How a poll hero turned into 'public enemy'
Moch. N. Kurniawan, Jakarta
This is a story of a hero-turned public enemy. Mulyana W. Kusumah -- a rights activist and member of the Indonesian Elections Commission (KPU) -- was one of the many so- called "heroes" who it seemed had succeeded in organizing a mammoth task, the 2004 general and presidential election. Last month, he was apprehended by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) for allegedly bribing a Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) official to overlook suspected irregularities in the procurement of ballot boxes.
It is still hard to believe that a man known for his stout convictions and modest lifestyle would commit such an offense.
His record speaks volumes -- active in the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (YLBHI) for over a decade, founder of the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI), and the Commission for Missing Person and Victims of Violence (KONTRAS), Mulyana was also a pioneer who of the Independent Election Monitoring Committee (KIPP).
But the reality is that the 56-year-old ethnic Sundanese -- who claimed the bribe was made with the consent of other active KPU members -- is now incarcerated at Salemba Penitentiary, East Jakarta.
From the outset, the KPU faced a herculean task in organizing the biggest one-day election in the world.
But it was a task which, by all accounts, was performed admirably. Or so we thought.
The success of the elections seemed to gloss over reports of suspected irregularities on various procurements by KPU as reported by certain NGOs and a few newspapers including The Jakarta Post.
These procurements included the provision of ballot boxes, ballot papers, information technology hardware, ink, and polling booths.
It was Mulyana who headed the ballot boxes committee.
If the allegations directed towards Mulyana are proven to be true, then there is reason to be sad and rejoice at the same time.
It will confirm the downfall a man who for years epitomized virtue and principle, and at the same time give hope to a new institution (the KPK) which is willing to pursue crime irrespective of the suspect's rank or reputation.
The other KPU members must also be ready to bear every consequence of irregularities committed during their tenure.
Looking back at the KPU procurements process, it was quite clear that it was far from being well-managed, or transparent. To put it bluntly, it was a mess!
One of the most fundamental mistakes was the KPU management assuming the direct management of procurements and tenders; a process which they had little experience in.
They maintained that since they would ultimately be the ones held responsible for the success of the elections, it was best for them to directly be in charge of all aspects of the process.
Investigative journalists quickly dug up sources that revealed that in November 2003, the winning firm of Rp 324 billion (US$38 million) ballot boxes tender PT Survindo Indah Prestasi was in fact not a ballot-box producer at all and was incapable of producing 2.1 million boxes.
Nevertheless, KPU's ballot boxes tender committee, chaired by Mulyana, still awarded the contract to the company. It became a fateful decision which nearly jeopardized the entire election. After the company failed to deliver several months later, the KPU was forced to hurriedly split the tender and give part of it to another company.
Another sign of the KPU's ineptitude was found upon cross- referencing tax records of the firms participating in KPU tenders.
More than half of the firms, which reached the final stage of tenders, either had poor or no tax records at all. In fact several were not even operating in the sector which they were tendering for.
How could such companies reach the final stage of KPU's tender process?
One also must question the degree of transparency KPU as the managing organization was willing to submit to.
While the announcement of the tenders and bidding process was made open to the public, the KPU refused to disclose the details of the financial statements of the selected firms or their core businesses, although they were dealing with millions of dollars of public money.
But a share of the blame should also be placed on the staff at the KPU head office who despite their long experience, seemed incapable of scrutinizing documents submitted by the firms.
It seems that financial statement and tax records of various firms were "overlooked". Add to this the presence of various "brokers" hovering around the KPU office in Central Jakarta, all acting like they owned the place. These brokers -- some of whom were ranking officials at a research firm -- pompously ordered around KPU staff with authoritative commands.
Without a buffer limiting face-to-face interaction between brokers and tender committee members, scheming was always a high probability.
Mulyana has said that KPU was understaffed to carry out thorough examinations of firms in the KPU tenders.
It seems such a simple and costly oversight now. Whether this is a crime of negligence or one of greed is something the Adhoc Corruption Court will need to decide.
The writer is a journalist of The Jakarta Post.