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