Reference on corruption
In September 1997 I sent a letter to Post Office Box 5000 (established by former vice president Try Sutrisno to handle complaints of corruption) about ongoing problems expatriates were having with a high-level immigration official in Medan. Neither the office handling the Box 5000 complaints nor the Directorate General of Immigration ever responded, not even to ask me for further data to support my complaint. So I welcome the fact that Mr. Ghani has replied to my references of corruption.
This is an opportunity for Minister of Justice Muladi to demonstrate how serious the reform government is about investigating complaints of corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN) honestly, and how professionally and objectively complaints will be investigated under his jurisdiction. Will evidence be weighed impartially by disinterested parties? Will a reasonable standard of proof be used, rather than a legalistic or absolutistic standard? Will complainants or witnesses be protected against retaliation? To be effective, any bona fide investigation of public wrongdoing must carry an assurance that complainants will not be penalized for honest "whistle-blowing".
On Oct. 27, 1997 the U.S. Embassy sent several officials to Medan to meet with American citizens about this very problem (immigration corruption). Individuals spoke freely to the embassy officers about payoffs they had been asked to make to immigration and police officials. It seems clear that in an amenable forum, one that is free from the threat of retaliation, people will report corruption openly and in detail.
Since Mr. Ghani has extended a public challenge to me, may I offer one also? As he surely realizes, some of those who have paid protection money -- it can only be called that -- to immigration officials to avoid more prolonged harassment or deportation, may be reluctant to be identified, for fear of retaliation by those or other officials in the future. Is the minister of justice, through Mr. Ghani, willing to ensure that individuals or companies will not be penalized later for information they give during an official investigation? If the director general of immigration is really serious about getting to the facts, let him go out on a limb as much as Mr. Ghani has asked me to do, by promising protection from retaliation to those whose names I am being asked to provide. I respectfully request that minister Muladi promises this promptly and publicly as an encouragement to others to bear honest witness to KKN.
Is Mr. Ghani's attention focused on combating corruption, or on combating me? His letter suggests that he may be more interested in discrediting or discouraging those who comment on corruption, than in learning what goes on in the immigration offices in North Sumatra and elsewhere. If others are approached for information with the same tone, I wonder who will have enough confidence to speak freely? I could be wrong, but the tone of Mr. Ghani's letter also suggests to me that he believes I am deliberately making this all up about immigration corruption, from some malicious motive. Ironically, one column removed from Mr. Ghani's June 3 letter was one from a Mr. Manfred Weber of Jakarta, in which he commented, "As long as the corresponding regulations are being misused by Indonesian immigration staff to squeeze people for money..." Dare I say, I rest my case?
I will give Mr. Ghani the data that I sent to Box 5000. The information is an open secret in Medan, and should be a sufficient basis to begin a proper investigation here. The allegations I have made are verifiable. Perhaps Mr. Weber and other readers will also report their problems to Mr. Ghani.
Readers familiar with Indonesia will need to judge for themselves whether my reluctance to be baited by Mr. Ghani is evidence that my remarks on corruption are baseless and without credibility.
DONNA K. WOODWARD
Medan, North Sumatra