Yusril, The President, & Ruki
Last week, deputy house speaker Muhaimin Iskandar (PKB) urged President SBY to settle the conflict between minister of state secretary Yusril Ihza Mahendra and chairman of Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Taufiequrrahman Ruki. Noviantika Nasution from Partai Demokrasi Pembaruan (PDP) also joined the call like others.
President SBY then summoned both Yusril and Ruki in a limited cabinet meeting on Friday. After the meeting, SBY said both Yusril & Ruki were right in their disputed decisions. This statement was considered a peace settlement brokered by the president. Analysts criticize SBY and calling it as an intervention of president to judicial system.
But I think the president clearly stated that he would not intervene the legal process when he said, by law, direct appointment of suppliers are allowed, "but if there is proof of irregularities over the direct appointment, that's the area of judicial system that I will not enter into."
So, from this point, I prefer to have both KPK and Yusril move forward with their claims. KPK should proof that Yusril's decision was wrong and that someone had taken benefit out of it; while Yusril should also proof that KPK's decision was also wrong and that someone had also taken benefit out of it. That would be fair! Because what matters is not the direct appointment policy. But whether someone had illegally taken benefit out of the policy no matter who made the decision.
READ MORE!!!
President SBY then summoned both Yusril and Ruki in a limited cabinet meeting on Friday. After the meeting, SBY said both Yusril & Ruki were right in their disputed decisions. This statement was considered a peace settlement brokered by the president. Analysts criticize SBY and calling it as an intervention of president to judicial system.
But I think the president clearly stated that he would not intervene the legal process when he said, by law, direct appointment of suppliers are allowed, "but if there is proof of irregularities over the direct appointment, that's the area of judicial system that I will not enter into."
So, from this point, I prefer to have both KPK and Yusril move forward with their claims. KPK should proof that Yusril's decision was wrong and that someone had taken benefit out of it; while Yusril should also proof that KPK's decision was also wrong and that someone had also taken benefit out of it. That would be fair! Because what matters is not the direct appointment policy. But whether someone had illegally taken benefit out of the policy no matter who made the decision.
READ MORE!!!
posted by yosef at 10:08 AM
1 Comments:
You should be the judge that try this case!
Post a Comment
<< Home