Peril of war against corruption<\/p>\n
By Peter Kerr<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles on efforts to fight
\ncorruption in recent months.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Legislator Laksamana Sukardi, speaking recently
\nat a public discussion on legal reform, said a diplomat friend
\nhad told him over dinner that he had good news.<\/p>\n
\"He said Indonesia had been upgraded on the list of most
\ncorrupt countries to number three after Nigeria -- because we'd
\nbeen able to bribe the organizing committee.\"<\/p>\n
The joke raised a chorus of laughter from hundreds of
\nbusinessmen, academics, diplomats and others gathered at
\nJakarta's Grand Hyatt hotel last month to consider the future of
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
Some commented wryly that the conference sub-title --
\n\"Emerging from the Crisis\" -- was rather optimistic, with the
\neconomy in tatters, the rupiah badly battered, outlying regions
\nin turmoil, and the legislature deadlocked against a president
\nwhose supporters said they were willing to die for him.<\/p>\n
It is almost three years since Indonesians threw out the
\nSoeharto regime, and the dreams that millions of people had of
\nclean, democratic government, legal reform and a purge of
\ncorruption lie thwarted and frustrated.<\/p>\n
The factionalized House of Representatives is jostling for
\npower and its rewards, determined to bring down an enfeebled
\nPresident who is overwhelmingly regarded as having failed to
\nlight a way forward.<\/p>\n
Soeharto and his family and cronies have for the most part
\nescaped justice, institutional corruption remains rampant, the
\nSupreme Court has defied efforts to weed out judges and officials
\nalleged to be corrupt, and members of the post-Soeharto
\nlegislature are themselves accused of frustrating change.<\/p>\n
Amid the disappointment of reformers is a warning that
\nIndonesia is entering an even darker period, where \"money
\npolitics\" takes advantage of new democratic freedoms, and
\nprovincial \"mini Soehartos\" build their own corrupt empires under
\nthe banner of regional autonomy.<\/p>\n
With May 21 marking the anniversary of Soeharto's fall, how
\ncan it be that Indonesia has failed so miserably to deliver on
\nthe anti-corruption ideals of the reformasi movement?<\/p>\n
One reason, according to reformers who agree that change of
\nany consequence will take longer than their lifetimes, is the
\nsystemic nature of corruption in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Preman (street toughs) patrol districts extracting protection
\nmoney from businesses big and small, immigration staff demand
\nkickbacks to process visas, police run extortion and protection
\nrackets, lawyers bribe judges to win a case, companies pay
\nmillions of dollars extra to win contracts, and illegal loggers
\nand miners bribe authorities to turn a blind eye.<\/p>\n
Almost every country has corruption, but in Indonesia it is a
\npervasive and accepted part of life, drawn into and drawing into
\nit the functions of law, government and other public
\ninstitutions.<\/p>\n
Indonesia may not be alone but it keeps the worst company,
\naccording to Transparency International, tying with Angola as the
\nworld's fourth most corrupt country after Nigeria, Yugoslavia,
\nand in third place Ukraine and Azerbaijan.<\/p>\n
In Asia, it is outranked only by Vietnam.<\/p>\n
The Hong Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy,
\nwhich conducted the 12-nation Asian survey, observes that while
\ngraft exists almost everywhere, a country can distinguish itself
\nin the ability of its legal system to fight the problem, the
\ngovernment's willingness to lead the effort, and the attitude of
\nthe local population,<\/p>\n
Indonesia currently fails on all three counts.<\/p>\n
A glaring recent example is the attempt to bring to trial
\nallegedly corrupt members of Indonesia's highest judicial body,
\nthe Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
Under attack from the government-sponsored Joint Anti-
\nCorruption Team, on March 23 the court annulled the regulation
\nwhich gave the team its legal basis.<\/p>\n
Remarkably, the judge who chaired the adjudicating panel was
\nalso a legal adviser to one of the former Supreme Court justices
\naccused by the anti-corruption team of bribery.<\/p>\n
\"So there is clear evidence of conflict of interest ... but
\nthere is no indication that (the decision) will be reviewed by
\nthe Supreme Court,\" lawyer and Hukum On-Line director Ibrahim
\nAssegaf told the Hyatt conference, organized by consultants Van
\nZorge, Heffernan and Associates.<\/p>\n
\"... it is mind-boggling that the government, which is
\nsupposed to be supporting the joint investigating team as part of
\nthe executive, did not take any action ... to bring this issue
\nback to the Supreme Court,\" Ibrahim said.<\/p>\n
\"So clearly this case shows there is no political will in the
\npowers of the state.\"<\/p>\n
The newly appointed Supreme Court chief justice, Professor
\nBagir Manan, last week denied there had been a conflict of
\ninterest and said there was no need to review the decision.<\/p>\n
\"I don't think there was a conflict of interest because Paulus
\nLotulung (who chaired the adjudicating panel) was not
\nrepresenting the judge in front of the court,\" Bagir told The
\nJakarta Post.<\/p>\n
Lotulung had simply been a member of the judges' association
\nwhich had questioned the former justice about the bribery
\nallegation prior to the case coming before the Supreme Court, he
\nsaid.<\/p>\n
Certainly the court's ruling and government inaction raised
\nbarely a ripple of indignation from the public or media, inured
\nto such perceived inconsistencies.<\/p>\n
None of this was a surprise to Adi Andojo Soetjipto, the
\nformer deputy chief justice who blew the whistle on Supreme Court
\ncorruption in 1996.<\/p>\n
Adi resigned as chairman of the anti-corruption team on March
\n19 after it had failed to prosecute any cases, complaining that
\nthe government had not given his group enough power.<\/p>\n
In an interview with The Jakarta Post he estimated that about
\n85 per cent of Indonesia's judiciary was corrupt. Separately,
\nIndonesia Corruption Watch has claimed that only five of 41
\nSupreme Court justices it investigated cannot be bought.<\/p>\n
\"As long as the current political situation exists in
\nIndonesia, nothing will happen in fighting corruption,\" Adi said.<\/p>\n
Despite assurances from President Abdurrahman Wahid, the
\ngovernment had not introduced a law giving the anti-corruption
\nteam adequate powers, he said.<\/p>\n
And while the Supreme Court annulment was legally sound, it
\ncould have been delayed until August when the anti-corruption
\nteam will be wound up and a commission with greater powers
\nestablished.<\/p>\n
\"The people's demand now is to fight corruption; why did the
\nSupreme Court take that decision? The timing is not correct, I
\nthink ...\"<\/p>\n
Adi's successor as chairman of the anti-corruption team,
\nKrissantono, said it would continue trying to prosecute two
\nsenior Supreme Court officials and three serving and former
\njudges for allegedly taking bribes.<\/p>\n
But, acknowledging the blow from the annulment, he said:
\n\"Maybe the hopes and expectations people have in us are too great
\nin the short time (of the team's one-year life).<\/p>\n
\"People hope we can bring to trial a range of corruptors, but
\nfrankly speaking we cannot fulfill this expectation.<\/p>\n
\"We have no full authority like an anti-corruption commission
\nand we have only had a short duration, only one year, to prepare
\nfor the Anti-Corruption Commission.<\/p>\n
\"But now we begin to touch the untouchable men ... only touch,
\nmaybe.\"<\/p>\n
Bagir, who has publicly acknowledged the presence of corrupt
\njudges and justices, criticised the anti-corruption team and said
\nit would be best to await the \"more effective\" Anti-Corruption
\nCommission.<\/p>\n
He pledged to cooperate with the commission, and to
\ninvestigate corrupt judges himself as a matter of urgency.<\/p>\n
In the absence of immediate substantial reform, however,
\nprominent lawyer and longstanding anti-corruption campaigner
\nTodung Mulya Lubis is calling for constitutional change.<\/p>\n
\"I think the government has not been serious about fighting
\ncorruption: not under Soeharto, not under Habibie, nor under
\nWahid,\" Todung told The Jakarta Post.<\/p>\n
He supported Abdurrahman's proposal to reverse the burden of
\nproof, which would require people accused of corruption to prove
\nthey gained their wealth legally, but said it would not work as
\nsuggested.<\/p>\n
\"He knows the judiciary is very corrupt so he knows it is not
\ngoing to work,\" Todung said.<\/p>\n
\"The agencies who deal with corruption are equally corrupt,
\nand they act with impunity.\"<\/p>\n
Constitutional change to introduce electoral and judicial
\nreforms was vital.<\/p>\n
\"We need to change with a clear paradigm for transparency of
\nthe judiciary, and for regional autonomy.\"<\/p>\n
The writer is Deputy Foreign Editor of The Sydney Morning
\nHerald newspaper. He is spending four months at The Jakarta Post
\nunder a Medialink fellowship, funded by the Australia-Indonesia
\nInstitute.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/peril-of-war-against-corruption-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}