Soeharto foundations and KKN

Soeharto foundations and KKN

From Bisnis Indonesia

Bisnis Indonesia on Dec. 15 published an article on page 16
regarding the disbursement of funds by Soeharto's foundations
without going through the mechanisms of a meeting of the board of
directors. I would like to focus on the relationship between the
disbursement and the practice of corruption, collusion and
nepotism (KKN).

If the disbursed funds were from a (private) foundation of
which Soeharto himself was the chairman, although the order was
not preceded by a meeting of the board members, I think it has no
links with the practice of KKN.

At the most, if the foundation board members were not in
agreement, they could bring the case to court and sue Soeharto.

To say whether or not the foundation funds are linked with
KKN, the prosecutor must prove that the acquisition of the
foundation's funds was against the law. If the funds were from a
foundation with private status and were acquired by abuse of
power by the president, only then can the foundation funds be
viewed as "illegal", based on Law No. 3/1971.

If subsequently on the order of the foundation chairman (in
this case Soeharto himself) the funds were taken from the
foundation and disbursed to his relatives or cronies, it
strengthens the fulfillment of two aspects of the above law,
"causing a loss of state money" and "enriching oneself or another
party".

However, for example, if the money is given by the foundation
to the Agriculture Ministry or the Social Affairs Ministry to
help increase the capacity of clove or tea farmers, there is the
possibility that "causing a loss of state money" did not take
place, although the mobilization of funds from the community is
in violation of the law because it does not follow the Law on the
State Budget (paragraph 31, item 1, and Article 4 of the 1945
Constitution).

In short, to draw the conclusion that the disbursement of
foundation funds are connected with the practice of KKN, the
prosecutor must prove:

1. The mobilization of funds took place by using public
authority, which according to stipulations is not justified.

2. The state has suffered a loss by the disbursement of money
from state/government institutions.

3. The money is used for personal purposes, or funneled to
relatives or cronies.

If the prosecutor's case fulfills the above three conditions,
the order for the disbursement of the funds without a meeting of
the board of directors qualifies as an act of corruption.

S. SOENOESOEBRATA

Tangerang, West Java