INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

As Field Study Team Head to Queensland
At the DPD-Griffith U Meeting
Monday, Nov 02, 2006, 1.00pm – 3.00pm,
DPD Excecutive Office, Senayan, Jakarta

JSR, No. 14, 3 Nov 2006

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Miss Joice Damayanti of the NDI has prepared for us the substantive report of the field study conducted by the DPD team of 14 recently to Australia, and in particular to the State of Queensland with Brisbane as its capital. We spent the time from August 7 to 11, 2006, as a team, and then extended for the two more days (August 12-14) for the two of us, Miss Damayanti and I for further discussions at Griffith.
Mrs Nyimas Ena of Jambi as vice head for the team also contributed a report, which, together with others which are still to be expected from the delegates, will enrich our field report. Most of our team members, however, now are back to their respective regions for consultations and monitoring during the current recess period and spend the Ramadhan fasting month at home with families.
We of the team under the guidance of our Vice Chairman Laode Ida were indeed highly satisfied with our study visit to Queensland, with the sole focus of Australian experience in eradicating corruption. Our hosts, and in particular, Professor Charles Sampford and colleagues of the Griffith University, were exceptionally keen and helpful to us so that we really felt at home amidst our hospitable hosts while in Australia.
For this afternoon meeting with Professor Charles Sampford, here at the DPD Executive Office in Jakarta, Miss Damayanti suggested to us to focus our attention to the four following points:

(1) Visit report to Queensland
(2) Areas of interests to be pursued further
(3) Type of workshop to be conducted at the provincial level in three provicial capitals representing the three different regions: west, central and east Indonesia. And
(4) Division of labors between the DPD dan Griffith University for further cooperation.

Since the majority of our team members are not present at this meeting, as reasons given above, I suggest that we postpone item (1) for the discussion. We will concentrate on the three other items.
To start with, I shall however give you a glimpse of my personal views and impressions of what we have gathered in our field trip to Queensland pertaining to Australian experience in how to successfully eradicate corruptions which were once rampant and hard to control in the country. Australia of course started with a firm belief that corruption as a social disease, no matter how wide spread it was, could be wiped out. Australia, as so also a number of other big countries like China, Japan, the US, Canada, advanced countries of Europe, and even our neighbors, Singapore and Malaysia, proved to have done successfully so.
I picked up two related significant terminologies of the same root word but differing in meanings and accentuations: One is “integrated,” and the other is “integrity.” Both approaches are simultaneously and integrally applied. Integrated system and approach were applied since corruptions like any diseases permeated through the blood veins of all government and public institutions in the country. They crept into the executive, legislative and yudicative trias politica branches of the country and usurped public establishments and institutions. Consequently corruptions demeaned the dignity and integrity of the country and nation as a whole. An integrity approach was therefore simultaneously applied.
For us, integrity approach by consciously applying non-rational paradigms and parameters to a secular state as Australia was something to be amazed of. Because, is it not true that integrity approach could only be successfully executed if religious, ethical, and cultural values are highly inspired and exalted. We used to boast ourselves as a country with high principles in such celestial norms and values and yet we belong to the most corrupt nations on earth. Australia on the other hand was a pragmatic and secular state and yet relatively successful in cleaning up and eradicating such social disease through integrity approach.
I shall stop here for such evaluation, and now let’s go to our first agenda: What next after the Australian visit.
When I and Joice stayed longer for further consultations with Griffith U counterparts, we did delve into the same question: what to do next and how could we cooperate to help Indonesia avoiding further calamities and derisions from global eyes during this critical period because of widely used and rampant practices of corruptions.
To start with small and manageable means of training for trainers programs located in the regions as intended earlier is of course important though not sufficient. We in the past have been busying ourselves in all sorts of trainings given by local, national, regional and even international agencies in all sorts of cooperations. None practically that gave the effective impact. Such trainings could only be more effective and productive if they are part of the holistic or integrated approach with wholehearted efforts. For such purposes in mind an integral plan with grand design and by involving all stakeholders related to the same objective should be prepared nationally beforehand.
And if that is the case, could we start by jotting down a blue print of such grand design?
Let’s hear responses and reactions from all of you, and especially of course from our counterpart, and distinguished guest, Professor Charles Sampford of Griffith U.
Let me ask Miss Joice Damayanti and Mr Andi Subri as notulists for this meeting. ***

0 Responses to “INTRODUCTORY REMARKS”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s





%d bloggers like this: