Ridwan Max Sijabat, Jakarta – The recent memo-writing scandal involving Cabinet Secretary Sudi Silalahi shows that a culture of corruption is still deeply rooted in officialdom, despite the efforts of the government to rid itself of the scourge, observers say.
Two letters bearing Sudi's signature were sent to Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda early last year. They recommended Hassan appoint an Indonesian-based company with a Korean-sounding name, PT Sun Hoo Engineering, for a job to renovate the Indonesian Embassy in Seoul, South Korea.
The proposed renovations never took place and the company supposed to carry out the job does not seem to exist as an entity in Indonesia.
During the Habibe presidency, another scandal involving memos took place when a letter written by former state secretary Muladi was leaked to the press. That memo, which was distributed to a series of Cabinet ministers, "recommended" a frequency license was granted quickly to a group of Muslim businessmen for an operation which eventually became Global TV.
Muladi and the former cofounders of the TV station were previously in the Indonesian Muslim Intellectual Association (ICMI).
The station was supposed to produce Islamic-oriented educational programs but strapped for cash, it ended up in other businessmen's hands and became the commercial television station it is today. It seems highly unlikely the would-be broadcaster would have been granted a license had it gone through the proper channels.
Muladi continues to deny the memo he sent was an improper use of his position. He was never forced to resign from his post.
In neither case was there explicit evidence of graft taking place but observers say this does not mean no crime or violation was committed.
In Sudi's case, antigraft activists say the letters' existence indicates a clear abuse of power, whether Sudi wrote them or they were altered by his underlings.
Memos are usually unremarkable documents with a mundane but explicit purpose; they are useful tools to enhance coordination among state officials; the oil in the cogs of government. As long as this letter writing deals with matters inside the writers' job description, there is no problem.
Conflicts arise when officials write those "other kind" of memos; ones clearly outside their sphere of influence, recommending companies for government projects or individuals for lucrative jobs. These bits of paper get officials involved in affairs they should have nothing to do with.
Then the memo becomes a far more interesting document, a window on a world of corruption, collusion and nepotism.
Todung Mulya Lubis, a coordinator of Transparency International in Indonesia, believes many state officials, including those in the inner circle of the Presidential Palace, still try to use their positions to enrich themselves and their supporters.
"During the New Order era, president Soeharto frequently issued presidential decrees and ministers used memos to get special treatment for their cronies. Today, such a practice is qualitatively deceasing because of stronger public controls and the influence of the anticorruption movement. But I am not saying that corruption is also decreasing."
The lack of transparency in government and the enforcement of clear guidelines on official behavior meant only "stupid" officials were getting caught using government letterheads to push for their personal interests, Todung said.
The more savvy ones kept their communications oral or used SMS text messages to rob the public purse, he said.
H.S. Dillon, a former coordinator of the Partnership on Governance Reform in Indonesia, concurs. While improper use of memos in the State Palace had drastically decreased, Dillon said the practice was still common in the offices of regional elites in line with the decentralization of power under regional autonomy.
"The (inappropriate) memos are now frequently sent between members of the local elite and the business sector since a large part of public projects have been decentralized to the regions," he said.
Many regional heads had frequently used memos to favor their cronies in government projects, improperly ordering the recruitment of civil servants and job promotions outside of procedural guidelines, he said.
If the President wanted to end this abuse of power, he should start from the top, Dillon said. This meant removing corrupt staff from the State Palace and barring his aides from doing anything outside their job descriptions.
Transparent job tendering and appointments were also essential, he said. State officials found to have been involved in abuses of power should resign or be fired even if what they had done did not constitute a criminal offense, Dillon said. This would ensure that people continued to have faith in the government's anti-graft drive.
ICW deputy coordinator Danang Widoyoko noted that corruption was as much about standards of ethical behavior as it was about causing material losses to the state.
Violators should face strong criticism in the media and be condemned publicly as this social disgrace would also serve as an important deterrent, Danang said.
Current antigraft legislation was too simple and was unable to strike at the root of corruption because it only sanctioned wrongdoing that caused material losses to the state, he said.