Conflict of interests mar final report of TPGF

The final report of the joint fact-finding team, known by its acronym TGPF, on the mid-May riots has drawn mixed reactions from different parties. Hermawan Sulistiyo, a political researcher at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), and was chairman of the assistance team for TGPF, discusses why the report is so contentious.

Question: How did TGPF produce such a controversial report which has drawn criticism from so many parties?

Hermawan: The report, which was announced in Jakarta on Tuesday, was actually based on fact-finding, but the team members had apparently tried to interpret the findings based on their own political baggage or interests. I have the impression that at the beginning of their work (late July), they were united by the same objective of finding the truth behind the riots, but later unhealthy competition emerged among themselves, each oriented to the interests of its own group or institution. It can be understood if the report is disappointing. As chairman of the team assisting TGPF in collecting facts, I myself am disappointed.

How would you describe the political interests?

On controversial issues such as the May 14 meeting at the headquarters of the Army's Strategic Reserve Command (Kostrad) in Jakarta, gang rapes and sexual assaults, for example, government officials grouped in TGPF had an interest in reducing the bad image of the government. On the other hand, representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) merely wanted to heap the blame on the government.

The team also failed to explain how it reached its conclusions on the figures of the victims. I am not saying they were inaccurate, but they need to explain how they arrived at the conclusions.

(In examples) when there were Armed Forces (ABRI) personnel allegedly involved in the riots, there were disputes about whether they should be identified as individuals or institutional representatives.

But, surprisingly, there was no dispute among TGPF members about the number of the dead victims.

Contents of the report give the impression of favoring the interests of nongovernmental organizations. Do you agree?

Yes. During the New Order era, the government showed an attitude of having never made any mistakes. Now that it has (been shown to have) made mistakes, opposition activists are forcing their idea that the government deserves all the blame for all mistakes. So, there is a conflict between the government and non- governmental groups.

Do you also see any personal ambition that influenced the results of the fact-finding task?

Of course, many of them are trying to enjoy the limelight of the recent political developments. Being the focus of public attention is part of their record building, and the current condition, where there is social and political dislocation, is a good time for power struggles among ambitious people.

Is that why some Cabinet members failed to attend TGPF's final meeting at which the team announced the report?

I think so.

Can the fact-finding be used as the basis for legal proceedings?

No. I'm afraid that the team's report will become something like a time bomb. The report is just like a problem thrown at the public, while the team cannot be asked for accountability. According to an article in the team's report, all the rights and responsibilities of the team end after it conveys its final report.

What may happen after the problem is made public?

The problem has become a political fireball that will encourage various parties to get involved in conflicting public discourses. The result will depend very much on who can kick the ball hardest. The fireball may become wild if some of the parties use violence, given that we have not been used to playing politics democratically.

What is your suggestion for its solution?

If the parties affected by the report cannot solve their dispute with the team, they had better invite a third, neutral party for mediation based on principles of impartiality. If necessary, the third party can be invited from overseas.

Actually, the difference of opinions between TGPF members and the government can be narrowed by referring to the original factual data presented by my team. I can guarantee that my team is objective and does not take any side either to the military nor to opposition groups.

The government should also end practices of hoodlumism and other forms of violence, and prevent such practices in politics.

Do you see any relationship between the mid-May rioting and preceding abduction of political activists by military personnel?

No. The abductions did have severe implications on the image of ABRI, but it did not directly affect society. The rioting on May 13 to May 14 in Jakarta was more closely related to the preceding shooting deaths of Trisakti University students (May 12). (riz)