The extortion scandal at the Immigration Office reflects a deeply rooted systemic corruption. Simply arresting the perpetrators will not solve the problem.
THE extortion case within the Directorate-General of Immigration targeting foreign nationals seeking stay permits is yet another indication of how large-scale corruption almost never arises from the actions of just one or two employees. Corruption networks thrive when vast authority and broad discretion are not balanced by proper oversight.
The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has named eight people suspects in an alleged extortion case involving limited stay permit cards (KITAS). One of them is Silmy Karim, former Director-General of Immigration from 2023 to 2024 and current Deputy Minister of Immigration and Corrections. A total of Rp145.5 billion (about US$8.1 million) was reportedly collected and embezzled during the alleged extortion scheme running between 2022 and 2026.
That figure is far too large to categorize as a temporary lapse. Suspicions of regular deposits, escrow accounts, and the involvement of many individuals are all telltale signs of a systematic practice. The key question here is not only about who received the money, but also about how this practice has been allowed to carry on for years.
The key lies in the nature of the Immigration authority. This institution controls entry, residence, and employment access for foreign nationals. Such power creates an imbalanced relationship between Immigration officers and service users. When great authority comes with wide-ranging discretion, administrative decisions can easily transform into tradable commodities.
Such a risk is magnified because Immigration operates as more than just a service bureaucracy, it is also a law enforcement agency. The organization has the authority to supervise, inspect, investigate, and take action against foreign nationals. These responsibilities create a strong chain of command and a relatively insular organizational culture. Information and authority are concentrated within the bureaucracy, while external oversight is difficult to establish. Under these terms, individual acts of misconduct can flourish into practices involving multiple parties.
The scale and duration of this case are an indication of graver symptoms. Corruption has become an entrenched, illegal mechanism within the organization. While official immigration regulations remain in place, behind the curtains lies a system of illicit payments that determines who pays what to whom, how much, and where the money goes.
Similar symptoms can also be identified at the Directorate-General of Customs. The import bribery trial involving Blueray Cargo exposed allegations of payments to ensure goods pass through certain channels. Though the cases differ, they share common patterns that point to structural problems: extensive authority, broad discretion, and weak oversight create a fertile environment for corruption.
It is worth pointing out that these cases are surfacing at a time when many government agencies are proclaiming success in bureaucratic reform and digitalizing services. This illustrates how procedural modernization does not necessarily lead to stronger accountability, as corruption can adapt faster than reform itself.
In such a context, law enforcement must not only arrest the criminals but also unravel the workings of a corrupt system. The money trail and chain of accountability must be thoroughly followed. Corruption flourishes not only because of greed, but also when significant power goes unchecked for far too long.