Disappointing reply

Despite of responding directly to questions posed by members of the House of Representatives (DPR) in its session on July 20, 2000 on the motives behind the dismissal of two ministers of his Cabinet, President Abdurrahman Wahid still questioned the constitutional rights of the members to inquire into presidential policy.

He simply said it did concern only the right of the executive power to reveal or not to reveal anything to the House since there is no provision in the Constitution. The President blamed the legislators for revealing the statement that the ministers were guilty of corruption and collusion practices in a recent closed session of the House. So the violation was carried out by the legislators; they broke their promise.

In their response to the President's clarification, speakers in the session were not generally satisfied politically and stated they might consider further action.

Since the head of state was unable to read his statement himself the state secretary took over the job and it sounded unnaturally like a defense in a legal court. It is hard to believe that the President composed the speech himself because it was neither in his style or wording, or using his expressions.

It may be imperative in the future for any president to have sound and healthy vision and not to have one who is almost blind. He who is handicapped physically should not be allowed to sit in the nation's top post.

Maybe it is essential that any president in the future should retain the capacity of writing down his ideas instead of instructing others to do it for him. Even the vice president could not help.

How the House will react from here is something that is eagerly awaited by the nation. In short, it is more intriguing for those tabling the interpellation to "move one". They were disappointed.

There were naturally other speakers who said the questions and replies given were less important than the recovery of the nation's economy. Other also suggested a "middle way" as the solution to the political clash between the legislators and the executive should be seen as fuss about democratic rights and practices.

GANDHI SUKARDI

Jakarta