Monumental scandals
Monumental scandals
Ada proyek, ada obyek (Where there's a project, there's money
to be made.) This cynical expression is very popular with
Indonesians, who believe that every project involves corruption.
Therefore, installation of the Rp 3.5-billion statue of Gen.
Soedirman on the main Central Jakarta thoroughfare has produced
not only criticism but also suspicion of misappropriation.
Environmentalists have criticized the city administration for
felling at least eight trees to make room for the 4.5-ton statue.
They say that policy makers made a decision in contradiction to
the administration's determination to regreen the city.
From an aesthetic point of view, the statue has also provoked
criticism. Many critics say that the statue is unsuitably located
-- which could perhaps be taken as an indication that very few
suitable spots for statues remain in this teeming metropolis.
As for the possibility of malfeasance, it was the Jakarta
Development Watch (Jadewa), a non-governmental organization
(NGO), that alleged fraud in the statue project. The plan
reportedly originated with the Soedirman Foundation, which
belongs to the family of the late Gen. Soedirman, the revered
first commander of the Indonesian army. On that basis the
foundation established a company to construct the statue. Based
on the agreement, the company paid Rp 6.5 billion to the Jakarta
Revenue Agency to obtain a 10 meter (m) by 20 m advertising space
in the selected location.
That was reported to be Rp 3.5 billion less than the official
price of the lot -- a fact that led Jadewa to assume that the
city administration had sacrificed that much money for the
project without good reason. A previous deal, which granted the
company an 8 m by 16 m advertising space, drew more questions
from Jadewa.
Priyo Handoko, executive secretary of Jadewa, said that Rp 3.5
billion for construction of the statue was questionable, arguing
that preliminary work would probably need Rp 16 million, Rp 150
million on the construction of the pedestal, Rp 1.698 billion on
construction of the statue, Rp 22 million on the surrounding park
and Rp 59 million on the official installation ceremony.
Head of the City Parks Agency Maurits Napitupulu responded to
the allegation by saying said that he was ready to clarify
everything concerning the project. While the public is waiting to
hear what is really going on behind the statue project, sculptor
Soenaryo said in Bandung that the statue cost "only" Rp 1.2
billion, and that he had not yet received full payment.
Whether or not fraud has taken place, the bottom line is that
there has been a lack of transparency. The administration has not
been transparent in its policy making, especially with regard to
projects that are vulnerable to corruption. The City Council,
which is expected to represent the public as a controlling body,
has failed to perform well.
Suspicions of fraud, corruption, misappropriation or whatever
it may be, are therefore widely taken for granted, given the many
irregularities that have been allowed to go unchecked for
decades. The administration, for its part, has apparently become
immune to criticism, and refuses to heed any allegations of
irregularity. Continued bribery at the vehicle test station, for
example, has become public knowledge, with no one moving to put a
stop to the practice.
Whenever a project that involves big money crops up, NGOs warn
of possible corruption, but the warnings have been useless. Since
2001, construction of the Islamic Center, on the plot where the
notorious Kramat Tunggak red-light district in North Jakarta used
to stand, has been rife with rumors of corruption. It may be hard
to believe, but word has been going round that compensation was
reportedly paid twice over to property owners in the project.
Financial reports on the renovation of Hotel Indonesia traffic
circle as well as the beautification of the National Monument
square reportedly lacked transparency. The purchase of 20 garbage
incinerators has allegedly resulted in fraud, because so far only
one incinerator is operational. Most recently, warnings of a
possible scam in the busway project were voiced by the NGO
Jakarta Residents Forum (FAKTA).
All these examples of alleged irregularity have been openly
aired by critics. However, the city administration has yet to
respond. It is time for administration officials to be more
transparent. The approach to development must be adjusted to
increasing demands for public participation in decision making.
It is time for the public to become meaningfully involved in the
development process. After all, the public is the real
stakeholder in the city's development efforts.
In the final analysis, it would be helpful for all parties
involved to keep the public well informed of anything the city
administration does. Experience has taught us that, more often
than not, suspicion and protest against the administration's
policies are the result of reluctance by the authorities, or
their inability, to keep the public properly informed.