KPK at the crossroads

KPK at the crossroads Donny Syofyan  ;  A Lecturer in The Faculty of Cultural Sciences at Andalas University

JAKARTA POST, 10 April 2013

  

The five-person Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) ethics committee finally declared that the personal secretary of agency boss Abraham Samad was responsible for leaking a key document pertaining to a major corruption investigation. Tumpak Hatorangan Panggabean, a member of the ethics committee, said the person who leaked the document in question was Wiwin Suwandi, Abraham’s secretary, who copied the letter and gave it to journalists. Anies Baswedan, the committee chairman, said that a violation of the code of ethics had been committed. The committee concluded that Abraham had made a moderate violation and should be given a written reprimand.  This whole distasteful affair leads to the inevitable conclusion that the KPK does not play the political game very well and lacks absolute reliability when it comes to legal facts. Dithering over former Democratic Party chairman Anas Urbaningrum’s investigation seems to confirm the KPK has lost its independence. The timing of the decision to finally name Anas a suspect in the Hambalang sport center case indicates that the KPK was waiting for a precise moment rather than simply relying on the legal facts. The formal declaration of Anas as a suspect came only after President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono fired Anas, which came only hours after the leaked document was circulated. Paying such attention to a political struggle has certainly damaged the once trusted institution as an independent legal entity. The KPK will be less powerful if its commissioners are not seen to be unified on the status of any given suspect. Granted the KPK consists of strong-minded legal fighters who need a lot of courage to face down corrupt powers and eliminate them. When the commission makes such half-hearted attempts to eliminate corruption, people will no longer expect too much from progressive law enforcement and legal enlightenment. The leak obliges us to ask tough questions of body when it confronts powerful political figures. The KPK seems to be trapped by its own judicial management: How can we expect the super body to fight and defeat corruption while it fails to tackle its internal friction? The KPK will always face political pressure from corrupt politicians and graft suspects. As if that pressure were not enough, there remains social coercion from those who have very high expectations for the commission, which is often criticized for moving slowly and ponderously. An unstable chairmanship will promulgate distrust, misunderstanding and prejudice among the leaders of the commission. Suspects and those with their own hidden agenda in the government and the House of Representatives will definitely enjoy volatility at the top of the KPK. For years, many of us have believed that any breakthroughs by the KPK would pave the way for a new model of civilized law practices. They are seen as a necessary precursor to establishing a clean government. The commission should have absolutely no trouble or making decisions about Anas. This leak must be a stepping stone to improved performance rather than just a catalyst for political tension.  The KPK must continue to obey the law, uphold high ethical standards and implement a zero-tolerance policy for violations by its members, including its leaders. Antagonism between the chairman and ethics committee would be highly detrimental to performance. The KPK has been given extraordinary authority in its corruption-fighting mandate. The corollary to this power is the obligation of prudence and ethical behavior from all of its members.  An example of these high standards is the necessity for heavier punishment for KPK leaders or employees who step out of line. The committee’s right to investigate any ethical breaches and impose a heavy punishment on guilty parties should not be challenged. Despite its defects, all quarters should guard the institution. Sturdy, unremitting political support for the punishment of corruption is necessary. There can be no political negotiations.  It is political negotiation that has made those accused of taking bribes untouchable. The police, prosecutors, judiciary and lawyers have all been proven guilty of receiving bribes from graft fugitives. Any ideas about disbanding the commission should be taken as positive input for its betterment in the near future. Criticism of the KPK should not be seen as an attempt to weaken or disband it. The body should make it public that it welcomes criticism or else it may incite political maneuverings by the big-time corruptors. The KPK’s exposure to the public gaze is a way to counter the arguments that they just spoil the system, seek fame and overpay their officials. They will not succeed in eradicating corruption if they allow high level of intervention. With a level of high public trust in the institution, the failure to prevent political intervention risks turning the body like a hit-and-miss anticancer drug. It will not kill the cancerous corruption, but makes bribery grow wider and wilder instead. ●