ringkasan ipk 2005

8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 1/16



2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF

Introduction/Pendahuluan

Transparency International has introduced the BribePayers Index (BPI) along with the Corruption PerceptionIndex (CPI). The index that gives a broad picture aboutthe bribery and corruption situation in one particularcountry based on the perception of the business people.It is TI-Indonesia’s goal to conduct a survey and developthe indexes to measure the effectiveness of the anti-bribery programs it has set out with KADIN and otherorganizations.

The followings are the summary findings for the CPISurvey in 21 cities/regions of Indonesia conductedamong 1305 business people from the cities/regions.The sample comprises local and multinationalcompanies from the formal sector (all should havebusiness license).

The respondents were recruited by quota samplingmethod but the industry type and size is controlledbased on BPS data. The sample consists of 1117 localcompanies and 188 MNCs. The MNCs are spread

across the regions with the higher percentage in Jakarta.The local companies comprise of 864 small (with 1-19employees), 171 medium (20-99 employees) and 82large (100+ employees) businesses.

All interviews were conducted face-to-face using astructure questionnaire developed by TIRI and MRI, within-depth probing to get the qualitative responses.

Field work was conducted from 23 September to 12November 2005 for local companies and up to 14December for the MNCs.

This Summary shows the excerpts from the Report.

Transparency International telah membuat BPI (BribePayers Index, Indeks Pembayar Suap) bersama-samaCPI (Corruption Perception Index, Indeks PersepsiKorupsi). Indeks ini memberikan gambaran luasmengenai situasi korupsi dan penyuapan di suatunegara berdasarkan persepsi dari dunia usaha. Tujuandari TI Indonesia mengadakan survei adalah untukmembuat indeks untuk mengukur keefektifan dari program anti korupsi yang telah dicanangkan bersamaKADIN dan organisasi lainnya.

Penemuan berikut ini adalah hasil Survei IPK di 21wilayah/kota di Indonesia, yang dilaksanakan diantara1305 pebisnis di wilayah/kota tersebut. Sampel terdiridari bisnis lokal dan multinasional di sektor formal(semua memiliki ijin usaha).

Responden direkrut dengan metode kuota tetapi jenisdan ukuran usaha dikontrol berdasar data BPS. Sampelterdiri dari 1117 perusahaan lokal dan 188 MNC, yangtersebar di semua wilayah. Perusahaan lokal terdiri dari864 usaha kecil (dengan 1-19 pegawai), 171 usahamenengah (20-99 pegawai) dan 82 usaha besar (100+ pegawai).

Wawancara dilakukan secara tatap muka denganmemakai kuesioner terstruktur yang dibuat oleh TIRI danMRI, ditambah dengan probing secara mendalam untukmendapatkan respons secara kualitatif.

Pekerjaan lapangan dilakukan dari tanggal 23September – 12 November 2005 untuk perusahaan lokaldan sampai 14 Desember untuk MNC.

Ringkasan ini hanya memperlihatkan sebagian keciltemuan dari Laporan lengkapnya.



3

Total Jakarta Tangerang Bekasi Cilegon Yogyakart WonosoboSemarang Surabaya Denpasar Medan

Base: 1305 260 69 66 63 39 37 56 128 39 69

Owner/partner 59 60 84 79 78 46 84 61 50 33 44

Managing

Director/President

Director 4 8 1 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 7

Director 5 7 0 5 0 5 0 5 7 0 4

General Manager 9 6 1 5 16 18 3 5 9 18 9

Manager 24 16 13 12 6 28 14 27 33 49 36

Padang T. Datar Solok Palemban Batam Pekanbaru Banjarmas Balikpapa Kotabaru Makassar Manado

Base: 47 37 37 40 53 42 53 50 32 44 44

Owner/partner 72 76 92 75 28 60 47 38 50 36 48

Managing

Director/President

Director 4 3 0 3 8 2 2 8 0 2 9

Director 4 16 0 0 6 5 6 2 9 2 2General Manager 6 3 5 10 11 5 17 2 9 18 16

Manager 13 3 3 13 47 29 28 50 31 41 25

Jakarta 260 Denpasar 39 Banjarmasin 53

Tangerang 69 Medan 69 Balikpapan 50

Bekasi 66 Padang 47 Kotabaru 32

Cilegon 63 T. Datar 37 Makassar 44

Yogyakarta 39 Solok 37 Manado 44

Wonosobo 37 Palembang 40Semarang 56 Batam 53

Surabaya 128 Pekanbaru 42

Respondents’ Profile/Profi l Respo nden


Profile of Respondents/Prof i l responden



4

The Corruption Perception Index and Bribe PayersIndex are developed based on the responses of therespondents to a series of rating questions onService Performance, Job Situation, Perception onPublic Contract, and Interaction with the 21 PublicInstitutions listed. The index is on a 10-point scalewhere 0 means corrupt/bad and 10 meansclean/good.

In terms of public services, from the 21 institutionslisted, Postal Services is in the first (6.4) andCourts, Judiciary is the lowest in the rank (3.7).From the analysis based on those ever havecorrupt interactions, where the scores drop, serviceis perceived to be related with the corruption level.

Across regions, Makassar has good service forinstitutions under the local and central government,while Pakan Baru and Batam get the lowest score.(Table 1)

In terms of Public Contract, the perception hassome bias because not all do business with thegovernment, reluctance to admit, andmisperception on the scope of bribery. Acrossregions, Wonosobo gets the highest score of 6.8,while Medan and Jakarta are the notorious oneswith respectively 4.5 and 4.6.

Indeks Persepsi Korupsi dan Indeks Pembayar Suapdibuat berdasarkan jawaban responden terhadapserangkaian pertanyaan penilaian tentang KinerjaPelayanan, Situasi Lapangan Kerja, Persepsi KontrakPemerintah, dan Interaksi dengan 21 institusi Pemerintahyang ada di daftar.

Dalam hal pelayanan umum, dari 21 institusi terdaftar,Layanan Pos di ranking teratas (6,4) dan Pengadilan,Kejaksaan di tempat terendah (3,7). Dari analisaberdasarkan mereka yang pernah melakukan interaksikorup, maka Layanan dikaitkan dengan tingkat korupsi.

Berdasarkan wilayah, Makassar memiliki layanan yangbaik untuk lembaga di bawah pemda dan pusat,sedangkan Pakan Baru dan Batam dinilai terendah.(Tabel 1)

Dalam hal Kontrak Pemerintah, terjadi bias karena tidak

semua pengusaha yang diwawancara melakukan usahadengan pemerintah, keengganan mengaku, dan salahinterpretasi mengenai lingkup penyuapan. Dari seluruhwilayah, Wonosobo mendapat skor tertinggi dengan 6,8,sedangkan Medan dan Jakarta terburuk, masing-masingdengan 4,5 dan 4,6.


Main Findings/Temuan Utama



5

In terms of direct interactions, the institutions that have thehighest interactions are Tax Services (1095 respondents)and Business License (936). Only very few has projectswith World Bank and other Aid Donors. For corruptinteractions, the highest incidence is found in theCustoms. (Chart 3)

The corrupt interactions are obtained when respondentsadmit of being asked for payoff for the service rendered,

and in some cases offer kickback. The approximateamount per transaction is also obtained on a rangebetween Rp. 375 thousands to Rp. 150 millions.

Based on these, Customs get the highest payoffamounted to Rp. 23 billions for average 31 corruptinteractions among 140 respondents per year. Thesecond in the rank is Tax Services with around Rp.12.7billions for average 3 interactions among 382 respondentsin a year. (Table 2 & Chart 8)

The CPI is the average from the scores given only bythose involving in bribery to reduce the bias. AverageService Performance score is included to give a better

interpretation. In the rank, Jakarta is the most corrupt(score 3.87), whilst Wonosobo is the cleanest with 5.63.(Table 3)

Berdasarkan interaksi langsung, lembaga yang terbanyakmelakukan interaksi adalah Pelayanan Pajak (1095 resp.)dan Ijin Usaha (936). Hanya sedikit yang mempunyai proyekdengan World Bank atau Dana Bantuan lainnya. Sedangkan jumlah interaksi korupsi terbanyak terjadi di Bea dan Cukai.(Chart 3)

Interaksi Korupsi diperoleh ketika responden mengakui

pernah dimintai suap untuk layanan yang diberikan, dan jugamenawarkan suap. Jumlah kisaran per transaksi diperolehdalam rentang Rp. 375 ribu sampai Rp. 150 juta.

Berdasarkan hal ini, Bea dan Cukai memperoleh suaptertinggi yang mencapai Rp. 23 milyar untuk 31 interaksikorup dari 140 responden dalam 1 tahun. Urutan keduaditempati Pelayanan Pajak dengan sekitar Rp. 12,7 milyaruntuk rata-rata 3 interaksi dengan 382 responden per tahun.(Tabel 2 & Chart 8)

CPI didapat berdasarkan rata-rata skor yang diberikan hanyaoleh mereka yang terlibat dalam penyuapan untukmengurangi bias. Skor dari Kinerja Layanan jugadimasukkan untuk mendapatkan interpretasi yang lebih baik.Dalam urutan, Jakarta menempati tempat terendah (skor3.87) dan Wonosobo adalah yang terbersih dengan Indeks5.63. (Tabel 3)

…Main Findings/Temuan Utama



6

Table 1

Service Performance Index

[0=very bad/buruk – 10= very good/sangat baik ]

Note: Cities sorted by Total Average/Kota diso rt ir berd asarkan Rata-rata Total

Total PKBRBTM BLP JKT BKS MDN TGR SBY T.DT CLG KTBRDPS SMG SLK YOG PLB MND PDG WNSBBJM MKS

Total 1305 42 53 50 260 66 69 69 128 37 63 32 39 56 37 39 40 44 47 37 53 44

LOCAL (AVERAGE) 5.03 3.08 3.80 4.67 4.46 4.33 4.58 4.66 5.00 5.09 4.80 4.93 6.03 5.38 5.74 5.89 6.61 5.44 5.99 6.18 5.90 7.51

Public health services/

Pelayanan Kesehatan 5.54 3.33 4.21 5.33 4.88 5 4.59 5.34 6.09 5.09 5.19 4.9 6.67 5.72 6.04 6.41 8.08 5.46 6.17 6.76 6.54 8.18

Education/Pendidikan 5.45 3.49 3 .96 6.47 4.63 4.7 4.78 5.17 6 .46 4.87 4.87 5 6.1 6.01 6 .04 5.9 7.25 5.3 5 .67 6.31 6.54 8.18

Water/ Air minum 4.98 3.25 3.78 1.93 5.03 4.39 5.31 4.51 4.49 5 4.81 3.64 5.93 5.24 5.32 5.81 6.08 5.3 6.31 6.04 6.17 7.73

Workplace regulations /

Peraturan Kerja 4.82 3.02 3.77 4.53 4 3.68 4.44 4.01 4.71 5.68 4.71 5.84 6.06 5.24 5.14 5.73 6.5 5.46 6.1 6.04 5.66 7.27

Business licenses/ Ijin Usaha 4.79 2.86 3.71 5.67 4.29 4.44 4.3 4.54 3.72 5.41 4.55 5.21 6.02 4.76 6.22 5.73 5.83 5.83 5.53 6.04 5.41 6.52

Road departments /PU 4.62 2 .54 3.39 4.07 3.93 3.74 4.06 4 .36 4.54 4.5 4.66 5 5.4 5.3 5 .68 5.73 5.9 5.3 6.17 5.86 5.09 7.2

CENTRAL (AVERAGE) 4.82 3.20 3.87 4.38 4.40 4.36 4.55 4.24 4.51 4.80 4.76 5.30 5.21 4.99 5.54 5.30 5.82 5.83 5.71 5.71 5.55 6.95

Postal service/Pel. Pos 6.36 4.37 5.91 6.54 6.01 6.47 6.28 5.65 6.12 6.22 6.4 5.84 7.11 6.55 6.49 6.67 7.83 6.82 6.95 6.58 6.86 8.18

Telephone services /Telpon 5.9 4.28 5.41 6.6 5.75 5.96 6.04 5.22 4.71 6.22 5.93 5.84 6.58 5.72 6.04 5.56 7.33 6.29 7.09 6.76 6.61 7.5

BPOM 5.38 3.65 3.52 4.4 5.22 4.54 4.64 4.68 5.87 5.56 4.44 5 6.11 6.07 5.86 5.73 7.09 6.06 6.38 6.58 6.42 7.5

Armed forces/Militer 5.35 3.49 4.4 5.27 5.2 4.9 4.69 4.69 5.4 4.59 5.34 5.94 5.15 5.48 6.58 5.21 6.25 6.14 6.23 6.22 5.79 7.2

Electric power/Listrik 5.06 2.38 3.39 3.33 5.2 5.2 4.93 4.75 4.32 4.59 4.81 4.69 6.49 5.24 5.23 5.73 7 5.76 5.32 6.49 5.98 7.27

State owned companies/

BUMN 4.75 3.17 3.9 4.87 4.12 4.04 4.39 4.2 4.92 5.37 4.34 5.52 5.24 4.94 5.95 5.73 4 5.84 5.96 5.5 5.28 7.05

Central government/Kementrian Pem. Pusat 4.64 3.49 3.83 5 4.25 3.69 4.3 3.72 5.13 4.12 4.76 5.42 3.33 4.52 5.14 4.79 5.41 6.06 5.32 4.96 5.22 6.59

Tax services/ Pelayanan

Pajak 4.18 3.09 3.71 3.2 3.29 3.84 4.25 3.57 3.2 4.77 4.13 5.31 5.32 4.34 5.23 5.47 4.5 5.08 5.53 5.41 5.35 6.89

Customs /Bea & Cukai 3.93 2.78 3.02 3 3.38 3.18 3.72 3.23 3.46 3.92 4.02 5.31 2.89 4.58 4.68 4.53 3.42 6.06 4.54 5.59 4.91 6.59

Police /Polisi 3.79 2.06 2.58 3.13 3.18 3.28 3.72 3.58 3.12 3.51 4.39 4.9 5.49 3.51 4.68 4.44 5.5 5.23 4.32 4.5 4.46 5.61

Courts, Judiciary/

Pengadilan, Kejaksaan 3.67 2.46 2.89 2.86 2.85 2.88 3.14 3.33 3.38 3.98 3.81 4.58 3.59 3.93 5.05 4.44 5.67 4.77 5.18 4.23 4.21 6.06

LEGISLATIVE (AVERAGE) 3.97 2.54 3.27 3.17 3.38 3.77 3.695 3.99 4.1 3.74 4.18 4.12 3.155 4.17 4.19 4.44 3.64 5.04 4.93 4.77 5.32 5.87

DPRD 4.02 2.78 3.39 3.2 3.47 3.69 3.48 4.01 4.07 3.51 4.07 3.96 3.75 4.34 4.68 4.44 3.68 5.23 5.04 4.86 5.41 5.91

Political Parties/ Partai

Politik 3.92 2.3 3.14 3.13 3.29 3.84 3.91 3.97 4.12 3.96 4.28 4.27 2.56 3.99 3.69 4.44 3.6 4.85 4.82 4.68 5.22 5.83

TOTAL AVERAGE 4.61 2.94 3.65 4.07 4.08 4.15 4.28 4.29 4.54 4.54 4.58 4.78 4.80 4.84 5.15 5.21 5.35 5.44 5.54 5.55 5.59 6.78



Table 2

Bribe Payers Index

[0=very bad/buruk – 10= very good/sangat baik ]

Note: Bribe Payers are those who bribe because of request and offer bribe

Pembayar suap adalah m ereka yang m enyuap karena diminta dan m ereka yang m enawarkan su ap.

Total

Total

Number of

Bribe Payers

Average

Number of

corrupt

Interactions

Average

Amount per

corrupt

interaction

Total bribe paid

[a x b x c]

(n) (Times/year) (Rp. '000) (Rp. '000)

a b c

CENTRAL (TOTAL) 52,192,800.86

Customs 140 31 5,328.36 22,914,212.83

Tax services 382 3 11,903.98 12,669,590.31

Police 288 12 1,707.56 5,792,002.16 Central government ministries 56 8 11,008.15 5,185,034.40

State-owned companies 65 6 4,736.11 1,784,482.85

Armed forces, military 59 10 1,949.07 1,139,580.43

Courts, judiciary 61 2 8,023.71 1,071,735.12

Other aid donor financed project 12 2 22,662.50 488,947.34

Telephone services 131 1 2,898.11 362,660.39

World Bank financed project 11 1 23,597.22 292,753.77

Electric power 156 1 1,234.48 230,445.14

BPOM 34 1 5,431.45 219,289.88

Postal services 22 2 970.59 42,066.22

LOCAL (TOTAL) 3,713,198.11 Business licenses 433 1 2,667.16 1,557,849.96

Workplace regulation 190 3 2,037.22 1,097,642.26

Roads department, public works 55 4 3,250.00 765,478.71

Public health services, hospitals 39 3 1,423.39 153,413.83

Education services, schools 44 2 896.88 74,268.43

Water 57 1 1,490.39 64,544.93

LEGISLATIVE (TOTAL) 2,418,763.13

DPRD 33 6 10,173.08 2,153,991.61

Political parties 43 3 2,064.10 264,771.52

TOTAL 58,324,762.10



Table 3

Corruption Perception Index

[0=corrupt/korup – 10=clean/bersih ]

Note:

• CPI is calculated as the average scores of perception by the bribe payers on public contract and service performance

•The bases for service performance vary by institutions, depending on the corrupt interactions. In some cities the

bases are small.

• Cities are sorted by CPI scores

Catatan:

• CPI dihi tun g berdasarkan sko r rata-rata dari persepsi pem bayar suap terhadap peni laian untuk ko ntrak pemerintah,

dan rata-rata kinerja pelayanan

• Jumlah respond en un tuk p eni laian kiner ja pelayanan berbeda-beda di t iap inst i tus i tergantung jum lah interaksi ko rup.

Di beberapa kota, jumlah respo nden nya sediki t .

• Urutan kota disor t i r berdasarkan skor CPI

Total JKT SBY MDN SMG BTM PKBR DPS YOG TGR BLPP BKS PLB SLK PDGT.DT

RMND KTBR CLG MKS BJMS

WNS

B

Base: All ever bribe (requested& offer)/Semua yang menyuap 828 200 92 59 35 37 31 9 18 50 24 45 13 16 28 17 21 12 45 17 43 16

Bribery for Obtaining Public

Contract/Penyuapan untuk

mendapat kontrak pemerintah

5.33 4.35 5 .06 4.46 4.62 5.93 6 .24 5.18 5.37 5.82 5.42 5.87 6.15 5 .83 5.48 5.49 6.5 6 .67 5.76 6.08 6.75 7.5

Bribery for Payment of Public

Contract/Penyuapan untuk

mendapat bayaran atas kontrak

5.46 4.59 5 .35 4.83 5.05 5.93 6 .24 4.81 5 6.03 5.8 6.18 6.15 5 .63 5.6 5.63 6.67 4 .44 5.81 5.88 6.91 6.88

Service Given After Bribery/

Pelayanan setelah disuap4.57 4.22 4.32 4.34 4.17 5.28 5.7 5 4.26 4.93 5.14 5.41 3.33 4.17 4.28 5.48 5.26 4 4.85 4.31 3.75 5.78

Average Score/Skor rata-rata 5.12 4.39 4.91 4.54 4.61 5.71 6.06 5.00 4.88 5.59 5.45 5.82 5.21 5.21 5.12 5.53 6.14 5.04 5.47 5.42 5.80 6.72

Average Service Performance/

Kinerja Pelayanan rata-rata3.59 3.34 2.95 3.64 3.73 2.94 2.68 3.89 4.14 3.49 3.73 3.40 4.13 4.20 4.53 4.21 4.10 5.42 5.09 5.19 4.98 4.55

CPI / IPK 4.35 3.87 3.93 4.09 4.17 4.32 4.37 4.44 4.51 4.54 4.59 4.61 4.67 4.70 4.83 4.87 5.12 5.23 5.28 5.31 5.39 5.63



5%

9%

10%

14%

15%16%

16%

18%

23%

28%

29%

35%

35%

37%

39%

39%

48%

48%

49%

56%

62%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100

% P o s t a l s e r v

i c e s ( n = 2 8

8 )

T e l e p h o n e

s e r v i c e s (

n = 6 3 9 )

P u b l i c h e a

l t h s e r v, h o

s p i t a l s ( n =

2 8 7 ) W a t e r ( n = 2

6 7 ) B P O M ( n = 1

5 0 ) E l e c t

r i c p o w e r (

n = 5 9 5 )

E d u c a t i o n

s e r v i c e s, s c h o o l s

( n = 1 8 8 )

W o r l d B a n k f i n

a n c e d p r o

j e c t ( n = 3 4

)

S t a t e - o w n

e d c o m p a n

i e s ( n = 2 2 8

)

O t h e r a i d

d o n o r f i n a

n c e d p r o j e

c t ( n = 3 2 )

T a x s e r v i c

e s ( n = 1 0 9 5

)

W o r k p l a c e

r e g u l a t i o n

( n = 4 7 3 ) D P R D

( n = 8 8 )

C e n t r a l g o

v e r n m e n t m

i n i s t r i e s ( n

= 1 4 1 )

B u s i n e s s l i

c e n s e s ( n =

9 3 6 )

R o a d s d e p

a r t m e n t, p u

b l i c w o r k s

( n = 1 2 8 )

C o u r t s, j u

d i c i a r y ( n =

1 2 0 ) P o l i t i

c a l p a r t i e s

( n = 8 6 )

A r m e d f o r c

e s, m i l i t a r y

( n = 1 1 0 ) P o l i c

e ( n = 4 2 0 ) C u s t o

m s ( n = 2 2 0 )

81

85

87

88

90

90

91

91

92

92

92

93

93

93

94

96

96

9797

100

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

D P R D

E d u c a t i o n

s e r v i c e s, s c h o o l s C o u r

t s, j u d i c i a r

y W o r k p l

a c e r e g u l a t i o n

O t h e r a i d

d o n o r f i n a

n c e d p r o j e

c t E l e c t r i c p o

w e rA r m e d f o r c e s, m i l i t a r y

T a x s e r v i c

e s C u s t o

m s T e l e p h o n e

s e r v i c e s

W a t e r

C e n t r a l g o v

e r n m e n t m

i n i s t r i e s S t a t e

- o w n e d c o

m p a n i e s P o l i t i

c a l p a r t i e s B u s i n

e s s l i c e n s e

s B P O M

R o a d s d e p a

r t m e n t, p u b l i c

w o r k s

P o l i c e

P u b l i c h e a

l t h s e r v i c e s

, h o s p i t a l s

P o s t a l s e r v i c e

s

W o r l d B a n k f

i n a n c e d p r

o j e c t

The corrupt interactions are obtained from the

respondents’ responses on the number of

interactions where there are requests of bribe and

the bribe is given and accepted.

The incidence by institutions show that Customs

has the highest incidence of corrupt interactions(62%) among all institutions under surveyed.

(Chart 1)

Chart 2 shows the average percentage of

payment rate (from requested bribe) and

acceptance rate (from offered bribe). The over

90% payment rate and an over 90% acceptance

rate means that payments are regular, expected

and very low risk.

Interaksi korup diperoleh dari jawaban responden

mengenai jumlah interaksi dimana terjadi

permintaan suap dan akhirnya suapnya diterima.

Chart 1 menunjukkan bahwa Bea dan Cukai

mempunyai tingkat interaksi korupsi tertinggi

(62%) dari antara semua institusi yang disurvei.

Chart 2 menunjukkan prosentase rata-rata dari

tingkat yang dibayar (dari suap yang diminta) dan

tingkat penerimaan (dari suap yang ditawarkan).

Tingkat sekitar 90% dalam pembayaran dan

penerimaan suap berarti bahwa pembayaran ini

rutin, sudah diharapkan, dan berisiko rendah.

Chart 1: INCIDENCE OF CORRUPT INTERACTIONS (%)

Base: All has interactions in each institution

Chart 2: BRIBE ACCEPTANCE (%)

Base: All requested to bribe and all offer to bribe



1330

363738394041414242444546464849

50535759

6952

55565254

404847

554746454244

4746

313829

34

1317

97

105

1012

113

8109

1110

66

117

3

0 20 40 60 80 100 P o s t

a l s e r v i c e

s B P O MA r m e d f o r c e s, m

i l i t a r y

P o l i t i c a l

p a r t i e s

R o a d s

d e p a r t m e n t,

p u b l i c w o

r k s E l e c t r i c p

o w e r

O t h e r a i d

d o n o r f i n

a n c e d p r o j

e c t T e l e

p h o n e s e r

v i c e s

B u s i n e s

s l i c e n s e s

P u b l i c h

e a l t h s e r v

i c e s, h o s

p i t a l s

W o r k p l a c e

r e g u l a t i o

n W a t e r T a x

s e r v i c e s

S t a t e - o w

n e d c o m p a n i

e s P o l i c

e C u s t o m s

E d u c a t i o

n s e r v i c e s

, s c h o o l s

D P R D

C e n t r a l g o v e r n

m e n t m i n

i s t r i e s

W o r l d B a n

k f i n a n c e

d p r o j e c t C o u

r t s, j u d i c

i a r y

Increase Stayed the same Decrease

1420252629

3636373841424242444444

45454748

56

5740

5670

614847

51534947454944

4047

4343

484431

206

410

1615

126101012

99

11 7

1010

55

6

0 20 40 60 80 100 P r o j e

c t s f i n a n

c e d b y W o r l d B a n k

P r o j e c t s b y o t h

e r a i d d o n

o r P o s t a l s e

r v i c e s

B P O M

P u b l i c h e

a l t h s e r v

i c e s, h o s

p i t a l s

R o a d s d e p

a r t m e n t,

p u b l i c w o

r k sA r m

e d f o r c e s, m

i l i t a r y P o l i t

i c a l p a r t i e

s E l e c t r i c p

o w e r W a t e r

B u s i n e s s

l i c e n s e s

W o r k p l a c e

r e g u l a t i o

n

E d u c a t i o n

s e r v i c e s,

s c h o o l s

S t a t e - o w n

e d c o m p a n i

e s

C e n t r a l g

o v e r n m e

n t m i n i s t

r i e s T a x s e r v i c e s C u s t o

m s P o l i c

e T e l e

p h o n e s e r

v i c e s C o u r

t s, j u d i c i a

r y D P R

D


Chart 3: Perception on Number of Corrupt Official in

Past 3 years (%)

Base: All have contact and were asked to bribe in

each institution

Chart 4: Perception on Size of Bribe asked in Past 3

years (%)

Base: All have contact and were asked to bribe in each

institution

• Chart 3 and 4 show the perception about the number of corrupt officials and size of bribe in the past 3 years that

tend to increase in all institutions except the Postal services where two-in three consider that the condition is just thesame, however, the trend of the bribe tend to increase.

• Chart 3 dan 4 memperlihatkan persepsi mengenai jumlah pejabat yang korup dan besar suap dalam 3 tahun terakhir

cenderung meningkat, kecuali untuk Pelayanan Pos dimana 2 dari 3 menganggap bahwa kondisi tetap sama saja,tetapi untuk jumlah yang diminta memang cenderung meningkat.




12

Wonosobo shows strongest commitment of the

leadership to anti corruption. However, there is a

gap between the commitment and the actual

performance. Therefore it is important that the

commitment be communicated all the way down, so

that the business community can experience the

changes.

There are slightly over half who agree that the

salary is one of the cause of corruption actions.

One third (37%) suggest doubling the salary, but a

third consider that 50% increase is the right

increase.

Around three in four suggest Education Department

as the priority for the salary increase, whilst half

suggest Health Services (45%). One in three think

the Police needs to have salary increase. The mosteffective contribution to increase the salary of the

public servants, is improved efficiency and tax

collection, at the same time reducing the number of

PNS.

Wonosobo menunjukkan komitmen tertinggi untuk

korupsi. Tetapi ada jurang antara komitmen dan

kenyataan. Oleh sebab itu penting sekali

komitmennya di komunikasikan sampai ke tingkat

bawah, sehingga dunia usaha bisa mengalami

perubahan tersebut.

Ada sekitar separuh yang setuju bahwa penyebabkorupsi adalah gaji yang rendah. Sepertiganya

(37%) mengusulkan kenaikan dua kali lipat, tapi

sepertiga menganggap kenaikan 50% sudah

cukup. Prioritas pertama untuk kenaikan ini

adalah bidang Pendidikan.

Sekitar 3 dari 4 mengusulkan agar bidang

Pendidikan menjadi prioritas dalam kenaikan gaji,

sementara separuh (45%) mengusulkan bidang

Kesehatan. Sepertiganya menganggap Polisi

perlu mendapat kenaikan gaji. Yang paling efektif

sebagai sumber pendapatan untuk kenaikan gaji

adalah peningkatan efisiensi dan pengumpulan

pajak, pada saat bersamaan juga mengurangi

jumlah PNS.




13

Over half believe that law enforcement with the heaviestsentence for the culprits are important to eliminate corruptionin Indonesia. One in ten even suggest capital punishment forthe corruptors. Only a minority relate to salary increase asthe way out.

The punishment should not be gender bias anddiscriminating, exempting the rich and in power.

Most people seem to agree that the leaders of this countryneed to focus more on the law enforcement. Even though full

of skepticism, the majority choose KPK as the institutions tobe powered.

Therefore, the first institution that need to be cleaned is theCourts, Judiciary. The top ten list is attached.

Lebih dari separuh percaya bahwa penegakan hukumdengan hukuman seberat-beratnya untuk pelaku sangat penting untuk menghilangkan korupsi di Indonesia. Satu dari10 bahkan mengusulkan hukuman mati untuk koruptor.Hanya sedikit yang menganggap kenaikan gaji sebagai jalan

keluarnya. Hukuman yang diberikan harus tidak bias jender dan tidak

mendiskriminasi, tidak mengecualikan yang kaya danberkuasa.

Mayoritas setuju bahwa pemimpin negara ini harus fokus pada penegakan hukum. Walaupun banyak yang skeptis,mayoritas memilih KPK sebagai institusi yang harus diberikuasa lebih.

Oleh sebab itu, institusi pertama yang perlu dibersihkanadalah Pengadilan, Kejaksaan. Daftar 10 institusi utama

yang menjadi prioritas untuk dibersihkan dilampirkan disebelah.

1

3

4

7

14

17

24

30

1

3

5

9

21

24

19

19

3

5

8

11

17

21

15

20

None

Politicians

Senior

Religious

Police

Non-

governmental

Media

Business

Association

KPK (Anti

Corruption

First choice Second choice Third choice

2

3

4

5

7

9

10

11

17

23

Roads department, public works

Business licenses

Education services, schools

State-owned companies

Customs

Central government ministries

DPRD

Police

Tax services, tax payment and

refund

Courts, judiciary

Chart 5: INSTITUTIONS THAT MAY HELP TO AVOID

BRIBERY (%)

Base: All respondents (n=1305)

Chart 6: INSTITUTIONS TO BE CLEANED (%)

Base: All respondents (n=1305)




14Ref: QQ32

Chart 7.

EXPECTED NUMBER OF PEOPLE ASKING BRIBE IN NEXT 3 YEARS (%)

Base: All have contact with particular institution and were asked for a bribe

2022

151820

19232426

2222

2025

1830

2527

2914

20

44425550

50

54515148

5457

7059

5664

525054

5557

66

3535

313129

2825252523

2220

20191818

17 17

1614

14

0 20 40 60 80 100 C e n t

r a l g o v e r

n m e n t m

i n i s t r i e s

S t a t e - o w

n e d c o m

p a n i e s

A r m e d f o

r c e s, m i l

i t a r y C u s t

o m s W o r

k p l a c e r e

g u l a t i o n P o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s

C o u r t s,

j u d i c i a r y T a x

s e r v i c e s B u s

i n e s s l i c

e n s e s

P o l i c e

B P O M

P r o j e c t s f

i n a n c e d

b y o t h e r

d o n o r s E l e c

t r i c p o w e

r P o s t a l s e

r v i c e s

W a t e r

E d u c a t i o n

s e r v i c e s D P R

D T e l e

p h o n e s e r v i c e s

P u b l i c h e

a l t h s e r v i c e s,

h o s p i t a l s

P r o j e c t s f i n a n c e d

b y W o r l d

B a n k

R o a d s d

e p., p u b l

i c w o r k s


• Over half are skeptic about the change in the next

3 years (stayed the same). For some institutions,

a minority even predicts toward increasing

number (Public Health, Education, Telephone

Service, DPRD, and Road/Public Works).

• However, there are hope of decrease in number

of corrupt officials in Armed Forces, Central

government ministries, Customs, State-owned

companies, Political parties, and Workplace

regulation.

• Lebih dari separuh menyatakan skeptis terhadap perubahan yang akan terjadi di 3 tahun

mendatang. Bahkan sebagian kecilmemperkirakan bahwa untuk beberapa institusi,

diperkirakan malah akan meningkat (Kesehatan,

Pendidikan, Telpon, DPRD, dan PU).

• Akan tetapi, ada harapan penurunan jumlah dari

pejabat yang korup di Militer, Kementrian

Pemerintah Pusat, Bea dan Cukai, BUMN, Partai

politk, dan Depnaker.

…Main Findings/Temu an Utama



15

42,066

64,545

74,268

153,414

219,290

230,445264,772

292,754

362,660

488,947

765,479

1,071,735

1,097,642

1,139,5801,557,850

1,784,483

2,153,992

5,185,034

5,792,002

12,669,590

22,914,213

20,000 5,020,000 10,020,000 15,020,000 20,020,000 25,020,000

P o s t a l s

e r v i c e s ( n

= 2 2 ) W a t e r ( n = 5

7 )

E d u c a t i o n

s e r v i c e s

( n = 4 4 )

P u b l i c h e a

l t h s e r v i c e

s ( n = 3 9 )

E l e c t r i c p o

w e r ( n = 1 5

6 ) B P O M ( n = 3

4 )

T e l e p h o n e

s e r v i c e s (

n = 1 3 1 )

P r o j e c t s f i

n a n c e d b y

W o r l d B a n k ( n =

1 1 )

P o l i t i c a

l p a r t i e s ( n

= 4 3 )

P r o j e c t s f i n a n

c e d b y O t h

e r d o n o r s

( n = 1 2 )

R o a d s d e p

., p u b l i c w o

r k s ( n = 5 5 )

W o r k p l a c e

r e g u l a t i o n

( n = 1 9 0 )

B u s i n e s s l i

c e n s e s ( n

= 4 3 3 )

S t a t e - o w n

e d c o m p a n

i e s ( n = 6 5 ) C o u r

t s, j u d i c i a

r y ( 6 1 )A r m e

d f o r c e s, m i l i t a

r y ( n = 5 9 ) D P R D

( n = 3 3 ) P o l i c

e ( n = 2 8 8 )

C e n t r a l g o

v e r n m e n t m

i n i s t r i e s ( n

= 5 6 ) T a x s e r v i c

e s ( n = 3 8 2

) C u s t o m s

( n = 1 4 0 )

Chart 8.

APPROXIMATE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BRIBE (Rp. ‘000)

Base: All have contact with particular institution and were asked for a bribe



16

These findings represent the tip of the volcano.You take it as a given that respondents will notnecessarily tell you everything they know or haveexperienced about corruption in Indonesia. Whatrespondents have no incentive doing, is inflatingtheir bad experiences to an anonymousinterviewers. If anything, the problem is thereforeeven worse than it is presented in these findings.

There is an over 90% payment rate and an over90% acceptance rate, it means that payments areregular, expected and very low risk.

The figures on Bribe Payers Index are just basedon the respondents for this survey not the totalfigure for each institution. This figures areindicative of relative corruption levels in a strikingway.

As voiced by the respondents, it is important thatthe government focus on the law enforcement.With the certainty of the law, reform could be

faster. Through this survey TI hope that it will be possible

to galvanize public opinion and some leadershipfor necessary reform, e.g. in the courts, perhapseven to increase salaries in sectors likeeducation, and to target the incrediblecomplacency on the problem (no real reduction inthe problem at all in recent years and possibly areal increase).

Temuan dari survey ini mewakili puncak gunungberapi. Sudahlah jamak bahwa responden tidak maumemberikan segala sesuatu yang diketahui ataudialaminya tentang korupsi di Indonesia. Apa yangtidak mungkin dilakukan responden adalah,membesar-besarkan pengalaman buruknya kepada

pewawancara yang tidak dikenalnya. Bisa dikatakan,oleh karena itu, masalah yang sebenarnya jauh lebihburuk daripada yang ditampilkan dalam temuan ini.

Adanya lebih dari 90% yang membayar dan lebih dari90% yang menerima tawaran suap, menyatakanbahwa penyuapan adalah sesuatu yang rutin, yangdiharapkan dan risikonya rendah.

Angka yang ditunjukkan oleh Indeks Pembayar Suaphanyalah berdasarkan responden yang disurvei,bukan angka total untuk tiap institusi. Angka-angkaini merupakan indikasi dari tingkat korupsi secararelatif yang mengejutkan.

Seperti yang disuarakan oleh responden, penting

sekali bagi pemerintah untuk memfokuskan pada penegakan hukum. Dengan kepastian hukum, makareformasi akan berjalan lebih cepat.

Melalui survei ini TI berharap bahwa hal inimemungkinkan penggalangan opini umum dankepemimpinan negeri ini untuk melakukan reformasiyang diperlukan, misalnya di Pengadilan, danmungkin bahkan meningkatkan gaji di sektor sepertiPendidikan,dan menargetkan penuntasan masalahyang besar ini (dalam tahun-tahun belakangan ini

tidak tampak pengurangan berarti terhadap masalahini dan malah meningkat nyata).


Analysis/Anal isa

ringkasan ipk 2005

Documents