Reek of Politics in KPK Leaders' Term Extension
Translator
Editor
20 June 2023 21:35 WIB
Some view that the ruling reeked of politics because the KPK is handling a case that can affect presidential nominations.
Because you are aware of the previous position I held. It’s not relevant if I’m considered to have political motives. I’m not part of that. In essence, this is a legal process. If this legal process is signified or interpreted politically by external parties, that’s their right.
The problem is the KPK is no longer independent…
Actually, I submitted my petition at the end of last year and it was ruled in the middle of this year closer to the 2024 general elections. So, like it or not I can’t avoid the public’s political perception. Then it was linked to KPK’s performance, reputation and the IPK, and so on. That’s the public’s right even though in my perspective, the right to ask for equality has no political context.
The level of public trust in the KPK has also fallen...
The decline is about reputation and perception depending on contexts. Since we were established until when the KPK Law was revised with the 2019 KPK Law, the public sphere was already echoed with pessimism that changing (the law) was aimed at weakening the KPK. Who set off the echoes? Who challenged the TWK (civic knowledge test) up till its judicial review? Well, the same people.
Is the decline in public trust objective or subjective?
If it’s objective, we have to talk about the data, not perception. Based on the data, during our first year, we foiled corruption and salvaged Rp594 trillion. That’s through prevention. This figure in the first year alone exceeded the amount saved in five years in the previous period. But this data was never picked up. What they raised were the negative points. For instance, graft busts. How could we conduct busts during the pandemic from early 2020 to 2021? We were lucky to (catch) two ministers.
***
Former Chair of KPK for 2010-2011, Busyro Muqoddas:
KPK Has Been Playing with Politics
What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling?
The verdict can’t be separated from a salient political background which is the revision of the KPK Law. The new law has taken away KPK’s independence. The KPK is now under the president who functions in the shadow of his political party. That already spells problems. If a law enforcement agency, let alone the one fighting corruption is no longer independent, who will believe that the KPK won’t become a political tool, be it in government matters or business politics. This situation is further exacerbated by the obligation (of KPK employees) to become civil servants.
These successive events quite easily led to a logical opinion that the KPK that filed a request for a judicial review which later was granted by the Constitutional Court is an inseparable part of a vulgar political movement. Unfortunately, the court promptly ruled the case without heeding (the concern of) several parties of original historical authority, for example, that if the KPK now has the tendency to become a political tool. The Constitutional Court should have listened to independent experts. But they didn’t, did they? Without naming certain cases, some of the cases have been closed such as Harun Masiku, Meikarta, land reclamation, the BLBI (Bank Indonesia Liquidation Assistance), and several other cases. From there, you can see how strong momentary political interest is.
Nurul Ghufron said that the petition was a personal initiative. Is it normal?
It makes sense if he is no longer a KPK leader. But since he still is, it is very difficult (for him) to build an argument that he has a legal standing as an individual. I don’t believe in the claim of ‘personal initiative’ to take his own decision as a leader because it’s impossible given KPK’s collective collegial leadership model.
Ghufron said the petition was aimed solely to demand an equal term of office like that of other agencies.
He must flashback to the history to see why it is four years. We also need to see the product analysis of this four years term. Has there been any problem? No problem at all. Problems only emerged in Firli Bahuri’s era.
Did the previous KPK commissioners have the idea to request the term extension?
It never crossed our minds individually, let alone institutionally. We adopted a code of ethics that when their terms end, KPK leaders should not hold public positions like commissioners or the likes to prevent as much as possible perception by would-be KPK leaders that they could become commissioners after working in the KPK.
What were the consequences?
For early prevention, in the future don’t let prospective KPK leaders have morally wrong calculations (regarding the KPK) and consider it as a stepping stone.
What is your primary criticism of the tenure extension?
The four years (tenure) have an ‘institutionalized’ moral message: don’t stay too long.
Read the Full Interview in Tempo English Magazine
