When disaster strikes, the state should be there to save its people.\nEmergency budgets should be made available immediately,\ndisaster-response equipment should be ready, and officials should work\nselflessly. What happens if, amid a disaster, funds meant to address the\ncrisis and help victims are instead embezzled?<\/p>\n
The corruption case linked to disaster management at the National\nDisaster Management Agency (BNPB) in October 2026 is a painful irony.\nThe Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) suspects irregularities in\nprocurement worth around Rp150 billion between 2024 and 2026. If\nproven\u2014and such cases usually are\u2014this crime would not only cause losses\nto state finances, but also betray the duty to protect the people\u2019s\nsafety.<\/p>\n
More troubling still, this has happened time and again. The Covid-19\nsocial assistance case ensnared former Social Affairs Minister Juliari\nPeter Batubara. More recently, senior officials also turned the Free\nNutritious Meals programme into a source of spoils. The Hajj service,\ntoo, has a history of corruption cases involving two of its ministers.\nFrom aid for poor people to disaster response, budgets intended to\nprotect the public have repeatedly been embezzled.<\/p>\n
Why does the state still fail to close off opportunities for this\nkind of corruption, even though prevention efforts have been under way\nsince the 1960s and 1970s? And why, despite the strengthening of those\nefforts through bureaucratic reform since 2010, does the problem\npersist?<\/p>\n
Since 2010, Indonesia has pursued bureaucratic reform systematically.\nRegulations have been introduced, institutional structures updated,\nperformance indices drawn up, integrity zones established and awards\nhanded out. The Ministry of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform\u2019s\nname was expanded to include \u201cBureaucratic Reform\u201d, underscoring the\nagenda of building a clean, service-oriented bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
Yet sting operations targeting regional leaders and ministry\nofficials continue to recur. This is a paradox: procedures and\nindicators have changed, but the behaviour and power relations that\nfoster corruption remain entrenched. Reform has become superficial\u2014it\nappears to be progressing on paper, but has yet to make a sufficient\ndifference in practice.<\/p>\n
Presidential Regulation No.\u00a081\/2010 on the 2010\u20132025 Grand Design for\nBureaucratic Reform set out the goals of clean, accountable, effective\nand service-oriented government. The 2014 targets included raising\nIndonesia\u2019s Corruption Perceptions Index score to 5.0 on a scale of 0 to\n10, and increasing the number of institutions awarded an Unqualified\nOpinion (WTP) by the Audit Board of Indonesia (BPK).<\/p>\n
The problem is that administrative achievements do not automatically\nsignify integrity. A WTP opinion assesses whether financial statements\nare fairly presented; it does not guarantee that an institution is free\nof corruption. Nor does a bureaucratic reform rating ensure that its\nofficials are free from bribery and conflicts of interest. Indeed, quite\na few officials have been caught bribing auditors to obtain a WTP\nrating.<\/p>\n
Transparency International recorded Indonesia\u2019s Corruption\nPerceptions Index score at 34 out of 100 in 2025, down from 37 in 2024.\nThis is not a complete picture of criminal corruption, but it is a\nwarning that integrity in the public sector remains a serious\nproblem.<\/p>\n
The issue is not a lack of regulations. Reform seems easily trapped\nin the fulfilment of paperwork, indicators and ceremonies. Meanwhile,\nthe door to corruption remains open because of high political costs,\npatronage, conflicts of interest, procurement mechanisms vulnerable to\nmanipulation, and weak oversight. Public office is still widely treated\nas a position from which to extract profits and privileges, rather than\na solemn duty to serve the public.<\/p>\n
Bureaucratic reform should address the root causes more directly.\nRecruitment and promotion of officials must be more transparent;\nconflicts of interest must be prevented; procurement should be open to\npublic scrutiny; and internal oversight must be able to act\nindependently, free from interference. Political parties also need to\nreform transactional practices in the nomination of officials.<\/p>\n
Law enforcement must be consistent, accompanied by the seizure of\ncriminal proceeds in accordance with the law. For corruption involving\ndisaster funds that meets the requirements of Article 2, paragraph (2)\nof the Corruption Eradication Law, the death penalty may be considered\nthrough a transparent and fair judicial process.<\/p>\n
Bureaucratic reform must not merely succeed in changing a ministry\u2019s\nname, multiplying indicators and piling up performance reports. Reform\nwill have meaning only if corruption genuinely declines and people\u2019s\nrights are protected.<\/p>\n
When even disaster-management funds become a target for corruption,\nwhat is at stake is not only public money, but also the people\u2019s trust\nin the state itself.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/corruption-again-what-has-bureaucratic-reform-achieved-1792489920", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }