JP\/3\/DISO<\/p>\n
New anti-graft law only exacerbates corruption<\/p>\n
On Nov. 21 President Megawati Soekarnoputri signed off on a new
\nanti-corruption law. Teten Masduki, chairman of Indonesia
\nCorruption Watch, in an interview with The Jakarta Post
\ncontributor Christiani Tumelap, criticizes the definition of
\ncorruption adopted in the new law on the grounds that it only
\ncovers activities that cause a financial loss to the state.<\/p>\n
Question: What is the significance of the new Anti-Corruption Law
\nno. 20\/2001?<\/p>\n
Answer: There are only three new things in this revised law (a
\nrevision of law no. 3\/1999), namely, the adoption of the reverse
\nburden of proof from the prosecutor to the defendant,
\n(prescriptions on dealing with) \"gratifikasi\", or money given to
\nstate institutions and a transitional clause.<\/p>\n
One slight improvement is in the adoption of the principal of
\nthe reverse burden of proof, in which the defendant will be asked
\nto prove his or her innocence. Unfortunately, this principle only
\napplies at the court level.<\/p>\n
Many corruption cases are kept under the carpet at the
\ninvestigation and prosecution stages. The police sometimes cancel
\ntheir investigation saying they lack evidence. In court,
\ndefendants are likely to be freed because the charges brought by
\nthe prosecutors are inaccurate.<\/p>\n
This new law actually imposes somewhat tougher punishment on
\ncorruptors, which is good. It also has a clear transitional
\nclause to ensure that acts of corruption which occurred before
\nthis new law was enacted can still be processed under the earlier
\n1999 anti-corruption law.<\/p>\n
But it will not fix the real problem that has long plagued our
\nlaw enforcement institutions. As the burden of proof is put on
\nthe shoulders of the prosecutor and police, the chances for the
\npolice or prosecutor to be involved in a conspiracy with the
\nsuspect are even greater. If the prosecutor says no evidence is
\nfound, the corruptor will walk free no matter how large the sum
\nof money he misused.<\/p>\n
Obviously, there's great fear in the government and in the
\nlegislature (DPR) about applying the reverse burden of proof from
\nthe very beginning at the investigation level.<\/p>\n
Because they're involved?<\/p>\n
Perpetrators of many acts of corruption are actually the
\npoliticians themselves. Will people create a machete to cut their
\nown necks? It's simply impossible to expect a corrupt political
\nsociety to create a fair legislative product.<\/p>\n
They (the politicians) made very limited revisions. Oh, just
\napply the reverse burden of proof at the court level and we'll be
\nfine. Yes, they can sit back and relax as long as they can pay
\nthe prosecutor and the police ...
\nSo how will this new law affect the eradication of corruption?<\/p>\n
It will be more significant in bolstering corruption,
\nespecially within the bureaucracy, because this law provides a
\nchance to allow state institutions to accept some sort of
\n\"gratification\" of less than Rp 10 million (US$980). This is a
\nhuge amount for state employees who mostly earn far less than
\nhalf that amount.<\/p>\n
Receipt of a \"gratification\" must be reported to the anti-
\ncorruption commission, which is yet to be formed. The commission
\nwill then decide whether or not there is a conflict of interest
\nimplied in the payment of the gratification, thus it decides
\nwhether the money given to the state institution can be kept or
\nmust be handed over to the government. (If not reported to the
\ncommission, evidence that the receipt of an amount exceeding Rp
\n10 million is not a bribe must be provided by the recipient; if
\nless than Rp 10 million, proof that the money is not a bribe must
\nbe provided by the prosecutor -- Ed.)<\/p>\n
Of course the civil servant could just find a way to prove
\n(that the money is not a bribe).<\/p>\n
The amount of Rp 10 million means almost nothing for the
\nhigher level employees. The law is apparently aimed more at the
\nhigher level. The problem is, bribery involving high-level
\nofficials is no longer conducted using money, but 'golden' shares
\nand other strategies that are not covered by the law.
\nSo you don't believe the law will help curb corruption?<\/p>\n
No, I don't, partly because it still defines corruption in a
\nvery restricted way, as an act that causes a financial loss to
\nthe state. This kind of thinking must be changed. Corruption is
\nan abuse of power. In many other countries like Hong Kong and
\nMalaysia, any act of power abuse is categorized as an act of
\ncorruption.<\/p>\n
The law says that the state, through the prosecutor and
\npolice, is the only party with the authority to bring corruptors
\nto court. Yet corruption has caused losses to the public and the
\nperpetrators of corruption are the state institutions.<\/p>\n
There should be an opportunity for people to bring corruptors
\nto court. Due to the restricted definition of corruption, there
\nare many corruption cases that have clearly inflicted a loss on
\nthe public but have not been brought to court mainly because
\nauthorities say such acts do not cause financial loss to the
\nstate, but to the private sector.
\nWhat is the main factor behind corruption here?<\/p>\n
Corruption has nothing to do with culture. The difference
\nbetween theft and corruption is that a thief will steal 10 hens
\nbut a corruptor will ruin the poultry industry. Corruption is
\nclosely related to policy and power. Our political structure has
\ncontributed a lot to the development of corrupt practices.<\/p>\n
Many who hold political power now tend to allow corruption and
\neven practice corruption. It's also a mentality. Some can still
\ntolerate corruption. Many others start to hate corruption and try
\nto fight against it, but face limitations in law enforcement and
\nthe legal system.<\/p>\n
Hasn't there been the least sign of decreasing corruption
\nsince Soeharto quit the presidency?<\/p>\n
The number of perpetrators has instead grown and they do it
\n(corruption) more openly. Corruption under Soeharto evolved
\nwithin the palace; corruption is now widespread in many political
\nparties, which copy the way people of the New Order gathered
\npolitical funds. Now they're the main perpetrators of corruption.
\nAnd the justice system is also corrupt.<\/p>\n
We need good leaders who won't hesitate in fighting corruption
\nand strive to keep the rest of the bureaucracy clean.
\nWhat about Megawati?<\/p>\n
She has appointed an attorney general from the Attorney
\nGeneral's Office, which is notorious for its corrupt environment.
\nShe made statements against corruption on three occasions but has
\nnot acted on what she said. She should have at least issued a law
\non freedom of information and a law on witness protection.
\nHow many state institutions are still clean<\/p>\n
Less than one percent. Sixty percent of the budget has been
\ncorrupted -- 30 percent from the budget's income and the rest
\nfrom expenditures. And only up to 30 percent of the potential or
\npaid taxes are actually sent to the state's coffers.
\nSo what should be done to eradicate corruption?<\/p>\n
A significant change in the political structure is a must. We
\nalso need new people. Judges and prosecutors are appointed by
\npoliticians. If politicians and officials are corrupt, how can we
\nexpect them to appoint clean judges and prosecutors or conduct
\nreform in the justice system?<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/jp3diso-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}