House junket funds 'prone to abuse'

House junket funds 'prone to abuse'

Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Question: Is it a working visit if it's just a visit without
working? Will it still be called a study tour if it's just about
touring but no studying?

If legislators, the so-called people's representatives, who
get caught on expensive shopping expeditions on what are supposed
to be study tours abroad cannot justify their trips to the
public, then who can?

What can justify the recent case where legislators cut short a
10-day trip to four days after accepting payment for the full 10
days?

After all, it is worth remembering that all of these trips are
financed by the taxpayers, who have been forced to dig deeper
into their pockets to help finance the cash-strapped state
budget.

A few lawmakers are prepared to question the usefulness of
such trips, or what might be better termed junkets.

Legislator Djoko Susilo from the National Mandate Party (PAN)
said there were more effective and less expensive ways of
improving legislators' knowledge and skills, such as by reading
books, browsing the Internet or inviting a couple of experts in
to explain things -- rather than flying dozens of people abroad.

On effectiveness, legislator Andi Yuliani Paris from the
National Awakening Party (PKB) tells it as it is.

"I'm always surprised when I learn that legislators are going
on trips as the planning process isn't transparent. Even after
they get back, I never find out what they accomplished on their
visits because the House doesn't have any formal mechanisms for
experience-sharing among us," she said.

The House seems to be unconcerned by the public criticism. The
proposed 2006 budget for foreign trips stands at Rp 32.4 billion
(US$3.32 million), more than twice this year's Rp 14.06 billion
or last year's Rp 14.1 billion.

But there are no explanations about the specific targets or
objectives of the visits, only the destination countries and the
number of participants.

The result is predictable. Some legislators who recently
traveled to France and the Netherlands on a "study tour" were
caught busy shopping and carrying bags of expensive purchases as
shown on pictures posted on the www.ppibelanda.org website, set
up by Indonesian students in the Netherlands.

What about transparency in the financing of House trips? The
recent case involving a "working visit" to Bali showed that there
is no obligation for legislators to write reports on their trips,
even to the House.

"We get the payment before we leave and the amount is based on
our own proposals. Thus, it's actually possible not to go or to
cut the visit short (without having to return the money)," said
legislator Suryama M. Sastra from the Prosperous Justice Party
(PKS).

He said that unlike most state officials who receive stamped
forms as proof of their visits, legislators were exempted from
this.

One might think that any remaining money would be returned.
But the House secretariat, which disburses the funds, says there
has never been a case where money has been returned.

Tommi A. Legowo from the parliament watchdog Formappi said a
total reform of the House system was essential, with budgets
being based on the real needs of legislators as lawmakers rather
than just the need to spend money.

"The thing is, the House monitors other people but no one
monitors it. The House doesn't discuss its programs with the
public, even to the extent of telling the public what the
objectives and itinerary of a foreign trip are, for example," he
said.

Tommi also questioned the effectiveness of a lump-sum payment
system rather than reimbursement as the former was prone to
corruption.

"In the end, it boils down to upholding accountability and the
ethics of legislators as state officials working to represent the
interests of the people," he said.