Talk:Suharto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Suharto article.
Article policies
Good article Suharto has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Selected article star Suharto is a selected article on the Indonesian Portal, which means that it was selected as a high quality Indonesia-related article.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal

Contents

[edit] Politics and Dissent

I noticed a POV regarding a sentence in the politics and dissent section of this page. I removed the sentence 'This authoritarianism became an issue in the 1980s. ' due to the bias of such a statement. Were the hundreds of thousands of deaths in 1975-1976 simply not an issue in terms of Suharto's authoritarianism until years later?

[edit] East Timor

The deaths of one third of East-Timor's population was not (solely) caused by the "genocidal" Indonesian army. It was also caused by the warring factions of East-Timorese people and starvation. Meursault2004 00:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Study I read from the UNHCR said that casualties resultant of warring factions were 'limited' and the study, as well as several others from notable NGOs maintain that Indonesia itself planned a organized 'starvation programme'. --GreekWarrior 05:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC) (Standing Tall Against American Aggression).

For what purpose? A population replacement program? Meursault2004 11:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the vast majority of deaths were as a result of the occupation. Please see the recently released CAVR report as hosted on the International Centre for Transitional Justice which backs up the claim that near 200,000 people died as a result of the occupation.

[edit] Nomenclature

Can someone familiar with Indonesian nomenclature explain what Suharto's "full" name is, and also if he was born with just one name and assumed other names later, a la Ataturk, or is there some other explanation? Someone did a really good exposition of Saddam Hussein's name (can't remember if it was as part of the main article), and I'd like to see that here. 209.149.235.254 00:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Javanese have only one name - in his case Suharto - any other titles are honorifics or alternative spelligs of Suharto (Soeharto etc)
Traditionally, the one name "rule" was to signify the parent's or the family's hope, or in the order of birth (eg: Triyono (tri meaning three or third); Dwikarsa (dwi meaning two or second).
Thanks!
To slightly correct/amend this: rural Javanese names tend to be singular, but they have two parts: an honorific (denoting one's place in the family/household), plus a base name. Suharto's name boils down to the honorific "Su" (meaning "good" or "nice") added to his base name "Harto." The same is true of "Sukarno" (Su+Karno) and "Susilo" (Su+Silo).
In addition to "Su" there are other honorifics that Indonesian notables tend to be addressed by. Frequently, you find Indonesians referring to Suharto as "Pak Harto." Pak is short for "Bapak" and is roughly equivalent to saying "Mister Karno" or "Father Karno" (this connotates the respect that Suharto demanded under the New Order regime). Sukarno, meanwhile, is often referred to as "Bung Karno," with Bung meaning "Big Brother" (this connotates how Sukarno was a "first among equals" among Indonesia's founding fathers).
Here are two links on the topic, one from Slate and one from CNN

we are taling about a man who killed a millionindonesians in the 1960s, as if he is the member of a soap opera, he is a vermin, and should be burned alibve.

A last note to explain alternative spellings: spellings such as "Soekarno" and "Soeharto" are owed to the fact that they were born before Indonesia's independence from the Dutch. Back then, Javanese script was still commonly used, and then transliterated by the Dutch into Roman script. After independence President Sukarno attempted to unify the sprawling new nation by creating the common language of Bahasa Indonesia, which used the common Malay language ("Bahasa Melayu")as a base, slightly modified to include Javanese and other dialects. In the codification of the language, simpler spellings were often chosen. Thus, "Soe" became "Su" ; the old "Djakarta" became "Jakarta," etc. --Daniel 21:50, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CIA

"Lists of suspected communists were supplied to the Suharto regime by the CIA. In addition, the CIA tracked the names on these lists as Suharto's regime cracked down on them."

If this is true, there should be a link attached. Trey Stone 05:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would even add that unless there is a link attached, it should be reworded as "There is suspicion that ....." Otherwise this may be POV. While this theory has been around for as long as Suharto had gained power, it is still debated. Julius.kusuma 23:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's the link. Richard Cane 23:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further references can be found at the National Security Archive at George Washington University.--Daniel 22:37, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I made a judgement call, and made the CIA/State Department's involvement in Suharto's rise its own separate section in the article. I believe this makes both reading and editing the text more easy.--Daniel 05:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence

After the 1998 reformation movement the truthfull status of all the facts expressed in this article was a given. It would be nice to believe that all these facts are proven everywhere one would turn, but they're not. The main reason Suharto is still very rich and still living free and still very influential is due to lack of evidence. I think it would be appropriate to add comments from credible sources other than Time magazine in a separate reference section. Perhaps from Indonesian academic observers, former jailed dissidents like Pramoedya Ananta Toer, etc. Credible primary sources would be much better, perhaps. --Lemi4 08:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Year(s) of Living Dangerously?

I wonder if it's better to make a separate page just to cover the events of 1965-1967, which can then be linked from both the Suharto page and the History of Indonesia page. That way we can avoid redundancy and streamline the material. Covering only Suharto's role is unfair and unbalanced because it does not take into account the various competing factions and their interests, all of which were present at the time. Unfortunately I do not have much in terms of published material on this topic, but I'd like to help out. Julius.kusuma 14:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Check this page Indonesian Civil War - though I've never heard it called that before. I thought it was a coup, not a civil war, but I'll leave that to the historians. --Singkong2005 11:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shadow Play

There is an excellent Film by PBS called Shadow Play that details instrumental CIA involvement in Suharto's rise and dictatorship. Including sourced documents and CIA admissions. Here is that link:

www.pbs.org/wnet/shadowplay

This is a really good link. Perhaps this should be put into the article. Richard Cane 05:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I shifted the link to Shadow Play from "References" to "External Links" as there are no particular references to it in the text of the article.--Daniel 02:47, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling

I think this article should be redirected to Soeharto instead of otherwise. Meursault2004 15:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just changed the spelling from Suharto -> Soeharto. This is the usual way to spell his name and how he spells his own name. Meursault2004 09:47, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey User:Trey Stone please put a message first in the discussion page before you revert the changes of the spelling. Soeharto writes his own name that way in Latin script. So this is not a matter of transliteration. I haven't reverted your changes as I don't want to start an edit war. Meursault2004 01:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the revert war!

Can everybody PLEASE stop the revert war and discuss the issues here instead? And please stop breaking the layout/links of the article. Thanks. Julius.kusuma 10:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Field marshal?

Before we get to an edit war: Was Suharto ever made Field Marshal? As far as I know he has always been referred to as a General, not a Field Marshal. I also noticed on the [Field Marshal] page that it is stated that Sukarno was also made a Field Marshal. Is this correct? Sukarno was not exactly a militarist by any means. Julius.kusuma 04:09, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

A Web search failed to turn up any mention Suharto being a Field-Marshall; all references were to his being a General. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:14, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Mel Etitis. Unfortunately it seems that an unregistered user from domain 4.229.248.12 or thereabouts has been editing a fairly good number of articles by adding the [[Field Marshal] title and category. I'm not even sure that half of the edits are correct, but this person's persistent for sure. Anything we can do about this? Julius.kusuma 11:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I've left a message at his or her Talk page; let's see if it does any good. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:36, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, gentlemen, he was, for he is mentioned in "List of Field Marshals". He apparently appointed himself to that rank.
I suspect that the list on that page is inaccurate. I've added to the relevant discussion page. For the time being, I can't find any other source, written or online, that shows that he appointed himself Field Marshal. Hence I would like for you to NOT change the title of General to Field Marshal pending presentation of a source for this. Thanks. Julius.kusuma 16:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Finally a resolution. Sounds like somebody added his name to the list of Field Marshals without double-checking for a credible reference. See Talk:Field_Marshal for the short discussion. Julius.kusuma 03:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The confusion may be from Suharto being named "Field General" in Jakarta after the "G30S" assassinations. Another question, though, is that from what I've read on the time period Suharto's highest "official" rank was Lieutenant General in February of '66 (right before the signing of the Supersemar). Did he ever officially get the rank of General? It seems to me that since Sukarno all but abdicated in March of 66, Suharto would have to be promoted either by Gen. Nasution or himself. --Daniel 08:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
I know this one. He got promoted to the rank of General in July 1966 by Sukarno.Jakman 08:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformation Section

I expanded the Reformation/Fall portion of the article, using mostly contemporary sources as the events were fairly well documented by Western news media/academics.--Daniel 22:23, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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 18:33 (UTC)

[edit] Soeharto's Name

The quality of this page is a bit dubious when his name is wrong. Soeharto is Javanese and has just one name: Soeharto. Haji is a title and shouldn't be included in his name, especially given his lack of spiritual leadership having amassed an estimated $US40 billion during his stint as President of Indonesia.

Soeharto's full name with his title is Jend. Besar (Purn.) H. Mohammad Soeharto.

IIRC, the "Haji Muhammad" (not Mohammad) part was given by King Fahd after Soeharto done pilgrimage to Mecca. --User:Mdamt August 20, 2005 22:10 (GMT+0300)

His full name is Mohammad Soeharto. Even though in Standardized Indonesian Language oe should be changed to u, but there is an exception for people's name. Those whose name written in old standard of Indonesian Language, do not have to change to the new one. That's why in Indonesian magazines and newspapers, his name is always written as "Soeharto", not "Suharto". It is the same with Soekarno and his daughter, Megawati Soekarnoputri.

Jend. Besar (Purn.) is short of Jenderal Besar (Purnawirawan). It is his military rank, which means Great General (Retired). Great General is the highest military rank in Indonesia, whose badge is 5 stars (General has 4 stars). This special rank is for General who has very great contribution to the country. There are only 3 persons who ever achieved the this rank including Soeharto. The other two are Soedirman (1916-1950) and Abdul Haris Nasution (1918-2000).

While H. is short from Haji or Hajj. It is the title for those who has done pilgrimage to Mecca.

Actually Soedirman is nearly always rendered as Sudirman, e.g., Jalan Jenderal Sudirman in Jakarta.

Both forms are used in Indonesian newspapers in fact. A search on the "Suara Merdeka" website gives 1308 hits for "Suharto" and 2540 hits for "Soeharto", though a few of these hits refer to other people called Suharto/Soeharto. Rhion 17:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been doing some research by looking at old NY Times articles from the 65 - 66 timespan. Interestingly enough, he was already being referred to by SUharto (and not SOEharto) in that time. Take that as you will. --Daniel 08:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, comming from Malaysia I've always seen his named spelt locally as Suharto not Soeharto and I've always assumed it was largely the American media unwilling to go with the time and continuing to use the old spelling. Can anyone else confirm the Indonesia press commonly used Soe in modern times in addition to Su? However perhaps most importantly, can anyone confirm which spelling was used in modern times by the Suharto government before he left? Surely this is the best source... Nil Einne 04:16, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I did a brief Google News search, and "Soeharto" pops up in the pages of Anatara (the state news agency of Indonesia). I think this is fairly authoritative. "Suharto" may have been more popular in Malaysia as it was a former British colony and adopted the English (rather than Dutch) method of transliterating and pronouncing Javanese words/names. --Daniel 09:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

As discussed above Soeharto's name is spelled with 'oe' by himself, by major Indonesian news media and by the government (when he was in power all his portraits in buildings said 'soeharto'. I think it is incorrect and disrespectful to change the spelling of somebody's name-should we label the current French president as Sarkozee? that wouldn;t make sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtl1969 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes proper names were exempted by the spelling reforms. Indeed should I spell the former US president as Klinton? Because otherwise it would be mispronounced by Indonesians? Meursault2004 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mel and 172 revert war

Could you please put your cases in this area, so that others can see what you are up to. Doing it in each others talk areas is innapropriate and reads like personal issues... :) During his time in power Suharto was often seen as a "benevolent dictator" the ruler that Indonesia 'needed'. It's all very well to invoke political/academic theory from outside of Indonesia - it looks like neither of you lived there while he was in power..... hmmmm vcxlor 01:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  1. The final point is irrelevant; I didn't live in ancient Greece, either, but I can write about the political career or Pericles.
  2. This is a matter of Wikipedia policy (and courtesy). Others have reacted against this unilateral depopulation of a category (while that category is at CfD), and have pointed out that it would at least be much better to discuss the issues on the Talk pages of the articles concerned. If any argument were placed here, I'd respond to it. Instead, 172 merely removed the category with a spurious edit summary. His response to my request for a real explanation was different (and more convincing), but still not enough in my view — and certainly not grounds for removing the category without proper discussion. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. 172s arguments on this issue are exeedingly flawed (especially the "not all scholars" one). He even suggested calling Idi Amins reign "single-party state" instead of totalitarian (what party?). But since the category Category:Totalitarian dictators is loosing the CfD, it really serves no purpose to revert his edits now.--Ezeu 19:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I have explained why it is necessary to remove the category on Mel Etitis' talk page. Regarding Idi Amin, I did not call his regime single-party. I would follow Juan Linz and most Africa specialists in advancing the hypothesis that Idi Amin's regime is classifiable as sultanistic or personalistic. See Sultanistic Regimes. Edited by H.E. Chehabi and Juan J. Linz. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, p. 37. 172 | Talk 23:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ibu Tien

OOOps - !!! apologies, I should have left you guys to whatever it is your are trying to solve in the totalitarian dictator issue.

The issue that fascinates me, is that when I was living in Indonesia in the mid 90's , the death of Ibu Tien (a very important factor in what he was up to) was a turning point clearly in Suharto's life. None of you guys seem to even acknowledge or write about this? ?vcxlor

In fact the more I go through the article, is there is very little at all about the cultural elements, its reading like a politics 101 essay, and not a reasonable assessment of a javanese peasant who makes good - with all that entails about family, children and how all that complicates some of the more curious issues that arise from suharto's use of javanese culture and the people of java in his making himself and his family wealthy! oh well, hope you guys get good grades in your politics exams,vcxlor 05:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

This is a collaboratively-written article, developed by many, many people over a period of over two years. If it's missing something, please feel free to add it, or point out sources that might help others add it. People write about aspects of the man that they're interested in. There's no "you guys" here. CDC (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll chime in that while I welcome contributions on Suharto's family life, etc., this is becoming a rather large article (I just got the 32k warning today). Part of that, of course, is my own interest in trying to cover the period of 1965-67, which becomes this whole mess thanks to Suharto's propaganda, the Western governments' secresy, and the sheer scale of the atrocities committed.
So I'll take the blame for that (and I'm thinking of spinning off a lot of it into its own separate entry. See below). Nevertheless, we are talking about a dictator -- bicker however much you want on whether he's an authoritarian or totalitarian one, but he was a dictator -- and one who held onto power for some 30 years. You'll have to forgive me if I tend to concentrate on the political decisions of a politician with such longevity, and not the pop-psychology analysis of the man.--Daniel 07:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lead section

Does the lead section have to be so one-sided in condemnation? --Dpr 07:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • No, it doesn't. Suggestions? CDC (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • It went too far the other way. Let's not forget that he was responsible for the deaths of quite a few people. I have rebalanced it somewhat.
To the Anonymous IP's who have taken to editing the summary in the most hyperbolic terms possible: please stop. There's a reason why NPOV is there, and it's to maintain Wikipedia's integrity as an objective source that doesn't subjectively editorialise in its articles. The summary in a biographical article is meant to give the barest exposition of
  • who a person is (e.g. Suharto is a former president and strongman of Indonesia), in the most general and unbiased terms.
  • what they're notable for (e.g. directing the Indonesian state for 32 years) in the most brief and dispassionate manner possible.
The rest of the article can deal with the gory details ( the when, where, why, and how) of what the person is notable for, and furthermore with the evidence supplied.
And before anyone accuses me of being a Suharto-crony, please review the number of additions I've made to this article. If anyone's done as much research for this article putting together meticulous research putting together such limited sources on Suharto's various atrocities, by all means introduce me to them and I'll shake their hand. --Daniel 18:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is notable to lead Indonesia through a sustained period of economic growth, but not notable that he killed many thousands of people. Please do explain.

The [Joseph Stalin|Stalin] article does not ignore what he did, so I'm not sure why you imagine this is inappropriate in an introduction.

Yes, but look at the Stalin article's history, and you'll see that it's chronically suffered NPOV disputes. I'd prefer to avoid that.

Further, I'm not sure what you are impying in terms of with the evidence supplied

I implied nothing. I simply stated a guideline. Do not take it personally.

Points added to the introduction:

1. He added Irian Jaya and East Timor to the country. Non-controversial.

That first point (Irian Jaya) could be considered very controversial, since Sukarno was in fact the leader who militarily invaded it. The Act of Free Choice happened under Suharto. Indonesia, from its beginnings, regarded Irian Jaya as part of its territory; Suharto simply "sealed the deal" with the United Nations, Dutch, and Americans.
Moreover, considering the man's 30 year grip on power, on one of the most widespread nations on the globe, East Timor and Irian Jaya come across as too specific for the lead, which is supposed to be general. Why list East Timor and Irian Jaya in the lead, when Suharto was just as brutal on Java, Sumatra, the Moluccas, Bali, and thousands of other islands as well? Why not just say that he "maintained political stability in the diverse Indonesian archipelago through suppression of political dissent and regular use of the military to preserve control," which was already stated, and leave the particulars to the body?

2. He entrenched the army in political life. Actually stated in the article below he 'set aside 100 seats' for the army. Other sources available, e.g.,: http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1397.cfm

I have no major quibble with this point, except that this is already covered by "use of the military to preserve control."

3. He killed tens of thousands in East Timor. Pretty well accepted, and again stated below 'It was estimated that 100,000 people, roughly a third of the local population, were killed by the Indonesian army.'

He personally killed them? No, he did not. The military did, as well as local paramilitary groups, as well as pitched fights between pro-integrationists and the pro-independence forces. And btw, thank you for pointing that quote in the article; I'll edit it for accuracy.

4. Reduced the number of people classed by the World Bank as living in absolute poverty from 60% in 1970 to 15% in 1990. Source provided, World Bank URL added to references.

No quarrel from me on the general point (that he reduced absolute poverty), but again: specifics in the body, not the lead.

5. Indonesia fared far worse than any of its neighbours. Again, pretty uncontroversial, the currency crashed further than any other SE Asian country and is still worth only a quarter of what it was before.

"Fared far worse" is totally POV. Anyone could come along and say, "Well, Indonesians have wayang kulit theater, and I don't -- they're better off than I am!" And they'd be totally correct in doing so.

6. Suharto became the sixth-richest man in the world. BBC reference to Forbes source provided previously.

Again, I don't quarrel with the general point, but you don't need to be specific in the lede.

The seventh point that Indonesia's corruption caused it to do so badly is the only non-NPOV statement there, and could be removed.

So I really don't see what you are getting so upset about. The deaths are pretty significant if you were involved, or indeed if you consider that the PKI were the third-largest Communist party in the world and were wiped out by Soeharto. Do you not think this was significant? Do you think that the introduction should read like a biography of Gerhard Schroder? In fact, Wikipedia's own article on PKI has, under the rather bald headline 'Genocide' 'In terms of the numbers killed the anti-PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century...'

As I've stated before, I think Suharto happens to be one of the most brutal dictators of the 20th Century, that he should face trial and if need be executed, and that his ill-gotten gains nationalized and redistributed to victims of his regime. But that's my opinion. We have to deal with the most basic facts. Even more basic and general in the lede!

And you think this shouldn't go in the introduction?

I think the introduction should state that Suharto is a former president of Indonesia, give a very broad outline of what his policies were, and leave all the details to the rest of the article.

Similarly with East Timor, deaths of a large part of the population seems pretty important to me.

Pretty important to you, but not as important to the wider audience, which is the criterion. --Daniel 01:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

On the issue of wealth, does becoming President and not making a few million dollars like you might expect, but becoming on the of the richest men in the world seem like a key fact about the man? Does the Bill Gates article not have in its opening paragraph 'According to Forbes magazine in 2005, Gates is the wealthiest person in the world with a net worth of around US$46.5 billion'.

So please do tell me what part of this I'm wrong on.

Thanks

[edit] Trimming the Fat

Like I said before, I really have to apologise for the bloat in this article. My college recently got licenses for some really good resouces for looking up very old NY Times stories, and I'm afraid I got a little wrapped up in getting to finally see how Suharto emerged, little by little, from a pariah Maj. Gen. to assume the presidency.

To address the embarassment of research riches I've been digging up (and there's some really good -- disturbingly good -- stuff on the period), I think I am going to spin off the sections on the Indonesian civil war period of 1965 to '67, as well as one on the "The New Order" (Orde Baru).

On that first note, I'm kind of stuck on titling such an entry. I was thinking of "Indonesian Civil War" - but I've never seen the '65-'67 period "titled" as such. On the other hand, there's "G30S" (Movement of September 30), which is the way Suhartoists like to phrase it - which, in my opinion, is one reason not to title it as such (since it's a blatantly loaded propaganda term).--Daniel 08:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Daniel, thanks for the great work in incorporating the new material: the writing is great! As for spinning off the 65-67 period, I suggest calling it "the rise of the new order" or something. The term "the new order" was once also a propaganda-loaded term, but nowadays is often used to refer to Suharto's era even by the reformists. So roughly speaking Indonesia has gone from the "old order" era to the "new order" era to the "reformasi" era. Julius.kusuma 15:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Another option would be tighten this page down so it's limited strictly to Suharto's biography, and refers to History of Indonesia or a subpage of it for broader context. I realize, of course, that it's tricky to separate a lot of the important things that happened in '65-'67 from Suharto himself, but on the other hand most events were much bigger than being just about Suharto, so might belong somewhere else. History of Indonesia is pretty thin, and would definitely benefit from some of the excellent content here; a sub-page about the '65-'67 years would be warranted soon; maybe Creation of the New Order in Indonesia, or 1965 attempted coup d'etat in Indonesia? By the way, this article is indeed looking great lately - way to go. CDC (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement. After trying to edit History of Indonesia, I can see that the problem is not just with the G30S/New Order era, but also that there's not much unity to History of Indonesia and related pages. I've outlined how I am approaching these problems in an announcement on Wikipedia_talk:Indonesia-related_topics_notice_board. --Daniel 21:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've transplanted chunks of the text in Suharto into Indonesian Civil War, New Order (Indonesia), and Indonesian Revolution of 1998. Each of these shares a bit of text with History of Indonesia, so now the only major problem is that there's a ton of stuff on Pre-colonial Indonesia that needs to be synthesized and made into its own page. I'm not too sure I'm the person for that job, as frankly I don't know a Majapahit from a Nasi Goreng.

Anyway, on Suharto: there's no longer a warning about article size, which is good. I think this could really be enhanced by some contributions on Suharto's public persona, some trivia on his personal life. Speaking for myself, I think I've given all I could to this particular article, being a poli sci kinda guy. --Daniel 08:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vis-à-vis the current edit war

Some of you should read this: NPOV. Its not that others love Suharto, its that even if you loathe him, your edits must be NPOV.--Ezeu 00:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indonesian Civil War Section

This section has some grammar & readability problems as well as neutral point of view issues. Unfortunately I do not know enough about the material to contribute properly, but statements such as this paragraph:

"Gerakan 30 September, commonly abbreviated as G30S or Gestapu. Some sources believe that the name Gestapu, Gerakan 'September 30' was CIA-given as its word order was more English rather than Indonesian. Indonesian would commonly said '30 September', not 'September 30'. The acronym Gestapu was to make it sounded notorious, identical with Gestapo)."

Do not seem to be verifiable. I have marked the section with a NPOV tag and the article with a cleanup tag to bring appropriate resources to bear on the article. Gblaz 21:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've cleaned up the POV and grammar issues. A note on Gestapu: it is pretty common knowledge among the Indonesians that it was a term used by Suhartoists to deride G30S and the PKI, and not something of their own invention (and in addition, it is common sense: why would a communist group name themselves after the Gestapo, who made a specialty of killing communists?) What Suharto's motives or inspirations were for using the term are unknown but to the man himself; nevertheless, it is important to provide proper attribution.--Daniel 01:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review for Suharto

I've put in a request for Wikipedia:Peer Review for Suharto that can be seen here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Suharto. I believe it would be good for getting some perspective outside of myself and others who have frequently edited this article. And it's the first step to getting the entry made a Featured Article on English Wikipedia.

Please feel free spread the word on related Talk Pages. Your help is greatly appreciated. --Daniel 04:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Additions and Changes

After a long time away from this article waiting for the peer review to be finalized, I've returned to work on this article. Just wanted to list some of the additions and changes.

  1. The biggest one (IMHO) is the change citations from parenthetical to footnote/bibliography style. Also, the footnotes and bibliography are in a reduced font, done in a style that can be seen in Hugo Chavez. Given that the Chavez article won featured article status, I'm going to take the "if you can't beat'em, join'em" approach.
  2. I got ahold of a decent biography of Suharto that really illuminates Suharto's pre-presidential years. It's R.E. Elson's Suharto: A Political Biography. I plan on making some further additions using this book as a reference.
  3. In tandem with the Elson book, I managed to find some halfway decent pictures of him that I believe should be public domain, if not fair use. So now we have a lead photo again! They're from the Department of Information and State Secretariat of Indonesia. If anyone has a halfway decent knowledge of Indonesian intellectual property law (besides the lack of any enforcement), it'd be very appreciated.

For the future, I am looking to fatten up the portion on Suharto's military career, but eventually it will be exported to its own article (e.g. Military career of Suharto), much in the same way the Civil War and New Order sections got fattened up, exported, then trimmed.

After that is done, I hope to do another round of peer review, and then based on that nominating this to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates --Daniel 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure this picture is from the Department of Information and State Secretariat of Indonesia? Because the quality is very poor (not that the Department of Information and State Secretariat of Indonesia published good quality photographs :-)). I suspect it comes from some newspaper. Meursault2004 05:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I scanned these photos from the Elson book on a flatbed scanner. Unfortunately, that means the halftone pattern from the photo being printed onto paper got scanned too. The other two photos I used a blur effect and fiddled around with contrast to reduce the problem and got some progress out of it, but doing the same thing to the top photo ended up making it look very out-of-focus. --Daniel 06:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well on the Indonesian Wikipedia we have a new picture of Soeharto which have come from the website of the Indonesian Embassy in The Hague, Holland. According to Indonesian law, the use of material published by the Indonesian government is not considered infringement of the copyright as long as it is not stated otherwise. If you speak Indonesian, you can read in the official site of government of Indonesia:
Tidak dianggap sebagai pelanggaran Hak Cipta:
Pengumuman dan/atau Perbanyakan segala sesuatu yang diumumkan dan/atau diperbanyak oleh atau atas nama Pemerintah, kecuali apabila Hak Cipta itu dinyatakan dilindungi, baik dengan peraturan perundang-undangan maupun dengan pernyataan pada Ciptaan itu sendiri atau ketika Ciptaan itu diumumkan dan/atau diperbanyak.
Perhaps somebody can translate this.
Meursault2004 11:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Daniel, great work on the article! Here's a translation of the Indonesian law:
Announcement and/or circulation of any (material) announced and/or circulated by or in the name of the Goverment, excepting when the copyright is said to be protected, whether by law or by statement (appearing) on that material or when the material itself was announced and/or circulated.
Wow, that was a mouthful. Now I remember why I wasn't interested in law. Julius.kusuma 13:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Julius for the translation :-) Now this is the picture I am talking about:
Soeharto
Soeharto

. Meursault2004 15:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

After a period of inactivity on Wikipedia, I'm returning and hoping to complete some work on Suharto and related pages/subpages in April and May. To give a rough outline of what I'm planning to do (without any particular order):

  1. Create an infobox template for Indonesian presidents (all six of 'em) that can be applied here.
  2. Finish research on Suharto's military career that can be placed here, then exported to a new page, Military career of Soeharto akin to other military-political figures such Hugo Chavez (see Military career of Hugo Chavez) and Dwight Eisenhower (see Military career of Dwight Eisenhower). A glaring hole I've noticed is a gap between the end of the national revolution and the post-Independence years (during which Suharto was very active, including in the West Irian area which is a hot topic of late).
  3. Elaborate a bit more on Suharto's personal life, with possibility of creating a page for his family, e.g. Kennedy family. This involves some work in not only cataloging his children but also extended family.

--Daniel 18:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second longest serving?

Who was the longest serving President of Indonesia? He appears to be the longest.

that is correct. Following Indonesia's first president Sukarno. Take a look here. --Merbabu 13:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Sukarno:21 years. Suharto:32 years. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 08:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is totally ridiculous

I am no Indonesian scholar, but there needs to be FAR FAR more stuff in this article on

(a) Suharto as one of the most corrupt leaders in modern history; and
(b) Suharto as a military dictator.

--Mike October 9 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.195.56 (talk • contribs)

Firstly, hope you don't mind, but i edited you formatting a bit. I took out the line you made and added an unsigned stamp - content remains the same though.
As for your request, could you maybe elaborate? Sure, you've touched on an interesting point and there is truth in what you say, but that is only part of the story. Given you've acknowledged limitations to your understanding of Indonesia, i hope you don't mind me explaining the way i see it (not that I am an Indonesian scholar either - but i know more than many). The truth is that Suharto's legacy is highly controversial. On the one hand he was indeed an authoritarian and, even if it is proving hard to prove that he himself was corrupt, his family and political/business associates were undeniably involved in corrupt processes - indeed the whole economy is still riddled with the practices. One the other hand, his monica "Father of (Indonesian) development" is not undeserved. In the 1960's following the rule of his predecessor Sukarno left the country bankrupt and essentially unable to feed its people, let alone provide decent education and there was political chaos. Suharto stabilised the country politically and economically and held it together fostering Indonesian nationalism and sense of nationhood that we see today. 40 years ago, 60% of Indonesian live in poverty and but by the mid-1990s this had shrunk to 15% (yes, this has crept back somewhat since the Asian crisis), education and health levels were greatly boasted, a rapid and sustained industrialisation process is still underway, and there is now a substantial middle class where in the 1960's it was almost non-existant.
I completely agree if you are suggesting that there needs to be more explicit discussion contrasting the "good" and "bad" of Suharto. Maybe the words in the existing sections need to be strengthened to make it clearer, or maybe there even needs to be a seperate "criticism vs. praise" for his rule. I'd like to play a part in this, but lately when real life gives me chance to edit wikipedia, I've been joining the effort to improve Indonesia.
I'd like to hear your response. best regards --Merbabu 22:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Merbabu, I am no Mike but intrigued by your comment about "Father of (Indonesian) development". I personally think this guy get way too much credit than he deserves. Keep in mind that when his regime was in power Indonesia has gotten huge windfall from oil price hike TWICE (first one being during the oil crisis in the early/mid 70 and the second one is in the early 80 - I think). Not sure if I like the comparison you made with Indonesia 40 yrs ago either. oot: I happen to work as an in-house industry analyst who has to deal with questions from outside analysts representing the share holders. Many times they don't care about how well you do year-over-year or vs. 30 years ago but what matters most is how do you stack up against your competitors/counter parts
In that regard I'd like view Soeharto's terms as series of opportunity cost to Indonesia. 40 years ago Indonesia and South Korea are economically (and industry-wise) on par. we both went through crony capitalism period (similar treatment) but look at the result now. It's like putting my money in a 3% interest deposit while everyone else enjoying 10% return on the same type of investment. Yes I have more money than I did 40 years ago but don't you feel ripped off? You might argue that things could have been worse but again to me what Soeharto achieved could have been easily matched hypotetically by any strong authoritarian ruller with savvy power manipulation skills. so in my opinion, the economic progress that happened during his period does not make his performance exceptionally notable.Wongjerang
Hmm. Just cos I don't mirror "Mikes" simplistic bandwagon post doesn't mean I am offering blind hero-worship. I am just trying to get a more balance and considered distinction between say Mugabe and Ceauşescu. "Mike"'s post implies he doesn't make this distinction (not that I want to put words in people's mouths). Don't get me wrong, Soeharto is no angel and I too was glad to see the back of him - but he had his uses. Although i don't think many would argue that he didn't outstay his welcome. I don't know about South Korea's position 40years ago, (although "on-par" sounds a bit vague) so comparisons won't mean much to be at the moment. Nor do i have my detailed info on Indonesia at hand but the situation was dire indeed - country was bankrupt, almost all agriculturally based and it couldn't even feed itself, let alone provide an education or health service. It was also challenged by political, ethnic, social differences. It is also much larger than S Korea. Even if in the mid-60's they did start "on-par", well, south korea is but one country in Asia and lesser performance against it, doesn't straight away mean that Indonesia is a failure (and isn't 3% vs 10% as a 30 year average a little generous - although i take your point). As I said, I can't really comment on such a comparison as my S Korean knowledge basic to say the least and it has been some time since i looked at Indonesian mod history in any detail - i need to get my books out.
Also, though, isn't taking an investor's return on investment a little limiting in measring shareholder's growth.
As i said, perhaps re-read my post. It's hardly a ringing endorsement - just seeks to be a bit more balanced and considered, i actually am quite specific where i agree with "Mike". I even offered some (admittedly partial) solutions to his issues with the article - which afterall is why this talk page is here. But thanks for the interest - really. I need to find out more about S Korea (which incidently got hammered to in 97/98??) :-) --Merbabu 23:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
no problem. I only made specific remark on your comments about giving soeharto credits on indonesia's economy. 'intrigued' might have been a bad choice of word on my part. i have seen many of your edits and trust that you don't have any interest to be a hero worship whatsoever. as to S. Korea, couple of examples: steel industry: krakatau steel started around the same time as POSKO (spelling). likewise in mfg/tech based industry, today's astra is no samsung or hyundai. they got similar protection around the same time-late 60s. I mentioned S. Korea exactly because of its striking similarity. on par in terms of per capita GDP in the 60s. Replace S. Korea w/ malaysia or thailand or even vietnam the story won't change much (malaysia/vietnam started even later). even as late as 10 years ago an american OEM canceled its plan to invest a product in indonesia due to Tommy Soeharto's 'national car' program. Guess what it went to Thailand instead and now Thailand is the automotive hub of S.E Asia. The point being even as a benevolent dictator Soeharto is not as succesful. Many-many missed opportunities Wongjerang

[edit] pro-Suharto?

I think this article has been written in heavy pro-Suharto POV. He is portrayed like angel. "...For almost all of his three-decade rule, Indonesia experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth..." is one example. Not much of his regime's corruptions and militarisms are covered. This article doesn't tell about anti-democratic and repressive nature of Suharto's regime either(like banning of media, opposition party etc.). Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 13:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with mike and wongjerang above. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Commenting on the "...For almost all of his three-decade rule, Indonesia experienced rapid industrialization and economic growth...", a search of any economic data will show that this correct. Key development indicators over 30 years show comparatively high rates of economic growth and industrialisation. No ecnomist will argue that. But it might be hard to find that exact quote. But a search of economic databases will prove it a fair assertion. As for the other comments, i don't really know the article that well --Merbabu 13:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm - OK, i read through the article. That is no angel represented here. Below are excerpts/cuttings from the article. 1700 words: There is much on corruption, militarism and repression of media.

Are there specific issues that are not mentioned?

[edit] Lead

Over the three decades of his "New Order" regime, Suharto constructed a strong central government along militarist lines.

In 1990's, the Suharto regime's increasingly authoritarian and corrupt practices became a source of much discontent. His almost unquestioned authority over Indonesian affairs slipped dramatically when the Asian financial crisis lowered Indonesians' standard of living and fractured his support among the nation's military, political and civil society institutions. After internal unrest and diplomatic isolation sapped his support in the mid-to-late 1990s, Suharto was forced to resign from the presidency in May 1998.

After serving as the public face of Indonesia for over 30 years, Suharto now lives his post-presidential years in virtual seclusion. His legacy remains hotly debated and contested both in Indonesia and in foreign-policy debates in the West.

[edit] New Order Government

He permanently banned the Communist Party of Indonesia and its alleged front groups, purging the parliament and cabinet of Sukarno loyalists, eliminating labor unions and instituting press censorship.

[edit] Institutionalisation of the New Order

To maintain order, Suharto greatly expanded the funding and powers of the Indonesian state apparatus. He established two intelligence agencies—the Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order (KOPKAMTIB) and the State Intelligence Coordination Agency (BAKIN)—to deal with threats to the regime. Suharto also established the Bureau of Logistics (BULOG) to distribute rice and other staple commodities granted by USAID. These new government bodies were put under the military regional command structure, that under Suharto was given a "dual function" as both a defense force and as civilian administrators.

As virtually unchecked forces in Indonesian society under the New Order, however, members of the military and Golkar Party were heavily involved as intermediaries between businesses (foreign and domestic) and the Indonesian government. This led to bribery, racketeering, and embezzlement. Funds from these practices often flowed to foundations (yayasan) controlled by the Suharto family. [14].

[edit] Unitary state and regional unrest

From his assumption of office until his resignation, Suharto continued Sukarno's policy of asserting Indonesian sovereignty. He acted zealously to stake and enforce territorial claims over much of the region, through both diplomacy and military action.

The unanimous vote was for integration with the Republic of Indonesia, leading to doubts of the validity of the vote.[15]

Later the puppet government installed by Indonesia requested the area be annexed to the country. It was estimated that 200,000 people, roughly a third of the local population, were killed by the Indonesian forces or affiliated proxy forces.

Suharto quickly authorized troops to put down the rebellion, forcing several of its leaders into exile in Sweden. Prolonged fighting between GAM and the Indonesian military and police led Suharto to declare martial law in the province, by naming Aceh a "military operational area" (DOM) in 1990.

[edit] Politics and dissent

In 1970, corruption prompted student protests and an investigation by a government commission. Suharto responded by banning student protests, forcing the activists underground. Only token prosecution of the cases recommended by the commission was pursued. The pattern of co-opting a few of his more powerful opponents while criminalising the rest became a hallmark of Suharto's rule.

In order to maintain a veneer of democracy, Suharto made a number of electoral reforms. According to his electoral rules, however, only three parties were allowed to participate in the election: his own Golkar party; the Islamist United Development Party (PPP); and the Democratic Party of Indonesia (PDI). All the previously existing political parties were forced to be part of either the PPP and PDI, with public servants under pressure to join Golkar. In a political compromise with the powerful military, he banned its members from voting in elections, but set aside 100 seats in the electoral college for their representatives. As a result, he was unopposed for reelection as president in 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, and 1998.

On 5 May 1980 a group Petition of Fifty (Petisi 50) demanded greater political freedoms. It was composed of former military men, politicians, academics and students. The Indonesian media suppressed the news and the government placed restrictions on the signatories. After the group's 1984 accusation that Suharto was creating a one-party state, some of its leaders were jailed.

After the 1990s brought end of the Cold War, Western concern over communism waned, and Suharto's human rights record came under greater international scrutiny. In 1991, the murder of East Timorese civilians in a Dili cemetery, also known as the "Santa Cruz Massacre", caused American attention to focus on its military relations with the Suharto regime and the question of Indonesia's occupation of East Timor. In 1992, this attention resulted in the Congress of the United States passing limitations on IMET assistance to the Indonesian military, over the objections of President George H.W. Bush.[16] In 1993, under President Bill Clinton, the U.S. delegation to the UN Human Rights Commission helped pass a resolution expressing deep concern over Indonesian human rights violations in East Timor.[17] The Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor has been called the worst instance of genocide (relative to population) since the Holocaust[citation needed]

[edit] Reformation protests and Suharto's resignation

In 1996 Suharto was challenged by a split over the leadership of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), a legal party that propped up the regime. Megawati Sukarnoputri, the daughter of Sukarno, had become PDI's chairwoman and was increasingly critical of Suharto's regime. In response, Suharto backed a co-opted faction led by Deputy Speaker of Parliament Suryadi. The Suryadi faction announced a party congress to sack Megawati would be held in Medan 20 June - 22.

After one month of this, police, soldiers, and persons claiming to be Suryadi supporters stormed the headquarters, killing Megawati supporters and arresting two-hundred. Those arrested were tried under the Anti-Subversion and Hate-spreading laws. [19]The day would become known as "Black Saturday" and mark the beginning of a renewed crackdown by the New Order government against supporters of democracy, now called the "Reformasi" or Reformation.

Suharto came under scrutiny from international lending institutions, chiefly the World Bank, IMF and the United States, over longtime embezzlement of funds and some protectionist policies.

Beginning in early 1998, the austerity measures approved by Suharto had started to erode domestic confidence in the regime. Prices for commodities such as kerosene and rice, and fees for public services including education rose dramatically. The effects were exacerbated by widespread corruption.

Suharto stood for reelection for the seventh time in March 1998, justifying it on the grounds of the necessity of his leadership during the crisis. As in past years, he was unopposed for reelection. This sparked protests and riots throughout the country, now termed the Indonesian Revolution of 1998. Dissension within the ranks of his own Golkar party and military finally weakened Suharto, and on 21 May he stood down from power. He was replaced by his deputy Jusuf Habibie.

Efforts to prosecute Suharto have mostly centered around alleged mismanagement of funds, and their force has been blunted due to health concerns.

[edit] After the fall

In May 1999, a Time Asia estimated Suharto's family fortune at US$15 billion in cash, shares, corporate assets, real estate, jewelery and fine art. Of this, US$9 billion is reported to have been deposited in an Austrian bank. The family is said to control about 36,000 km² of real estate in Indonesia, including 100,000 m² of prime office space in Jakarta and nearly 40 percent of the land in East Timor. Over US$73 billion is said to have passed through the family's hands during Suharto's 32-year rule.

On 29 May 2000, Suharto was placed under house arrest when Indonesian authorities began to investigate the corruption during his regime. In July, it was announced that he was to be accused of embezzling US$571 million of government donations to one of a number of foundations under his control and then using the money to finance family investments. But in September court-appointed doctors announced that he could not stand trial because of his declining health. State prosecutors tried again in 2002 but then doctors cited an unspecified brain disease.

According to Transparency International, Suharto embezzled more money than any other world leader in history.[20

Various opponents and aggrieved parties have charged that Suharto is malingering, and complained of the hypocrisy of the mercy shown toward him.

Unable to prosecute Suharto, the state has instead pursued legal actions against his former subordinates and members of his family. Suharto's son Hutomo Mandala Putra, more widely known as Tommy Suharto, was initially sentenced to fifteen years in jail for arranging the murder of a judge who sentenced him to eighteen months for his role in a land scam in September 2000. He became the first member of the Suharto family to be found guilty and jailed for a criminal offence. Tommy Suharto maintained his innocence, and won a reduction of his sentence to ten years in June 2005. On 30 October 2006 he was freed on "conditional release". BBC

In 2003, Suharto's half-brother Probosutedjo was tried and convicted for corrupt practices that lost a total of $10 million from the Indonesian state. He was sentenced to four years in jail. He later won a reduction of his sentence to two years, initiating a probe by the Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission into the alleged scandal of the "judicial mafia" which uncovered offers of $600,000 to various judges. Probosutedjo confessed to the scheme in October 2005, leading to the arrest of his lawyers. He later had his full four year term reinstated. After a brief standoff at a hospital, in which he was reportedly protected by a group of police officers, he was arrested on 30 November 2005.

—.


July 9, 2007 Civil Suit

I did add the latest civil suit against Suharto using the BBC link.

--Florentino floro 10:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] WP:NPOV

This is from the WP:NPOV page: Let the facts speak for themselves. Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That is why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Remember that readers will probably not take kindly to moralising. If you do not allow the facts to speak for themselves you may alienate readers and turn them against your position.

--Merbabu 14:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] sources on the indonesian massacres of 1965

just a quick google: indonesia + massacre, gave several sources.

And if google is anything to go by with their system of putting links to the most linked to and accepted in a kind of peer reviewing system,and having them appear first these should not be to extreme for even wikipedia to swallow.

http://www.hrea.org/

http://www.hrea.org/lists/hr-headlines/markup/msg02504.html

http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2005vol15no06/2463/

http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/2005vol15no06/2465/

http://skeptically.org/socialism/id17.html

http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/indonesia1965/

http://www.ahrchk.net/index.php
(the asian human rights commisson)


INDONESIA: How the West backed the massacre of a million people


Clinton Fernandes The destruction of the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), 40 years ago following the seizure of power by pro-US military officers headed by General Suharto was a decisive event in the history of South-East Asia in the second half of the 20th century.


By 1965, the PKI had three million members and was said to be the largest Communist party in the world outside of the Soviet Union and China. In addition to its large membership, about 15 million people had indirect connections to the party through their membership of peasant associations, labour unions and other social movement organisations led by PKI members. It was, according to a September 1, 1965, US National Intelligence Estimate, “by far the best organized and most dynamic entity in Indonesia”.

Within a few months of the October 1, 1965, Suharto-organised military coup, however, the PKI would be destroyed in a cataclysmic campaign of political terror and mass murder carried out by the Indonesian armed forces (ABRI) and right-wing Islamic organisations.

  • According to a 1968 study by the CIA, “in terms of the numbers killed the anti-PKI massacres in Indonesia rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century, along with the Soviet purges of the 1930s, the Nazi mass murders during the Second World War, and the Maoist bloodbath of the early 1950s”. At least one million Indonesians were slaughtered in the anti-PKI massacres.

Nowadays, of course, Western policy-makers are trying to rehabilitate the Indonesian military's reputation in order to fight Jemaah Islamiyah.

This article, therefore, examines Western support for this anti-PKI terror campaign, which seriously weakened Indonesian political life and set the scene for the emergence of Islamic terrorism in the region. For reasons of space, it takes up the story after the massacres had commenced. Once the killings were underway, Western policy-makers and diplomats were keen to support the ABRI. The problem they faced was that President Sukarno's previous anti-imperialist rhetoric had resonated strongly with the Indonesian public. Any overt support would therefore serve only to expose the Indonesian army as a tool of the West.

Sukarno's towering reputation presented a significant obstacle. A deft touch was required. US ambassador Marshall Green understood that economic aid should not be offered because economic difficulties hurt the reputation of the civilian administration, not the army. His military contacts told him that there was an urgent need for food and clothing in Indonesia but it was more important to let Sukarno and his foreign minister, Subandrio, “stew in their own juice”.

Western media coverage

The information campaign in support of the killings was created along similar principles. The ABRI secretly urged that foreign news broadcasters not give the army “too much credit” or criticise Sukarno.

Instead, they should emphasise PKI “atrocities” and the party's role in the mutiny by left-wing ABRI officers that preceded the Suharto-led coup. While Sukarno could not be directly attacked, an Indonesian general offered to provide Western agencies background information on foreign minister Subandrio, who was regarded as more vulnerable.

Australian ambassador Keith Shann was told by his superiors that Radio Australia should never suggest that the ABRI was pro-Western or right-wing. Instead, credit for the anti-PKI campaign should be given to other organisations, such as Muslim and nationalist youth groups.

Radio Australia had an important role to play because of its high signal strength and huge audience in Indonesia. Its listeners included the elite as well as students, who liked it because it played rock music, which had been officially banned. It was therefore told to “be on guard against giving information to the Indonesian people that would be withheld by the Army-controlled internal media”.

The Australian ambassador worked to ensure that it gave “prominent coverage” to “reports of PKI involvement and Communist Chinese complicity” while playing down or not broadcasting “reports of divisions within the army specifically and armed services more generally”.

Another senior official recommended that Radio Australia “not do anything which would be helpful to the PKI”. Instead, it “should highlight reports tending to discredit the PKI and show its involvement in the losing cause”.

The US, Britain and Australia co-operated closely in the propaganda effort. Marshall Green urged Washington to “spread the story of PKI's guilt, treachery and brutality”, adding that this was “perhaps the most needed immediate assistance we can give army if we can find [a] way to do it without identifying it as [a] sole or largely US effort”.

  • The British Foreign Office hoped to “encourage anti-Communist Indonesians to more vigorous action in the hope of crushing Communism in Indonesia altogether”. Britain would emphasise “PKI brutality in murdering Generals and families, Chinese interference, particularly arms shipments, PKI subverting Indonesia as the agents of foreign Communists”.


  • British ambassador Sir Andrew Gilchrist wrote: “I have never concealed my belief that a little shooting in Indonesia would be an essential preliminary to effective change”.

Throughout this period, Western radio stations continued to recycle stories from Radio Jakarta or the army newspapers and broadcast them back to Indonesia. US embassy officials established a back-channel link through the US army attache in Jakarta, who regularly met with an aide to Suharto ally General Haris Nasution.

  • The US embassy also compiled lists of PKI leaders and thousands of senior members and handed them over to the Indonesian military. While these kinds of lists were based entirely on previous reporting by the PKI's press, they proved invaluable to the military which seemed “to lack even the simplest overt information on PKI leadership at the time”, according to a report Green sent to Washington in August 1966.


General Sukendro, a senior army intelligence officer, secretly approached the US embassy in early October 1965, asking for assistance in the army's operations against the PKI.
This included supplying “small arms to arm Muslim and nationalist youths in Central Java for use against the PKI”.

  • Green authorised the provision of 50 million rupiahs to the Kap-Gestapu movement, which was leading the anti-PKI terror campaign. He advised the State Department that there was “no doubt whatsoever that Kap-Gestapu's activity is fully consonant with and coordinated by the army. We have had substantial intelligence reporting to support this.” Overall, the US provided the ABRI with money, medicines, communications equipment, weapons and intelligence. It was satisfied with the return it received on this investment.


On February 21, 1966, Sukarno tried to reshuffle his cabinet and sack General Nasution as defence minister.

But with the public cowed in fear of the killings, Sukarno's attempt to assert his authority failed. There were large demonstrations backed by the army, and on March 11 soldiers mounted a show of force outside the presidential palace. Sukarno signed a letter of authority handing over executive power to General Suharto.
He remained president until 1967, continuing to defend the PKI and to speak out against the massacres and anti-Chinese racism that accompanied them. Without access to the media, however, his speeches failed to achieve political traction.

  • In the wake of the massacres, Indonesia's pre-eminent cultural and intellectual organisations — the Peoples' Cultural Institute, the National Cultural Institute, and the Indonesian Scholars' Association — were shut down, and many of their members were arrested or imprisoned.
  • More than one and a half million Indonesians passed through a system of prisons and prison camps.

The PKI was physically annihilated, and popular organisations associated with it were suppressed.

  • The whole of Indonesian society was forcibly depoliticised. In village after village, local bureaucrats backed by the army imposed a control matrix of permits, rules and regulations. Citizens were required to obtain a “letter of clean circumstances” certifying that they and their extended families had not been associated with the left before 1965. Indonesian society became devoted to the prevention of any challenge to elite interests.



  • Control of the universities, newspapers and cultural institutions was handed to conservative writers and intellectuals, who collaborated with Suharto's New Order regime and did not oppose the jailing of their left-wing cultural rivals. Along with the violence, certain cultural values were strongly promoted. Discussion of personal, religious and consumerist issues was encouraged, while discussion of politics was considered to be in bad taste. The conservative establishment also monopolised Indonesia's external cultural relations.

Suharto would rule for more than 30 years until a popular uprising and a crisis-ridden economy forced his resignation on May 21, 1998.


[Dr Clinton Fernandes is a historian and author of Reluctant Saviour: Australia, Indonesia and the independence of East Timor (Scribe, 2004). He is currently a visiting fellow at the Australian National University.]
213.172.204.59 16:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mao's Intervention

Why are Mao's direct relationship with the PKI not described amongst the people who rush to defend the PKI ill-fated coup? These people weren't victims of genocide. They willingly played the game of politics with the assistance of Mao and got punished accordingly for attempting to spread a historically violent and unstable Maoist doctrine to a country that would never have benefitted from it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.125.28.8 (talk • contribs)

Provide a reliable reference (or preferably two) and then maybe it can be considered. Merbabu 07:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's ok to kill people as long as you're killing communists right? Tell that to the Chinese Indonesians, the East Timorese, and the West Papuans. First of all the coup's cause still lies within conspiracy theories, some says it's an attempted PKI coup, others say it's a Suharto orchastrated coup; secondly of all two wrongs doesn't make a right, the SUPPOSED links of the PKI does not justify the anti-communist massacres, the legislative discrimination of the Chinese, and the subsquent invasion of West Papua and East Timor.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Small Change on 1965-7

Just FYI: the CIA list supposedly listed 10,000 suspected communists. this is both a horrifyingly large list to hand an organization in the middle of a political massacre and a small proportion of the total killed. i thought this was lost in the discussion here.

i also added one line about WHO did the killings...both the military and auxilliaries from ANSOR, PNI, etc. this was also missing from the page.

[edit] Millions?

Did Suharto really kill millions? Several hundred thousand, certainly, but millions? Josh (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In his siezure of power and the subsequent anti-Communist purges he killed up to a million people. His invasion and occupation of East Timor killed about 200,000 Timorese. Thousands more were killed by his order in West Papua, Aceh and other areas in the archipelago. Those are the violent deaths for which he and his military and financial suppliers in the US, Canada, Australia, etc. are responsible. But to get a full picture of his record, one must include the uncounted thousands - undoubtedly millions - who died as a direct result of the economic policies and corruption that he implemented and maintained. For example, it has been routine (to this day) that aid to Indonesia for earthquake and other disaster relief gets funneled (with at least tacit governmental approval) into the pockets of the country's elite, leaving the intended recipients to starve or die from lack of medical care. So I'd say, Suharto killed at least a million outright, but his economic miracle brought about the deaths of many more over his 32 year reign. Pinkville (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree to this. He may have indirectly resulted the deaths of up to a million people during his reign, but the number of people killed directly as a result of his policies, or even at his orders weren't probably that high. The communist purge contributed the most to this though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamster X (talk • contribs) 13:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent health

Just found these: Sharto blood problems found 1 hr ago and Suharto has sepsis. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death

Death recently reported by AP: [1] —Kurykh 07:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I saw the Death section on the bottom of the article page... Can anybody explain why it was deleted and why it should be deleted in the 1st place??? 48th ronin (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted by User:60.53.92.150, who kept claiming Suharto was not really dead. That user has now been blocked from editing for a day. In future, if you come across such edits, it's fairly safe to assume it's vandalism: feel free to re-add sections which have been erroneously or maliciously deleted. Aridd (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, will do :) Don't be too harsh to that anonymous guy though, it must've been quite tough for him to accept all this reality, eh... 48th ronin (talk) 13:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese => Javanese

ON the article, the speech by Suharto's eldest daughter (Mbak Tutut) stated as "Javanese custom" but links to "Japanese culture" instead. Need to be fixed. Ariefwn (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

fixed - next time be bold! --Merbabu (talk) 08:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Role In Putting Down July 3, 1946 Rebellion

Can someone translate parts of this article: Soeharto role in putting down July 3, 1946 military and leftist rebellion / coup?

http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutan_Syahrir

210.210.145.10 (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How do you outlaw Chinese?

The introduction of the article contains the following phrase:

enaction of legislation outlawing communist parties and ethnic Chinese

This is obviously nonsense (even Suharto can't outlaw people) and probably the result of careless editing. Unfortunately, since the quoted reference is subscribers only, I can't find out what it should read and corrrect it. Maybe someone more familiar with the subject matter can take care of this.—Graf Bobby (talk) 07:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to and enaction of legislation outlawing communist parties and placing restrictions on the country's ethnic Chinese population. It's factually OK (although vague) so anyone please refine, but remember it is the lead and doesn't need to be detailed. --Merbabu (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very easily - see Anti-Chinese legislation in Indonesia SatuSuro 08:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that is helpful. There was a wikilink to this page from "legislation", I've moved it to "placing restrictions on the country's ethnic Chinese population" so that it's clearer where it redirects to.—Graf Bobby (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is it a professional way to start the article like this?

"Suharto (June 8, 1921–January 27, 2008) was an homosexual. He loved to suck the dicks of every guy he met." Or, is it a sabotage?--Natasha2006 (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No. You can just revert such silly edits to the last serious version. Pinkville (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article whitewashing

I was horrified that all references to his purges of the PKI, anti-Chinese legislations and corruption were shortened or removed to put emphasis on his supposed economic achievements. Compared to other anti-American dictators such as Pol Pot, I feel this is a case of systematic bias.--PCPP (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that his easily verified brutality has been diminished in this article. As a number of post-death (and earlier) articles have pointed out, killings under Suharto are the greatest in number since the Holocaust. Pinkville (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
If you referring specifically to my edits to the lead last night, it’s is incorrect to say that “all” references to the PKI purge and corruption was removed. It’s just not true – please re-read my changes. In fact, I provided additional references to the topic and just removed the commentary. As for “supposed economic achievements” they are generally accepted as considerable, although the article indeed lacks quantifiable facts and tends to rely on people’s (unreferenced interpretations). I intend to firm up the article’s reporting of this as soon as I can.
As for the removal of the so-called “anti-chinese” legislation, I honestly don’t think that is so relevant for a lead, and hence I removed it yesterday. But, I’m happy to listen to other reasoned opinion, and as such have not removed it again for now.
I’m not sure what you mean by him being “anti-American” – the New Order’s foreign policy was officially neutral and it was considered a Cold War ally. It may be your opinion that is “biased” (and I may have introduced bias), but how is it *systematic* bias?
If you still have a problem with it (or indeed my edits are what you are talking about), then please provide the diffs for further discussion. I’m happy to keep talking about it and see myself as a firm but reasonable and collaborative editor. So please don’t panic! :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Hello all. A general comment: I agree that there are serious problems with this article (that’s not to put down all the editors who have done so much work over the years – it’s a huge topic).

This is just a quick note to say that I intend to go through the whole article. This will take weeks (months?) to do properly. Last night I started on the lead as that is the bit that most people read. Let’s all stick to verifiable and scrupulously referenced material from reliable sources, and not just stick in our own opinion no matter how much they intuitively make sense.

My fall back strategy (i.e., not always) in these contentious topics is to remove on sight unreferenced material. Also, facts are better than achieving notions of “balance” – in my experience, balance just means one POV over another. We should *show* readers, not *tell* them.

Please keep communication lines open – if you have concerns with edits, it’s best to use talk page and provides diffs. I promise to likewise and will spend more time on this talk page later tonight – in part to explain my thoughts on the lead (which I worked on last night).

Thanks and kind regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your approach - the only reasonable one. This is definitely going to take some time to do properly, because mainstream sources on this subject cannot be taken at face value. Much more research will be required to provide factual information in a balanced manner. You've replaced my suggestion albeit for a very small minority with dramatically improving health, education and living standards; but let's look at the article cited... Can we put much stock in a lengthy (5-page) biography of Suharto that includes this:
The invasion and annexation of Portuguese Timor in 1975 was his only foreign adventure*, one that ended ultimately in failure once he left office.
as its sole mention of the invasion of East Timor? Any article with such a description strikes me as fatally flawed. But more to the point, the cited author notes:
Within a few years they had put Indonesia on a path of 7 per cent annual economic growth, sustained for 25 years. The proportion of Indonesians in the "very poor" category fell from 52 per cent in the mid-'60s to 7 per cent by 1990.
But these much-quoted figures are the Indonesian government's own figures and are a fabrication (see this brief account, for example). If Indonesia had experienced 7% growth every year for 25 years it would presumably be among the wealthiest countries on earth (or in the same league as the Asian Tigers, which it is plainly not). The record of the mainstream Western media is at its most abysmal in reporting on Indonesia, almost without exception praising the man and his regime in terms such as "a gleam of light in Asia" (as renowned New York Times columnist James Reston wrote at the time of the 1965-1966 massacres of Communists and peasants), with similar glowing terms up to the present day - regardless of events transpiring in the country or its conquered territories.
I would very much like to collaborate with you on this article, but I think we'll need to be very selective about the sources we add - of course, we may disagree about what makes for a good source, but I hope not too often. To support my line albeit for a very small minority I was about to provide this link. Cheers. Pinkville (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
* Note that West Papua is also foreign territory occupied by Indonesia, though Suharto was merely the commander of military operations for the country at the time of the Indonesian take-over. Of course, from the time he became president he was responsible for policies in the occupied territory. Pinkville (talk)
As noted above, the level of poverty dropped dramatically under Suharto - writing 'albeit for a very small minority' completely misrepresents things. Yes, a small elite plundered and squandered, but the gains weren't solely to the rich. It's going to to take some work to get this article to a good standard (perhaps FA is a worthy goal?). Merbabu, if you indicate which section you're working on at any one time (perhaps here) I'd be happy to help with the rewrite. Cheers. Mostlyharmless (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The gains for the vast majority of the population (and the survivors of various purges, etc.) were pretty negligible - certainly nothing that ought to be called an economic miracle. For the minority elite, of course it truly was an economic miracle. "[L]evel of poverty" is not a neutral term - it has to be problematised, since "poverty" is always gauged in a politically charged context. I have the impression that Merbabu intends to simply start from the top and move down through the article, which seems reasonable. Pinkville (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Um, I tried to redo the pre-presidency info but got bogged down; in the end I felt it was actually rather good, although probably a bit long winded – I’m loathed to remove the details – maybe it needs a separate article. lol.
For now, I’d like to focus on the Transition (1965-67) and New Order (67-98) periods - I think they are not as well written or structured. It's a slow incremental process, thus the improvements won't be apparent immediately. I will be trimming down a bit of waffle (mainly by transferring info to other related articles – most are linked from this one already), but keeping the main points in. You'll notice I started a proces of shuffling and consolidating within this article - some points were mentioned several times in several places (not including the lead).
Sorry, but comments such as The gains for the vast majority of the population (and the survivors of various purges, etc.) were pretty negligible - certainly nothing that ought to be called an economic miracle. smack of intuitive opinion and personal biases. If reliable and notable references are found for this POV then it could be mentioned as a counter argument in the Economic section. The fundamental problem though with saying gains were “negligible for the majority” is that is counter to economic and social data, and indeed the view of majority of Indonesians – a broad sample of which I am personally familiar with. (Further, I’m not supporting use of the term “economic miracle”). --Merbabu (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting

  • This article digs a bit deeper into the KKN (corruption issue) than the tabloidic $35bn headline reports.
  • and, this one, by former Australian prime minister that defends some aspects of Suharto's presidency (and joins the condemnation bandwagon of other aspects).

Hopefully of assistance for background, even sources. --Merbabu (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Holocaust?

I've noticed a user dispute regarding the comparison between the invasion of East Timor and the Holocaust, in which the user noted the comparison as "offensive". I've reworded the sentence and noted that the comment comes from Noam Chomsky, but I'm not sure if this passage belongs here. While personally I agree with Chomsky's view, I think this violates WP:NPOV--PCPP (talk) 04:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

While I have problems with putting opinionated quotations into encyclopedia articles, your recent chages are a significant improvement. many thanks --Merbabu (talk) 06:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes on funeral procession

This change is not supported by the citation provided - in fact, the info doesn't appear. I've reverted it for now - sorry. --Merbabu (talk) 04:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

PS - OK, so I found the article. It's here. However, while it reports on mixed feelings on the Suharto legacy which are indeed notable, it doesn't mention the funeral procession in any manner. --Merbabu (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Regarding the "citation needed" for religion — I don't care if it's blindingly obvious to some editors that if he's from Indonesia he was Muslim — if it's not cited, we can request a citation. For individuals, we care more about whether or not they had personal religious beliefs, rather than what "tradition" they were born into, and it's not obvious from the article whether or not he was a practising or observant Muslim. As for the removal of "Sunni", that's a westernized bias that I think we should avoid. It's like calling a person "Christian" without caring if they are Jehovah's Witness or Roman Catholic. While it may be implied and obvious to some readers (most Indonesians are Sunni), this fact won't be obvious for all readers or users, which is the purpose of including it. Specificity can never really hurt in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh hell another visitor to the suharto article - welcome to the xth recreator of reality here - the issue with Suharto's religious identity is nowhere as simple as what is assumed here - a good in depth understanding of his islamic and javanese religious identity wouldnt even try to put a distinction as being asked. While in principle agreeing with the major point made in the para above - he used his religious identity over thirty years for political reasons - if we get into this sort of stuff we will have the issue of some editors who tried to put muhhamad as part of his name - it is nowhere near the reality - biographical or political - of a wily old javanese ruler - I would never for a whole lot of reasons - agree with specificity here at all - however if you really do wish a longer and more drawn out reasoning - I will book a time next week to leave 25kb reasoning as to why certain details of suharto's life have to be taken with care - specially the vast amount of material now available about his taking over from sukarno - it is becoming a massive corpus as to the events of 65/66 for a start SatuSuro 03:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Bloviating doesn't change WP policies. The fact that something is complicated doesn't negate the need for in-line citations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if I have created a misunderstanding - perhaps I was referring to the need to distinguish as to which religious identity he can be remembered by - as for bloviating - please offer a synonym- thanks SatuSuro 03:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes — I'm with you on that one. It's not that important for this article, in my opinion. Someone added a citation for the Islam part, though, so things are good. "Bloviate" -- "to talk at length", i.e., booking time next week, 25 kb reasoning, etc. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that - perhaps there is no need for a bloviate (i like it maybe a new user name perhaps) - the problem for the Indonesia project is that we have about 10 or so articles that have attracted editors who think they can re-create the universe with their POV when it comes to some subjects and topics as well as the rulers of the country and they have about 2% understanding of the countries political or social history let alone geography - cheers SatuSuro 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the other triple-w: the wonderful world of wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec):I’ve provided a source for him being a Muslim (page numbers, etc can be confirmed over the next few days). As for being a Sunni – I accept the need for a tag, that’s fine. However, as with any info in wikipedia, this could also be removed if one is not forthcoming.

Does this work? Also, do we need a citation that he was President of Indonesia?  ;-) kind regards. --Merbabu (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
That works for me. I don't want one for him being president but one for him having a carbon-based atom structure would be nice. ... None of this would ever be much of an issue if writers would actually footnote their writings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Try the Indonesian language Wikiproject for size SatuSuro 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the writer of this article - they've moved on long ago, aklthough I tinker and mantain with sections. There's a list of references including some of high quality - but you are dead right: the lack of inline cites is a real drawback. Sometimes I just want to delete it all and re-write with my own cites. Cheers - thanks for your help. regards --Merbabu (talk) 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes; and I wasn't attacking you as the suspected author, by the way. I was just making an offhand comment about how "if only" writers had done certain things in the past, we'd be saved from any amount of difficulty. Thanks for your understanding. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, I've just had a closer look at the diffs - only 3 weeks ago someone added to "Shia" to "Islam" here. A week or so later it was "corrected" to "Sunni" a few days later - albeit with a rather colourful edit summary. Also, just repeat, the lack of inline cites are a real problem in this article - the listed references seem otherwise very good. However, looking at the list of inline cites, most of them I've added - Ricklefs, Taylor, Vickers, Scwharz, MacDonald, etc. --Merbabu (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)