Charming words to spin a tale

Charming words to spin a tale

From Republika

As an Indonesian citizen, I eagerly watched the recent live TV report on the debate between Attorney General A.M. Ghalib and general chairman of the National Mandate Party (PAN) Amien Rais. I was both satisfied and slightly disappointed with Rais.

I was satisfied with him for his simple and straightforward answers to the questions posed by some lawyers. I was disappointed because it seemed Rais was charmed by the eloquence of Ghalib in delivering his words, a skill which is the main asset to law enforcers.

In my opinion, Rais could have criticized part of Ghalib's statements, for example his oft-repeated reference to "presumption of innocence, insufficient evidence and innumerable cases to be dealt with", and his excuse that he had been in this position only for a few months while many years would be needed to settle once and for all Soeharto's case and his alleged corruption, collusion and nepotism.

Mr. Ghalib, as the attorney general, you have under you qualified prosecutors with high morality and seriousness to deal with alleged corruption, collusion and nepotism by Soeharto. You have the authority to instruct your subordinates to work faster as otherwise Soeharto, who is known as an excellent strategist, will be able to save his skin.

I was most disappointed to hear the comment that Mr. Rais was not cut out for the president's position because he lacked legal knowledge. In my opinion, such a view was narrow-minded. The law is not to be interpreted only by law experts because it is a subject open to wide interpretation. Let's take Soeharto. He knows practically all aspects of life in this country: military, social, legal, etc., yet he is the person most responsible for the destruction of all these aspects -- an attitude that a president is not supposed to assume. It will be a greater concern to us if someone well-versed in the law then make use of the laws, and bypasses or even bends them, in the pursuit of their own interests.

The expression "not enough evidence" is something that law enforcers are very fond of saying. It is a pretext to hide their inability or unwillingness to enforce the law. As for the expression "the presumption of innocence", I believe this is too often used in the case of privileged people and is very rarely applicable to the common people.

The winds of reform do not seem to have blown in the direction of law-enforcement agencies, whichever they are. The law is actually something easy to learn. If you want to get the high value of the law, you can begin with goods intention and a clear conscience. This is not something too difficult for Amien Rais.

SITI HARLINDA HARUN

Tangerang, West Java