Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Rofiq Hidayat, Yanuar Pribadhie
Incidents relating to government procurement of goods and services continued to dominate the list of corruption cases in 2013. Of the 560 corruption cases last year, 114 were related to public procurement, with 314 people involved. The method of most of these cases was bribes to win a tender or public officials conspiring to make certain bidders win a tender.
Tama S. Langkun, Investigation Coordinator at Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), notes that the perpetrators vary widely between private parties, regents, governors, and heads of service offices.
Tama is concerned that public procurement related corruption cases under new modus operandi will increase following the 2014 general election.
“To tackle this issue, the Government should be more serious about revisiting the public procurement mechanism,” said Tama.
Tama’s view is supported by Agus Sunaryanto, Deputy Coordinator at ICW. He says that there should be an online-based mechanism to prevent corruption in public procurement.
Agus believes that an online mechanism would prevent physical meetings between bidders and public officials and also open the opportunity for bidders across the country to be involved.
“If the bidders only come from one region or involve the same person in every tender, we deserve to smell a rat,” argues Agus .
Agus also asserts his concern that law enforcers only catch low-level officials, while high-ranked officials remain immune.
For instance, Agus explained, lawmakers in the House of Representatives have budgeting authority. It is possible, Agus says, that in addition to government officials, politicians are also involved in public procurement corruption.
“Corruption in public procurement might not only occur in government institutions but also in the legislative body that has budgeting authority. I’m afraid they have the influence to determine which project should be won,” concludes Agus.
(hot/kc)
Incidents relating to government procurement of goods and services continued to dominate the list of corruption cases in 2013. Of the 560 corruption cases last year, 114 were related to public procurement, with 314 people involved. The method of most of these cases was bribes to win a tender or public officials conspiring to make certain bidders win a tender.
Tama S. Langkun, Investigation Coordinator at Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), notes that the perpetrators vary widely between private parties, regents, governors, and heads of service offices.
Tama is concerned that public procurement related corruption cases under new modus operandi will increase following the 2014 general election.
“To tackle this issue, the Government should be more serious about revisiting the public procurement mechanism,” said Tama.
Tama’s view is supported by Agus Sunaryanto, Deputy Coordinator at ICW. He says that there should be an online-based mechanism to prevent corruption in public procurement.
Agus believes that an online mechanism would prevent physical meetings between bidders and public officials and also open the opportunity for bidders across the country to be involved.
“If the bidders only come from one region or involve the same person in every tender, we deserve to smell a rat,” argues Agus .
Agus also asserts his concern that law enforcers only catch low-level officials, while high-ranked officials remain immune.
For instance, Agus explained, lawmakers in the House of Representatives have budgeting authority. It is possible, Agus says, that in addition to government officials, politicians are also involved in public procurement corruption.
“Corruption in public procurement might not only occur in government institutions but also in the legislative body that has budgeting authority. I’m afraid they have the influence to determine which project should be won,” concludes Agus.
(hot/kc)
Rofiq Hidayat, Yanuar Pribadhie
Incidents relating to government procurement of goods and services continued to dominate the list of corruption cases in 2013. Of the 560 corruption cases last year, 114 were related to public procurement, with 314 people involved. The method of most of these cases was bribes to win a tender or public officials conspiring to make certain bidders win a tender.
Tama S. Langkun, Investigation Coordinator at Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), notes that the perpetrators vary widely between private parties, regents, governors, and heads of service offices.
Tama is concerned that public procurement related corruption cases under new modus operandi will increase following the 2014 general election.
“To tackle this issue, the Government should be more serious about revisiting the public procurement mechanism,” said Tama.
Tama’s view is supported by Agus Sunaryanto, Deputy Coordinator at ICW. He says that there should be an online-based mechanism to prevent corruption in public procurement.
Agus believes that an online mechanism would prevent physical meetings between bidders and public officials and also open the opportunity for bidders across the country to be involved.
“If the bidders only come from one region or involve the same person in every tender, we deserve to smell a rat,” argues Agus .
Agus also asserts his concern that law enforcers only catch low-level officials, while high-ranked officials remain immune.
For instance, Agus explained, lawmakers in the House of Representatives have budgeting authority. It is possible, Agus says, that in addition to government officials, politicians are also involved in public procurement corruption.
“Corruption in public procurement might not only occur in government institutions but also in the legislative body that has budgeting authority. I’m afraid they have the influence to determine which project should be won,” concludes Agus.
(hot/kc)
Incidents relating to government procurement of goods and services continued to dominate the list of corruption cases in 2013. Of the 560 corruption cases last year, 114 were related to public procurement, with 314 people involved. The method of most of these cases was bribes to win a tender or public officials conspiring to make certain bidders win a tender.
Tama S. Langkun, Investigation Coordinator at Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), notes that the perpetrators vary widely between private parties, regents, governors, and heads of service offices.
Tama is concerned that public procurement related corruption cases under new modus operandi will increase following the 2014 general election.
“To tackle this issue, the Government should be more serious about revisiting the public procurement mechanism,” said Tama.
Tama’s view is supported by Agus Sunaryanto, Deputy Coordinator at ICW. He says that there should be an online-based mechanism to prevent corruption in public procurement.
Agus believes that an online mechanism would prevent physical meetings between bidders and public officials and also open the opportunity for bidders across the country to be involved.
“If the bidders only come from one region or involve the same person in every tender, we deserve to smell a rat,” argues Agus .
Agus also asserts his concern that law enforcers only catch low-level officials, while high-ranked officials remain immune.
For instance, Agus explained, lawmakers in the House of Representatives have budgeting authority. It is possible, Agus says, that in addition to government officials, politicians are also involved in public procurement corruption.
“Corruption in public procurement might not only occur in government institutions but also in the legislative body that has budgeting authority. I’m afraid they have the influence to determine which project should be won,” concludes Agus.
(hot/kc)