Public hearings
Public hearings
This is in reference to "Public hearings need to be taken
seriously" (The Jakarta Post, March 2, 1996). Arief Budiman admits
that many House of Representatives members care about society's
problems, but is saddened by the many damaging policies that
remain, despite public awareness. Unfortunately, the life of a
politician, with elections to win and problems to solve, is not
easy. When a politician admits an issue he becomes powerless;
when doesn't, he becomes dishonest. A government has its own
short-term and long-term interests and its own pressures.
He suggests holding a public hearing on building a nuclear
plant in Jepara. This is welcome. But a public hearing on
corruption at all levels of public office? What would that
achieve? It doesn't require the wisdom of a scholar to realize
that corruption exists. In the absence of a strong legal
framework and effective law enforcement, corruption cannot be
controlled, regardless of political will.
Under the circumstances, a public hearing on corruption could
backfire unless it has a safe audience and takes place in a
carefully chosen setting. After all, the misuse of public office
is hardly new.
Ancient culture preaches that one cannot visit a king's court
with empty hands. Politically, there is an obvious tension
between having high economic growth and lending support to
democratic movements exposing corruption, nepotism, favoritism,
etc.
Corruption is just one element in a complete pattern of
events. Even when corruption is isolated and its impact is
identified, this impact must be weighed against other risks, such
as lost economic growth and jobs. If corruption came up at a
public hearing, politicians and administrators could lose
credibility in the eyes of the people for their inability to
control.
Intellectuals who profess a constructive political
consciousness would agree that this loss of credibility could
lead to a stirring of emotions and violence used for no
comprehensible rhyme or reason, especially in this era of
consumerism, shrinking moral values, and vast income
differentials. Both the honest and those who haven't shared in
the corruption proceeds could strike back with vengeance. I am
afraid that the net result could be more corruption, not less.
The solution might be to marginalize the corruption. Research
could be done to identify the corrupt practices that are the most
harmful to the nation. If those who benefit from corruption are
using the benefits to help build the nation, this could be
tolerated for the time being. All harmful practices, identified
and agreed upon, could then be placed under a separate schedule
to the Constitution or under a separate enactment of the House.
This would provide a precedent, which could be developed into
legal cases. The objective should be to gradually cover all
corruption cases over a period of time.
Arief Budiman should have focused on a public debate of legal
awareness and better jurisprudence in the country. Research
scholars like him could contribute to a healthy nation by helping
the politicians identify the right and pragmatic priorities.
D. PRABHAKAR
Jakarta