Talk:Indonesia/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Old talk

I have changed the reference to "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" being Old Javanese. Someone changed it back but I thought my change hadn't taken effect and so, did it again. I believe I am correct, but will do some more research before I come back. If someone wants to change it back, I won't change it again until I have a reliable source for my belief. Peacenik. 26/09/2004.

I think 'Binneka Tunggal Ika' is sanskrit.
That is correct. Vhadiant, can you properly sign your comments please? Use four consecutive tildes and the database will tag the correct user name and UTC. Julius.kusuma 12:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Julius, are you saying that you think that "Bhinneka Tunggal Ika" is Sanskrit too? I couldnt find any sources on the net to support this. I remember reading it in Ailsa Zainnudin's History of Indonesia, but could find no support for that. Do you have any more info? --Peacenik 20:50, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Peacenik, I believe that is correct. This is recollection from my Indonesian history class. However, old Javanese is very similar to Sanskrit IIRC, so it may be the case that both are correct.

Yes, Old javanese is similar to Sanskrit ( Sansekerta in Indonesian Languange )

 It is certainly true that many Javanese words are the same as in Hindi, and Sanskrit is the link between the two. Julius.kusuma 01:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No it's Old Javanese which is also called Kawi. The Old Javanese language is very different than the Sanskrit language. Old Javanese is an Austronesian language while Sanskrit is an Indo-European language. However Old Javanese incorporated many loanwords from Sanskrit. I can also prove that Bhinneka Tunggal Ika is Old Javanese and not Sanskrit. Why don't you just read the article: Bhinneka Tunggal Ika. Meursault2004 15:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it would be appropriate is there was a bahasa Indonesia unicode script for the country's called name. Colipon 22:51, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No bahasa Indonesia uses the Latin character. There are hundreds of local language dialect and they have their own character but the national language uses the Latin character. It would be inapropriate to use any of these characters. Vhadiant

Yes, bahasa indonesia use latin character, also some local dialect. But other some local dialect use local character.

'Bhinneka Tunggal Ika' is Old Javanese, yes. It is first written by Empu Tantular in Kitab Sutasoma during the reign of Majapahit that has suceeded in uniting (nearly) all the lands we now know as Indonesia, even a small part of Malaysia. In Indonesian, it translates into 'Berbeda-beda namun tetap sama' or roughly 'Different but one'. And bahasa Indonesia use latin character. So as bahasa sunda, betawi, and batak--roughly nearly all the major local dialect

entertainment?

History is interesting isnt it? Know what would make it more interesting? little carttons of ppl killing eachother. Come on, do it!!

Are you mocking indonesian or something? Indonesians are quite prone of controversy, correct. But it could not be helped, for there are vast diversities among the people; be it in religion, tribe, and social manners. And because of the long period Indonesians spent during oppresion, they value democracy and freedom nearly into the point of extreme. This is a major problem int the politics. But still, that doesn't give anyone the right to generalize Indonesians as a violent nation.

Indonesia is indeed a violent nation.

this article

I have to point out that this article is currently very mis-representative. Even the CIA-World Factbook is more even handed: "Indonesia is the world's largest archipelago; it achieved independence from the Netherlands in 1949. Current issues include: alleviating widespread poverty, implementing IMF-mandated reforms of the banking sector, effecting a transition to a popularly-elected government after four decades of authoritarianism, addressing charges of cronyism and corruption, holding the military and police accountable for human rights violations, and resolving growing separatist pressures in Aceh and Papua."

People (especially American who might not know about Indonesia) could die if, for example they tried to take photographs or talk to a local without being aware of the risks.

The history section edits out the 'cooperation' of the Indonesian elite with the Japanese during the Pacific war, fails to mention Soedjatmoko and his famous offering up the resources of Asia in exchange for political aid, doesn't even mention the military coup by Suharto and his purge/killing of over half a million Javanese villagers to ensure democracy never raise its head against him; no mention of the invasion of Dutch New Guinea in 1961, of the invasion of East Timor in 1975, ...

The 'Politics' sections makes no mention that the Indonesian Military holds political seats and power, that no Indonesian President could hold office excepting with their support.

The Economics section makes no mention of the fact that the "oil and natural gas, tin, copper and gold." are all in the invaded/occupied nations under Indonesian military occupation. Makes no mention of the fact that the Military Generals and their families own the Indonesian businesses in those regions or the extent of official corruption in Indonesia.

The Geography section does not mention that Indonesia and the entire Malay archipelago is on the Asian tectonic plate, while New Guinea & therefore Papua is on the Australian (which is why Papuan mountains are so high). Does not mention ecological items like the 190,000 tones of tailings from Freeport dumped into the local river each day or the resulting infertility of the Papuan race in south West Papua due to copper poisoning. Nor the plague of worm which the Indonesian introduced to the wild & domestic boar of New Guinea since their 1961 invasion.

The current article seems to make Indonesia sound like a multi-ethnic wonder-land, failing to mention that Java is Islamic, and the other religions are mostly in occupied territories under dispute from the native people (Aceh, Borneo, West Papua & Maluku, even the Hindu on Bali are now under threat from new Indonesian laws which some people suspect were designed to convert them to Islam).

All up, I ask, please somebody or group of people re-write this article. I wish not to write it myself as NPOV would be excessively exhausting to maintain, having read the details of rights abuses against the West Papuans.

An apology for Wikipedians who've written in good faith. I just had a quick scan of the history of the Indonesia article, which I did fail to do before writing the above. And it looks like the article just grew naturally into its current form... ..I put just the word "Indonesia" into Google and got the "Indonesia House" & "Inside Indonesia" links from the first page, which I did add to the external links. The format and look of the page is utterly beautifull IMHO, just missing some details to bring it up to the level of other Wikipedia country articles. :)Daeron
"In 1940 during World War II, Japan had been denied vital aviation fuel by the Dutch Indies government, unable to negotiate for the fuel Japan begins its invasion of Malaya in December. Capturing Indonesia in 1942, Japan found the Indonesian elite to be cooperative trade partners and willing to marshal troops as needed. Sukarno, Mohammad Hatta, and Kyai were decorated by the Emperor of Japan in 1943."
Daeron what do you mean with Kyai? In Indonesian (as well as several other related languages), it is nothing more than a title. Can you be more specific? Meursault2004 08:58, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thank you, its an error and should be fixed. I have extreme disadvantage of not speaking Indonesian; which has also made it much harder over the years to find multiple serarate accounts. And I hadn't been preparing anything for this article, it surprized me that it seemed undeveloped compared to other articles; but that's probably my mistake again, I suppose the south-east hemi(?)sphere is remote to much of the English language world.Daeron 09:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

...I don't believe this... I'm sorry, but the way you talk gives me the idea that you are of the opinion that Soeharto is no more than some kind of a dictator. Many thinks the same, I won't deny that. But you have failed to mention that he is who we call as 'Bapak Pembangunan' or 'the Father of Development'. During the reign of Soekarno, whose deed perhaps stopped at the proclamation on August 17th 1945 and the short time following when MPR and DPR are established, Indonesia are on the verge of being turned into a communist nation, and people are on the worst of poverty due to the minimum development and import-export. When Soeharto was the president, Indonesia was at its best of condition--schools are openened everywhere, the 9-year-education program are legitimated, etc. It would be too much to mention all of them. He ruled with military force, correct, but I personally think it was pretty much needed to keep things in order, and would be the right thing to do had not he overdid it.

And about Soekarno etc cooperating with Japan, it wasn't completely true. During their time in Indonesia, Japanese banned all national organization and established 'Putera' which aim was to have the educated people of Indonesia to work for Japan. Soekarno, Mohammad Hatta, and few others joined in 'Putera' just so they could gain information about Japanese and have supplies from them. This is also so the Japanese wouldn't keep their eyes on them while they secretly establish the national movement. There are also controverisal/underground organizations established by Indonesian icons that worked secretly amongst the villagers. I hope this would give you the rough sketch of the national movement during Japanese reign.

Questions

Aceh NPOV

"The agreement remains controversial and could still flounder, but for now, Aceh has the quiet it so desperately needs as people try to reconstruct their lives." I took this sentence off the end of the first section, because it is not a "verifiable fact."

Reply: I believe it is indeed verifiable that the agreement is controversial, and threats to its success could be documented by reference to various press accounts - though I admittedly lack the inclination to spend time searching down such references. In terms of the importance of documenting that Achenese need quiet to reconstruct their lives, I find it hard to imagine that a state of conflict could be conducive to the recovery from the unimaginable calamity of the tsunami. As I wrote that text (founder, not "flounder," by the way, though someone else presumably edited that word), I would ask you what you think my point of view is, other than wishing for quiet rather than war in a disaster zone (is that a truly controversial POV?). That said, if you dislike the rest of the sentence, would you also object to language like "however, the agreement remains controversial and its outcome is as yet uncertain"? If so, why?

Michael 01:44, May 14 2006 (UTC)

Other Independance Groups

I was wondering if perhaps Meursault2004 or someone may be to answer a question about other independance groups in Java & Aceh (42-45). I've had a suspicion that if the Japanese hadn't suddenly developed a an unexpected interest in encouraging Sukarno's group as a independance movement; that a different coalition of people would have formed the original post-war independance movement. I also think they would still have succeeded, for example the Aust. Trade Unions that black-listed Dutch shipping until the Dutch stop opposing the independance; wouldn't have known diddly about the internal politics, only that the Indonesians were now demanding their independance and that was something the Aust. Trade Unions were in favour of.Daeron 11:01, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

It is correct that there were many different independence movements that sprung among the different locations and ethnic groups. The thing to keep in mind is that almost all of the leaders who became the prominent Indonesian leaders were part of the educated elite that came about on java in the early 20th century, thanks to access to western education that was developing in java. These leaders were not exclusively Javanese, nor did they all advance an agenda of a united Indonesia. Other organizations include Jong Celebes for people from Sulawesi, groups from the Batak people, and groups from the pacific islanders in the east. Even during the independence war in 1945-1949, these groups still existed and some continued to press the agenda for their own independent state separately from the Javanese. Another historical piece often overlooked: when Jakarta and Yogyakarta were taken over by the Dutch and the capital was temporarily moved to Western Sumatra, there were fears that the people there won't give the power back to Sukarno-Hatta at the end of hostilities. And indeed, after Java was restored in 1949, there was quite a bit of friction in transfering power back to Sukarno-Hatta in Jakarta. The problem is that most people who grew up in Indonesia (including myself) were not taught this version of history, but rather one that emphasizes national unity, blah blah. Older people tend to know this fact better than the younger ones, because many were educated in the 50s and 60s, before the curriculum was radically changed to include mostly propaganda. Julius.kusuma 23:51, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Independance

An error, there...

The japanese colonisation, was more de facto then de jure, it did not last long enough to even be considered a proper annexation.

The netherlands should be the prime mention there, but japan could be mentioned as a temporary admin.

  • The Colonial government capitulated to the Japanese, so it is a proper annexation. Moreover, a lot of the movements towards independence, and the establishment of the government, was done during the Japanese occupation. I don't see what you're trying to drive across here, that "[the Japanese occupation] was more de facto then de jure".
there wasn't any netherland after japanese invansion except those who had been imprisoned. De jure? In whose perspective? European perspective? Netherland didn't have any power at the time. The Japanese also made some little change in administration such as renaming Batavia as Jakarta. Kunderemp 03:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
excuse me, but who said the Japanese renamed Batavia as Jakarta? Jakarta was given its name WAY before the time of Japanese!
Before Japanese, the name of the City was Batavia. And before Batavia, the name was Jayakarta, not Jakarta. That was the standard history taught in elementary schools in Indonesia. Give me your proof if you believe Jakarta was given its name before Japanese arrive in Indonesia. Kunderemp 02:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Official name

I believe the official name for Indonesia is not Republik Indonesia, but it is Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI). --*drew 12:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I had never heard a reference to that as a name for Indonesia during the time that I lived there, but a quick look through the constitution [1] shows that it is often referred to as NKRI. However, all that really means is the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (as opposed to Federal). There is no specific declaration in the constitution that NKRI is it's official name. --Peacenik 22:23, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In practice, it is called Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia only in formal ceremonies. But the formalities is what is the issue here. This term is in contrast to the pre-1959 Federal Republic of Indonesia or something like that. Julius.kusuma 23:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NKRI is hardly used anymore and I think it has the conotation of the old republic.
Which "old republic"? The term NKRI was coined to constrast with the old "United States of Indonesia" or "Republik Indonesia Serikat" of the 1950s. I believe that you have it backwards. Julius.kusuma 01:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Republik Indonesia is sufficient. People (mostly Struggle-Indonesia Democratic Party) uses NKRI when they tried to contrast it with other concept such as Federalism. I totally agree with Julius.Kusuma. Kunderemp 03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
When we talk about official name, just take a look what written on official letterhead, or in an official law documents. It is said: "Republik Indonesia", and NEVER Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (I'm civil servant, anyway). Yup, NKRI is used just to show that "we are unitary country" (for example, it is used to contrast with concept such as Federalism, or against disintegration), and today it is still often to be used, too. wic2020talk 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
According to CIA World Fact Book, it is:Repulik Indonesia. Please go to this page: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/id.html#Govt Tamaneden

Just out of curiosity, how many of the people discussing in this page are Indonesian? I kinda have the feeling that most of you are. By the way, the official name is Republik Indonesia or RI. NKRI is used merely to emphasize things up.

Neutrality disputed

I'm tagging this article as having its neutrality disputed. Not only many unfavourable aspects of Indonesia are not mentioned, the West is demonised for its actions as if they were plotting against a country willing just its independence — that is ridiculous in ignoring both Indonesia's bloody expansionism, and its siding with also bloody expansionist Communism.

Leandrod - do you have specific passages that you take issue with? How would you write them more neutrally? - Cdc 00:17, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Cdc: unless you have specific aspects that you have a problem with, and can tell the other contributors about, what's the point of tagging this article as POV? Also, note that here is an article History of Indonesia which may be a more appropriate place to add/edit. Finally, if you want to really add focus on one particular aspect, for example related to East Timor, then the better way to go would be to make a page about it which is linked from the History of Indonesia page, or the Indonesia page, or both. Julius.kusuma 00:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

HOW ON EARTH could you categorize Indonesia as pro-Communist? That's grossly inaccurate.

FYI, the PKI or Partai Komunis Indonesia or Indonesian Communist Party is the most forbidden party in Indonesia. People proven to be a part of it are sentenced into jail, as done to Pramoedya, the late famous writer who was thrown into the isolated island of Nusa Kambangan (like Indonesian alcatraz prison, if you may). So it's stupid enough to even have the thought that Indonesia as communist. And what, please, do you mean by bloody expansionism?

Template:Indonesia infobox

I've moved the infobox to a template; it seems like a good mechanism to me. Davenbelle 02:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea and it is done at many other country infoboxes, e.g. Canada or United States. It should be kept that way. Wikiacc 20:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It looks like somebody (hint hint, Cantus) has put it back here, I would like an explanation. (There was no edit summary explaining this.) Wikiacc 22:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. There's a vote going against this; bring your friends! — Davenbelle 23:58, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Please Clarify

From the last sentence of the second paragraph under the "History" heading:

"When the Portuguese came in early 16th century, they found a multitude of small states, vulnerable to the Portuguese, and later other Europeans wanting to dominate the spice trade."

This sentence is confusing, and needs clarification (in particular, the appositive "vulnerable to the Portuguese"). Does "they" refer to the Portugeuse, or the Arab traders mentioned in the previous sentence?


Also: "The 1950s and 1960s saw Sukarno's government aligning itself first with the emerging non-aligned movement and later with the socialist bloc, including the People's Republic of China and Yugoslavia." ? I'm not sure there is enough evidence of alignment with Soviet Bloc; and it skates over the absorption of Borneo, Celebese, Moluccas, and West Papua. The Soviet bit surely could not relate to the 1957 grab of $250m from Moscow, that was a funny & obvious ploy to put the Americans back into line and get the $650m they wanted from Washington. It's also the same ploy they used in 1962 when the US Sec. of State wanted to support the Dutch & West Papuan independence instead of Indonesia; quickly roll the Soviet Premier out & watch Washington fall over itself to support the Indonesian land grab.211.30.95.182 02:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It probably could be phrased better, but I think it's a reasonably accurate description of what happened; my general understanding is that Sukarno's preference was probably to stay nonaligned, but practical needs (for military gear, especially) meant he alternately made nice with the Soviets and at times the U.S. Ricklefs (History of Modern Indonesia) suggests that the Papua invasion was mostly done with Sovet military toys. I don't know how Yugoslavia gets in the game... Hmm.. Cdc 06:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know where you got that impression of the Papua invasion; it was all done with US aircraft, Sukarno had a decade invested building that relationship and it had already provided the political support in forcing Holland to endorse Sukarno as President, in absorbing Borneo & the Celebes in 1950 quickly followed by the Moluccas when they tried to declare independence the next year.
All the aerial bombings in Papua from 1966 to 1978 were also with US bombers. They had purchased some cheap Soviet MiG fighters with the Soviet money Indonesia got from Moscow in 1957 to scare Washington back into line & to provide blank US cheques again; but even those were not operational for the Papua invasion. Besides the communist philosophy was totally incompatible with both Sukarno's & the military Generals goals. And you forget, to them the Soviets are ugly barbarians just like the Americans & Australians -- they'll take our money, just not our culture or view points.
It's like that burns hospital Australia built for them in Bali, Indonesia always had the money to do it itself - but Bali is Hindu & not deserving of such services in Jakarta's mind. As non-Asians the Soviet, Americans, & Australians were & are just barbarians with too much money from which we are easily parted with smile and a promise.

Indonisia

I see someome added a redirect "Indonisia". Is this spelling formally accepted somewhere? If not, why would wikipedia implicitely encourage the usage of misspellings? (google: 25,000,000 for ...esia and 18,000 for ...isia) Mikkalai 23:05, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of redirects for misspellings in Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Redirect. Advantages include making searching easier for people who can't spell, and preventing those misspellers from thinking they've found a topic that doesn't have an article, and creating one that then needs to be merged. It happens, quite a bit. I don't think having misspelled redirects encourages the use of misspellings any more than an online dictionary that guesses what you meant for a misspelling does. And 18,000 Google hits indicates that "Indonisia" is a mistake many people make. CDC (talk) 00:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of course it is a common mistakes. Espescially for those who use Arabic (Indunisia) or Mandarin (Yintunixia). Smile :) Kunderemp 03:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the mistake are due to the pronouncation.... like in English, for example... I still found it disturbing, though.....

History text moved

I've made an attempt to tighten up the History section here to make it more of a summary style, with details moved to History of Indonesia. This is in line with the style suggestions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. There is more to do - it's still pretty long compared to, say, the same section for India or United States - but I think it now provides a somewhat simpler summary of the highlights, which is the intent of this page. While I've reworded a few things in moving them, I've tried to avoid actually removing any information altogether. CDC (talk) 07:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've just been comparing the history section in this article with the main History of Indonesia article... crazily the former has more detail than the latter! Unless there are any objections, I'll move the extra detail into the History of Indonesia article and tighten this section up still further.--Sepa 17:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Economy

Economy summary and full page should probably be updated, as it is outdated. It speaks of "massive problems of poverty" while the poverty level reached 16% in 2004, lower than pre-crisis levels. 24.124.61.165 21:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Announcing Wikipedia:Indonesia-related topics notice board ==

After some thought and consideration, I created an Indonesia-related topics notice board, along the same lines as other regional notice boards (such as those for Malaysia and Africa). This was established to coordinate efforts to improve Indonesia-related Wikipedia entries. If you've made contributions to Indonesia-related articles in the past, or would like to, please take some time to visit, introduce yourself, and sign the roster. --Daniel June 30, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Demographics

The article says there are roughly two groups, Malays and Melanesians. This may be true, but the Indonesian people are enormously varied. I especially noticed this in a museum in Jakarta (I believe) that had a map of the country with all the peoples. What struck me (as was probably the intention) was how many utterly different peoples there are. Not just culturally, with different head-dresses and such, but totally different faces. For example, on just one island I've been to, Borneo, there are two major indigenous groups with different skintones (Dayak and Penan). The demographics section should make this diversity clearer.

There is, however, a political implication that complicates this. I said that the Indonesian people are enormously varied. This is so much so that one can hardly speak of 'the Indonesian people'. What is Indonesia now is really just the leftover from colonial days. This problem is acknowledged in Africa, but I've never heard of it regarding Indonesia, which is strange really. It is most obvious in New Guinea. On the one hand this island has a visibly artificial border cutting through it, separating one people. On the other hand the Western half is part of Indonesia, politically linking those people to other, totally different, people. But the same goes for Borneo (split between three countries). Furthermore, there are separatist movements in Sumatra and the Moluccas. And I can imagine similar problems exist elsewhere. So this is a tricky issue to address whilst staying politically neutral. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed in the article. DirkvdM 18:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are right. A few hundreds languages are spoken there. Indonesia is as wide as Europe. The distance between Banda Aceh to Jayapura is probably the same distance from Dublin to Moscow. Such as in Europe there are roughly two or three different groups: Indo-Europeans, Finno-Ugrians and Turkish peoples (if we don't include the Basques). Yet people from Denmark look different than people from Greece, although both are Indo-Europeans. Back to Indonesia, most Indonesians are indeed Malays or Austronesians. But the relation between these Austronesians and Melanesians predates the colonial time. There are even people of mixed heritages, such as the Moluccans and some Papuans and Timorese.
As for the isle of Papua or New Guinea, I don't think you can state that they all belong to the same people. There are many differences between people on the whole island. You must not forget that more than 500 languages are spoken there! And these languages can be very different from one another. OK enough about this. Meursault2004 22:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes of course, the major division should be mentioned first, but given the variation some more detail is really necessary. I just don't have sufficient specific knowledge about this. Also, the biggest detail should go in the Demographics of Indonesia article. I'll just make a mention of this in both articles, hoping someone more informed will pick up on it. DirkvdM 08:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The article says "There are, however, many more subdivisions, since Indonesia spans an area the size of Europe or the USA and consists of many islands that to a large degree had separate developments." Using the total areas listed for Indonesia, USA and Europe, Indonesia is 1/5 the size of the USA or Europe. I am unsure whether the area listed for Indonesia includes the waters between the islands, if it does not then the article is correct to say that Indonesia spans a greater than is listed (1,919,440km²). However without a number it is difficult to tell whether Indonesia spans an area comparable to that of the USA? 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This comparison is often made, and refers to the total area of Indonesia including the waters between the islands. More fairly, it should say "geographical area". I think this is a fair comparison, because the USA itself consists of dense pockets of population, hence the comparison does not assume uniform distribution of population (and diversity). That's why the song goes, "Dari Sabang sampai Merauke..." ("From Sabang to Merauke"), referring to the span from the westernmost region to the easternmost region. Julius.kusuma 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)