The Future of the Anti-Corruption and KPK in the Eyes of the Presidential Candidates

Even though the General Elections Commission (KPU) requested input from the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) to prepare the topics on anticorruption for the presidential debates, the KPK has homed in on the fact that the substance of the debate was not clearly explored. The debate format was relatively rigid and did not delve into the vision and mission, strategies, and genuine solutions from the candidate pairs who are battling over the hearts of the people.

I deliberately penned this article after the first debate round so as not to “disrupt" the debate agenda agreed by the candidates and the KPU.

The only thing the people can be grateful for in the first round is that all four candidates pledged wholeheartedly (hopefully, not just a campaign promise) that they would prevent and eradicate corruption in Indonesia and would make the KPK stronger. Unfortunately, the candidates did not clearly and measurably define their strategies to prevent/eradicate corruption and to strengthen the KPK during the debate.

To help the public that is fed up with corruption and the candidates battling to win their hearts, here are the things that the KPK deems important in formulating the strategies, programs and measures for preventing/eradicating corruption: (i) regulation, (ii) institutionalization, and (iii) programs/actions – none of which were elaborated on during the first debate round.

Foundation for regulation

The most important thing in corruption prevention and eradication is "political will/agreement" that is manifested in clear, measurable and unambiguous regulations to provide a foundation for preventing/eradicating the corruption that has spread across the country and taken it hostage.

As we have pointed out at every opportunity in every hearing with House of Representatives Commission III, the Corruption Law, the country’s legal basis for corruption eradication, remains incomprehensive and tends towards kampungan (common or customary) because it still incorporates "losses to the state" as part of the legal definition of corruption. In fact, corruption is broadly defined as fraud in many countries in the world to the exclusion of state losses.

The Corruption Law still does not fully comply with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), even though Indonesia has ratified the convention through Law No. 7/2006. This inconsistency has been clearly pointed out by the countries that have published reviews on Indonesia, namely the United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Ghana.

Over two assessment rounds, they found that the Indonesian Corruption Law does not comply with the UNCAC because the law does not contain articles that specifically regulate the following matters: (i) illicit enrichment, (ii) asset recovery, (iii) bribery of foreign officials, (iv) private sector bribery, and (v) trading in influence. Moreover, the prevailing scheme of electronic wealth reporting (LHKPN) for state officials

remains customary [rather than statutory] because it does not clearly define punishment for violators; so many state officials have tended towards non-compliance.

Therefore, if the candidate pairs are concerned and serious about eradicating corruption, they must pledge that, within the first 100 days of their government, they will propose a revision to the Corruption Law in accordance with the KPK’s recommendations and the United Nations Office on Narcotics and Crime (UNODC). These are the kinds of promises the people need, because they are concrete and measurable rather than a mere catchphrase to “seriously eradicate corruption”.

Institutionalization

The people can also be grateful that the candidates promised to strengthen the KPK, but they did not comprehensively explain their strategies and methods for accomplishing this. Promises like this must be elaborated in detail so the people can judge which candidate pair is more serious.

To illustrate this, it might be better for me to compare the institutional "strength" of the KPK with other anticorruption bodes. Simply as general information, the KPK has around 1,500 employees to date, comprising both civil servants and contract employees.

Of these employees, around 500 people work in intelligence, public complaints/reports, investigation and prosecution. The rest works in prevention and other related units. In essence, only 30 percent work to prosecute corruption cases, and even though the KPK is responsible for corruption throughout the country, it has no regional offices to date.

For comparison, the Suruhanjaya Prevention Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM) [the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission] has around 3,000 employees and branch offices in each Malaysian state, even though the Malaysian population is only around 32 million. Another comparison is Hong Kong\'s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which has 1,400 employees of which 1,000 are dedicated to prosecution, even though the Hong Kong population is only 7.5 million. From these two examples, it becomes clear that the KPK is very small compared to the anticorruption bodies in Malaysia and Hong Kong.

Another thing that the candidate pairs must consider is that, based on the UNODC\'s recommended best practices as applied in Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and other countries, the authority to investigate corruption is endowed upon one institution prevent institutional overlap. Unfortunately, the candidates did not provide any clear strategies on making the KPK stronger, whether in terms of expanding the institution or its authority.

Candidate pair No. 2 did promise to set up regional KPK offices. However, they also promised in the same breath to be the executive commander of law enforcement agencies. This is problematic in the KPK’s view, because the primary characteristic of law enforcement agencies (including the KPK) is to be independent of political power and intervention.

Therefore, if the two pairs are serious about strengthening the KPK, they must be able to guarantee this in terms of increasing human resources and in terms of institutionalization, authority and independence, as well as in protecting all KPK employees against intimidation/retaliation from foreign officials and from capital owners who can offer resistance by using their financial weight and might.

Anticorruption program

Since corruption remains rampant and still disrupts the country from the center down to the village level, the candidate pairs must be able to present priority work programs and action programs for the short, medium and long terms. As stated in Presidential Regulation No. 54/2018 on the National Strategy for the Prevention of Corruption, the president-elect must focus on tackling the sources and roots of corruption in Indonesia through (i) the commercial licensing system, (ii) safeguarding state finance protections, and (iii) law enforcement and bureaucratic reform.

It must be acknowledged that the licensing system at the central, provincial and regency/municipal levels is still vulnerable to bribery so a transparent and accountable licensing system is needed to prevent bribery between applicants and license issuers. It is hoped that, with the commencement of an improved licensing system, commercial and investment transactions, as well as imports and exports, can be free of corruption and high losses.

In terms of the safeguarding state finances, it must first be acknowledged that Indonesia is by no means a poor country, as it is rich in natural and other economic resources. Unfortunately, the revenues from natural resources (oil and gas, mining, forestry, agriculture, fishery) are not collected properly and only enrich rent-seekers and corrupt officials. Moreover, the taxation, customs and SOEs management also remain highly vulnerable to corruption, and need reform towards heightened transparency and accountability.

Finally, law enforcement and bureaucratic reform must be thoroughly addressed, because the 2017-2018 World Justice Project has found our law enforcement officials (police, prosecutors, courts) to remain of very poor quality and that they have contributed to increasing the national Corruption Perception Index. The candidates must treat this reality as a national irony and not neglect it, because law enforcement should be a trusted state institution but are instead still considered corrupt institutions today. Therefore, the candidate pairs must find the correct approach to eradicating corruption in law enforcement agencies.

As mentioned earlier, however, the recent debate did not elaborate on these three key priorities of the national strategy for corruption eradication.

I need to stress that aside from these three key priorities, the presidential and vice presidential candidates must declare their seriousness in preventing corruption in the political sphere, because one of the roots of corruption in the country is the exorbitant political costs and irregular payroll system. The candidates must also restrict cash transactions and direct appointments in procurement projects, because they have been proven to tempt bribery.

The public and anticorruption activists also expect the candidates to prevent the recurrence of state capture, such as in the electronic ID card case, which often involves top legislators and political elites under the guise of infrastructure development but, in the end, is simply a means to benefit individual and group interests.

Finally, I emphasize that the Indonesian people are not easily lulled by promises and temptation because they are “mana emas, mana suasa” [“which is the gold, which is the gold-copper alloy”, i.e. able to distinguish the good from the bad]. I entrust corruption eradication and the future of the KPK to the

candidates who are battling it out, and hope for the best in the victors’ commitment to anticorruption when they are elected to lead the country. May God protect this country from endless human greed.