Fair option viable in Soeharto's case

Fair option viable in Soeharto's case

A little progress and long withered hopes in general color the
current handling of corruption cases. The Jakarta Post talked to
Teten Masduki who coordinates the private Indonesian Corruption
Watch.

Question: Suggestions have been repeatedly raised for an in
absentia trial for former president Soeharto, whose corruption
case has been scratched by the court. Could you elaborate?

Answer: This case will always be an annoying burden for the
government if there are no results.

There are two alternatives; he could be tried in absentia if
it is impossible for him to attend the trial due to his poor
health. A second alternative in the face of legal deadlock would
be the political way.

Soeharto has been a kind of symbol of the people's hatred
towards the "sins" of the New Order, so there must be some fair
recourse.

A political way would be the responsibility of the government
and the legislature. They must work together to seek one
solution. They should both state that he has abused his power, by
issuing some 80 government decrees to enrich the members of his
family and his cronies. So the assets associated with them could
be taken over by the government. Such an approach could satisfy
those seeking some justice.

Q: The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) last year issued a
decree on good governance, mentioning the eradication of
corruption including that of Soeharto and his cronies...

A: That was just rhetoric, showing that it respected the reform
process...

Q: The Supreme Court sentenced Soeharto's son Hutomo Mandala
Putra (Tommy) to jail for corruption...

A: This decision has revealed progress. I know a member of the
legal team who is relatively clean, so in a way we could expect
something fair. Generally I haven't seen any improvement in our
judicial system.

Just look at the case of Djoko Tjandra (the suspect set free
in the Bank Bali scandal).

The decision (on Tommy), however, did remove the assumption
that there is always a political barrier in taking the Soeharto
family and their cronies to court.

Q: Has the government been really worried about taking the former
First Family and their cronies to court?

A: The government has implicitly admitted tension shortly before
any legal moves against Soeharto or his relatives.

There has been speculation on whether Soeharto retains
sufficient power to place the prevailing administration in peril.
The Attorney General's Office should have a strong political will
to proceed with other cases.

Q: What will happen when Tommy requests a review of his case or
files an appeal for clemency with the President?

A: This will be a dilemma for him. If he requests a review, he
must go to jail first. Filing an appeal for clemency will mean
that he admits being guilty. It would be worse if he does appeal
for clemency and the President agrees. There will likely be
strong protests. The public will likely object and further
distrust the government.

Q: You mentioned a "relatively clean" member of the judicial team
in Tommy's case. What about other cases?

A: The issue of administering justice is so wide. There is the
Attorney General's Office, the Supreme Court and subordinate
courts. The Supreme Court's decision on Tommy involved, in part,
a good person on the team. But in many other corruption cases
people walk free.

Q: How do you see such cases, including the one involving former
minister of manpower Abdul Latief who was a suspect in the
alleged embezzlement of state-owned social insurance firm PT
Jamsostek's funds, and the alleged misuse of funds belonging to
the Army Strategic Reserves Command (Kostrad)?

A: There has always been controversy. In the case of Latief, we
had evidence but the Attorney General's Office terminated the
investigation due to lack of evidence.

In the case of Kostrad, I think the military tried to hide
something rotten. The statement that there was no scam was not an
independent opinion. I agree with those proposing that the House
of Representatives invites clarification from Kostrad.

The Kostrad case is of major importance as it is related to
the military's non-budgetary funds. Absence of government control
over these funds is dangerous; the military can have its own
agendas financed by funds outside the state budget.

I hope the House will have the courage to discuss this.

Q: How can we hope to see corruption cases resolved fairly and
their incidence gradually reduced?

A: We have seen such huge amounts lost to corruption. Some 30
percent to 50 percent of state revenues and expenditure has
leaked so far. If the leakage could be reduced by at least 10
percent we would already have the capability to improve the
people's welfare.

The main problem is the government's seriousness in
restructuring the bureaucracy as well as replacing officials
connected to the old regime.

Now we have suffered a set back. President Abdurrahman Wahid
(Gus Dur) wants to save the conglomerates (with bad debts) by
extending special treatment ...

Gus Dur doesn't have enough guts to cut ties with the old
regime, cleanse the Attorney General's Office and the
bureaucracy. He just retains the old political and economic
structures. (I. Christianto)