Tom Lembong di Sidang Kasus Impor Gula: Sampai Saat Ini Saya Belum Menemukan Kesalahan Saya

Summary

The transcript presents the testimony of Thomas Tikasih Lembong at the trial of Charlesorus. He firmly denies using Article 28 of Permendak 117 in issuing import approvals for sugar, despite evidence showing its mention in documents. Lembong explains that any mention of Article 28 was an administrative error, caused by bureaucratic excess. He emphasizes his commitment to responsibility and expresses confidence in his actions during his tenure. Despite extensive review, he remains unable to find any wrongdoing or harm caused, concluding that, if given the chance, he would act the same way again.

Takeaways

• 😀 The defendant, Thomas Tikasih Lembong, confirms he did not use Article 28 of Permendak 117 in issuing import approvals during his tenure.
• 😀 The defendant stands by his statement from the trial of Charles Itorus, affirming that he never based his policies on Article 28.
• 😀 The defendant recalls that during his tenure, the focus was always on ensuring compliance with regulations, not on exceptions like Article 28.
• 😀 The presence of Article 28 in some import approval documents is considered an administrative error by the defendant.
• 😀 The defendant attributes the inclusion of Article 28 in the documents to bureaucratic tendencies to overdo things or include too many provisions to avoid ambiguity, even though it created confusion.
• 😀 The defendant expresses no regret over his actions, claiming that he still cannot find his mistake or any harm caused by his decisions.
• 😀 He emphasizes that he is a person who takes responsibility but is unable to identify any wrongdoing despite careful review of evidence and facts.
• 😀 The defendant insists that, if given the opportunity to do it all over again, he would make the same decisions, reflecting his confidence in his actions at the time.
• 😀 At 54 years old, the defendant acknowledges that no one is perfect, but he remains resolute that his actions were justified based on the circumstances.
• 😀 The defendant thanks the assembly for their attention and reaffirms his willingness to serve in a similar role if given the opportunity in the future.

Q & A

What was the main topic of discussion in the trial?

The trial centered around the defendant's actions in relation to the management and issuance of import approvals for sugar during his tenure, with a focus on whether Article 28 of Permendak 117 was used in these decisions.

What did the defendant initially claim about Article 28 of Permendak 117?

The defendant initially claimed that he did not use Article 28 of Permendak 117 when issuing import approvals for sugar, stating that all actions were in accordance with applicable regulations and laws.

What did the prosecutor highlight regarding the import approval documents?

The prosecutor pointed out that the import approval documents, particularly those for private sugar factories, included references to Article 28, which contradicted the defendant’s earlier statement.

How did the defendant respond to the mention of Article 28 in the documents?

The defendant acknowledged the mention of Article 28 in the documents but dismissed it as an administrative error, explaining that bureaucratic employees often overuse legal references in an attempt to provide extra protection, which can create confusion.

Did the defendant admit to any mistakes during the trial?

The defendant maintained that he had not found any mistakes on his part, despite thoroughly reviewing the evidence and audit reports. He expressed uncertainty about the existence of any harm or loss caused by his actions.

How did the defendant describe his approach to responsibility?

The defendant emphasized that he takes responsibility seriously and is not one to avoid accountability. He stated that he had no regrets but would still repeat his actions if given the chance to go back in time.

What was the defendant's stance on the possibility of having made mistakes?

Although the defendant acknowledged that no one is perfect and that mistakes are inevitable, he maintained that, based on his review, he did not find any evidence of wrongdoing or harm caused by his decisions.

What did the defendant express about the possibility of serving in the same role again?

The defendant expressed that if given the opportunity to serve in the same position again, he would act in the same way, implying confidence in the decisions he made during his previous tenure.

What did the defendant say about his emotional state during the trial?

The defendant mentioned feeling both fear and regret, particularly due to his age (54) and awareness of human imperfection. He reassured the court that he had no intention of shirking responsibility.

What was the final statement made by the defendant in the trial?

In his final statement, the defendant expressed that he had not yet identified any wrongdoing on his part and affirmed his commitment to taking responsibility for his actions, regardless of the legal outcomes.