Clobber threat should not be taken seriously

Clobber threat should not be taken seriously

President Soeharto's recent statement to "clobber" anyone
attempting to unseat him unconstitutionally has received
widespread comments. Scholar Yusril Ihza Mahendra shares his view
with The Jakarta Post.

Question: How do you interpret the president's statement?

Answer: What the president said is actually a description of
the mechanism in our constitution. A president is elected by the
People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) to carry out the outlines of
state policies (GBHN) and other constitutions under the
supervision of the House of Representatives. So, if the House
find that the president fails to toe the line according to the
constitution, they have the right to remind and even question him
in a special hearing.

In other words, Pak Harto was trying to say that he didn't
want to keep his present position. Therefore, if people no longer
want him, he will step down. But, he'll do that only if it is
done constitutionally.

Q: He used the word "clobber" in his statement. What he meant
by this?

A: We shouldn't worry about the term he used. We must see that
he said it in front of an audience in a relaxed atmosphere and
the President did say it jokingly. The word "clobber" was not
meant to convey harsh action as the word suggests. What he meant
by his statement is that if someone wants to unseat the president
unconstitutionally, the state will take legal action against
them.

Q: Was Pak Harto's statement hinting that the MPR would not
nominate him again in the upcoming election?

A: Pak Harto was trying to warn those who attempt to unseat
him before he finishes his presidential term (1998). After his
term, it will be up to the MPR to decide whether to nominate him
as a presidential candidate or not.

It is true that outside the MPR there are groups, like Sri
Bintang Pamungkas' Indonesian Union Democratic Party (PUDI) or
Princen's human rights organization, which have asked the House
to hold a special hearing to ask for the president's
responsibility in running the government. I myself received
copies of the letters they wrote, but it's up to the House
whether to fulfill such a request or not.

Q: Who, do you think, was on the President's mind when he made
the statement? Could it have been Sri Bintang Pamungkas?"

A: From what I see either from PUDI's or Princen's, human
rights organization's requests are constitutional. Everyone has
the right to say whether something is or is not against the law.
It's also constitutional for the House to hold such a hearing if
they find a president does something serious against the law.

So far, I don't see any indication either from factions of the
House including those from the dominant ruling party Golkar to do
so. So I don't know for sure what was on the president's mind
when he said that.

Q: Is there any sign that Pak Harto still wants the position
for the next election?

A: I don't want to stretch my interpretation too far on that
particular issue. What I see is that he doesn't seem to be
clinging tightly to his position. If people want him to step
down, he will do it. His principle is tidak neko neko (take it
easy) and tidak ngotot (don't strive too hard) to be reelected as
president. But up to the present time, all factions in the House
do not seem to have any other candidate other than Pak Harto.

Q: Every time Pak Harto makes an important political
statement, people always think there must be something behind it.
What do you think of this?

A: Pak Harto's statement last week is not the first one of
that nature. I think it was meant to remind everyone that in
running a government there are certain constitutional rules to be
obeyed. So, don't bother doing things unconstitutionally. I think
it's an important statement because a presidential election has
to be conducted properly and constitutionally so that it won't
create disturbances.

A: Some people have said that the president's statement was
nothing more than a warning to those who want to challenge him.
Is this true?

A: The answer is "yes" if the person is trying to challenge
him in the middle of his presidential term in an unconstitutional
way. I think the word "clobber" was not only directed to those
who want to unseat Pak Harto from the present position. It can
also be directed to robbers, for example. If a police officer
says he will clobber anyone who robs it doesn't mean that the
officer can do anything he wants without regarding legal aspects.
What he will do is "clobber" the robber legally. (swa)

Dr. Yuzril Ihza Mahendra is a lecturer of political science at
the University of Indonesia.