Majority-minority social relations in the post-disaster recovery

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010

Majority-minority social relations in the post-disaster recovery Discrimination Against Chinese Ethnic in Padang Post the September 2009 Earthquake

Laila Kholid Alfirdaus Department of Government Studies, Faculty of Social and Political Science 1 Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia Alfirdaus_laila@yahoo.com

Abstract This paper tries to unravel issues about discrimination against Chinese ethnic in Padang post the September 2009 earthquake and how policy responds to this problem.

Debates on this issue arise for questioning the validity of facts of the discrimination. On the one hand, the Chinese people mostly admit that they feel discriminated. This feeling arose for the very slow and limited response to them and their family during the emergency situation until the recovery process. In addition, seems to realize that their status in social life are as of minority, most Chinese apathetically assert that helps would not come to them despite of the very urgent situation,and this is merely because they are Chinese. For them, becoming Chinese means that they are deemed as rich, although statistically there are many of them are poor, perceived as greedy, and seen as stingy.

On the other hand, the native residents or pribumi and the authorities resisted that discrimination never exists. They argue that the issue is blown up just to rise up the news selling, so it is only the politics of the media. Secondly, it is only the Chinese that exaggerate the issue for they always complaining on everything. In addition, in fact, it is not only the Chinese ethnic who face such difficulties for some other people also bear the impact as great as the Chinese and do not get proper helps. This study is conducted through in-depth interviews during June-early September 2010, asking more than 30 people in Padang that are mostly Chinese, and strengthened by media news survey.

This issue forces us to think about the social complexities surrounding the disaster management and disaster recovery. Therefore, policy designed to respond to the disaster should consider equality, give specific attention for specific social groups, and be oriented to strengthen social cohesiveness.

Keywords: disaster, discrimination, Chinese ethnic

1. Introduction The aim of this study is to identify the issue of discrimination against Chinese ethnic in Padang Post the September 2009 earthquake. This issue arose after an sms was widely spread aknowledging the discrimination against Chinese in Padang. Before this, Radio Nederland Wereledomroep on 30 September 2009 also reported the issue by interviewing Chinese people, the earthquake victim that revealed the very slow response to the Chinese victims. The news then is widely spread throughout the local and national media. However, the authority in Padang refused to admit the allegation and choosed to blame Chinese people for being too dependent on the government despite of their economic capability. On the other hand, people was debating about the discrimination itself and disagreeing each other about how to deal this problem. This paper tries to highlight this debate based on the findings during the interview and

discuss the policy implication, in the sense of how policy or authorities respond to this problem, and identify some points that might be useful as recommendations.

In relation to Padang, discrimination becomes a sensitive issue to discuss in the post disaster context for some reasons. It deals with minority. Chinese people are statistically minority, socially deprived and politically underrepresented. Blowing up this issue is such a dilemma. For the Chinese, voicing discrimination as a public issue would be kind of “suicide”, offcourse not in the leterlij meaning. For the researcher, asking about this to the natives and the government is much more difficult because you have to avoid sentence/s that might be perceived as blaming.

In addition, since this issue was blown up, reaction was relatively negative. The

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

1

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010 bureaucracy refused that discrimination existed and argues that they had done the best for the recovery. Meanwhile, the natives argue that they themselves experience complexities as the Chinese. Therefore, it was a matter of the government performance per se, not about discrimination. Nonetheless, both blamed the media because they did not consider further impact and just thought of the increasing selling for their publication of the bad news (discrimination).

Table 1 media news published on discrimination against Chinese ethnic in Padang post the September 2009 earthquake

This study is done through interviews and sthrengtened by newsclippings on media’s publication towards this issue. There are more than 30 people interviewed consist of Chinese people, Minang people (the native populace of Padang), Javanese people, Batak (North Sumatra), and Jambi who migrate to Padang, government officers, academics in university, NGO activitst, and local representatives. The study was conducted from June until September 2010 when people were settling their ability to function their social and economic activities.

Discrimination against Chinese ethnic in Padang post the September 2009 earthquake at first was believed as a rumour. An sms, as reported by Jawa Pos, 5 October 2009, was widely spread person to person containing the message of as the following: “Tell the world, Stop the donation to West Sumatra!!! Primordialism and racism is happening in there, Chinese people didn’t allowed to have food and was forced to buy the food aid. Family of mine was at there!!! Please sent out this massage to the world so they know the true!!!”

Quickly, this became a hot issue in media. Koran Tempo, Kompas, Republika, Jawa Pos, and Radio Nederland Weredomroep reported some indications of discrimination in rescuing the Chinese victims as well as in distributing the aids tothem during the first two weeks of October 2009. Table 1 tells us about the news those media published towards discrimination against Chinese ethnic in Padang post the September 2009 earthquake.

News

Date

Radio Netherland redomroep

A Chinese people who admitted that he/she did not received any aid although he/she was in emergency.

Chinese people are asked to pay for cleaning the ruined building and making up the ruined house at about Rp300.000-500.000 Satkorlak looked very slow in responding to the victims that were mostly Pecinan residents Satkorlak seemed to pay too much attention to Ambacang building but left victims in Pecinan Chinese people had to help themselves to get rescued and making the ruined buildings Aids did not reach Chinese people in Pecinan although some other victims in other areas had already received them.

30 Sept 2009

Koran Tempo

Kompas

Jawa Pos

In its presentation, this study will categorize respondents’ perspectives towards the discrimination issue, how they see the importance of prioritizing this issue in post disaster recovery, addressing the source of discrimination perception, the implication, the lesson learned from this issue, and the policy recommendation.

2. The historical background of the rise of discrimination issue against Chinese ethnic in Padang Post the September 2009 earthquake

Media

Metro TV

Republika

4 Oct 2009

5 Oct 2009

5 Oct 2009

6 Oct 2009

9 Oct 2009

Source: media survey, 2010.

Responding to the published news, the government looked as rather annoyed. Erniwati figured out the government’s refusal of discriminatory manners allegation by citing one of the West Sumatra central figures’ statement, “if you alleged the government of discrminating against Chinese people, please pull out all of the Chinese people’s property to make up the ruining 1 Padang”. This implies that the government wanted to allege back the Chinese people as unwilling to help either themselves and the others despites of the very well-being life they have.

Erniwati was strengthened by Sudarto, an NGO activist, who still remembered the anger of the West Sumatra central figure responding to this issue. For Sudarto, the negative response by the government had not made any point. It had worsened the problem instead.

Another response was expressed by Fauzi Bahar, the mayor of Padang municipality that was then busy to counter the allegation by showing off the public his awareness of the Chinese people. In a TV broadcast, Fauzi was reported of bringing a sack of rice and devoted it symbolically to the Chinese. However, as Elisa and Susanly, it was like only a drama since after that broadcasting there had never been aid for 1

Interview on 27 June 2010

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

2

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010 the Chinese in Pecinan. They remained helping themselves.

Since then, attention of the public increased, expressed for example in the blog’s chats. The response can be divided into two perspectives. The first one is those who are for the Chinese ethnic, that believe the discrimination exists and see this as an irony amidst the democracy that is developing in the country. The second one is those who disagree that discrimination exists and see this as a merely rumour.

3. Perspectives on discrimination

against Chinese Ethnic in Padang Post the September 2009 earthquake Media publishing on discrimination against Chinese in padang post the September 2009 earthquake reminds us of the social complexities in disaster recovery. In fact, disaster is not only about being aware of its impacts on physical buildings, but also social relations between people. In responding to a disaster, there is a need for deep thinking of maintaining the social cohesion. In terms of aid distribution, rescuing the victims, and trauma healing there should be equality, participation and transparency.

Otherwise, disaster would only be seen as a new resource for the government to gain benefit (donation) amidst the people’s adversity, or called as “blessing in disguise.

Kalin (2005), the representative of UNSecretary General on Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), undelines some 2 principles of protection for the IDPs. The principles are access to assistance, nondiscrimination, protection of women and children, non-trafficking, access to education, protection of loss documentation, participation of IDPs, voluntary return and resettlement, and property issue.

Why Kalin underlines Non-discrimination principle in disaster recovery is that discrimination may arise in terms of the distribution of humanitarian and reintegration assistance and in decisions regarding relocation and resettlement.

Meanwhile, assistance must be provided in accordance with the impartiality and neutrality principles, without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or caste or privileging social groups. For Kalin, inequities in aid distribution and decisions regarding post disaster recovery not only violate humanitarian principles but also risk creating tensions which can threaten the security of IDPs and complicate their integration as well as frustrate moves towards national reconciliation.

2

The definition of IDPs (internally displaced persons) is as persons “forced or obliged to flee or leave their homes or places of their habitual residence” for reasons which include, besides conflict and civil strife, natural disaster.

What the Chinese ethnic in Padang felt during the early response of disaster until the recovery process is that they do not have access to assistance. Greta and Vivi are amongst respondents who admit not receiving anything since the disaster attacked. They also do not have access to decisions towards the recovery policy, nor access to participate. The way the Chinese used to survive was that they altogether in their socio-cultural unions help themselves without considerable assistance from the government. Although they felt a bit helped by those unions and church, they remained feeling alone because of the government’s absence.

This situation triggered the question of “is it because they are chinese that the government did not come to help?.” The feeling of being discriminated thus is unavoidable.

However, not all people and institutions in Padang have the similar point of views with those of the Chinese’s. From the interviews, it is found that the Chinese and NGO activists are in contrast view from those of native residents, the government officers, the legislatures, and the academics. Almost all of respondents that are ethnically Chinese admit that they did not get any aid from the government nor from their neighboring residents. They see this as a form of discrimination. Meanwhile, the native residents.

The academic and the legislature argue that it is not a discrimination. They see the problem as stemming from the bureaucratic barriers that caused the recovery running very slowly.

However, the government itself refuses both views—either committing discriminatory manners or being very slow in responding to the victims. The government asserts, and repeats this in any moment—media, conference, and meeting—that the aids has been more than 90% distributed to the victims. The government also claims the success of the recovery—as asserted

by Fauzi Bowo the mayor in his (failing) governor campaign—indicated by the awakening of economic activities in Pasar Raya (central market of Padang) and the continuing of the economic 3 growth of Padang in general. The government also argues that they do aware of Chinese people. They use the documentation of the government’s efforts to rescue people in Ambacang Hotel and to distribute the government aids to Yayasan Prayoga as evidence of the 4 government’s awareness of the Chinese people.

The government’s claims were contradictory to Sudarto’s, an NGO activist that commit advocacy program for the Chinese people. for Sudarto, it is ridiculous if the government claimed that they are aware of the Chinese using their documentation of Ambacang and Yayasan Prayoga rescuing as evidence.

3

It is as asserted in Fauzi Bahar’s governor election campaign in Metro TV, 23 June 2010.

4 It is as explained by Sudarto when asked about the government’s response of the Chinese victims in Pecinan.

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

3

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010 According to Sudarto, it is true that Ambacang Hotel is owned by a Chinese. However, as Sudarto argued, the government seemed to forget that most of the victims in Ambacang are the natives. In addition, Sudarto’s perspective, Yayasan Prayoga is not Chinese affiliated organization. It, to Sudarto’s knowledge, is a Catholic organization or foundation that focuses on education. Based on Sudarto’s data, there are only 40-50% of Chinese teenagers studying in Yayasan Prayoga, the rest are Moslem, native and new comers from other regions. Sudarto’s statement is strengthened by Veridiana Somanto, one of the director in Yayasan Prayoga that is interviewed on 26 June 2010, that her office is a religion-based foundation, not cultural one, like the Chinese’s, that serves not only the Chinese, not only the Catholics, but all people who need education, with no exception of the natives, the migrants, and even the Moslems. To strengthen his finding, Sudarto gave a list of about 800 Chinese families from a Chinese cultural union, consists of about 3000-4000 Chinese people that did not gain the government’s aid at all.

Nonetheless, academics and sociologist have different views from that of Sudarto’s. For Erniwati, such an issue is a mere of media politics to grab big profit form news publishing.

Erniwati does not believe that discrimination exists. What Erniwati sees is the failing government in tackling the disaster recovery.

Strengthening Erniwati, Febrin, the director of the Center of Disaster Studies (Pusat Studi Bencana, Andalas University), asserts that it is only media tactic to get populariy. It is rather about the government performance that is in nature very slow and procedural. Febrin does not see this as a form of discrimination.

On the other hand, Anggraini, an academic from Universitas Andalas, asserts that aid distribution and disaster reconstruction need some bureaucratical procedures. Therefore, 5 Anggraini adds, it takes longer time. The government has to pass through bureucratical stages that people cannot directly receive the aids. As Anggraini, the victims of 2007 earthquake have not recieved the aids instead and it is already 3 years. Implicitly, Anggraini asserts that victims of 2009 earthquake might will wait to receive the aids far more longer than the 2007’s.

Different from Anggraini, Rani Emilia, a political scientist of Andalas University feels unsure about the discrimination. What she concerns most is the fact in which most people know that the budget for disaster recovery is 6 huge but people feel receive nothing. Ironically, as Anita, Rani’s colleague in Andalas University, asserts that people even do not know of the concept of “Pokmas” which represents the design set up by the government towards participatory mechanism of disaster recovery. Anita herself is 5 6

not familiar to this term eventhough this term is used as a concept of recovery design. Table 2 illuminates the differing perspectives of those people.

Table 2 Perspectives on discrmination against Chinese ethnic in Padang post the September 2009 earthquake Respondents

ID

Discri mination exists ?

Feel it exists

Opinion

Chun Lai, M. Nur, Elisa, Susanly, Vivi, Greta, and Viani Sudarto

Chin

NGO

See it exists

Ratna, Ria

Mina ng

Erniwati, Febrin

Aca

Anggraini

Aca

Roni Chandra

MP

Does not exist Does not believ ed it exist Does not exist Feel unsure

About 800 families (3000-4000 people) do not receive aid, government is ignorant It’s about government’s very slow performance It’s only media tactic, it’s rather about government performance

Joni Ismed

MP

Does not exist

Rozwizal

Govt

Henky M.

Govt

Rani Emilia and Anita

Aca

Does not exist Do not want to make a statem ent Feel unsure

Do not receive aids, being rescued very lately, were not rescued, had to pay for assistance

It’s about bureaucratical procedures This issue was directed for particular political interest/purpose Padang is such a condusive city, discrimination does not exist This is only an unreliable issue It is unclear who is responsible for blowing up this issue

Not sure if discrimination exists, but people are curious of government’s transparancy

From the table it is shown that there is a contrasting view on discrimination. Chinese people as the object of disriminatory manners and an NGO that advocates for the Chinese mostly affirm the feeling of being discriminated.

The others, that are mostly subjected as the doer/s and the external reviewer do not agree if discrimination is deemed as to exist.

As asserted in an interview on 24 June 2010 As asserted in an interview on 24 June 2010 Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

4

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010 4. The source of discrimination

perception in Padang Post the September 2009 earthquake Facing the big debate towards the discrimination issue against Chinese ethnic in Padang post the September earthquake 2009, this research tried to elaborate more the question of what and how the Chinese experiencing the disaster recovery process. From the interviews, it can be concluded that the source of perception about being discriminated originates from the rescuing process and aid distribution.

Below is some point highlighting what makes the rescuing process and aid distribution perceived the the root of problem of discrimination. They are: a. The rescuing aid is limited. The resources allocated for rescuing the Chinese people is small that the number of Chinese who gained the assistance is also limited. b. The rescuing team performed very slowly that there are too many chances to save people and property that are missing. c. The government’s aid, like staple food and cash money for early response after the disaster never reach them. d. The assistance for rebuilding the Chinese’s houses never come. The government only came to collect the data but not to distribute the aid.

Regarding with the rescuing process, respondents that are Chinese assert that people in Pecinan were not prioritized. The government’s resources are dominantly mobilized to tackle victims in Ambacang Hotel. On the one hand, respondents admits that the dead victims in Ambacang were many. However, the equally significant number were also found in Pecinan.

Chun Lai, for example, underlies that if there were quick response with good rescuing management and resource distribution, the number of dead victims would be that much.

Chun Lai says, there were many people who were able to survive until two or three days. They were yelling for asking helps. We, Chun Lai continues his story, as an ordinary citizen wanted to help, but we do not have the equipment, we were only able to give them water with no certainty if they could receive it. We asked the apparatus to help but they always said, “later on, later on”, Chun Lai memorizing. No help in fact and they finally killed instead. Chun Lai, Elisa and other respondents feel sorry for the very late help since the killed people should be able to saved if they were immediately rescued.

In addition, there were no clear action regarding with the ruined buildings. M. Nur asserts that the government do nothing. It is NGO and volunteers who help the people. However, M. Nur realizes that the number of volunteers and NGOs are limited. They would not be able to tackle all the messing area. M. Nur identifies one NGO that is consistently help the Chinese people

in Pecinan, but not the government. Viani was asked to pay some amount of money to make up her ruining shop. She has no choice. Elisa says the same that assistance to make up the buildings was only for those who had their family killed within the buildings. If not, they had to pay.

Regarding the government’s aid, what makes the Chinese people feel discriminated is that the aid never reach them. Greta, a Chinese that lives in lower economic status admits that she and her family did not received any of the government’s aid. Many other respondents admit the same. Yeni, for example, says that the village head (lurah) refused Yeni’s request of Rp150.000/month (called uang lauk pauk that was counted for Rp. 5.000 per day) cash transferred by the government. When she asking why, the lurah answered that the cash trasnfer was only for those who were their house totally destroyed and falled down. Yeni answered back the lurah, “...but my house has already ruinned.

Although it does not falled down, it could no longer be used to reside. It endanger my family. It is only a matter of time to see it falling down”.

However, the lurah insisted not to give her the cash. Until the time of interview, Yeni and her family still live in an undecent shelter that was hot at the day and very cold at night.

In contrast, Viani who is the shop was not functioning although not severely ruined was “successful” to grab the uang lauk pauk. Viani urged the government to ve her the money because she felt that as a citizen the money is her right, no matter the level of damage her building was. Viani is much better than Yeni in economic status. Therefore, it seems that there is no clear standard for the cash distribution.

Nonetheless, Viani was upset of the government’s performance of public service.

Viani felt discriminated in the sense of electricity service she received. What makes Viani felt upset was that she was still being charged of her electricity abonement although she was not using the electricity during the emergency periods in which electricity was totally shutted down. She expected that during this period, the government should free up the citizen of the public service charges.

Regarding with this, some respondents express their pessimism on the government’s help. M. Nur apathetically says that, “...we are only half-Indonesian citizen (WNI Keturunan), there would not be any help”. Another person that assisting to keep a shop says that, “...please tell the government, when the money is distributed?

They already collect the data from us. We have waited for months for nothing.” Meanwhile, Veridiana Somanto says that, “...the government think that we are rich people that are protected with complete insurance. They see that we do not need assistance. We indeed will recover but we do need help.”

In addition, the fact that the Chinese people are not only geograpically segregated from the native residents but also socially excluded has led the weakening of social cooperation (gotong royong) between the

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

5

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010 Chinese and the natives. The Chinese and the native live in quite wide distance in social relationships generally for the different religious beliefs, cultural values and business competition.

Chinese, for the natives, are not for social acquaintance, they are business partner. They do not do much gotong royong mechanism to help each other although they live side by side. The native residents mostly think that the Chinese will recover by themselves.

Ratna, for example, a Minang woman, says that, “...the Chinese already have insurance that they will not worry about the recovery. Unlike us who do not have any. They are rich people. In addition, they do not deserve the helps because in daily life they are griddy, mean and stingy— very economical. Look! They sell goods expensive. They cannot live with the native. They will be kicked out if they reside in kampong (suburb) since people cannot stand of smelling their property for praying—which is odoring.”

Ratna adds, “...just let them make up everything by themselves. They used to grumbling once they were asked for sadakah (donation).”

Strengthening Ratna, Ria says that, “...the Chinese people are rich. They live as wealthy as the natives. They do not need helps actually. The aids distributed to them are excessive, though”.

Such an opinion in fact is not only found in common citizen. A government officer, when asked about the issue of discrimination against Chinese ethnic also assert that, “...look, they— the Chinese—must recover faster than the native residents. Their shops must immediately be sooner opened than the natives. They have more capital—money—than the natives. In fact, based on non-participatory observation conducted during June-July 2010, there are many poor Chinese in Pecinan, Padang. They live in small and undecent house. They do not have access to education. They are not given social protection and are not included in social groups that are listed as the beneficiaries of social incentives like BLT (direct cash transfer). As Sudarto, the big shops that stand along the main streets of the Pecinan area are in deed owned by the rich 7 Chinese. However, Sudarto adds, if we walk around the small gangs of Pecinan, we will find more the poor Chinese than the rich one. There are many Chinese that become the house maids for their rich neighbours. The Chinese is just like us, Sudarto emphasizes, that consists of the rich, the poor, the middle, the greedy, the lazy, the patient, the well-educated, the low-educated, the high-tempered, the polite, the stingy, and the generous or benevolent ones. By asserting this, Sudarto seems to underlines that it is our own— and not clarified--perception and stigma that make them look different.

Another factor triggering the feeling of being discriminated is the experience of being plundered. As the history has, Chinese used to be the object of pillage. In this context, there is no excuse for emergency situation in post disaster circumstances to plundering. Chinese, 7

In an interview on 25 June 2010.

eventhough they are the most victims to gain the most severe impact/damage of the disaster, remains becoming the target of pillage. This reminds the Chinese in Padang of the 1998 chaos.

The Chinese guess that the pillage is triggered by the assumption that Chinese are identical with rich people and stingy. Chinese are also minority that they are powerless in facing the native residents/non-Chinese ethnics. In fact, not only the rich Chinese experiencing to get stolen.

Greta, a juice seller, lost her stoves for cooking.

M. Nur’s neighbour lost his generator. Some other people lost tires in their automotive shops.

Yeni, an assistant in meal shop, lost her gold which becomes the valuable saving for her.

From this explanation, it becomes clear that the feeling of being discriminated arises from the opinion that there is limited efforts allocated by the government to rescue the Chinese victims, the limited aids that are distributed to the Chinese residents, the absent of social cooperation amongst the Chinese and their neighboring residents, and the crime they face during the emergency situation. All of those complexities, based on the findings in this research, cannot be separated from the perception—and stigma—that the Chinese are rich and having stronger capital—money—but are stingy, griddy, and antisocial. Not only this perception is found in common people, but also in the government.

5. The Policy Implication and the lesson

learned Despite of the debate about the discriminatory manners of the government and individuals against the Chinese ethnic in Padang post the September 2009 earthquake, there are some important lessons that can be learn and are important for the policy makers and stakeholders.

Firstly, that disaster is not only a matter of physical damage. It is about the functioning of social activities, social relations and social cohesiveness. Therefore, any activities dealing with all those aspects must be in line with the equality, participatory and nondiscrimination principles. Secondly, the social perspective in disaster recovery, those that put social stability and cohesiveness, should be integrated and appropriately considered by the authorities and any related parties in designing the policy of disaster recovery, inclusing those of reconstruction development.

As Marianti (2007, p. 9) argues, research concerning crisis and disaster has raised the question of whether crisis is “an objectively identifiable phenomenon or a subjective, socially constructed process.” This question emphasizes the relativity of the perspective of the affected groups, therefore risk and vulnerability to disaster are differently

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

6

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010 perceived and distributed between and within societies. However, as Marianti adds, efforts to survive, then, are performed within constraints and opportunities or exclusion and inclusion processes. Those aspects—constraints, opportunities, exclusion and inclusion--deal with social attributes and social differentiation like gender, ethnicity, citizenship status, economic position, and age.

In the case of Chinese ethnic in Padang, what the Chinese peopel perceive as the refusal and ignorance either by the government and individuals in spite of some rebuttals the pose, like the limited resources, and so forth, might cause some further effects in society as the following points: a. There might be the weakening of engagement between the Chinese ethnic—as the Indonesian citizen--and the government, or even state in a broader sense. b. There might be wider social distance between the Chinese ethnic and the native residents, or Padang people in general. c. There might be stronger sense that they, as the Chinese, are the marginalised minority. d. There might be stronger apathetic feeling and nature of the Chinese in either political and social life.

Meanwhile, as Marianti asserts, a number of groups in the population are often seen as the most vulnerable, either by age like the elderly and children, by gender, by physical condition like the chronically ill and the disable, members of subordinated cultural and racial groups, undocumented residents, and the poor.

For Marianti, these groups deserve special attention because of their specific needs (limitations) which are determined by their specific (socioeconomic and cultural) position in the given society.

The Chinese in Padang can be included in those specific groups because they use to be politically underrepresented, socially excluded, and culturally marginalised. The limited efforts by their neighboring ethnic to help and to conduct social cooperation during the emergency situation in early stage of post disaster express how they perceive the Chinese in their life. It is the responsibility of the government to take an action to deal with this problem. Government should think of and act for protecting the vulnerable.

Ironically, facing the allegation of being discriminated, the government was rather showing their annoyed expression, and this was expressed publicly in the media. They refused the allegation but they did nothing. As Erniwati informs, the government offered the reconsiliation 8 with the Chinese but in very impolite manners.

The government set up the meeting with two Chinese society unions, not to ask for apology, or to offer assistance and helps, but to force the 8

As in the interview on 27 June 2010.

unions, in the name of the Chinese people to apologize for what have happened.

Regarding with this, Erniwati was very sorry to see that the unions agreed to do that. In Erniwati’s view, the Chinese should not apologize because they are not found guilty. They only expressed the dissatisfaction towards the government’s performance in tackling the disaster recovery, something that all other citizen in Padang experienced. For Erniwati, it is the government that should ask apology for all the citizen for the failure of recovery process, very slow performance, and not transparent aid distribution.

In addition, the government is the one that has authority to design, manage and run the recovery process. Limited resources is an unacceptable reason to avoid responsibility to do this or to defend theirselves from the failure accusation. In Padang, aids are huge, distributed by the funding institutions to local NGOs and volunteers. The government should be able to use its authority to coordinate and manage the aid distribution evenly, equally, and fairly to each citizen. Most of us undertand that we could not leave all the messy things solely on the government’s shoulders. But all of us see that government could discuss, coordinate, and manage the recovery design if they want. There are many resources outside that government that could still be utilized. What the government needs is to talk to each stakeholders, discuss the root of the problems, ask the stakeholders to participate in the recovery process and together evaluate the recovery process.

In relation to this, Jalali’s idea might be worth thinking. Using Turkey as an example, Jalali (2002) tries to highlight the significance of the government to have strong linking to the grassroot and civil society organization.

Government presents not to authorize, dominate and muddle through the recovery process. They are there together with those organization to plan, to organize and to execute and to evaluate the recovery process.

Jogyakarta is another good example to bear in mind. Participatory approach is offcourse not free from problem, but it works. Indeed, Jogyakarta is different from Padang but there is something crucial to learn. The government is successful to explore the social energy that uses to characterize Jogyakarta people as an approach to run the recovery design. As noted by Sakamoto and Yamori (2009), the Jogyakarta government realized that the citizen has strong social ties, that the use this characteristics as energy to run the participatory model of recovery mechanism. If the government has strong linking to the grassroot, they might face less problem like the discriminatory issue against Chinese ethnic in Padang since each of social group has equal space in governing the recovery process.

Meanwhile, disaster is about to deal with the big number of people, and there uses to be that those people need to be heard of their sad feelings, to share the adversity they face and to get some helps. What they really need is space.

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

7

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010 Meanwhile, some people in Padang address some criticism towards the way the government performs. Mona, a project manager of an NGO, asserts that, the institution she work with is never invited by the government to discuss about the recovery planning, design, implementation and evaluation. Mona did not know the exact data of the victims and damage. She only guesses and read from the Internet. it takes too long for the government to validate the data of the victims and the damages. Mona thinks that maybe the municipal government is not ready, eventhough they have big amount of money. In Mona’s perspective, decentralisation that give too much autonomy to the district/municipal seems to have implication on the government’s performance including in recovery process. Mona sees that the provincial government looks to have less role than the district or municipal one. But, the problem is that the government facing the limited resources and skilled people to deal with the disaster, added with the fact that the government seems to be close to the public towards they are doing in tackling the disaster impacts. Therefore, it looks that although the government has participatory methods in its recovery design, it acts very non-participatory.

In addition, based on interview with Febrin, it is found that the government is to some extent unable to act more flexibly, for example in terms of tender process of recovery and reconstruction projects. The government seems too strict with the procedures while people in the grassroot have long waited for the helps. It is this that might cause the recovery process takes longer. Meanwhile, longer time for recovery can ceate further impact, like it might it trigger the notion that the government works very slowly, the people are being ignored, the government is not serious, and the government even fails.

6. Policy recommendation Considering the above problem, it seems that it becomes important to think of those things.

Firstly, whatever the damage and the vulnerability the people perceive, it is important to provide space. This can include the space to complain, the space to share the people’s feelings, the space to tell the government what they need, the space to propose some ideas for the recovery and so forth. Refusal, ignorance, and resistance can even make everything worse in the post disaster context. The government needs to strengthen the linking to the grassroot and the civil society organization that the recovery designs really reflects the people’s needs.

Secondly, different district might have different social and cultural characteristics. We indeed are unable to apply a one-size-fits-all approach to tackle the calamities. However, we have to know what is the most suitable methods and approach to come up with such the problem.

In Padang, it seems that the government tries to adopt participatory approach applied in Jogyakarta. Meanwhile, Padang is different from Jogyakarta in some senses. In Padang, what

most important today, based on Azwar’s research (2006), is the nucleous family. The government might be able to think of recovery design from this social characteristics. The government might need to think of empowering the nucleous family in terms of disaster recovery design.

Thirdly, the government is in an urgent need for paying attention to specific groups with specific needs. The Chinese, for example, are mostly underrepresented. They do not have enough space to complain, to aspire and to propose some ideas in political life. In addition, in social life, the Chinese are also usually marginalised for they have different religious beliefs, cultural values, and so forth. Therefore, the government bears the responsibility to protect these paople and guarantee that they are well and equally treated.

Finally, the government might need to think out of box. Indeed, they have to follow the rule, and to obey the legal regulations. However, disaster is not “business-as-usual”, it likes a crisis. Therefore, it needs quick thinking and action and more flexible bureaucratical procedures. The government needs a firm decision making to tackle the problem.

7. Conclusion Disaster management that is aimed to lessen the impact of the disaster once it someday comes needs deep thinking of heterogeneous aspect. To mitigate is not only to design the strong disasterproof building. To mitigate also means to keep the people prepared, physically, economically and socially. To mitigate also means to maintain the social cohesiveness before, during and after a disaster comes. Therefore, efforts paid in disaster management should consider those aspects. In addition, disaster recovery, in which theoretically people are expected to help each other and government take action equally to each citizen do not always happen. Tendency to discrminate is often unavoidable. Consequently, people who have the feeling of being discriminated find the doubling adversity. Not only this would harm the human rights, this also hinders people from quickly recover from the disaster effects. Therefore, policy have to be designed in accordance with the needs of equality, justice and transparency.

Acknowledgement The author would like to thank CRCS UGM Yogyakarta for providing financial aids for conducting this research, the respondents of this research, and the local researchers, namely Wayu, Ekha, and Anita in Andalas University.

The author specially thanks to Yopi Fetrian who helps the author do connect the important respondents and assist the author to identify the location of the research.

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

8

International Conference on Regional Development “Vulnerability, Resilience, and Sustainability” November 9, 2010

References Azwar, 2006, Perubahan Relasi Sosial dalam Kelompok Kekerabatan Matrilineal Minangkabau di Pinggiran Kota (Studi Kasus Di Kecamatan Koto Tangah Kota Padang), Laporan Penelitian Jurusan Sosiologi, Fisip Unand, Padang.

Jalali, R. (2002). Civil society and the state: Turkey after the earthquake. Disasters, 26: 2: p. 120-39.

Kalin, W. (2005). Natural disasters and IDPs’ rights. FMR Tsunami. www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/principles_l ang.htm, accessed 10 August 2010.

Marianti, R. (2007). What Is to be done with disasters? A literature survey on disaster Ssudy and response. Wroking Paper.

SMERU Research Institute, Jakarta.

Sakamoto, M and Yamoto, K. (2009). A Study of Life Recovery and Social Capital regarding Disaster Victims – A Case Study of Indian Ocean Tsunami and Central Java Earthquake Recovery. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 31: 2,p. 13-20

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Engineering, Diponegoro University in collaboration with Indonesia’s Ministry of Public Works

9