I take a glance at the graph that you provided and I know instantly it doesn’t have a constant slope because it is not a straight line. But I supplied cold-hard figures, because I just knew you would not take my word for it.Originally Posted by Hombre de Maiz
To answer your first question:
You mentioned it yourself that correlation does not automatically indicate causation. Cause-effect relations must be established. However, your question does not make any sense. What if I rephrase it to: were Suharto and his development policies a factor in the reduction of child mortality rate? Thanks to Raoul for pointing out that the decline in mortality rate post-Suharto regime is lower compared to that in his regime. (the minus sign only indicates that it is a decrease, not an increase. But 2 is still lower than 4 points).
In order to answer this question, we have to isolate other factors affecting child mortality rate (e.g. growth of world's output, etc). In other words, we want to see: had Indonesia have a different government back then, would child mortality rate decline in the same fashion. Is it systematical or just one of those random events? A fluke that appears to work in Suharto's favor?
Opinions and moral judgment cannot answer this question. Fortunately, we can perform regression.
- List all factors affecting child mortality rate. Collect data for the same time period
- Introduce a dummy variable: assign 0 for Suharto regime, 1 for non-Suharto regimes
- Regress child mortality rate against all of these factors, including the dummy variable
- The regression coefficient of the dummy variable is the difference in child mortality rate holding all other factors constant (we isolate the effects of these factors)
- Perform statistical test on the regression coefficient
- If the coefficient is statistically significant, then why...yes, Suharto and his development policies were a significant factor in the decline of child mortality rate.
Second question:
No, there is no justification for homicide, suspension of political rights, etc, etc, etc.
However, not all Indonesians think he is an absolute evil either. As Injun pointed out, some of Indonesians recognize the goods he has done for Indonesia. Why does it have to be one way or the other? What is wrong with having a balanced view? On the graph that you yourself provided, one can see that child mortality declined in faster rate during his regime. Some Indonesian members here, like Injun and I, recognize that.
PS: calculating a slope is not econometrics. In fact, I remember it from physics lesson in junior high about calculating velocity. I would rather answer a question with empirical works, instead of writing an essay full of my opinion. I recognize that my opinion has no weight in a debate unless I can prove it with evidence.
Fashionably sensitive but too cool to care.
The debate that you butt into is about what Indonesians think of Suharto.
It was you who started with the rate of 20 lives per half percent of GDP. When it was shown that half a percent of GDP corresponds to many, many more lives, all of a sudden it's not about growth rates. When your slope thesis is debunked, all of a sudden it's not about slope. How convenient.
The guy previously known as Injun.
Ah no, this debate is much simpler than that: you make abstract academic but still basically simplistic (when you move away the linguistic veil) declarations about how wrong repression is. In any case.
It is oh so easy to make these motherhood (and apple pie) statements. Everybody basically has to agree with them without taking into account the complexity of the situation. People who have a more nuanced opinion are collaborators and opportunists. It must be great to live in a black & white world.
In the meantime -without any shred of evidence- you challenge everything brought forward about the economic progress, the position and views of the Indonesian people on the regime, and sweep comparisons with other countries of the table; those are not relevant either.
All of this is not the point I guess. Starts to sound like a (analog) record.
quotes from?
Once again:
i.) what makes you think that only a militarized despotism could have reduced child mortality?
ii.) Why--if it was Suharto's hand, as you assert--that is to account for the decline in child mortality, is the slope of that curve essentially constant before and after the New Order? You brought up the numbers. Now it is incumbent upon you to explain them. The slope, Injun, the slope.....one must keep in mind that two phenomena occurring simultaneously does not necessarily mean that one (e.g. Suharto's economic policies or GDP growth under the New Order) is the cause of the other (e.g. reduction in child mortality). In other words, correlation is not causation. That graph is ample proof of that.In any case, so what? What if Suharto's policies had been the leading cause in the reduction of infant mortality? That is in no way--at least for the liberal humanist mind--justification or mitigating factor in homicide, torture, disapperances, pogroms and political repression. It is a non-sequitur except, of course, for crypto-apologists for despotism and for opportunist fellow-travellers who turned on the regime only after the breadcrumbs and scraps stopped falling off the regime elite's table.“the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from measurement of national income.”
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.
Last edited by jstar; 07-08-12 at 17:00.
I almost feel bad about being so anal about it. But it's not calculus, Hombre. Injun and I have engaged some division, addition, multiplication and negation techniques, i.e. arithmetics.
Fashionably sensitive but too cool to care.
Or let's put it like how we rate people around us.
Imagine somebody loving to abuse people, who is oblivious and merciless to the fact the people he abuses has pretty adverse situations and his means aren't rightfully sanctioned. If necessary he would even call preman. He's cruel and he has to get taken out (I mean legally, not lethally) so as not to pose unrest within the society. At the same time, he's an efficient administrator, he's pretty much a family man, he lives humbly, he even (weirdly) donates some of the money he yanked from the poor to the other poor. I don't care of his good traits, he's still a threat anyway. But would it be fair to say just because of him being cruel he must be a womaniser, crappy manager, money spendthrift and greedy while turning blind eye to facts that show otherwise?
You don't need to stoop this low in order to look good or win the debate. What is credible about making a statement of trading 20 summary executions for a GDP growth? I can't find anything erudite and insightful behind the (unsubstantiated) claim of Indonesians being tolerable with the killings. Come one Injun, for someone who studied overseas, you can surely do better than this. Your favourite source, the survey didn't say anything about people commenting on the killings.
But you are bragging about your involvement in the 1998 student protests. Of course you're getting tired of this because you can't convince me and others about your heroic part in the Indonesian history. Did you get involved in the resistance against Suharto prior to 1998? I've met and talked to some activists who have been opposing Suharto since the 1990s when they visited Australia. Some of them were involved in the labour and peasant movements.
Here we go...listen guys, I was there and I saw the truth....thus spoke my experience. Again, a soldier who killed people in Aceh and Timor has a similarly valid experience as yours when he said that the Suharto regime is far better. Will you call any experience of people who were suppressed under the Suharto regime as legitimate as yours?
Just a suggestion Injun. In fact, many avid readers of Inside Indonesia will be thrilled to read your experience. They probably won't bother to peruse my writing, which is packed with patchy anecdotes (if they get lucky) and fantasies.
Last edited by atlantis; 08-08-12 at 05:37. Reason: Settings
I am pink therefore I am ham
Pony, demanding evidence or source for one's assertion is not stooping low, unless you think that facts and figures should not get in the way of your story. Sorry if I get passionate from time to time about this subject; I lived it, not read it from a book like you.
One foreign 'expert' shares his story and you treat it as gospel, but when one Indonesian shares his it's an isolated case. Splendid.
Well, it seems that it's just another round of you belittling and dismissing my side of the story without any additional proof nor quote. I'm still waiting.
The guy previously known as Injun.
Yeah, but 'cruel calculus' sounds oh so dramatic compared to 'cruel arithmetics', both words start with 'c'. He got to pick something with equal oomph to 'crypto apologist', 'non sequitur', 'opportunist', and 'fetishism'. When you don't have the numbers on your side, you need big words to wow the lay audience.
The guy previously known as Injun.
Feels like Dejavu
This debate reminded me of old problems of Social vs Scientific ; Financial division vs Marketing division....
The three words women hate to hear when having sex: "Honey, I'm home!"
The US have long time (and probably still today) support many dictator for they can control the aleas of their country... it's make the country very more stable without politic change. It's very better for doing business.
The investor will always have a high regards on the stability of a country they would want invest, what so ever how this stability is bring or hold.
La motivation vient en se motivant ~ Motivation come by self-motivation
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks