Gus Dur's response rocks the House

Gus Dur's response rocks the House

JAKARTA (JP): President Abdurrahman "Gus Dur" Wahid angered
many House members on Thursday when he failed to answer their
questions about his decision to fire two Cabinet ministers in
April.

A total of 23 House members used the meeting with the
President to air their opinions about his response. Support for
the President not surprisingly came from members of the National
Awakening Party (PKB) which Abdurrahman helped found last year.
The 34 members of the Indonesian Military/Police faction did not
use their right to respond.

The following are excerpts from some of the responses.

Ade Komaruddin, Golkar Party of Reform faction and initiator
of the interpellation right: The President's response on the
interpellation right is material for academic discourse. It has
no legal basis. This is not the place for this respected forum to
discuss the subject.

You have to respect the rights of the House, lest you become a
tyrant. You have taken the oath of the presidential office to
uphold the 1945 Constitution and to uphold the laws. Yet, you
have avoided answering questions from the House.

We cannot accept your answer. We will consider using our other
rights. You are wrong to accuse the House of using the
interpellation right to unseat the government.

Is it wrong for the House to be critical? How else do we
exercise our function to control the government then?

Mr. President, I am reminded of the phrase that "power tends
to corrupt and that absolute power corrupts absolutely". If the
president is given absolute power, I'm afraid it will be abused.

Hamdan Zoelva, Crescent Star faction (PBB):

Law No. 4/1999, on which the interpellation motion was based,
is an implementation of the 1945 Constitution. Now, we are
asking, how committed is the President to implementing the laws
and the Constitution?

This is about public accountability. The public has the right
to know about the decisions behind the government policies.

Your refusal to answer the questions is enough of an
indication of your attitude toward the 1945 Constitution. We will
form our own attitude in due course.

Didi Supriyanto, the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
faction:

The 1945 Constitution is short and simple. You should not only
read the text, but also the spirit. The interpellation right is
recognized by the Constitution. The President did not quibble
about it when he was summoned the first time (in November).

If you neglect the 1945 Constitution, you are in violation of
your oath of office to uphold the Constitution and all laws.

Sofwan Chudorie, the National Awakening Party faction (F-PKB):

The real problem is the substance of the interpellation
motion. It was based on information that came out of a closed-
door meeting which was leaked to the media. If the President did
not explain the matters in public, it was to protect the names of
certain people. It was logical to discuss them during a closed-
door meeting. There may have been legal consequences if the
President answered questions about classified material.

There are no indications that the President has not fulfilled
his obligations.

Ali Yahya, Golkar Party of Reform faction:

When the President formed the Cabinet, he consulted the
leaders of the major political parties. He did not do so when he
replaced them. Although it was his constitutional prerogative to
replace the ministers, it was not done in the spirit of joint
responsibility. The problem arose when he accused the ministers
of corruption, collusion and nepotism.

We question your ethics. I'm not satisfied with the response
and we will follow up this matter, using our other rights.

Ekky Sjachruddin, Golkar Party of Reform faction:

I was at the meeting (in April). Golkar stated that it
supported the decision to fire ministers if they were involved in
corruptive practices, even if they were Golkar ministers. But if
the ministers denied the accusations, naturally we need to seek
clarification.

We ask for your wisdom as a kyai (Muslim teacher): Apologize
if they (the ministers) were not guilty. It costs nothing, and
you will stay on until 2004.

Aisyah Amini, United Development faction (F-PP):

I regret that the President did not respond to the questions.
The people and the House are disappointed.

You are hiding behind the presidential system by denying the
House of its constitutional right. That reminds us of the New
Order regime. Soeharto also hid behind the system and did not
wish to be disturbed by the House. He ruled for 32 years. Is that
what you're trying to do? I hope not.

Marwah Daud, Golkar Party of Reform faction:

The President could exercise his full prerogative if he had
won the election with a 50 percent plus majority. He did not. We
had hoped there would be consultations, because we need to work
together, to forge unity. Now, that hope has been dashed with his
decisions to fire Yusuf Kalla, Laksamana Sukardi, and previously,
Gen. Wiranto and Hamzah Haz.

While we regret that the information was leaked from a closed-
door meeting, we regret more the fact that those (accusatory)
words were said at such a meeting. Nobody, except the judiciary,
has the right to make such accusations.

Julius Usman, Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle faction:

The President has a moral obligation to explain why there were
two conflicting reasons (for firing the ministers). The
accusations were sinful and slanderous. Even if they were made in
a closed-door meeting, the angels would still write them down. In
any case, people will soon find out. They have ways.

The President has a moral obligation not only to the House but
also to the people, lest he accept the term of a liar or a
slanderer.

We hope the President and Vice President will serve their term
until 2004, but that is up to the President. We cannot force you.

Nurdiati Akma, Reform faction

Can we still hope to have a leader which reflects the
leadership of the Prophet (Muhammad)?

I hope in the future you will be more cautious and realize
your position as a President who protects your people. Every word
you utter, every step you take, affects the lives of the people
in this country.(emb/prb/jun)