A bad precedent
A bad precedent
How to read Gus Dur? This question has become a frequent topic
of conversation around the country since President Abdurrahman
"Gus Dur" Wahid became Indonesia's first democratically elected
president in October last year.
During the seven months he has been in power, he has managed
to upset friends and foes and politicians and legislators by
making controversial statements. He has risked lawsuits by making
unproven accusations of corruption or other wrongdoings by
politicians, and even members of his own Cabinet.
Little wonder that although there are still many Indonesians
who like him, if only because of his populist image and
unceremonious style, there are others who seem to have had their
fill of the President's verbal antics and are looking for ways --
at least Abdurrahman so believes -- to hurt the democratically
elected leader in August, when the People's Consultative Assembly
meets to either accept or reject his accountability speech. If
only for that reason alone, one would think, the President is
well advised to be careful of what he does, and how he does it.
To the frustration of his supporters, however, the President
has so far shown little intention to correct his erratic behavior
or change his style. He has even given his opponents further
ammunition by neglecting to correct his habit of using his
private bank account to keep large amounts of money that have
been donated for government administrative purposes. By doing so
President Abdurrahman is also setting a bad precedent for future
Indonesian chief executives.
Two latest cases in point are donations from the Sultan of
Brunei Darussalam, Hassanal Bolkiah, amounting to US$2 million
for relief work in Aceh, and another of Rp 1 billion from an
Indonesian businessman, which went largely to the funding of the
recently concluded Papua People's Congress in Irian Jaya.
One may reason that money meant for state use must not be kept
in a leader's personal bank account. For Abdurrahman, however,
who seems to see nothing wrong in taking his pesantren (Islamic
boarding school) background with him into the presidential
office, it makes no difference where the money is kept so long as
it is not stolen. Besides, money given with obvious good
intentions must not be refused, but must be accepted in the same
spirit in which it is given.
Certainly, no one is accusing the President of
misappropriating the money or keeping it his personal bank
account for any other reason than he says: to avoid red tape and
make it easier to cash if or when it is needed. On the other
hand, his critics in this matter are equally right when they say
the practice is highly irregular and makes the money prone to
misuse.
There is, as yet, no law governing gifts to the head of state.
Neither is there any clear precedent. It is not clear where
Indonesia's first president, Sukarno, kept money and other gifts
or how they were managed. Former president Soeharto is known to
have kept donations in the bank accounts of foundations
established especially for that purpose. Where other gifts are
kept is not exactly clear, although presumably both Sukarno and
Soeharto put them in either of the six state palaces.
In any case, it seems to be time that a law be drafted to
govern such gifts. This is not only to avoid further confusion in
the future, but also to make sure that gifts, donations and
presents are properly managed and used for the purpose
designated. In addition, by regulating what is or is not
appropriate, it could save our future presidents from having to
suffer any unnecessary assaults on his or her integrity, which
is, after all, of greater value than any present anyone could
give.