The Jakarta Post
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsTransparency matters
These shows may suspended accounts, but the process needs transparency.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Set as preferred source
Residents and online motorcycle taxi drivers arrange boxes of bottled water donated by members of the public for participants of the United Pati People’s Alliance (AMPB) during a rally on Aug. 26 ally outside the Senayan legislative complex in Jakarta. (Antara/Angga Budhiyanto)
W
hen news broke about Bank Mandiri freezing a bank account of a protest coordinator less than a week before the eventual rally, questions and criticism about the process were immediately flooded on social media platforms.
The bank account in question reportedly contains public donations intended to cover food and transportation for a group of residents from Pati, Central Java, who demanded the seizure of assets belonging to corruption convicts during their protests outside the House of Representatives in Jakarta on Aug. 27.
On social media, Mandiri customers expressed their disappointment with the publicly listed state-run bank and questioned its credibility, while legal and banking experts alike pointed to the lack of legal basis behind the account freezing. There were even calls to boycott Mandiri, one of the largest banks by assets and loan disbursements.
There is also profound concern that banking powers are becoming a new tool to restrict freedom of expression in the already shrinking civic space. That was particularly concerning because of the timing of the freeze, which came about a week before the demonstration.
Following public controversy, the bank apologized and attributed the freeze to a request from law enforcement authorities, but refrained from identifying the agency involved or providing details of the case or the legal basis for the request.
It was only later revealed that the Jakarta Police were the one which made the request, though they said it was intended to suspend the transaction for up to around five business days for investigation purposes — and not indefinitely. The police said fundraising must be carried out under a licensed business entity, rather than by an individual, and cited the 2010 anti-money laundering law as another reason behind the request.
But even then, the police did not elaborate further what kind of suspicious activity or suspected crimes that warranted the freeze, while the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK), which is in charge of monitoring suspicious transactions, has denied involvement in the account freezing.
