Death of Suharto

Although it should not come as a surprise, Suharto's death ought to be lamented and regretted upon. While it may be true that there was autocracy, corruption, political purges and prosecution of the Chinese during his reign, Suharto had undoubtedly brought prosperity and stability to Indonesia and the Southeast Asian region. Indonesia was once one of the richest and most economically viable country in the region, alongside with Myanmar and the Philippines. However, it was led by Sukarno and economic growth slowed for nearly 2 decades before Suharto overthrew him in 1966. Industrialization and modernization arrived in Indonesia with massive influx of foreign capital and domestic collaboration with the affluent Chinese magnates. Compare Indonesia with Newin's Myanmar and Marcos' Philippines and you will understand what I mean here. Politically, Suharto contributed greatly to regional stability when he ended the "Konfrontasi" and forged stronger ties with the ASEAN member states. His death deserves a week of mourning from the Indonesians.

This reminds me of a common flaw in the arguments made by Chinese historians with regards to the dynastic cycle. It has been a convenient excuse and explanation for Chinese historians to attribute the fall of a dynasty to corruption and decay. This is so superficial and being too simplistic. We need more research and better claims here. While a degree of extent lingers, there was and is corruption everywhere in every place. For instance, many people think that China suffered from humiliation by the foreign imperialist powers in the late nineteenth century because the Qing court was incapable, useless and most importantly in this context, corrupt. However, the fall of the Qing Dynasty proved to be a worse disaster for China, which succumbed to incessant warfare between the powerful warlords across the country. In fact, a little known fact is that Qing China used to possess one of the most powerful navies in the world, known as the Beiyang fleet which had unfortunately faced its destruction in the hands of the Japanese in the first Sino-Japanese War. A lack of armaments and gunpower in favour of grand celebrations and a marble ship for Empress Dowager Cixi's 60th birthday was the main cause. In addition, many Western scholars have pointed out that the economic productivity of Qing China in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was on par with many of the strongest European nations, and at its peak even with the United Kingdom. Corruption and decay should never be used unilaterally in explaining the fall of dynasties and empires.

Similarly, I don't see that Indonesia has become any better without Suharto's rule. Economic mismanagement, rampant corruption and a general lack of confidence in foreign investors continue to plague the country, although the situation has picked up in recent years.

Having said so much here, I believe that Suharto's flaws should be forgiven and forgotten. This is what I, an interested foreigner, choose to believe in.