Amzulian Rifai: Corruption will vanish with good public service

TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Public service is something new to 52-year-old Amzulian Rifai, the new chairman of the Office of the Ombudsman. After all, he spent the past 25 years in the academic affairs of Sriwijaya University in Palembang, South Sumatra. But he is ready to dedicate himself to a new assignment, which is to be the people's 'ear', to listen to those disappointed by the quality of public services rendered. Amzulian believes the Ombudsman is the right place to dedicate his time and his resources. He decided to apply for the job, and in an open session, was elected chairman for the 2016-2021 period.

Amzulian is aware that leading the Office of the Ombudsman will not be an easy task. Right from the start, he has had to face the snide comments that the Ombudsman is nothing more than a toothless institution with no specific objective in mind. The building alone, he observed when he first went there, looked no better than a warehouse. "It was in really bad condition," he said in an interview last week.

Amzulian then took the first decisive steps that would later define his public position. Internally, he revolutionized the work system, and externally, he armed the Ombudsman to become more assertive. First, he deployed investigative teams to seek evidence on the reported justice 'syndicate'. This was done way before the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) broke their cases in the court system. Then he made sure there was another team to monitor the compliance of government departments in providing public service. His determination in getting all this done is showing in the new respect the Ombudsman institution is getting. "The ministers we invite to our office (for their clarification on specific issues) always come," said Amzulian. He spoke to Tempo reporters Dwi Wiyana, Tito Sianipar and Raymundus Rikang at his office for a special interview. Excerpt: 

The new members of the Ombudsman have now been on their jobs for three months. What challenges do you and your team face? 

Internally, what I'm looking at is a low work ethos among the employees. To resolve this, I initiated a flag-raising ritual every Friday morning, which everyone has to attend simply to instil discipline. About 20 staff members so far have been penalized for not attending. How can one serve the public if they themselves are in bad mental shape? Moreover, I have stressed to the Ombudsman commissioners that they must first resolve their personal problems (before they can begin their new jobs).

The Ombudsman as an institution has been around for 16 years now. Why are you still stressing on something so elementary?

The office of the ombudsman in Indonesia was established rather late. It should have been when the nation became independent. Look at the Scandinavian countries where public service is exemplary. Over there, the ombudsman was formed along with their national independence, and because of that, there's no corruption. They were able to create a good standard for public service. In Indonesia, it's the other way around. We have been busy trying to deal with corruption while the quality of public service is going from bad to worse. There's no question, public service in Indonesia urgently needs to be improved.

And that burden falls on the government.

Do we deserve statehood if the government is incapable of providing good and non-discriminatory public service? It's this unsatisfactory public service that leads to the seeds of separatism and extremism. This is no longer the era of being served only when one is powerful and rich. That cannot be. The government is here to serve everyone.

Which government institution is seen to provide the worst public service?

The regional administrations, the Police, the state-owned and regional government-owned companies, the national defense institute, the justice system, the public education system, the banking sector, the prosecutor's office, the higher education system and government-run hospitals.

The Ombudsman is where people send their complaints and dissatisfaction on the substandard quality of public service provided by government departments. Yet people are unconvinced about the Ombudsman's capacity to change the system. 

It's worse than that. I once got a letter asking that the Ombudsman be dissolved (because it's so ineffective). But I take it all in, look at things in perspective. But I must make it clear to the public that not all public service cases must be reported to us. They should first be resolved through their individual internal oversight mechanism. It seems the public is not yet aware of this mechanism. For example, there's a customer service section in the police force. Have people submitted their complaints to the internal oversight inspectorate of the concerned institution, and in the regions, one that is the same level as the inspectorate at the National Police headquarters? When all that has been done and the evaluation mechanism still has failed to work, then they can report it to the Ombudsman.

In the case involving Novel Baswedan, the Ombudsman was like a toothless tiger because its recommendations to the police were ignored. 

Go ahead and call us a toothless tiger. But don't just take Novel's case as an example. Our recommendations on the Bambang Widjojanto case were complied with, also our recommendations over the recent case involving the KPK with the HMI (Islamic Students Association). The fact that our recommendations on the Novel case was not complied with does not necessarily reflect a lack of capacity. The recommendations must go back to the executive branch, whether they are complied with or not. But I remind people that compliance (or not) to the recommendations is a reflection of the country's condition. We may agree the country is in a state of chaos, but please comply with our recommendations, because that means we can show the international community that here's a country where regulations are followed.

What is the ratio between recommendations that are complied with and those that are ignored by those very institutions the public reported on? 

There are many more recommendations that were carried out. Requests to the ministries or related agencies for clarification have mostly been complied. The ministers we invite to the office always come. And many cases that didn't catch public attention, because it didn't involve big names, we resolved. Sometimes, those small complaints can be settled by telephone.

Do you have a strategy to ensure that more of your recommendations are complied with?

I will continue to pursue them through institutional communication. If they continue to ignore it, we will publicize it in the media. Recommendations that can be conveyed to the public in this era of open information will undoubtedly shame the leaders of the concerned institutions. If that doesn't work, we report it to the President and to the House of Representatives (DPR). (*)

Read the full interview in this week's edition of Tempo English Magazine