Raden Pandji Chandra Pratomo Samiadji Massaid - R.I.P.

Adjie Massaid as he was known passed away this morning. May he rest in peace, and may those that he has left behind find some peace too.

Massaid was an actor who converted his fame into one of public service. He became a politician and was in his second term as a parliamentarian from the Partai Demokrat (Democrat Party).

He was a young man at just 43 years of age to be leaving us by way of a heart attack. Nevertheless, my condolences go out to his family, particularly his wife, Angelina Sondakh and his three children.

May his legacy be one that convinces others of the value of public service in its many forms.

Corruption and SBY...

"My President is not capable of stopping corruption! Save the KPK! Save Indonesia!"

It has an almost "Hereos" ring to it, "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World!".

But, the reality is that nothing is likely to save the presidential legacy of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. There is little likelihood that the dysfunction that is the SBY presidency will generate any debate like the Soeharto presidency. There will simply be no debate as to whether SBY should be declared a national hero. It is sort of like not cleaning up spilled wine straight away; the longer you leave it the more ingrained the stain!

The funny here, in that really perverse kind of a way, is that SBY came to the Indonesian presidency on a promise that he has not been able to keep; rooting out and eradicating corruption. The problem, corruption, is big. Yet, when Indonesia most needed leadership, SBY has been missing in action. Some might want to argue that SBY is the Teflon president. I would suggest that nothing ever sticks because he is not there to start with as all the hard yards are done by others and then spun by those closest to the president to intimate that he was at the forefront of any response.

To the contrary, why is it that corruption still exists on such a grand scale six years into the SBY presidency? Although, I am waiting for the presidential spokespeople to start spinning the apparent decision of the office of the attorney general to allow prosecutors to drop the fabricated case against Bibit and Chandra. It would be just too funny now for the spin to come that the president worked hard behind the scenes to see that the case was dropped, particularly after the claims that he had to keep arm's length and let the judicial process take its natural course.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, there was never anything natural about this case from the start. It was a "stitch-up" and an attempt to forever smear the reputations of two good, decent, and honest men who put all those personal traits on the line to fight your war against corruption! These men are the epitome of the testicular fortitude that you yourself lack. I am sure in the future that you will not see Bibit or Chandra lobbying to become national heroes. Two good men who are more concerned about the direction of their nation and the futures of their children and grandchildren! Now, if you ever need some pointers on how to maintain dignity and lead in times where the forces of evil line up against you, then you should give them a call; you might learn a thing or two.

Mr. President, it's time for a little 20 / 15 vision!

More on the SBY Trip to Holland That Wasn't...

Well, it is hardly surprising that the spin would come. The need to explain and justify why the Indonesian President pulled the plug on a state visit to The Netherlands just minutes before a scheduled departure from Halim Perdanakusuma airport in East Jakarta was paramount in trying to salvage some respect for the president.

It is not surprising either that the old ways have come to the fore again; make this an issue of national pride and paint the other side as unethical and morally corrupt. Paranoia?

It would seem that the president's biggest beef about what transpired is that any decision by a Dutch court to hear any case against him is a breach of the bilateral relationship. Mr. President, are you serious? Maybe, you need to get some new advisors on what constitutes a breach of the bilateral relationship. While you are at it, sir, you should get some new legal advisors (preferably at least one with some significant current international legal experience). Then, you might reconsider who you have on the ground in Holland doing the diplomatic bilateral leg work for these visits.

The cancellation of the State visit does not have anything to do with national pride. It has to do with petty ego and the knee-jerk reactions of a president who is more often than not indecisive on all things of importance and more prone to acts of petulance than decisive leadership. The thing that most dented national pride here was the decision to play scared of the RMS petition and presume that the Dutch courts would entertain the petition.

The funniest part of the spin put on this by SBY is the claim that the Dutch courts were in some way unethical in agreeing to look at the petition on the day of his proposed visit. If one is speaking of unethical courts and a legal system in need of significant reform, then he probably has a point. The president should in fact stay at home and fix the problems in his own backyard. After all, the president now seems to be all about sending the "right" messages. So, Mr. President, start sending those right messages.

But even funnier still is that he has set himself a precedent that all but ensures that any individual or group that feels the need to force the president's hand need only lodge a petition in a court of law. The president, in order to maintain consistency, would be left with no choice but to jump up and down claiming unethical breaches of bilateral relations and cancel his trip.

I wonder if the Free Papua Movement in Australia has considered this option? The next time there is even distant chatter that the president might be planning a trip to Australia the FPM should start planning a petition and lodge it about 48 hours before the State visit is scheduled to start.

Ultimately, Mr. President, human rights violations are serious breaches of international law. Sir, there are ethical considerations, moral considerations, in fact, there are human considerations to be had here. The reality Mr. President is that the Dutch courts function pretty well in comparison to your own. Let's face it, the chances of you being arrested and prosecuted for crimes against humanity, including torture, are pretty remote if you have not committed any crimes. To be sure, this would be true for any crime.

But, let's look a little closer to home - a case with no merit can go all the way to the Supreme Court and be reinstated despite public knowledge that the whole case is a fabrication designed to undermine the anti-corruption agency (KPK).

Hold on a minute, Mr. President, wasn't your election platform centered on anti-corruption and the desire to clean up government? Then how does one in your position sit idly by why corrupt powerful interests seek to dismantle the one institution that is likely to drive your post-presidential legacy? Now, what sort of message are you sending Sir?

Ho hum...

Munir -- Never Forget!

Maybe SBY's political legacy must be linked to the political assassination of Munir in order to convince the president that he has an obligation to see that those responsible for the killing are brought to justice. It seems that the current move out of the SBY play book is to sit this one out; if he ignores it for long enough then it will go away.

But, Mr. President, we will not forget.

SBY and a Third Term as President?

Oh dear!

Ruhut Sitompul seems to want to return to his comedic acting roots by suggesting that the Constitution should be amended so that the current two-term limit on presidents can be extended to three terms or more.

The problem I have with this is not amending the Constitution. In a democracy the amending of the Constitution is possibly. There are strict rules in place for how this is done. If they are followed, and this is truly the will of the Indonesian people then so be it.

However, how quickly we forget. Indonesia is only a little more than ten years removed from what was a period of guided democracy under Soekarno, Indonesia's first president, and the ruthless, iron-fisted dictatorship of Soeharto. Both of these periods saw the slaughter of untold numbers of Indonesians. The very power to do this came from the fact that power was quickly consolidated and no term limits forced political change to occur no matter how minimal.

Look, the term limit system is not perfect, one only has to look at Russia and how Vladimir Putin has manipulated the political term limits system to ensure that he remains a powerful force, but that does not make it right.

So, how should we view Ruhut's latest jaunt into controversy? The cynic, or conspiracy theorist, in me says that this is a far more elaborate, and cunning, plan than people and media are giving it credit for. At the moment, most people seem to think that this is just "crazy old Ruhut trying to make a name for himself and get into the papers and on TV."

To the contrary, this could just as easily be the Democrat Party testing the waters for a move to introduce a constitutional amendment to parliament in a move to change term limit laws. By getting Ruhut to put the suggestion out there in the public sphere allows Yudhoyono and the Democrat Party to put at arm's length the statements of Ruhut.

This might seem surprising to some, but it is easier enough to do as Ruhut has always been viewed as the one that might let his mouth get into gear before his brain does. This in, and of itself, is surprising because Ruhut is obviously not a stupid man, this idea aside, so it seems strange to write this off as the ramblings of a crazy old politician with nothing better to do.

Hence, the idea that this may in fact be the Democrat Party, on Yudhoyono's instructions, testing the waters. After all, power tends to corrupt, if you search the annals of Indonesian political media coverage you will uncover plenty of statements to the effect that Yudhoyono only wanted to serve the people of Indonesia and he only wanted to do that for one term. He is now on his second term.

There is no legal harm in SBY doing a constitutionally permitted second term. There is plenty of social harm though, in popularly electing to a second term, a president who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk on corruption, among other problems.

Hopefully, the Indonesian people will react negatively to the idea of SBY doing a third term as president and this little sideshow can be put to bed forever.

Moral Tragedy, Celebrity Sex Videos, and National Children's Day...

July has been a particularly fruitful month for blog posting at The RAB Experience. It is amazing what a break between university semesters can do to free up some time to devote to other passions, like my family. I might add the frequency of my blogging has benefited as well. This will come to an end though as I will be back in full-time accelerated study mode from Monday.

Looking back over this month, the tone of the posts have been particularly anti-SBY and celebrity porn-related. No dramas on either front, but I figured why not link both of these trending topics together. It seems that the president wants to link them and be linked to them. So, who am I to refuse such a request from the people's president. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono you are so not the man of the moment. It is time to give up on being the teflon populist president and think about actually doing what you were elected to do.

So, the president, porn, and national children's day within the context of moral tragedy is the topic for today's rant.

The president decided that National Children's Day was a good a day as any other to talk about celebrity sex tapes and the moral tragedy that this is. Mr. President, sir, I am sorry whether Ariel does the bump and grind with his girlfriend and videos it on a mobile phone or whether Ariel bumps uglies with Cut Tari is not a national moral tragedy that is worthy of the attention that you have given it on National Children's Day.

Is child pornography a tragedy? Yes, sir, it is! A recent example was reported in The Jakarta Globe over the last few days. This, sir, would have been a better example of a moral tragedy. The forcing of two high school students (it is now being reported that both the students in this video have been identified and are 18 years old) to perform sex acts on each other while being filmed by adults, and then having this film uploaded to the internet is a tragedy, a moral tragedy!

However, the Peterporn scandal is not child pornography. Neither is it a moral tragedy. The film is one where two consenting adults film themselves having sexual relations, or for the less politically correct, bonking each others brains out!

Is there a need to talk to children about pornography? Perhaps, does it need to be done on National Children's Day? No. National Children's Day might have been better served by the president announcing a comprehensive strategy on how his government intends to tackle poverty. Or perhaps a comprehensive strategy on education that sees every child educated in schools with quality facilities and quality teachers. There are so many issues the president could of addressed that are so much more important than Nazriel "Ariel" Irham and his sexual conquests with Luna Maya and Cut Tari, and the filming of those events.

The moral tragedy is that the children in families directly displaced by the mud extrusion at Sidoarjo have yet to be properly compensated, and subsequently the children themselves are suffering as they are often taken out of school to cut family expenditure and work to contribute to the family income. The moral tragedy Mr. President is not a celebrity sex video. It is a government so inept that it cannot make good on its promises to help those Indonesians most marginalized by the system.

Mr. President, you talk about proper education yet you do not practice what you preach. You demand that parents and teachers take a more pro-active role in educating children about what it means to be a productive citizen of the wider Indonesian community, yet your government seems unable or unwilling to confront the biggest scourge on Indonesian society, corruption. Yes, Mr. President, you are setting a wonderful example to the children of Indonesia; the status quo is OK and corruption can persist provided I or my family are not implicated in it.

Mr. President, it was opportunistic to take this occasion and degrade it by playing the porn card and hoping that this would in some way make you more popular. Nevertheless, you underestimate your people, the Indonesian people can see through the facade and your declining popularity is testament to that.

Yet, the final indignation would seem to be that the president, or some pencil-pushing policy wonk in the presidential palace decided that they should nix s declaration by children on the National Children's Day. The children came together from Sabang to Merauke and put together a declaration of the things that they consider important to them. If it is true that the interests of the children are paramount then it is about time we adults allowed them to have a voice. This declaration was their chance at having a voice. Instead the voice of Indonesian children was snuffed out so that the president could have a few extra minutes to berate parents and the nation about celebrity porn. Shame on you Mr. President.

It would also seem that vested interests played a part in this stupidity as well. The last point of the declaration put together by the children of Indonesia was a very pointed call on government to do more on reigning in tobacco and big tobacco companies that are poisoning Indonesia's children and their future, Indonesia's future.

Mr President, you talk about "your legacy", perhaps you should be talking about "What legacy?"

Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

SBY Visits Tama Satrya Langkun in Hospital...

Time for some sarcasm (or is it legitimate commentary?)...

The President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, paid a visit to the hospital to visit Tama Satrya Langkun and wish him a speedy recovery. In reality, this was nothing more than a photo opportunity and a chance to spruik a non-existent anti-corruption policy.

The president came to the presidency on a platform of anti-corruption and as the real deal as a corruption fighter. This was at best a pipe dream, at worst it was a calculated piece of electioneering that found a niche in the voting populace. In essence, this was nothing more than a electoral promise destined to be broken.

Not to miss out on an opportunity, the president had this to say to reporters after his visit, “Whatever the challenges, obstacles and threats that are being experienced by all who combat corruption, this big mission has to continue.” Just reading that should leave one shaking their head going, "whatever!"

This man, the president, has not proven to be a corruption fighter. If anything, he has proven that he is beholden to powerful interests and is more intent on survival than he is on leaving a legacy to which he can be rightfully proud. If there is one glaring example of this failure to confront vested interests and political corruption it is the fact that the poor residents in Sidoarjo and the surrounding villages have still not been properly compensated for their losses arising from the ongoing mud extrusion that by all legitimate accounts is directly attributable to the family companies of one Aburizal Bakrie.

The president is a corruption fighter whose presidential legacy is going to be what, the fact that corruption continued and continues to flourish under his watch. Nice legacy Mr. President!

But, it gets better because not wanting to miss out while he is on a roll, the president went on to add that “The show must go on. We should not be afraid of any threats and acts of violence.” Now, that is easy for you to say Mr. President as you have a presidential guard and a bevy of beefy looking young men guarding you, closing down roads so that you can pass unhindered by the masses, and ensuring that you enjoy all the perks of office. Yes, the show must go on, and thankfully that show is not dependent on you, but rather on the brave souls like Tama Satrya Langkun.

The idea that "we" should not be afraid of any threats or acts of violence is so easy to say when it is not you that is going to be subject to those threats or to that violence. Let's face it, the threats and violence might be less intimidating if there was a real chance that the perpetrators of this violence were likely to be caught and prosecuted to the full extent to the prevailing laws and regulations. However, it has been more than 5 years since Munir was assassinated on a Garuda flight to Amsterdam and none of the ring leaders of that crime have been brought to justice. You promised "us" many times that you would ensure that justice would be done and those that committed such a heinous crime would be prosecuted. So, forgive us Mr. President if we think your words are hollow and mean less than the paper they are written on or the airwaves which they cross.

Your legacy will be as the teflon president, nothing sticks! This is a terrible shame and an even greater disappointment to all of those many many many Indonesians who voted for you and hoped that under your stewardship their lives would get not only a little better, but a lot better.

Jimly Asshiddiqie & the Constitutional Court

The only thing apparently standing in Jimly's way to a second term on the Constitutional Court is personal political ambition! The previous months have often seen Jimly in the public eye at political events. Whether this is openly courting support for a second term on the Constitutional Court or courting support for a bigger play on the political stage such as the Vice-Presidential nominee on a favourable ticket remains to be seen. But there seems little doubt that the Chief Justice (or as he prefers the President of the Court) is angling for much bigger fish!

There is considerable parliamentary support for the current Chief Justice and in this sense he would be an unbackable favourite to be one of the three nominations that the parliament can make. The other six nominations are split three a piece between the Supreme Court and the Government (red: President).

The thing about Jimly is that he is consistent in his decision making and that provides a degree of certainty in the legal process. It is pretty much a case of you know what you will get decision wise. I certainly do not always see eye-to-eye on the interpretation of the Constitution aspects nor the manner in which retro-activity has been defined and now enshrined in Indonesian law (I know who cares, he is the Constitutional Law Professor and expert and you are but a mere lawyer -- yep, but an opinionated lawyer!). But to the Court's credit it has been consistent on this front.

Nevertheless, the danger is always going to be judicial ego, the idea of overstepping the mark from judicial review and interpretation to that of law makers. I have recently had a short but interesting "to and fro" with the Chief Justice on this point. The Court views itself as the ultimate guardian and interpreter of the Constitution and in this respect sees itself as a balancing and where necessary a correcting force to all those less educated souls on constitutional law.

My personal view is that the Chief Justice should throw his hat into the ring for another round. If he is serious about leaving a legacy, then two-terms on the Court should pretty much enshrine any legacy he wants to leave in the judicial sense. But if the call of public service is too great, and I am sure that it is, he will more than likely be opting to try and kick start a political career where any legacy he might leave could be much broader and far-reaching than any legacy he might leave at the Constitutional Court...

Time will tell!

Indonesia's Man of the Year

Jimly Asshiddiqie...

An interesting choice to say the least but not surprising when the givers of this award, Globe Asia, characterize the recipient as Indonesia's most powerful judge and the leaving of a legacy that will influence and impact on coming generations of Indonesians! I am sure there will be some arguments concerning the characterization as Indonesia's most powerful judge but nonetheless it is impossible to downplay the role the Constitutional Court has had over the past four years.

The influence will be longer lasting than the debate about who is the most powerful judge in the country. The legacy will be mixed and to suggest it will be anything else but is to misrepresent what the Constitutional Court has achieved. Many of its decisions are inconsistent, and the principles that it evokes often counter to the Constitution itself, particularly in respect of legal standing.

The Constitutional Court is often lauded for being above politics and religion and race and all those other nasties that Indonesians dread, but some decisions arguably suggest otherwise. The decision in the terrorism case is a case in point. The Constitutional Court rejected partisan politics and decided on the principles contained in the Constitution, of that there is no criticism or debate, retroactive application of criminal laws in Indonesian is clearly in breach of the Constitution.

But the Constitutional Court then bowed to political pressures by stating that the decision comes into effect on the date it was handed down. This had the ludicrous outcome that people were convicted under an unconstitutional law but their convictions remain valid. The fact that the Bali Bombers would have been released was an unpleasant outcome to be sure, and the rush by the then Megawati government for convictions should see both her and her government held accountable for the error. So, you now have a situation where you have individuals under the sentence of death based on convictions garnered under a law that was unconstitutional at the time.

The argument as to whether Amrozi, Samudera, and Ghufron deserve to die for their crimes is a different argument. Personally, I would rather they did not get their wish to be martyrs but rather rotted in jail for the rest of their natural lives.

Another notable decision was the Constitutional Court's decision to invalidate Article 50 of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court. It is an interesting proposition that the Constitutional Court can invalidate parts of its own constituting document in order to expand its own power and influence. In effect the Constitutional Court ruled that parliament got it wrong in drafting and enacting the legislation.

Yet, the parliamentary record is clear that legislators intended to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court to constitutional issues going forward. The Constitutional Court was not happy with this and invited a contentious case to be presented and then somewhat cynically dismissed the merits of the case but used it to repeal Article 50.

This, however, fits in with the Asshiddiqie constitutional philosophy that the Constitution cannot be interpreted on the words alone but it must be interpreted based on the 'spirit' of the document. This is wholly subjective and means that the words of the Constitution can be ignored where it does not fit the spirit that the justices want to evoke.

Yet, it must be said that under the stewardship of Asshiddiqie the Constitutional Court has served it up to all comers and annoyed just about everyone. This must be interpreted as the Court must be getting some things right. The decision on whether the former members of the PKI and their families were allowed to vote or be elected at general elections is a good one; they are and they deserve that right to be respected.

The decision that legal aid can be provided by people other than advocates was destined to annoy advocates, and it did. It is only fair to give credit where credit is due. In this case credit is due and it is given.

This piece though was written in terms of whether the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court is worthy of the title of man of the year...I am not choosing or presenting this honour; so, to each their own!