KPK Whistleblower’s System
Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia

A. Problem Analysis

 1. What was the problem before the implementation of the initiative?
• Public Complaints Directorate of Corruption Eradication Commission often receives letters or faxes informing potential cases of corruption, which are often interesting, thus require further communication with the sender. • Such communications are often impossible due to the fact that the letters or faxes don’t contain sender’s identity. • Whistleblower’s System provides closed communication between the informers without the need to disclose their identity.

B. Strategic Approach

 2. What was the solution?
In 2012, a team from Public Complaints Directorate of Corruption Eradication Commission proposed the implementation of full-anonymity in the Commission’s Whistleblower System. It has solved various problems since then, thanks to public’s increasing courage to report potential cases of corruption without worrying that it will bring repercussion and threatens their safety.

 3. How did the initiative solve the problem and improve people’s lives?
• With full anonymity: the Commission’s Whistleblower System guarantee the anonymity online informer’s by providing user ID and password to monitor the follow-up of their reports and to communicate with the investigators who handle the cases. • The first time an individual file a report on potential corruption case, the system generate a user ID with modifiable password. It gives the individual access to the system to monitor the follow-up of his/her report and communicate with the investigators handling the case. • Utilization of the Internet and other modern information technology tools gives easier access for the informers to report potential corruption cases and monitor its follow-up. • Corruption Eradication Commission’s Whistleblower System is a breakthrough in accommodating public reports without identity disclosure thus focusing the investigation only on the relevant materials of the cases. Majority of public and private institution oblige informer’s identity to measure how serious the reports are as well as to provide certain level of accountability to the reports.

C. Execution and Implementation

 4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
• Full anonymity in online reporting was initiated based on evaluations that we conducted on the implementation of Corruption Eradication Commission’s Whistleblower System from 2009 to 2012. • The first version of Whistleblower System, implemented since 2009 had many features although anonymity was not yet fully accommodated. Informers were required to fill in various forms to identify the case they’re reporting and can chose to fill in the identity and contact fields or left it blank. Had chosen the second, investigators would have had difficulties to find materials other than the ones already provided. Informer’s user ID is the answer to this problem. • In March 2010 we conducted focus group survey on 10 students from Institute of State Accountancy, a state college where future employees of the Ministry of Finance are educated. The students were in a 5 weeks academic internship and finalizing their academic papers. They were chosen as population sample for their future involvement in governance thus representing the characteristic of the majority of the whistleblower. • The survey concluded that: 1) the features in the online reporting application were hard to comprehend; and 2) the choice to fill in identity and contact fields in the online system gave the impression that such information would somehow be disclosed and would left traces of the informer’s activity in monitoring the follow-ups to their reports. • In 2011, the Commission conducted a series improvement in the features of the online reporting system. Types of corruption cases to be identified by the informers were grouped into less number of category than the ones in 2009 version. • In 2012, further improvements were done by, among others, eliminating various fields related to case identification altogether thus requiring the informers to describe the case they encountered and the parties that were involved in a single narrative. It was in this version of online reporting system that we integrated full anonymity because we also eliminated informer’s identity and contacts fields. • In 2013 the Online Reporting System Version 2 was implemented. • In 2014, the Commission created a plan to develop the system so it can be implemented in other institution’s efforts to eradicate corruption, and so it can facilitate those institutions to mutually share information that they have with the Corruption Eradication Commission. Information on corruption cases that are received through those institutions’ Whistleblower System can be shared with the Commission and in turn we can share the reports that are part of the institution’s jurisdiction with them. In the future, we expect the Whistleblower System to provide learning materials for handling corruption cases and to allow us to develop ways of preventing the cases that had happened in one institution from happening again in another institution.

 5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
• The parties involved in preparing the hardware, and designing and developing the software used in the system are the Public Complaints Directorate; and Data and Information Processing Directorate. • The parties involved in developing the implementation of Whistleblower System in other government institutions are Government Institutions Interrelations Directorate of Corruption Eradication Commission; National Planning and Development Agency; and the Inspectorates of each Ministries and Government Institutions.
 6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
• In designing the software, Public Complaints Directorate assigned 3 employees and Data and Information Processing Directorate assigned 2. The system has been using the existing server and internet connection subscription. • Version 2 of the software costs IDR27.000.000 and takes 2 months to complete. • For the implementation of the system in other institutions, 1) both Public Complaints Directorate and Data and Information Processing Directorate assigned 2 to provide technical assistance; 2) Each Ministries’ Inspectorates provided teams of their own; and 3) Government Institutions Interrelation Directorate assigned an employee to coordinate actions and communications between teams from various government institutions and the team from the National Planning and Development Agency.

 7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
• The statistics on public reporting without sender’s identity through various media are as follows: o Before the implementation of full anonymity Whistleblower System (2011 - 2012): 287 reports o After the implementation of full anonymity Whistleblower System (2013 - September 2014): 92 reports o Through the online application of Whistleblower System utilizing full anonymity (2013 - September 2014): 2775 reports • The National Planning and Development Agency, and the Presidential Task Unit on Development Control and Monitoring liste the implementation of Whistleblower System as one of the indicator for the performance of a Ministry or Government Institution. • Employees from Public Complaints Directorate and from Data and Information Processing Directorate have assisted the implementation of Whistleblower System in 5 Ministries Inspectorates, which are the Ministry of Religious Affairs, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Agricultural Affairs, the Ministry of Social Affairs, and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources.

 8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
• Online Whistleblower System provides a dashboard for the directors and executives in Corruption Eradication Commission in order for them gain access of information about reports inflow. The dashboard provides statistical information on reports handling; search menus; and trace-log activity for auditing purposes. • The system contains review mechanism on reports handling, which guarantees that every reports are followed up accordingly. • An application for primary report handling is put in place to coordinate all actions taken on reports from online whistleblower system, mails, and text messages. The application controls all the applications in Public Complaints Directorate.

 9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
• There have been no major obstacles found in the system.

D. Impact and Sustainability

 10. What were the key benefits resulting from this initiative?
• Online Whistleblower System has become part of a social control mechanism in both corruption eradication and corruption prevention. • Full anonymity will encourage individuals to report potential cases of corruption, all for the betterment of their institutions. • The public gains advantage in reporting potential corruption cases to Corruption Eradication Commission and in providing information on job execution in ministries and other government institutions through their own Whistleblower System.

 11. Did the initiative improve integrity and/or accountability in public service? (If applicable)
• Sustainability: Online Whistleblower System is continuously developed to increase its capability in integrating reports handling and follow-ups, in becoming means of communication between various government institutions, and as learning materials for corruption eradication and prevention. • Transferability: The Corruption Eradication Commission has assisted and reviewed the implementation of Whistleblower Systems in 17 Ministries/Institutions. The implementation of full anonymity is the prerogative of each Ministry/Institution and most of them do require informer’s identification in their internal whistleblower system.

 12. Were special measures put in place to ensure that the initiative benefits women and girls and improves the situation of the poorest and most vulnerable? (If applicable)
• The forms were in fact hard to comprehend. The public too has different understanding on the information that they want to provide. • The elimination of various forms in online reporting system does contribute to public’s enthusiasm in reporting corruption cases. It is the duty of investigators to filter and categorize the reports and set up anonym correspondence with the informers during the follow-ups. • Although full anonymity boosts the confidence of the informers, especially those who are reporting it from inside their own institutions, follow-ups are sometimes hindered due to the lack of information identification. • Corruption Eradication Commission received an award from a major news television in 2010 for its efforts in handling public complaints. The achievement was impossible without public supports and increasing confidence in the Commission.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   Corruption Eradication Commission of Indonesia
Institution Type:   Government Agency  
Contact Person:   Eko Marjono
Title:   Head of Public Complaint Directorate  
Telephone/ Fax:   : +6221 2557 8300 / +6221 5289 2454
Institution's / Project's Website:  
Address:   Jl. HR Rasuna Said Kav C-1 Jakarta
Postal Code:   12920
City:   Jakarta
State/Province:   DKI Jakarta

          Go Back

Print friendly Page