Transkrip diambil dari YouTube. Klik timestamp biru untuk melompat ke posisi tersebut di pemutar.
0:08 Brail TV. 0:15 >> Brothers and sisters blessed by Allah 0:17 Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala. We are now 0:20 entering a dialogue with Bang Toni Rosy 0:23 , a national observer and 0:25 social-political analyst. 0:27 Assalamu'alaikum Warahmatullahi. Bang 0:29 Toni. 0:30 >> Wa'alaikumsalam Warahmatullahi 0:32 Wabarakatuh. 0:32 >> How are you, Bang Toni? You're doing 0:34 well, right, Bang Toni? Very well, 0:36 thank God. 0:37 >> Good, Bang Toni. You must have been 0:40 following the Constitutional Court 0:42 hearing last night, right? And this has 0:46 also become a concern for our national 0:48 media and the Indonesian people, as it 0:50 turns out the Constitutional Court 0:52 found no proof of Gibran's high 0:53 school-equivalent diploma. Now, with 0:57 the findings or the decision from the 0:59 court session last night, how do you 1:02 see this, Bang Toni Rosid? 1:07 >> Yes, Mas Agus, did you read my piece or 1:10 article before Maghrib or this 1:12 afternoon? 1:14 >> Not yet, Bang. 1:16 >> Oh, not yet? Didn't I send it? 1:18 >> Yeah. I haven't yet. In the afternoon. 1:20 >> Before Maghrib, around 5:00 or a bit 1:24 past 5:00. 1:26 >> I wrote an article titled "Gibran is 1:29 1000%Safe." I sent it to Pak Ihsan. 1:32 >> Yes. Yeah. 1:34 >> So, I want to start with what was once 1:37 expressed by Mr. Jokowi. He said, "If 1:42 one falls, then all fall." Because they 1:46 are a pair. 1:47 >> If one is ousted, all are ousted 1:50 because they are a pair. Do you still 1:52 remember, Mas Agus? 1:53 >> Yeah. Yes. During our dialogue a few 1:55 weeks ago, Bang, right? 1:57 >> Yesterday, if I'm not mistaken, last 1:59 Wednesday, right? Last Wednesday, yes. 2:00 >> Yes. Okay. 2:01 >> Yeah. Yeah. 2:02 >> This sentence also appeared more than a 2:04 year ago, right? More than a year ago 2:07 from Jokowi, right? 2:08 >> Yes. Yeah. 2:09 >> Ah, there are two interpretations of 2:11 this expression. The first 2:12 interpretation is the legal 2:13 interpretation. The second 2:15 interpretation is the political 2:17 interpretation. Yeah. 2:20 >> The legal interpretation, here's the 2:22 analogy if we read Mr. Jokowi's 2:24 statement. 2:25 >> Yes. 2:26 >> We are not expressing this ourselves. 2:28 But if we read Mr. Jokowi's words, the 2:34 legal interpretation of that statement 2:39 is that they are a pair. The candidates 2:46 are not personal candidates, president 2:48 and vice president candidates, but a 2:50 paired candidacy. When they are a pair 2:53 and one is flawed, the pair becomes 2:55 flawed. If there is one problem, then 2:59 if what is being questioned are the 3:01 requirements for candidacy, 3:03 >> isn't that so? 3:04 >> Yes. 3:04 >> Yeah. Then everything is flawed. So if 3:08 they are both impacted, it is different 3:11 if during their term the vice president 3:14 or president commits a criminal act, a 3:17 moral violation, or a violation of 3:20 criminal law; then it is a personal 3:23 matter, not a matter of the pair 3:26 anymore, right? So once they are in 3:30 office, it's no longer a matter of them 3:33 being a candidate pair, but president 3:35 and vice president. But while they are 3:39 still candidates, they are one in terms 3:41 of what? Uh, because they are elected 3:45 as a pair, not as individuals. 3:47 >> Yeah. Yeah. 3:48 >> Like that. So if there's a flaw in one 3:51 of them, either the president or the 3:52 vice president, then it's a flawed pair 3:54 . Meaning running for office as just 3:58 one person is invalid. This is a 4:01 perception of legal interpretation, yes 4:03 . Whether it's right or wrong is 4:05 actually controversial, as various 4:06 legal experts hold different opinions 4:08 on this. 4:10 >> This is where one person and another, 4:13 uh, one person and another have 4:15 different opinions regarding this 4:17 interpretation. But what was expressed 4:20 by Mr. Jokowi is quite valid if it is 4:23 legally interpreted that it is a pair 4:25 requirement. If one is invalid, then 4:28 both are invalid. It's impossible to 4:30 run alone, as president or vice 4:32 president. Both must be there, the 4:33 vice-presidential candidate and the 4:35 presidential candidate. That is the 4:37 legal interpretation. Then there is, uh 4:40 , the political interpretation, yes. 4:45 The political interpretation is that, 4:47 uh, that if Gibran falls 4:52 >> well, then this will destroy Mr. Jokowi 5:00 and his family, everything will be 5:02 destroyed. Yes. 5:05 >> Not just destroyed today, but his 5:06 future will be destroyed. Not only Mr. 5:09 Jokowi is destroyed, but also his 5:11 children, then his family, and also all 5:13 , uh, what? his supporters, their 5:16 futures are also destroyed. If someone 5:19 no longer has hope for the future, what 5:21 do you think they would do? 5:24 >> Psychologically, it's simple to 5:26 interpret or read, to predict it. 5:29 >> Yes. When someone no longer has a 5:32 future, what do they do? They will 5:35 gamble everything. 5:36 >> Yeah. 5:37 >> If someone no longer has a future, 5:39 right, they will bet everything. It 5:41 doesn't matter, life becomes 5:42 unimportant psychologically, yes. So 5:46 they will fight all out at all costs. 5:49 Whatever the risk, whatever the impact, 5:51 everything will be done. We can imagine 5:53 if that happens. 5:55 >> Yeah. Now, if we apply this to 5:57 ourselves, this is an attempt to read 6:00 from all angles, Mas Agus, yes. When 6:05 his child is insulted in this context, 6:07 let's say there is a, uh, lowering of 6:10 what, uh, what do you call it, the 6:12 lowering of Gibran as Gibran and this 6:14 is Jokowi's child. Meanwhile, Prabowo's 6:19 success yesterday was because of the 6:20 Gibran fact, Prabowo's success in 6:22 becoming president because of the 6:24 Gibran fact cannot be denied, right, 6:25 because Jokowi is still then suddenly 6:31 brought down halfway and just left like 6:33 that, right. What if that were your 6:36 child, Mas Agus? 6:38 >> Yes. Would do everything, right. Do 6:42 everything. That's it, Ma'am. Let's 6:47 imagine when Gibran is brought down 6:49 halfway, what is Mr. Jokowi's 6:51 relationship with his wife like? 6:53 >> Yeah. 6:54 >> What is Mr. Jokowi's relationship with, 6:57 uh, his other children like? 6:59 >> Yes. 7:00 >> Like that. Would a father be able to 7:02 accept that punishment? If we try to 7:06 read this, we might be wrong, but we 7:08 are trying to grasp or read the 7:10 existing psychological situation and 7:15 this will ultimately become a political 7:18 consideration. I had already written my 7:22 piece on, if I'm not mistaken, the 10th 7:28 uh of February 2025. Then I repeated it 7:32 again on September 2, 2025. Yeah. 7:35 >> Yes. And I expressed that I always drew 7:39 an analogy with my 2017 article in 7:43 December, uh, Jokowi VS Megawati, the 7:46 Jokowi VS Megawati showdown, which then 7:50 only became reality and was realized in 7:54 2024, right. What does that point mean? 7:58 And this is scientific, yeah, this is 8:00 scientific, based on scientific theory. 8:04 I want to say that when people differ, 8:07 they can separate, but if people are in 8:10 a form of common interest and that 8:12 interest cannot be compromised, then a 8:15 clash occurs, not a separation, but a 8:18 clash. And that is the picture of Ibu 8:22 Mega with Jokowi and today the picture 8:24 of Prabowo with Jokowi. 8:27 >> So this is not a matter of morality, 8:29 not a matter of repaying favors, not an 8:31 ethical issue. This is a matter of 8:36 reality that forms a situation that 8:39 makes them have to face one another. 8:44 >> Hm. It’s just that how they face each 8:48 other later, what the momentum is like, 8:50 that depends. And in my writing 8:54 yesterday I said that the current 8:56 situation does not allow for a clash 8:57 between those two parties, between 8:59 Jokowi and Prabowo. If we then use 9:03 theories, for instance Jonathan Turner, 9:06 then Neil J. Smelser, and also when I 9:09 wrote my dissertation—well, if we 9:12 take Jonathan Turner or, in Karl Marx's 9:15 terms, he said that a clash will 9:18 explode when a ripe situation occurs. 9:23 It was then detailed by Jonathan Turner 9:25 into 9 stages, by Smelser into six 9:27 stages, and I wrote in my dissertation 9:30 at the time that there are five stages. 9:34 When those situations happen, then that 9:37 explosion occurs, and for now Mr. 9:39 Jokowi and Prabowo are keeping watch, 9:42 they can sit together, everything can 9:44 be compromised, right. But how long the 9:48 situation will remain, what do you call 9:50 it, a clash, we don't know. 9:52 >> Yeah. 9:54 >> That ripeness, in Marxist terms—we 9:56 are just using the science, you know. 10:01 Not adopting the ideology, but using 10:04 the scientific findings; that cannot be 10:06 predicted. Yeah. So, what do you call 10:13 it, participating factors, in Smelser's 10:15 terms, that also cannot be predicted, 10:18 when that trigger occurs. Ah, let's 10:22 forget about that for now. But let's 10:25 try to get into last night's decision. 10:30 Substantially, the decision says that 10:33 Gibran does not have a diploma that is 10:35 considered administratively equivalent. 10:39 >> Yeah. Until there is other evidence. 10:42 Administratively, all the data 10:44 submitted yesterday that was then 10:47 reviewed, none of it provided a 10:49 decision that Gibran lacks a diploma. 10:54 However, the Constitutional Court is an 10:56 institution that does not have the 10:57 right to 10:59 >> settle that, to make that decision. And 11:04 then, as a plaintiff, they also do not 11:07 have legal standing. Those who have 11:10 legal standing in the Constitutional 11:11 Court are the candidate pairs, because 11:13 this is a lawsuit against a candidate 11:15 pair. 11:15 >> Yeah. H 11:16 >> yes. Meanwhile, and so on, it doesn't 11:19 —but what is it called—this is 11:21 regarding the candidate pair. Yeah. 11:25 >> And then, the legal standing is not in 11:27 the Constitutional Court (MK) because 11:29 the MK is the one that handles election 11:31 disputes, and there is a time limit for 11:33 that. 11:35 >> Yes, that's what it means. 11:36 >> Now, regarding the substantial matter 11:38 of the timeline, that is already 11:40 outside the MK's domain. Right. 11:43 >> Of course, there are other courts. 11:46 Whether it is taken to a court of law 11:47 or to a political tribunal. That is a 11:50 different matter, but the point is... 11:53 Yes. How is it, Mas? 11:55 >> So, Bang Toni sees that the MK did not 11:57 disqualify, but still provides a window 12:00 for Gibran's impeachment because the 12:02 certificate or diploma was not found. 12:06 However, the forum is indeed not the MK 12:08 but the DPR, and that is a political 12:10 will, not a legal one. Is that right, 12:12 Bang? 12:12 >> Yes. So, the MK is basically saying, " 12:14 Hey, don't come to me, you know.""Yeah, 12:17 here I'll give you the data.""You go 12:19 over there, you know.""In this context, 12:22 the MK is providing direction." One, 12:24 the MK asserts that legally they have 12:26 no authority. But second, the MK 12:28 provides direction, you know, provides 12:30 a guide. Now, this is what is 12:33 interesting. Ah, is there a scenario 12:36 behind this? That is what is actually 12:39 interesting to investigate. If there is 12:43 indeed a scenario, who is playing 12:45 behind this if the direction is clearly 12:47 to discredit Gibran, right? 12:51 >> Discrediting Gibran automatically 12:53 discredits PSI. 12:55 >> Discrediting Gibran has two purposes. 12:57 One is discrediting PSI. The second is 12:59 discrediting the track record of Jokowi 13:01 , right? And this is already in the 13:03 realm of politics. It is true that the 13:07 MK did not make a decision to 13:10 disqualify the Vice President, yes. 13:15 They have no authority to make a 13:17 decision regarding the Vice President, 13:18 and also do not have, what do you call 13:20 it, but they provided direction on one 13:22 substance. They stated, "This is the 13:26 issue, here it is found, indeed what 13:27 you all accused is correct," roughly 13:29 like that. 13:31 >> Yeah. Yes, roughly, what you showed as 13:33 evidence is correct? All evidence has 13:36 been opened here and your lawsuit is 13:38 correct. It's just that you have the 13:40 wrong address and you have no standing 13:42 if you come here. 13:43 >> If you are suing, don't come here, you 13:45 know. 13:46 >> If you come here, it's not you who 13:47 should be suing, but someone else. But 13:49 if you want to sue, don't come here. 13:52 Something like that, you know. 13:53 >> Yes. Yes. Yes. 13:54 >> File the suit elsewhere, you know, yes. 13:58 Even though the MK did not specify what 14:01 that "elsewhere" is, whether it's the 14:04 DPR, whether it's the administrative 14:07 court (PTUN), or whether it's the 14:09 district court regarding the diploma, 14:12 and so on. But the MK signaled, yes, 14:16 what you call it, there is room for you 14:19 to, as if, yes. 14:21 >> Yes, the term is, the*mafhum muwafaqah* 14:24 —if in Islamic jurisprudence terms, 14:26 it's*mafhum muwafaqah*, right? Uh, it's 14:30 over there, it's there, you don't 14:32 really need to ask where the 14:33 Constitutional Court is, no need to ask 14:35 , must I really teach you, that's the 14:37 idea. Ah, this is what I truly believe 14:41 will be a trigger for the path ahead, 14:43 the conflict between Mr. Prabowo and 14:45 Mr. Jokowi is getting stronger. 14:49 >> Will someone like, uh, Denny Indrayana 14:51 stay silent, or do they feel that with 14:53 this decision they have found an 14:55 opportunity? 14:57 >> The opportunity isn't closed. 15:00 >> They gained a wider opportunity based 15:01 on the Constitutional Court's guidance, 15:03 that's how the language would go. 15:05 >> Yes. So we go to the House of 15:07 Representatives, we go to this. And 15:08 this will complicate the relationship 15:10 between Mr. Prabowo and Mr. Jokowi. 15:12 >> What do you think, Bang? 15:14 >> This then makes people wonder if this 15:17 is related to the change of the 15:19 National Police Chief, and then one day 15:22 after being inaugurated, the Police 15:24 Chief rotated 88 positions. Well, this 15:28 is, uh, still something we are reading. 15:30 It could be, or it might not be. Of 15:32 course, we cannot immediately draw a 15:37 conclusion that the Constitutional 15:39 Court's decision after the inauguration 15:42 of the Police Chief, and then one day 15:44 later the Police Chief makes a massive 15:46 change or rotation, automatically has 15:48 causality. 15:51 >> But it is worth suspecting, you know. 15:55 To be predicted, but not automatically 15:57 —once again, not automatically—is 15:59 there, uh, causality that this is a 16:01 single series of events. Not 16:05 automatically, before there is true 16:07 evidence, evidence that confirms this 16:10 is part of a series. Before there is 16:14 proof that sequential events are linked 16:18 , it cannot just be concluded that 16:21 there is a connection, right? So if 16:25 there is a tap outside and someone here 16:27 is praying or cursing, it doesn't 16:28 automatically mean there is a 16:29 connection, right? The evidence must 16:33 then be, uh, sought after, you see. 16:36 >> Uh-huh. 16:37 >> For example, like this, "Wow, person A 16:39 is going to be hit by a car.""It turns 16:41 out at that moment they are hit by a 16:43 car, does it automatically mean that 16:45 person A was the one who caused the car 16:47 crash?" Of course not. 16:49 >> The evidence must be sought. It's the 16:50 same here. Is it automatic that the 16:54 change of the Police Chief, and then 16:56 one day later...Back then, Mr. Idham 16:58 was given, uh, one year before making 17:00 rotations. This one, just one day, and 17:03 he immediately made massive rotations. 17:05 Then there is the Constitutional 17:06 Court's decision. Is there a connection 17:08 ? Once again, before there is evidence 17:11 of a link, it cannot be concluded that 17:13 there is a connection. 17:15 >> Alright. And the public actually has 17:17 been reading it too, when, uh, Rocky 17:19 Gerung and then Bang Sahganda 17:21 Nainggolan entered the inner circle, 17:23 Bang Toni. Is this also one of the 17:27 moves, yes, by the president, uh, 17:29 Prabowo, when seeing things like this, 17:32 and then the Constitutional Court 17:34 finally read the decision last night 17:37 about Gibran not having a high school 17:39 diploma, with various things done 17:41 before becoming a vice-presidential 17:44 candidate. Like that. And then, Bang, 17:47 this is also, uh, if Refly Harun said 17:50 in the breaking news last night that, 17:53 uh, this is a Constitutional Court 17:56 decision that is pleasing for both 17:58 sides. On one hand, the defendant was 18:01 not disqualified by the Constitutional 18:03 Court, while on the other, the 18:05 plaintiffs finally learned that Gibran 18:07 does not have a high school diploma. 18:10 Now, for you, Toni Rosyid, how is the 18:13 plaintiff's team preparing concrete 18:15 steps for the DPR to push for Gibran's 18:18 impeachment? Are there any steps in 18:21 that direction? 18:22 >> So, in my view, from my perspective, 18:24 this doesn't make both sides happy. 18:27 >> Hm. 18:28 >> Politically, this defeats Gibran. 18:31 >> Oh, 18:32 >> isn't that so? Legally, perhaps. Yes, 18:36 because from a reflex perspective, 18:41 >> legally, it might seem to satisfy both 18:44 parties, but politically it does not. 18:49 >> Uh-huh. 18:51 >> Because it provides broader room for 18:54 the plaintiffs to file lawsuits 18:56 elsewhere, based on the Constitutional 18:59 Court's decision. The Constitutional 19:02 Court essentially provides legitimacy. 19:05 >> Yes. 19:05 >> It confirms he doesn't have a diploma, 19:07 right? 19:07 >> Yes. 19:08 >> Imagine if there were no Constitutional 19:09 Court decision. Everyone would still be 19:12 speculating, but now it's no longer 19:14 speculation; it's a legal decision. 19:15 >> Yes. Uh-huh. Yes. 19:18 >> And that can serve as evidence, it can 19:20 serve as, what do you call it? Legality 19:25 to file claims against other parties, 19:29 >> and the effect is huge. Yes. 19:32 >> And the media has already uncovered and 19:34 highlighted that last night, Prabowo 19:37 and Jokowi met, right? 19:38 >> Uh-huh. 19:40 >> If these two people are meeting, it 19:42 shows the situation is somewhat 19:43 critical. 19:45 >> Hm. 19:47 >> And where does the criticality come 19:48 from? From the evidence, from the 19:52 decision based on the evidence provided 19:55 or revealed by, or issued by the 19:57 Constitutional Court. The 20:01 Constitutional Court issued a political 20:03 decision, let's read it as the Court 20:05 issuing a decision that, what's his 20:07 name? This Gibran person does not have 20:11 a diploma. This is the point. When 20:15 Gibran doesn't have a diploma, it 20:18 creates more room for the plaintiffs to 20:21 use it to create new lawsuits through 20:24 other channels. 20:27 >> Uh-huh. 20:28 >> This is not simple. If yesterday all 20:32 decisions, for example regarding Pak 20:34 Jokowi's diploma, were opened up, it 20:35 would be all speculation. Why? There is 20:38 no legal decision. 20:39 >> Yes. 20:40 >> There is no legal determination. You 20:46 know, even the trial hadn't finished, 20:48 yet Gibran's case was resolved so 20:50 quickly; try to look at Pak Jokowi's 20:52 case, it's been years and the diploma 20:55 issue hasn't been resolved, right? Why 21:01 was Gibran's case resolved so quickly? 21:03 >> Yes. 21:05 >> Although in the case of Pak Jokowi's 21:08 diploma, it is in the realm of, uh, 21:11 criminal law, whereas with Gibran, the 21:14 realm is, uh, what do you call it? Not 21:17 criminal, but constitutional law. That 21:20 is the difference right there. 21:22 >> Yes. Yes. 21:23 >> But the question is, why was this 21:26 matter handled so quickly? What is 21:29 going on? That kind of question arises. 21:30 >> Yes. 21:31 >> Yes. As a political observer, I will 21:33 always look at it from the political 21:34 side. 21:35 >> Uh-huh. What is it, Bang? 21:37 >> This is actually a crushing defeat. Yes 21:42 , a crushing defeat for, what's his 21:44 name, and a crushing victory for the 21:46 plaintiffs. 21:48 >> Okay. 21:48 >> Politically, yes, politically. 21:52 >> Now, from here, we can then read what 21:54 will happen next. The potential for 21:58 what happens next is much greater. 22:01 >> Next, this conflict, or the feud 22:03 between Mr. Jokowi and, uh, what is it, 22:06 with Mr. Prabowo, will grow larger. He 22:09 he. 22:10 >> The question remains, will Mr. Jokowi 22:12 ask Mr. Prabowo to control this? 22:15 >> Yeah. 22:16 >> Can Mr. Prabowo control it? Very, yes, 22:20 he could, right? Is there anything 22:22 those in power cannot do? 22:24 >> Yes. But the question is whether he 22:28 wants to intervene or not, so let's see 22:30 what I said today and what will happen 22:33 in the future. What is clear is the 22:36 potential for conflict between Mr. 22:38 Jokowi—the feud, in my words, the 22:40 feud between Mr. Jokowi, politically 22:42 speaking. The feud between Mr. Jokowi 22:45 and Mr. Prabowo has an increasingly 22:48 large chance to emerge, and this 22:50 actually becomes a participating factor 22:52 . From this case, what does it become? 22:56 There is already a ruling from the 22:58 Constitutional Court, this is serious. 23:00 >> There is a ruling from the 23:01 Constitutional Court, this is serious. 23:03 >> Politically, it is serious. 23:05 >> If this legal ruling is already binding 23:07 , Brother, we also know that the Deputy 23:09 Governor of Bangka Belitung Islands, 23:11 who was held by Hidayat at that time, 23:13 was also dismissed from his position 23:15 because he was tripped up by the use of 23:17 a fake diploma. That's how it is, 23:19 Brother. 23:20 >> Yes. See, the question is then 23:24 different, regarding a fake diploma 23:27 versus an administrative matter that is 23:31 not recognized. These are two different 23:35 things. Hm. 23:36 >> Gibran's case is that he has an 23:39 equivalency, or a certificate, or 23:41 whatever the story is, a letter of 23:44 statement that was then equalized by 23:47 the ministry. So he did not forge it. 23:51 Forgery is a criminal offense. 23:54 Meanwhile, in the deputy governor's 23:56 case, he forged it, so it is in the 23:58 criminal realm. 23:59 >> Yes. 24:00 >> For example, if Mas Agus studied abroad 24:04 or went to school abroad. 24:07 >> In Singapore, Mas Agus. 24:09 >> It was only 2 years of high school from 24:12 what I know. When I tried asking around 24:15 , including people who went to school 24:16 there, it was 2 years, and after those 24:18 2 years, there was no diploma, just a 24:20 letter of statement to go to college. 24:23 >> Yeah. 24:24 >> Now, this letter of statement in 24:25 Indonesia, it was then processed by the 24:27 ministry, but it turns out it was not 24:29 considered equivalent, you see. 24:32 >> Hm. 24:33 >> So it was not considered equivalent. If 24:36 Gibran, on the other hand, is a 24:38 bachelor's degree graduate, Mas Agus. 24:41 >> Bachelor's degree. Why do I know that? 24:44 >> Yeah. 24:45 >> Yes, in Singapore, after those two 24:46 years, he brought that letter of 24:48 statement to Indonesia, and he was able 24:50 to go to college. 24:51 >> And he graduated. 24:53 >> Bachelor's degree. How do I know that? 24:57 A friend of mine attended his child's 25:01 graduation in Singapore. And at that 25:06 time, Gibran was, so to speak, at the 25:08 same university as Gibran, and Gibran 25:10 graduated, and Mr. Jokowi came at that 25:12 time. They met. 25:15 >> And I have had this information for a 25:17 long time. 25:18 >> Hm. 25:20 >> Now, the question is, can Gibran's 25:22 bachelor's diploma be equalized? 25:25 >> Yeah. 25:25 >> That's right, isn't it? If later the 25:27 bachelor's degree from Singapore can be 25:29 considered equivalent to one in 25:30 Indonesia, in my opinion, this will 25:32 have legal consequences, and 25:34 automatically, political consequences 25:35 as well. 25:37 >> Yeah. 25:37 >> This is the issue with those 2 years. 25:40 >> Yes. Yes. Yes. 25:41 >> Yeah. Whether it's equivalent or not, 25:44 right? 25:45 >> Yeah. Yeah. 25:46 >> Yes. Now, when it was deemed not 25:48 equivalent, the Constitutional Court 25:50 ruled it was not equivalent. 25:52 >> Yeah. Even though there wasn't a letter 25:55 from the ministry stating he attended 25:57 school, he was present at school, Mas. 26:00 The language used by the Constitutional 26:01 Court was that he attended school, 26:03 right? 26:03 >> It didn't state he graduated from 26:05 college. 26:07 >> Because, indeed, there's no such term 26:08 as graduation there, it was just a 26:09 certificate of attendance. 26:10 >> Hmm. 26:11 >> That's the thing. So Gibran got a 26:13 certificate stating that he attended 26:15 for 2 years and that attendance could 26:17 be used for a bachelor's program. Then 26:22 this is considered, since in Indonesia, 26:23 a bachelor's degree requires a high 26:25 school or vocational school diploma, or 26:27 something equivalent, right? Then it 26:29 was created. Now, this was deemed 26:31 equivalent by the Constitutional Court. 26:32 It wasn't an equivalency, but a 26:34 statement of attendance that he was in 26:36 school. 26:37 >> Yeah. 26:38 >> It didn't state he graduated. 26:40 >> That's the point. 26:42 >> The debate is right here. 26:43 >> Yes. 26:44 >> Now, will this be annulled by a new 26:47 decision when it's used for this 26:49 equivalency? Yeah. 26:51 >> Now, will this then be annulled when 26:53 the right side presents his bachelor's 26:55 diploma, you see? As for whether he 26:57 actually got the bachelor's diploma or 26:59 not, I...we don't know, I don't know 27:00 either. But that he finished his 27:02 bachelor's, he had a graduation 27:04 ceremony, yes. He had a graduation 27:06 ceremony. Yes. 27:07 >> Yeah. 27:09 >> I am not presenting evidence, but I...I 27:11 received information from a witness who 27:14 I am sure, I...I trust that witness. 27:17 >> Yeah. 27:19 >> So. 27:19 >> Alright. So it's different, it's not 27:21 apples-to-apples with the case of the 27:23 ...... 27:24 >> vice governor. That one was clearly a 27:26 case of forgery, it's different. 27:28 >> Alright. If it's like this, Bang Toni, 27:30 we are at the end of our dialogue. What 27:33 should we do? Especially, perhaps, 27:36 advice from Bang Toni for the 27:38 stakeholders in this country. Bang Toni 27:40 ? 27:42 >> In my opinion, there needs to be an 27:44 explanation like mine, just show the 27:46 diploma. 27:47 >> Yes. The bachelor's diploma, yes. Then 27:51 repeat the process at the 27:52 Constitutional Court or see if that 27:54 diploma or in some court, the 27:55 Administrative Court or whatever, is 27:57 then acknowledged or not. 28:00 >> Yeah. 28:01 >> So that if not, well, everyone has 28:03 their rights, right? Everyone has the 28:07 right to resolve this. Of course, 28:09 through the legal domain. My suspicion 28:13 is that, politically, there will be a 28:15 fairly large wave of protests because 28:18 of that...that Constitutional Court 28:20 ruling. So, in my opinion, how long 28:23 will we keep going on like this? I tend 28:27 to, if you look at my writings, think 28:28 about Indonesia moving forward, not 28:29 Indonesia looking backward, right? What 28:32 are the current issues in Indonesia 28:35 like, you know? Let's talk about the 28:38 focus and the decision-maker there. It 28:41 is the current president, not the 28:44 president of the past. The fate of this 28:46 nation will be determined by the 28:48 current president, not the past 28:49 president. 28:50 >> Yeah. 28:51 >> That's why I often say the energy 28:53 should be used to think about the 28:56 future. Not that we then get busy with 29:00 the past. It doesn't mean the Gibran 29:02 case has to stop. No. Go ahead. But it 29:06 should be resolved only in the legal 29:08 realm so that it doesn't bring 29:10 political impacts. Now, these political 29:15 impacts must be minimized so it doesn't 29:17 spread everywhere. Who loses out? The 29:21 people, of course. Who loses out? All 29:23 of us. In the end, things related to 29:27 the future of this nation lose what? 29:31 Our attention. That's how it is. 29:33 Alright, Bang Toni. Thank you, Bang 29:35 Toni, for your review this morning 29:36 regarding the Constitutional Court's 29:38 decision last night. Assalamu alaikum 29:40 warahmatullahi wabarakatuh, Bang Toni. 29:42 >> Wa alaikumussalam warahmatullahi 29:43 wabarakatuh. 
