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.