Corrupt disposition a good breeding ground for anarchy

By Donna K. Woodward

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia may seem ruptured by conflict just now, but the Indonesian people are unified in demanding reform. Reform is not a matter of rhetoric. Reform will be, to borrow a phrase, in the details; the procedural details of how future members of the government will be qualified and chosen, the details of how public funds are to be accounted for, the details of how complaints of corruption directed against public officials will be handled. What happens when the demand for reform takes the form of a complaint against corruption?

This is a follow-up to what happened after I wrote an article for The Jakarta Post in April which mentioned corruption in the Medan immigration office. In early June the director general of immigration, Pranowo, and the immigration department's head of public relations, Ghani, via letters to the Post, challenged me to give names and details to support my allegations and appeared eager to investigate the case.

Most of the abuses in Medan revolved around a "Mr. X", and during a three-hour meeting with Pranowo on June 29, I reported the accounts of those who agreed to be quoted. On June 30, Mr. X surrendered his position to his replacement.

Although it appeared that our complaint had produced results, subsequent rumors have suggested that Mr. X is to be re-assigned to Los Angeles. Attempts to follow up the complaint and learn the outcome have been unsuccessful. Was X's sudden removal evidence of reform, or was it an attempt to placate the complainants?

We won't know which it was, unless we are informed of the outcome of the investigation. Although the immigration department at first seemed committed to investigating the complaint, it now appears that the investigation might have been a case of stonewalling.

On June 29, Pranowo promised to send a team of investigators to Medan soon. The team arrived in Medan even before I had returned on the evening of July 1. At 9 p.m. that evening, three gentlemen tracked me down in a coffee shop and told me they were ready to begin their interviews on the following morning. Although the lack of notice was a handicap in terms of arranging witnesses, six people -- both Indonesians and expatriate businesspeople -- gave statements to an investigator on the following day.

The people interviewed gave names, amounts paid, the particular situations that led to demands for a payoff. In some cases, the person simply wanted a document to be issued in a timely fashion, but for this they might have had to pay hundreds of thousands of rupiah. Computers and golf equipment were sometimes solicited. In one case, Mr. X even objected to a work permit that had been approved by the Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM).

Is it within the authority of the immigration office to question a permit issued by BKPM?

In another case, an expatriate was working, unaware that his work permit had expired and that the extension was still in process in Jakarta. In none of these particular cases were the individuals, either Indonesian or expatriate, intentionally trying to circumvent the law, and in none of these cases did the victims make the first overture in the extortion scenario.

One expatriate who spoke used the terms "extortion" and "terrorism" to describe the threats that X made to him. It should be noted that this individual has been working here legally for years and, as he acknowledged, knows the system and is willing to accommodate "reasonable" demands. He is neither naive nor squeamish.

First he was threatened with imprisonment because his renewed permit had not arrived from Jakarta. He was summoned from his office to the immigration office on three consecutive days to be harassed. Then he and his family (including two small children) were threatened with deportation: "We can do that to you," he was told.

Finally, to avoid further harassment, particularly as it might have effected his family, he paid Rp 15 million (before the monetary crisis), having bargained down the sum from an original demand for Rp 30 million.

I offer this only as an example of the type of statements that were given to the investigators; this was one of the more egregious accounts, but there were others like it.

Was Mr. X found guilty of corruption and abuse of official power, as his sudden removal might suggest?

Not necessarily. In Medan, the rumors persist that after a decent interval, when the dust has settled, X will indeed take up his new assignment -- just reward for his faithful service.

What happened? Were the complaints found to be lacking in merit because of insufficient proof? Is more proof needed? Did the responsible authorities conclude that the conduct we reported did not violate any existing regulations? Did the full impact of the witnesses' statements, which in some cases were given in English, fail to come through when translated into the written Indonesian language? Is there a national reason for the bureaucracy's inaction?

Or is there collusion at some level? Correct me if I am wrong, but the word on the street is that pre-Reformasi, some official positions could be bought.

Let us say that to increase his prospects for career success, an ambitious official like X wanted to attract the attention of his superiors.

How to do this? If X moved up the ranks by bestowing gifts on strategically placed superiors, how could those same officials (or their friends) ever have the courage to turn around and discipline him if they themselves have shared the fruits of this corruption?

Or let us say that when X was threatened with serious disciplinary action, he in turn threatened to reveal other people's misdemeanors. How can a system so permeated with corruption escape this tendency of the implicated to protect each other from public disclosure and sanction? Furthermore, how can Indonesia survive if it does not escape from this?

Do public officials who are tainted by past corruption thereby lose their legitimacy as figures of authority, and with it, their right to discipline subordinates?

The assumption that only those who are 'clean' have the right to speak or act against malfeasance is a fallacy. If accepted, this premise will paralyze Indonesia's efforts to reform and thwart her economic recovery.

If officials are silenced by fear of the ghosts of their past misdemeanors, who will be left to implement reform? Should one compound old shames with the new sins of cowardice and complacence?

Those officials who hesitate to take clear action against subordinates' malfeasance now, because they themselves may have benefited from corruption in the past, need to rethink this nihilistic course of inaction.

Reform is not about past purity, but about present repentance and rehabilitation. Though people will not accept hypocrisy from officials who punish subordinates while continuing to act wrongfully themselves, the public will welcome admissions of wrongdoing stakes when accompanied by concrete signs of self- reform.

Corruption investigations cannot always be concluded quickly. However, Director General Pranowo emphasized at the outset that this case must be handled expeditiously. And witness how rapidly certain actions were taken.

The urgency with which this investigation was pulled together is nowhere in evidence now. According to friends who have recently processed documents at the Medan immigration office, X's replacement has already introduced administrative improvements which have expedited document processing.

This new official gives every sign of being committed to running a clean immigration office. But how long will he persevere with this thankless work if X is allowed to walk away from the evidence against him into the sunshine of southern California, ill-gotten golf clubs in tow?

Rhetoric is not enough. To earn credibility, those who promise to implement reform must do more than announce that they will eradicate corruption. The patronizing posturing of high officials is no longer an acceptable substitute for concrete results and transparent outcomes. So expose corruption, and expose those who perpetrate it. Give details, give names of the guilty, and let the public know the consequences when they report corruption in officialdom.

Indonesia has far more pressing problems right now than corruption in the immigration office, but it has no problem more fundamental than that of restoring the confidence of Indonesians and the international community in the government's will and ability to reform the system and rid it of corruption, collusion and nepotism.

As Ella F. Dumbelia from Jakarta pointed out in her June 17 letter to the Post, even low-level officials demand payoffs with impunity. It makes one wonder what officials at a higher level are doing. Their brazen confidence that they can get away with "murder" (we hope in the figurative sense) makes one shudder.

As we are beginning to see, this attitude is a breeding ground for anarchy. An impartial and effective handling of even one report of corruption would send a signal to civil servants, the military and the public that those now heading the government are serious about punishing proven abuse of authority and other official crimes. If they are.

The writer, an attorney and former diplomat in the U.S. Consulate General in Medan, is director of PT Far Horisons.