Public Policy EXPERT at the Jakarta Veteran National Development University, Achmad Nur Hidayat, said that the case of naming a sugar corruption suspect that ensnared former Minister of Trade Thomas “Tom” Trikasih Lembong contained irregularities.
According to him, the sugar import policy is not just the decision of one minister but is a collective decision implemented by several Ministers of Trade in the era of President Jokowi.
“We also know that other trade ministers since 2013, such as Enggartiasto Lukita, Agus Suparmanto, and Muhammad Lutfi, have all given permission to import sugar for various reasons, from stabilizing prices to maintaining domestic supplies, but why is it only Tom Lembong who was detained, this is what happened. double standards,” said Achmad to Media Indonesia on Thursday (31/10).
Achmad explained that the sugar import policy pattern must be evaluated in total, not only for one minister but also for all ministers. According to him, this is even more strange considering that data for subsequent years shows the same policy pattern, even though the government often claims sugar self-sufficiency or a sugar surplus, such as in 2018, 2021 and 2022.
“However, import permits continue to be granted and will even reach the highest number in 2022. This condition invites speculation that there is an element of selective logging in the legal process against Lembong,” he added.
Furthermore, Achmad said that import permits had been implemented by various Ministers of Trade during that period. Logically speaking, all related parties, including other ministers, must be examined.
“This policy only brings Lembong to justice, while other ministers who initiated similar permits remain free from legal action. “By only detaining Lembong, the legal process appears inconsistent,” he said.
Achmad explained that in 2022, sugar imports will reach the highest figure for a decade. This shows that the import pattern involving PT Perusahaan Dagang Indonesia (PPI), a state-owned company, has been active in importing sugar since 2009, to overcome the shortage of national sugar stocks, continues even though domestic supply conditions are often sufficient.
As a BUMN, Achmad said that PPI is tasked with implementing policies and distributing imported sugar according to permission from the ministry, not to transfer distribution to private parties, so the accusation that PPI sells sugar that should be distributed to the public without coordination also raises questions.
“If PPI is active in distribution or transactions that violate the rules, then operational responsibility should lie with PPI, and Lembong’s role should be limited to granting permits,” he explained.
This accusation, said Ahcmad, also raises the assumption that PPI’s involvement in sugar imports may be greater than just implementing the policy. Apart from that, PPI’s internal dynamics also have the potential to influence the direction of this case.
“To maintain the credibility of law enforcement agencies, it is very important to ensure that every party that has responsibility or influence in the implementation of sugar imports is examined,” he stressed.
Apart from that, this case is even more strange because there have also been repeated similar decisions regarding the sugar import policy made by other trade ministers in the same era but without legal consequences.
For example, in 2018, the government announced sugar self-sufficiency, but still granted import permits for 4.6 million tons. In 2021 and 2022, a national sugar surplus will be claimed again, but import figures will reach a record high in 2022 with more than 6 million tons.
“Even the rice import policy shows a similar pattern, the government often claims to be self-sufficient, but continues to import for reasons of maintaining prices or supplies,” he stressed. (H-2)
#Policy #Experts #Ministers #Involved #Sugar #Import #Policy #Examined
### Interview with Achmad Nur Hidayat, Public Policy Expert
**Interviewer:** Thank you for joining us today, Achmad. The arrest of former Trade Minister Thomas Lembong over the sugar import graft case has raised many eyebrows. Can you explain the context behind this decision?
**Achmad Nur Hidayat:** Thank you for having me. The case surrounding Thomas Lembong indicates a significant irregularity in how the sugar import policy was managed. It’s essential to understand that this policy wasn’t solely decided by Lembong; it was a collective decision made by multiple Trade Ministers during President Jokowi’s administration. Other ministers, such as Enggartiasto Lukita and Agus Suparmanto, have also permitted sugar imports for various reasons, yet only Lembong has faced legal action.
**Interviewer:** That’s indeed curious. Why do you think this selective approach exists?
**Achmad Nur Hidayat:** This raises concerns about double standards in the legal process. The pattern of sugar imports has remained consistent across several years, with records showing considerable import permits granted even when the government proclaimed self-sufficiency. It seems that the authorities may be focusing on Lembong while ignoring the roles of other ministers, which casts doubt on the consistency of the legal process.
**Interviewer:** You mentioned the notion of “selective logging” in legal proceedings. Can you elaborate on that?
**Achmad Nur Hidayat:** Certainly. The term refers to the perception that legal actions are being applied unevenly. In this case, Lembong is the only minister being prosecuted despite a collective responsibility among his predecessors. There was a record peak in sugar imports in 2022, and if legal accountability is to be truly fair, all involved ministers should be examined. It seems unjust that Lembong faces repercussions for a policy shared by multiple individuals.
**Interviewer:** Given your insights, what next steps do you think should be taken in relation to this case?
**Achmad Nur Hidayat:** An overarching evaluation of the sugar import policy must be conducted. This evaluation should span all ministers involved and not just isolate Lembong. It’s vital for maintaining public trust that any legal action reflects a consistent and fair approach against all involved parties. There also needs to be clarity about the role of PT Perusahaan Dagang Indonesia (PPI) and its operations concerning sugar imports and distribution.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Achmad. Your insights are incredibly valuable for understanding the complexities of this case.
**Achmad Nur Hidayat:** Thank you for having me. I hope this situation encourages a more comprehensive review of policy-making and legal processes in Indonesia.
