Habibie must explain

Habibie must explain

Hesitation from legislators of the House of Representatives to
question President B.J. Habibie over his alleged tapped telephone
conversation with Attorney General Andi M. Ghalib once again
reveals how out of step our national legislature is with the
public.

In what is now common knowledge, the controversial recording
was first brought to the public's attention by the weekly
newsmagazine Panji Masyarakat. The substance of the purported
telephone conversation between the President and Attorney General
Andi M. Ghalib -- believed to be tapped last December -- concerns
arrangements Ghalib had made for the investigation of former
president Soeharto.

The conversation appears to lend credence to opinions
expressed by critics that Habibie's government is dragging its
feet in investigating Soeharto, his family and cronies, and of
diverting public attention by launching investigations against
some of the government's staunchest critics. An investigation
into Soeharto's accumulation of wealth was not only promised by
Habibie, but ordered by a formal decree issued by the nation's
supreme policy making body, the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR), late last year.

Any authoritative investigation now lies in tatters. In the
recording, the person who sounded liked Habibie ordered the voice
purported to be that of Ghalib to "go easy" on Soeharto, his
erstwhile political mentor, referred to as Bapak (father) in the
conversation. The men concurred that the investigation should
continue rather than allowing him to be tried by the "people's
court".

The voices, believed to be those of Habibie and Ghalib, also
discussed the progress of investigations into businessmen Sofjan
Wanandi and Arifin Panigoro. A lesser offense against the
principle of judicial fairness and impartiality involves the
misuse by the judiciary executive for the purpose of eliminating
political adversaries.

Unsurprisingly, Ghalib quickly denied that the conversation
ever took place. Habibie's response has been unexpected and
confusing -- he is yet to voice an explicit public denial,
implying that the taped conversation was authentic. Habibie's
order for a high-level investigation into the matter also
indicates that the conversation may indeed have occurred.

Unquestionably, the incident has placed the government in an
unpleasant predicament. It has the choice to admit the
conversation was an authentic exchange between Habibie and Ghalib
and risk accusations of acting in contempt of the MPR. Or deny
the aspersions and abandon its effort to pinpoint those
responsible for the leakage, as well as lose whatever credibility
it retains should an independent laboratory analysis reveal the
authenticity of the recording.

As far as the House is concerned, establishing the tape's
authenticity is an obvious first step. The most important aspect
of the tapping, which the legislature must consider, however, is
the content of the purported conversation. If contempt of a
formal decree of the MPR is indeed involved, impeachment -- or
some form of it -- is indicated.

Either way, the case has consequences which the government of
President Habibie cannot easily escape. The first -- if not
necessarily the most truthful -- thing it can do is perhaps to
have the tape established as a fake. Then there would be no
question of contempt of the country's supreme legislative body.
But then, too, the authorities will have no further reason to
harass the media -- an activity they have been engaging in with
gusto over the past few days. Their media investigations are a
blatant attempt to divert the public's attention away from the
second, much more serious possibility, that the government has
been making a farce of the people's mandate.