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::
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
2/16
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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)
Main Findings/Main Findings/TemuanTemuan UtamaUtama
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
6/16
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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
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 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.
Main Findings/Main Findings/TemuanTemuan UtamaUtama
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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.
Main Findings/Main Findings/TemuanTemuan UtamaUtama
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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.
Main Findings/Main Findings/TemuanTemuan UtamaUtama
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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)
Main Findings/Main Findings/TemuanTemuan UtamaUtama
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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
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 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.
Main Findings/Main Findings/TemuanTemuan UtamaUtama
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
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
7/28/2019 80924980 Index of Corruption 2004
16/16
Top Related