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