Muladi, past and present
Several years ago, when the Soeharto regime was still in power, I knew Muladi as a champion of human rights and the law who voiced popular aspirations. I admired his personality which was reflected in his idealism and writings.
So, when he was appointed minister of justice, I thought he was the right man for the position. My hope then was that the legal reform he advocated would begin to be realized. In the era of Habibie, I thought it would be plain sailing for Muladi to translate his ideas into reality.
When he began to appear quite frequently on TV in interviews with reporters or making public statements, I still found him to be a tough, steel-hearted and disciplined figure who would not compromise his beliefs but at the same time was also a reasonable and sensible humanist.
Muladi told one interviewer, a reporter who was trying to fish information from him, that he was not as stupid as the reporter thought he was. "I'm a professor," he said.
Unfortunately, power is everything but without power everything is nothing. It seems that, unknowingly, Muladi has let himself be drawn into the inner circle of the power of Habibie's regime, a regime that seems to practice the abuse of power. So, case after case passed before his nose without any satisfactory settlement. The lies underlining Ghalibgate, the handling of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), the unresolved investigation into Soeharto and, Baligate, prove that Muladi is not as ferocious now than when he was outside the powers that be.
In fact, I had my empathy for him when he went to Singapore for medical treatment. I thought his workload and stress were the cause of his illness. Then he went to Switzerland with his wife to trace Soeharto's alleged assets there. We have heard nothing more about it until now. Muladi promised several times, widely reported in the mass media, that he would break the news about the thorough settlement, political or judicial, of the Soeharto investigation. Unfortunately his promises have remained only that, promises. At one time, Muladi was heard to make a spontaneous comment which may have reflected his frustration: "If this is the case, I'd better return to the UNDIP campus to teach."
The most recent event which is most disappointing to me and other members of the public is the announcement of a statement purportedly by former Bank Bali president Rudy Ramli which contradicted the information widely circulated in the media. When Rudy came before honorable members of the House of Representatives on Sept. 9, in the presence of dozens of journalists and broadcast live on a private television station to millions of viewers, Muladi's reputation began to slip.
It is true that as secretary of state he was assigned to read Ramli's statement, but, as a legal champion, he had to listen to his own conscience. Was he then under psychological pressure? In fact, we have a minister of information who could have read the statement instead.
Well, only Muladi knows the answer. Muladi was right when he said that the statement made by Rudy before the legislators would only be legal and possible to be used in court if it was made before an investigating institution. Does the statement, therefore, become meaningless? In my opinion, anyone with logical thinking will say that Rudy Ramli should be trusted. His testimony was original and was made openly before the honorable representatives of the people. We should be doubtful instead about any statement he made before the police or prosecutors.
SUSANTO JOSEPH
Jakarta