|
Combating
corruption:
Who can touch
the ‘untouchable’?
Hendi Yogi Prabowo ; The Director of the Centre for Forensic
Accounting Studies at the Department of Accounting, the Islamic University of
Indonesia, Yogyakarta, Master and PhD in Forensic Accounting from the
University of Wollongong, Australia
|
JAKARTA
POST, 10 Oktober 2012
On
the evening of Oct. 5, the office of the Corruption Eradication Commission
(KPK) in Jakarta was “ambushed” by a group of police officers from the Bengkulu
and Jakarta police, who intended to arrest KPK investigator, Comr. Novel
Baswedan, on allegations of unlawfully shooting theft suspects back in 2004.
Although the mission failed, many believe it was just a small part of a systematic attempt to weaken the anticorruption body.
Novel is also the coordinator of the investigative team for the Driver’s License Simulator procurement fraud, suspects of which include a police general.
Other indications of efforts to strip the KPK of its powers include the House of Representatives’ plan to revise the KPK law and the rejection of the KPK’s fund request for a better building and facilities as well as the latest withdrawal of police investigators seconded to KPK by the National Police.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has finally drawn a clear line in favor of the KPK by ordering the police to allow the KPK investigate the high-profile graft case involving former Traffic Corps chief Insp. Gen. Djoko Susilo, as well as calling the political move to amend the KPK law was inappropriate.
Since their first inception in the world of corruption eradication a few decades ago, anticorruption institutions have grown in numbers across the world. Some, such as Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), remain at the forefront of the war against corruption while others, such as Portuguese High Authority Against Corruption, South Africa’s Directorate of Special Operations (known also as the Scorpion) and the Italian High Commissioner Against Corruption have fallen due to, among other things, the lack of government’s political will.
Anticorruption experts have long been studying the rise and fall of anticorruption institutions in searching for the formula of an effective anticorruption institution.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), independence is the main prerequisite for an effective anticorruption institution. In order to achieve a high level of independence, a number of issues such as legal basis, institutional placement, personnel selection as well as recruitment and budget and fiscal autonomy must be taken into consideration when establishing an anticorruption institution.
So far, despite its limitations, the KPK has managed to address most, if not all, of these issues. For example, the institution has been known to be careful and selective in the recruitment of its personnel and executives. Additionally, its existence also has a strong legal standing following the enactment of Law No. 30/2002 on the KPK.
Further, according to the OECD, being independent alone is not adequate for an anticorruption institution to achieve its objectives as there must also be sufficient resources and powers to carry on its function. It is known worldwide that to run an anticorruption institution in a country is expensive. For this matter, sufficient funding and facilities need to be provided as well as competent personnel. Many anticorruption researchers believe that the government’s willingness to provide funding is an indicator of their political will in combating corruption in their country.
The CPIB and ICAC, for example, are currently considered by many experts as being among the best anticorruption institutions in the world; this is based on a number of indicators, such as funding-to-GDP per capita ratio, personnel-to-population ratio and the scope of authority in the investigation and prosecution of corruption.
Most of these indicators also depict the government’s political will in curbing corruption. Other indicators include the ranking systems administered by international institutions such as Transparency International (TI) and the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).
In practice, for an anticorruption institution to be fully untouchable by potentially corrupt institutions is a very difficult condition to achieve. Currently, the KPK, despite the enormous burden to combating corruption in Indonesia, also faces a lack of proper facilities for its daily operation.
Nevertheless, the KPK’s request for better building facilities does not seem likely to be granted by the House anytime soon. As is widely known, many members of the House have been investigated by the KPK for corruption with some of them incarcerated as a result. This is an example of a common “Achilles’ heel” in an anticorruption institution where the funding for the operation must be approved by the same institution whose members have been investigated and prosecuted for corruption.
Anticorruption experts believe that an anticorruption institution, generally, will only become as strong as the government allows it to be. In the case where political will is low as evidenced by, among other things, the lack of funding and staffing, the only thing that will keep a country’s anticorruption institution on its feet is public support.
So far, the public in Indonesia have been very supportive to the KPK as indicated by their responses to the “ambush” to its office in Jakarta as well other attempts to bring down the institution. The public can exert pressure to the existing government to provide better funding and facilities for KPK to perform its work effectively.
In return for the public’s faith, however, the KPK should maintain impartiality and indiscriminately combat graft without fears. So long as the people stand behind the KPK, it will remain firm, strong and untouchable. ●
Although the mission failed, many believe it was just a small part of a systematic attempt to weaken the anticorruption body.
Novel is also the coordinator of the investigative team for the Driver’s License Simulator procurement fraud, suspects of which include a police general.
Other indications of efforts to strip the KPK of its powers include the House of Representatives’ plan to revise the KPK law and the rejection of the KPK’s fund request for a better building and facilities as well as the latest withdrawal of police investigators seconded to KPK by the National Police.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has finally drawn a clear line in favor of the KPK by ordering the police to allow the KPK investigate the high-profile graft case involving former Traffic Corps chief Insp. Gen. Djoko Susilo, as well as calling the political move to amend the KPK law was inappropriate.
Since their first inception in the world of corruption eradication a few decades ago, anticorruption institutions have grown in numbers across the world. Some, such as Singapore’s Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) and Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), remain at the forefront of the war against corruption while others, such as Portuguese High Authority Against Corruption, South Africa’s Directorate of Special Operations (known also as the Scorpion) and the Italian High Commissioner Against Corruption have fallen due to, among other things, the lack of government’s political will.
Anticorruption experts have long been studying the rise and fall of anticorruption institutions in searching for the formula of an effective anticorruption institution.
According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), independence is the main prerequisite for an effective anticorruption institution. In order to achieve a high level of independence, a number of issues such as legal basis, institutional placement, personnel selection as well as recruitment and budget and fiscal autonomy must be taken into consideration when establishing an anticorruption institution.
So far, despite its limitations, the KPK has managed to address most, if not all, of these issues. For example, the institution has been known to be careful and selective in the recruitment of its personnel and executives. Additionally, its existence also has a strong legal standing following the enactment of Law No. 30/2002 on the KPK.
Further, according to the OECD, being independent alone is not adequate for an anticorruption institution to achieve its objectives as there must also be sufficient resources and powers to carry on its function. It is known worldwide that to run an anticorruption institution in a country is expensive. For this matter, sufficient funding and facilities need to be provided as well as competent personnel. Many anticorruption researchers believe that the government’s willingness to provide funding is an indicator of their political will in combating corruption in their country.
The CPIB and ICAC, for example, are currently considered by many experts as being among the best anticorruption institutions in the world; this is based on a number of indicators, such as funding-to-GDP per capita ratio, personnel-to-population ratio and the scope of authority in the investigation and prosecution of corruption.
Most of these indicators also depict the government’s political will in curbing corruption. Other indicators include the ranking systems administered by international institutions such as Transparency International (TI) and the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC).
In practice, for an anticorruption institution to be fully untouchable by potentially corrupt institutions is a very difficult condition to achieve. Currently, the KPK, despite the enormous burden to combating corruption in Indonesia, also faces a lack of proper facilities for its daily operation.
Nevertheless, the KPK’s request for better building facilities does not seem likely to be granted by the House anytime soon. As is widely known, many members of the House have been investigated by the KPK for corruption with some of them incarcerated as a result. This is an example of a common “Achilles’ heel” in an anticorruption institution where the funding for the operation must be approved by the same institution whose members have been investigated and prosecuted for corruption.
Anticorruption experts believe that an anticorruption institution, generally, will only become as strong as the government allows it to be. In the case where political will is low as evidenced by, among other things, the lack of funding and staffing, the only thing that will keep a country’s anticorruption institution on its feet is public support.
So far, the public in Indonesia have been very supportive to the KPK as indicated by their responses to the “ambush” to its office in Jakarta as well other attempts to bring down the institution. The public can exert pressure to the existing government to provide better funding and facilities for KPK to perform its work effectively.
In return for the public’s faith, however, the KPK should maintain impartiality and indiscriminately combat graft without fears. So long as the people stand behind the KPK, it will remain firm, strong and untouchable. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar