Tom Pepinsky

Author: tompepinsky

  • Taiwanese Colonial Japanese Subjects in Java

    While reading on colonial-era ethnic Chinese businesses in Java, I came across a fascinating case study of one NV Handelmaatschappij Kwik Hoo Tong, founded by a family named Kwik who hailed originally from Taiwan.

    About the time when the Kwiks registered their trading society in Solo, Japan and China went to war, which resulted in Japan’s colonisation of Taiwan in 1895. This event would have a large impact on the brothers’ legal status in the Indies. After concluding a Treaty of Trade and Navigation in 1896, the Netherlands and Japan recognised each other as most favoured nations, and subsequently the Tokyo government pressed the Dutch to accord its migrants in their colonies the same legal status as Europeans. In 1899, Japanese citizens in the Indies acquired European status; this ruling applied not only to migrants from Japan proper, but also to inhabitants of its colonies. Although many Taiwanese Chinese in the Indies resented the Japanese takeover of their homeland, they were quick to recognise the advantages of registering as Japanese in the Dutch colony.

    That means that, under Dutch law, ethnic Chinese who happened to be born in what later became a colony of Japan were, legally, Europeans. Or at least, they could choose to be treated for legal and business purposes as Europeans. And at least one of the Kwik brothers did just this, which allowed him to have access to Dutch financial capital, something which would have been illegal for a non-European.

    This is a neat parallel for recent research being done here at Cornell about ethnic Chinese in Indonesia and post-independence citizenship. It turns out that after the 1955 citizenship treaty between China and Indonesia, a substantial number of Chinese families strategically chose to divide themselves by nationality: one child would choose Indonesian citizenship, another Chinese citizenship, as a way to hedge their bets.

  • Are We KPK, or is KPK Us?

    Yesterday, in “We Are…KPK!” I wrote about the current KPK crisis. Today, a reflection on why I translated KPK Adalah Kita as “KPK Is Us” rather than “We Are KPK,” as in the title of that post.

    The problem starts with the word adalah. It means “is/am/are,” in the context of (PRO)NOUN+TO BE+(PRO)NOUN, but as every beginning student of Indonesian will tell you, that’s not exactly right, because Indonesian does not have a verb “to be.” Yet this word adalah creeps into spoken and written Indonesian quite a bit. Compare Google hits for saya guru di [= I am a teacher in…] versus saya adalah guru di [= I am a teacher in…].

    My Indonesian teachers tell me that adalah is commonly overused by English speakers who are uncomfortable with “to be,” and that it’s also become more common in standard Indonesian in recent years. But it’s not new. When I was poking around for older uses of adalah, for example, I found this speech by Sukarno from August 1965:

    Screen Shot 2015-01-26 at 9.16.52 AM

    That’s Sukarno quoting Alexander Blok’s “Those Born in the Years of Stagnation.” (Now that is globalization.) He quotes Blok directly with Kita putera2 tahun keberanian [= We are the children of the years of bravery], and then immediately follows this up with Ya, kita adalah putera2 tahun keberanian [= Yes, we are the children of the years of bravery]. This shows one use of adalah, to emphasize “is” in “X is Y.”

    But I don’t think that emphasis is what’s going on here. Perhaps someone who speaks Indonesian better than I do will disagree with me, but KPK Kita and Kita KPK are both grammatically correct, yet neither sounds right. Is this an instance of language change in real time, the continuing evolution of Indonesian away from its origins as a simplified trade language?

    The other challenge in translating KPK Adalah Kita is knowing if the word order is deliberate or incidental. My guess is that it deliberate, and that “We are KPK” is less accurate then “KPK is us.” Why? Well, we can look for uses of the phrase Kita adalah KPK, and here is what we find:

    1. … sementara satu-satunya yang menjadi harapan kita adalah KPK (source)
    2. … benteng terakir kita adalah KPK (source)
    3. Hanya saja pesan kita adalah KPK fair dan adil. (source)

    In all of these, kita is modifying something else, and the translation is always “our X is that KPK …”. In fact, here is the only exception that I can see based on my very cursory overview of the first page of the g-hits:

    1. Katakan pada semua anggota KPK. “kita adalah KPK, ikon anti korupsi Indonesia.” (source)

    In that instance, the writer is channeling members of KPK themselves who are saying “We are KPK, the icon of anti-corruption in Indonesia.”

    Now does this matter? I think it does, and I think that it’s the same difference between having written Je suis Charlie versus Charlie est moi. In the former, you are showing that you stand by Charlie Hebdo; in the latter, you claiming more directly that Charlie Hebdo could have been you. I don’t think it’s an accident that few people chose to say Charlie est moi. I think it is absolutely deliberate that in this latest KPK scandal, for the majority of Indonesians, KPK is us.