The
wide debate over the plan to revise the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK)
Law is intrinsically linked to the history of corruption in Indonesia.
Corruption is a result of the permissive culture that affects law enforcers.
During this time, the verdict handed down by the judges to corruptors has
tended to be mild. After serving their sentences, corruptors do not stop
stealing money from the country.
This
matter is compounded by the assumption that legislation tends to protect
corruptors. For example, in the Tipikor Law, the law is able to ensnare
corruptors only. Thus, their family and relatives are free from all charges. In
addition, criminal penalties and state losses can be replaced with further
imprisonment. As a result, many corruptors choose subsidiary punishments rather
than reimbursing the state’s money.
The
Tipikor Law privileges convicts and defendants. Those with convict status still
have a vote in political activities. Defendant can receive a salary and
pension, and are allowed to conduct business freely.
Urgency of Land
If
traced, this permissive culture has been shown by previous rulers. In the
empire era, corruption has been commonplace and ratified. In fact, its
existence was seen as supporting the glory, honor and dignity of the king. The
concept of the Javanese king involved the idiom "Manunggaling Kawula
Gusti" in which power always expects the people's approval. The
obedience, support and dedication of the kawula (people) for gusti (leaders)
are key to governmental success.
The
king was expected to provide well-being, protection and shelter, and the people
demanded to blend with the king. In contrast, as gusti, the king must be able
to mingle with the kawula, among others with the wisdom that defends them. This
interrelationship is a fixed price for any power that attempts to combine the
microcosm (small universe) and the macrocosm (large universe). Harmony between
gusti and kawula doesn’t rest on rights and obligations, but pragmatism.
In
traditional thought, there was a consensus saying that all land was under the
king's possession (eigenaar). At a time when money did not have a
central role in public economic activity, land occupied an important position.
As the king was a land’s sole owner, farmers were considered as tenants, with a
high burden of rent, with village heads used as mediators in recruiting those
who cultivated them.
Rewards
for loyalty were manifested by the land. Those willing to help the king were
purchased by apanage land. Thus, the village head had a lot of land. As the
local authorities, this award was received after handling their duties well.
This reciprocation flourished with the appearance of "kickbacks" in
contemporary times. The relationship between superiors and subordinates was
characterized by bribes in order to secure position and dignity. Superiors
needed a "tribute" in order to confirm their existence and increase
their treasure, while subordinates required an "asylum", in order to
survive.
Patron-Client
The
foundations of corruption were thus laid by feudalism, with a symbiotic
relationship between the king, palace bureaucrats and local leaders
deliberately perpetuated. Patronage was a measure of human communication.
Feudalism
was not destroyed by colonialism – rather, it was promoted. Besides the
ordinary income, the Dutch government provided cultuurprocenten for employees,
regents and village heads, aiming to maximize performance. This stimulant was
taken as a percentage of the sale of certain export crops.
In
an official provision, the cultivation system used only one-fifth of the
villager's land. In reality, half or more of their land was frequently annexed.
In addition to harming the people, of course, it endangered their lives. If
their power ran out, villagers would not be able to cultivate the land as a
provider of everyday food.
Citing
Marwati Djoened Poesponegoro and Notosusanto Nugroho (2008: 2), when Thomas
Stamford Raffles came to power in 1811-1816, he removed the submission of crops
and obligatory labor in some regencies. Raffles assigned the traditional rulers
as a colonial extension. They taxed the community in in natura (crops).
Raffles
understood that the village head could be utilized for land tax collection.
Therefore, through the Revenue Instruction, he positioned some village heads as
official police and instructed them to act as intermediaries for the central
government to collect land tax. The position of the village head as a
colonialist medium with villagers in the process of the cultivation system
showed a financial orientation. Thus, social division became obvious in some
areas.
Corruption
was rampant when the New Order regime came to power. At this time, the idiom
asal bapak senang (ABS, “as long as Sir is happy”) appeared and fertilized the
seeds of feudalism. Those who devoted themselves entirely to the ruler were
able to acquire a large fortune and great respect. Corruption was
institutionalized by highly authoritarian and undemocratic presidential
instructions.
After
the reformation era, the number of corruption cases in Indonesia remains high.
Although the government has changed, the heritage of the New Order has been
maintained. This is why corruption still persists to this day, and is even
propagated by supporters of the status quo.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar