The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.

[Organization_for_Economic_Cooperation__Developme_324

Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
Published by soedito, 2019-01-07 07:33:32

[Organization_for_Economic_Cooperation__Developme_324

[Organization_for_Economic_Cooperation__Developme_324

1493. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Notes

1. The organisations listed in Annex 8A.1 are some of the primary civil
society organisation partners regarding open government issues in
Indonesia; most of the organisations were members of the Open
Government Indonesia (OGI) Core Team.

2. The reform era for labour unions largely began under President Habibi,
when Indonesia ratified the International Labour Organization (ILO)
convention on freedom of association and passed Law No. 21/2000 on
labour organisations.

3. This legislation extended the rights of freedom of association and
organisation and provided every worker with the right to form or become
a union member, as well as provided for unions’ rights to negotiate
collective agreements, represent workers in industrial dispute settlements,
and to defend members.

4. Per information gathered by the OECD during a meeting with the
Confederation of Indonesia Prosperity Trade Union (KSBSI).

5. See also Government Regulation No. 96/2012, articles 41-47).
6. As of 2015, 88% of OECD countries surveyed have a whistleblower

protection law or legal provision that calls for the protection of
whistleblowers (OECD, 2015).
7. Meeting with Bappenas – Director of Political Affairs and
Communications.
8. Dr. Raden Siliwanti; 7 September 2015.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

150 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

References

Antlöv, H. and Wetterberg, A. (2011), Citizen Engagement, Deliberative
Spaces and the Consolidation of a Post-Authoritarian Democracy: The
Case of Indonesia; Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy,
Working Paper No. 8, April, Visby, Sweden.

Antlöv, H. et al. (2010), Civil Society Capacity Building for Democratic
Reform: Experience and Lessons from Indonesia; Voluntas: International
Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, Vol. 21, No. 3,
September, pp. 417-439.

AusAID (2012), NGO Sector Review: Phase I Findings,
https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/indo-ks15-ngo-
sector-review-phase1.pdf.

Brockmyer, B. and Fox, J. (2015), Assessing the Evidence: The
Effectiveness and Impact of Public Governance-Oriented Multi-
Stakeholder Initiatives, September, Transparency and Accountability
Initiative.

Economist Intelligence Unit (2014), Democracy Index 2014, Economist
Intelligence Unit, www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/Articles/421a313a-
d58f-462e-9b24-2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf.

EIU Democracy Index (n.d.),
www.sudestada.com.uy/Content/Articles/421a313a-d58f-462e-9b24-
2504a37f6b56/Democracy-index-2014.pdf.

GovInsider (2015), “Inside LAPOR, Indonesia’s complaints unit”, Medha
Basu, https://govinsider.asia/innovation/inside-lapor-indonesias-
complaints-unit/.

IBC (n.d.), http://ipc.or.id/.
Ibrahim, R. (2006), Indonesian Civil Society 2006: A Long Journey to a

Civil Society; CIVICUS Civil Society Index Report for the Republic of
Indonesia, Jakarta.
Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), Indonesia Progress Report, 2011–
2013, www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/178320622-
Indonesia-IRM-Report.pdf.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1513. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), 2013 Special Accountability
Report: Indonesia,
www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Indonesia_
Special_Acc_Report_Public.pdf.

Independent Reporting Mechanism (n.d.), Indonesia Progress Report, 2013-
2014,
www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/Indonesia%20Special%2
0Report%20Draft%20for%20Public%20Release_bahasa_final.pdf.

International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) (2015), “NGO Law
Monitor: Indonesia,” 16 November,
www.icnl.org/research/monitor/indonesia.html (accessed 22 March
2015).

Kemitraan (n.d.), www.kemitraan.or.id/indonesia-governance-index.

KOPEL (n.d.), http://kopel-online.or.id/profil-kopel.

LAPOR (n.d.), www.lapor.go.id/.

McKinsey and Company (2012), “Innovation in government: Indonesia and
Colombia,”www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-
insights/innovation-in-government-indonesia-and-colombia.

MaPPI (n.d.), http://mappifhui.org/.

MediaLink (n.d.), http://medialink.or.id/tentang-medialink-or-id/.

Nabatchi, T. (2012), A Manager’s Guide to Evaluating Citizen
Participation, IBM Center for Business of Government,
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un-
dpadm/unpan048340.pdf.

NCDD (2008), Engagement Streams Framework, National Coalition for
Dialogue and Deliberation, www.thataway.org/?page-id=1487 .

OECD (2015), Government at a Glance 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2015-en.

OECD (2013), Government at a Glance 2013, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2013-en.

OECD (2012), OECD Integrity Review of Brazil: Managing Risks for a
Cleaner Public Service, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD
Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264119321-en.

OECD (2011a), Government at a Glance 2011, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/gov_glance-2011-en.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

152 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

OECD (2011b), Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with
Citizens and Civil Society, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264118843-en.

OECD (2009), Government at a Glance 2009, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264075061-en.

OECD (2005), Modernising Government: The Way Forward, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010505-en.

OECD (2001), Citizens as Partners: Information, Consultation and Public
Participation in Policy-Making, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264195561-en.

OGP (n.d.), www.opengovpartnership.org/country/indonesia.
Ombudsman Republik Indonesia (ORI) (2015), Statistical Report 2015,

www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/publikasi/laporan.html.
Ombudsman Republik Indonesia (ORI) (2014), Annual Report 2014,

www.ombudsman.go.id/index.php/publikasi/laporan.html.
PATTIRO (n.d.), http://pattiro.org/?page_id=357&lang=en.
Seknas Fitra (n.d.), http://seknasfitra.org/perihal/?lang=en.
Siliwanti (2014), “Measuring Civic Engagement for Better Open

Government Policies and Services,” OGP Asia Pacific Regional
Conference, May.
Suryadarma, D., Pomeroy, J. and Tanuwidjaja, S., (2011). Economic
Factors Underpinning Constraints in Indonesia's Knowledge Sector.
Indonesia: AusAID Publications.
Transparency International-Indonesia (2014), Scorecard Report Law and
Policy of Open Governance in Indonesia, Jakarta.
Transparency International-Indonesia (n.d.),
www.ti.or.id/index.php/profile/ti-indonesia.
USAID (2007), Good Governance Brief: Musrenbang as a Key Driver in
Effective Participatory Budgeting, Key Issues and Perspectives for
Improvements; Volume 1, June.
YAPPIKA (n.d.), www.yappika.or.id/tentang-kami/visi-misi/.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1533. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA –

Annex 3.A1

Primary CSO partners on open government activities in
Indonesia

Organisation Description
Indonesia Centre for Environmental Law (ICEL)
http://icel.or.id/ ICEL specializes in research, capacity building, advocacy
and community empowerment, particularly regarding the
Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) public’s rights with respect to the environment and natural
http://antikorupsi.info/id resources.
The ICW’s mission is to fight corruption and strengthen
International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development citizen participation in the policy-making and oversight
(INFID) process. ICW seeks to:
www.infid.org/ Encourage public awareness of corruption issues;
Build the capacity of the public to be involved in policy
Indonesian Parliamentary Centre (IPC) making and oversight;
http://ipc.or.id/ Encourage public reporting of corruption;
Kemitraan Mobilize public campaigns to press for corruption
www.kemitraan.or.id/ eradication reforms.
INFID is a network of Indonesian NGOs that aims to
ensure that the formulation and implementation of policies
regarding development, investment and trade are made
with consideration of the poor and disadvantaged. It also
aims to strengthen democracy through the expansion of
public participation.
IPC specializes in parliamentary capacity building and the
promotion of political reform for improved democracy and
parliamentary accountability (IPC website).
Promoting open governance is a key area of focus for
Kemitraan. Their goals, per their 2012-16 Strategic Plan,
are to: strengthen the political participation of citizens in
elections; promote the capacity of citizens to participate in
the process of planning and implementing development
and enhance the complaints management mechanisms
and community oversight.
Kemitraan also developed the Indonesia Governance
Index, which is the first comprehensive governance
database in Indonesia. The database provides rankings of
all provinces and data related to the Gender Balance
Index, as well as statistics on health, education, and
poverty allocation information (Kemitraan website).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

154 – 3. CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT IN INDONESIA

Organisation Description
Komite Pemantau Legislatif (KOPEL)
http://kopel-online.or.id/ Founded in 2000, KOPEL’s goal is to promote dialogue
between the legislature and the community. Specifically,
Masyarakat Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (MaPPI) KOPEL aims to:
http://mappifhui.org/ Support Parliament and civil society in promoting
government accountability;
Perkumpulan Media Lintas Komunitas (MediaLink) Strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations to
http://medialink.or.id/ monitor the Parliament to encourage responsiveness and
trustworthiness;
Pusat Telaah dan Informasi Regional (PATTIRO) Advocate for and assist in that formulation of government
http://pattiro.org/ policy that is pro-poor and gender-responsive (KOPEL
website).
Sekretariat Nasional Forum Indonesia untuk The goal of the Indonesian Court Monitoring Society is to
Transparansi Anggaran (Seknas Fitra) expand public participation and policy reform in the
www.seknasfitra.org judicial system, as well as to monitor policies, systems,
and judicial practice in Indonesia (MaPPI website).
Transparency International Indonesia (TII) MediaLink is a non-governmental organisation focused on
www.ti.or.id/ issues of media freedom and democratisation of
information. Founded in 2010, MediaLink aims to
Yayasan Penguatan Partisipasi, Inisiatif dan Kemitraan strengthen democracy by promoting the open and
Masyarakat Indonesia (YAPPIKA) equitable flow of information (MediaLink website).
www.yappika.or.id/ PATTIRO (the Centre for Regional Information and
Studies), was established in 1999 as a research and
advocacy institution. It focuses on three main sectors:
public service improvement; improvement in public
finance management; and the reform of public policy
(PATTIRO website).
FITRA is a budget advocacy organisation that provides
data on state budgets; analyses budget priorities and
expenditures; raises public awareness regarding the need
to promote budget transparency; and promotes the
dissemination of budget information (Seknas Fitra
website).
Transparency International Indonesia (TII) is the local
chapter of Transparency International, a global network of
anti-corruption NGOs that promote transparency and
accountability on the part of state institutions, political
parties, businesses, and civil society (TII website).
YAPPIKA aims to strengthen the capacities of civil society
organisations to advocate for policies that meet people's
basic rights, that encourage the development of a healthy
civil society, and that promote the development of
synergies between civil society organisations in order to
fight for democracy and basic rights (YAPPIKA website).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1554. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

Chapter 4
From transparency and participation

to integrity in Indonesia

Integrity and the fight against corruption remain important issues in
Indonesia. This chapter will review the country’s integrity framework and
the interplay between the public sector and citizens in fostering a culture of
integrity. Specifically, it will look at the areas of participation in the policy
cycle, civic oversight and awareness raising. While Indonesia has taken
significant steps to prevent corruption through transparency and open
government measures, the main challenge remains building a culture of
integrity in the public sector and throughout all levels of society.
Accordingly, the chapter will provide recommendations discussing how
Indonesia can further improve upon the implementation, effectiveness and
compliance of its good policies and practices already in place.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

156 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Introduction

Corruption, in all its forms, remains a widely recognised problem in
Indonesia. Transparency International ranked Indonesia 88th out of 168
countries in its 2015 index measuring how corrupt countries’ public sectors
are considered to be. That places the country below India, China and four of
the ten countries belonging to the Association of South-East Asian Nations
(ASEAN) (Transparency International, 2016). Indonesians consistently
complain about paying bribes to public officials or police officers. The issue
of political corruption continues to make daily headlines in the Indonesian
media, and business analysts point out that foreign and domestic businesses
in Indonesia regard corruption and ineffective rule of law as “serious
problems”.

Street protests as well as voting behaviour show citizens’ discontent
with corrupt practices. Indonesians, and especially younger generations,
however, are reportedly relatively permissive towards fraudulent behaviour
(Transparency International Indonesia, 2014). Bending the rules seems to be
deemed acceptable when helping a family member, settling traffic violations
or seeking public employment (Transparency International Indonesia, 2014).
Moreover, many Indonesians appear to doubt whether they should report
instances of corruption. Some do not know to whom they must report
corruption or how to report it, or they fear the consequences of reporting.
There is also a large degree of public mistrust in the ability and willingness
of the institutions that receive the complaint to follow up on the matter
(Transparency International, 2013a).

Against this backdrop, the government of Indonesia is committed to
building a culture of integrity, and to doing so in collaboration with public
officials at all levels, civil society organisations (CSOs), the private sector
and ordinary citizens. From an open government perspective, three
interrelated mechanisms or roles emerge as prominent in the interplay
between the public sector and citizens in fostering a culture of integrity
(Figure 4.1):

• Participation in the policy cycle: Citizens can contribute at every stage
of the anti-corruption policy cycle, for example via CSO consultation in
the development of anti-corruption policies, or via measuring progress
through citizen feedback indicators and mechanisms. In addition,
citizens can contribute to good governance in policy implementation and
public-sector service delivery in various sectors, through reporting
channels such as ombudsman services.

• Oversight and accountability: This is the classic “watchdog” role of
citizens, where public involvement strengthens the demand for integrity

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1574. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

in the public sector and in society as a whole and is supported by CSOs,
the media and relevant public institutions, such as supreme audit
institutions.
• Awareness raising: This includes citizen education initiatives,
communication campaigns and information exchange with the aim of
improving mutual understanding and bringing about change in attitudes
and behaviour in the areas of integrity and anti-corruption.

Figure 4.1. Interplay between citizens and the public sector for integrity

One important caveat needs specific attention: open government and
transparency in public service are indeed strongly related with integrity and
anti-corruption, but this relationship is not automatic. Several conditions
need to be in place. First, when governments call upon citizens and civil
society to contribute to policy development, appropriate channels need to be
available, effective and reliable. Moreover, civil society organisations
(CSO) require sufficient resources and leeway to participate effectively.
Second, in order for citizens and civil society organisations to fulfil an
oversight role, as a so-called watchdog, data availability needs to be paired
with data quality, processing capacity, effective whistleblower protection,
and freedom of the press. Third, governments and CSOs must tailor
awareness raising initiatives that promote integrity both in the public sector
and in society at large to specific target groups in order to yield results.
Moreover, the best awareness raising campaign in the long run is often a
fair, efficient and consistent rule of law system.

The legal framework for integrity and anti-corruption (see Box 4.1) that
has developed since 1998 provides the government’s definition of
corruption and bribery, establishes the institutional anti-corruption
framework and outlines the public’s rights and responsibilities to collaborate
in the fight against corruption.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

158 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Box 4.1. Indonesia’s legal anti-corruption framework

The primary laws related to anti-corruption in Indonesia include:

• Law Number 31 of 1999 on The Eradication of Corruption and its

amendment Law Number 20 of 2001. Together, these laws provide a
definition of corruption and specify the maximum punishments.
Indonesia’s main bribery offences are listed under Articles 5-12 and 12B
of Law Number 31 of 1999 and Law Number 20 of 2001. Notably, Law
Number 31 of 1999 acknowledges the role and rights of the public in the
fight against corruption.

• Government Regulation Number 71 of 2000 on Procedures for

Implementation of Public Participation and Provision of Appreciation
in the Prevention and Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption
gives certain rights to the public to obtain responses from the authorities
regarding complaints or information provided to the authorities. It also
tries to provide protection to members of the public who offer information.

• Law Number 30 of 2002 on The Corruption Eradication Commission

and Law Number 46 of 2009 on Corruption Criminal Court clarify the
institutional mechanisms to fight corruption.

There are also several Presidential Regulations that relate to corruption
eradication, such as Presidential Regulation Number 55 of 2012 and
Presidential instruction (Inpres) No. 7 of 2015. These regulations require all
ministries and government institutions to co-ordinate with Bappenas in the fight
against graft, and oblige local administrations to co-ordinate with the Home
Ministry, with the support of Bappenas, in their anti-corruption efforts.

This chapter discusses the dimensions of civic participation in the policy
cycle and the mechanisms of oversight and accountability and awareness
raising in the context of Indonesia, and it concludes with a consideration of
opportunities to further strengthen a culture of integrity through open
government practices and finally with a set of policy recommendations.

Participation in the policy cycle

Citizen participation in the policy cycle can lead to increased integrity in
the public sector and in society as a whole in several ways. First, citizens
can contribute to the development and monitoring of the anti-corruption
policy cycle. Civil society organisations specialising in good governance can
function, through formal and informal consultation processes, as expert
voices in the development and adjustment of anti-corruption strategies and

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1594. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

work plans. Citizens can also monitor and evaluate the implementation of
anti-corruption plans, for example through perception surveys or social audit
mechanisms.

Second, citizens can also contribute to good governance in policy
implementation and public-sector service delivery, for example in health,
education or public administration, through reporting and feedback
mechanisms, such as ombudsman services. The reports and complaints
received from citizens can not only address individual cases of unfair
treatment, administrative mismanagement or even abuse, but can also
improve public-sector management in a structural way, through fine-tuning
processes of service delivery and closing administrative loopholes, thus
preventing leakage of funds and fraud.

In addition, although citizen consultation is in principle a positive
element of policy making in line with open government principles, the
integrity of public policies can also be affected by policy capture through
undue lobbying activities. Given that policy makers need information and
insights from citizens, interest groups and companies to make informed, fair
and balanced policy decisions, public participation in the policy cycle
should be encouraged in principle. Nevertheless, the risk exists that narrow,
private interests can capture the policy-making process to serve their
interests rather than the public good. Therefore, promoting responsible
lobbying is also important in fostering integrity and transparency in public
policy making.

This section will examine these three aspects of integrity as they affect
citizen participation in the policy cycle in Indonesia, and will provide
suggestions for improvements as well as refer to international good
practices.

Citizen participation in shaping and monitoring the anti-corruption
strategy

The Government of Indonesia has shown its commitment to partner with
citizens and CSOs in promoting a culture of integrity in different ways,
among them the role of consultation initiatives in the development of its
anti-corruption policies, the use of citizen feedback in monitoring anti-
corruption progress and the implementation of joint awareness-raising
activities.

Over the years, Indonesia has consulted CSOs during the development
process of anti-corruption strategies and assessments, including the UNCAC
Gap Analysis in 2006 and the National Strategies and Action Plans on
Corruption Eradication 2010-25. Prior to the ratification of UNCAC in 2006

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

160 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

and to the establishment of the UNCAC Review Mechanism, an UNCAC
Compliance Review and Gap Analysis (UNCAC Gap Analysis) was
conducted in Indonesia, which entailed a participatory process and
consultations with CSOs (Box 4.2). Domestically, the relevance of the Gap
Analysis is demonstrated by its long-term impact on the Indonesian national
anti-corruption framework. Indeed, the findings from the 2006 Gap Analysis
have been a critical source of information for the National Anti-Corruption
Strategy (Strategi Nasional Pencegahan dan Pemberantasan Korupsi, or
“Stranas PPK”, discussed below).

Box 4.2. Indonesia’s UNCAC Gap Analysis experience

In 2006, Indonesia became the first country to conduct a comprehensive and
voluntary self-assessment of its compliance with the UNCAC as part of its
commitment to fight corruption and implement UNCAC. Unlike most other State
parties, Indonesia initiated this “Gap Analysis” prior to ratifying the Convention.

With no formal guidance for this process available then, Indonesia devised its
own methodology. While not as comprehensive as the checklists developed by
the UNCAC Conference of State Parties, the matrix used had a similar intent and
content.

The Indonesian Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) assigned the Gap
Analysis to a team of Indonesian academics and foreign experts supported by the
German Development Agency GTZ (now GIZ). The local team of experts was
responsible for the initial gathering and analysis of information on relevant laws,
institutions and processes. These findings were then jointly analysed by the local
and foreign experts and completed through broad consultation with key
government agencies and relevant actors from civil society, the private sector and
academia. A final multi- stakeholder workshop served to verify and generate
broad buy-in for the key findings and recommendations. Indeed, that the Gap
Analysis has enjoyed a high degree of national ownership and widespread
acceptance is largely attributable to the use of this inclusive process.

The findings of the Gap Analysis have provided relevant stakeholders with a
comprehensive understanding of key weaknesses and gaps in the Indonesian legal
and institutional framework’s ability to combat corruption, and with an overview
of the country’s overall level of compliance with the standards set by UNCAC.
As such, and in combination with findings from the pilot self-assessment and peer
review process, in which Indonesia participated between 2007 and 2009, they
provided a solid basis for Indonesia to participate in the official UNCAC review
mechanism in 2010.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1614. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

Box 4.2. Indonesia’s UNCAC Gap Analysis experience (continued)

The findings from the gap analysis were widely disseminated (in English and
Bahasa Indonesia) domestically and internationally. As such, all stakeholders at
the national and international level were informed about the recommendation and
about Indonesia’s efforts in implementing UNCAC. Finally, Indonesia’s
pioneering efforts to review its compliance with UNCAC led other countries to
undertake similar efforts; due to these efforts, a network of likeminded countries
who regularly share experience in these matters has evolved.

Indonesia’s experience exemplifies that with a domestically endorsed
participatory approach to understanding, reviewing and implementing UNCAC, it
is possible to enable substantial endorsement of international standards at the
national level and hence improve quality, focus, effectiveness and co-ordination
of national anti-corruption reforms.
Source: UNDP (2010) Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments.

The UNCAC Peer Review of Indonesia was subsequently undertaken by
Uzbekistan and the United Kingdom and the executive summary of the
report was published in 2012 (Box 4.3). As one of its conclusions, the
UNCAC Peer Review pointed to the consultation process undertaken by the
Gap Analysis as a good practice. Unfortunately, the full report UNCAC Peer
Review of Indonesia has to date not been made public, thereby preventing
the analysis and recommendations from being available for domestic and
international stakeholders.

Box 4.3. UNCAC Review: Overall findings (2012)

Since democracy was restored to the country in 1999, Indonesia has made a
forceful start on tackling corruption, through both legislation and the creation of
the KPK with its investigative and prosecutorial powers. There is a high degree of
political commitment to the eradication of corruption in both the public and
private sectors. The National Strategies and the Action Plans on Corruption
Eradication 2010-25, developed by the government in consultation with civil
society representatives, identify strategic efforts in the framework of accelerating
corruption eradication, including steps to implement the Convention in Indonesia.
The need to amend relevant existing laws regulating these subjects is justified or
clarified by the review’s findings.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

162 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Box 4.3. UNCAC Review: Overall findings (2012) (continued)

Good practices

The KPK and the Court of Corruption were considered good practices with
regard to their capacity, mandate and the positive results of their work.

Established in 2002, the KPK is a special independent government body that
deals with top-level cases of corruption. The KPK appears to have the necessary
independence and is endowed with considerable powers under Law No. 30/2002
on the Commission for the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption. It has
brought cases against former Ministers, Members of Parliament, senior officials,
mayors, company directors and one of its own staff. The KPK is widely trusted
by the public and is respected by international law enforcers and NGOs. The
reviewers recommended that any legislative changes that take place on
eradication of corruption not result in any changes to the current legal mandate of
the KPK to investigate and prosecute the cases of corruption that fall within its
mandate.

The Court of Corruption has proved an effective partner for the KPK in
handling corruption cases. The first Court of Corruption was established by Law
No. 30/2002 and was based in Jakarta and granted jurisdiction over cases brought
by the KPK. Since 2010, the country has established other Courts of Corruption
throughout the country, with 33 Courts of Corruption having been set up by 2012.
The reviewers fully supported the Government’s plan to expand the number of
such courts so that they could handle all corruption cases, and not only the
KPK’s.

Challenges

The reviewers concluded that the main challenge in implementation lies in
enhancing co-operation between enforcement agencies — the KPK, the Attorney
General's office and the Police. The reviewers welcomed the heightened
awareness within all these agencies of the challenge posed by the lack of co-
operation and co-ordination, and their willingness to deal constructively with
these challenges and overcome them. Additional steps to improve and strengthen
co-operation and co-ordination are essential.

The reviewers stressed that co-operation would be enhanced by a
comprehensive analysis of the state of corruption, its structure, dynamics and
trends, as well as analysis of the activity on detection and prevention of crime in
order to identify the main future directions for countering corruption. To this end,
the centralised collection of statistics, unified reporting on corruption cases and
consolidation of the reports by a single body, and regularly convened co-
ordination councils of the law enforcement and supervising bodies are needed.

Source: Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against
Corruption (2012), Executive summaries.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1634. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

CSOs have also been consulted throughout the development process of
National Anti-Corruption Strategies (Stranas PPK and its predecessors) and
its related instruments, as well as for the 2012 baseline study “Zero
tolerance for Corruption”, led by Bappenas, which measured corruption
perceptions in Indonesia.

The Bappenas Directorate for Analysis of Law and Regulation co-
ordinated the creation of the 2012-25 National Strategy to Eradicate
Corruption, or “Stranas PPK”. The Stranas PPK is composed of six sub-
strategies, namely:

• prevention

• law enforcement

• harmonising rules and regulations

• international co-operation and asset recovery

• anti-corruption education and culture

• reporting mechanisms.

Taking a longer-term view compared to its predecessors, the Stranas
PPK is to be rolled out gradually over 13 years, in accordance with
Presidential Regulation No. 55 of 2012 on the Stranas PPK (the “Stranas
PPK Perpres”). The first major national anti-corruption strategy, the
National Action Plan for Corruption Eradication 2004-09, was implemented
per Presidential Instruction Number 5 of 2004. This was followed by the
issuance of Presidential Instruction Number 9 of 2011 (on the Action Plan
for Corruption Prevention and Eradication, 2011) and Presidential
Instruction Number 17 of 2011 (on the National Action Plan for Corruption
Prevention and Eradication, 2012). The Indonesian President regulated
several strategic steps with Presidential Regulation Number 55 of 2012 on
the Long-Term (2012-25) and Medium-Term (2012-14) National Strategies
on Prevention and Eradication of Corruption.

Indeed, the Long-Term Strategy is underpinned by medium-term
strategies and a roadmap with specific objectives connected with three key
indicators: (1) improving the national score on corruption perception,
reflected in (the national equivalent of) the Corruption Perception Index by
Transparency International; (2) full transposition of the UNCAC provisions
into national legislation and regulations; and (3) development of a National
Integrity System.

It is relevant to observe that the open government principles of
transparency and citizen participation are linked with the goals of Stranas
PPK in at least 3 areas: prevention, anti-corruption education and culture,

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

164 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

and reporting mechanisms. Moreover, the use of perception indicators to
measure the success of the National Anti-Corruption Strategy demonstrates
the government’s willingness to change the lives of citizens and to enhance
the public image of the government and its institutions, as well as to boost
the reputation of Indonesia internationally.

Transparency International Indonesia (TI-I), the national chapter of the
international anti-corruption CSO Transparency International (TI), conducts
an annual survey and publishes the Corruption Perception Index for
Indonesia, based on TI’s methodology of the International Corruption
Perception Index (CPI). The Indonesia CPI is one of the official key
indicators for the Long-Term 2012-25 National Strategy on Prevention and
Eradication Corruption, and has therefore become one of the most important
governance indicators used by policy makers and the private sector in
Indonesia to inform their decisions. Citizen-action groups and the media
also use the index to measure the progress of anti-corruption efforts in
Indonesia.

Nevertheless, perception indicators are often criticized because of
methodological limitations. Indeed, increased media attention or effective
uncovering of corruption can affect the perception measurement negatively
while possibly signalling in reality increased integrity awareness, greater
press freedom or successful prosecution efforts.

CSOs are also active in other areas of the Stranas PPK, and they are
essential partners for integrity in Indonesia. A group of civil society
organisations has actively monitored the progress of the fight against
corruption in Indonesia, resulting in an Independent Report by Indonesian
civil society organisations on the Implementation of the UNCAC (the
“Independent Report”). This Report is intended to act as a companion and
comparison piece to the Indonesian Government’s Formal Report, as well as
to the Independent Review Mechanism Reports on Indonesia prepared by
appointed Member States.

Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW, http://antikorupsi.info/id) has as its
mission the fight against corruption and the strengthening of citizen
participation in the policy-making and oversight processes. ICW seeks to:
1) encourage public awareness of corruption issues; 2) build the capacity of
the public to be involved in policy making and oversight; 3) encourage
public reporting of corruption; and 4) mobilize public campaigns to press for
corruption eradication reforms.

Transparency International-Indonesia (TI-I, www.ti.or.id/) combines the
work of a think tank and a social movement organisation. As a think tank,
TI-I conducts policy reviews and drafts policy and legislation and it takes
part in policy reforms within government and law enforcement agencies. In

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1654. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

addition to studies like the Youth Integrity Survey (YIS), TI-I’s main
activities in this area relate to the operationalisation of anti-corruption
approaches and tools in policy areas such as procurement, transparency in
public budgets and participatory budgeting. Moreover, Transparency
International-Indonesia is also implementing the Open Government
Scorecard, a baseline assessment of open government in Indonesia.

Kemitraan (www.kemitraan.or.id/) has been taking part in the
consultation process related to the National Strategy on the Prevention and
Eradication of Corruption. Kemitraan’s focus is to strengthen the political
participation of citizens in elections; promote the capacity of citizens to
participate in the process of planning and implementing development; and
enhance the complaints management mechanisms and community oversight.
Kemitraan also developed the Indonesia Governance Index, which is the
first comprehensive governance database in Indonesia. The database
provides rankings of all provinces and data related to the Gender Balance
Index, as well as statistics on health, education, and poverty allocation
information.

Other CSOs have a more direct focus on democratic institution building
and parliamentary oversight. For its part, the Indonesian Parliamentary
Centre (IPC) (http://ipc.or.id/) specialises in parliamentary capacity building
and the promotion of political reform for improved democracy and
parliamentary accountability. The Komite Pemantau Legislatif (KOPEL,
http://kopel-online.or.id/) promotes dialogue between the legislature and the
community. Specifically, KOPEL aims to: (1) support Parliament and civil
society in promoting government accountability; (2) strengthen the capacity
of civil society organisations to monitor the Parliament to encourage
responsiveness and trustworthiness; and (3) advocate for and contribute to
government pro-poor and gender-responsive policies.

In addition, the Indonesian Court Monitoring Society or Masyarakat
Pemantau Peradilan Indonesia (MaPPI, http://mappifhui.org/) aims to
expand public participation and policy reform in the judicial system, as well
as to monitor policies, systems and judicial practice in Indonesia. As a voice
of the demand side of justice, MaPPI thereby contributes to the further
development of a fair, efficient and consistent rule of law system, a
cornerstone of integrity in society.

Feedback channels to close loopholes and address mismanagement

The development of various reporting and feedback channels in the
public sector demonstrates the efforts of the government of Indonesia to
increase responsiveness; however, it is important that these efforts be
matched with efficient complaint handling mechanisms, adequate processing

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

166 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

capacity and effective protection of those who report. Individual reports
from any of the country’s feedback channels can rectify individual instances
of administrative mismanagement, thereby contributing to the perception of
fairness and trust in public institutions. Moreover, reports may also lead to
structural improvements in public service processes, thereby improving
management systems and identifying leakages, nepotism and corruption.
This section will discuss general reporting channels; specific reporting
mechanisms for corruption and fraud will be addressed in in the next section
as part of the discussion the oversight and watchdog roles.

Complementary to the corruption-specific whistleblower channel
operated by the KPK (discussed below), several other channels exist,
including LAPOR (a public complaint management system, discussed in
more detail in Chapter 3), the Ombudsman Offices and complaint services
within line Ministries and at the subnational level, all of which contribute to
varying degrees to improving government systems and bringing about
corruption eradication.

The National Ombudsman Commission (Ombudsman Republik
Indonesia, or ORI) was established in 2000 by a presidential regulation to
fight corruption, process complaints and initiate investigations of
irregularities in the public sector. As noted in Chapter 3, Law No. 37/2008
on the Ombudsman has strengthened the legal basis for the ORI by making
it an official state institution. The ORI publishes its yearly reports,
accessible on its website, and has no threshold for complaints and accepts all
cases. However, in order to ensure individual follow-up and response, the
ORI does not accept anonymous complaints; it nevertheless guarantees
confidentiality. A Memorandum of Understanding between ORI and KPK
addresses the treatment of corruption cases and their handover to KPK. An
agreement is also in place with LAPOR, stipulating that any complaints
received through LAPOR left unaddressed for 30 days will automatically be
transferred to the ORI. Unlike the KPK, the responsibility to act upon the
ORI’s findings lies with the Indonesian police and judiciary. As a result of
the case handling, the ORI issues non-binding recommendations to the
respective public service and publishes anonymised overviews of these
recommendations in its annual report.

ORI has made significant efforts to ensure its accessibility throughout
the country. ORI has 32 regional offices, covering the entire country of
Indonesia, and it operates a web portal. In addition, a network of partner
CSOs called “Friends of the Ombudsman” undertakes sensitisation
campaigns around the country and facilitates the collection of complaints.
As a result, the number of registered complaints has risen from 1867 in 2011
to 6679 in 2014. In order to support ORI in its role for good governance and
citizen participation, the Government of Indonesia has recently (July 2015)

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1674. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

decided to more than double the annual budget of ORI to IDR 140 billion
per year.

Despite these multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional
arrangements, challenges arise in terms of processing capacity, willingness
to adopt structural changes and overlapping reporting channels, all of which
may further exacerbate capacity constraints. Moreover, with different
institutions and channels involved, issues of data security and the privacy
rights of plaintiffs may pose important integrity issues in their own right.

Regulating lobbying: An opportunity to prevent policy capture

A sensitive area in the interplay between citizens and policy makers is
lobbying, and Indonesia could do better in reflecting OECD and
international good practices in this policy area by adopting regulatory
practices for lobbying. Indeed, there are currently no specific regulations in
place related to this issue in the country.

One common and potentially effective way to manage lobbying activity
is through self-regulation, where lobbyists come together in professional
groups to police their activities, mostly voluntarily, through the creation of:
(i) a code of conduct; (ii) a registry; and/or (iii) a monitoring and
enforcement system. In general, self-regulation focuses more on codes of
conduct and registers than on monitoring and enforcement. Self-regulation
alone is sometimes insufficient to alleviate influence peddling by private
donors, however; ultimately, the responsibility for safeguarding the public
interest and rejecting undue influence lies with public officials.

According to the 2013 OECD Survey on Lobbying, as many as 84% of
surveyed legislators and 64% of lobbyists are of the opinion that information
on the contributions lobbyists make to political campaigns should be made
publicly available through, for example, a register. However, out of the
surveyed OECD Member countries with lobbyist registers of, only Slovenia
and the United States disclose information on lobbyists’ contributions to
political campaigns. In Slovenia, lobbyists must report the type and value of
donations made to political parties and the organisers of electoral and
referendum campaigns. Total contributions per year to political parties are
not allowed to exceed ten times the average monthly wage in Slovenia.
Elsewhere, the UK enacted the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party
Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act in the UK in 2014.
While the bill does not directly require lobbyists to disclose their political
contributions, it increases transparency in relation to spending by some non-
party campaigners/third party campaigners by requiring them to publish and
record more information about their spending, donations, accounts and
board members.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

168 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Since 2010, the number of countries regulating lobbying practices has
almost doubled (Figure 4.2). Indonesia could set an example by
implementing a regulatory framework for lobbying, aiming to further protect
the policy cycle from capture. Through increased transparency on lobbying
activities, citizens and CSOs can contribute to improving integrity standards
to prevent policy capture.

Figure 4.2. Countries having adopted regulatory practices for lobbying

Source: OECD (2015a), “Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and
Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture”, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Strengthening the watchdog: Towards effective accountability
mechanisms for citizens

Citizens can strengthen the demand for integrity in the public sector and
in society as a whole through their role as watchdogs with the help of CSOs,
the media and the relevant public institutions, such as supreme audit
institutions. In order for citizens to play this oversight role and demand
accountability, a number of conditions need to be in place, including the
availability of reporting channels, assurances of follow-up on the part of the
government and protection for whistleblowers. Relevant public-sector
information, such as assets of senior public officials and government
spending and revenue information should also be transparent and open to
public consultation. See Box 4.4 for a description of Brazil’s Transparency
Portal, which allows the public to track relevant information and play a
more active role in the country’s anti-corruption efforts.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1694. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

Box 4.4. Brazil’s Transparency Portal: Fighting corruption with transparency

Brazil’s flagship effort to fight corruption is its Transparency Portal
(www.transparencia.gov.br), a website that allows citizens to track how the government is
spending money and to whom and where it is sent. Launched in 2004, the portal surpassed 16
million visits in 2015. By providing a broader view of government spending – as opposed to
each agency publishing their own data – the Transparency Portal provides an opportunity to
understand spending across sectors and agencies. The Portal provides information on:

Spending and Income: Citizens can track spending by government agency, programme or
area (such as health). One of the Portal’s main attractions – which could be relevant to
Indonesia’s decentralisation policies – is the information provided on transfers from the federal
government to subnational governments. Through the Portal, citizens can follow up on
agreements made between levels of government and track how much money was committed
from each part and how much was actually sent. This allows citizens to monitor the
implementation of specific projects and report when money was transferred but not spent.
Information is also provided on specific programmes. For example, it is possible to identify
beneficiaries of federal government social programmes, such as those that transfer money for
citizens in extreme poverty conditions. This allows other citizens to note when the resources of
those programmes are being misused (if, for example, public servants or politicians receive
money). The transparency of spending data allows for a more complete understanding of what
kinds of expenses the government prioritises and the type of organisations that receive money,
and can therefore help fight embezzlement, collusion and misuse of public money. The Portal
also allows the public to track the origins of government income, thereby allowing citizens to
understand how the government obtains money to finance its actions.

Public servants: The Portal provides information on who works for the government, their
positions, roles and salaries. Information on public servants is used to fight conflicts of interest,
nepotism and other issues.

Debarment lists: The Portal provides lists of organisations and individuals prevented from
contracting with the government due to prior misconduct. This list also includes information on
public servants that have been expelled from the government.

Other information: The Portal also provides information on government properties used by
public servants, government credit cards, emergency response funds and other datasets.

The Transparency Portal was designed with features to help citizens understand the
information and navigate easily. Using glossaries, FAQs and clear language, the Portal seeks to
increase citizen involvement in overseeing the spending of public money – especially in local
governments to whom the federal government sends resources but cannot monitor as
thoroughly.

The Office of the Comptroller General maintains the Transparency Portal and is managing a
restructuring project focused on: improving the user experience; providing more interaction
with users; improving the quality of open data formats; integrating additional databases;
creating new search and sorting functions; and developing a larger network of government
information.

Source: Office of the Comptroller General, Brazil.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

170 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Reporting of corruption cases

In addition to the more general reporting mechanisms discussed above,
the KPK operates a hotline specifically for the purposes of taking reports on
corruption, supported by a web portal (https://kws.kpk.go.id/), which
guarantees confidentiality to the person reporting the case. The criteria that
must be met for the KPK to take on a case are set out in the provisions of
Article 11 of Law No. 30/2002: the case needs to involve law enforcement
officers, state officials, and possibly others in connection with criminal acts
of corruption committed by law enforcement officers or state officials.
There also needs to be a degree of harm to society and/or the case must
concern state losses of at least IDR 1 000 000 000. Furthermore, plaintiffs
are expected to clearly state the details of the situation (who did what, when,
where, why and how) and present preliminary evidence (data, documents,
images and recordings) pointing towards an act of corruption. If the
complaint meets the requirements, a Commission officer will process it
further.

In 2014, the KPK received and processed 9 432 public complaints,
which is an increase of about 50% compared to 2010, and about half of them
(4 587) contained indications of corrupt practices. The KPK annual report
publishes detailed statistics on the complaints, including breakdowns in
terms of regions and topics (KPK, 2015b). In order to promote the hotline
across the population, the KPK has set up a communication strategy,
including broadcasts via radio and TV. Moreover, information on the hotline
is also provided through awareness raising activities such as public
celebrations on Anti-Corruption Day, the Anti-Corruption Film Festival,
anti-corruption education programmes and outreach activities for the
business sector.

Despite KPK’s efforts to promote the hotline across the central
government, civil society organisations in Indonesia still report a deep-
rooted reluctance among citizens to report cases of corruption. Some people
are unaware of the appropriate reporting channels or methods and of the
rights they would enjoy as whistleblowers, or they fear possible
consequences of reporting. More generally, the reluctance to report can
point to a profound distrust in public institutions (Transparency
International, 2013a). Therefore, it may be useful to explore how the
information and confidence gap could be bridged. Partnerships with civil
society organisations could be fruitful in this respect.

According to KPK reports (KPK, 2015b), the human and budgetary
resources have not followed a similar increase, which may lead to questions
of processing capacity of the KPK, especially if the increase continues
(Wolfe et al., 2014). A capacity assessment and review of relevant

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1714. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

procedures could shed more light on possible limitations of the effectiveness
of the whistleblower system. Moreover, citizens may also report corruption
cases to the police, but it is unclear how the co-operation between KPK and
the police functions in practice when it comes to corruption complaints and
whistleblower protection. The institutional arrangements may need to be
analysed in detail, with a focus on coherence, co-ordination and efficiency,
in order to ensure an optimal system for citizens.

Towards improved effectiveness of whistleblower protection

Effective protection of whistleblowers is a cornerstone of a culture of
integrity, not only enabling citizens to report corruption, but also instilling
confidence in the reporting mechanisms and in public institutions more
generally. While Indonesia has established legal and institutional provisions
for the protection of whistleblowers through several laws (including Law
No. 13/2006 on the Protection of Witness and Victim; Law No. 31/1999 on
Eradication of the Criminal Act of Corruption), a number of weaknesses can
be identified, which taken together point to a need for a deeper
understanding of the effectiveness of the whistleblower protection regime
and for structural improvements concerning both the legal framework and
the institutional setup.

Article 15 of Law No.30/2002, establishing the KPK, obligates the KPK
to protect witnesses and whistleblowers, namely by ensuring their security
through measures such as police protection or a new identity and
guaranteeing them legal protection. The KPK is therefore responsible for the
protection of witnesses and victims in corruption investigations. The KPK
has established an internal reporting mechanism in the form of an online
platform and a whistleblower hotline enabling anonymous reporting of
corruption cases. Based on these reports, the KPK can initiate investigations
of cases of corruption, if they consider the whistleblower reliable. The KPK
has also been promoting the protection of whistleblowers in the workplace
within government ministries and state-owned enterprises (OECDb, 2012).
As a result, several ministries, for example health, public works,
home, forestry, national education, agriculture and finance, have joined the
KPK whistleblower system (The Jakarta Post, 2010).

Although various laws address aspects of whistleblower protection, the
current Indonesian framework lacks a precise definition of the term
whistleblower, and the legal framework does not clarify what constitutes a
threat or protection. Therefore, Indonesia could consider reviewing the legal
framework and introducing a whistleblower protection law that clearly
defines the guaranteed protections. For example, the Korean Act on the
Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers specifies actions that are

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

172 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

understood as disadvantageous measures against which whistleblowers
should be protected (Box 4.5).

Box 4.5. Comprehensive whistleblower protection in Korea

Korea’s Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers defines the
items against which protection is provided. “The term “disadvantageous
measures” means an action that falls under any of the following items:

a) Removal from office, release from office, dismissal or any other
unfavorable personnel action equivalent to the loss of status at work.

b) Disciplinary action, suspension from office, reduction in pay, demotion,
restriction on promotion and any other unfair personnel actions.

c) Work reassignment, transfer, denial of duties, rearrangement of duties or
any other personnel actions that are against the whistleblower’s will.

d) Discrimination in the performance evaluation, peer review, etc. and
subsequent discrimination in the payment of wages, bonuses, etc.

e) The cancellation of education, training or other self-development
opportunities; the restriction or removal of budget, work force or other
available resources, the suspension of access to security information or
classified information; the cancellation of authorisation to handle
security information or classified information; or any other
discrimination or measure detrimental to the working conditions of the
whistleblower.

f) Putting the whistleblower’s name on a black list as well as the release
such a blacklist, bullying, the use of violence and abusive language
toward the whistleblower, or any other action that causes psychological
or physical harm to the whistleblower.

g) Unfair audit or inspection of the whistleblower’s work as well as the
disclosure of the results of such an audit or inspection.

h) The cancellation of a license or permit, or any other action that causes
administrative disadvantages to the whistleblower”.

Source: Korea’s Act on the Protection of Public Interest Whistleblowers (2011), Act No.
10472, 29 March, Article 2 (6).

Moreover, whistleblowers face a risk of retaliation, often in the form of
disciplinary actions or workplace harassment. Whistleblower protection
laws should therefore provide comprehensive protection against
discriminatory or retaliatory personnel action. The majority of OECD

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1734. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

countries have penalties in place for retaliating against a whistleblower in
the public sector (OECD, forthcoming). The whistleblower protection
framework in Indonesia does not protect whistleblowers from retribution. To
strengthen the protection of whistleblowers, Indonesia could introduce
legislation that stipulates disciplinary action, including placing the burden of
proof on the employer to prove that any conduct taken against the employee
is unrelated to his or her whistleblowing.

Asset disclosure and its role in strengthening integrity

Asset disclosure is a key element of any public-sector integrity
framework, as it is an important tool for transparency concerning the assets
of public officials. The disclosure of all assets, including property,
valuables, financial portfolios, liabilities such as debts and mortgages, and
all sources of income, such as directorships, investments, and consulting
contracts, provides a complete picture of a public official’s financial
situation. Therefore, asset declaration systems promote accountability
among public officials (OECD, 2011). In addition, asset disclosure holds the
potential to boost public confidence in the integrity of the government
because it ensures that public officials are subject to public scrutiny.

The asset disclosure system in Indonesia has certain merits, such as its
breadth; however, its effectiveness may be improved by setting priorities
based on a risk assessment. The Department for the Wealth Reports of State
Officers within the Prevention Division of the KPK manages Indonesia’s
income and asset declaration system. Since the system’s inception in 2001,
the KPK has focused on establishing the mechanisms and the capacity for
managing its wealth-reporting system and on building compliance among
the officials required to submit a declaration. The scope of the system is
very broad and encompasses all elected and non-elected public officials,
regardless of function or rank. Under this regime, 148 355 people declared
their assets in 2014, representing the executive, legislative and judiciary
branches as well as Central Government-owned companies (Badan Usaha
Milik Negara - BUMN) and Regional Government-owned companies
(Badan Usaha Milik Daerah - BUMD).

Although compliance with administrative and bureaucratic procedures is
increasing and data are available online, Indonesia’s asset declaration
system faces several challenges: the asset declaration regulation does not
stipulate clear-cut provisions on verification and on administrative and
criminal penalties, which weakens the system. Moreover, the KPK may not
have sufficient resources to verify all asset reports and analyse them to
detect corruption. Furthermore, issues of data security and privacy rights
may pose their own important integrity issues. Finally, the publication of
wealth data for low-ranking officials adds to the processing capacity and

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

174 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

verification problems. Therefore, priority setting, based on a risk assessment
and an evaluation of processing capacity, may be a useful exercise. In
Sweden, the focus of asset disclosure is on high-ranking public officials
(Box 4.6), and some OECD countries focus on the executive and legislative
branches, rather than on the judiciary (Box 4.7).

Box 4.6. Asset declaration in Sweden

In Sweden, asset declaration requirements put emphasis on senior public executives. The
content of statements disclosing personal financial interest includes information on assets and
liabilities, loans, sources and levels of income, additional employment, gifts, and employment
history. The reports filled by elected officials and senior public servants are available online.

There are no legal sanctions and no strictly defined legal consequences for violations of the
requirements but rather soft measures to achieve compliance. In this sense, if a member of
parliament, for example, fails to submit information to the register, this compliance failure is
announced at the plenary meeting.
Source: OECD (2011), “Asset Declaration for Public Officials: A Tool to Prevent Corruption”, OECD
Publishing, Paris.

Box 4.7. OECD data on asset disclosure

Experience has shown that asset and private interest disclosure by decision makers
continues to be an essential tool for managing conflicts of interest.

Although it continues to be common practice in OECD countries, there are different levels
of disclosure in the three branches of government. Disclosure practices are considerably higher
in the executive and legislative branches than in the judiciary. For example, disclosure is not
required for judges and prosecutors in the Czech Republic, France, Luxembourg and New
Zealand. In Luxembourg, there are no disclosure requirements for decision makers in any of
the three branches of government. Of the private interests covered, countries give the highest
attention to paid outside positions as well as the receipt of gifts, by either prohibiting these or
by requesting their disclosure.

From those OECD countries that have disclosure requirements in place, over 80% verify
that disclosure forms are submitted. However, less than half perform internal audits of the
submitted information for accuracy. Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and Turkey take no action
following the collection of the disclosure forms. However, in Ireland and Italy, most of the
disclosed information is available to the public, allowing citizens themselves to scrutinise the
information submitted.
Source: OECD (2014), “Conflict of interest and asset disclosure”, in OECD Factbook 2014: Economic,
Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD Publishing, Paris.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1754. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

OGP Action Plans, which have to date focused on anti-corruption issues
related to service provision, such as business licensing, might also focus on
identifying how the public can be involved in a systematic and thorough risk
assessment process to help to set priorities. This could include discussions
about which officials should be covered (depending on function and rank),
about what data should be made publicly available and about which data
should be verified and how this could be done.

Public audit institutions in Indonesia: New allies for citizen
oversight?

Despite good examples from other countries in the region and across the
globe, the two public audit institutions in Indonesia, the Audit Board of the
Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development
Supervisory Agency (BPKP), have not yet been at the forefront in engaging
with citizens. BPKP operates a whistleblower system, allowing citizens to
report wrongdoings of BPKP staff. Beyond this, however, additional
opportunities exist to promote citizen oversight and a culture of integrity
more generally through public engagement. The BPK RI and BPKP may
therefore want to explore how public engagement can contribute to
promoting citizen oversight (through, for example, public involvement in
risk assessments and audits) and a culture of integrity more generally.

Globally, Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) are slowly but steadily
moving beyond their traditional role of verifier of public accounts, in light
of the broader transformations in government roles and increased interaction
with citizens. Based on evidence from both individual audit reports and
multi-year strategic reviews, SAIs increasingly contribute to the policy cycle
as providers of insight and foresight information to policy makers (OECD,
2015c).

SAIs have become increasingly aware of the potentially powerful role
citizens can play as watchdogs, with a shared goal of increasing the
accountability and quality of governance from within (SAIs) and outside the
government (citizens) respectively. One notable example is the irregularities
found by the Indonesia's Supreme Audit Agency in the use of Post-Tsunami
Emergency Funds (2006, irregularities estimated at USD 650 million,
www.worldwatch.org/node/4196). Both citizens and SAIs use and depend
on good quality information to expose problems and identify areas for
improvement. Moreover, SAIs are citizens’ agents entrusted with keeping
the government and governance process accountable. As the ultimate
beneficiaries of a better use of public funds, citizens are the most important
stakeholders of supreme audit institutions. A regional example includes the
Philippines (Box 4.8).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

176 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Box 4.8. SAI-CSO Co-operation in the Philippines

Conducting participatory audits as a joint undertaking

In the Philippines, the government's SAI, the National Commission on Audit
(COA), co-operates with a non-governmental organisation called the Concerned
Citizens of Abra for Good Government (CCAGG) to conduct participatory audits
as a joint undertaking. CCAGG monitors infrastructure projects within its
province and uses the assistance of local monitors and volunteers drawn from the
area to verify whether government projects are executed as per contract norms.
This exercise is focused on performance audits, which assess the impact of the
audited government programme or project to determine whether it has achieved
its anticipated results. Audit teams include members from COA and
nongovernmental organisations. The teams receive joint training on conducting
participatory audits before conducting audits.

Providing CSOs access to agency documents and seeking their assistance

Officials of COA also co-operate with a CSO called Procurement Watch, Inc.
to test a tool that measures corruption and inefficiency in public procurement. To
do this, the COA is providing Procurement Watch, Inc. access to procurement
documents of agencies that it is auditing. Procurement Watch, Inc. specialises in
building systems of transparency and accountability into government contracting
and procurement practices. This tool seeks to determine the real (fair-market) cost
of a publicly procured good or service, and then compares that to the cost that
was paid for the good or service; when actual payments are higher than the items'
fair-market value, the difference can be attributed to corruption or inefficiency.

Source: International Journal of Government Auditing (2014), Engaging Civil Service
Organizations in SAI Audit.

In practice, SAIs and citizens can strengthen one another through co-
operation in two directions. On the one hand, SAIs have an important role in
providing assurance that the information on financial management and
policy implementation delivered by government is complete, objective,
reliable, relevant, and understandable. In addition to their quality assurance
role, SAIs can also publish their reports, findings and recommendations.
Both practices are relevant for strengthening the watchdog role of citizens
and CSOs, and can increase the impact and visibility of the work of SAIs.
Indeed, SAIs can strengthen the impact of audit reports by building ongoing
relationships with auditees and other key stakeholders like media, CSOs,
citizens, and their legislative representatives who can support the SAI’s

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1774. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

work by pressing for needed change, introducing new laws, implementing
change and monitoring implementation of recommendations.

On the other hand, SAIs can benefit from citizens’ participation and
information to fulfil their mandate. For example, CSOs, through social
audits and other such processes can provide information that can
complement and augment the work of the SAI. Such specific information, as
well as the general feedback received by SAIs from the public on their audit
findings, can help SAIs focus their future audits on areas of great concern to
citizens. Reacting to citizens’ complaints in the course of the audit process
may give the SAI an indication of suspected fraud and high-risk areas, and
can make SAI audits more responsive and targeted.

In Indonesia, the two public audit institutions, the Audit Board of the
Republic of Indonesia (BPK RI) and the Financial and Development
Supervisory Agency (BPKP), have yet to take their first significant steps in
engaging with citizens to promote accountability and integrity. BPK RI, first
established in 1946, has the mandate to conduct audits related to the
management of state finances and responsibilities undertaken by the central
government, local government and other state institutions, Bank Indonesia,
State-Owned Enterprises, the Public Service Board, the Regional Owned
Enterprises and institutions or other agencies that manage state finances.
BPK RI submits the results of its examinations to the House of
Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD) and
the Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) according to their respective
authority. To build its relationships with the key stakeholders, the BPK RI
established the “Forum BPK Mendengar” (BPK Listening Forum) to
promote effective communication, collect inputs, thoughts and advise from
the public and strengthen the co-operation among stakeholders. This forum
is held regularly with the active participation from CSO representatives,
elected officials, media, and representatives from local governments and
national ministries.

The Financial and Development Supervisory Agency (Sejarah Badan
Pengawasan Keuangan dan Pembangunan, or BPKP) was formed in 2006
after having been reorganised based on a previous audit institution.
Presidential Decree No. 192/2014 made BPKP responsible to the President
and gave the office the task of financial control and supervision over
national development. The BPKP is also tasked with increasing state
revenue and improving the efficiency and effectiveness of budgetary
spending by the national and regional governments. Its activities include
conducting audits and evaluations on the collection and management of tax
revenues, non-tax state revenues, regional revenue streams and national
development. Furthermore, it is tasked with evaluating the application of the
system of internal controls in order to detect and deter corruption, as well as

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

178 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

with investigating financial irregularities. It receives regular funding and is
professionally staffed. However, efforts to build relationships directly with
citizens have been minimal to date.

Media as information channel and reporting platform

The media can inform citizens about integrity-related issues and can
serve as a last-resort corruption-reporting platform, thereby holding public
officials accountable for public financial management. A precondition for
this is press freedom and independence. In Indonesia, the constitution and
subsequent legal provisions guarantee the freedom of press, and the media
and press are diverse and relatively free. However, as reported by the human
rights organisation Article 19, many journalists are self-censoring due to
acts of intimidation, threats (or worse) to journalists by both state and non-
state actors. The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) reported that the
number of incidents of violence against the press remained steady in 2014,
with 41 cases reported. Many of the 2014 cases involved harassment and
assaults on reporters as they attempted to cover sensitive news stories
related to corruption or protests.

Moreover, the media and political landscape are highly interwoven, with
the possible risk of media bias, news filtering and political interference.
According to a 2011 study conducted by the non-profit groups Hivos
Southeast Asia and the Center for Innovation, Policy, and Governance,
nearly all of the 12 most prominent media companies have ties to political
parties in some respect. These 12 companies also own the country’s
10 major national television stations and five of the six major newspapers.
This may raise concerns for citizens who depend on media for news
gathering or for potential whistleblowers who may rely on the media as a
last-resort reporting channel.

Awareness raising and citizen education

In order to foster a culture of integrity across all levels of society,
awareness raising campaigns and citizen education activities run by
government bodies, civil society or both can help, especially if the
programmes are tailored to a specific sector or target group. As such,
awareness raising campaigns complement the preventive effect of a well-
functioning justice system and of information campaigns promoting
reporting mechanisms.

In addition to the communication activities described above, and in line
with its formal mandate and the Stranas PPK roadmap, the KPK has
implemented various awareness raising and public information activities,

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1794. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

from public celebrations on Anti-Corruption Day to an Anti-Corruption
Film Festival, the development of anti-corruption education programmes in
schools (Box 4.9) and outreach activities to the business sector (KPK,
2015b). Moreover, KPK also operates a broadcasting service over radio and
TV in order to raise awareness on integrity and anti-corruption issues (Box
4.10). As some of these activities are carried out in partnership with CSOs,
KPK could use the OGP NAP development process to further explore
synergies with CSOs in civic education and anti-corruption awareness
raising, for example in the development, implementation and evaluation of
activities, programmes and campaigns.

Box 4.9. KPK’s efforts to promote anti-corruption education in schools

In 2014, the KPK reached out to school teachers through the Competition on Anti-
Corruption Learning Model Innovation (Ide BerAksi). The objective was threefold: first, to
foster the creativity of teachers at various levels of education on anti-corruption teaching.
Second, to produce effective anti-corruption learning models to be used at schools. Third, to
roll out the anti-corruption learning models across a range of schools and regions.

“The role of the teacher in anti-corruption education is huge. Teachers are not only expected
to master the learning material, but to present students with attractive patterns and methods.
Otherwise students would be bored and the goal of education would not be achieved.”

The competition resulted in various model courses for different age groups. The model
courses are currently being piloted in various educational programmes in Indonesia. When
proven successful, model courses will be scaled up and expanded to more schools to reach
more students.

Source: KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia.

Box 4.10. Anti-Corruption TV broadcasting by KPK

As KPK’s latest tool to complement existing communication media, including KanalKPK
Radio, Integrito magazine and various social media channels, KanalKPK TV was launched on
Aug. 17, 2014, amid the commemoration of the 69th Independence Day, in order to reach out to
the population of Indonesia to promote the Commission’s anti-corruption efforts.

“KanalKPK TV is not competing against mainstream media, whether print, electronic or
online media. The channel has its own missions that are entirely different from the mainstream
media. It serves as a reference on KPK’s works and to disseminate anti-corruption messages to
prevent corruption. In this context, KanalKPK TV complements the approach of other media,
which mostly prioritise information on enforcement.”

KanalKPK TV, a streaming-based television channel, can be accessed at
www.kpk.go.id/kanalKPK, and it is considered KPK’s answer to the younger generation who
make electronics an important part of their communication. To enrich its content, KanalKPK
TV accepts materials and creative contributions from anti-corruption CSOs.

Source: KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

180 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

Recommendations

While Indonesia has taken important steps to prevent corruption through
transparency and open government measures, the main challenge remains to
build a culture of integrity in the public sector and throughout all levels of
society. A number of good policies and practices are in place, but
implementation, effectiveness and compliance can be further improved. This
chapter has examined how Indonesia can accelerate its progress towards
greater integrity and suppression of corruption by fostering the collaboration
between the public sector and citizens, notably in the areas of participation
in the policy cycle, civic oversight and awareness raising.
Recommendations, some pointing towards increased effectiveness and co-
ordination of ongoing reforms and others towards measures for curbing
policy capture, can be made to further strengthen integrity in Indonesia in
line with open government principles.

The open government agenda and the anti-corruption framework in
Indonesia are intertwined, both strategically and in terms of organisations.
First, as was also the case in its previous versions, the current National Anti-
Corruption Strategy of Indonesia explicitly mentions open-government-
related objectives, activities and monitoring practices. Moreover, the GOI
developed the Strategy in consultation with civil society organisations.
Second, anti-corruption organisations support the open government agenda
through their own respective focus on transparency, accountability and
citizen participation, often in partnership with the government. This
organisational connection is exemplified by the fact that Transparency
International – Indonesia, an anti-corruption outfit, is implementing the
Open Government Scorecard, a baseline assessment of open government.

Opportunities have arisen to further link the Indonesian anti-corruption
agenda with OECD and international standards, instruments and objectives,
including the Sustainable Development Goals (see Chapter 8). The National
Anti-Corruption Strategy already uses the UNCAC and CPI as the model for
its objectives and monitoring framework, thereby aligning the Strategy with
international integrity standards and emphasising the value of citizen
perceptions. The recently adopted Goal 16 on peace and justice sets targets
on the reduction of corruption, institutional effectiveness, accountability and
transparency, and open decision-making processes. Indonesia’s efforts to
meet these targets present an opportunity to further align the national anti-
corruption efforts with the international development framework.
Furthermore, the National Anti-Corruption Strategy refers to the
implementation of a National Integrity System (NIS), an internationally
recognised practice. Although progress has been limited in this field to date,
increased efforts, including during the OGP Action Plan development

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1814. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

process, could have positive consequences in the international anti-
corruption arena, making Indonesia a regional example in the
implementation of the NIS.

In several anti-corruption areas, including reporting channels,
whistleblower protection and asset declaration, Indonesia has made
significant efforts in recent years to increase transparency and
accountability, and to engage with citizens and CSOs. In order to build on
the country’s efforts to improve transparency in its anti-corruption efforts,
the GOI should adjust its anti-corruption instruments to leverage their
impact on integrity, by focussing on implementation, effectiveness and risk-
based priorities. This may require a more profound assessment of specific
laws and measures and their desired and undesired effects, in order to gain a
better understanding of how they contribute to integrity. For instance, such a
review could seek to investigate:

• How the asset disclosure system could yield more of an impact on
corruption prevention and prosecution.

• How to make whistleblower protections more effective so citizens feel
more confident reporting wrongdoing. This could also entail exploring
new partnerships and moving into new anti-corruption areas to prevent
policy capture.

More specifically, the Government of Indonesia could consider the
following integrity-related recommendations, aimed at strengthening the
three interrelated roles of participation in the policy cycle, oversight and
accountability and awareness raising in the interplay between citizens and
public-sector institutions:

• Continue to involve CSOs throughout the anti-corruption policy cycle,
including in agenda setting, the policy development process and
monitoring and evaluation activities. Specifically, further explore
synergies between the KPK and CSOs in civic education and anti-
corruption awareness raising.

• Explore how the multiple reporting mechanisms and institutional
arrangements can be made more effective and efficient in producing
structural changes for good governance. This may require a thorough
assessment of processing capacity, analysis of gaps and overlap, and
examination of data security and privacy rights of plaintiffs throughout
the complaint handling cycle.

• Examine the effectiveness of the legal and regulatory framework.
Namely, review the whistleblower protection regime, with the aim of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

182 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

contributing to structural improvements in the legal framework, for
example by including disciplinary action, and the institutional setup.
• Strengthen the effectiveness of the asset disclosure system for
corruption prevention and prosecution, through setting priorities based
on a risk assessment and an evaluation of processing capacity.
• Consider establishing a regulatory framework for lobbying, with the aim
of enabling public scrutiny and further insulating the policy cycle from
capture by private or narrow interests.
• Strengthen co-operation between citizens and the two public audit
institutions in Indonesia, the Audit Board of the Republic of Indonesia
(BPK RI) and the Financial and Development Supervisory Agency
(BPKP), to jointly promote a culture of integrity.
• Disclose the full UNCAC Peer Review Report on Indonesia, in order to
share the insights with citizens and anti-corruption partners, both
domestically and internationally, and to enable scrutiny by citizens and
CSOs.

References

Article 19 (2014), Indonesia: Press Freedom, Free Expression Still Under
Threat, www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37807/en/
indonesia:-press-freedom,-free-expression-still-under-threat.

Baimyrzaeva M. and H. O. Kose (2014), The Role of Supreme Audit
Institutions in Improving Citizen Participation in Governance
International Public Management Review Vol. 15, Iss. 2, www.ipmr.net.

Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention against
Corruption (2012), Executive summaries.

Freedom House (2015), Freedom of Press: Indonesia,
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/2015/indonesia.

G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group (2010), Anti-Corruption Action Plan
G20 Agenda for Action on Combating Corruption - Promoting Market
Integrity, and Supporting a Clean Business Environment, G20, Seoul.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1834. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –

G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group (2014), Accountability Report
Questionnaire 2014 Indonesia, G20, Australia.

Government of Indonesia (2012), Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012
Annex National Strategy of Corruption Prevention and Eradication Long
Term (2012-2025) and Medium Term (2012-2014), Government of
Indonesia, Jakarta.

Hendradi, T. (n.d.), Securing Protection And Co-operation Of Witnesses
And Whistle-Blowers,
www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_GG4_Seminar/Fourth_GGSeminar_
P68-75.pdf.

International Journal of Government Auditing (2014), Engaging Civil
Service Organizations in SAI Audit.

KPK (2006), Gap Analysis Study Report, Identification of Baps between
Law/Regulations of the Republic of Indonesia and the United Nations
Convention Against Corruption.

KPK (2015a), Whistleblower System, Corruption Eradication Commission
of Indonesia, http://kws.kpk.go.id/.

KPK (2015b), Annual report 2014, Corruption Eradication Commission of
Indonesia.

Nurhayati, D. (2014), Agency to be established to protect crime witnesses,
victims, The Jakarta Post, 14 November,
www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/11/14/agency-be-established-
protect-crime-witnesses-victims.html.

OECD (forthcoming), Committing to Effective Whistleblower Protection,
OECD, Paris.

OECD (2015a), Financing Democracy: Funding of Political Parties and
Election Campaigns and the Risk of Policy Capture, OECD Publishing,
Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264249455-en.

OECD (2015b), Open Government in Morocco, OECD Public Governance
Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264226685-en.

OECD (2015c), Supreme Audit Institutions and good governance:
Oversight, insight and foresight, OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264263871-en.

OECD (2014), “Conflict of interest and asset disclosure”, in OECD
Factbook 2014: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics, OECD
Publishing, Paris.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

184 – 4. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA

OECD (2012a), OECD Reviews of Regulatory Reform: Indonesia 2012:
Strengthening Co-ordination and Connecting Markets, OECD
Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264173637-en.

OECD (2012b), Study on G20 Whistleblower Protection. Frameworks,
Compendium of Best Practices and Guiding. Principles for Legislation,
OECD, Paris.

OECD (2011), Asset Declaration for Public Officials: A Tool to Prevent
Corruption. OECD Publishing, Paris,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264095281-en.

OECD (2009), “Towards a Sound Integrity Framework: Instruments,
Processes, Structures and Conditions for Implementation”,
GOV/PGC/GF(2009)1, OECD, Paris.

International Budget Partnership (2010), Open Budget Survey.

Republic of Indonesia (1999), UU RI No. 31/1999 Eradication of the
Criminal Act of Corruption, Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta.

Republic of Indonesia (2002), UU RI No. 30/2002 Commission for the
Eradication of Criminal Acts of Corruption, Republic of Indonesia,
Jakarta.

Republic of Indonesia (2006), Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 13
of 2006 Concerning Protection of Witness and Victim, Republic of
Indonesia, Jakarta.

The Economist (2015), A damnable scourge. Jokowi’s arduous task in
cleaning up the government (accessed 6 June 2015).

The Jakarta Post (2015) “Where’s the resource governance” (accessed 19
October 2015).

The Jakarta Post (2010), Ministries get KPK whistle-blower system, The
Jakarta Post, 26 August,
www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/26/ministries-get-kpk-
whistleblower-system.html.

Transparency International (2013a), Global Corruption Barometer.

Transparency International (2013b), International Principles for
whistleblower legislation, Transparency International.

Transparency International Indonesia (2014), Integrity and Corruption in
Rural Areas of Indonesia: Results of the 2013 Youth Integrity Survey.

Transparency International (2016), Corruption Perceptions Index 2015
www.transparency.org/cpi2015/#results-table.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1854. FROM TRANSPARENCY AND PARTICIPATION TO INTEGRITY IN INDONESIA –
UNDP (2010), Guidance Note: UNCAC Self-Assessments.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2004), United Nations

Convention Against Corruption, United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime, New York.
Wolfe S. et al. (n.d.), Whistleblower Protection Laws in G20 Countries.
Priorities for Action, Blueprint for Free Speech et. al.
World Bank Institute (2010), Access to Public Information and Citizen
Participation in Supreme Audit Institutions.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016



1875. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Chapter 5
Digital government as an enabler for open government

in Indonesia

The changes brought about by more connected and informed citizens, as
well as the desire by the government of Indonesia to increase efficiency and
live up to its open government commitments, have encouraged the country to
expand its digital government efforts. This chapter reviews the digital
government policies and practices used in Indonesia to support the open
government agenda, as well as key programmes and initiatives. It also
discusses how the government can scale up existing ICT initiatives and how
it can pursue a whole-of-government approach to utilising ICTs in support
of open government. A set of recommendations provides Indonesia with
ideas on how to implement more strategic uses of ICTs and open
government data to achieve its public-sector reform priorities.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

188 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Introduction

The digital transformation is changing how people relate with one
another, how they access and share information and how they work, think
and solve problems. Digital technologies are changing the economy and the
way in which private sector firms operate, as well as affecting social
interactions, policy making and service delivery. This wave of change has
implications in the form of opportunities but also challenges that the
Government of Indonesia should assess to make decisions that maximise the
efficiency and effectiveness of its public administration, the well-being of
citizens and the competitiveness of its business environment. This chapter
will concentrate on how the use of digital technologies in the Indonesian
public sector can support its open government and broader government
reform agendas.

While public institutions in Indonesia have been slow to adapt to the
digital era, societal changes are leading them to revise their functioning and
make readjustments. More connected and informed constituencies are
demanding more tailored and agile interactions with the public
administration, more effective policies and improved public-sector
performance. Moreover, budgetary pressures, the search for efficiency gains
and Open Government Partnership (OGP) commitments have also
encouraged the Government of Indonesia to improve and scale up its
digitisation efforts.

When used strategically, digital technologies can be a powerful tool to
support substantial change in the government’s relationship with the public
and can help achieve open government goals. In particular, digital
technologies can help increase transparency and accountability, improve
access to and quality of public information and services and facilitate
decision-making processes that are more inclusive, which can ultimately
lead to greater trust in governments. Digital technologies can also help
enhance public-sector intelligence1 through better data management and
use, thus allowing for improved policy-making and smarter organisational
and operational arrangements. This can have an impact on public-sector
productivity and create institutions that are more competitive. Hence, digital
government strategies have become critical to overcoming power
imbalances and creating more participatory governance models to drive
inclusive growth and reduce productivity gaps between less and more
advanced economies.

The OGP Open Government Declaration explicitly recognises the
opportunity offered by new technologies as cross-cutting tools to foster
openness and accountability by providing new ways for information
dissemination, government-society collaboration, and alternative and more

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1895. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

efficient forms of civic engagement and participation (see Box 5.1).
Furthermore, Shim and Eom (2008) show that the use of information and
communications technologies (ICTs) can effectively improve the internal
and managerial control of government operations, in the process
significantly reducing space for corrupt behaviour and improving
transparency and accountability.

Box 5.1. The Open Government Partnership recognises the role of ICTs in
supporting the open government agenda

The Open Government Declaration of 2011 reads:

“Increase access to new technologies for openness and accountability: New technologies
offer opportunities for information sharing, public participation, and collaboration. We intend
to harness these technologies to make more information public in ways that enable people to
both understand what their governments do and to influence decisions. We commit to
developing accessible and secure online spaces as platforms for delivering services, engaging
the public, and sharing information and ideas. We recognise that equitable and affordable
access to technology is a challenge, and commit to seeking increased online and mobile
connectivity, while also identifying and promoting the use of alternative mechanisms for civic
engagement. We commit to engaging civil society and the business community to identify
effective practices and innovative approaches for leveraging new technologies to empower
people and promote transparency in government. We also recognise that increasing access to
technology entails supporting the ability of governments and citizens to use it. We commit to
supporting and developing the use of technological innovations by government employees and
citizens alike. We also understand that technology is a complement, not a substitute, for clear,
useable, and useful information.

We acknowledge that open government is a process that requires ongoing and sustained
commitment. We commit to reporting publicly on actions undertaken to realise these
principles, to consulting with the public on their implementation, and to updating our
commitments in light of new challenges and opportunities.

We pledge to lead by example and contribute to advancing open government in other
countries by sharing best practices and expertise and by undertaking the commitments
expressed in this declaration on a non-binding, voluntary basis. Our goal is to foster innovation
and spur progress, and not to define standards to be used as a precondition for co-operation or
assistance or to rank countries. We stress the importance to the promotion of openness of a
comprehensive approach and the availability of technical assistance to support capacity- and
institution-building.

We commit to espouse these principles in our international engagement, and work to foster
a global culture of open government that empowers and delivers for citizens, and advances the
ideals of open and participatory 21st century government.”

Source: Open Government Declaration (2011) www.opengovpartnership.org/about/open-government-
declaration (accessed on 19 December 2015).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

190 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

This is consistent with the OECD approach to the use of digital
government to promote open, innovative and participatory governments to
foster more inclusive and effective governance. On 15 July 2014, the OECD
Council adopted its “Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies” as
the first international policy instrument in the field of digital government.
The Recommendation seeks to provide policy guidance to support
governments’ efforts in moving from e-government to the more advanced
stage of digital government.

For the OECD, e-government “refers to the use by the governments of
information and communication technologies (ICTs), and particularly the
Internet, as a tool to achieve better government” (OECD, 2014), whereas
digital government “refers to the use of digital technologies, as an integrated
part of governments’ modernisation strategies, to create public value. It
relies on a digital government ecosystem comprised of government actors,
non-governmental organisations, businesses, citizens’ associations and
individuals which supports the production of and access to data, services and
content through interactions with the government” (OECD, 2014).

The OECD Recommendation consists of twelve principles structured
around three pillars that seek to bring governments closer to citizens and
businesses. The first pillar is dedicated to the use of digital technologies to
support government openness and the engagement of citizens and businesses
in finding innovative digital solutions to outstanding social problems
(Figure 5.1). This pillar emphasises the relevance of coherent and
responsible data management in using technology to enable open
government.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1915. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

Figure 5.1. Recommendation of the OECD Council on Digital Government Strategies

Openness and Governance and Capacities to support
engagement coordination implementation

1) Openness, transparency 5) Leadership and political 9) Development of clear
and inclusiveness commitment business cases

2) Engagement and 6) Coherent use of digital 10) Reinforced institutional
participation in a multi-actor technology across policy capacities
context in policy making and areas
service delivery 11) Procurement of digital
7) Effective organizational and technologies
3) Creation of a data-driven governance frameworks to
culture coordinate 12) Legal and regulatory
framework
4) Protecting privacy and 8) Strengthen international
ensuring security cooperation with other
governments

Creating value through the use of ICT

Source: OECD Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies, 2014.

Assessing the digital context of Indonesia

The use of ICTs to support open government and to achieve more
transparent and participatory forms of governance relies on certain
infrastructural enablers of digital government, such as access to the Internet.
Indonesians have benefited from the global trend toward increased
connectivity, showing sustained growth in the number of Internet users
(Figure 5.2) and mobile subscriptions (Figure 5.3). The Indonesian
population is also particularly young, with 46.03% of the population under
25 years old, and increasingly urban, with 50% living in urban areas (2010
national census).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

192 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Figure 5.2. Internet users per 100 people in Indonesia

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

2001 2003 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014

Source: World Development Indicators.

Figure 5.3. Mobile cell phone subscriptions per 100 people in Indonesia

140
120
100
80
60
40
20

0
2001 2003 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014

Source: World Development Indicators.

Despite this steady progress, the growth rate of Internet users in
Indonesia has been modest compared with regional peers or other countries
facing similar demographic or geographic challenges, with Internet users
representing merely 17.14% of the Indonesian population (Figure 5.4),
although this still equates to 42.85 million people. To avoid missing out on
the opportunities of the digital era for the creation of an open government

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1935. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

and to support sustainable development, the Government of Indonesia must
create a vigorous broadband ecosystem, which includes establishing an
enabling legal and regulatory environment, appropriate market conditions
that support competition and high-quality services, and initiatives to increase
demand for quality Internet services, among other factors.

Figure 5.4. Internet users as percentage of the entire population in
selected countries

100

80

60

40

20

0 2003 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014
2001 Thailand
Mexico
Indonesia Malaysia Philippines
Viet Nam Brazil Korea

Source: World Development Indicators.

With an adult literacy rate standing at 93.88%, Indonesia has made
extraordinary progress in the area of education (UNESCO). Notwithstanding
this progress, productivity and access to economic opportunities remain
unequally distributed across the territory (Figure 5.5). If these issues are not
addressed, existing digital divides are likely to aggravate regional
inequalities as the country transitions toward a more digital-intensive
economy. In addition to regional disparities, even in the best-equipped urban
areas, digital divides are still significantly determined by gender, age and
education levels (Sujarwoto and Tampubolom, 2013; Utomo et al, 2013).
This context substantially hinders the impact of digitally enabled
participation, transparency and service delivery.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

Aceh194 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA
Sumatera Utara
Sumatera BaratFigure 5.5. Per capita gross regional domestic product without oil and gas at 2000
constant market prices by province (thousand rupiahs), 2013
Riau
Jambi60000
Sumatera Selatan50000
Bengkulu40000
Lampung30000
Kep. Bangka…20000
Kepulauan Riau10000
DKI Jakarta
Jawa Barat0
Jawa Tengah
DI YogyakartaSource: OECD work based on Badan Pusat Statistik (Statistics Indonesia).
Jawa Timur
BantenAddressing the existing digital divide in terms of access to high-quality
Internet and broadband requires significant levels of investment. Ensuring
Balithe expected returns on investment, however, also requires the government
Nusa Tenggara…to consider the demand side. In certain regions, public officials and citizens
Nusa Tenggara…frequently lack the knowledge and skills necessary to reap the profits of
Kalimantan Barathaving access to the web, highlighting the multi-dimensional nature of the
Kalimantan Tengahdigital divide and reinforcing the notion that overcoming the divide depends
Kalimantan Selatanon more than simple access to infrastructure and the affordability of
Kalimantan Timurtechnological devices. Programmes to reduce the existing forms of the
Sulawesi Utaradigital divide also call for continuity and sustainability, overcoming the
Sulawesi Tengahpotential instability of political cycles and agendas (Mariscal et al., 2012). In
Sulawesi Selatan2014, the Government of Indonesia unveiled its new five-year plan for ICT
Sulawesi Tenggaradevelopment (2015-19). This plan is consistent with the previous one (2010-
14), but it places a greater emphasis on the expected benefits of connectivity
Gorontalofor digital government and economic growth. The plan focuses on
Sulawesi Baratbroadband development and aims to connect 71% of households and 100%
of public institutions by the end of the period. For this purpose, the
MalukuGovernment of Indonesia has allocated IDR 278 trillion. It also aims to
Maluku Utaraconnect all public schools and, through them, develop a programme for ICT
Papua Baratskills development. It is still too early to assess the results of the plan in
addressing the digital divide.
Papua
Despite the limited access to ICT for important segments of the
population, urban and tech-savvy youth in Indonesia have quickly grasped
the opportunities provided by digital technologies and changed their social
habits. Indonesian Internet users are overwhelmingly young and very active

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1955. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

on social media. According to the Internet User Profile Survey of 2014
produced by the Indonesian Internet Service Provider Association, 49% of
Internet users are between 18 and 25 years old (APJII, 2014). According to
Semiocast, a social media analytics firm, Jakarta produced the most tweets
of any city in the world in June 2012, and Indonesia produced 7.5% of the
world’s tweets in the same month. Similarly, eMarketer, a market research
firm, estimates that 94.2% of Internet users in Indonesia are Facebook users,
making Indonesia the fourth-ranked country in the world in terms of the
overall number of users of the popular social network (eMarketer, 2012).

The Indonesian tech sector is also experiencing profound changes. With
the number of Indonesian middle-class and affluent consumers expected to
double by 2020 (BCG, 2013), large companies in the tech sector have
manifested growing interest in the country’s perspectives both as a growing
market and as an investment location, while the local start-up scene is
rapidly developing. For instance, Tokopedia, a local e-commerce start-up,
recently received investments of USD 100 million from SoftBank and
Sequoia Capital2. Similarly, large global companies in the tech sector, such
as Twitter, Facebook and Uber, are opening offices in Indonesia. These
stakeholders provide the Government of Indonesia with a wide range of
partners with whom to co-create an ICT-enabled open government
ecosystem and co-produce data, policies and innovative services.

Scaling up existing initiatives that use ICTs to support an open,
transparent and participatory government

Reaping the full benefits and efficiency gains offered by ICTs requires
that Indonesia develop a coherent approach to the use of digital technologies
across levels of government despite significant levels of de-centralisation.
The Government of Indonesia will also need to take decisive steps toward
the creation of more transparent and inclusive decision-making processes
and public-sector activities. The Republic of Indonesia still has room for
progress in ICT-enabled participation and service delivery. This section will
highlight trends and good practices in the use of ICT by the public sector to
support open government in the country and to meet the challenges
associated with achieving sufficient scale.

In relation with countries that share similar demographic, geographic
and developmental challenges, the Republic of Indonesia still has room for
progress in ICT-enabled participation (Figure 5.6) and service delivery
(Figure 5.7).

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

196 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Figure 5.6. E-Participation Index

1.2
1

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0
Brazil Indonesia Malaysia Mexico Philippines Korea Thailand Viet Nam

Source: UN e-Government Index.

Figure 5.7. Online Service Index

1.2
1

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

0
Brazil Indonesia Malaysia Mexico Philippines Korea Thailand Viet Nam

Source: UN e-Government Index.

ICTs can provide a transparent and cost-effective channel to support the
engagement of citizens in actively defining the process and content of

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

1975. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA –

decisions, service design and policy making, acknowledging equal standing
for citizens in setting political agendas, in proposing policy options, in
shaping the policy dialogue and in co-producing public services. In a broad
sense, one of the main challenges for online service delivery in the public
sector is to complete the transition from government-centred use of
technologies to citizen-centred use and finally to a predominantly citizen-
driven approach to service design and delivery. This paradigm change
supports usability and overall convenience of digital public services for its
target users. A citizen-driven approach contributes to citizen empowerment
and can help redress inequitable resource and power distribution that lead to
inequality, poverty and social stress.

The Government of Indonesia has been able to produce some ground-
breaking digital public services that represent an important step in the design
of more citizen-oriented services, supporting greater transparency and
citizen engagement. For instance, SISKOHAT (see Box 5.2), an innovative
app developed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs, is helping Indonesian
citizens monitor their status on the waiting list for the Hajj pilgrimage
organised by the Ministry (see Chapter 7 for more information). This app
significantly improves the transparency and convenience of the Hajj
application process. The design of the app respects high technical standards
and has a strong focus on the administration’s perception of user needs.

Box 5.2. SISKOHAT: Promoting transparency in Hajj

The Hajj is an annual Islamic pilgrimage to the Mecca and one of the five
pillars of Islam. Muslims must complete this pilgrimage at least once in their
lifetime if they are physically and financially capable of doing so. Demand for
participation in the pilgrimage is extremely high, which led to the establishment
of a quota system. The Ministry of Religious Affairs of Indonesia is in charge of
organising the pilgrimage for Indonesian citizens, managing the applications and
the waiting list for the religious journey. Being incorporated into the waiting list
may be costly (fees are determined by a presidential decree and vary depending
on departure location), and the waiting period can take several years.

To enhance the transparency of the process, the Ministry of Religious Affairs
developed the Hajj Integrated Information and Computerised System
(SISKOHAT) with a complementary android-based app that allows applicants to
monitor the queue and check their status on the waiting list. The platform
provides the candidates with relevant practical and logistical information to
prepare their travel arrangements and once they are on location. The system is
interoperable with payment systems, allowing for real-time follow-up of
payments, and it utilises a secure electronic authentication mechanism.

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016

198 – 5. DIGITAL GOVERNMENT AS AN ENABLER FOR OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA

Moreover, the Indonesian public sector is increasingly interested in
leveraging the creativity, skills and ideas for innovation existing outside of
the public sector to solve persisting problems while easing the financial
burdens of public authorities. These initiatives pursue a more citizen-driven
approach in the development of solutions and services, recognising citizens
as partners and giving them the opportunity to determine service priorities.
Increasing awareness about the potential of user-driven approaches has been
the driving force for the organisation of thematic hackathons, particularly at
the local level. Initiatives such as the Bandung Data Summit, HackJak and
Hackathon Merdeka seek to empower Indonesian citizens and developers,
allowing them to propose innovative solutions to improve healthcare and
education, fight corruption, manage disasters or support small farmers.
These activities have also provided local governments with the opportunity
to engage with service users and better understand their changing needs.

Their scale, however, limits these powerful initiatives. They currently
operate as small pockets of innovation, but the necessary co-ordination and
scaling-up mechanisms seem to be absent. Digital services are still
developed with a greater focus on the priorities of the public administration,
leading to services that are less user oriented. Insufficient levels of
interoperability of government information systems hinder the public
sector’s ability to deliver transactional and integrated services that can
favour the use and uptake of online channels and improve the quality of
services and the management of data.

Scaling up these initiatives to achieve systemic changes in digital
service design and delivery would require the development of governance
frameworks, standards and guidelines that can help civil servants design,
prototype, test and deploy services in more effective and participatory ways.
These should be complemented with the policy levers, co-ordination
mechanisms and institutional capacities required for the implementation of
strategies and policies. Opening up the service design process would
necessitate that the public sector be equipped with the right skills, tools and
incentives to facilitate and promote the engagement of relevant stakeholders
in a more systematic way, thus progressively building a whole-of-
government approach in using ICTs for open government.

LAPOR (see Chapter 3 for more information) is another digitally
enabled practice that can support open government. It is a multi-channel
reporting mechanism that helps the administration collect, monitor, process
and provide a solution or answer to citizen aspirations and complaints. The
platform seeks to empower citizens by allowing them to report misconduct
or malfunctioning public services, policies or programmes through a
website, email, mobile app or text message. Citizens are able to enclose
pictures or videos as evidence to support their complaint. The administration

OPEN GOVERNMENT IN INDONESIA © OECD 2016


Click to View FlipBook Version