Gayus Tambunan, Seven Years, and Justice Seen to be Done?

Gayus Tambunan, the corrupt tax official, received a sentence of seven years for his crimes. On hearing the verdict, Gayus thanked the judges for being fair and impartial, lambasted the incompetent and lying Legal Mafia Eradication Taskforce, and hinted that the CIA was involved in the process of helping him out.

The big question that most people are asking in the immediate aftermath of this decision is: "Was justice done and was justice seen to be done?" Perhaps the 'real' question is whether there is any difference in those two concepts; justice and justice seen to be done.

The prosecution demanded a sentence of 20 years. When one considers the scope of the fraud and the corruption that was alleged in this case, then 20 years was probably not a manifestly excessive request. So, a sentence of 7 years does seem to be on the light, the very light, side of the justice equation. This leads to the idea of justice being seen to be done. In this case, seven years leaves a bitter taste in one's mouth when there are others sent to prison for fraud and corruption cases that involved considerably less losses for considerably longer periods of time. Justice was not seen to be done in this case.

It is a foregone conclusion that the prosecution will appeal this verdict. Based on the 12 instructions issued by the president, it would be a toss-up as to whether the president would want this case to be an ongoing distraction. Perhaps, the Legal Mafia Eradication Taskforce will say "we have done our job and we are outta here...thanks for coming!" After all, the president said he wanted the Gayus case resolved, and it is. Although, the result is hardly a positive outcome for anyone but Gayus who would have been thinking that 20 years was a very real possibility.

Nevertheless, the real question for the president, for law enforcement officials, and to a lesser extent the community is "what happens next?" The reality is that the trial of Gayus Tambunan was a media circus, but in amongst all those shenanigans were some rather explosive allegations and counter-allegations. All of these allegations must be investigated and  'resolved'.

The companies that had dealings with Gayus need to be worried. The individuals that have had dealings with Gayus or who are in someway connected to him need to be worried. The biggest issue now facing the president is does he modify his instructions a little to demand that the KPK become the lead investigator on all these matters or does he let the corruption-tainted national police force continue to participate in a charade where public perception is clearly that the police are operating in a way to protect their own interests and their own people.

The reason this is such a test for SBY is that some of the companies involved are conglomerates owned by well-connected people with special interests that they will be seeking to remove from public scrutiny. The "biggie" now is does the president have the testicular fortitude to take these matters head on an exhibit some leadership to his people? Or, does he do as he has always done hand it off to one of his many minions so that he can later use "plausible deniability"?

But, getting back to the sense of justice and justice being seen to be done. The argument is really one about what is a legally sound judgment and what is a sound judgment with respect to public perceptions. Seven years does not satisfy the public perception of either justice or justice being seen to be done. In a strict legal sense, a seven-year sentence may in fact be fair in light of what the prosecution was able to prove regarding the indictment charged.

Finally, the statement by Gayus that intimated that the Legal Mafia Eradication Taskforce had provided assurances of certain conduct being undertaken and promises being made that were not fulfilled must also be investigated, particularly as this taskforce reports directly to the president and seemingly works at his discretion. Perhaps Gayus was misled into believing a promise from the taskforce was a promise from the president?

The CIA involvement angle may well become a side-show of some importance as it has the potential to distract from the real issues in the case. The US Ambassador, Scot Marciel, wasted no time in suggesting that the whole CIA claim was nothing more than an attempt to divert attention from other aspects of the case. But, then again, he would, wouldn't he?

Ho hum...next case!

Wikileaks and Kevin Rudd...

It must hurt to be Prime Minister of Australia and then be described by the US Ambassador, a close ally, as "a mistake prone control freak". But, to Rudd's credit, he does not give a damn. And, he makes a good point that there has been worse written about him in the past and there is likely to be worse written about him in the future. So, his job is to get on with the job of being Australia's number one diplomat.

Nevertheless, the scathing assessment suggested that he was also abrasive and impulsive while being not up to the task according to this little burst from the former US Ambassador:

''Rudd … undoubtedly believes that with his intellect, his six years as a diplomat in the 1980s and his five years as shadow foreign minister, he has the background and the ability to direct Australia's foreign policy. His performance so far, however, demonstrates that he does not have the staff or the experience to do the job properly.''

And, this was from just over 12 months ago. However, this was generally the gist of most assessments fired off by the former US Ambassador, Richard McCallum, to the former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, and more recently the current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.


The micro-management style of the former Prime Minister and his habit of undertaking large commitments without first consulting those that would be doing the hard yards in getting the initiatives up and running was ultimately his downfall. So, there really is nothing all that surprising or new in the diplomatic cables being leaked by Wikileaks. Perhaps, Kevin Rudd knows himself well enough to know the blunt assessments of him are one interpretation of his manner and style. He might not agree with those assessments, but it is probably true that he does not give a damn.

So, what is next on the Wikileaks front for Australia's diplomats?

Indonesian and Malaysian Relations

It seems that the Malaysian Ambassador to Indonesia has a few issues with the manner in which the Indonesian press cover Malaysia. Specifically, the issue is that the Indonesian press are, more often than not, portraying Malaysia in a negative light.

The focus of much of the Indonesian media when it comes to Malaysia relates to abuse. The abuse of Indonesian migrant workers, and more recently of the social-climbing starlet wanna be, Manohara Odelia Pinot.

The Ambassador's beef is that violence towards Indonesian migrant workers does not only happen in Malaysia. This is true. The Ambassador is right in pointing out that violence against Indonesia's migrant workers also occurs in Saudi Arabia and even in Indonesia before the prospective migrant workers get a chance to be abused overseas. This hardly seems like a viable excuse to cut Malaysia some slack.

The Ambassador, in essence, states that it is not Malaysian government policy to allow Indonesia's migrant workers to be abused on arrival in Malaysia or for the course of their working placement. This would seem to be a no-brainer, as if it was a government policy then the media coverage would undoubtedly be even more negative than it is now.

According to the Ambassador, anyone who is alleged to have abused someone, Indonesian migrant workers included, would be charged and prosecuted, and if convicted punished to the full extent permissible under Malaysian law.

The reason this is an issue is that Indonesia has ceased sending migrant workers to Malaysia until the issues relating to abuse are more fully resolved, particularly with respect to protections afforded to vulnerable migrant workers. A deal on this matter seems far from assured at the present point in time.

However, where it gets really interesting is that the Ambassador offers up the following example of why the coverage by the Indonesian media is negative: "Please don't portray us as bad people. Fifty percent of prisoners in Malaysia are Indonesians, why do we never hear about this in the news?"

Reading between the lines here; Indonesians that come to Malaysia are bad people because 50% of the total number of prisoners in Malaysian jails are Indonesians. So, we are clearly not as bad as Indonesians. Although, an alternative reading might be that Malaysians have a real problem with Indonesia and Indonesians, and whenever they get the chance will preferably put an Indonesian in jail.

I would have figured that good news is a two-way street. What is good for the goose has got to be good for the gander as well. Perhaps if Malaysian media reported a more balanced picture of Indonesia then perhaps Indonesian media would be equally forthcoming in portraying a more balanced picture of Malaysia.