Teten Masduki, a modest whistle blower

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.