Extradition talks and Singapore's lectures

Extradition talks and Singapore's lectures

Abdillah Toha, Jakarta

There is something rather irritating in the recent
negotiations between Indonesia and Singapore concerning the
extradition of Indonesian white-collar criminals now finding
shelter in this island state. The two countries have negotiated
this matter before, without success. The two rounds of
negotiations held recently did not yield much, although President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has claimed that some progress had been
made in the second round.

What is annoying is the fact that, in the opinion of many
Indonesians, the attitude of the Singaporean government is both
patronizing and hypocritical. Indonesians may well interpret
their attitude as an attempt to protect these criminals.

What is particularly vexing is that rather than earnestly
seeking ways to settle this extradition matter with the
Indonesian government, Singaporean state leaders just seem to
want to give lectures.

The question is, why does Singapore always lecture Indonesia?
It may well be a manifestation of the character of Singaporean
governmental leadership. In the past, Lee Kuan Yew on numerous
occasions lectured the Indonesian government about terrorism and
corruption. It seems that now under the leadership of his son, PM
Han Sien Lee, this "tradition" is being continued. This time,
Indonesians are being lectured about the benefits of extradition
in the context of eradicating corruption. It is most unfortunate
that this "lecture" is being conveyed even as the international
community is in agreement in making concerted efforts to
eradicate corruption.

On the matter of extradition, Singapore's prime minister and
foreign minister recently said that an extradition treaty between
Indonesia and Singapore would not break the chain of corruption
practices in Indonesia. However, the Indonesian government has
never claimed that it would! Signing an extradition pact with
Indonesia is just one more weapon in the total armory in the
fight against corruption in Indonesia.

The Singapore government's constant lectures on matters
related to the extradition agreement has started to put a large
question mark over their sincerity and motives. What is it that
Singapore is really after? Is Singapore attempting to buy time
for Indonesian white-collar criminals before the conclusion of an
extradition pact?

For too many years, Singapore has enjoyed fat profits from the
non-realization of the extradition pact regarding Indonesia's
white-collar criminals. They benefit from the monetary deposits
that these criminals have siphoned off along with their flight to
Singapore. Everyone knows that these people walk freely and
without fear in Singapore.

Even a suspect in the major BNI fraud case can freely give
interviews from his hotel in Singapore to Indonesian newspapers.
Various researchers estimate that billions of dollars stolen from
Indonesia are now deposited in Singapore banks.

This practice of buying time is not new. The Indonesian
government has since 1975 been asking Singapore to sign an
extradition treaty. Every time negotiations are conducted,
Singapore always puts forwards excuses to hamper the signing of a
treaty. At first they argued that legal practices in Singapore
were not the same as those in Indonesia. Singapore adheres to a
legal system based on English common law, while Indonesian law
refers to Dutch law.

This is clearly a groundless argument as Indonesia has already
signed similar extradition treaties with Australia, Malaysia and
Hong Kong, three countries whose legal systems are also based on
English common law.

Astonishingly, Singapore then used another excuse when it
issued a list of crimes considered "incompatible" with their own
laws. Singapore argues that smuggling, for example, is not a
crime in Singapore because Singapore is a free trade zone that
allows the entry of all imported goods without the imposition of
any customs and excise fees.

Regarding Singapore's stance, Commission I of Indonesian's
House of Representatives has now taken a firm position. In two
working meetings with the foreign minister, the House has asked
the government to set the end of 2005 as the deadline for the
conclusion of an extradition treaty with Singapore. If treaty is
not signed by that time, then the House will demand that the
government take firm measures against Singapore. If necessary,
the government should recall the Indonesian ambassador in
Singapore. This pressure from the House seems to have somewhat
softened Singapore's stance, as it has now agreed to start
negotiating again.

The Singaporean government is apparently very unhappy with
this pressure from Indonesia. According to a number of reliable
sources, a Singaporean diplomat in Indonesia has undertaken
intensive lobbying to make their annoyance known. He has been
stating that Singapore, as a small state, does not want to be
pressurized by any country. If Singapore simply buckles under
pressure, this will set a precedent for further pressure from
other countries in the future.

This diplomat has also claimed that extradition is not easy
and that negotiations on such matters must be conducted
meticulously before a pact can finally be signed. However, this
argument does not make any sense as negotiations on this matter
have been going on the past three decades.

The problem of extradition of white-collar criminals is just
one of many major problems confronting the Indonesia-Singapore
relationship. Other major problems include the export of sand for
Singapore's continued reclamation program of their island, and
the dumping of hazardous waste into Indonesia. The conclusion of
an extradition pact would mean that significant progress could be
made in settling these other problems. It will also be a
significant test of Singapore's sincerity.

Relationships between countries can be substantially improved
if there is mutual benefit, mutual respect and mutual assistance.
In too many cases, it seems that Singapore has been reluctant to
adhere to these principles that are the foundations of sound
bilateral relationships between states.

It is time for the rhetoric and lectures to stop, otherwise
the relationship will suffer. What is needed now is for the two
nations to immediately take concrete action to resolve all of
these accumulated unsettled problems. An extradition treaty would
be a very good start.

The writer is chairman of the National Mandate Party (PAN)
faction in the House of Representatives (DPR) of the Republic of
Indonesia.