Jokowi Shares 4 Objection Points on KPK Law Revisions

Translator:

Editor:

Markus Wisnu Murti

  • Font:
  • Ukuran Font: - +
  • President Joko Widodo or Jokowi, accompanied by Presidential Chief of Staff Moeldoko (left) and State Secretary Pratikno, speaks in a press conference on the revision to the Law on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) at the State Palace in Jakarta, Friday, September 13, 2019. ANTARA

    President Joko Widodo or Jokowi, accompanied by Presidential Chief of Staff Moeldoko (left) and State Secretary Pratikno, speaks in a press conference on the revision to the Law on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) at the State Palace in Jakarta, Friday, September 13, 2019. ANTARA

    TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo has shared several objections on the draft revisions of Law No. 30/2002 concerning the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK).

    “I disagree with several materials in the draft bill initiated by the House as it potentially curbs the effectivity of KPK's duties,” said the President during a press conference at the State Palace in Jakarta, Friday, September 13.

    Jokowi disagrees if the anti-graft body must gain a prior permit from an external party to perform wiretapping. The party in question includes the court. He says that KPK is only required to do so with permission from the supervisory board in a bid to keep confidentiality.

    He also disapprove of the point that KPK investigators are appointed from the police and prosecutor’s offices. He opines that investigators must also come from state civil apparatus promoted as employees of the KPK or other state institutions. “Of course, that must be through proper recruitment procedures,” Widodo remarked.

    The other point noting that the KPK must coordinate with the attorney general’s office prior to prosecuting is also criticized as the President considered the existing prosecution system had so far been well implemented.

    Lastly, Jokowi opposes the point that dismisses the KPK’s authority in managing the wealth and assets reports of government officials (LHKPN) to be then replaced as the authority of a ministry or other institutions. “No. I disagree with that. I demand the KPK still manage LHKPN as usual,” he concluded.

    FRISKI RIANA