Teten Masduki, a modest whistle blower

By Yudha Kartohadiprodjo

JAKARTA (JP): It is no secret that corruption is in rampant practice here and everybody would agree that it is one of the country's biggest enemies.

When talking about efforts to fight corruption, we must refer to Teten Masduki, coordinator of the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW).

His name was in the headlines on June 3, when, just like David against Goliath, he presented evidence to the Military Police to indicate former attorney general Andi M. Ghalib allegedly accepted bribes from two tycoons: The Nin King and Prayogo Pangestu. The revelation was for the public's need for clean governance and considered a birthday present for Ghalib.

The public applauded Teten, while Ghalib called him an "animal" for accusing him in public. Later, Ghalib stated that the money was a private donation to the Indonesian Wrestling Association (ICW), which he chairs.

This Thursday, however, the tables turned. Military Police concluded that the evidence provided was inadequate and decided to halt the investigation.

Interviewed by The Jakarta Post at the ICW's new office at Jl. Mendut 3, Central Jakarta, Teten took the news in stride. The announcement was expected, although he hoped that the case would go further than the initial investigation.

The public, however, had not expected anyone would come out with a public accusation against a high-ranking official so soon after Soeharto fell, especially from an unknown figure like Teten.

Under his coordination and within a year of its inception, ICW has already accepted 2,500 reports of corruption. Twenty-two of the cases were reported by the public.

Prior to his debut at ICW, however, Teten already had an exceptional track record as an activist. Although he started as a vocational school teacher in Tangerang, Teten joined the Jakarta Legal Aid (LBH) in 1989 to chair the organization's labor division.

Teten was born in Limbangan, Garut, West Java, 36 years ago. He majored in chemistry at the Bandung Teachers Training Institute. Instead of building his career as a teacher, he became an activist due to his great concern with social issues, particularly about labor issues, and later on, corruption.

One of Teten's early achievements was to organize a labor strike against the manufacturer, Gadjah Tunggal, in 1989.

Despite the high profile case he built and the daring move he made on it, Teten remains a modest person. On weekends, he tends to his birds and a small vegetable garden he keeps at his brother's home, where he and his wife board. "In my mind, I am still a village person," he said.

Here are excerpts from the interview with him:

Question: In the hearing with the House of Representatives, Andi Ghalib's lawyer threatened to reveal the bank accounts of five ministers. It seems that an accusation of corruption is no longer used by those who want a clean government but by the accused to deter further investigation. How do you see this phenomena?

Answer: Well, this is a corrupt regime. There is almost no clean high- ranking government officials at this time. So if one corruption case is revealed, it will become a threat to the other.

Q: So you see this as a bad deed being covered by another?

A: That is what happens in a regime full of thieves. Each one will protect the other, and it will be impossible for us to hope that corruption will be eradicated.

I no longer trust this regime and hope that it will be replaced. ICW is planning to question the Military Police's investigation process.

Q: Will ICW provide new evidence on Ghalib's case?

A: No, I don't think so. I think even if we gave them new data and evidence, there's only a small possibility that the case would be treated fairly.

I think the investigation by the Military Police was unfair since nearly all the preliminary data that we gave was enough to make Ghalib a suspect. Status is important since it is impossible to conduct a thorough investigation without it.

Without becoming a suspect, Ghalib only gave the investigator rights to one bank account, not the other 15 reported ones.

The key now is the audit done by public accountant Prasetio Utomo. Since the case has become a public matter, the audit's results need to be announced so that everyone will know what actually occurred during the investigation process.

In the future, I think ICW will no longer report corruption cases to government bodies but rather go straight to the public.

Q: So are you worried that the defamation complaint filed by Ghalib against you will gain more ground?

A: No, I am not worried about that. In fact, I would be happy if I could use the court as a place to reveal the data that we have. If this case goes to court, I would prove all the initial data we have is authentic.

Q: Is there any plan for ICW to put pressure on the government to investigate the case further?

A: No, the ICW has no capacity or authority to do that. Yet I think the public will look at the case fairly. If the case was brought to court and lost, I think the public would understand, but it has yet to reach court.

Q: You started with a high profile case, while corruption actually exists at many other levels. Why didn't you start with a case that has more impact on people's daily life ?

A: In our strategy to eradicate corruption, it is impossible to start from the lower level. It has to start from the elite level. Corruption is just like the disintegration process of a fish, always start from the head.

Corruption at lower levels is merely just an after effect of the tolerance of corruption at the upper level.

What I felt was needed to prioritize in this case was the law administration, because if that is corrupt, we can never expect the justice system to eradicate corruption.

Q: Do you have any intention to reveal corruption cases in the private sector?

A: Yes. Corruption usually needs two perpetrators and it is usually the combination of government officials and someone from the private sector.

I think it would be wrong if only the government official is investigated. The largest kind of corruption occurs when the private sector uses the government as their accomplice. How do you define corruption?

Corruption is an abuse of power for the self-interest of a person or crony that inflicts damage to state or public rights.

Q: But to certain cultures, is it not acceptable to show gratitude? For example, when a deal has been sealed?

A: I reject the myth that corruption is part of a culture. If such a myth exists, it shows that corruption is impossible to eradicate. This myth was invented to protect the corruptors.

This is not about culture, but authority.

Only those with authority can corrupt: those with power and those with money. In the past there was a king, now there may be presidents or ministers. Not everybody has the opportunity to be corrupt.

Q: You are going against those who are still in power. How do you prepare yourself?

A: Well, I see that corruption is done throughout the regime, so the ICW is actually not against any individual, but the whole system which has tremendous authority. So this is not an easy task to begin with.

We want this organization to lead a social movement, a movement that involves the public's participation.

I believe that there are more victims of corruption than the corruptors itself. We want to unite the victims to back us up.

Q: But as an individual, how do you prepare yourself and the people around you?

A: (Smile) Temptation and intimidation are challenges that we have to face, but the ICW consists of young people who are sick of seeing people suffer and want clean governance.

We publish every single move of the ICW because we want to have the public's control imposed on us. I do not want the corruption watch to become a new breeding place for corruption or to become a means to extort others.

I am just fortunate that my wife was a women's rights activist, so we have a similar background. My family understands that this is my job and I will not bend to the pressure.

Q: Has there been any attempt to buy ICW's influence?

A: Well, every time we do any field investigation there is always an attempt to stop it.

Our investigator was tempted to accept luxury accommodation or other facilities by some people. Once, I was also offered a large sum of money to stop this activity.

Q: How much were you offered?

A: (Laugh) If I reveal the sum, I am afraid that someone else will start a similar organization but for different purposes.

Q: Is there any indication that the public fears ICW for its reputation?

A: What I want to create is the public's hatred against corruption. A person may choose to be a corruptor, yet I want the individual to be ostracized by society.

Presently, corruptors attain a high status in our society. People with money, regardless of its source, gain privileges since they can make a lot of donations.

Now we only expose high profile cases, but we choose them because they have a lot of impact on the public. We want this to become shock therapy for the public.

Q: Do you have any references from similar organizations abroad?

A: Unfortunately, no. Abroad, corruption eradication activities are usually formed by the government. They are more state- oriented.

People abroad see ICW as a unique organization since it was formed by people who actually have no authority to investigate. Yet, we believe that a social control is actually effective in this process.

Q: Your track record shows that you have been going against authority. Since when did you have this urge?

A: I am a restless person. I started my life as a teacher in Tangerang. During this period, I was disturbed about the suffering of laborers. Although on one hand they became the backbone of our economic development, their living quality did not increase accordingly.

I also saw that the exploitation of laborers was not only done by capitalism but also by authority through the military apparatus and civil servant.

Q: Are you not afraid that one day someone will use the ICW to discredit, say one's enemy, by giving ICW data?

A: It is a possible scenario.

I see all the reports that arrive in proportion, despite the relationship of the person who reported the corruptor, whether friend or foe. What matters to us is the data's accuracy.

In investigation methods, this kind of practice is justified. If you want to look for data, it is best to ask the enemy.

When people start to file reports, we will see this as a competition that in the end will create a better government or business environment.

Q: Will you also investigate the people who report corruption cases?

A: Yes, we are always looking for their motivation prior to starting an investigation. If the individual is not "clean", then we will seek supporting data from other sources to investigate him.

Yet, since we are not an investigating organization, we can only follow up on complete reports. We can not follow up all reports though, but only concentrate on civil service or state- related cases.

Q: How many cases have been reported and how many have been followed through?

A: There have been 2,500 cases reported, of which, 22 have been publicized. About 98 percent were bribery cases in the private sector.

Q: You do not have any formal background in law. How did you gain legal knowledge?

A: I was not satisfied teaching, and gradually became more interested in defending laborers. In 1988, LBH asked me to chair their labor rights department. So for eight years, the organization became my law school.

Q: Is there any similarity between teaching and what you are doing now?

A: Well, good education focuses on increasing the awareness of the pupil. What we are trying to do now is to increase people's awareness. A good educator, however, always gives a perfect example.