Where have our ethics gone?
One might perhaps wonder whether the news item that appeared in Koran Tempo daily on Golkar on Monday really deserved the front page treatment it received. After all, it merely mentioned a seemingly benign account of the unhappiness of a small number of Golkar old guard members, led by veteran politician Suhardiman, who are critical of the dominance of the HMI (Islamic Students Association) alumni within the party.
It helps, however, to understand Koran Tempo's selection if one knows that one of those "HMI alumni dominating the party" is none other than Akbar Tandjung, the chairman of our House of Representatives who was last week convicted by the Central Jakarta District Court for the misuse of Rp 40 billion in state money -- in other words, corruption.
A slick, seasoned politician who enjoys the backing of the large majority of the party's regional chapters, the position of the Akbar faction within Golkar seems strong indeed. Just how strong can be gauged by the fact that the party, in an impromptu meeting arranged at the Peninsula Hotel in Jakarta over the weekend, voted to keep him not only in his post as party chairman in spite of the court verdict, but as speaker of the House of Representatives as well. On the other hand, the Koran Tempo report also appears to validate whispers that something is brewing inside Golkar: The party's decision to maintain Akbar in both his position as party chairman and as speaker of the House is not going unchallenged after all.
Which is just as well. Ever since the demise of the old school, intellectual Indonesian politicians -- especially those Western-educated leaders such as Mohammad Natsir, Sutan Sjahrir and Mohammad Hatta -- plain everyday ethics and morality seem to have vanished from the Indonesian political scene. Following the example of central bank governor Sjahril Sabirin before him, Akbar insists on staying in his posts on the pretext that he is appealing his verdict and that therefore the court judgment "has no irreversible legal authority" until it is confirmed by a higher court. Using that same argument, Akbar has gone ahead and departed for Hanoi, where he will lead Indonesia's legislative delegation to the International Parliamentary Union (IPU) meeting.
It is unfortunately true that Indonesia at present has no law to prevent criminal convicts from taking or maintaining important positions, either in business or government. That, however, should not have prevented Akbar from taking the ethical option and turning his argument the other way around, which is that any individual already convicted by a court of justice should be considered guilty until proven otherwise by a court of appeals.
How Golkar's stubborn stance in the Akbar case will eventually develop and what consequences it will have on the party's standing in the 2004 general elections remains to be seen. In the meantime it would be well for the nation's leaders to realize that in a paternalistic society such as Indonesia, it is of the utmost importance for public leaders at least to try to set examples of proper conduct for the people to follow.