Officials' wealth
Officials' wealth
The statement made to the press by the Minister of Transmigration on requiring state officials to reveal their wealth before and after assuming their posts to find out whether or not they are "clean" during their tenure is a progressive statement from a state official.
Amid the prevailing atmosphere of corruption, a statement of this sort shows good intention toward the realization of a clean and authoritative government. But concrete steps toward the realization of this idea should be taken or else this excellent idea will disappear into thin air as a mere slogan.
First, the structure of corruption in Indonesia must be understood as being rooted in a business patronage relationship. Historically, this must be observed from the process of the growth of the state. Business relations between officials and would-be entrepreneurs and businesspeople enjoying the facilities and protection from the government are characterized by patronage.
Officials serve as patrons facilitating and protecting businesspeople who are building their empires by providing the latter with easy access to licenses, contracts, loans, market protection and monopoly. In return, the officials concerned will get material compensation in the form of corporate shares for the services they extend out of their political positions. It may be said that these businesses are financed by the state.
Second, to ensure that corruption runs smoothly in the patronage pattern, the government has inculcated among the bureaucratic ranks the culture of being loyal to one particular group. It is here that these bureaucratic ranks open up the way toward a corruptive bureaucracy. It is therefore no wonder that corruption has touched all levels, from the processing of documents at the neighborhood association (RT) level to the highest level of bureaucracy, including deposits to ministers' private bank accounts. In such an atmosphere, the anticorruption law (Law No. 3/1971), presidential decree No. 52/1970 on the registration of officials' wealth and various other laws are powerless and ineffective.
Third, corruption in Indonesia cannot only be considered a legal violation. Corruption must also be considered a political and economic matter. Therefore, regarding Minister Siswono's statement that the announcement of an official's wealth can simply rely on the commitment of the official concerned, this constitutes a minimum effort. Existing legal instruments and various control and supervision agencies have failed to touch corruption, particularly on a large-scale, let alone the commitment of the officials concerned.
Fourth, with respect to Minister Siswono's statement that what counts is the morality and ethics of the officials concerned, these two aspects are not enough if we consider the context in which the corruptive structure and climate find themselves working. As for morality, much has been fed our way such as the moral value of Pancasila which has been inculcated in the minds of elementary schoolchildren. Nevertheless, corruption is spreading and growing fast.
Even the Ministry of Religious Affairs -- an official institution where morality and faith are nurtured -- cannot escape sharp criticism and protests lodged by the community in the case of haj pilgrimage management. Within the context of loyalty to one particular group, it is the loyalty of bureaucracy at lower levels to their superiors that has hampered efforts to eradicate corrupt practices and the enforcement of lofty morality. Things will go from bad to worse with the presence of what Minister Siswono has called the lack of transparency in revealing facts.
Corruption in Indonesia is a political and economic matter. The eradication of corruption cannot simply depend on improving and supplementing the existing legal instruments or enforcing lofty morality as this will require a comprehensive political reform drive to cleanse the entire ranks of the New Order bureaucracy. This political reform means giving the community a greater role in politics so they may take part in controlling the running of the government's bureaucracy. This means that control should not be top-down in nature, as has been exercised so far, but must be bottom-up, allowing the community to run the mechanism of control.
HENDARDI
Executive Director of PBHI