Google Execs Testify in Chromebook Trial: Nadiem Was 'Quite Resistant' to the Chrome Idea

I was in court again this week to watch the testimony of three former Google executives in the trial of Nadiem Makarim, the founder of Gojek (the Indonesian ride-hailing company) and former Indonesian Minister of Education at Kementerian Pendidikan. The case centers on Makarim’s prior role as Gojek’s founder and his tenure at the Ministry of Education, with conflict-of-interest allegations touching on Chromebooks.

The witnesses were asked, in essence, one question: did Google’s investment in Gojek have anything to do with the Ministry of Education’s meetings with Google? Their answer, delivered across multiple time zones, was: no.

“There was no connection at all between Google’s investment in Gojek and any of the conversations with the Ministry of Education,” one witness said. “There was never any agreement like this.”^[1] Another added that the Gojek investment was “purely for economic gain and had nothing to do with Chromebooks.”^[2]

A note on logistics. The executives, I observed, “flew in from everywhere around the world to meet in Singapore to speak the truth about Google.”^[3] An international lineup, one consistent script, one video feed. Apparently assembling a multinational defense team on short notice is what courtroom procedure looks like these days.

And then the bit that, on paper, is the technical heart of the conflict-of-interest case: ownership. The witness explained that “Google would have kept investing pro rata in subsequent rounds in order to protect its ownership.”^[4] And here is the kicker, delivered as if it were a financial footnote: “if Google had not invested, it would be seen as a vote of no confidence in Gojek.”^[5]

A vote of no confidence. In the company whose co-founder was, at the time, sitting in the minister’s chair. The phrase is doing a lot of work. It is, on its face, an explanation for why Google would have invested in Gojek regardless of any government contract — pulling out would have spooked the market. It is also, in the mouths of three executives flown in to clear the minister’s name, an unusually clean summary of the perception problem. The same multinational that allegedly benefited from the Chromebook procurement also happened to be an investor in the company the minister built. Pulling out would have been a vote of no confidence. So they kept their stake.

The defendant was, the testimony suggested, “quite resistant to the idea of Chrome.”^[6] The witness framed the two meetings the defendant attended as showing “no bias whatsoever” against Google’s offering.^[7] A word on that framing: “no bias” is what one says about a meeting that, the prosecution alleges, eventually produced a procurement contract for the company that ran the meeting. The witness then clarified that the team was, in fact, “quite resistant to the idea of Chrome.” It is one specific way of describing the situation. It is, however, the way the witness chose to describe it, and so that is the way we will note it.

The prosecution had, until this point, declined to allow the executives to testify — but the judges, thank God, approved it.^[8] Makarim expressed gratitude, in nearly religious terms, that they had come. “I was really grateful to have them speak the truth,” the defendant said.^[9] Grateful, present tense, and with a little help from above.

A thought on the choreography. Three executives. Multiple time zones. One question, asked and answered. The witness testimony is on video, so we can assume the executives were physically in Singapore, and the court was watching them on a screen. The prosecution, the trial’s procedural record makes clear, “did not allow them to testify before.”^[10] The judges, also from the bench, did allow it. The mechanics of who gets to speak in which courtroom, and when, are doing a lot of narrative work here.

The standard trial-watcher’s question at the close: guilty or innocent? “Only time will tell.” Then, a beat: “Is he guilty? I don’t speak cat.”^[11]

On the cat line, briefly. It is the kind of one-line parenthetical that exists to land the segment, and it does, in the way that the day’s “thank God” prayer does. The trial is in its fact-finding phase. The defendant’s lawyers have called witnesses. The prosecution is objecting. The judges are approving. Somewhere in there, a cat is being referenced, and apparently only I can translate it.

Make of that what you will.