Govt stands firm on Batam bill

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Despite its endorsement by the House of Representatives, the Batam free trade zone (FTZ) will not materialize due to the government's opposition, a minister says.

Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra told reporters on Saturday that President Megawati Soekarnoputri had refused to sign the FTZ bill into law.

"Even if the House endorsed it, the bill cannot be enacted into law without the government's consent," he said, referring to article 22 of the Constitution, which requires a bill to be agreed to by both the government and the House before it can become law.

The article also says that if a bill is rejected by the government, the draft cannot be moved again during the same session of the House.

"This means that the article that says that a bill automatically becomes law 30 days after its endorsement by the House if the president refuses to give her consent is not applicable," Yusril said.

He had earlier said that the issue would have to be settled by the new government and the House during the next House session.

The fate of Batam's free trade zone, therefore, remains up in the air following the controversy over the bill's endorsement by the House.

The controversy arose following the decision of the House plenary session on Sept. 14 to pass the bill despite the House's earlier agreement with the government on Sept. 10 to drop it due to disagreements on several contentious articles.

One of the disputed articles in the government-proposed bill is the plan to limit FTZ status to certain industrial areas on the island, known also as "enclave FTZs", while the House bill envisages the whole of Batam Island be granted full FTZ status.

The other disputed article concerns the authority to manage seaports and the airport on Batam. The government wants to retain this authority, while the House says that it should be delegated to the local administration.

The House had actually completed its own draft a few years ago, but the government rejected it, and drafted its own version instead, which was submitted to the House for deliberation.

To settle the dispute, the Constitutional Court has suggested that the government challenge the bill before the court.