Institution to Combat Corruption

ANTARA FOTO/DESTYAN SUJARWOKO

Police officers stand guard in front of the gate of the residence of Tulungagung Regent Syahri Mulyo during a raid by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), in Ngantru, Tulungagung, East Java, on Saturday, June 9, 2018. The search was conducted to seek additional evidence for the alleged involvement of Syahri, who was competing for a second term in office in the recent regional elections, in suspected corruption relating to a 2017 road infrastructure project currently under investigation by the KPK.

The victory of two regional head candidates – both of whom carry the status of corruption suspects -- in the 2018 regional elections indicates that the people are loosening their stance on corruption.

The two candidates with corruption suspect status that won in their respective 2018 elections are North Maluku gubernatorial candidate Ahmad Hidayat Mus, backed by the Golkar Party and the United Development Party (PPP), and Tulungagung regental candidate Syahri Mulyo, backed by the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and Nasdem. The two politicians are currently being detained by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The KPK arrested Syahri on June 27, election day.

The public’s attitude towards corrupt behavior is reflected in the National Development Planning Agency’s (Bappenas) anticorruption behavior index. In 2017, the index was 3.7, with 5 representing the highest resistance toward corruption. This index indicates that the public does not fully oppose corruption. The question that has yet to be answered satisfactorily is: Why have the people not firmly rejected corruption since the onset of reform in 1998, given that the major changes that happened then followed the wave of voices rising up against corruption, collusion and nepotism (KKN)?

The mass media have routinely reported on the arrests of government and members of the political elite on allegations of corruption and the maximum penalty they were given. The news reports that corruption is the public’s enemy because it is economically, socially, politically and morally damaging. However, when faced with regional head candidates who are corruption suspects, the people chose instead to loosen their approach.

We believe that such behavior is caused in part by unequal education and access to information. As a result, the public does not fully understand the adverse effects of corruption. The people are also not given clear information on the backgrounds of the regional head candidates, so they can be  swayed.

Many studies have been done on the adverse effects of corruption on the life of a nation. The rent-seeking and business uncertainties that lead to a decline in the nation’s competitiveness and productivity and an increase in the wealth gap, are some of the consequences of corruption. We are still experiencing this today.

In order to minimize acts of corruption, we need a reliable institution. What is meant by “institution” is regulations and their enforcement that motivate people to work hard and honestly, that carry certainty of just pay for their hard work, so as to provide economic benefits for themselves and the state.

Prohibiting candidates who are involved in corruption cases from participating in the regional or legislative elections is a practical decision. The institution we formulate should not give any space to economic and political rent-seekers, and should instead ensure that all get a fair chance based on their recorded achievements.

To change the public attitude towards corruption requires living proof showing that without corruption, everything is better and fairer. It requires the assertiveness of those who bear the responsibility of government to run existing institutions consistently.