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
JP/Donny Fernando“Trust me,” said President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo
Change Size
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.
Jokowi further argues that concern regarding the oversight committee is unnecessary, as appointees, whom he will handpick without a transparent selection procedure, will “have good credibility”.
Unfortunately, this is simply very hard to believe. Not only does such a hidden process define cronyism and thus in itself challenge the very purpose of the KPK, but Jokowi’s record on government appointments has met with considerable criticism.
Although over half of his Cabinet comes from a “professional”, or nonpolitical, background, the logic behind their placement often appears suspect. In a particularly notable example, the appointment of Nadiem Makarim, founder and chief executive officer of the transportation/payment platform Gojek, as education and culture minister, met with astonishment and mockery from the public. Also controversial were placements such as Tito Karnavian, former National Police chief, as home minister, and ST Burhanuddin, brother of Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politico Tubagus Hassanuddin, as attorney general.
Some appointments seemed expressly political manipulation, chosen to weaken the opposition threatening the stability of Jokowi’s second term, rather than for their contribution to the government of the country.
Erick Thohir, appointed as state-owned enterprise minister, may have had credentials as the founder and chairman of Mahaka Group, but it seems more likely that he was selected for his role as campaign manager to Jokowi’s opposition under Prabowo Subianto.
The appointment of Prabowo himself as defense minister, and Edhy Prabowo, known as Prabowo’s protégé, as maritime affairs and fisheries minister, stand out as political deals to secure stability and undercut government
opposition.
While such deals may be occasionally necessary to ensure cohesion in a ruptured political landscape, they must be the exception, not the rule. Such significant incorporation of powerful influences into the ruling government suggests allegiance in the interests of power, and not of the people.
If Jokowi’s Cabinet appointments can be taken to indicate the discretion he will apply in appointing members of the KPK oversight committee, those who believe in the KPK have every reason to be concerned. Without rigorous scrutiny of appointees, there appears to be a great likelihood that members will be chosen based on political favors and the consolidation of power.
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.
___________________
Patrick Grene is a researcher at the Center for Constitutional Studies (PUSaKO) of Andalas University and a candidate for a doctoral degree in law, William & Mary Law School, the United States. Muhammad Ikhsan Alia is a senior researcher at PUSaKO and is an LLM candidate, University of Glasgow, Scotland.
