Soeharto - A life remembered

[Dumbellina]

Soeharto is nanometres from the end of his life. And its the only story here in Indonesia at the moment (TV news even gives you his latest blood pressure and O2 saturation levels).

So it is apt for the Australian people to pass a message on to the Indonesian people, the Soeharto family and Pak Soeharto himself.


What should those messages be?

 

[NCR600]

Byeeeee! Can you see me waving?

 

[johnny]

I hope it hurts.

 

[Plow King]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto

Wiki article incase people were wondering who he was. I know I was

 

[Stackerz]

I'll have to go with Johnny here.

I hope the machine's break and you suffer for days, then die horribly painfully.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

Idi Amin's gone, Saddam's gone, Pinochet's gone, Soeharto's on his way

Well, at least we've still got Kimmy, the Burmese junta and Bobby Mugabe around to bring sexy back...

 

[Drop_Bear]

Naa naa naaa NAA NAA NAA NAA HEY HEY HEY .. GOODBYE !!

Shame you can't bring your squillions of hard earned cash with you to whereever it is you think you're going!

 

[flying high dh killer]

Good Night, Sweet Prince.

Nnnnoooooooottt!!!!

 

[Pitto]

"So then, where's the money stashed, really?"

 

[Nerf Herder]

"For most of his three-decade rule, Indonesia experienced significant economic growth and industrialization.[1] His rule, however, led to political purges and the deaths of millions of Indonesian communists and Chinese-Indonesians,[2] and enaction of legislation outlawing communist parties and ethnic Chinese.[3]" extract from wikipedia.

A small price for political stability and progress. According to a quick google search there are approx $234M indonesians.

A possible senario without Soeharto

- Indonesia falls under Communism, following successes in Vietnam / Cambodia and via internal influence by ethic Chinese business interests
- Increase in Poverty, whilst economic development remains stagant (see Cuba, Vietnam before 1990s)
- Indonesia with the largest muslim following in the world, rebel against Atheistic Communist dictum, oppressive poverty. (Similar to Afghanistan and following their lead) and increasing resentment of ethic Chinese.
- Sharia law imposted by new Muslim leaders
- Ethic Chinese are again slaughtered ... inevitable and unavoidable in my opinion (see Fiji, Malaysia and other historic purges of ethic minorities with disproportionate economic success).
- Australia pokes its nose into Indonesian affairs (as per current MO)
- Australia suffers terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 with more frequent, smaller scale attacks similar to the Bali bombings and Embassy attacks, on mainland Australia. (assumes intake of indonesian nationals remains constant or increases compared to current situation).

In summary, without Soeharto, Indonesian Islamists would have emerged sooner, with more popular support internally, leading to more extremist tendencies, following their internal struggles and ultimate successes in raising to power.

Any deaths of "innocents" would only have been delayed and or increased at a latter date ... given the change to religious extremism, from its current moderate classification.

Disclaimer, all of the above is fanciful and the probability of it taking place is unknown.

 

[Drop_Bear]

So very true. Military dictatorship certainly is stable. Perhaps we should all adopt them.

He also made one of the highest population countries in the region have one of the lowest standards of living whilst maintaining one of the largest and argueable most corrupt armed forces in the world.

All the while he invested wisely and looked after his children and managed to amass a reported 16 billion dollars. Now that's some financial savy !

 

[Nerf Herder]

So very true. Military dictatorship certainly is stable. Perhaps we should all adopt them.

Depends on the level of maturity of your political system. If its piss poor, say following a brutal independence struggle, by peoples with a long history of foreign occupation (and therefore lack of civil experience / discipline to undertake self government), then yep I recommend it, provided of course they produce some element of improvement to life. I am directly comparing the Soeharto regime with the Myanmar jaunta, who aren't producing any economic growth to siphon off, and therefore one is the lesser of two evils.

He also made one of the highest population countries in the region have one of the lowest standards of living

Compared to what ? Cambodia / Laos / Vietnam / Philippines / Thailand ... pretty much every other SEA nation excluding Singapore and maybe Malaysia (suspect Indonesia and Malaysia are comparable). Presume your not comparing to Australian Standards (apples and oranges comes to mind).

A quick google search didn't find anything comprehensive however I did find the following http://www.iisg.nl/indonesianeconomy/program1900-2000.php with the question:

"Why did the economic growth performance improve so much during the New Order Government of Suharto after the dismal experiences of the Old Order Government of Sukarno?" Apologies, this is a shitty quote, as the article does not actually confirm my assertion with an answer or finding, but I'll use it to support the wiki extract.

All the while he invested wisely and looked after his children and managed to amass a reported 16 billion dollars. Now that's some financial savy !

Taking away the size of the pillage for a second, are you implying that politicians in general are not in it to line their pockets (whether now or in the future)?

Putting on my Asian hat ... I would say he took care of his family, by putting them into prime positions with plump pay packets and the ability to take advantage of their positions of power ... like any good parent should. If your going to have ethnocentric views then may as well colour it with an Asian flavour, on this occassion.

 

[johnny]

Taking away the size of the pillage for a second, are you implying that politicians in general are not in it to line their pockets (whether now or in the future)?

Yes, I am. Once again, this may be the difference between the Asian and Western experience, but I would definitely argue that the majority of Western politicians are NOT in it to line their own pockets.

Putting on my Asian hat ... I would say he took care of his family, by putting them into prime positions with plump pay packets and the ability to take advantage of their positions of power ... like any good parent should. If your going to have ethnocentric views then may as well colour it with an Asian flavour, on this occassion.

If you think that for an "elected" member of a government to place his/her own family above that of their electorate is what he should do, then I'd say that your views of politics are irreconcilable to the majority of the world. If you say this is ethnocentric and not the Asian way, then I'd say the "Asians" have it wrong and no wonder that the majority of the Asian world lives in envy of the Western styles of prosperity and development (Sorry, I'm not too sure which way to read your comments).

Let's also look at another angle of the Suharto regime; East Timor from 1975 onwards. Didn't his actions do wonders for that lovely little half-island!

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

(suspect Indonesia and Malaysia are comparable).

Yeah, Mahathir Mohammed was a prick as well. Didn't go in for the genocide though...

If you're going to go as far as saying Soeharto was a great leader because he held together a widely spread out nation of vastly different cultures with the use of an iron fist then you might as well start singing the praises of Joseph Stalin...

 

[Drop_Bear]

There is a major differene between a dictatorship and military rule. With the military overthrow of a government comes military rule. When the military then beleives that they are best at running the country in the long term you get a dictatorship. These only work in extreemly volitile regions. They unite the people and establish control of the country within the region. They are very useful in the middle east and africa. Military rule should only be an interim government for the setting up on democraticly elected officials who are capable of running a country that is at peace (as in not at war with neighbouring countries). Suharto did not do this. He seized power and kept it for his own gain. He was wholey corrupt and kept Indonesia is a state of arrested development. The only progress indonesia made in the last 20 years of his rule was a substantial increase in military presense in the region. The standard of living in Indonesia as a whole is amoung the lowest in SE Asia. Some islands and regions enjoy good prosperity but givevn the population (250 mil?) they largely live in 3rd world standards akin to that of undeveloped nations. The wealth is spread very thin and the economiv crisis of the 80's cemented the militaries role in governance and further affirming Suharto's rule. His families net worth at the time was 45 billion which was what the IMF said was enough to get his country out of the finacial quagmire it was in by repaying the IMF and World Bank. Did he do this ? Nope sure didnt.

Given the dispersal of the population it is hard to organise a structured working regime like they have in China but given the methods of rule used there has been little to no effort made to unite the country as an economic power. They are where China was 20 years ago. Largely isolated within their own region despite their size. Only with recent democratic developments and new leaders has any real progress been able to take place. Even China realised that regime change is needed to progress in the world as old ideas remain old and hinder growth and adaptability.

In regards to his family it is impossible to disregard the size of the pilliage. It is an absolutely incredible amount for even the most successful businessmen around. Let's clear up that Suharto wasnt a politian. He was an army general. The title of president taken by from Sukano when Sukano granted him supreme power. If you bring the figure down from 45 billion to 16 billion or even 1 billion that is more than anyone can ever spend in a lifetime. It is pure greed and clearly at the cost of not only his countrymen but his country. He has imposed corruption through the militaries influence on every aspect of authority in Indonesia. They get paid next to nothing and they make up for their wages by illegal activities such as drugs, bribes and racketeering. His son was recently released from jail after serving only 3 years of a 15 year sentence for murdering a supreme court judge that sentence little tommy to jail for corruption. Suharto granted construction companies owned by his family contracts at ludicrous amounts without question and dictated where the countries spending went. Disgraceful human being.

He is by no means a politian. It has nothing to do with good parenting. It's out and out greed.

 

[johnny]

- Indonesia falls under Communism, following successes in Vietnam / Cambodia and via internal influence by ethic Chinese business interests
- Increase in Poverty, whilst economic development remains stagant (see Cuba, Vietnam before 1990s)

I'd also like to take this up as well. Whilst, let's say 50 million suffered from Communism in China, a good 500 000 000 are prospering today from the basic foundations of a cohesive society that Communism founded. Without Mao, China would not have had an industrial base, nation wide political system nor a standing army. China would not have had the foundation to build it up to the rapidly developing nation it is today.

Also, without arguing that Cuba is better off now than before Castro, it certainly wasn't exactly good before either. It was being raped by the mob and was an island for the rich Americans to exploit as much as they wanted.

BTW, the Ethnic Chinese were attacked and killed in many places anyway, Seoharto certainly didn't avoid that from happening.

 

[Dumbellina]

I can't believe that Australians would forget our closest neighbour's ruler from 1967 to 1998 - Gen. Soeharto. Terms like the butcher of East Timor, Papua, Aceh, etc would be apt.

Most Indonesian's think, in the words of my hosts, that "Soeharto built a strong Indonesia" and created pride in Indonesian identity. Essentially all other identities - communist, ethnic chinese, provenences with strong separate identities (Aceh, traditional communities in Sumatra, Mulukus, Papua, and East Timor (post 1975)) - were denigrated.


My hosts also said that they didn't believe that Soeharto killed communist, which also shows how the propoganda and the lack of media freedom allowed the New Order as its called here, to send only positive messages.

There are a couple of things that you should consider:
* Islam is strong in Indo, but its a form of Islam that is very tolerant of all mainstream religions. Javanese Islam includes Buddhist, Hindu and traditional components and beliefs. Similarly in Sumatra tribal/traditional beliefs are strong influences on religious practice. Sects of Islam (eg Shiite) or minority religions (eg Bahia) cop severe discrimination. Soeharto used the mainstream Sunni Islamic organisations to further his own interests and used persuasion to keep a lid on radical or overtly political islamic groups. Now that anyone can form a political party since 1998, the research is showing that secular democratic parties and coalitions of democratic parties and islamic parties get the lion share of the vote - Islamic parties themselves struggle to get above single figures in elections. However islam is deeply embedded in the Indonesian government - both politically and in the bureaucracy.

Malaysian Islam are said to be less tolerant of other faiths, eg the attempted ban on Catholics using the term "allah". Indonesians happily remind others that many of Jamah Ismaleh (sp?) members were Malaysian.

* Indonesia is a republic that, as all Indonesians and visitors are reminded everywhere, was created through much bloodshed in fighting for liberation from the Dutch. An inspection of the old part of Jakarta (Batavia) shows just how much of a colony it was and how the Portugese, then Dutch (and a few British folk along the way), pillaged the country and created the wealth and social division we see today. On Sumatra for example, the Dutch selected one tribe over another, and no surprises Dutch supported tribe annihilated their enemy. This hated, borne in the colonial period, is very ingrained in the Indonesian consciousness and affects local, regional, national and international relationships even today. From what Indonesians write about Malaysians, the British seems to have left a completely different set of circumstances in Malaysia.

* corruption is rife in all sectors of the Indonesian economy and society. Soeharto himself was smart and the beneficiaries of his largesse, corrupt behaviour were his family - his wife, his children. His son Tommy famously had a judge executed, witnesses threatened, and others paid off - all to cover, from memory a traffic matter.

* the "oriental" perspective versus the western perspective is used to justify all manner of things from the lack of road rules,to the lack of safety on the roads, to corrupt conduct (in another's words, "to set up his family"), to why the press should not be free, to why pursuit of wealth is a high objective than personal freedoms, community development, etc. I think its a over-used cliche that is used to justify tyranny and diminish human rights. I don't deny that the cultural values and ideas in South East Asia are different to Australia, but at the same time human rights are universal and can and must not be derogated for the sake of culture.

As to Australia's message to Pak Soeharto - goodbye and good riddance, may your family's grief and wealth last for a short period

 

[Nerf Herder]

Yes, I am. Once again, this may be the difference between the Asian and Western experience, but I would definitely argue that the majority of Western politicians are NOT in it to line their own pockets.!

Some examples:
Dick Cheney (Defense contracts) Highlights how politicians use their positions to benefit their and their associates interests.
Nick Greiner (Chairman Rothmans) not saying he had any association whilst an elected official, however, I believe this was the conduit that got him the position.
Bob Carr (Macquaire bank Exec), as above. not saying they are not talented or capable, however, they would have used their positions of power and influence to secure these roles ... I would.
Several Australian senators forced to quit due to failures to disclose share holdings - more an implication as opposed to factual misrepresentations.
Burke ... WA politians and business men (WA inc).

My use of the phrase "... line their own pockets." is overly simplistic ... I'll expand it to "Further their economic and personal interests, along with certain interest groups in their direct association".

Where personal interests could be, Poonany (JFK, Bill Clinton) ... Land Issues (majority of 18th and 19th century political leaders were farmers) Oil interests etc etc.

I will soften my stance from "majority of politician" as this is unfair and unfounded ... however as per Lord Acton "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

The strength and weakness of my argument comes down to definitions of "degrees of abuse, corruption or fore knowledge of actions" ... I'll leave it there as I know there a many shades of grey.

then I'd say that your views of politics are irreconcilable to the majority of the world.

.
"Majority" in terms of what ? 1) number of people ? 2) Number of nations ? 3) number of democratic political systems ?

1) Based on number of people ... I think you're wrong ... and this only focuses on Asian peoples.
1) & 2) combined, I would say that Asians (I will classify Australian Aboridgines as Asian for this argument), Eastern Europeans, Middle Eastern Nations, Jews, Pacific Islanders, Inuits, Hispanics and Many western European (Italians, Greeks, Turks, French ?? maybe) Have strong family bonds and preceieved responsibilities and therefore would hold family members as more important and would (to varying degrees) place their children in positions of power (whether in politics or business).
Jump back a century or so and I would include the Anglo Saxons and Scandanavians in there as well.
3) can't comment on this.

If you say this is ethnocentric and not the Asian way, then I'd say the "Asians" have it wrong and no wonder that the majority of the Asian world lives in envy of the Western styles of prosperity and development (Sorry, I'm not too sure which way to read your comments).

Apologies, likely my poor wording ... My comments (re: nepotism) were an attempt to express why Soeharto maybe admired and considered a "good leader" within his political system and in the Asian mindset (and I argue quite a few other ethic groups). I make no personal judgements.

Obviously if you're an East Timorese or Acehian(sp) you would disagree, as you are not the net beneficiary of his Presidency / Dictatorship.

Now, as per the bits in bold I have outlined in your quote. I think these are ethnocentrism defined.

Asians (expand other ethic groups listed above) have it wrong based on Western ideals (re: nepotism, cronism). Pffft ... for how long. Not that long ago, Westerners thought bathing was a bad idea and eating rotting meat as a delicacy.

Similarly, developing nations may envy Western prosperity, but do they crave our morals and attitudes? Of course not. Is your level of properity the same as theirs? Of course not. Will they have a difference way of getting what they need? Of course.

Let's also look at another angle of the Suharto regime; East Timor from 1975 onwards. Didn't his actions do wonders for that lovely little half-island!

It did for those Indonesians that benefited via purchase of land ... sure Soeharto and his cronies likely took the Lion's share, but other "Indonesians" also benefited ... this also obviously opens up the arguement to "Why did it take the West so long to do anything about the bloody despot ". Was it something to do with those western ideals ?

DISCLAIMER: I make no personal judgements as to the correctness / justness or righteousness of Soeharto's actions or preceieved Asian ethocentrisms.

 

[Nerf Herder]

If you're going to go as far as saying Soeharto was a great leader because he held together a widely spread out nation of vastly different cultures with the use of an iron fist then you might as well start singing the praises of Joseph Stalin...

Fairly sure I didn't make any judgment calls. However, why is it that Russia is reverting back to centralisation, a key to Stalinist Communism.

 

[Nerf Herder]

There is a major differene between a dictatorship and military rule. With the military overthrow of a government comes military rule. When the military then beleives that they are best at running the country in the long term you get a dictatorship. These only work in extreemly volitile regions. They unite the people and establish control of the country within the region. They are very useful in the middle east and africa. Military rule should only be an interim government for the setting up on democraticly elected officials who are capable of running a country that is at peace (as in not at war with neighbouring countries).

This is all good, and I think you are somewhat validating what I said previously re military rule, however, the bit I have a problem with is the word "should". "Should" from who's point of view ... sorry for labouring the point ... I argue "Should" from an Indonesian point of view ... further because Indonesians didn't / couldn't do anything to change the length of his rule until much later ... then I think he was a military leader who became Politician.

I think being a politician is more then just winning the popular vote, its about winning the support of whomever it takes to keep the power ... be it other military leaders, business powers or whomever.

Suharto did not do this. He seized power and kept it for his own gain. He was wholey corrupt and kept Indonesia is a state of arrested development. The only progress indonesia made in the last 20 years of his rule was a substantial increase in military presense in the region. The standard of living in Indonesia as a whole is amoung the lowest in SE Asia. [I disagree as per my previous extracts ... I believe Indonesia had superior economic performance compared to its neighbours] ... His families net worth at the time was 45 billion which was what the IMF said was enough to get his country out of the finacial quagmire it was in by repaying the IMF and World Bank. Did he do this ? Nope sure didnt. [would you ? can you name me a Western political leader or figure that sacrificed their personal wealth to save their country ... lets think about the Great Depression of the 30s]

In regards to his family it is impossible to disregard the size of the pilliage. It is an absolutely incredible amount for even the most successful businessmen around. Let's clear up that Suharto wasnt a politian. [as per above, disagree]

As a counter point re pilliage ... Where did he pilliage the vast sums from ? was it like Marcos who just plain took whatever monies other governments gave as aid (I suspect yes, without quantifying) ? If yes then I suggest that these are monies that Indonesians could not rightly expect, and therefore can not truly miss ... I'm not wording this well, however, I am likening this to Saddam's kickbacks from the AWB ... ie, you can't miss what you don't know

He is by no means a politian. It has nothing to do with good parenting. It's out and out greed.