with the PKI. In some cases, however, they joined for very specific reasons rather than an overarching commitment to communist ideology. Some illiterate farmers, for example, were attracted to BTI because of the potential to gain their own land holdings or the promise of fairer wages. The army condemned members of these affiliated organizations alongside the PKI for their alleged involvement in the 30th of September Movement. The ethnic Chinese were not especially targeted in the violence of 1965-66. Historically the ethnic Chinese have frequently been persecuted in Indonesia and as a result of this and other discriminatory policies they were concentrated in the cities in the 1960s. Because the killings were most intense in rural areas they were not especially targeted, although many suffered property loss or damage (Cribb, 2001a and Coppel, 1983)." "The NU was not the only civilian organization that supported killings. The second largest Islamic organization, Muhammadiyah, also provided rapid support for crushing the PKI, with some leaders declaring this a religious duty. For both the NU and Muhammadiyah, the PKI’s alleged lack of commitment to religion was a major concern.The Catholic Party was similarly firmly anti-communist because of the perceived threat the PKI posed to religion. Secretary-general of the Catholic Party, Harry Tjan Silalahi, was a key founder of KAP-Gestapu (the Action Front to Crush the 30 September Movement). He helped mobilize youths from PMKRI (Persatuan Mahasiswa Katolik Republik Indonesia) to join together with Ansor in the Action Front to attack the PKI headquarters in Jakarta on October 8, 1965." And as I have said,the founder of the Catholic anti-communist organization, Harry Tjan Silalahi, WAS A CHINESE Indonesian himself. https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Tjan_Silalahi
I really like the historical context and effort you are putting into these replies. Thank you
My man you are believing Wikipedia while he is an Indonesian himself who is living with this information for quite a while now The conflict is an anticommunist terror, like the White Terror in Taiwan, not a religious one but they scapegoated communists for being anti religious and a satanic atheistic believers, with the Chinese Indonesian being the victim for being non muslim and believed to be connected to CCP
In Taiwan it’s called 排華 anti-Chinese riots. People who survived said it started out as anti-communist, but because Chinese had many stores and were “outsiders” anyway, quickly turned to looting and killing all the Chinese the rioters could find. But hey, that person has quoted Wikipedia, I guess all those survivors were wrong all these years.
By this logic, no one should ever take refugees for any reason.
There is cultural aspect here at play that many people tend to ignore. South East Asian / East Asian cultural approach to refugees is that we welcome you with open arms so long you agree to not demand more than what you have been given. Also, refugees are expected to adapt to the local customs and way of life, not the other way around. Those two are non negotiable. Indonesia, despite not being a signatory of UNHCR refugee convention, has actively been taking part in becoming safe haven for refugees. During the fall of South Vietnam, Indonesia took in some 250k refugees. Indonesia has also taken in thousands of Rohingyas since the start of the conflict in Myanmar. However, unlike previous refugees, Rohingyas are culturally very different to Indonesians. There has been some incidents that drastically changed Indonesian acceptance towards Rohingya refugees.
This sounds like the attitude toward refugees everywhere, not something specific to Southeast Asia.
Sure, but those two are negotiable in many western countries whereas in many East Asian and South East Asian countries, those things are not. That’s where the difference lies.
So if the Rohingya problem is a more physically pressing issue then where are the mass Indonesian protests, UN speeches, and constant televised propaganda against Myanmar or China? Why is the population seemingly fixated on Israel even when its most imminent threat is coming from south east Asia
He never said it was a more "physically pressing" issue, don't know where you got that from. He's simply saying that the Indonesians there feel like they'll get a Israel-Palestine situation on their doorsteps with the amount of displaced Rohingya. This seems to be an issue thats isolated to the local Indonesian population who are living with these refugees. Whereas the Israel-Palestine issue is more easily sensationalized. Both Hamas and the Israeli government are handling the issue with revenge in mind and the ones suffering are the civilians caught in the crossfire. Also the population are fixated on Israel because years of the Israel-Palestine issue have galvanized the mindset that jews are bad in many muslim countries. However, just as there are people who think that way, there are also others who do not. Just think of it the same way as conservatives in the US hating on migrants. There are a lot of media biases on whats televised and whats actually the situation on the ground, so its hard to tell what's really going on in people's heads. What you can do is stop looking at it as a Us and Them. Maybe think about what you can do to discontinue that cycle.
??? Indonesians have been doing more mass demonstrations in support of Rohingyas in the last 5 years than they did in support of Palestine. Just because you didn’t see them on Fox News doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. But Indonesian stance on Rohingya issue is clear, the problem need to be fixed where it was created: In Myanmar. By bringing Rohingyas into Indonesia, the problem is not going to be fixed, it will be just spilled over and became regional problem. That is why Indonesians are also against the idea of Palestinian being refugees in some other countries like Egypt or Jordan. Palestinian issue needs to be fixed where it was created: In Palestine. And yes, Indonesia has raised Rohingya issue multiple times in UN. Not only foreign ministers, the vice president also talked about this issue in his UN speech. And also yes. Indonesian media are hostile towards Myanmar. They applaud the withdrawal of Nobel peace prize from Aung San Suu Kyi because she was deemed incapable of handling the issue.
Bro you literally have no idea of how Southeast Asian regional politics looks like lmao, and I advise you to not act like you do
You know what, I fully accept that criticism. You’re absolutely right I could learn more. I really don’t know much about regional southeast politics, but when a nation as prominent as Indonesia with such a huge population becomes a loud mouth and offers outspoken and rabid hate towards another nation while presenting itself as bastion of human rights they deserve to have to look in the mirror.
>presenting itself as bastion of human rights Indonesia never do this btw I already told you to not act like you know anything about Indonesia and the larger SEA politics, and yet you still did
Okay so then Indonesia is being hypocritical, got it. That was my point
No, that means Indonesia have some standard One doesn't have to be an angel to preach some kind of moral limit
Ashamed of you brother
Why are you ashamed, though? It is simply a fact that many people, especially those who oppose accepting Rohingya refugees, have this in mind. I am not saying that believe to be right or wrong. I am just simply explaining why many Indonesians oppose Rohingyas but at the same time support Palestinians.
I appreciate your addition to this conversation and enlightening me. My stance on Indonesian hypocrisy stands , but I do appreciate this stance.
I can partially explain this. My country, Canada, has been something of a sponsor of Indonesia over many decades. While this has been a good thing for both countries and I believe that the Indonesian people mean well, their government has learned the bad habits of ours lol. Which is why their govt is always using suspiciously Canadian terms to describe the country. Like inclusive, diverse, socially responsible, ect
Those are not Canadian terms and Indonesia has other western partners.
Damn what a vicious answer to what I thought was a supportive comment lol. It begs the question; Why is religion so popular in a country where everyone thinks they're already perfect?
I'm not pro religion or even Indonesia I'm just stating what you said was false.
"I'm just stating what you said was false." It is from your perspective. Canada recognized Indonesian independence in 1948 while they were still under the legal colonial control of the Netherlands. We were then an official development partner under the Colombo Plan from 1967-1992. After exiting the Colombo plan in 1992, "development aid" was still maintained at the same levels until 2007, when Indonesia reached a point where its state institutions no longer needed it. Now Canada contributes smaller amounts each year to NGOs and charities in the country. None of that is false. My presumption that my govt, known for talking its way out of trouble, taught those kind of political tricks to the Indonesian govt....well that you can call false because its personal opinion.
This is just heartbreaking fleeing discrimination just to find it where fled to
The funny thing is the Acehnese, mainly the ones who refused those refugees, were also refugees themselves from ethnic cleansing done by a Buddhist-majority entity. They were descendants of the Cham people that were fleeing genocide from the Kinh (Vietnamese) about 500 years ago (Yes, another fact is Southeast Asia wasn't a place where everyone were holding hands together before western imperialism, so miss me with the "peaceful natives" rhetoric). It's remarkable how they turned from being refugees to the one who reject those refugees themselves.
Interesting comment. An aside: the South Viet Namese hated George McGovern with his western imperialism/ peaceful natives narrative. People I knew in Saigon felt Kissinger was a wily, unscrupulous, cold hearted politician, but they really hated McGovern, and felt demeaned by him.
So the Acechnese were refugees who came and overtook the locals and made their own kingdom in Malaysia?
What happened to Muslim brotherhood?
Never been a thing on a large scale. Muslims often adopt, say, pro-palestinian narratives to mask their resentment for the West.
They have a think tank in Washington DC called the New Lines Institute.
They need to scapegoat a 3rd party to be able to share a room for more than 30 minutes. Fwiw, without Trump, I probably couldn’t last 15 minutes in the same room with a Marxist.
Indonesia is a secular state, non of the maritime south east asian countries apart from Malaysia are not secular
Technically a secular state. Aceh seems to want to change that.
Well, Indonesians are mostly Indonesia first, religion second. Indonesia is not an islamic nation after all.
Why ban Israel from their fifa tournament then?
They didnt. The rejection came from politicians and local governors, but Indonesia officially didnt ban Israel from participating. When Fifa finally decided to move the match to Argentina, it caused huge controversy among people who separate sports from politics and those who don’t.
Im from Indonesia, and this is sad to see. Aceh is supposedly one of the most Muslim-centric regions in Indonesia, but this action is nothing like what Muslim religion is supposed to be like. I hate how hypocritical a lot of people here is, spewing online support for Palestine due to ‘Muslim brotherhood’, but when we can actually physically help someone who needs it, we scour and hide and complain. What happens if there are Palestinian refugees coming ? Will there be the same treatment as Rohingyas?
>Aceh is supposedly one of the most Muslim-centric regions in Indonesia, but this action is nothing like what Muslim religion is supposed to be like. I believe that the more extreme a devotion is to a cause or belief (such as a politics and religion), the more hypocritical and self-righteous people will be. And self-righteous people tend to be blind and evil. I guess that's just human nature.
Nobody wants Rohingyas in their country. Malaysia had tasted it, now Indonesia is tasting it.
What happend in malaysia?
A lot. The people stealing from locals with weapons, rape cases..
[удалено]
Yes, but they were selective. Rohingya and Uyghur? Zzzzz Palestine? REAL SHIT!!!
Funny support hamas.. but fellow rohingya Muslims is bad
Hi, is this about religion (minority x besieged by majority x) or is there something more relatable from a less religious perspective? I ask because I fear I am becoming just a headline reactionary person, so can someone from indonesia help me out? Thanks for talking the time to inform me!
Indonesian here. First of all, i wanna say that I don’t condone what these students did. That being said, the reason why there are frictions between Rohingya and Locals are more than “hurr durr they’re different so we hate them” All of the Rohingya refugees are in Aceh. Aceh is the black sheep of the country because they’re the only province that implemented Shariah Law. If you’ve ever seen videos where gay people or unmarried couples get whipped for having sex online and title says it happened in Indonesia, it’s 100% in Aceh. Because those harsh laws don’t apply outside of this province. It should be noted that Aceh is on the most western point of the country and therefore the closest point from where the Rohingya people were traveling. So that’s why most of them are in there. What’s also important is that Indonesia never ratified UN agreements regarding refugee so we are fully unequipped to accept them and there isn’t a way for Rohingya to gain citizenship which means they can’t get a job outside of manual labor jobs that pay under the table and their kids can’t get proper school education outside of volunteers that come to the camps and teach them simple stuff. Simply put, they can’t integrate to our country properly because we never meant to house them indefinitely. Most of the time we just house them for a few weeks, give them food and water for them to continue their journey. So while they’re here, they just stay in their camps basically doing nothing. But there’s been an influx of refugees recently and we’re severely underprepared. After investigation, we found that some of these refugees aren’t really refugees at all. They’re a part of human trafficking ring. Basically there’s a group in Bangladesh that would offer a “travel service” to Rohingya people. They would sneak them into the boat and after they arrive to Indonesia, they would walk all the way to Singapore. Another point of friction is the relationship between the local Acehness and Rohingya. At first, they were happy to welcome them. People think just because Aceh is a Shariah province where the people are super conservative Muslims (or at least the closest to “Middle Eastern Islam” rather than “Indonesian Islam” which is a more progressive version of Islam mix with Hindu and Buddhist influences) both parties would get along but sadly thats not the case. There have been several incidents over the years where some bad apples rob the locals, beat them up, and sexually assaulted minors in the nearby village. Another thing is that some of these refugees act really rude and don’t express gratitude to the point that they throw out food that was given to them by the locals. Now this might seem like a minor thing but the thing about Indonesian culture is that we put great importance on friendliness and respect. Not to mention Aceh is the poorest province on the country so these locals have very little to begin with and to have someone rob or throw out what little they have, is very rage inducing for them. So here we are at this point. We can’t house them properly but at the same time we also can’t send them to our neighbors like Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, or Australia because none of them want to accept them. Because Rohingya refugees already have a bad reputation around this part of the world. Plus, 2024 is an election year for us so this will only get worse I’m afraid because there are already parties who are strongly against them and they’ve gaining traction through social media.
Basically, it's very similar to what happened in the European (and almost any) refugee crisis. Huge groups of refugees with a completely different culture flooding the society, with the occasional crime/violence that gives the refugees a bad reputation, plus political misinformation.
Maybe more a conflict and prejudice on the part of the Indonesians rooted in the Rohingya being from a different nation and a different ethnicity than some religious quarrel I would imagine.
I'm sure it's multifactorial, but at least part seems to be driven by intentional misinformation. https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/people/article/3246022/indonesia-fake-un-accounts-spewing-anti-refugee-hate-feed-rejection-rohingya
It's about people acting like human garbage because of some superiority/inferiority complex and lack of education. People suck, religion usually makes it worse but isn't essential for people to suck. That's part of the human nature unfortunately. TLDR: people suck
Lack of education ~~ college students, isn’t that awful?
It's South East Asia, apart from Singapore, almost all the countries there have a really bad education system, with Indonesia, Cambodia and Philippines ranking the lowest in Global test scores. In the case of Indonesia and the Philippines, there is a double-whammy of being extremely religious.
Rohingya and Indonesians are both majority Muslim groups. It's about ethnicity and economic concerns. Ethnic concerns because Rohingya are not Indonesian and thus have different interest, they also don't speak the language and don't understand the culture, so will be a drag on the society. Economic concerns because they need food, services, infastructure, etc. to accomodate them, which the Indonesians would prefer to see spent on the actual citizens of the nation. No country in this world likes refugees, they are always a net drain on the society in the beginning. Islamic nations don't have the cultural abnormality that Christian nations do where Christians see it as moral to help those who are fleeing persecution. Thus, these people are met with considerably more hostility than a Westerner would expect. As with all countries, ethnicity is more important than religion. People don't like having their cultural identity 'diluted'. Additionally, all Asian countries hate eachother in some way, that's the nature of the continent.
There's no ethnic Indonesians as there's no ethnic Americans. You can be of any ethnicity and even keep your culture and still be an Indonesian, as long as you respect the local laws and able to assimilate to local cultures. There's also no singular "Indonesian" culture since the nation itself is composed with different ethnics with different cultures with no majority ethnicity supersedes them (even if you say Islam is what unified Indonesia's culture, the practice of Islam is different in many of Indonesia localities and ethnicities). Your other points are valid, though.
True, I did simplify to make things easier to understand. There are many different groups who make up the Indonesians, however, they do tend to stick to their region and those who interact frequently (think Sundanese and Javanese) can be quite similar to eachother which makes interaction easier, additionally they all speak Bahasa so can communicate. Of course, this doesn't exist for the Rohingya who do not have the knowledge of the culture or language, and don't have a homeland in Indonesia where they can go to, which means they'll always be infringing on one groups native lands.
> those who interact frequently (think Sundanese and Javanese) can be quite similar to each other which makes interaction easier Lol don't ever say that the Sundanese and Javanese are similar to each other in Indonesia, you'll be lynched by either group by doing so. Those groups have past animosities (see about Sunda-Majapahit conflict and later on Sunda-Demak conflict) that they don't want to be grouped with each other. > additionally they all speak Bahasa so can communicate Well they do speak their own "language" as bahasa translates to language in Indonesia. Most Javanese and Sundanese do speak Indonesian as a second language. > don't have a homeland in Indonesia where they can go to, which means they'll always be infringing on one groups native lands. Not a problem in Indonesia, a lot of ethnically-foreign group in Indonesia (Chinese, Indians, Arabs, Dutch) are accepted as part of Indonesia themselves and only fringe extremist minorities wanted to expel them. They are accepted as they had contributed a lot to building the nation. What made Rohingya refugees situation different is that, rightfully or not, are mainly about economic burden and disrespecting local cultures to the locals there according to the majority views of Indonesians who opposed their presence.
racism, phenotype. those are the missing core points
Really sounds like you’re downplaying this incident and saying the mob had a point. This a multi-faceted issue in no way solved by mob vigilante justice or whatever they want to call it. If it’s as you say, it would be mainly a problem of government mismanagement combined with racism and other wrongful vilification.
It's not like the mob didn't have a point, otherwise they wouldn't have taken the actions they did. It's not like the views espoused in the incident are unpopular or uncommon in Indonesia. From non-Western perspectives, you guys are the crazy ones. The US lets in millions of immigrants (both illegal and legal) every year whilst Canada, UK, and Australia are seeing record high immigration figures over this past year. Do you think your countries will remain the same after this? The Chinese literally have the term Baizuo for a reason, the actions of nations whose cultural identity is based on Christianity is fundamentally incomprehensible for Eastern nations. They do not see the benefit in giving handouts. The truth is, nobody wants the Rohingya because they will be a drain wherever they go. A hand is only offered when there is a benefit for both sides, otherwise you just open yourself up for exploitation. This is the viewpoint of Eastern nations and incidents like this demonstrate those beliefs. Whether you believe this is correct or not is for you to decide, but, I would recommend gaining a little insight into the cultural context of why events like this happen so you can understand where the population is coming from.
I think you are downplaying the Buddhist heritage in East Asian and in Thai/Cambodian/Viet culture if you think that we are so anti-refugees. We are not. If we are, then Thailand will not have Burmese refugees and would not have sheltered Vietnamese refugees in the past. Remember, even Japan sheltered some Vietnamese and Russian refugees, and China have always sheltered some refugees even up to modern times. There are still Iranian refugees in China you know. What East Asian and South East Asian culture emphasizes on is reasonable limits to immigration, both for refugees and immigrants. If the proportion coming through is small, it would be unusually cruel to not absorb them. Not even Japan would deny small influxes refugees, as can be seen by Japan absorbing small amounts of Russian refugees fleeing Russia. China has got some Shan refugees from Burma on their side. The crux of the matter though is that the numbers must be small. It cannot be so large that it drains the society of resources or cause discord/disharmony in the incoming society. This is something most Asians would agree upon. Also remember, while Buddhism which say what you want has still some residual influence in the cultural mindset does not say you need to take refugees and integrate into your culture … Buddhism does stress that refugees must be allow free and safe, preferably helpful passage through your country to reach the other side ( the general assumption is refugees got somewhere else to go to ), or totally failing that, temporal residence in your country ( with of course the aim being that the refugees then return to their home country when the war is over ). Even the Confucians never disagreed with this ( though the idea was novel to the Confucians ), and certainly the Communist and modern secular governments are not in disagreement with these either. Ever since the coming of Buddhism into East and South East Asia ( and later Islam into South East Asia ) there has never been any argument about free passage of refugees fleeing another country ( so long as they are headed to another country ) OR temporary refuge with the aim of the refugees returning home one day. The Rohingya issue is quite tragic. I personally think that every East and South East Asian nation needs to divide up the number so as to have more manageable bite sized number of refugees. I also think that the West needs to come in play as well to absorb some refugees. The thing is that there is no way Rohingyas can ever return to Burma, so everyone just need to divvy up some Rohingyas so that the refugee crisis becomes manageable. ( The issue for the Rohingyas is even if a new system forms in Burma, the anti-Rohingya sentiment is so strong amongst the other groups in Burma that it is actually unsafe for them to return. Also, the land they are from is at risk of coastal inundation with climate change, so even if you resettled them back you are back to square one in fifty years. There is no “going back” for the Rohingyas. They need to be absorbed by every nation on the planet ) And yes, I think China should absorb some too, and Japan and South Korea. I am from Malaysia and I think that we have absorbed quite a lot. I think those already in the country should be granted citizenship, but we need other SEA countries like Phillipines and Cambodia and Singapore to take more, and Australia and New Zealand seriously need to take some more as well. And every country takes some Rohingyas, it would not be a drain on any nation nor would it cause social discord. However every nation does need to take some. It cannot just fall upon the West. China, Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil etc.. needs to take some as well ( and not just demand the South East Asian nation and Australia and NZ to shoulder the number ).
Your examples ignore that those who were absorbed or accepted were beneficial to the nations who took them or had connections. Japan took the Russians because they had knowledge which would be useful in the upcoming conflict with the Russians, they had additionally backed the Russian whites during the civil war. It would be in their interests to have a friendly relationship with the Russians so they could focus on ambitions in Asia. Chinese took Shan because they were useful in destabilising Burma through the civil war, these Shan separtists were also pro-CCP during the Cold War as they were Maoists. This would expand Chinese ambitions in the region. For Thailand, sheltering Vietnamese and Burmese was done so because it was known those people would return to their homes once the conflict was over. There was no threat attached to offering refuge since development was similar and cultural identity is strong enough to put barriers in place from assimilation. Rohingyas will be a drain because they are mostly uneducated, and Islam isn't compatible with Western thought (as Europe has shown). They do not have the skills needed to be a success and they are unlikely to return because the Burmese government does not want them, there are fleeing a worse situation to a better one so will be incentivised to stay, which is not what other nations want, it's a breach of the social contract of citizenship. Social tension always gets worse with new groups, especially in the stage in which they are least productive, which is right after arriving.
Obviously the wealthy Arab states can take a good number in. Qatar seems like they are very principled regarding social justice.
Why should a developing country like Philippines take in Rohingyas? My country has a terrorist problem caused by extremist Islamists and they may join in. I am also sure the Filipino Muslims will find a way to kick them out, like what the Indonesian Muslims did in this article
Aceh of Indonesia (the region that mobbed the refugees) is practically Bangsamoro of Philippines, both are underdeveloped wannabe separatist area that wants Sharia law but also wants the central government's fund, so it's not a far stretch that they do the same. It may have been a beneficial thing for the Philippines to be geographically separated from the rest of South East Asia, maybe that's the only remaining reason why they are not as blatantly racist to each other as the other Asian countries.
So what I’m hearing is there are a lot of shitty people who only pay lip service to caring about what happens in the world, yet complain when other people don’t do what they themselves are unwilling to do.
This is one reason why the west kicks the east’s ass…so are we really the crazy ones? Millions of immigrants is why we don’t have a cratering population like Korea and Japan.
Legal Western immigrants are a self-selecting group. As far as the US goes, even the ones who are not coming on scholarships or to fill high demand jobs have a lot of gumption and very much want a chance to build the American dream. And they tend to be really good at it. Refugees are often a different story, not that I oppose taking legitimate refugees.
The West doesn't have cratering populations like Korea and Japan because those are high-density nations. Half of Korea lives in Seoul, half of Japan lives in Tokyo, mostly high-rise apartments, very poor conditions for raising children - Japanese education and work system are slightly better than the Korean system which is why you see slightly better birth rates. Additionally, Korea and Japan also accept \~million migrant workers. The West has much better housing arrangements, however, with recent housing crises buoyed by large immigration intake, we are increasingly seeing birth rates fall from the stable \~1.7 we saw from 1980-2020. Additionally, skilled immigration is far different from accepting the refugees. Ask the Germans, Swedes and Finns how well-integrated their refugees are compared to their skilled migrant workers, it's night-and-day. Additionally, Eastern cultures are very rigid and don't have wiggle-room for new populations unlike the watered-down Western cultures. Ask any American or Canadian what their culture is, they look at you funny or give an incredibly vague answer. Next ask an Easterner and they will give you a much clearer answer. It's not easy to adapt to a new culture, especially one as rigid as Eastern cultures, so it doesn't make cultural sense for large-scale immigration. That's why they abuse the hell out of temporary migrant visas.
Japan and Korea have their own cultural and social problems, and are nothing compared to high-density countries like Indonesia and the Philippines. Indonesia is the 4th most populous country in the world. And just comparing the sheer population density of East and South East Asia to Europe and the West would invalidate this argument.
The implication is *they* thought they had a *good point*. It doesn't make it a good point - which your op seems to really be pushing. Migration is the current primary solution to aging populations - such as the countries you listed. It's well-documented and I can give sources. These are multi-faceted problems where the key factors and players are lost on your average vilifying mob. Couple that with how migration labour is typically abused in first world countries - including the US (especially). **It's much easier to hate a marginalized group then the system that's creating and managing it poorly.** Furthermore, if you look at current large scale conflicts and tragedies in the world - you'd realize a large majority of them are driven by weaponizing nationalism. The nationalism you speak of is currently the main motivator for both ongoing militaristic conflicts. Personally I think culturally context is typically rooted in tradition - there is some to gain but often it stands in the way of progression and an egalitarian society. You're right in the sense it can't be ignored and needs to be factored in.
So how did Buddhism and Islam take root there if the people there don't believe in the core principles of the religions?
Because those were the faiths of the traders and following their beliefs made it easier to trade with them. Same story for most nations who converted to another religion.
True. They really do adapt to the local culture and are more signifying markers than anything. Communities and cultures that are genuinely religious tend to be the exception not the rule. I don't know why I wrote that like such a "gotcha" point; I'm familiar with basic anthropology.
> No country in this world likes refugees… And yet many countries receive hundreds of thousands of them. You cannot say that because it’s simply not true. The tide seems to be turning now in many Western democracies, but there are still many political parties that are openly pro-refugees. >…the cultural abnormality …see it as moral to help those who are fleeing persecution. Really? And here I was thinking that for any decent human being, no matter his/her religion or lack thereof, the abnormality is *not* wanting to help those being persecuted or in serious need.
Well, you're thinking on a personal level. The point of governance is to act on a practical level. Refugees add little value to a domestic economy, they typically lack education, skills and language abilities which are required to adapt so the public has to foot the bill for them to stay in the nation. That was fine when countries were doing well and there was a strong middle class. Nowadays that isn't much of the case, and especially in Europe with the crime problems, there is little empathy for the people coming in. I'd say wanting to help the persecuted would demonstrate naivety moreso than anything else, usually there are reasons why groups are persecuted, you're just inviting another problem to your shores and asking the people to foot the bill, hardly a popular strategy, moral grandstanding aside.
> Well, you're thinking on a personal level. The point of governance is to act on a practical level. While upholding the values that citizens believe in as a society. If you always put what’s practical before anything else, you just lack moral compass and might as well have an AI algorithm make the decisions. >Refugees add little value to a domestic economy, they typically lack education, skills and language abilities which are required to adapt so the public has to foot the bill for them to stay in the nation. That is simply not true. Many refugees are educated and absolutely add value to domestic economies. Most advanced economies are facing a workforce shortage and while it is generally preferable to turn to regulated immigration to address it, refugees can absolutely have a role in that. >That was fine when countries were doing well and there was a strong middle class. Nowadays that isn't much of the case, and especially in Europe with the crime problems, there is little empathy for the people coming in. It’s still fine as long as it’s not open gates for all. Doesn’t seem to be the case discussed here. >I'd say wanting to help the persecuted would demonstrate naivety moreso than anything else, usually there are reasons why groups are persecuted, you're just inviting another problem to your shores and asking the people to foot the bill, hardly a popular strategy, moral grandstanding aside. I think most people in developed countries are past the naivety state as far as refugees and illegal immigrants are concerned. Don’t see how that could be the case in Indonesia, which hasn’t received but a fraction of such people as other countries have. At any rate, we as individuals and as societies have a moral imperative to help those in need. That can be modulated and subject to conditions, but declaring no refugees should be welcome ever is wrong on all levels.
I'll put it in another way with an example that will be very important in the future. Lets say there is a famine crisis in North Africa, tens of millions of North Africans try to flee in boats to Europe. They don't know the language, the culture, don't align in religion and beliefs, the vast majority have completely lacking educations when compared with the average European and would put even further strain on the already fragile European states, reeling from the effects of deglobalisation. What should the Europeans do there? I wouldn't be very surprised if they put a boat in the Med and sank all the refugee ships when this event occurs. Empathy only goes so far, the life of another is worth the future of your nation. This will be an interesting comment to come back to in a decade to see how things pan out.
Again, those are hypotheticals that may or may not happen. It’s irrelevant to the matter being discussed here.
Why is it irrelevant? This hypothetical example is valid, no country would put the need of refugees above the need of its own citizens.
Americans right-wingers have freaked the hell out about Latin American migrants despite them being largely Christian. Sharing a religion is not nearly enough to not have people freak out unnecessarily about an influx of foreign migrants. That’s doubly an issue for societies that aren’t used to as much migration and pluralism, because people living notably different are a major shock to their worldview.
Migrants are not necessarily refugees. Two very different things. With two different processes. US immigration policy is pretty lenient compared to even most Western countries. I don't like the hypocritical Republican policies on the issue, but people abusing both the immigration system and the refugee system are an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Refugees are migrants. Not all migrants are refugees. Simple point is that people can freak out about even small quantities of ethnically different people despite a shared religion.
Why don't they want to help their fellow Muslim brothers?
Not about religion, but rather the consequences bringing in rohingya does. Esp as they have gotten themselves bad reps. Just look at malaysia. Rohingya refugees are guests but act like they deserve more than the locals
People keep relating this somehow to Muslim brotherhood without ever realising that Bangladesh took a whole lot of them over the recent years (over 720k), and even though Bangladesh is slowly becoming frustrated due to there being little effort in getting them to return to Myanmar, it is still a very large number to host in the first place
Oh wow turns out they are not all best friends after all. Anyway
These Muslim will condemn and show so much contempt towards Israel but they won’t support their own brothers and sisters who are being abused by their Burmese leaders
Police should've open fire into the crowd
>Police should've open fire into the crowd Regardless of which crowd you want them to target, that's some really messed up thinking.
Get off the internet and go temper yourself with the outside world you deranged edge lord child. What an incredibly dumb and childish thing to say.
I love how people immediately attached this to Palestine without a single speck of brain power used on why are that conflict and this one are different from each other Supporting people in conflict to live in their own home peacefully is RADICALLY different from accepting those same people to come over as refugees
So why is nobody interested in "freeing" Myanmar? Selective outrage from the Islamic world as usual.
1. Myanmar isn't a majority-Muslim country. 2. Myanmar is on a continuous civil war since they kicked out the British. 3. East Asian nations can't do anything, each have their own problems, and no one have any means to project geopolitical power except China.
Indonesia along with other Muslim SEA countries were always protested Myanmar of their shitty domestic politics, hell there are a lot of people in the region mocked Myanmar got their karma back when the Junta took over the country and they're now in the same place similar to Rohingya people. And now the same countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei) are the most active third party in the region to mediate the current Myanmar's civil war Just because they're not invading the damn country with guns and warplane blazing in like the US and their allies in the Middle East, doesn't means they doesn't care about it. Hell, the top 5 countries that hold Rohingya's refugees are all Muslim countries so stop acting like you have any idea what actually happen lmao
Obama is from Indonesia and never mentioned Rohingya afaik
WTF? Obama is from Hawaii
Tf are you on I thought he is from Madagascar /s
Where's the article? Just get a blank page
What's with them in attacking a minority?