Audit commision faces rising criticism

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)