Anti-graft body falls short of expectations<\/p>\n
Frans H. Winarta, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Corruption has long been widespread in Indonesia and has
\npenetrated into the political, economic and legal systems. This
\nchronic disease is considered now to be the country's greatest
\nenemy, and has affected almost all aspects of life. You can
\nhardly point to one government institution that is free of
\ncorruption. Even the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of
\nReligious Affairs and the Ministry of Social Services, which are
\nshould be free from corruption as their main responsibilities are
\nto help the poor, educate the people and support humanitarianism,
\nare also riddled with corruption.<\/p>\n
Corruption has caused a great deal of suffering for the people
\nof Indonesia. It has resulted in a persistent budget deficit and
\nthe recent increase in oil-based fuel prices. The budget deficit
\nhas to be covered by more aggressive taxation, and the increase
\nin fuel prices has resulted into higher prices for staple
\nfoodstuffs.<\/p>\n
There is no magic formula for combating corruption, but there
\nare countries that have successfully managed to do so. There
\napproaches cannot, however, cannot be automatically applied to
\nother countries such as Indonesia as the circumstances in each
\ncase are different.<\/p>\n
One of the key factors that has led to rampant corruption in
\nIndonesia is the fact that the country's law institutions are
\nthemselves corrupt. As long as judicial corruption is still
\nwidespread, it is difficult to imagine how Indonesia can deal
\nwith the problem in a relatively short space of time. Therefore,
\nlaw reform in Indonesia has to start with institutional reform.<\/p>\n
It is therefore not surprising that the famous Dutch legal
\nscholar, Professor Taverne, stated as follows:<\/p>\n
\"Give me a good judge, a good supervising judge, a good
\nprosecutor and a good police force, and with a bad criminal code
\nI can enforce the law.\"<\/p>\n
In response to the public's cries for the eradication of
\ncorruption, the government of Indonesia established the
\nCorruption Eradication Commission (KPK) last year and has vested
\nit with extraordinary powers to combat corruption, such as the
\nright to detain a suspect outside of the normal procedure, to
\nreverse the burden of proof, to tap telephones, to present
\nelectronic banking and photostat records in evidence, and so
\nforth.<\/p>\n
On top of that, the KPK has been established as a \"superbody\"
\nthat has the power to take over the investigation and prosecution
\nof corruption cases of major public importance.<\/p>\n
Approaching the third anniversary of its establishment, the
\nKPK has been subjected to criticism by the public, the
\nlegislature, observers, legal practitioners and academics. They
\nargue that the KPK has been slow and lacking in creativity in
\ninvestigating corruption cases. However, one should bear in mind
\nthat the KPK has limited resources and personnel at its disposal,
\nand has yet to get the full support of government institutions.<\/p>\n
No of the government institution has an internal program to
\neradicate corruption internally. This is due to an absence of
\npolitical will on the part of the government. The declaration
\nmade by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono announcing a war on
\ncorruption was not acted upon by his ministers. With the KPK's
\nextraordinary powers, it should actually be able to speed up the
\nanticorruption campaign, work more efficiently and withstand
\nattempts to influence it by third parties.<\/p>\n
It is possible that the slow progress of the anticorruption
\ncampaign has been contributed to by the setting up by
\nPresidential Decree of the Corruption Eradication Team
\n(Timtastipikor), as a result of which the \"superbody\" status of
\nthe KPK was diminished by making Attorney General's Office and
\nthe Police representatives its equals on the team. This is why
\nthe KPK has never been able to take over major corruption cases
\ninvolving the police or the prosecution service.<\/p>\n
This present situation needs to be analyzed carefully by the
\ngovernment. If it is true that the establishment of the
\nCorruption Eradication Team has weakened KPK, then it would be
\nbetter for the President to abolish the former.<\/p>\n
The KPU case is a concrete example of how the KPK is
\napparently unable to apply equal treatment to suspects. Some of
\nthose implicated have been brought to justice, while others, who
\nare close to the powerholders, have been spared prosecution. This
\nis a crucial issue, and the anticorruption campaign will
\nassuredly fail if there is no equality of treatment before the
\nlaw.<\/p>\n
The reason why Lee Kuan Yew was so successful in his efforts
\nto wipe out corruption in the city state of Singapore is because
\nhe did not discriminate between those involved in crime. On the
\ncontrary, what we see here now is the opposite of what has
\nhappened in Singapore.<\/p>\n
Susilo promised the voters during the election campaign in
\n2004 that he would personally lead the anticorruption campaign in
\nIndonesia. Many now expect him to do what he said he would do.<\/p>\n
The writer is the chairman of the Indonesian Legal Studies
\nFoundation.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/anti-graft-body-falls-short-of-expectations-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}