The downfall of former Indonesian dictator Suharto in 1998 swept in an era of political freedom and hope for a better future.
But nearly a decade later, many in this nation of 235 million remain desperately poor. And in dozens of interviews with laborers, traders, hotel owners and entrepreneurs, Indonesians expressed what was once unthinkable -- nostalgia for the economic stability of Suharto's authoritarian, US-backed regime.
"What people want, what I want, is a return to Suharto's time," said Boan, a peasant who struggles to feed his three children by toiling in fields owned by wealthy farmers. "Life is bitter now compared to then."
He can barely pay for once-subsidized food and fuel, he said. And despite promises from authorities, the road in his village was never repaved after it was washed out in flooding six months ago.
"This government doesn't care about us," said Boan, sitting outside his dirt-floored home in Bekasi, near Jakarta, the capital, his worn feet caked in mud from the rice paddy.
The new sentiment toward Suharto, who is now 86, reflects how hard the transition to democracy has been in the world's most populous Muslim nation. Indonesia, a vast country of around 17,000 islands, endured centuries of colonization by the Portuguese, British and Dutch before being occupied by the Japanese during World War II. And now, with decentralization, it finds itself grappling with new layers of corruption, limited foreign investment and a string of terrorist attacks by Islamic militants.
Much of the current malaise is financial. While some people interviewed still oppose Suharto because of the rights abuses during his rule, especially in remote provinces where the military brutally suppressed separatists, almost all said they were financially better off 10 years ago.
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, the fourth head of state since Suharto's ouster, has yet to make good on promises to cut poverty since his election three years ago. Around half the population still lives on less than US$2 a day, and democracy can be a hard sell if it fails to provide prosperity.
Indonesia's recovery from the 1997-1998 Asian financial crisis was slower than that of its smaller neighbors. The nation was thrust into a recession the World Bank described at the time as "the most dramatic economic collapse anywhere in 50 years."
After contracting 13 percent at the peak of the crisis, the economy has rebounded. But the disparity between rich and poor is growing, with a fifth of the rural population living below the government poverty line. Inflation is up, and so is unemployment, now at 10 percent.
The public perception is that the average Indonesian has not benefited enough from the recovery, IMF country director Stephen Schwartz said.
"There needs to be a system in place to protect the most vulnerable groups," he said. "Otherwise there will be resistance to keep the economy open."
Yudhoyono's government recognizes that widespread poverty can lead to political instability and is struggling to fund education, medical care and infrastructure. Some 51.4 trillion rupiah (US$5.5 billion) was allocated for poverty relief this year alone, including clean water supplies, electricity and affordable housing.
It is "the most important problem" facing the government today, said Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono, whose budget was recently slashed to finance rural development and compensate victims of a long stream of natural disasters.
But for many in the countryside, it's not enough.
"If you go to the village level, they prefer a dictatorship to what they see, at times, as a chaotic democratic system," said Dewi Fortuna Anwar, head of research at the Habibie Center, a political think tank.
The economy has been further hurt by terrorism, which has severely damaged Indonesia's tourism sector.
After Sept. 11, 2001, suicide bombers killed more than 240 people on Bali and in Jakarta, many of them Western tourists. Suharto, by contrast, cracked down hard on Islamic militants in the 1980s.
These days Suharto lives a secluded life in a mansion on a leafy lane in Jakarta. In June, dozens of supporters unraveled banners wishing him a happy birthday at the Hotel Indonesia traffic circle, where a decade ago tens of thousands angrily chanted for his resignation.
The army general seized power in a 1965 coup that left up to half a million people dead and ruled the country with an iron fist for the next 32 years, killing or imprisoning hundreds of thousands of political opponents. Suharto and his family amassed up to 327 trillion rupiah by exploiting the country's vast mineral wealth.
Yet he also oversaw decades of nearly uninterrupted economic growth, while halving the poverty rate, expanding national health care, roads and schools and ending a dependence on foreign rice imports.
Suharto's rule ended in 1998 after the financial crash caused the prices of everyday goods to skyrocket, triggering nationwide riots and massive pro-democracy rallies. He has evaded prosecution on charges of embezzling state funds, with lawyers successfully arguing he is too ill to stand trial. Efforts to punish him for killings have also gone nowhere, in part because his family and supporters still have a grip on politics or decision-making, and once massive demonstrations calling for him to be imprisoned dried up several years ago.
In the northwestern province of Aceh, where his military tortured political dissidents and killed thousands in a war against separatists, many people still hold bitter memories of him.
"Today we no longer fear the soldiers," said Maisarah, a 35-year-old housewife. "Back then it may have been safer, more stable, but that was only because the leader was ruling with an iron fist."
Yet other Indonesians now prefer to remember the dictator's benevolent side.
Amad, 31, who makes less than US$2 a day trading used plastic and cardboard, is more worried about feeding his pregnant wife than bringing Suharto to trial.
"Now we cannot afford anything," he said, pushing a handcart down a potholed track. "It was better then than now."
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at