alexa-tracking

Main Content

1024
1024
KASKUS
51
244
https://www.kaskus.co.id/thread/573feda5529a45ae0c8b456d/soeharto-pantas-jadi-pahlawan
Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan
INILAHCOM, Jakarta - Ketua Komisi IX DPR, Dede Yusuf menganggap wajar jika Partai Golkar mengusulkan mantan Presiden Soeharto mendapat gelar pahlawan nasional dalam musyawarah nasional luar biasa (munaslub) Golkar di Nusa Dua Bali."Dalam sebuah proses sejarah kita melihat ada yang namanya pendiri negara, pejuang bangsa dan ada juga disebut mereka pembangun bangsa kita. Saya rasa semua wajib mendapat penghargaan," kata Dede di Gedung DPR, Selasa (17/5/2016).

Menurut politisi Partai Demokrat ini bahwa di dalam proses hidup manusia ada baiknya dan ada juga keburukan, tapi itu tidak boleh menutupi fakta sejarah bahwa negara ini berkembang atas jasa daripada para tokoh tersebut."Jadi saya pribadi pun tentu merasa almarhum Soeharto itu orang yang sangat berjasa bagi negara ini, karena kita harus melihat kedepan. Ada sosok orang yang telah berjasa bagi negara dan layak untuk mendapatkan penghargaan," ujarnya.

Ia menjelaskan, apa yang dialami oleh mantan Presiden Soekarno sebagai pendiri bangsa dan pahlawan nasional. Namun, beliau juga punya masa lalu dengan segala kekurangan-kekurangan dan itu sangat manusiawi tapi tertutupi oleh perjuangannya."Hal yang sama juga terjadi kepada Pak Soeharto, dia sudah membawa negara kita puluhan tahun menjadi kuat, infrastruktur berjalan, ekonomi baik, subsidi juga kita merasakan nikmatnya. Itu sebuah fakta yang harus kita akui dan rasakan," jelas dia.

Meskipun, kata Dede Yusuf, mantan Presiden Republik Indonesia kedua itu mempunyai masalah korupsi anak-anaknya atau kroninya itu bagian dari sejarah tapi tidak boleh melupakan sejarah.Memang, pasti akan menuai kontroversi tapi rakyat harus jujur bagaimana kepemimpinan era Soeharto.

"Apakah rakyat merasakan pembangunan, kemajuan, perbaikan yang dilakukan oleh Pak Harto. Kalau memang dirasakan dan ada buktinya, saya rasa tidak ada masalah. Toh Pak Harto orang yang tidak pernah terlibat dalam masalah status hukum loh, kecuali orang yang bermasalah dalam status hukum dijadikan gelar pahlawan," tandasnya.[jat] - See more at:

http://nasional.inilah.com/read/detail/2296220/soeharto-pantas-dapat-gelar-pahlawan-nasional#sthash.TnAnGyDY.dpuf

emoticon-Recommended Seller:
atur aja tong
Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan
Quote:Original Posted By macfac
Suharto as I knew him
THE AUSTRALIAN
JANUARY 28, 2008 12:00AM
THE death of Suharto in Jakarta last night, at the age of 86, will give rise to different evaluations of his contribution to Indonesia, to the Southeast Asian region and to Australian-Indonesian relations.

I first met Suharto when I visited Indonesia with prime minister William McMahon in 1972. I last met him in 1997 as chairman of the Australia-Indonesia Institute.

In the intervening quarter of a century I had the opportunity over numerous meetings to assess the man, his leadership qualities and his contribution to his country and to our shared neighbourhood.

I always found Suharto polite and congenial. While cautious about expressing views until he had reflected on a situation and shaped them in his own mind, and regarded by many as taciturn, I found that once he knew you, he was friendly, relaxed and willing to listen. He also articulated his own views clearly, especially his vision for Indonesia.


In conversations he smiled frequently. In fact he was known in Merdeka Palace circles as the "smiling general".

Behind that engaging smile there was, however, a firm resolve. Paul Keating once said to him at a meeting on November 15, 1997, that he had told some other APEC leaders that he, Suharto, "was as tough as old boots". He was. He stood by his friends and stuck firmly to his views once they were formed.

Suharto was not an intellectual but he was shrewd and knew what he did not know. Knowing little about an economy that was in chaos in 1965, he chose civilian Berkeley University-educated economists (widely known as the Berkeley Mafia) to rescue the economy. These key economic ministers included Professor Widjojo, Ali Wardhana, Professor Sadli and Emil Salim.

Suharto was also reliable. If he said he would do something, it would be carried out. As Singapore's former prime minister and present minister mentor Lee Kuan Yew described him, Suharto was "a man of his word". Lee also recognised the major contribution Suharto made to regional stability in Southeast Asia during the 1970s and 80s.

Suharto, like most Javanese, played his cards close to his chest. I recall once having a private discussion with the governor of Central Java, Soepardjo, who had become a good friend. It was shortly before the 1996 presidential election. I asked Soepardjo who he thought was most likely to be nominated by Suharto as his vice-president. I always remember his reply.

"Dick," he said, "as you know, the president and I have been comrades in arms. I have been a trusted friend for many years. I am the governor of the president's province, the most populous province in Indonesia, Central Java. I spent an hour with the Bapak yesterday. It was an empat mata (four eyes only) meeting. We discussed the current state of politics. Yet I left that meeting with no idea who he might nominate in just a few days' time. I know him as well as anybody but I could read nothing in his expression."

It is hardly surprising that Suharto was sometimes misunderstood by Australian leaders.

In January 1976 I accompanied foreign minister Andrew Peacock on a call on the president. Peacock said he wanted to raise with Suharto the possibility of a UN force in East Timor following Indonesia's invasion the previous month.

I advised him against doing so on the grounds that it would not be prudent to present an important new idea to the president without some prior notification, preferably through his colleague, the Indonesian foreign minister. Peacock ignored this advice as, of course, he was entitled to do and towards the end of the conversation he made this proposal to the president. Suharto's face was an impassive mask. When Peacock finished, he simply nodded.

In the car after the call, Peacock said: "You see, he agreed."

"No," I replied. "Suharto's nod was not a nod indicating assent. It was a Javanese nod, which simply means I have heard what you have said." A few days later, the proposal for a UN force was officially rejected.

Probably because of his army training, Suharto was somewhat hierarchical and conscious of status. For example, he declined, as head of state of Indonesia, to receive Sir Ninian Stephen when he wanted to visit Indonesia in 1986. Suharto acknowledged Queen Elizabeth II as Australia's head of state, not the governor-general. In Suharto's eyes, Sir Ninian was her representative.

Suharto, like many Javanese, was attracted to mysticism. One of his confidants and spiritual advisers was Sudjono Humardani. Before taking a major decision Suharto would often meditate with Sudjono, occasionally at a special cave on the Dieng Plateau to which, incidentally, he took Gough Whitlam in a rare gesture in 1974.

Strident criticism, especially from the political Left, of Suharto as a brutal, corrupt military dictator ruling an expansionist Indonesia has always been exaggerated.

Suharto was certainly authoritarian and relied on the armed forces for support. He was also pragmatic, secular and opposed to Islamic extremism. I was surprised to find when I arrived in Jakarta as our ambassador in 1975 that there were a disproportionate five Christians in the cabinet.

On a farewell call shortly before my return to Australia in 1978, Suharto asked me to remind Australian ministers that the threat to his government and to Indonesia's stability came not from any recrudescence of the Indonesian Communist Party but from Islamic fundamentalism, especially if it were to secure external support.

One of Suharto's main contributions to Indonesian stability was in fact to maintain religious tolerance which has, regrettably, broken down since he was ousted.

Far from being expansionist, the whole thrust of Suharto's foreign policy after 1966 was to regain the confidence of the West and of his neighbours, especially Singapore and Malaysia, following Sukarno's erratic anti-Western policy and his Konfrontasi against the establishment of Malaysia.

He saw Indonesia as the successor state to Dutch colonial possessions in Southeast Asia. Indonesia had always acknowledged Portuguese sovereignty over East Timor.

It was only after the breakdown of Portuguese decolonisation policy in 1974-75 and when the prospect emerged of a left wing, independent but aid-dependent mini-state within the Indonesian archipelago, at the height of the Cold War, that he agreed to his military advisers' firm recommendations that the colony must be incorporated, if necessary by force.

In the light of the civil war that had erupted and Portugal's abandonment of its colony in 1975, he first authorised covert Indonesian involvement and then the invasion on December 6. His motivation was not territorial expansion. It was national security. In other circumstances his clear preference was for the peaceful political integration of East Timor when it was decolonised.

In 1964, when I visited Indonesia from Singapore, where I was Australian commissioner, I could sense the coming social explosion that brought the then little known Major General Suharto to power. At that time, 70 per cent of Indonesia's population lived below the UN poverty line. Per capita income was only $US74. Less than 50 per cent of primary school-age children were in school.

Thirty years later, those living below the poverty line had been reduced to 14 per cent. Per capita income had risen to $US997 (a more than 13-fold increase) and a large middle class had developed. Ninety-six per cent of primary school-aged children were in school. World Bank projections in 1995 (since overtaken by the unpredicted East Asian financial crisis in 1997) suggested Indonesia would be the world's fifth-largest economy by 2020.

Indonesia's stability and economic progress between 1975 and 1995 were indeed remarkable. No other developing country achieved comparable progress. Much of the credit for this transformation should be given to Suharto and his key civilian economic ministers. At the same time Indonesia had translated its progress into increased regional and international stature.

There was, of course, the dark side to his long presidency. Suharto demonstrated four principal flaws. First, he identified Indonesia's progress and stability with his own continuing leadership. He stayed too long. Had he stepped down in 1992 or even in 1997, history would, I believe, record his presidency more favourably than it now might. But he made no proper arrangements for an orderly succession, such as Tunku Abdul Rahman had made in Malaysia and Lee in Singapore.

Second, he was unresponsive to concerns about human rights. He acquiesced in the removal of those who stood in the way of what he considered was best for Indonesia or who were publicly opposed to his policies.

He also tolerated abuses of human rights by the armed forces, especially in East Timor, Aceh and Papua.

Third, he abandoned his earlier policy of gradual political liberalisation in favour of trying to consolidate his own power. This inhibited his ability to respond to legitimate popular aspirations and to manage growing pressures for change, especially in the 90s.

Suharto was not by nature a democrat. He saw democracy, especially in a developing country, as divisive and wasteful of talent. He had seen the first attempt fail under Sukarno. He believed that at Indonesia's stage of development the most appropriate form of government for a country of such size and diversity was a strong centralised administration. Otherwise national unity could not be maintained.

Democracy only worked, and even then not always efficiently, in Western societies with generally high levels of prosperity and education. He did not regard Indian democracy as likely to prove effective.

History is therefore likely to record that one of Suharto's major failures was that he did not nourish the institutions Indonesia would need in the future: namely an independent judiciary, a free press and, especially, representative political institutions. In fact, he undermined and prevented the evolution along these lines of the judiciary, the media and the parliament. When the economic crisis struck in 1997 and the political crisis in 1998, Indonesian institutions were too fragile to cope, a situation that prevails to this day and for which Suharto must take most of the responsibility.

Fourth, corruption, cronyism and nepotism increased substantially in the latter stages of his presidency.

In particular, he permitted his children to enrich themselves grossly by intruding into virtually all lucrative contracts and monopolies. This situation worsened after the death of his wife, Ibu Tien, in April 1996. A degree of restraint probably departed with her.

Turning to bilateral relations, Suharto was genuinely interested in Australia. I returned with him for his last visit for informal talks in Townsville in April 1975 with Whitlam. Suharto's positive approach to trade liberalisation and to Asia-Pacific economic co-operation was to be of great value to Australia.

When I called on him in April 1989 as Bob Hawke's special envoy to advance the idea of an Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, he was cautious but supportive. His subsequent support was critical in securing the agreement of the other ASEAN countries to this major Australian initiative.

Later, in November 1994, as the host for the APEC leaders' meeting in Bogor, encouraged by prime minister Keating, Suharto again showed decisive leadership, as the president of one of the world's major developing countries, in committing Indonesia - and because of its influence - the other countries of Southeast Asia to the free trade agenda embodied in the Bogor Declaration and to a more open international trading system.

The Agreement on Mutual Security signed on December 18, 1995, was another area in which Suharto showed leadership in a way that was helpful to Australia and to regional security. It was a confidence-building measure and demonstrated to both the Australian and Indonesian communities that we had a shared interest in the security of our region. It was an important evolution of Hawke's belief that Australia must find its security "with and not against Indonesia".

It is a matter for regret that due to the mutual mishandling in Jakarta and Canberra of aspects of Timor policy in 1999, prime minister John Howard chose to describe the AMS as "irrelevant", which led regrettably toits abrogation by an angry president BJHabibie. This is an unfortunate episode because, both in Opposition in 1995 and later in office, the Howard government had strongly supported this agreement. It has since been replaced by a new agreement drafted by the Howard government.

Suharto's presidency spanned nine Australian prime ministers, from Robert Menzies to Howard. In November 1975, I conveyed a personal message from Malcolm Fraser as caretaker prime minister to Suharto, stating that if elected he wished to develop the same close personal relationship with Suharto that Whitlam had built up. Suharto had a sense of humour and while he welcomed Fraser's attitude, he commented with a wry smile: "Many people in your country think of Indonesia as unstable. Malcolm Fraser will be the sixth Australian prime minister with whom I have dealt!"

Managing a chain of 13,600 islands, stretching the distance from Broome in Western Australia to Christchurch in New Zealand, with a population of about 230 million people composed of about 300 ethnic groups and speaking about 250 distinct languages, is by any standard a massive political challenge. It is one of the reasons why Australian prime ministers from Holt to Howard were impressed by Suharto's leadership.

I suspect that although there were important flaws in his presidency, Suharto's 32-year rule will be judged more objectively by future historians than it is likely to be now, especially in Australia.

Richard Woolcott has probably spent more time over the past 40 years with Suharto than any other senior Australian official. He was invited by The Australian to contribute this comment

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/suharto-as-i-knew-him/story-e6frg6t6-1111115411625


emoticon-Angkat Beer
Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan
Quote:Original Posted By macfac
Soeharto's unsung legacy
Paul Keating
February 2, 2008

Indonesia's former president has been unjustly maligned. We should be grateful for the security on our doorstep - for which we have him to thank.

THE death of Soeharto, former president of Indonesia, gives all Australians a chance to assess the value of his life and the relationship between Indonesia and Australia. Of any figure in the post-World War II period, including any American president, Soeharto, by his judgement, goodwill and good sense, had the greatest positive impact on Australia's strategic environment and, hence, on its history.

In the 40 years since he came to power in 1965, Indonesia has been the ballast in South-East Asian stability and the foundation stone upon which ASEAN was built.

Soeharto took a nation of 120 million people, racked by political turmoil and poverty, from near disintegration to the orderly, ordered and prosperous state that it is today.

In 1965, countries such as Nigeria and Zimbabwe were in the same position as Indonesia then. Today, those countries are economic and social wrecks. By contrast, Indonesia is a model of harmony, cohesion and progress. And the principal reason for that is Soeharto.

We can only imagine what Australia's strategic position would be like if Indonesia's now 230 million people degenerated into a fractured, lawless state reminiscent of Nigeria or Zimbabwe.

For the past 40 years, we have been spending roughly 2% of GDP on defence — about $20 billion a year in today's dollars. That figure would be more like seven to eight times that, about $150 billion today, if Indonesia had become a fractured, politically stricken state.

Had General Soeharto's New Order government not displaced the Soekarno government and the massive PKI Communist Party, the postwar history of Australia would have been completely different. A communist-dominated Indonesia would have destabilised Australia and all of South-East Asia.

So why have Australians regarded Indonesia so suspiciously, especially over the past quarter-century, when it is evident that Indonesia has been at the fulcrum of our strategic stability.

Unfortunately, I think the answer is Timor and the wilful reporting of Indonesian affairs in Australia by the Australian media, in the main the Fairfax press and the ABC. Most particularly and especially The Sydney Morning Herald and to a lesser extent The Age.

This rancour and the misrepresentation of the true state of Indonesian social and economic life can be attributed to the "get square" policy of the media in Australia for the deaths of the Balibo Five — the five Australian journalists who were encouraged to report from a war zone by their irresponsible proprietors and who were shot and killed by the Indonesian military in Timor.

This event was sheeted back to Soeharto by journalists of the broadsheet press. From that moment, in their eyes, Soeharto became a cruel and intolerant repressor whose life's work in saving Indonesia from destruction was to be viewed, and only viewed, through the prism of Timor.

Rarely did journalists ever mention that Soeharto was president for 10 years before he did anything about Timor. He was happy to leave the poverty-stricken and neglected enclave in his archipelago to Portugal, with its 300-year history of hopeless colonisation. Soeharto had enough trouble dragging Indonesia from poverty without needing to tack on another backward province.

But in mid-1975, communist-allied military officers took control in Portugal and its colonies abroad were taken over by avowedly Marxist regimes. In Timor, a leftist group calling itself the Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of East Timor, or Fretilin, staged a coup igniting a civil war.

When Fretilin overran the colony by force, Soeharto's government became alarmed. This happened at the height of the Cold War. Saigon had fallen in April of that year. Fretilin then appealed to China and Vietnam for help. Fearing a "Cuba on his doorstep", Soeharto reluctantly decided on military intervention.

In his 33 years as president, he embarked upon no other "foreign" exploit. And he would not have bothered with Timor had Fretilin not made the going too rough. Indeed, Jose Ramos Horta told The Sydney Morning Herald in 1996 that "the immaturity, irresponsibility and bad judgement of the East Timorese provoked Indonesia into doing what it did". Xanano Gusmao also told anyone who would listen that it had been a "bad mistake" for Fretilin to present itself as a "Marxist" outfit in 1975.

But none of this stopped a phalanx of Australian journalists, mostly from the Fairfax stable and the ABC's Four Corners program, from reporting Indonesian affairs from that time such that Australians could only view the great economic transformation of Indonesia and the alleviation of its poverty and its tolerance primarily through the warped and shattered prism of Timor.

The Sydney Morning Herald even editorialised in favour of an Australian invasion of Timor, then Indonesian territory. That is, right up front about it, The Sydney Morning Herald urged the Australian Government to invade Indonesia. So rabid has Fairfax been about Indonesia and so recreant of Australia's national interest has it been.

Even as late as this week, The Herald claimed that the achievements of Soeharto's New Order government "were built on sand", nominating Indonesia reeling from crisis to crisis after 1998 when it knows that Soeharto did precisely the right thing in calling the IMF in to help and that the IMF, operating under US Treasury prescriptions, kicked the country and Soeharto to pieces.

The decline in Indonesia after 30 years of 7% compound growth under Soeharto, had little to do with Soeharto and everything to do with the Asian financial crisis and the short-sighted and ill-informed IMF.

But more than that, these journalists knew, but failed to effectively communicate, that not only did Soeharto hold his country together, he insisted that Indonesia be a secular state; that is, a Muslim country but not a fundamentalist one. In other words, not an Iran.

Wouldn't you imagine that such an issue would be matter of high and primary importance to communicate to the Australian community? That on our doorstep, there is a secular Indonesian state and not a religious one, run by sharia law. And wouldn't you, in all reasonableness, give Soeharto full marks for keeping that vast archipelago as a civil society unrepressed by fundamentalism?

Look what happened to us in Bali at the hands of a handful of Islamic fundamentalists. Imagine the turmoil for Australia if the whole 230 million people of Indonesia had a fundamentalist objection to us. But this jaded bunch of Australian journalists could only report how Soeharto was corrupt because his son Tommy might have elbowed his way into some carried equity with an American telephone company or his daughter something with a road builder. True as those generalisations might have been, in terms of the weight of Australia's interests, the deeds of Soeharto's public life massively outweigh anything in his private affairs.

I got to know Soeharto quite well. He was clever and utterly decisive and had a kind view of Australia. The peace and order of his country, its religious and ethnic tolerance and the peace and order of South-East Asia came from his goodwill towards neighbouring states and from his wisdom. He was self-effacing and shy to a fault. One had to tease him out of himself to get him going, but once he got going, his intellectualism took over. Soeharto lived in what we would call in Australia a rather old and shabby McMansion in Jakarta. He lived as simply as anyone of his high standing could live.

But Time magazine claimed that Soeharto stashed away $30 billion-odd, as if those ning-nongs would know, presumably so he could race off to live it up in Miami or in the Bahamas. Errant nonsense. Soeharto was an Indonesian who was always going to remain an Indonesian. He lived a simple life and could never have changed that.

I do not doubt that his rapacious family had the better of him and got away with lumps of capital that they had not earned. Soeharto was a disciplined leader, but not a disciplined father. But to compare him to the likes of Marcos is nothing short of dastardly.

The descriptions of Soeharto as a brutal dictator living a corrupt high life at the expense of his people and running an expansionist military regime are untrue. Even Soeharto's annexation of Timor was not expansionist. It had everything to do with national security and nothing to do with territory.

Like all leaders, Soeharto had his failings. His greatest failing was to underestimate the nature of the society he had nurtured. As his economic stewardship had led to food sufficiency, education, health and declines in infant mortality, so too those changes had given rise to a middle class as incomes rose. Soeharto should have let political representation grow as incomes grew. But he distrusted the political classes. He believed that they would not put the national interest first, had no administrative ability and were utterly indecisive, if not corrupt. He told me this on a number of occasions. He would not let the reins go. Partly because he did not want to lose them, partly because he really had no one to give them to.

Soeharto's problem was he had too little faith in his own people, the very people he cared for most.

Whatever political transition he may have wished to have had, it all blew up on him with the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. He had no democratic transition in place and in the economic chaos, political forces wanted him to go.

In January 1998, nearly two years after I had left the prime ministership of Australia, at my own initiative and expense I flew to Jakarta to see him the day he signed the IMF agreement with IMF managing director Michel Camdessus.

The IMF had tragically overplayed its hand the previous November and Soeharto was giving it a chance to dig itself out of a hole. He had a small window of opportunity. I thought that as a former head of government who was on friendly terms with him, I at least owed him advice of a kind I knew he would never get inside Indonesia: to take the opportunity of the IMF interregnum to say that he, Soeharto, would contest the next election but would not complete the term. That he would stay long enough to see the IMF reforms into place and then hand the presidency to his vice-president.

Had he taken this advice, the process of political transformation would have been completely orderly. And a new administration could set up the organs of democracy.

I discussed this issue with Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore and then prime minister Goh Chok Tong, both of whom had Soeharto's and Indonesia's best interests at heart. Both gentlemen believed that I was in a better position to broach this subject with Soeharto than either of them. For two hours I had Soeharto in his house with his state secretary Moerdiano and his interpreter Widodo. Fifteen minutes into the conversation, when I was making the case why he should step down, he stopped Widodo's translation and took my advice in English directly. Moerdiano said to me in an aside at the door, "I think you have got him."

Soeharto followed me to the door, put his arms around my shoulders and said "God bless you" as I left. As it turned out, I didn't quite have him, and he hung on thinking he could slip through one more time.

But the crisis and the behaviour of the IMF with the American Treasury had marooned him. Completely determined to act constitutionally, he turned over his singular power, at his own initiative, to his vice-president to avoid any upheaval of the kind Indonesia had experienced during earlier transitions. The new president, Habibe, then by all due process picked up the reins of government to deal with the ongoing financial reconstruction and the long process of democratisation.

When Attorney-General Robert McClelland and I arrived in Indonesia for Soeharto's funeral last Monday, we drove the 30-odd kilometres from the airport at Solo to the mausoleum where he would be buried alongside his wife. For not one metre of those 30-odd kilometres, was there no person present. In some places they would be six and eight deep, all holding their baskets of petals to throw at his courtage. They all knew they were burying the builder of their society and all felt the moment.

How many Australian leaders would have a million or so people to grieve for them beside the roadway? Soeharto's funeral was a tribute to what his life truly meant. I felt honoured to have been there but more than that, to have known him.

Paul Keating was prime minister from December 1991 to March 1996.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/soehartos-unsung-legacy/2008/02/01/1201801032980.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2


emoticon-Toast:
wow trit tandingan emoticon-Wow
Quote:Original Posted By bakanola


emoticon-Angkat Beer


mau jadi pahlawan nasional apa pahlawan australi? emoticon-Ngakak

soeharto itu banyak skandal pelanggaran ham dan kkn. Sementara prestasi yg digembor2kan cuma pembangunan, yaelah dr jaman belanda juga indonesia udah dibangun
Quote:Original Posted By macfac
Lee Kuan Yew and Suharto: Friends till the end

From honouring the loan of rice, to the Riau development project, mutual trust between Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Suharto fostered Indonesia-Singapore ties
Barry Desker, For The Straits Times
OVER a period of almost 30 years from the 1970s, an excellent relationship existed between Indonesia and Singapore.

While it is unfashionable among historians to credit "great men" for the outcome of events and to look instead into factors underpinning broad historical trends, the smooth bilateral relationship owed much to the mutual confidence which developed between President Suharto of Indonesia and Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.

Mr Lee's first exposure to Indonesia occurred in August 1960 when he made an official visit to Indonesia and was a guest of President Sukarno. It was a disappointing exchange as Sukarno did most of the talking and there was little substantive discussion, with Sukarno expounding his concept of "guided democracy", repeating points he had made in many public speeches.



The visit highlighted the decline in the Indonesian economy following the expulsion of the Dutch community in 1957, the nationalisation of foreign enterprises and the proclamation of a policy of economic nationalism.

Indonesia's policy of Confrontation after the formation of Malaysia in 1963 resulted in a sharp decline in Singapore-Indonesia trade, arising from Indonesia's ban on trade with Malaysia.

Singapore's dependence on its entrepot role resulted in a sharp economic downturn, even though the impact was limited by continuing barter trade with the Riau islands. There were also more than 50 bomb attacks in Singapore by Indonesian infiltrators.

Turmoil in Indonesia followed the failed coup attempt on Oct 1, 1965 by the Indonesian Communist Party and its allies within the Indonesia military. This resulted in a counter-coup led by General Suharto. However, General Suharto did not immediately take over and formally became President only in March 1968.

These negative experiences shaped Mr Lee's initial perceptions of Indonesia, which loomed large as a threat to post-1965 independent Singapore's existence.

Such perceptions were reinforced when sections of the Indonesian military urged a seaborne invasion of Singapore in October 1968 if Singapore went ahead with the execution of two captured Indonesian marines, Osman Mohamed Ali and Harun Said, responsible for the MacDonald House bombings and whose court appeals against the death penalty had failed.

Cooler heads prevailed in Indonesia. Strong diplomatic and personal appeals were made but Singapore proceeded with the executions, which led to mass demonstrations in Jakarta and the sacking of the Singapore embassy.

Bilateral relations improved significantly when Mr Lee made his first official visit to Indonesia in May 1973. His 'four-eyes' private meeting with the Indonesian leader convinced Mr Lee that Mr Suharto was determined to focus on Indonesia's economic recovery.

While Mr Suharto demonstrated a willingness to treat Singapore cordially, Mr Lee highlighted the need for mutual trust. Mr Suharto observed that Indonesia had no territorial claims on Singapore and Mr Lee won his confidence by pointing out that Singapore did not see itself as a Third China (after the People's Republic of China and Taiwan) and emphasised Singapore's rightful role as a South-east Asian state.

Suharto: A man who could be trusted

MR LEE grew more positive about Mr Suharto over the years.

In his dealings with Singapore, Mr Suharto enjoyed credibility because he upheld agreements that he made. The first experience of this was when Mr Suharto sent a message in his early years of office seeking 10,000 tonnes of rice to meet emergency needs because of the failure of the rice crop. He promised to repay in kind in due course. Although the price of rice rose on international markets, Indonesia repaid the rice on schedule and provided rice of better quality than that which was given.

Singapore's leaders concluded that Mr Suharto was a man who could be trusted.

It was an experience repeated at various times during his tenure of office. In 1978, when there was an attempt to bypass Singapore on the kangaroo route between the United Kingdom and Australia under Australia's newly proclaimed integrated civil aviation policy, which cut access to Singapore while providing inducements to Indonesia and other countries in the region, Mr Suharto took the firm view that Asean should not succumb to such tactics.

Similarly, in 1990, when Singapore offered the use of facilities in Singapore to American military aircraft and naval vessels as a contribution to the continued US presence in South-east Asia following the return of Clark airfield and Subic naval base to the Philippines, Mr Suharto's public acceptance of this move quelled criticism from the region.

While Mr Suharto did not throw his weight around within Asean, he was the most influential leader within Asean.

Mr Lee respected Suharto because he was consistent and provided space for each Asean state to develop in its own way. In this, Mr Suharto practised the Javanese dictum, mikul dhuwur, mendhem jero (to look for the best in others and to forgive the trespasses of those whom we respect).

On several occasions, Mr Lee mentioned that Mr Suharto had never reneged on a commitment, even if it was politically difficult.

It meant that Mr Lee was aware of the limits of Indonesia's willingness to agree to proposals from Singapore.

President Suharto's objections led to the derailing of proposals for an Asean free trade area at the first Asean Summit in 1976 but his support facilitated the declaration at the fourth Asean Summit held in Singapore in 1992 that an Asean Free Trade Area would be established within 15 years.

Lee: A man of his word

ON MR Suharto's part, he regarded Mr Lee as a friend, who spoke clearly, could be relied upon and whose judgment was valued. Because of Mr Suharto's support and direction to his officials, negotiations for joint projects such as the Batam Industrial Park, Bintan Beach International Resort, the Riau Water Agreement and the Air Combat Manoeuvring Range in Pekan Baru proceeded smoothly. When Mr Suharto visited Batam and Bintan Beach, he observed that the swift implementation of factory and hotel development proposals by foreign investors demonstrated Singapore's honesty and reliability. Mr Suharto saw Mr Lee as a man of his word, who could be trusted to uphold his commitments.

But differences did occur. Following the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor in December 1975, Singapore was the only Asean country to abstain while the remainder joined Indonesia in opposing a UN General Assembly resolution deploring Indonesian military intervention in East Timor. This created some strains in the bilateral relationship. In the aftermath of the Vietnamese invasion and occupation of Cambodia in December 1978, Indonesia consistently took a softer position than the other Asean countries partly because Indonesia saw Vietnam as having a shared revolutionary heritage gaining independence through the force of arms rather than through consultations with the colonial regime and partly because President Suharto was suspicious of Chinese support for the Khmer Rouge and regarded Vietnam as a bulwark against China. However, Mr Suharto's strong support for Asean resulted in Indonesia consistently backing Asean positions, surprising critics of Asean who felt that a common Asean position was not sustainable.

Trying period

THE most trying period in the relationship between Mr Lee and Mr Suharto occurred during the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis. When the Thai meltdown occurred in July 1997, the financial panic spread across the region.

Although he had stepped down as Prime Minister, Mr Lee tried to counsel Mr Suharto's children, who took gross advantage of their father's position for economic benefits and were the subject of criticism by the International Monetary Fund, the American government and international fund managers. Mr Lee noted that Mr Suharto did not see his children's actions as a problem because he saw himself as the sultan whose children were entitled to these privileges. Nor did Mr Suharto heed the advice of Mr Lee and other leaders not to appoint Mr B.J. Habibie as Vice-President in 1998 as Mr Habibie's penchant for costly high-tech projects worried the financial community.

Following riots in Jakarta in May 1998, President Suharto stepped down. Significantly, a few days before his decision, Mr Suharto described himself as being prepared to step down using the Javanese term lengser keprabon (to abdicate, usually following dynastic struggles in Javanese courts), highlighting the Javanese mindset which underpinned the way President Suharto framed his dealings with the world, an aspect that Mr Lee made an effort to understand.

Mr Lee kept up his relationship with Mr Suharto until the Indonesian leader's death in 2008. He credited the strong economic growth in South-east Asia from the 1970s to the 1990s to Mr Suharto's policies and his focus on stability and the economy, as well as on building excellent relations with his neighbours.

In retirement, Mr Suharto regarded Mr Lee as a true friend, one held in high respect by him and his family.

http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/lee-kuan-yew-and-suharto-friends-till-the-end


emoticon-Angkat Beer
Quote:Original Posted By macfac

Soeharto was recognized for creating political and economical stability at home despite allegations of systemic corruption and human rights violations. But he also left a legacy in sports by putting Indonesia on the Olympic Games gold medalists list.

It was under Soeharto that women's singles shuttler Susy Susanti and men's singles shuttler Alan Budikusuma became the first gold medalists for the country in Barcelona in 1992. Four years earlier, Indonesia's archers Lilies Handayani, Kusuma Wardhani and Nurfitriyana snatched the first ever silver medal for the nation at the 1988 Seoul Olympics.

His critics may say that if badminton had been featured at the Olympics during Sukarno's era, perhaps Tan Joe Hock or Ferry Sonneville would have put Indonesia's name among the world's sporting nations.

But the path to Olympics gold glory was not an easy one.

Former Badminton Association of Indonesia (PBSI) chairman Try Sutrisno recalled that Pak Harto (as he was familiarly known) never set any target for the Olympics, but simply said "do your best". Since Soeharto usually used vague instructions, "do your best" would definitely mean a victory. After all, what is better than a victory?

So, the overtime work began. No officials at the PBSI had the guts to take the responsibility as the team manager for the Barcelona Olympics. Everyone in the association -- including Aburizal Bakrie (now coordinating minister for the people's welfare) -- agreed that Try, who at that time was the Army chief of staff, should directly lead the national squad.

Try, who later became Soeharto's vice president, had no other choice but to put all his resources into making the mission a success. Led by sports guru Mangombar Ferdinand Siregar, the PBSI arranged schedules for training and competition to make sure the shuttlers reached their peak in Barcelona.

It was a historical year for Indonesia as national shuttlers contributed two gold, one silver and two bronzes at the quadrennial event. Ever since, Soeharto's successors have enjoyed the credit at the Olympics with badminton always contributing one gold.

Indonesia must thank Soeharto for his decision to rejoin the International Olympics Committee after the IOC dropped the country from its member list because of its failure to invite Taiwan and Israel to attend the fourth Asian Games in Jakarta in 1962 during the presidency of Sukarno.

It was also under Soeharto's presidency that the national squad dominated the Southeast Asian Games since first joining in 1977 in Kuala Lumpur. Coming as an underdog, Indonesia shocked the region by claiming the top spot. Vini, vidi, vici. The domination continued until host Thailand overtook the country in 1985.

Siregar recalled the moment when he, in his capacity as the National Sports Council secretary general, was summoned to Soeharto's Bina Graha office in February 1986 along with then coordinating minister for people's welfare Alamsyah Ratu Prawiranegara and sports minister Abdul Gafur. As usual, the "smiling general" did not show his anger but only asked how could this happen. To help Indonesia reclaim its domination, Soeharto issued a presidential letter, urging all ministers and state officials to get directly involved in sports development.

It was a message taken wrongly by his aides. Most of them directly involved by chairing sports organizations although they were unfamiliar with the sports themselves and had no background in managing sports. Their service was merely to raise funds to make sure the training programs and competitions took place.

Such a policy turned to be a boomerang for national sports development. The officials invited businesspeople to "participate" in the dana abadi (continuous deposit) fund raising programs. There was no agreement on paper as most companies have when they sponsor an event or endorse sportsmen.

The fund raising scheme, unfortunately, made the sports community more spoilt and too dependent on state and military officials or businessmen as their leaders because they believe the money will come to them.

Soeharto also sparked controversy when he fulfilled his son's request to build an international-scale circuit in Sentul, south of Jakarta. While Malaysia's Mahathir Mohamad invited Bernie Ecclestone to hold the Formula One race at one of his landmark Sepang circuit, Sentul has long been sidelined from the world-class race calendar.

In 1983, Soeharto named Sept. 9 as the National Sports Day and issued the memo Memasyarakatkan Olahraga dan Mengolahragakan Masyarakat, asking people to take part in sports. Since then, every Friday, civil servants always spared an hour to have senam pagi (morning exercise) while students have another version of the exercise at school for 10 minutes once a week -- excluding the regular physical education subject.

Soeharto continued the legacy of Sukarno. The country's founding father fulfilled his ambition to create a "new Indonesia" by building a grand sports complex in Senayan, Central Jakarta, to host the Asian Games in 1962 and finished second after Japan.

During his reign, Sukarno asked the Education Ministry and Sport Ministry to arrange a program for junior and senior high school children with a priority on eight sports being taught at school.

Despite their differences, both Sukarno and Soeharto shared a similar view that sports had a strategic role to play in the country's development.

Soeharto also continued Sukarno's "tradition" of meeting with athletes, although the meeting was always set in a formal way.

For some national badminton players, Soeharto's last days in office were shocking. They met him for the last time when sending the team off to Hong Kong for the 1998 Thomas and Uber Cup championships. As usual, he only told them to do the best. But he had already been ousted when the men's team presented the Thomas Cup.

Now Soeharto has gone but the sports society has the obligation to continue one of his legacies: the Olympics gold medal.

The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.

http://m.thejakartapost.com/news/2008/01/30/our-olympic-gold-medals-are-soeharto039s-legacy.html


emoticon-Cool
Quote:Original Posted By macfac
Giving Suharto His Due

I was of two minds as to whether or not to join in the analysis of Suharto's legacy, but I decided that I cannot let stand some of what I have read about Suharto, Indonesia's strongman president for 31 years, who died on Sunday at the age of 86. For those who don't know me: I was the World Bank's country director in Jakarta from 1994 to 1999. I was present during Indonesia's financial crisis and when Suharto was forced out of office in May, 1998. I can't say that Suharto and I were close, but I met him many times, and, to the extent that any outsider can ever really know a Javanese, I believe I knew something of what made him tick.

I have taken a good deal of grief over the years since I left Indonesia as an apologist for Suharto. Why? Because I have argued that the bad that he did -- and some of it was horrific -- should be balanced against the good, not for the sake of Suharto but for the sake of development. To see Suharto as just another corrupt dictator is to risk losing the lessons from one of the great development success stories of all times.

We all know the bad parts. If you don't, just read almost anything that Jeff Winters, a Northwestern University academic, has to say on Suharto. Winters has made a career out of railing against Suharto, loves phrases like "iron-fisted, brutal, cold-blooded dictator," and makes statements like, "Suharto is responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity in the 20th Century" and "Sukarno's widow called Suharto Indonesia's Pol Pot."

The worst crimes against humanity in the 20th Century? Indonesia's Pol Pot? Sorry, but this is headline grabbing, hyperbolic nonsense.

Suharto was a complicated and flawed leader (which national leader isn't?), but the idea that the only Indonesians who are morning his passing are his family and cronies is just plain wrong. The vast majority of Indonesians saw and see Pak Harto, as he is called in Indonesia, as a leader who rescued a huge, bankrupt and collapsing country from disintegration.

In mid 1960s, before the fall of President Sukarno, Indonesia was a development basket case par excellence. An international pariah, it was not even a member of the UN let alone of the Bretton Woods institutions. With a government that had virtually ceased to function, it was wasting whatever remaining resources it had by waging a needless war with its neighbor, Malaysia. At roughly $60 per capita, it was poorer by far than most other developing countries, half the income levels of India and Pakistan, a third less than China or Nigeria. With over 300 ethnic groups and 7,000 inhabited islands, the Indonesia Suharto "inherited" hardly qualified as a country.

Thirty years later, Indonesia's economic performance had left the competition in the dust. Incomes had increased annually by an average of more than 7 percent to $980, half again as much as China, twice Pakistan, three times India, four times Nigeria and Bangladesh. And, no, all this money was not going just to the elite. Income distribution did not change much during this period, and average food intake went from 1,650 calories to 2,750. Given its starting point, the success of Suharto's Indonesia was, indeed, an Asian miracle.

And what about corruption? Was Suharto the most corrupt dictator of the 20th Century? Does he deserve to be at the top of Transparency International's rogue's gallery of corrupt leaders? I question this on two grounds. First, where is all the money Suharto allegedly stole? Here is a guy who has lived in the same modest house (I have been there; it is comfortable and in a good neighborhood, but nothing more), led a modest life both as president and afterward. Do his children have it? Yes and no. They were given special access to market opportunities as Indonesia boomed, and created giant corporate conglomerates from which they got rich. But these conglomerates did things, produced stuff, exported things, employed people. What exactly is the difference between the opportunities that George W. Bush had in the business world because of his father, and the opportunities that Suharto's children had? At best a distinction of degree, not direction. There were abuses of power by Suharto's children, by Tommy Suharto especially, but there were also real contributions to development.

Second, if there was corruption at the level claimed by TI and others, how did Indonesia do so well for so long? In a visit to Jakarta in the early 1970s, Bob McNamara, the former World Bank President, told Suharto that Indonesia had a serious corruption problem that would keep the country from developing. In 1997, Jim Wolfensohn the then-World Bank president, gave Suharto the same message. Suharto's response? To detail the 25 years of record setting development that took place under his rule, certified by the World Bank itself.

Something is wrong with the popular image of Indonesia's corruption, but is not something one can raise in polite society. It smacks of being soft on corruption, as the Wall Street Journal has suggested more than once that I am.

Suharto did many terrible things -- or more accurately, many terrible things happened on his watch. One of his worst sins, from a development perspective, was that he systematically held in check the development of the kinds of institutions a country needs to weather political storms. Suharto was the only institution that mattered in Indonesia, and he was determined to keep it that way. And when the storm came, and the institution that was Suharto departed, Indonesia suffered. But it did recover and it is moving on.

One of my great frustrations after leaving Indonesia is that no one seems willing to step back and try to understand why Indonesia did so well for so long under Suharto, and from such an awful starting point. My guess is that this hasn't happened because giving Suharto his due as a development leader is more than political correctness can accommodate. What a shame.

http://www.cgdev.org/blog/giving-suharto-his-due


emoticon-Peace
dede yusuf yg ngomong yah?? Hmmmh emoticon-Cool
Quote:Original Posted By macfac
Soeharto's Ghost Seen in Boomtown Leading Indonesia's Growth

April 11 (Bloomberg) -- Five years ago, property agent Daisul Akhyar took 20 minutes to drive to work in Pekanbaru, capital of Indonesia’s Riau province. Now, he can spend two hours in traffic after a surge in wealth transformed the city.
“If you live in Riau now, it’s like living in Jakarta, there are new residential and retail developments all over the city,” Akhyar, a director of local developer PT Asrindo Perdana Mandiri, said in Pekanbaru on Sumatera island. “Selling property in this place is like selling candy to children.”

The world’s fourth most-populous nation is seeing its economy reshaped as cities on islands including Sumatera and Borneo grow faster than Java, home to the nation’s capital, Jakarta. A transmigration program championed by former President Suharto in the 1980s, combined with China’s demand for palm oil, coal and iron from Indonesia’s rural provinces, helped outlying cities expand as much as 4 percentage points faster than the national average over the past decade.

As China’s expansion boosts incomes of miners and farmers in some of the sleepiest and most far-flung corners of Asia, companies from Unilever Plc to Toyota Motor Corp. are flocking to Indonesia’s second-tier cities to tap their rising demand. At the same time, increasing urbanization raises pressure on President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to improve infrastructure and strains environmental resources.

“In future, the nation’s economy will be supported by cities outside Java,” Perry Warjiyo, the central bank’s executive director for monetary policy and economic research, said in an interview. “This is in line with the government’s program to spread out economic growth to all the provinces.”

Outpacing Jakarta

Smaller cities of 150,000 to 2 million inhabitants will outpace the big conurbations like Jakarta, increasing their share of gross domestic product to 37 percent in 2030, from 31 percent currently, McKinsey & Co. said in a September report. At present, the region around Jakarta covers less than 1 percent of the country and accounts for more than 10 percent of the economy.

Growing incomes in the outlying cities will benefit consumer goods and services companies such as PT Unilever Indonesia, PT Indofood CBP Sukses Makmur and PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia, said Fadlul Imansyah, head of investment at PT CIMB-Principal Asset Management in Jakarta, with 2.3 trillion rupiah ($240 million) of assets.

Spend, Spend

“The fast growth in regions outside of Jakarta has become a priority for these companies,” said Soni Wibowo, a director at Jakarta-based PT Bahana TCW Investment Management, which manages about 22 trillion rupiah in assets. Profits of companies like ACE Hardware Indonesia have been aided by that demand and “going forward there’s still growth to expect,” he said.

The boom in second-tier cities has helped swell the middle class. Seven million Indonesians joined their ranks each year for the past seven years, according to a 2011 World Bank report. Private spending grew 5.4 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012 from a year earlier, and consumer confidence in March was 116.8, the eighth straight month the indicator exceeded 115. Pekanbaru, Pontianak, Karawang, Makassar and Balikpapan regions will lead growth, McKinsey says.

“Consumer confidence in Indonesia is very, very high,” said Destry Damayanti, chief economist at PT Bank Mandiri in Jakarta. “That’s why they spend and spend.”

Fried Chicken

The spread of consumer demand is drawing investment from companies including Nestle SA, Toyota and Unilever, as well as many from Java. Four-bedroom units at developer Ciputra Group’s Citragarden residential complex in Pekanbaru start from 900 million rupiah, compared with 685 million rupiah for the cheapest similar abode at the company’s CitraIndah project, 30 kilometers from the center of Jakarta.

On the fourth floor of Ciputra’s mall on Jalan Riau, palm-oil planter Safruddin is eating fried chicken and soup from a fast-food restaurant while his Volvo is being repaired in a local garage. On lower floors, outlets for Body Shop International Plc, Giordano International Ltd. and other global brands indicate the spread of wealth to the province in the past few years. On the ground floor, a Honda Motor Co. dealership offers the latest Freed, Jazz and Brio models for as much as 1.8 million rupiah a month in installments, more than the average wage in the province.

“In Riau now it’s easy to get a job, that’s why there are so many new shopping malls,” said Safruddin, 52, who like many Indonesians only uses one name. Of his 10 children, two sons help manage his plantations in nearby Bangkinang. A third plans to open a supermarket and an English-language school. “At least I won’t need to buy him a car. He can buy it himself.”

Oil, Timber

Money from palm oil has joined Riau’s boom riches from oil and timber industries that drew companies such as PT Chevron Pacific Indonesia, PT Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper, and PT Surya Dumai Industri. Riau has been one of the main oil-producing regions since reserves were first discovered there in the 1930s.

Pekanbaru had 9.8 percent average annual growth over the past 10 years and will sustain a 7.3 percent pace through 2030, McKinsey says. The report predicts similar growth for oil-rich Balikpapan in East Kalimantan, and Makassar in South Sulawesi. National GDP grew at an average annual pace of 5.7 percent in the decade through 2012.

With many of Indonesia’s provinces outside Java reliant on oil, minerals or agriculture for revenue, those gains will depend on swings in prices of the commodities. In Riau’s case, a slump in palm-oil prices slowed the pace of development.

The slump reduced demand for new shops and apartments to about 1,500 units for Pekanbaru in 2012, from around 10,000 in previous years, said Akhyar, who is also vice secretary for the Indonesia Real Estate Association in the city. He said sales this year may be about 5,000 units as demand recovers.

More Roads

As new shops and apartments spring up, the government is trying to keep up, spending more on roads and ports. President Yudhoyono plans to build 30 new industrial zones across the 17,000-island archipelago and to spend $125 billion on infrastructure by 2025, including $12 billion on 20,000 kilometers of roads, enough to go halfway round the world.

“The resilience of private consumption has been supported by improvements in consumers’ purchasing power and consumer confidence,” Bank Indonesia said in a statement today, after holding its benchmark interest rate at a record-low 5.75 percent for a 14th consecutive meeting.
The attempt to spread prosperity from Java, home to 62 percent of the population, began during Dutch colonial times with the start of a transmigration program designed to move people to sparsely inhabited islands such as Sumatera, Borneo and Papua. The settlers were given land to help develop plantations and raise income levels.

Rising Tensions

The program reached its zenith after independence under Suharto, who died in 2008. In 1982-83, almost 100,000 families were resettled in a single year, according to the World Bank. After 1984 the plan was scaled back as tension mounted between immigrants and locals and concerns arose about environmental damage from clearing rainforest for plantations, the bank said.

“The transmigration program succeeded in spreading people from Java and lifting economic activity in new cities,” said Agustinus Prasetyantoko, a Jakarta-based economist from the University of Atmajaya. “But it also created conflict.”

A second level of migration -- from rural to urban areas -- is also feeding the growth of cities like Pekanbaru. The proportion of Indonesians living in urban areas will rise to 71 percent in 2030, from 53 percent, as about 32 million people shift to cities, according to McKinsey. The share of Indonesia’s GDP generated by urban areas will reach 86 percent in 2030, from an estimated 74 percent currently.

Million Shops

The main driver behind the increasing wealth and power of the nation’s regional capitals is a decade-long boom in the nation’s resources. In the past 12 years, palm oil prices have more than tripled, even after a 35 percent drop in the past year. China-led demand has lifted coal, copper and gold as much as fourfold in a decade.

“There’s a lot of new middle-income class popping up in Riau because of palm oil,” said Viator Butar-Butar, vice president of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Riau and a former senior lecturer in economics at the University of Riau. “The forest has turned into shops. Now, we call Riau the land of a million shops.”

Beside the highway from Pekanbaru to the city of Siak, 100 kilometers to the east, construction sites soon give way to rows of oil palms, a monoculture that replaced one of the world’s oldest rainforests. The regimented lines of trees occasionally are broken by an oil-company building or a roadside shop selling food, drinks and Indonesia’s kretek clove-flavored cigarettes.
Even with more public investment, roads are congested with trucks carrying palm oil and timber to ports as the government struggles to connect an island chain that’s 5,271 kilometers long -- about the distance from New York to Anchorage, Alaska.

Island Chain

“It really depends on infrastructure,” said Damayanti at Bank Mandiri. “If there’s no infrastructure development in the next two years, then I think we will have a problem.”
For the growing number of residents in provinces like Riau, new wealth means new spending. Domestic vehicle sales rose 23 percent nationwide to 1.1 million units last year, according to PT Astra International, the country’s biggest seller of Toyota cars and Honda motorcycles.

The growing consumer market is attracting companies such as bread-maker PT Nippon Indosari Corpindo, backed by Japan’s Shikishima Baking Co., which opened its first plant outside Java in 2011. The company opened factories in Palembang and Makassar in January and plans another in Kalimantan this year.

“Before we decided to build new plants outside Java, we looked at how the economy is doing there,” said spokesman Stephen Orlando, who expects sales to rise at least 30 percent this year. “Demand outside Java is high.”

Meanwhile, the regional cities continue to expand as more migrants arrive. Akhyar, the real-estate seller in Pekanbaru, said many buyers are from Java and other provinces. Nearby Siak has grown to more than 420,000 people, from 200,000 in 2000, thanks to an influx of people from Java, West Sumatera, Aceh and other provinces, said Syafrilenti, assistant to the regent for development and economy, who also uses one name.

“They come like ants to sugar,” he said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Novrida Manurung in Jakarta at nmanurung@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephanie Phang at sphang@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-10/ghost-of-suharto-seen-in-boomtowns-leading-indonesia-s-growth


emoticon-Big Grin emoticon-Big Grin emoticon-Big Grin emoticon-Big Grin
Quote:Original Posted By macfac

Kalau Ajal Saya Sampai [1]

Kalau saatnya tiba saya dipanggil oleh Yang Maha Kuasa, maka mengenai diri saya selanjutnya sudah saya tetapkan saya serahkan kepada istri saya. Sebetulnya istri saya telah menerima pula “Bintang Gerilya” dan “Bintang RI.” Jadi, dia juga bisa dimakamkan di Taman Makam Pahlawan. Tetapi sudahlah, ia dengan Yayasan Mangadeg Surakarta sudah merencanakan lain. Ia dengan Yayasan Mangadeg Surakarta sudah membangun makam keluarga di Mangadeg, tepatnya di Astana Giribangun. Dan masakan saya akan pisah dari istri saya! Dengan sendirinya saya pun akan minta dimakamkan di Astana Giribangun bersama keluarga. Kami tidak mau menyusahkan anak cucu kami, jika mereka nanti ingin berziarah.

Memang saya pun mendengar orang bicara bahwa belum juga saya mati, saya sudah membuat kuburan. Padahal yang sebenarnya, kuburan itu kami buat untuk yang sudah meninggal, antaranya untuk ayah kami (mertua saya). Selain itu, pikiran saya menyebutkan, “Apa salahnya, sebab toh akhirnya kita akan meninggal juga.” Kalau mulai sekarang kita sudah memikirkannya, itu berarti kita tidak akan menyulitkan orang lain. Asalkan tidak menggunakan yang macam­-macam, apa jeleknya?

Omongan orang bahwa Astana Giribangun itu dihias dengan emas segala, omong kosong. Tidak benar! Dilebih-lebihkan. Lihat sajalah sendiri. Yang benar, bangunan itu berlantaikan batu pualam dari Tulung Agung. Tentu saja kayu-kayunya pilihan, supaya kuat. Pintu-pintu di sana, yang dibuat dari besi, adalah karya pematung kita yang terkenal G. Sidharta. Alhasil, segalanya buatan bangsa sendiri.

Ibu mertua saya melakukan cangkulan pertama di Gunung Bangun yang tingginya 666 M di atas permukaan laut itu, pada hari Rabu Kliwon, 13 Dulkangidah jimakir 1906 atau 27 November 1974. Saya bersama istri sebagai pengurus Yayasan Mangadeg Surakarta meresmikan Astana Giribangun itu pada hari Jumat wage tanggal 26 Rejeb ehe 1908 atau 23 Juli 1976. Kebiasaan di Jawa mempergunakan candrasangkala. Maka kami terakan di sana sinengkalan: Rasa Suwung Wenganing Bumi (Rasa Ikhlas Membuka Bumi) waktu ibu melakukan cangkulan pertama itu, dan Ngesti Suwung Wenganing Bumi (Suasana Hening Membuka Bumi) waktu kami meresmikan makam keluarga Yayasan Mangadeg Surakarta itu.

Pada ketiga pintu untuk masuk ke dalam bangunan itu pun ada tulisan yang mengutip pucung, berisikan pegangan hidup yang sudah diajarkan nenek moyang kita secara turun-temurun. Yakni:

“hendaknya kita pandai-pandai menerima omongan orang yang menyakitkan tanpa harus sakit hati”, “ikhlas kehilangan tanpa menyesal”, dan “pasrah kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa”.

Tak jauh dari bangunan astana itu, lebih dahulu, pada tanggal 8 Juni 1971, sudah diresmikan monumen “Tridharma”, ajaran hidup bernegara yang sangat penting itu. Alhasil suasana di sana sesuai dengan lingkungannya.

Jadi, hendaknya dimaklumi bahwa kami membangun Astana Giribangun itu, kira-kira 37 Km dari Solo, untuk keluarga. Bahkan tidak hanya. untuk keluarga, pengurus Yayasan Mangadeg pun, bisa dimakamkan di sana. Tempat itu sudah dikapling, dan pengelolaannya diserahkan pada Yayasan Mangadeg Surakarta.

Kita yang masih hidup, wajib memikirkan keluarga yang sudah meninggal, seperti saya memikirkan ayah saya. Maka kami membangun makam untuk ayah, dan untuk ibu sekaligus. Di samping itu, saya pikir, baik saja kita berbuat begitu kalau kita tidak mau menyusahkan orang lain, tidak mau menyulitkan anak cucu kita. Dan di Jawa, memang biasa kita menyiapkan tempat sebelum meninggal. Kita menyadari bahwa besok lusa kita toh akan kembali.

Dihitung dari sejak labirnya “Supersemar” sampai tahun 1988 berarti saya memegang pucuk pimpinan sudah dua puluh dua tahun. Saya merenungkannya kembali. Selalu, sewaktu tugas apa pun yang diberikan kepada saya, saya mohon petunjuk kepada Tuhan. Alhamdulillah, sampai sekarang saya tidak merasa gagal dalam memegang dan melaksanakan tugas saya. Kalau ada yang kurang berhasil, maka lantas saya mupus, pasrah. Artinya, saya berpikir, barangkali memang kemampuan saya cuma sampai di situ.

Saya telah berusaha dan nyatanya, seperti yang saya libat dan pertimbangkan, usaha saya itu berhasil sesuai dengan kemampuan saya. Begitulah saya berpikir. Begitulah penilaian saya. Saya tak pernah merasa gagal. Tetapi kalau ada orang yang menilai lain mengenai hasil pekerjaan saya itu, saya serahkan kembali penilaiannya itu kepada yang bersangkutan.

Demikian perasaan dan pikiran saya sejak masa revolusi. Apa yang ditugaskan kepada saya, saya kerjakan dengan sebaik-baiknya, sambil memohon bimbingan dan petunjuk kepada Tuhan. Mengenai kesalahan, saya berpikir, “Siapa yang mengukur salah itu? Siapa yang menyalahkan?”

Sekarang, misalnya, pekerjaan sudah saya laksanakan, berjalan baik dan berhasil, menurut ukuran saya. Tetapi kalau ada orang lain yang melihat hasil pekerjaan saya itu dari segi yang lain, lalu menilai salah atau gagal, maka saya akan berkata, “Itu urusan mereka”.

Saya percaya, babwa apa yang saya kerjakan, setelah saya memohon petunjuk dan bimbingan-Nya, itu adalah hasil bimbingan Tuhan.

*

Di hari-hari belakangan ini saya merenungkan pengalaman saya yang sudah-sudah. Saya ditanya oleh Sekjen Muslim Spanyol, Mr.Alvaro Machardon Comins mengenai pengalaman yang paling melekat di hati saya sebagai seorang militer dan sebagai Presiden. Benar, pengalaman yang paling melekat di hati bagi saya ialah yang saya dapatkan semasa sebelum kemerdekaan, pada masa penjajahan.

Saya merasa beruntung karena memperoleh kesempatan memiliki ilmu-ilmu kemiliteran. Baik dalam zaman penjajahan tentara Belanda maupun dalam masa penjajahan tentara Jepang. Saya rasakan, ternyata ilmu-ilmu itu kemudian sangat berfaedah bagi saya dalam memberikan pengabdian saya kepada negara dan banngsa. Itu saya rasakan dalam memperjuangkan kemerdekaan Indonesia maupun dalam mempertahankan kemerdekaan dan melanjutkan cita-cita kemerdekaan.

Sebagai militer, sebagai anggota Tentara Nasional Indonesia, saya merasa terpanggil untuk menyumbangkan ilmu kemiliteran dan pengalaman saya itu sewaktu mempertahankan kemerdekaan, memenuhi pengabdian kepada negara dan bangsa yang telah diproklamasikan pada tanggal 17 Agutus 1945. Sebagai Presiden, saya hanya merasa, bahwa saya memperoleh kepercayaan dari rakyat. Karena itu, saya selalu ingin menghargai dan menghormati kepercayaan itu dengan bekerja sebaik mungkin.

Pengalaman saya sebelum menjadi Presiden, sewaktu saya menjadi seorang militer, terutama dalam masa perjuangan kemerdekaan, sewaktu saya memimpin perlawanan gerilya, melawan tentara penjajah yang memiliki senjata lebih lengkap, terkenang terus. Saya sadar waktu itu, saya merasa tidak bisa berbuat apa pun tanpa bantuan rakyat. Sehingga benar-benar saya merasakan betapa pentingnya memperoleh bantuan dan dukungan rakyat itu. Dengan adanya bantuan rakyat itu, maka saya bersama pasukan saya dapat melaksanakan tugas perlawanan gerilya dengan sebaik-baiknya.

Karena itu, saya selalu merasakan sampai menjadi pendirian bahwa saya berhutang budi kepada rakyat. Dan selalu saya ingin membalas budi kepada mereka. Saya berpikir, selama melaksanakan kepercayaan dari rakyat ini, sebagai Presiden, inilah kesempatan untuk membalas budi rakyat itu. Masa ini saya gunakan sebaik-baiknya untuk membalas budi kepada rakyat Indonesia yang 80% terdiri dari para petani.

*

Pendahulu-pendahulu kita, pahlawan-pahlawan kita, pejuang-­pejuang kita telah memberikan segala-galanya kepada kita semua sehingga kita sekarang telah lebih dari 40 tahun menjadi bangsa yang merdeka dan terhormat di tengah-tengah pergaulan masyarakat dunia. Dengan rasa tulus, saya, dan sepatutnya kita semua, menyampaikan rasa hormat sebesar-besarnya dan penghargaan yang setinggi-tingginya kepada mereka, pendahulu-pendahulu kita itu.

Sesungguhnya saya menyampaikan juga rasa hormat dan penghargaan itu kepada berjuta-juta warganegara Indonesia yang masih hidup sekarang dan yang telah mengambil bagian dalam perjuangan, baik dalam perjuangan yang berbentuk kemiliteran maupun dalam bidang pemikiran, ideologi, politik, diplomasi, ekonomi, kebudayaan, keagamaan, ilmu teknologi, dan seterusnya.

Dalam rangka kelanjutan perjuangan bangsa kita di masa depan, negara dan bangsa kita masih tetap mengharapkan pengabdian mereka, pengabdian kita semua, terlepas dari pertanyaan apakah kita telah tergolong purnawirawan atau pensiunan atau tidak. Seperti berulang kali saya katakan, bagi suatu bangsa pejuang tidak ada titik akhir perjuangan.

Seperti saya kemukakan, saya —dan sepantasnya kita semua—memberikan hormat kepada pendahulu-pendahulu kita. Semoga generasi-generasi yang akan datang pun mengucapkan terima kasih yang sama dalamnya dan sama tulusnya, sama dengan yang kita sampaikan kepada generasi-generasi pendahulu kita.

Kesempatan ini saya pergunakan lagi untuk menyalurkan isi hati saya yang utama. Keinginan saya yang utama adalah membangun masyarakat Pancasila yang menjaga keutuhan manusia, yang menjamin keseimbangan kemajuan lahir dan kedamaian batin, yang menjamin keseimbangan antara manusia dan masyarakat, yang menjamin keseimbangan antara manusia dengan lingkungan alam yang didiaminya, keseimbangan dalam mengejar kebahagiaan di dunia dan kebahagiaan di hari nanti.

*

Saya, sebagai manusia biasa, mempunyai keterbatasan. Baik fisik maupun psikis. Tentu saja pekerjaan-pekerjaan yang saya pikul itu sering terasa melelahkan. Akan tetapi saya merasa terhibur, karena saya merasa memperoleh kepercayaan rakyat.

Ingat, pada mulanya saya enggan menerima kedudukan sebagai Presiden. Maklumlah kiranya, tugas kepresidenan adalah pekerjaan yang berat. Tetapi akhirnya saya menerimanya juga, dan itu semata karena rakyat mendesak-desakkannya kepada saya, karena mereka menunjukkan kepercayaan kepada saya. Dibalik itu, saya berpikir, sebagai seorang warganegara yang baik, saya tidak boleh menghindarkan diri dari apa yang diharapkan oleh rakyat.

Maka saya berusaha melaksanakan kepercayaan rakyat itu dengan sebaik-baiknya. Apalagi kalau hasil-hasil pekerjaannya itu betul-betul bisa dinikmati oleh rakyat. Saya jadi gembira karenanya. Kelelahan saya seperti hilang dengan seketika. Nyatanya saya mendapat kepercayaan rakyat itu bukan sekali. Nyatanya saya terpilih menjadi Presiden penuh/Mandataris MPR itu lima kali sudah dan memikul tugas itu dengan kesungguhan.

Alhamdulillah, sekarang sistem yang bisa menjamin kelangsungan hidup negara dan bangsa sudah kita dapatkan. Terbukti diperlukan waktu berjuang dan bermufakat sampai 20 tahun untuk sampai pada titik menerima Pancasila sebagai satu-satunya asas. Tetapi bagaimanapun, kita berkesampaian. Rantai mekanisme kepemimpinan nasional sudah berhasil kita tentukan. Urutan GBHN sudah kita pastikan dari waktu ke waktu. Itulah warisan yang akan kita tinggalkan kepada generasi yang akan datang.

Generasi yang akan datang tidak perlu takut, tidak perlu khawatir, bahwa kita akan meninggalkan beban yang harus dipikul oleh mereka. Kita berusaha keras meninggalkan hal-hal yang baik. Cita-cita kita jelas, agar tercipta masyarakat yang adil dan makmur, “tata tentrem kerta raharja, gemah ripah loh jinawi tuwuh kang sarwa tinandur, murah kang sarwa tinuku,”. Marilah kita memberikan sumbangsih menurut kemampuan kita masing-masing.

Saya pun tahu, saya tidak luput dari kesalahan. Maka seperti berulang kali pernah saya katakan, di sini pun saya ulangi lagi, hendaknya orang lain mengikuti contoh-contoh yang baik yang telah saya berikan kepada nusa dan bangsa, dan menjauhi hal-hal yang buruk yang mungkin telah saya lakukan selama saya memikul tugas saya.

Berkenaan dengan pemindahan kekuasaan, sudah saya tunjukkan jalannya, yakni dengan cara damai dan menurut konstitusi, yang hendaknya terus berlaku untuk masa sekarang maupun untuk masa yang akan datang.

Kalau ditanya, apa wasiat saya kalau saya nanti pada waktunya dipanggil oleh Yang Maha Kuasa?

Wasiat saya, sebenarnya bukan wasiat saya sendiri, melainkan wasiat atau pesan kita bersama. Yakni, agar mereka yang sesudah kita benar-benar dapat menjamin kelangsungan hidup bangsa dan negara Republik Indonesia yang berdasarkan Pancasila ini. Saya pikir, yang penting adalah suatu pengelolaan Negara Republik Indonesia yang diproklamasikan pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945 sedemikian rupa sehingga cita-cita perjuangan bangsa kita benar-benar terlaksana dan tercapai dengan sebaik-baiknya.

Selama bangsa Indonesia tetap berpegang kepada Pancasila sebagai landasan idiilnya, dan UUD ’45 sebagai landasan konstitusinya, (dan tetap setia kepada cita-cita perjuangannya, ialah mencapai masyarakat adil dan makmur berdasarkan Pancasila), dengan sendirinya persatuan dan kesatuan bangsa itu akan bisa terwujud. Berpegang kepada kedua hal itu, cita-cita perjuangan sebagai bangsa yang tetap ingin merdeka, berdaulat, bisa hidup dalam kemakmuran dan keadilan, niscaya akan tercapai!

Insya Allah!

***


[1] Penuturan Presiden Soeharto, dikutip dari buku “Soeharto: Pikiran, Ucapan dan Tindakan Saya” yang ditulis G. Dwipayana dan Ramadhan KH, diterbitkan PT Citra Kharisma Bunda Jakarta tahun 1982, hlm 561-


I love you full eyang emoticon-Angkat Beer
Dede yusuf gosipnya anak pak harto
taik lah.. pantas dari mananya?? emoticon-DP
Quote:Original Posted By macfac
GREG SHERIDAN
Farewell to Jakarta's man of steel
Greg Sheridan
THE AUSTRALIAN
JANUARY 28, 2008 12:00AM

INDONESIA'S Suharto was an authentic giant of Asia, a nation-builder, a dictator, a changer of history.

He was also, for Australia, the most important and beneficial Asian leader in the entire period after World War II. This was once a widely held view among senior Australian policy-makers.

Former Labor prime minister Paul Keating frequently averred there was no country in the world more important to Australia than Indonesia.

He also, in interviews with me and many other forums, declared that Suharto's rise to power in Indonesia in the mid-1960s was the most fortunate strategic development for Australia since the end of World War II.

This was not only a Labor view. When Tim Fischer was deputy prime minister, he nominated Suharto as the man of the 20th century.

Keating and Fischer may have spoken with some characteristic overstatement, but the impulse behind their remarks was certainly right.


Suharto was a prime mover of history and his rule was of immeasurable benefit to Australia.

The messiness and tragedy of Suharto's last years in office make this an uncomfortable and unpopular judgment now. It is true, nonetheless.

It is hard to take the proper measure of Suharto.

The positives, too easily forgotten, are enormous. When Suharto took control of Indonesia in 1965, he defeated a botched pro-communist coup attempt.

Indonesia was then a broken backed country on the brink of famine and disintegration.

Inflation was running at 500 per cent. It had one of the largest communist parties in the world, at a time of dangerous communist expansion.

Its erratic leader, Sukarno, whom Suharto gradually deposed, had instructed Jakarta's malnourished residents to solve the city's vermin problem and their own hunger by eating the huge population of rats.

Indonesia was embroiled in a tense and dangerous military confrontation with Malaysia, in which Indonesian and Australian troops clashed in Borneo.

Suharto turned all this around, while consolidating his own power and the New Order regime he set up.

He turned over the running of the Indonesian economy to the so-called Berkley Mafia of Western-educated technocrat economists.

They did a brilliant job. The period 1965 to 1968 in Indonesia became a textbook case of how to bring hyper-inflation under control.

Suharto reoriented Indonesian foreign policy on to a stable and pro-Western path. He was crucial in the formation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 1967 and the overall stability of Southeast Asia. Later he was critical to every positive achievement of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum.

Australia's successful APEC diplomacy, especially under Keating, would have been impossible without Suharto.

The broader regional stability Suharto brought about was of incomparable importance to Australia.

It is difficult to imagine what Australia might have been like had Indonesia become a communist nation in the mid-1960s.

Everything we know of Southeast Asian development and success would have been absent from history, and tyranny and social failure on a massive scale would have replaced it.

Australia's defence budget over three decades might have been three or four times as high as it was. We could have developed as a fearful, isolated and perhaps even militaristic society.

This is all speculation, but a communist Indonesia would have fundamentally changed Australian history.

After stabilising Indonesia's economy, Suharto's team set about developing it.

The great agencies of development, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, regarded Indonesia in the 1970s and 80s as a model of the effective uses of international aid.

Millions of people were freed from poverty; Indonesia became self-sufficient in rice; a sizeable manufacturing economy grew up.

Most important of all, a middle class came into being.

There was, especially from the late 1980s, an important liberalising streak in Indonesia and the emergence of a genuine civil society.

Although Indonesia was never a democracy under Suharto, there was a wide degree of permissible discussion, by Southeast Asian standards a fairly liberal press, and many of the procedures of social consultation that characterise a democracy.

These trends continued up until about 1993 and if Suharto had retired and gone into retirement at that year's presidential election, or if illness had claimed him around then, he would now be hailed as one of the most successful nation builders the world has seen.

But, like so many others, he stayed too long.

It was not the least of the ironies of Suharto's demise that he was brought down by the middle class his economic liberalisation had created, especially the university students, in many cases the sons and daughters of officials in his own government.

The positives in Suharto's rule are easily forgotten, but the negatives were huge and undeniable as well.

The most important negative was a consistently poor record on human rights.

In the mass anti-communist killings of 1965, it is still not clear exactly what role the army played nor indeed precisely how much control Suharto, still struggling with Sukarno, had.

The savage and mostly Muslim initiated anti-communist violence was a cover for many unrelated violent actions. The army certainly wanted to suppress the communists, whom it believed had orchestrated the 1965 coup attempt, but the army was not responsible for much of the killing.

The worst, but by no means the only, human rights excess under Suharto occurred in East Timor, during and after its incorporation into Indonesia in 1975.

Suharto's rule had many other flaws. He was a strong president but a weak father.

Although Suharto himself lived modestly, he allowed his greedy children many state monopolies, which meant they could extract vast monopoly rents from the Indonesian economy.

More than anything, it was the corruption of Suharto's family that turned Indonesian opinion against him.

He also failed dismally in planning a proper succession strategy.

He even appointed the eccentric BJ Habibie as vice-president partly because he thought no one would want him as president.

This was related to a broader failure of his regime to develop state institutions with a significant grip on the society.

As Suharto became older, his rule became more personalised so that while a civil society did develop, Indonesian institutions remained anaemic and feeble.

Worst of all, perhaps, from about 1993, certainly by 1994, Suharto himself had turned definitively away from the liberalisation he had gradually allowed in the several previous years.

In 1994, a pivotal year, he closed down the prestigious Tempo magazine, and some others, in a sure sign of regime insecurity and clumsiness.

But there was infinite irony, and much tragedy, in the crisis that finally brought Suharto down.

In 1965, he had brought the Indonesian economy back almost from death by following orthodox Western economic advice.

In the 1997-98 Asian currency crisis, it was Suharto's willingness to put Indonesia on an IMF reform path, which, more than anything, was the immediate cause of his regime's collapse, whereas Mahathir Mohamad, in neighbouring Malaysia, defied the counter-productive IMF advice and prospered.

It was not, as some analysts thought, an unwillingness on Suharto's part to embrace the pain of the IMF reforms that did him in, but the foolishness and unreality of the IMF's prescriptions for Indonesia and the consequences of Suharto's genuine efforts to implement them.

The greatest testament to Suharto, however, is modern Indonesia. That Indonesia moved from more than three decades of Suharto's rule to the relatively stable and economically growing democracy it is today is of course a tribute to the Indonesian people.

It is also a tribute to the Indonesia that Suharto created, a modern, complex, diverse society with capable leaders and an intelligent outlook on the world.

There was good and bad in Suharto, good and bad in what he did. Undoubtedly, in producing a stable Indonesia, and therefore a stable Southeast Asia, Suharto bequeathed an inestimable gift to Australia.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/farewell-to-jakartas-man-of-steel/story-e6frg6v6-1111115412423


Kangen Eyang Harto emoticon-norose
Quote:Original Posted By Kokusan

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan


Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan


Anies Baswedan berkata: sifat dan perbuatan pendukung mencerminkan yg didukung.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Artinya, semua sifat dan perbuatan pendukung Jokowi ini cerminkan sifat asli Jokowi:

Anies Baswedan. Paramadina. Mendikbud. Ketika jadi capres pada konvensi Demokrat, kritik blusukan Jokowi sebagai sekedar pencitraan. Tapi setelah kalah, Anies Baswedan tidak tahu malu masuk timses dan memuji Jokowi cinta rakyat sambil hate speech kepada Prabowo-Hatta dgn insinuasikan Prabowo akan bunuh lawan politik dan minoritas bila terpilih jadi presiden.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

PDIP, pengusung Jokowi-JK, partai terkorup periode 2002 s.d. 2014 padahal oposisi:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Koruptor-koruptor besar di bawah ini adalah petinggi PDIP:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Luhut Binsar Panjaitan. Menkopolhukam. Berkata Aburizal Bakrie lebih hebat drpd Jokowi tapi malah dukung Jokowi yang dia ketahui tidak bisa apa-apa. Menurut Akbar Faisal, salah satu ring 1 timses Jokowi-JK, Luhut sedot data KPU dgn mesin canggih dari Amerika. Dari pembicaraan Riza Chalid dgn Maroef Sjamsoedin terungkap Luhut dalang #PapaMintaSaham.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Jusuf Kalla. Wapres Jokowi. Paham kepresidenan Jokowi akan hancurkan Indonesia tapi karena Jokowi lemah maka menurut Sabam Sirait, Jusuf Kalla bayar Rp. 10trilyun kepada PDIP sbg mahar cawapres. Jusuf Kalla juga bangga pernah bohongi Gus Dur dengan manfaatkan kebutaannya. Keluarga inti JK terungkap oleh Panama’s Papers miliki perusahaan offshore, antara lain: Solihin Kalla (anak), Ahmad Kalla (adik), Aksa Mahmud (adik ipar) dan Erwin Aksa (keponakan).

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Sofyan, Jusuf Wanandi dan CSIS. Sofyan tim Ahli Wapres JK. Menurut Pangkopkamtib Soemitro, Sofyan Wanandi danai kerusuhan Malari. Bill Tarrant, eks jurnalis asing Jakarta Post, ungkap koran milik CSIS, Jakarta Post danai demonstrasi besar tahun 1998 dan menurut temuan dokumen rusun tanah tinggi, Sofyan Wanandi, Jusuf Wanandi dan CSIS donatur serta konseptor gerakan makar dan anarkis jelang Soeharto jatuh. Sofyan Wanandi juga danai kerusuhan kudatuli:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

J. Kristiadi. Peneliti CSIS. Penjilat Jokowi yang tidak tahu malu. Thn 1998 ditugasi CSIS bayar miliaran kepada berbagai kelompok massa anti Soeharto seperti PRD dan Forum Komunikasi Mahasiswa Islam Jakarta untuk buat berbagai kerusuhan.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Saiful Mujani. Pemilik lembaga survey SMRC. Penjilat Jokowi. Survei buatannya tidak independen dan tidak layak dipercaya. Sering membuat survei positif palsu demi untungkan citra Jokowi. Pada saat kampanye pilpres 2014 mengaku lakukan politik uang supaya warga memilih Jokowi.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Adi D. Sastrawidjaja dan Iman Brotoseno. Yang satu desainer politik abal-abal dengan kualitas sampah. Yang lain communist-wannabe dan sutradara sampah. Kesamaan keduanya: penjilat Jokowi dan fitnah Andi Arief, kritikus Jokowi, pernah perkosa pembantu di Kontras dan ditampar Munir.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Wiranto. Dalang Kerusuhan Mei dan bantai rakyat TimTim pasca jajak pendapat. PBB keluarkan surat tangkap Wiranto. Wiranto juga terlibat operasi kuningan untuk fitnah Prabowo atas huru-hara 1998.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Agum Gumelar, Subagio Hadisiswoyo, Fachrul Razi, Yusuf Kartanegara dan Wiranto buat Operasi Kuningan. Dalam sebuah rapat, Agum Gumelar usul ciptaka dalang kerusuhan mei dan penangkapan aktivis dengan ciptakan alibi berupa kepergian sejumlah perwira TNI ke Malang tanggal 12 Mei 1998 untuk fitnah Prabowo. Subagio Hadisiswoyo (Wantimpres Jokowi-JK dari Hanura) juga usulkan fitnah Prabowo. Fachrul Rozi usul dibentuk Dewan Kehormatan Perwira tanpa Mahkamah Militer untuk pecat Prabowo sehingga tercipta opini Prabowo dalang kerusuhan, penangkapan aktivis dan kudeta Presiden Habibie. Terakhir Wiranto perintahkan 13 aktivis dalam kendali Pangkoops Jaya segera di”sukabumikan”.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Surya Paloh. Pemilik Metro TV larang Sandrina Malakiano berjilbab. Nama Surya Paloh disebut dalam dokumen bom tanah tinggi sebagai kolaborator yg bertugas perkeruh suasana NKRI dgn Media Indonesia. Mafia migas baru via jaringan Sonangol. Terlibat penuh dalam kasus penyuapan Gubernur Sumut. Berkali-kali bohong: mengatakan nasdem tidak akan jadi partai. mengatakan proyek dengan sonangol adalah pembeliaan ke pemilik migas langsung padahal sonangol adalah perusahaan migas milik Sam Pa, kawan bisnis Surya Paloh sejak lama dan lain sebagainya.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Budi Gunawan. Polisi aktif. Menurut Trimedya Panjaitan, yang pernah tertangkap basah bertemu BG di restoran sate khas senayan pada saat pilpres sehingga langgar kewajiban sebagai anggota polri untuk netral, BG anggota timses Jokowi-JK dan penyusun nawacita khususnya bidang politik dan hukum. Sebagai hadiah, Jokowi berikan jabatan wakapolri kepada BG setelah hadiah kapolri ditolak masyarakat:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

PDIP, partai penipu yang tidak layak dipercaya:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Ade Armando. Paramadina. Anti Islam dan usulkan semua Umat Islam tidak jalankan Rukun Islam Kelima, yaitu naik haji:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Muhaimin Iskandar. Tusuk Gus Dur, paman sendiri dari belakang dengan rebut PKB. Hianati Mahfud MD dan Rhoma Irama. Berdasarkan Putusan Tipikor a/n Sudarso dan Syafrudin, keduanya pegawai Kemenakertrans pada era Muhaimin Iskandar, ditemukan Cak Imin korupsi Rp. 400.000.000,00.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Zulkifli Hasan. eks menteri kehutanan era SBY-Budiono. Terlibat korupsi izin kehutanan Gubernur Riau Annas Maamun. Ketika menjadi Ketua MPR kasus korupsinya dikorek pemerintah. Takut dipenjara, Zulkifli Hasan hianati KMP dgn kasak-kusuk bawa PAN dukung Jokowi jauh sebelum rakernas PAN dan pdkt ke Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Agung Laksono (Golkar) dan Romi (PPP). Penghianat (kuda troya saat pilpres 2014). Penjilat kekuasaan. Rusak partai masing2 demi jabatan via munas palsu. Tidak hormati putusan pengadilan yang sahkan kubu lawan. Patut diduga Romi dalang insiden bom molotov di tablig akbar PPP kubu Djan Faridz seperti saat Agung Laksono gunakan preman untuk rebut kantor Golkar dan ruang anggota DPR.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Hendropriyono dan Sutiyoso. Jagal pembunuh rakyat. Bersama Assad dan Muchdi Pr (pendukung Jokowi-JK), Hendropriyono bunuh Munir dan Talangsari. Sedangkan Sutiyoso bunuh Balibo 5, wartawan Australia di Timor Leste:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Franz Magnis Suseno. Provokator dan hobi adu domba. Dgn Alwi Shihab hate speech di Katedral jelekan Prabowo. Ungkap rencana kubu Jokowi bila kalah akan lakukan kerusuhan besar.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Teten Masduki, Kepala Staf Kepresidenan. Lecehkan Lambang Negara:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Masinton Pasaribu, anggota DPR Fraksi PDIP aniaya asisten pribadi:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Aldian Napitupulu anggota DPR Fraksi PDIP makan gaji buta dan tidur saat rapat di DPR:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Goenawan Mohamad. Anak didik agen CIA Ivan Kats. Terima dana asing demi selaraskan kepentingan Indonesia dgn kepentingan Amerika. Tersangkut korupsi dana kontingen Indonesia di Frankrurt Book Fair 2015 senilai ratusan miliar. Lolos dari jerat hukum krn pengaruhnya thd Jokowi:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Tempo, majalah GM terkenal kerap fitnah objek pemberitaan dan majalah penipu:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Semua jurnalis dan media massa pendukung Jokowi pro-zionis yg genosida rakyat Palestina.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Puan Maharani habiskan miliaran Rupiah unt website Revolusi Mental busuk, murahan dan gampang down. Suruh rakyat miskin atasi krisis ekonomi dengan tidak makan.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Rini Soemarno, Menteri BUMN. Mafia Migas. Menurut Panama’s Papers, Rini Soemarno pny perusahaan offshore. Terdakwa kasus korupsi di RRC, Ji Wenlin ungkap sogok Menteri BUMN Rini Soemarno sebesar USD 5juta unt kereta cepat.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Yasonna Laoly, Menkumham NasDem terlibat pelemahan KPK dan oposisi (Golkar dan PPP):

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Damayanti Wisnoe Putranti, anggota DPR fraksi PDIP tertangkap KPK terima suap dari timses Jokowi-JK:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Semua pendukung Jokowi anti demokrasi dan HAM yang akan serang kritikus Jokowi secara anarkis.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Megawati “Jaman Bapak-ku” Soekarnoputri, Ketua Abadi PDIP. Mau habisi KPK. Menurut Rachmawati Soekarnoputri, Mega anak didik Benny Moerdani untuk turunkan Soeharto. Menurut RO Tambunan, Mega tahu akan ada serangan terhadap Markas PDI dari Benny Moerdani tp sengaja biarkan agar anak buahnya terbunuh dan tercipta kebencian kepada Soeharto sekaligus simpati pada Megawati:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Sudirman Said, Menteri ESDM, menjual Indonesia kepada Freeport:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Semua "relawan Jokowi" adalah pengemis harta dan jabatan:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Indra Bekti, gay, selingkuhi istrinya dengan aktor2 pendatang baru:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Waria/LGBT mendukung Jokowi-JK saat pilpres 2014:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Slank: pemakai narkoba, pelaku seks bebas, dan gambaran manusia yang hidup gak sehat dgn ginjal Abdee tinggal 1%. Ibarat kata cuma nunggu kencan dgn sakratul maut.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Michael Bimo Putranto, timses Jokowi sejak di Solo. Koruptor kasus bus transjakarta cina:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Nikita Mirzani, tertangkap polres jaksel berprofesi sebagai wanita tuna susila:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Ahok. Koruptor besar tapi munafik dan tukang bohong. Akui dia Gubernur Agung Podomoro krn miliki kedekatan dgn perusahaan tsb. Hampir semua posko Teman Ahok bertempat di mal-mal dan properti Agung Podomoro. Sebagai gantinya, Ahok dukung proyek reklamasi pantura yg ditolak pemerintah pusat karena cemari lingkungan. Ahok terlibat kasus suap ke DPRD unt muluskan Raperda Zonasi wilayah pesisir dan pulau-pulau kecil provinsi Jakarta dan raperda rencana kawasan strategis pantura. Juga terlibat korupsi sumber waras yg rugikan negara sebesar Rp. 775miliar.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Ivan Haz, anak Hamzah Haz, pendukung Jokowi saat pilpres, aniaya pembantu sambil sebut dirinya anak mantan Wapres (era Megawati Soekarnoputri):

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Banyu Biru, relawan Jokowi-JK. Intel partikelir yang memamerkan SK pengangkatannya sebagai anggota BIN di sosmed:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Imam Nahrowi dari PKB, Menpora. Tutup dan fitnah PSSI kandang koruptor. Bunuh ribuan pemain, keluarga pemain dan stakeholders (pedagang apparels, pekerja stadion dan lain sebagainya). tapi tidak tahu malu rayakan kemenangan timnas Indonesia padahal timnas hasil didikan PSSI.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Tri Rismaharini, walikota Surabaya dari PDIP. Tersangka kasus pasar turi, tp PDIP yg ruling party menekan polisi dan kejaksaan demi batalkan penetapan tersangka Risma. Selain itu Risma juga tidak sopan karena tidak menerima tamu dari pemprov Bandung.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Dewi Yasin Limpo, anggota DPR Fraksi Hanura, tertangkap KPK karena kasus korupsi:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Marwan Jaffar, Menteri Desa, terlambat datang ke bandara lalu ditinggal Garuda Indonesia, malah mewek kemana-mana dan menuntut Direksi Garuda diganti:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Joko Anwar, sutradara dan pemain film gak laku. Caper dan mati-matian dukung Jokowi. Tuding hadis Nabi Muhammad dari Tifatul Sembiring tentang LGBT adalah hate speech:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Wanda Hamidah. Aktivis palsu. Ramal Prabowo akan bungkam demokrasi dan krn itu dukung Jokowi. Ternyata skrg Jokowi bredel website media online; bungkam Y. Paonganan dgn masukan ke penjara tanpa pengadilan; buat SE Hate Speech unt bunuh hak berpendapat dan tutup tumblr serta ancam tutup twitter, facebook dan google:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Ernest Prakasa, rasis, gunakan kecinaan sebagai bahan lawakan tidak lucu. Adu domba dan provokasi pertikaian vertikal seolah dizalimi pribumi. Anti Islam dan bangga injak foto pemuka agama Islam bernama Anis Matta, yang juga petinggi partai Islam PKS:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Wimar Witoelar. Anti Islam. Samakan pemuka agama Islam seperti AA Gym dengan teroris seperti Imam Samudra, Osama Bin Laden dll:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Fadjroel Rahman. Gila jabatan. Zaman SBY kritik habis2an pemerintahan SBY. Jaman Jokowi karena dibungkam jabatan, Fadjroel diam saat hutang Indonesia meledak (dua kali lipat hutang Indonesia era soekarno - sby) dan perilaku bermewah2 Jokowi dan pendukungnya menggunakan hutang itu:

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Rizal Ramli, aktivis mahasiswa sejak Orde Baru. Selain bikin rusuh dan ribut tidak memiliki prestasi selama menjadi menteri kabinet Jokowi.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Edhy Tedjo. Eks Menkopolhukam. Nasdem. Sebut rakyat pendukung KPK sebagai rakyat tidak jelas.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Kartika Djoemadi. Paramadina. Ketua JASMEV, pasukan dunia maya pendukung Jokowi yang akan bully siapa saja yang kritik Jokowi. Penipu besar. Ngaku-ngaku bergelar PHD tp bodong. Ngaku muslimah demi susupi Muhammadiyah tp Katolik. Fitnah disertasi Marrisa Haque di Program S3 IPB buatan orang. Provokator keributan antara Addie MS dengan Marissa Haque demi naikin nama dia.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Addie MS. Anti pendidikan formal. Menurut Marissa Haque, dia mantan pecandu zat adiktif yang bermulut perempuan dan iri pada gelar doktor Marissa Haque. Addie MS dukung reklamasi koruptor Agung Sedayu dan Agung Podomoro walau bunuh nelayan hanya karena “dekat” dengan Sugianto Kusuma alias Aguan, boss Sembilan Naga.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Rusdi Kirana. PKB. Boss Lion Air, maskapai paling buruk di Indonesia. Krn Rusdi Kirana Wantimpres maka Lion Air tidak dihukum Kementerian Perhubungan terkait berbagai kecelakaan dan keterlambatan. Sukses rebut 21 hektar tanah milik TNI AU di Bandara Halim Perdanakusuma. Menurut Panama’s Papers, Rusdi Kirana memiliki perusahaan offshore.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Ignatius Jonan. Tegas pada Air Asia tapi takut Lion Air milik Wantimpres Rusdi Kirana.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Jan Darmadi. Raja Judi. Wantimpres dari Nasdem. Terlibat kasus mega korupsi Sumber Waras dan pelindung Ahok dari jeratan hukum.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Yuddy Chrisnandi. Hanura. Bohongi para guru honorer dan ingkar janji untuk angkat mereka jadi PNS. Bungkam pengkritik dgn kirim ke penjara. Pembuat kebijakan pencitraan plintat-plintut. Nepotis dalam milih pejabat kementeriannya.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Ariesman Widjaja, Presdir Agung Podomoro, salah satu cukong Jokowi, ditangkap KPK krn suap Sanusi (DPRD DKI) untuk muluskan proyek reklamasi Jakarta.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Wahyu Dewanto. Hanura. Terlibat korupsi. Tertangkap basah minta fasilitas dan akomodasi saat berlibur dengan keluarga di luar negeri.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Partai Keadilan Sejahtera. Demi jilat Jokowi-JK, pecat kader terbaik: Fahri Hamzah lalu sengaja sebar hasilnya jelang reshuffle kabinet.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Susi Pudjiastuti. Tidak bertata krama. Merokok di mana saja, termasuk di KRI Barakuda dan Istana Negara. Demi pencitraan bunuh ribuan nelayan dan industri perikanan. Sok gahar tenggelamkan kapal nelayan ilegal. Krn kebijakan ultra-agresif ini, TNI AL tembaki kapal Taiwan yg melintas secara sah.

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan

Ulin Yusron. Aktivis palsu dan penjilat kekuasaan. Konon kabur paling cepat saat kudatuli

Soeharto Pantas Jadi Pahlawan


Quote:Original Posted By macfac
GREG SHERIDAN
Farewell to Jakarta's man of steel
Greg Sheridan
THE AUSTRALIAN
JANUARY 28, 2008 12:00AM

INDONESIA'S Suharto was an authentic giant of Asia, a nation-builder, a dictator, a changer of history.

He was also, for Australia, the most important and beneficial Asian leader in the entire period after World War II. This was once a widely held view among senior Australian policy-makers.

Former Labor prime minister Paul Keating frequently averred there was no country in the world more important to Australia than Indonesia.

He also, in interviews with me and many other forums, declared that Suharto's rise to power in Indonesia in the mid-1960s was the most fortunate strategic development for Australia since the end of World War II.

This was not only a Labor view. When Tim Fischer was deputy prime minister, he nominated Suharto as the man of the 20th century.

Keating and Fischer may have spoken with some characteristic overstatement, but the impulse behind their remarks was certainly right.

Suharto was a prime mover of history and his rule was of immeasurable benefit to Australia.

The messiness and tragedy of Suharto's last years in office make this an uncomfortable and unpopular judgment now. It is true, nonetheless.

It is hard to take the proper measure of Suharto.

The positives, too easily forgotten, are enormous. When Suharto took control of Indonesia in 1965, he defeated a botched pro-communist coup attempt.

Indonesia was then a broken backed country on the brink of famine and disintegration.

Inflation was running at 500 per cent. It had one of the largest communist parties in the world, at a time of dangerous communist expansion.

Its erratic leader, Sukarno, whom Suharto gradually deposed, had instructed Jakarta's malnourished residents to solve the city's vermin problem and their own hunger by eating the huge population of rats.

Indonesia was embroiled in a tense and dangerous military confrontation with Malaysia, in which Indonesian and Australian troops clashed in Borneo.

Suharto turned all this around, while consolidating his own power and the New Order regime he set up.

He turned over the running of the Indonesian economy to the so-called Berkley Mafia of Western-educated technocrat economists.

They did a brilliant job. The period 1965 to 1968 in Indonesia became a textbook case of how to bring hyper-inflation under control.

Suharto reoriented Indonesian foreign policy on to a stable and pro-Western path. He was crucial in the formation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in 1967 and the overall stability of Southeast Asia. Later he was critical to every positive achievement of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum.

Australia's successful APEC diplomacy, especially under Keating, would have been impossible without Suharto.

The broader regional stability Suharto brought about was of incomparable importance to Australia.

It is difficult to imagine what Australia might have been like had Indonesia become a communist nation in the mid-1960s.

Everything we know of Southeast Asian development and success would have been absent from history, and tyranny and social failure on a massive scale would have replaced it.

Australia's defence budget over three decades might have been three or four times as high as it was. We could have developed as a fearful, isolated and perhaps even militaristic society.

This is all speculation, but a communist Indonesia would have fundamentally changed Australian history.

After stabilising Indonesia's economy, Suharto's team set about developing it.

The great agencies of development, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, regarded Indonesia in the 1970s and 80s as a model of the effective uses of international aid.

Millions of people were freed from poverty; Indonesia became self-sufficient in rice; a sizeable manufacturing economy grew up.

Most important of all, a middle class came into being.

There was, especially from the late 1980s, an important liberalising streak in Indonesia and the emergence of a genuine civil society.

Although Indonesia was never a democracy under Suharto, there was a wide degree of permissible discussion, by Southeast Asian standards a fairly liberal press, and many of the procedures of social consultation that characterise a democracy.

These trends continued up until about 1993 and if Suharto had retired and gone into retirement at that year's presidential election, or if illness had claimed him around then, he would now be hailed as one of the most successful nation builders the world has seen.

But, like so many others, he stayed too long.

It was not the least of the ironies of Suharto's demise that he was brought down by the middle class his economic liberalisation had created, especially the university students, in many cases the sons and daughters of officials in his own government.

The positives in Suharto's rule are easily forgotten, but the negatives were huge and undeniable as well.

The most important negative was a consistently poor record on human rights.

In the mass anti-communist killings of 1965, it is still not clear exactly what role the army played nor indeed precisely how much control Suharto, still struggling with Sukarno, had.

The savage and mostly Muslim initiated anti-communist violence was a cover for many unrelated violent actions. The army certainly wanted to suppress the communists, whom it believed had orchestrated the 1965 coup attempt, but the army was not responsible for much of the killing.

The worst, but by no means the only, human rights excess under Suharto occurred in East Timor, during and after its incorporation into Indonesia in 1975.

Suharto's rule had many other flaws. He was a strong president but a weak father.

Although Suharto himself lived modestly, he allowed his greedy children many state monopolies, which meant they could extract vast monopoly rents from the Indonesian economy.

More than anything, it was the corruption of Suharto's family that turned Indonesian opinion against him.

He also failed dismally in planning a proper succession strategy.

He even appointed the eccentric BJ Habibie as vice-president partly because he thought no one would want him as president.

This was related to a broader failure of his regime to develop state institutions with a significant grip on the society.

As Suharto became older, his rule became more personalised so that while a civil society did develop, Indonesian institutions remained anaemic and feeble.

Worst of all, perhaps, from about 1993, certainly by 1994, Suharto himself had turned definitively away from the liberalisation he had gradually allowed in the several previous years.

In 1994, a pivotal year, he closed down the prestigious Tempo magazine, and some others, in a sure sign of regime insecurity and clumsiness.

But there was infinite irony, and much tragedy, in the crisis that finally brought Suharto down.

In 1965, he had brought the Indonesian economy back almost from death by following orthodox Western economic advice.

In the 1997-98 Asian currency crisis, it was Suharto's willingness to put Indonesia on an IMF reform path, which, more than anything, was the immediate cause of his regime's collapse, whereas Mahathir Mohamad, in neighbouring Malaysia, defied the counter-productive IMF advice and prospered.

It was not, as some analysts thought, an unwillingness on Suharto's part to embrace the pain of the IMF reforms that did him in, but the foolishness and unreality of the IMF's prescriptions for Indonesia and the consequences of Suharto's genuine efforts to implement them.

The greatest testament to Suharto, however, is modern Indonesia. That Indonesia moved from more than three decades of Suharto's rule to the relatively stable and economically growing democracy it is today is of course a tribute to the Indonesian people.

It is also a tribute to the Indonesia that Suharto created, a modern, complex, diverse society with capable leaders and an intelligent outlook on the world.

There was good and bad in Suharto, good and bad in what he did. Undoubtedly, in producing a stable Indonesia, and therefore a stable Southeast Asia, Suharto bequeathed an inestimable gift to Australia.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/farewell-to-jakartas-man-of-steel/story-e6frg6v6-1111115412423


Semua pemimpin negara sahabat yang mengenal Pak Harto mencintai Pak Harto emoticon-Angkat Beer
dewa koruptor jd pahlawan???
×