Indonesian corruption in perspective

Indonesian corruption in perspective

W. Scott Thompson, Gianyar, Bali

It is not realistic to put Nigeria and Indonesia in the same
league on corruption, as an international NGO has done. There has
been much publicity about this country's placement near the
bottom of the corruption barrel. There is no question that it is
a big problem: I should know, as the victim here of a huge
personal scam.

But Indonesia is not Nigeria. Here, there has been
substantial economic growth and national and noble attempts to
come to terms with corruption. Nigeria went from being a food
exporter to an almost total importer, thanks to indolent and
corrupt elite attitudes: Virtually the entire oil wealth of the
1970s was skimmed off for houses in London and similar
extravagances.

At one recent point a national leader closed down the oil
refineries there so that the oil had to go in and out, and thus
give him a double cut. Millions lost their jobs; the national
income plummeted faster than any known country's in history-- but
Gen. Abacha got billions. Only his viagra overdose saved the
country from a much worse fate.

One need not praise the Soeharto family for probity, but in
the better years -- let us say until the death of Mme Tien -- the
per capita income grew by at least ten times. The corruption
happened after the economic growth. The useful comparison is
with, for example, the Philippines, where Marcos jiggled the
system for the family and the cronies,they taking their cuts
prior to any growth, so the whole system collapsed. Here the
family -- at least until the early 1990s-generated huge growth
and then took their cut.

The last time I visited Nigeria it was suggested that my visa
wasn't valid (which was not true) but US$100 would help. The
immigration officials were laughing as they figured what I was
worth. I only once had to pay that much in Indonesia, and the
customs inspector, while pocketing the money, told me that it
wasn't for him, "it was for the people of Indonesia." At least he
felt guilty, which didn't even occur to the Nigerian.

It is also true that the current ratings do not take into
account recent progress. The ratings show a substantial lag
effect. The last time I left Indonesia I had unintendedly
overstayed a day. I was wondering how much I would have to pay.
The truly sensational thing is not that the official told me I
had only to pay $20 -- but that he then wrote me a receipt on RI
paper and put the money in a customs box! That's worth
celebrating.

But there is more than anecdotal evidence that people are
getting the message -- that corruption keeps a country poor.
Corruption is like population growth -- at some stage one
outgrows it. As recently as 90 years ago the British government
was selling peerages for contributions to the governing party;
not much earlier it was selling military commissions.

In America as recently as 1980 a New Orleans official said to
me that his state could not contribute to Governor Reagan's
presidential election campaign, because they had just spent $50
million on their gubernatorial campaign. I expressed
astonishment, to which he replied, "there's one big lot of roads
to be build in Louisiana."

In smart states, corruption declines like population growth as
the economy expands. It becomes inefficient, counter-productive.
The Indonesian press has well publicized the negative effect is
has on foreign investment and scholars have attached numbers as
high as 3 percent to its harm.

But attitudes have to change along with the economic
perspective. Areas have to become off limits for corruption. For
example, while everyone tries to cut sharp deals in business all
over the world, in the countries in the clean league, it is
simply unthinkable to steal from your friends. That encircles a
huge area of personal probity and shifts attitudes at the
corporate level too.

The single most painful monetary memory of my life is that a
"friend" here offered to transmit some American funds for
building my house in Bali, and kept eighty million rupiah for
himself, 15 percent. That's simply a no-no in countries that want
to clean their act up. Honesty starts at home.

If Indonesia wants to worry about indices generated in the
West, it should pay more attention to the "failed state" index of
the magazine "Foreign Policy," which places this country, along
with neighboring Philippines, in the "marginal" category. (Ivory
Coast, with 106 negative points, is the worst; Indonesia gets 87,
the Philippines 84).

Again, the time lag has harmed Indonesia: One of the twelve
categories for that rating was "refugees and displaced persons."
Another was "factionalized elites." But the Aceh settlement and
more settled political situation since Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's
election would, I think in themselves, raise Indonesia out of the
"marginal" category, from its 87 to less than the cut-off point
of 82 points.

Nonetheless, in the other ten categories, there are things to
think about (uneven development, demographic pressures, human
rights). It seems to me that Indonesia is on a sharp upward
curve: It's taken some courageous acts in its elections, in its
decentralization, and in its decisions to deal with the deficit
by no longer giving gasoline away to the rich and middle class. I
would say, looking at these comparisons with other countries,
Indonesia is doing rather well. It deserves higher ratings, and I
believe an inspection of the criteria for the ratings would show
that the numbers have been overtaken by events. But that is no
argument for complacency.

The writer is adjunct professor of international politics at
the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. He resides part time in
Bali.