Aftermath of Century saga

Several friends on Facebook questioned the relevance of the “We Believe in Boediono and Sri Mulyani’s Integrity” movement. One of them argued this was not about personal integrity.

This was about a process to find if their decision on the Century case was a mistake, or even if they took any personal advantage from the bailout. They are people of integrity but it does not mean they can do no wrong. This friend, and others, said they had tried to stay neutral in the case.

In truth, it is hard to be neutral. From the beginning, the investigation by the House of Representatives’ inquiry committee on the Bank Century bailout scandal was more like a witch hunt, rather than a real inquiry.

The committee was established under a prejudice that there had been a flow of funds from the bailout to the Democratic Party and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and his running mate Boediono in the July presidential election.

From this prejudice came another: The bailout process was designed to mobilize those political funds. The inquiry then became a way to justify, not clarify, the prejudice they had established earlier.

As professionals without political party backing, Vice President Boediono and Finance Minister Sri Mulyani were easy targets. That’s why, no matter what they argued, that saving Century was necessary to avoid the whole economy and banking system entering a crisis, the House committee did not seem to take it into account.

The majority of committee members were delighted to hear testimonies from former vice president Jusuf Kalla and some economic “experts”, who gave them what they wanted to hear.

Paradoxically, things they said in front of the committee — about being on the verge of economic crisis in late 2008 — were totally different from what they had said back then. All of these recorded in various media archives. With a few click on the Internet, we could compare their accounts now and then.

The committee claimed to base their inquiry on the Supreme Audit Agency’s (BPK) report. But the same institution had earlier given an “OK” status to the Deposit Insurance Agency’s (LPS) 2008 financial report, although the report mentioned that Rp 4.9 trillion (US$531 million) had been disbursed to Century.

The 2004-2009 House received the report without objection. If the committee was being fair, then why didn’t they make this an issue?

Sure, we should separate policy from the individual. But this movement would not have started without the witch-hunting zeal inside and, especially, outside the Parliament building.

We saw protesters burning posters of Boediono and Sri Mulyani, in which they were portrayed as blood (money)-sucking vampires.

To be fair, the House did not start the fire. But it contributed to the damage by throwing gasoline on
the flames.

Ironically, after spending all that time, money and energy, the House could not come out with a firm conclusion that there had been any corruption or embezzlement. They concluded the bailout was a mistake, but did not specify why.

They used the words like “allegedly” or “indicated” and recommended the legal authorities take over the case. If this is their only conclusion, then why did we need the committee at all?

It is right that public officials and policy output should be held accountable. The establishment of the committee was aimed as a mechanism of control over executive power, which is guaranteed by the
Constitution.

The committee is a learning process in building our democracy. But there are good ways to learn, and there are ugly ways. There is concern that the committee has just shown us the ugly way. I will give three reasons why: It was unfair, wasteful and divisive.

The House committee has sent the wrong signal to future public officials. When in crisis, or in doubt, don’t do anything, even if it is necessary. The personal risk of doing nothing is practically zero.

But if you used your discretion or judgement in an uncertain situation, you risk political punishment. On the other hand, the committee has set a precedent for future political opportunists.

Even if you lose the election, you still have ways to increase your bargaining position or to delegitimize the government.

Furthermore, it has created an illusion to street activists that calling for impeachment against the democratically elected president or vice president is a fine, even heroic, thing to do.

For sure, impeachment is a Constitutional right. But the amended Constitution has clearly outlined the criteria and procedures for impeachment.

It is worrying that the Bank Century saga is taking us nowhere. Maybe somewhere, but is that a place that we really want to go? Now that this drama is currently taking a break, let’s sit back and ask ourselves the question.


The writer is a PhD student in economics at the University of Melbourne, Australia.