The future of corruption eradication<\/p>\n
Saldi Isra<\/p>\n
Lecturer at Andalas University's School of Law in Padang
\nand recipient of the 2004 Bung Hatta Anti-Corruption Award<\/p>\n
The year 2004 will soon leave us. Aside from the successful
\nlegislative and presidential elections, this year marked an
\nimportant point in the eradication of corruption in Indonesia.<\/p>\n
In the first quarter of the year, the majority of the public
\nwas disappointed when on March 12 the Supreme Court exonerated
\nGolkar Party leader Akbar Tandjung of all charges in a corruption
\ncase involving non-budgetary funds at the State Logistics Agency
\n(Bulog), even though he already had been legally and convincingly
\nfound guilty of corruption by district and high courts.<\/p>\n
This disappointment over Akbar's case was slightly alleviated
\nwhen the Padang District Court found 43 members of the West
\nSumatra provincial legislative council guilty of corruption
\ninvolving the 2002 provincial budget. Not only did this verdict
\nmark an important page in the country's history, but it could
\nalso encourage efforts to follow up corruption cases involving
\nlawmakers in other regions.<\/p>\n
Realizing that the eradication of corruption is inevitable,
\nnearly every presidential and vice presidential candidate made
\ncorruption eradication an item on their list of priorities during
\nthe election campaign.<\/p>\n
When Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla were eventually
\nelected president and vice president, the public urged them to
\nmake the fight against corruption a part of their concrete
\nagenda, especially because during the campaign Susilo vowed
\npersonally to lead the anticorruption campaign.<\/p>\n
To be true to this vow, Susilo launched the National Movement
\nfor the Eradication of Corruption during a ceremony to mark the
\nInternational Corruption Eradication Day on Dec. 9. The President
\nalso instructed the entire executive branch -- from the central
\nto regional levels -- to speed up the elimination of corruption
\n(Presidential Instruction No. 5\/2004 on accelerating the
\neradication of corruption).<\/p>\n
Legally, war against corruption was declared when Law No.
\n28\/1999 on the establishment of a state free from corruption,
\ncollusion and nepotism was ratified. Support for the eradication
\nof corruption became stronger with the ratification of Law No.
\n31\/1999, as amended by Law No. 20\/2001 on the eradication of
\ncorruption as a criminal offense. A big leap in the effort to
\neliminate corruption seemed to be envisioned with the
\nratification of Law No. 30\/2002 on the Corruption Eradication
\nCommission.<\/p>\n
It seems, however, that all of these laws will not suffice to
\nspeed up the elimination of corruption. Indonesia is notorious as
\nthe most corrupt state in Asia. Ironically, only a very small
\nnumber of corruptors have been exposed and punished. The question
\nis, why it is so difficult to prosecute corruption cases in
\nIndonesia?<\/p>\n
Many people believe the roots of corruption are difficult to
\nexpose because the legislation is unclear and open to
\ninterpretation, and sides with the corruptors. Others say the
\nmajority of our legal enforcers are not really committed to
\nfighting corruption. From this viewpoint, it may be said that
\nrampant corruption is attributable to the great leniency that our
\nlaws and law enforcers show toward corruptors.<\/p>\n
Owing, perhaps, to an awareness that a corruption eradication
\nstrategy must take a comprehensive approach, Presidential
\nInstruction No. 5\/2004 tries to bring together law enforcement,
\nan improvement of public services and legal reform.<\/p>\n
In the context of law enforcement, Susilo has asked the
\nNational Police chief to expand corruption investigations so the
\nperpetrators can be punished and state funds recovered. He also
\nasked the police chief to prevent his officers from abusing their
\npower and to impose heavy penalties on those officers who did
\nabuse this power.<\/p>\n
The President also asked the police to cooperate with
\nprosecutors' offices, the Development Finance Comptroller, the
\nCenter for Financial Reporting and Financial Transactions
\nAnalysis and other related state institutions to combat
\ncorruption and to recoup all lost state funds.<\/p>\n
Similar instructions were delivered to the Attorney General's
\nOffice and prosecutors' offices nationwide.<\/p>\n
It must be honestly admitted that all these instructions were
\nissued because of the negative track records of the National
\nPolice and the prosecutors' offices in dealing with corruption
\ncases.<\/p>\n
In many cases, uncovering a corruption case has led to
\ncorruption among the law enforcers themselves. One oft-cited
\nexample is the issuance of a Letter for the Termination of an
\nInvestigation (known as an SP3). It is widely believed that the
\nissuance of an SP3 often depends on a bribe.<\/p>\n
Pursuant to the stipulation of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Law
\nNo. 31\/1999, which has been amended by Law No. 20\/2001,
\ncorruption committed in particular circumstances can carry the
\ndeath penalty.<\/p>\n
The elucidation of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the law
\nstipulates that these particular circumstances involve the
\ncorruption of funds designated to overcome (i) an emergency; (ii)
\na national disaster; (iii) the aftermath of rioting on a national
\nscale; (iv) an economic or monetary crisis; and (v) corruption
\nitself.<\/p>\n
In the case of the improvement of public services, an
\ninstruction has been issued to the Office of the State Minister
\nfor Administrative Reform to prepare a policy formulation for (i)
\npublic services improvement; (ii) the drawing up of a stipulation
\non the performance of government officials; and (iii) the
\napplication of the principle of good governance. No less
\nimportant is an instruction to undertake an assessment of the
\ncivil service system.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, in the effort to reform corruption legislation, the
\nminister of justice and human rights has been ordered to
\nformulate law amendments to synchronize and optimize the efforts
\nto eliminate graft. The minister also was instructed to prepare
\nthe necessary legislation for the enforcement of laws related
\nwith corruption.<\/p>\n
It is also important, in this respect, that a special
\ninstruction be issued to governors and regents\/mayors nationwide
\nto speed up the eradication of corruption, to apply the
\nprinciples of good governance within regional administrations, to
\nimprove public services and do away with illegal fees, and to
\nteam up with regional legislative councils to prevent leaks of
\nstate funds, either allocated in the state budget or in regional
\nbudgets.<\/p>\n
Why has a special instruction also been issued to regional
\nheads? The reason is that some regional heads have failed to
\napply the principles of good governance. Some of the practices of
\nregional administrations are connected with corruption, collusion
\nand nepotism, and also lack transparency.<\/p>\n
It is also reported that family members and cronies of
\nregional government officials are quite dominant in determining
\ndevelopment projects. In a number of cases, projects that should
\nhave involved an open tender have been carried out on the basis
\nof direct appointment.<\/p>\n
Despite the widely published campaign to step up the
\neradication of corruption, Susilo does not explicitly mention the
\nmechanisms for evaluating this campaign or its time frame. In
\nfact, an evaluation is very important to push efforts to speed up
\ngraft eradication. Perhaps, this evaluation should be made an
\ninherent part of a performance appraisal of the United Indonesia
\nCabinet.<\/p>\n
While observing that corruption is an extraordinary crime,
\nextraordinary measures must be taken to determine the future of
\nthe agenda for corruption eradication.<\/p>\n
First, major corruption cases must be handled properly and
\nseriously, as experience has shown that the corruption cases
\nstill are not dealt with successfully. As a result, there is a
\ncrisis of confidence regarding law enforcement institutions.<\/p>\n
Second, government officials involved in corruption cases
\nmust be discharged from their positions. Whenever a minister or a
\nmember of the House, a governor, a regent, or a mayor, for
\nexample, is involved in a corruption case, he\/she must be
\ntemporarily discharged from his\/her position from the time he\/she
\nis named as a suspect. If later the court finds him\/her guilty,
\nhe or she must be permanently discharged.<\/p>\n
Third, when a court of law finds a government official guilty
\nof corruption, he or she must be put in prison immediately after
\nthe verdict is passed by the district court. Although the ruling
\nby the Padang District Court can be considered extraordinary, it
\ncannot be considered a progressive verdict because the judge did
\nnot immediately imprison the legislative members who were found
\nguilty.<\/p>\n
The Padang court ruling was an obvious example of how the
\ncourts are still ambiguous with their verdicts, which on the one
\nhand can find a corruptor guilty, but on the other hand still
\nallow the corruptor to walk free. As a result, these verdicts
\ncannot fully act to deter corruptors from committing the crime.<\/p>\n
Yet, what is worth noting is that Susilo has taken a concrete
\nstep in the fight against corruption. As of the second week of
\nDecember, for example, he had given the police permission to
\nquestion 25 government officials, either as witnesses or suspects
\nin corruption investigations (See Table 1).<\/p>\n
However, efforts to speed up the corruption eradication
\ncampaign cannot be left completely to the executive. We also need
\nto know the commitment of the legislative bodies in eradicating
\ncorruption. Reports of rampant judicial corruption may also
\nundermine all of the hard work of prosecutors (and the police).<\/p>\n
Table 1
\nGovernors<\/p>\n
1. West Sumatra
\n2. Banten
\n3. West Nusa Tenggara<\/p>\n
Members of the House of Representatives<\/p>\n
1. Adiwarsita Adinegara
\n2. Dharmono K. Lawi
\n3. Achmad Thoyfoer
\n4. HM Faqih Chaironi
\n5. Daromi Irdjas
\n6. Zuber Nawawi
\n7. Achmad Darodji<\/p>\n
Regents<\/p>\n
1. Banyuwangi
\n2. Nabire
\n3. Saorolangun, Jambi
\n4. Kendari
\n5. Pontianak
\n6. Nias
\n7. West Halmahera
\n8. South Halmahera
\n9. Kupang
\n10.Rote Ndao
\n11.South Barito
\n12.Muara Enim<\/p>\n
Mayors<\/p>\n
1. Depok
\n2. Bengkulu
\n3. Singkawang<\/p>\n
(Data as of Dec. 9, 2004)<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, regarding the public, there must be widespread and
\ncontinuous campaigns to awaken the public's collective awareness
\nthat corruption is a crime against humanity. Also, the public
\nmust exact social sanctions against corruptors.<\/p>\n
If all of these extraordinary measures can be taken together,
\nthe future of corruption eradication efforts will be much better
\nthan in the past. Now is the right time to start. Otherwise, this
\ncountry will collapse because of corruptors. So, never stop
\nfighting against corruption. Happy New Year 2005.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-future-of-corruption-eradication-1447899208",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}