Superiority complex

Superiority complex

The current debate concerning a recent article by Arief
Budiman (The Jakarta Post, April 19, 1996) really evolves around
two basic issues: the rights and obligations of the indigenous
versus non-indigenous peoples, and the question of dual loyalty
of the non-indigenous community towards their country of
citizenship and country of origin.

As I wrote on April 23, 1996, it is not so easy to obtain the
loyalty of the non-indigenous population even when the cultural
traditions of their ancestral homeland have been allowed to
develop. For instance, I remember late in the 1960s when the
prime minister of Malaysia strongly reprimanded and publicly
questioned the loyalty of Kuala Lumpur's Tamil language
newspaper, Tamil Nesan, for printing pages and pages of news for a
few days in connection with the death of the prime minister of
the Indian state Tamil Nadu. Another example happened many years
later, when during a badminton match between a Malaysian side and
a visiting national team of China, I saw that many of the
Malaysian Chinese spectators sitting around me were wildly
supporting the Chinese team even though there were some Malaysian
Chinese players on the Malaysian team.

The issue of dual loyalty, potentially harmful though it is,
has often been aggravated by an arrogant and superior attitude on
the part of the Chinese, especially when they think they are
successful or powerful. For instance, the terrible communal riots
in Kuala Lumpur on May 13, 1969, which I partly witnessed and
which shook Malaysia to its foundation, were certainly caused by
the outrageous and uncalled for provocations by thousands of
Chinese who thought they had made substantial gains in a recent
general election.

Similarly, the shocking riots that took place in Purwakarta,
West Java in November last year were caused by the arrogant and
superior attitude of a Chinese shopkeeper. I just wonder whether
Arief Budiman is aware that Bill Hayden, a former governor
general of Australia who he quoted so approvingly, also denounced
the Chinese for harboring a cultural superiority complex.

The question of dual loyalty, while undesirable enough in
times of peace, can become a serious destabilizing factor during
wars or in the threat of war, It is a historically established
fact that the Tamils of Sri Lanka have frequently acted as a
fifth column by aiding invading Tamils from South India. During
World War II, many Japanese Americans were imprisoned for
collaboration with the Japanese government, while hundreds of
thousands Soviet citizens of German descent were forcibly
transported to Siberia to prevent them from assisting the
invading Nazi army.

I am not at all suggesting that the Indonesian Chinese will
necessarily act in the same way as the Tamils, Japanese and
Germans in the not unlikely event of a Chinese attack, but it is
absolutely imperative the government forestall such
eventualities.

I think the government's policy on the acculturation and
assimilation of the Indonesian Chinese is the best and only
sensible solution. Indonesia is endowed with a rich cultural
heritage with which the Chinese could identify themselves. Being
a pragmatic people, the Chinese should be able to cast off any
misleading superiority complex they might have and gain for
themselves a welcome niche in Indonesian society. After all, as
the saying goes: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

I do not wish to engage myself in any further discussion on
the subject, except perhaps if Arief Budiman, the person who
started the controversy, should deign to respond.

MASLI ARMAN

Jakarta