How a poll hero turned into 'public enemy'

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.