Policy Analysis and Educational Strategy For Anti Corruption in Indonesia and Singapore

Abstract

This study tries to analyze anti-corruption policies of the substantive law applicable in Indonesia and Singapore. Data was collected through documentation, interviews and observation. Theoretical framework used in this study follows Lawrence M. Friedman's theory that divided the legal system into three elements, namely institutional law (legal structure), the substance law (legal substance) and culture law (legal culture). The research results indicate that: first, Indonesia and Singapore have legal basis and foundation prescribed in detailed rules, including the loading rules in forms of bribes and gratuities. Indonesia's anti-corruption policies in force today is Act Number 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication, while the anti-corruption policy in Singapore is set up in the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). While the anti-corruption agency (legal structure) established by the Government of Indonesia and Singapore is not much different. The most proactive institution in fighting against corruption in Indonesia is the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), while the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) is the foremost institution in curbing corruption in Singapore. Second, the strategy implemented for anticorruption education in Indonesia is preventive strategy, detective and repressive. Some forms of anti-corruption education undertaken by the Commission which includes anti-corruption activities are festivals, book library, anti-corruption portal, television channels and radio, public information services, and e-learning gratification information. Generally speaking, Singapore is applying three interrelated strategies, namely: the implementation of the PCA, the establishment of institutions CPIB and improving civil servants' salaries. It is expected that the results of this study can contribute to the prevention and eradication of corruption in Indonesia more comprehensive, not only through legal means but education, including the internalization of moral values of anticorruption.

Executorial principles in international arbitration awards in the Indonesian legal system

“…If you look at the initial principle of dispute resolution according to the Trias Politica doctrine, the authority to resolve disputes actually lies in the hands of the judiciary (the power to adjudicate violations of the law), namely through the courts. However, the current trend is that people's trust in the judiciary as a place to seek justice has decreased (Assegaf, 2015).…”

Anti-Gratification Commitments in Local Regulations on Public Services: Comparative Perspectives

“…The public also often wants to show gratitude by giving service providers something, even though what they have done is including the seeds of corruption in the bureaucracy. Steps such as periodic review of operational procedures, the appointment of leaders who have a healthy morality, anti-corruption education programs, administration of a "culture of shocks" can be part of preventing corruption [14], [15], [16]. Efforts to include the value of anti-gratification can at least reinforce corruption prevention in terms of education and culture shock for the bureaucracy.…”

Juridical Review of The Goods Decision Evidence of Economic Value for Destroyed

“…The court decision reads that evidence is seized to assist the state or annihilated or harmed so it can't be utilized once more (Article 194 passage (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code). [2] The confiscation of certain goods is one of the additional penalties based on Article 10, letter b no 2e of the Criminal Code. This is described in Article 39 of the Criminal Code.…”

“…[4] Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code specifies that an appointed authority may not force a sentence on an individual except if with no less than two legitimate bits of proof he gets the conviction that a lawbreaker act has really happened and that the litigant is at fault for perpetrating it. The article has decided two circumstances that should be met to announce an individual liable and force a sentence, to be specific (1) the presence of something like two legitimate bits of proof; (2) there is an adjudicator's conviction acquired in light of the lawful proof.…”