House and Combating Corruption

Wednesday, September 1st, 2010 | 3:54 pm

In a political environment that does not support the agenda of combating corruption, corruption can be overcome impossible. Political factors can be said to be very determinant in the context of overcoming the problem of corruption in any country.
Without strong political support, anti-corruption programs will face many obstacles due to the early eradication of corruption starts from the support of regulation and enforcement of adequate anti-corruption systems.

Conversely, weak political commitment reflects the high level of corruption at the political level. Here the problem was around in circles because of the factors that determine the eradication of corruption in fact fall on the issues to be eradicated.
Therefore, trap the vicious circle of failure as early as possible to eradicate corruption must be avoided. Ironically, the House faces a 70 per cent of new entrants in fact showed a tendency to political attitudes are very conservative Parliament, not to say that antipathy toward the eradication of corruption.

Weaken the agenda

Parliament antipathy toward some regulatory reform proposals that aim to strengthen anti-corruption agenda not only reflects the political commitment to tidal representatives. Even more worrisome, the politicization of the parliamentary anti-corruption programs.
It could be said, loudly shouting MPs against several major scandals, such as Century Bank, seemed inclined to political interests rather than the spirit of the weight of anti-corruption by politicians digelorakan Senayan. No wonder the political stance of the Parliament against the anti-corruption agenda is often not consistent.

Institutional parliament is also easy to fall in the utilization of personal interests of its members, both to build the family business empire through projects as well as the deposit of instruments to promote private loyal attitude towards other branches of power, such as executives. What conveyed House of Representatives Chairman Marzuki Alie told the press some time ago that Aulia Pohan, besan President SBY, is not corrupt individuals who reflect the strong articulation of interests. With his statement, he wanted to affirm his support for large families Cikeas.
Fatal, the claim would have been dragged institutional Parliament in a situation that could be called "abuse" of office because of his position as Chairman of the House of Representatives. Aulia Pohan discourse that is not a corrupt person is very serious implications, especially in the context of the autonomy of the judiciary. Can be called, the Chairman of the House of Representatives has made a frontal attack against the existence of the judiciary who have the right to put someone's completely corrupt or not.
If the political power of parliament can negate an independent judicial decision, the impact of chaos on the sequel is trias-politica concept which we have adopted. Political rehabilitation in the style of the Chairman of the House of Representatives against Aulia Pohan was thick aroma of personal interests, but this kind of phenomenon can not be ignored because the Speaker of the House have brought parliament to institute a counter-point to the corruption of law enforcement agencies, such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

Anti towards reform

Bad signal to the agenda of the parliamentary anti-corruption is also indicated in the proposal of institutional strengthening of central authority of the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis (PPATK) and the Commission to handle cases of money laundering. Black members of the Parliament attack campaign against the revised formulation of the draft Act on Money Laundering Prevention and the government's first step to put positive ideas into the nuances of reformist ideas that seem misguided. Discourse on the rights of impunity, INTRAC wishes to can tap and hold a person is an issue that diembuskan before the draft revision of the Act itself is thoroughly readable.

Furthermore, through the Team on the Prevention and Money Laundering Bill which has completed a working meeting 20 to 22 August 2010, efforts to tackle the authority of the commission and the INTRAC in order to conduct investigations and investigations conducted by devolving authority back only to the Police and the Attorney General. No reason given, but the political maneuvering over the team attitude that the formulator is difficult to translate the logic of public interest.

As we know, institutions, police and the AGO have been unable to show the performance in handling crime of money laundering. Based on data INTRAC until April 2010, from 2442 found in suspicious financial transactions, about 1030 (42.18 percent) came from corruption.
As many as 92 percent of the Analysis Results report submitted to the Police and only 8 percent of those who submitted to the Attorney General. However, cases processed and decided upon using the Law Number 15 Year 2002 and Law No. 25/2003 on Money Laundering is very minimal. As reported INTRAC, only 26 files that use decision-Money Laundering Act as the basis for condemnation.

It is quite possible resistance to the proposal of the parliamentary accountability of cross between the police, judiciary, KPK and PPATK own because thick conflict of interest. Menggurita corruption in parliament will be very easy to detect if the authority of the investigation and the investigation of money laundering cases are also submitted to the Commission. Similarly, there are strong indications of suspected money laundering cases reported to police investigators INTRAC and the Attorney General during precisely so this event mafia law.
Political collusion with law enforcement is a labyrinth that to this day is still difficult to penetrate. No wonder if in fact anti-corruption agenda is often blocked by political interests.
by: Adnan Hurricane Husodo ICW Deputy Coordinator