Buloggate II a stale joke?<\/p>\n
From Rakyat Merdeka<\/p>\n
A court hearing in a new corruption case involving Bulog non-
\nbudgetary funds, in which Akbar Tandjung, Dadang Sukandar and
\nWinfried Simatupang are the defendants with some legal experts
\nhaving been summoned as expert witnesses, is really cause for
\ndeep concern.<\/p>\n
At first I thought that the expert witnesses were real experts
\nin their field and could provide objective information without
\ntaking sides.<\/p>\n
Later, I realized I was really wrong because the so-called
\nexpert witnesses were the same as ordinary witnesses. Their
\ninformation was clearly based on textbooks. They failed to take
\ninto account the facts already exposed during the hearing.
\nBesides, they also took the side of the defendants. This has
\nopened my eyes to realize that, if expert witnesses are summoned
\nby the defendant, they will sing to the tune of the defendant,
\nwho pays them.<\/p>\n
Although I'm not a lawyer and therefore do not know the
\narticles of a law, I'm certain that the law means justice.
\nEverybody is equal before the law.<\/p>\n
The expert witnesses have said that in a corruption case if
\nthe money siphoned off is returned then the corruptor will be
\nfreed of any charges as he is not considered as having inflicted
\nlosses to the state. This is tantamount to legalizing corruption,
\nisn't it? If the act of corruption goes undetected, then you're
\nsafe, but if it is detected and you return the money, you cannot
\nbe charged with corruption.<\/p>\n
In the case of petty theft, for example, even when the chicken
\nstolen has been returned, the thief will be beaten black and blue
\nand then taken to court.<\/p>\n
Law experts must not only base their advice on textbooks but
\nalso on the case at hand.<\/p>\n
H. SOEJOEDONO<\/p>\n
Jakarta<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/buloggate-ii-a-stale-joke-1447899208", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }