Rijuli Nadeak

S6114002

Why are corruptors so stubborn?

Frans Hendra Winarta
, Jakarta | November 16 2012 | 7:36 AM
Share:
It has been more than a decade since the Reform era began, yet we still wonder why corruption
has been so difficult to eradicate. In fact, corruption has become a chronic illness that has been
difficult to treat, even with so many methods available to us.
We have tried almost every theory and practice used by other nations that have succeeded in
reducing corruption. Apparently, corruption in Indonesia has been more stubborn, and has
systematically spread to become endemic.
Many NGOs have been established as independent institutions to monitor official corruption. The
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has been established in view the failure of the
National Police and the Attorney Generals Office to adequately fight corruption. More and more
corruptors have been dragged into court. The 2001 revision to the Corruption Law has lead to
heavier sentences, some as great as 10 years imprisonment, for the guilty. However, in reality,
corruption is unlikely to subside.
Some say our legal system has not been strict enough or vicious enough in punishing the
guilty. Many state that the death penalty must be levied on those convicted of corruption to create
a deterrent effect. Some blame the government, while others say that courts have been less serious
about eradicating corruption and law enforcers.
As Acton famously said in the 19th century, Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely which suited the conditions in Europe at a time when it was transitioning
from absolute monarchies to democratic states.
However, in the 21st century, Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi said it bluntly and reasonably:
It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear
of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it. Fear of losing power causes people
in power to do everything they can to hold onto control of the government so that they can
preserve power to reach their objectives.
This can be seen today in Indonesia, where politicians engage in money politics to preserve
their power to winning general and regional elections. Almost all political parties gather funds in
violation of election law.
From past experience, campaign fund-raising in presidential, gubernatorial and regency elections
has been less than transparent and in violation of the law. Abuse of power, vote-rigging and misuse

of the state or regional budget in elections has been rampant. Abuse of power includes misuse of
state facilities, and this can happen because it is difficult to distinguish, for example, whether an
official who also serves as a leader of a political party, is traveling outside his home region in his
capacity as a state official or a party leader.
A desire to win election can create a conflict of interest for politicians who must serve party and
the public, which eventually encourages corruption.
Over the last decade, a number of lawmakers, officials and chief executives have been prosecuted
and convicted by the Corruption Court. However, this has failed to create a sufficient deterrent
effect; it is unlikely that the corrupt now fear conviction. It continues, even though ministers,
governors, mayors, judges, prosecutors, police officers, tax officers and lawmakers have been sent
to prison.
What should now be studied is how to confiscate the assets of corruptors to repay the state for
embezzled money and stolen assets. Such measures including seizing money from bank accounts
and confiscating the houses, land and wealth of corruptors.
Prison sentences alone cannot make those convicted of corruption learn their lesson. Without
effective deterrent, there will be a tendency for the corrupt to repeat their wrongdoing in the
future. A legal breakthrough must be made to impoverish corruptors. Wealth from corruption must
be taken and returned entirely to the state.
Meanwhile, as a further preventive measure, the supervision of state and regional budgets must be
tightened by separating awarding procurement from issuing payments. A system of supervision
and separation must also be applied to legislative councils and judicial institutions. Periodic audits
should be done of all expenses and purchases of goods and services as an ultimate financial
control.
In addition, the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), as the institution that manages state finances, must
be empowered. The same goes for the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre
(PPATK) and other institutions that are directly or indirectly related to corruption prevention
efforts. This must be done to limit the opportunity of the corrupt. Lets hope that in the future,
with a system of tight supervision and periodic oversight of officials, power will no longer
associated with acts of corruption.
The writer is a member of the National Law Commission (KHN) and the chairman of the
Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADIN).