A serious setback in the fight against corruption

A serious setback in the fight against corruption

J. Soedjati Djiwandono, Jakarta

Amid public cries over the recent government decision to
increase fuel prices, perhaps few have paid attention to
indications of a serious set back in the government's efforts to
fight graft and corruption.

Indeed, it seems doubtful that the government has the will,
determination and courage to combat such seemingly unbeatable
evils in this society.

Once, the king of Thailand was reportedly asked by a
journalist if he had seriously expected his government to engage
in an all-out war against corruption. His answer was, "If I did
that, there would be no one to run this country".

It is sad to note that the entire Susilo government, that is
to say, all three branches of the government -- the executive,
the legislative and the judicial -- seem to have colluded with
each other, directly or otherwise, rather than checking one
another in a complex democratic system of checks and balances.
While little, if anything, has been heard from the legislators,
the judiciary seems to have attempted to side-step the issue of
fighting graft by keeping silent.

The Constitutional Court, meanwhile, has ruled that the
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has no retroactive
authority, i.e. to deal with past cases of graft that took place
prior the commission's establishment (Kompas, Feb. 18).

Rather than defending the KPK, the President said, "I am
concentrating more on preventative measures for the future. If we
only look to the past, it means delving into things that are far
from certain. We would be better off preventing mega corruption
cases from recurring in the future."

He told governors at a meeting of the Indonesian Provincial
Administrations Association (APPSI) in Jakarta that to focus on
the past "would prove to be extremely complex." (The Jakarta
Post, Feb. 26)

Indeed, as we are all aware, most cases of corruption are
complex. Many people in this country -- consciously or not, but
most likely unintentionally -- are contributors to graft and
corruption. One reason is surely the poor wages of public
servants. One consequence of that phenomenon is inefficient
bureaucracy and poor public service. One saying used to describe
the public service is "Why make it easy if it can be made
difficult?"

So people resort to bribery to get things done rather than
wasting their time. When one is trying to get one's driver's
license, for instance -- or even when one willingly does one's
public duty, such as paying annual vehicle registration fees. So
when will the fight against graft start?

In the mean time, responding to a survey by Transparency
International Indonesia (TII), which ranked Jakarta's tax and
customs offices as the most corrupt institutions, Minister of
Finance Yusuf Anwar, who oversees the customs service, simply
said, "I don't care." Speaking at the State Palace, Yusuf said,
"Just let it go. All I care about are improvements in governance
and oversights that are taking place. It is more important to try
to make an effort instead of trying to make the headlines."

Apart from the customs service, the finance ministry also
oversees the tax service, which is named as the eleventh most
corrupt institution on the TII's list. Yusuf claimed that the
amount of state funds lost to corruption were very small,
pointing out that the issue had been "exaggerated by certain
parties". Citing an example, he said only 2 percent of the
country's three million taxpayers evaded paying taxes last year.
"The claim that 40 percent of the country's tax revenue is
embezzled is 'bullshit'," Yusuf said. (the Post, Feb. 18).

Indeed, Supreme Court president Magi Manna stated that the
non-retroactive principle is controversial in law. On the one
hand, it ensures justice for anyone not treated justly and legal
certainty, but at the same time, this should not mean that
justice for other people is ignored. For the justice of many
people, it should be possible to prevail over this principle
(Kompas, Feb. 19). Still, it is not clear whether that is his
personal opinion or that of the Supreme Court, and how that
proposition may be implemented.

Opposition to the decision of the Constitutional Court was
also expressed by some lawyers such as Pradjoto, known for his
expertise in banking law, his integrity and credibility, Jakarta
LBH director Uli Parulian Sihombing, and Asep Rahmat Fadjar,
coordinator of Society of Indonesian Judiciary Monitors. They are
of the opinion that the decision of the Constitutional Court
should soon be subjected to public examination (Kompas, Feb. 18).

Finally, from carefully reading the law on the establishment
of the KPK it seems doubtful that the commission was established
to focus on the fight against corruption in the past, i.e. before
its establishment. Some of the considerations of Law No.30/2002
on the KPK read as follows:

*" ... The fight against criminal acts of corruption until now
has not been implemented to the optimum. Therefore, the fight
against acts of corruption shall be improved in a professional,
intensive, and continuous way because..."

* "... The state institution in charged of dealing with cases
of criminal acts of corruption has not functioned in an effective
and efficient way..."

Failure is human, and we are faced with so many complex and
inter-linked problems -- all of which are urgent -- such as graft
and corruption, poverty, unemployment, social injustice, the
threat of national integration, and thus instability. No
government could deal with all these problems within a single
term of office. Indeed, the battle may last for decades.

It is misleading for Susilo to have targeted significant
change within 100 days, imitating his predecessors at the outset
of the reform era. Making empty promises is just another form of
foolishness and dishonesty.

The writer is a political analyst.