Questioning TNI/police involvement in business

Questioning TNI/police involvement in business

Imanuddin Razak, Staff Writer, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta,
iman@thejakartapost.com

The March 8 protest at the office of Tempo newsmagazine, which
involved violence against its editors and journalists, stunned
the public, particularly the media.

The incident was also of interest because of some of the
comments of those leading the protest, suggesting they were
"untouchable" given their close ties with those in positions of
power.

The protesters were supporters of businessman Tomy Winata.
They were upset by a report in the magazine which quoted an
anonymous source about Tomy's alleged plan to renovate the Tanah
Abang market, which was destroyed in a fire last month. The
alleged plan was proposed before the fire, according to the
report, which also included a denial by Tomy.

An uproar followed the violence at the Tempo office and there
were also questions about whether the magazine had violated the
code of journalism with its report.

The leaders of the protest, in front of police officers and
journalists, claimed that they had, in effect, regularly paid the
police and financially helped Sutiyoso secure the Jakarta
governorship for a second term. People have related these remarks
with Tomy's known associations with Army officers.

In a recent statement, mining company PT Freeport Indonesia,
which operates in the restive Papua province, admitted to having
paid security fees to the military and police since 1996, again
confirming the "mutual relationships" between the security
apparatus and businesspeople or companies.

The U.S.-based company also said the Indonesian government had
looked to the company to provide logistical and infrastructure
support and supplemental funding for security operations in
Papua, because of the government's limited resources and the
remote location and lack of development in the easternmost
province.

To the surprise of many, besides confirming Freeport's
statement, Indonesian Military (TNI) spokesman Maj. Gen. Sjafrie
Sjamsoeddin acknowledged that the military had received security
fees from U.S.-based oil company ExxonMobil, which operates in
the strife-torn province of Aceh.

But Sjafrie did not explain whether the money had gone to the
TNI as an institution or to individual officers, and whether the
use of the money had been accounted for.

Involvement in business to raise money to finance its
operations and its troops is not new to the Indonesian Military.

Perhaps the practice started during the early years of
Indonesia's independence.

Admiral (ret) Sudomo, a Navy chief of staff and deputy
commander of the Operational Command for the Restoration of
Security and Order (Kopkamtib) during the presidency of Soeharto,
talked about the smuggling of rubber into Malaysia and Thailand
by the military in the late 1940s.

Sudomo, then an officer on the cargo ship that carried the
rubber to the Southeast Asian countries, said the money was used
to procure munitions for the military.

At the time, the military had to find its own financing to
procure munitions because the government of the fledgling nation,
which proclaimed independence in 1945, could not provide the
funding.

The munitions were important for the military to fight the
Dutch colonialists, who were reluctant to allow Indonesia become
a free state. The military's active involvement in businesses, in
various forms, has continued until the present day.

Official confirmation of this is provided by the Army
Headquarters. The Army says in a 2002 paper on the Restructuring
of the (Army-owned) Kartika Eka Paksi Foundation and its Business
Units, that with the limited government budget Army leaders have
established an institution to help provide for the needs of the
Army and its troops.

A study by Indria Samego, a researcher with the Indonesian
Institute of Sciences, showed that the practice of establishing
business units was also done by the other two military forces --
the Navy and the Air Force -- as well as the National Police.

The question is whether the military's and/or the police's
involvement in business is lawful, and whether this involvement
will divert them from their main duty of defending and securing
the nation.

Apart from the uncertain legality of the practice, Indria said
this involvement in business caused internal frictions in the
military and police, which in turn disrupted their ability to
tend to their duties. The practice can also lead to collusion
among soldiers and private companies or individuals, he added.

But no one has come up with realistic and applicable solutions
to help the military become a professional institution, which was
the dream of the founding fathers.

Legislators have insisted that all of the military's
expenditures and revenue be reported to the House of
Representatives.

Yet officers would probably prefer to maintain the current
system, as it requires no accountability or audits. It is thus
difficult to find out whether the money has gone to the military
as an institution or into the pockets of officers.

Private companies and individuals involved in business with
the military also benefit from the current system because they do
not have to worry about any legal sanctions given the absence of
documented evidence.

Perhaps the country should consider a proposition by
Singaporean leader Lee Kuan Yew, who suggested that "illegal
businesses", in this case security protection services, be made
"legal" by regulating them, citing that such practices are part
of the "Asian culture".

But again any laws or regulations must clearly outline the
rules of the game, including penalties for any violations, and
disciplined enforcement of these laws or regulations would be a
must.