Public input in bill's deliberation<\/p>\n
The tug-of-war between the government and the House of
\nRepresentatives Commission V deliberating the bill on the Free
\nTrade Zone (FTZ) on Batam island has reached a draw. No
\ncompromise was reached, as each side insisted their respective
\nproposals were right.<\/p>\n
Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra,
\nsaid that there was significant disparity between the government
\nand the House over several articles, so both sides agreed to drop
\nthe bill (The Jakarta Post, Sept. 14). On the contrary, in the
\nHouse's plenary meeting on Sept. 14, the bill was passed by the
\nHouse, without the government's endorsement (the Post, Sept, 15).<\/p>\n
To a great many people, this kind of act shows how \"arrogant\"
\nthe House is. However, both sides are far from practicing good
\ngovernance, a term which has become a daily political slogan.<\/p>\n
For such an important bill, which will determine future
\ncertainty in business, especially on Batam -- and, as with other
\nbill deliberations -- public input should have been sought.<\/p>\n
The bill, which is said to have been hanging in the balance
\nsince 2001, could have been prepared better with public input,
\nespecially in the discussion of controversial articles.<\/p>\n
This country has many brilliant economists that could have
\ncontributed, why weren't their opinions called for?<\/p>\n
Everyone knows that community or public participation is a
\nprinciple of good governance. Together with transparency and
\naccountability, they are part of democracy.
\n Ignoring these principles is to invite criticism, particularly
\nin terms of controversial articles.<\/p>\n
The House should be transparent in its activities, if it does
\nnot want to invite suspicion. It had agreed with the government
\nto drop the deliberation, so why was the bill endorsed? Such a
\nturn around -- to a certain extent -- could make the public
\nwonder whether the House members tasked to deliberate the bill
\nwere bribed.<\/p>\n
The government, on the other hand, has nothing to lose because
\nunder article 20 of the 1945 Constitution, the endorsement of a
\nlaw must be agreed upon by both the House and the government,
\nmeaning it is not binding, and most importantly, it is
\nunconstitutional as Yusril said (the Post, Sept. 16).<\/p>\n
M. RUSDI
\nJakarta<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/public-input-in-bills-deliberation-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}