A citizen's view

In the run-up to the 1998 meeting of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), many quarters are discussing the draft of the state's policy (GBHN) and necessary assembly decrees. Particularly active are the functional group (Golkar) and political and mass organizations, including the National Defense Institute (Lemhanas) and the Indonesian Armed Forces.

One talking point is the importance of re-enforcing MPR Decree No. VI/1988 -- the delegation of duties and authorization of the president's mandate -- to ensure the success and safeguarding of national development.

As a citizen, I can only hope that the MPR's members will pay earnest attention to the interests of the Indonesian people. They must consistently implement the 1945 Constitution and Pancasila and have the courage to voice the truth.

They must not let themselves become subservient to a particular group or dedicate themselves to such a group. Also, they must refrain from creating a cult on the basis of one individual who, until now, has been considered successful and meritorious.

The general assembly of the MPR must be bold enough to evaluate whether the president, as the MPR's mandate, has implemented or deviated from the 1945 Constitution and the broad outline of the state's policy.

On the issue of taxation, I wish to put forward the following:

1. The issuance of Presidential Instruction No. 2/1996 on tax exemption to PT Timor Putra Nasional violates the tax law and contradicts Article 23 of the 1945 Constitution. The instruction should first have been approved by the House of Representatives. It is, after all, a government subsidy which is borne by and must be accounted for in the state's budget.

2. The stipulation of Presidential Decree No. 92/1997 on the collection of a 2 percent levy on income exceeding Rp 100 million is in violation of Law No. 10/1994 on income tax and Article 23 (2) of the constitution.

3. The enactment of Law No. 17/1997 established a non- judiciary agency for the settlement of tax disputes but it contradicts Law No. 14/1970, on the principles of judiciary authority, and Article 24 of the constitution.

4. The laws relating to land and building title fees and regional taxes and levies have also been violated. The collection of a tax on the transfer of land and building title has resulted in multiple taxation because it overlaps with Law No. 11/1994 -- this transaction is already the subject of value added tax. The regional fuel tax for motorized vehicles is another example of double taxation because it too overlaps with the value added tax. These examples contradict the GBHN's stipulation on taxation in the 1993/98 which prohibits the imposition of double taxation on the same tax objects. As a result, the 1945 Constitution has also been violated.

5. The stipulation of Article 4 (2) of Law No. 10/1994 outlines the government regulation for collecting income tax on certain sources of income. This stipulation runs counter to and abolishes the principle and the entirety of Law No. 10/1994 itself. This also contradicts Article 23 (2) of the Constitution.

In my opinion these examples violate the laws and the 1945 Constitution and are authoritarian in nature. Other areas certainly have their own examples.

This matter requires serious attention from the general assembly of the MPR and must be understood by new members of the House of Representatives.

SUHARSONO HADIKUSUMO

Jakarta