B

een following the recent series of Pansus (the House of Representatives' Inquiry Committee) hearings? I have. And yikes.

We've agreed to tackle corruption and throw offenders in jail (a regular jail, Artalyta!) and support all efforts to investigate other possible instances of corruption, as Pansus is supposedly doing with the Century Bank bailout case.

But what negative energy is emanating from the hearing sessions! More so when Vice President Boediono and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati appeared as witnesses, at Pansus' invitation.

One-sided questions, accusatory tones, menacing gestures, uncalled-for remarks and (literally) pointing fingers. Many seemed to operate on the presumption that unless the "desired" answers were given, the witness was necessarily incompetent and dishonest.

Let's take Mulyani's session, for example. Her supporting information was dismissed as an attempt to blow the situation out of proportion and hence was disallowed; her accompanying assistants were said to be irresponsibly neglecting their daily duties; even the bouquet she received earned snide comments. Considerable fuss was made over her midnight crisis meeting decision making, and her answers were often cut off or dismissed. She was even criticized for using formal legal and financial terms.

But surely the importance of a Pansus hearing means it's sensible to bring supporting information and assistants? Didn't Pansus get upset with Boediono the day before for arriving "unprepared"? And where were the objections when the National Police chief and attorney general brought their entire top brass to the KPK bribery case hearings? And that midnight meeting, at the height of the global economic meltdown - wasn't it fantastic that highly dedicated government officials chose to hold critical meetings instead of going home?

One incident that stood out to me personally was when a Pansus member asked a very broad question. Mulyani didn't answer immediately, whether trying to comprehend the context, or needing further clarification, or just catching her breath, but after a few seconds of silence the questioner snapped, "Bu, jawab dong pertanyaan saya, jangan bengong aja" (loosely translated: Answer me already, don't just look lost).

What was this? A Salem witch trial? Henry VIII's trial of Ann Boleyn? Or a tasteless remake of Lindsay Lohan's Mean Girls? Has Pansus forgotten the legal principle of innocent until proven guilty?

A friend called me to bemoan how the rest of the world, whose respect Mulyani gained in the G8 and G20 meetings, was likely laughing at us. My dismayed mom turned off her TV, deciding only prayers would save the country.

Mulyani's own energy levels didn't flag, even as some of the Pansus members looked deflated. Mulyani consistently provided concise, logical, properly referenced and carefully thought-out answers, even without consulting her notes.

Experts, church leaders, even my hairdresser, have voiced criticism of Pansus. Coffee-shop and online discussions went mad. Some recalled the late Gus Dur's comment that parliamentarians are like kindergarten kids. I tell you, calling them high-school bullies would fit better.

You see, kindergarteners are little kids who don't know any better. But high-school bullies know what they're doing, and strike when they expect victory and impunity. Isn't that what we've seen?

Remember the hearing with the National Police over KPK bribery case? Full of sugarcoated pleasantries that enraged the public. The DPR tried to show more teeth for the attorney general. But after the backlash over the Boediono and Mulyani sessions, Pansus is bending over backward to praise her on TV.

Please don't hide behind the lame argument that Indonesia's ethnic groups are so diverse they simply were misunderstood. Switch the words to Swahili or ancient Sumerian; the tone, gestures and expressions would still bear the unmistakable traits of bullying. Seriously - watch Mean Girls.

And also don't use the lame argument that anything goes in democracy. Democracy is not just for the majority, or the strongest, or the one shouting through loudest - law of the jungle, as they call it on the Discovery channel. A line of decorum should be maintained during human interaction. It's called decency and professional courtesy.

And please, don't put forward the lamest argument of all - that politics is a big stage requiring constant showstoppers. Political drama is all very well, but when decency and ethics are sacrificed for antics and theatrics, all that's left is a ragtag bunch of bullies. If lawmakers treat each other like that, what courtesy will they show their constituents?

If their theatrical urges really need an outlet, perhaps they could try a stint with a drama company, or even American Idol. They're looking for someone to replace the acerbic Simon Cowell next season.