[Indonesia] A Make-believe Nation"

[Hombre de Maiz]

“the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from measurement of national income.”

“distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and return, and between the short and the long run.”

- Simon Kuznets, the "inventor" of the GDP indicator


Brave New Math, a fantastic article about people’s fetishism and obsession of growth, and their waving it around as it, in and by itself, had any profound meaning or effect. Nevertheless, to this day and this forum, they still flaunt it as if to legitimize, literally, murder.

[ponyexpress]

Suharto certainly milked the communist scare to the max, and then some. However the idea was not entirely baseless. The communists betrayed the republic in its infancy, and there's no doubt that they were capable of as much brutality as the rest of us, if not more. With Sukarno's support their Lekra monopolized and enforced one form of artistic and cultural expressions, now that is classic leftist propaganda.

While I freely acknowledge and condemn Suharto's ills (and risked my neck to oppose him openly), a little mention of his positive side gives you conniptions. It's easy for people to see who's the kool aid drinker here.

Any luck with the data supporting your assertion that the working class complied due to fear alone?

I might fail to convince you that the political repression during the New Order prevented the discontented working class to oppose Suharto. Can you explain why there was no significant resistance during the New Order? Can you substantiate your claim that people were willing to tolerate the killings committed by the Suharto regime?

It's interesting to see you repeatedly announcing your dislike towards Suharto, even bragging about your involvement in the student movements. How could you justify something that he's done as reflected in your opinion about trading off summary executions for a high GDP? If you think declaring publicly in this forum that you 'risked your life' during the anti-Suharto protests while simultaneously championing foot-stomping democracy ala Suharto and dismissing any critical assessment of his regime will make yourself look good, then you're wrong.

I don't get panic or riled up with your contentious claims, I just laugh them off. In fact, they answered my question of how effective was the New Order's propaganda in shaping people's mind.

Have you started writing for Inside Indonesia yet? Their readers probably want to hear about your insightful thinking of the New Order and view on the killings and GDP.

[ponyexpress]

Do you honestly think that I am not aware of the kidnappings? I lived in Indonesia during the time, I have to be blind and deaf to not know. The people being kidnapped belonged to the middle class that you derided, not to the working class. Also, do you really think 23 missing people is enough to cower the entire Indonesian working class into silence?

Of course you were there. I forgot about that. What did you do when you heard the kidnappings? Where were you when many student activists and journalists joined Megawati's supporters in their head office? Did you start to think of opposing Suharto after all your fellow students marched onto the street in 1998?

I understand that you don't think much of the student movement, I still remember you flatly accused me personally of joining the demonstration simply because it was fashionable. That is fine, but then you make another questionable claim that Indonesian elites have abandoned Suharto since 1997. The rats on top didn't begin to abandon ship until 1998, which was why Suharto felt safe to conduct business as usual and to appoint his cronies into cabinet positions despite the crisis. You need to show your source.

You admitted that you've read Aspinall's piece. If you did read his then you'd know his appraisal on elite division during the Suharto period. Following Suharto's deteriorating relationship with the Indonesian military leaders, most notably, Moerdani and his associates, he sought to find support from Islamic circles. Running parallel to this, Suharto reconsolidated his power by removing disillusioned military leaders from significant posts, including Murdani and Eddie Sudrajat and replacing them with some officers who were sympathetic to Islam such as Feisal Tanjung and Hartono. Securing support from Islamic generals was effective in his attempt to install his sycophant Habibie as vice-president. Furthermore, the appointment of Harmoko as a chair of Golkar was meant to prevent the discontented officers to secure a leadership post in Golkar party (Aspinall, 2000; Macintyre 1994).

Now as Suharto circle shrunk within the military, he clung on his close allies and families. Had he got the elites intact under his control, he wouldn't have been toppled down easily.

You are so lucky to survive after making controversial comments in this forum. This is largely due to the indifferent attitude from the majority of Indonesian members and a few number of interested expats. If you make similar comments about the killings and Suharto's much praised development program in other forums or mailing lists where most members are far more knowledgeable on the subject than in this forum, you'll be a laughing stock.

[jstar]

You are so lucky to survive after making controversial comments in this forum. This is largely due to the indifferent attitude from the majority of Indonesian members and a few number of interested expats. If you make similar comments about the killings and Suharto's much praised development program in other forums or mailing lists where most members are far more knowledgeable on the subject than in this forum, you'll be a laughing stock.

Now now. This is really getting personal.

About the other forums and websites; there are enough (esp. Dutch) blogs etc. out there where the US and other 'imperialistic' countries are blamed for '65 and fascist Suharto was not more than a pawn. So far I can follow. But some other claims like: The proof that PKI had nothing to do with the Gestapu was the 'fact' that it did not mobilize its huge group of supporters within the general population and the army to defend themselves make me really scratch my head. Just to say there are a lot of deviating opinions out there and that I'm not so convinced any of them is 'neutral'.

There was heavy reporting in the Dutch newspapers on the May '98 incident and the subsequent evolution. For obvious reasons the Dutch press and government kept a finger on the pulse on the political situation, the South Moluccan and Papuan movements in Holland had high hopes the escalation on Java would be a crowbar to force independence in their respective regions. And everybody seemed to agree on one thing: it were the student activists who with KOBAR etc. were able to structure and organize the working class revolting. Otherwise it would have ended in plundering by farmers and workers since their motivation was merely economic.

On the achievements there are also many opinions: Repelita I was mainly focused on economic recovery, most agree it did not do anything to close the gap between rich and poor. But II-V were from 'hopeless' to 'not all that bad', depends on who you ask. (Obviously journalists working for newspapers like Trouw or Volkskrant had a much more critical intake). On the human rights: Pronk, the socialist Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation, reported after his trip to Indonesia that things were improving. And the Pertamina scandal helped since it increased the foreign influence (who had their own demands on human rights).

[john madden]

That's the brutal calculus of repressive, authoritarian regimes and their middle-class cheerleaders. They'll point to economic growth (and wow, was that financial house solid in 1997!) as a mitigating factor for homicide. Yeah, he'll take the bodybags and the bones thrown at him, but he cried to high heaven--on this very forum--when Prabowo and his henchmen fired upon him. Maybe his own filled body-bag would have been worth a fraction of a GDP point. Too bad Prabowo missed you on Semanggi that day. Talk about a bad case of the Stockholm syndrome. And, please, no regressions.

@ all users,

The moderators have reviewed this post and unanimously considered that it is a hateful and offensive post and thus in breach of the Posting Guidelines. An infraction of five points has been imposed to the user. Any further such personally hateful posts will result in at least a temporary ban.

[Abook looty]

Someone definitely had sex with either Prabowo, Suharto, or other names mentioned, I dont know, the big words confuses me...

[atlantis]

Of course you were there. I forgot about that. What did you do when you heard the kidnappings? Where were you when many student activists and journalists joined Megawati's supporters in their head office? Did you start to think of opposing Suharto after all your fellow students marched onto the street in 1998?



You admitted that you've read Aspinall's piece. If you did read his then you'd know his appraisal on elite division during the Suharto period. Following Suharto's deteriorating relationship with the Indonesian military leaders, most notably, Moerdani and his associates, he sought to find support from Islamic circles. Running parallel to this, Suharto reconsolidated his power by removing disillusioned military leaders from significant posts, including Murdani and Eddie Sudrajat and replacing them with some officers who were sympathetic to Islam such as Feisal Tanjung and Hartono. Securing support from Islamic generals was effective in his attempt to install his sycophant Habibie as vice-president. Furthermore, the appointment of Harmoko as a chair of Golkar was meant to prevent the discontented officers to secure a leadership post in Golkar party (Aspinall, 2000; Macintyre 1994).

Now as Suharto circle shrunk within the military, he clung on his close allies and families. Had he got the elites intact under his control, he wouldn't have been toppled down easily.

You are so lucky to survive after making controversial comments in this forum. This is largely due to the indifferent attitude from the majority of Indonesian members and a few number of interested expats. If you make similar comments about the killings and Suharto's much praised development program in other forums or mailing lists where most members are far more knowledgeable on the subject than in this forum, you'll be a laughing stock.

Ponyexpress,

Though your post hasn't been reported, 4 moderators reviewed your above post. We all agreed on a decision and concluded that your recent posts in this thread were factually correct but were also an attempt to bait a member of this forum in the tone used. Though the former is to be encouraged, the latter is not acceptable considering our Posting Guidelines, especially since you are a moderator yourself. As you know, anyone including moderators should abide by our policy and cannot get away with offences.

We agreed to issue you 5 points of infraction for baiting another member. Should you make a similar mistake, we will hand down a temporary ban from this forum. If you think you are unfairly moderated, well... you know what to do.

Time to chill a bit.

Erm... you also owe us beers for giving us (Puspa, John madden, mas Rob and I) this extra unneeded work.

[JolieGal]

Here are some hard numbers that belie you claims about the New Order: The fact was that child mortality was already decreasing long before Suharto fixed his avaricious eyes on Istana Merdeka. Notice how the slope of the line, denoting the rate of decrease, does not change between the Old Order and the New Order. Child Mortality in Indonesia, 1960-2010

I haven't read all posts on this thread. However, as someone who knows what a slope is...your claim that the rate of decrease did not change between the old order and the new order is false.

A slope = (the change in y-axis)/(the change in x-axis)

I have checked the link you provided and here are the numbers (I round up the numbers to make it simple):

Old Order: from 1960 to say 1965

That means the slope = (190-200)/(1965-1960) = -2

New Order: from 1965 - 1997

That means the slope = (61.5 - 190)/(1997-1965) = -4

So the slope is NOT constant as you claimed.

Toodle.

[benederlof]

Wow!!! Thanks for the clarification Joliegal. I for one didn't know what a slope is.

I haven't read all posts on this thread. However, as someone who knows what a slope is...your claim that the rate of decrease did not change between the old order and the new order is false.

A slope = (the change in y-axis)/(the change in x-axis)

I have checked the link you provided and here are the numbers (I round up the numbers to make it simple):

Old Order: from 1960 to say 1965

That means the slope = (190-200)/(1965-1960) = -2

New Order: from 1965 - 1997

That means the slope = (61.5 - 190)/(1997-1965) = -4

So the slope is NOT constant as you claimed.

Toodle.

[Hombre de Maiz]

So the the slope did change. [I eyeballed it rather than calculated it]. Decrease in my fundamental queries remain:
i.) what makes you certain that only a repressive dictatorship could have achieved that reduction in child mortality?
ii.) Do you or do you not believe that reducing child mortality, however large the decrease, is in no way justification for homicide, suspension of political rights, disappearances, and pogroms of genocidal proportions? After all, the larger debate here is the ledger of the New Order.

[Hint: those are not econometrics questions requiring the rote application of formulas]