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.