Bambang Soesatyo has invoked one of the privileges of being a member of the House of Representatives, in making claims about an alleged backroom deal in Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati’s handling of the Bank Century bailout. The law indeed grants elected House members immunity from both criminal and civil prosecution for statements made in the course of their work.
Nevertheless, given the impact of his claim on the public standing of the finance minister, it begs the question whether it was proper and ethical for Bambang, as a member of the House’s special panel inquiring into the government’s decision to bail out Bank Century, to have made these accusations in public, which have now been proven to be baseless.
Such immunity is found in most democracies around the world. It is given so that elected politicians can do their jobs without fear of prosecution in inquiring into the actions and decisions of governments they oversee. There will be times in the course of their work when they have to make statements or claims about others in government or outside, that border on slander or libel.
Bambang must count himself lucky for the law regulating the rights of House members in Indonesia, giving him full immunity. If he were to work under a Westminster parliamentary system, he would only enjoy a partial immunity — he would be free from civil claims, but not necessarily exempt from criminal prosecution for things he said.
On Friday, Bambang went public with claims he had in his possession a recording of a conversation purportedly between Sri Mulyani and Bank Century owner Robert Tantular that had allegedly taken place a few hours before the decision to bail out the troubled bank was made on Nov. 21, 2008. The conversation, he said, proved that Robert influenced the eventual decision. Instead of presenting “evidence” to the inquiry panel that is scheduled to begin its work this week, Bambang released the story to the media. His decision to go public was clearly politically motivated as part of the ongoing concerted campaign, launched by the Golkar Party, to discredit the finance minister.
Sri Mulyani already has to contend with attacks from Golkar chairman Aburizal Bakrie, the powerful businessman and until October a Cabinet colleague, although now we know there was nothing collegial about their relationship.
The objective of the special panel is now becoming clearer, at least as far as Golkar and Bambang are concerned. Pin the blame for the Bank Century bailout mess on Sri Mulyani, the tough non-conformist reform minister, and ultimately to have her removed from her post.
Sri Mulyani was right in coming out in her defense over the weekend, calling Bambang’s accusation a “heinous lie” and a clear attempt at character assassination. She is already struggling as it is in defending her decision before the upcoming inquiry without having to deal with more lies thrown her way that are clearly aimed at discrediting her.
Sadly, this is now the reality of Indonesian politics, which is still run mostly by immature if not irresponsible politicians like Bambang who are willing to abuse their privileges for political objectives. You don’t have to prove you’re right, but you lie enough to destroy the reputation of your opponent. This is the same tactic used by the National Police in their recent battle against the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) deputies Bibit S. Rianto and Chandra M. Hamzah.
For some people, character assassination has now become a legitimate tool to deploy in their political battles. Bambang has turned his parliamentary privilege into a virtual license to kill, and it seems for now at least he is getting away with murder.
