Legal Literacy - Every time judicial corruption resurfaces, we seem to have an almost ritualistic automatic response: "improve the welfare of judges." That sentence sounds rational, even dignified. The state seems to acknowledge the workload and responsibilities of judges, then offers a solution that is easily understood by the public: if welfare increases, temptation decreases. Done. The problem is, precisely because it sounds reasonable, this discourse is often treated as an answer that closes the discussion—not as an entry point to dissect the root of the problem.

The question of "whether an increase in judges' salaries can reduce judicial corruption" is not just an economic question. It is a question of how the state manages power. Judicial power, according to the constitution, is an independent power to uphold law and justice. However, in rule of law, "independent" is not synonymous with "untouchable." Independent means free from external intervention in deciding cases; not free from accountability when authority is abused. This is where the discussion about salaries often misses the mark: as if increasing remuneration automatically produces integrity, whereas integrity is always a combined product of personal ethics and institutional design that forces that ethic to be the most rational choice.

Let's first establish a common ground that should not be…