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