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.
Trust must be earned: Selection of KPK supervisors
The KPK can only flourish where its independence is guaranteed. If it becomes answerable to the executive it is supposed to oversee, under the orders of government cronies chosen for political convenience, the notion that it could offer any real resistance to corruption would be laughable. Laughable, that is, were the inevitable impact on Indonesian democracy not so truly tragic.
Change Size
The KPK can only flourish where its independence is guaranteed. If it becomes answerable to the executive it is supposed to oversee, under the orders of government cronies chosen for political convenience, the notion that it could offer any real resistance to corruption would be laughable. (JP/Donny Fernando)
“Trust me,” said President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo. This choice of words was peculiar, as they refer directly to a broken promise. Jokowi had agreed to remove an amendment to the law governing the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). His promise to do so relieved the concerns of thousands of protesters. But then Jokowi announced that he was revoking his agreement, and now demanded the trust of the people regarding his selection of candidates for the executive-appointed KPK oversight committee established by the controversial amendment.
The amendment is widely perceived as hostile to the intent and purpose of the KPK. It subjects the KPK to oversight by a body appointed directly by the President, and integrates the KPK into the civil service, which answers to the executive branch.
This is a direct denial of the KPK’s independency, and would allow the government to easily protect its political allies from KPK investigation. The KPK published an explicit objection to the amendment in September.
Jokowi’s stated reason for failing to act against the amendment, despite his promise to do so, is hardly convincing. The method by which Jokowi could override the amendment is the issuance of a regulation in lieu of law (Perppu).
Refusing to issue the Perppu, Jokowi has alleged that the matter is out of his hands at this point, having passed to the Constitutional Court to decide. He suggests that the Perppu would interfere with correct legal process.
The Constitutional Court is a body that deserves the greatest respect, having demonstrated its integrity numerous times, most recently in the controversy over the 2019 elections. The Court’s judgment, and right to come to judgment, must be observed.
However, the call for Jokowi to intervene in this matter comes in part from Mahfud MD, whom Jokowi appointed to the position of coordinating political, legal and security affairs minister. Mahfud is no stranger to the authority of the Constitutional Court, having previously served on the Court himself, even holding the position of chief justice. His belief that the President may issue a Perppu necessarily carries a great weight of authority. Jokowi’s legal argument against the Perppu seems suspect given such distinguished opposition.
