R

ecently, at the Democratic Party'€™s legislative candidate orientation, Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) chairman Abraham Samad stated that the civil servants'€™ low income may make them more vulnerable to the temptation of corruption.

He argued that two important factors constitute corruption in Indonesia. The '€œneed'€ and '€œgreed'€ factors.

Whereas low-level civil servants who accept bribes represent the former, the latter is often demonstrated by high-ranking public officials who engage in corrupt acts.

Most, if not all of corruption cases investigated by the KPK can be identified as being driven by greed. This is due to the fact that perpetrators in such cases are those who already have (way) more than enough to support their needs.

Corruption analysts believe that income inequality has often been thought as an outcome of rampaging corruption in a country in which corruption may diminish the availability of, among other things, services to the poor.

People in high positions in the government have more opportunity to misuse their power for personal benefits than those in low positions.

In the cases of public funds (e.g. disaster relief fund and social assistance fund) embezzlement, for example, high-ranking public officials enrich themselves by '€œstealing'€ what would have been the right of the low-level people.

Corruption also causes inefficiencies within the government by unnecessarily increasing its operating cost and thus reducing the resources available for, among other things, health and education spending.

On the other hand, as suggested by Abraham'€™s above statement, many also believe that income inequality is also a factor for corruption.

For example, due to their low salary, a public official may be tempted to offer '€œillegal services'€ in exchange for a sum of money (bribe). This means that both corruption and income inequality may form an endless '€œvicious circle'€ in the
society.

One'€™s affection for money is believed by behavioral scientists to be among the primary cause for his or her intention to commit corruption. Such affection is believed to have existed prior to one'€™s entrance to the professional world.

Everyone who is committing fraud will have in his or her mind a cost-benefit assessment, at least subjectively, prior to his or her act.

 In such assessment, he or she will weigh every possible outcome of the act such as the expected financial gain, the possible feeling of guilt, and the risk of being detected and prosecuted.

For someone with high affection for money with lack of morality, financial gain from his or her misconducts may weigh more than the possible feeling of guilt or even the risk of detection and prosecution by the authorities.

In Indonesia, the punishment for corruptors is still considered very light compared to the damages they cause to the country, which essentially makes the potential financial gain from corruption appear to be more rewarding compared to the risk of detection and prosecution.

In practice, fraud offenders'€™ affection for money is often demonstrated by their extravagant lifestyles, which often raises suspicions and may lead to investigation.

Corruption analysts believe that corruption circles around asset ownership where '€œneed'€ or '€œgreed'€ will drive an offender to increase his or her asset ownership through whatever means necessary.

The desire to accumulate assets is believed to be a reflection of one'€™s past education.

In other words, whether or not someone will be a '€œwealth-worshiper'€ is influenced by the values that he or she learned during his or her education.

Based on studies, for example, business students are considered to be more prone to become '€œwealth-worshipers'€ compared to, among others, psychology or medical students.

This is mostly caused by the fact that the curriculum used in the learning process emphasized more on profit seeking activities and gives less attention to ethics and morality.

A common misconception among the '€œwealth-worshipers'€ is that money can really buy happiness. Nevertheless, recent behavioral studies suggest that such a notion is not entirely true as it generally applies only to those below the poverty line.

A slight increase in wealth will mean so much for the poor whereas a huge increase may mean almost nothing to the rich.

Therefore, changing the mind-set of our young generation can be a solution for our corruption problem. Our education system is a perfect place to teach morality and ethics to our country'€™s youth who will become our future leaders.

Additionally, as suggested by the KPK'€™s chairman, income inequality problems should not be left unattended and our government must take this matter seriously for the sake of the nation.