Buloggate II turns bizarre

Buloggate II turns bizarre

The return to state investigators of Rp 32.5 billion of a
total of Rp 40 billion in public money allegedly misused by top
figures of the Golkar Party in the run-up to the 1999 general
election has given the case a turn that can only be regarded as
bizarre in the extreme.

On Saturday, a spokesman for the Attorney General's Office in
Jakarta, Barman Zahir, revealed to the media that the money had
been returned by Winfried Simatupang, a contractor hired by the
then Golkar-dominated government of president B.J. Habibie to
disburse food packages to the poor. The money, he said, was to be
paid back to the state in installments, the first having been
made last week and the final one to be made before the end of
this month.

The case culminated last week with the detention of House of
Representatives Speaker Akbar Tandjung, who is concurrently
chairman of the Golkar Party, as a suspect in the case after a
third session of questioning by state attorneys. To put it all in
a proper context, it should be noted that in 1999 Akbar was
minister/state secretary and as such was reportedly ordered by
then president B.J. Habibie to get the money from the State
Logistics Agency (Bulog) and use it to buy food for distribution
to the poor.

Akbar complied, but initially denied before investigators that
he had personally received the money, saying that the funds had
been accepted by Dadang Ruskandar, then deputy chief of Bulog, on
behalf of the Raudlatul Jannah Foundation, a body headed by
Ruskandar, for relief operations. He also said that he had
reported the foundation as recipient of the money to three
ministers in president Habibie's Cabinet, minister of industry
and trade Rahardi Ramlan (who was then head of Bulog and is now
also in detention), coordinating minister for population Haryono
Suyono and justice minister Muladi. All three, however, denied
any knowledge of the foundation.

Akbar's testimony regarding acceptance of the money was also
denied by Rahardi Ramlan's deputy at Bulog, Dadang Ruskandar,
compelling Akbar to admit that he had personally received the
money in the form of three checks in his office. Further evidence
later revealed that the checks were accepted by Golkar Party
treasurers Muhammad S. Hidayat and Fadel Muhammad.

Even at this point it can be seen that Akbar's testimony is
riddled with holes. However, how does one explain what followed
next? Akbar was placed in detention and the Golkar Party
threatened to put pressure on the process by mobilizing its
supporters and withdrawing its ministers from the Cabinet. In the
House of Representatives, Golkar members stated their
determination to oppose to the end the proposed formation of a
special legislative commission to look into the affair.

Then, out of the blue, more than two months after Akbar had
been named a corruption suspect, four days after he had been put
in detention and weeks after investigators had heard all the
allegations and denials, came Saturday's revelation by the
Attorney General's Office that the money was being returned in
stages. What is one to make of so bizarre a turn of events?

So far, it seems that the Buloggate II case has managed to
raise more questions than it has answered. For instance, where
has this latest money come from? During the investigations in the
past few weeks both Winfried and Dadang were adamant that the
Bulog money had been spent. Not a single rupiah was left and both
had even had to use some of their own money to pay for the food
purchase.

Last week, however, Winfried claimed that he had discovered to
his surprise, "The money is still in the bank, not all was
spent." This not only refutes his earlier testimony, it also
raises the question as to why the investigators have never taken
the trouble of looking into the bank accounts of corruption
suspects, or even trying to do so. To Winfried, the investigators
must seem like gullible little children.

There is no shortage of questions that need to be seriously
answered in this bizarre case. However, suffice it is to say that
this latest turn of developments makes it even more urgent than
ever for our state investigators to look into every aspect of the
case. It is important for the public to know precisely where the
money came from, who provided it and for what purpose and why the
Attorney General's Office found it necessary to wait a whole week
before announcing the return of the funds to the public.

The fact that the money has been returned, and in so irregular
a fashion and under such a questionable pretext, must not stand
in the way of justice being done. If this nation and its leaders
are sincere in their stated determination to uphold the supremacy
of the law in this country, no stone should be left unturned for
corruptors to escape justice.