Tightening justice against purse strings

KUALA LUMPUR: In the last decade of the last century, South Africa finally abolished its notorious apartheid sociopolitical system. Nelson Mandela, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was imprisoned for close to three decades, was popularly elected president. But there was understandably still tremendous confrontation between the long-oppressed black South Africans and their long-privileged white countrymen. And there continued to be armed conflicts among the various South African tribes. Even the universally well-regarded Mandela had his hands full trying to resolve all these explosive differences that threatened to tear South Africa apart.

The most serious differences among these interest groups in South Africa pertained to the recognition of malfeasances carried out during the apartheid regime and the attribution of blame and punishment thereof, as well as the attendant compensation to the victims of these misdeeds. Of course, each and every party would proclaim itself to be blameless and much victimized by the others and thus deserving of compensation. But if all parties were to take this sort of self-benefiting stand, the ethnic conflicts in South Africa would no doubt be prolonged, and national development would be placed on the back burner.

But Mandela lived up to his reputation as a wise statesman. Following the recommendation of peacemaking experts, South Africa under Mandela set up a truth and reconciliation commission chaired by the equally well-regarded Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize even earlier than Mandela. The main functions of the commission included the investigation of the various misdeeds done during the apartheid era, especially those involving loss of lives.

The commission summoned various parties allegedly involved in the misdeeds to testify in public hearings and granted immunity from prosecution in return for frank testimony such that the truth could be uncovered.

This kind of exchange of immunity for truth was, of course, not without some controversy. It implies that as long as the perpetrators revealed their misdeeds, they would be immune from punishment, however horrendous the misdeeds might be. This did not quite tally with the principle of retributive justice. I recall even the former wife of Mandela was called to testify for her alleged misdeeds, which fascinated many at the time.

In any case, in retrospect, this peacemaking technique of emphasizing the finding of the truth as a basis for eventual reconciliation did bear some fruitful results, albeit tenuous ones. At the very least, the South Africa of today, though still faced with public security concerns and socioeconomic challenges, is largely peaceful and no longer plagued with incessant, often violent ethnic conflicts. It is also noteworthy that around the time of South Africa’s democratization, there was a most unfortunate genocide that took place in Rwanda. The Central African country later also set up a similar truth and reconciliation mechanism. And apparently, that too was a positive setup, as the Rwanda of today is not only a stable country, but one of the fastest growing ones in Africa as well.

Coming back to this part of the world, when Joko Widodo first became the president of Indonesia, he realized the longstanding, serious problem with the illicit outflow of Indonesian assets, both public and private, and devised an amnesty program to grant immunity from seizure and prosecution for repatriated monies. But it would appear that this amnesty program, “generous” that it might have been, did not quite succeed in bringing back overseas Indonesian assets. And the program was no longer trumpeted.

And next door to Indonesia, over the past months, the Malaysian law enforcement authorities have been most assiduous in investigating the various alleged misdeeds committed by many members of the political and business elite, including those who straddle both politics and business. The focus of the investigations appeared to involve corruption, collusion, misuse and illegal transfer of funds that were prevalent during the one-party-rule era, which ended not so long ago. Various tycoons or their relatives or cronies were either summoned for questioning or outright prosecuted in court. Suddenly, the fear of being somehow made to account for previously unofficially sanctioned, self-benefiting deeds was palpable amidst the business and former political elites.

Some observers criticized that this amounted to political persecution by the current regime. It was pointed out that while on the one hand, a series of criminal prosecutions of the current deputy prime minister was summarily withdrawn to much public uproar, on the other hand, former prime minister Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who had been a longstanding political rival of the current prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, saw his sons being summoned for questioning. Daim Zainuddin, a former finance minister and close associate of Dr. Mahathir, was also criminally prosecuted on largely technical charges.

But political persecution or not, it should be noted that such investigative methods of revisiting old scores would see their ups and downs. On the positive side, revealing such previously prevalent kleptocratic practices would serve as lessons for future generations, especially ambitious politicians and budding tycoons, to not repeat the same offenses. And if in the process, some portions of the tremendous displaced national assets could be reclaimed, it would go a long way in replenishing public coffers that were publicly acknowledged to be quite empty by none other than both Dr. Mahathir and Anwar. On the more negative aspect, it should be noted that however we may decry it, corruption and collusion remain the primary motivating factors for development in developing countries. Without corruption and collusion, as the saying goes, there would be no development. So, to hotly pursue such past misdeeds would indeed warn off future officials and business accomplices from corruption and collusion, and as such, there would be no development for the country. If that were the case, the country would have to wallow in socioeconomic misery for even longer.

Recently, a Malaysian member of parliament proposed that an amnesty program — perhaps one akin to the Jokowi one — should be implemented, such that in exchange for non-prosecution, the monies that some colluding Malaysian tycoons and politicians stashed overseas could be repatriated and handed to the public coffers to replenish the latter. This is a most lofty proposal, but the Indonesian experience would indicate that its reception by the intended targets may not be very strong. It is often very difficult to weigh the scale of justice against the dire needs of the public purse.