Indonesia's former President Suharto passed away yesterday.
There have been many things said about him, by political leaders, as well as by netizens.
What stood out for me in all of this was that the weighing of what he achieved was expressed largely in economic terms versus human rights. It seems that when we judge a man, if he can deliver the goods economically, then we can overlook his record on human rights.
I wonder if the same would apply to an ordinary man. If, for example, we had a man who provided for every material desire of his wife and children, but denied them the freedom to speak on family matters, would we consider him a good husband and father? This would be similar to the question of whether a political leader who did well by his country economically but had a bad human rights record would be considered a good leader.
Of course, economic prosperity and human rights are not mutually exclusive. However, the provision of both may be a greater challenge than providing each one individually combined. It might well take a much better leader than Suharto to provide both at the same time, and it is certainly something that Singapore citizens can look out for when choosing our next generation of political leaders.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Perhaps Suharto is both a good man and a bad man; a good leader, and a bad one. To those who have benefitted economically, he's been a good man to them. To others, oppressed and abused, and not having enjoyed the economic benefits that the others had, he's a terrible leader. But that's not saying very much...
Can the controversy of whether Suharto had been a good leader really be resolved? Does the measure of this man, lies ultimately in those whose lives he has impacted? Is man, the measure of all things?
Post a Comment