Chinese and privileges

Chinese and privileges

Ms. Donna K. Woodward, in her letter of Aug. 20, responding to
my letter of July 31, did not address the very important question
I asked about where she got the data from for her allegation that
Chinese-Indonesians are privileged in the economic sector.
Instead of producing a more compelling argument, she repeated the
same folly again that in commerce, the Chinese ascended to the
position of privilege.

That assertion is as equally ludicrous and sloppy as the
unsubstantiated one that claims that 4 percent of Chinese-
Indonesians dominate 70 percent, 80 percent, or 90 percent (pick
one as preferred) of the country's whole economy.

I feel like a broken record already. However, in the spirit of
educating others, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the
doubt that she probably has not had a chance to read some
balanced analysis from credible economic and political observers,
such as George Aditjondro, Chritianto Wibisono or Kwik Kian Gie.
Hence, please allow me to pose an oft-repeated question again.

From about eight million ethnic Chinese in Indonesia,
specifically a few million Chinese-Indonesian businesspeople, how
many were really given the much-coveted privilege to easily win
lucrative projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars? Judging
from the same names that always appeared, it couldn't be more
than 100 conglomerate owners. However, these people were rarely
alone in their gains because they were usually accompanied by
their "influential" indigenous business partners. It's true that
they profited from this practice but there was little else they
could in order to win projects or they would just survive.

When their businesses had grown big, realistically they
couldn't refuse the power holders' children's and cronies
"offers" of business cooperation, even though these people did
not contribute a dime to the venture. Anybody in their position
would have done the same thing under such an unfair and cold-
hearted system that employed stigmatization and victimization as
a political tool to gain absolute submission from people. And
when these businesses violated ethics and laws, only the Chinese
shareholders were noticed by the public; the very case in point
has been soundly displayed by Ms. Woodward with her inadequately
pondered comments.

The majority of middle-class ethnic Chinese businesspeople
don't have the same privilege. Their financial success was not
handed to them on a plate. It is laughable to even contemplate
that those small to medium-sized shop owners who sweat over
making a living are privileged businesspeople. It does not do
them justice to do that.

In the case of Chinese-Indonesian tycoons, it is indisputable
that privilege and collusion have allowed them tremendous growth.
However, with their business acumen, they would have succeeded
without these "benefits" anyway, albeit at a slower pace.
Granted, the most logical premise is that their economic success
is what makes them privileged or pandered to by corrupt
government officials, not the other way around. The evidence for
this is that there are unsuccessful Chinese businesses just as
there are successful indigenous businesses. Consequently,
successful indigenous businesspeople also have privileges. It
doesn't make sense that corrupt officials would want to collude
with poor businesspeople, Chinese or indigenous.

RAHAYU RATNANINGSIH

Jakarta