8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 1/16
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 2/16
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.
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 3/16
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
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF
Profile of Respondents/Prof i l responden
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 4/16
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.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF
Main Findings/Temuan Utama
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 5/16
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
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 6/16
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
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 7/167
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
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 8/168
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
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 9/169
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
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 10/1610
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
Increase Stayed the same Decrease
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.
…Main Findings/Temuan Utama
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 11/16
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 12/16
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.
…Main Findings/Temuan Utama
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 13/16
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)
…Main Findings/Temuan Utama
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 14/16
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
Increase Stayed the same Decrease
• 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
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 15/16
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
8/12/2019 Ringkasan IPK 2005
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ringkasan-ipk-2005 16/16
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).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/RINGKASAN EKSEKUTIF
Analysis/Anal isa