Posted on by Kit

Suharto’s Exit: The End of the Era of Asia’s Strongmen?

By Farish A. Noor

There are strongmen, and then again there are really strong strongmen. Indonesia’s former President Suharto falls into the latter category and though the man was finally deposed after waves of student demonstrations that rocked Indonesia in May 1998, he remains – despite his ailing health – firmly planted on the map of Indonesian and Southeast Asia’s regional politics til now.

Observers of Indonesian politics have already put their pens to paper and have begun to write the obituary to what has to be one of the most important (if not notorious) and enigmatic of Asia’s leaders of the 20th century. Indeed, so long and extensive was Suharto’s period of rule in Indonesia that the man has been elevated to the level of a national icon, seen as a hero for some and as one of the most brutal dictators the world has ever seen by others. Suharto’s imminent passing marks the end of an era, a period that spanned the second half of the 20th century in the wake of the Second World War and the Cold War the quickly followed suit.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that with the passing of Suharto the age of strongmen-politics will come to an end. Suharto’s own record and personal life story reads as an epic tale of the small man made good, of the poor peasant boy who was at the right place at the right time and consequently was picked by History to play a crucial part in the drama of nations.

Born in 1921 in a humble village in Central Java that was even then teeming with an overcrowded population suffering from illiteracy, poverty and lack of development, he joined the Dutch colonial army just when the star of Dutch colonial rule was waning and the Japanese were about to occupy the country. Suharto’s military career then took off under Japanese military rule where he learned fast enough how men in uniform could run a country and reduce civilian politicians to pen-pushers and redundant rubber stamps. He also earned his stripes by fighting against the Dutch in the independence war of the mid-1940s, and made his name as one of the young nationalist-patriots of his time, very much in the same mould as Aung San, father of the Burma’s Aung San Su Kyi, who was likewise a Japanese-trained military man and nationalist.

But Suharto’s moment only arrived when it became clear that Sukarno’s ailing government and his feeble attempts at introducing what was then termed ‘guided democracy’ had failed in Indonesia. Following the failure of the 1965 coup, Sukarno unleashed the army and senior officers like Suharto (then
commander of KONSTRAD, the Indonesian army’s special forces) on the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI). The anti-communist purges that followed were the bloodiest massacres in Indonesian history, with anything between half a million to one million people killed in the name of anti-Communism.

What was clear from the time that Suharto really took over power in 1970, however, was that the ‘New Order’ he instituted after Sukarno’s disgraceful downfall was supported, financed, trained and protected by none other than Indonesia’s new strategic ally, the United States of America. Successive American Presidents like Lyndon Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon and Jimmy Carter spoke about human rights and democracy in their struggle to discredit the Soviet Union then, but the same standards were not applied in many an American allied state such as Indonesia, Philippines and South Vietnam. This was the era of Asia’s strongmen: Indonesia’s Suharto, the Philippines’ Ferdinand Marcos and even Vietnam’s Bao Dai were propped up by their friends and allies in Washington and while the struggle against Communism was being fought in the jungles of Southeast Asia, scant regard was paid to the plight of those who were the victims of these military regimes.

The end of the Cold War marked the end of these strongmen, for the game was up and as Eastern Europe was brought into the fold of the Free Market it became less and less palatable for Western heads of states to dine and chat with Asian and African mass-murderers and tyrants. Suharto’s fall in 1998 during the East Asian economic crisis marked the final chapter of a long and
painful history where such great and powerful men were made all the greater (and consequently dangerous) thanks to the weapons and military training given to them and their counterparts at army bases such as Fort Bragg in the
USA.

Today as the Bush Presidency winds down to an abysmal flop and the last futile gestures of appeasement are made by Bush to the leaders of the Arab world, the pitiful story of the rise and fall of Suharto serves as a timely corrective reminder of the mistakes of the 20th century. Sadly as recent developments have shown in places such as Lebanon, many Western governments remain on the look-out for local strongmen whom they can call their loyal
boys and dogsbodies. Yet for all the economic prosperity that Suharto brought to Indonesia in the 1980s, the country remained one of the most unevenly-developed, corrupt and violent in the world. A minority of Indonesians lamented the fall of Suharto in 1998 and were worried about the power vacuum that was created in his absence, but that precisely proves the point that such dictatorial rule only cripples and hobbles a nation in the
long run. Suharto was and remains one of the most historically important figures of Asia in the 20th century, but like all great men he leaves in his trail a long shadow that shrouded the rest of his nation in darkness.

42 Replies to “Suharto’s Exit: The End of the Era of Asia’s Strongmen?”

  1. But this old cougar still not willing to let go…

    Give me more time to deliver what I have promised, said Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. In asking the people for a fresh mandate, the Prime Minister said his Government was just in the process of implementing almost all the programmes it promised. The programmes would take years to show results, he said.
    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/1/23/nation/20097339&sec=nation

  4. can we offer our beloved Pak Lah to drive Indonesia into next era… :-)

    i trust Suharto had done some good things in the past… even his government are corrupted but the economy is growing prosperous… similar to TDM…

    but what happen now… Indonesia grow faster…

    GDP…………2006…….2007
    Indonesia…364,239…410,317 = 12.65%
    Malaysia….150,923…164,970 = 9.3%

    like DSAI said, last time Malaysia in par with Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan or Hong Kong… now, dont have this song liao… :-)

  6. Firstly, Lee Kuan Yew is still around, so I won’t put much stock about end of strongmen. It just have to change to one more charismatic – with power to capture imagination – good looking, young, hip a la Obama or Bill Clinton. KJ wants to be Lee Kuan Yew and he has a chance frankly. So long as NEP and Islamic state agenda is around, the Malays will want strongmen

  7. Why the undemocratic political system in Singapore, dynasty culture, media control,….etc., is not mentioned? Why everyone keeps on praising Singapore? Does it mean that prosperity can replace democracy and freedom of speech?

  8. I remember telling many people about students demonstrations. In Malaysia, it is too “easy” for Pak Lah or in the past, Dr. M. When the Malays students are going out for demo, tell them how stupid they are. See, the Chinese are studying hard and grab all your jobs while you are at the street. When the Chinese are going out alone, tell the Malays that if they let the Chinese do it that way, their ketuanan Melayu will be gone forever. When both Chinese and Malays are united, just catch only the Chinese, and tell them they are idiots fighting alongside with the Malays.

    Yes, in the past, we were on par with Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Now, we have to use Ghana for comparison. Next, Zimbabwe?

  9. “…Why everyone keeps on praising Singapore? Does it mean that prosperity can replace democracy and freedom of speech?” pulau sibu
    ——————————-
    I would agree with you that Singapore still has a long way to go in term of democracy and freedom of speech. However, you must also give credit when credit is due. Singapore deserves praise for her world-class education, independent judiciary, equal opportunities for all races, and efficient government. You may not like Singapore but you cannot deny her international standing among the first world countries in term of least corrupt country, economic freedom and GDP per capital.

    The 2006 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, Singapore ranked the fifth least corrupt countries among 180 countries included in the survey.

    The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal ranked Singapore 2nd place after Hong Kong in the 14th annual Index of Economic Freedom released on Jan 15th, 2008.

    IMF data on GDP per capital for the year 2006, Singapore ranked 17th in the world.

  11. Good riddance to bad rubbish!

    This man Suharto has failed many many millions of Indonesians of multiple ethnic groups. He failed to unite them, he failed to narrow the poverty gap and he almost destroyed the chinese culture by putting many restrictions in preservation of the chinese culture in Indonesia.

    The only thing he did was amassing lots and lots of wealth for his family, the rest is not important to him. He is nothing compare to the other great leaders in Asia. Only our beloved old man Lee kUan Yew deserves higher recognition.

    I can only hope that God forgive him for all his misdeeds during his passing. God bless his soul and stregthened the spirits of the Indonesians to continue building their nation into a strong force to be reckoned with. Don’t forget, they have the human resources in plenty.

    God save Indonesia………………..and Malaysia too!

  12. There is strong evidence of Suharto’s involvement in the 1997/8 race riots, murders, rapes, looting and burning of churches and shops. I spoke to witnesses who saw Suharto’s men coming down military helicopters dressed in civilian clothes in the middle of the night to participate in the public killings and looting which allowed Suharto to strengthen his grip over a nation fast imploding. Thousands of ethnic Chinese were murdered, raped and tortured. Thousands more fled the country.

    Would Indonesia have fared better under Sukarno (a nationalist and civilian and engineer by profession) then Suharto (a soldier by profession and a trusted lieutenant of the President)? Would Indonesia under Sukarno have gone communist? Did the Army murder Aidit, leader of Partai Komunis Indonesia or PKI whose body was never found?

    Whatever Indonesia is or has become it is hardly a model for countries like Malaysia to follow.

  13. Did Farish A. Noor say Indonesia is a model for Malaysia to follow? Far from it.

    However, it is premature to me to say that the era of strongmen politics is over in Asia. One just has to look at Myanmar and North Korea. Besides, many countries, though in name a democracy, are essentially opaquely ran and managed. I think the examples are too many for us to see.

  16. I see you’re back to your usual irritating and annoying self, confrontational and abrasive! Posters here are not interested in hearing about your opinions on commentators.

    Please limit the debate to issues raised and stop littering the blog with personal remarks on commentators. The number of deletions your postings suffered should be a clue to what the moderator thinks about your ‘contribution’.

    Please stop insulting posters.

  17. I don’t talk to people who have no sense of fairness and yet day in and day out talking about it here. It makes my hair stands on end. Imagine you fellows are judges! I would very much prefer those Lingam lobbied.

  18. According to Time magazine, Suharto & family amassed a total US $40 billions in dirty monies from the nation during his reign. So far Time magazine stood by their statement and ready to be sued if it is wrong. In order words, all wealth of 9 top world leaders who are corrupted could not beat Suharto.

  19. “I don’t talk to people who have no sense of fairness …” limkamput

    Law is not about fairness but about justice. Why is it that I’m not surprised that you’re unable to see the difference??

  20. “According to Time magazine, Suharto & family amassed a total US $40 billions in dirty monies from the nation during his reign..” mickey

    What good are your millions when you’re about to meet your Maker?

  21. LET US LOOK INTO OUR VICIOUS SUHARTOS IN THIS COUNTRY WHICH NEED SERIOUS CONTEMPLATION.

    THAT FELLA IS ALREADY, ” HIDUP TERSEKSA, MATI TAK MAU ” AND ACCORDING TO SOME SHAMANS, HE IS SURROUNDED BY TALISMANS AND SPIRITS ETC WHICH IS PREVENTING HIM FROM DYING.

    WHAT A TORTURE ??????

    THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO US IF WE THINK THAT WE ARE ALL POWERFUL, ARROGANT AND NO ONE, EVEN GOD CAN TOUCH US.

    GOOD EXAMPLE OF EARTHLY TORTURE

  22. “What good are your millions when you’re about to meet your Maker?”

    Oh, don’t ask yourself; ask Suharto and his family members.

    “Law is not about fairness but about justice”.

    Why must you use whatever little you know so blatantly. Is this the only thing you know? Ya, we should have unfair justice or unjust fairness, which you people by now are notorious for your oxy-m arguments.

  23. Suharto who was the real creator of the “Communist Treachery”! Of course by his own ability, this movement would never be accomplished, this good-dog was backed by United States, United Kingdom and Australia.

    This is the recent minor declassified materials from Australia, Sidney Morning Herald.
    http://hornbillfriendship.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=368&Itemid=1

    another source: http://www.wehoo.net/dispbbs.asp?boardid=12&id=134

  25. limkamput,

    You don’t need to rough up Godam Singh who may not be legally trained but I am. But he’s right the two concepts may not overlap and here’s why.

    If you’re the thief who steals YB Kit’s old Mercedes parked in Kg. Attap, in KL and an unsuspecting Godam Singh buys it from you limkamput the thief, in good faith for value and without notice that limkamput the thief has in fact stolen that car, does Godam get a good title? Answer: Yes.

    Godam Singh then sells it to another unsuspecting buyer, Jeffrey who pays full value for it and without notice that it had been stolen, does Jeffrey get a good title? Answer: Yes.

    Then YB Kit who is Jeffrey’s neighbor notices that the car parked in front of Jeffrey’s house is in fact his (YB Kit’s) car and wants to claim the car from Jeffrey. Can he legally do so? Answer: No.

    Why not? It is not fair. It is after all YB Kit’s car that was earlier stolen when parked in Kg. Attap where pimps roamed.

    So to summarize, we have limkamput who is the pimp lurking in the shadows of Kg. Attap who stole YB Kit’s old Mercedes and sold it to Godam Singh the unsuspecting buyer who paid full value for it. Limkamput, the part time pimp and part time car thief then ran back to his hole he called home to count the proceeds of his crime.

    Is it fair?

    I’m not referring to limkamput the pimp living in a hole he calls home but is it fair to deny YB Kit his car. Answer: No.

    Is there justice when Jeffrey is allowed by law to retain possession of YB Kit’s stolen car? Answer: Yes.

    So before you call others names, perhaps you should look at yourself first.

  27. To Darkhorse and Dracula,

    Then you are one of many soulless people (lawyers) who know laws but not justice and fairness, which by now anybody who has some discernment would have noticed long ago. All these half past six lawyers or wannabes! If I am a pimp, then you people are prostitutes under my care. I can’t wait.

  28. limkamput,

    Never mind, Dracula. Don’t let him suck your blood. But I’m interested to know your learned argument against “law is not about fairness but about justice.”

    Like I said earlier, “You’re capable of giving an intelligent input to the discussion.” So don’t let the Count and the others make you look more pathetic than you already are.

  29. Dear Boomingray,

    I refer to your claimed that Malaysia also has a dictator. I am not very sure of that. In fact, many will not agree with you.

    Dr Mahathir, during his tenure was often ridiculed as a dictator. Western Press hate him. But they respect him as he said what he meant and meant what he said. Of course, he was bad as he was able to show that Western way is not the only way.

    He is critical, not paranoid. And many countries condemned ISA. Surprisingly their records sometimes are worse. During Dr Mahathir’s tenure, Harakah, PAS publication but there is nothing Islamic about the character of its editor, often called him “Mahafiraun” forgetting the very reminder in Kuran not to label people .

    Criticize, but be fair. I mean anybody knows Malaysia never had dictators before. They say hatred can blind people.

  30. Darkhorse,
    I am not pathetic; it is people like you who are. You think governing and managing a country is about strict application of some stupid laws that you people know and care about. This is a political site discussing government governance and administration, not laws. Cold application of laws without taking into account socio, political and economic reality of country is all what you and your group of bunkum talking about here. Everyday it is about lacuna here, constitution there, and court procedures everywhere. Seriously, if some of you really want to show your prowess in legal matters, it is best that you find another site. Tell me how can strict application of laws helps bring about social change in a country, more so most of laws are so repressive, oppressive and exploitive which most lawyers and wannabes like you have no qualm to further exploit to enrich themselves.

  31. “But I’m interested to know your learned argument against “law is not about fairness but about justice.” Dark Horse

    Limkamput,

    You still have not answered Dark Horse but instead went off tangent to repeat what you have said many times over before i.e. that laws are repressive and oppressive, and that it is all about change. Not all laws are repressive and oppressive and lawyers do not make laws, and furthermore that is not the issue here.

    You spoke about “fairness” and Godam adds that the “law is not about fairness but about justice”. You disagree. So let’s us hear what you have to say.

  34. You people are not worth educating and debating. I have said what i need to say. I need not answer to you on anything. From now on we can go on trading insults.

    “in the company of our more learned friends”, Huh????

    Is this humbly proud or proudly trying to be humble? Real group of bunkum. No wonder people hate lawyers so much, and worst still the wannabes.

  35. Yes, it is true. I’m still waiting for your comment on why you think “law is all about fairness and justice has to be fair”.

    To understand the difference you must have gone through a course in legal jurisprudence. Too big a word for you?

    This is what happens when you bite more than you can chew!

    What is disturbing is not that you do not know what you’re talking about (half of the time you don’t) but your refusal to admit that you don’t, even when exposed, and to call other posters names to cover your faults – the usual diversionary tactic employed by someone who is bankrupt of ideas and has nothing to say in reply.

    So here I am! Waiting for your reply.

    “Law is not all about fairness; and justice is not about being fair”.

    Which part of it don’t you understand, do let me know.

  36. “Law is not all about fairness; and justice is not about being fair”.
    Which part of it don’t you understand, do let me know.
    Darkhorse

    Typical of someone who know little and yet want to talk very big. Are you so keen to explain to me whatever little you know? Go ahead then. Show me where and when I said those things you quoted here and I will be happy to answer you. Are you an illiterate lawyer or wannabe? Please read carefully what others write, don’t read what you think others write, ok? Oh jurisprudence? May be it is robustness to colonel. But I am not colonel.

  37. “an ignorant village idiot” Godamn singh

    See lots of things we write or say reflect who we are. What do you mean by “an ignorant village idiot”? Village people are probably more dignified, honest and hardworking than soulless, gutless and heartless lawyers and wannabes.

  38. Here is what I said earlier. I would like to know what you have to say in response.

    Quote

    limkamput,

    You don’t need to rough up Godam Singh who may not be legally trained but I am. But he’s right the two concepts may not overlap and here’s why.

    If you’re the thief who steals YB Kit’s old Mercedes parked in Kg. Attap, in KL and an unsuspecting Godam Singh buys it from you limkamput the thief, in good faith for value and without notice that limkamput the thief has in fact stolen that car, does Godam get a good title? Answer: Yes.

    Godam Singh then sells it to another unsuspecting buyer, Jeffrey who pays full value for it and without notice that it had been stolen, does Jeffrey get a good title? Answer: Yes.

    Then YB Kit who is Jeffrey’s neighbor notices that the car parked in front of Jeffrey’s house is in fact his (YB Kit’s) car and wants to claim the car from Jeffrey. Can he legally do so? Answer: No.

    Why not? It is not fair. It is after all YB Kit’s car that was earlier stolen when parked in Kg. Attap where pimps roamed.

    So to summarize, we have limkamput who is the pimp lurking in the shadows of Kg. Attap who stole YB Kit’s old Mercedes and sold it to Godam Singh the unsuspecting buyer who paid full value for it. Limkamput, the part time pimp and part time car thief then ran back to his hole he called home to count the proceeds of his crime.

    Is it fair?

    I’m not referring to limkamput the pimp living in a hole he calls home but is it fair to deny YB Kit his car. Answer: No.

    Is there justice when Jeffrey is allowed by law to retain possession of YB Kit’s stolen car? Answer: Yes.

    So before you call others names, perhaps you should look at yourself first.

    Unquote

    Don’t say posters are forcing you to say anything. If you have nothing to say, say so. We understand what that means.

  39. Dear Darkhorse,
    I don’t see why I have to answer to things not said by me. I only know I am a pimp earning some income from the effort of the whores. Is it fair? I don’t know. One of the whores, Darkhorse, has a sick mum and a handicapped child. If I kick him out, he would have no where to earn sufficient income to take care of his mum and child. Is it fair? I don’t know again. His alternative employment is kereta jaga boy which can’t even earn him three meals. Is it fair? I think it is best we ask Darkhorse, the whore, rather than letting the court decides.

  40. Though you go! Just as we expect! If you don’t understand what you’re saying, don’t expect others to understand. If you don’t understand what is being said, say so. We can try again. But surely that cannot be a reason for calling commentators names?

    Nobody is calling you a thief and a pimp. It is just an example.

  42. Are you a whore? Oh, I am so sorry; it is just an illustration to demonstrate how cold hard legal system can’t take into consideration the socio and economic reality of those who live within it. Like the poor doctor who was sentenced to RM120k fine or jail. A law is a law, there is no argument about it, the half bake lawyers and wannabes would say. In fact they love it. It gives them more cases to exploit on the misery of others.

Leave a Reply