SOEHARTO BIOGRAFI
logo_tjp.gifThis article was published by The Jakarta Post on February 8, 2008. Below is the original article:
I remember how I used to idolize Soeharto and all his ministers when I was a child. I remember how my friends and I were so much in love with the government and we thought Habibie was the smartest guy on the planet, he was my second most favorite by the way. I guess it was the whole situation that made me love Soeharto so much. Literally, he and his government was all over us. Although I hated it, but it was a fact that we had to watch this news program by TVRI called Dunia Dalam Berita every nine o'clock in the evening regardless what TV station we used to watch. I remember how I hated the program because every time I was watching a good movie it made me wait for thirty minutes in the middle of the movie. But, my parents always reminded me that it was somewhat important for me to watch the news program and how I should respect the government for giving us important and updated information about what was happening in Indonesia and around the world. In this matter, I was forced to love.
But it was really my own decision to love Soeharto and his government when I found out in my books that my teachers wanted me to read that Soeharto had been the savior of our economics thefore he deserved the title of Bapak Pembangunan, Father of Development. I found out that it was Soeharto who had helped this country rise from an economic recession after a mismanagement from the previous government. The books told me that during the previous government people had not had any food to eat despite the fact that Indonesia had been a rich country. The books also blamed the communists for this condition and it was Soeharto, our Father of Development, who then came to rescue. I remember how hard it was for me to memorize all the goals of each Pembangunan Lima Tahun (Pelita) for my History class, Soeharto's five-year economic strategy. Although I did not really like the details because my teachers made me memorize all of them, but I felt the proudness of being an Indonesian. I was proud to know that Indonesia was considered The Sleeping Tiger of Asia that soon would wake up and be as good as other Tigers such as Hongkong, Taiwan, Singapore, and South Korea. And according to one of my teachers, it was Soeharto and his government who had formulated the best economic strategies for Indonesia.
I became more proud when I found out that we were the only Southeast Asian country that was able to make sophisticated airplanes, or at least that was what the government wanted me to think. It was an uplifted moment in my childhood to see IPTN was able to fly its N-250 for the very first time. I was staring at my TV and saw Soeharto's trademark smile while he was listening to the explanation of his minister of technogy, B.J. Habibie. I was just so proud of being an Indonesian. In my mind, Indonesia would someday be so prosperous and respected by other countries. When I was thinking about how advanced our technology was, depicted by IPTN's success at that time, at the same time I was remembering how Soeharto had been so generous to poor Indonesians by improving our agricultural sector. I remember the video song that every TV station had to play before they wanted to end all of their programs: A scene would show up showing Soeharto wearing a farm hat while holding cereal grasses surrounded by smiling farmers with, like always, his trademark smile. The combination of our country's humbleness depicted by one of the government's jargons "Indonesia adalah Negara Agraris" and our technology and promising economic development was perfect. Plus, Indonesia was number one at SEA Games. I, a young Indonesian, just could not ask for more.
Although as a child I did not really understand what Pancasila was all about, but somehow I felt it was important since my teachers made it sound so important to understand for me as an Indonesian. Therefore, I thought memorizing the five principles of Pancasila was so crucial. But, it was not really a difficult thing to do, because every Monday I had to join the flag ceremony which forced me and my friends to shout out loud the five principles. I guess schools still perform the flag ceremony today. Although I did not fully understand the essential significance of the five principles of Pancasila, my environment told me that they were important. But, it was when I was having my first week at my new junior high school in a small city in Central Java that I got really confused with Pancasila and its whole system and what Soeharto's government was trying to make us understand. My school required me to take a one-week seminar of P4, Pedoman Penghayatan dan Pengamalan Pancasila. Frankly, I did not understand what my teachers were trying to say. I was there, sitting in my new class room with my eyes wide open trying to concentrate and understand what Pancasila was all about. But, it was too hard. I found out that Pancasila was much more complicated than I had thought before, and I started wondering if my friends had the same problem.
As I was growing old, I discovered that there were some people who actually disliked Soeharto and his government, in fact they hated him. Something that astonished me. I then realized that Soeharto was not everyone's favorite and a lot of people in Indonesia were accusing him for terrible things they said he'd done in the past and present. They accused Soeharto for creating an unfair political and economic condition in Indonesia. They gave me evidence of how Soeharto was oppressing his protestors and giving priviliges to his children and cronies. Sadly, this happened just after I was starting to admire Tommy Soeharto for his achievement to produce the first national car. They told me that Soeharto was a dictator. I finally lost the feeling of admiration when Soeharto arrogantly manipulated the political election in 1997 and made himself president. I became more furious to know that he had made his daughter Siti Hardianti Rukmana as one of his ministers. I said to myself, "No wonder, people kept reminding me not to insult Soeharto and his government in the past."
I was living abroad when the economic crisis hit Indonesia. At first, I still had the confidence that Indonesia would be able to overcome. I had my fingers crossed and prayed that God would help my country and its government. I prayed that Soeharto would save Indonesians once again from an economic crisis, like he had done before although I was already part of Soeharto's antis at that time. I kept my eyes open on the news and hoped that a miracle would emerge, but unfortunately it never happened. I remember I saw Soeharto helplessly sign the economic agreement with IMF. For me, it was the first time to see Indonesia's longtime hero defeated. The IMF agreement obviously did not help his damaged reputation and as the protestors kept rallying on the streets Soeharto decided it was his time to resign.
Soeharto died a few days ago. It had been more than nine years since he admitted that Indonesian people did not want him to lead this country any more. It was clearly not the kind of ending that Soeharto would have thought he wanted to have. His family might have been glad that Soeharto was never put into jail, but I'm sure it did not make Soeharto happy. It must have been a painful truth for him that he was no longer considered a national hero and Bapak Pembangunan and was called a dictator instead. I keep wondering what would it have become and what would it be right now if Soeharto had not taken the chance to be the president of Indonesia in 1997: The debate of whether or not the government should give Soeharto a hero status would probably not exist.
Menakar Kejahatan dan Kebaikan Soeharto
Oleh : Redaksi 14 Jan 2008 - 5:00 pm
Musni Umar, Sosiolog, PhD Bidang Sosiologi Politik UKM
imageimageTidak ada manusia yang sempurna. Pasti ada kebaikan dan kejahatannya. Begitu pula Presiden Soeharto, pasti banyak kebaikannya selama berkuasa, dan tentu banyak pula kejahatannya. Untuk memastikan Presiden Soeharto itu orang jahat atau orang baik, tidak bisa hanya melihat dan membincangkan salah satu sisi dari dirinya. Mesti meneliti keseluruhan dari kiprahnya selama memimpin bangsa Indonesia 32 tahun lamanya.
Dalam bidang politik kekuasaan, sebagai seorang aktivis mahasiswa 77/78 yang pernah ditahan sembilan bulan tanpa diadili, setelah keluar dari tahanan mendapat perlakuan tidak adil karena dicekal di mana-mana, dimata-matai, dan sulit mendapat pekerjaan, sehingga mengalami kepahitan dan kesulitan hidup.
Begitu pula teman-teman aktivis mahasiswa 1974 dan tokoh pergerakan yang ditahan dan dipenjara seperti Dr Syahrir, Dr Adnan Buyung Nasution, Hariman Siregar, Judil Herry Justam. Juga para aktivis dan pimpinan dewan mahasiswa/senat mahasiswa 1978, tokoh-kampus dan tokoh masyarakat yang ditahan seperti Soekotjo Soeparto, Dr Rizal Ramli, AM Fatwa, Dr Arief Rachman, Lopez Da Lopez, Ibrahim Zakir, Musfihin Dahlan, Umar Marasabessy, Evert Matulessy , dan lain-lain, serta para tokoh masyarakat yang ditahan dan dimasukkan ke penjara seperti Ir Sanusi, Prof Ismail Suny, HR Soedarsono, dan banyak lagi yang tidak dapat disebutkan satu per satu. Semuanya atau sebagian pasti menyimpulkan bahwa Soeharto jahat dan pantas diberi hukuman yang setimpal.
Di bidang politik ekonomi, kebijakannya yang memberi angin dan perlindungan kepada pengusaha Cina dengan menempatkan mereka sebagai ''agent of growth" dalam pembangunan ekonomi, amat menyakitkan karena mengakibatkan terjadinya konglomerasi dan penguasaan ekonomi oleh segelintir orang. Padahal mereka atau orangtua mereka adalah mitra penjajah dan mendapat tempat terhormat sebagai "Timur Asing" di masa penjajahan. Sementara pribumi sebagai inlander yang dijajah, diperangi, disiksa, dibunuh, dan yang hidup dibiarkan bodoh, miskin dan terkebelakang, seharusnya mendapat ''affirmative action" dalam pembangunan ekonomi seperti di Malaysia, untuk memajukan mereka di bidang ekonomi dan pendidikan. Akan tetapi hal itu tidak dilakukan Presiden Soeharto.
Kebijakan ekonomi yang merugikan sebagian besar warga bangsa ini, sebenarnya dapat dikategorikan sebagai kejahatan ekonomi, dan selayaknya tidak dilanjutkan dengan mengamalkan persaingan bebas (free fight competition) kepada pengusaha pribumi yang kecil menengah dan koperasi seperti sekarang ini.
Di bidang politik hukum, korupsi kolusi dan nepotisme (KKN) yang dipraktikkan di era Presiden Soeharto berkuasa, kemudian dijadikan isu sentral oleh gerakan reformasi yang disponsori oleh kekuatan global untuk menggusur Presiden Soeharto, harus diselesaikan dengan sebaik-baiknya dan secepat-cepatnya. Bukan saja menyelesaikan tuduhan itu dengan cepat dan adil, tetapi tidak boleh melanjutkan praktik korupsi di era Orde Reformasi. Namun amat menyedihkan, kejahatan korupsi yang dituduhkan kepada Presiden Soeharto diambangkan dan ditutup-tutupi, dan bahkan korupsi semakin semarak dilaksanakan di era Orde Reformasi. Sampai ada yang menggambarkan dahsyatnya dan beraninya pelaku korupsi sekarang dengan mengatakan: ''Kalau di era Orde Lama korupsi malu-malu, di era Orde Baru korupsi di bawah meja, di era Orde Reformasi korupsi di atas meja dan bahkan mejanya dikorupsi''. Kejahatan korupsi yang dituduhkan kepada Presiden Soeharto, kini telah menjadi isu internasional yang amat mencemarkan nama baik Soeharto, keluarganya serta bangsa Indonesia karena mantan Presiden Indonesia itu dituduh sebagai koruptor nomor wahid di dunia.
Kebaikan dan jasa Soeharto
Prof Emil Salim dalam "Soeharto Media Center Pusat Kajian dan Informasi" menegaskan bahwa Soeharto pernah berjasa menyelamatkan bangsa ini dari kehancuran. Pertama, bidang ekonomi. Laju inflasi menjelang peristiwa G-30-S/PKI bisa dibilang edan karena berada di kisaran 650 persen. Indeks biaya hidup tahun 1960 sampai tahun 1966, naik 438 kali! Harga beras naik 824 kali! Harga tekstil naik 717 kali! Sementara harga-harga itu mengganas, nilai rupiah sekarat dari Rp 160 saja menjadi Rp 120 ribu.
Melalui program rehabilitasi dan stabilisasi ekonomi yang cukup progresif dan komprehensif berhasil dilakukan, pertama, pengendalian inflasi melalui kebijakan anggaran berimbang, dan kebijakan moneter ketat. Kedua, pencukupan kebutuhan pangan. Ketiga, pencukupan kebutuhan sandang. Keempat, rehabilitasi berbagai sarana dan prasarana ekonomi. Kelima, peningkatan ekspor dengan mengembalikan share sepenuhnya pada eksportir. Hasilnya, laju inflasi bisa dijinakkan dari kisaran 650 persen (1966) melunak menjadi 100 persen (1967), turun lagi menjadi 50 persen (1968), dan bahkan terkendali di bilangan 13 persen (1969).
Kedua, bidang politik. Presiden Soeharto berjasa menumpas PKI dan mewujudkan stabilitas keamanan dan politik dalam kurun waktu yang panjang. Emil Salim mengakui bahwa di era 60-70an Pak Harto begitu piawai memadukan komponen bangsa, sampai-sampai republik ini bisa selamat dari liang kubur di pertengahan tahun 60-an. Frans Seda menilai bahwa pada awal-awalnya, pemerintahan Orde Baru yang dipimpin Presiden Soeharto bisa dikatakan sebagai pemerintahan demokratis, terbuka, transparan, dan komunikatif. Selanjutnya Frans Seda berpendapat, ''Memang setelah anak-anaknya (Soeharto) gede, kebijakan ekonomi jadi bias. Setelah merasa memperoleh personalized power, Pak Harto memborong semua sejarah. Seolah-olah, keberhasilan pemerintahan Orde Baru adalah berkat strateginya sendiri.''
Ketiga, bidang sosial. Presiden Soeharto berjasa pula dalam pemberian bantuan sosial. Dia mendirikan puluhan yayasan, mengumpulkan dana dan mengalokasikan kepada kegiatan sosial. Yayasan-yayasan yang didirikan di antaranya, Yayasan Trikora untuk membantu beasiswa bagi anak-anak yatim yang orang tuanya gugur dalam perang merebut Irian Barat, Yayasan Dwikora untuk memberikan bantuan beasiswa kepada anak-anak yatim korban konfrontasi dengan Malaysia, Yayasan Seroja untuk memberikan beasiswa kepada anak-anak yatim yang orang tuanya gugur dalam perang di Timor Timur, Yayasan Supersemar untuk memberikan beasiswa kepada anak-anak cerdas yang orang tuanya tidak mampu untuk mengikuti pendidikan S1, S2 dan S3 di berbagai universitas. Selain itu, Presiden Soeharto mendirikan pula Yayasan Harapan Kita yang kemudian mendirikan Rumah Sakit Jantung Harapan Kita, Yayasan Amal Bakti Muslim Pancasila untuk membantu pembangunan masjid, dan banyak lagi yayasan yang didirikan Presiden Soeharto. Berbagai yayasan yang didirikan itu jelas untuk kepentingan sosial, maka sangat tidak masuk akal dan bersifat politis kalau pendirian puluhan yayasan itu dituduhkan untuk memperkaya diri sendiri dan kemudian dijadikan sebagai entry point untuk menjeratnya melakukan perbuatan korupsi.
Ketiga, berjasa menyelamatkan bangsa ini dari pertumpahan darah. Saadillah Mursyid mengungkapkan pada detik-detik terakhir ketika mendampingi Pak Haro sebagai Presiden Republik Indonesia sebelum menyatakan berhenti dari jabatan sebagai Presiden RI., Pak Harto mengatakan, ''Segala usaha untuk menyelamatkan bangsa dan negara telah kita lakukan. Tetapi Tuhan rupanya berkehendak lain. Saya tidak mau terjadi pertumpahan darah.'' Padahal kalau Pak Harto mau melakukan tindakan tegas dan keras terhadap para demonstran seperti rezim militer di Miyanmar, kekuasaannya bisa terselamatkan karena TNI semuanya tetap loyal dan mendukung kepemimpinan beliau. Begitu pula Golkar sebagai partai pendukung pemerintah dan single majority di parlemen, masih kukuh mendukungnya. Akan tetapi, Pak Harto tidak mau menggunakan kekuasaannya untuk bertahan dengan menumpas para mahasiswa sebagai generasi penerus bangsa.
Belajar dari kegagalan dan kesuksesan
Bangsa yang besar ialah bangsa yang dapat belajar dari sejarah, agar tidak mengulangi kesalahan serupa. Bangsa Indonesia bisa belajar banyak dari kegagalan dan kesuksesan Presiden Soeharto selama memimpin bangsa Indonesia. Pertama, kegagalan dalam membangun pemerintahan yang baik (good governance) dan pemerintah yang bersih (good government). Kegagalan itu tidak boleh dilanjutkan. Akan tetapi, amat menyedihkan justru hal itu diamalkan dan bahkan dikembang-biakkan, sehingga korupsi semakin merajalela di era Orde reformasi. Kedua, kegagalan dalam membangun ekonomi yang berpihak kepada rakyat banyak. Kegagalan ini seharusnya menjadi pelajaran, tetapi anehnya sistem ekonomi yang sudah gagal menyejahterakan seluruh rakyat, masih diteruskan bahkan semakin diliberalkan. Ketiga, kegagalan dalam penegakan hukum. Pemerintah Presiden Soeharto lemah dalam penegakan hukum, seharusnya menjadi pelajaran, tetapi hal itu tidak juga dijadikan pelajaran oleh para pemimpin bangsa ini di era Orde Reformasi. Adapun kesuksesan Presiden Soeharto yang sangat penting dan patut ditiru dan dikembangkan di antaranya ialah kemampuan mewujudkan swasembada pangan, stabilitas harga sembilan bahan pokok, kesehatan masyarakat, stabilitas sosial, politik dan pertahanan keamanan. Berbagai kesuksesan itu tidak diteruskan dan dikembangkan, karena pada awal Orde Reformasi muncul stigma buruk terhadap Orde Baru yang dipimpin Presiden Soeharto.
Pada saat Presiden Soeharto sakit dan banyak dikunjungi para pejabat dan mantan pejabat, dan diliput media nasional dan internasional, kita kembali sadar dan membuka mata ternyata masih banyak yang menghormati belaiu. Itu semua karena kebaikannya lebih banyak dibanding kejahatannya di masa berkuasa. Wallahu a'lam. (RioL)
To Wear a spul uniform
The great debate continues about should students have to wear school uniforms? There is no definitive answer as it entirely depends upon the persons beliefs. There are benefits for some children who wear uniforms and disadvantages to others.
The main reason schools in America choose not to allow their students to wear their own clothes is because of the gangs. Having a uniform stops gang members from displaying their colours and garb. The schools also believe it helps stop violence and helps instill a sense of pride in the students. It also helps to break down the barriers between different socioeconomic groups.
Below are some opinions taken from a messageboard regarding the issue:
"I feel we should keep to the uniform. It sets an example of the school. It is representation the community. It is easy to point out different people. Also there would be more fights/bullly's due to the lack of 'fashion'. "
" Many schools throughout the U.S. force students grades kindergarten through twelfth to wear uniforms. Students who attend public schools should not have to wear uniforms for four reasons.
1. School uniforms inhibit students_T individuality. Young people often express their feelings through the clothing that they wear. Uniforms will take away this form of expression. Why should school districts try to make everyone look the same?
2. A school uniform policy inhibits a student's freedom of choice. Schools teach students that our country is a free one. But when school boards make students wear what they tell them too-- it curtails the students' freedom.
3. There is the issue of cost. Many parents shop for their children's clothes at used and discount stores. Uniforms can cost more money than these families might be able to afford. Also, these students would need to buy additional clothing to wear after school and on the weekends. That's double the amount of money a family would spend than they would without the uniforms.
4. The last reason I do not enjoy the thought of school uniforms is comfort. Students enjoy wearing comfortable clothing to school. Uniforms are not necessarily comfortable. Also, wearing a uniform might make the student uncomfortable around people outside the school who don't have to wear a uniform.
If we want individuality, freedom, and comfort for students while keeping costs down for families, we should not have a school uniform policy for students who attend public schools. "
" In my opinion, right up to year 11 students/kids should have to wear school uniform, it stops all the arguments about who has the latest fashions etc.
But when you reach college or 6th form it should stop, because by then your old enough to know not to take the pee out of what people wear. Mind you saying that, most of the people at my 6th form were wallys. "
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
No it takes away our creative nature. its an irrelavant and stupid system. why would we want to all look the same. all the ppl that answered said it broke down classes. it doesn't break down classes. whether or not ur wearing a uniform. your are still poor or still rich. and ppl at my school poor ppl spend a whole lot of money on clothes instead of doing something reasonable with the money. it depends how much the person cares what he/she wears. and being able to wear what you want is also a kid and teenage thing. when you go to work for the first time you have to wear a uniform or a suit. fancy parties dresses, suites, tuxedos. only now do we have the chance to express ourselves and that shouldn't be brought down just because other people don't feel like their lower.
16 years old voter
Yes, because...
- Consistency
It is argued that the voting age should be reduced to provide consistency between the age a person can vote; with the age they can marry; have children; leave home; pay taxes; work full time; and join the armed forces.
- Effected be the policy makers decisions
It is clear that in the modern day a sixteen year old is far more knowledgeable than the ones in the times of the past when such laws differentiating minors and adults were made. With the growing awareness of the society and the daily occurances we observe the sixteen year olds have the ability to understand politics and its effect on their lives. Because noone can deny that what ever happens as a result of the elections the sixteen year olds also are effected by the policies of the election winners. Therefore they must be given the right to be part of the decision making process by being included in the category of those people who chose the leaders who will be given the duty to shape their society and in the process effect their lives.
- Rights
"The rights based argument maintains that as voting is the central way in which citizens express their judgement and support of government policy, it is only fair that those who are affected by major government decisions are given the opportunity to express their opinions via the ballot box. The most common examples of these are the responsibilities of joining the armed forces, raising a family and paying tax, the argument being that if you can die for your country, get married and pay tax, you should have the right to indicate your feelings to the government." - Electoral Reform Society
- Representation
Not all 30-year-olds have extensive knowledge of politics. As a 16-year-old I knew an extensive amount about each of the parties and their policies; I even knew a few hundred politicians and knew what they stood for. I will not respect any law if nobody in government will represent me whilst making it. If 16 year olds can work and pay taxes they should be allowed to choose who governs and spends their tax money on their behalf.
- Increase turnout
A further argument in favour of reducing the voting age is that reducing the voting age will increase turnout. This is because people are more likely to maintain the habit of voting throughout their lives if they start at a younger age.
At present, a child will usually leave school at 16. They are leaving an environment where political issues can be discussed and debated, increasing their interest in politics. Once they have left school, they may have to wait up to 8 years before they have their first opportunity to vote at a general election. By this time, they have lost interest and are less likely to vote.
- Citizenship
Thirdly, due to the introduction of citizenship classes into the national curriculum, 16-year-olds are now in a better position than ever to make an informed decision at elections.
"In 2002, Citizenship was introduced as a compulsory subject as part of the English National Curriculum. At Key Stage 3 young people are taught about the electoral system and the importance of voting, central and local government, and the key characteristics of parliamentary and other forms of government. At Key Stage 4 they explore the actions citizens can take in democratic and electoral processes to influence decisions locally, nationally and beyond the operation of parliamentary democracy within the UK, and of other forms of government, both democratic and non-democratic, beyond the UK. Whilst young people are some of the only citizens to be educated about the voting system, they are denied the right to use this knowledge for at least two further years and anywhere up to seven years." - Electoral Reform Society
- Alienation
Secondly, it is argued that not allowing 16 and 17 year-olds the vote further adds to young people's feelings of political alienation and suggests that the views of 16 and 17-year olds are not valid.
"The exclusion of 16 and 17 year olds from elections is fuelling the disengagement of 18-24 year olds. The longer young people are denied involvement in the formal democratic process, the less chance there is of engaging them ever. There is no evidence to suggest that once 18, young people are likely to become more engaged." - Electoral Reform Society
No, because
-It is important to note that in England a 16-year-old can only marry or leave home with their parents' permission. A 16-year-old also cannot buy alcohol, buy cigarettes, or drive a car. You cannot argue on the grounds of `consistency' without also arguing to lower the legal age for these activities as well.
- Allowing young people the vote will not result in them suddenly taking an interest in political parties and elections. On the whole, young people are concerned with specific causes and issues and are, therefore, politically active in other ways, e.g. going on protests, signing petitions, etc.
- However, most children of this age are not likely to have found their own ideological positioning. They are likely to be heavily influenced by the beliefs of their teachers and parents, effectively offering these groups extra votes.
- The youngest age group has always provided the lowest turnout at elections. Reducing the voting age will further reduce the national average turnout for elections.
- Firstly, 16 year olds shouldn't be paying taxes.
You are one of the lucky few who, at the age of 16, knew what you were talking about. Most 16 year olds don't. Democracy is about majoritative rule. If most 16 year olds are uninformed and don't particularly understand or care about the results of elections, then they shouldn't get the vote.
- It is a good argument. However, statistically, most 16 year olds are not in the army and they are not married and/or raising a family. Most of them are also uninformed and generally ambivalent toward the politics.
Yes, on the face of it, if 16 year olds can "die for their country" and "get married and pay tax", they should also be allowed to vote. Yet, how informed are their decisions in dying for their country? In getting married and raising a family? Not very. So it would be with the lowering of the voting age.
- The average 16 year old in this country seems completely uninterested in politics and relatively unaware of its significance. Whilst they may realise that whatever happens has an effect on them and their lives, and may loosely follow the goings on of the world, they are not doing so to the point where they have warranted a vote. Do you really want uninformed children deciding the next Government?
It is true that many 16 year olds are informed, clever, interested and desperate to make changes. However, these 16/17 year olds are a minority in this.
