Undemocratic move<\/p>\n
The party's over. The Jakarta City Council has approved the
\nyear's provincial budget, which amounts to Rp 11.075 trillion --
\nroughly Rp 1.375 trillion more than last year's. Now the
\ngovernor, his deputy and the 85 city councillors are all smiles
\nas they have completed a huge job that cost them hundreds of
\nmillions of rupiah.<\/p>\n
Yes, the gavel has been pounded, but the public debate must go
\non because the decision-making process was flawed. Three
\nquestions have been left unanswered.<\/p>\n
First: Why does the annual budget not serve the public
\ninterest? The budget allocates Rp 130 billion for the salaries of
\nthe governor, the deputy governor and the 85 city councillors,
\nbut only Rp 26 billion is set aside for poverty-related programs.<\/p>\n
Besides his monthly salary, the governor is also entitled to
\nmore money from various stipends and allowances, not including
\nunexplained contributions, amounting to Rp 780 billion-plus, from
\nthe South, West, East and North Jakarta mayoralties for the
\ngovernor and his deputy. This amount is quite apart from the
\ngovernor's allowances for health, morning coffee, newspapers and
\nmagazines, and official attire.<\/p>\n
From this point of view, approval of the 2003 city budget
\nraises questions that both the executive and legislative branches
\nof the administration are reluctant to explain to the public.<\/p>\n
The second question is, why were all the meetings and debates
\non the budget closed to the public? The third is, what is all
\nthat money for? What was lacking was openness and transparency,
\nbut that, unfortunately, was avoided by both the city
\nadministration and City Council.<\/p>\n
As far as is publicly known, no legislation exists that
\nprohibits reporters from attending a local government budget
\nmeeting at the City Council, but the reality was that all
\nsessions were held without the presence of journalists. If they
\nhad been there, the reporters could have gathered significant
\ninformation about what was going on in the meeting room, and then
\nproduce relevant articles as part of their duty to provide
\nadequate and reliable information to the public. In this way,
\ninput from the public could have been put on the agenda of the
\nmeetings before any decision was made.<\/p>\n
Public debates should have been held before the Council
\napproved the budget in order to elicit the public's participation
\nin the making of decisions on matters that concerned them. It is
\nobvious that the city administration and Council have denied the
\npeople their right to adequate information -- especially
\nregarding the question of what the money derived from the
\nmayoralties and city agencies is really for.<\/p>\n
The Jakarta city administration should have promoted openness
\nand transparency in its efforts to uphold and promote democracy.
\nIt is difficult to see why the administration and Council have
\nbeen so reticent, while other provinces -- such as Yogyakarta and
\nNorth Sumatra -- do allow journalists to attend their meetings on
\nthe budget.<\/p>\n
As things are, the question that is now on everyone's lips is,
\nwhy have Jakarta administration officials been so reticent if
\nthey don't have something to hide? By keeping the public from
\nacquiring first-hand information of what went on, Jakarta --
\nwhich should have been the barometer of the nation's social,
\npolitical and economic life -- has ceded the moral ground on
\nwhich to hold itself up as a model of democracy and reform in
\nthis country.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/undemocratic-move-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}