Fighting corruption through civil service reform<\/p>\n
Riyadi Suparno, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Indonesia, the top dog in the corruption industry, has again
\ntaken out top spot in a list of Asia's most corrupt countries.
\nThis time, the rating comes from Hong-Kong-based Political and
\nEconomic Risk Consultancy.<\/p>\n
This status as the most corrupt country in Asia has been
\nearned, ironically, at a time when Indonesia's anti-corruption
\ndrive is in high gear, with the staging of the first corruption
\ntrial spearheaded by the newly-established Corruption Eradication
\nCommission (KPK).<\/p>\n
It is an irony that corruption continues unabated despite the
\nfact that we have developed all the necessary legal means to
\nbring white collar criminals to justice, including the
\nestablishment of the powerful KPK.<\/p>\n
Does this mean that all our anti-corruption efforts are doomed
\nto failure? The fact is we shall certainly fail if we persist in
\njust pursuing corruption from the tail of the process, and not
\nfrom the roots.<\/p>\n
Indeed, South Korea's experience in fighting corruption could
\nserve as a good example for Indonesia. Korea's various legal
\nmeasures to root out corruption also resulted in failure.<\/p>\n
Speaking at a seminar here recently, Yunwon Hwang, a professor
\nof public administration at Seoul-based Chung-Ang University,
\nattributed the failure to a lack of internal consciousness among
\ncivil servants -- the main perpetrators of corruption.<\/p>\n
Therefore, on top of these legal measures, we also need to
\nsupplement our anti-corruption drives with efforts to attack
\ncorruption at its roots.<\/p>\n
So, what exactly are the roots of corruption? Vice President
\nJusuf Kalla in a recent interview with The Jakarta Post clearly
\nidentified two major sources of corruption in Indonesia: an
\nunreformed bureaucracy and opaque government procurement
\npractices.<\/p>\n
If indeed this is the case, then the answer to corruption
\nshould therefore be to reform the bureaucracy and the government
\nprocurement system. This article, however, shall limit itself to
\ndiscussing civil service reform.<\/p>\n
The government seems to have recognized the problem of our
\nhopelessly corrupt bureaucracy and even identified possible
\ncauses. The government has even drawn up various laws and
\nregulations to address the problems.<\/p>\n
On paper, existing laws and regulations relating to the civil
\nservice are consistent with international standards. Attempts at
\nbureaucratic reform started with a directive issued by the
\nPeople's Consultative Assembly (MPR) in 1998 that called for a
\nclean civil service, free from "KKN" -- an Indonesian language
\nacronym for corruption, collusion and nepotism. Existing laws and
\nregulations are consistent with this MPR's directive: KKN is
\nforbidden.<\/p>\n
And yet, corrupt practices in the civil service persist
\nunabated.<\/p>\n
Clearly, the gap between laws and their implementation and
\nenforcement remains very wide indeed. The rules are clear, but
\nimplementation and enforcement lags way behind.<\/p>\n
Any Indonesian government would be continuously frustrated in
\nattempting to work with a bureaucracy like this. It should be no
\nsurprise that any attempt to institute any kind of policy reform
\nis doomed to failure, sabotaged by a conservative and self-
\nseeking bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
There are a few exceptions, however. One successful attempt at
\nreform was the massive transfer of 2.1 million civil servants
\nfrom the central to local governments in 2000 and 2001, which
\nsurprisingly did not cause much of a furor. This transfer was
\npart of a massive decentralization program that was being pursued
\nby the government of that time -- decentralization could thus
\nprobably be counted as one of the most successful reforms ever
\ncarried out.<\/p>\n
Following the end of the transfer program in 2001, there were
\nsome 1.3 million civil servants in the center, and 2.6 million in
\nthe regions. Local civil servants accounted for some 66.7 percent
\nof civil servants in 2001, compared to a mere 12.2 percent in
\n1999.<\/p>\n
Certain local governments have themselves devised retrenchment
\nmechanisms to rid themselves of redundant civil servants
\nfollowing the massive transfer. Many have also successfully
\nrestructured their bureaucratic organizations to better serve the
\npeople.<\/p>\n
However, the government of the day did not use this momentum
\nto further reform the civil service, or to allow local
\ngovernments to go deeper in pursuing a quality civil service for
\ntheir particular regions. Instead, the central government took
\nback the rights to control civil servants and implemented a
\nunified national career civil service.<\/p>\n
Now long overdue, the new government has taken an initiative
\nto replace most of the 700 existing top echelon bureaucrats over
\nthe next three years.<\/p>\n
Vice President Jusuf Kalla explained that one of the main
\nreasons for replacing them was because they did not perform.<\/p>\n
The move, disregarding any political motives, is actually
\nlaudable. The problem is that it stands alone, and is not part of
\na wider, more wide-ranging reform package for the civil service.<\/p>\n
Another drawback of this move is that the new positions would
\nonly be open for civil servants, who are not among the best
\ncandidates for the positions.<\/p>\n
If the government is serious about improving the civil
\nservice, then it should consider opening up the field, giving way
\nfor the best talent outside the bureaucracy to compete for top
\nechelon positions.<\/p>\n
If necessary, the government should use this opportunity to
\nlaunch other reforms by opening up all higher echelon positions
\nto outside competition. This way, the government could set
\nperformance targets for new officials. And this could then become
\nan initial step towards implementing systems of performance
\nmanagement in the civil service, which has been implemented
\nsuccessfully in many Commonwealth countries such as Britain,
\nAustralia, New Zealand and Singapore.<\/p>\n
If performance management is too hard to implement in
\nIndonesia, then the government should devise other reform plans
\nthat will not fail in the implementation stage. Whatever the
\nplan, it must attack the systemic corruption of the bureaucracy.<\/p>\n
Whatever reforms are made, the government must empower the
\nclients of the civil service -- the people -- through more
\ntransparency.<\/p>\n
To this end, the government and the House of Representatives
\nmust give priority to deliberating a freedom of information bill.
\nFreedom of information -- if passed into law -- would initiate a
\nprocess of transparency that would subject the civil service to
\nmuch closer scrutiny by the people.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/fighting-corruption-through-civil-service-reform-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}