The future of corruption eradication

The future of corruption eradication

Saldi Isra

Lecturer at Andalas University's School of Law in Padang
and recipient of the 2004 Bung Hatta Anti-Corruption Award

The year 2004 will soon leave us. Aside from the successful
legislative and presidential elections, this year marked an
important point in the eradication of corruption in Indonesia.

In the first quarter of the year, the majority of the public
was disappointed when on March 12 the Supreme Court exonerated
Golkar Party leader Akbar Tandjung of all charges in a corruption
case involving non-budgetary funds at the State Logistics Agency
(Bulog), even though he already had been legally and convincingly
found guilty of corruption by district and high courts.

This disappointment over Akbar's case was slightly alleviated
when the Padang District Court found 43 members of the West
Sumatra provincial legislative council guilty of corruption
involving the 2002 provincial budget. Not only did this verdict
mark an important page in the country's history, but it could
also encourage efforts to follow up corruption cases involving
lawmakers in other regions.

Realizing that the eradication of corruption is inevitable,
nearly every presidential and vice presidential candidate made
corruption eradication an item on their list of priorities during
the election campaign.

When Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Jusuf Kalla were eventually
elected president and vice president, the public urged them to
make the fight against corruption a part of their concrete
agenda, especially because during the campaign Susilo vowed
personally to lead the anticorruption campaign.

To be true to this vow, Susilo launched the National Movement
for the Eradication of Corruption during a ceremony to mark the
International Corruption Eradication Day on Dec. 9. The President
also instructed the entire executive branch -- from the central
to regional levels -- to speed up the elimination of corruption
(Presidential Instruction No. 5/2004 on accelerating the
eradication of corruption).

Legally, war against corruption was declared when Law No.
28/1999 on the establishment of a state free from corruption,
collusion and nepotism was ratified. Support for the eradication
of corruption became stronger with the ratification of Law No.
31/1999, as amended by Law No. 20/2001 on the eradication of
corruption as a criminal offense. A big leap in the effort to
eliminate corruption seemed to be envisioned with the
ratification of Law No. 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication
Commission.

It seems, however, that all of these laws will not suffice to
speed up the elimination of corruption. Indonesia is notorious as
the most corrupt state in Asia. Ironically, only a very small
number of corruptors have been exposed and punished. The question
is, why it is so difficult to prosecute corruption cases in
Indonesia?

Many people believe the roots of corruption are difficult to
expose because the legislation is unclear and open to
interpretation, and sides with the corruptors. Others say the
majority of our legal enforcers are not really committed to
fighting corruption. From this viewpoint, it may be said that
rampant corruption is attributable to the great leniency that our
laws and law enforcers show toward corruptors.

Owing, perhaps, to an awareness that a corruption eradication
strategy must take a comprehensive approach, Presidential
Instruction No. 5/2004 tries to bring together law enforcement,
an improvement of public services and legal reform.

In the context of law enforcement, Susilo has asked the
National Police chief to expand corruption investigations so the
perpetrators can be punished and state funds recovered. He also
asked the police chief to prevent his officers from abusing their
power and to impose heavy penalties on those officers who did
abuse this power.

The President also asked the police to cooperate with
prosecutors' offices, the Development Finance Comptroller, the
Center for Financial Reporting and Financial Transactions
Analysis and other related state institutions to combat
corruption and to recoup all lost state funds.

Similar instructions were delivered to the Attorney General's
Office and prosecutors' offices nationwide.

It must be honestly admitted that all these instructions were
issued because of the negative track records of the National
Police and the prosecutors' offices in dealing with corruption
cases.

In many cases, uncovering a corruption case has led to
corruption among the law enforcers themselves. One oft-cited
example is the issuance of a Letter for the Termination of an
Investigation (known as an SP3). It is widely believed that the
issuance of an SP3 often depends on a bribe.

Pursuant to the stipulation of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of Law
No. 31/1999, which has been amended by Law No. 20/2001,
corruption committed in particular circumstances can carry the
death penalty.

The elucidation of Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the law
stipulates that these particular circumstances involve the
corruption of funds designated to overcome (i) an emergency; (ii)
a national disaster; (iii) the aftermath of rioting on a national
scale; (iv) an economic or monetary crisis; and (v) corruption
itself.

In the case of the improvement of public services, an
instruction has been issued to the Office of the State Minister
for Administrative Reform to prepare a policy formulation for (i)
public services improvement; (ii) the drawing up of a stipulation
on the performance of government officials; and (iii) the
application of the principle of good governance. No less
important is an instruction to undertake an assessment of the
civil service system.

Meanwhile, in the effort to reform corruption legislation, the
minister of justice and human rights has been ordered to
formulate law amendments to synchronize and optimize the efforts
to eliminate graft. The minister also was instructed to prepare
the necessary legislation for the enforcement of laws related
with corruption.

It is also important, in this respect, that a special
instruction be issued to governors and regents/mayors nationwide
to speed up the eradication of corruption, to apply the
principles of good governance within regional administrations, to
improve public services and do away with illegal fees, and to
team up with regional legislative councils to prevent leaks of
state funds, either allocated in the state budget or in regional
budgets.

Why has a special instruction also been issued to regional
heads? The reason is that some regional heads have failed to
apply the principles of good governance. Some of the practices of
regional administrations are connected with corruption, collusion
and nepotism, and also lack transparency.

It is also reported that family members and cronies of
regional government officials are quite dominant in determining
development projects. In a number of cases, projects that should
have involved an open tender have been carried out on the basis
of direct appointment.

Despite the widely published campaign to step up the
eradication of corruption, Susilo does not explicitly mention the
mechanisms for evaluating this campaign or its time frame. In
fact, an evaluation is very important to push efforts to speed up
graft eradication. Perhaps, this evaluation should be made an
inherent part of a performance appraisal of the United Indonesia
Cabinet.

While observing that corruption is an extraordinary crime,
extraordinary measures must be taken to determine the future of
the agenda for corruption eradication.

First, major corruption cases must be handled properly and
seriously, as experience has shown that the corruption cases
still are not dealt with successfully. As a result, there is a
crisis of confidence regarding law enforcement institutions.

Second, government officials involved in corruption cases
must be discharged from their positions. Whenever a minister or a
member of the House, a governor, a regent, or a mayor, for
example, is involved in a corruption case, he/she must be
temporarily discharged from his/her position from the time he/she
is named as a suspect. If later the court finds him/her guilty,
he or she must be permanently discharged.

Third, when a court of law finds a government official guilty
of corruption, he or she must be put in prison immediately after
the verdict is passed by the district court. Although the ruling
by the Padang District Court can be considered extraordinary, it
cannot be considered a progressive verdict because the judge did
not immediately imprison the legislative members who were found
guilty.

The Padang court ruling was an obvious example of how the
courts are still ambiguous with their verdicts, which on the one
hand can find a corruptor guilty, but on the other hand still
allow the corruptor to walk free. As a result, these verdicts
cannot fully act to deter corruptors from committing the crime.

Yet, what is worth noting is that Susilo has taken a concrete
step in the fight against corruption. As of the second week of
December, for example, he had given the police permission to
question 25 government officials, either as witnesses or suspects
in corruption investigations (See Table 1).

However, efforts to speed up the corruption eradication
campaign cannot be left completely to the executive. We also need
to know the commitment of the legislative bodies in eradicating
corruption. Reports of rampant judicial corruption may also
undermine all of the hard work of prosecutors (and the police).

Table 1
Governors

1. West Sumatra
2. Banten
3. West Nusa Tenggara

Members of the House of Representatives

1. Adiwarsita Adinegara
2. Dharmono K. Lawi
3. Achmad Thoyfoer
4. HM Faqih Chaironi
5. Daromi Irdjas
6. Zuber Nawawi
7. Achmad Darodji

Regents

1. Banyuwangi
2. Nabire
3. Saorolangun, Jambi
4. Kendari
5. Pontianak
6. Nias
7. West Halmahera
8. South Halmahera
9. Kupang
10.Rote Ndao
11.South Barito
12.Muara Enim

Mayors

1. Depok
2. Bengkulu
3. Singkawang

(Data as of Dec. 9, 2004)

Meanwhile, regarding the public, there must be widespread and
continuous campaigns to awaken the public's collective awareness
that corruption is a crime against humanity. Also, the public
must exact social sanctions against corruptors.

If all of these extraordinary measures can be taken together,
the future of corruption eradication efforts will be much better
than in the past. Now is the right time to start. Otherwise, this
country will collapse because of corruptors. So, never stop
fighting against corruption. Happy New Year 2005.