Observers question govt's anticorruption commitment

YOGYAKARTA (JP): Political observers here have questioned President Abdurrahman Wahid's commitment to eradicating corruption, alleging that the majority of his Cabinet lineup include individuals involved in graft practices during the New Order era.

Speaking at a seminar on corruption here on Tuesday, political scientist Cornelius Lay charged that Abdurrahman, better known as Gus Dur, lacked the political commitment to truly resolve the corruption issue.

"I am disappointed in Gus Dur's government, which has made no effort in cleaning up the Cabinet from the New Order. If he really wanted to clean up the government then only 1 percent of ministers would be left as free of the corrupt New Order," he said.

Cornelius declined to identify Cabinet ministers who he alleged had tainted pasts.

"The government does not have strong political will. The President even refuses to replace those people who were clearly connected to the New Order," the noted Gadjah Mada University political scientist said.

He warned that the problem of corruption in the country had reached chronic levels, saying its eradication would not depend on law enforcement alone, but also needed political commitment and action from the top.

Cornelius said it was appropriate to implement the subversion law for corruptors because corruption was far more destructive compared to separatist movements and armed activities.

"A public movement, especially student demonstrations, is still an effective means to eradicate corruption," he added.

Speaking at the same seminar, director of the Indonesian Institute of Legal Aid Foundation Bambang Widjojanto urged the establishment of Law No. 31/1999 on Anticorruption.

However he also expressed a degree of skepticism as to how the law could be successfully implemented.

Despite his misgivings, he described the law's enactment as a progressive development in the anticorruption drive.

Bambang said one of the commendable aspects of the new law was that it not only defined corruption as actions which were detrimental and caused material losses to the state, but also to the general public.

He said that it followed that incompetent acts, such as creating a high-cost economy, could also be prosecuted as acts of corruption. He said that even though such activities did not directly effect the state, they caused direct losses to the public, in this case the business community. (44/02)