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