Comparative Analysis of The Effectiveness of Punishment Over Corruption in Indonesia and Hong Kong

Abstract

This research aims to compare the effectiveness of punishment imposed on corruption as a crime in Indonesia and Hong Kong. The normative method was employed by conducting library research in the process of data searching, where the authors read and studied the primary and secondary research data. The analysis result concludes that Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication and Law Number 20 of 2001 on the Amendment to Law Number 31 of 1999 on Corruption Eradication and Law Number 30 of 2002 on Corruption Eradication Commission deal with corruption crimes. Moreover, Indonesia establishes an official body particularly intended to deal with corruption investigations, the Corruption Eradication Commission (henceforth referred to as KPK). In comparison, Hong Kong also governs corruption cases using the Independent Commission Against Corruption Ordinance, Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, and the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance. Further, Hong Kong has Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) as an institution fully authorized to investigate corruption cases. The KPK and ICAC share a similar strategic model but employ different ways of execution. From the effectiveness of the law perspective, Hong Kong seems to demonstrate a more effective approach since the real and deterring sentence is directly imposed on the case to encourage others to think twice before committing corruption. The sentencing in Hong Kong was once lambasted and condemned since it was perceived as violating human rights, but it seems to be the only way for Hong Kong to eradicate corruption effectively. This research recommends that another amendment to Law Number 20 of 2001 on Corruption Eradication. 
 
 Received: 4 February 2023 / Accepted: 15 July 2023 / Published: 5 September 2023