---
Indonesia Needs to Exorcise the Ghosts Of Sukarno and Suharto to Move On
Yohanes Sulaiman &
Phillip Turnbull | April 13, 2012
 |
| All this sounds like modern Indonesia has only learned to commit the same
mistakes of the past.’ |
There has been a growing number of calls to rehabilitate the good names of
Sukarno and Suharto. We’ve been told it’s all in the name of national
reconciliation and a desire to move on. Yet at the same time, reconciliation is
one of those political buzzwords that ironically has the ability to divide
people. One wonders whether politicians know what they mean when they use it.
For all its positive overtones of forgiveness and moving on to a better
future, reconciliation is to do with the memory of past history and a sober
judgment on a nation. In essence, one cannot have reconciliation, or forgiveness
of past errors, without a serious attempt to open up the nation’s history;
trying as objectively as possible to evaluate the past without keeping dark
events hidden or presenting a politicized version of the nation’s past in an
attempt to legitimize contemporary political agendas.
Reading back into
the past and forcing onto it the agendas of contemporary interest groups is a
common pitfall across the ages. It is always an indication of a false
familiarity that serves neither historical truth nor the contemporary desire to
make sense of the past.
Only by recognizing that Sukarno and Suharto
are no longer our contemporaries can we hope to see them more clearly, and in
doing so, ourselves.
It is fair to say both Sukarno and Suharto had a
disproportionate influence on the history of modern Indonesia, and remain
larger-than-life characters.
In President Sukarno, many people found a
great nationalist, someone who put Indonesia on the pedestal of international
recognition, whose rhetoric was unmatched and who united a fractious Indonesia
under the banner of nationalism, religion and, controversially, an Indonesian
form of communism.
He led a collection of serfs — a former colony —
into a great nation, making world leaders in London, The Hague, Moscow, Beijing
and Washington look on in awe. He was a man not easily dismissed, neither here
nor abroad.
However he did eventually bring the country to the brink of
ruin. There was also gross economic mismanagement, leading to shortages of basic
daily necessities and, eventually, the collapse of the national economy.
Sukarno presided over the dismantling of Indonesia’s fledgling democracy
and imprisoned many of his political opponents, such as Sutan Sjahrir,
Sjafruddin Prawiranegara and Mohammad Natsir. Under his reign, the formerly
professional and independent civil service created by the Dutch was politicized.
Under Sukarno, public servants had to support the government’s party or they
were fired.
He also weakened the independence of the Indonesian
judiciary and demoralized judges so much that the effects of that intimidation
remain even to this day. In all this, he laid the foundations of the New Order
authoritarianism under Suharto.
President Suharto’s regime, by
comparison, was seen as subdued and sober, lacking the flashes, gongs and antics
of Sukarno. Nevertheless, Suharto restored the economy, laid the foundations for
today’s economic boom and Indonesia’s emergence as a country of determining
influence for Southeast Asia and its neighbors further afield such as Australia,
China and India.
At the same time, there are sufficient historical
records to indicate he was a corrupt and ruthless autocrat, implicated, along
with others, in the murder of possibly hundreds of thousands of his fellow
Indonesians. He amassed a fortune, despoiling the public purse on a staggering
scale. And the illicit funds still remain largely in the hands of his family and
cronies, with only moderately successful and concentrated efforts taken to
retrieve them.
When he resigned, on May 21, 1998, Suharto publicly
apologized for his mistakes. His resignation came close on the heels of many
deaths and disappearances during the student protests that led to his downfall.
His coming to power was accompanied by bloodshed and his ignominious ending
likewise. He seemed wedded to conflict and left behind a nation that continues
to be embroiled in divisions and outbreaks of violence.
One wonders what
was going through Suharto’s mind, if anything, when he referred to his
“mistakes” — a mild enough word that implies not only the need for an apology,
but also the necessity of backing up the apology with deeds that give the
apology credence and value. It is one thing to say you are sorry; it is another
to walk away after having plundered the country and keeping what you took.
Of course, Suharto denied ever having been corrupt. Before he died,
referring to attempts to regain state funds from him, he said, “It’s all empty
talk. Let them accuse me. The fact is that I have never committed corruption.”
At the same time, not everyone’s hands are clean. The communists, the
early victims of Suharto’s authoritarian regime, had reason to be contrite.
For years they terrorized whoever they perceived to be political
opponents, creating such a culture of fear that when the communists were blamed
for the failed September 30 coup in 1965, their erstwhile “victims,” such as
Nahdlatul Ulama’s youth movement, Ansor, saw the murders of the generals as the
first move in apocalyptic warfare. They then launched pre-emptive attacks,
massacring the communists and their alleged sympathizers in Central and Eastern
Java and Bali, with the tacit blessing of the military.
Today, the sum
of these events, their meaning and impact remain unresolved and Indonesians
disagree how to recall, analyze, understand and learn from them. The dark past
is simply too painful to recall, and too politically sensitive, and thus the
recent calls for reconciliation and rehabilitation sound like a good step toward
addressing this problem.
Still, it is doubtful that this kind of
reconciliation is what the politicians have in mind. Rather, it seems that their
goals tend more toward whitewashing history, forgetting the troubled and
traumatic past by burying everything under buzzwords like rehabilitation, and
hoping that everything will be swept away by the sands of time.
In the
meantime, they can use the larger-than-life figures of both Sukarno and Suharto
to attract voters during the upcoming elections.
All this sounds like a
continuation of past attitudes. All this sounds like contemporary Indonesia has
only learned how to commit the same mistakes of the past rather than renounce
them. It hardly sounds like reconciliation, remorse or restitution — but
business as usual.
And this would indicate that the reconciliation some
are proposing is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize what was
unacceptable then and is unacceptable now.
Therefore, maybe it is better
to rephrase the question. What kind of truth and reconciliation process does
Indonesia need?
--------
SirAnthonyKnown-Bender
4:22pm Apr 13,
2012
It's called "TRUTH and reconciliation". Without the former you don't get the
latter, just the usual specious Javanese consensus that masks a sea of
injustice. Indonesian figures with the honesty of a Desmond Tutu don't make it
to the top table. I well remember about a decade ago some proposal to form an
Indonesian Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The generals said, "Well we
can't have the word 'truth', just make it a reconciliation commission only."
Farcical. It would be hilarious in fact if so much spilt blood hadn't been
airbrushed out of official history. If there was justice in this country after
1998's failed "people power revolution" (which left 90% of the New Order regime
in tact - the very fact that Golkar still exist shows the manifest failure of
any meaningful "reformasi")then certain people would be in jail instead of
standing for elections and invoking mass-murdering tyrants as national heroes.
Use your vote wisely in 2014 Indonesians: golput, and organize
yourselves.
jchay
4:40pm Apr 13,
2012
Yes, I agree without truth there won't be any reconciliation. However, how
will we end up with the real truth, when nobody even respects the truth or
whoever has the truth but instead hide behind pretty lies and denial mentality?
Truth is not part of our identity, it is too cheap to fight for. So here we are
again without truth, and therefore no reconciliation.
lightenup
10:05pm Apr 13,
2012
I agree with SirAnthony here. Reconciliation and pardoning someone cannot be
fulfilled without presenting nothing but the truth about the person. Face it,
but even some parts which the writer here wrote regarding Sukarno's and
Suharto's so-called 'national sins' are contestable at best. Well, I know that
no humans are perfect, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be known
based on truth only.
22roles
10:26pm Apr 13,
2012
Statistics. The ‘‘impartial’’ evidence — the convincer — that backs every
discussion. The creative use of which can make any position defensible, every
argument rational.
The method is simple.
Start with a premise or ideology. Find some stats that fit it. Ignore those
that don’t. Twist their interpretation until they become convenient, if needs
be. Don’t worry about context or perspective. Fling out the whole mess in the
hope that the message sticks.
DrDez
6:10am Apr 14,
2012
yes 22 thats what you do all the time.. except often you leave out the
statistics
PS - that's another theft of an article directly lifted without
acknowledgment from The Canberra Times - YOU really must troll the world and
there is only one kind of person who does that... Link to your latest theft
http://canberratimes.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/blogs/domain-investor-centre-blog/numberwang-or-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-20120412-1wvfk.html
Yohanes-Sulaiman
3:01pm Apr 14,
2012
@lightenup: care to enlighten me which part(s) are contestable? I would love
to know. I rely on several sources, notably a great work by Sebastiaan Pompe on
the Indonesian Supreme Court
(http://www.amazon.com/The-Indonesian-Supreme-Court-Institutional/dp/0877277389)
and as usual, books by Kahin and Dan Lev that describes the collapse of
Indonesian democracy in 1950s.
@all: Still, the point here is to encourage the debate, that to try to
demystify these two undoubtedly great people of Indonesian history, trying to
look at history objectively. It is true that truth is also in the eyes of
beholders, but I do think that it is still possible to have a measured academic
debate on these matters.
enakajah
3:43pm Apr 14,
2012
Many people here lived through a great deal of the Suharto days. I know I did
and I have a very different view from a couple of posters here. Mine being a
great deal more positive having been involved directly in a great many of the
infrastructure projects that built what we have today.
I also have done some very in depth and detailed investigations on the
financial side of both Sukarno and Suharto. It has taken nearly 15 years to get
to a position where the confusion and much of the actual facts are coming
together.
Undoubtedly both men were titans. Undoubtedly both men had vast failings. But
look at the context. More than 350 years of colonial rule. A devastating war and
occupation by the Japanese. A vast nation of agrarian virtual slaves to be
rendered into a modern nation over night.
In the 60 odd years since then look around and see what has been done in such
a short time.
No excuses or apologies for some of the atrocities, just another - "truth".
Good article - provocative
padt
4:40pm Apr 14,
2012
enakajah - as you say - the purpose of this article was to provoke thought -
thinking - discussion - calm and lucid investigation and to raise questions that
need to be answered because the questions are hanging in the air and are simply
not going to go away.
That's the issue - the questions are not going away. Sooner or later they
must be answered.
Glad you found the article helpful in this regard. It's an important and
sensitive topic. That's why we raised it.
22roles
8:37pm Apr 14,
2012
For those anti indonesia whingers and lack of achievements , indonesia is
doing ok, sky is nowhere near falling in.
Oh, and did I forget to mention that Indonesia has the best performing
economy in the region.
No, I didn't.
But like I said, Indonesia has the best performing economy in the region or
maybe in the world..statisticly i ain't pretender that claims know everything
about economy,bordering a con,specially about singapore economy.Stasticly, the
courts in singapore are there to maintain democracy not to undermine it but is
it really the case? statisticly i can say it is the case in MALAYSIA the courts
are there to UNDERMINE democracy.
enakajah
9:43pm Apr 14,
2012
I am not so sure that all the questions do need to be raised and/or answered.
Acceptance of the fact that the nation has grown and is on a track paved by the
positive achievements of these two men is perhaps enough.
Many will say the atrocities must be answered. More will say that vast
amounts of money were plundered and is sifting through the families and cronies
and must be returned.
Time heals all and in time this country's scars will heal and in the end it
was the massive efforts of both these men that laid the foundation and that is
never easy nor clean.
Imagine if the country had been passed over to lesser men at the end of the
war. Imagine if the Country had been handed those we have had since '98 but in
'48. The time required men of vision and cruel strength. Not the perverted sheep
we have today. But then again I am probably completely wrong.... times and
priorities have changed.
I have family that were personally associated with and very close to Sukarno.
There are some astonishingly far reaching actions that he put in place that
account for a number of spectacularly successful results that are still relevant
today.
Also during the war the wealth of Europe was being plundered by the Nazi's.
The decision was made collectively to move much of it to a Dutch colony that was
deemed safe in S.E. Asia. So it was moved physically to Indonesia and into the
Javasche Bank accounts in UBS Zurich. In 1965 when Sukarno stood up and declared
Indonesia as a sovereign nation, with sovereign laws he also declared all assets
held in the name of Indonesia and in its territories belonged to Indonesia. Vast
wealth instantly nationalized.
There are many things that are behind the scenes that history does not
record. And many it does that are apparent "Truth" but may not be. Victors
always get to write the history.
blightyboy
9:14am Apr 15,
2012
enakajah - do also look at what many nations have achieved over the past 60
years. After the second World war many countries were in tatters, bankrupt and
broken. Look around and compare. Indonesia cannot
PakLiam
10:11am Apr 15,
2012
Yes, 22, that paragraph is more like your usual writing, rather than the
plagiarised piece that DrDez called you on.
padt
10:20am Apr 15,
2012
enakajah, your attitude of whitewashing the past because your family
benefited from it is what will make the atrocities and theft of the past a
present and future reality.
The greatness of a countrty and it's leaders is not marked only by its
economic growth - especally an economic growth that does not flow on to the
majority of its citizens but only a few.
The greateness of a country and its leaders is how they treat the most
vulnerable. And in this, Indonesia is decidedly lacking.
I dont believe what you are saying. You are making excuses.
All the questions do need to be raised and do need to be answered.
Its people who share your mentality who are standing in the way of the real
progress Indonesia needs - a development in human rights, clean government,
accountable government and the accompanying change in mentality required to
achieve that.
Your comments make for sad and disturbing reading. They indicate to me a
mentality does not respect basic human dignity and equality.
enakajah
10:56am Apr 15,
2012
BB certainly the whole of Europe was in tatters and totally destroyed, as was
Japan but how many of the nations had been colonized for 350 years before that
and almost completely agrarian without industry?
Perhaps I was not being clear. I agree entirely that we cannot blame today on
yesterday rather, despite yesterday the country has achieved an enormous amount.
As have others in 60 years. This is why I am not sure that questions posed in
this article need to be raised and/or answered.
Or perhaps you were responding to my first post as the second and third took
some time to get posted due to the weekend.
In the end BB I agree . A lot has been achieved in 60 years in many countries
and Indonesia is one of them and as I think I said clearly, I have a more
positive view of the two men's achievements and do not not necessarily agree
with the writers for exactly the reasons you have mentioned. Look forward not
back.
enakajah
11:11am Apr 15,
2012
Perhaps off topic but relevant to my position, an idea may be to read the
book called "the Conquest of Java". It is an account of what the British found
when they arrived here to fight the French, who briefly took over when they
colonized Holland.
It goes into excruciating detail of how the VOC ran the entire country as a
production house with little or no interest in anything other than extracting
the maximum profit for the leaste investment. Very little changed between that
time to when the VOC returned and the second world war.
After the war the country had to recover from the devastation and at the same
time try to catch up on the rest of the world in an industrial manner and deal
with Independence after so long without any control or people educated or
experienced in running a country.
Vastly different from others devastated by the war and the success to date is
speaks for itself. That is not blaming the past but a credit to the successes
despite it.
DrDez
1:24pm Apr 15,
2012
22... The best performing economy and yet 100 million in poverty... well done
22roles
2:27pm Apr 15,
2012
Explain to me how you calculate poverty ? Don't quote here n there, i want
direct from your understanding.
DrDez
3:10pm Apr 15,
2012
100 m 22 - do your own research
22roles
3:43pm Apr 15,
2012
Didn't u understand when I said don't quote, I want ur understanding how u
came up with that poverty numbers? Got that?
Comello
4:03pm Apr 15,
2012
@enakajah
In 1810, the VOC had been out of existence for more than 10 years due to its
bankruptcy. So the VOC did not 'run' anything, did not 'return' to do so, and
certainly had not run 'the whole country', as most of what is now Indonesia was
still under indigenous rule - the '350 years..' Sukarno/Suharto meme is
historical fiction and post-colonial propaganda necessary for nation-building.
Most colonies were run as cheap production house/consumer markets for home
country products.
Ans as for 'almost completely agrarian without industry': which former
colonies were thriving industries before independence?
I guess any invading nation can write disparaging books about their colonial
competitors. What if British India, Caribbean sugar plantations, Autralia's East
Coast or Zulu S-Africa were 'liberated' by the next European colonizer?
19th century colonialism and mercantilism before that were bad all around for
the suppressed peoples, don't make Indonesia its 'special case' all the
time.
Jubal.Harshaw
4:25pm Apr 15,
2012
@22 The number of poor in Indonesia is purely dependent on the government's
chosen definition of poverty and includes the cash required to afford a diet of
2,100 calories a day, or 152,847 rupiah per month. No wonder the government can
proudly boast that only 20% of people live in poverty.
A more widely used benchmark is 10,000 per day, which would put over 80
million Indonesians below the poverty line.
But of course, we all know that the real cost of living is even higher, and
that puts Dr. Dez's estimate of 100 million a tad on the low side.
All this while elite thieves rob the country blind to feather their own
nests, and if caught, get to keep their stolen millions.
Surely you can not continue to be so blind to the plight of your fellow
countrymen, 22roles? Or maybe you can ...
DrDez
4:32pm Apr 15,
2012
$2 a day 22... I have posted a longer response but it seems to have gone
astray
what do you understand by poverty???
madrotter
4:38pm Apr 15,
2012
The scum always rises to the top....
enakajah
4:52pm Apr 15,
2012
PADT, I did not say my family benefited in any way, I mentioned only that
some of the actions Sukarno took in the early 50's and 60's have echoes still
today.
Neither did I say the past should be whitewashed. I think you are trying to
read into my position what is not there.
I merely do not necessarily agree that answering questions you pose are going
to insure what I agree with you is necessary. Clean and transparent government,
adherence to human rights and the dignity of the vulnerable.
I work in those specific fields and the most important manner in which to get
all of those points instituted is progress and make changes in those
institutions now and for the future.
Looking back and trying to get answers from people no longer involved does
not necessarily install those absolutely necessary issues into a government
system today.
Much of my professional career is spent working with civil society
instituting your exact points. What do you do other than write or voice an
opinion?
PADT, in order to institue the manner in which the country and it's leaders treat
the vulnerable, one has to get inside and work on institutional strengthening
and capacity building. These are areas I work in day to day. So rather than
standing in the way I am actively working with a variety of donors and
institutions to install those very changes you talk about.
To achieve anything the systems need to be altered forward looking. The past
has happened. Now what is required is to change and in all the work I have done
over the years, including involvement in truth and reconciliation councils,
nothing systematic has been achieved by answering the questions you pose. The
way to insure the protection of vulnerable, clean transparent government and all
that you would hope for is to train, build capacity and work and make change
happen.
I am sorry if you seem to think we have opposing views. I work to achieve
exactly what you wish to see as well. Calling me a liar is not polite nor
lucid.
padt
5:33pm Apr 15,
2012
enakajah - I apologise unreservedly for presuming your family personally
benefited from the Sukarno regime. I misunderstood what you said, but that is no
excuse.
I did not call you a liar.
I said I do not believe what you say. Just as one may say that to a person
who holds certain beliefs or opinions that one disagrees with - I simply do not
believe or hold them myself. That is not calling you a liar or accusing you of
concealing the truth.
justapasserby
6:11pm Apr 15,
2012
Without sukarno we will be still a Dutch colony, albeit probably with some
less negative sounding label, having potrait of Queen Wilhemina instead of SBY
on the walls, and with most of the prestigious government and corporate position
will stil be filled by white dutchmen.Without Suharto, we will still be a
Communist country, probaby we will still have an aidit potrait on the wall today
as an "External President".. and his son will be the current "Great Comrade"..
cant we all be thankful for all of these and quit saying bad things about the
dead?
enakajah
6:48pm Apr 15,
2012
Comello, Points taken. I slipped VOC in rather than putting the nationality
in for the sake of being diplomatic. The agrarian side I was referring to BB's
comment on the 60 years aspect. Prior to the War the nations that were destroyed
were mainly European and industrialized before destruction. Indonesia was not.
My point there is that the country has come a very long way and should be proud
of it.
As to the British Colonies. You are absolutely correct. I agree but this
still does not detract from the progress that this country has made in such a
relatively short period of time. And since this article is about Indonesia why
should I not make the case to emphasize the successes?
PADT apology accepted. I may also have over reacted to your saying you do not
believe me. However had you worded it differently in the same posting perhaps I
might not have gone off like a $2 rocket.
Comello, Regardless of the VOC being out of business, they did set up the
systems and it is acknowledge that is was one of the most repressive. I suggest
you buy the book. It is actually written by a reporter not an author published
in sections over a period of time. It is really more of a reference book and the
details are excruciating and immensely boring but it is clear insight into the
situation that the country was left in at independence. But yes as I mentioned
before Victors write the history and your points are well enough taken.
In the end I and I think all of us want the successes of this country viewed
on a more positive light and dwell on those rather than always the negative.
There are monumental problems of course but there have and are juts as
monumental successes.
DrDez
7:06pm Apr 15,
2012
jpb - The excesses by both men should be recognized and criticized so we
never fall again into the same trap, just ignoring them or making silly comments
is I am afraid an Indonesian trademark.
I also dont recall RI being under communist rule BTW ..
22roles
7:42pm Apr 15,
2012
An ‘evidence base’ does not neccesarily lead to a scientific theory,it can
lead to many conclusions.your logic fail for poverty, as my dog is white and my
cat is white, therefore, my dog is my cat.
justapasserby
8:04pm Apr 15,
2012
we were about to be having our first communist majority parliament and
communist government, had the PKI patiently wait for the next election and did
not jump the gun with the 1965 coup. They were already the largest and the most
organized political party at that time.
As for these recurring claims that Indonesia wasnt really colonized for 350
years, well that's just semantic argument by colonial supporters who would like
to white wash their history. For example, the Sultanate of Yogyakarta was on
paper an independent country right until 1945.. but in reality they had to ask
for Dutch permission to increase the height of their palace wall!. Is this what
you mean by independent native rulers? other example.. Ternate was "independent"
as a protectorate of VOC.. but we all know what a protectorate imply. I find it
quite weird that the Dutch are quick to condemn people who belittle their 4
years plight under germany but conveniently forget what they themself were doing
in Indonesia.
Yohanes-Sulaiman
10:36am Apr 16,
2012
@JPB: No, there would not have been any next election, because that's what
Sukarno and other Indonesian elites tried to avoid -- the victory of the PKI --
by having the Presidential Decree of 1959, which virtually suspended the
democracy.
I don't have grudges against President Sukarno and Suharto -- in fact, I
agree with most of Enakajah's points on Suharto's contributions. On Sukarno, I
actually to some degree with your assertions of him playing a major role in
Indonesian independence.
What I dislike is the fact that presently people tend to manipulate the
history, whitewashing the errors of the past for present political gains without
carefully study the errors of the past. History is not black and white, and to
praise both Sukarno and Suharto uncritically will create this stupid cult of
leaders not unlike North Korea or other Socialist/communist countries and that
will bring down the country.
I agree, don't dwell too much on the past, but at the same time don't
whitewash it.
Valkyrie
10:49am Apr 16,
2012
Gentlemen....
Thank you! I am enjoying the various intellectual and informative exchanges.
I remember well Shakespeare's Julius Caesar when Mark Antony made his speech
at Caesar's funeral.
"Friends, Romans and countrymen ........
the evil that men do live after them, The good is interred with their bones."
I am especially referring to the two Ss.
padt
11:38am Apr 16,
2012
I put a question to commentators here.
It would be an understatement to say that Indonesians like to celebrate their
superiority and victories whenever they have the chance. Just go to any football
match and observe.
Question: Why don't Indonesians 'celebrate' the events of 1965/6 - the
'triumph' over the 'forces of evil' - why aren't these events - the deaths of
opponents - whatever the number - heralded as epic events in a proud and open
history? Why instead, when those events are mentioned, they are hushed up,
avoided, the subject changed - and not talked about, let alone celebrated as a
symbol of national pride - unless there is perhaps an element of shame, perhaps
even guilt - certainly ambiguity - connected with them?
DrDez
11:52am Apr 16,
2012
padt - because when we cut all the crap it was a state sponsored genocide
22roles
2:00pm Apr 17,
2012
state sponsored genocide only to those can't see beyond the news or bordering
a con
