Supervising the State of Financial Management

The disclosure of wealth that was suspected to have been amassed through corruptive practices by Rafael Alun Trisambodo, an employee at the Directorate General of Taxation at the Finance Ministry, has taken many by surprise.

Rafael Alun Trisambodo (RAT) was found in possession of Rp 56 billion, an extremely fantastic amount of assets for a third echelon government official. The uncovered case, which has surfaced as a serious blow to Finance Minister Sri Mulyani Indrawati, reminds us about the need for multi-layered supervision over state financial management.

Like a Pandora's box, further scrutiny into the RAT case has uncovered other corruptive practices in this institution. The Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) detected irregular RAT transactions worth Rp 500 billion, leading to the freezing of 40 bank accounts belonging to RAT and his family members.

Also read:

> (Un) lawful Wealth

The case seems to have brought the domino effect massively with Eko Darmanto, who was head of the Yogyakarta customs and excise office, showing off his wealth; government officials swaggering on luxury big motorbikes; many high-ranking officials holding concurrent positions as commissioner in several state-owned enterprises (SOEs); and state administrators lacking transparency in providing the assets declaration reports (LHKPN).

The Agrarian and Spatial Planning Minister/head of the National Land Agency (BPN) also removed Sudarman Harjasaputra from his post as head of the East Jakarta BPN, following his wife's luxurious lifestyle. Public scrutiny has also been on an official of the state secretariat, head of Makassar customs and Riau provincial administration’s secretary, because their wives or children often showed off their wealth and luxurious lifestyles.

Most recently, Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Mahfud MD has alleged money laundering-related transactions worth Rp 349 ​​trillion at the Finance Ministry. Sri Mulyani's stern and swift action to remove RAT from his position deserves appreciation. Her approach on the problems faced by the ministry and efforts to improve internally is of course very positive.

She is also coordinating with the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and the PPATK to ensure that the sought improvement can be reached optimally so that the ministry becomes better in the future. However, all these efforts are still far from enough, because they do not touch on the root of the problem, which is the lack of transparency in state finance management.

We cannot help assume what Sri Mulyani has shown as merely reactive responses, even drawing the impression that she is simply building a public image amidst public criticism and disappointment over the cases. The public has begun questioning what the point is of compliantly paying taxes if the money ends up being misused. The Finance Ministry’s reputation as the state treasurer is put under serious test.

Information openness

James Madison, who was hailed as the Father of the United States constitution, wrote: a popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy, or perhaps, both (Pope, 2002: 428). That means, information serves as oxygen for the government in realizing accessible, inexpensive and good public services.

The corruption cases justifies what Madison wrote about. Farces and tragedies, which are rooted in closed-off bureaucracy, repeat themselves frequently. It turns out to be a farce given the fact that while they proclaim anti-corruption publicly, the elites are prone to fraudulent acts behind the public scene. We end up in narratives of a country being in misery because of state assets changing ownership status into private properties.

Also read:

> Lifestyle of State Officials

> Investigation into State Officials’ Wealth Begins

Madison warned about cultivating a culture of information transparency in anticipation of such a situation. He believed knowledge overweighs ignorance. To allow the people to act as the controlling force, the state must guarantee the people’s rights to obtain information (the right to know). Well-informed people will become a critical force that can contribute to stemming potential abuses of power.

Information openness has become the global movement. As many as 109 countries have regulated the right to information in the form of laws, according to the United Nations Secretary-General's 2017 report. In Indonesia, article 28F of the 1945 Constitution stipulates the right to information as fundamental to individual and social development. The issue is touched further in details in Law No. 14 of 2008 concerning Public Information Disclosure.

This law makes information services no longer voluntary because they may be subjective, which subsequently becomes less effective. The law stipulates the standard practices that must be adhered to by state institutions and SOEs, including those owned by regional governments (BUMD), in order to guarantee the realization of the public's right to information.

State institutions and SOEs/BUMDs have procedurally tried to create a culture of information openness. They are encouraged to achieve the status of being informative as they are put under the monitoring and evaluation of the Central Information Commission. Informative means that information services by public institutions run well so that various programs, activities and their results, including the LHKPN, can be accessed by the public.

However, the culture of information openness is still far from expectations. Mazhar Siraj's research (2010) shows as many as 43 percent of countries that already have an information disclosure law have failed to provide sufficient access to information for the public. These institutions also do not yet have an appropriate concept and definition of the right to public information, which results in the weakening of the benefits and objectives of government transparency and accountability.

Also read:

> Drop of Corruption Index Score Sends Negative Signals

Such a condition occurs in Indonesia. The right to information has not become a collective awareness. Government officials are still not used to information disclosure and tend to keep it from the public on the pretext of being state or institutional classified information. In fact, the law on information disclosure strictly prohibits the withholding of information without clear reasons.

Weak information services have plunged many officials into practices that go against the principles of trust, truth and justice. What is happening at the Finance Ministry is an implication of the lagging development in information openness culture. The conditions have become more complicated in the regions. Based on the 2019 Indonesia Corruption Watch research, as many as 294 regional heads were involved in corruption cases. The number was huge, but it might still be the tip of the iceberg. The true condition in cases of the theft of state funds is certainly more dire.

Government commitment

Supervising the state finance management amidst the increasingly rampant corruption cases certainly requires strong and total (government) commitment. At least that is what Sri Mulyani has admitted. Managing the Finance Ministry’s huge staff, which is 79,000 people, is clearly not an easy matter. The figure excludes those at the regional level.

However, apart from how complicated it is, the recent cases should be used as momentum for the ministry to improve governance. It is time to improve information services in government institutions. Decision-making rooms that have been tightly closed must be opened wide. This is an effective way to nurture the culture of information openness while ensuring that the leakage of state funds can be minimized.

KOMPAS/NINO CITRA ANUGRAHANTO

Romanus Ndau

Romanus Ndau, Central Information Commissioner (2017-2021) and Lecturer at Tarakanita College of Communication Studies, Jakarta

This article was translated by Musthofid.