'Gus Dur should comply with the House's request'

President Abdurrahman 'Gus Dur' Wahid's refusal to come to the House of Representatives (DPR) to answer questions over two alleged financial scandals dubbed as Bruneigate and Buloggate has sparked a wide controversy. Political observer Riswandha Imawan of Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, comments on the issue.

Question: Gus Dur has refused to come to the House to answer questions from legislators. Instead he has invited the special investigating committees of the House to the presidential palace. How do you read this?

Answer: First, we should put the case in its context. The House's special committee is not investigating the alleged scandals, but is gathering facts. They are seeking clarification on whether the President was involved in the scandals.

Therefore, it is Gus Dur who has to come to the House and not vice versa. Why? Because Gus Dur is the only one the special committee is asking clarification from. Here, Gus Dur's position is not any different from that of Soewondo (his masseur) or Siti Farikha.

So, what is the implication of the President's rejection? It implies that there is no significant difference between Soeharto and Abdurrahman Wahid in the way they run the government. The President puts himself above the House, showing that he is more important, and more powerful.

People can see that the President's response to the two scandals is ridiculous. If it is true that he has nothing to do with both scandals, he could just come to the House and say, "I have nothing to do with these cases".

People have become suspicious that the President could be involved in the scandals because of the way he and his supporters have been defending the suspects in these cases.

Could you elaborate?

Siti Farikha questioned the House committee's legitimacy on seeking clarification regarding the scandals. It did not make sense at all. I'm sorry to say this, but she is no one. She comes from no where. How is it that she could question the committee's legitimacy if there were no one instructing her to do so. Gus Dur, too, overreacted when he said that the House's special committees should be dismissed, and that the committees were illegal. He shouldn't have said that. It is pointless.

The House's special committee is part of the House's internal mechanism. That's why they should work within the House's office, and not outside it. So, the President should be answering the committee's questions at the House, and not at the presidential palace.

The case is actually very simple. What the President has to do is just come to the House and say that he has nothing to do with the scandals, and never again make any defense for the suspects, including Siti Farikha. That's all. The case will end there for him.

Is there any legal sanction for Gus Dur if he keeps rejecting the House's request to appear before the special committee?

Yes, there is. Whoever rejects such a request could be charged with an article in the law on the function and position of the House and the People's Consultative Assembly which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail.

Presidential spokesman Wimar Witoelar said the reason Gus Dur's refuses to appear at the House is because he wants to maintain the dignity of the presidential institution and also because he was under no obligation to do so.

That's what I call the resurgence of sanctifying the presidential institution, just like what Soeharto did in the past.

Saying that the President has no obligation to appear at the House for questioning is ridiculous. He is using double standards. The law clearly says that the President and the House are in an equal positions. Why then did he say that a president when asked by the House to appear before it for questioning is not obliged to do so?

This has thrown the law into question. What we need in the country right now is certainty of the law. This is the starting point to change everything. A consolidation of democracy does not depend on a person, but on the creation of five arenas, namely the civil society, political society, economic society, rule of law, and the state apparatus.

Rule of law, in this case, is the starting point for the creation of the other four arenas. Unless the rule of law is properly formed and implemented, the other arenas would never develop.

Now that Gus Dur has sent his letter of rejection to appear before the House's special committees, what should the committees do?

They have to reject it (the letter). Otherwise, they will only lose the people's trust. People presently no longer have trust in the President. Should they lose their trust in the House too? It would be disastrous for us. Who can they trust then?

Therefore I strongly suggest the House's special committee to send a second letter with a note that if the President insists on rejecting the committees' request, they will be forced to come to a conclusion on the scandals based only on information they obtain from other sources.

In other words, the President cannot blame the House if it concludes that he was involved in both scandals and issues a memorandum to the People's Consultative Assembly proposing for a special session.

Could we say that Gus Dur's rejection is an effort to try to buy time to prevent the House from issuing a memorandum to the Assembly?

Yes, I think we could say so because what we have now (in the President) is a politician, not a statesman. A statesman will try hard to solve problems. Politicians do the opposite. (Sri Wahyuni)