James Balowski, Jakarta – "There's no justice for the rich in Indonesia, only for the poor", "You steal a chicken 'cos you're hungry and the police shoot you, you steal a billion rupiah and they let you off", "The Megawati government is hopeless, nothing's going to ever change" – these were the sentiments on the streets of Jakarta on the evening of February 12, after the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Golkar Party chief Akbar Tanjung on charges of corruption.
But despite this cynicism and anger, which people freely express given the slightest provocation – no one was in the slightest bit surprised. (With the apparent exception of Tanjung, who put on a fine performance for the television cameras while they "anxiously awaited".) For days, the Jakarta gossip machine had been saying he would get off. The judgement, along with the curious legal reasoning behind it, had been carefully leaked to the media several days before, part of a campaign to prepare a skeptical public for the "bad news".
The facts of the case are not in question. In February 1999, former President B.J. Habibie ordered Tanjung, then state secretary, to draw 40 billion rupiah ($US4.7 million) from the State Logistics Agency (Bulog) for a food distribution program for the poor. Although there was no bidding process or plan submitted, Bulog wrote a series of cheques – but no food ever reached the hungry.
Tanjung, who initially denied he received the money, later testified that he gave it to an obscure foundation with no experience in food distribution headed by Dadang Ruskandar, who then passed it on to business person Winfried Simatupang to implement. On the eve of his trial in 2002, Simatupang returned 32.5 billion rupiah. Both were sentenced to three years jail, and Tanjung was later sentenced to four years by the Central Jakarta's District Court. In 2003, the Jakarta High Court reaffirmed the verdict but reduced the sentence to three years. Since then Tanjung has remained free pending the Supreme Court's decision.
In their decision – which was televised nationally and took some eight hours to read – the judges said that there was no proof Tanjung had enriched himself, and that he wasn't responsible because he had acted on Habibie's orders, and, under Article 51 of the Criminal Code, he could not be punished for obeying his instructions. "The defendant, Akbar Tanjung, is not guilty of committing criminal acts and therefore must be freed and his name and reputation rehabilitated", Lotulong said in summary.
The judges ruled 4-1 in his favour. For reasons which were unclear, this didn't seem to apply to Ruskandar and Simatupang whose sentences were reduced but upheld.
In an unprecedented move, while Tanjung was still busy kissing the floor of his living room, one of the judges read a dissenting decision. Abdurrahman Saleh said Tanjung had engaged in "corrupt practices", was guilty of "shameful conduct because he failed to show minimal appropriate efforts to protect state money ... which the president had entrusted to him" and that "at a time when the country was sinking in crisis, the actions of the defendant truly violated one's sense of justice". He then went on to detail a series of irregularities on Tanjung's part that he said proved the findings of the two lower courts were correct.
Even before they finished, thousands of angry protesters from some 30 student groups in greater Jakarta and Bandung had gathered in front of the Supreme Court building. As it became increasingly clear that Tanjung would go free, at around 3pm a clash broke out with riot police as students tried to get closer to the court compound.
Police – who later claimed they were provoked – could be seen on television charging demonstrators, indiscriminately hitting them with batons and bamboo flag pools they have seized from protesters. Others were seen hurling drink bottles which they had just snatched away from nearby street vendors. At least 60 people were seriously injured, with many needing hospital treatment. The police later publicly apologised for their actions.
Demonstrations were also held in Surabaya, East Java, where hundreds of demonstrators from the Poor People's Struggle Front (FPRM) which includes the People's Democratic Party (PRD), the National Peasants Union, the National Student League for Democracy and the Indonesian National Front for Labour Struggle, burned an effigy of Tanjung, called for the Supreme Court to reject his appeal and demanding that the Golkar party to be disbanded. Students form the Indonesian Muslim Student Action Committee (KAMMI) also joined the action.
Although some members of the political elite were quick to congratulate Tanjung, the national media, students, anti-corruption campaigners and prominent lawyers unanimously slammed the decision.
Prominent lawyer Todung Mulya Lubis was quoted by the February 13 Jakarta Post as describing the finding as "a sad day for this country". Ombudsman Commission chairperson Antonius Sujata branded it "a miscarriage of justice" saying: "With this decision the public will have no more confidence in the judicial system and the government's efforts to stop corruption." Muhammad Asrun, executive director of Judicial Watch, said "This is a huge scandal ... this country's legal system is bankrupt and getting worse every day. I think the international community will no longer have confidence in the Indonesia courts".
Legal practitioner Frans Hendra Winarta said that he feared the case could be taken as a reference for other corruption cases. "If this were to happen, the defendants in other corruption cases could be exonerated. The fate of corruption cases will be the same as that in human rights abuse cases, in which only low-ranking officials or common people are sent to jail", he told the Jakarta Post.
Writing in the February 14 Jakarta Post, political commentator and former presidential adviser Wimar Witoelar said: "The main message conveyed by the Supreme Court's decision on Akbar Tandjung is that crime pays in today's Indonesia ... as long as you have common interests with those who hold political power. The verdict, in effect, legitimises corruption as an accessory of power."
Indonesia's outspoken media also roundly condemned the decision. On February 13, the popular Jakarta daily Rakyat Merdeka featured a prominent photograph of Saleh with a commentary on its front page saying "A child's question to his father: 'How much for justice in this country?'". The daily Koran Tempo called the ruling "a bitter decision" and a Jakarta Post editorial said "Plain common sense would dictate that Akbar, being the person entrusted with the disbursement of the money, should bear the responsibility for its proper allocation".
The following day, demonstrations against Tanjung and police brutality erupted throughout the country.
In Yogyakarta, Central Java, several students were injured in a clash with police when they tried to enter the Sheraton Hotel, where a number of high profile politicians were scheduled to meet. Separately, the Yogyakarta Student Communication Forum held a rally outside the office of the provincial election commission, urging them to disqualify Golkar from the up-coming elections.
Demonstrations were also held by hundreds of students from KAMMI, FPRM and the Yogyakarta Student Executive Council. Carrying posters which read "The Supreme Court is powerless, it has no guts", "Akbar is free, the people are oppressed" and "Disband the Golkar party", they held a long march through the city and ended the demonstration by symbolically sending a letter of protest to the attorney general from the central post office.
In Bandung, West Java, hundreds of angry students swarmed into the streets, distributing pamphlets and calling on the people to rise up and reject the court's verdict. In Semarang, Central Java, demonstrators held a long march through the city. In Kendari, Sulawesi, students called for Tanjung to be imprisoned. In Surabaya, students from KAMMI and the Association of Muslim Students burnt an effigy of Tanjung and took over the local radio station to broadcast their demands.
But despite the angry reaction, the fact is that over the last two years Indonesian courts have been letting off a whole slew of corrupt politicians and business people (or letting them out on bail so they can flee the country), exonerating military officers involved in gross human-rights violations and allowing the judicial and law enforcement system to degenerate into little more than a Mafia-run circus.
So although the case is symbolic – it represents yet another step in the process of rehailitating Golkar and the political forces that backed the 32-year Suharto dictatorship – in real terms it is largely meaningless.
Certainly for Tanjung, there was a great deal at stake. Had the conviction been upheld he would have had to abandon and his goal of becoming Golkar's candidate for the September presidential elections and his political career would have been over.
But it is unclear how much this would have weakened Golkar's chances in the elections, because although Tanjung was a major force in rebuilding and rehabilitating the party following Suharto's fall in 1998, it's strong organisational base (especially outside Java), unlimited funds and growing public nostalgia (known as SARS – the Really Missing Suharto Syndrome) for the "good old days" of stability and economic prosperity would have worked in its favour. A number of right-wing political parties are already campaigning specifically around this theme.
The assertion that this will further undermine business confidence and foreign investment is probably exaggerated. While legal reform and corruption are of concern to investors, other factors such as bureaucratic red tape, the lack of infrastructure, low productivity and profit returns as well has having to pay the military for protection are also a major deterrent. It is noteworthy that the stock market hardly seemed to notice and the rupiah was unaffected.
Other commentators such as Witoelar have called it a "wake up call" to the country. As the February 14 Asia Times put it, "[it is] another indication that Indonesia's political elite couldn't care less" about reformasi or the fate of ordinary Indonesians. This lack of concern is bolstered by weakness and division of the opposition movement, the co-option of the student movement and the fact that, while pubic opposition to government policies is widespread and often militant, it is sporadic and locally based.
It may, however, give further impetus to the National Movement Against Electing Rotten Politicians which was formed in December in the lead-up to the April general elections. Although founded by liberal groups, the movement has been able to politically tap into the anti-elite sentiment and has been taken up enthusiastically by students and radical democratic opposition groups. Some of the more conservative founders of the group have said that it needs to go further and become a broad, grassroots-based national movement. Other more radical supporters of the campaign, such as the Trade Union Alliance Against Rotten Politicians and the PRD are also widening the campaign demands to include the rotten political parties and rotten government policies.
If nothing else, the Supreme Court just sent a very simple message to the Indonesian people: it's not just a question of not voting for rotten politicians, the whole rotten political system is bankrupt and needs be replaced.