Justice and Human Rights Minister: We Won't Yield to Corruptors  

The riot in Tanjung Gusta Prison in Medan, North Sumatra, three weeks ago placed Amir Syamsuddin in two concurrent positions: as Justice and Human Rights Minister and as a lawyer. As minister he had to take in criticism from all corners, including from his own boss, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. According to the President, his cabinet members were not fast enough in reacting. A number of legislators at the DPR even called for his resignation.

As a lawyer Amir tried to look at the different options in coping with the pressure of overcrowding among the prison population in Indonesia. One of them is to issue Government Regulation No. 99/2012, which would tighten the rules on remissions given to inmates serving time for the crimes of corruption, narcotics and terrorism.

Ratified just a day before the riots exploded at Tanjung Gusta, the edict said the tightening of the remission rules applied to inmates whose sentences were made after November 12, 2012. The immediate reaction of non-government organizations (NGOs) was to accuse Amir, who is secretary of the Democrat Party Ethics Council, of favoring corruptors.

Two weeks ago Amir Syamsuddin met Tempo reporters, Agoeng Wijaya, Hermien Y. Kleden, Anton Septian, and Muhamad Rizki for a three-hour interview. After almost two years on the job, Amir has changed his mind about a professional being the right man for the position. "Based on my own experience so far, I conclude that it's not enough for the justice minister to be just a legal expert," he lamented.

This is part of the interview. The full excerpt is available in this week's edition of Tempo English.

Some people see the government regulation on tightening remissions as a softening towards corruptors.

We were not pressured, and neither are we afraid of any one. There are only 2,000 convicted corruptors, about 1.4 percent of 117,000 prison inmates and 55,000 detainess throughout Indonesia. Even the terrorists comprise a mere 0.4 percent. Compare that with 57,000 inmates convicted of narcotics-related crimes. The rest are general convicts. With such a composition, there's no reason for us to be afraid of corruptors.

So, why did you issue that regulation?

That regulation was issued to prevent problems created by the most fearful and the biggest number of prison inmates and that is people convicted of drug-related crimes. At Tanjung Gusta penitentiary, 1,600 of the inmates from a total of 2,600 are such people. From this number, only 49 percent are dealers convicted to 15 years and/or life sentences. The rest were convicted because they used, kept or sold just a few illegal drugs. They were also given heavy sentences, no less than 10 years and a minimum fine of Rp800 million. These are the ones who feel hopeless and tense, because they feel they will never again get chances for remissions, triggering the angry riots.

But prison has not reduced the influence of the 2,000 or so corruptors. They have money and they've maintained their power networks.

Look, when I first heard about the Tanjung Gusta incident, I told myself it must be the corruptors who incited it. But the fact is that over there, there are only five inmates serving sentences for corruption and 14 for terrorism crimes.

If they are not regarded as threats, why were they not made exceptions to the regulation?

Government Regulation No. 99/2012 applies to everyone. If there are exceptions, what would be the point? That would conflict with the regulation itself.

But it paints you as favoring corruptors.

Of course, this is not a popular choice. But I must do this to prevent the potential of an even bigger incident. As a result of that policy, a number of corruptors at Tanjung Gusta will be able to get remissions. But I take that responsibility because it was a preventive action.

According to some reports, the regulation is connected to the letter of protest by some corruption inmates sent through DPR Deputy Speaker Priyo Budi Santoso.

I myself have never read Priyo's letter, which was reportedly copied to me. But there was no connection. Clearly, if I did not issue that regulation at the time, I'm sure the problem in Medan would not have ended.

So, explain how that regulation on the tightening of remissions actually came into being.

During my early days as minister we were accused of dispensing with remissions too easily. So, we decided to hold a remission moratorium. As a result of this policy, I was 'mauled' at the DPR. We were sued at the District Administrative Court and lost. This regulation on remissions is an improvement on Government Regulation No. 28/2006 on the rights of the inmates. Since then, the anti-corruption and anti-narcotics move evolved into a politico-legal issue, except that the old regulation was not as strict as the one today.

Before this regulation was circulated, there had been minor riots in some of the prisons.

There is a problem of overcrowing in 457 penitentiaries and detention centers throughout Indonesia. Five of them are very worrying, and they are the prisons at Bagansiapiapi, Banjarmasin, Bengkalis, Martapura and Jambi. They are all 600 percent overcapacity. In Banjarmasin, for example, the prison should house 336 people, yet it now contains 2,427 inmates. In other prisons, the inmates are 200 percent beyond the normal capacity.

Overcrowding of prisons is nothing new. How is the government resolving this problem?

In 2010, before I became minister, the President instructed the acceleration of national development. The Justice and Human Rights Ministry was allocated Rp1 trillion to build and upgrade prisons. The target at the time was to build 65 new penitentiaries. But in my view, the concept of building penitentiaries must be reviewed first.

Do you have any solution to cut down on the growing number of prison inmates?

I see the need for a consensus on the need to revise the justice system, so that not all legal violators end up going to jail. For example, drug users should be directed to rehabilitation centers, and similarly with those committing lesser crimes. Our political system must see that our prisons are full of such people (in need of rehabilitation, not punishment).

On corruptors, why are penalties against them so light in Indonesia? Are there no efforts to make them pay, through their money?

Actually, there has been quite a development since the Financial Transactions Reporting and Analysis Center (PPATK) began acting on money laundering crimes. In the past, corruptors were also imprisoned for two to two and a half years. Today, they could be serving seven years, even though this may be light compared to narcotics offenders. For having 10 illicit pills, they can be convicted to 10 years in prison. (*)