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.