An exemplary move

Five members of the National Police's elite Mobile Brigade (Brimob) were pilloried by their commander, Brig. Gen. Firman Gani, who stripped the officers of their berets and corps insignias during a televised ceremony in Jakarta on Monday. The public shame the five sergeants experienced at being so dishonorably discharged, however, can hardly be compared to the shame they brought to Brimob.

The five, whose job it is to protect and serve the public, have been implicated in a recent robbery and murder in Jakarta. Their alleged participation in this crime may have caused irreparable damage to the police's reputation at a time when public trust and respect for the police are already at their lowest.

There is another reason why the Mobile Brigade should be particularly angry with these five officers. The alleged crime occurred as some of their colleagues were putting their lives on the line fighting separatist rebels in Aceh. Hours after the five were discharged, their colleagues held a smaller ceremony to pay their respects to the latest Brimob officer killed in Aceh. The five sergeants have not only betrayed the public's trust, they have also betrayed their colleagues.

These officers' public dismissal was a laudable move that sends a message to the public that the Mobile Brigade and the National Police will not tolerate criminal behavior from its officers. The five sergeants have been handed over to the civilian police to stand trial for their alleged crime.

This is just the kind of damage control exercise the Indonesian Military would do well to emulate to earn the public trust and respect which it has also lost. One reason the reputation of our security forces, both the police and the military, has been so badly tarnished is the public impression that our law enforcement officers are above the law.

There may have been cases where officers were discharged and later convicted for crimes they committed, but their commanders, probably for fear of tarnishing the reputation of the corps, prefer to keep these cases out of the public glare. The problem with this approach is that the public is never informed about which cases have been settled, and whether the guilty parties have been duly punished for their crimes.

Being less than transparent also gives rise to suspicion that some criminal cases involving security personnel have been closed simply because the perpetrators have family connections with people higher up in command. Certainly, nothing has been heard about the drug case involving Second Lt. Agus Isrok of the Army's Special Force. The son of former Army chief of staff Gen. Soebagyo was arrested by the Jakarta Police during a drug bust in a Jakarta hotel in August. But nothing has been heard since the Army took over the case from the police.

The argument for greater transparency could equally apply to cases of human rights violations involving members of the military and police, particularly those cases involving top officers. The police and the military cannot pretend these human rights abuses never occurred, especially when the evidence is out in the open for every one to see, such as in Aceh and East Timor. No matter how damaging an admission of guilt would be, it is still far less damaging than pretending, or worse still, denying that these abuses ever occurred. The police and the military cannot stretch the principle of esprit de corps so far as to undermine their own reputation and credibility.