A citizen's view
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