Talk:Sumitro Djojohadikusumo/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Goldsztajn (talk · contribs) 03:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this, please give me two weeks for a full reply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi - I was wondering if you are still about to conduct the review? Juxlos (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Juxlos - please give me a few more days, I've put together a sourcing list (see below); let me know if you do not have access to any of these (one is the original English version of a text where you have used the Indonesian translation). I'll add detailed comments shortly. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I decided to use the Indonesian source simply because its preview has more pages. Will check out the other sources and see what I can incorporate shortly. Juxlos (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated several new sources now - several of the sources are basically repeating the same as the other sources, so I opted not to include them. No luck with cambridge core sources though. Juxlos (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

 * Djojohadikusumo (1986) - incorporated


 * Ichimura (2016) - incorporated


 * Foray (2021) - no access Incorporated


 * Hill (2010) - incorporated but I used the Indonesian language source


 * Jakarta (1987) - not much to include


 * Niwandhono (2021) - incorporated


 * Ransom (1970) - not much to include, and this seems to be a magazine article instead of a journal


 * Rice (1983) - incorporated


 * Purdey (2016) - not much to include Incorporated


 * Schoenberger (1992) - not much to include


 * Thee (2010) - I opted to not put too much attention into the debates between these two, per WP:DUE


 * Webster (2011) - no access Incorporated

Status query
Goldsztajn, Juxlos, where does this review stand? It's been a couple of weeks since the last posts. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m waiting for the reviewer. I’d be open to put this back in the queue. Juxlos (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @BlueMoonset@Juxlos Looking at the changes now, will come back with comments. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, are you still continuing with the review? Juxlos (talk) 04:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Juxlos I haven't forgotten, yes, continuing, a few more days, please. Thanks and regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Uh yeah,, I think it might be best to put this back in the queue. It has been two full months. Juxlos (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Juxlos I've just been finishing my comments, they'll be ready in 24 hours. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer comments 1
Hi apologies for my delay and thank you for your patience. I haven't quite finished all my comments, but I leave these here for you to start working on/responding to and will come back with the rest by mid-week. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I find this a somewhat anodyne presentation of Sumitro; he comes across as faultless throughout. It properly covers his life as a professional economist and politician, but part of the problem is that there is a an over-reliance on his own recollections and those of loyal students (esp. Thee). A couple of things stand out about Sumitro from the sources. First, he was clearly political - from a very young age he's making concerted ideological decisions (eg his early anti-communism) and he's happy to get his hands dirty and play politics (his role in the Perjuangan Semesta stands out, his apparent ability to dole out patronage when it suited, but there are other aspects). Second, his orientation was towards the West, which stood him in marked contrast with most of his contemporaries, until 1967. Third, he was not just a prominent economist, he's was a profoundly influential political figure and later business figure, part of a multi-generational elite family whose influence and power continue to shape Indonesia.
 * I would argue that I mostly used Thee and Sumitro's (or his biography by Katoppo) statements for mostly uncontroversial statements - e.g. his debates with Sjafruddin, details of his personal life, or the reasoning behind his economic policies (kinda hard to get it from someone else). I doubt Feith, Kahin/Kahin, Gardner, or Thuỷ are particularly sympathetic to him. Still, for the political shenanigans, I had hoped that Mrázek would paint a picture of the PSI conflict, but outside the PRRI revolt and that one leadership challenge after 1955 I can't seem to find any accounts. Backroom deals, probably, but WP:RS and all that. Juxlos (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Lede 
 * "Throughout his Sukarno-era career, Sumitro favoured foreign investment despite opposition from nationalists and communists." I'm not clear on the purpose of this - I think it could be better expressed as: "During the 1950s, Sumitro favoured foreign investment, although his view represented a minority opinion at that time, it would later become widely accepted under the New Order regime."
 * It was not really that much of a minority - around half of the cabinets during the 1950s were pro-foreign investment. "Unpopular" is probably a better term. Regardless, I reworded it a little and moved the sentence slightly later to make it flow better. Also changed up the next sentence (probably had been misleading as he never really spoke up against guided democracy before his exile).


 * The post-1967 part of his life is short of detail compared to the other parts
 * Extended


 * "After disagreements with Suharto," when? why?
 * Elaborated


 * "Sumitro first was reassigned as Minister of Research before his removal from government posts altogether. He continued to work as an economist, criticizing the problems in Indonesian economy in the leadup to the 1997 Asian financial crisis." Criticizing what problems?
 * Fixed along with the above


 * Was he the first Indonesian with a doctorate in economics? If so, this should be in he lede.
 * Probably not. I can't find any sources stating that.
 * Turns out he is, still, I don't think that's a big enough factoid to be in the lede.


 * A short fourth paragraph on his family life would be appropriate
 * I would say a full paragraph on his family is undue - yes, it's described as a political dynasty but it really is only Prabowo that came anywhere near close (politically) to where Sumitro is. Unless Prabowo gets elected in 2024, that is. Still, added a brief sentence.

Early life
 * "He studied at an Europeesche Lagere School, then an Opleiding School Voor Inlandsche Ambtenaren [id] in Banyumas." The significance of his early education is not reflected by that sentence: his primary education was at a school for European children,  followed by senior school.  These are elite schools, something not available to the vast majority of Indonesians.
 * Added (and while at it, explained what OSVIA is)


 * "Sumitro did not join the association due to the presence of communists such as Abdulmadjid Djojoadiningrat [id]" This is cited to p. 167 of Niwhandono, but looking at that reference, the period discussed is the mid-1930s...whereas in the text it appears as if something during the war.
 * Added "Prior to the war".

Early Revolution
 * This part should spell out Sumitro's crucial success in getting the US to suspend Marshall Plan military aid to the Dutch. (Niwhandono p.170)
 * It is discussed in the "Diplomatic talks" section (as the marshall plan suspension is really only plausible after the New York Times interview). Juxlos (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Minister of Industry
 * "an import control scheme benefitting indigenous Indonesian businessmen" to most readers this will not be clear - that it was a measure designed to strengthen/promote non-Chinese Indonesian business. Might be best done by linking with Pribumi Indonesians.
 * Better?


 * "He had also considered the London School of Economics, but the plan was scrapped due to the British Council's refusal to grant scholarships." This is fairly trivial, should be removed or made a footnote.
 * Fair enough, converted

Minister of Finance
 * "In this period, Sumitro as part of the opposition criticized the Ali cabinet's policies, which he accused to be aimed at causing capital flight of Dutch firms." - is this a criticism that the policies were designed to cause capital flight or that the Dutch firms were withdrawing capital due to other policies?
 * Clarified


 * "The country faced an issue of high inflation at that time, and it was decided to abolish the Benteng program in order to increase domestic production and stabilize the economy." Wasn't the intention of the Benteng program to increase domestic production? Why would cancelling it assist?
 * In my understanding, the Benteng Program is a trade policy. It has no immediate bearings on increasing domestic production and is more intended to give native (i.e. non-Chinese) traders a cut of the pie. This increases the amount of paperwork and costs of importing, so things become more expensive including capital goods.


 * "domestic political pressure abrogated the negotiations in January 1956." Why the opposition?  One cannot abrogate negotiations, one withdraws from negotiations.
 * Reworded


 * "In the final months of the cabinet, Sumitro extended government credits to a number of politically affiliated firms, which resulted in increased pressure from the opposition to speed up the cabinet's dissolution." This is cited to Feith 2006 p.458 - which speaks of political patronage.  I think this sentence would read better as: "... Sumitro extended government credits to a number of firms, which appeared to be for the purposes of political patronage, which resulted in increased pressure from the opposition to speed up the dissolution of the cabinet."
 * Added the patronage, but with a different wording ("suggested political patronage" is how the source words it.)

Joining the Rebellion
 * "When the Guided Democracy era began in 1957, Sukarno showed his dislike for Western-educated economists such as Sumitro, a position also supported by the Communist Party of Indonesia under D.N. Aidit." According to Farabi Fakih (pp217-218) the antipathy of the PKI towards the PSI (and thus Sumitro) dated from much earlier, from 1948 and the PSI's role crushing the Pemberontakan PKI.
 * Added


 * References to "Schrikker, Alicia; Touwen, Jeroen (30 March 2015). Promises and Predicaments: Trade and Entrepreneurship in Colonial and Independent Indonesia in the 19th and 20th Centuries. NUS Press. ISBN 978-9971-69-851-5." need to be fixed. This is an edited book, Farabi Fakih is the author of the text that is credited to (current) footnotes 65/66.
 * Fixed


 * "During this period, Sumitro travelled abroad frequently, making contacts with foreign governments and journalists, and forming a CIA contact in Singapore." He doesn't form a CIA contact - according to p.71 of Kahin&Kahin he re-establishes a contact. It would be good to know what earlier CIA contacts he had.
 * Added

Rebellion and exile
 * "By late 1957, Sumitro was positioning to raise funding from foreign sources, and he was in contact with officials from the United States, Britain, British Malaya, the Philippines, and Thailand, in addition to Chinese and Dutch businesses." I think this would read more clearly if it said "Indo-Chinese and Indo-Dutch businesses."
 * Source mentions British and Dutch businesses (and overseas Chinese, could be Indonesian, or, say, Singaporean). Not exactly a lot of Indo-Dutch businesses left by late 1957.

End reviewer comments 1. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comments addressed. Additionally, I've added a couple new sources I came across (Contending Perspectives 1997, and the Purdey 2016 source same with above). Juxlos (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have further comments re: the article? Juxlos (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer comments 2
Rebellion and exile
 * "He participated in another dissident meeting in the town of Sungai Dareh in January 1958, during which Masyumi leaders participated and a deadlock occurred due to the reluctance of South Sumatra's military commander Colonel Barlian to support an open rebellion." No apparent significance of this sentence, can it be dropped?
 * ✅ Expanded the sentence to elaborate on Sumitro's position.


 * An explicit statement of Sumitro's relative importance would be good, Hill (2010) calls Sumitro "a principle leader of the PRRI rebellion". (p.167, English edition)
 * ✅ p226 Indonesian for consistency


 * No mention of Sumitro's role in founding the Gerakan Pembaharuan Indonesia (GPI). This section treats the period of 1960-67 somewhat apolitically, but Sumitro's entire raison d'etre is as an international anti-Sukarno activist. (Hill, p.86, English edition)
 * ✅ p115 Indonesian

Minister of Trade
 * "Ali Murtopo was tasked with bringing Sumitro back to Indonesia" not clear why this is significant, needs something like "Suharto's right hand man, Ali Murtopo" or "Suharto confidant, Ali Murtopo".
 * ✅ "Personal staff" is corroborated in sources. I'd use that.


 * "His arrival, in mid-1967, was kept secret for around three months, due to fears of Sukarno's sympathizers." Can you elaborate what were the basis of the fears?
 * No elaboration in source. It only says that he was hidden from Sukarno loyalists - we can pretty much infer that they wouldn't like Sumitro, but again, no explicit mention of, say, an assassination plot.


 * The second paragraph relies extensively on Rice (1969), however, it provides no context to the political status of Sumitro's new role. For example, take this from p.185: "it is important to remember that he does not control any agency which can ensure that his regulations are strictly enforced. Moreover, as only one of several ministers concerned with economic affairs and as a new member of a team which has been planning the economic stabilization program over the past two years, his powers, even in the field of trade, have been quite limited. In their own ways, the Ministers of Finance, Industry, Communications and Agriculture, the Chairman of the National Planning Agency and the Director of the Central Bank exert considerable influence in Indonesia's international trade." It would be good to incorporate some comment in this paragraph about the relative status of Sumitro's appointment.
 * Better now?
 * 👍 Yes, although there's a lot of detail here, consider moving these sentences to a footnote: "To maximize exports, Sumitro established agencies in the coffee and copra industries to manage quality and export policies,[105] while encouraging industrialization in the rubber industry by banning the exports of low-quality rubber and incentivizing investment in rubber processing factories.[106] Sumitro also encouraged a shift in imports from consumer goods to capital goods, while stating his intent to increase duties to generate government revenue.[107]"--Goldsztajn (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Minister of Research
 * pp.107-109 of David Jenkins' (2010) "Suharto and His Generals: Indonesian Military Politics, 1975-1983" have a detailed description of Sumitro's ministerial role in responding to the Peristiwa Malari. It's instructive because it gives insight into his character in his response to the students (behave, or be dealt with "sternly").

Views
 * I think here a broader, less description-for-economists is necessary. NB Rice (1983, p.79): "Soeharto government has moved to decrease the role of state enterprises and has greatly increased the role of private (including foreign) enterprises in the economy. This role has been increased to about the degree recommended by Sumitro," This quote is useful in that it highlights an overall effect of Sumitro's New Order policies, ie increasing the role of private (foreign and domestic) capital in the Indonesian economy.
 * Considering that Rice writing in 1983 was describing the impact of Sumitro's advisory at that time, I decided to put it in the "career" section instead of "views". It also links well with Sumitro reversing course later on - once the government reached his advised point in 1983 they kept going and he was "wait no that's too far".


 * "Between the 1930s and the early and mid-1950s, industrial relations improved from the viewpoint of employed workers. Indonesian policy makers in the early 1950s generally thought that the unequal positions of Indonesian employers and labourers in the labour market could he corrected by the types of measures adopted at that time. However. restraints on the political free-doms accorded to trade unions were increasingly tightened in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and there have been relatively few liberalisations of policy during the period since the late 1960s." Rice p.80. I don't think we take from Rice that Sumitro held a long-standing view regarding trade unions being preferable form of redistribution over taxation, especially given his role in the New Order regime.  It's possible to say in the early 1950s, like much Keynesian opinion of the time, he held that view of trade unionism, but there's no evidence in the source that the view extended beyond the early 1950s. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, appended the 1950s. Though, Indonesia wasn't exactly gung-ho on union-busting even during Suharto's anticommunist government.
 * I've clarified with "early" - there's no sourcing to indicate, after the piece he wrote in the early 1950s, he ever maintained this view. On union-busting under the New Order, every professional academic source I've read indicates there was a concerted, explicit policy to do exactly that, eg union-bust. Vedi Hadiz is as good a place as any to start:  "One of the most important tasks that the new holders of state power after 1965 set for themselves was obviously political in nature - the pre-emption of any re-emergence of the newly defeated left-wing. Thus, the stringent controls over organized labour in the early years of the New Order were geared towards the perceived need to pre-empt the re-emergence of independent, militant tendencies within organized labour....This eventually led to the upholding of a security oriented logic that viewed even an effective labour movement as unacceptable to the interests of the nation." The Indonesian Labour Movement: Resurgent or Constrained? (2002) p.131. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Legacy
 * "Sumitro's influence in the nation's early formation and his economic policies are often utilized his family and its associated political party Gerindra in electoral campaigns." Not clear what the meaning of this sentence is.
 * Better wording now?
 * I made a slight adjustment. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Revisit:
 * "When the Guided Democracy era began in 1957, Sukarno showed his dislike for Western-educated economists such as Sumitro, a position also supported by the Communist Party of Indonesia under D.N. Aidit." I'm not really comfortable with this sentence - to my mind it borders on synth.  It takes one issue, Sukarno's (supposed) dislike of Western educated economists (not actually in evidence in the source), and then associates it with the PKI and brings in Sumitro.  The source itself is not actually very good - it elides Sukarno's critique of neocolonialism with the comments of Abdulgani.  What the source indicates is a conflict between Aidit and Sumitro - it's not actually something directly involving Sukarno. A better source is needed to establish a conflict between Sukarno and Sumitro on the basis of the latter's status as an economist.  I think it is reasonable to indicate that there was a political and ideological conflict between Aidit and Sumitro on the basis of the source.
 * I would note that in Fakih p217: "One of the features that tied together Sukarno and the communists was the dislike towards Western-trained experts.". Admittedly the page range needs a slight expansion.


 * CIA contact: in Kahin's (2012) Islam, Nationalism and Democracy: A Political Biography of Mohammad Natsir p.119, Sumitro's contact with the CIA is mentioned to have been established as early as October 1957.
 * Kahin & Kahin also touches on it. Added.


 * Reference to "Schrikker, Alicia; Touwen, Jeroen (30 March 2015). Promises and Predicaments" it was fixed, but now the editors (Schrikker and Touwen) have been dropped.
 * Fixed


 * Lede: I think this still remains far too sympathetic to Sumitro, whereas the Legacy section is more balanced and reflective of the sources. At the very least the lede should indicate that he played a principal leadership role in the PRRI rebellion and during his period in exile continued to seek Sukarno's ousting, maintaining links with foreign governments to that end. The lede should mention his pursuit of business interests during the New Order period. The question of whether to include the characterisation of Sumitro being an "opportunist" is not simple, but there's no personal characterisation of him whatsoever.  He switched sides when it suited him and made some disastrous decisions, arguably heightening Sukarno's paranoia.  He willingly embraced the New Order.  His son is a special forces commander in East Timor hunting down FRETLIN leaders in the 1970s and organising the kidnapping and murder of civilians in 97-98. His status allows his family to become extremely wealthy and powerful.  I mention these facts not because I personally like or dislike Sumitro, but rather because he is a person of profound differences (as are most of the political elite of the New Order era).  The Jakarta Post obituary shows this well, the lede should give some indication of those contradictions, too.
 * Well, changed it up somewhat. Check again?

Hi thanks for responding to the earlier comments, here are some more! Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * just want to add a few further sources in light of my comments about the lede (also note the contact with MI6).
 * "aristocrat intellectuals, particularly Sumitro and his students"
 * This mentions is quite trivial to me, and it also cites the magazine (Ransom) as above.


 * "The FEUI economists—led by Dean Sumitro Djojohadikusomo and including Widjojo Nitisastro, Mohammed Sadli, Subroto, Ali Wardhana, and Emil Salim played a central role in debates over the nature and direction of Indonesian economic development in the 1950s and 1960s. Though the economists lacked a domestic social base, their dense foreign ties with Western governments and foundations disbursing aid and technical assistance lent them disproportionate political influence in a country deeply suspicious of economic liberalism and foreign investment."
 * " While British and American regional specialists were cautious in their approach to the separatist movement, the Outer Island dissident leaders were active in soliciting Western backing. The most important rebel representative for establishing links with foreign governments and raising funds overseas was Dr Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, a prominent former Indonesian Finance Minister, who had fled Java for Sumatra in May 1957. Sumitro was a frequent visitor to Singapore in the autumn of I957, and held meetings with Britain's Commissioner General for South-East Asia, Sir Robert Scott, and his staff during October.2 One recent account, based on a Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) source, maintains that Sumitro, as well as two other senior Indonesian politicians, were actually supplying reports on conditions in Indonesia to SIS's Singapore station, and its Far Eastern chief, Maurice Oldfield (Sumitro also had extensive CIA contacts at this time).3 Nevertheless, the British were reported by Hugh Cumming of the State Department to be 'sympathetic with rebel aims but presently cool toward covert support' .4 This was indeed a fair summary of British views, but they would go through substantial modification as the crisis in Indonesia deepened at the end of 1957 and Sukarno turned against the remaining Dutch presence in the republic."
 * "On the board of trustees of the U.S.Indonesia Society are numerous Suharto cronies, including Sumitro Djojohadikusumo. For years a minister in Suharto's cabinet, Sumitro is known as the "grand old man" of the Indonesian economic community-a senior architect of economic policy under Suharto who has, over the years, used his family to erect an influential power bloc within the ruling oligarchy. ("I have never met a person with so much natural intelligence," he has said of Suharto.) Recently, with prodemocracy riots spreading throughout Indonesia, Sumitro issued dire warnings of a "crisis of authority," which he believes "can be resolved with a strong show of political will."

Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 11:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Noted, and thanks. Give me 48 hours to check these out. Juxlos (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "This mentions is quite trivial to me, and it also cites the magazine (Ransom) as above." Just to clarify - I'm highlighting the set of quotes as an overall picture of Sumitro's character and status that stand in contrast to the image cultivated by himself and his students/admirers as a professor/technocrat: rather he's also a member of a multi-generational elite of aristocratic background, willing to play dirty, covert politics of the highest order and appears to cling to authoritarianism to the very end. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - but again, a lot of these sources are described (or self-described) as "left-wing". Sumitro, ardent anti-communist as he was, is certainly not going to get a good light from them.
 * Also, some stuff turned up so I might take an extra couple days to respond in general. Juxlos (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Juxlos "left-wing"? Granted, The Progressive, would be left-leaning, but all the others are peer-reviewed academic publications. I'm not aware of any source which considers the others left-wing. The question is not the political perspective of a particular source, but the overall general view across multiple sources. I don't see much difficulty in classifying the sources, they break into two groups: (a) those from Sumitro and his associates (b) those independent from Sumitro, produced by professional historians/political scientists and journalists. It's not that those from the (a) group are discounted, I think we both agree they should be given less weight when it comes to interpretative analysis. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "[Sumitro] ... a famous enemy of Sukarno's. His father, a Dutch-educated economist, Sumitro Djojohadikusumo, collaborated with the CIA to sabotage Sukarno's government and establish a parallel government in Sumatra in the late 1950s. The attempt failed and Sumitro was labeled a traitor. Prabowo (born 1951) partly grew up outside the country in places such as Singapore and Kuala Lumpur where his family lived in exile. Sumitro only returned in 1968 ... Back in Jakarta, Sumitro became the Minister of Trade and a father figure to the US-trained economists of the so-called "Berkeley mafia" who were helping engineer the New Order’s great natural resource sell-off. Prabowo’s family owes its fortune to the Suharto regime." Just leaving this, from New Mandala. I'm not necessarily indicating anything thing here needs to be directly quoted, more for the purposes of WP:DUE, given the issues of characterisation. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed up some more. Want to give it another look? Juxlos (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Juxlos I've made some changes to the lede and elsewhere, mostly copy-editing minor grammatical and stylistic issues, but added some small changes. My biggest concern was that the text seemed to imply he broke with the New Order at the end of his life, but as late as 1998 he's still playing politics inside Golkar, trying to get his former student Emil Salim nominated as Vice President. I think the article has improved a lot and is no longer quite so pristine ... :) ... if this was a review for FA status I might still have reservations, but at this point in reaching GA status I feel you've addressed all my comments sufficiently - perhaps not agreed with them all, but addressed them nevertheless! Happy to promote this. Terima kasih! Goldsztajn (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)