sideviews

Time to uproot graft in Indonesia’s defence sector – Anton Aliabbas

February 18, 2016

Recently, Transparency International, an international corruption watchdog, released its government defence anticorruption index 2015. Indonesia ranks among countries with a “high risk” of corruption, an improvement from its 2013 rating of “very high risk”.

Among G20 countries, Indonesia is level with Russia, South Africa and Turkey, according to the survey, which was conducted in 135 countries. Risk levels range from “very low” to “very critical”.

Indeed, based on the survey, Indonesia shows progress. It seems anti-graft programs, such as the corruption-free zone declared by the Indonesian Military (TNI), have borne fruit, although criticism has been rife against the Joko “Jokowi” Widodo administration for its poor commitment to corruption eradication.

Undeniably, procurement in main weaponry systems is complicated. The rapid changing of the strategic environment surrounding Indonesia has demanded the modernisation of defence systems. Yet, the state budget is insufficient to support this need. Therefore the government and the TNI often had to make hard decisions, being forced to choose between quality and quantity.

The purchase of used F-16 fighter jets a few years ago is a good example. From the beginning it had triggered polemics and long debates. Sadly, some of these jets were delivered in a poor state. The media quoted Air Force commander Air Marshal Agus Supriatna as saying that the delivery of the jets was postponed due to a lack of availability of engines.

Furthermore, the public hardly has access to information related to weapons procurement.

There are some reasons why weapons procurement is prone to corruption. First, arms-procurement contracts are never disclosed to the public. The Defence Ministry maintains that such contracts are a state secret.

However, arms-procurement documents normally do not unveil or have anything to do with military strategy. Such documents only state details of weapons the government will buy. An arms-procurement tender should be published as part of a commitment to transparency and accountability in the defence sector.

Second, there is no adequate overseeing of defence procurement. This is due to a lack of technical capability on the part of the House of Representatives. Only several lawmakers, mostly retired generals, can question arms procurements.

Third, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) lacks the necessary technical skills for supervising the weapons-procurement process. Besides, the KPK has no legal standing to follow up investigations into alleged corruption in weapons procurement.

On top of that, government and military institutions in general have not developed credible internal control mechanism, such as inspections and auditing. The Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) has often faced difficulty auditing the procurement of main weaponry systems due to the complexity of military bureaucracy and procedures.

Corruption is a serious threat to our bid to modernise our defence systems. Corruption can happen anywhere from pre-to post-contract and involve either suppliers or government/military officials.

The government cannot delay modernization of main weaponry systems. However, any new initiative must be followed by efforts to minimize corruption.

There are some options that the Jokowi administration and TNI headquarters can consider to protect the defence budget from corrupt practices.

First, the government should uphold transparency and accountability by providing the public with access to all weapons-procurement contracts and publishing details of the defence budget. The Defence Ministry has created a section for the defence budget and financial reports on its official website, but this remains inaccessible to the public.

Second, the government should authorize the KPK to oversee the whole chain of weapons procurement. As a step toward this, the government should give priority to deliberation of the Military Tribunal Bill so as to provide a legal basis to the KPK’s supervision of defence spending.

The government also has to assist the KPK to find investigators with the technical expertise to deal with corruption in defence procurement.

Third, to prevent the possibility of corruption, the government has to announce details of procurement processes (pre-contract and post-contract) and improve internal control mechanisms and auditing. Publishing the “black list” of defence suppliers should be included in this step.

The government should also ensure the TNI simplify the auditing and bureaucracy procedure in order to support good internal control mechanisms.

Fourth, the Defence Ministry and the TNI should improve the formal framework for receiving external grants. With the state budget insufficient to cover all military spending, there are many offers from external parties such as corporations, local authorities, charity organizations and the public to support the TNI. To avoid any unexpected consequence of these grants, the donations should be formalized in an agreement.

All these tips will be ineffective if the House does not improve its supervision of the defence sector. The House’s defence commission needs to hire experts in military equipment and weapons. Definitely, eradicating corruption in the defence sector is a long battle. As corruption is a complex phenomenon, many parties are required to partake in this war. – The Jakarta Post, February 18, 2016.

*Anton Aliabbas is a PhD research student at the Centre for International Security and Resilience, Cranfield University, Shrivenham, the UK.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.