Conflict of Interest (5)

In Indonesian everyday speech, the term masuk angin refers to a broad physical discomfort that blends mild fatigue, chills, bloating, dizziness, or general unwellness, and it functions less as a medical diagnosis than as a cultural shorthand for feeling “off” in a vague but recognisable way. 

The phrase also carries the cultural implication that exposure to wind, rain, or cold air somehow invades the body and disrupts its balance, a belief that shapes common treatments such as kerokan, warm drinks, or rest, even if modern biomedical understanding would classify the symptoms under minor viral infections, indigestion, or simple fatigue rather than wind entering the body.

In a metaphorical sense, masuk angin can be used to describe a person who has become emotionally unsettled, socially out of balance, or politically vulnerable, as though an invisible draft has slipped into their inner world and disrupted their composure. Indonesians sometimes use it humorously to depict someone who is suddenly sensitive, irritable, or easily offended, as if their emotional “immune system” has dipped and the slightest breeze of criticism or stress has thrown them off. In political commentary, the phrase can even imply that a public figure has been compromised, swayed, or “blown off course” by external pressures, suggesting a subtle erosion of integrity rather than a dramatic fall. In all these usages, masuk angin becomes a compact cultural metaphor for interference from the outside that disturbs what should have remained steady within.

In an ideological sense, masuk angin can serve as a sly critique of someone whose convictions have softened under external influence, as though a gust of fashionable rhetoric or pressure from dominant groups has slipped into their ideological core and muddied what used to be clear. It suggests not a dramatic abandonment of principles, but a quiet cooling—an erosion of firmness caused by subtle drafts of conformity.

In the political sphere, masuk angin often describes the moment when a politician appears to drift from earlier stances due to inducements, pressures, or strategic deals, giving the impression that “the wind” of vested interests has entered their decision-making. It becomes a shorthand for quiet co-optation, suggesting that an actor has been subtly redirected without overt scandal, their public compass skewed by invisible breezes of patronage, fear, or opportunism.

Economically, the metaphor can highlight actors—whether businesses, officials, or institutions—whose integrity or consistency deteriorates when external incentives, market pressures, or illicit financial flows start to penetrate their internal systems. It reflects a cultural intuition that an economy does not collapse suddenly; it “catches a draft” through small vulnerabilities, from minor collusions to uneven regulations, until the equilibrium of fair competition is disturbed. 

Socially, masuk angin can depict a community or individual whose harmony is unsettled by rumours, jealousy, peer pressure, or sudden shifts in status, much like a breeze slipping through the cracks of a house. It captures the idea that social cohesion is delicate, and that even a minor disturbance—gossip, miscommunication, or exclusion—can chill the warmth that once held a group together.

Culturally, the metaphor gestures toward a sense of imbalance that occurs when imported values, rapid modernisation, or external cultural currents disrupt a previously grounded way of life. The phrase conveys the cultural intuition that identity can be unsettled not only by forceful impositions but also by subtle intrusions—shifts in taste, lifestyle, or norms that seep in quietly and unsettle what was once familiar.

There is no exact equivalent in American or British English for masuk angin, because the term combines physical discomfort, folk explanations, and cultural assumptions about wind, cold, and balance. However, there are several phrases that approximate aspects of it, depending on the context:

In general physical terms, one might say “feeling under the weather”, “coming down with something”, or “feeling off”, which convey a vague sense of malaise, fatigue, or mild illness. In slightly more informal or colloquial settings, people could use “a bit run down” or “not feeling oneself”, capturing the sense of being out of balance physically or mentally.

If emphasising the idea of external influence affecting one’s condition—closer to the metaphorical masuk angin—one might use “caught a chill”, “taken in by outside forces”, or even figuratively, “off kilter” or “thrown off balance”, though these are more abstract and less tied to illness.

Overall, the English equivalents capture some aspects of malaise, fatigue, or imbalance, but none fully carry the cultural and folk nuances of masuk angin, particularly the idea of wind or air entering the body and disturbing internal harmony.

There is a subtle but meaningful connection between the metaphorical meaning of masuk angin and the concept of conflict of interest. Metaphorically, masuk angin describes a situation where external influences quietly penetrate an individual’s, group’s, or institution’s internal equilibrium, causing mild but persistent disruption. Similarly, a conflict of interest arises when personal, financial, political, or social incentives intrude upon one’s professional or public responsibilities, subtly redirecting decisions and priorities away from impartiality or integrity. Both concepts share the idea of external forces—whether cultural, social, political, or economic—entering a system and disturbing its proper functioning. In a sense, one could say that masuk angin is the folk-culture equivalent of an early, almost invisible stage of conflict of interest: a slight, creeping disturbance that, if ignored, can escalate into visible imbalance, poor judgment, or compromised outcomes.

There is also a meaningful connection between the metaphorical sense of masuk angin and the notion of profession. In its metaphorical use, masuk angin represents a subtle disruption caused by external influences that disturb an individual’s internal balance or judgment. Similarly, in a professional context, individuals can experience pressures—whether from clients, superiors, market demands, or social expectations—that quietly sway their decisions, ethics, or performance. Just as masuk angin signals a creeping imbalance in the body or emotions, professionals can encounter a creeping imbalance in their duties, values, or integrity, making them vulnerable to errors, compromised judgment, or ethical lapses. The metaphor resonates with professions because it encapsulates the idea that even minor, often invisible external pressures can undermine the proper functioning of one’s professional role.

The metaphorical meaning of masuk angin provides a culturally rich lens through which one can understand the dynamics of conflict of interest within professional settings. Metaphorically, masuk angin describes a subtle intrusion of external forces that disturbs an individual’s internal balance, judgment, or composure. In the professional sphere, this maps closely to situations where external pressures—financial incentives, political influence, client demands, or social expectations—quietly encroach upon a professional’s decision-making or ethical standards. This is precisely what a conflict of interest entails: a scenario in which personal, institutional, or external interests interfere with one’s professional responsibilities, leading to compromised impartiality or integrity.

Viewed together, the metaphor of masuk angin highlights how seemingly minor, almost invisible disturbances can accumulate over time within professions, creating vulnerabilities to ethical lapses or compromised judgments. Just as masuk angin might make a person feel “off” without obvious illness, a professional under the sway of conflicting interests may make decisions that deviate subtly—but significantly—from what fairness, competence, or ethical standards demand. In short, masuk angin becomes a culturally resonant way to conceptualise the early, often unnoticed stages of conflict of interest within any profession: small breaches or pressures that, if unchecked, can erode professional integrity and effectiveness.

The metaphorical meaning of masuk angin offers a subtle and culturally rich lens to understand the dynamics of conflict of interest. Just as masuk angin describes the quiet intrusion of external forces that disrupt an individual’s internal balance, conflict of interest occurs when personal, financial, political, or social pressures seep into a professional or public role, quietly influencing decisions and priorities. The implication is that conflicts of interest often begin subtly, almost imperceptibly, like the first signs of masuk angin, before becoming visible as compromised judgment, ethical lapses, or biased outcomes.

This comparison suggests several practical lessons: first, that vigilance is required to detect early signs of external influence before they grow into serious distortions; second, that institutions and professions must design safeguards, norms, and ethical frameworks to resist such intrusions; and third, that the cultural intuition behind masuk angin—that small, invisible pressures can disturb equilibrium—can enrich our understanding of why conflict of interest is often systemic rather than purely individual. In essence, the concept teaches that minor, creeping disruptions should not be underestimated, because they can ultimately erode integrity and trust in professional or public contexts.

Conflict of Interest in the Professions, edited by Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (2001, Oxford University Press), is a comprehensive exploration of how conflicts of interest manifest across various professional fields. The collection brings together essays from ethicists, legal scholars, and practitioners, providing both theoretical insights and practical analyses. 

The work begins with an introduction that frames the concept of conflict of interest and outlines its relevance in contemporary professional practice. Michael Davis defines conflict of interest as a situation in which a professional’s obligations to one party or role are compromised, or appear to be compromised, by competing personal or external interests. The introduction emphasises that even the perception of a conflict can undermine trust in the professional and the broader institution in which they operate. The book situates the discussion within contemporary professional practice, noting that modern societies rely heavily on specialised professions—from law and medicine to accounting, engineering, journalism, and academia—and that the credibility, reliability, and social authority of these professions depend on their ability to manage or avoid conflicts of interest.

Davis does not offer a single rigid definition but rather suggests a functional understanding: a conflict of interest exists whenever a professional’s duty to act in a certain role might be influenced, or might reasonably be perceived as influenced, by secondary interests that could interfere with impartiality, integrity, or loyalty. The book repeatedly underscores that conflicts are not merely private moral failings but systemic challenges, arising from the intersection of human ambition, organisational structures, and societal expectations. In this sense, recognising, disclosing, and managing conflicts of interest becomes essential for sustaining public trust and ensuring ethical professional practice.

Managing conflicts of interest is not simply a matter of avoiding wrongdoing, but a structured process that safeguards trust, integrity, and accountability in professional practice. The book identifies several key principles. First, recognition and identification: professionals must be aware of potential conflicts in advance and be able to identify situations in which their impartiality might be compromised. Second, disclosure: once a conflict is recognised, it should be openly disclosed to the relevant parties, including clients, employers, or supervisory bodies, so that informed decisions can be made. Third, management or mitigation: the professional or organisation should implement strategies to reduce the impact of the conflict, which can include recusal, independent review, oversight mechanisms, or structural separation of interests. Fourth, prevention: where possible, institutional policies should be designed to prevent conflicts from arising, such as through clear role definitions, codes of conduct, and rules regarding outside activities, financial interests, or gifts.

These principles are interdependent and context-sensitive: what constitutes adequate recognition, disclosure, or mitigation may vary depending on the profession, organisational setting, and societal expectations. Importantly, Davis and other contributors argue that managing conflicts of interest is not only an ethical obligation but also a practical necessity for sustaining public confidence, protecting professional judgment, and maintaining social legitimacy. In other words, conflict management is both a moral and systemic requirement, embedded in professional culture, law, and organisational governance.

The book then examines the issue within the context of law and government, discussing how legal professionals and public officials face and are regulated regarding conflicting obligations. Legal professionals and public officials confront conflicts of interest both as a matter of ethical duty and legal obligation. Lawyers, for instance, must navigate situations where personal, financial, or professional relationships could compromise their duty of loyalty to clients. Courts and bar associations often provide codes of conduct and ethical guidelines that define what constitutes a conflict, require disclosure, and prescribe measures such as recusal or independent oversight when conflicts arise.

For government officials, the book emphasises that conflicting obligations may occur between personal interests, political considerations, and responsibilities to the public. Institutional mechanisms, such as ethics commissions, disclosure requirements, and regulations on outside employment or financial holdings, are designed to prevent and manage such conflicts. Kathleen Clark argues that recognising, reporting, and mitigating conflicts is central to sustaining public trust and avoiding corruption or undue influence. The text stresses that these regulatory frameworks are necessary but not sufficient: they must be complemented by a professional culture that prioritises integrity, transparency, and accountability. In sum, the book presents conflict management in law and government as a combination of legal rules, organisational oversight, and ethical self-regulation, all aimed at maintaining impartiality and trust. 

Subsequent sections extend the discussion to professions operating in business contexts, including journalism, accounting, engineering, and corporate governance, where issues such as independence, loyalty, and self-dealing are prominent. 

According to the book, conflicts of interest in journalism primarily arise when a journalist’s personal, financial, or professional relationships could compromise their objectivity or the perception of their impartiality. Sandra L. Borden and Michael S. Pritchard, in their chapter on journalism, argue that even subtle or potential conflicts can affect editorial decisions, reporting priorities, and public trust. For example, a journalist who owns shares in a company they are reporting on, or who maintains close personal relationships with sources, faces a situation where their judgment might reasonably be questioned.

The book notes that journalistic codes of ethics attempt to mitigate such conflicts through principles of independence, transparency, and disclosure. Editors and media organisations are expected to establish policies that identify potential conflicts, require disclosure, and, when necessary, reassign stories to avoid biased coverage. Importantly, the text emphasises that conflicts in journalism are not always blatant or intentional; even perceived conflicts can erode credibility. Thus, managing these conflicts is essential for maintaining both professional integrity and the public’s confidence in the media.

One of the contributors, Leonard J. Brooks, discusses how conflicts of interest in accounting arise primarily from the dual obligations accountants face: the duty to their clients or employers, and the duty to uphold professional standards and public trust. Conflicts often occur when financial incentives, personal relationships, or business pressures could influence the accountant’s judgment, leading to biased reporting, misrepresentation, or compromised integrity. For example, an auditor who receives substantial fees from a client may feel pressure—or be perceived to feel pressure—to approve financial statements even when irregularities exist. Similarly, accountants who provide both consulting and auditing services to the same client can face conflicting obligations that may compromise objectivity.

The book emphasises that professional codes of conduct, regulatory oversight, and institutional safeguards are intended to manage these conflicts. Disclosure, independence requirements, rotation of auditors, and strict separation between consulting and auditing functions are among the mechanisms used to prevent conflicts from undermining the integrity of financial reporting. Brooks argues that accounting is particularly sensitive to conflicts of interest because the reliability of financial information underpins market stability, investor confidence, and broader economic functioning.

Another contributor, Eric W. Orts, discusses how conflicts of interest frequently arise within corporate governance, particularly among members of boards of directors. Directors have fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of the corporation and its shareholders, but they may simultaneously hold personal, financial, or professional interests that could compromise or appear to compromise their judgment. Examples include situations where a director has business dealings with the corporation, serves on multiple boards with competing interests, or receives personal financial benefits linked to corporate decisions.

The book explains that these conflicts are critical because they can affect strategic decisions, financial reporting, and risk management, potentially undermining shareholder trust and corporate integrity. To address these issues, governance mechanisms such as disclosure requirements, recusal from decision-making, independent board committees, and stringent codes of conduct are recommended. Orts emphasises that managing conflicts in corporate governance is not merely a matter of rule compliance but requires a culture of accountability and transparency to maintain the legitimacy and stability of corporate institutions.

From the perspective of Eric W. Orts, the situation in Indonesia, where many deputy ministers simultaneously hold positions as commissioners or directors in state-owned enterprises (BUMN), presents a textbook example of potential conflicts of interest in corporate governance. Orts emphasises that conflicts arise whenever a director or board member has multiple, overlapping obligations that may compromise impartial decision-making or fiduciary duties. In this case, deputy ministers have dual responsibilities: first, to serve the public interest through their ministerial role, and second, to protect and advance the financial and strategic interests of the enterprises on whose boards they sit.

Orts would likely point out that such dual roles create structural tensions: policy decisions at the ministerial level could affect the financial performance of BUMN, while corporate interests might influence governmental policy priorities. Even if no deliberate wrongdoing occurs, the perception of divided loyalty can erode public trust and invite suspicions of undue influence or self-serving behaviour. According to Orts’s framework, proper management would require measures such as clear disclosure of roles, recusal from decisions where conflicts arise, independent oversight, and possibly the separation of ministerial and corporate duties. Without such mechanisms, both governmental and corporate governance risk being compromised, undermining transparency, accountability, and legitimacy in public administration.

The volume also addresses conflicts in academic work, highlighting the challenges faced by scholars who navigate dual roles or competing commitments, as well as the ethical dilemmas in research funding and fieldwork. In Conflict of Interest in the Professions, the discussion on academia, particularly in the chapter by Robert J. Baum, highlights that academics frequently encounter conflicts of interest because they operate within overlapping spheres of teaching, research, institutional service, and external professional commitments. The book explains that the challenge lies not only in the existence of multiple roles but in the subtle ways these roles may influence one another, sometimes without the academic fully realising the extent of the conflict. For example, a professor who consults for a corporation might unintentionally steer research topics, classroom discussions, or student opportunities toward the interests of the sponsoring entity.

The text emphasises that one of the most persistent ethical dilemmas involves research funding. When external funders—whether corporations, government agencies, or private foundations—support academic work, they may introduce expectations or pressures that can shape methodology, interpretation, or publication of results. Even when funders do not explicitly interfere, the mere dependence on continued funding can create incentives for academics to avoid inconvenient findings, downplay uncertainties, or prioritise funder-friendly outcomes. The book also notes that fieldwork in particular creates ethical tension, as researchers must balance their scholarly objectives against the welfare, autonomy, and expectations of the communities they study. Conflicts arise when academic goals, sponsor interests, and obligations to research subjects pull in different directions.

Baum argues that managing these conflicts requires more than procedural compliance. Universities must insist on transparency, disclosure, and independent ethical review, while academics must cultivate a self-critical awareness of how their commitments influence their judgment. Ultimately, the book frames academic conflict of interest as a fundamental tension between the ideal of intellectual independence and the real-world pressures of professional advancement, institutional expectations, and external sponsorship. 

Robert J. Baum’s framework reveals that academic conflicts of interest arise when the scholar’s roles, commitments, and sources of influence intersect in ways that subtly distort judgement. Applying this framework to the Indonesian context exposes a range of situations in which academic independence is placed under strain.

One of the most visible examples is the relationship between university researchers and corporate funders. In Indonesia, large resource-based industries—such as mining, palm oil, and energy—often sponsor research in engineering, environmental sciences, or agriculture. Baum’s category of commitment conflicts is highly relevant here: when a researcher relies on corporate funding for laboratory equipment, fieldwork, or graduate scholarships, the mere anticipation of future grants can influence choices of research questions, the framing of results, or the willingness to publish findings that challenge the sponsor’s interests. The conflict need not be overt; Baum emphasises that the danger lies in the subtle psychological pull toward outcomes that preserve the relationship, even if the academic believes they remain objective.

Another Indonesian example arises from university–corporate partnerships framed as “innovation ecosystems.” Many universities enter agreements with state-owned enterprises (BUMN) or large private conglomerates for product development, patents, or consultancy work. Baum’s notion of role conflict becomes pronounced when the same academic is simultaneously a lecturer, a university project leader, a paid consultant for the corporation, and a committee member evaluating student theses linked to the corporate partner. The overlapping roles create a situation where the academic’s judgement may be compromised, even without any deliberate wrongdoing, because each role carries expectations that cannot be reconciled without sacrificing impartiality.

Baum’s analysis also illuminates the silent dilemmas faced by academics pursuing promotion. In Indonesia, many lecturers applying for professorship must secure endorsements from government ministries or rely on assessment processes influenced by political networks. This creates a classic influence conflict: an academic who observes misconduct or corruption within the government may choose silence, not out of agreement but because speaking openly could jeopardise their promotion. Baum would argue that such silence is not merely personal cowardice; it is structurally induced by the incentive system surrounding academic advancement, demonstrating how institutional design itself can generate conflict of interest.

A further example involves academics who simultaneously hold roles as policymakers—whether as special staff to ministers, members of expert panels, or commissioners in state institutions. Baum’s concept of role conflict again applies sharply: the academic is torn between the scholarly obligation to produce independent, critical knowledge and the governmental expectation to support, justify, or defend policy. Even when no money changes hands, the dual commitment to the academy and the state produces a tension where neutrality becomes difficult to maintain. Baum highlights that such conflicts derive not from individual moral failure but from the structural impossibility of serving two masters whose demands inherently differ.

Field-based research in Indonesia also creates tensions that Baum would classify as commitment conflicts. When academics conduct research among indigenous communities, rural populations affected by development, or groups with sensitive political conditions, they must balance institutional research goals against obligations to protect the communities they study. Conflict emerges when the university or research sponsor prioritises rapid publication or policy recommendations, while the field community expects confidentiality, respect, or long-term engagement. Baum stresses that these conflicts cannot be solved by simple disclosure; they require deep ethical reflexivity.

Taken together, these Indonesian cases reflect Baum’s central argument: conflict of interest in academia is not a matter of bad intentions but of structural pressures that push scholars into compromising positions. The integrity of academic judgment becomes threatened not by overt corruption, but by dependency, aspiration, and institutional arrangements that blur the boundaries between scholarship, authority, and external influence.

Further, the book investigates conflicts in financial markets, creative industries, and healthcare, illustrating how professional duties, client relationships, and external incentives can generate ethical tensions. We will continue the discussion in the next section. 

[Part 6]
[Part 4]

Bahasa