Suharto Named Indonesia’s National Hero — Outrage Over Massacres, Corruption, and Political Ties

Suharto’s posthumous honour ignites fierce debate in Indonesia

On Monday, Indonesia’s government conferred a posthumous national hero title on former President Suharto — a move that has provoked protests from rights groups, survivors and historians who say the award whitewashes a legacy of mass killings, repression and corruption.

Contested legacy

Born in 1921 under Dutch colonial rule, Suharto rose through the military after Indonesia’s 1949 independence and ultimately ruled for 31 years. He came to full power after the violent events of 1965–66, when a failed coup and the killing of several generals were followed by a nationwide anti‑communist purge.

Historians and rights organisations estimate that between 500,000 and one million people were killed in the sweep, which targeted suspected communists and, according to many survivors, ethnic Chinese and others with left‑wing sympathies. Declassified U.S. documents released in 2017 show Washington provided lists of senior Communist Party members, equipment and other support to the Indonesian army during that period.

“A fantastic switch which has occurred over 10 short weeks,” an embassy cable from late 1965 said, while reporting early estimates of mass killings, according to contemporaneous dispatches.

In 2016, an independent people’s tribunal held in The Hague found that foreign governments bore responsibility for complicity in the mass killings — a finding that reinforced calls for accountability from victims and human rights advocates.

Corruption, repression and the end of an era

During Suharto’s three decades in power, his government suppressed critics and consolidated control over regions including East Timor, Aceh, West Papua and the Maluku islands. Supporters credit him with policies that delivered rapid economic growth and relative stability; critics highlight systemic corruption, nepotism and the diversion of state funds to enrich his family.

The 1997–98 Asian financial crisis triggered mass protests and economic turmoil that forced Suharto to resign in 1998, opening the way for democratic reforms. Suharto died in 2008 without facing trial; his family later faced prosecutions and a 2015 Supreme Court order requiring repayment of millions in embezzled funds.

Why the award is controversial

The award was presented by President Prabowo Subianto, a former general who was once Suharto’s son‑in‑law and a prominent figure in the old regime. Prabowo served in military campaigns during Suharto’s rule and has been accused — allegations he denies — of human rights abuses, including the abduction of activists around the 1998 protests. He was elected president in 2024 with backing from Suharto’s former Golkar party.

Human rights organisations say Prabowo’s decision to confer the honour risks normalising a painful past and undermines efforts to secure justice for victims. Amnesty International called the move an attempt to rewrite history, while Human Rights Watch warned that the failure to hold perpetrators to account enables “whitewashing and distortion of history.”

Voices from survivors and supporters

For survivors the decision is deeply painful. Bedjo Untung, who says he was jailed and tortured for alleged communist ties from 1970–1979, told the Associated Press he felt “shocked, disappointed and angry” at the government’s decision and called it deeply unfair given ongoing suffering.

Suharto’s family and supporters, by contrast, have pushed to rehabilitate his image, highlighting his role in national development and stability. “Nothing is being hidden,” Suharto’s daughter Siti Hardijanti Rukmana said after the ceremony, thanking the president and noting her father’s military service.

What’s at stake

The debate over Suharto’s recognition touches on larger questions about memory, justice and democratic direction in Indonesia. Critics worry the award signals a turn toward renewed militarism and a weakening of the post‑1998 democratic reforms, while supporters say it affirms national stability and patriotism.

As protests continue and legal and historical debates persist, many survivors and rights groups say the clearest path to reconciliation is full, transparent reckoning with the past — not the gloss of posthumous honours.