[Indonesia] A Make-believe Nation"

[Hombre de Maiz]

It is not TMII--itself an artifact of the New Order and perhaps the best monument to it--which monopolizes or cages. The agent that exercised monopoly power and did the caging was the State during the New Order. It bears mentioning that not only was Taman Mini an example of a state-enforced version of the nation, but rather the values on display there were precisely those that supported the authoritarian, internal-security regime. "New Order propaganda is characterised by a « highly articulate rhetoric of culture », in which constant appeals are made to « traditional values » and « customary behaviour ». Advanced in the name of « social stability » these policies are doubtless seen as enhancing state security". (Pemberton, 1994)

There's nothing wrong with the state creating open areas where people can rest and play. The problem is when the state imbues those places with its enforced version of nation and culture, and thereby serving to legitimate and justify its repressive policies.

[Hombre de Maiz]

Everything is relative. Nobody is saying that authoritarianism is good, it's just that it's the lesser evil compared to hunger. The simple fact is that Suharto enjoyed the silent support of the less educated masses (the majority of Indonesians) until the 97 crisis made them hungry again. Suharto was only vulnerable when he could no longer deliver relative prosperity to the people, which is why the reform movement was ultimately successful in ousting him. If we were gonna be hungry anyway, we might as well get freedom along with it.

False dichtomy. By the 1980s and certainly by the 1990s, the choice facing Indonesians, as a whole, was not Suharto or hunger. That is the self-interested, manichean and Machiavellian option that New Order propanganda had you believe, and now, more than 20 years later, you are still spouting it. No one is--or has been--indispensable in Indonesia. The country's history gives ample proof of that.

[ponyexpress]

The students opposed KKN (corruption, collusion, and nepotism) which came to define Suharto's regime in the 90's. these nefarious practices were seen as the cause of the economic meltdown. Most Indonesians didn't have a problem with Suharto's questionable actions when we were relatively prosperous. But, since many people were hurt economically by the economic crisis, we'd be damned if we let him continue with those practices. Suharto was completely insensitive of the situation and gave his crony "Bob" Hasan and his daughter "Tutut" Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana cabinet positions in 1998. That was the last straw.

An authoritarian and centralized government was not automatically seen as bad, but one where corruption, collusion, and nepotism rule certainly was.

Everything is relative. Nobody is saying that authoritarianism is good, it's just that it's the lesser evil compared to hunger. The simple fact is that Suharto enjoyed the silent support of the less educated masses (the majority of Indonesians) until the 97 crisis made them hungry again. Suharto was only vulnerable when he could no longer deliver relative prosperity to the people, which is why the reform movement was ultimately successful in ousting him. If we were gonna be hungry anyway, we might as well get freedom along with it.

Really? Nobody? Silent support or a successfully depoliticised masses? Don't confuse them. Now you're telling me about hunger, isn't it ironic that this is coming from the middle class who enjoyed his wealth due to Suharto's development program?

[ponyexpress]

How much money did you spend visiting places all over Indonesia to experience 'the real thing'? What percentage of Jakarta population can afford the time and money to do it? If they can't afford it, would you rather deny them the opportunity to sample just a little bit of it through TMII?


How can TMII monopolize our understanding of Indonesian culture? It's just a theme park.

"After all, what is Taman Mini if not a model for a human zoo where ethnolocalities are habitats--cages for cultures--and the state a zookeeper?" (Boelsdorff, 2002)

Classic!

Nice quote Hombre. Yes, it's just a theme park but it is also a simulacra model of Indonesia in Baudrillardian sense. Following Baudrillard reasoning, TMII as symbol conceals the truth about Indonesia, in that the complex histories of people and identities are brutally reduced to merely cultural artefacts. What does TMII tell you about East Timor? Does it cross many visitors mind that the inclusion of East Timor into TMII means the rejection of historical narrative produced by Timorese people? TMII is, like museums, the state's attempt of representing its society and culture. It's like going to a museum, we are not supposed to take everything at face value but critically see things outside the dominant paradigm. If you ask people who were forced to sell their houses before it was built, you will have the answer.

[jstar]

Following Baudrillard reasoning, TMII as symbol conceals the truth about Indonesia, in that the complex histories of people and identities are brutally reduced to merely cultural artefacts......

I remember prof Bricmont completely slashing Baudrillard's unwordly and extreme marxist theories.

[Hombre de Maiz]

...Silent support or a successful depoliticised masses? ...

Or the politically-lobotomized cohorts?

[Nimbus]

It is not TMII--itself an artifact of the New Order and perhaps the best monument to it--which monopolizes or cages. The agent that exercised monopoly power and did the caging was the State during the New Order. It bears mentioning that not only was Taman Mini an example of a state-enforced version of the nation, but rather the values on display there were precisely those that supported the authoritarian, internal-security regime. "New Order propaganda is characterised by a « highly articulate rhetoric of culture », in which constant appeals are made to « traditional values » and « customary behaviour ». Advanced in the name of « social stability » these policies are doubtless seen as enhancing state security". (Pemberton, 1994)

There's nothing wrong with the state creating open areas where people can rest and play. The problem is when the state imbues those places with its enforced version of nation and culture, and thereby serving to legitimate and justify its repressive policies.

Still, how does the state create this enforced version of nation and culture in TMII? All I see are buildings representing all the provinces, built by the provincial governments themselves. I don't see any coercion on Suharto's part to build only a particular type or version of buildings. There is no such thing as an 'official rumah gadang' or 'official joglo'. The park shows Indonesia's diversity, and except for Suharto's own Purna Bhakti Pertiwi museum, there's nothing particularly 'orde baru' about it. How do these buildings legitimate and justify orde baru's repressive policies?

[Nimbus]

False dichtomy. By the 1980s and certainly by the 1990s, the choice facing Indonesians, as a whole, was not Suharto or hunger. That is the self-interested, manichean and Machiavellian option that New Order propanganda had you believe, and now, more than 20 years later, you are still spouting it. No one is--or has been--indispensable in Indonesia. The country's history gives ample proof of that.

That's what YOU believe. The majority of Indonesians believed that Suharto was (mostly) good for the nation, so they did not lend support to any movement against him until the Krismon proved Suharto wrong. The messages of reform in 1998 would have fallen on deaf ears without the monetary crisis.

[ponyexpress]

How many are these people, compared to Indonesia's entire population? Can you honestly describe them as "most"?

And perhaps the people who complained are mostly western observers who only have a vague idea of Indonesian priorities, measuring Indonesian phenomena strictly from western yardstick.

Funny that you mention priorities. Do you think the killings of people in Aceh and East Timor were the priorities of Indonesia at that time?

The protest was about Japanese investment in Indonesia, and foreign investment in general. This had a decidedly socialistic flavor. Suharto was beginning to favor the development model fueled by foreign investment, the model widely viewed today as the fastest way to grow.

Suharto's repression of the Malari students was bad, but it lead to a more stable environment conducive to foreign investment. Indonesia enjoyed the prosperity brought by the invested money.

It was the fast way to grow but when the monetary crisis hit Indonesia, the lauded model collapsed. The country was built with debt, huge foreign debt. What you call foreign investment is actually debt. Now with the rampant corruption practices in Indonesia, you can easily guess where did the money go.

[ponyexpress]

That's what YOU believe. The majority of Indonesians believed that Suharto was (mostly) good for the nation, so they did not lend support to any movement against him until the Krismon proved Suharto wrong. The messages of reform in 1998 would have fallen on deaf ears without the monetary crisis.

Here we go again, appeal to majority fallacy. The absence of a significant resistant movement is equivalent to lending support to a militerised regime?

why SBY is president despite being the commander who ordered the 96 PDI headquarter attack, and why Prabowo is a viable presidential candidate despite being widely regarded as the instigator of the may 98 riot. Try to also figure out why we elected another general as president and have two more as candidates, despite 3 decades of military dictatorship.

Out of curiosity, where did you get this? I thought it was Sutiyoso who was most responsible for the attack? Where was SBY when the raid took place?