Anticorruption vanguards

Anticorruption vanguards

The five leaders of the Corruption Eradication Commission
(KPK) were finally elected on Tuesday by the House of
Representatives from ten candidates put forward by the government
selection committee. But critics are already expressing doubt
over the team's integrity and whether it can live up to the
public's expectations.

The biggest disappointment seems to be the failure of such
highly respected figures as Marsillam Simandjuntak, Bambang
Widjojanto and Mohammad Yamin to join the KPK.

However, given the tight time frame -- that had not allowed
meaningful public consultation on the selection process -- and
the vested interests of the various House factions, the five
chosen candidates seem to be the best we can get for now. At
least we will soon have a politically independent commission,
which was set up through a widely transparent process.

We should give them the benefit of the doubt.

The five KPK members, whose names will soon be submitted to
the President for ratification, still represent a good mix of
technical competence needed for the investigation and prosecution
of corrupters. Taufiequrahman Ruki, a former police officer, will
lead the KPK. The other four members, consisting of three
auditors and one former public prosecutor, will act as deputy
chairmen.

Certainly, the KPK is expected to be much more effective than
previous anticorruption agencies because it is mandated by a
special law, (Law No: 30/2002), which provides it with political
independence and strong powers to investigate and prosecute
corruption cases.

Judging from the experiences of successful anticorruption
agencies, such as those in Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, South
Korea and New South Wales (Australia), Law No.30/2002 is clear-
cut, strong, and comprehensive enough, as a legal foundation, to
give more teeth to the KPK.

The law, for example, stipulates that the KPK shall be
equipped with four departments in charge of prevention,
repression, information and data gathering (research), and
internal control and public complaints, respectively.

The prevention department will take over the function of the
current Public Servant's Wealth Audit Commission (KPKPN), which
has not been effective as it is devoid of the power to
investigate and prosecute.

Public officials will herein be quite careful and thorough in
reporting their assets to the KPK, knowing that they are subject
to investigation and prosecution by KPK officials. This
compulsory declaration of assets, combined with the powerful
financial intelligence unit which was established under the anti
money-laundering law, will make it more difficult for officials
to hide and launder their ill-gotten wealth.

Most important, is that Law No.30/2002 supports the KPK with
the establishment of special anticorruption courts within
district courts, with career and ad hoc judges, who will undergo
special training before they are selected and appointed directly
by the chief justice of the Supreme Court.

Moreover, the KPK will operate under a more conducive, social
and public opinion climate for fighting corruption, especially
after the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin),
religious organizations, non-governmental corruption watchdogs
and professional associations have set up coalitions for a
nationwide, anticorruption drive.

Certainly the public credibility of KPK will depend on its
ability to deliver early results with the successful prosecution
of several high-profile graft cases. Hence, the KPK needs to be
strategic and selective about its work agenda, so that its
resources will not be spread too thin across insignificant cases.

The KPK, for example, could deliver a strong message early on
by taking over several high-profile corruption cases -- which had
either been shelved or are being handled in a questionable manner
by the police or Attorney General's Office.

This will, however, be possible only if the government acts
quickly to provide the KPK with adequate financial and staff
resources to carry out its monitoring, investigative and
prosecutorial responsibilities. Adequate funding will especially
be crucial, to ensure the integrity and technical competence of
those recruited to the KPK.

The macroeconomic stability, as the World Bank observed in a
recent report, has been clouded by widespread concerns over
corruption across Indonesia. Corruption, nepotism and collusion
between officials and businesspeople was established as one of
the primary causes of the 1997 economic crisis, yet very few have
been held to account for the massive plundering of the nation's
wealth.

We put great expectations on the KPK, to reduce corruption by
making the cost of graft very dear and the chance of being caught
in malfeasance very big.