goodmorningpapua.com – The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is trying to increase the Papua Monitoring Center for Prevention (MCP) score, which is still considered low.
The encouragement to increase the score is conducted by means of the technical guidance on filling out the MCP for regional admins in 29 regencies/cities which lasts for 3 days in the Papua Kominfo Service Hall since Wednesday 24 November 2021.
Kasatgas Directorate of Korsup Region V KPK RI Ismail Hindersah said the MCP system is a form of implementation of mitigation of corruption risks through monitoring improvements in 7 vulnerable areas for corruption and 1 area of institutional strengthening.
The intervention areas include planning and budgeting, procurement of goods and services, one-stop integrated services or licensing, APIP capabilities, ASN management optimizing regional income, regional asset management, and village financial management.
Based on KPK records, the average score of corruption prevention efforts in the Papua region covers these 8 areas summarized in the MCP on a score scale of 0 to 100 percent in 2018 to 2020.
The average score for the Papua region is 25 percent, 34 percent, and 25 percent until 2020. Meanwhile in 2021, the average score is still in the range of 9 percent compared to the national average score of 46 percent.
“The Papuan MCP score is still low overall, so we boost to increase the MCP through technical guidance to be able to increase the MCP score in all districts/cities,” said Ismail.
Ismail reminded regional heads in Papua to be strongly committed to increasing the value of MCP. This commitment is needed so that all assistance by the KPK is not in vain.
“Indeed, the commitment of regional heads is needed, they must have a vision and mission to develop their regions with the MCP program or improve the governance system in these 8 KPK intervention areas,” said Ismail.
He also hopes for the support of all stakeholders within the Regional Government to boost Papuan MCP scores. “The main mover is regional leadership and must show its seriousness. Because if we don’t take it seriously, it’s useless to improve governance,” he said.