A high-level dispute over money

A high-level dispute over money

The controversy over the Yayasan Dana Kesejahteraan Abadi
(Everlasting Prosperity Fund Foundation), or Dakab, is showing no
signs of abating and may even intensify. Acting on directives
issued by the party's recent extraordinary national congress, the
Golkar central executive board is insisting on getting back the
money, which now totals some Rp 836 billion (US$64 million). It
is at present kept by the foundation in the form of deposits,
securities and shares invested in the Nusamba group of companies.

Golkar has good reason to stake a claim to the money. The
foundation was set up in 1985 for the purpose of funding the
activities of Golkar and Golkar-related institutions. However
Dakab chairman Soeharto refuses to hand over the money to Golkar.
The reason the former president refuses to give is that the
foundation was not set up by Golkar. The party only receives
money from the foundation according to its needs.

The money -- which is to be used "to safeguard Pancasila and
the 1945 Constitution" -- came largely from donations made by
businessmen who donated their money to ensure that Indonesia
would be safe for business, the foundation's treasurer Zahid
Hussein told reporters the other day. Most of the foundation's
money went to support Golkar during general elections, last
year's election in particular.

It is difficult to accept that those businessmen donated their
money simply to ensure that Indonesia would be "safe". Even more
difficult to accept is that the money was collected for the
purpose of "safeguarding Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution." It
would be easy to understand, however, that the money was in all
probability collected to make sure that Golkar won the elections.

This conflict between Dakab and Golkar is an issue that indeed
needs clearing up, including the possibility of certain political
interests -- such as the perpetuation of power -- underlying this
accumulation of funds. No less important, a thorough and open
investigation should be held to determine whether in the
collection of those funds any state facilities were used and
whether these used collusive, corrupt or nepotistic practices.
Taking the legal course would provide the answers to those
questions.

-- Republika, Jakarta