House of Reps: Just who are they representing?
House of Reps: Just who are they representing?
B. Herry-Priyono, Jakarta
The House of Representatives, which is already so low in the
eyes of the public, has sunk even lower. The crux this time
revolves around gluttony for money. This may be disguised by
terms like "welfare", "performance boost", "comparative studies",
or even "respectability boost", as if the House members don't
feel respectable enough. The fact remains, however, that gluttony
is at the root of it all.
To see all House members as belonging to the same herd is, of
course, misleading, but the latest brouhaha, which may have also
been driven by demands for money from the political parties,
involves a collective move that is sinister to say the least.
A chorus of support engulfed the House when the Ways and Means
Committee proposed a mammoth increase in take-home pay for the
546 members and four House leaders. By July 15, all 10 factions
in the House had signed up to the proposal (The Jakarta Post,
July 16, 2005).
Under the proposal, each House member -- and there are 546 in
total -- is to receive monthly take-home pay of approximately Rp
51.9 million (US$5,300), or an 82.8 percent rise from their
current take-home pay. For the House speaker, the increase is
even more spectacular at 104 percent, or up to Rp 82.1 million
compared to Rp 40.1 million at present. Meanwhile, the deputy
speakers are to receive an 89.5 percent pay rise (from Rp 35.7 to
67.7 million). If these sort of increases had been proposed for
our atrociously paid public school teachers, the people would
have been jubilant.
It comes as no surprise then that the move has drawn strong
public criticism. Amid the criticism, some members continue to
argue that the spectacular pay rises are not intended to benefit
them personally. Rather, so they claim, the increases are
intended to improve their performance in representing their
constituents. While to immediately dismiss this claim as tosh
could be construed as adopting a presumption of guilt, it would
be equally misconceived not to consider the possibility of this
being a mere pretext.
From the point of view of bargaining, the proposed pay
increases may just be an example of the "demand-as-high-as-
possible" tactic widely practiced in diplomacy. But even on this
count, the proposal is an insult to the public. The good news is
that the proposal will have to go through a series of close
examinations, especially from the actuarial eyes of the Ministry
of Finance.
But as the inside story unfolds, the clearer it becomes that
the proposal involves a conspiracy. It is no wonder then that
when the proposal came under sustained fire, some House members
became furious to the point that they wanted to unseat House
Speaker Agung Laksono on the grounds that he had not worked hard
enough to win public support for the pay rise.
There is no need to rehash the societal context that clearly
makes this proposal an insult. The fact that the country is now
afflicted by numerous maladies that drain budgetary resources is
sufficient grounds for any reasonable person to view the proposal
as showing contempt for the public. This is not to say that
public sentiment is always right.
However, it is precisely the fact that it ignores public
sentiment that has given the House such a bad name for decades.
Now, when an acid test is presented to House members to prove
that they are not part of the old guard, they fail, and fail
miserably. It is true that image is not everything. But politics
is a volatile and uncertain business in which public image plays
a major part.
Then, as if enough harm had not been done, the House rubs salt
in the public's wounds in the form of a ruckus over overseas
trips. Even a six-grader can see that a term like "comparative
study" really means a junket. The House Ways and Means Committee
has earmarked Rp 32.4 billion for overseas travel by House
members in 2006. This is more than a 100 percent rise compared to
Rp 14.06 billion in 2005. Some upright members of the House no
doubt do travel overseas on serious comparative studies. But, do
we really believe that most House members do so?
From 1995 to 2001, I had the privilege of living in London as
a student on a scholarship. Due to my tight budget, sometimes I
augmented my subsistence allowance by working as a tour guide.
Once in a while the visitors would be House members on
"comparative studies". To my surprise, many took little interest
in touring the corridors of the House of Commons and House of
Lords, let alone watching parliamentary proceedings. Usually,
what they did was simply take a few pictures in front of Big Ben
and Parliament in all its gothic splendor, and then ask me to
take them to the nearest expensive shopping area.
Real comparative studies need long and thorough preparations,
with proper probing of the issues that are to be compared. All
this involves hard work.
By contrast, the "comparative studies" widely engaged in by
most House members are often little more than sightseeing and
shopping sprees. Of course, the costs are borne by the taxpayers.
All this reminds me of a derogatory Javanese expression: kiri
munggah bali (beggar in the palace). This is roughly akin to
"nouveau riche", and refers to general uncouthness resulting from
becoming rich or powerful too quickly.
We sincerely hope that it is not this that is currently
affecting our national legislators. But if it is, the time has
come for societal groups like Parliament Watch to organize a
public petition that will hopefully garner millions of signatures
to stop the House from prolonging this ongoing farce.
The writer is a postgraduate lecturer at the Driyarkara School
of Philosophy, Jakarta, and an alumnus of the London School of
Economics.