Safeguarding Infrastructure from the Logic Trap of "Merely Built"
Approximately one year following the simultaneous inauguration of regional heads for the 2025-2030 term, conducted by President Prabowo Subianto at the Presidential Palace in Jakarta on Thursday, 20 February 2025, regional government administration faces a critical early evaluation. This concurrent inauguration marks a new chapter in consolidating regional governance coordination across Indonesia, both in centre-regional coordination and in the effectiveness of public policy implementation.
However, amid a national economy still showing signs of deceleration and the complexity of regional governance challenges, classical structural issues have resurfaced: corruption practices within regional bureaucracies. This phenomenon reflects weak internal control systems and sub-optimal accountability mechanisms in regional government administration.
A recent case in North Sumatra Province illustrates this vulnerability clearly. On 29 June 2025, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) conducted a Sting Operation against five suspects, including Topan Obaja Putra Ginting, Head of the Public Works and Spatial Planning Service (PUPR) of North Sumatra Province, in connection with alleged bribery in road development projects. The case revelation originated from public reports, confirming the strategic role of public participation as an external oversight instrument in government administration.
Beyond this case, in early 2026, the KPK also conducted Sting Operations against several other regional heads, including Madiun Mayor Maidi and Pati Regent Sudewo. This sequence of events demonstrates that corruption practices at the regional government level remain systematic and have not been fully resolved.
Overall, this condition serves as an early warning signal for central and regional governments to undertake comprehensive reforms in regional governance, particularly in strengthening corruption prevention systems, enhancing oversight effectiveness, and ensuring consistent application of transparency and accountability principles in financial management and infrastructure projects.
Learning from Corruption Cases
In analysing the North Sumatra Public Works case, the KPK revealed that a project valued at Rp231.8 billion, covering the construction of the Sipiongot-Batas Labusel Road and Hutaimbaru-Sipiongot Road, had already been “commercialised” before the tender stage.
The Head of Public Works was allegedly promised a 4-5 per cent share of the project value, a form of gratification that clearly violates Articles 12(a) and (b) and Article 12B of the Corruption Eradication Law, read together with Article 55 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, this bribery pattern demonstrates how state actors can facilitate structural rent-seeking schemes behind the scenes of procurement processes.
The KPK’s step of conducting a Sting Operation before the project tender is a preventive measure that deserves commendation. Through this action, potential state losses of Rp41 billion were prevented at an early stage, whilst simultaneously safeguarding infrastructure quality from mark-up practices and bid-rigging collusion.
Corruption in the infrastructure sector not only damages state finances but also directly reduces the quality of public services. Imagine if 30-40 per cent of road project funds were embezzled—the resulting physical road would surely fall far short of adequate technical standards. Infrastructure of this kind deteriorates quickly, endangers users, and increases maintenance burdens in future years.
In line with findings from research by Rian Mantasa Salve Prastica (The Conversation, 2024), 76 per cent of respondents rated construction projects as highly vulnerable to manipulation, ranging from budgeting and technical design to tender procedures. Meanwhile, 66 per cent of respondents regarded corruption in the infrastructure sector as having become part of “project culture,” no longer an extraordinary deviation but a normalised practice.
In other words, the infrastructure sector is gripped by a form of systematic corruption increasingly recognised as state capture corruption, wherein state functions are controlled by particular groups for private gain. This blurs the distinction between projects for the people and projects for the elite.
The Existence of Internal Oversight
Amid weakened prevention systems, the Government Internal Oversight Apparatus (APIP) should serve as the front line of oversight. However, in reality, APIP occupies a deeply problematic position. Structurally, regional APIP operates directly under the regional head, rendering its oversight function fundamentally subordinate. Existing regulations explicitly reinforce this position, positioning APIP as an assistant to the regional head rather than an independent entity.
Consequently, should a regional head be corrupt, APIP becomes complicit in the malfunction. They are often denied space to conduct investigative audits or comprehensive risk-based oversight. Yet in modern public sector organisation management systems, the role of independent internal oversight is essential for building a healthy tone at the top.
Furthermore, many APIP units still lack adequate technical competence in financial forensics, project risk analysis, and procurement systems expertise. When internal oversight apparatus lack both technical expertise and structural independence, corruption eradication strategies depend solely on punitive action, which is inherently reactive.
The definition of corruption is not limited merely to state losses originating from central and regional budgets, but encompasses other forms of abuse of authority, such as extortion, gratification, and bribery.
Therefore, the corruption eradication approach needs to expand from the traditional framework tending towards administrative-formalistic procedures towards an approach aligned with a more comprehensive definition.