Observers question govt's anticorruption commitment

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)