President Prabowo Subianto is facing significant backlash over his recent proposal to grant clemency to corruptors willing to return stolen state assets. Speaking at the University of Al-Azhar in Cairo, Egypt, on December 18, 2024, Prabowo suggested this gestures of forgiveness could open the door to recovering funds lost to corruption.
While his intentions may seem noble—aimed at rectifying financial wrongs inflicted on the state—numerous critics are questioning the underlying effectiveness of such a proposal. Prominent figures within civil society, including Agus Sunaryanto, Coordinator of Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW), argue against prioritizing clemency over urgent legislative reforms needed to combat corruption.
Sunaryanto firmly believes, "Prabowo should prioritize hastening the deliberation of the Draft Law on Asset Seizure than giving clemency to corruptors." He emphasized the importance of this law, noting it aligns with Prabowo's campaign promises aimed at enhancing political accountability and reducing corruption.
The Draft Law on Asset Seizure currently features on the National Legislation Program (Prolegnas) for the period of 2025-2029. According to Sunaryanto, if this law is enacted, it could effectively help restore state assets, channeling funds back to support various government programs.
Adding his voice to the debate, former Coordinatiing Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs Mahfud MD reiterated the need to expedite the legalization of the Draft Law instead of entertaining clemency offers. He expressed serious concerns, stating, "Clemency should be granted when it has met the elements of accountability and transparency," implying the potential risks of granting leniencies without adequate frameworks.
With widespread skepticism about the motives behind Prabowo's proposal, critics like Boyamin Saiman, Coordinator of the Indonesian Anti-Corruption Community (MAKI), contended it could lead to more severe issues. Saiman remarked, "How can these corruptors want to give back their stolen money when they do not feel guilty?" He elaborated by pointing out the mindset of many corruptors who often perceive illicit gains as part of their wages from controversial projects.
This underlying sentiment complicates the narrative, painting corruptors not merely as criminals, but individuals who may rationalize their thefts as justified compensation. Such perspectives challenge the very foundation of the clemency proposal, placing accountability at odds with potential mercy.
The proposal has unleashed heated discussions around how Indonesia can effectively combat corruption, holding to account those who have betrayed the public trust. The backlash has brought forth calls for systemic change, underscoring the necessity of comprehensive reform laws rather than sporadic acts of leniency.
Indeed, the essence of the debate resides not just on individual proposals but reflects wider societal concerns about governance, ethics, and future accountability. Awareness and discourse may just be the tools necessary to reshape how corruption is handled at every level of Indonesian politics, especially as the nation looks forward toward substantive change.
This contentious issue invites myriad opinions, but one fact remains clear: President Prabowo will need to reflect on the ramifications of his clemency proposal. Whether it fosters trust or undermines public confidence in political leadership will likely depend on his next steps—toward reform or retreat.
