This chapter contextualizes how ethical values drawn from Pancasila and Islam are mutually reinforcing in the formulation of human dignity. By using a genealogical approach, I argue that the pursuit of human dignity in Indonesia is debated in terms of the inviolability of human beings and the fulfilment of rights by the state. First, I show how the discourses surrounding human dignity by secular and Muslim nationalists in the colonial contexts coalesced with the pursuit of progress and the need for a sovereign nation. I also trace how secular and Muslim nationalists came to an agreement on the formulation of Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Second, I draw values from Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, in orienting the nation’s development and promotion of human dignity during the New Order regime. I also discusses the drawbacks of politicizing Pancasila and its impacts on the debates of human dignity and the way Islamic values were used as a framework for ethical and political considerations. I end the chapter by examining how Pancasila and Islam intersect as ethical frameworks in shaping human dignity as the fulfilment of rights.

The MCP’s discourse and activities show its hybrid nature as both a Chinese association and a communist party. In practice, the MCP’s double rootedness in Malaya and China as a Chinese association was achieved through the mechanisms of interwar globalization, that is, the discursive practices of the internationalization of both the Chinese snd Malayan revolutions as well as the attempt to indigenize the MCP. As the only Malayan Chinese association, the MCP both embraced the movement for Chinese rights in the British colony and campaigned for the overthrow of the Malayan and Chinese governments. The MCP’s Malayanization discourse mirrored British preferential policies toward Malays, whereas the Comintern’s rhetoric of colonial emancipation resonated with the MCP’s discourse of the emancipation of oppressed peoples by the Chinese, which echoed Sun Yatsen’s ideas. Different policies toward immigrant Chinese in Indonesia and Malaya resulted in different outcomes in the relationship between Chinese immigrants and indigenous nationalism. Yet, similarly, Chinese political parties in Indonesia (including leftist) embraced the national indigenous identity while also retaining a Chinese identity.

The MCP’s discourse and activities show its hybrid nature as both a Chinese association and a communist party. In practice, the MCP’s double rootedness in Malaya and China as a Chinese association was achieved through the mechanisms of interwar globalization, that is, the discursive practices of the internationalization of both the Chinese snd Malayan revolutions as well as the attempt to indigenize the MCP. As the only Malayan Chinese association, the MCP both embraced the movement for Chinese rights in the British colony and campaigned for the overthrow of the Malayan and Chinese governments. The MCP’s Malayanization discourse mirrored British preferential policies toward Malays, whereas the Comintern’s rhetoric of colonial emancipation resonated with the MCP’s discourse of the emancipation of oppressed peoples by the Chinese, which echoed Sun Yatsen’s ideas. Different policies toward immigrant Chinese in Indonesia and Malaya resulted in different outcomes in the relationship between Chinese immigrants and indigenous nationalism. Yet, similarly, Chinese political parties in Indonesia (including leftist) embraced the national indigenous identity while also retaining a Chinese identity.