Posts Tagged bribery

Cabaran dalam meningkatkan integriti penjawat awam

Oleh DATUK AHMAD KHUSAIRI YAHAYA

PENULIS ialah Pengarah Bahagian Dasar, Perancangan dan Penyelidikan SPRM

KESERIUSAN kerajaan dalam meningkatkan integriti dan mengekang jenayah rasuah di kalangan pegawai awam jelas menerusi pelaksanaan pelbagai dasar dan program yang diperkenalkan sejak sedekad lalu.

Antaranya menjadikan rasuah sebagai salah satu daripada bidang penting yang ditekankan dalam Pelan Transformasi Kerajaan (GTP). Untuk itu, sebanyak 27 inisiatif telah dan sedang dilaksanakan dengan giatnya menerusi Bidang Keberhasilan Utama Negara atau NKRA Berkaitan Rasuah.

Apa yang menjadi faktor paling kritikal dalam memastikan usaha meningkatkan tahap integriti perkhidmatan awam, sebenarnya bukanlah terletak pada hanya kesungguhan kerajaan. Kesungguhan itu juga perlu datang dari kepimpinan agensi kerajaan dan menuntut semua lapisan warganya untuk berubah.

Sejak kebelakangan ini, terdapat perubahan yang boleh dibanggakan ditunjukkan oleh kalangan anggota perkhidmatan awam berbanding sedekad lalu. Hakikatnya, tahap kesedaran para pegawai awam terhadap integriti dan semangat anti-rasuah jelas meningkat. Namun demikian, masih banyak ruang boleh diperbaiki untuk menjadikannya unggul di kaca mata masyarakat.

Berdasarkan perangkaan SPRM sepanjang sembilan tahun iaitu 2003 hingga 2011, secara keseluruhannya, purata tangkapan ke atas penjawat awam adalah seramai 260 orang setahun. Berbanding jumlah keseluruhan penjawat awam di Malaysia iaitu 1.4 juta orang, peratusannya adalah terlalu kecil iaitu sekitar 0.018 peratus sahaja.

Walaupun kelihatan kecil namun jika tidak dibendung ia mampu meruntuhkan negara. Pegawai awam dilihat mempunyai kuasa dan kuasa ini jika disalahgunakan boleh mengakibatkan kesan yang amat buruk.

Trend perubahan ke arah pembudayaan integriti dan anti-rasuah di kalangan pegawai awam jelas ketara bermula 2009. Terdapat pengurangan yang jelas dari segi jumlah tangkapan ke atas penjawat awam berbanding tangkapan ke atas sektor swasta dan orang awam. Kempen Perangi Pemberi Rasuah benar-benar menghasilkan impak yang besar dalam sejarah pencegahan rasuah di negara ini. Sejak pelancarannya pada 2009, jumlah penjawat awam dan swasta yang ditangkap kerana cuba menyogok pegawai awam melonjak begitu tinggi. Dalam 2009 misalnya, jumlah tangkapan keseluruhan SPRM ialah seramai 500 orang kerana ditangkap cuba memberi rasuah seramai 98 orang. Melonjak melebihi empat kali ganda iaitu seramai 424 orang dalam 2010 dan 389 orang dalam 2011. Jumlah wang sogokan bermula dari RM50 ke angka RM1 juta.

Perubahan BPR kepada SPRM dalam 2009 sebenarnya membawa kepada perubahan dari segi pendekatan dan strategi pencegahan rasuah di negara ini. SPRM menetapkan tiga bidang utama iaitu penguatkuasaan, perolehan (sebut harga dan tender awam) dan projek mega kerajaan sebagai fokus utamanya.

Beberapa kelemahan yang selama ini menghalang usaha pencegahan rasuah dikenal pasti, antaranya tanggapan bahawa tanggungjawab memerangi rasuah terletak di tangan SPRM semata-mata, kurangnya inisiatif agensi awam untuk mencegah rasuah; mekanisme kawalan dalaman yang longgar dan tidak sempurna dan kesalahan rasuah tidak dianggap sebagai kesalahan berat bagi kes tatatertib.

Terdapat segelintir ketua yang menganggap tugas mencegah rasuah adalah tanggungjawab SPRM. Justeru, pembudayaan integriti dan pencegahan rasuah bukan merupakan agenda utama. Yang lebih penting menjaga suasana harmoni dan semangat esprit de corp di kalangan pegawai/staf. Jika tindakan keras diambil dan pembudayaan anti-rasuah menjadi berkesan maka ia kononnya akan mewujudkan suasana kurang selesa dan syak wasangka sesama anggota.

Perkara yang lebih disesalkan ialah sikap kasihan kepada pesalah rasuah masih menjadi asas pertimbangan dalam proses tindakan tatatertib. Bagi SPRM, siasatan sesuatu kes tidak hanya berakhir dengan tindakan menghadapkan suspek ke mahkamah semata-mata. Sebaliknya, banyak kes yang disiasat SPRM dikemukakan sebagai Laporan SPRM untuk tindakan tatatertib. Namun, atas dasar simpati, suspek-suspek ini terlepas daripada hukuman berat seperti ditamatkan perkhidmatan dan hanya diberikan surat teguran atau amaran sahaja.

Perangkaan SPRM sepanjang 10 tahun lalu berhubung kes tatatertib jelas menunjukkan sebanyak 1,957 laporan dikemukakan kepada Pihak Berkuasa Tatatertib Agensi. Daripada jumlah itu, hanya 60 kes dikenakan hukuman buang kerja. Sebaliknya, 979 atau 50% dikenakan surat amaran yang tidak mendatangkan apa-apa kesan deterrent. Ini jelas menunjukkan tiada istilah serius dalam kes-kes yang melibatkan perbuatan jenayah rasuah.

Cabaran utama yang perlu diperbaiki dalam memastikan kelangsungan program pemantapan integriti dan pencegahan rasuah dalam perkhidmatan awam adalah melibatkan dua pendekatan strategik yang dikenal pasti SPRM iaitu memperkasakan entiti kawalan dalaman agensi awam dan memperkukuhkan SPRM.

Justeru, dalam konteks memperkasakan entiti kawalan dalaman agensi awam, SPRM telah mencadangkan kepada kerajaan untuk mewujudkan model pencegahan rasuah yang berbentuk kawalan dalaman menerusi penubuhan Unit Integriti di kementerian, jabatan Persekutuan dan negeri.

Model unit ini sama seperti di Amerika Syarikat (AS) dan Taiwan. Di AS ia lebih dikenali sebagai Inspector General Office (IGO). Unit ini diwujudkan di jabatan-jabatan berisiko tinggi dan bertanggungjawab sepenuhnya memantau dan menjalankan siasatan ke atas kes-kes berkaitan integriti, rasuah dan lain-lain jenayah yang melibatkan warga agensi terbabit.

Mengambil contoh di AS, unit integriti New York Police Department (NYPD) ditubuhkan dengan keanggotaan seramai 700 orang bagi memantau 35,000 pegawai polis di NYPD iaitu nisbah 1:50 manakala Pihak Berkuasa Pelabuhan New York mempunyai keanggotaan 70 orang bagi memantau 7,000 pekerjanya iaitu nisbah 1:100.

Idea berhubung penubuhan Unit Integriti di agensi-agensi kerajaan ini disambut baik. Buat masa ini, empat agensi telah mewujudkan unit ini iaitu Jabatan Imigresen Malaysia, Jabatan Kastam dan Eksais Diraja, Jabatan Pengangkutan Jalan dan SPRM sendiri. Pegawai-pegawai SPRM akan dilantik dan ditempatkan sebagai Ketua Unit Integriti di agensi-agensi terbabit.

Perubahan status daripada BPR ke SPRM dalam 2009 sebenarnya selari dengan perubahan besar kepada budaya kerja dan sistem operasi SPRM secara keseluruhannya. Bermula dengan Pelan Strategik SPRM 2011-2013, tiga bidang utama diperkukuhkan termasuk memperkenalkan sistem pengurusan siasatan berkesan, sistem pengurusan pencegahan dan pendidikan berkesan dan pembangunan serta pemantapan modal insan SPRM secara menyeluruh.

Jawatankuasa Eksekutif Transformasi yang terdiri daripada ahli-ahli Lembaga Penasihat SPRM dibentuk bagi memacu proses transformasi. Kesan kepada proses transformasi ini jelas memantapkan SPRM dari segi memperbaiki struktur organisasi, memperkenalkan sistem pengurusan modal insan berdasarkan kompetensi, memperkenalkan sistem pengurusan bakat yang fleksibel dan membawa masuk tenaga pakar yang berkepakaran tinggi bagi meningkatkan operasi SPRM.

www.pdf24.org    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments

Eradicating the culture of corruption need not take decades


Tony Kwok Man-wai:

MUCH of his life has been spent in fighting corruption. In fact, even after retiring from the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC)—the Hong Kong Corruption Eradication Commission—Professor Tony Kwok Man-wai remains very much involved in the battle against corruption. He is now a consultant in 21 countries, regularly delivering lectures on corruption, including in Indonesia.

Professor Kwok joined the ICAC in 1975, one year after it was founded by the then British government in Hong Kong, with a mandate to  battle and prevent corruption, and carry out an anticorruption education campaign. Kwok retired when he was deputy commissioner and operations chief in 2002. That year, he was appointed Director of Corruption Studies Program at Hong Kong University, the first such academic program in the world.

Other countries, including Indonesia, regard the ICAC as a model commission in how to eradicate corruption. Because of the ICAC, Hong Kong succeeded in changing its culture of corruption in all the layers of its society. Once riddled with corruption, Hong Kong became the 13th cleanest state in the world, way ahead of Indonesia, which never seems to go under its 100 or so ranking. “If you want to change the culture, never tolerate bribery, no matter how small,” said Kwok.

During a public lecture on August 11 in Jakarta, Kwok said the battle against corruption need not take decades. The key, he said, was in the right strategy and in the people’s political will, and that there was no single solution to eradicating corruption except to have all economic and social sectors participate. The solution to corruption does not depend on just one institution.

Before the lecture, Kwok spoke at the Integrated Anti-Corruption Workshop in Semarang. Some of the participants were mid-level police officers and under. At the end of the session, one of them came to him and said: “Professor Kwok, I agree with everything you said, but you should be talking with my boss.”  Kwok said that ultimately, eradicating corruption depended on the leader. That is why, it is important to have political will, regulations, a proper budget, certainty and independence, so that the anticorruption commission is free from any political interest.

Right after the lecture Kwok flew back to Hong Kong. On the way to the airport, Kwok spoke to Tempo reporters Yandi M. Rofiyandi and Yophiandi Kurniawan. Excerpts of the interview:

You seem quite convinced that eradicating corruption will not take decades.
Hong Kong, which used to be very corrupt, only took more than three years to change the people’s culture of corruption. This is the main message. People always consider the effort of changing the culture of corruption as taking a long time, in fact, generations. Apparently, this is wrong. In three years’ time, we were able to stop the syndication of corruption. Perhaps we still have individual corruption, but for sure there was a change of culture during those three years. Here, however, what is needed is political will.

What was the most evident change in Hong Kong?
Corruption is no longer open. In the past, we could see clearly corruption being committed: by taxi drivers, people asking money at schools or at hospitals, and so forth. After three years, people no longer demanded bribes. That was the clearest evidence, the most significant change in the culture of corruption. People no longer tolerated corruption in their lives and they were willing to report any forms of corruption to the police.
How do you establish an anticorruption culture in the education system?
All countries, including Indonesia, should stress cultivating an anticorruption attitude early on, such as in schools. In Hong Kong, that is what we teach in kindergarten.

In Indonesia, people generally think it would take an entire generation to change the culture of corruption because it has permeated all layers of society.
People think it takes a long time to fight really bad corruption. I disagree. The Hong Kong experience shows what can happen when the right strategy and the political will in fighting corruption are applied.

How bad was corruption in Hong Kong before the ICAC was established?
Let’s take the example of service in one  hospital, based on an account given by my own mother. In the past, she had to bring her own drinking glass because the hospital charged her one dollar for it. She even had to pay for her towels. Everyone thought at the time that giving and taking money was normal. After the ICAC began operating, a banner with the words, “Giving and receiving money is a violation of the law because it is a bribe. For complaints, call the hotline number,” was placed over every billing counter. Such signs can change people’s attitude.

Was anyone at the hospital ever punished for bribery?
We arrested one hospital employee who took money, even though it was a small amount. Yet, the media criticized us: Why is the ICAC punishing people over one or two dollars? They should be after the big fish, the big corruptors. We had applied the zero tolerance policy. Big fish and small fish, if it was bribery, it was still illegal. If we want to change the culture, never tolerate bribery, no matter how small. After that one arrest, there was never any case of people asking for money in the hospital.   

How did the people react when the ICAC finally went after the big fish?
Of course the people appreciated it very much. The anticorruption institution must go after the big fish so that they can demonstrate seriousness, although they cannot ignore the small cases either. That’s how the culture is changed.

Did the public ever criticize your institution?
Every year we would carry out a public opinion survey, and it would show that 98 percent of the people supported the ICAC. The survey also indicated that 90 percent of people in Hong Kong would not tolerate corruption. To the question, “Would you be willing to report a corruption case?” about 80 percent answered “Yes.”

Do you think the change in culture in Hong Kong happened because of the strong influence of British culture?
It had nothing to do with British culture but with human culture which seeks a clean culture. Corruption is global. There must be a campaign to make corruption a shameful activity. This can be done through campaign advertisements. Hong Kong had many, many anticorruption advertisements. For instance, on television, there would be a scene depicting a happy family having breakfast on their apartment balcony. An ICAC officer arrives and arrests the man in front of his wife and children. He goes to jail. The scene ends with the words: corruption destroys families.

Do you believe the death penalty is needed to eradicate corruption, as in the case of China?
I don’t think so. China applies the death penalty, yet corruption is still rife there. The maximum sentence given to corruptors in Hong Kong is 10 years and a minimum of 12 months, yet we have eliminated corruption. When senior officials are arrested, their reputation and their sense of integrity are lost. They bring shame to their families. And these are enough punishments in themselves.

Should there be some kind of incentive to compensate workers, particularly low-salaried government employees, to prevent bribes?
For low-salary government employees who find it difficult to buy milk for their babies, of course there must be an incentive not to commit corruption. That is why the government must guarantee an adequate minimum wage for its employees.

Bribery often involves more than one person. Can it be eliminated to the very roots?

We should punish both the givers of bribes, as well as the receivers. We cannot just investigate one person, because it is bound to involve many people. We used to investigate many people in one case, so that we can destroy the syndicate at the same time. Crime will go on if we arrest just one person. Everyone who is involved must be investigated at the same time. This is an important strategy.

People here doubt that corruption cases linked to politics will be dealt with.  
In Hong Kong, the investigation does not stop [when politics is involved]. We pursue it until we reach the top. Political parties have no impact on us. According to the law, we cannot stop. If we stop, the public will suspect there is something wrong going on. No one is immune from the ICAC. Anyone can be caught by the ICAC dragnet.

The challenge of corruption eradication in Indonesia is the police and the prosecutor, which often refuse to cooperate with the KPK.
You must start from the very top. The KPK chairman, the police chief and the attorney general must meet and try to resolve their problems jointly. They must meet officially, to identify the next steps. So, everything begins with cooperation among the leaders. This is where the president should step in: make the chiefs of related institutions to work together.

So, the president should be involved?
If necessary, yes. Generally, he is not needed because the leaders of the institutions should be aware of their respective tasks, so there should be no need for infighting.

Should the KPK have its own investigators?
The problem is how to apportion assignments.  The police cannot investigate corruption cases. If both the police and the KPK investigate simultaneously, there would be a conflict because the law is unclear about this.  The police should focus on criminal cases, like murder, kidnapping, theft and other crimes. Corruption must be managed only by the KPK. In every country, the anticorruption commission is the only institution authorized to investigate corruption cases. The police should not be allowed to be involved in corruption cases. The KPK must hold the sole mandate in anticorruption efforts. If two institutions are given the same authority, conflict is bound to happen.

But the KPK is a temporary institution.

This is why the KPK needs a legal umbrella. In many countries, their anticorruption institutions are embedded in their constitutions. In Hon Kong, the anticorruption institution is independent, regulated by laws. In Mongolia, the anticorruption budget cannot be rejected by parliament. So, parliament cannot reduce their functions nor their authority by cutting its budget. The KPK must be embedded in the constitution. And they must be given the guarantee to be the sole investigator of corruption cases, to ensure there is no conflict with the police. Even the Corruption Court must be embedded in the constitution.

The recruitment of KPK officials in Indonesia must be approved by parliament. Can this reduce its independence?

The process of recruitment is acquiring the right people for the right job. The objective is to get the best candidates to be members of an independent anticorruption commission, such as the KPK. This must not be mixed with political interests.

So the selection process in parliament is not needed?
There is no need for that. The public can and should monitor the selection process. If the president appoints Professor Tony Kwok, and the people support this, but parliament disapproves, there is bound to be critical reaction from the media and from public opinion.

Some people in Indonesia, including the president, once complained that the KPK’s authority was excessive.
This institution must have power. Otherwise, it cannot function. Of course, there must be consideration towards possible abuse of power. So, a mechanism to prevent such an abuse is necessary. In Hong Kong, we have an oversight unit that consists of people outside the institutions. They are community leaders whose task is to monitor the activities of the ICAC.

In fighting corruption, did the ICAC employees face physical threats or pressure?
Many physical threats, but we are professional agents. Investigating corruption is not the business of one person, but a team. If you killed me, it would be pointless, because someone else would be picking up the investigation. What is more important in fighting corruption is a witness protection policy, because the corruptors can easily threaten weak witnesses. We even had one case in which the witness was killed. So, a good witness protection program is definitely needed. The anticorruption institution must also convince everyone concerned that all its reports must be kept secret.

How to convince the public of the need for secrecy while supporting the whistle blower?
We must maintain secrecy. No one must know who the whistleblower is. If someone at the ICAC leaks such information, the person goes to jail. We have strict laws with regard to maintaining the secrecy of the whistleblower.

What if the whistleblower is part of the problem?
Although he may be involved in the crime, his identity can only be exposed through a court order with strong evidence. If the identity cannot be kept secret, the witness should enter a witness protection program.

There’s a film called I Corrupt All Cops, which tells the story of corruption inside the Hong Kong police force and the ICAC. Is this movie based on facts?
Everything in the film is true. The police force was very corrupt at one time. One joke went that one policeman couldn’t find a bed to sleep in because all the rooms in his home were full of money, covering all the beds.

Tony Kwok Man-wai

www.pdf24.org    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Getting Smarter in Corruption

by : SylvesterLKC

Few days ago I went to somewhere in Ampang for my medical check-up. After the check-up of course I went back. Just before the junction the traffic was quite heavy, and that was unusual. Seems like an operation by the authority. They stop some of the cars and some move on, unluckily I was being stopped. I wind down; asking the officer what is the matter.

“You’re not wearing your seat belt.”

”I did.”
”But my officers said that they saw you not wearing.”
”But I did”, I replied.
”So?” I added.

He silent for a while then letting me go.

They really wanted it so much? But why let me go? Either they were scared, or they don’t want it. Which one you think?

The point is, they want bribery, and they want money. But, most of the time they only target at those who offended the regulations. They are targeting at their mind, that if the offenders pay, they will escape from legal action. When it comes to certain situation, these who take bribery will stop their action of taking; scare being caught. They already know when and where to take.

Smart enough?

There are certain times where authority goes on operation again. Obviously they want to take, but they will not ask for it, they waited for the offenders to give, or offer. I heard this from someone, this offender was caught speeding, and then he slipped a note of 50 to the window pane while the officer checked his license and ID. After returning them, the note is gone and the officer let him go with an advice, don’t repeat it again.

The point is, there is already a mutual understanding between the giver and the taker. A simple collaboration without speaking. This was thought to have no proving evidence, but from the related authority, they had found ways to prove.

Smart enough?

This is the old way, but always the choice of takers. They are the people who stand high on the top, or almost; both governmental and private agencies. These people will give order to the subordinate to do the action, and this subordinate will order someone else to do the job, so and so. The chain could involve more than 10. So if anything happen, that taker will give some money to the middle one, as a form of compensation so he would give himself out. The chain breaks, the taker’s safe.

The point is, people wanted to take, but scare being caught at the same moment, so he made a chain. But indeed, chain doesn’t really help. If the authority or the officials have the willpower to investigate, fully enough to eradicate corruption, I am sure that no matter how high you stand, you will be taken down, too.

Smart enough?

Think again before you give. Think again before you take.

www.pdf24.org    Send article as PDF   

, , , , , , ,

No Comments