[Kabar-indonesia] 5 Corruption Reports: Law will target graft in private sector

[Joyo at aol.com]

5 articles:

- Law will target graft in private sector
- 'Take tangible action to change public view of graft'
- Accuracy, transparency and fairness
- KPU graft suspect wants minister arrested
- Kupang mayor under fire over graft

The Jakarta Post 
Saturday, August 5, 2006

Law will target graft in private sector

Abdul Khalik, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

The government is drafting an anticorruption law to include bribery and fraud 
in the private sector, following Indonesia's ratification of the United 
Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) in April.

The new law would replace the 1999 Law on Corruption Eradication and its 2001 
amendment.

Upon ratifying the convention, Indonesia issued a law consisting only of a 
statement of ratification instead of comprehensive articles to enforce the 
convention.

"The Justice and Human Rights Ministry is now designing the bill. We will 
include all the articles in the convention except for stipulations on measures to 
settle disputes through the International Court of Justice," Romli 
Atmasasmita, a senior advisor to the State Minister for National Development Planning, 
said Friday.

Romli, who is part of the drafting team, said the government could not 
propose amendments to the existing laws because there would be too many additional 
articles.

The new law must meet international standards in order to enable Indonesia to 
recover assets taken abroad by corrupters, he said. He added that Indonesia 
would have to report on the law to the UN once it was enacted, while every year 
the UN would evaluate the progress of corruption eradication in the country.

The UNCAC comprises a total of 71 articles covering corruption in both the 
public and the private sector. It defines bribery and extortion in the private 
sector as corruption.

The prevailing Indonesian law does not classify private-sector bribery as a 
crime. Perpetrators are usually given only administrative sanctions.

The convention also includes a mechanism for international cooperation in 
recovering stolen assets and recognizes the rights of countries whose assets are 
taken away by corrupters. It also regulates efforts to deal with money 
laundering.

Romli said the new law would enlarge the jurisdiction of the Corruption 
Eradication Commission (KPK) to enable it to investigate corrupt practices at 
private businesses.

KPK chairman Taufiqurrahman Ruki agreed to the plan to include corruption in 
the private sector in the law, and said the commission was prepared to probe 
private-sector graft cases based on the new legislation.

"We should have a law that includes briberies and fraud in the private sector 
in order for the country to be able to comprehensively root out endemic 
corruption," he said.

Meanwhile, Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin) deputy 
chairman Agusman Effendi said his organization had formed a team to discuss Kadin's 
participation in drafting the new anticorruption law.

"The law will be about us so we will give the government our comments. We 
know that there are also corruption practices in the private sector and Kadin has 
programs to support the anticorruption drive," he said.

Romli said it would better for the new law to take effect in two years to 
give judges, prosecutors and police, as well as the public, time to understand 
and endorse it.

Romli, Ruki and Agusman were among the speakers at a one-day seminar Friday 
to discuss efforts to eradicate corruption in the private sector. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

The Jakarta Post 
Saturday, August 5, 2006    

'Take tangible action to change public view of graft'

To beef up his campaign against corruption, President Susilo Bambang 
Yudhoyono invited world experts to Jakarta for a discussion Wednesday on how to 
address this chronic problem. American professor Robert Klitgaard, who was among 
those who spoke at the event, shared his views on the best strategies for rooting 
out corruption with The Jakarta Post's Dwi Atmanta.

Question: How do you view corruption in Indonesia?

Answer: Looking at the anticorruption policies, statements and strategies 
here, I think they are world class so far. If you are facing systemic corruption 
then you need to take certain steps. There is an analogy. Suppose I'm a famous 
heart surgeon and you come to me and you say how's my heart compared to this 
other person's heart? Who cares? What can I do about your heart? So you 
shouldn't be so worried about how Indonesia compares to other countries in terms of 
how bad its heart is. We should be looking at how we're doing the right things 
to make your heart healthy. And so far the steps I see are remarkably good. 
I'm the most optimistic about Indonesia I have been since 1978 when I came here 
for the first time.

Indonesia has enacted a number of laws to eradicate corruption, yet the 
corruption continues. Why?

Laws alone are not the answer. What we have learned in the last 25 years is 
that simply having elections does not guarantee a democracy. Simply having a 
constitution does not guarantee good law enforcement and good courts. Simply 
having free market reforms does not mean that the poor get access to credits and 
the market automatically. So the institutions of democracy, justice and 
economy are crucial. Not just the policy but the institutions.

So what are the steps for institutional reform? First you must change the 
culture through strong penalties, so people understand that this is not the same 
old game. And that's what your country has done. You have had eight or 10 very 
high-profile prosecutions in the last year. Second you look at a system of 
prevention. Corruption has a formula: monopoly plus discretion minus 
accountability. So in your ministry, your procurement, your delivery service, you must go 
through and find where is the monopoly, plus too much discretion, minus 
accountability, and how can I have more competition, clear discretion and rules of 
the game, and more accountability. That's what the country has to do now. 
Third, how do we use civil society, the lawyers, the press, the church, the 
Islamic faith, all of us, together, to diagnose the corrupt systems and find the 
weak points and push.

Do strong penalties mean the execution of corrupt officials, like in China?

That's a very strong penalty. Punishment by itself has limits. Punishment 
must be accompanied by prevention, education and institutional development. 
Punishment alone will not work. China has executed hundreds of people for 
corruption every year, but it is not reforming its institutions to provide a better 
government.

Do you think corruption has something to do with the culture of a nation?

Small. I think it is an excuse. We have too many excuses for corruption. 
William James wrote 100 years ago the first book on psychology called Principles 
of Psychology. He said attitude followed behavior, not behavior followed 
attitude. If you feel sad and wish to be cheerful, then act cheerfully and you will 
feel cheerful. If you feel timid and fearful but you wish to feel brave, then 
act bravely and you will feel brave. Behavior determines attitude, not the 
other way around.

This means if we have a shock to the corrupt system and wake up, we will 
punish corruption as it is no longer acceptable. If it is just a word, please 
change your attitude, because we have heard it before. We heard it from (former 
presidents) Sukarno, Soeharto, Habibie, Gus Dur. Everybody says the same thing. 
But when we punish the big fish, we change the structure. You see, people seek 
results. So that's what I always recommend, that reforms should start with 
something tangible. Mozambique, for example, did three things in the first year. 
They got rid of extortion in hospitals, schools and customs. Something 
tangible will result in changing people's behavior.

What do you think is the best way to institutionalize the campaign against 
corruption?

You have done a lot. You have institutions now, such as the KPK (Corruption 
Eradication Commission). But the institutions of anticorruption are not the 
same as the institution of the state. If courts, the auditors, the police are 
corrupt or ineffective, having just the KPK is not enough. You must improve the 
institutions, so I think the KPK is right to begin with the Supreme Court.

When you go to ministries, public works is a classic place for corruption. 
Electricity, medicine are other classic places for corruption. In cases of big 
projects, make sure the procurement and contract systems are state of the art. 
We ask citizens to report and businessmen to tell us how the bad system is 
working.

Do you think education plays a role in the anticorruption campaign?

Not much. Many people around the world believe that we need to change our 
children's morality by teaching them in schools. But you know that some of the 
worst countries do that. Zaire under Mobutu had careful training on ideology and 
ethics while he was still stealing money. Venezuela under Chavez was trying 
to indoctrinate people to be good. I just don't think how we can do that. I 
don't think government knows how to change the ethics of citizens by schooling. 
Instead we should provide leadership by example and behavior will change.

What country can Indonesia learn from in combating corruption?

Yesterday I showed the President (Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono) Colombia. The 
country was third from the bottom in 1998 (for corruption), now it's about the 
average. They saved 242 billion pesos through their anticorruption campaign. 
Every single government agency is online. Everything they buy, every contract, 
every bidding is online, so all citizens can see exactly what is going on, how 
much they pay, who gets it, what the criteria are.

I think Mexico is another good one. The Mexicans under (President Vicente) 
Fox began an anticorruption campaign. And I went down and visited after one year 
and I was very impressed. They (the Fox administration) had a problem because 
they didn't have the majority in the legislature, so a lot of things they 
wanted to do couldn't get through the opposition. But they did a lot of good 
things. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jakarta Post 
Saturday, August 5, 2006

Opinion

Accuracy, transparency and fairness

Patrick Guntensperger, Jakarta

Indonesia is far from unique in being a country in which journalists are 
routinely influenced by their sources or the subjects of their stories. Everywhere 
in the world, people have a vested interest in seeing that stories are 
reported in a particular way, or even reported at all.

Everywhere in the world, writers and editors are susceptible to persuasion, 
whether it is overt or subtle.

A shopping center opening is only news if it is reported. It is only likely 
to be reported if the media are invited, and it is only likely to enjoy the 
kind of coverage its investors want if the media enjoy their assignment. To 
ensure that the media enjoy their assignment, it is absolutely standard practice to 
provide perks.

These perks can include anything from the standard "goodie bag" full of press 
releases (marketing material) and product samples (gifts of merchandise) to 
straightforward cash money in exchange for a positive story (possibly even 
written by the PR department). While the latter is clearly unethical, the former 
is so routine that it doesn't even come under scrutiny.

But let's step back for a moment and ask ourselves why this question of 
journalistic ethics is even important. After all, these are reporters, not public 
servants. If a reporter takes a bribe from a PR department and then runs a 
favorable story, who cares?

The PR guy is happy, the reporter augments a traditionally meager income, the 
editor gets some copy to run, and the public gets a flowery "report" of a 
trendy new shopping center. It's not like a judge selling a verdict, or a member 
of the government soliciting a bribe for a vote on some important legislation. 
Where's the harm?

The standard answer is that the public is harmed. The public is harmed 
because it becomes impossible to distinguish accurate, objective reporting of a 
story from a spun piece of self-serving fiction. The standard answer, the one that 
journalism professors and professional media members will repeat from rote, 
is that the practice of chequebook journalism diminishes the public's respect 
for the press's objectivity and therefore diminishes the value of a free press.

But in a world where any thinking person knows that there is no such thing as 
objectivity anywhere, just how important is the public's belief in the 
objectivity of the press? One needn't be a media analyst to understand that the 
writer of a story makes subjective choices with every keystroke, just as an editor 
imposes his personal views as he cuts, pastes, and rewrites.

The traditional ideal of the perfectly objective recorder of facts is not 
only pretentious; it is patently false. Every story is influenced by the very 
fact that it is being reported, whatever the manner in which the facts are 
related.

The public doesn't believe in the objectivity of the press; it never has, it 
never will, and it never should. When a reader chooses between The New York 
Times and The Washington Times at a newsstand, the reader is choosing a bias. 
Left-lib intellectual, or neo-con? The Manchester Guardian, or the (London) Sun? 
The Village Voice, or The Wall Street Journal?

Regular readers of any newspaper have some idea of what to expect...that's 
why they read that particular paper. People tend to gravitate to a news source 
that reinforces their own biases. So whom are we kidding when we speak about 
maintaining the objectivity of the press? If objectivity in the media is 
synonymous with integrity in the media, then the media is utterly devoid of integrity.

The truth is that objectivity is not only an impossible ideal to aspire to; 
it might not even really be worth the effort. What would make far more sense 
would be for the press to aspire to accuracy, to fairness, to even-handedness, 
and to transparency. These at least, are attainable aspirations.

Accuracy should be a fundamental; it can never be an absolute, but it must be 
strived for with every professional breath a journalist draws. Check the 
facts; check the dates, the numbers, the spelling of names. Verify, confirm, and 
reconfirm. Don't report it as fact unless it is absolutely certain to be true. 
Any media outlet that doesn't follow these basic steps puts the reputation of 
the press in far more serious jeopardy than does the reporter who gets a free 
dinner from a source.

Fairness? Even-handedness? This is a matter of recognizing that every source 
is biased, and that every journalist and every journal is biased as well. To 
be even-handed in reporting a story means taking the extra step, the step that 
might undermine the reporter's own biases, and getting alternative views on 
the record along with the primary source's views.

As all reporters are humans, with human predispositions and prejudices, this 
is perhaps the hardest thing for a reporter to do. It's what separates the 
professional from the hack, the journalist of courage and integrity from the rank 
and file.

Transparency? This ought to be the easiest of all to attain. Transparency in 
journalism means exposing your prejudices, declaring your biases, making your 
personal point of view evident. With this kind of transparency in journalism, 
a reporter, indeed a media outlet, can have it both ways.

Reporting can be done with a bias and with integrity at the same time, if the 
bias is acknowledged. Nobody believes in the press's objectivity anyway, so 
declaring it and making it manifest would only increase the journalist's 
credibility.

Which would be more honest? A worshipful story about a fabulous new shopping 
center, or precisely the same story with a final paragraph listing the gifts 
that were given to the reporter? Now ask yourself: If the reporter were 
required to include that list of inducements, is it likely that the story would be 
written in the same way? Probably not.

The story would probably be less effusively positive, more balanced. Most 
people would venture to say that if a reporter were required to expose his/her 
biases, he/she would be likely to write a more even-handed story, even if only 
to appear unswayed by mere filthy lucre.

People will always try to persuade journalists to see things their way. 
Journalists will always have their personal views. If the industry really wants to 
increase the public's respect for journalists, the answer lies not in 
pretending to the false ideal of objectivity, but, rather, to the genuine ideals of 
accuracy, fairness, and transparency.

The writer is a Jakarta based political risk analyst. He has been a 
professional journalist either full time or as a sideline for over 25 years. He may be 
reached at pguntensperger at yahoo.ca. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

The Jakarta Post 
Saturday, August 5, 2006

KPU graft suspect wants minister arrested

Adisti Sukma Sawitri, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Former election commissioner Daan Dimara, who is now on trial for corruption 
charges, filed a petition Friday asking the Corruption Eradication Commission 
(KPK) to arrest the justice minister for his alleged role in the case.

Daan accused Justice and Human Rights Minister Hamid Awaluddin, who was a 
General Elections Commission (KPU) member along with him, of involvement in 
inflating the price of ballot seals for the 2004 legislative elections.

In his letter to the KPK, Daan said his lawyer, Erick S. Paat, submitted the 
petition following a suggestion by the panel of judges at the Anticorruption 
Court during the suspect's trial last Tuesday.

"Hamid must be arrested for perjuring himself at the trial," Daan said in the 
letter.

He explained that Hamid committed perjury when he refuted the testimony of 
five witnesses who all said Hamid had attended a meeting to discuss the 
procurement of ballot seals and the inflating of their price.

Along with the petition, Daan provided evidence of Hamid's alleged 
involvement in the scam, including a letter from PT Royal Standard president director 
Untung Sastrawidjaya to Hamid, bargaining over the price of the ballot seals.

However, Erick said he did not put much faith in sending the letter to the 
KPK because the Criminal Code clearly stated that the presiding judge was the 
only person authorized to recommend an arrest of suspect during court 
proceedings.

"We only sent the letter to comply with the judges' suggestion. We know that 
the KPK cannot do anything about it," he told The Jakarta Post.

Erick said he would again ask the judges to issue an arrest warrant for Hamid 
during the next trial session Tuesday.

"I hope they will give us a more reasonable excuse for rejecting our demand 
in the next court hearing," he said.

KPK deputy chairman Tumpak Hatorangan Panggabean has said his body could not 
issue an order for the arrest of anyone during the trial.

"The matter of a perjury suspect can only be established by the presiding 
judge. Prosecutors can later report the matter to the police who can then make an 
arrest," he said. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The Jakarta Post 
Saturday, August 5, 2006

Kupang mayor under fire over graft

KUPANG, East Nusa Tenggara: A citizen's advocacy group in East Nusa Tenggara 
has demanded to know why Kupang Mayor Semuel Kristian Lerik and Kupang 
municipal secretary Yonas Salean have not been named suspects in a Rp 4.5 billion 
(US$500 million) graft case.

The group's director, Sarah Lery Mbuik, said its own investigations indicated 
the two officials were involved in the misappropriation of money from the 
2003-2004 Kupang budget. But despite the evidence of their involvement, neither 
has been named a suspect in the case.

"They were the ones authorized to disburse the funds, which they later 
divided up, with Rp 100 million going to each council member," she said in Kupang on 
Friday.

She said investigations led by the Kupang and the provincial police left the 
impression that the two were being protected because of their positions.

"Thirty council members and three municipal officials have been named 
suspects," she added.

An official at the provincial prosecutor's office, Hartadi, said the office 
had received case files on the two men last Monday.

------------------------------------------
Joyo Indonesia News Service
------------------------------------------