'Corruption sustained by political ties'

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.