Haryono Umar: Positions must be filled by people with integrity

Haryono Umar needed just over a year to fulfill the promise he made when he was appointed Inspector-general at the Culture and Education Minister on March 2012.  He emphasized he would not hesitate to expose corruption in his new job.  

Last April, he completed an investigation on the Culture Directorate's Rp 700 billion budget.  He found some indications of fund irregularities and official intervention in the tender of some cultural events, which included the services of event organizers.  Many of the officials mentioned in the case turned out to be high-ranking officials, such as Wiendu Nuryanti, the deputy minister in charge of culture. 

Even recommendations to prevent future corrupt activities, like the national exams this year, which many considered to be totally chaotic, for example, led to inaction.  At planning meetings, Haryono said he repeatedly warned his colleagues on the potential of the national exams being delayed.  In fact, the inspectorate 'predicted' that the distribution of the tests and the exam answers would be chaotic. 

Last week, Haryono met with Tempo reporters Agoeng Wijaya, Bagja Hidayat and Dwi Wiyana at his home in Tangerang.  He spoke for two hours, on how problematic the findings of his inspection had become and how despite all the corruption, there were still 'straight' people in the Education and Culture Ministry.  

Excerpts from the interview: 

How was your team able to find indications of corruption, collusion and nepotism at the Culture Directorate-General?

As usual, we had our mid-year audit to check on the financial management of each work unit.   Our auditor said their findings had to be further investigated.  I approved it.  So they worked in stages, finding a number of questionable cases.  When they completed it last April, I submitted a report to the Education and Culture Minister, Muhammad Nuh. 

The potential loss to the state according to your report was a total of Rp 700 billion.  How did we manage to lose such a huge amount?

The return of the culture department to the Education Ministry from the Tourism and Creative Economy Ministry at the start of 2012 was like a godsend to many. The Culture Directorate employed some 3,000 people and owned assets worth trillions of rupiah.  So, right from the beginning I reminded the Ministry that such huge transfer of employees and assets must be managed well.  Otherwise, we would sure have problems. 

Deputy-Minister Wiendu Nuryanti's involvement in the case has been mentioned.  Exactly what was her role?

We cannot reveal the details of the numbers, the officials involved and which company or organization was involved in our current investigation.  But one of our findings showed that many activities at the Culture Directorate-General used the services of event organizers. We found indications of intervention or partiality at tenders.  We submitted these findings to the KPK to expose who was behind the intervention. 

Why must an internal oversight report be submitted to law enforcers, in this case the KPK?

That's the normal procedure.  Every time we suspect a crime, especially corruption, our recommendation to the minister is not only responsible for punishing the official, but also for the case to be sent to law enforcers.  The Criminal Code says that whoever knows about a crime must report it to law enforcers. 

So it's not because the deputy minister is involved?

We have never investigated her, just her financial management.  That is where we found some items which were not in line with regulations.  So accountability in the financial management is what we investigated.  We don't care who the person is, nor the position. 

How serious is the problem within the Education Ministry that you needed to suggest a fit and proper test for all officials?

Strategic positions must be filled by people with integrity and competence.  In this ministry, the financial managers are people in the high ranks.  Our education budget is huge.  So, we must keep reminding ourselves that it's for education, for the good of society. 

Has Minister Nuh responded?

Not yet. 

Despite the inspectorate's efforts at prevention, problems still happen. 

Since last year, we have conveyed the critical points in the implementation of the national exams.  During our preparatory meetings at the National Education Standards Board, I reminded those present that last year's experience indicates that the execution of the national exams was fraught with risks and problems.  But there was no follow-up. 

What are those critical points?

First, we reminded them that the execution of the national exams risked being delayed because of the late budget disbursement.  I also told them about the problem of distributing the test forms, given the huge numbers (of students taking the exams). 

Are you saying, there was no reason for the national exams to end up being such a mess?

There should be no excuse! If there had been quick responses to our suggestions, there would have been enough time to come up with the managerial policies (to overcome potential problems).  But this was not done.  Perhaps they – the exam executors, in this case the National Education Standards Board which collaborated with the Development and Research Organization – were busy.  

Even recent tender processes seemed suspicious. 

I warned the top executives at a ministerial meeting before they signed the contract with the winner of the bid last March.  I requested for an official explanation at that forum because we had received protests that the tender process on the national exams was filled with irregularities.  Because no clarification was forthcoming, in the end I deployed a team to investigate the problem.  They are still working on it. 

The impression we get from all this that the inspector-general has virtually no authority.   

It is weak because he must report to the minister.  And this applies to all inspector-generals in all ministries.  When I first took on this job, my staff always reminded me we had to discuss our findings with the minister before writing a report.  I refused to do that.  I wanted to sign the report, which would then become an official government document and only then submit it to the minister. 

The previous procedure was not like that?

Never.  All this time, the findings of the team would be first reported to the minister, discussed and corrected, then signed by the inspector-general.  That is why our function until now has been very weak. 

In other words, the recommendation of the inspectorate-general is final?

Yes.  But there was a time when our recommendations for certain action, or our findings of suspicious activities submitted to law enforcers, were not carried out. 

Why did that happen?

Because the ministry formed another team to review the case and they came up with different results.

***

A complete version of this interview is also available in the June 10 to 16 Edition of Tempo English.