Logical flaws in perceiving minority ethnic issues

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.