Intrusive legislature<\/p>\n
Megawati Soekarnoputri's rise to the presidency in July with
\nstrong coalition support created a market belief that her
\ngovernment would be able to speed up its long-delayed reform
\nagenda through the House of Representatives.<\/p>\n
But what the government has been facing so far is an
\noverzealous House of Representatives which attempts to intervene
\ninto virtually every program the government is pursuing. This
\nmeddling by the legislature has been so excessive that many
\npolicy measures are stuck in delay after delay at the expense of
\nthe government's credibility domestically and internationally.<\/p>\n
Having said all that, we are not suggesting that the House be
\nas submissive as its predecessors during the authoritarian
\nSoeharto administration, rubber stamping any proposals from the
\nexecutive branch. But what we see now is a House that has swung
\nfrom an extremely subservient posture to an overly intrusive one.<\/p>\n
Since many reform programs have fallen far behind schedule,
\neither because of backtracking by the previous administrations or
\nobstructive meddling by the House, the government often feels
\ncompelled to \"buy its way\" through the legislature to expedite
\nthings. Hence, allegations have been abound about how particular
\nministers made payments, which were disguised in seemingly legal
\nexpense accounts, to House members. Recently, a major controversy
\nerupted after Rp 10 million worth of traveler's checks owned by
\nTreasury Director General Anshari Ritonga was found by a cleaner
\non the eighth floor of the House building.<\/p>\n
The House should certainly exercise effective control of the
\ngovernment to ensure good governance that is both transparent and
\naccountable but this responsibility must be done appropriately
\nwithin the parameters of the law and the Constitution.<\/p>\n
The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the country's top
\nlegislative body, has set a five-year plan of broad guidelines on
\nstate policies to direct government operations, and the policies
\nmust be implemented through the annual state budget which must be
\napproved by the House. Hence, House deliberations on the annual
\nstate budget plan are supposed to be the most efficient and
\neffective way of controlling governmental operations.<\/p>\n
But once the budget plan and its programs are approved, the
\nHouse should no longer intervene into every deal or move the
\ngovernment is making as long as the measures are consistent with
\nthe budget programs, other regulations and budgetary procedures.<\/p>\n
The most glaring examples are debt restructuring, asset sales
\nand privatization of state companies, which are core elements of
\nreforms and vital to stop the economic bleeding.<\/p>\n
The 2001 state budget, which was approved by the House late
\nlast year, clearly details the policy objectives and revenue
\ntargets of those reform measures and also outlines how the
\ngovernment will pursue them. Terms of reference, procedures and
\npolicy guidelines for these programs have been clearly expressed
\nin numerous executive rulings.<\/p>\n
However, every time the government moves to sell particular
\nassets or privatize particular state companies, it often becomes
\nbogged down in endless debates in the House, resulting in
\ngovernmental gridlock and, perhaps even more damage is done
\nbecause it causes widespread uncertainty about government policy.<\/p>\n
Even more astonishing is the seemingly narrow-minded,
\nnationalistic sentiments among House members even though they
\nshould be fully aware that foreign investors are virtually the
\nonly potential buyers of all the distressed assets. Our economy
\nis now like a profusely bleeding patient, which desperately
\nrequires a blood transfusion, and the only donors that are fit to
\nprovide the blood are businesspeople and investors from other
\ncountries.<\/p>\n
House members may not be aware that the quality of distressed
\nassets is now deteriorating rapidly due to a lack of lifeblood
\n(working capital credits) and, that many assets, such as banks,
\nare kept alive only by funds from the taxpayers (state budget
\nsupport).<\/p>\n
The House need not worry that foreign acquisition of some
\nassets or state companies would give overseas investors a blank
\ncheck to do whatever they like in our economy. We have laws and
\nregulations to ensure sound business practices and direct
\nbusinesses into the goals of our national development.<\/p>\n
After all, we should not forget that it was our corrupt,
\ncollusive national conglomerates, and not foreign companies, that
\nwere partly responsible for our current economic troubles.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/intrusive-legislature-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}