1) By the simple expedient of murdering millions.
2) As the American racists used to say "some of their closest friends were blacks."
3) And West Irian, the western half of New Guineau, which had never been historically or culturally a part of Indonesia.
4) A lot of these crackpot despots claim to live lives of frugality. It's fashionable these days. Mao, Castro, Stalin, they all put it about that they lived in simple country cottages. Someone socks away 30 billion in stolen money... that's not simple tastes.
5) And yet, at the end of his rule, Indonesia remained mired in poverty, economically backwards, ruled by wealthy elites, drenched with oppression and murder.
6) In the end, he was no more than another tyrant. Another ignorant thug whose throne rested on a pyramid of human skulls and suffering. Damn him to hell, and damn all like him. Not one of them ever was worth it.
1) ....that done only by provoking civilians to do it, in fact. That's the worst part.
2) Of course he was an assimilationist-chauvinist, granted. He was soo hard in enforcing a united Indonesian culture that he would even kick out millions of Javanese out of their island to spread Javanese cultural influence while eroding their proximity to Javanese language in one row.
3) By the time he's on the seat, West Papua was already under Indonesia, gained by mostly diplomatic means instead of military muscles.
4) Except that he actually WAS too modest for his standard, and many of Indonesian elitists (quietly)disliked him for his lack of class in taste....
His children were much more socialites, of course, and he spoiled them waaaaay too much.....
5) At the end of his rule, Indonesia was BANGED by Asian Financial Crisis. Had it not happened, Indonesia will remain Suhartoist by now.
Of course, he only took care of obidient subjects. He did just some sort of neglecting provinces that he considered as not obidient enough toward him. But generally under him, Indonesia was boringly peaceful and prospered. But yeah the economic was pretty backward for a state as strong as Indonesia (that time) because too much focuse on agrarian sector. He is to be blamed for not daring enough in industrializing Indonesia.
6) Thug ?
Ruthless nasty arrogant lying royalist sleazy fucking shit ? Yes. A thug ? No.
Only if Muhammad is proved to have a neural disorder and Jesus is proved to be gay, then Suharto's a thug.
Or if Nazi is allowed to consider Jews not human out of dislike, then the similar can be done to him.
Just because we don't like somebody doesn't mean we can label that somebody with something that doesn't fit. He was a peasant boy, but doesn't mean that he can't be possessing an exceptional charisma, no ? Try something more accurate like...
oppressive murdering feudal bastard ?