Is law on graft workable?

Is law on graft workable?

Having been branded the third most corrupt country in the
world, Indonesia has made a number of attempts during the post-
Soeharto era to abolish its shamefully tarnished image. While
there have been numerous public discussions on corruption
involving experts in the field, there have been few results
because the authorities have resisted change.

Former president Soeharto's then spokesman defended the New
Order regime saying that "we have shown our sincerity because we
have established many supervisory bodies, right from the top of
government down to the district level, what else do we need?" On
the other hand, the House of Representatives were being told by
officials of the state audit body that their findings had not
received any response by the government ministries concerned. The
whole case was nothing but a cruel joke on the part of the
authorities.

Recently the Megawati administration and the House refused to
copy the success stories of Malaysia, Singapore or Hong Kong in
their drive to eradicate corruption -- as many experts had urged
-- but decided to fight graft in their own way. President
Megawati Soekarnoputri signed on Nov. 20 a new law against
corruption that had earlier been passed by the House.

The question now is will the new law be effective enough to
fight graft and help clean up the nation's reputation? Some have
said "no" but others "yes" because they have seen new positive
elements in the law, which is a revamp of the old law enacted in
1999.

After investigating former cases of corruption, the new law
has taken into account that bureaucrats involved in graft usually
collaborate with cronies and relatives, so suspects or defendants
are prone to use any tricks up their sleeves to save each other.

There are harsher punishments here that were not to be found
in any former laws. For example: Anyone found guilty of
corruption can be jailed for a minimum of four years or a maximum
of life plus be fined between Rp 200 million (US$19,800) and Rp 1
billion ($100,000).

The new law also reverses the task of the prosecutor to prove
that the defendant is guilty. Now the defendant has to prove
their innocence. This also denies the police, who have been
involved in an earlier stage of questioning, of their opportunity
to block the case and dismiss it for lack of sufficient evidence
to prosecute the suspect.

But the questionable aspect of the law is why it frees a
government official from prosecution if they have been involved
in a case of corruption involving Rp 10 million or less. Does the
law recognize the principle of justice for every citizen, or does
it believe that there will be too many corrupt people taken to
court so it does not make time for the small fry?

To make the law more effective the law will also set up Komisi
Pemeriksa (Interrogation Commission), yet it does not detail who
would comprise the body. If the commission includes police or
prosecutors it will compromise the independence of the commission
and will render it useless.

The last question is who is now in charge of supervising
judges in case a fellow colleague is tried for corruption?
Indonesia has had its fair share of recent bitter experiences
with this problem. Let's hope the answer is a step in the right
direction.