Twists of fate for Sukarno, Soeharto

Twists of fate for Sukarno, Soeharto

From Media Indonesia

I refer to Media Indonesia's report on May 6 headlined
Relatives continue to take care of former president Soeharto. I
am prompted to make a short comment on the similarities and the
differences in treatment of the country's first president,
Sukarno, and second president Soeharto, and on their respective
fates.

The similarities are that both reigned a long time, and both
were toppled by student demonstrations. The student movement that
caused Sukarno to resign had the sympathy of the Army's Special
Force (RPKAD, now Kopassus) which tended to be on opposing sides
to the marines. During the Soeharto regime the student movement
received the sympathy of the marines.

The demise of both presidents was a bloody process, meaning
there were sacrifices of students' lives. Sukarno organized his
political strength through the Indonesian National Party (PNI)
and the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI), while Soeharto was
aligned with the functional group Golkar and the armed forces
(ABRI). Both were "great leaders" of the nation, or at least they
were referred to as such during their reigns. Sukarno was "the
Great Leader of the Revolution" and Soeharto "the Father of
Development". Both held the military rank of a five-star general,
although Sukarno's title was honorary.

After their fall, Sukarno and Soeharto were investigated about
their policies during their reign. The difference is that
Soeharto is assisted by flamboyant lawyers and a team of medical
specialists takes meticulous care of Soeharto. Sukarno was not
defended by lawyers and the team of doctors did not give him
intensive care. Why? Because at the time of the New Order the
state hardly paid any attention to humanitarian matters and
apparently a spirit of revenge prevailed. The result? After his
fall, Sukarno was treated like he was in house detention and
ostracized. Even visits by relatives were limited. The health
care befitting a former head of state was not forthcoming.

To my knowledge Sukarno died of kidney failure. At the time
hemodialysis did not exist in Indonesia. But if the power holders
had wished they could have imported the equipment for the
treatment. Sukarno's death -- as related by the attending
physician -- was a result of ostracization which caused
psychological disturbances. These disturbances resulted in
complications from other diseases which accelerated his death.

Soeharto has a much better fate. He obtains thorough medical
care and, most importantly, he is not isolated. The team of
doctors continues to monitor his condition accurately and his
family takes loving care of him. Even officials from the Attorney
General's Office who came to question him at his house had to be
extra careful. The slightest rise in Soeharto's blood pressure
and the slightest irregularity in his heartbeat immediately led
to the discontinuation of the questioning. Moreover, Soeharto is
protected in such a way that he does not hear or see things which
would aversely affect his health. This is the humanitarian
treatment that should be given, especially to a former head of
state.

So is there a difference in the treatment and fate of Sukarno
and Soeharto after their reigns ended? There definitely is. Is
there a lesson to be drawn from the difference? What is it? It is
up to the readers to decide.

AMIR KARAMOY

Jakarta