CORRUPTION PREVENTION AND ERADICATION STRATEGYWITH REPRESIVE AND PREVENTIVE EFFORTS
Fauzy Marasabessy *I.

INTRODUCTION

Indonesia is known as a country with various advantages: its natural resources, demographic
size and strategic position on the world map. However, all the benefits are not directly
proportional to the acceleration of development and increase of people’s prosperity. Fromvarious possibilities as a driving factor, one of them is corruption. The problems faced byIndonesia related to corruption have been described by World Bank East Asia:
Indonesia suffers from a very poor international reputation regarding corruption,
ranking near the bottom alongside the most corrupt countries in the world. It isalso perceived as doing worse over time in controlling corruption. Indonesians
agree. They liken corruption to a “disease to combat, denouncing every known
case.” While these perceptions may be overly influenced by the new openness ofa democratic Indonesia, corruption is high and imposes severe social andeconomic costs. It also contributes to citizens’ loss of trust in governments.
Greed eventually destabilized this careful construct, and the country has paid aheavy price in terms of a sharp accumulation of public debt, a damaged
environment and above all, weak and corrupt institutions. 1
However, it should be appreciated that eradicating corruption has become more progressivein the last decade since the fall of the Suharto regime. Following the reform era, corruption
prevention and eradication (CPE) have become part of the main focus of the Indonesian
government.
The determination to carry out CPE began with the establishment of new implementing
agencies such as the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the Financial Transactions
Analysis and Report Center (PPATK), the Witness and Victim Protection Agency (LPSK) and anumber of Anti Corruption Task Forces arround the country by Police Departements and theAttorney General Office. Government initiated and consolidated many policies, andsimultaneously internalized community awareness.

*

Head of Section at Subdirectorte Taxation Violation of Prosecuting Directorate of Junior Attorney General forSpecial Crimes Office, Indonesia.
1
World Bank East Asia Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit <http://siteresources.worldbank.org>
accessed 17 Nov. 2018, Combating Corruption in Indonesia Enhancing Accountability for Development October 20,
2003, page 27.

- 56 -

The Attorney General Office as the Public Prosecution Service is the government institutionthat exercises the power of the state specifically in terms of prosecutorial power. As an
institution with the authority in law enforcement and justice, the Attorney Service has a wider
core of duties and powers, from investigation of special crimes up to execution of court
sentences. These are added to the duties to maintain public order and stability, and supervision ofreligious and traditional beliefs which might be a threat to the state and the general public. 2
With numerous duties applying to the legal field, the Attorney Service, as one of Indonesia’s
law enforcement institutions, is demanded to perform law enforcement roles that are free from
corruption, collusion and nepotism, the upholding of the rule of law, the protection of the public
interest, as well as the preservation of human rights. Referring to Legislation No. 16/2014, theAttorney General Office, as a government institution exercising the prosecutorial power of thestate, must be independent in performing the functions, duties and powers, unbounded to any
influence, either from the governing power or other parties (article 2 paragraph (2) Legislation
No. 16/2004) in order to guarantee the professional service of the Attorneys. The order isdirecting the Attorney General duties and powers as stipulated in the article. 3
From year to year, the Public Prosecution Service is developing and reforming so
as to adjust itself in line with new legislation and to the expectations of the public.
Thus, in 2011 the Public Prosecution Service adopted a series of measures toensure maximum and optimal performance of its duties. With the passing of 2011,
the Public Prosecution Service needs to map out the various measures and efforts
that were adopted or made so as to identify the level of achievement of thetargets adopted at the start of the year. This is particularly true as regards the corebusiness of the Public Prosecution Service, namely, the handling of cases
involving crimes of corruption.
For the Public Prosecution Service, the effort to achieve targets that accord withthe expectations of the public is a far from easy challenge, but one that mustnevertheless be tackled. The Public Prosecution Service is all too aware that theprocess of dealing with cases is not as easy as some imagine. The frequency ofvarious types of crimes and violations is continuously increasing, as is thecomplexity of crimes. There have also been reforms of our modus operandi,
including as regards the proving of mens rea and actus reus. The issue of why
the Public Prosecution Service as an institution regularly faces constraints in theprosecution of crimes shall be one of the principal, often-discussed topics on thework of the Public Prosecution Service.
The challenges facing the Public Prosecution Service in the discharge of its
duties are not only external in nature, but also internal. Based on an internal
approach, the Public Prosecution Service is implementing reforms in all line
units, both at the center and in the regions, including as regards the Service’s
personnel. Meanwhile, the external challenges, such as criticism, are regarded by
2
3

Attorney General RI, Annual Report 2017
Ibid.

- 57 -

us as constructive and valuable input that is of great benefit to us in our efforts toreform the Public Prosecution Service. For that reason, the Public Prosecution
Service is engaged in a continuous process of change through the optimizationand honing of strategies for the handling of corruption cases so as to recover state
funds and increase state revenue. 4
According to article 30 of Law Number 16 of 2004 on the Public Prosecution Service, theduties and powers of the Public Prosecution Service in the criminal arena are as follows:a. To conduct prosecutions;b. To enforce judicial orders and decisions of final and conclusive effect;c. To conduct supervision of those serving conditional sentences, placed under
supervision orders, or released on parole;d. To investigate certain types of suspected crimes as stipulated by law;e. To complete certain types of case files, and for such purposes to conduct
additional investigations prior to the forwarding of such files to the court,
which investigations are in practice carried out in condition with theinvestigators. 5
Economic growth and national development as efforts to increase society's wealth, will
improve as long as the law is enforced. Otherwise, law could be functionable and accommodate
justice if economic growth and society's wealth are increasing. Good law enforcement in all
aspects can give chance and opportunity to development stake holders to make innovation andcreation without any fear.
Law should be responsible and anticipate changes in society. In the law enforcement context,
responding to and anticipating problems is known as prevention and repressive action if done
together. The conclusion about the connection between prevention and repressive action
basically makes sense, because preventive tasks could not be effective without firm repressive
action for any violations.
II. MAIN DISCUSSION
A. Corruption prevention and eradication (CPE) in Indonesia.
Prevention and eradication of corruption (CPE) as a national policy is a form of thegovernment's commitment to run a clean and dignified country. For that reason, it is thedetermination of law enforcement officials to implement it. The determination to implement theCPE is a persistent and strong commitment to create a government that is clean and has integrity.
Effort in CPE by the Government of Indonesia as explained by UNDOC Indonesia below:
Efforts in corruption prevention and eradication (CPE) actually began longago during the era of the Soekarno administration (with the enactment of
4
5

Public Prosecution Service of the Republic of Indonesia, 2011 Annual Report, page 2.
Ibid. at VIII.

- 58 -Government Regulation in Lieu of Law 24/1960 on the Prosecution,
Investigation, and Examination of the Crime of Corruption) up to theSoeharto administration (with the enactment of Law 3/1971 on Corruption
Eradication). During the era of reform, the efforts in CPE grew more
intensive after the government ratified the United Nations Convention
Against Corruption 2003 by Law 7/2006. In addition, the government also
issued a number of Presidential instructions as well as a mandate regarding
CPE and established several agencies to implement and support the CPE
efforts, such as the Corruption Eradication Commission, the Financial
Transactions Analysis and Report Centre, and the Witness & Victim
Protection Agency. Over the last four years, the Government has formulated a
National Strategy for Corruption Prevention and Eradication (Nastra CPE)
consisting of long-term objectives and medium term objectives. Nastra CPE
provides direction and a source of reference for the various CPE efforts which
is more comprehensive for all the stakeholders. Good reference is necessary
in order to have a concrete impact on the improvement of welfare, sustainable
development, and the consolidation of democracy. 6
According to the National Strategy, CPE has both a long-term vision and medium-term
vision. The vision for the long term (2012-2025) is: “to create an anti-corruption nation that is
supported by a system of cultural values with integrity”, whereas for the medium term (20122014) the vision is “to create a government that is free from corruption, and having the capacity
to prevent and take action against corruption and a system of integrity as a cultural values”. The
long-term vision and medium-term vision shall both be realized in all domains, that is, within thegovernment in a broad sense, the civil society, as well as the business world.
The vision is expressed in the following missions:a. To build and establish a system, mechanism, capacity for preventing andtaking action against corruption which is integrated on a national scale;b. To reform the national laws and regulations that support CPE in a consistent,
consolidated, and systematic manner;c. To build and consolidate a system and mechanism for confiscating the assets
gained by corruption through effective national and international cooperation;d. To build and internalize an anti-corruption culture among the government
structure and the society; ande. To develop and publicize a system for reporting the performances in
implementing Nastra CPE. 7
The Vision and Mission are then formulated into six strategies as follows:a. Prevention;
6

Government of Indonesia – Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012 Annex National Strategy on Corruption
Prevention and Eradication 2012-2014 and 2012-2025, provided by UNODC Indonesia, page 3.

7- 59 -

b. Law enforcement;c. Harmonizing the Laws and Regulations;d. International Cooperation and Asset Return Based on Court Verdict;e. Anti-Corruption Education and Culture; and,f. Mechanism of Reporting Corruption Eradication Actions.
The two previous strategies, prevention and law enforcement, are the main themes of thispaper.
1.

Prevention
Corruption is still massive and systematic. Its practice can occur everywhere, withingovernment agencies, private agencies, and even in day-to-day life. In view of suchconditions, it is only fitting that the prevention of corruption be given the position ofpriority as the first strategy. Through a prevention strategy, it is hoped that other steps will
come forth as contributions for improvements in the future. This strategy is the answer toan approach which is more focused on repressive action. The paradigm for developmentof a repressive approach is that it provides a punitive effect on the perpetrator of the crimeof corruption. Unfortunately, however, the repressive approach has apparently not yet
been able to reduce corruptive behaviour and practice systematically and on a massive
scale. The success of the prevention strategy is measured by the increase in corruption
perception index value and the rate of starting businesses. 82.

Law Enforcement
There are still many corruption cases that have not yet been completely resolved, yet
the interest and attention of the public has been drawn to such cases for a long time, andthey expect to see a fair settlement. When law enforcement is inconsistent in its positive
law, it will consequently affect the degree of trust of the community towards the law and
its apparatus. When trust is weak, the public will be driven towards forming the opinion
that the law can no longer be trusted as a means for settling conflicts. People will tend tosettle their conflicts and problems in their own way which, unfortunately, is often in
opposition with the law. Also, when there are other parties who take advantage of thisinconsistency in law enforcement for their own interests, it aggravates the situation evenmore. The absence of trust in the community naturally creates a sense of dissatisfaction
and the feeling that the legal institutions and their apparatus are unfair. And at any time
when there are attempts to improve law enforcement in Indonesia, this condition will be
an obstacle in itself. For this reason, the settlement of corruption cases that have attracted
the attention of the public must, absolutely, be accelerated. The rate of success of thisstrategy is measured by the conviction rate in courts handling the cases of crime as acorruption. 9. . . .

8
9

Ibid.
Ibid.

- 60 -

The focus of priority activities related to improvement of law enforcement
mechanisms in order to improve public trust towards the authorities and law
enforcement agencies are:a.

Strengthening and improving the consistency of legal and administrative
sanctions for the actors as well as law enforcement officers who deviate andabuse their authority or carry out corruption crime.

b.

Strengthening of legal sanctions against abuse of authority, for instance byreturning assets of corruption and paying for damages caused by the said
abuse of authority.

c.

Strengthening the coordination of handling of corruption cases among law
enforcement agencies with the support of a comprehensive IT (e-law
enforcement).

d.

Anti-bribery and corruption regulations in the professional code of ethics forlawyers, public accountants, tax consultants etc.

e.

Giving heavier sanctions for bribery performed by professionals having
codes of ethics.

f.

Revocation of license, return of profit, and compensation for entrepreneurs /individuals who bribe.

g.

Application of reverse burden of proof on unexplained wealth.

h.

Facilitate the process of obtaining bank information by law enforcement
agencies in the framework of corruption eradication.

i.

Limiting remissions granted to perpetrators of corruption.

j. Consistency of law enforcement in all regions. 10
These efforts have begun to show results: The determination to eradicate corruption is
widespread throughout Indonesia. This is evident from the increased amount of state funds/assetsthat have been saved each year as the result of prevention and the settlement of corruption cases
brought to court. For comparison, the following chart shows the number of corruption cases
handled by the Indonesian National Police, the Indonesian Prosecution Service and the
Corruption Eradication Commission over the last four years: 11

10
11

Ibid.
Based on CEC RI Repression Division data.

- 61 -

Number of Corruption Cases
Handled by Law Enforcement Agencies
1000
800

911

876

833

600

628

400
200

371

273

80

0
2014

196

87

202

2015

96
2016

INP

AGO

123
2017

CEC

B. Team of Aide, Governance Security and Central Development (TP4P) and Team ofAide, Governance Security and Regional Development (TP4D) as a prevention effort.
In the presidential speech during the general assembly of the House of Representatives andthe Regional Representative Council on August 14, 2015, President Joko Widodo expressednational reconciliation as an effort to conclude the cases on severe violation against human rights
in the past by means of establishing a Reconciliatory Committee for the cases of severe violationof human rights. The Team of Aide, Governance Security and Central Development (TP4P) andthe Team of Aide, Governance Security and Regional Development (TP4D) serve as guardiansand security forces for the government and development to accelerate national development. The
decline in Indonesia's economic growth that reached 4.67% within the 2nd quarter of 2015
indicated weakening in the national economy.
As a response and to make concrete steps to eradicate corruption with prevention efforts, theAttorney General Office in performing the Attorney Service duties and powers on prevention,
established the Team of Aide, Governance Security and Central Development (TP4P) in the
Attorney General Office and the Team of Aide, Governance Security and Regional Development(TP4D) in the Provincial Attorney Services (KEJATI), and the District Attorney Services(KEJARI) throughout Indonesia with the objective to exhort acceleration in budget
disbursement. 12
To accelerate development in Indonesia, RI. Attorney General, H.M. Prasetyo always
encourages the members of his group to upgrade the performance of TP4P and TP4D.
Implementing an Attorney General order in the 2nd quarter of 2018, the number of TP4D
activities increased from 294 to 607 activities; meanwhile, TP4P increased from 19 to 28
activities. In line with the activities, project value also experienced an increase. With TP4D
assistance, IDR. 69,197 Billion succeeded and was secured from leakage and misuse, while
TP4D IDR. 20,174 Billion. The Attorney General said that TP4 was a means to put law
enforcement in line with state policies in implementing development.

12

Attorney General RI, Annual Report 2015 at 2-3.

- 62 -

C. The Special Task Force for Countermeasure Acts and Disposal of Corruption Cases(Satgassus P3TPK).
Performance of duties and functions in the special crime division is strongly related to thedevelopment agenda within the extent of the prevention and eradication of corruption as stated in
the 2015-2019 Mid-Term National Development Planning (RPJMN) that is directed tosynchronizing of regulations against corruption, intensification of international collaboration in
asset seizure, protection for justice collaborators, improving the effectiveness of various
strategies for the prevention and eradication of corruption in ministries, institutions, and local
government by means of employing the national strategy for the prevention and eradication ofcorruption education on anti-corruption and supervision of public service. Aligned with the
2012-2025 Long-Term National Strategy for the Prevention and Eradication of Corruption andthe 2012-2014 mid-term stated in Presidential Order No. 55/2012, the Attorney General Officehas been implementing preventive and countermeasure activities to eradicate corruption.
Preventive Measure in Eradication of Corruption Crime Cases throughout 2015, preventive
measures to eradicate corruption within the Attorney General Office have been done through thecoordination with all divisions (Special Crime, General Crime, Intelligence, Civil and State
Administrative, Supervision, Development). Implementation of activities comprise:







Ensuring transparency and accountability of The Attorney Service case disposal byusage of information technology based case disposal system;
Strengthening of Network for Anti-Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism Community(Jaringan Masyarakat Anti KKN);Management of e-Procurement for goods and service and certification for Goods andService Procurement Expert;
Delivered Legal Information and Outreach, which one of the materials wasCountermeasures Against Corruption and Preventive Actions;
Conducted mapping for corruption high risk corporations to eradicate corruption crime
cases;
Conducted outreach to all The Attorney Service networking on prosecution acts against
multiple layered crime cases of conjoined crimes of corruption and money laundering.

The concrete steps taken by the Attorney General Office in performing the Attorney Service
duties and powers in law enforcement by the Special Task Force for Countermeasure Acts andDisposal of Corruption Cases (Satgassus P3TPK), as an effort to strengthen the presence of thestate in eradication of corruption. Corruption is one of the many challenges that must be
confronted. To rise against the challenge, the Attorney General Office has formed the Special
Task Force for Countermeasure Acts and Disposal of Corruption Cases (Satgassus P3TPK) inthe Attorney General Office to perform countermeasures for corruption cases.
The establishment of P3TPK has also become the triggering effort to eradicate corruptionthat occurs within all of the Attorney Service task forces throughout Indonesia. The achievementof the countermeasure acts in corruption cases that occurred within the Attorney Service
taskforces throughout Indonesia is summarized as below:- 63 -

Achievement of Corruption Prosecution
Period January – July 2017 13

N
O

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
13

PROSECUTION
By Cases Origin

RECOVEREDSTATE’SWEALTH(IDR)

ATTORNEY OFFICE

AG for Special
PoliceCrimesDepartement
Department

2
AG.FOR
SPECIAL
CRIMES
N.A.D (ACEH)NORTH SUMATERAWEST SUMATERA
RIAU
JAMBI
SOUTH SUMATERABENGKULULAMPUNG
DKI JAKARTA
WEST JAVACENTRAL JAVA
D.I. YOGYAKARTAEAST JAVA
BALI
NTB
NTT
WEST KALIMANTANCENTRAL KALIMANTANSOUTH KALIMANTANEAST KALIMANTANNORTH SULAWESICENTRAL SULAWESISOUTH EAST SULAWESISOUTH SULAWESIMALUKU
PAPUA

3
44

4
16

5
192,711,823,105.00

18
46
4
23
22
27
8
15
33
26
22
17
82
9
8
22
16
28
8
21
9
17
39
59
16
55

9
29
14
23
16
5
12
21
25
26
28
4
57
5
12
14
5
15
8
14
12
12
10
49
6
29

6,629,105,846.00
150,000,000.00
321,195,535.00
27,958,827,795.32
1,286,558,522.00
2,051,763,174.00
2,740,323,354.00
2,441,227,332.35
3,743,314,500.00
1,802,870,296.90
7,203,653,558.47
851,593,200.00
87,366,341,726.00
6,414,647,572.00
647,555,475.07
1,977,253,942.00
6,094,063,940.42
6,577,913,475.03
18,042,219,383.93
7,938,829,525.00
4,289,133,561.00
0.00
2,190,859,700.00
53,059,383,608.00
670,080,000.00
2,298,308,122.00

Based on Directorate of Prosecution, Junior Attorney of Special Crimes Office data.

- 64 -

28 BANTEN
29 BANGKA BELITUNG
30 GORONTALO
31 NORTH MALUKU
32 KEP. RIAUAMOUNT

9
10
4
9
6
732

6
4
2
4
4
496

3,601,581,473.20
2,717,056,923.00
0.00
17,626,803,257.00
3,056,904,166.00
474,461,192,068.69

Countermeasures still have strategic value to regain public trust in institutional performanceof the Attorney Service. From the aspect of implementation, the Attorney Service has attempted
to carry out ‘at cost system’ in providing budget to operate the acts of countermeasures against
corruption. The Attorney Service set the conditions of existence of qualitative improvement in
the handling of corruption crime cases, from the phase of investigation, examination, prosecution
and execution, so as to make the eradication of corruption not merely about the increased
numbers of cases disposed but also about the observation of the quality of case management.
Eradication of corruption is not only to enable penalization of the perpetrators but also to enable
the recovery of loss to the state’s wealth. Wealth and assets of the perpetrators will be
confiscated for evidence to be deliberated in the charge for restitution. Reformative steps of
bestowing full power to each Head of Provincial Attorney Service and Head of District Attorney
Service as leaders at the regional level for controlling the handling of corruption case crimes
were expected to enable smooth and faster handling of corruption crime cases devoid of the needto endure lengthy bureaucratic lines without abandoning local wisdom by putting conscience
forward and delivering proper reports of the implementation to the superior level.
III.

CONCLUSION

Law enforcement needs to be supported by an adequate regulatory framework to ensure that
law enforcement can fulfill the public’s need for justice and that suspected criminals ofcorruption are not fleeing, until corrupted state assets are safe. Supervision of the institutions,
officials, and the elements of law enforcement related professions, also needs to be reinforced
through public participation. Public participation, either as complainant or witness, is still notsupported by legal protection that should be duly received. Complaint mechanisms for thecommunity are not well established, as well as transparency of settlement of corruption cases.
These factors increasingly worsen existing conditions. In view of such conditions, the corrective
measures with strategies that can address these issues are urgently needed in order to optimize
law enforcement. Therefore, in addition to the efforts in corruption prevention, it is reasonable
that law enforcement be placed as the second pillar of the Nastra-CPE. Objective Completion ofcorruption cases consistently and in accordance to the applicable laws to restore public trust in
just and transparent law enforcement.
This law enforcement process starts from the process of submitting a complaint, to preinvestigation, investigation, prosecution until execution of verdict. The success of this strategy ismeasured through the achievements of the Corruption Law Enforcement Index, which covers
five sub-indicators as follows:- 65 -

a) Percentage of the settlement of corruption complaints, accounted from thenumber of corruption complaints raised to the pre-investigation stage
compared with the total number of complaints received by law enforcement
officers;b) Percentage of the settlement of corruption pre-investigations, accounted
from the number of corruption pre-investigations raised to the investigation
stage compared with the total number of corruption cases under preinvestigation;c) Percentage of the settlement of investigations, accounted from the numberof corruption investigations raised to the prosecution stage compared withthe total number of corruption cases under investigation;d) Conviction Rate, accounted from the number of guilty verdicts on
corruption cases compared with handover of corruption case dossier to thecourt;e) Percentage of the settlement of execution of verdicts, accounted from thenumber of verdicts in execution (body) compared with the total number oflegally binding corruption case verdicts. In its implementation, this strategy
requires good support and coordination from the concerned law
enforcement agencies, including the Police, the Attorney’s Office, the KPK
and the Supreme Court. 14
Aligned with the 2012-2025 Long-Term National Strategy for the Prevention and
Eradication of Corruption and the 2012-2014 mid-term stated in Presidential Order No. 55/2012,
the Attorney General Office has been implementing preventive and countermeasure activities toeradicate corruption. Preventive Measures in Eradication of Corruption Crime Cases throughout
2015, preventive measures to eradicate corruption within the Attorney General Office have been
done through the coordination with all divisions (Special Crime, General Crime, Intelligence,
Civil and State Administrative, Supervision, Development). Implementation of activities
comprised:







Ensuring transparency and accountability of the Attorney Service case disposal by usageof the information-technology-based case disposal system;
Strengthening of the Network for Anti-Corruption, Collusion and Nepotism Community(Jaringan Masyarakat Anti KKN);Management of e-Procurement for goods and service and certification for Goods andService Procurement Expert;
Delivered Legal Information and Outreach, which one of the materials wasCountermeasures Against Corruption and Preventive Actions;
Conducted mapping for corruption at high-risk corporations to eradicate corruption
crime cases;
Conducted outreach to all the Attorney Service networking on prosecution acts against
multiple layered crime cases of conjoined crimes of corruption and money laundering.

14

Government of Indonesia – Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012 Annex National Strategy on Corruption
Prevention and Eradication 2012-2014 and 2012-2025, provided by UNODC Indonesia.

- 66 -

REFERENCES
Attorney General RI, Annual Report 2017.
Dinoroy Marganda Aritonang The Model of Public Official Dismissal to Eradicate Corruption inIndonesia. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/.
Goverment of Indonesia – Presidential Decree No 55 Year 2012 Annex National Strategy on
Corruption Prevention and Eradication 2012-2014 and 2012-2025 English Translation
provided by UNODC Indonesia.
Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, Rencana Strategis(Renstra) Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia
Tahun 2015-2019.
Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, Laporan Tahun 2015.
Kejaksaan Republik Indonesia, Laporan Tahun 2016.
Supeno, Hadi. 2009. Korupsi di Daerah: Kesaksian, Pengalaman, dan Pengakuan. Yogyakarta:
Total Media.
Thontowi, Jawahir. 2011. The Prospect of Corruption Eradication: A Comparative Study
Between KPK and Other Law Enforcers. Yogyakarta: Universitas Islam Indonesia.
World Bank East Asia Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Unit Combating
Corruption in Indonesia Enhancing Accountability for Development, October 20, 2003.
World Wide Web Foundation and Transparency International, Open Data And The Fight Against
Corruption In Indonesia http://webfoundation.org/docs/2017/04/2017.

- 67 -