Speak up, Mr. Muladi

Speak up, Mr. Muladi

In recent weeks Minister of Justice Muladi has repeatedly
teased the nation with news of tentative plans to announce a
decision on the Soeharto corruption investigation: Will Soeharto
be named an official suspect or will he not? Will the
investigation go forward or be dropped?

Setting aside for the moment the obvious question -- why an
intelligent man like Mr. Muladi has found it so hard to find
evidence of questionable wealth, given the ostentatious lifestyle
of the formerly poor Soeharto family; setting aside this
question, there is another question that one would like to see
Mr. Muladi answer publicly. What, as defined by Indonesian law,
is a suspect? What are the legal standards of evidence needed to
name a person a suspect in a corruption case? What is the burden
of proof needed in this early, pretrial stage?

Minister Muladi and the former acting attorney general have
found it too easy to hide behind their mantra-like "Not enough
evidence, not enough evidence, not enough evidence", when
explaining their delay in prosecuting corruption (Sometimes they
switch to "presumption of innocence, presumption of innocence").
So in the interests of transparency, may one ask a simple
question of the minister or his public affairs officer? What kind
of evidence do you need? How much? From what kind of sources?
Instead of hiding behind the usual nonexplanation, Mr. Muladi
would honor the public he has sworn to serve if he would explain
promptly, publicly, and in credible terms what it takes to become
a suspect.

DONNA K. WOODWARD

Medan, North Sumatra