KPK to PDI-P, Bugger Off!

Unfortunately, it would never happen! But, that is probably because I am not a member of the KPK. If it was me, then as soon as the PDI-P delegation turned up they would be turned away with a: "On ya bikes, and get the hell out of my office!" Closely followed with, "I am trying to do some serious work, you people down the DPR building in Senayan should consider trying it some day...work that is!"

Seriously, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) names some PDI-P legislators, former and current, as suspects in a bribery case, and the PDI-P thinks that as a party it has a right to interrogate the KPK and demand some answers (and presumably a copy of the current case brief).

It would seem that the PDI-P beef with the KPK is why the KPK made a public announcement that named the PDI-P legislators as suspects. The rationale being that this is not all above board and that the KPK is being pressured, politically, to rush to judgment. This rationale is premised loosely on prevailing laws and regulations, at least the PDI-P interpretation of them, namely: that the receivers of bribes are secondary level suspects and the main suspects have to be those giving the bribe.

The best part of the PSI-P argument for not naming the former and current PDI-P legislators as suspects is that state officials who have received bribes but pay that money back cannot be guilty of a crime. I am sure that their will be plenty of Indonesians who find this truly offensive to their sense of right and wrong, and to the idea of justice. The whole idea that corruption is only corruption if you get caught, and then if you are caught you can absolve the original crime by paying back any monies or assets you received. Simply, if you are a state official what have you got to lose. You take the bribe, if you get caught you pay it back. If you do not get caught, then you just live it up with your new found wealth.

Too sad for words. It is no wonder that Megawati and the PDI-P have fared so badly in recent elections and lost the popularity of the "little people" or wong cilik that the party once so dominated.

Another classic PDI-P quotable moment was provided by Trimedya Panjaitan. Panjaitan suggested that the KPK was being politicised and that the KPK had only named the PDI-P lawmakers because the PDI-P was a successful opposition party, and the KPK was being used to undermine the PDI-P. He then goes on to suggest that the visit was not intended to interfere with the investigation of KPK's affairs. Uh huh! Whatever he is smoking, I need some of that!

PDI-P really needs to rethink its game if it is to walk the walk as an opposition party instead of doing a poor job on trying to talk the talk, and make that enough to sway voters to their party.

Ho hum...

Smells Like Bullshit...

Here is a little gem from the Indonesian Attorney General. This was offered to Commission III at the Indonesian House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR), as reported by The Jakarta Post:

“There is no evidence of bribery. But there is other proof to lead us to conclude the violation took place, although we have no adequate evidence of the acceptance of bribes.”

This is clearly double-speak nonsense. Two parts of the quote state that there is not only no evidence but what they have is inadequate. This is then moderated by there is proof that the violation, in this case bribery and extortion, took place.

Now, if this is what the Attorney General intends to proceed to trial on, then he really must start packing his bags and cleaning out his office.

The president has no choice but to intervene. The AG must be dismissed and replaced by someone who has a better understanding of what the law requires for an indictment to be made and a trial to be undertaken. Simply, the "proof" that the AG is referring to is clearly the recanted testimony of a number of suspects and witnesses. The fact that the proof has been recanted suggests that the prospects for success at trial would be somewhere between nothing and a snowflake's chance in hell.

It is way past time for the police and the AGO to give this one up.

No apologies for the title of this post or the picture.

Corruption at the KPK...

The fight for justice against corruption is never easy. It never has been and never will be. It exacts a toll on our self, our families, our friends, and especially our children. In the end, I believe, as in my case, the price we pay is well worth holding on to our dignity.

-- Frank Serpico

It is certainly going to be interesting to watch this particular case unfold. If for no other reason that you have two commissioners of the Corruption Eradication Commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi / KPK), Chandra M Hamzah and Bibit Samad Rianto, accused of taking bribes to drop a case against a local Indonesian businessman who has since fled, and is thought to be living in Singapore.

Interesting because both successfully negotiated a very long and difficult vetting process which ultimately saw them appointed to the KPK, and by default one would have to assume that the vetting process turned up nothing of contention and certainly nothing that would have pegged them as being corrupt.

So, it appears, at least to the police, after having had long and successful careers outside of the KPK both Chandra and Bibit have turned to the dark side and take a bribe of allegedly IDR 1 billion for Chandra and IDR 1.5 billion for Bibit. Chandra allegedly collected his bribe, in cash, at Pasar Festival, and Bibit collected his at the Bellagio Residences.

This is most definitely out of character. So much so, that it seems almost impossible that the police are going to be able to put together a sustainable case. Particularly when it seems that the police have not been able to track the money nor place any other eyewitness accounts of the alleged payoffs. This is surprising for Pasar Festival as it is a place that generally has large numbers of people about.

However, the police have to have something because it would be extremely poor judgment to proceed without sufficient evidence. On the evidence front, the primary evidence is said to be an unsworn statement by the former Head of the KPK, Antasari Azhar, who is waiting to go to trial for his alleged role in a murder conspiracy.

It is a big call for the police to want to try and take these allegations all the way by filing a dossier with the Office of the Attorney General if the only "solid" evidence is an unsworn statement from an individual facing some pretty serious charges. The police have also said that they expect to file more criminal charges on top of the abuse of authority charges and the more recent bribery charges. But, they are not at liberty to disclose what those charges are likely to be.

The police case against Chandra and Bibit is simply that they abused their authority as commissioners of the KPK by seeking, obtaining, and then removing a travel ban against Anggoro Widjaja and Djoko Tjandra. Apart from some rather obvious repercussions of criminalizing administrative powers, the police case has absolutely no chance of success.

The idea that the administrative functions of public officials can be criminalized is one that even Indonesian courts will find a little repugnant. Mainly because if the courts were to accept arguments then by logical extension many, if not all, of the administrative functions of all public officials would conceivably be criminalized, perhaps even those of the president.

When the police realized the weakness of the case it was seemingly decided that there was a need to up the ante with criminal charges relating to bribery. If there is a fishy smell about this then it is that the Head of the Criminal Investigation Branch, Comr. Gen. Susno Duaji, that is investigating this alleged crime is also caught up in a KPK investigation relating to Bank Century.

Bank Century is the bank that was bailed out by the government under somewhat debatable circumstances as to the importance of the Bank to the overall Indonesian economy and during a time where the founders and upper level executives were allegedly syphoning off large sums of cash.

Therefore, it would seem to be a simple ask that the Chief of National Police, Bambang Danuri, would remove Duaji from his position in order to avoid any apparent conflict of interest. Any failure to do so will continually expose the police as a whole not only to the idea that there is a personal element of payback to this investigation, but that the police themselves are operating not solely in their own interest and the interest of the broader community, rather they have abandoned the ideal of the broader community to act on behalf of a couple of individual citizens who have fled the jurisdiction.

Perception is sometimes more powerful than the truth, the idea that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Manohara Odelia Pinot -- Part XII -- Indonesian Embassy in KL Strikes Back

The Manohara (photo) saga continues. For more on this case as written by yours truly, look here.

If the issues in this case, specifically the allegations of rape and abuse, were not so serious then this case would almost be fun to watch. Manohara and her mother, Daisy Fajarina, have been vocal in making claims against just about everyone who they feel have slighted them in some way in this whole affair. The Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur was no exception.

Mano, as she is now know affectionately, and her mother, have suggested that the Indonesia Embassy deliberately thwarted any attempts to deal with the matter and in fact was pro-active in keeping Mano in Malaysia because they had been bribed by the Kelantan Royal family.

This piece is not about whether the claims are true or false per se, but rather about the legal implications of making them. And, then failing to produce any evidence in support of those claims. It would not be a first for an Indonesian Embassy and the officials that work within to be accused of corruption and to have that proved. However, in the cases where the allegations were made, subsequent evidence was furnished in order to establish guilt, and then convictions were obtained.

The Indonesian Embassy in Malaysia has laid out in chronological order all of the efforts that they undertook with respect to the Mano case. Could they have done more? Perhaps. However, the claim was that they did not do enough. Therefore, this raises the important question of, "legally how much does an Embassy have to in order to protect its citizens who get into trouble abroad, either legal or personal?"

The Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur has also indicated that it is intending to sue Mano and her mother if the pair of them cannot come up with evidence to prove their claims. It would be interesting to see how the presidential candidates respond to the Indonesian Embassy threatening a victim of alleged domestic violence in this way. Interesting in the sense of whether they jump on board like they did in the Prita Mulyasari defamation case or just try and avoid it like the plague.

Although, the incumbent president has had a say on the matter here (in Indonesian). Nevertheless, it was pretty much run of the mill stuff. Generally, "this is a serious matter"; "better that Manohara talks to the Minister of Foreign Affairs"; and, "I have instructed the ambassador in Malaysia to watch the developments in this case closely."

Kompas has a detailed account of the chronology of events here (in Indonesian).

My personal opinion is that the burden of proof lies with those making the allegations. In this case the burden of proof in terms of proving the two primary allegations, namely: the Embassy did not do enough and that it accepted bribes, lies with Mano and her mother. If they fail to do so, and if one truly believes in the idea that all are equal in the eyes of the law, then Mano and her mother must be subject to the prevailing laws and regulations governing their conduct.

Despite the threats, the Indonesian Embassy in Kuala Lumpur has expressed their desire to facilitate any action that Mano and her mother want to take in Malaysia.

A simple defense is truth. Hopefully, Mano and her mother have truth on their side and can prove it.