35
but I am unaware of the matter, ‖ Suryadharma told reporters.
But
indicates cohesion mark as a conjunction that something being accused as corruptor
needs a relation meaning in order to explain the interpretation of the text. This conjunction expands to express the contrastive or oppositional relationship
between the first clause
Corruption Eradication Commission KPK investigators asked me a question
and the second clause
I am una wa re of the matter
. It concludes that this quoted statement has explicit meaning and give effect to the
reader that the verbal process
Suryadharma told reporters
is the valid argument to provoke being agreed that Suryadharma is the accused of a corruption scandal.
The limitations of applying SFG in this critical discourse analysis appear upon the text and productive practices. The text which has been interpreted by
the researcher must be linked with reference in case of the interpretative practices of audiences readers. The audience reception is the discursive practice
that must be linked with sociocultural practice to produce a critique by using intertextual analysis
– the constitution of texts in terms of discourses and genres. In other words, the linguistic analysis of media texts needs other texts to transform
and embed.
2.1.6 Corruption Eradication Commission KPK
Corruption is a dishonest, illegal behavior done by people in powerful authority to enrich themselves. It refers to poor governance and indicates as one
of the most damaging consequence. Huntington in Salama 2014: 150 defines ―Corruption is a behavior of public officials which deviates from accepted norms
in order to serve private end s‖. It is like a shadow which is always following
wherever the Subject of power exists. However, it undermines the judicial PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
36
system also the state legitimacy especially in investment and economic growth. The other negative effects of corruption can deepen the extent of poverty and
decrease the resources available for human development goals. Wan Abdullah 2008 defines that the rooted corruption can devastate the entire economic,
political and social fabric of a country. Also, she said if corruption breeds corruption, a failure to combat it effectively will lead to an era of entrenched
corruption. There are two kinds of corruption. First, grand corruption is a way of life
that used by the recent Indonesia political leaders and senior civil servants, and usually involves large international bribes and hidden overseas bank accounts.
Second, petty corruption is a fact of life practiced by junior civil servants who demand bribes to perform favors Pope in Wan Abdullah, 2008: 44.
Mardikantoro 2014: 2 summarizes the
World Justice Project
findings that the spread of corruption in Indonesia is significantly around 0.46 and places it in the
47th out of 65 countries with the highest cases of corruption. According to Indonesia International Transparency KPK strategic plan 2015-2019: 1, on the
other hand, perceptional index of Indonesia corruption falls in the score 36 which means increased 2 points 19 ranks in 2015. Comparing with ASEAN countries
e.g. Singapore, the index can conclude that the eradicating corruption movement in Indonesia shows more positive results than the previous years.
An independent body that specifically charged with the duty of eradicating corruption from Indonesian society, the Corruption Eradication Commission
KPK still exists to establish various cases until now. The KPK was set up by the Corruption Eradication Commission Law No. 30 of 2002, which was
