Liddle (Soeharto)

Last night I met my intellectual mentor… William Liddle (Pak Bill) in Metro TV. He was in the office to appear on the “Save Our Nation” program to talk about Soeharto (since his latest deteriorating health condition, rumor has it that the Indonesian dictator for 32 years won’t make it this time). There was a sense of joy and nostalgia talking to him after three years since I left Columbus in 2004. He’s still the same old “Pak Bill” with his signature self-effacing demeanor, always cautious in making any optimistic comments about the country’s progress so far. Behind the humble exterior, lies a deep analytical mind that might enlighten anybody’s inquiries about Indonesia, since he’s been following this country’s political and economic development for more than 40 years. He taught me an important lesson that an “intellectual” is not someone who can daze others with his/her ability to talk in esoteric and abstract language, but it’s about being able to explain complex phenomenon in simple language, the ability to convey your ideas and message in the language understood by common people. It’s a failing that I’ve seen has trapped a lot of Indonesian intellectuals when they talked or write in the mass media (either in Metro TV or Kompas).

Anyway, I am very proud to declare myself as one of his “intellectual offspring” among countless other Indonesians he has taught throughout his long tenure in Ohio State University. It’s not so much that I shared all his ideas and analysis on Indonesia, in fact, he always emphasized independent thinking to his students. He always said that he never tried to impose any kind of interpretation or ideology to his students, even though people wouldn’t be mistaken that he is “right-of-center” type of observer (contrast with Daniel Lev, an equally astute left-leaning “Indonesianis “), he only provides the information and the context of historical events in the country in order for us to formulate our own interpretation toward the event. But I do share his view on Soeharto that his rule has laid the groundwork of economic development inside the country toward stable growth (Liddle provides sample of other countries who embark on the same journey around the same period as the New Order military dictatorship like Myanmar/Burma which is still a basketcase in economic growth story in the world). On the political front, his rule is pure “authoritarian” which didn’t tolerate any opposition or dissent. For me personally, he has completely shut out the political aspiration of Indonesians, resulted on what political scientists described as “floating mass” or “massa mengambang,” a terminology to describe faceless voters who are only mobilized during the quasi-campaign season every 5 years. One comment struck me during our conversation last night when I asked Pak Bill whether Indonesians really need that certainty regarding the legal status of Soeharto, whose criminal case has been closed due to illness thus was never put on trial, he answered: “Did Soekarno?”

It’s a question that I think Indonesians have to grapple and settle with once and for all in order to establish a precedent of strong rule of law inside the country. Besides, it concerns the legacy and image of our country’s founding father and long-time ruler. At the end of the day, the question boils down to what will we tell and teach in our history textbook to our children and grandchildren in the future about these two larger-than-life figure in Indonesian history?

Confusing? Indeed…


Ps: latest article from NYT which brilliantly captured the current landscape of Indonesian politics and society (more or less in tune with my observation so far of Indonesia) - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/world/asia/12indo.html?ref=world