Corrupt disposition a good breeding ground for anarchy<\/p>\n
By Donna K. Woodward<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia may seem ruptured by conflict just
\nnow, but the Indonesian people are unified in demanding reform.
\nReform is not a matter of rhetoric. Reform will be, to borrow a
\nphrase, in the details; the procedural details of how future
\nmembers of the government will be qualified and chosen, the
\ndetails of how public funds are to be accounted for, the details
\nof how complaints of corruption directed against public officials
\nwill be handled. What happens when the demand for reform takes
\nthe form of a complaint against corruption?<\/p>\n
This is a follow-up to what happened after I wrote an article
\nfor The Jakarta Post in April which mentioned corruption in the
\nMedan immigration office. In early June the director general of
\nimmigration, Pranowo, and the immigration department's head of
\npublic relations, Ghani, via letters to the Post, challenged me
\nto give names and details to support my allegations and appeared
\neager to investigate the case.<\/p>\n
Most of the abuses in Medan revolved around a \"Mr. X\", and
\nduring a three-hour meeting with Pranowo on June 29, I reported
\nthe accounts of those who agreed to be quoted. On June 30, Mr. X
\nsurrendered his position to his replacement.<\/p>\n
Although it appeared that our complaint had produced results,
\nsubsequent rumors have suggested that Mr. X is to be re-assigned
\nto Los Angeles. Attempts to follow up the complaint and learn the
\noutcome have been unsuccessful. Was X's sudden removal evidence
\nof reform, or was it an attempt to placate the complainants?<\/p>\n
We won't know which it was, unless we are informed of the
\noutcome of the investigation. Although the immigration department
\nat first seemed committed to investigating the complaint, it now
\nappears that the investigation might have been a case of
\nstonewalling.<\/p>\n
On June 29, Pranowo promised to send a team of investigators
\nto Medan soon. The team arrived in Medan even before I had
\nreturned on the evening of July 1. At 9 p.m. that evening, three
\ngentlemen tracked me down in a coffee shop and told me they were
\nready to begin their interviews on the following morning.
\nAlthough the lack of notice was a handicap in terms of arranging
\nwitnesses, six people -- both Indonesians and expatriate
\nbusinesspeople -- gave statements to an investigator on the
\nfollowing day.<\/p>\n
The people interviewed gave names, amounts paid, the
\nparticular situations that led to demands for a payoff. In some
\ncases, the person simply wanted a document to be issued in a
\ntimely fashion, but for this they might have had to pay hundreds
\nof thousands of rupiah. Computers and golf equipment were
\nsometimes solicited. In one case, Mr. X even objected to a work
\npermit that had been approved by the Investment Coordinating
\nBoard (BKPM).<\/p>\n
Is it within the authority of the immigration office to
\nquestion a permit issued by BKPM?<\/p>\n
In another case, an expatriate was working, unaware that his
\nwork permit had expired and that the extension was still in
\nprocess in Jakarta. In none of these particular cases were the
\nindividuals, either Indonesian or expatriate, intentionally
\ntrying to circumvent the law, and in none of these cases did the
\nvictims make the first overture in the extortion scenario.<\/p>\n
One expatriate who spoke used the terms \"extortion\" and
\n\"terrorism\" to describe the threats that X made to him. It should
\nbe noted that this individual has been working here legally for
\nyears and, as he acknowledged, knows the system and is willing to
\naccommodate \"reasonable\" demands. He is neither naive nor
\nsqueamish.<\/p>\n
First he was threatened with imprisonment because his renewed
\npermit had not arrived from Jakarta. He was summoned from his
\noffice to the immigration office on three consecutive days to be
\nharassed. Then he and his family (including two small children)
\nwere threatened with deportation: \"We can do that to you,\" he was
\ntold.<\/p>\n
Finally, to avoid further harassment, particularly as it might
\nhave effected his family, he paid Rp 15 million (before the
\nmonetary crisis), having bargained down the sum from an original
\ndemand for Rp 30 million.<\/p>\n
I offer this only as an example of the type of statements that
\nwere given to the investigators; this was one of the more
\negregious accounts, but there were others like it.<\/p>\n
Was Mr. X found guilty of corruption and abuse of official
\npower, as his sudden removal might suggest?<\/p>\n
Not necessarily. In Medan, the rumors persist that after a
\ndecent interval, when the dust has settled, X will indeed take up
\nhis new assignment -- just reward for his faithful service.<\/p>\n
What happened? Were the complaints found to be lacking in
\nmerit because of insufficient proof? Is more proof needed? Did
\nthe responsible authorities conclude that the conduct we reported
\ndid not violate any existing regulations? Did the full impact of
\nthe witnesses' statements, which in some cases were given in
\nEnglish, fail to come through when translated into the written
\nIndonesian language? Is there a national reason for the
\nbureaucracy's inaction?<\/p>\n
Or is there collusion at some level? Correct me if I am wrong,
\nbut the word on the street is that pre-Reformasi, some official
\npositions could be bought.<\/p>\n
Let us say that to increase his prospects for career success,
\nan ambitious official like X wanted to attract the attention of
\nhis superiors.<\/p>\n
How to do this? If X moved up the ranks by bestowing gifts on
\nstrategically placed superiors, how could those same officials
\n(or their friends) ever have the courage to turn around and
\ndiscipline him if they themselves have shared the fruits of this
\ncorruption?<\/p>\n
Or let us say that when X was threatened with serious
\ndisciplinary action, he in turn threatened to reveal other
\npeople's misdemeanors. How can a system so permeated with
\ncorruption escape this tendency of the implicated to protect each
\nother from public disclosure and sanction? Furthermore, how can
\nIndonesia survive if it does not escape from this?<\/p>\n
Do public officials who are tainted by past corruption thereby
\nlose their legitimacy as figures of authority, and with it, their
\nright to discipline subordinates?<\/p>\n
The assumption that only those who are 'clean' have the right
\nto speak or act against malfeasance is a fallacy. If accepted,
\nthis premise will paralyze Indonesia's efforts to reform and
\nthwart her economic recovery.<\/p>\n
If officials are silenced by fear of the ghosts of their past
\nmisdemeanors, who will be left to implement reform? Should one
\ncompound old shames with the new sins of cowardice and
\ncomplacence?<\/p>\n
Those officials who hesitate to take clear action against
\nsubordinates' malfeasance now, because they themselves may have
\nbenefited from corruption in the past, need to rethink this
\nnihilistic course of inaction.<\/p>\n
Reform is not about past purity, but about present repentance
\nand rehabilitation. Though people will not accept hypocrisy from
\nofficials who punish subordinates while continuing to act
\nwrongfully themselves, the public will welcome admissions of
\nwrongdoing stakes when accompanied by concrete signs of self-
\nreform.<\/p>\n
Corruption investigations cannot always be concluded quickly.
\nHowever, Director General Pranowo emphasized at the outset that
\nthis case must be handled expeditiously. And witness how rapidly
\ncertain actions were taken.<\/p>\n
The urgency with which this investigation was pulled together
\nis nowhere in evidence now. According to friends who have
\nrecently processed documents at the Medan immigration office, X's
\nreplacement has already introduced administrative improvements
\nwhich have expedited document processing.<\/p>\n
This new official gives every sign of being committed to
\nrunning a clean immigration office. But how long will he
\npersevere with this thankless work if X is allowed to walk away
\nfrom the evidence against him into the sunshine of southern
\nCalifornia, ill-gotten golf clubs in tow?<\/p>\n
Rhetoric is not enough. To earn credibility, those who
\npromise to implement reform must do more than announce that they
\nwill eradicate corruption. The patronizing posturing of high
\nofficials is no longer an acceptable substitute for concrete
\nresults and transparent outcomes. So expose corruption, and
\nexpose those who perpetrate it. Give details, give names of the
\nguilty, and let the public know the consequences when they report
\ncorruption in officialdom.<\/p>\n
Indonesia has far more pressing problems right now than
\ncorruption in the immigration office, but it has no problem more
\nfundamental than that of restoring the confidence of Indonesians
\nand the international community in the government's will and
\nability to reform the system and rid it of corruption, collusion
\nand nepotism.<\/p>\n
As Ella F. Dumbelia from Jakarta pointed out in her June 17
\nletter to the Post, even low-level officials demand payoffs with
\nimpunity. It makes one wonder what officials at a higher level
\nare doing. Their brazen confidence that they can get away with
\n\"murder\" (we hope in the figurative sense) makes one shudder.<\/p>\n
As we are beginning to see, this attitude is a breeding ground
\nfor anarchy. An impartial and effective handling of even one
\nreport of corruption would send a signal to civil servants, the
\nmilitary and the public that those now heading the government are
\nserious about punishing proven abuse of authority and other
\nofficial crimes. If they are.<\/p>\n
The writer, an attorney and former diplomat in the U.S.
\nConsulate General in Medan, is director of PT Far Horisons.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/corrupt-disposition-a-good-breeding-ground-for-anarchy-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}