
































Microsoft Word - 5. Lemuel.docx


 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 189 

 
Received:  
January 10, 2024 
 
Revised:  
August 28, 2024 
 
Accepted:  
August 29, 2024 

The UDHR and Confucian Community: A Case of Confucian 
Religious Education Erasure in Indonesia 

 
Yohanes Babtista Lemuel Christandi 

Center for Religion and Cross-cultural Studies, Universitas Gadjah Mada 
Jl. Teknika Utara, Pogung, Sleman, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 55284  

 
Corresponding Author: yohanesbabtistalemuelchristandi@mail.ugm.ac.id 

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/ihis.v8i2.21803 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Introduction 
Freedom of religion and the right to education are interrelated but often overlooked. 
Initially, religious education was not compulsory in schools (Kosim, 2021). However, 
the New Order government began to realize the importance of religious education in 
schools. At that time, religious teachings were adjusted to government policies. 
Religious policies issued by the government sparked debate about religion and 
politics, especially for people who adhere to Confucianism. With this policy, 
Confucian religious education was removed from the education curriculum in 1975. 
That then directly impacted the Tripusaka Foundation, which was managed by the 
Confucian Religious Council (Makin) in Solo as one of the Confucian-based schools. 
As a result, Confucian students could not receive Confucian religious education in 
schools. These students could only take religious education recognized by the 
government under the policy. 

Since 1970, problems related to the recognition and education of Confucianism 
have occurred. Therefore, the Confucian community invited the UDHR to play a role 
as desired by the state. Religious education is important to be taught in schools. In 
addition, the public believes that the New Order government realized that religion is 
a complementary element to Pancasila. 

Abstract 
 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Confucianism have a 
complex relationship in Indonesia. Therefore, this article focuses on the 
relationship between human rights principles and religious traditions that 
consider the importance of the UDHR for Confucians. It is also related to the 
fulfilment of the rights to freedom of religion and education, and it focuses on the 
case of the elimination of Confucian religious education during the New Order in 
Indonesia. This article is compiled using historical methods. The primary sources 
used are Supreme Council of the Confucian Religion (MATAKIN) correspondence 
with the government officials. The study results show that the Confucian 
community uses the UDHR as a promotional medium for Confucian religious 
education in schools. In addition, they fight for Confucianism to gain legal 
recognition as a religion. 
 
Keywords: UDHR; Confucian Community; Confucian Religious Education;  

 New Order.  



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 190 

At that time, there were various assumptions about the Chinese and Confucian 
religions. However, it was the Confucians who were harmed by the various policies 
on religion. That was because the group was seen by society as part of Chinese culture. 
Therefore, the New Order government made restrictions related to Chinese culture 
and religion so as not to disturb national stability and harmony as one of the 
fundamental aspects (Hansen, 1976; Hainsworth, 1983). In Suryadinata's research on 
the impact of New Order policies on the Chinese, it was revealed that there was 
political discrimination against certain ethnic groups. It is related to the political 
situation during the New Order (Heryanto, 2006). The situation can be said to be 
influenced by the Genocide of 1965, which led to discrimination against the Chinese. 
Although Communism is not necessarily associated with the Chinese, the group will 
be affected because they are considered to have a relationship with each other (Cribb 
& Coppel, 2009). Similarly, the relationship between Chinese and Confucianism is 
considered the same despite differences in some respects. When the recognition of 
Confucianism was revoked, Buddhism, one of the religions rooted in China, gained 
recognition and underwent changes (Suryadinata, 2005; Yulianti, 2022). 

Based on that, there has been a discourse on the role of religion in the recognition 
of religions established by the Ministry of Religious Affairs. The New Order 
government carried out the discourse to regulate religion in Indonesia. That is because 
recognizing religion in Indonesia impacts financial and bureaucratic benefits (Stephan, 
2011). In Indonesia, Confucianism was recognized before the New Order period 
through Presidential Decree No. 1/ 1965. Meanwhile, its community has existed since 
the early 20th century. The Khung Chiao Hui Association of Indonesia (PKCHI) has 
even said that Confucius is a prophet. However, worship activities and religious 
practices are only actualized in religious circles due to Presidential Instruction No. 14/ 
1967 issuance. 

Along with various events, the recognition of the Confucian religion was 
discussed to be abolished in Indonesia since 1970. The discourse became a reality 
through the president's statement in the Cabinet Session on January 27, 1979 (Yang, 
2005). It had a broad impact on the lives of the Confucian faithful. In addition, there 
were also theological changes related to negotiation strategies with the state to regain 
recognition (Sutrisno, 2018). 

To gain recognition, the Confucian people made the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights (UDHR) to demand their rights as Indonesian citizens. Although the 
idea of rights is not part of Confucian teachings emphasizing obligations, Confucian 
teachings still teach about the state's obligations to its citizens. The movement carried 
out by Confucians raises assumptions regarding the relationship between UDHR and 
Confucianism, although the relationship between the two is not unfamiliar. That is 
because the vice-chairman of the UDHR, P. C. Chang, had injected Confucian thought 
into the UDHR (Roth, 2018). The role of the UDHR as a medium of struggle was 
initiated by the Indonesian Confucian Religious Council (MATAKIN). MATAKIN is a 
Confucian community in Indonesia that was established in 1967. The organization acts 
as a representative of the Confucian community in negotiating with the state. One of 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 191 

the things fought for is Confucian religious education. Therefore, this issue is the focus 
of this article. The problem is guided by two research questions: How do Confucians 
interpret the UDHR, and how do Confucians support the UDHR struggle? In my 
opinion, the UDHR plays an essential role in the Confucian struggle. Apart from being 
the basis for political arguments in negotiating with the government, the UDHR also 
preserves their existence. 

Research on Confucianism has previously been conducted by Evi Sutrisno (2018). 
Her study discusses the negotiation strategy of recognizing the Confucian religion, 
especially in the colonial period until the Reformation. In his various writings, 
Suryadinata (Suryadinata, 1972, 1976, 1982, 1987, 1988, 2002; Siddique & Suryadinata, 
1981; Suryadinata & Emmerson, 1991) also studied Chinese Indonesians focusing on 
political aspects related to government policies from independence to reform. In 
addition, he studied Chinese education, although it was not associated with human 
rights. Meanwhile, a study of Chinese identity was conducted by Dawis (2010), which 
focused on the visual culture of Chinese people during the transition from the New 
Order to the Reformation. Lasiyo (1992), in his study, also discusses Confucianism in 
Indonesia, although it focuses on religiosity and theological aspects. These studies 
support this research, which examines the intersection of human rights principles and 
Confucianism during the New Order. 
 
Method 
This article employs historical method focuses on the relationship between 
Confucianism and the UDHR in fighting for the rights of its people as Indonesian 
citizens. Therefore, this article is organized using the historical method, which includes 
four stages: heuristics, criticism, interpretation, and historiography (Kuntowijoyo, 
2013, p. 69). The sources used to compile this article are archival documents of 
MATAKIN and government letters. In addition, there is Gentrika magazine, published 
by MATAKIN for the Confucian community. This paper also uses secondary sources 
such as books and articles from various journals to obtain a more completed and in-
depth context. 
 
Confucianism From Recognition to Derecognition 
Recognition of Confucianism in Indonesia has come a long way, especially during the 
New Order. The New Order government has banned the spread of Chinese culture 
and public performances since 1967 through Presidential Instruction Number 14 of 
1967. That was done as a form of government assimilation plan. The regulation caused 
many Chinese schools to be closed, Chinese names were replaced with names 
containing Indonesian elements, and even the Barongsai art was banned from being 
performed in public. In addition, major holidays related to Chinese culture were also 
forbidden from being celebrated. Of course, this would conflict with the religious 
activities of Confucianists, even though President Soekarno had recognized the 
existence of Confucianism in Indonesia in 1965 through Presidential Instruction 
Number 1 of 1965. Therefore, the dynamics of the Confucian community in fighting 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 192 

for its rights were already apparent in the early days of the New Order. 
The dynamics of the religious life of Confucians in Indonesia at the beginning of 

the New Order continued to experience turmoil, especially when recognition of the 
religion was abolished in 1973. Confucian religious representatives in various 
divisions of the Ministry of Religion began to be removed. President Suharto also 
emphasized that Confucianism was not a religion but part of Chinese culture and 
philosophy. That statement was stated in a joint decision by the Minister of Religion, 
Minister of Home Affairs, and Attorney General in 1980 to reaffirm the 
implementation of Presidential Instruction No. 14 of 1967. The decision also stated that 
Chinese-Indonesian culture is affiliated with mainland Chinese culture. Therefore, 
implementing Confucian religious activities needs to be considered in several ways, 
such as not being displayed in public and requiring permission from the local 
governor. There are several reasons underlying the rejection of the recognition of 
Confucianism as a religion, including because it is considered to have no prophets, 
does not teach the worship of gods or goddesses, does not have a holy book, is not 
recognized as a religion in China, only teaches ethics about how humans should act 
towards each other, does not have priests, is based on philosophy and Confucianism 
is a great figure, and there are no teachings about the existence of life after death 
(Kilapong, 1978). It resulted in Confucian religious education in schools being 
removed from the education curriculum in Indonesia, including at the Tripusaka Solo 
Foundation. 

In addition, the government also pressured schools established by ethnic Chinese 
groups in Indonesia in the 1950s. That pressure was in the form of strict supervision of 
schools that used Chinese as the language of instruction and categorizing these schools 
as foreign schools (Suryadinata, 1972, p. 49). In its development, schools managed by 
ethnic Chinese groups became private schools. However, there were still schools that 
provided Confucian religious education until 1974, namely the Confucian school in 
Solo under the management of the Tripusaka Foundation. The elimination of the 
recognition of Confucianism was implemented gradually. Although Presidential 
Instruction No. 14 of 1967 prohibited Chinese culture from being displayed publicly, 
Confucianism was still recognized as a religion. Then, in the 1970s, the Ministry of 
Religion did not provide seats for Confucian representatives, which caused other 
problems. Based on the MATAKIN letter, when the Ministry of Education and Culture 
held an assimilation program in education in Indonesia, schools based on 
Confucianism could not hold national exams. Hence, students had to join formal 
schools that the government permitted. Therefore, the 1975 Education Curriculum 
began to prohibit the teaching of Confucianism in schools, so students from Confucian-
based schools had to move to other schools that followed other religious teachings. 

In its development, Confucian-based schools transformed into multicultural 
schools (Chan, 2013). In fact, several Chinese foundation schools have turned into 
Islamic religious education-based schools (Raya, 2023). Even though the New Order 
era has ended, many Chinese foundation schools have chosen to maintain the 
assimilation program. An example is a new school founded by the Chinese ethnic 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 193 

group in Purwokerto, choosing to become a multicultural school (Putro, 2021). 
At that time, the Ministry of Religion had provided an understanding of religion. 

However, the knowledge that was made gave birth to assumptions about religion. The 
compiled understanding gave rise to a group that could not be included as a religion, 
namely belief. Based on the decision of the Ministry of Religion with the approval of 
the Attorney General, religion became part of the political group. Therefore, 
Confucianists tried to gain recognition and not be grouped as a heretical and mystical 
sect considered the birthplace of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). However, the 
New Order government had a relationship with Confucianists. That was related to 
President Suharto's victory in the 1971 Election. In addition, he recognized 
Confucianism in his speech, which emphasized the relationship between Pancasila 
and religion (“Soeharto”, 1971, p. 7).  
 In addition, Abdul Haris Nasution, as the Chairman of the People's 
Consultative Assembly (MPR), also supported the congress organized by MATAKIN. 
That was in line with the government's development program, or Pelita, as President 
Soeharto mentioned, which states that religion also plays a role as a socio-economic-
political means to realize the development program. Therefore, Confucians 
contributed to the development of the political movement while supporting Suharto 
in the 1971 General Election (Coppel, 1977).  
 
Confucianism, Human Rights, and State 
The loss of recognition of Confucianism in Indonesia gave birth to a relationship 
between Confucianism and human rights since the Universal Declaration of Human 
Rights (UDHR). Peng Chun Chang (P. C. Chang), vice chairman of the UN Human 
Rights Commission, first carried out that relationship and instilled Confucian 
teachings in the UDHR. Therefore, the UDHR is present to protect humans from 
systematic threats based on the idea of human dignity. The instillation of Confucian 
values in the UDHR is based on its ambition that the UDHR must have moral and 
pedagogical attributes to improve humanity (Roth, 2018). As a result, the UDHR can 
be a basis for discussing the compatibility between human rights and Confucianism 
(Qu, 2022). However, using the UDHR as a political medium remains different from 
the relationship between Confucian teachings and the UDHR. 

The implementation of human rights in 1970 was not a coincidence for 
Confucians. At the same time, the country was facing pressure from the world to 
implement and accommodate human rights in Indonesia. Although Indonesia initially 
resisted, in the end, Indonesia could implement human rights because it was close to 
the United States. This closeness caused Indonesia to receive financial assistance from 
multinational companies to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) so that the 
international community could pressure the Indonesian government (Simpson, 2014). 
The UDHR used articles related to freedom of religion and belief in 1978. Some of these 
articles were also included in the MATAKIN Special Report letter Number Mat/XII/78 
addressed to the leadership of the DPR. The movement continued because from 1973 
to 1978, discrimination against Confucians increased, so they increasingly felt that the 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 194 

recognition of the Confucian religion was being revoked. At that time, Confucians 
thought that they did not get a place of protection. The representation of the Confucian 
religion was no longer under the auspices of the Directorate General of Hinduism and 
Buddhism, which caused even more unrest for its people. 

The pressure from the international community then finally caused Indonesia to 
implement Human Rights (HAM). The primary considerations began by citing Article 
18 of the UDHR and continued with Article 29 of the 1945 Constitution. In addition, 
Confucians also cited the Guidelines for the Implementation and Practice of Pancasila 
(P4) in MPR Decree Number II/MPR/1978, which regulates religious freedom as a 
human right. As one way for Indonesia to accommodate international pressure on 
various human rights issues, the government issued P4, which emphasizes religious 
freedom. On the other hand, Confucians continued to report the issue of eliminating 
Confucian religious education and the plan to revoke the recognition of the Confucian 
religion to the Indonesian House of Representatives. However, the issue arose due to 
the government's half-hearted recognition of the existence of the Confucian religion. 
However, this effort was unsuccessful because the revocation of recognition still 
occurred (“Masih jauh,” January 7, 1978). 

Although the international community has pressured Indonesia to pay attention 
to human rights, religious issues have not yet become a major issue. At that time, the 
main issue of international concern was the 1965-1967 Genocide, along with arbitrary 
arrests by state officials (Simpson, 2014). It can be said that the international perception 
later gave birth to the view that Confucianism is not a religion (Kilapong, 1978). 

In deciding that Confucianism is not a religion but Chinese culture, the Ministry 
of Religion assisted the government in evaluating Confucianism. One of the 
highlighted things was the absence of teachings about the afterlife in Confucian 
teachings, so it was considered a belief. The evaluation was also related to the 
assimilation program, which the government considered unsuccessful. As a result, 
Confucian adherents could not obtain their civil rights as citizens through recognition, 
protection, and facilities. The politicization of religion carried out by the Ministry of 
Religion through the definition of "religion" during the New Order era had political 
implications. In addition, politicization resulted in grouping religious groups that 
were considered illegitimate. According to Hurd (2015), this is a logical consequence. 
The inclusion of Confucianism as a belief group is because the ideology offered is 
contrary to the Pancasila ideology as the only ideology that is permitted and 
determines which religions can be recognized (Fibiger, 2023; Zulian & Bachtiar, 2021). 
Confucianists were about to make a unilateral movement. However, President Suharto 
gave a warning so that Confucianists would maintain their stance as Indonesian 
citizens. 

Confucians showed this attitude after President Suharto's victory in the 1978 
General Election. The win also marked the return of military power in guaranteeing 
national life. On the other hand, the general election showed limitations to human 
rights practices in Indonesia. Although the UDHR has been claimed as a universal 
declaration, the practice and application of human rights are still limited to state 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 195 

administration (Brown, 2016; Regus, 2021). Therefore, several steps were taken by 
Confucians to support the government. These include government regulations, 
integration and assimilation, P4, and tolerance. Confucians focus on tolerance, as seen 
from their response to government recommendations to maintain tolerance or follow-
up on using the UDHR. However, human rights issues re-emerged clearly in 1993, as 
seen in Yosadi's (1993, p. 199) writing regarding Confucianism as a human rights issue 
in the Tempo column. 

Ultimately, the Confucian community's practice of human rights was one way to 
interfere in religious and political affairs during the New Order era, which the Minister 
of Religion dominated at that time. By Confucians, human rights are not only 
understood as a medium for negotiating with the government. In choosing an attitude 
of tolerance, the community makes efforts to accommodate two views, namely the 
government's top-down view of stability/harmony (Bagir, 2017; Sila, 2017). In addition, 
Confucians also invite the government to have a view on the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights. Although the government has received international pressure 
regarding human rights, Indonesia has its strategy to limit international interference 
in managing what it considers national stability, one of which is through P4 (Simpson, 
2014). Mahmood (2015) emphasized that the view of stability allows the state to 
negotiate on human rights. It also shows the geopolitical strength of a country that is 
more protective of the majority (Mahmood, 2015). 

 
The Erasure of Confucian Religious Education 
Religion and development were interrelated during the New Order because both were 
considered to support each other. Based on the 1975 Curriculum, religious education 
became a compulsory subject in schools and was followed by implementing P4 in 
schools. That arose because of the assumption that the assimilation program was still 
not running well (Sidjaya, 2014). Therefore, education is one way to make it a success 
(Kosim, 2021). Development also increasingly pays attention to the development of 
each individual, as achieved by P4. That is one of the political strategies to prevent the 
emergence of ideologies that conflict with Pancasila. 

In the late 1970s, MATAKIN attempted to restore Confucianism as religious 
education into the national curriculum after it had been abolished. That effort was 
made due to the urgency of the Final Course Evaluation (EBTA) in 1977. Through this 
evaluation, religion became one of the subjects tested. However, because 
Confucianism was not included in the curriculum, Confucianism exams were 
unavailable in the national exam. Therefore, Confucian-based schools could not hold 
their national exams. 

Based on the MATAKIN Special Report Special Number/ Mat/ V/ 78 to Minister 
Daoed Yoesoef, the government's attitude confused Confucianists. Although the 1975 
Curriculum did not prohibit Confucianism, the prohibition of Confucianism in the 
1977 EBTA showed a rejection of the religion itself. Confucianists used Article 18 of 
the UDHR to support their request in the MATAKIN Special Report No. Mat/XII/78. 
From a human rights perspective, the absence of Confucian religious education in 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 196 

Confucian schools violates the right to freedom of religion and education. It has 
implications for the recognition of religion by the state and also affects the 
implementation of education. 

After the Confucian community's position as Indonesian citizens was 
established, there was a change in Confucian religious education to Hindu religious 
education. Therefore, several schools that still run Confucian religious education chose 
to organize Hindu religious subjects and adopt the identity of a Hindu school 
(Suryadinata, 2015). One of the schools that organizes this is Tripusaka School. That 
was done so that the school could still stand like other Confucian schools that chose to 
change to multiculturalism and Islam (Chan, 2013; Raya, 2023). In addition, this shows 
the contestation between Chinese culture itself, namely between Buddhism and 
Confucianism (Sumantri & Yulianti, 2018; Suryadinata, 2015). Discrimination also 
occurred in textbooks narrated by the New Order Government about the Chinese 
(Kurniawan, et al., 2023). As a result, an extensive narrative was created that was 
discriminatory against the Chinese community so that the wider community was not 
aware of the problems in the education system and human rights violations that 
occurred in Indonesia. 
 
Conclusions 
The issue of revoking the recognition of the Confucian religion is a challenge for the 
state to uphold the human rights of its citizens. The New Order government has faced 
challenges from various international and domestic parties. The revocation of the 
recognition of the Confucian religion is an implication of the government's discourse 
to regulate religious life in Indonesia and realize the ideals of development. The 
awareness of the human rights of Confucians is also related to guaranteeing the 
fulfilment of civil rights. Confucians have made various efforts to get government 
support to fulfil their rights. However, Confucian religious education is prohibited in 
schools. It shows the separation between the right to freedom of religion and the right 
to education. To overcome this problem, Confucian-based schools changed the school 
base and replaced Confucian religious subjects with other religious subjects so that 
education could continue. Therefore, the changes in Confucian-based schools are a 
negotiation strategy to fulfil the right to education as part of civil rights. 

The study of the relationship between Confucians and the UDHR related to the 
state still needs to be perfect. Most of the research is still centred on the island of Java. 
This condition is different from that experienced by Confucians outside Java, so there 
is still an opportunity to study the strategies of Confucians during the New Order. The 
author would like to thank the Confucians in Lithang Gerbang Kebajikan Solo, who 
have been willing to share their archives with the author. The author would also like 
to thank the Modern Endangered Archives Program (MEAP), a collaboration between 
the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and the Center for Religious and 
Cross-Cultural Studies UGM (CRCS) chaired by Evi Lina Sutrisno, who always opened 
up opportunities for the author to conduct this research. 

 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 197 

References 
Bagir, Z. A. (2017). Kajian tentang kebebasan beragama dan berkeyakinan dan 

implikasinya untuk kebijakan. In I. Ali-Fauzi, Z. A. Bagir, & I. Rafsadi, 
Kebebasan, toleransi, dan terorisme: Riset dan kebijakan agama di Indonesia. 
South Jakarta: Pusat Studi Agama dan Demokrasi Yayasan Paramadina.  

Brown, G. (Ed.). (2016). Limitations and derogations. In The universal declaration of 
human rights in the 21st century: A living document in a changing world (pp. 57–62). 
Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.  

Sidjaya, C. Michel. (2014). Forced assimilation and development: The Chinese-Indonesians 
under Soeharto’s New Order (1965-1998). New Zealand: Development Studies 
Massey University Manawatu. 

Chan, C. (2013). “Assimilationism” versus “Integrationalism” revisited: The free 
school of the Khong Kauw Hwee Semarang. Journal of Social Issues in Southeast 
Asia, 28(2). https://doi.org/10.1355/sj28-2f 

Coppel, C. (1977). Contemporary Confucianism in Indonesia. Proceedings of  the Seventh 
IAHA Conference, 739-57. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.  

Cribb, R., & Coppel, C. A. (2009). A genocide that never was: Explaining the myth of 
anti-Chinese massacres in Indonesia, 1965–66. Journal of Genocide Research, 11(4), 
447–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623520903309503 

Dawis, A. (2010). Orang Indonesia Tionghoa: Mencari Identitas. Jakarta: Gramedia. 
Fibiger, M. (2023). Suharto’s cold war: Indonesia, Southeast Asia, and the World (1st ed.). 

New York: Oxford University Press.  
Hainsworth, G. B. (1983). The political economy of Pancasila in Indonesia. Current 

History, 82(483), 167-171,178-179. 
Hansen, G. E. (1976). Indonesia 1975: National resilience and continuity of the New 

Order struggle. Asian Survey, 16(2), 146–158. 
Heryanto, A. (2006). State terrorism and political identity in Indonesia: Fatally belonging. 

England: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203099827 
Hurd, E. S. (2015). Beyond religious freedom: The new global politics of religion. United 

States: Princeton University Press. 
Kilapong, H. (1978). Confusianisme agama dan sifatnya universil. Genta Tripusaka 

(Gentrika), IV (24/ 25), 22-30.   
Kosim, M. (2021). Religious education policy in public shools during the New Order. 

KARSA: Journal of Social and Islamic Culture, 28(2), 390–409. 
https://doi.org/10.19105/karsa.v28i2.3936 

Kurniawan, H., Supriatna, N., Mulyana, A., & Yulifar, L. (2023). From integration to 
marginalization: Representation of the Chinese in history textbooks in Indonesia. 
Social and Education History, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.17583/hse.11060 

Lasiyo (1992). Agama Khonghucu: An emergin form of religoious life among the Indonesian 
Chinese. London: University of London. 

Mahmood, S. (2015). Religious freedom, minority rights, and geopolitics. In W. F. 
Sullivan, E. S. Hurd, S. Mahmood, & P. G. Danchin, Politics of religious freedom. 
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 198 

Masih jauh, makin jauh. (1978, January 7). Tempo. Retrieved from 
https://majalah.tempo.co/read/agama/71338/masih-jauh-makin-jauh 

Putro, M. Z. A. E. (2021). Confucian’s revival and a newly established Confucian 
institution in Purwokerto. Analisa: Journal of Social Science and Religion, 6(01), 63–
78. https://doi.org/10.18784/analisa.v6i01.1244 

Qu, X. (2022). Confucianism and human rights—Exploring the philosophical base for 
inclusive education for children with disabilities in China. Disability & Society, 1–
22. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2022.2143324 

Raya, K. F. (2023). Cheng Ho Mosque and Islamic education: Chinese Muslim ethnic 
assimilation strategy in contemporary religious education in Indonesia. Research 
Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2503761/v1 

Regus, M. (2021). Human rights culture in Indonesia: Attacks on the Ahmadiyya Minority 
Group. Berlin: De Gruyter. 

Roth, H. I. (2018). P. C. Chang and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 
Philadeliphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Siddique, S., & Suryadinata, L. (1981). Bumiputra and pribumi: Economic nationalism 
(Indiginism) in Malaysia and Indonesia. Pacific Affairs, 54(4). 
https://doi.org/10.2307/2757890 

Sila, A. (2017). Kerukunan umat beragama di Indonesia: Mengelola keragaman dari 
dalam. In I. Ali-Fauzi, Z. A. Bagir, & I. Rafsadi, Kebebasan, toleransi, dan terorisme: 
Riset dan kebijakan agama di Indonesia. South Jakarta: Pusat Studi Agama dan 
Demokrasi Yayasan Paramadina.  

Simpson, B. (2014). The breakthrough: Human rights in the1970s (J. Eckel & S. Moyn, Eds.; 
1st ed). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 

Stephan, A. (2011). The multiple secularisms of modern democratic and no-democratic 
regimes. In C. Calhoun, M. Juergensmeyer, & J. VanAntwerpen (Eds.), Rethinking 
secularism. England: Oxford University Press. 

Sumantri, Y. K., & Yulianti, I. (2018). The policies of Indonesian government on ethnic 
Chinese in the context of multiculturalism. Advances in Social Science, Education 
and Humanities Research (ASSEHR), 147, 344–346. 

Suryadinata, L. (1972). Indonesian Chinese education: Past and present. Indonesia, 14, 
49. https://doi.org/10.2307/3350732 

Suryadinata, L. (1976). Indonesian policies toward the Chinese minority under the 
New Order. Asian Survey, 16(8), 770–787. https://doi.org/10.2307/2643578 

Suryadinata, L. (1982). Political parties and the 1982 general election in Indonesia. 
Singapore: ISEAS Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1355/9789814376143 

Suryadinata, L. (1987). Ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia: Problems and prospects. 
Journal of International Affairs, 41(1), 135. 

Suryadinata, L. (1988). Kebudayaan minoritas Tionghoa di Indonesia. Jakarta: Gramedia. 
Suryadinata, L. (2002). Negara dan etnis Tionghoa: Kasus Indonesia. Jakarta: LP3ES 

Indonesia. 
Suryadinata, L. (2005). Buddhism and Confucianism in contemporary Indonesia recent 

developments. In T. Lindsey, H. Pausacker, & C. A. Coppel (Eds.), Chinese 



 
IHiS (Indonesian Historical Studies) 8 (2), 189-199 © 2024 | E-ISSN: 2579-4213  

The UDHR and Confucian Community        | 199 

Indonesians: Remembering, distorting, forgetting. Singapore: Institute of Southeast 
Asian Studies; Monash Asia Institute. 

Suryadinata, L. (2015). State and “Chinese relogions” in Indonesia: Confusianism, 
Tridharma, and Buddhism during the Suharto rule and after. In C. B. Tan & 
International Society for the Study of Chinese Overseas (Eds.), After migration and 
religious affiliation: Religions, Chinese identities and transnational networks (pp. 19–
42). Singapore: World Scientific. 

Suryadinata, L., & Emmerson, D. K. (1991). Military ascendancy and political culture: 
A study of Indonesia Golkar. The Journal of Asian Studies, 50(4), 877–880. 

Sutrisno, E. (2018). Negotiating the Confucian religion in Indonesia: Invention, resilience, 
and revival (1900 – 2010). Seattle: University of Washington. 

Yang, H. (2005). The history and legal position of Confucianism in post- independence 
Indonesia. Marburg Journal of Religion, 10(1), 1–8. 

Yosadi, S. J. (1993). Khonghucu dan hak asasi manusia. Tempo. Retrieved from 
https://majalah.tempo.co/read/kolom-pembaca/5111/khonghucu-dan-hak-asasi-
manusia 

Yulianti, Y. (2022). The birth of Buddhist organizations in modern Indonesia, 1900–
1959. Religions, 13(3), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13030217 

Zulian, B., & Bachtiar, H. (2021). Indonesia: A complex experience of religious diversity 
governance. In ’Anna Triantafyllídou & T. Magazzini, Routledge handbook on the 
governance of religious diversity (pp. 267–281). England: Routledge. 

 


