|
Recently
the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) arrested a senior tax
officer, Pargono Riyadi, for alleged extortion. According to the KPK,
Pargono attempted to extort Rp 600 million (US$61,680) from businessman
Asep Hendro.
Asep and his three colleagues were also arrested by the KPK for alleged
bribery but were later released due to a lack of evidence. According to
Asep, although he had already paid his income tax, Pargono misled him by
telling him there was a serious problem with his tax payments and
demanded an amount of money to solve it.
Pargono’s case has once again put the Directorate General of Taxation in
the spotlight. Prior to this, high profile tax-related fraud cases
involving Gayus Tambunan, Bahasyim Assifie and Dhana Widyatmika were
considered signs of the institution’s lack of control. This latest case
has given the tax office the hard task of regaining public confidence.
Many believe the culture of bribery has been deeply rooted into the
country’s systems for generations. Transparency International’s (TI)
Bribe Payers Index, which highlights the likelihood of firms securing
business abroad by paying bribes, for example, places Indonesia near the
bottom of the list, which suggests Indonesian companies are likely to pay
bribes abroad.
This is supported by another global study on bribery by Ernst & Young
that revealed 60 percent of Indonesian respondents believed it was
acceptable to pay cash to secure new business opportunities, whereas 44
percent believed providing entertainment to decision makers to win new
business was also acceptable.
Referring to criminologist Donald Cressey’s theory, these attitudes
constitute the cultivation of fraud rationalization in society as “everyone is doing it”.
Asep claimed he was forced to pay a sum of money to Pargono to solve his
“tax problem”. This is an example of how a business in Indonesia has to
take into account the bribery of public officials as part of their
business expenditure to make things happen or get things done faster.
A survey by TI in 2011 on business losses caused by bribery revealed 47
percent of Indonesian respondents believed they had lost business because
competitors had paid bribes. This result placed Indonesia near the bottom
of the countries surveyed, with only Malaysia lower with 50 percent.
The attitudes of Indonesian businessmen to bribing public officials and
then expecting something in return is often dubbed “rent seeking”.
In bribery transactions, public officials act as the providers of “services”
to the “buyers” in an “underground market”.
Businessmen usually pay bribes to minimize uncertainties in business.
This often happens in countries where corrupt public officials misuse
their powers to control the property rights system.
Just like any other transactions in the regular market, in the bribery
market, after paying a sum of money to the sellers, buyers expect sellers
to keep their end of the bargain by providing services.
Despite the initial intention to minimize business uncertainties, in
reality there is no legal guarantee that those accepting bribes will keep
their end of the bargain, which implies that in bribery transactions,
bribers are often in a weaker position than those accepting bribes. In
other words, the only certainty of bribery is uncertainty.
In cases where those accepting bribes keep their promises to the bribers,
this may be because of expectations of continuous income from future
bribes, not because of the legal obligation in the transactions.
Some economists use “game theory” to explain the decision making process
between bribers and those accepting bribes, in which a rational “player”
always chooses an action with the most preferred outcome in association
with what he or she perceives the other “players” will do.
In the above bribery case, it can be inferred that that both Asep and
Pargono believed the best decision at the time was to pay and receive
illegal cash payments, due to their perception that the benefits from
paying and receiving illegal cash payments exceeded the alternative of
not making illegal cash payments.
The fact that numerous arrests and prosecutions in tax related fraud case
does not seem to deter potential offenders from committing similar
offenses suggests we may need to do something about the circumstances
that drive people to engage in corruption.
A cause of bribery is unhealthy business competition in which the winner
is not decided based on the competence and quality of work but rather on
how much they can pay decision makers. This situation happens because of
“illegal service” demand created by corrupt public officials who misuse
their powers to deliberately create uncertainties in business.
A global fraud study by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
(ACFE) revealed that 87.3 percent of fraudsters had no previous criminal
record, which suggested they were once “good guys” who somehow changed
over time. Experts believe fraudulent behavior, including that of public
officials, is mainly influenced by the organizational culture of their
institutions which, after years of individuals being exposed to it,
reshapes their perception of fraud.
A major part of organizational culture is the leadership that serves as
the “tone at the top” that everyone must follow. It is crucial to have leadership
within an organization that promotes honesty and accountability to create
a hostile environment for fraud to grow.
Furthermore, to support the role of leadership, many other measures must
be designed to fit the situation in each organization.
In addition to being role models, leaders in organizations must also
maintain control over their staff to ensure their compliance with
existing antifraud regulations. Any breach of rules must be acted upon
immediately and any offenders must be sanctioned to deter future
offenders. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar