Estadística Descriptiva

including “Limitation on access to credit”, “Limitations on access to government subsidy”, “Limitations on participation in the local market”, “Limitations on access to the housing market” and “Limitations on access to the job market”. The answer categories, across the economic, political, cultural and religious domains, were listed from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”. However, limitations on access to credit was omitted after the pilot survey, because of its low correlation with other indicators for economic discrimination.

The indicators for political discrimination were defined in terms of limitations on freedom of expression, on freedom to choose a place of residence, on the right to form political organizations, on the exercise of the right to vote, on recruitment to the police corps, on recruitment of civil servants and on attaining higher positions in government offices. The set of the measurement was mostly derived from Fox (2000a) with some modifications to make it more reliable, plausible and simple. The first modification was to replace the word “restriction” with “limitation” because some aspects of discrimination may not be enshrined officially, but occur due to the challenge from other groups. Of the eight items, we initially used only seven, since the right to judicial proceedings is not applicable to the Indonesian legal system; after the pilot study, only four were retained, namely: freedom of expression, freedom to choose a place of residence, recruitment of civil servants and attaining higher positions in government offices. The general question for political discrimination was, “Would you agree or disagree that your own ethno-religious group experiences the following limitations in politics?” The following limitations refer to the four dimensions above.

Cultural discrimination was measured by four aspects of limitations on cultural practices: on celebration of group ceremonies, of dress, behaviour and marriage. This was simpler and more relevant to the local context of this study than the original indicators of Fox (2000a), which comprise seven aspects of restriction, namely restriction of observance of group religion; restriction of speaking and publishing in the group’s language/dialect; restriction of instruction in the group’s language; restriction of celebration of group’s holidays, ceremonies and cultural events; restriction of dress, appearance and behaviour; restriction of marriage and family life; restriction of organizations that promote the group’s cultural interests.

Perceived discrimination can be experienced by the minority religious group in relation to the dominant majority. The measurement for the religious dimension was constructed with the following question: “Would you agree or disagree that your own ethno-religious group experiences the following limitations on religion?” The indicator was partly modified from Fox (2000a) on religious discrimination, since some of the latter’s dimensions were inappropriate for the societal context of our research sites. For instance, ordination or access to clergy were not applicable to

Muslim respondents. Moreover, the Fox measurement could be confusing given the double and triple nature of its question. Our measurement consisted of seven questions encompassing limitations on public observance of religious services, public observance of religious holy days, public observance of religious festivals, building places of worship, forced observance of religious laws of other groups, running of religious schools, and the observance of religious laws on marriage and divorce. In the interests of efficiency, and based on results of the pilot survey, limitations on religious services and religious holidays were then omitted. The answer categories were the same as for other dimensions of discrimination: from “totally disagree” to “totally agree”.

A large number of respondents said that they do not belong to groups that are discriminated against. In particular, the respondents in Yogyakarta tend to affirm this (89.3%), while some in Ambon claim that their group is still discriminated against (24.5%). Of respondents who feel they are discriminated against, both in Ambon and Yogyakarta, a large percentage (66.3%), especially in Ambon (73.4%), see religion as the root of discrimination against their group, followed by ethnicity (14.9%). In general, discrimination is at a low to moderate level (means < 3.00).

In the economic sector, Muslims in Ambon feel that limitations on access to the housing market (2.32) are the main form of discrimination, while Muslims in Yogyakarta feel it to be limitations on access to the job market (2.97). Christians in Ambon (2.31) and Yogyakarta (2.39) both indicated limitations on access to government subsidies. The variability indicates less disparity between Muslims than Christians in general, as showed by the standard deviation of Muslims in the range of .84 to .87, while Christians range from .96-1.03. In the political sector, Christians in Ambon indicate limitations on freedom of expression (2.27) while Christians in Yogyakarta (2.57) and Muslims in both cities (2.23 and 2.16) assert that limitations on attaining higher positions in government offices are the main area of discrimination. The variability seems be largely similar to that for the economy, but slightly wider; the range of standard deviation for Muslims is .90-.94 and for Christians is .98-1.12.

All respondents in Ambon and Muslims in Yogyakarta feel that there is cultural discrimination in relation to limitations on dress (> 2.59). Meanwhile, Christians pinpoint limitations on behaviour as the discriminative focus of the majority group (2.61). Dress is still the subject of debate in Indonesia in relation to the implementation of an anti-pornography law. Christians perceive that there are limitations on wearing clothes that reveal aurat (sensual parts of the body), which Muslims are forbidden to show. Conversely, Muslims who wear veils and long dresses are often accused of following Arabic traditions, rather than being proud of local or national identities. Parallel to the issue of dress is behaviour; Muslims are viewed as more conservative than Christians. The range of standard deviation tends to be greater for Muslims (.87-1.12) than Christians (.93 – 1.14)

3