Thoughts about our future corruption eradication strategy

Thoughts about our future corruption eradication strategy Hendi Yogi Prabowo ; Director of the Center for Forensic Accounting Studies at the accounting program of the Islamic University of Indonesia, Yogyakarta. He obtained his Masters and PhD in Forensic Accounting from the University of Wollongong, Australia

JAKARTA POST,  02 Januari 2013

  

Earlier this month, the world celebrated Anticorruption Day as a reminder of our long and hard struggle for a corruption-free world for our children. On Dec. 3, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) named the then youth and sports minister, Andi Mallarangeng as a suspect in the Hambalang sports complex graft scandal.  Corruption has been a major global problem for generations. Despite the various existing anticorruption measures, evidence suggests that more still needs to be done. A number of studies have been conducted to measure the severity of the problem to, among other things, see if anticorruption measures do make a difference. Recently, Transparency International released its 2012 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), which measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in 176 countries. This year’s results show that corruption remains an entrenched part of the global public sector. This is partly indicated by the fact that around two-thirds of the surveyed countries in this year’s CPI received an index score of below 50 (out of 100). As for Indonesia, although it scores a little better compared to last year, it remains in the bottom 30 percent of the most corrupt countries in the world. The arrest of Andi is seen by many as a major achievement for the KPK, considering that it is the first time in its history that an active minister was named a suspect in a fraud case. Previously, a police general, Djoko Susilo also became the first active general to be named a suspect by the KPK in the driving simulator fraud case. The public sees these as evidence that the KPK remains uncompromised. The fight against corruption is an uphill battle in which the only way to win is with the commitment and collaboration of all members of society. The KPK, which is regarded as Indonesia’s ultimate weapon against corruption, is an essential part of this effort. Judging by the rise and fall of other anticorruption agencies all around the world, two of the most important prerequisites for a successful anticorruption body are independence and sufficient resources. Independence is measured in a number of ways, such as the existence of a legal basis, institutional placement, personnel recruitment and budget and fiscal autonomy. In terms of resources, it is important for an anticorruption institution to be sufficiently funded and properly staffed by capable individuals who possess the required skills. In the case of the KPK, despite its recent achievements in uncovering high-profile corruption cases in Indonesia, it is also known to have been suffering from a lack of funding and staffing. With corruptors seemingly able to regenerate on a daily basis, it will only be a matter of time before the KPK is overwhelmed by the number of fraud cases it must handle and eventually becomes ineffective. For this reason, it is important to strengthen the KPK by allocating more funding and capable staff for its operation. The eradication of corruption also means that we must ensure that it does not regenerate over time. This suggests that there is more to corruption eradication than just prosecuting the offenders. Just as with the eradication of other crimes, prevention should also become part of corruption eradication in Indonesia. Reducing the opportunities for corruption is the most common approach taken to minimize the occurrence of corruption, also known as the “situational crime prevention” approach. However, the fact that more and more corruptors emerge indicates that we need to focus on more than just the opportunity side. In practice, understanding the behavioral side of corruption is crucial in designing an effective anti-corruption strategy. For example, recent global surveys on fraud by Ernst & Young revealed that a large proportion of Indonesian respondents believed that bribery was a legitimate way of doing business. This alone indicates that there may be something with the way our generation perceives fraud and misconduct in society. Experts believe that this is caused by, among other things, the environment in which a person works where fraud is commonplace and eventually shapes how he perceives fraud. Some psychology experts even argue that a person’s acceptance of fraud and misconduct starts during their childhood (e.g. cheating on school exams). This is where education plays its role in shaping our future generation’s mindset so that when children grow up they will have a clear sense of right and wrong. Just as with other crime eradication efforts, corruption eradication must be conducted in a specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and timely (SMART) way. This is to say that there must also be some sort of “quality assurance” applied to corruption eradication activities.  “Specific” means that there is a clear goal for every corruption eradication program. The programs must also be “measurable” so that we know whether or not the predetermined objectives have been achieved. With regard to the existing resources and limitations, each program must be formulated with a goal that is “attainable” to those who will execute it.  “Relevant” means that that every goal set for every anticorruption program really does matter so that it will not end up as a waste of resources. Finally, there should be a clear timeline for the achievement of every anticorruption objective. In other words, we should know when to expect the results of the programs. In the science of crime eradication, it is generally known that in order to achieve the desired objectives, acquiring sufficient crime data is important for decision-making purposes. For example, in Australia, the Australian Bureau of Statistics issues national crime statistics to provide indicators of the level and nature of crime in the country. Such statistics are used to assess changes in crime over time and to formulate anti-crime strategies accordingly. Unfortunately, Indonesia is still far behind many other countries in terms of a comprehensive crime database and statistics, particularly in relation to fraud. It is more difficult in Indonesia (i.e. compared to Australia) to find information about national losses from a particular crime in a particular period of time. Obtaining court decisions, for example, can be a time consuming process whereas similar document can be easily obtained in other countries by means of Internet searches. This suggests that one of the priorities for future strategies in combating corruption in Indonesia should be building a comprehensive crime database. Corruption eradication has never been an easy task. In many cases, corruption investigation and prosecution can be a long and hard road full of ups and downs and it takes courageous people to carry on such a difficult task. However, the responsibility for preventing corruption lies on the shoulders of the entire nation from cities to villages, from country lanes to highways. As the message of world Anticorruption Day says; no matter how hard it has been and it is going to be, together we can put corruption on its knees. ●