KPK Selection Process: When a Serial Killer Chose His Own Team of Detectives

OVERLOOKED. Yunus Husein, the former chief of the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) was not chosen by lawmakers to lead Indonesia's top anticorruption body allegedly due to his fearsome reputation as "the man who knew the balance of your bank account".  

(photo by Arief Manurung)

The House of Representatives complex at Senayan, Jakarta became a stage of another failure of democracy after House lawmakers from Commission III overseeing legal affairs named its four new leaders for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

When I attended the voting process on Friday last week, it was a strange view that there were few –or if even any– journalists, NGO representatives, commission’s staffs, and even security guards who were seen clapping in the midst of noisy applause and loud celebration among the lawmakers after the Commission’s chairman read aloud the result.

The disappointment of the neutrals who witnessed the voting process and follow the issue thoroughly was clear: the current KPK composition is a massive letdown, and the lawmakers’ decision did not represent them and their fellow Indonesian people.

The appointee of lawyer Abraham Samad, National Police Commission member Adnan Pandupraja, and senior prosecutor Zulkarnaen to fill the KPK top posts had raised eyebrows on whether the House lawmakers have already done their main task of representing the public properly.

The government selection committee tasked to assess the eight candidates merely placed Abraham, Zulkarnaen, and Pandu as underdogs in the race, placing the three of them as the fifth-, sixth, and seventh-best candidate in its ranking, respectively.

There is no doubt that the naming of lawyer and antigraft activist Bambang Widjojanto was no more than "sweetener" to play down public controversy in the issue. In rational way of thinking, there is no explainable reason for the lawmakers to eliminate the flawless Bambang, who the selection committee assessed as its best candidate and thus was viewed as the heavy favorite in the race among the public.

Although it could hardly be described as the worst composition for KPK, the current one is without doubt would be a setback for the country's top anticorruption commission.

Among the five new executives of KPK (the four new executives plus the incumbent Busyro Muqoddas), the absence of a financial and auditing expert is hardly understandable.

In many occasions, lawmakers repeatedly uttered about the importance for KPK to focus not only on prosecuting corruptors but also on preventing corruption practices to occur. While prosecuting would punish corruptors and instigate fears among the people, preventive measures, the lawmakers argued, would make people who want to commit corruption were “unable” to do such practices and reduce corruption tally in the long run.

But why does the KPK’s new five executives comprise one prosecutor (Zulkarnaen) and four lawyers (Abraham, Bambang Busyro, Pandupraja), yet there was not any expert who has background in financial and auditing investigation?

Among the eight names proposed by the government selection panel to the House, there were two candidates who met the criterion: Yunus Husein, the former chief of the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK); and Handoyo Sudrajat, the KPK internal affairs director. The two were rated highly and deemed as frontrunners, too, as Yunus and Handoyo was ranked by the selection panel as the second- and fourth-best candidates in its ranking, respectively.

If lawmakers were talking about preventive measures, then they should definitely choose person with expertise in auditing and financial investigations. They could, without doubt, strengthen the KPK’s supervision system or even established a new scheme that could limit the corruptors’ assets-movement –and surely potential corruptors would have to think twice to commit fraudulent practices as they had their bank accounts watched closely.

While lawmakers argued that the rejection of Yunus was related to his close ties with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the ruling Democratic Party; but this argument is certainly baseless. In this leaked document of the candidates’ review, the selection panel rated Yunus as the third-highest candidate in the attribute of “independency” after Bambang and Abdullah.

How could Yunus –who garnered 105 compared to the newly elected KPK chief Abraham who earned 94 in “independency”– was rated highly in that criterion if he leaned to certain political figure and thus was not independent?   

In addition to the inexplicable omission of both Yunus and Handoyo, the exclusion of a bold figure such as Abdullah Hehamahua was also a loss in immeasurable extent. He was valiant, independent, and –as an officer at the KPK– knew exactly the inside problems of the KPK and how to fix them.

The only ones who dislike a great anticorruption fighter like Abdullah perhaps would be the corruptors themselves. Portraying Abdullah as a fearless figure would be an understatement. He was described at his best with his own words, which he uttered during his fit-and-proper test with the lawmakers: "I want to be murdered by corruptors."

From the politics-ridden selection process for the new KPK leaders, we could see the major flaw of our widely applauded democracy. That is, when the personal interests of our directly elected politicians set aside the country’s anticorruption agenda, which in fact should become the main priority.

In Indonesia, it was hilarious to know that the corruptors themselves were given the mandate to choose the leaders for the country’s anticorruption body. It is very much the same with a serial killer who has the authority to choose the team of detectives that would investigate his case –surely, it would be rational choice for him to pick the less-skilled detectives to avoid getting caught. 

New KPK Leaders: Rational Selection or Politics?

This leaked document obtained by The Jakarta Post reveals the detailed scores* of the government-tasked selection panel which was assigned to assess the eight candidates competing to become the new Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) executives. 

 

	Leadership	Integrity	Competency	Independency	Total score	Decision
Bambang	95	96	92	92	450	Chosen
Yunus	89	92.5	91	87.5	432	No
Abdullah	82.5	90	81	88	410	No
Handoyo	76	86	84	87.5	401	No
Abraham	75	79	73	78	367	Chosen
Zulkarnaen	77.5	79	81	78	379	Chosen
Pandupraja	72.5	75	72.5	73	352	Chosen
Arianto	82	70	83	71	367.5	No

* source: Government-tasked Selection Panel

*ranking was sorted by candidate's integrity, not overall score

*using conversion score of maximum 120. i.e: Bambang received 114 for 'leadership' hence his conversion score was 0.95

 

Based on the ranking, the selection panel recommended four names to the House of Representatives to be chosen as the new KPK executives: lawyer Bambang Widjojanto, former Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (PPATK) chief Yunus Husein, KPK advisor Abdullah Hehamahua, and KPK internal affairs director Handoyo Sudrajat

In choosing the new KPK four executives, however, the recommendation of the selection panel -which comprises of academics, psychologists, legal experts and former KPK leader- was apparently 'neglected' by the House of Representatives Commission III overseeing legal affairs. As the consequence, doubts emerged: Were the chosen candidates really the bests among the rests? Or was the selection process merely politics?

Protect Our Finance Minister, Mr. President

photo: Dwianto Wibowo for Tempo Magazine

It could look a little bit déjà vu if this three-week drama of cabinet reshuffle concludes with the dismissal of Indonesia’s tough Finance Minister Agus Martowardojo from President Yudhoyono’s administration.

Previously, Yudhoyono had let go another stellar Finance Minister, Sri Mulyani Indrawati, due to pressure from his mischievous coalition partners that were spearheaded by the Golkar party last year.

There is a possibility that last year’s drama could repeat itself this year with the same protagonist, same villain, and same ending: The villain bullies the protagonist, the protagonist is afraid and bows to the villain’s demand, and the ending wraps up with the protagonist ends up as the losing side.

The protagonist is of course President Yudhoyono, who decided to let go Mulyani last year even though she was arguably the best minister he ever had in years.

Yudhoyono clearly did not learn from his past mistake as Agus Martowardjojo, the current Finance Minister, is currently on the hot seat again. Just like last year, Yudhoyono did not give Agus enough protection to shield the Finance Minister from politicians’ perpetual harassments, leaving Agus standing alone in his battle to defend the state’s interest.

On the other side of the ring, the villain in is still the same as well: Golkar chairman Aburizal Bakrie who, impressively, managed to dictate many important decisions in Yudhoyono’s presidency and made the president himself very much like a controlled puppet.

After succesfully expelled Mulyani last year, the ousting of Agus from the Finance Minister post this year would reflect both Aburizal’s massive clout in the administration and Yudhoyono’s lame leadership. By driving Agus out, the message delivered by Aburizal was clear: You can mess with Yudhoyono, but don’t ever try to mess with me or my party.

Like Mulyani, Agus maintained a tough stance towards the Golkar party politicians and their power-hungry peers at the House. Agus was especially known for his clash with Golkar politicians over the government’s plan to purchase Newmont shares –a plan that Agus strongly believed would benefit Indonesia.

Lawmakers were against this plan and slammed Agus’s proposal. They furiously insisted the shares must be acquired by West Nusa Tenggara’s local administration, which is supported by a joint venture of a business unit that is owned by Golkar’s Aburizal.

The Finance Minister vs. House lawmakers battle repeated again last week over debates on the fuel subsidy quota, in which Golkar lawmaker Melchias Markus Mekeng lambasted Agus and described him as ‘does not have the authority to dictate the House’.

The fact that many Golkar politicians dislike persons with integrity such as Agus Martowardojo, Sri Mulyani, or even Trade Minister Mari Elka Pangestu (a Golkar lawmaker once uttered a racist statement and baseless accusation against her) is very much incomprehensible. For neutral political observers, it could only show that the party’s ideology is more about power and money, not the advancement of Indonesia to become a better nation.

Besides, if Golkar’s politicians and President Yudhoyono really care about Indonesia, they should understand that the timing of Agus’s exit could not be worse than now.

On Thursday last week, President Yudhoyono stated that he “would focus the next cabinet reshuffle to harness global economic challenges”. In truth, his decision to eject Agus from the Finance Minister chair would prove otherwise.

It is no exaggeration to say that if the current situation remains unchanged, we could bump into one of the world’s biggest economic crises next year. The European and American politicians are particularly responsible for the mess: Eurozone leaders are yet to reach agreement on what to do with their problematical currency, while the Republicans and Democrats legislators in United States are busy scuffling for their respective interests for the 2012 elections rather than controlling the country’s soaring fiscal burden.

Consequently, investors were scared off by recent developments in the West and symptoms of worldwide-scale economic crisis started to surface In Indonesia in the last few months. The once-strong rupiah –which once touched the level of 8,650 against the US dollar on August– has been under heavy pressure lately, while the Indonesian Stock Exchange index has plunged from the psychological level of 4,000 to 3,200 in a very short period.

By the time the crisis turns from symptoms into veracity next year, there is no doubt that the leadership of Agus –a former top dog CEO who successfully transformed Bank Mandiri to become one of Indonesia’s largest banks during the global financial fiasco– would be sorely missed.

There are signs that President Yudhoyono would try to minimize the issue by not ousting Agus at the upcoming reshuffle, but merely moved him to other ministerial post, such as the Investment Coordinator Board to replace Gita Wirjawan.

But this strategy makes little sense for two reasons. The first is the fact that the Finance Minister post is very vital, and there is no doubt that our current Finance Minister, who is a highly respected figure among investors and the global economic community, is among the few persons –if not only– capable for the job

The second is moving Agus Martowardojo to other ministerial posts is the same analogy with a football manager who plays his tough centre-back as forward.

In other words, Mr. President: It's like you have the best defender in disposal, yet you still leave a huge loophole in your defensive line as you give the crucial centre-back position to a less capable player.

. .

An Open Letter to Bambang Soesatyo

(Photo by Elvan Dany Sutrisno)

Dear your honor, Golkar party lawmaker, Pak Bambang Soesatyo.

You reiterated that you ‘do not mean to be racist’ and thus refused to apologize to Minister of Trade Mari Elka Pangestu regarding your remark several days ago. Your argument was supported by your colleague from Golkar party who said that that the media seemingly twisted your words hence they looked like racist, while in fact those words are not really the point of your whole statement.

Yes, I could see what your Golkar colleague sees: That the point of your whole argument is not about that racist remark but more referring to ‘incompetent ministers’ in President Yudhoyono’s cabinet and the lack of strict selection in choosing them. Therefore, here I am putting aside the debates of your racist remark’s controversies, and thus just focusing on analyzing your opinion of incompetent ministers in Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s cabinet.

Unfortunately, your criticism of saying Mari Elka Pangestu as an incompetent minister is as irrelevant as saying that she is ‘doing her ministerial tasks for the sake of her Chinese ancestors’. In my opinion, both statements are completely biased and baseless, and obviously they are not the kind of statements that I expect from a lawmaker and people’s representative like you.

Of course, we know that there are some incompetent ministers in the government. But as long as I have been observing, it’s the ministers from political parties –including some ministers from your party– that could be considered as incompetent; not people from professional background, like Ibu Mari.

I am a student in a state university, and I consider myself as lucky enough to have the privilege of sitting in classes and receiving public lectures from some ministers and important policymakers in our government. While I have always been amazed with the breadth of knowledge from ministers of professional background, my encounter with ministers who are from political party background always ended up in disappointment –at least from my own experiences.

Ministers from professional background like Mari Elka Pangestu and Sri Mulyani Indrawati were my lecturers in international economics and macroeconomics class; while several weeks ago Gita Wirjawan visited my faculty to deliver his public lecture. The way Ibu Mari, Ibu Ani, and Pak Gita taught me economics were amazing, and I bet that almost all students who attended their lectures would agree to me.

But how about ministers from political parties? I once had one as my lecturer few semesters ago, and he always came late to the classroom –and my classmates and I had bitter memory when we always had to wait about 1.5 hour before he could start his class. When we ask him questions, he always beaten around the bush and we just could not get his points. My friend even suspected that he redirected the subject because he actually could not answer that question at all.

Outside the university, once I attended a seminar on an event that was brought in English and invited a minister from Golkar –yes, from your party, Pak Bambang– as the speaker. It was such a humiliation for him as his English proficiency was really poor and at that time I was asking myself, “What would foreigners thinking if this kind of guy represent Indonesia at the international stage?”

Moreover, that Golkar colleague of yours even came late to the event and the seminar has to run for about one hour without him.

In fact, history shows that several posts in the ministry such as Trade Minister, Finance Minister, Foreign Affairs Minister, and Investment Board Coordinator were always given to people from professional background and rarely from political parties.

Why? I personally don’t know, but my guessing is: Maybe ministers from political parties background are less competent, and thus President Yudhoyono does not trust them?

We all realize that those ministerial posts could be considered as the most important ones, and assign random people for those crucial posts would be risky. Besides, the tasks for those ministers require more interactions with foreigners compared to other ministerial posts, and thus portraying Indonesia’s image at the international stage.

In addition, the ministers’ names that circulated in the media early this year because they got red marks from Presidential Monitoring Unit (UKP4) all come from political parties. Hence, based on this reality as well as from my own experience with ministers from political parties background, I obviously will not assign them for those important posts if I were a President.

Therefore, if your accusation of ‘incompetent minister in the cabinet’ is directed to my lecturer Ibu Mari, then you are directing your gun to a wrong target. Maybe it is more relevant if you point that kind of criticism to your politician colleagues.

Of course, what I’m saying does not mean all ministers who come from political parties background are all bad and unreliable. Political parties, after all, are important element of democracy and one major road for citizens to participate in the government.

But it seems today most of the Indonesians are tired already and becoming skeptics with Indonesian politics and political parties. This is because the way you and your colleagues act in parliament is disappointing us the taxpayers, who actually pay for your salary.

By the way, I have an advice for you and your fellow lawmakers to restore your image: How about passing a law that requires a cabinet to consist minimum 75% of professionals with no association with political parties? I’m sure that we’ve got more than enough intellectuals in this country who are up for the tasks, and let’s see what Indonesia could achieve in the next few years with these people as ministers.

Food Crisis: Hungry Citizens are Overthrowing Governments

BREAD TALK. The surge in foods and basic commodities price has sparked public unrests in many parts of the world especially in Mideast countries like Jordan, where a citizen here is seen using a baguette bread to vent his anger to Jordanian government during a street protest.

(photo by Kahlil Marzaawi)

On how to deal with middle and working class people, here’s one good advice that all world leaders (or dictators), could listen: Give them sufficient food and they would give less trouble for you –because food, after all, is the most important necessity that they need.

It was in the year of 1998 when working and middle class Indonesians conquered the streets to end the 32-year autocratic reign of Soeharto, but before those people were longing for the taste of democracy and liberty, it was actually their hungry stomach and bitter economic condition that provoked the transition in the first place.

Following the monetary crisis in 1997, the Indonesian economy was in its nadir and the ASEAN region was infected with currency crisis that was originated in Thailand; which eventually led to massive-scale currency depreciation in neighborhood countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Philippines.

In Indonesia, the crisis caused the price of basic commodities to rise beyond the reach of common people, and eventually increased the number of Indonesians who lived below poverty line. As people were pointless at that time and had no one to blame for their suffering, they challenged the autocracy and look for democracy as the solution.

Would Soeharto lose his power if the 1997 economic crisis did not occur? Of course, there were several other factors that contributed to his downfall. But if working-class mothers were not struggling to buy rice and basic necessities at that time, surely their husbands would not have the motive to illegally loot shopping stores and their children would not be so interested to join the street protests.

In November last year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) published Food Outlook report and warned against the rising price of basic commodities and the looming food crisis as bleak outlook in 2011.

Less than four months after the ‘prophecy’ was published, it has had its tolls already, as surging global price of foods and basic commodities triggered public uproars which were responsible for the ousting of dictatorial regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, and put other governments in balance.

Widespread corruption, unjust elections, and undemocratic government have long become concern for citizens in Mideast; but it was not until the symptoms of food crisis 2011 materialized that both Tunisian and Egyptian people truly fed up with their governments and decided to take the matter with their own hands.

In Tunisia, inflated food price and bloated unemployment rate were actually the initial motives behind the public unrest that led to the resignation of president Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. The domino effect then went to Egypt, where people there ultimately realize that they are also experiencing the same problem as their neighbor in the west.

Egypt is the world’s largest importer on wheat; a commodity which has seen its price soaring for more than 50% since last year. In the country, food security has always become a major issue as Egyptians spend about 40% of their monthly income on food; compared to 28% for the Chinese or 6.1% for the Americans in estimations made by the US Department of Agriculture.

When the largest fraction of your income is spent on food, surely you will be the party that suffers the most if there is a hike in food price. Hence, makes no wonder if the Egyptians were among the firsts to take the bull by the horns:

“Hey life is getting harder these days, so why don’t we try the same thing with Husni Mubarak, just like the Tunisians did with their president?”

True, other causes also contribute to this 2011 Mideast revolution; such as greedy tyrants who had been clinging in their offices for too long, or ingrained corruption culture within the government that those tyrants have nurtured.

Or perhaps the influence of social media, which also deserves recognition as seemingly regimes in China, Iran, and North Korea so far have been able to evade the public uproar because their leaders have been notorious for isolating their own people from the internet.

But food crisis irrefutably played a part on the uprisings that lead to the 2011 Mideast revolution. Just recently, Rabah Arezki from the IMF and Markus Brückner from the University of Adelaide publish a research paper that confirms the relationship between international food prices and government stability. Interestingly, their research concludes that there is a positive correlation between food price increase in low-income countries and the likelihood of civil conflict and anti-government demonstrations.

The research is proven true and commonsensical in many ways. For instance, if you were about to join an anti-government demonstration, which issue that you are more likely to join: corruption or rising food prices?

For some people the answer may differ, but if surging price of basic commodities start to affect your earnings and your family, you will have a tendency to choose the latter than the former. Without doubt, people are more likely to go berserk on matters that directly affect them, such as rising food prices, compared to matters like corruption or others.

FAO recently reported that food price had reached a new record high in February; and the world is seemingly welcoming a resurgence of food crisis in 2011. The case of overthrown governments in Egypt and Tunisia is tangible proof that governments have indeed become more susceptible during these times.

This is a serious warning for all immortal-looking dictators from North Korea to Myanmar whose hungry citizens are perhaps next in line to demand revolutions.

This article was published in The Jakarta Post on Monday, March 21 2011

In Australia, It Takes Only One to Tango

STALEMATE. Australians may have just witnessed one of the most exciting federal elections in the country’s history, but the power divide between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott in parliament would not be the outcome they were keen to have.

A well-known idiom it takes two to tango definitely does not refer to politics.

At least that’s what we could conclude from Australia’s parliament composition as a result of a nail-biting federal election drama, in which Julia Gillard from Labor Party and Tony Abbot from National Coalition acted as the main protagonists.

In the election, there were weeks when a hung parliament was imminent as both Gillard and Abbot shared the same number of seats. In a country with a de-facto two-party parliamentary system like Australia, a brittle situation from hung parliament –a condition where parliament is divided and neither political party has an absolute majority against each other– is the last thing that any prime minister would want to have.

Fortunately, after weeks of vagueness, Australians could breathe a sigh of relief when Labor’s Gillard finally secured 76 seats (the number required for outright victory from the 150 seats in the parliament) with last-gasp support from Australian Greens Party and three independent members. This ends Australia’s political limbo, even though the predicament is far from over as Gillard’s road ahead is still paved by wobbly rocks.

The major reason why some are skeptics about the stability of Australia’s future government is a parliament with ruling party has no supreme power against the opposition could prevent the government to perform at full throttle.

This could be nasty: during times when government policies urgently require approval from the parliament, politics intervention from the strong opposing party may be the hinderer that stands in the way of the implementation of such important policies.

As a country that reels through both the era of autocracy and democracy (and also experiences the thorny transition between), several examples could be drawn from Indonesia, Australia’s closest neighbor to the north, in terms of parliamentary matter.

In our not-so-distant past, former Indonesian president Suharto can run a top-down politics and an extremely stable government because he had almost no one who can oppose him in the parliament. In addition to the autocratic culture that was stemmed from his leadership style, the fact that Golkar party always came out victorious with overwhelming support in every elections led the party to earn most of the seats in the parliament, which allowed Suharto to implement government policies as he pleases.

Soeharto provides excellent example that the bigger power that a ruling party has in the parliament, then the bigger chance of government policies could be implemented smoothly. In this situation, political interference from opposing parties is unlikely to happen because of the overwhelming power that the ruling party boasts in the parliament.

Today, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono did try to do just that by embracing other parties to form a giant coalition which hold 75 percent of total seats from the parliament, with expectation that such powerful coalition would weaken the bargaining power of the opposition and ensure the stability of his second-tenure government.

So what would happen in a situation like Australia’s, where a parliament is divided into two fractions, with the ruling party only has wafer-thin majority against the opposition? If you were the leader of ruling party in Australia like Julia Gillard with current parliament’s composition, then in the future you can expect your powerful opposition in parliament to confront and grill you every time you come out with new government policies.

And with her experience as former minister and policymaker, Gillard surely knows that politics could potentially turn very filthy. Several lecturers in my university had experience of being a policymaker in the government, and some of them once uttered of how a crucial economic policy could lose its timing and credibility, and eventually become ineffectual, since it usually has to undergo an arduous and protracted process of Indonesian politics first before it can be approved by the lawmakers.

In United States, very often Barack Obama had to endure torrid times first from the Republican lawmakers before his policies could be put into actions. Indeed, providing check and balance to the government by confronting the ruling party is precisely the job of opposing party, like the Republican. But in academics perspective –particularly in economics field where timing does matter and economic policies needs to be implemented just in time– there are times when a too strong opposition party leads to lengthy political process, which ultimately reduce the efficiency of the government itself.

Yet in 2010 Gillard is not the only world’s newly-elected leader facing difficult challenges. Some of the peers with same fate as hers including Philippines’ Noynoy Aquino, who was just elected this year, but already he has to deal with the problem of the national security and recovering Philippines image to the world following the Hongkong tourists carnage incident.

Or Colombia’s new president Juan Manuel Santos, who presided over as president amidst the growing domestic tension between the country and guerillas and drug kingpins, as well as the problem with the war threat from Hugo Chavez because of the infamous 2010 Colombia-Venezuela diplomatic crisis.

New Briton Prime Minister David Cameron is also unfortunate to occupy 10 Downing Street this year in the middle of anti-British sentiment among environmentalists around the world following British Petroleum fiasco at Gulf of Mexico.

Having only a slim power difference against her opposition in the parliament, with even a single lawmaker defecting could turn her plans upside down, the government during Gillard’s tenure is highly fragile indeed. In the world where encountering an uphill battle is becoming a trend for every newly-elected leader this year, how to tame her stronger-than-ever opposition in the parliament is the test for our beloved neighbor’s first female prime minister to overcome.

This article was published in The Jakarta Post on Saturday, September 25 2010