Getting rid of corruption in Indonesia: The Future
Getting rid of corruption in Indonesia: The Future
Saldi Isra
The year 2004 will soon leave us. Aside from the successful legislative and presidential elections, this year marked an important point in the eradication of corruption in Indonesia.
In the first quarter of the year, the majority of the public was disappointed when on March 12 the Supreme Court exonerated Golkar Party leader Akbar Tandjung of all charges in a corruption case involving non-budgetary funds at the State Logistics Agency (Bulog), even though he already had been legally and convincingly found guilty of corruption by district and high courts.
This disappointment over Akbar's case was slightly alleviated when the Padang District Court found 43 members of the West Sumatra provincial legislative council guilty of corruption involving the 2002 provincial budget. Not only did this verdict mark an important page in the country's history, but it could also encourage efforts to follow up corruption cases involving lawmakers in other regions.
Realizing that the eradication of corruption is inevitable, nearly every presidential and vice presidential candidate made corruption eradication an item on their list of priorities during the election campaign.
When Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla were eventually elected president and vice president, the public urged them to make the fight against corruption a part of their concrete agenda, especially because during the campaign Susilo vowed personally to lead the anticorruption campaign.
To be true to this vow, Susilo launched the National Movement for the Eradication of Corruption during a ceremony to mark the International Corruption Eradication Day on Dec. 9. The President also instructed the entire executive branch -- from the central to regional levels -- to speed up the elimination of corruption (Presidential Instruction No. 5/2004 on accelerating the eradication of corruption).
Legally, war against corruption was declared when Law No. 28/1999 on the establishment of a state free from corruption, collusion and nepotism was ratified. Support for the eradication of corruption became stronger with the ratification of Law No. 31/1999, as amended by Law No. 20/2001 on the eradication of corruption as a criminal offense. A big leap in the effort to eliminate corruption seemed to be envisioned with the ratification of Law No. 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission.
It seems, however, that all of these laws will not suffice to speed up the elimination of corruption. Indonesia is notorious as the most corrupt state in Asia. Ironically, only a very small number of corruptors have been exposed and punished. The question is, why it is so difficult to prosecute corruption cases in Indonesia?
Many people believe the roots of corruption are difficult to expose because the legislation is unclear and open to interpretation, and sides with the corruptors. Others say the majority of our legal enforcers are not really committed to fighting corruption. From this viewpoint, it may be said that rampant corruption is attributable to the great leniency that our laws and law enforcers show toward corruptors.
Owing, perhaps, to an awareness that a corruption eradication strategy must take a comprehensive approach, Presidential Instruction No. 5/2004 tries to bring together law enforcement, an improvement of public services and legal reform.
In the context of law enforcement, Susilo has asked the National Police chief to expand corruption investigations so the perpetrators can be punished and state funds recovered. He also asked the police chief to prevent his officers from abusing their power and to impose heavy penalties on those officers who did abuse this power.
The President also asked the police to cooperate with prosecutors' offices, the Development Finance Comptroller, the Center for Financial Reporting and Financial Transactions Analysis and other related state institutions to combat corruption and to recoup all lost state funds.
Similar instructions were delivered to the Attorney General's Office and prosecutors' offices nationwide.
It must be honestly admitted that all these instructions were issued because of the negative track records of the National Police and the prosecutors' offices in dealing with corruption cases.
In many cases, uncovering a corruption case has led to corruption among the law enforcers themselves. One oft-cited example is the issuance of a Letter for the Termination of an Investigation (known as an SP3). It is widely believed that the issuance of an SP3 often depends on a bribe.
Pursuant to the stipulation of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Law No. 31/1999, which has been amended by Law No. 20/2001, corruption committed in particular circumstances can carry the death penalty.
The elucidation of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the law stipulates that these particular circumstances involve the corruption of funds designated to overcome (i) an emergency; (ii) a national disaster; (iii) the aftermath of rioting on a national scale; (iv) an economic or monetary crisis; and (v) corruption itself.
In the case of the improvement of public services, an instruction has been issued to the Office of the State Minister for Administrative Reform to prepare a policy formulation for (i) public services improvement; (ii) the drawing up of a stipulation on the performance of government officials; and (iii) the application of the principle of good governance. No less important is an instruction to undertake an assessment of the civil service system.
Meanwhile, in the effort to reform corruption legislation, the minister of justice and human rights has been ordered to formulate law amendments to synchronize and optimize the efforts to eliminate graft. The minister also was instructed to prepare the necessary legislation for the enforcement of laws related with corruption.
It is also important, in this respect, that a special instruction be issued to governors and regents/mayors nationwide to speed up the eradication of corruption, to apply the principles of good governance within regional administrations, to improve public services and do away with illegal fees, and to team up with regional legislative councils to prevent leaks of state funds, either allocated in the state budget or in regional budgets.
Why has a special instruction also been issued to regional heads? The reason is that some regional heads have failed to apply the principles of good governance. Some of the practices of regional administrations are connected with corruption, collusion and nepotism, and also lack transparency.
It is also reported that family members and cronies of regional government officials are quite dominant in determining development projects. In a number of cases, projects that should have involved an open tender have been carried out on the basis of direct appointment.
Despite the widely published campaign to step up the eradication of corruption, Susilo does not explicitly mention the mechanisms for evaluating this campaign or its time frame. In fact, an evaluation is very important to push efforts to speed up graft eradication. Perhaps, this evaluation should be made an inherent part of a performance appraisal of the United Indonesia Cabinet.
While observing that corruption is an extraordinary crime, extraordinary measures must be taken to determine the future of the agenda for corruption eradication.
First, major corruption cases must be handled properly and seriously, as experience has shown that the corruption cases still are not dealt with successfully. As a result, there is a crisis of confidence regarding law enforcement institutions.
Second, government officials involved in corruption cases must be discharged from their positions. Whenever a minister or a member of the House, a governor, a regent, or a mayor, for example, is involved in a corruption case, he/she must be temporarily discharged from his/her position from the time he/she is named as a suspect. If later the court finds him/her guilty, he or she must be permanently discharged.
Third, when a court of law finds a government official guilty of corruption, he or she must be put in prison immediately after the verdict is passed by the district court. Although the ruling by the Padang District Court can be considered extraordinary, it cannot be considered a progressive verdict because the judge did not immediately imprison the legislative members who were found guilty.
The Padang court ruling was an obvious example of how the courts are still ambiguous with their verdicts, which on the one hand can find a corruptor guilty, but on the other hand still allow the corruptor to walk free. As a result, these verdicts cannot fully act to deter corruptors from committing the crime.
Yet, what is worth noting is that Susilo has taken a concrete step in the fight against corruption. As of the second week of December, for example, he had given the police permission to question 25 government officials, either as witnesses or suspects in corruption investigations (See Table 1).
However, efforts to speed up the corruption eradication campaign cannot be left completely to the executive. We also need to know the commitment of the legislative bodies in eradicating corruption. Reports of rampant judicial corruption may also undermine all of the hard work of prosecutors (and the police).
Table 1 Governors
1. West Sumatra 2. Banten 3. West Nusa Tenggara
Members of the House of Representatives
1. Adiwarsita Adinegara 2. Dharmono K. Lawi 3. Achmad Thoyfoer 4. HM Faqih Chaironi 5. Daromi Irdjas 6. Zuber Nawawi 7. Achmad Darodji
Regents
1. Banyuwangi 2. Nabire 3. Saorolangun, Jambi 4. Kendari 5. Pontianak 6. Nias 7. West Halmahera 8. South Halmahera 9. Kupang 10.Rote Ndao 11.South Barito 12.Muara Enim
Mayors
1. Depok 2. Bengkulu 3. Singkawang
(Data as of Dec. 9, 2004)
Meanwhile, regarding the public, there must be widespread and continuous campaigns to awaken the public's collective awareness that corruption is a crime against humanity. Also, the public must exact social sanctions against corruptors.
If all of these extraordinary measures can be taken together, the future of corruption eradication efforts will be much better than in the past. Now is the right time to start. Otherwise, this country will collapse because of corruptors. So, never stop fighting against corruption. Happy New Year 2005.