TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
2021 will be a 'make' year for the KPK – with collaboration
While critics have latched on to the new KPK Law as the cause of the antigraft body's "poor" performance last year, the bigger picture is that corruption is not the responsibility of just the KPK.
Change Size
Deputy Attorney General Setia Untung Arimuladi (left) speaks to Corruption Eradication Commissioon (KPK) chief Firli Bahuri (right) n Sept. 14, 2020 during a meeting with the House of Representatives Commission III overseeing legal affairs at the Senayan legislative complex in Central Jakarta. (Antara/Puspa Perwitasari)
By
Jakarta
An article in The Jakarta Post on Jan. 5 argues that 2021 will be a make-or-break year for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in restoring trust. I agree. But I do not agree with much of the article.
Read also: 2021 make-or-break year for KPK in restoring trust
The article cites experts blaming the new KPK Law for the lower number of stings, probes and investigations the commission handled in 2020. They say the law has added layers of bureaucracy in critical decision-making.
But in fact, approvals of actions by the KPK supervisory council have been very prompt and have not delayed processes. It is time for our good KPK supporters to move on and return to helping the KPK rather than criticizing the law and the one organization that has done and continues to do so much to address problems of abuse of power in government here in Indonesia.
The number of KPK stings, probes and investigations are a reflection of the antigraft commission’s performance, but it cannot be concluded that this is due to the poor performance of the KPK head or the decision that staff should be made public servants. And it is wrong to conclude that indicators of increasing public perception of corruption reflect a lower KPK performance. It is more complex than that.
Another indicator of KPK performance would be its success in leading the government in removing poor regulation and practice that provides room for corruption; that is, its success in getting the whole of government to implement the government’s existing anticorruption plan.
Wiretapping, stings, probes and investigations prune the growth of corruption. Pruning plants does not get rid of weeds, but only makes them grow in a particular way. It is the same with corruption. It takes removing the roots of corruption, and those roots are in the systems and practices of government.
The 2018 corruption eradication plan lays out the path for reforming those systems and practices, to root out corruption and remove any opportunities for it, and President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has indicated that the KPK has a key role in leading, guiding and providing oversight to a “whole of government” approach to this. So, a more important indicator of anticorruption is the implementation of that plan and the KPK’s effort in setting the pace of, guiding and overseeing those reforms.
Another indicator of anticorruption is the success of the police and prosecutors to pull their weight on stings, probes and investigations. Police and prosecutors are found throughout the country and the KPK is just in Jakarta, so the former should handle most corruption cases. The success of the KPK should be a measure of its efforts to help these two institutions to improve their efforts.
People who expect the KPK to be able to fight corruption in more than 500 regions and 70,000 villages are dreaming of a giant KPK, which would only lead the police and state prosecutors to condone corruption instead of dealing with it as a crime.
Twenty years ago when the creation of the KPK was being planned, policymakers proposed that the key duty of the commission should be to enable the police and prosecutors to do their job of handling corruption cases; only the big cases too difficult for the police and prosecutors to handle should be taken on by the KPK, until police and attorney capability was improved.
The KPK should be ahead of the ball in the fight against corruption, and it should not be alone to fight corruption.
Of course, the commission has special powers detect and investigate corruption cases that have not been given to the police, and should not be given to the police until they illustrate their competence and trustworthiness to handle them.
It would be good if the reason for fewer KPK stings, probes and investigations was because the police and prosecutors were doing more of the fight against corruption. But that is not the case. The most reasonable cause for the decline in cases that the KPK handled in 2020 is the cause that KPK gave as reported in the article: COVID-19.
And here I express admiration of KPK and police personnel who must work during this pandemic. I have little empathy for any corruptors who catch the virus, but I certainly want the KPK to do all it can to protect their personnel from it.
Both my suggested indicators are really indicators of collaboration in government. Such collaboration is a hallmark of President Jokowi’s presidency as seen clearly in its omnibus laws, plans for Papua and the anticorruption program. Corruption has thrived because corruptors collaborate when government does not. When government agencies collaborate, there is less room for corruptors to collude.
And the KPK has a history of great collaboration with civil society organizations (CSOs) and with the media. It is understandable if sometimes this collaboration wanes, and of course media and CSOs have good cause to be concerned by the new law and the confrontational way in which it was prepared. But now it is law, and it is time to return to trust the KPK and collaborate to help the anticorruption body be more effective.
In this make-or-break year for the KPK, breaking is not an option.
***
The writer is director for governance and accountability at Osana International, Jakarta, and professional associate of the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra.
