By Ali Syarief
The recent arrest of three Indonesian nationals in Japan over an alleged robbery in Hokota, Ibaraki Prefecture, raises urgent questions not only about criminal behavior and immigration policy but also about the deeper cultural misalignments that may contribute to such incidents. Seen through a cross-cultural lens, this case is more than just a legal matter—it reflects the complexities and challenges of intercultural integration, migration ethics, and the invisible cultural codes that govern host societies.
At first glance, the case appears simple: three individuals overstayed their visas and allegedly committed a crime. But when examined more carefully, we must ask: why do such situations continue to occur among overstaying migrant workers in Japan? What cultural and structural tensions are at play beneath the surface?
Cultural Pressures and Misunderstandings
Japan is known for its strict social order, rigid legal systems, and deep cultural emphasis on harmony (wa), shame, and group conformity. These values contrast sharply with the more communal, flexible, and survival-driven ethos often found among Indonesian migrant workers—especially those who arrive under difficult economic conditions. The typical Indonesian value of gotong royong (mutual cooperation) may find little space in a society where self-restraint and individual accountability are deeply ingrained.
Migrant workers who overstay their visas often exist in a cultural vacuum—unable to fully assimilate, yet disconnected from their original identity. Without access to stable jobs, proper housing, or legal status, many become invisible and excluded from formal society. This alienation can lead to social desperation, making some more susceptible to criminal networks that promise quick financial gain. In Japan, where societal trust is paramount, any deviation—especially by foreigners—is viewed harshly and can amplify xenophobic sentiments.
Structural Asymmetries
From a structural standpoint, Japan’s Technical Intern Training Program (TITP) has been widely criticized for functioning less as a skills exchange and more as a disguised form of low-wage labor migration. Many Indonesians come to Japan under such programs, only to find themselves exploited, underpaid, and unsupported. When their contracts end or become intolerable, some choose to overstay and seek informal work to support families back home. This survival mode, born from economic inequality, places them at odds with Japan’s legalistic and morally ordered society.
Furthermore, the concept of “face”—important in both Japanese and Indonesian cultures—takes different forms. In Japan, saving face is about maintaining public decorum and hiding vulnerability. In Indonesia, it’s often about maintaining dignity within the community and family. For many overstayers, returning home empty-handed is considered a personal and familial failure. This cultural pressure can compel individuals to take extreme measures abroad.
Toward Cultural Empathy and Reform
The solution to such tragic cross-cultural collisions lies not only in tighter immigration enforcement or criminal penalties, but also in fostering mutual cultural understanding. Japan must continue to reform its treatment of foreign workers, ensuring ethical recruitment, fair treatment, and accessible pathways to legal status. At the same time, Indonesia must improve pre-departure education for its citizens, equipping them with better cultural literacy and realistic expectations of life abroad.
Equally important is the humanization of migrants in public discourse. Not all overstayers are criminals, and not all crimes stem from moral failure. Many are victims of broken systems, cultural miscommunication, and desperation born of unequal global economies.
Conclusion
As the world becomes increasingly interconnected, cross-cultural awareness is no longer optional—it is essential. The case of the three Indonesian nationals in Japan serves as a sobering reminder that when individuals move across borders, they do not leave their cultural backgrounds behind. Policies, communities, and institutions must be prepared not just to control movement, but to understand it. Only then can justice and empathy coexist.
