Sabtu, 13 April 2013

Pros and cons of naming Soeharto a national hero


Pros and cons of naming Soeharto a national hero
Asvi Warman Adam  ;   A Historian at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI)
JAKARTA POST, 13 April 2013
  

The inauguration of a monument erected in memory of Soeharto with three statues in Kemusuk, Yogyakarta, on March 1, and the publication of a book of stories told by 34 State Palace journalists who served during the New Order have led to the question: Are these part of a campaign supporting the nomination of Soeharto as a national hero? 

A year ago, another book about the deceased figure was published — Soeharto, The Untold Stories. All the events were sponsored by Soeharto’s family members, with Probosutejo being the most active. In 2010, the Indonesian Ministry of Social Affairs endorsed putting Soeharto on the national hero candidate shortlist. The decision now rests with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono whether or not (yet) to elect the general.

The Indonesian people are divided when it comes to describing how they feel about the former president; there are four groups with their own viewpoints: 1) those who speak highly of him; 2) people who are pragmatic; 3) the group voicing critical opinions; and 4) those that are sharply critical. Each category can, of course, be designated more elaborate names.

The first group includes the president’s aides (ministers or even deputy ministers) and politicians who benefitted from the regime or those who wanted to please Soeharto. In the second group are technocrats who were appointed ministers and high officials or experts and capable of pointing out positive aspects of the New Order’s economy. People under the third group are observers and NGO activists who criticized the presidency, which they claimed to be authoritarian, of Soeharto. The last one lists individuals who are highly critical of the corrupt practices and violations of human rights by Soeharto’s administration. Under the group are also people who suffered under the New Order regime.

The views held by the first group – those who practically support the “Father of Development” – are reflected in the titles of the writings they prepared for Soeharto’s 70th anniversary celebration. Jailani Naro, famous for his intervention in the United Development Party (PPP), praised Soeharto as the “savior of pancasila”. Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives/ People’s Consultative Assembly (DPR/MPR) 1987-1992, Maj. Gen. R. Sukardi, saw Soeharto as a man who was a “strict follower of the constitution”. Gen. Edi Sudrajat went all out by saying that Soeharto was “the nation’s ultimate statesman”. Former Jakarta governor R. Suprapto believed that Soeharto “had a sixth sense”. Former president BJ Habibie said that Soeharto “knows the aspirations of the nation best”. Former vice president, Try Sutrisno, was in the opinion that Soeharto was a “perfect leader”.

Pragmatism of the second group is evident from the titles of their articles. Sarwono Kusumaatmaja commended Soeharto’s “strategic excellence”. Gandhi, who once chaired the Indonesian Financial and Development Supervisory Board (BPKP), considered Soeharto a figure who had “eradicated and prevented corruption”. Senior researcher at LIPI, Thee Kian Wie, saw that Indonesia’s economic development after 1965 enjoyed the “New Order miracle”.

People under the third category — the opposition or the critical group — demonstrated their stance through intellectual viewpoints. Baskara Wardaya, for instance, believed that Soeharto was worthy of the nickname the “powerful man” of Indonesia because he was in power for too long — over 30 years. The fourth group is essentially similar to the third; however, they proposed more sarcastic and blunt labels or descriptions of Soeharto. George J. Aditjondro is a scholar who does highly intensive research and gives lectures (abroad) on the corrupt practices of the New Order regime. He wrote a book comparing corruption between Soeharto’s and Habibie’s administrations — Murid Kencing Berlari (literally pupils urinate running; pupils take the teaching to the extreme).

In his book, Ariel Heryanto talks about state terrorism that took place during the New Order. Wimanjaya, the author of Primadosa Soeharto (Soeharto’s Prime Sins), was taken in for questioning by law enforcement officers. The most malicious statement was found in a book, which is a rarity in Indonesia but listed on the catalog of University of Washington’s library, written by Khairil Ghazali Al-Husni: 15 Dalil Soeharto Masuk Neraka (15 Reasons why Soeharto will Go to Hell), published by Muthmainnah, Jakarta.

An interesting opinion came from a respondent, as reported by Denny JA, director of the Indonesian Survey Circle (LSI) following a survey aimed at finding out what people think of Soeharto, a few years ago. A respondent uniquely labeled Soeharto Indonesia’s “biggest builder yet biggest destroyer”, a view not far from the truth. Many development projects were planned and completed by Soeharto during his presidency. Yet, too much damage was caused by the New Order regime: a legacy of monstrous debts that generations of Indonesians have to repay; land taken by force; deforestation; ignoring rampant corruption (mentality); and business monopoly by, or facilities given, to Soeharto’s children. There were also cases of serious violations of human rights reported to have occurred from 1965 through to 1998.

In 2003, a team set up by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) and led by MM Billah conducted a study on Soeharto’s severe human rights violations. They concluded that there were indications of such cases relating to the 1965 tragedy (Island of Buru) and the 1980’s mysterious killings. The team recommended that both cases be investigated further. The investigation by the Komnas HAM only released the results a decade later (July 2012). The commission said that crimes to humanity had been indicated in the cases of the 1965 power struggle and 1980’s mysterious killings.

One of several entities responsible for the crimes was the Command for the Restoration of Security and Public Order (Kopkamtib), and it is well known that the first chief of the command was Maj. Gen. Soeharto.

This leads to another question: Should Soeharto be named a national hero? Legal certainty remains an issue regarding serious human rights violations allegedly committed by Soeharto since an ad hoc Komnas HAM was not established at the times of the alleged violations, and the investigative brief prepared by the commission has not been formally accepted by the Attorney General’s Office. It would be a good idea to wait for any legal case involving a national hero candidate to be fully solved before they are named one because once awarded, the status may not be revoked. The government only awarded president Sukarno his title in 1986, 16 years after his death.

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar