why they so like that? Well, this is one of the reasons:
Jakarta Post
Feb 26, 2007
By Huala Adolf, Bandung
The Indonesian government's attempts to coerce Singapore into
signing an extradition pact have been met with a lukewarm response.
Jakarta has used various means to push the island state to sign the
treaty since the 1980s.
It has been widely reported that the sand export ban has been one
of the means Jakarta has used to press Singapore to do it.
Using the sand export ban as a tactic to compel Singapore will be
ineffective, or even backfire. Singapore's response that the ban
was a "disappointment" indicates that this will continue to be the
case.
Jakarta's expectation the extradition treaty will be signed is
quite high. There is the expectation here that by signing the
treaty, the assets of corrupt Indonesians being kept in Singapore
can easily be returned home.
But is it true that the treaty would be a guarantee that this would
happen?
One thing that is quite clear from Singapore's position is that the
city state is always happy when the assets of its citizens,
permanent residents or rich foreigners are saved in Singaporean
banks, or invested in Singaporean property.
There is no data on the amount of money or assets owned by wealthy
Indonesian being invested or saved in the city state. The true fact
is that, to many corrupt Indonesians, Singapore has been a safe
haven to hide their assets.
But we need to remember that the root of the problem is not the
position of Singapore. The cool response of Singapore should not be
regarded as showing that Singapore is not cooperative on this
matter.
In fact, the root of the problem is at home. We should ask why the
assets left Indonesia so easily, why official corruption is so
rampant, and why enforcement is so weak.
There have been many cases where the suspects, despite having been
arrested by law enforcement officers, have easily left the
country.
Likewise, it is an open secret that a person banned from travelling
out of the country can easily pass through many Indonesian ports to
easily leave the country.
Another reason why the extradition treaty with Singapore will not
be effective is those being targeted in anti-corruption efforts are
mostly well-educated.
They are smart. Singapore is in fact not the only safe haven to
conceal their assets. They could transfer their assets to any
nation or foreign bank under their wife's, children's or relatives'
names.
They could invest their money in a whole host of ventures,
including buying shares or providing loans. They could even easily
change their name on their passport.
There has been no convincing evidence that the extradition treaty
will successfully return ill-gotten assets to Indonesia.
Indonesia has already signed a numerous bilateral extradition
treaties with many countries, including Malaysia, the Philippines
and Hong Kong. There is no data to suggest the signing of these
treaties has proven successful in bringing these assets back.
Another reason why an extradition treaty would not be easily
effective is that it has to deal with the Singaporean legal
system.
Even if the treaty does come into effect, the transfer of a
criminal or suspect must first of all meet requirements for the
transfer of prisoners set out in Singaporean law.
In this respect, the Singaporean executive must first get the
approval of the Singaporean judiciary. As far as the Singaporean
judicial system is concerned, the executive cannot interfere. This
process should be understood by Jakarta.
An extradition treaty with Singapore will not be effective if the
root problems of rampant corruption and weak legal enforcement are
still out of control.
(The writer is lecturer in the Faculty of Law, University of
Padjajaran, Bandung.)
