In reference to the principle, let us reflect on two recent, interconnected events.

First, the presence of Yasonna Laoly, the law and human rights minister, in the middle of a press statement of Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) executives in response to alleged bribery involving former commissioner of the General Elections Commission (KPU) Wahyu Setiawan and PDI-P politician Harun Masiku.

Second, the involvement of the minister in the legal team formed by the PDI-P in response to the graft case, which is now being investigated by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

Those two events present us with three reflective questions. First, is the minister’s role in the legal team considered a violation of ethics in public administration?

Second, is his involvement a reflection of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s political viewpoint or simply an act of loyalty to the party? Third, what lessons can we learn from those events?

Let us first revisit the concept of public ethics related to this phenomenon. Haryatmoko in Public Ethics and Public Service (2011) views public ethics as standard reflections or norms that determine whether an act or decision is good or bad, right or wrong, and which also guide policies throughout the process of running an accountable public service.

Related to that idea, Haryatmoko emphasizes that the fundamental element of public ethics is public integrity or ethical behavior.

Public integrity requires an individual or an institution’s behavior to follow values, standards or moral rules that have been publicly accepted. Therefore, public integrity is a way to prevent conflicts of interest from happening.

From that argument, a minister does not only constitute an ordinary government official, but also someone with real executive power to execute policies (pouvoir executive).

As stated in Black’s Law Dictionary, a statesman is defined to be “one skilled in the art of government; or a sage and efficacious politician”.

Then, as a statesman, a minister should therefore have the capacity to interpret the priority of public interest over the party’s interest.

Thus, one could view that Yasonna’s involvement in the legal team formed by the PDI-P executive board shows a failure of good behavior by a statesman.

Furthermore, an equally important issue is whether Yasonna’s involvement reflects the President’s political viewpoint or is merely an act of strong party loyalty? As long as the media reports are concerned, the President does not mind Yasonna’s involvement in the PDI-P legal team since the minister is already known to be a member of the party.

In other words, the minister’s controversial act is deemed part of his duties as a PDI-P executive and a form of loyalty and solidarity to the party.

The President’s political response may raise some doubts. First, the absence of strict measures taken against Yasonna seemingly suggest the President defies public ethics values.

This case will also eventually lead Yasonna as a member of the PDI-P legal team to face the KPK head-on, hence exacerbating the issue even more.

Second, Article 17 in the Fourth Amendment of the 1945 Constitution says the President shall be assisted by ministers, who shall be appointed and dismissed by the President.

This means regardless of the ministers’ backgrounds, their actions have great implications on the President. The President’s reputation can therefore be greatly affected by the ministers’ actions.

This all can actually be avoided since the President, as the highest government official, is subject to Article 3 of People’s Consultative Assembly Decree No. VI/2001 on the ethics of living as a nation.

The decree, which remains in place, sets the principle for officials to demonstrate exemplary behavior by prioritizing public interests.

Third, Immigration Director General Ronny Sompie has been removed due to the immigration office’s coordination issues in which false information was released about Harun’s whereabouts.

Yasonna, who is Ronny’s direct boss, also formed a joint independent team to further investigate the coordination failure.

However, the joint team can be considered a quick fix that does not solve the underlying problem.

Article 3 of the MPR Decree clearly requires the President to take strict measures against violations of public administration ethics. Consequently, he bears an obligation to uphold the standard norms, especially when related to state affairs.

In the future, a special state body is needed to ensure public officials follow the standard norms and maintain public integrity.

The case of Yasonna should remind us of the statesmanship of founders of the Republic of Indonesia who put national interests above their own interests, ideologies, cultures and political views.

From the debates of the Agency for the Preparatory Work for Indonesian Independence (BPUPKI) and Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence (PPKI), we found that the founding fathers had always set aside their private or group interests to achieve public interests for the common good.

They teach us commitment to founding a state and government that aim for social justice, where politicians and statesmen uphold a high ethical standard, and that dedication to the people is the principal way of life.

________

Law and Constitution researcher, Centre for Strategic and International Studies

Popular

RI, Australia strengthen partnership on taxing crypto assets

Analysis: Indonesia denies normalization with Israel to enter OECD

Citroen to produce electric cars in Indonesia