80924980 Index of Corruption 2004

7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004

1/16

CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX

[SURVEY AMONG BUSINESS PEOPLE IN 21 REGIONS OF INDONESIA]

SummarySummary

Prepared By :Prepared By :

MARKETING RESEARCH INDONESIAMARKETING RESEARCH INDONESIA

JlJl.. TebetTebet RayaRaya No 11 CNo 11 C--DD

Jakarta 12810Jakarta 12810

JlJl.. TulodongTulodong BawahBawah C2,C2,

Jakarta 12190, IndonesiaJakarta 12190, Indonesia

Prepared ForPrepared For::


2/16


3/16

33

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 9Manager 24 16 13 12 6 28 14 27 33 49 36

Padang T. Datar Solok Palemban Batam PekanbaruBanjarmas 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 2

General 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 40

Semarang 56 Batam 53

Surabaya 128 Pekanbaru 42

Respondents Profile/Profil Responden

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/

RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIFRINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF

Profile of Respondents/Profile of Respondents/ProfilProfilrespondenresponden


4/16

44

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) and

Courts, 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 has

some 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 analisa

berdasarkan 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 tidaksemua pengusaha yang diwawancara melakukan usaha

dengan 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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIFRINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF

Main Findings/Main Findings/TemuanTemuan UtamaUtama


5/16

55

In terms of direct interactions, the institutions that have the

highest 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 obtained based on the pre-codeanswer weighted to a range between Rp. 375 thousands

to Rp. 150 millions. Based on these, Customs get the highest payoff

amounted 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 terbanyak

melakukan 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 mengakuipernah dimintai suap untuk layanan yang diberikan, dan jugamenawarkan suap. Jumlah perkiraan pembayaran pertransaksi diperoleh berdasarkan jawaban pilihan tertutup

yang lalu dibobot ke dalam 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 hanya

oleh 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)



6/16


7/16

77

Table 2Table 2

Bribe Payers IndexBribe Payers Index[0=very bad/[0=very bad/burukburuk 10= very good/10= very good/sangatsangatbaikbaik]]

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

Pembayar suap adalah mereka yang menyuap karena diminta dan mereka yang menawarkan suap.

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 1,139,580.43Courts, 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 1,097,642.26Roads 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


8/16

88

Table 3Table 3

Corruption Perception IndexCorruption Perception Index[0=corrupt/[0=corrupt/korupkorup 10=clean/10=clean/bersihbersih]]

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 dihitung berdasarkan skor rata-rata dari persepsi pembayar suap terhadap penilaian untuk kontrak pemerintah,

dan rata-rata kinerja pelayanan

Jumlah responden untuk penilaian kinerja pelayanan berbeda-beda di tiap institusi tergantung jumlah interaksi korup.

Di beberapa kota, jumlah respondennya sedikit.

Urutan kota disortir 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 menyuap828 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


9/16

99

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

%Postal

services(

n=288)

Telephone

services(n=639)

Publichea

lthserv,hospit

als(n=287)

Water(n=2

67)BPOM(n=

150)Elect

ricpower(

n=595)

Education

services,

schools(n

=188)

WorldBank

financedp

roject(n=3

4)

State-own

edcompan

ies(n=228)

Otheraidd

onorfinan

cedprojec

t(n=32)

Taxservic

es(n=1095

)

Workplace

regulation

(n=473)D

PRD(n=88

)

Centralgo

vernmentm

inistries(n

=141)Busin

esslicens

es(n=936)

Roadsdep

artment,pu

blicworks

(n=128)Courts,judiciary(

n=120)

Politica

lparties(n

=86)

Armedforc

es,military

(n=110)Pol

ice(n=420)Cus

toms(n=2

20)

8185

87

88

90

90

91

91

92

92

92

9393

9394

9696

97

97

100

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

DPRD

Education

services,school

sCo

urts,judi

ciaryWorkplac

eregulati

on

Otheraid

donorfin

ancedpro

jectElectric

power

Armedfo

rces,mil

itaryTax

services

CustomsTele

phoneser

vices

Water

Centralg

overnme

ntminist

riesState

-ownedco

mpaniesPo

liticalpar

tiesBusiness

licenses

BPOM

Roadsde

partment,

publicworks

Police

Publichealth

services

,hospital

sPostalse

rvices

WorldBa

nkfinanc

edprojec

t

The corrupt interactions are obtained from the

respondents responses on the number of

interactions where there are requests of bribe andthe 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 over90% 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 inirutin, 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


10/16

1010

1330

3637383940414142424445

4646484950535759

6952

55565254

404847

55474645

4244

4746

313829

34

1317

97

105

101211

38109

1110

66

117

3

0 20 40 60 80 100Postals

ervices

BPOM

Armedfo

rces,mil

itaryPolitical

parties

Roadsde

partment,

publicw

orksElectricp

ower

Otheraid

donorfin

ancedpro

jectTele

phoneser

vices

Business

licenses

Publich

ealthserv

ices,hos

pitals

Workplac

eregulati

onWate

rTaxservices

State-ownedco

mpanies

PoliceC

ustoms

Education

services

,schools

DPRD

Centralg

overnme

ntminist

ries

WorldBa

nkfinanc

edprojec

tCou

rts,judic

iary

Increase Stayed the same Decrease

1420252629

36363738414242

4244444445454748

56

5740

5670

614847

5153494745

4944

40474343

484431

206

410

1615

126101012

99

117

1010

55

6

0 20 40 60 80 100Projects

financed

byWorld

Bank

Projectsb

yotherai

ddonorPost

alservice

sBPO

M

Publiche

althserv

ices,hos

pitals

Roadsde

partment,

publicwo

rksArm

edforces

,militaryPo

liticalpar

tiesElectricp

owerWate

rBus

inesslice

nsesWor

kplacere

gulation

Education

services,sch

ools

State-ow

nedcom

panies

Centralg

overnme

ntminist

riesTaxse

rvicesC

ustoms

Police

Telephon

eservice

sCourts,ju

diciary

DPRD


Chart 3: Perception on Number of Corrupt Official in

Past 3 years (%)

Base: All have contact and were asked to bribe ineach institution

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

years (%)

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

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 the

same, 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.



11/16

1111

In addition to the core of developing indexes, this

survey asks the perception of the respondents onother issues related to corruption such as

negative effects and causes of corruption, opinion

on the local leadership commitment and

proposed solution to eliminate corruption, and

suggestions for action.

The majority realize that corruption has many

negative effects on Indonesias reputation

abroad. Over three in four also consider the manynegative effect to the culture, value in society and

political life. In addition, the business environment

is also affected. The negative effects of corruption

to personal and family life are seen least severe.

Respondents are split at about equally in size

about giving gifts after service, each with their

reasons. Those disagreeing have the opinion that

the practice will corrupt the system, illegal and

encouraging the official to expect incentives. To

some this is illegal and to others this will create

unfair service to those who do not pay. On the

other hand, the majority who agree think that it is

one way of expressing gratitude.

Selain tujuan utama untuk membuat indeks, surveiini juga menanyakan persepsi dari respondenmengenai hal-hal lain yang berkenaan dengankorupsi seperti dampak negatif dan penyebabkorupsi, pendapat mengenai kepemimpinan lokaldan solusi yang ditawarkan dalam memberantaskorupsi, dan juga usulan mengenai tindakan yangharus diambil.

Mayoritas responden percaya bahwa korupsimemberikan banyak dampak negatif terhadap

reputasi Indonesia di luar negeri. Lebih dari 3 dari 4responden menganggap korupsi berdampakbanyak terhadap nilai, budaya di masyarakat dankehidupan politik. Lagipula, iklim usaha jugaterpengaruh. Untuk kehidupan pribadi dankeluarga memang korupsi dianggap tidak begituberdampak negatif.

Responden terbagi hampir sama mengenai

pendapat memberi hadiah setelah mendapat

layanan. Mereka yang tidak setuju hal ini

berpendapat bahwa praktek seperti ini akan

merusak sistem, ini ilegal dan mendorong petugas

mengharapkan insentif. Bagi sebagian hal ini

tidaklah resmi dan bagi yang lain ini menciptkan

ketidak adilan terutama terhadap mereka yang tidak

bisa membayar. Sebaliknya, sebagian besar dari

yang setuju menganggap bahwa pemberian ini

hanyalah bentuk terima kasih.



12/16

1212

Wonosobo shows strongest commitment of the

leadership to anti corruption. However, there is agap 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 athird consider that 50% increase is the right

increase.

Around three in four among those, who consider

salary as the cause of corruption, 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 most effective 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 dankenyataan. 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 penyebab

korupsi adalah gaji yang rendah. Sepertiganya

(37%) mengusulkan kenaikan dua kali lipat, tapi

sepertiga menganggap kenaikan 50% sudahcukup. Prioritas pertama untuk kenaikan ini

adalah bidang Pendidikan.

Sekitar 3 dari 4 dari yang setuju, gaji sebagai

penyebab korupsi, 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.



13/16

1313

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 as

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

Therefore, the first institution that need to be cleaned is the

Courts, Judiciary. The top ten list is attached.

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

Hukuman yang diberikan harus tidak bias jender dan tidakmendiskriminasi, tidak mengecualikan yang kaya danberkuasa.

Mayoritas setuju bahwa pemimpin negara ini harus fokuspada 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 (AntiCorruption

First choice Second choice Third choice

2

3

4

5

7

9

10

11

17

23

Roads d epartment, 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)



14/16

1414Ref: 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

1518

2019

23

2426

2222

2025

1830

2527

2914

20

4442

5550

5054

51

5148

5457

70

5956

6452

5054

5557

66

3535

3131

292825

252523

2220

2019

1818

1717

1614

14

0 20 40 60 80 100Centr

algovernm

entministr

iesState

-ownedco

mpanies

Armedfor

ces,milita

ryCustomsWorkplaceregulatio

nPoliticalp

artiesCourts,

judiciary

Taxservic

esBusinessli

censes

Police

BPOM

Projectsfi

nancedby

otherdon

orsElect

ricpowerPo

stalservic

esW

ater

Education

services

DPRDTelephone

services

Publichea

lthservice

s,hospita

ls

Projectsfi

nancedby

WorldBan

kRoad

sdep.,pub

licworks


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 numberof 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 tahunmendatang. Bahkan sebagian kecil

memperkirakan 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.



15/16

1515

42,066

64,545

74,268

153,414

219,290230,445

264,772

292,754

362,660

488,947

765,479

1,071,735

1,097,642

1,139,580

1,557,850

1,784,483

2,153,992

5,185,0345,792,002

12,669,590

22,914,213

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

alservice

s(n=22)Wa

ter(n=57)

Education

services

(n=44)

Publichea

lthservice

s(n=39)

Electricpo

wer(n=15

6)BPOM(n=34)

Telephoneservices

(n=131)

Projectsfinanced

byWorld

Bank(n=1

1)Politi

calparties

(n=43)

Projectsfi

nancedby

Otherdon

ors(n=12)

Roadsdep

.,publicwo

rks(n=55)

Workplace

regulation

(n=190)

Businessl

icenses(n=433)

State-ownedcomp

anies(n=6

5)Cour

ts,judicia

ry(61)

Armedfor

ces,milita

ry(n=59)DP

RD(n=33)Po

lice(n=28

8)

Centralgo

vernmentm

inistries(n

=56)Taxservices(n=38

2)Cu

stoms(n=

140)

Chart 8.APPROXIMATE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BRIBE (Rp. 000)

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


16/16

Documents

80924980 Index of Corruption 2004