Anticorruption commission needs support of public

Anticorruption commission needs support of public

Sofie Arjon Schuette and Agam Fatchurrochman, Partnership for Governance

Reform in Indonesia, Jakarta

Indonesia ranks among the most corrupt countries in the world,
an indication that the government has not done much to eradicate
corruption since reformasi started. The unholy triad of
corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) is unfortunately deeply
ingrained within the civil service and the state system.

The lack of progress in fighting corruption is among the
gloomiest aspects of the current state of governance. What has
been achieved so far, however, should not be ignored.

In his article The elections, new government and
anticorruption measures (The Jakarta Post, March 15), Patrick
Guntensperger is certainly right about the opportunity the
upcoming elections offers to make a fresh start and announce a
zero-tolerance, anticorruption policy. Like many others, however,
he is still ignorant of the newly established anticorruption
commission.

Guntensperger's proposal that the next president and
legislature should establish a government department with the
specific mandate of investigating allegations of corruption
demonstrates this popular ignorance.

Such an institution was established in late December 2003: The
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), as provided by Law No.
30/2002. The law declares corruption an extraordinary problem
that needs to be tackled by extraordinary means and therefore
gives the new commission a far-reaching mandate. The KPK's
authority goes far beyond that of previous related institutions
such as the Joint Investigation Team or the Public Servants'
Wealth Audit Commission (KPKPN).

Besides prevention, the KPK is tasked with coordination and
supervision of police and prosecutors in corruption cases. It is
authorized to take over cases from the police and the attorney
general and to conduct investigations, inquiries and prosecutions
of corruption cases that involve the law enforcement apparatus,
cause special concern to the public or involve a loss to the
state of at least Rp 1 billion (approximately US$125,000).

To fulfill these responsibilities the KPK has been given legal
authority, including the recording and tapping of communications,
the investigation of suspects' bank accounts and inquiring into
the wealth and taxation of suspects.

To ensure that these extraordinary powers are not abused the
five commissioners have already signed a code of ethics. This
code, as well as the commission's organizational structure and
performance plan, are currently being presented by the
commissioners as part of a public consultation process all over
Indonesia. It is time for the KPK to garner popular support and
use this as the impetus for demonstrating its existence.

As shown in a national survey conducted by Partnership in
2001, public expectations of the KPK are high, and quick results
are demanded. However, to build up a solid institution that has
integrity takes time. At this point the commission is supported
by a temporary staff of 50 only, transferred from various state
institutions. The recruitment of permanent staff is scheduled to
start in May.

With regard to the recruitment of incorruptible as well as
qualified personnel, the commission can benefit from the previous
support provided by Partnership's Law and Judicial Reform Program
to create a pool of competent and clean prosecutors and judges.
Following the training of a "super-team" of judges and
prosecutors to handle corruption cases in August through
September 2003, and the establishment of the KPK in December
2003, the chief justice requested Partnership to facilitate the
selection process of judges for the anticorruption court.

Establishment of the anticorruption court is part of the
provisions of Law 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication
Commission and is expected to be established by June at the
Central Jakarta District Court.

It took some time to get the anticorruption commission
established and it will take longer to get it fully working. The
provisions are there, however, and what is needed most at present
is public support for the commissioners' efforts. The KPK has at
least three intricate tasks:

First, gaining support from individual citizens for a wider
constituency for reform. This heart-winning obligation seems to
be a rather easy task for KPK. The announcement of the elaborate
code of ethics was received well by the public. This initial
trust should be built upon by establishing its integrity and
proving that several big fish can be fried.

Second, forging partnerships with other corruption-concerned
organizations such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), Muhammadiyah,
Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) and Transparency International
Indonesia (TII) to work in tandem in combating corruption.
Leaving their ideological differences behind, NU and Muhammadiyah
have already signaled their willingness to fight corruption in a
memorandum of understanding with the Partnership.

Together, the two mass organizations influence more than 80
million people throughout Indonesia. This cooperation cannot be
overestimated in its value for popular anticorruption education,
one of the KPK's tasks.

Third, getting commitment from candidates who are now running
for the legislature and presidency. This task, without doubt, is
one of the toughest challenges for the KPK since politicians have
proven themselves to be especially vulnerable to corruption. As
pointed out at the start, the upcoming elections are an
opportunity for leadership and regime change.

Along with a newly installed legislature, the new president
and cabinet that are due to be inaugurated in October 2004 share
a common interest with the KPK to start over and systematically
pursue good governance in all walks of life.

Every presidential candidate should be aware that the public
will demand the KPK and the new government prove their sincerity
in fighting corruption through several quick wins. A failure of
the new government and the new anticorruption commission to
address the public's demands will lead to the same distrust
toward government currently experienced.

That is why all presidential candidates should seriously
consider formulating an action plan for eradicating corruption to
prevent any premature loss of public confidence.