ET at large

Local media, government officials, politicians as well as newspaper readers have been clamoring over the flight of ET from prison; the acronym standing not for that strange creature from outer space, but for a big name who has made an incredibly easy escape from 20 years in the supposed high-security prison.

This "daring" escape has exposed weak strains in our society: that many of us are gullible, and that many of us like to make fools of ourselves. This explains why our prison system has always been lax.

I wonder how a criminal can be allowed to leave prison every now and then for so-called health checkups, or be allowed to have a mobile phone? Is this what is called a penitentiary with a human face? Remember the case of another infamous convict who was accused of sexual harassment while serving his sentence? The accusation proves that he was allowed freedom of movement. Unlike ET, he was good enough not to misuse his freedom.

A rush of comments followed this fantastic disappearance from the prison. This escape is a painful mockery of our prison system, and, in an indirect way, of our handling of legal cases. The escape has, in a cynical but comic way, shown the world how corrupt and venial Eddy Tansil's surroundings are; not only lowly-paid salarymen who can hardly make both ends meet, but also people with handsome monthly salaries and enviable perks.

This escape, along with the collusion charges in the Supreme Court, seem to vindicate the rating published recently by some foreign institutions that Indonesia places third in illegal pecuniary pursuit.

Where is the fugitive? No one knows for sure. It is not so much my hunch as my hope that he is still here, because life in the VIP prison is much better than life as a hunted fugitive. Maybe he is waiting for an appropriate time to surrender to the authorities?

Emigration officers and the police have been alerted, but a round of checks on plastic surgery clinics should be made, and psychics should be consulted. But one, and I think, important thing seems to have been overlooked.

It could be possible he might believe that he is not guilty of corruption. He just failed to deliver the money he borrowed when the time was due. He should, so his way of thinking seems to run, be declared insolvent, but not guilty of criminal act. So he would have chosen to flee to a country whose law might at least give his argument the benefit of the doubt.

Can courts in other countries legally rescind a verdict already passed by a court in another country? If the answer is yes, then the possibility should not be ruled out that ET has such a country in mind. An independent judiciary would not necessarily reflect the good and friendly relations that Indonesia has with the country concerned. Irrelevant and most unlikely? Maybe.

S. SOSROSOEMARTO

Jakarta