Confess and Redress Commission To Combat Corruption

 Confess And Redress Commission To Combat Corruption

M. Bakri Musa

 

Towards the end of his forty-minute address to Indonesian students at Al Azhar University in Cairo last November 2024, President Prabowo announced a major policy initiative:  Amnesty to the corrupt in return for their giving up their loot. The students cheered!

 

Back home the reception was far different. The intellectuals and academics mercilessly ridiculed him and his idea, but Prabowo was unfazed. “Saya bisa di ejek!” (I am used to being mocked), he panned. They had mocked him earlier when he initiated the free school lunch program.

 

That President Prabowo could be ridiculed and he in turn accepting criticisms reveal the remarkable sea change in that republic. A generation ago when his father-in-law Suharto was in power, such criticisms would have been unthinkable, likewise the consequences. Consider the tragic fate of Pramoedya Ananta Toer. 

 

            Prabowo’s bold innovation is a tacit recognition of the magnitude of public corruption in Indonesia and past failures at tackling it. Properly executed, his amnesty program could dent this scourge. Corruption and influence peddling are not unique to the Third World. In America they just re-label them as lobbying, political contributions, and aggressive advocacy. Whatever terms you use, the corrosive effects remain. 

 

When faced with an entrenched problem and where the usual remedies have proven ineffective, it is time to consider other bold measures that may seem counter-intuitive.  

 

            During apartheid South Africa, egregious abuses of human rights were entrenched, pervasive, if not institutionalized. When Nelson Mandela was released from his decades-long imprisonment and later elected President of South Africa, he recognized this immense challenge. He was more into finding the extent of the abuses, their victims, and other hidden aspects of that abhorrent culture. His hope was that the ensuing exposure would shame citizens and prompt societal changes for the better, sunlight being the best disinfectant. 

 

His Truth And Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was less a “law and order” exercise, more of restorative justice, focusing on acknowledging the abuses and on healing rather than revenge or punishment. Mandela wanted his nation to know the extent of the abuses and hear from the victims as well as perpetrators by promising amnesty to the latter in return for their testimonies and confessions. 

 

A comparable Confess And Redress Commission (CRC) could just be the pathway to tackle corruption in Malaysia. Like Mandela’s TRC, CRC would be less to punish, more to find out the magnitude, pervasiveness, and infinite manifestations of this social scourge, as well as to gauge the magnitude of the monetary loss and opportunity costs. 

 

CRC would create a prisoner’s dilemma of sorts among bribers and bribees. Cooperate and confess, you could reduce or even eliminate potential punishment through amnesty. Remain quiet and you risk being exposed by the other party.

 

The amnesty period should be for a short duration, about six months, and only for acts within the past decade. Long amnesty period would encourage collusion. Restricting to corrupt acts within the past decade would circumvent possible statute of limitation strictures. 

 

The confession would be through sworn statements detailing their roles, money involved, relevant supporting documents, and other evidence. This submission would be made through legal counsel. No amateurish free lancing self-declaration or self-lawyering. 

 

The inducement for full cooperation would be total amnesty, together with the assurance that your self-confessed evidences could not later be used against you. 

 

As for the loot, you would have to pay 5 percent of the bribe amount at the time you submit your declaration. That would increase to 10 percent if paid within 30 days, and 25 percent beyond that to six months. No confessions would be accepted if the deposit were not paid within six months of declaration. 

 

Prabowo’s amnesty would have the corrupt return their loot. Minimal incentive there. 

 

If your evidence were later led to successful prosecution of the other party, then your deposit would be refunded. In addition, you would get a percentage of the loot recovered, comparable to America’s Whistleblowers Protection Act (WPA). That’s incentive enough! 

 

Malaysia too has its WPA but has minimal impact. There is no incentive (except for civic duty) and great risk of backfiring if for example you were to criticize the government. America’s WPA helped recover billions in Medicare and other abuses. 

 

Like America, Malaysia also has her Asset Declaration Act for public officials. It is complex and covers too many individuals. Limit that to only the top 100 (sultans, ministers, chief secretaries, and appellate judges) and make the declaration simple and public. Google President Biden’s asset declaration – simple and open. 

 

Back to Prabowo’s free school meals. That has now degenerated into another colossal wastage with tasteless foods being served. I wonder how much corruption was involved in awarding those catering contracts?

 

It is not enough to have a brilliant idea. You have to be prepared to modify as you go along if the implementations were to be less than what you had expected. Nothing is perfect at its inception.