Yusril Ihza Mahendra

May 14th, 2007, in News, by

Yusril Ihza Mahendra's dismissal from the Cabinet, foreign interference, and presidential plans.

Yusril Ihza Mahendra was dismissed from his position as State Secretary in the cabinet of president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on 7th May due to, according to many, the likelihood that he is criminally connected with Tommy Suharto's stealing of state funds. asiasentinel

Yusril Ihza Mahendra
Yusril Ihza Mahendra.

However deputy chairman of Yusril Ihza Mahendra's party, Partai Bintang Bulan (PBB), Crescent Star Party, Janzi Sofyan, believes that the real reason for Mahendra's dismissal was the interference of businessmen backed by foreigners who fear the application of Islamic law in Indonesia. mediaindo

As State Secretary, Janzi says, Yusril had a strategic position within the government, primarily in having the authority to pick and choose which law bills would come before the parliament for debate. Prior to the reshuffle which left Yusril jobless Janzi says his man had approved fifteen proposed laws based on Islamic law (including, for example, a bill that would subject non-Muslims to Islamic law in Aceh).

The foreigners and their Indonesian business associates who had the "grand design" to develop and grow their capital and holdings in Indonesia were so disturbed by Yusril's success at prioritising Islamically based bills for debate that they decided to get rid of him:

Yusril upheld the Islamic mission and people who didn't want that brought him down. A lot of business interests were at play in his downfall, just count how many politicians are businessmen, it's certain they weren't happy with Yusril being there.

With Yusril gone the capitalists had a freer hand to impose their will on the country, he went on. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was not to blame however, SBY was simply unaware of the powerful forces at work:

It's obvious that foreigners were involved.

It is not certain what Yusril Ihza Mahendra himself thinks about these allegations as he is busily preparing for a run at the presidency in 2009.

Yusril and Rika
Young love.

Speaking in Jakarta on the 11th Yusril, who is married to the lovely Rika Tolentino Kato, said the PBB's firm support gave him confidence to try for the presidency. However the final decision as to whether to run or not was up to the will of God, he said. mediaindo

113 Comments on “Yusril Ihza Mahendra”

  1. avatar Dragonwall says:

    One more thing Lukman, please don’t quote those remote instance.. We are referring to those in majority… And you know I won’t ask for your real name ..for sure.

  2. avatar Dragonwall says:

    Look Man,

    khususnya berkaitan dengan masalah visa atas kuasa Dirjen Imigrasi di KBRI/KJRI di luar negeri dan Visa on Arrival (VoA) seperti yg dipersoalkan dragon wall tersebut.

    No one is “mempersoalkan VoA”. That was not disputed. No one is disputing!
    Read my lip..(Out of the frying pan and into the fire) I am referring to Corrupt Practice…

    No wonder your posting was considered irrelevant stuffs.

  3. avatar Dragonwall says:

    I had just browse through the Yusril’s blog, reading those postings.. Can anyone tell me what are they talking.

    I am Munir…. he is underground six feet..
    I am the lady that was involve in the investigation of HAM.. but she got killed by a so called mad neighbor…

    So what does that represent?

    Can anyone tell me that YIM had done is right? So does that make our comment valid?
    Can anyone tell me that YIM did not approve or got it approve that subjugate all Christians to be subjected to Islamic Sharia Law?

    I suppose those goons feel that he YIM didn’t said that and that the Sharia in Aceh was not enforced? Is this discrimination?
    The Staatsblad Law that was wrongly or intentionally revoked did not further discriminate keturunan?

    I suppose YIM did not move the application of visa to VoA creating an opportunity for
    more corrupt practice to happen?

    Then I suppose he was also wrongly dismissed or sacked by President SBY!!!!

  4. avatar Dragonwall says:

    One more thing I forgot.
    I suppose he is busy gathering his legal staffs and started his proceeding against Patung or Mousewall like he said..

    Uenak..lumayan kalau bagi bagi….trilyunan…

  5. avatar Dragonwall says:

    I have read a posting by Bonar in Unspun’s blog.

    Someone by the initial of Bonar said fallacies = deception? How was that?

    At least I know how to differentiate what is right and what is wrong.

    He (Bonar) had claimed what YIM did to be “an honest mistake”! Millions of lives are at stake, an honest mistake! Taking all the trouble to transfer money is an honest mistake! Creating opportunity for corruption to happen an honest mistake!
    Being a lawyer…A Justice Minister at that time…A Secretary of State at that time..

    He even claimed himself to be a Christian and all others discuss were irrelevant? So what is nationbuilding? And for him to agree with him on anonymous matters and overlooking the risk of other’s life….

    Nothing was said about hatred… how about dislike?

    That is schadenfreude…Mr Bonar..

  6. avatar Adis says:

    Good debate is a good debate…
    Good debate won’t waste the time

  7. avatar Arema says:

    You know what, I was surprised Yusril showed up in a place like this and try to clarify things. And create his own blog, too. I visited his blog and it seems that every writing is so nice and polite”¦not original. You guys should write something in his blog to make it colorful.

    Hahaha… Parvita, I’ve read your posts there. I wanted to add some more *spices* but maybe yours are enough, at this moment 😛 But don’t worry… IM have plenty of regulars who are more than capable of “making his blog colorful” in due time… heheheheh.

    After such a hot debate last week, Bang Yusril suddenly is nowhere to be found. It’s either because of this:

    In contrast to Yusril, SBY is actually busy doing something good for this country.

    or he can’t take the heat after saying something really controversial to Janma earlier.

    Your *provocations* may help as a bait, but with our “guns” pointed at his door, ready to barrage, I don’t think he’ll leave his “bunker” anytime soon.

  8. avatar Janma says:

    They are so busy calling us cowards on Yusril’s blog, I don’t think they’ve worked out that Yusril is the coward…. as soon as he couldn’t stand on his own two feet in IM he went running back to his own blog with his tail between his legs. Full of people who agree with him there… Bapak this and Abang that…. but according to the devils dictionary definition of coward he is one….
    Coward: n A person, who in a perilous emergency, thinks with his legs.

  9. avatar cokk says:

    hello there,

    I’ve read some articles/news published here and so the comments those follow. Well, let me guess that this site has a link (maybe personally) with komunitas utankayu. Or, am I wrong?

    The passages, comments and tendencies led me to that conclusion. I have, once, sent comments to the JIL site, but maybe got no approval from the owner. So my comments can not appear. And maybe it could happens the same at IM. Tobe honest i love reading some, as long as it doesnt have any friction to (pure) Islam and moslem.

    THE POINT IS to you Mr Patung; you might name, –you have the right as the first, your site indonesiamatters but you probably can put some line describing your motto. Then i wont surprise if commentators said anything terribly about icmi, mui, ustadz ba’ashir, habibie (uhh i love this little guy, somehow), etc.

    Is it to much the request, buddy, Mr. Patung?

    Well i dont mind if you are not welcome publish my comment. For yo to know. I myself commented on Yusril’s site yesterday and i cant find what i typed there. It is almost 14:00 at noon. Thanks anyhow.

  10. […] admin Belum genap sebulan nge-blog, Yusril Ihza Mahendra telah terlibat polemik panas di blog Indonesia Matters. Polemik bermula dari sebuah posting lama, bertanggal 14 Mei 2007, tentang mantan […]

  11. avatar Dragonwall says:

    The ever demanding to remain anonymous is a necessity. Like I read one of Janma’s posting that came with a reply from Bonar that look like:

    even if u dont use ur real name, u are easy to be tracked lah”¦ you have a son(or sons?), you live in bali, and last october, you encourage people to clean up leluhur’s graveyard. and i can go on and on, with simple cross databasing, i can slim down to 5 people to track your real identity”¦ to me, you are not really that anonymous

    So these are database crossing? Not inside job? So what does that smell of? Who the hell is this s**t from disclosing a blogger’s identity? And this is no kidding. I won’t be surprise you might be one of the guys from kepolisian or BIN???????
    And another thing he said

    The difference with yusril case is this, the other person was obviously trying to slander yusril, a public persona.

    So he is saying others are slandering YIM a publi persona? With all he did?

    Then he said yes, im starting to think you are right, maybe identity is not so important at all

    I failed to understand the conflict of his self interest.

    One other posting, this cokk said

    was dismissed from office by President SBY for his part in helping Tommy
    LOL.., No nothing to laugh if you do you are laughing at YIM. This is a proven part undeniable.>

    SBY as a military general in Suharto regime did the helping more than people he fired.</strong

    Nothing was proven on SBY’s part and this is slanderous.

    One posting by this Minangkabau not Japanese, Saiyo Salakato said is so true that I am exasperated with what he said:

    If I stall ten dollars from the pocket of Sultan of Brunei, maybe its just “carry a little weight and little impact” to him, because he is very rich. But, from ethical point of view, still I connot do it.. Maling, betapapun kecil impaknya bagi seseorang, tetaplah perbuatan yang salah

    Yes you are darn right..When YIM did the transfer he knew it was wrong..

    Maybe that happened to Mr Yusril when Dragonwall “tickled” him. For an ex-minister to say “potong kemaluan anda sendiri””¦. wow, that must have been a terrible insult. It is. This is the thing that should be avoided.

    I assumed that he had not taken enough time to swallow that comment when it was being referred to ARB and yet I still take it like a man. He has the right to say what he likes. What I was referring to were that of those that was supposedly stipulated by the Sharia Law in Arabian countries, like Potong tangan for stealing things worth more than 3 oz of gold, Pengal for committing adultery bla..bla..bla..etc…

    Yes that much said I prefer this sentence

    ” the sin of making fitnah is far more than killing” Fitnah is unproven accusation. whether the reality that person really guilty but when we accuse that person based on no proof then even u r considered sinned…..unproven accusation cause damages more catastrophe than killing somebody

    So YIM had proven himself to be discriminative by pushing the Sharia Law and subject the Christians to be subjected to Islamic Law. No accusation.
    YIM was proven to have disregard the safety of minority Indonesians when the law was wrongly or intentionally revoked that subject minority Indonesians to further discrimination and he had failed to do something to remedy the error. He was the Minister of Justice and Ham , no accusation.
    YIM cause the opportunity to arise for other to be able to commit corrupt practice, no accusation.

    So are those people who slandered him using logical fallacies and hid behind anonymityand damn righthe made things worse when he implied a threat to prosecute a bystander (Janma).

    No wonder that much people was required to help him unstring himself from making more statements. At least there was something learn and transpred.

  12. avatar pretty says:

    people … thanks to make this thread so –according to parvati & arema– colorful … hehe…

    in his blog YIM was busy with people coming, trying to comfort him after ‘RUDE accusation and MEAN ppl here’ 🙂 oops wrong emoticon, must find the red hot angry smiley!

    sorry for out of topic, but your comment make me smile and laugh after a long and tiring day! , for me, you are all real, despite of what the ‘real name’ is 🙂

  13. avatar Piet says:

    What can people expect from “belimbing face” politician like Yusril?
    If he quite gentleman, he would not to find excuses to make movie abroad to escape from AFIS’s case.

    Gitu aja kok repot!

  14. avatar an006 says:

    Stupid ihza mahendra….

    Boasting that everyone should expose their identity….

    He could expose the identity because he is the higher ups….

    He could do “anything” to cover his own ass….

    While us are open to be shot at….

    Stupid ihza mahendra…..Obviously not voting for you sir if you are elected to be one of the people elected for the election…

    And obviously nobody will vote for you if everybody read this blog…

  15. avatar Bonar says:

    errr, my comments didnt show up?

  16. avatar Bonar says:

    LoL @Dragonwall:

    “I won’t be surprise you might be one of the guys from kepolisian or BIN???????”

    Relax dude ^_^ i’m just a dropout-student who work as a low level employee @ a cybercafe, and I happen to have large amount of free time on my disposal. The fact that you responded my comments so seriously, flatters me 🙂 *sarcasm*

    About my position on anonymity.
    You -misrepresented- my evolving positions @ unspunblog. To make it short, my position was:

    “being an anonymous is eeeeviiilll”, *sarcasm*

    And then after reading many postings everywhere, i changed to:

    “okay maybe you’re right, maybe being anonymous is ok, but act wisely, nevertheless”

    Probably, I should present it in a more (hopefully) chronological manner, for you to understand the change of heart,
    instead of letting you picking arguments that suit your position best.

  17. avatar Bonar says:

    About Janma’s identity and anonymity.
    First of all, it was supposed to be a light -joke-, it doesnt have a value of truth in it. it was supposed to show her the downside of being -habitual- anonymous.

    This was my post:

    lol, even if u dont use ur real name, u are easy to be tracked lah”¦ you have a son(or sons?), you live in bali, and last october, you encourage people to clean up leluhur’s graveyard. and i can go on and on, with simple cross databasing, i can slim down to 5 people to track your real identity”¦ to me, you are not really that anonymous.

    LOL just kidding”¦ hey, im just feeding your stalker paranoia!

    but later on, i think u might want to be more careful not to say out loud when somebody you know did something questionable, however necessary it was.
    you can say “somebody i know did this or did that” and not “my son did this”

    even though reality differs alot, legally he was only stating the obvious consequences of your statement.

    I was trying to point out that, when we -thought- we are anonymous, we tend to make irresponsible remarks which are actually disadvantageous to -ourselves-, remarks that in normal public conversations, where we are aware about our own identities, we will not make.

    I might be a little bit too perceptive that time, so i catched little details about Janma, and for that… Janma, i sincerely am sorry for any discomforts i have caused.

    I also tried to show that sometimes anonymity devalues good arguments that the anonym presented, to mere rants. And people can always use anonymity as an excuse to accuse the anonym of having lack of integrity.

    But then Arema(or pj? i forgot) argued that the matter presented might be more valuable than the identity.

    And after a while i think he/she was right, since integrity is not a matter of real name, but a matter of sincere argument which shows honorable character.

    Thats how i change my mind.

    though, i still prefer if a-certain-brave-commenter goes out of the closet
    (But then, it’s the commenter’s personal choice, not mine)

  18. avatar Bonar says:

    About Logical Fallacies (this will be long, dont hold your breath 🙂 ).

    dragonwall, you said:

    “Someone by the initial of Bonar said fallacies = deception? How was that?”

    To make it clear for other commenters, this is my original post @unspunblog:

    wb mr. kamarul!!!!

    we were talking about a politician blogger, hes been in minister positions several times, and was a contender for presidency back in 99.
    To me, personally, hes unlikeable.
    nevertheless, i couldnt agree with people who slandered him using logical fallacies and hid behind anonymity. However, he made things worse when he implied a threat to prosecute a bystander (Janma).

    thats the summary.

    As a background story, kamarul is a respected malaysian brother who argued so strongly when the “rasa not so sayang” controversy arouses. That summary expressed my position best -at the time-.

    By the word “people” i was refering to -you-, dear honorable dragonwall, especially on this post:

    Let me pick one:

    What he did is to prevent those embassy from corruption because no one needs to go to the Indonesian Embassy to apply for visa.

    But he promoted the corruption at the Immigration so that every port of entry could get hold of those visa fees.

    How nice. From the left pocket to the right pocket. Like out of the frying pan and into the fire.

    Now, by saying “he promoted… bla bla bla… so that every…” indicated causative accusation, where it -might- be correlative.

    It is implied in your comment that,CMIIW, It was his intention to promote corruption.
    basically, your words can be stated like this: “Yusril wanted people at immigrations to get their shares” (again cmiiw)

    While, in contrary, it -might- be an unintended consequence or in other words an honest mistake (please click before proceeding).

    An honest mistake could happen because of “ignorance”, that is, “its impossible to anticipate everything and lead to incomplete analysis”.
    It could also be a deliberate mistake, to fix “immediate interests, which may override long-term interests”. Doctors usually do this, fixing mortal wounds by sacrificing wellness of other organs.

    Nevertheless, the possibility of the existence of unintended consequence, invalidate your accusations unless it was proveably intentional.

    To conclude a causative statement, we need to know his intention, since there is no way knowing -that-, except from his side,
    to assume his intention -might- be a deliberate slander.

    I dunno much about why did he or his department do that, but i dont think it was his intention to promote corruption, because… well, come on, it would be foolish to assume that, wouldnt it? nobody in right mind would intentionally make a policy to specifically promote corruption.

    in notations,
    his/his dept’s intention was to fix one problem (“he fix A” = causative),

    By fixing that one problem, he awarely created circumstances B.
    but then there are unintended consequences(D), -perhaps- because combined with lack of morality in other departments (C).
    (“fixing A causes B, C is previous condition, B+C causes D”)

    Therefore “he fix A, A causes B, then B+C causes D” is correlative, because he MAY or MAY NOT be the sole cause of D.

    So, saying “he causes D” is a logical fallacy.

    Granted, this is still arguable. But at best, without any intentional evidence you can only say that he was ignorant or clueless or or unthoughtful or unskilled, more than that -might- be a slanderous statement.

  19. avatar WP says:

    You guys are just so naive. Yusril went into the fray just for his own publicity stunt, and you all took his bait. Bleh.

  20. avatar Bonar says:

    Let me pick another one:

    I think this MF was f88k by the morons of Moros while in the Philippines.

    This is a dishonest argument #1(please click, i beg you), and it is also a logical fallacy called ad hominem.

    I think these 2 are enough to show my point that dragonwall’s ways of arguing were using logical fallacies then hid behind anonymity.

    Now, dont get me wrong, dear fellow readers, i can understand your choice to become anonyms (some of you, anyway), but the existence of these kind of fallacious arguments sometimes only make things worst for anonyms who can argue well.

    To understand more about my position on logical fallacies and ways of arguing badly, dear fellow readers, you might want to read these:

    I still am a novice in the art of arguing miself,
    perhaps you can enlighten me, dear fellow commenters, by pointing out which of dragonwall’s arguments fell into which fallacies?

    About my position on Yusril
    I honestly have a personal dislike towards YIM, for reasons i would like to keep to miself.

    I have blatantly stated -that-, openly several times, even to him:

    However, that position is open for change, depends on how he present his arguments in the future. And im anxious to see whether my previous position was right or wrong:

    And my obvious-position on you, honorable dragonwall, can also be changed,
    I only need a little convincing arguments, that i was wrong. I beg you. 🙂

    NB: sorry for my lack of speaking ingriss skill(or writing?me confuses). ingriss are sooo difficult, desu ne?

  21. avatar Bonar says:

    hmmm… some leftovers that i havent responded, just small petty things, not really important… move on…

    dragonwall said:

    He (Bonar) had claimed what YIM did to be “an honest mistake”! Millions of lives are at stake, an honest mistake! Taking all the trouble to transfer money is an honest mistake!

    this is my original posting:

    “Good words will always stand on their own as long as you can back your points with facts”
    Oh i hope it will always be like that.
    however, what dragonwall say werent all good words,
    even from the beginning it was full of fallacies, though some of them are not.
    But many parts were full of causative accusations where it might actually be correlative, or he assumed bad intention, where it could be an honest mistake of yusril’s part.
    It was only natural what yusril’s asked from him, an identity.

    as you can see, dear fellow readers, dragonwall’s argument extend/exagerrate my position then attack it.
    I said: “It could be…”
    he said: “Bonar had claimed”

    I was suggesting a possibility, while he was saying that i was suggesting a certainty.

    That is a Dishonest Argument #4.

    dragonwall said:

    Nothing was said about hatred”¦ how about dislike?

    okay, my mistake, sorry. it was a bad choice of word. u can read it as “dislike” instead of “hatred” from now on.

    dragonwall said:

    He even claimed himself to be a Christian and all others discuss were irrelevant? So what is nationbuilding? And for him to agree with him on anonymous matters and overlooking the risk of other’s life”¦.

    my original posting was:

    now i, miself, dont agree with many of yusril’s views, especially about islamic laws, naturally, as i am a christian. but that will be a whole other bunch of words about the nationbuilding.

    and my position about his views will not prevent me to agree with him on this anonymous matter.

    i dont see my words about “all other discuss were irrelevant”
    I simply stated, i -also- have a disagreement on his views. And that my disagreement with yusril’s views (or what i perceived as his views based on public opinions) about islamic laws (or possible implementation of them in this country) is only natural.

    As I am a christian, it is only natural for me to feel uneasy about the chance of this nation turning to islamic constitution.
    But on matters -other- than that i will not just based my decision on my uneasiness.

    As for “overlooking risk of others life”, i really fail to see why this has become -my responsibility-, after all, i didnt slander anyone (or did i?)

    and why would one worries about risking their life(s) if they are sure that they DIDNT slander anybody or DIDNT do anything stupid/horrendous/questionable/savage?

    and for godssakess 🙂 , who threatens your life, anyway?
    is this just another case of overextending/exagerrating positions of other, then attack them (?)

    If you think you DID slander him, admit it, then apologize, its that cheap.
    and if you wanna stay in the closet, i’ll understand 🙂 (if that is even matter, lol)
    after all i have changed my stance to be more moderate on this anonymous matter.

    If you didnt slander anyone, then y worry? come out already! 🙂

  22. avatar dewaratugedeanom says:

    Some postings in this thread seem to have triggered quite a lot of interesting and unexpected informative comments re. our national vices. The reactions in other blogs also prove that this phenomenon has gathered momentum. Therefore I would like to propose Patung to include a permanent column in Indonesia Matters where commentators can report cases of corruption, pungli, upeti etc.
    Using their nicknames of course”¦ Nobody likes unwanted ‘visits’ at night.

  23. avatar Dragonwall says:

    Honorable Bonar,

    1.I can understand of psychological effect of one admitting then others will not wrong you kind of counter effect by saying “I honestly have a personal dislike”¦”. And all others that is to ensure shall become an entrapment (*).
    2.”All other discuss were irrelevant” = if we are discussing a topic that had become a reality then saying others will make things irrelevant.
    3.If a person who failed to introspect their mistake and not able to provide a logical answer, starts saying that a person can be arrested kind of stuffs, that already showed signs of something could or might happen and that constitute “overlooking risk of others life”, and as for “who threatens your life anyway”
    I didn’t say anyone did but look on the more liberal side and one thing I doubt anyone could threaten me.

    Back to the real world.
    About my position on anonymity, my position was being an anonymous is eeeeviiilll”, *sarcasm* I didn’t say that, did I? I certainly hope Janma could get over with that, but discomforts could always developed into a phobia.

    I understand very well your writing that said “people who slandered”, you are referring to not only me but others too! But with this “he promoted” it is your interpretations (*) to say Yusril wanted people at immigrations to get their shares” as I did not say that and I know and understand fully what I said. And that is fallacious.

    Before I go on, lets come back to square one, when I said:
    1.”What he did is to prevent those embassy from corruption (a)..” but “But he promoted the corruption (b)..” like “out of the frying pan and into the fire (c)”.
    (a) It was a good thing (b) whether a person manning the post at that time is one other matter but he did open up the opportunity for them to capitalize on
    2.Do I get the understanding that both you and YIM was just born yesterday or have been in Indonesia recently? and that both of you did not know the existence of corruption that have been rampant and were almost out of control? Does the possibility exist, and that corruption could take place? and that more and more people will be involve comparing to that few person manning embassies? So what do that looks like to you?
    3.Your arguments as to A, B, C and D and comparing to laws are 2 entire different facet and tends to look more deceptive by making people think otherwise into believing that it is not the fault of a Justice Minister. Regrettable to say when you consider ignorance (d) being the word for trying to get away that I had anticipated like what I last termed it as MISFIT. Honorable Bonar let me say this to you. Being a Minister of Justice and HAM, and as a qualified lawyer, to have some one term it for him as an honest mistake (e), that should be termed as gross negligence for a professional. No one rational professional would have done that, like if in the court fighting a case and he had done some thing detrimental to the disinterest of the plaintiff, that might cause the plaintiff to lose the case and probably cause the plaintiff to be subject to prosecution and will also likely to be sued by the plaintiff for professional negligence.
    4.By so saying those from “An honest mistake—-I dunno much”¦ corruption” you seemed to have presented and displayed some very prejudicial viewpoints. The judgement are yours. Do you really think possibly that that would be missed? Being a lawmaker? You are kidding with yourself an in an unreal world, what more for you to say “he was ignorant or clueless or unthoughtful or unskilled”. The law is the law! If he were to draft a law to confiscate the properties of all Indonesian Chinese and had become a law and that make him unskilled, unthoughtful? And sorry to say that you prefer to call yourself a novice in arguing which I can see clearly instead of debating into what actual facts are and this is wasting time. Like some one said ‘A good debate is a good debate”.
    5.There are no arguments to me at all, not even the slightest let alone a dishonest which you termed it as logical fallacy (ad hominem) but trying to find out what has he got to say when the fact were presented to me/us.
    6.Nothing was exaggerated and noting the word correlative comes in so handy with you, and that makes the whole debate argumentative with an honest mistake rather than facts that makes it a certainty.

    (i)As a Minister of Justice and HAM, A Secretary of State he had open up the possibility of corruption to be present noting that corruption was rampant at most Indonesian Embassies and that most were prosecuted, dismissed from duties, found guilty, sentenced in a court of law. That was a proven fact.
    (ii)As a Minister of Justice and HAM, A Secretary of State he had subject Christians To Islamic Law and that was reported to be true as Aceh has had that enforeced with the blessing of the government and DPR Agung Laksono said he was discussing about mysterious envelopes containing money. He being a ‘champion of putative Islamic Values”. Read my lip “Yusril said later in the hearing that non-Mislums could be, could be, exempted for trial by the Islamic court only in cases relating to family and business or monetary matters. That was reported to be a fact. The Walikota was also carrying out the Sharia enforce when his goons were arresting people at random at fined a pregnant woman for prostitution while waiting for a bus ride home. The school even threatens her husband into signing an affidavit and promise not to file against the Walikota. The trial went on and these were facts.
    (iii)The 2006 Resident Administration Law incorrectly revokes a regulation Article 106C that brought about into force several discriminative laws know as Staatsblad 1917-129.2. These were reported and is a fact.

    I hereby sum up by asking again:

    By moving the venue from one place to another, instead of solving the actual problem, is that opening up the opportunity for one to commit corruption? Yes or No?

    I suppose, that you say you dislike what he did, and does that mean that you are a Pribumi Christian and that you could easily convert yourself into a Muslim, (not being discriminative) by Subjecting Christians to be govern by Islamic Law is that discrimination? Yes or No?

    When the law was put into force, whether intentional or a mistake, is that discriminating the minorities? Yes or No?

    He was disgraced for abetting and being an accessory to a criminal for laundering and the transfer of illegal funds derivative from corrupt mean or stolen from the country is he promoting corruption? Yes or No?

    He is a professional, a lawyer, an ex Justice Minister, a disgraced Secretary of State do you still insist that to be an honest mistake????? (If so then this shows the undemocratic side of you Honorable Bonar) Not prejudicial on his part? Not bias on his part? Not partial on his part?

    So are the millions of minorities at stake for his negligence and action. This concerns the integrity of a country. If you agree to this then it makes what you have cited in ABC and D to be correlative and that will lead to arguments that will then lead to causative accusations like what you said. Try telling it to a Judge that he had made something and that he did not know it will happen and that ABCD is correlative. Then we see what he will say!

    One more thing “the MF f88k the morons of Moro”. Are Moros Islamic? Are they radical? He had returned from the Philippines who knows if he had made any agreements with the Moros if not why is he subjecting the Christians to Islamic Law?

    He should be more repentent than trying to give excuse one way or another by having that many good and nice people consoling him and trying to put up a fight. What you said is true like being a “Beacon of Justice and Truthfulmess istead of a Fighter”.

  24. avatar dewaratugedeanom says:

    Some questions re. the hype about anonymity:

    – Are journalists obliged to disclose all the sources of their information? Has the identity of ‘Deep Throat’ during the Watergate scandal in the USA ever been revealed, even when it led to the impeachment of Richard Nixon?
    – When a lot is at stake, like the corruption problem in Indonesia, doesn’t the end justify the means by safeguarding anonymity?

    In his comment in Unspun’s blog Bonar said

    “¦and after long thread we can identify people with their views.

    Isn’t this what is important? Didn’t Shakespeare say “What’s in a name”?

    Besides, think of possible identity theft if you disclose your real name and coordinates in the virtual world, not to mention the amount of spam you will get in your mailbox.
    A French saying goes “pour vivre heureux, vivons cachés” (to live happily, let’s hide).

    Another interesting and related topic here would be: are hidden cameras or microphones acceptable means to reveal crime and corruption? I once tried it but unfortunately it failed due to a mechanical malfunction.

  25. avatar Bonar says:

    hmmm, cmiiw,

    I thought deep throat only showed the way to evidence?
    When the evidence was proven to be existed, he gained credibility as a source, although he is no longer necessary to step out from the shadow to push the impeachment.

    Corruption in Indonesia is a totally different case.

    the first problem is the “cash tradition” we have. Lots of payments are unrecorded. Almost everything can be under the table. Proving an accusation on “small” corruptions one by one, will be a lil bit difficult and probly overwhelming.

    In most cases, it might be difficult to differentiate legit accusations from “iseng”. Answering your question, anonymity -might sometimes- make it worse.

    Second problem is the low wage. Some of the officials simply have no other choice than to corrupt when facing difficulties of life, although some others are just plain lazy.

    Gus dur (cmiiw) tried to solve it, by raising wages but then it increased the inflation, and annulling the effect of the raise. Before we managed to solve the standard of living problems, corruption will always be there.

    Third problem is law system.

    now letssay, we have evidence(s), we managed to stay anonymous, there is no guarantee that the case will proceed, unless, probly we become a witness(and there is no witness protection program even when we are willing to sacrifice everything).
    in contrary (To make things worse), a popular case might sometimes go through even without enough evidence. Good people might get prosecuted, bad people might get away. We come from a looonggg traditions of public lynching.

    next problem is the mentality of indonesians overall. We admitedly lazy, noisy, irresponsible. Granted, not all of indonesians. But consider this, if a bule accuse a corrupt somebody on small amount of money,
    this will happen:
    1. people will shout at the bule simply becoz they can relate to the economic conditions of the corrupt one. (noisy+low wage)
    2. they will be too lazy to seek the real truth.
    3. judges, lawyers, might not really care about the bule, all they care is their popularity.

    Indonesia now, my friend, is a merely popularity contest. Albeit a very big one.There might be no place for anonymous.

  26. avatar Stefan says:

    ll, there is another problem with the visa on arrival. I’m a westerner but not American. When I arrived at Soekarno-Hatta Airport I had topay a fee of 25 Dollar for the visa. I used a 50 Euro banknote to pay, so that I got some exchange, paid in Rupiah. But later when I checked out the exchange rates in the public area of the airport I noticed that they gave me about Rp 40,000 too less.

  27. avatar Dragonwall says:

    a popular case might sometimes go through even without enough evidence. Good people might get prosecuted, bad people might get away. We come from a looonggg traditions of public lynching

    Thumbs up. Nicely phrased. I am very sure you know who that refers to. Good comment.

  28. avatar Dragonwall says:

    Nobody likes unwanted ‘visits’ at night.

    How do I upload my photographs? Mana tau ada jodoh…

  29. avatar dewaratugedeanom says:

    Bonar said

    Before we managed to solve the standard of living problems, corruption will always be there.

    Before we managed to solve corruption, the standard of living problems will always be there.

    next problem is the mentality of indonesians overall. We admitedly lazy, noisy, irresponsible. Granted, not all of indonesians. But consider this, if a bule accuse a corrupt somebody on small amount of money,
    this will happen:
    1. people will shout at the bule simply becoz they can relate to the economic conditions of the corrupt one. (noisy+low wage)
    2. they will be too lazy to seek the real truth.
    3. judges, lawyers, might not really care about the bule, all they care is their popularity.

    Mas Bonar, one day somebody will come along and break the mold. Then Majapahit will rule again.
    First rule: evict all the bule. They are Indonesia’s ruin, aren’t they, Achmad Sudarsono.

    No more bule > no more envy > no more greed > no more corruption > no more poverty > everybody happy.

  30. avatar JOY says:

    Oh… no.., Achmad has a twin..!!! LOL

Comment on “Yusril Ihza Mahendra”.

RSS feed

Copyright Indonesia Matters 2006-18
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact