Audit commision faces rising criticism

JAKARTA (JP): High expectations by the public of a thoroughgoing eradication of corruption have turned into strong criticism of the Public Servants' Wealth Audit Commission (KPKPN), due to its poor performance.

The commission has been strongly criticized over the last few days for its lack of transparency concerning its internal assessment processes for wealth audit reports.

KPKPN has also been the target of criticism because of its vague stance on the provision of "unidentified grants" to public servants by wealthy businessmen, without being able to trace them.

KPKPN Chairman Jusuf Syakir stated here on Thursday that the public expected too much of the audit commission in further speeding up the battle against corruption, without realizing that there were also other elements that played a major role in upholding good governance.

Jusuf said the public had assumed that KPKPN had the sole authority to investigate, prosecute and bring delinquent public servants to court.

"In fact, however, we cannot do all of this. The authority the commission has deals only with preventive functions, by evaluating the wealth of public servants," Jusuf said at a seminar titled "Public Monitoring of the Wealth of Public Servants to Prevent Corruption, Collusion, and Nepotistic (KKN) Practices."

In its official announcement every Tuesday, KPKPN classifies the wealth of public servants only into three groups: revenue, inheritances and grants.

Anticorruption campaigner Todung Mulya Lubis said that KPKPN provided an insufficient explanation about when and from whom a grant came. Therefore the "grants" classification could be used by public servants to conceal wealth possibly obtained from questionable sources.

Former finance minister Fuad Bawazir, for example, listed his Rp 30 billion (US$3.33 million) assets under the category of grants.

Chairman of Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) Teten Masduki feared the "grants" classification would be used as an excuse by alleged corruptors to escape prosecution.

"I predicted many public servants would resign because they would have been unable to give an adequate explanation about the source of their wealth. But my prediction has turned out to be wrong," he said.

He suggested that KPKPN trace from whom the grant received by the public servant came. He said that the disclosure of donors would enable the commission to determine whether the grant was a bribe.

If the grant were considered to be a bribe, it could undergo further legal investigation.

Jusuf explained that his team would soon discuss the matter.

He admitted it took a long time for the commission to decide whether a public servant was involved in corruption. He said that his commission often resorted to voting to decide whether the revenue of certain public servants could be classified as being the result of corruption.

He said the voting was carried out because the audit commission was required to make a decision. "If there is no conclusion after a few days, we have to vote on it," Syakir added.

He stated that up to the present, the commission had publicly announced the wealth of 2,504 public servants. "We are now assessing 157 of those declarations and are expected to complete 1,500 by December," he said.

Meanwhile, Todung praised the audit commission's move, saying that empowerment of the public within an anticorruption campaign was no less important.

"Regardless of the substantial weaknesses in the legal instruments, this must be seen as an initial step in the drive to eradicate corruption," he said.

Senior journalist Djaffar H. Assegaff said that along with the audit commission, the media had a role in monitoring the wealth of public servants as well. (08)