Corrupt disposition a good breeding ground for anarchy

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.