The rise and fall of Pertamina is a remarkable event in the recent economic history of Indonesia which has had wide-ranging economic and political ramifications. Formed in 1968, the state enterprise grew rapidly into one of the most important companies in Asia and Indonesia's most vigorous business organization. By 1974, this burgeoning oil conglomerate led by a dynamic President Director, Dr Ibnu Sutowo, known for his “can-do” philosophy and record of delivering the goods, had expanded its activities to a wide range of diverse business ventures both within and outside of Indonesia. But in late 1974, just as it seemed that the oil boom would surely strengthen Pertamina's already-dominant role in political and economic life in Indonesia, severe financial difficulties overtook the enterprise. In March 1975 the Indonesian Government was forced to step in to shore up Pertamina, and the subsequent investigations which continued on into 1976 revealed a series of remarkable business miscalculations which had led the company to accumulate debts officially put at over US$10 billion, much of it in foreign currency. Corruption in Indonesia has attracted much attention in recent years, so it is perhaps not surprising that it is this side of the remarkable Pertamina affair — and especially the role of Dr Ibnu Sutowo — that has received most comment. But the controversy surrounding the rise and fall of Ibnu Sutowo should not be allowed to obscure other significant issues. There are numerous semi-independent “states within a state” in Indonesia, and the role of particular individuals (whether honest or corrupt) within them should be kept in perspective. After discussing the background to the Pertamina crisis below, several issues will be taken up. It will be argued that while the economic consequences are bound to be farreaching, their impact on the economy should not be exaggerated. It will also be suggested that it is conflict between the need for autonomy and the desirability of public accountability which is at the heart of the debates about Pertamina's role, that many other official institutions (especially state enterprises) are faced with a similar conflict, and that we must look to the long-term development of institutional checks and balances to permanently improve the situation.

Butterworth in the state of Penang is becoming an important urban centre in Peninsular Malaysia. The rapid industrialization taking place within and just outside the city limits, the opening of its military airport to civilian traffic, and the extension of its harbour facilities for ocean-going vessels have all served to encourage further urban development. The considerably increased frequency of the car ferry service to Penang island (since 1975) is further evidence of the growing economic importance of the region and has led to a certain suburbanization of Butterworth in relation to Georgetown, where possibilities of areal extension are limited by lack of space on the mountainous island of Penang.

Once the premier port in colonial Southeast Asia and one of the foremost in the British Empire, Singapore now ranks as the world's fourth busiest port, tonnagewise, with the second highest per capita G.D.P. in Asia. Its post-war achievements rest on solid historical advantages. A broad historical survey of its commercial growth before World War II is therefore not amiss: the more so, as there has been no such panoramic presentation before. With no natural resources, Singapore's economic growth was almost synonymous with its foreign trade. In most historical works, especially those written before World War II, Singapore has been treated as an integral part of the Straits Settlements or British Malaya, for, until its emergence as a separate nation in August 1965, Singapore as the focal point of reference for researches was not part of the historical consciousness.

Given the great strides made over the past twenty years in our understanding of modern Southeast Asian history, it is surprising that many traditional and possibly outdated interpretations remain unchallenged. Despite the growing use of indigenous source materials, the willingness to take an Asian-centric (and occasionally nonelitist) perspective, and the increasing attention to social, economic, and cultural (rather than just political and diplomatic) history, a number of important themes need reinterpretation or reevaluation. Indeed, many modern historians continue to accept as valid traditional assessments of some nineteenth-century events. This is sometimes the case even when the original sources are compromised by a Western ethnocentric and colonialist bias, since European representatives of the imperialist imperative largely produced the documentary sources for the period. The colonial episode now seems a far less benevolent exercise than it did to an earlier generation of historians; yet, outmoded perspectives sometimes remain with us. Such a failure of reinterpretation characterizes the recent writings on one of the better-known episodes in Bornean history, the so-called “Chinese Rebellion” of 1857 in Sarawak. The time has come for a revisionist appraisal.

There are only a few studies on the Indonesian youth movement in the pre-World War II period. Apart from those dealing with specific organizations and hence not concerned with the more general trend, most of the authors tend to emphasize the unity of the movement after the 1928 youth congress. The usual story told is that after that year, a clear concept of an Indonesian nation emerged and the movement was no longer divided. There is hardly any discussion about the division between secular and Islamic movements. Concerning Indonesian national symbols, the impression is created by these authors that they were adopted unanimously in 1928 although evidence shows that at that time only certain groups accepted them. The general acceptance of these national symbols took place only late in the thirties.

History may regard the summer of 1976 as a watershed of sorts in the evolution of Southeast Asia's place in world politics. Following the official reunification of the two Vietnams, there occurred in rapid succession the removal of the last American combat troops from the Southeast Asian mainland and the first positive stirrings by Vietnamese officials in response to ASEAN overtures for a normalization of relations. Although it is too early to determine the ultimate consequences of these events, their combined symbolic significance is unmistakable.