Presidential Command

This country is a state of law, not a state of power. In reality, the power of a law enforcement official can corrupt the law itself. The public was recently shocked by major news. Police uncovered alleged corruption proceeds from a former Junior Attorney General for Special Crimes (JAM-Pidsus) in the form of kilograms of gold and piles of US and Singapore dollars. Ironically, the Attorney General’s Office had previously displayed mountains of cash resulting from JAM-Pidsus’s work in prosecuting corruptors. The Minister of Finance, as the state treasurer, once rushed to the Attorney General’s Office to receive the handover of that money. These two episodes show that corruption law enforcement has been turned upside down.

In one speech, President Prabowo stated he would hunt corruptors all the way to Antarctica. The journey from Jakarta to Antarctica takes around 42 to 48 hours for flights and transit alone, with costs ranging from Rp150 million to over Rp800 million. Despite the distance and expense, the nation’s highest leader is strongly committed to chasing corruptors and bringing them to court. By comparison, the distance from the Presidential Palace in Central Jakarta to the Attorney General’s Office in Kebayoran Baru is only about 11 kilometres, a trip of roughly 46 minutes by car. The contrast between the 2,520-minute journey to Antarctica and the 46-minute drive to the Attorney General’s Office is striking, as is the cost difference between Rp150 million and a Rp100,000 taxi fare. It would be equally remarkable if President Prabowo enforced the law to its fullest extent in this case.

President Prabowo can be trusted as a man of his word, not just empty talk. This trust raises the question of why the police handed over the case to the Attorney General’s Office. Does this mean the President is testing the institution in a case of ‘the fox guarding the henhouse’? On one hand, handling this case is a test of the Attorney General’s Office’s courage to be honest with itself and impartial towards its own colleagues. On the other, it proves the institution’s obedience to the President’s words, as the President’s words are a command. At the end of this case, it is hoped we will not have to borrow the ancestral verdict: ‘Once deceitful in a test, a lifetime of distrust.’