The Jakarta Post
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.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsRedefining corruption misses the point of Indonesia’s judicial crisis
Redefining corruption to exclude "state losses" misses the real danger: changing the wording of the law cannot fix a justice system that still struggles to separate honest policy failures from corrupt intent.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Defendant in the alleged corruption case involving the procurement of Chromebooks for the Education Ministry's school digitalization program, Nadiem Anwar Makarim, center, greets Gojek drivers after attending the verdict hearing on June 30 at the Jakarta Corruption Court in Jakarta. The panel of judges sentenced Makarim to 10 years in prison, fined him 1 billion rupiah (about US$61,000), with an alternative of 190 days in jail if unpaid, and ordered him to pay restitution of 809.59 billion rupiah, with an additional five-year prison term if unpaid. (Antara/M Risyal Hidayat)
T
he proposal by the National Economic Council (DEN) to remove the phrase “causing losses to the state” from the legal definition of corruption has reignited a long-running debate about how corruption should be defined and prosecuted.
The suggestion deserves serious consideration. There are strong arguments that Indonesia’s anticorruption laws should be brought into closer alignment with international standards, including the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, which focuses on abuse of office, bribery, illicit enrichment and personal gain rather than merely proving financial losses to the state.
Yet for all the attention it has generated, it risks focusing on the wrong problem.
Both supporters and opponents have legitimate arguments.
Those favoring removal contend that the phrase has enabled prosecutors to criminalize policy decisions that later turned out badly, even without evidence of personal enrichment, bribery or corrupt intent.
Opponents fear that narrowing the definition would weaken one of the few effective legal tools against graft in a country where corruption remains deeply entrenched.
The concern about criminalizing decision-making is not merely theoretical. High-profile cases have seen officials and state-owned enterprise executives charged despite allegations that they did not personally steal public funds.
