Patterns and Causes of Corruption Among Government Officials in Indonesia

Adabi: Journal of Public Administration and Business: Volume 1, Number 1, July 2018/1439 74
Patterns and Causes of Corruption

Among Government Officials in Indonesia
Risnaldi Ibrahim
Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Provinsi Sumatera Barat, Indonesia
& Alumni Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Mohammad Agus Yusoff

Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Malaysia
Huma Magridoni Koling

Faculty of Social Sciences
Universitas Negeri Padang, Indonesia
Email Corresponding: risnaldiibrahim@gmail.com
Received: 2 June 2018 Revised: 28 June 02018 Approved: 4 July 2018
Abstract
Acts of corruption in Indonesia today are like an illegitimate inheritance without

wills, corruption remains sustainable even though regulations and laws have been
made for its prevention by each period of leadership, but all of them have not been
tested and run well, because in general none government institutions and agencies
that are not infected with corruption. The article aims to reveal what are the
patterns and causes of corruption by government officials in Indonesia. The
methodology used in writing this article is content analysis, one approach to
writing scientific work in qualitative research. All data comes from the results of
the authors' reading of various theories, expert opinions and the results of previous
research related to the issues discussed. all data collected, reduced, analyzed,
presented and closed with conclusions. Based on the results of the analysis, the
authors conclude that, there are six patterns of corruption committed by officials,
namely, conventional patterns, giving tribute and commissions, fictitious financial
receipts, abuse of authority and collusion of partner companies. Furthermore, there
are five factors caused corruption, namely greedy behavior of individuals,
government organizations, weak legal system, weak supervision and low practice of
religion.
Keywords: Acts, corruption, officials, government

Risnaldi Ibrahim, Mohammad Agus Yusoff and Huma Magridoni Koling 75
Abstrak
Perbuatan korupsi di Indonesia saat ini ibarat warisan haram tanpa surat wasiat,
korupsi tetap lestari sekalipun telah dibuat peraturan dan undang-undang untuk
pencegahannya oleh setiap periode kepemimpinan yang datang silih berganti,
namun semua itu belum teruji dan berjalan dengan baik, karena secara umum
tidak satupun lembaga dan instansi pemerintah yang tidak terjangkit penyakit
korupsi. Penulisan artikel bertujuan untuk mengungkap apa sesungguhnya pola
dan faktor-faktor penyebab perbuatan korupsi oleh pejabat pemerintah di
Indonesia. Metodologi yang digunakan dalam penulisan arikel ini adalah analisis
isi (content analysis), salah satu pendekatan menulis karya ilmiah dalam
penelitian kualitatif. Seluruh data bersumber dari hasil bacaan penulis terhadap
berbagai teori, pendapat pakar dan hasil penelitian terdahulu terkait dengan isu
yang dibahas. Seluruh data kemudian dihimpun, direduksi, dianalisis, disajikan
serta ditutup dengan kesimpulan. Berdasarkan hasil analisis penulis berkesimpulan
bahwa, terdapat enam pola perbuatan korupsi yang dilakukan pejabat yaitu, pola
konvensional, pemberian upeti dan komisi, kwitansi keuangan fiktif,
penyalahgunaan wewenang dan kolusi perusahaan rekanan. Selanjutnya terdapat
lima faktor penyebab korupsi yaitu perilaku tamak individu, organisasi
pemerintahan, lemahnya system perundang-undangan, lemahnya pengawasan dan
rendahnya pengamalan agama.
Kata kunci: Perbuatan, korupsi, pejabat, pemerintah
A. Introduction
In general, corruption comes from the Latin: corruptio from the verb
corrumpere which means rotten, damaged, shaking, twisting, bribing (Alemann,
2004). According to Rafles et.al (2018) at present corruption acts as if it has
become a social disease. In general, acts of corruption are acts of public officials,
both politicians and civil servants, as well as other parties involved in these
actions which improperly and illegally abuse public trust authorized to them to
obtain unilateral benefits. Whereas according to Lopa (2001) the term corruption
can also be interpreted as an act of dishonesty or fraud committed because of a
gift. While Klitgaard (1998) defines corruption as power without the rule of law.
Corruption in Indonesia today has become a social disease or in

bureaucracy known as social pathology. Corruption acts are basically very
dangerous and threaten all aspects of life in society, nation and state (Bentzen,
Adabi: Journal of Public Administration and Business: Volume 1, Number 1, July 2018/1439
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
76 Risnaldi Ibrahim, Mohammad Agus Yusoff and Huma Magridoni Koling
2012). One of the causes of corruption is the low quality of human resources
(Rafles et.al 2018). The low quality of human resources is not only in terms of
science or intellectual but also relates to the moral and character aspects of a
person because if someone has a fragile and low moral character, he can do
actions that harm others easily (Murniyetti et .al 2016). With the fragility of
character and morals, it will have an impact on honesty that can cause someone
to commit corruption.
According to Graeff & Mehlkop (2003) acts of corruption not only affect the
life of the nation and state but also will hurt the 'sense of justice' of the
community. In addition, budget irregularities that occur due to acts of corruption
have reduced the quality of state services to the community (Koyuncu & Yilmaz,
2009). At the macro level, deviations of public funds into private pockets have
reduced the ability of the state to provide benefits for the community, such as
education, environmental protection, research and development. At the micro
level, corruption has increased the uncertainty of good service from the
government to the community (Seligson, 2002).
According to the Indonesian Financial and Development Supervisory

Agency (BPKP-RI, 1999), there are several impacts of corruption which can harm
the life of the nation, namely;
i. The collapse of national character, morals, integrity and religiosity.

ii. The decline of the country's economy.
iii. Corruption contributes to the death of the communities work ethic.
iv. The occurrence of exploitation of natural resources by a handful of
people.
v. Has a social impact on the decline of human capital.
Santoso (2011) states that acts of corruption always have negative

consequences on the process of democratization and development because
corruption has delegated and reduced public confidence in the political process
through money-politics. Corruption has also distorted decision making on public
policy, lack of public accountability and denied the rule of law. On the other
hand, corruption causes various development projects and public facilities to be
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
of low quality and not in accordance with the appropriate needs, thus hampering
sustainable long-term development.
According to the author, apart from the theories and opinions of several
experts above, the impact of corruption acts on the seizure and depletion of state
finances carried out collectively by State officials, such as official corruption at
legislative institutions under the pretext of comparative studies, severance pay
and so forth fairness. Such forms of deprivation and financial depletion occur in
almost all regions of the country.
Some of the methods taken to achieve the objective of taking the State's
money above are a reflection of the low morality and shame of State officials so
that what stands out is greed and poor empathy for the people. The problem now
is, can corruption be eradicated? There is no other answer if this country wants to
become a developed country, corruption must be eradicated to the grassroots. If
this country does not succeed in eradicating corruption, or at least reducing it to
the lowest point, then don't expect this country to be able to catch up with other
countries to become a developed country. Because corruption brings a broad
negative impact and brings the country to the brink of destruction.
B. Literature Review
Corruption among government officials are the biggest problems facing the
Indonesian nation today. Based on data released by several anti-corruption
survey institutions, for example, Transparency International in 2008 where
Indonesia was ranked 126 out of 180 countries surveyed with a score of
Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of 2.6. While other neighbouring countries
such as the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar are below Indonesia, with
a score of 2.3; 2.0; 1.8 (Galtung, 2006).
Data from several countries above are highly different compared to CPI
scores from Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, each of which has a GPA score of
9.2; 5,1 and 3,5. Another survey shows the ranking of corruption in Indonesia is
carried out by PERC (Political & Economic Risk Consultancy) through the annual
graft ranking and the World Economic Forum through the Growth
Competitiveness Index (GCI). In the 2006 PERC survey, Indonesia got a score of
8.6 which decreased when viewed from the 2005 score (9.10) and the 2004 score
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
(9.25). However, this figure remains above other ASEAN countries, where for
2006 Singapore got a score of 1.30; Malaysia 6.13; Thailand 7.64; Philippines 7.80;
and Vietnam 7.91 (Zachrie, 2009; Hadi, 2016).
Meanwhile, in the GCI Index in 2008 Indonesia received a score of 4.25 and
has a rating of 55. This rating has decreased compared to the previous year (2007)
although the score has increased where Indonesia ranked 54 with a score of 4.24.
This statistical data also remains much smaller than Singapore, Malaysia and
Thailand which scored in 2008 each of 5.53; 5,04 and 4,60 (Sudjana, 2008). From
the data above it can be understood that Indonesia is one of the most corrupt
countries in the world. According to Tuanakotta (2009) from several national and
international survey institutions always put Indonesia in the highest order of the
most corrupt countries in the world. This result is not much different every year,
so many parties argue that corruption in Indonesia is still regarded as endemic,
systemic and widespread.
Referring to a number of corruption cases in Indonesia, corruption cases

handled by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) are mostly (77%) cases
of corruption which are related to the procurement of goods and services (Butt,
2011). This means that in many cases corruption in Indonesia is bureaucratic
corruption in the civil administration. This corruption occurs in all levels of
government, not only in the capital state but also in the regions. In fact, since the
enactment of regional autonomy based on Law Number 22 of 1999 concerning
Regional Government in 2001, there has been a sharp increase in the tendency of
corruption in the Regional Government (Thoha, 2008).
In line with the regional autonomy policy in Indonesia, there are several
changes in the relationship between the executive and the legislature. First, the
executive and the council have full autonomy to make local policies. Second, the
board members have full autonomy and have great opportunities in the
legislative process. The authority of the council in making policies is not limited
to only choosing the regional head, but also has the authority to make laws,
supervision, investigation, and together with the executive to compile the APBD
that had never been done before (Jati, 2012).
Another implication of the regional autonomy policy is the transfer of funds

from the centre coupled with the implementation of budgeting reforms and
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
regional financial accounting system reforms. Budgeting reforms that occur are
the emergence of a new paradigm in budget preparation that emphasizes the
principles of public accountability, community participation, and budget
transparency. In addition, the budget must be managed with a performance
approach, the principle of efficient and effective, justice and prosperity and in
accordance with budget discipline (Pazri, 2016).
However, the euphoria of regional autonomy turned out to bring a lot of

negative impacts. According to Ratnawati (2006), one of the most prominent is
the emergence of "institutional crime". Both the executive and the legislature
often make regulations that are not in accordance with the logic of public policy.
If institutional crime is practised collectively between the executive and the
legislature. Legislatures that should oversee the executive's performance actually
play and commit corruption together in a "legal" manner. "Legal" because it is
legitimized by a decision. In other words, acts of corruption among public
officials in Indonesia are truly very systemic, even corruption that has occurred
has turned into a state vampire. Because almost all infra and supra-political
structures and constitutional systems have been exposed to corruption. The
agenda for eradicating corruption until this moment is only used as a political
commodity for the political elite, more on the destruction of characters
(character assassination) for elites who are indicated by corruption than in fair
and fair legal processes. Law enforcement for corruptors also became a wind,
even though the acts of corruption committed by corruptors were highly
detrimental.
According to Kurniawan (2011) corruption at the level of regional

government is from the aspect of revenue, extortion of bribes, providing
protection, theft of public goods for personal gain. While the type of corruption
committed by government officials is political corruption, such as fraudulent
behaviour (money politics) in legislative elections or executive officials, illegal
funds for campaign finance, settlement of parliamentary conflicts through illegal
means and deviant lobbying techniques. The last type of corruption is clientelism
(subscription relationship pattern).
From several observations and readings, it was found that the form of acts
of corruption committed by officials at the legislative level was a corruption of
the Regional Expenditure Budget (APBD) for the financial costs of the Regional
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
House of Representatives (DPRD) that occurred recently and was rampantly

reported in various media. APBD corruption acts mostly violate PP 110/2000 even
though it has now been replaced by PP 24/2004 concerning the DPRD's financial
position. The case in Kampar District, for example, a number of 45 DPRD
members were made suspects for budgeting severance pay. In Padang City, West
Sumatra 43 members of the DRPD have been sentenced for harming 10.4 billion
state funds. Likewise, the DPRD of Bali has embezzled 112 million of Tirtayatra
money (prayers in India). A series of cases of APBD irregularities also occur in
East Java such as 2.7 billion in the City of Surabaya DPRD, Sidoarjo DPRD 20.3
billion, Tulungagung DPRD 1.6 billion, Nganjuk DPRD 5.3 billion, Banyuwangi
DPRD 225 million, Blitar 1 DPRD 5 billion and many more
Other cases include regional budget corruption in the Greater Malang area,
the remaining 2.1 billion rupiah budget and 1.7 billion rupiahs worth of severance
pay until now there has been no legal certainty, while the money has already
entered the pockets of respectable councillors. If we look closely at the deviations
of PP 110/2000 for DPRD financial posts that are corrupted in the average APBD it
can be in the form of family allowances and rice, honorariums, meeting fees,
official travel costs, house maintenance costs, housing allowance costs, other
smooth running costs. assignments, fraction member support costs, fraction
activities costs, activity costs, legislation committees, costs of supporting social
activities, assistance for increasing human resources costs, assistance for
coordination of regional leaders, assistance in communication costs, and post-
employment costs (Saputra, 2012; Badjuri, 2011 ). The discussion in this article will
at least provide a general description of how the pattern of corruption is done
and what factors cause the occurrence of corruption by government officials in
Indonesia.
C. Methods
This article was written using a content analysis approach, the methodology
approach used was one of the ways to write scientific work in qualitative research
according to Chua (2006) and Sugiyono (2014). All data comes from the results of
the authors' reading of various theories, expert opinions and the results of
previous research related to the issues discussed. All data is then collected,
reduced, analyzed, presented and concluded with conclusions. The results of the
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
author's conclusions are then displayed in the form of images to be understood

and understood by readers (Braun & Clarke, 2014 & Engkizar et.al, 2018).
D. Result and Discussions
In this discussion, the author will reveal the discussion based on two main
objectives of writing this article. First, what is the pattern of corruption that is
often carried out by government officials in Indonesia? Second, what are the
factors that cause corruption? These two discussions will be discussed by the
author with various theories, expert opinions and the results of previous research.
a) Pattern of Corruption
After the authors collected literature and various data sources from
theories, expert opinions and the results of previous studies, the authors
concluded that there were six patterns of corruption that were often carried out
in the bureaucracy and by government officials in Indonesia. The six patterns are
conventional patterns, giving tribute, giving commissions, fictitious financial
receipts, abuse of authority and collusion of partner companies. These six
patterns can be seen in Figure 1.1 as follows.
Figure: 1.1: Pattern of Corruption in Indonesia
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
According to Abidin & Siswandi (2015) among the patterns of corruption is

through abuse of authority, giving tribute and commissions, fictitious financial
receipts and collusion against partner companies in various projects and
activities. Abuse of authority carried out by officials who have special authority
by issuing certain policies, for example through the decision of the Mayor /
Regent or in the form of regional regulations/ mayor/regent decrees which
usually make them able to cooperate with friends/groups (despotism) and with
their families (nepotism).
Therefore the use of authority or power by state officials against society is

not without conditions. Society cannot be treated arbitrarily as an object.
Decisions and/or actions of officials against citizens must be in accordance with
the provisions of the legislation. Supervision of decisions and/or actions is a test
of the treatment of the people involved who have been treated in accordance
with the law and pay attention to the principles of legal protection that can be
effectively carried out by State institutions (Santoso, Meyriswati & Alfian, 2014).
Another form of corruption is the giving of tribute and commissions. This

method is one of the patterns most often carried out by officials against partners
outside the government or partners in government structures. This pattern is a
criminal act that involves a number of gifts to someone with the intention that
the recipient of the gift changes the behaviour in such a way that it is contrary to
their duties and responsibilities. Something that is given as a bribe does not have
to be in the form of money, but can be in the form of valuables, references,
privileges, benefits or promises that can be used to persuade or influence a
person's actions, voice, or influence in a public office (Baswir, 2002; Rianto &
Meuko, 2009).
According to Semma (2008) acts of corruption with the pattern of giving

tribute and commissions can be understood as a form of giving money or
receiving money done by anyone, whether an individual or legal entity. Giving
tribute and commissions can be in the form of money, goods, discounts, interest-
free loans, airline tickets, holidays, medical expenses, and other facilities.
Next, the collusion pattern of partner companies, this action occurs usually
in the process of procurement of goods and services that aims to present all the
logistics needed by the agency or company. This usually applies to procurement
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
committees in the government, there are ongoing government projects. The

perpetrators can be a contractor, project supervisors who commit fraud in
procurement or services that cause harm to others or State finances (Abdurofiq,
2016).
If you are a project leader or decision-making official, it will be too obvious

when you have a company that can capture orders from your own office. If you
work in a publishing office then you have a printing company to accommodate
orders from the office, of course, friends will be noisy because it is too flashy.
That is why many officials give capital to the niece, the cousin, in-laws, wife,
children, and other close relatives to make partner companies.
The last pattern is through the procurement of fictitious receipts, this

pattern is actually better known by the public with the term 'manipulation'.
Something small is usually made bigger and big things are made small. But
because this pattern relies more on receipts in order to deal with inspectorate,
audit, and tax officers, it tends to be referred to as a fictitious receipt pattern. The
services or activities that are purchased/organized are in fact different with proof
of receipt, or none at all. Cases like this can be said to be generally carried out by
government offices, the private sector, as well as State-Owned Enterprises
(BUMN) (Syamsudin, 2007).
b) Factors causing Corruption
Furthermore, in the part of the factors causing the occurrence of corruption

in the officials within the Indonesian government. After the authors collected
literature and various sources of data from theories, expert opinions and the
results of previous studies, the authors concluded that there were five factors
causing corruption among government officials in Indonesia. The five factors
referred to are individual greedy behaviour patterns, government organizations,
weak legal systems, weak supervision and low religious practices. These five
factors can be seen in Figure 1.2 as follows.
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
Figure: 1.2: Factors causing Officials Corruption
The first is the factor of individual greed behaviour, when viewed from the
aspect of the emergence of corruption, the act of corruption can be an impulse
that comes from within a person, such as desire, intention, or awareness to do.
Referring to Maslow & Iman's (1993) need theory. corruption should only be done
by people to meet the two lowest needs and the straight logic is only carried out
by the mediocre community who survive, but now corruption is done by rich
people, higher education. Other individual greed factors are also driven by greed,
morals that are less strong in the face of temptation, income that does not meet
the needs of a reasonable life, urgent life needs, a consumptive lifestyle, lazy or
unwilling to work hard (Suparman, 2014; Hartanto & Adlhiyati, 2017; Damri et.al
2017).
The second is the factor of governmental organizations, organizations, in

this case, are organizations in the broadest sense, including the system of
community environmental organization. Organizations that are victims of
corruption or where corruption occurs usually contribute to corruption because
it opens up opportunities or opportunities for corruption. When the organization
does not open the slightest opportunity for someone to commit corruption,
corruption will not occur. Aspects of the occurrence of corruption from the
perspective of this organization include the lack of example from the leadership,
the absence of the right organizational culture, the system of accountability in
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
government agencies is inadequate, and management tends to cover corruption

within the organization. In addition, there is a lack of exemplary leadership,
improper organizational culture, an inadequate accountability system,
weaknesses in the management control system, management tends to cover up
acts of corruption that occur within the organization as well as among the causes
of corruption in the organizational aspects.
The third is the weakness of the Legislation system, the factors that cause
corruption are also due to weaknesses in the legislation, such as the existence of
monolistic legislation that only benefits relatives, the quality of legislation is
inadequate, the rules are less socialized, mild sanctions, application of
inconsistent and indiscriminate sanctions, weaknesses in the field of evaluation
and revision of laws and regulations. Some strategic ideas to overcome this
weakness have been formed by the government, among others by encouraging
legislators to evaluate the effectiveness of a law in a planned manner since the
law was made.
t can be
seen that legislative or executive institutions in their corrupt practices do not
always stand alone, but through a conspiracy with entrepreneurs or with other
interest groups. For example, in the case of determining the construction tender,
the entrepreneur first implements his power shares through the process of
financing the employer in the election of an official to occupy a position. Then
the colony will jointly make a corrupt policy that only benefits a small part of the
community, namely its own colleagues, family and groups. With the ability of
lobbying interest groups and entrepreneurs to public officials in the form of
bribes, gifts, grants and various forms of gifts that have corrupt motives have
succeeded in bringing entrepreneurs to launch their business activities that are
contrary to the will of society, so that the community only enjoys the remnants of
the bourgeois economy or capitalistic investors.
The fourth is the weakness of supervision, supervision by related agencies

such as BPKP, Irjen, Bawasda is less effective due to several factors, including
overlapping supervision of various agencies, lack of professionalism of
supervisors, lack of coordination between supervisors, lack of compliance with
legal ethics and government. Some of the weaknesses above are often supervisors
involved in corrupt practices. Furthermore, external oversight by the community
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
and the media is also weak, thereby adding to a row of bad images of financial
supervision laden with corruption. In addition, in Indonesia, which is a
patrimonial bureaucracy and a hegemonic state, this has caused a weak
supervision function, so that a culture of corruption has spread.
The fifth is a factor of low experience of religious teachings, Islamic

education is an integral part of Indonesian education certainly has an important
role in developing the value of anti-corruption. In 2007, a result of research
conducted by Transparency International stated that, less relevance of the
relationship between religion and the prevalence of corrupt practices. Research
carried out in 185 countries with a very diverse religious background, Indonesia
and a number of Middle Eastern countries included in the countries that are
dietary. The results of the research show that in a society with a high level of
religious belief, the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) is also high (Beets, 2007).
The results of this research seem to want to say that the noble normative values
that are conceived and taught by a religion appear to have no major influence on
the behaviour of its people, especially in the case of corruption behaviour.
Even in the results of the research, there is a conclusion that countries

whose people do not consider religion as important have a low CPI, but on the
contrary, the Muslim community which always prioritizes religion as an
important part of life has a high CPI. According to the author, it needs to be
underlined so as not to misunderstand that the results of this research do not say
that religious teachings do not teach people to avoid corruption, on the contrary,
every religion must remind its people to be honest and not master the rights of
others.
However, apart from understanding that there are many other factors
besides religious factors that play a role in influencing a person's attitude to
commit acts of corruption, such as the quality of democracy and the weaknesses
of law enforcement. However, the results actually destroyed the expectations of
religious communities such as Indonesia who always believed that the system of
spiritual values taught by religion could be a control of the potential for
corruption behaviour.
Basically, a State official who represents the community as the holder of

government power is obtained through the political process, namely through the
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
Election or the Regional Head Election. An official who holds the highest position
in the central or regional government must be a role model for the officials below
him in providing services to the community. Officials are not kings who lead the
people, but "servants" for the people.
The reality in Indonesia is that in undergoing the political process to

become a regional official such as the Regent and legislative Member is an
expensive process, while the salary after being elected and in office will not be
possible to return the costs incurred to finance the process (campaign). However,
the position is not a way to get back the "capital" that has been issued, especially
getting a profit. An elected official because of his position, authority and
opportunities in his position, has the potential to be misused for his own
personal, family or group interests. So that in carrying out its authority, signs are
needed so that the government continues to run both for the benefit of the
community, nation and state.
A clean government is a government that is relatively clean from the

practices of corruption, collusion and nepotism. According to the author in an
effort to establish a clean government, four conditions are needed. First, there is
a balance of power in a democratic political system so that checks and balances
are created in public decision making. This balance is not only between the forces
in power with the opposition, but also the balance between officials in power
with society. The imbalance between the ruling officials and the community will
encourage the abuse of power, manipulation, poor public services and the
oppression of community groups whose interests are at odds. Second, the
existence of state and social institutions that function to supervise systematically
and independently, systemic supervision is carried out by synergizing with
government institutions (eg BPK, BPKP, Ombudsman Institutions) and
community institutions. Third, the existence of legal institutions that are
independent and impartial in carrying out judicial violations of law committed by
the public and officials. Legal institutions (police, prosecutor's office, KPK, and
courts) are the place to solve problems in society. Fourth, quality human
resources as the mandate of government tasks. Quality human resources are one
of the most important factors in realizing good governance.
Communities as users of services provided by a government official must

have sufficient knowledge about what their rights are as citizens. Knowledge and
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
awareness of the legal community are also important so that the community itself
also obeys the procedures in obtaining services from the government. On the
other hand, this knowledge is needed so that the community can also become
supervisors and assess the performance of the government in power, and
advocate for themselves if they get improper treatment from officials. Bad
assessments of the public against officials give a bad image to the next political
process so that the community does not choose leaders or political parties that
have a bad track record during their rule.
However, Indonesians tend to be "forgiving" and "forgetful" individuals

about the past mistakes of their leaders. Officials or prospective officials who
have a bad track record are still selected at the time of the next period of regional
head elections as if erasing past bad experiences. So expect the community to
choose leaders who have good reputation cannot be fully expected. Political
education is needed for the community until there is an awareness of the
importance of choosing a leader with a good reputation and track record. The
point is that one good governance program is the eradication of corruption,
collusion and nepotism.
E. Conclusions
The eradication of corruption by government officials in Indonesia cannot

be carried out only by prosecuting the perpetrator to the trial, but it is necessary
to prevent the corruption. One of the main actors who have the potential to
commit corruption, collusion and nepotism are government officials. So that it
makes a reference to work in carrying out its authority so as to avoid corruption.
In addition, it is also necessary to monitor the performance of officials so as to
prevent acts of abuse of authority that lead to acts of corruption. Supervision by
the community together with government agencies is an effective way to prevent
corruption. In addition, the culture of honesty must be part of the education
curriculum that is immediately implemented.
References
Abdurofiq, A. (2016). Politik Hukum Ratifikasi Konvensi PBB Anti Korupsi di

Indonesia. Jurnal Cita Hukum, 4(2).
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
Abidin, Z., & Siswandi, A. G. P. (2015). Psikologi Korupsi Memahami Aspek-aspek

Psikologis Pelaku Korupsi, Pola-pola Perilaku Korupsi, dan Pola-pola
Penanganan Korupsi di Indonesia. Bandung; unpad open repository.
Baswir, R. (2002). Dinamika korupsi di Indonesia dalam perspektif struktural.
Jurnal Universitas Paramadina, 2(1), 25-34.
Badjuri, A. (2011). Peranan Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi (KPK) Sebagai
Lembaga Anti Korupsi Di Indonesia. Jurnal Bisnis dan Ekonomi, 18(1).
Bentzen, J. S. (2012). How bad is corruption? Cross country evidence of the
impact of corruption on economic prosperity. review of development
economics, 16(1), 167-184.
BPKP, (1999). Strategi Pemberantasan Korupsi Nasional, Pusat Pendidikan dan
Pengawasan BPKP, Jakarta: BPKP.
Braun, V., Clarke, V., & Terry, G. (2014). Thematic analysis. Qual Res Clin Health
Psychol, 24, 95-114.
Butt, S. (2011). Anti-corruption reform in Indonesia: an obituary?. Bulletin of
Indonesian Economic Studies, 47(3), 381-394.
Damri, Engkizar dan Anwar, F. (2017). Hubungan Self-Efficacy dan Prokrastinasi
Akademik Mahasiswa Dalam Menyelesaikan Tugas Perkuliahan, Jurnal
Edukasi Bimbingan Konseling, 3(1): 74-95.
Douglas Beets, S. (2007). Global corruption and religion: an empirical
examination. Journal of Global Ethics, 3(1), 69-85.
Engkizar, E., Alfurqan, A., Murniyetti, M., & Muliati, I. (2018). Behavior and
Factors Causing Plagiarism Among Undergraduate Students in
Accomplishing The Coursework on Religion Education Subject. Khalifa
Journal of Islamic Education, 1(1), 98-112.
Galtung, F. (2006). Measuring the immeasurable: boundaries and functions of
(macro) corruption indices. Measuring corruption, 101.
Graeff, P., & Mehlkop, G. (2003). The impact of economic freedom on corruption:
different patterns for rich and poor countries. European Journal of Political
Economy, 19(3), 605-620.
Hadi, K. (2016). Korupsi Birokrasi Pelayanan Publik di Era Otonomi Daerah.
Jurnal Penelitian Politik, 7(1), 20.
Hartanto, H., & Adlhiyati, Z. (2017). Pencegahan Korupsi Dengan Menerapkan
Asas-Asas Umum Penyelenggaraan Pemerintahan yang Baik Dalam
Pemerintahan. disampaikan dalam seminar nasional fakultas hukum
universitas muhammadiyah surakarta.
Ibnu Santoso, (2011). Memburu Tikus-Tikus Otonom, Yogyakarta: Penerbit Gava
Media.
Jati, W. R. (2012). Inkonsistensi paradigma otonomi daerah di Indonesia: Dilema
sentralisasi atau desentralisasi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 9(4), 743-770.
Klitgaard, R. (1998). Membasmi Korupsi. Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
Koyuncu, C., & Yilmaz, R. (2009). The impact of corruption on deforestation: a

cross-country evidence. The Journal of Developing Areas, 213-222.
Kurniawan, T. (2011). Peranan Akuntabilitas Publik dan Partisipasi Masyarakat
dalam Pemberantasan Korupsi di Pemerintahan. Bisnis & Birokrasi Journal,
16(2).
Lopa, B. (2001). Kejahatan korupsi dan penegakan hukum. Penerbit Buku Kompas.
Maslow, A. H., & Iman, N. (1993). Motivasi dan kepribadian: teori motivasi dengan
pendekatan hierarki kebutuhan manusia. Pustaka Binaman Pressindo.
Murniyetti, Engkizar, & Anwar, F. (2016). Pola Pelaksanaan Pendidikan Karakter
Terhadap Siswa Sekolah Dasar. Jurnal Pendidikan Karakter, 6.(2):157-166.
Pazri, M. (2016). Implementasi Prinsip Good Governance Dalam Sistem
Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah di Indonesia. Badamai Law Journal, 1(2), 259-
280.
Rianto, B. S., & Meuko, N. E. (2009). Koruptor go to hell!: mengupas anatomi
korupsi di Indonesia. Hikmah.
Rafles, H., Fadhlan, F., & Asmar, A. (2018). A Strategy of Human Resources Pass
Through the Education and Training. Adabi: Journal of Public
Administration and Business, 1(1), 16-31.
Ratnawati, T. (2006). Potret pemerintahan lokal di Indonesia di masa perubahan:
otonomi daerah tahun 2000-2005. Pustaka Pelajar [bekerjasama dengan]
P2P-LIPI.
Rafles, H., Fadhlan, F., & Darmawati, D. (2018). Bureaucratic Pathology in
Government Administration: An analysis. Jurnal Teori dan Riset
Administrasi Publik, 1(2), 110-119.
Seligson, M. A. (2002). The impact of corruption on regime legitimacy: A
comparative study of four Latin American countries. The Journal of Politics,
64(2), 408-433.
Sudjana, E. (2008). Republik tanpa KPK: koruptor harus mati. JP Books.
Suparman, E. (2014). Artikel Kehormatan: Judicial Corruption dan KKN karena
Rusaknya Integritas Moral Hakim serta Aparatur Sipil Negara.
Santoso, L., Meyriswati, D., & Alfian, I. N. (2014). Korupsi dan mentalitas: kendala
kultural dalam pemberantasan korupsi di Indonesia. Masyarakat,
Kebudayaan dan Politik, 27(4), 173-183.
Saputra, B. (2012). Dampak Desentralisasi Fiskal Terhadap Korupsi Di Indonesia 1
the Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Corruption in Indonesia. Jurnal
Borneo Administrator, 8(3).
Semma, M. (2008). Negara dan korupsi: pemikiran Mochtar Lubis atas negara,
manusia Indonesia, dan perilaku politik. Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
Syamsudin, M. (2007). Korupsi dalam Perspektif Budaya Hukum. UNISIA, 30(64).
Tuanakotta, T. M. (2009). Menghitung kerugian keuangan negara dalam tindak
pidana korupsi. Penerbit Salemba.
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
Thoha, M. (2008). Birokrasi Pemerintah Indonesia di Era Reformasi. Kencana.

Von Alemann, U. (2004). The unknown depths of political theory: The case for a
multidimensional concept of corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change,
42(1), 25-34.
Zachrie, R. (2009). Korupsi mengorupsi Indonesia: sebab, akibat, dan prospek
pemberantasan. PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama.
P-ISSN : 2541-6596 ; E-ISSN : 2622-5751
View publication stats

Patterns and Causes of Corruption Among Government Officials in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Patterns and Causes of Corruption Among Government Officials in Indonesia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adabi: Journal of Public Administration and Business: Volume 1, Number 1, July 2018/1439 74

Patterns and Causes of Corruption

Mohammad Agus Yusoff

Huma Magridoni Koling

Email Corresponding: risnaldiibrahim@gmail.com

Received: 2 June 2018 Revised: 28 June 02018 Approved: 4 July 2018

Acts of corruption in Indonesia today are like an illegitimate inheritance without

Keywords: Acts, corruption, officials, government

Kata kunci: Perbuatan, korupsi, pejabat, pemerintah

Corruption in Indonesia today has become a social disease or in

According to the Indonesian Financial and Development Supervisory

i. The collapse of national character, morals, integrity and religiosity.

Santoso (2011) states that acts of corruption always have negative

Referring to a number of corruption cases in Indonesia, corruption cases

Another implication of the regional autonomy policy is the transfer of funds

However, the euphoria of regional autonomy turned out to bring a lot of

According to Kurniawan (2011) corruption at the level of regional

House of Representatives (DPRD) that occurred recently and was rampantly

author's conclusions are then displayed in the form of images to be understood

D. Result and Discussions

Figure: 1.1: Pattern of Corruption in Indonesia

According to Abidin & Siswandi (2015) among the patterns of corruption is

Therefore the use of authority or power by state officials against society is

Another form of corruption is the giving of tribute and commissions. This

According to Semma (2008) acts of corruption with the pattern of giving

committees in the government, there are ongoing government projects. The

If you are a project leader or decision-making official, it will be too obvious

The last pattern is through the procurement of fictitious receipts, this

b) Factors causing Corruption

Furthermore, in the part of the factors causing the occurrence of corruption

Figure: 1.2: Factors causing Officials Corruption

The second is the factor of governmental organizations, organizations, in

government agencies is inadequate, and management tends to cover corruption

The fourth is the weakness of supervision, supervision by related agencies

The fifth is a factor of low experience of religious teachings, Islamic

Even in the results of the research, there is a conclusion that countries

Basically, a State official who represents the community as the holder of

The reality in Indonesia is that in undergoing the political process to

A clean government is a government that is relatively clean from the

Communities as users of services provided by a government official must

However, Indonesians tend to be "forgiving" and "forgetful" individuals

The eradication of corruption by government officials in Indonesia cannot

Abdurofiq, A. (2016). Politik Hukum Ratifikasi Konvensi PBB Anti Korupsi di

Abidin, Z., & Siswandi, A. G. P. (2015). Psikologi Korupsi Memahami Aspek-aspek

Koyuncu, C., & Yilmaz, R. (2009). The impact of corruption on deforestation: a

Thoha, M. (2008). Birokrasi Pemerintah Indonesia di Era Reformasi. Kencana.

View publication stats

You might also like