Corruption fueled by ties with political leaders

Corruption fueled by ties with political leaders

Yogita Tahilramani
The Jakarta Post
Jakarta

Corruptors who build on their relationships with leading
political figures bring more havoc to the Indonesian legal system
than other issues that lead to corruption, including low salaries
among the judiciary and the police, a criminologist said on
Monday.

Mulyana W. Kusumah said corruptors were able to smooth their
way through the corrupt Indonesian legal system by maintaining
relations with political leaders, lobbyists and officials of
leading political parties.

"Such relationships are maintained here either by paying off
leaders and their parties with substantial sums of money, or
allegiances to certain camps of leading political parties, in
addition to paying off judges and prosecutors as well," Mulyana
told The Jakarta Post on Monday.

"These relations end up creating a protection system for
corruptors and alleged corruptors. Huge amounts are also paid to
political lobbyists, who do the legwork for corruptors."

Mulyana's statements were made in response to the results of a
regional survey of expatriates conducted by the Political and
Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), which puts Indonesia at the
bottom of the heap, stating that the, "whole legal system is in
desperate need of an overhaul". PERC recently stated that,
"corruption and political interference" undermined the Indonesian
legal system, which had "little integrity".

Even as there was good news in the fight against corruption,
with the detention of graft suspect and House of Representatives
Speaker Akbar Tandjung and the conviction of Bank Indonesia
Governor Sjahril Sabirin in a graft case, several questions
remain, like why was Akbar released from detention solely on the
word of his wife and why does Sjahril still remain free, after a
district court sentenced him to three years in prison.

Any anti-corruption strategy needed a functioning legal system
to build on if it is to introduce change, Mulyana said, adding
that while protection from political and public pressures was a
primary factor for a functioning judiciary, judges must be held
accountable for their professional conduct.

"Judges and prosecutors are always at play, since they have
all the discretion and rights to detain suspects or send the
convicted to jail. Law societies and bar associations must
monitor and help in promoting professional standards," Mulyana
said.

"Judges need to possess political neutrality, in addition to
qualifications and experience. On the other hand, if applicants
to the Supreme Court or the Attorney General's Office have to
bribe in order to get hired, what hope is left for the court or
the office to uphold the law."

National Police inspector-general Comr. Gen. Ahwil Luthan
added on Monday that corruption was rampant in the police because
lucrative opportunities to make fast money illegally was
plentiful, and that before joining the police, it is understood
that officers are required to work "crazy hours" for very little
pay.

"Ground detectives, intelligence staff and their supervisors,
sometimes work for 36 hours at a stretch with between three or
four hours sleep. They know their monthly salaries will still be
less than Rp 950,000," Ahwil said.

Local police state that one way they avoided ripping off
conglomerates, was by depending on "generous donations" made out
by conglomerates and tycoons, who take an interest in the work of
police precincts. A homicide detective of South Jakarta Police,
who requested anonymity, said that every time his team arrested a
suspected murderer or rapist, about 48 hours after the crime
scene has been located, an oil tycoon would award them with
money, ranging from Rp 5 million to Rp 10 million.

Secretary to the Indonesian Judges Association, Asep Iwan
Iriawan, admitted judges took bribes.

"Some of course are vulnerable to bribery, but that does not
mean all judges take bribes. The bad image of corrupt judges is a
result of several verdicts in favor of defendants in big cases in
Jakarta," Asep said, adding that all judges were under the
control of supervisors.

Asep said that a district court judge was supervised by judges
in the high court, while a high court judge was watched over by
the Supreme Court. Supreme Court justices, however, are not
included in this system of supervision. Asep admitted that the
control system over judges has not worked well and is susceptible
to bribery. District and high court judges are administratively
under the Inspectorate General of Justice at the Ministry of
Justice and Human Rights.