Talk:Suharto/Archives/2006/October

This is totally ridiculous
I am no Indonesian scholar, but there needs to be FAR FAR more stuff in this article on
 * (a)   Suharto as one of the most corrupt leaders in modern history; and
 * (b)   Suharto as a military dictator.

--Mike  October 9 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.195.56 (talk • contribs)


 * Firstly, hope you don't mind, but i edited you formatting a bit. I took out the line you made and added an unsigned stamp - content remains the same though.
 * As for your request, could you maybe elaborate? Sure, you've touched on an interesting point and there is truth in what you say, but that is only part of the story. Given you've acknowledged limitations to your understanding of Indonesia, i hope you don't mind me explaining the way i see it (not that I am an Indonesian scholar either - but i know more than many). The truth is that Suharto's legacy is highly controversial. On the one hand he was indeed an authoritarian and, even if it is proving hard to prove that he himself was corrupt, his family and political/business associates were undeniably involved in corrupt processes - indeed the whole economy is still riddled with the practices. One the other hand, his monica "Father of (Indonesian) development" is not undeserved. In the 1960's following the rule of his predecessor Sukarno left the country bankrupt and essentially unable to feed its people, let alone provide decent education and there was political chaos. Suharto stabilised the country politically and economically and held it together fostering Indonesian nationalism and sense of nationhood that we see today. 40 years ago, 60% of Indonesian live in poverty and but by the mid-1990s this had shrunk to 15% (yes, this has crept back somewhat since the Asian crisis), education and health levels were greatly boasted, a rapid and sustained industrialisation process is still underway, and there is now a substantial middle class where in the 1960's it was almost non-existant.
 * I completely agree if you are suggesting that there needs to be more explicit discussion contrasting the "good" and "bad" of Suharto. Maybe the words in the existing sections need to be strengthened to make it clearer, or maybe there even needs to be a seperate "criticism vs. praise" for his rule. I'd like to play a part in this, but lately when real life gives me chance to edit wikipedia, I've been joining the effort to improve Indonesia.
 * I'd like to hear your response. best regards --Merbabu 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Merbabu, I am no Mike but intrigued by your comment about "Father of (Indonesian) development". I personally think this guy get way too much credit than he deserves. Keep in mind that when his regime was in power Indonesia has gotten huge windfall from oil price hike TWICE (first one being during the oil crisis in the early/mid 70 and the second one is in the early 80 - I think). Not sure if I like the comparison you made with Indonesia 40 yrs ago either. oot: I happen to work as an in-house industry analyst who has to deal with questions from outside analysts representing the share holders. Many times they don't care about how well you do year-over-year or  vs. 30 years ago but what matters most is how do you stack up against your competitors/counter parts
 * In that regard I'd like view Soeharto's terms as series of opportunity cost to Indonesia. 40 years ago Indonesia and South Korea are economically (and industry-wise) on par. we both went through crony capitalism period (similar treatment) but look at the result now. It's like putting my money in a 3% interest deposit while everyone else enjoying 10% return on the same type of investment. Yes I have more money than I did 40 years ago but don't you feel ripped off? You might argue that things could have been worse but again to me what Soeharto achieved could have been easily matched hypotetically by any strong authoritarian ruller with savvy power manipulation skills. so in my opinion, the economic progress that happened during his period does not make his performance exceptionally notable.Wongjerang
 * Hmm. Just cos I don't mirror "Mikes" simplistic bandwagon post doesn't mean I am offering blind hero-worship. I am just trying to get a more balance and considered distinction between say Mugabe and Ceauşescu. "Mike"'s post implies he doesn't make this distinction (not that I want to put words in people's mouths). Don't get me wrong, Soeharto is no angel and I too was glad to see the back of him - but he had his uses. Although i don't think many would argue that he didn't outstay his welcome. I don't know about South Korea's position 40years ago, (although "on-par" sounds a bit vague) so comparisons won't mean much to be at the moment. Nor do i have my detailed info on Indonesia at hand but the situation was dire indeed - country was bankrupt, almost all agriculturally based and it couldn't even feed itself, let alone provide an education or health service. It was also challenged by political, ethnic, social differences. It is also much larger than S Korea. Even if in the mid-60's they did start "on-par", well, south korea is but one country in Asia and lesser performance against it, doesn't straight away mean that Indonesia is a failure (and isn't 3% vs 10% as a 30 year average a little generous - although i take your point). As I said, I can't really comment on such a comparison as my S Korean knowledge basic to say the least and it has been some time since i looked at Indonesian mod history in any detail - i need to get my books out.
 * Also, though, isn't taking an investor's return on investment a little limiting in measring shareholder's growth.
 * As i said, perhaps re-read my post. It's hardly a ringing endorsement - just seeks to be a bit more balanced and considered, i actually am quite specific where i agree with "Mike". I even offered some (admittedly partial) solutions to his issues with the article - which afterall is why this talk page is here. But thanks for the interest - really. I need to find out more about S Korea (which incidently got hammered to in 97/98??) :-)   --Merbabu 23:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * no problem. I only made specific remark on your comments about giving soeharto credits on indonesia's economy. 'intrigued' might have been a bad choice of word on my part. i have seen many of your edits and trust that you don't have any interest to be a hero worship whatsoever. as to S. Korea, couple of examples: steel industry: krakatau steel started around the same time as POSKO (spelling). likewise in mfg/tech based industry, today's astra is no samsung or hyundai. they got similar protection around the same time-late 60s. I mentioned S. Korea exactly because of its striking similarity. on par in terms of per capita GDP in the 60s. Replace S. Korea w/ malaysia or thailand or even vietnam the story won't change much (malaysia/vietnam started even later). even as late as 10 years ago an american OEM canceled its plan to invest a product in indonesia due to Tommy Soeharto's 'national car' program. Guess what it went to Thailand instead and now Thailand is the automotive hub of S.E Asia. The point being even as a benevolent dictator Soeharto is not as succesful. Many-many missed opportunities Wongjerang