Corruption Acts in the Natural Resources Sector in Indonesia
Corruption seems to be very close to our daily lives. Come late to an event for example, or go home from work prematurely, and many similar behaviors, are examples of corrupt behavior towards time. There are many versions of the definition of corruption itself, but let’s first start from what has been described in the Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian Dictionary), where corruption is defined as an act of misappropriation or misuse of state money (companies and others) for personal or other benefits.
More fully explained by Ali (1998) that corruption is a negative act in the form of embezzlement of money, acceptance of bribes or bribes, and the like. The emergence of various problems to the loss that is not small due to corruption makes this crime need to be eradicated. As described by Elwina and Karsona (2011), the government has made various efforts to tackle corruption in Indonesia. Law Number 28 of 1999 concerning the Implementation of a clean and free country of Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism has become one of the booster regulations to suppress the rampant acts of corruption.
The Joint Team for the Eradication of Corruption Crime in 2000 became the beginning of the incessant prosecution of corrupt behavior in Indonesia, which was subsequently established by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in 2006. This commission is an independent state institution in carrying out its duties and authorities in handling corruption. The legal basis for the Corruption Eradication Commission in carrying out its duties and authorities is Law Number 30 of 2002. The task of institutions is to coordinate other law enforcement agencies through coordination and supervision, carrying out investigations, investigations, prosecutions, prevention of criminal acts of corruption, and monitoring state administration (Compilation Team for the Report on the Performance of the Corruption Border Commission, 2015).
Natural resources are one of the sectors with the most potential for acts of corruption. As we know, Indonesia has abundant natural resources that have not been explored and fully utilized, so that natural resources are a fertile field for the growth of various acts of corruption. According to the KPK chairman, Laode M Syarif, reported from news.detik.com, natural resource licensing is vulnerable to bribery or extortion, for one permit to exploit forest and industrial plantations, the potential for corrupt transactions ranges from Rp. 688 million to Rp. 22.6 billion each year. Supporting this statement, the Coordinator of the Legal and Judicial Monitoring Division of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), quoted from cnnindonesia.com, stated that in 2010–2017 at least 326 people became suspects in cases of corruption of natural resources starting from the plantation, forestry and mining sectors this is terrible. Indonesia’s vast area of which 70 percent of its territory is in the form of waters has proven to not provide benefits according to its potential.
The Corruption Eradication Commission’s study shows that the contribution of the maritime sector’s Non-Tax State Revenues only accounts for 0.3 percent of the total production value. Marine business with a large variety, the state only gets less than 0.02 percent of the total national tax revenue, if withdrawn up to five years before The Corruption Eradication Commission began to seriously oversee the implementation of the marine business. As a result, there are so many ‘holes’ in terms of state revenues that are vulnerable to corrupt behavior. One of the highlights is the fishing vessel business. For vessels weighing more than 30 Gross Ton (GT), not all of them are willing to pay Non-Tax State Revenues. More than 70 percent of the 1,444 companies registered with the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries has not been identified as having a Taxpayer Identification Number. Forestry and plantation issues have also been the focus of this institution’s study since 2015. The Corruption Eradication Commission encourages the process of accelerating the establishment of forest areas, through the Joint Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Forestry, Minister of Public Works and Head of the National Defense Agency on Procedures for Settling Land Tenure within the Forest Zone, encouraging the expansion of community management areas through accelerating the realization of social forestry and encouraging public information disclosure and strengthening anti-corruption instruments.
The rise of corruption in the natural resources sector is certainly not without cause. There are several problems that cause corruption vulnerability related to natural resources, especially legal uncertainty and licensing, inadequate systems of accountability, weak supervision, and weaknesses in management control systems (Utari, 2011; Corruption Eradication Commission, 2014; Yuntho, et al., 2014). The political system and policies that tend to be transactional also contribute to various frauds appearing in this sector. Poor governance, unsynchronized spatial planning between the center and the regions, and the still weak enforcement of the law have become fundamental management problems which have led to the destruction of natural resources.
Departing from the fact that natural resources are a sector that is vulnerable to acts of corruption, the Corruption Eradication Commission as the main corruption eradication institution in Indonesia has acted and foiled a variety of corruption activities that could potentially harm the country. These actions are revocation of licenses that do not fulfill the provisions, urging businesses to pay financial obligations that have been neglected, enforcing regulations related to natural resources, and tightening supervision by involving various parties including the community. The memorandum of understanding implemented in April 2015 also expanded the scope of cooperation between this institution and fellow state institutions. Three years earlier, the action plan of the Corruption Eradication Commission had only overseen the management of mineral and coal mines and inauguration of forest areas. Then expanded to the field of marine and plantation.
The proliferation of acts of corruption in this sector certainly has an impact on the pillars of society such as the economy, social, community poverty, the collapse of government authority, politics and democracy, law enforcement, and environmental damage. The economic impact includes sluggish economic growth because management of natural resources is only controlled by certain parties, especially those close to the authorities and the decline in state income from the tax sector. Social impacts and poverty of the community include the high price of services and public services, poverty alleviation is slow because regional assets are unevenly used, demoralized. The impact of the collapse of government authority includes the death of social and political ethics, ineffective rules and regulations, inefficient bureaucracy. The impact on politics and democracy includes the lack of public trust in the government, the emergence of corrupt leaders. The impact on law enforcement is, for example, the function of a barren government, the loss of people’s trust in law enforcement. The impact of environmental damage includes decreasing environmental quality and decreasing quality of life (Kurniadi, 2011).
The natural resources sector has become an often exploited conversation. If these natural resources are not managed properly, they will certainly be easily traded for personal and group interests. Almost every electoral momentum in regional head elections, the source of funds comes from licensing business transactions in the sector of natural resources. The Corruption Eradication Commission needs the support of the Indonesian people in handling the Natural Resources Corruption Crime. Public support shows trust in this institution as an authorized institution in handling corruption cases. All sections are certainly related to each other, where corruption in the natural resources sector can be eradicated by the existence of standard and strong rules and carried out maximally by the Corruption Eradication Commission with the support and trust of the community. With the openness, the data and access to knowledge by the public on acts of corruption can strengthen the credibility and accountability of the Corruption Eradication Commission and the process of eradicating corruption can run optimally and thoroughly.
Bibliography
Ali, M. (1998). Kamus lengkap Bahasa Indonesia modern. Jakarta : Pustaka Amani
Elwina, M. (2011). Upaya pemberantasan korupsi. In N. T. Puspito, M. Elwina, I. S. Utari, & Y. Kurniadi (Eds.). Pendidikan Anti-Korupsi untuk Perguruan Tinggi (pp. 87–101). Jakarta : Kemendikbud
Karsona, A. M. (2011). Pengertian korupsi. In N. T. Puspito, M. Elwina, I. S. Utari, & Y. Kurniadi (Eds.). Pendidikan Anti-Korupsi untuk Perguruan Tinggi (pp. 21–34). Jakarta : Kemendikbud
Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi. (2014). Kajian kerentana korupsi di sistem perizinan sektor kehutanan. Jakarta : Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi
Kurniadi, Y. (2011). Dampak masif korupsi. In N. T. Puspito, M. Elwina, I. S. Utari, & Y. Kurniadi (Eds.). Pendidikan Anti-Korupsi untuk Perguruan Tinggi (pp. 55–71). Jakarta : Kemendikbud
Utari, I. S. (2011). Faktor penyebab korupsi. In N. T. Puspito, M. Elwina, I. S. Utari, & Y. Kurniadi (Eds.). Pendidikan Anti-Korupsi untuk Perguruan Tinggi (pp. 37–51). Jakarta : Kemendikbud
Yuntho, E., Easter, L., Caesar, A., & Idris, I. (2014). Regulasi membawa korupsi. Jakarta : Indonesia Corruption Watch.
