What else is new in the war on corruption?

Endy M. Bayuni, Jakarta

The most frequently asked question for those of us working in the news business is "So, what else is new". It's a question that we ask, on behalf of readers and viewers, about any new announcement or pronouncement, especially if it comes from the government. Not all of them are newsworthy, if news is defined in part by its freshness and by its having something new to convey. If it fails the test, it really is old news. And old news is no news to the increasingly skeptical and demanding public.

So, when President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono pronounced a series of new measures in the past week to strengthen his campaign to fight corruption, the same question popped up: "So, what else is new." Not a whole lot, apparently, judging by the way the mainstream media treated the story of the establishment of the new Coordinating Team for the Eradication of Corruption last week.

Only The Jakarta Post made this its main front-page story on Friday. Kompas and Media Indonesia ran it on the front page, though not as the main story. Republika and Koran Tempo felt the story did not merit front-page treatment. It is even sadder to note that the event took place on a quiet day on Wednesday (before the public holiday to mark the Ascension of Jesus Christ) when there was really little other news to compete with. Incidentally, the item did not fare that much better with TV news on Wednesday night.

Editors make decisions about what their main stories of the day should be with the public in mind. If many of them felt that the latest Susilo anticorruption campaign was not one of their top stories, then they reflected the public mood too.

Why the widespread public apathy toward the latest pronouncement against corruption? The "I don't care" attitude which our President showed when his popularity was declining in February, is now haunting him. This time from the very people who voted him into office September on the anticorruption platform.

The latest measures by President Susilo are adding or creating new instruments on top of existing ones which have been built over the past seven years by all his three predecessors. In fact, that seems to be all they have been doing since the nation got rid of the corrupt regime of Soeharto in 1998: building and creating instruments to fight corruption.

We have a new anticorruption law in place; we have set up a new anticorruption commission armed with investigators and the power to make arrests; we have set up a special court to deal with corruption cases; we have had a series of commissions, committees, fact-finding teams and studies. You name it, been there, done that.

There has never been a shortage of good intentions on the part of so many people, in government and outside, in fighting corruption. But there is a dearth of results out of all these efforts. Convictions have been few and far between. The few convictions have mostly been small fry, and the really big fish are still out there. If anything, corruption has become more widespread, or as many businesspeople like to describe it, corruption has been "decentralized" along with the decentralization of power to the regions.

The last thing the public wants to hear from the President is another pronouncement of his intention to eradicate corruption, of the establishment of new teams, of new commissions, of new instruments.

President Susilo's eight-point instruction, for example, is similar to Megawati's pronouncement at the start of her presidency. Susilo says he will begin with his own immediate circle, just as Megawati (four years ago) said that she would begin with her own immediately family. The trouble with this approach is that the investigating team is not likely to find anything irregular in Susilo's own immediate circle given that he has only been in power for six months or so. Such an investigation would be more fruitful and effective if carried out a year or two after his staff have had a taste of power long enough to know all the allure that it brings. Of course, Megawati never allowed anyone to check the businesses of her close relatives after her pronouncement.

Empty rhetoric? That remains to be proven, but it certainly sounds familiar.

They are not fooling us. The public has been disappointed by promises in the past for far too long to allow them to be deceived once again by another president. Understandably therefore, only a few people, including a handful of editors, got excited at the latest pronouncement.

Sadly however, without widespread public support and attention, President Susilo cannot expect to make significant headway in this campaign to eradicate corruption. And sadly, those who are responsible for the corruption can feel at ease once again and continue their corrupt ways, knowing that this latest official campaign is not going to get very far with little public support.

How do you salvage a government anticorruption campaign from being shot down or being largely ignored by a restless and growingly skeptical public (and media)?

You need to build credibility. And credibility is built (and lost) through deeds, not so much through words.

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono had some credibility at the start of his presidency, for he was elected in part because of his anticorruption rhetoric. But he seems to have lost some of that credibility early in his presidency with the inclusion of some figures with unsavory past in his administration.

The presence of several business figures in the administration, without requiring them to relinquish their business interests beforehand, has created a potential situation for a conflict of interests, and possibly corruption. They don't need to be engaged in corrupt practices; the very suggestion of a potential conflict of interests alone is enough to undermine the credibility of this administration in the eyes of the skeptical public.

It was credibility that dodged all his three predecessors, BJ Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri when they launched their anticorruption campaign. Now President Susilo is finding himself in exactly the same spot: Launching a campaign with little public support because of the credibility deficit.

The difference for Susilo is that his presidency is still in the early days. He can still salvage this campaign, but he needs sincerity and commitment in order to rebuild his credibility. The question is, does he have what it takes?

The writer is chief editor of The Jakarta Post.