Conflict of interests mar final report of TPGF

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)