Soeharto - A life remembered

[Dumbellina]

Soeharto is nanometres from the end of his life. And its the only story here in Indonesia at the moment (TV news even gives you his latest blood pressure and O2 saturation levels).

So it is apt for the Australian people to pass a message on to the Indonesian people, the Soeharto family and Pak Soeharto himself.


What should those messages be?

[NCR600]

Byeeeee! Can you see me waving?

[johnny]

I hope it hurts.

[Plow King]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suharto

Wiki article incase people were wondering who he was. I know I was

[Stackerz]

I'll have to go with Johnny here.

I hope the machine's break and you suffer for days, then die horribly painfully. :)

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

Idi Amin's gone, Saddam's gone, Pinochet's gone, Soeharto's on his way

Well, at least we've still got Kimmy, the Burmese junta and Bobby Mugabe around to bring sexy back...

[Drop_Bear]

Naa naa naaa NAA NAA NAA NAA HEY HEY HEY .. GOODBYE !!

Shame you can't bring your squillions of hard earned cash with you to whereever it is you think you're going!

[flying high dh killer]

Good Night, Sweet Prince.

Nnnnoooooooottt!!!!

[Pitto]

"So then, where's the money stashed, really?"

:)

[Nerf Herder]

"For most of his three-decade rule, Indonesia experienced significant economic growth and industrialization.[1] His rule, however, led to political purges and the deaths of millions of Indonesian communists and Chinese-Indonesians,[2] and enaction of legislation outlawing communist parties and ethnic Chinese.[3]" extract from wikipedia.

A small price for political stability and progress. According to a quick google search there are approx $234M indonesians.

A possible senario without Soeharto

- Indonesia falls under Communism, following successes in Vietnam / Cambodia and via internal influence by ethic Chinese business interests
- Increase in Poverty, whilst economic development remains stagant (see Cuba, Vietnam before 1990s)
- Indonesia with the largest muslim following in the world, rebel against Atheistic Communist dictum, oppressive poverty. (Similar to Afghanistan and following their lead) and increasing resentment of ethic Chinese.
- Sharia law imposted by new Muslim leaders
- Ethic Chinese are again slaughtered ... inevitable and unavoidable in my opinion (see Fiji, Malaysia and other historic purges of ethic minorities with disproportionate economic success).
- Australia pokes its nose into Indonesian affairs (as per current MO)
- Australia suffers terrorist attacks on the scale of 9/11 with more frequent, smaller scale attacks similar to the Bali bombings and Embassy attacks, on mainland Australia. (assumes intake of indonesian nationals remains constant or increases compared to current situation).

In summary, without Soeharto, Indonesian Islamists would have emerged sooner, with more popular support internally, leading to more extremist tendencies, following their internal struggles and ultimate successes in raising to power.

Any deaths of "innocents" would only have been delayed and or increased at a latter date ... given the change to religious extremism, from its current moderate classification.

Disclaimer, all of the above is fanciful and the probability of it taking place is unknown.

[Drop_Bear]

So very true. Military dictatorship certainly is stable. Perhaps we should all adopt them.

He also made one of the highest population countries in the region have one of the lowest standards of living whilst maintaining one of the largest and argueable most corrupt armed forces in the world.

All the while he invested wisely and looked after his children and managed to amass a reported 16 billion dollars. Now that's some financial savy !

[Nerf Herder]

So very true. Military dictatorship certainly is stable. Perhaps we should all adopt them.

Depends on the level of maturity of your political system. If its piss poor, say following a brutal independence struggle, by peoples with a long history of foreign occupation (and therefore lack of civil experience / discipline to undertake self government), then yep I recommend it, provided of course they produce some element of improvement to life. I am directly comparing the Soeharto regime with the Myanmar jaunta, who aren't producing any economic growth to siphon off, and therefore one is the lesser of two evils.

He also made one of the highest population countries in the region have one of the lowest standards of living
Compared to what ? Cambodia / Laos / Vietnam / Philippines / Thailand ... pretty much every other SEA nation excluding Singapore and maybe Malaysia (suspect Indonesia and Malaysia are comparable). Presume your not comparing to Australian Standards (apples and oranges comes to mind).

A quick google search didn't find anything comprehensive however I did find the following http://www.iisg.nl/indonesianeconomy/program1900-2000.php with the question:

"Why did the economic growth performance improve so much during the New Order Government of Suharto after the dismal experiences of the Old Order Government of Sukarno?" Apologies, this is a shitty quote, as the article does not actually confirm my assertion with an answer or finding, but I'll use it to support the wiki extract.

All the while he invested wisely and looked after his children and managed to amass a reported 16 billion dollars. Now that's some financial savy ! Taking away the size of the pillage for a second, are you implying that politicians in general are not in it to line their pockets (whether now or in the future)?

Putting on my Asian hat ... I would say he took care of his family, by putting them into prime positions with plump pay packets and the ability to take advantage of their positions of power ... like any good parent should. If your going to have ethnocentric views then may as well colour it with an Asian flavour, on this occassion.

[johnny]

Taking away the size of the pillage for a second, are you implying that politicians in general are not in it to line their pockets (whether now or in the future)?Yes, I am. Once again, this may be the difference between the Asian and Western experience, but I would definitely argue that the majority of Western politicians are NOT in it to line their own pockets.

Putting on my Asian hat ... I would say he took care of his family, by putting them into prime positions with plump pay packets and the ability to take advantage of their positions of power ... like any good parent should. If your going to have ethnocentric views then may as well colour it with an Asian flavour, on this occassion.If you think that for an "elected" member of a government to place his/her own family above that of their electorate is what he should do, then I'd say that your views of politics are irreconcilable to the majority of the world. If you say this is ethnocentric and not the Asian way, then I'd say the "Asians" have it wrong and no wonder that the majority of the Asian world lives in envy of the Western styles of prosperity and development (Sorry, I'm not too sure which way to read your comments).

Let's also look at another angle of the Suharto regime; East Timor from 1975 onwards. Didn't his actions do wonders for that lovely little half-island!

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

(suspect Indonesia and Malaysia are comparable).


Yeah, Mahathir Mohammed was a prick as well. Didn't go in for the genocide though...

If you're going to go as far as saying Soeharto was a great leader because he held together a widely spread out nation of vastly different cultures with the use of an iron fist then you might as well start singing the praises of Joseph Stalin...

[Drop_Bear]

There is a major differene between a dictatorship and military rule. With the military overthrow of a government comes military rule. When the military then beleives that they are best at running the country in the long term you get a dictatorship. These only work in extreemly volitile regions. They unite the people and establish control of the country within the region. They are very useful in the middle east and africa. Military rule should only be an interim government for the setting up on democraticly elected officials who are capable of running a country that is at peace (as in not at war with neighbouring countries). Suharto did not do this. He seized power and kept it for his own gain. He was wholey corrupt and kept Indonesia is a state of arrested development. The only progress indonesia made in the last 20 years of his rule was a substantial increase in military presense in the region. The standard of living in Indonesia as a whole is amoung the lowest in SE Asia. Some islands and regions enjoy good prosperity but givevn the population (250 mil?) they largely live in 3rd world standards akin to that of undeveloped nations. The wealth is spread very thin and the economiv crisis of the 80's cemented the militaries role in governance and further affirming Suharto's rule. His families net worth at the time was 45 billion which was what the IMF said was enough to get his country out of the finacial quagmire it was in by repaying the IMF and World Bank. Did he do this ? Nope sure didnt.

Given the dispersal of the population it is hard to organise a structured working regime like they have in China but given the methods of rule used there has been little to no effort made to unite the country as an economic power. They are where China was 20 years ago. Largely isolated within their own region despite their size. Only with recent democratic developments and new leaders has any real progress been able to take place. Even China realised that regime change is needed to progress in the world as old ideas remain old and hinder growth and adaptability.

In regards to his family it is impossible to disregard the size of the pilliage. It is an absolutely incredible amount for even the most successful businessmen around. Let's clear up that Suharto wasnt a politian. He was an army general. The title of president taken by from Sukano when Sukano granted him supreme power. If you bring the figure down from 45 billion to 16 billion or even 1 billion that is more than anyone can ever spend in a lifetime. It is pure greed and clearly at the cost of not only his countrymen but his country. He has imposed corruption through the militaries influence on every aspect of authority in Indonesia. They get paid next to nothing and they make up for their wages by illegal activities such as drugs, bribes and racketeering. His son was recently released from jail after serving only 3 years of a 15 year sentence for murdering a supreme court judge that sentence little tommy to jail for corruption. Suharto granted construction companies owned by his family contracts at ludicrous amounts without question and dictated where the countries spending went. Disgraceful human being.

He is by no means a politian. It has nothing to do with good parenting. It's out and out greed.

[johnny]

- Indonesia falls under Communism, following successes in Vietnam / Cambodia and via internal influence by ethic Chinese business interests
- Increase in Poverty, whilst economic development remains stagant (see Cuba, Vietnam before 1990s)I'd also like to take this up as well. Whilst, let's say 50 million suffered from Communism in China, a good 500 000 000 are prospering today from the basic foundations of a cohesive society that Communism founded. Without Mao, China would not have had an industrial base, nation wide political system nor a standing army. China would not have had the foundation to build it up to the rapidly developing nation it is today.

Also, without arguing that Cuba is better off now than before Castro, it certainly wasn't exactly good before either. It was being raped by the mob and was an island for the rich Americans to exploit as much as they wanted.

BTW, the Ethnic Chinese were attacked and killed in many places anyway, Seoharto certainly didn't avoid that from happening.

[Dumbellina]

I can't believe that Australians would forget our closest neighbour's ruler from 1967 to 1998 - Gen. Soeharto. Terms like the butcher of East Timor, Papua, Aceh, etc would be apt.

Most Indonesian's think, in the words of my hosts, that "Soeharto built a strong Indonesia" and created pride in Indonesian identity. Essentially all other identities - communist, ethnic chinese, provenences with strong separate identities (Aceh, traditional communities in Sumatra, Mulukus, Papua, and East Timor (post 1975)) - were denigrated.


My hosts also said that they didn't believe that Soeharto killed communist, which also shows how the propoganda and the lack of media freedom allowed the New Order as its called here, to send only positive messages.

There are a couple of things that you should consider:
* Islam is strong in Indo, but its a form of Islam that is very tolerant of all mainstream religions. Javanese Islam includes Buddhist, Hindu and traditional components and beliefs. Similarly in Sumatra tribal/traditional beliefs are strong influences on religious practice. Sects of Islam (eg Shiite) or minority religions (eg Bahia) cop severe discrimination. Soeharto used the mainstream Sunni Islamic organisations to further his own interests and used persuasion to keep a lid on radical or overtly political islamic groups. Now that anyone can form a political party since 1998, the research is showing that secular democratic parties and coalitions of democratic parties and islamic parties get the lion share of the vote - Islamic parties themselves struggle to get above single figures in elections. However islam is deeply embedded in the Indonesian government - both politically and in the bureaucracy.

Malaysian Islam are said to be less tolerant of other faiths, eg the attempted ban on Catholics using the term "allah". Indonesians happily remind others that many of Jamah Ismaleh (sp?) members were Malaysian.

* Indonesia is a republic that, as all Indonesians and visitors are reminded everywhere, was created through much bloodshed in fighting for liberation from the Dutch. An inspection of the old part of Jakarta (Batavia) shows just how much of a colony it was and how the Portugese, then Dutch (and a few British folk along the way), pillaged the country and created the wealth and social division we see today. On Sumatra for example, the Dutch selected one tribe over another, and no surprises Dutch supported tribe annihilated their enemy. This hated, borne in the colonial period, is very ingrained in the Indonesian consciousness and affects local, regional, national and international relationships even today. From what Indonesians write about Malaysians, the British seems to have left a completely different set of circumstances in Malaysia.

* corruption is rife in all sectors of the Indonesian economy and society. Soeharto himself was smart and the beneficiaries of his largesse, corrupt behaviour were his family - his wife, his children. His son Tommy famously had a judge executed, witnesses threatened, and others paid off - all to cover, from memory a traffic matter.

* the "oriental" perspective versus the western perspective is used to justify all manner of things from the lack of road rules,to the lack of safety on the roads, to corrupt conduct (in another's words, "to set up his family"), to why the press should not be free, to why pursuit of wealth is a high objective than personal freedoms, community development, etc. I think its a over-used cliche that is used to justify tyranny and diminish human rights. I don't deny that the cultural values and ideas in South East Asia are different to Australia, but at the same time human rights are universal and can and must not be derogated for the sake of culture.

As to Australia's message to Pak Soeharto - goodbye and good riddance, may your family's grief and wealth last for a short period

[Nerf Herder]

Yes, I am. Once again, this may be the difference between the Asian and Western experience, but I would definitely argue that the majority of Western politicians are NOT in it to line their own pockets.!

Some examples:
Dick Cheney (Defense contracts) Highlights how politicians use their positions to benefit their and their associates interests.
Nick Greiner (Chairman Rothmans) not saying he had any association whilst an elected official, however, I believe this was the conduit that got him the position.
Bob Carr (Macquaire bank Exec), as above. not saying they are not talented or capable, however, they would have used their positions of power and influence to secure these roles ... I would.
Several Australian senators forced to quit due to failures to disclose share holdings - more an implication as opposed to factual misrepresentations.
Burke ... WA politians and business men (WA inc).

My use of the phrase "... line their own pockets." is overly simplistic ... I'll expand it to "Further their economic and personal interests, along with certain interest groups in their direct association".

Where personal interests could be, Poonany (JFK, Bill Clinton) ... Land Issues (majority of 18th and 19th century political leaders were farmers) Oil interests etc etc.

I will soften my stance from "majority of politician" as this is unfair and unfounded ... however as per Lord Acton "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

The strength and weakness of my argument comes down to definitions of "degrees of abuse, corruption or fore knowledge of actions" ... I'll leave it there as I know there a many shades of grey.

then I'd say that your views of politics are irreconcilable to the majority of the world. .
"Majority" in terms of what ? 1) number of people ? 2) Number of nations ? 3) number of democratic political systems ?

1) Based on number of people ... I think you're wrong ... and this only focuses on Asian peoples.
1) & 2) combined, I would say that Asians (I will classify Australian Aboridgines as Asian for this argument), Eastern Europeans, Middle Eastern Nations, Jews, Pacific Islanders, Inuits, Hispanics and Many western European (Italians, Greeks, Turks, French ?? maybe) Have strong family bonds and preceieved responsibilities and therefore would hold family members as more important and would (to varying degrees) place their children in positions of power (whether in politics or business).
Jump back a century or so and I would include the Anglo Saxons and Scandanavians in there as well.
3) can't comment on this.

If you say this is ethnocentric and not the Asian way, then I'd say the "Asians" have it wrong and no wonder that the majority of the Asian world lives in envy of the Western styles of prosperity and development (Sorry, I'm not too sure which way to read your comments).

Apologies, likely my poor wording ... My comments (re: nepotism) were an attempt to express why Soeharto maybe admired and considered a "good leader" within his political system and in the Asian mindset (and I argue quite a few other ethic groups). I make no personal judgements.

Obviously if you're an East Timorese or Acehian(sp) you would disagree, as you are not the net beneficiary of his Presidency / Dictatorship.

Now, as per the bits in bold I have outlined in your quote. I think these are ethnocentrism defined.

Asians (expand other ethic groups listed above) have it wrong based on Western ideals (re: nepotism, cronism). Pffft ... for how long. Not that long ago, Westerners thought bathing was a bad idea and eating rotting meat as a delicacy.

Similarly, developing nations may envy Western prosperity, but do they crave our morals and attitudes? Of course not. Is your level of properity the same as theirs? Of course not. Will they have a difference way of getting what they need? Of course.

Let's also look at another angle of the Suharto regime; East Timor from 1975 onwards. Didn't his actions do wonders for that lovely little half-island! It did for those Indonesians that benefited via purchase of land ... sure Soeharto and his cronies likely took the Lion's share, but other "Indonesians" also benefited ... this also obviously opens up the arguement to "Why did it take the West so long to do anything about the bloody despot ". Was it something to do with those western ideals ?

DISCLAIMER: I make no personal judgements as to the correctness / justness or righteousness of Soeharto's actions or preceieved Asian ethocentrisms.

[Nerf Herder]

If you're going to go as far as saying Soeharto was a great leader because he held together a widely spread out nation of vastly different cultures with the use of an iron fist then you might as well start singing the praises of Joseph Stalin...

Fairly sure I didn't make any judgment calls. However, why is it that Russia is reverting back to centralisation, a key to Stalinist Communism.

[Nerf Herder]

There is a major differene between a dictatorship and military rule. With the military overthrow of a government comes military rule. When the military then beleives that they are best at running the country in the long term you get a dictatorship. These only work in extreemly volitile regions. They unite the people and establish control of the country within the region. They are very useful in the middle east and africa. Military rule should only be an interim government for the setting up on democraticly elected officials who are capable of running a country that is at peace (as in not at war with neighbouring countries).
This is all good, and I think you are somewhat validating what I said previously re military rule, however, the bit I have a problem with is the word "should". "Should" from who's point of view ... sorry for labouring the point ... I argue "Should" from an Indonesian point of view ... further because Indonesians didn't / couldn't do anything to change the length of his rule until much later ... then I think he was a military leader who became Politician.

I think being a politician is more then just winning the popular vote, its about winning the support of whomever it takes to keep the power ... be it other military leaders, business powers or whomever.

Suharto did not do this. He seized power and kept it for his own gain. He was wholey corrupt and kept Indonesia is a state of arrested development. The only progress indonesia made in the last 20 years of his rule was a substantial increase in military presense in the region. The standard of living in Indonesia as a whole is amoung the lowest in SE Asia. [I disagree as per my previous extracts ... I believe Indonesia had superior economic performance compared to its neighbours] ... His families net worth at the time was 45 billion which was what the IMF said was enough to get his country out of the finacial quagmire it was in by repaying the IMF and World Bank. Did he do this ? Nope sure didnt. [would you ? can you name me a Western political leader or figure that sacrificed their personal wealth to save their country ... lets think about the Great Depression of the 30s]

In regards to his family it is impossible to disregard the size of the pilliage. It is an absolutely incredible amount for even the most successful businessmen around. Let's clear up that Suharto wasnt a politian. [as per above, disagree]

As a counter point re pilliage ... Where did he pilliage the vast sums from ? was it like Marcos who just plain took whatever monies other governments gave as aid (I suspect yes, without quantifying) ? If yes then I suggest that these are monies that Indonesians could not rightly expect, and therefore can not truly miss ... I'm not wording this well, however, I am likening this to Saddam's kickbacks from the AWB ... ie, you can't miss what you don't know

He is by no means a politian. It has nothing to do with good parenting. It's out and out greed.

[Drop_Bear]

My point is that not only did he contribute to the economic downfall of his country but he also had the means to turn it around and chose not to.

In regards to "should" an interim period lasting longer than about 5 years is unacceptable. They couldnt do anything until much later because Soharto violently repressed any semblence of a challenge to his authority such as the PKI crackdown in the early 70's.

Soharto's pilliage was not to do with foreign aid. It was about setting up and awarding his own business' contracts. There was no disclosure of spending and he charged whatever he wanted and he got paid whatever he wanted. He also set things up in a way that it would be perpetually prosperous even after his overthrow or resignation by setting up outside of his own country. In Western politics this is known as a conflict of interest. You raise the points about Cheney (I think the only legitimate one of the list) and I agree wholehartedly. I think Cheney has a lot to gain from being in power and his actions since being in power have contributed to his wealth. He is being scrutinised over this and has a tarnished reputation as a result. This is still only a moot point compared to the effect of Soharto's own greed had on his whole country.

You raised the point of importance of family. Soharto put his family before his country and he was the leader of the country. A far cry from family pride.

[dirtlove]

Pretty sure no matter how many great things a ruler brings, if millions of people are killed in the process somethings awry.

[Nerf Herder]

Most Indonesian's think, in the words of my hosts, that "Soeharto built a strong Indonesia" and created pride in Indonesian identity. Essentially all other identities - communist, ethnic chinese, provenences with strong separate identities (Aceh, traditional communities in Sumatra, Mulukus, Papua, and East Timor (post 1975)) - were denigrated. One of the challenges of nationalism, one that many other budding civilisations have faced and failed at ... very easy for me to say the next bit (comfy behind my desk) however, What benefits the many at the expense of the few, must be a strong argument for anybody's actions.

There are a couple of things that you should consider:
* Islam is strong in Indo, but its a form of Islam that is very tolerant of all mainstream religions. Javanese Islam includes Buddhist, Hindu and traditional components and beliefs. Similarly in Sumatra tribal/traditional beliefs are strong influences on religious practice. Sects of Islam (eg Shiite) or minority religions (eg Bahia) cop severe discrimination. Soeharto used the mainstream Sunni Islamic organisations to further his own interests and used persuasion to keep a lid on radical or overtly political islamic groups [Drop bear, this is why he is a Politician]. Now that anyone can form a political party since 1998, the research is showing that secular democratic parties and coalitions of democratic parties and islamic parties get the lion share of the vote - Islamic parties themselves struggle to get above single figures in elections. However islam is deeply embedded in the Indonesian government - both politically and in the bureaucracy.

My senario, only suggests that as a possibility without Soeharto (and the stability that his long reign brought), a more fundamentalist form of Islam may have arisen. I personally think this is inevitable, however, I do not know to what level of penetration.


* Indonesia is a republic that, as all Indonesians and visitors are reminded everywhere, was created through much bloodshed in fighting for liberation from the Dutch. An inspection of the old part of Jakarta (Batavia) shows just how much of a colony it was and how the Portugese, then Dutch (and a few British folk along the way), pillaged the country and created the wealth and social division we see today. On Sumatra for example, the Dutch selected one tribe over another, and no surprises Dutch supported tribe annihilated their enemy. This hated, borne in the colonial period, is very ingrained in the Indonesian consciousness and affects local, regional, national and international relationships even today. From what Indonesians write about Malaysians, the British seems to have left a completely different set of circumstances in Malaysia. I think this history (similar to Africa's) somewhat provides explanation as to why Military Jauntas prevail. Similarly, why taking care of family, as nobody else will is also deeply ingrained

As to Australia's message to Pak Soeharto - goodbye and good riddance, may your family's grief and wealth last for a short period Eloquent.

[Nerf Herder]

My point is that not only did he contribute to the economic downfall of his country but he also had the means to turn it around and chose not to. but I don't think anybody would chose what you suggest ... crook or not ... and it doesn't explain why he is "Loved" (for lack of a better word) in his country

In regards to "should" an interim period lasting longer than about 5 years is unacceptable. They couldnt do anything until much later because Soharto violently repressed any semblence of a challenge to his authority such as the PKI crackdown in the early 70's. point taken, but he is still loved in his country

Soharto's pilliage was not to do with foreign aid. It was about setting up and awarding his own business' contracts. There was no disclosure of spending and he charged whatever he wanted and he got paid whatever he wanted. He also set things up in a way that it would be perpetually prosperous even after his overthrow or resignation by setting up outside of his own country. Crooked but smart, which is an aspect that some people(s) admire.

In Western politics this is known as a conflict of interest. You raise the points about Cheney (I think the only legitimate one of the list) and I agree wholehartedly. I think Cheney has a lot to gain from being in power and his actions since being in power have contributed to his wealth. He is being scrutinised over this and has a tarnished reputation as a result. This is still only a moot point compared to the effect of Soharto's own greed had on his whole country. I agree that there are "better" checks and balances in the West, however, I think my point was about personal motive. Politians regardless of ethnicity(sp) will use there power for the good of the few (refer to my reply to Johnny re shades of grey)

You raised the point of importance of family. Soharto put his family before his country and he was the leader of the country. A far cry from family pride. But isn't that the extreme example of family pride ... ie, F@#k the country, my family comes first ... and I'm gonna set 'em up for several generations after I'm dead ... coz I can and its my duty to my family name ... and then a "number" of your people actually appreciate you for it. Dynastic rule is rife thru human history, in both business and Politics.

Shite its hard arguing with so many ... I love my job at present ... sorry ... way too much time on my hands.:p

[Nerf Herder]

Pretty sure no matter how many great things a ruler brings, if millions of people are killed in the process somethings awry.

Not if you are getting more "prosperous" at the expense of those peeps ... or if you have demonised those rebellious blighters.

Again I ask, why did it take so long to help those poor, oppressed East Timorese ... what are we doing about Aceh ... whats the difference ... Oil @ East Timor ... current trade with Indo vs Aceh independance ... does Aceh have any resources ? aside from land, and people.

[johnny]

Some examples:
Dick Cheney (Defense contracts) Highlights how politicians use their positions to benefit their and their associates interests.won't argue with that one!
Nick Greiner (Chairman Rothmans) not saying he had any association whilst an elected official, however, I believe this was the conduit that got him the position.
Bob Carr (Macquaire bank Exec), as above. not saying they are not talented or capable, however, they would have used their positions of power and influence to secure these roles ... I would.
Several Australian senators forced to quit due to failures to disclose share holdings - more an implication as opposed to factual misrepresentations.
Burke ... WA politians and business men (WA inc).

My use of the phrase "... line their own pockets." is overly simplistic ... I'll expand it to "Further their economic and personal interests, along with certain interest groups in their direct association".So, what are these people to do when they leave public life, go on the dole? Sure, some of them will groom themselves for these positions whilst in office but many of them will go on to jobs in the private sector that they are suited to. What else would you have them do? Also, just because they have lucrative jobs doesn't mean that is the reason why they went into politics. That is a leap of logic that I feel you make simply based on the fact that it is what you would do.

Of course some/many abuse positions of power, what about all those that don't/didn't? John Howard, show me how he has used his position to line his pockets or personal interests? How did Don Chipp do this? How is Bob Brown doing it? If you want a REAL example, you should have sited Peter Reith or the old Minister for health who was still using parliamentary letter heads and emails service after he had left office (name escapes me now).

Where personal interests could be, Poonany (JFK, Bill Clinton) ... Land Issues (majority of 18th and 19th century political leaders were farmers) Oil interests etc etc.What??!! You're comparing Clinton getting laid to Seoharto ripping off billions?? Sorry, but that is simply getting ridiculous. One guy gave in to the temptations of a stiff dick and the other one ripped off billions and slaughtered thousands. Dude, there is simply no comparison nor is there any way you can say that Clinton would not have been a womaniser if he was a teacher in the public school system.

I will soften my stance from "majority of politician" as this is unfair and unfounded ... however as per Lord Acton "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."Even that is simplistic. I choose to say "Some people in power have to make hard decisions that will inevitably upset some sectors of society, others steal billions and kill thousands of their own countrymen".

The strength and weakness of my argument comes down to definitions of "degrees of abuse, corruption or fore knowledge of actions" ... I'll leave it there as I know there a many shades of grey.Or you could say that some politicians use their positions to get cushy postions in private life whilst others steal billions and kill thousands of their own countrymen.

.
"Majority" in terms of what ? 1) number of people ? 2) Number of nations ? 3) number of democratic political systems ?

1) Based on number of people ... I think you're wrong ... and this only focuses on Asian peoples.
1) & 2) combined, I would say that Asians (I will classify Australian Aboridgines as Asian for this argument), Eastern Europeans, Middle Eastern Nations, Jews, Pacific Islanders, Inuits, Hispanics and Many western European (Italians, Greeks, Turks, French ?? maybe) Have strong family bonds and preceieved responsibilities and therefore would hold family members as more important and would (to varying degrees) place their children in positions of power (whether in politics or business).
Jump back a century or so and I would include the Anglo Saxons and Scandanavians in there as well.You show me how many western politicians can have sons that murder judges and get three years for it. You show me how many western politicians give the most lucrative sectors of a country they invaded to their children. You show me how many politicians who have embezeled millions/billions or killed thousands that the majority of the world does not want held accountable. I can list quite a few who have done this and the world is still chasing down until their deaths; Marcos, Pinochet, Hussein, Amin, Taylor and so on. Sure, people always place their family above others but in normal people's lives this translates to working hard, sending kids to a good school and introducing them to family contacts or handing over the family wealth when they die. Not stealing billions and killing thousands and allowing the children to kill who they please.
3) can't comment on this.



Obviously if you're an East Timorese or Acehian(sp) you would disagree, as you are not the net beneficiary of his Presidency / Dictatorship.Niether were many of the other millions in Indonesia who still live in absolute poverty. How much money does the Seoharto family have again.......?

Now, as per the bits in bold I have outlined in your quote. I think these are ethnocentrism defined.

Asians (expand other ethic groups listed above) have it wrong based on Western ideals (re: nepotism, cronism). Pffft ... for how long. Not that long ago, Westerners thought bathing was a bad idea and eating rotting meat as a delicacy.

Similarly, developing nations may envy Western prosperity, but do they crave our morals and attitudes? Of course not. Is your level of properity the same as theirs? Of course not. Will they have a difference way of getting what they need? Of course. Ok, first off, I have lived and worked in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and am now living in China. I also have an education that has had a great focus on the politics and development in Asia. So, I do consider myself in a half decent position to give an experienced and educated comment. Now, I also think that being that many of these Asian countries encourage students to go abroad (Australia, USA, England, Canada, France, Germany, etc) to study and return home (China is working hard to encurage expat professionals to return to China to help the development, can show you a mountain of evidence if needed) and bring the expertise gained in western countries to help the country develop is a pretty good indication that Asian countries look towards the west for guidance in development.

China, Singapore and Malaysia have government owned foundations that actively attempt to recruit western experts to their countries to help develop particular industry sectors because they lack the domestic expertise to do so. These countries also actively encourage western doctors and scientists to work in these countries and universities (I have a number of friends doing this). My girlfriend gets paid 2500 RMB a month in a lower management position for a large company, I get paid 200 RMB an hour to teach middle management how to speak English.

I could go on all day how so many Asian countries work hard to recruit western expertise to help develop so man of their social and professional sectors. But instead, I will just point to which countries have higher GDP/GNP, lower amounts of people living outside of absolute poverty, which countries have less civil wars and political coup de tats (sp), which countries rate better according to Transparency International's list of corruption and which countries ask other countries for foreign aid and assistance.

This doesn't mean either country is better than the other, either race or creed is better than the other. But, it does give a pretty strong indication as to which countries/cultures have a more successful political and professional culture. Sure, you can praise a country that allows nepotism, theft, mass murder and greed like that under the Seoharto regime, but personally I prefer a country/culture that has proper judicial oversights, transparency and rule of law. I certainly know which system engenders a better living standard for its population!

[johnny]

Fairly sure I didn't make any judgment calls. However, why is it that Russia is reverting back to centralisation, a key to Stalinist Communism.That's easy, power. It's not for a greater system of government but for a greater power over the periphery for one particular party/man.

[PINT of Stella, mate!]

Fairly sure I didn't make any judgment calls. However, why is it that Russia is reverting back to centralisation, a key to Stalinist Communism.

Russia is reverting back to centralisation because it's really all it's ever known. It is not however reverting back to collective farming, siberian gulags, mass purges and the deaths of millions.

As for Indonesia becoming a national hotbed of radical islam and anti-western sentiment had Soeharto not been in charge, how come Malaysia didn't follow down that path? Very similar language, very similar economic resources, very similar spread of cultures...

[Binaural]

As for Indonesia becoming a national hotbed of radical islam and anti-western sentiment had Soeharto not been in charge, how come Malaysia didn't follow down that path? Very similar language, very similar economic resources, very similar spread of cultures...

Not to mention that Malaysia is a much more prosperous country. Idonesia could have really had it so much better without Soeharto.

[Dumbellina]

Ok, first off, I have lived and worked in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and am now living in China. I also have an education that has had a great focus on the politics and development in Asia. So, I do consider myself in a half decent position to give an experienced and educated comment. Now, I also think that being that many of these Asian countries encourage students to go abroad (Australia, USA, England, Canada, France, Germany, etc) to study and return home (China is working hard to encurage expat professionals to return to China to help the development, can show you a mountain of evidence if needed) and bring the expertise gained in western countries to help the country develop is a pretty good indication that Asian countries look towards the west for guidance in development.

China, Singapore and Malaysia have government owned foundations that actively attempt to recruit western experts to their countries to help develop particular industry sectors because they lack the domestic expertise to do so. These countries also actively encourage western doctors and scientists to work in these countries and universities (I have a number of friends doing this). My girlfriend gets paid 2500 RMB a month in a lower management position for a large company, I get paid 200 RMB an hour to teach middle management how to speak English.

I could go on all day how so many Asian countries work hard to recruit western expertise to help develop so man of their social and professional sectors. But instead, I will just point to which countries have higher GDP/GNP, lower amounts of people living outside of absolute poverty, which countries have less civil wars and political coup de tats (sp), which countries rate better according to Transparency International's list of corruption and which countries ask other countries for foreign aid and assistance.


This pro-Western outlook from some sectors raises a common complaint amongst people from Asian nations, that Western ideas and expertise is some how better than the Indigenous (ie 'oriental') way of doing things. In Indonesia, unlike the other countries listed, Westerners have difficulty getting into jobs in government and government corporations.

Western corporations that have cosy relationships with government on the other hand, employ few locals at senior levels.

I think this buy-in of western expertise will end very soon as governments, corporations realise that asian universities are pumping out some of the smartest, best educated (there is a difference) and fluent English speaking students. Jakarta has more universities per square km than many places (except China), and Indonesian institutions are doing world-leading research.

Part of this buy-in, according to Tempo magazine (Indo's equivalent of Time, and in English too!), is a colonial legacy where local ways of doing things were quashed by European rulers. So Westerners, get in while you can!!!



This doesn't mean either country is better than the other, either race or creed is better than the other. But, it does give a pretty strong indication as to which countries/cultures have a more successful political and professional culture. Sure, you can praise a country that allows nepotism, theft, mass murder and greed like that under the Seoharto regime, but personally I prefer a country/culture that has proper judicial oversights, transparency and rule of law. I certainly know which system engenders a better living standard for its population!

See my previous post - Orientalism is too often used to justify corruption and diminishment of human rights - "its the Asian way of doing things", I continually hear when I question silly things.

Here there are couple of recent cases that highlight proper judicial oversights, transparency and rule of law, and another key theme of enforcement of the law.

First, the Lapindo "mud volcano" case where following the Yogyakarta earthquake, mud poured through a crack about 200 meters from where an oil/gas exploration company was doing test drilling. The police initially said Lapindo, the company doing the exploration (Aust company Santos was a partner to Lapindo), admitted guilt because the drilling operation was not done according to the requirements. A deal was set up between the government and Lapindo to compensate the thousands of people whose homes and farmland has been destroyed by metres of flowing mud. A court here determined that the company was not at fault because the mud volcano was a natural phenomena - allegedly against much technical evidence to the contrary and continuing debate amongst geologists. The police were continuing to investigate individual negligence claims against people involved in the drilling, but came under obvious political pressure to end the case. Local human rights groups cite this as an example of political and commercial interference in the judicial and police investigation.

As to enforcement of the law. A big one here is the allegations that several senior politicians lined their own pockets with public money that was intended to bail out an ailing local bank (the BNI crisis as its known here). Until the local anti-corruption watchdog, which has a massive case load, has not released details of their investigations (or its status) nor has it said whether it will charge the politicians involved. The allegations were aired in Parliament and according to legal academics and human rights groups there is sufficient evidence to support charges now. There have been some spectacular catches by the local anti-corruption watchdog - included the former ambassador to Malaysia busted for skimming off millions of dollars in visa payments.

They are also going hard against some "charitable foundations" set up by Soeharto that where used as conduits for public money into the Soeharto family accounts. This copped substantial political pressure given Soeharto's current status.

[Dumbellina]

As for Indonesia becoming a national hotbed of radical islam and anti-western sentiment had Soeharto not been in charge, how come Malaysia didn't follow down that path? Very similar language, very similar economic resources, very similar spread of cultures...

Not to mention that Malaysia is a much more prosperous country. Indonesia could have really had it so much better without Soeharto.

Malaysia was a British colony that maintained the local monarchy. Dutch used, abused and then discarded the local monarchs - there were several across Indonesia and many were at war with each other, a situation the Dutch happily exploited.

Islam is red hot in Malaysia and Indonesia but there a number of distinctions. The political and mightiest part of Indonesia is Java that has had successive waves of traditional religion followed by Hindu, Buddhist, Islam and finally to a lesser extent Christianity. Parts of these various religions have been incorporated into mainstream Javanese Islam which is known to be the most tolerant of all strains of Islam. The anti-Christian sentiments seen recently are mostly long standing discrimination against Chinese, who are mostly Christian and from the anti-Western sentiment that followed the Asian money crisis of the late 1990s. They are also tied to separatist movements in Aceh and the Mulukus - which links them to separatists in S. Thailand and S. Phillipines.

The interweaving of religion and politics are happening in both Malaysia and Indonesia but there are couple of differences:
* the recent banning (botched and later reversed) of Catholics in Malaysia using the word "Allah" is used as proof that Malaysia's anti-free press laws are being used to discriminate against minority non-Muslims.
* In Indonesia it is small sects of Islam that are divergent from the mainstream that cop the discrimination (and outright abuse). The Ministry of Religious affairs (a Government body) will only let a small sect of Islam exist if they practice according to mainstream teachings. Any other faith is not hindered in this way unless it is small in number and divergent from the mainstream faiths.

* Malaysia has never suffered brutal civil wars deposing colonial powers and then years of brutality and uncertainty in stabilising the political and economic vacuum, and many coup-de-tats and attempted coups as Indonesia has. Indonesia was hampered in its development by years of political ideology that was very strongly anti-western (the Soekarno-Hatta years), and years of military technocrats trying to run a government and bureaucracy (the early Soeharto years). So comparing Indonesia with Malaysia is simple superficially, they are proximate Malay speaking mostly Muslim nations, but that ignores the the last century or so of history.

[Nerf Herder]

Also, just because they have lucrative jobs doesn't mean that is the reason why they went into politics. That is a leap of logic that I feel you make simply based on the fact that it is what you would do.

I see myself as a proto-typical Human. I surely have differing life experiences and education, however, my base wants and needs are common to the species (I think). I was going to agree to your comments in this section, but I found your comments re: leap of logic, a little offensive for an unknown reason ... which caused me to think.

Yes you are right in that the lucrative positions are more a perk to the position, as opposed to an outright objective, however, you miss my point ... sure they started on the right foot ... but over time their views become corrupted (whether via compromise or something more base like human nature I do not know). but ref quote re: Power corrupts.

Of course some/many abuse positions of power, what about all those that don't/didn't? John Howard, show me how he has used his position to line his pockets or personal interests? How did Don Chipp do this? How is Bob Brown doing it? If you want a REAL example, you should have sited Peter Reith or the old Minister for health who was still using parliamentary letter heads and emails service after he had left office (name escapes me now). I'll belatedly add that Fat guy, that was selling off pallets of photocopy paper, which was part of his Federal entitlment (can't remember his name, a Lib, fairly sure it was Howard era).

Just to refocus this aspect of the discussion a little: Soeharto's and other non Western Dictators abuse of power, is in line with the statement that "some" politicians enter politics for personal and financial gain.

Taking away some value judgements, ie, skimming billions versus a blowy in the oval office. "Some" politicians abuse their power [regardless of race].

In summarising, I think you do agree that some politicians do enter politics for personal gain. However what we are currently arguing is the degree(s) (or shades of grey) of abuse.

So, I have said that your views are Ethnocentric (Western bias) and I will give you an example as per below:

What??!! You're comparing Clinton getting laid to Seoharto ripping off billions?? Sorry, but that is simply getting ridiculous. Aside from the minor point that this is not what I was arguing.

Say you were a Muslim Pakistani ... where religion dictates moral standards (post marital blowys - from someone not your spouse - are naughty) and brides, kickbacks and skimming off the top are OK and are likened to tips to service staff in North America, then your view is wrong.

Say you were an American mid west Christian Fundamentalist... where religion dictates moral standards (getting caught having post marital blowys - from someone not of your direct family - are naughty) where fleecing the flock is common practice, then your view is less important.

Say you were an Extremist Environmentalist that didn't care about money, and thought a few million dead is a couple billion less then desired, then your view is wrong.

Yes they are extremes, but as I've previously stated, I make no judgment calls as to the moral aspects of Soeharto's and others' actions, however to make judgements based on Western values is short sighted and lacks understanding of other moral codes and values ... although understandable.

My original post was there to point out that although from our moral view point, He was a bad bad man ... he is popular in his country and baring "shades of grey" other politicans have "lined their own pockets" by abusing their positions of power.

You show me how many western politicians can have sons that murder judges and get three years for it. You show me how many western politicians give the most lucrative sectors of a country they invaded to their children. You show me how many politicians who have embezeled millions/billions or killed thousands that the majority of the world does not want held accountable. I can list quite a few who have done this and the world is still chasing down until their deaths; Marcos, Pinochet, Hussein, Amin, Taylor and so on. Sure, people always place their family above others but in normal people's lives this translates to working hard, sending kids to a good school and introducing them to family contacts or handing over the family wealth when they die. Not stealing billions and killing thousands and allowing the children to kill who they please.

Your saying that in the history of Western Civilisation this has not happened. Further because I won't or can't find any articles to pin point specific examples then it never happened ... Western Politics is clear of corruption ... because, Nerf Herder can't prove it and somebody has never been caught or convicted of these crimes, whilst in power ... phew.

Uhmmm although its not really in line with what I am arguing I will do some research, however, I think you've got sand in your hair and ears on this mate. Time will tell.

Further, I think your confusing the Legal System with the Political system ... whilst ignoring my "shades of grey" concept.

Ok, first off, I have lived and worked in Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and am now living in China .... I think Dumbellina has put some perspective on this ... I add that there is a difference between the aim of accumulating Technical knowledge versus take on of moral and cultural ideals.

I agree with Dumbellina re: move away from Western expertise ... it is a stop gap ... even a reversion to Colonialism ... Western methods and concepts are "better" then local processes and practices - at present ... You just have to Play Civilisation IV to understand the importance and strategic value of technological understanding, but the blighters never want to covert to your political or religious systems :D

Johnny, as a personal question, please feel free to ignore ... were your experiences in Malaysia / Thailand / Singapore as an adult ? what length of time in each ?

[johnny]

Last post on this as I'm too busy and it's getting far too convoluted.

All experiences were as an adult. Malaysia/Thailand/Singapore = almost a year. Indonesia = 6 months. China = almost a year and currently still here.

Mate, I completely leave out the value judgments and look how these actions effect teh populace. Clinton getting a blowey didn't directly effect any starving millions, the country's future prosperity or anyone outside the oval office at the time. Soehato's corruption killed thousands and left millions starving. I honestly can't believe that cultural values has any part in the argument! What's best for the people, feeding them with their own tax dollars etc. or allowing the Pres. to amass it into his own personal fortune??!!

As for the history of Western civilisation, of course we have certain people who have done the same thing. What I am saying is take Australia, Canada, Sweden, England, France, Japan, USA, etc. and ask yourself if any of our leaders would be allowed to get away with that sort of behaviour in the last 50 years. Contrast that with many developing nations including Indonesia and see what the difference is. Now ask yourself which nations have greater quality of life (less corruption, less starvation, better infant mortality rates, levels of literacy, less unemployment, better health services,political communication, legal rights, labor rights, etc). Also, ask which nations receive more foreign aid from the other, crave technological transfer, foreign investment, foreign expertise...., which nations are in the more enviable position. I can't believe I'm even arguing this point! :eek:

To me the bottom line of defending Soehato's legacy boils down to which system of leadership benefits the people more; embezzlement and murder or coming under the rule of law and social responsibility. It's got nothing to do with ethnocentrism or cultural values. It's simple pragmatics; which methods of leadership benefit a nation and which fuck the citizens over.

I don't think Soeharto's position is in the least defensible. Christ I hope you don't compare selling photocopy paper with killing thousands and leaving millions starving....

Sorry, I just don't have the time to get into this anymore. That's my position and I won't change it.