The case of Haryanto

The case of Haryanto

At last the long wait is over. After almost three weeks of tense waiting, Minister/State Secretary Moerdiono yesterday disclosed the "verdict" pronounced on Minister of Transportation Haryanto Dhanutirto, who had been charged with misconduct and corruption. According to Moerdiono, President Soeharto has pronounced the case closed on allegations of irregularities at the Ministry of Transportation. What happened was merely a series of administrative mistakes and inaccuracies.

According to Moerdiono, there is no legal proof that the minister has misused state or state company funds. Haryanto, according to Moerdiono, has repaid all the money used for his personal trips, which had been paid by state companies under the supervision of the Ministry of Transportation. Haryanto is also advised to improve certain procedures in project tenders.

For many, the verdict is no surprise. From the very beginning, one could easily predict that Haryanto would be left unscathed by the charges against him. Although some of the allegations might have some grains of truth, from the legal viewpoint the charges were weak. Some of the charges, for instance that Haryanto owns vast tracks of land in the Bandung area, were even made without solid evidence and were based solely on hearsay. It is apparent that Inspector General for Development Kentot Harseno had not conducted sufficient research before he came up with the charges.

Any keen political analyst would also have known that according to the Javanese rationale and culture, any assault against a high official of the rank of a cabinet minister would be perceived as a personal indictment of the President. The basic assumption is that if the minister is guilty, the President, who has chosen him or her as his assistant, shares the blame since this means that he has made a mistake by selecting the wrong man or woman.

One can also perceive President Soeharto's decision as a face- saving solution. That Haryanto has committed some "irregularities" is clearly acknowledged and admitted. But in the case of Haryanto's misappropriation and misuse of the state company funds for his personal trips, he has repaid it. And therefore, a mistake has been amended, and forgiven. Perhaps, this is what the President means by "introspection", which he ordered Haryanto to do three weeks ago. If this interpretation is correct, then our linguists can add another meaning of the word "introspection" to our political dictionary.

Anyway, we are of the opinion that Moerdiono's statement should permit us a breath of relief because the longer the Haryanto case is left dangling, the greater the possibility that it could become an issue that might go out of control. The chance for Haryanto to do his job effectively would also be hampered. Moreover, the case has become a controversy and has confused the public to the extent that it has split the people into two camps at least: those who supported Haryanto and those who were against him.

That the case has been highly politicized is beyond doubt. There are enough people here who dislike Haryanto's high-profile nature, and the way he performs his ministerial duties. There are also many people who don't see eye to eye with the Association of Moslem Intellectuals (ICMI) in which Haryanto is one of the key persons and a personal confidant of its chairman B.J. Habibie.

But will President Soeharto's decision close the chapter on Haryanto? Can Haryanto effectively continue his job as minister of transportation in the future? Will his unfounded allegations against Haryanto make Kentot Harseno the fall guy? And, most important, will the President's decision on Haryanto's case stop, at least temporarily, any possible effort in the near future to combat corruption?

To be frank, we do not really know the answers to those questions. However, the case has given us many lessons to ponder. For one thing, it is not easy to accuse someone of wrongdoing. Certainly, many people in the future will think twice before accusing someone of corruption.

But judging from the over-eagerness of the public to respond to charges against Haryanto, one can gauge the public's anger against the rampant corruption and its impatience to see some drastic measures taken to combat it. If no such measures are seen at least looming on the horizon, it would be highly possible that this impatience may develop into an uproar, or a crisis of confidence which may upset the national development effort.