Logical flaws in perceiving minority ethnic issues

By Inghie Kwik

JAKARTA (JP): Although I am generally not as predisposed as my father (economist Kwik Kian Gie) to write newspaper articles, this time I feel compelled to respond to the utterly insensitive and narrow-minded piece Ethnic Chinese at fault for riots, written by Masli Arman, July 30.

While most leaders in this nation are still trying to find a resolution toward the ethnic tensions between the Chinese and the indigenous, Arman already had a diagnosis (it's the Chinese's own fault for being arrogant and feeling superior), as well as a remedy (be humble and assimilate or leave). Then, to defend himself against possible accusations of narrow-mindedness (which is exactly what I am doing now), he paraded his foreign education credentials and work experience. Now, who is being arrogant and feeling superior here?

Despite these credentials, Arman seems to be making several very crude logical errors. First of all, the only reason he could isolate the incidence that triggered the riots or public outcries is because of exactly that, in that they triggered riots and public outcries.

I am sure Arman would agree with me that similarly awful incidence have occurred throughout history, but did not result in the same consequences. It has nothing to do with arrogance and superiority complexes. There is always a part of society that is inherently evil, no matter what ethical background. These people, if found guilty, should be punished through the rule of law. But to generalize an entire race on the behavior of a few ill-willed individuals is flawed logic.

Racial discrimination toward the ethnic Chinese in Indonesia, both formally and informally, is an inescapable fact of life in this country. But the exact reasons are certainly not as clear as portrayed by Arman.

In fact, they are likely very complex and most probably date back for centuries, much before the incidence outlined in Arman's article. I am not one to speculate on any theories.

Nevertheless, it is certainly safer logically to say that the incidence-driven riots are a result of inherent discriminatory tendencies rather than to conclude the other way around, in that the incidence mentioned lead to discrimination and eventually riots.

The second logical flaw that Arman portrayed in his article is his assertion that economic disparity had little to do with riots and that it was only a contributing factor. It is a well- documented fact throughout history that systemic and lasting economic disparities almost always lead to a collapse of social order.

This is why almost every government in the world has special departments, processes and programs to ensure social safety nets for the less privileged.

Again, it is much safer to conclude that riots were either triggered or energized by a general feeling of unfair treatment. The fact that an incident pitting a Chinese against a pribumi led to a riot targeting the Chinese is only a symptom that happened to ride on inherent racial differentiation.

Even in the U.S., ethnic minorities often become targets during social upheavals, as evidenced by an attack on Korean shops in Los Angeles a few years back.

Are we then to conclude that the Koreans were arrogant and feeling superior, thus resulting in a discriminatory and riot- ready black community? I doubt this makes much sense.

The third logical flaw in Arman's article is that after all his assertion about lack of assimilation, arrogance and superiority complexes, he concluded that 70 percent of ethnic Chinese are already fairly well assimilated and that 30 percent reject the idea of assimilation.

Although I can speculate that Arman pulled these number out of a hat, even if he is correct, he clearly contradicted himself. First of all, 70 percent is clearly a majority and by saying that a minority 30 percent or about 1.8 million Chinese people are the culprits of discrimination that lead to riots, these people must be very powerful indeed.

It almost needs a concerted and intensive effort by these 1.8 million that all Chinese are arrogant and possess superiority complexes. Again, I doubt this minority is that well organized.

Now that I have pointed out the logical flaws, I'd also like to give Arman some benefit of the doubt.

As I mentioned above, I believe there is indeed a subsegment of the Chinese communality that is arrogant and feels superior. This behavior is mostly depicted through a handful of wealthy Chinese businesspeople, whose modus operandi has been that of collusion with high-ranking officials in the bureaucracy (the famous KKN acronym for corruption, collusion and nepotism).

At times, you'd see them in lobbies of five-star hotels, and they are easy to spot because everyone around them would bow and pay their respects, as if they were meeting a king.

Many of these businesspeople have obtained their social status through ill-gotten wealth, either through monopolies or by raping a bank, be it a state bank or his own bank. But this would not have been possible without an Indonesian counterpart, and these counterparts behave exactly the same way.

They, too, hang out at coffee shops of expensive hotels and have people kissing their behind. I have personally seen a very famous and well-to-do indigenous businessman treat his driver with utter disrespect in front of his friends.

If Arman has been "around" as much as he claims, I am sure that he could cite several incidence whereby some sort of abuse took place between two indigenous Indonesians, one was probably of a much higher income group than the other.

But this did not trigger a riot, and indeed, his business/house did not get burned by the masses. How do you explain that?

As for Arman's suggestion for the Chinese with superior attitudes to relinquish their citizenship and leave Indonesia, one issue remains. As a Chinese, how would you know whether you are perceived to be of superior attitude and, thus, should leave the country?

Again, from what I have seen, those Chinese that have already left are of a mixed bag, some (a minority) are indeed not useful in any society but many are genuinely humble and well-assimilated people.

Perhaps a special body should be established to interview and interrogate these people and judge them by their attitude and refusal to assimilate. But let's be consistent and also suggest that any other arrogant and superiority-complex individual leave this country, be it Indonesian, Chinese, Arab, Indian, Caucasian or otherwise.

This would actually serve a useful purpose. The nation would get rid of arrogant people and our national carriers could become profitable again. In all seriousness, I'm sorry to say Arman, that any reasonable person would take you seriously on this suggestion.

As a person of Chinese origin, I took special note of your last paragraph. After careful introspection, I would not classify myself as arrogant or of having a superiority complex. Thus, I am here to stay. One thing is clear, however, businessman William Soerjadjaja is not my leader as you suggested in your article.