The Habit of Being Served by Subordinates

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

Illustration

According to reports, judges across the country are complaining about being forced to donate money to fund the Supreme Court Chief Justice Cup tennis championship. Apparently, this was not the first time the judges had complained.

As reported in this daily, the Judicial Commission had received reports from scores of judges for being forced to donate money for the championship, scheduled to be held in Bali this year (Kompas, 12/9/2018). The reports claimed that each high court was required to collect at least Rp 150 million (US$10,126.86). The championship is routinely held by the Judiciary Tennis Association (PTWP).

The Supreme Court, as expected, denied the claims of any levy being imposed, despite acknowledging that the tennis championship as mandatory. The PTWP, established in 1953, is an official organization under the Supreme Court. These statements have raised questions. How can it be mandatory for judges to participate in a tennis championship and for the Supreme Court have an “official” sport association? What about other sports? Is every judge required to be skilled in tennis as many Supreme Court leaderships have always been fond of the sport? If this is true, this surely means there is an injustice among the country’s judges.

In actuality, this was not the first time complaints had emerged of judges being asked for money to fund a tennis championship at the Supreme Court. On April 22, 2009, this daily also reported that a number of regional judges were concerned over the levies imposed on them in the pretext of supporting the PTWP’s tennis championship. Judges felt forced to make donations as their superiors asked them to do so.

The habit of higher-ranking officials, often from the central government, putting unnecessary burdens on their subordinates, including to donate money or support events that are sometimes irrelevant to their official duties, have been common practice in this country. Often, if central government officials visit regions, regional officials will need to pay for everything, either using their own money or someone else’s. Examples include holding lavish receptions and providing gifts. Often times, such expenses are outside of the pre-approved budget.

A Religious Affairs Ministry trainer in West Sumatra complained about this in a letter published by Kompas on Aug. 22, 1995. In 1999, then-religious affairs minister Tolchah Hasan called for regional officials to not pay for the visits of central government officials, who already had pre-approved travel budgets (Kompas, 21/12/1999). Other than in the Religious Affairs Ministry and the Supreme Court, the habit of putting burdens on regional officials are also found across many other central government institutions.

In certain cases, it is not the central government officials’ wish to burden their regional subordinates. Sometimes, it is the regional officials who go above and beyond the call of duty to please their superiors. However, if the superiors firmly reject such lavish “services”, no “unnecessary burden” will be put upon their subordinates.

Reflecting on the case of the tennis championship levy at the Supreme Court, such reports will only make it seem as if judges are seeking money from outside parties. This will make it seem as if seekers of justice are prone to being asked for money at the expense of justice. Subordinates wishing to please their superiors may be forced to “ask for money” from outside parties as they may have no budget for it. Thus, bribes occur. If we keep up with this, how can we truly break the chain of corruption in this country?