No bite to antigraft body

Some political observers have called for the abolition of the Public Servants' Wealth Audit Commission (KPKPN) due to the slow headway it is making in leading the anticorruption drive. The observers say that so far the Commission has only acted to draw up lists of public servants' assets, but has been powerless as against suspected corrupt officials. "The commission has been too cowardly in announcing the names of those who have refused to declare their assets on the forms sent to them." the critics say. They also say that the government should either give the Commission more muscle or dissolve it for good.

The Commission was set up in 1999 as a new tool to fight against increasing corruption due to the fact that so many existing antigraft bodies were mere decorative embellishments of the corrupt Soeharto regime. The basis of the Commission's establishment is Law No. 28/1999. This law stipulates, among other things, that every public servant (defined in Indonesian as penyelenggara negara) has to report his or her assets within six months after the enactment of the law (May 19, 1999), meaning by not later than Nov. 19, 1999. More than 27 months after the deadline, not even half of the country's public servants have complied, including the majority of members of the House of Representatives. But the Commission has found itself lacking coercive powers.

In reality, the Commission has some powers, as stipulated in Article 17 of the law, "to monitor and clarify public servants' assets; to scrutinize complaints/reports from the public at large; to investigate the assets of public servants if there are indications of corruption, collusion and/or nepotism; to obtain evidence, present witnesses, and request documents relating to cases of corruption, collusion and/or nepotism.

The Commission can also make use of the asas keterbukaan, or the principle of openness, as stipulated in Article 3, and public support as stipulated in Article 8. The Commission can make optimum use of its reports to the President, the House and the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK). It is true that the law should be supported by other laws and regulations as stipulated in Article 9 (3), Article 14 (4), Article 19 (2), etc, all of which executory provisions have not yet been enacted, to further enforce the substance of the law, which is designed to prevent corruption.

At the beginning the Commission was quite active but later it began to give the impression of going nowhere other than recording the assets of public servants. And this was limited to those who were willing to fill in the declarations. For those who refuse to cooperate, the Commission can do nothing. Especially when some of those who refuse to cooperate include members of the of House of Representatives. it was only after a great deal of public criticism that the lawmakers started to respect the Commission.

After months of this painstaking work, the Commission has realized its weaknesses. The law on which it is based lacks the teeth to force public officials to cooperate. Only their superiors can act against public officials who refuse the Commission's call. The penalties range from stern warnings to dismissal. But the trouble is that members of the House of Representatives and retired public officials say they have no boss. But thankfully, the lawmakers have lately showed some willingness to start cooperating.

In an effort to break the logjam, last November the Commission's chairman, Yusuf Syakir, a respected veteran lawmaker, met with President Megawati Soekarnoputri to ask for her support for the idea of revamping the law. Megawati said she supported the idea.

Even with this seemingly "weak" law, the Commission could still do a lot of things. For a start, it could publish a very long list of all public servants as provided for in Article 2, followed by (regular) shorter lists of those who have submitted their asset declarations. The Commission could regularly highlight prominent names --and their assets -- both those who have complied and those who have not complied. It could also make much better use of the strength of public opinion. The Commission, in fact, does have some teeth and muscle but it has to learn to use them to the optimum.