Fri, 21 Jul 2000

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)