Minister's right to hold public funds queried<\/p>\n
By Didik J. Rachbini<\/p>\n
The recent controversy over a Rp 50 billion transfer to the
\nMinister of Mines and Energy I.B. Sudjana's bank account
\nhorrified many people. Economist Didik J. Rachbini argues that a
\ndirect transfer of public funds to a ministry account is a
\nprocedural mistake.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): The widely publicized cash transfer to the
\nMinister of Mines and Energy's bank account indicates there is
\nincreased government control of many matters.<\/p>\n
The role of the House of Representatives has also grown in
\nimportance but its influence is governed by individuals'
\ninitiative. And as the legislators' term is approaching its end
\nany vocal legislator will risk being replaced.<\/p>\n
Thus, deviations in the procedure for handling public budget
\nrevenues and allocations will continue to occur.<\/p>\n
To prevent them happening too often the state's sources of
\nrevenue should be planned and submitted by the government to the
\nHouse. Any budget revenues and allocations outside this procedure
\nshould be considered illegal.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, the House cannot do much to influence the
\ngovernment's proposals on account of House members' lack of
\nexpertise. Thus, the question of procedure and control is not
\nadequately addressed.<\/p>\n
Apart from procedural aspects, the Sudjana case shows that the
\ngovernment's dominance of the legislators is still very
\npronounced. However, this cannot be maintained indefinitely
\nbecause the demands for transparency and implementation of good
\ngovernance are growing stronger. A more advanced community is
\ndemanding improvements in the government's performance in
\nimplementing its public policies.<\/p>\n
There are a number of interesting lessons to be derived from
\nthis case:<\/p>\n
First, the government's dominance of public policies has been
\ngoing on for quite a while. Various decisions are made by public
\nofficials without considering the people's aspirations.
\nTherefore, the existence of public budget revenue accounts
\ndirectly under the minister is not considered a deviation from
\nstandard procedure.<\/p>\n
Second, the transfer of public funds into the hands of the
\ngovernment is an error which can lead to further deviations. The
\nprivate sector is a different story. Control of private budgets
\nis not needed because if a director of a private company makes a
\ndecision-making error, the risks and consequences will be borne
\ndirectly by the company concerned, not the public. However, if a
\ngovernment official makes a mistake, the risks and consequences
\nwill be borne by the whole community.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the process and mechanisms of public budget
\ndecision making require an element of public control and must be
\nbased on the principles of transparency and accountability.<\/p>\n
Public control of the Minister of Mines and Energy's account
\nbudget is difficult because the mechanism for revenues and
\nallocations is outside the existing procedure. A procedural error
\nlike this should not occur if public officials and decision
\nmakers are aware that the budget is a public budget which
\nrequires an element of public control.<\/p>\n
According to Tadjudin, the legislator who blew the whistle on
\nSudjana, "what is orderly can still be corrupted, let alone what
\nis non-procedural like this."<\/p>\n
I share his opinion because any order in budget control is
\nhard to apply. Apart from the account of the Minister of Mines
\nand Energy, there are many more procedures of public budget
\nrevenues and allocations which are not accountable.<\/p>\n
Third. So far the House's right to modify the budget has not
\nbeen used because of the government's domination of decision
\nmaking. Therefore, the House needs to be strengthened as an
\ninstitution by having more experts.<\/p>\n
Although standard procedures in public budget planning are
\napplicable and pass House scrutiny, the budgets submitted by the
\ngovernment are not changed much. Although the legal procedure is
\naccountable, deviations in implementation often take place.<\/p>\n
Fourth, the process of decision making regarding the public
\nbudget is part of the implementation of good governance and
\ntransparency where the government must be held responsible.<\/p>\n
This principle is difficult to carry out as long as the people
\nand the House's control over the government is weak.<\/p>\n
Moreover, an ineffective legislature hampers efforts to
\nimprove national governance. If this continues an opaque public
\npolicy will persist, characterized by strong corporatism,
\nnepotism and cronyism.<\/p>\n
The writer is a lecturer at the University of Indonesia.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ministers-right-to-hold-public-funds-queried-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }