House to endorse controversial water bill

House to endorse controversial water bill

Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Without further ado, the House of Representatives concluded the
deliberations of the controversial water resources bill and is
set to endorse it on Thursday.

Virtually all contentious articles that drew protest from the
very beginning of deliberations -- including the one on water
privatization -- were left untouched, thanks to unreserved
support from the ruling Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
(PDI-P) and the Golkar Party, the political vehicle of former
president Soeharto.

"The bill has three main issues -- environment preservation,
water commercialization and the destructive power of water, but
we consider the bill to favor commercialization," said Amri Husni
Siregar of the Reform faction, the only faction to oppose the
bill.

Water expert Budi Wignyosukarto of Gadjah Mada University
agreed with Amri, saying the draft clearly promoted privatization
of the water sector.

Article 40(3) stipulates that corporations, state enterprises,
regional enterprises, private enterprises and the public may
become involved in drinking water supply.

"If the government says that it has no funds to manage water
resources, it is very likely that it will allow private companies
to manage the water sector. It means water will become an
economic commodity," Budi said.

It is also unlikely that average people or society would have
the privilege of managing their water resources as the bill rules
that drinking water is water that can be drunk directly without
being boiled and that has been declared free of E. coli.

"The bill's stipulation about the quality of drinking water
clearly defines that water will become an economic commodity
because its production and service costs will increase," said
Nila Ardhianie of the Coalition for People's Right for Water.

She warned that prolonged controversy over the bill would lead
to chaos as most people in the country, particularly those in
rural areas, still enjoyed free fresh water.

Budi shared Nila's view, saying that the government and the
House had failed to protect farmers as the bill it did not
guarantee farmers affordable water for irrigation.

"There are articles saying that water for irrigation is a
social commodity, but the bill fails to stipulate explicitly that
it is also a priority. Without a clear article, the need for
water for irrigation may be 'defeated' by the needs of industry
or something else," he said.

Budi said that he opposed the bill due to Article 9 (1), which
allows individual or private corporations to secure permits to
commercialize water.

"It's clear-cut, this bill opens the door to privatization,"
he said, asking both the government and the House to listen to
criticism.