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.