Regional autonomy has not lived up to expectations: Minister<\/p>\n
Tiarma Siboro
\nThe Jakarta Post
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
Regional autonomy has sparked disputes between the central
\ngovernment and local governments, local governments and the
\npublic and even among the local administrations since it came
\ninto effect more than three years ago. To make matters worse, the
\ngovernment intends to revise the ruling, which, to many, signals
\na move to transfer the power back to the central government. The
\nJakarta Post's Tiarma Siboro interviewed Minister of Home Affairs
\nHari Sabarno over the implementation of regional autonomy and its
\nimplications.<\/p>\n
Question: After more than three years, has decentralization
\nsucceeded in reaching its goals?<\/p>\n
Answer: The concept of decentralization is to transfer the
\ncentral government's duties to local governments to allow locals
\nto directly enjoy achievements in development in their own
\nregion. When it was first introduced in 1999, decentralization
\nwas also aimed at preventing the central government from
\nintervening too much in local affairs so that we could focus on
\nmacro policies. It means that the central government is
\nsupervising and observing the whole process of regional autonomy.<\/p>\n
Through decentralization, we can also improve the regions'
\nability to tackle their own problems, and it also symbolizes the
\ntrust of the central government in local governments.<\/p>\n
But nowadays we consider that the regions have not yet met our
\nexpectations due to various obstacles, including their lack of
\nreadiness to manage their problems. This situation has forced us
\nto intensify control over local governments to enable them to run
\nthe program.<\/p>\n
Do you think the whole process of decentralization has been
\ncompleted, including the handover of authority from the central
\ngovernment to local administrations to run businesses with
\nforeign parties?<\/p>\n
In general, we have completed the whole process, including
\ntransferring authority to the regions to do business with other
\nparties. The authority related to business management is
\nstipulated in Article 7 of Law No. 22\/1999 on regional autonomy.
\nOf course, we insist on implementing our macro policies on
\nnational economy to regions, while at the same time paving the
\nway for them to develop their own policies to maximize their
\nstrength.<\/p>\n
In this context, regional autonomy opens the way for regions
\nto promote investment, to speed up the process of issuing
\nbusiness permits and to establish various infrastructure to
\nsupport the running of the economy. This means that through
\nregional autonomy, we can improve regional welfare continuously.
\nIn line with decentralization, there are three major points that
\nlocal administrations have to take into account: strict and
\nsimple regulations, the removal of unnecessary costs and
\nenhancing favorable social and security conditions.<\/p>\n
In regard to foreign investment, we have not authorized
\nregions to issue permits because based on Article 10 of Law No.
\n24\/2000, the mechanism dealing with foreign investment and
\nforeign loans or grants designated to the central government or
\nprivate sector needs the approval of the House of
\nRepresentatives.<\/p>\n
But I think investors understand which business permits come
\nfrom the local authorities or the central government. Foreign
\ninvestment, of course, involves the central government because
\nregions have no authority to conduct direct business with foreign
\nparties. In this case, it is the authority of the BKPM
\n(Investment Coordinating Board) to facilitate the investment and
\nto negotiate with foreign investors. Regions will only get
\ninvolved once the deal has been settled, especially on issues
\nthat affect their interests, such as the location of the
\ninvestment or benefits they may earn from the investment.<\/p>\n
So far, I can see that local administrations perceive they
\nhave to develop fair competition to attract foreign investment
\nbecause it provides job opportunities for them. It will also
\nimprove a region's standard of living, and that eventually
\naffects the local administration's revenue from taxes.<\/p>\n
Have you noticed various problems filed by foreign investors due
\nto overlapping regulations between the central government and
\nlocal administrations?<\/p>\n
Foreign investors commonly complain about the confusing
\nregulations because they change from time to time. They also
\ncomplain about the security condition in some regions, although
\ninvestors who have run their businesses for years in certain
\nregions voice the same complaint.<\/p>\n
We hope regions will be able to change their mentality to
\nrealize that the presence of both domestic and foreign companies
\naround them is part of the ongoing efforts to help them improve
\ntheir welfare.<\/p>\n
These companies, of course, are expected to allocate more
\nfunds to improve the regions' standard of living, so as to create
\na synergic environment that includes social contact and
\nsustainable development.<\/p>\n
Despite various limitations made by the central government,
\nseveral regions have established a cooperation with foreign
\nparties.<\/p>\n
Of course we cannot prohibit them (other countries) from building
\na cooperation with local administrations, but the question is,
\nare these investors afraid if successors of the incumbent (local)
\nregime, as well as local councillors, revoke all policies taken
\nby their predecessors?<\/p>\n
Foreign investors have to realize that the incumbent local
\nadministrations have only a limited time of service, and are not
\npermanent. A regent or mayor is in power for five years, and that
\npower can be extended for another term.<\/p>\n
This could mean that a project funded by foreign investment in
\na region should not last more than five years. The situation is
\nextremely different with the state government, in which the
\nsuccessor continues the policy made by his predecessor. That is
\nwhy a cooperation with foreign parties has to involve the central
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Currently, we (the Ministry of Home Affairs) are preparing a
\nregulation on cooperations between foreign parties and locals,
\nespecially in dealing with foreign loans and financial
\ninvestments. Of course, regions can cooperate with foreign
\nparties in social and cultural fields without the prior approval
\nof the central government. The cooperation is expected to prevent
\nthe local administration from going bankrupt as what has happened
\nin other developing countries, such as Mexico, following the
\nadoption of decentralization.<\/p>\n
In the draft regulation, we stipulate that there should be a
\nstrict arrangement regarding the maximum foreign loans a region
\ncan accept and a maximum due date for the loans, which are less
\nthan five years.<\/p>\n
How long will it take for local administrations to manage their
\nown problems without the intervention of the central government?<\/p>\n
It depends on human resources and natural resources alike.
\nThe more resources they have, the faster they can manage
\nthemselves. Regions which lack natural resources are expected to
\npossess quality human resources to create various innovations to
\nattract investors. They can do many things, including providing
\nbetter services for investors.<\/p>\n
Should decentralization run smoothly, it would boost economic
\nexpansion beyond Java. Would it have any impact on relations
\nbetween the central government and the local administrations?<\/p>\n
We get the impression that the implementation of regional
\nautonomy has been partial, sporadic and misinterpreted, despite
\nthe fact that the regions maintain the spirit (of regional
\nautonomy) because it helps them develop their own policies and
\nimprove the standard of living.<\/p>\n
But on political issues, we can see that regional autonomy has
\nsparked euphoria among executives and legislators as we often
\nwitness in disputes among them. Of course, this affects the
\ndevelopment process and even spreads the threat of disintegration
\namong regions.<\/p>\n
Governors once complained that following the introduction of
\nregional autonomy they no longer had the same power as they had
\nbefore. How do you deal with that issue?<\/p>\n
Since we introduced regional autonomy, we have handed over 18
\nareas of authority to governors in a bid to give them some
\ncontrol over regencies and mayoralties. Of course, these
\njurisdictions only deal with administrative issues in forestry,
\nmining, ports and other fields.<\/p>\n
How about the government's plan to revise the regional autonomy
\nlaw?<\/p>\n
We are currently preparing a revision of five major issues: a
\nclear cut separation between the authority exercised by local
\nadministrations and the central government; relations between the
\nlocal legislature and the local administration, which is crucial
\nin promoting political stability in regions; the arrangement of
\nlocal revenues, ranging from regional revenue to revenue sharing,
\nand special and general allocation funds; the policy on the
\nplacement of civil servants in regions to make them more
\nflexible; and the evaluation of various border regulations.<\/p>\n
Do you think that regional autonomy tends to promote
\nethnocentrism and if so, how can we cope with the problem?<\/p>\n
People have to understand that the meaning of regional autonomy,
\nincluding its philosophy, vision, concept, background, basic
\nregulations and the strategy to implement it, is to avoid any
\ninstant way of thinking, including the thought that they can
\nforce their demands and aspirations through mass rallies or
\ndemonstrations.<\/p>\n
And since regional autonomy is the fruit of decentralization
\nand democratization, the process should be seen as an effort to
\nopen the way for the selection of legitimate local leaders who
\nare able to promote their ideas to the people. There is also the
\nneed for local leaders to maintain the decision-making mechanism,
\nwhich makes them accountable to the public.<\/p>\n
We consider democratization should be promoted in a situation
\nwhere local leaders are transparent to the public and responsible
\nfor all the decisions they make.<\/p>\n
Regional autonomy has to be seen as an opportunity for local
\npeople to develop their administration and create a system that
\ndevelops its political career so that they can promote good
\ngovernance. It means that regional autonomy should be managed
\nwell for the sake of keeping up social harmony between the locals
\nand the various elements living around them. In this way, we hope
\nthat local people can be responsive to their surroundings.<\/p>\n
Is the government developing a plan to provide scholarships in an
\nattempt to improve human resources in areas?<\/p>\n
In a bid to improve human resources in a region, the ministry has
\nestablished a cooperation with the related institutions to
\nprovide regular education and training, including offering
\nscholarships. But since we have a limited budget, we have to
\nselect and set up priority programs.<\/p>\n
In line with decentralization, regions can organize the
\nprograms with other regional institutions.<\/p>\n
Local legislatures apparently play prominent roles in promoting
\ngood governance. But judging from the several cases that have
\naffected the relations between executives and the legislature at
\nthe local level, it seems that local councillors have failed to
\ndo this. Since people will be voting for a legitimate
\nrepresentative, do you see the situation improving after the 2004
\ngeneral election?<\/p>\n
Regions have been prone to political disputes between executives
\nand legislatures following the inception of regional autonomy. If
\nthe conflicts are sparked by attempts to discharge the heads of
\nlocal governments for the sake of people's interests, I don't
\nmind. But what we have mostly seen is legislatures using
\nillogical reasons to replace political opponents.<\/p>\n
We have to underline that dismissals should comply with the
\nrules of the game. Local councillors have the authority to
\ndischarge a regent or mayor should they fail to carry out their
\nduties according to government regulation No. 108\/2001. For
\nexample, regents and mayors are not accountable, so councillors
\ncan reject their annual report or accountability speech, or they
\nintroduce conflicting policies that affect public trust.<\/p>\n
Nevertheless, these reasons do not automatically legitimize
\nthe unseating of the head of a local government until an
\nindependent team set up by the provincial administration verifies
\nthe mistakes.<\/p>\n
What we have seen is councillors ignoring all the procedures.
\nSome of these cases are related to political rivalry.<\/p>\n
Speaking about the quality of our local councillors, I'm sure
\nwe will have better ones after the 2004 election with the
\nintroduction of several criteria for legislative candidates,
\nincluding formal education and legitimacy. Besides, people will
\ndirectly cast their vote. In this situation, we hope that local
\ncouncillors will be able to accommodate their constituents'
\naspirations.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/regional-autonomy-has-not-lived-up-to-expectations-minister-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}