Problem of KKN

Problem of KKN

Minister of Manpower Bomer Pasaribu's recent reaction to the
public suspicion that he may be involved in corruption, collusion
and nepotism (KKN) reflects an interesting viewpoint. Mr. Bomer
said that because the President recently gave him an official
assignment, this is proof that he is not one of the three
ministers being investigated for KKN. This viewpoint suggests
that personal corruption is a matter to be divined from
externalities.

Instead, shouldn't Mr. Bomer simply recall his past conduct to
determine whether he is guilty of corruption? Or maybe Mr. Bomer
and other ministers are no longer clear about what corruption is?
There is such a long history in the bureaucracy of requiring
gifts (disguised as unofficial administration fees, coffee money
or a little understanding) in exchange for doing one's public
duty or doing it more expeditiously, that some may no longer
remember that this is one variety of corruption. It has become so
acceptable for officials to make decisions that benefit
themselves or their families and friends rather than the public,
that the very concept of conflict of interest may be a lost
sensibility. Favoring family members in employment is often
considered not an impropriety but an obligation. And then
there is the most lucrative part of the KKN trinity, mutually
profitable collusion between private citizens/businesspeople and
those officials who are supposed to uphold the law.

A national consciousness-raising campaign (a low-budget
campaign) might be a good first volley in the President's war
against KKN. Let the appropriate government department (either
the Attorney General's Office or the Ministry of Law and
Legislation) draft new regulations defining KKN in a way that
gives ordinary citizens a concrete understanding of what is right
and what is wrong, and disseminate these regulations in the
community. If one does not already exist, draft a clear code of
conduct for government officials. Let the public know the
contents of this code. Then Mr. Bomer and friends will know
whether they have violated the laws against corruption when they
look in the mirror in the morning, not after they arrive in their
offices and look in their in-boxes.

In fairness to Mr. Bomer, in fact he may not be one of the
ministers under investigation. He may be someone who in
all his public life has never violated anticorruption principles.
But Mr. Bomer's basis for proclaiming his innocence -- namely,
that the President still treats him like a bona fide Minister --
reflects a broken moral compass.

If Mr. Bomer would like to show his bona fides as a noncorrupt
minister of manpower, he might like to start in his hometown,
Medan. Each visit to the local manpower office is a new battle to
get required documents processed promptly without paying
extortion money to lower officials who insist that they must give
money to their superiors. While the regional office of the
Ministry of Manpower has been helpful, should it be necessary for
companies to send their directors to the regional office to
ensure that documents are handled honestly? For details I invite
Bomer Pasaribu to visit me when he next comes to Medan.

DONNA K. WOODWARD

Medan, North Sumatra