T

he festive commemoration of the 68th anniversary of independence this year was marked by the arrest of a faculty member at a prestigious university in Bandung by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

He was arrested for allegedly accepting a bribe from a Singapore-based multinational trading oil company. Apparently the incident has shocked and disgraced the academic community in general.

As many political and economic analysts believe corruption has a detrimental effect on many aspects of economic development. The public became suspicious toward the government officials. Without public trust, they will never get support, which is essential for sustainable development.

History notes that corruption has been ubiquitous in complex societies from the ancient times down to the present. Regardless of the different politics, religions and cultures, all countries have experienced corruption to a various degree.

A number of theories and assumptions may explain corruption. Corruption is motivated behavior stemming from social pressures that result in norm and law violations. Under constant materialistic pressure, one may emulate the life style of the high income to gain social recognition.

Another theory says that cultures that stress economic success as an important goal but nevertheless strongly restrict access to opportunities will have higher levels of corruption.

Conversely, countries like Denmark, Finland and Sweden that are relatively low on achievement motivation and high on access to appropriate means should have relatively lower levels of corruption (Lipset and Lenz: 2000).

Intellectuals are now as vulnerable as politicians and bureaucrats to corruption. The public are now asking: How could a professor become embroiled in a graft case? As the public see it, a university should not only be a place of learning, but also a place of light and with role models for students and the community overall. No wonder, only a select group of scientists are recruited as professors.

As a matter of fact, this country has already enacted the law on higher education (No 12/2012), which defines education as a deliberate effort to create learning atmospheres to enable students to develop their potential to have a spiritual and religious belief, self control, personality, intellect, noble character and skills for themselves, the community, the nation and the country.

The law explicitly states further that the following principles of higher education in Indonesia: scientific truth, reasoning, honesty, justice, utility, righteousness, responsibility, diversity and accessibility. However, as it is always the case with other laws and regulations, the major challenge to the law is its implementation.

International case studies have explained why there is more corruption in one period, place or culture than in others. In Indonesia a particular ministry has been reported to have allegedly committed more corruption than other ministries.

Some ministries or offices may have been involved in corruption but it went unreported or still unknown. Thanks to the KPK and the mass media reports, a number of otherwise unknown graft cases have now become public knowledge.

Another theory hints that corruption is socially driven. Amoral familism may cause one to commit corruption as (s)he feels obligated to give resources to a member of the family, clan, ethnicity and friends. Corruption, collusion and nepotism are expressions of in-group loyalty.

This could explain why Catholic countries may be more corrupt than Protestant ones. Catholic countries are more communitarian and familistic, whereas Protestants emphasize individualism and self reliance (Lipset and Lenz: 2000).

While the majority of Indonesians are Muslims, it is however erroneous to hypothesize that Islam is the variable responsible for the corruption. No religious teaching allows adherents to perpetrate corruption and law-breaking. To be more precise, they do not implement the moral values propagated by the religions.

Another theory says that degrees of democracy are a good predictor of corruption levels. The mass media report and rule enforcement by an independent judiciary will minimize corruption. Such enforcement is more powerful than political rights. Along this line of thought, the KPK is a good showcase.

With the allocation of 20 percent of the state budget at both central and provincial levels for education, the ministry of education is indeed vulnerable to corruption. Early this year the KPK investigated corruption perpetrated by a high-ranking executive of a state university in Jakarta.

Corruption will have a bad impact on national developments in general. Corrupt bureaucrats tend to shift government expenditures to those areas in which they can collect bribes effortlessly.

Thus, corruption generates more corruption exponentially.

A number of World Bank studies have shown that it is common for Indonesians to make payments to obtain access to civil service position (Al-Samarra and Cerdan-Infantes: 2013). They affirm that in some areas of the country, access to a civil service position is part of political settlement.

This practice can lead the diversion of resources intended to improve education. It is feared that eventually overall quality of national education is lower than expected. The 20 percent of the state budget does not guarantee quality education. Good education requires professionals who are committed not only to the quality but also to truth, honesty, intellect and interactional communication.

To wage a war on corruption, many university leaders have recommended a mandatory anti-corruption course be designed for undergraduate students. As a matter of fact, creating such a course will not necessarily resolve the problems. Religion and moral education have been in the school and college
curriculum for ages.

Religion tends to be an inventory of commands and prohibitions. Student are trained to memorize the relevant verses of the Koran or sunnah (traditions of the prophet). What is essential is to make religion as the basis of living moral values in daily life.

It seems that law enforcement and severe disciplinary actions could be taken to minimize corruption. A student, administrative staff or faculty member involved in graft could be expelled from the university and be prosecuted. This would be a lesson for the whole academic community.

The writer is a professor at Indonesia University of Education (UPI), Bandung.