Lee Kim Chew – Last week's three-year jail sentence for Akbar Tandjung, Indonesia's Lower House Speaker and Golkar party chairman, is another new milestone in the country's legal history.
Even as Akbar fights to stay in the saddle – he is appealing against his conviction for corruption – the reformers have claimed yet another sweet victory.
The verdict follows the 15-year jail sentence slapped on Hutomo "Tommy" Mandala Putra, the youngest son of former President Suharto, for masterminding the murder of a judge.
Critics lament that the sentences meted out in both cases were too lenient. But the convictions nurture hopes that reform of the judicial system is on course, even if it is in fits and starts.
The Akbar case, barring an acquittal on his appeal – against charges of misusing state funds to finance Golkar's election campaign in 1999 – signifies important progress since the Suharto years, when wrongdoers in high places went unpunished.
The verdict has altered the power equation in Jakarta, as Akbar has been neutered politically. If he is displaced from Parliament and the party leadership (his rivals will see to that), the seasoned campaigner will be knocked out of the presidential race in 2004.
While this is good news for President Megawati Sukarnoputri – it should improve her chances of re-election – Akbar's downfall could ignite a power struggle in Golkar that could unravel the second-largest party in Parliament. And this could put Ms Megawati's coalition government at risk.
While watching this drama play out, Indonesia's reformers know it is premature to celebrate a rebirth of the country's battered legal system. Reforms will be painfully slow and the zigzagging will continue to befuddle, given the curious turns in Indonesian justice.
Take the recent cases. Central Bank governor Syahril Sabirin was acquitted when the Jakarta High Court overturned the verdict of a district court, which found him guilty of misusing US$80 million from the bank's funds in 1999.
In another case that reeked of bribery, a court ruled that the Indonesian subsidiary of a Canadian insurer, Manulife, was bankrupt even though it was solvent. The ruling was overturned by the Supreme Court only after intense diplomatic pressure from the Canadian government.
In Akbar's case, the court was not interested in finding out the Golkar party's involvement in the 40-billion-rupiah (S$8.4-million) scandal. It reeked of political expediency, because a deeper probe could unsettle Ms Megawati's parliamentary coalition.
Clearly, the erratic quality of Jakarta's justice leaves much to be desired. The Indonesian killers who hacked to death three United Nations aid workers in East Timor got off with light jail sentences.
Six army and police officers accused of involvement in the atrocities in East Timor were acquitted last month. Former East Timorese governor Abilio Soares, who proclaimed himself a scapegoat, got a three-year jail sentence, not the 10 1/2 years the prosecutors demanded.
The questionable verdicts and poor handling of evidence by the prosecution provoked international criticism, which led to renewed demands for the UN to set up an international tribunal.
The United States State Department complained that Indonesian prosecutors "did not fully use the resources and evidence available to them from the UN and elsewhere in documenting the atrocities that occurred in East Timor".
Human-rights activists say the trials were flawed as the court did not hear enough evidence to do justice to the case. The court's failings will reinforce the views in the US Congress that Indonesia's military is resistant to reforms and does not deserve American aid.
All this is fair criticism, but it will be to no avail because for Jakarta, the East Timor trial is about politics, not justice. Critics overlook the fact that the Indonesians set up the human-rights tribunal reluctantly under international pressure.
East Timor is a particularly sore point for the Indonesian military, which feels it has been put in the dock unfairly by a government that leans on it for political support.
In this set-up, Ms Megawati is hamstrung even if she wants to push for drastic changes. Thus, serious reforms are not on the cards. Changes, if and when they happen, will be in dribs and drabs.
The legal confusion and inconsistencies mirror the current state of Indonesian society and the Megawati administration's uphill drive against corruption.
A weak government, caught between the popular clamour for justice and the political need to make compromises, is bound to vacillate. This breeds distrust in the legal system.
But there are hopeful signs that Indonesia is evolving slowly towards the rule of law. In its current imperfect state, it is unrealistic to expect anything near perfect justice.