Studi Perbandingan Pengaturan Gratifikasi Antara Indonesia dan Singapura

Abstract

Corruption, particularly gratuities, poses a significant challenge for governments in many countries, including Indonesia and Singapore. Gratuities, often viewed as a gateway to corrupt practices, create conflicts of interest that undermine the integrity and effectiveness of public officials. This research aims to compare the regulatory frameworks for gratuities in Indonesia and Singapore, with the goal of identifying key factors that contribute to the effectiveness or weaknesses of these frameworks. The study employs a normative legal research method through a comparative approach, with a strong emphasis on a deep qualitative approach, including conceptual and historical perspectives to understand the evolution of legal regulations in Indonesia and Singapore. It analyzes legal texts, case studies, and law enforcement practices in both countries. The results show that Singapore's success in curbing gratuities is largely influenced by a strict legal framework, strong enforcement mechanisms, and the active role of the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). In contrast, Indonesia faces challenges from strong cultural norms and weak law enforcement, making anti-gratuity measures less effective. The research concludes that Indonesia can strengthen its regulatory framework by adopting best practices from Singapore, focusing on legal clarity, consistent enforcement, and the enhancement of institutional integrity.