Awaiting the results of SBY antigraft campaign

Awaiting the results of SBY antigraft campaign

J. Danang Widoyoko, Jakarta

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono completed the first year of
his five-year term on Thursday. This gives us the opportunity to
look back at what he has done since voters gave him an
overwhelming victory in the direct presidential election in
September, 2004.

Combating corruption was one of his major campaign themes. It
is true that corruption was his main concern over the last year,
as reflected in his official and off-the-cuff speeches. The
President made 35 speeches about corruption, averaging three a
month.

Concern about corruption is necessary for any Indonesian
leader. International communities see the rampant corruption in
Indonesia. The Berlin-based Transparency International (TI)
always ranks Indonesia toward the bottom of the Corruption
Perception Index survey. There has been no significant change in
Indonesia's ranking in that survey since the end of Soeharto's
regime in 1998. In the latest survey conducted in 2004, TI ranked
Indonesia 141 out of 146 countries, or the fifth most corrupt
country in the survey.

Another survey conducted by the World Bank, Doing Business in
Indonesia 2005, confirmed that Indonesia is not attractive for
foreign investors. To invest in Indonesia requires more time,
more complex procedures and much more money, all because of
corruption.

So, what happened after Susilo became the country's sixth
president? He did not implement many concrete anticorruption
programs, especially because the President inherited the same
corrupt system that had been built up over decades.

However, some progress was made, which we should acknowledge
and appreciate.

First, in law enforcement there are no longer any obstacles
for prosecutors who want the President's permission to prosecute
state officials. The Criminal Code states that before state
officials, i.e. local and national legislators, mayors, governors
and other high-level officials, can be investigated in criminal
cases the president must first issue permission. In previous
governments, the president rarely gave permission to investigate
and prosecute state officials involved in corruption.

Second, during Susilo's term the Corruption Eradication
Commission (KPK) has been a success story. The KPK itself was
established before Susilo came to power, but the commission only
got the support it needed under Susilo.

Just recently, the KPK conducted a sting to arrest suspects in
a corruption scandal in which Supreme Court Chief Justice Bagir
Manan has been mentioned as someone who allegedly may have
received bribes. And the KPK was instrumental in the prosecution
and jailing of Aceh governor Abdullah Puteh, as well as members
of the General Elections Commission (KPU).

Third, during Susilo's presidency several big corruption cases
were brought to court by the Corruption Eradication Coordination
Team. Furthermore, the haj fund corruption case involving former
religious affairs minister Said Agil Husin Almunawar, as well as
a corruption case involving Bank Mandiri, are now making their
way through the courts. Although the trials are ongoing, many
people never imagined such big cases would ever make it to the
courts at all.

Although Susilo has demonstrated a determination to eradicate
corruption, there are still a number of major problems he must
confront.

First, the government does not have an integral strategy to
eradicate corruption, not just in terms of prosecution but also
prevention and education. Following the example of other
countries in combating corruption, Indonesia needs a
comprehensive strategy to eradicate corruption that is part of
general government reform.

The government has drafted the National Action Plan to
Eradicate to Corruption, led by the State Development Planning
Agency, but there has never been any mention of the progress
achieved by this action plan.

Eradicating corruption will never work without first reforming
the bureaucracy. A general and integrated strategy to combat
corruption must be implemented simultaneously, and it is very
important that the President himself monitor this implementation.

Second, corruption and law enforcement are sensitive issues in
politics. The President's attempt to enforce the law could be
seen as an attempt on his part to attack the opposition. That is
why, in the name of fairness, justice and equality before the
law, the enforcement of the law must be impartial.

So, other large corruption cases involving the inner circle at
the State Secretariat and the controversial bonuses paid to the
director and commissioner at state electricity company PLN should
also be prioritized by the President and the Attorney General's
Office.

Third, the successes achieved by law enforcement are a small
milestone in resolving some of the internal problems within law
enforcement agencies. The establishment of coordination teams
consisting of a prosecutor, police officers and auditors is the
short-cut solution to the problem of coordination within law
enforcement.

Fourth, the President must focus on short and medium-term
goals in eradicating corruption. The President has limited
resources and an old system to cope with systemic corruption. To
get better results, the President needs to use his resources more
efficiently.

The President must decide whether corruption eradication is
part of economic recovery, the improvement of public services,
the efficiency of the state budget or just about improving
Indonesia's rank in the Corruption Perception Index survey by TI.
Each option has its consequences and requirements.

After one year, it is the time for the President to choose an
option and start prioritizing his targets.

The writer is deputy coordinator of Indonesia Corruption
Watch.