Intrusive legislature

Megawati Soekarnoputri's rise to the presidency in July with strong coalition support created a market belief that her government would be able to speed up its long-delayed reform agenda through the House of Representatives.

But what the government has been facing so far is an overzealous House of Representatives which attempts to intervene into virtually every program the government is pursuing. This meddling by the legislature has been so excessive that many policy measures are stuck in delay after delay at the expense of the government's credibility domestically and internationally.

Having said all that, we are not suggesting that the House be as submissive as its predecessors during the authoritarian Soeharto administration, rubber stamping any proposals from the executive branch. But what we see now is a House that has swung from an extremely subservient posture to an overly intrusive one.

Since many reform programs have fallen far behind schedule, either because of backtracking by the previous administrations or obstructive meddling by the House, the government often feels compelled to "buy its way" through the legislature to expedite things. Hence, allegations have been abound about how particular ministers made payments, which were disguised in seemingly legal expense accounts, to House members. Recently, a major controversy erupted after Rp 10 million worth of traveler's checks owned by Treasury Director General Anshari Ritonga was found by a cleaner on the eighth floor of the House building.

The House should certainly exercise effective control of the government to ensure good governance that is both transparent and accountable but this responsibility must be done appropriately within the parameters of the law and the Constitution.

The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the country's top legislative body, has set a five-year plan of broad guidelines on state policies to direct government operations, and the policies must be implemented through the annual state budget which must be approved by the House. Hence, House deliberations on the annual state budget plan are supposed to be the most efficient and effective way of controlling governmental operations.

But once the budget plan and its programs are approved, the House should no longer intervene into every deal or move the government is making as long as the measures are consistent with the budget programs, other regulations and budgetary procedures.

The most glaring examples are debt restructuring, asset sales and privatization of state companies, which are core elements of reforms and vital to stop the economic bleeding.

The 2001 state budget, which was approved by the House late last year, clearly details the policy objectives and revenue targets of those reform measures and also outlines how the government will pursue them. Terms of reference, procedures and policy guidelines for these programs have been clearly expressed in numerous executive rulings.

However, every time the government moves to sell particular assets or privatize particular state companies, it often becomes bogged down in endless debates in the House, resulting in governmental gridlock and, perhaps even more damage is done because it causes widespread uncertainty about government policy.

Even more astonishing is the seemingly narrow-minded, nationalistic sentiments among House members even though they should be fully aware that foreign investors are virtually the only potential buyers of all the distressed assets. Our economy is now like a profusely bleeding patient, which desperately requires a blood transfusion, and the only donors that are fit to provide the blood are businesspeople and investors from other countries.

House members may not be aware that the quality of distressed assets is now deteriorating rapidly due to a lack of lifeblood (working capital credits) and, that many assets, such as banks, are kept alive only by funds from the taxpayers (state budget support).

The House need not worry that foreign acquisition of some assets or state companies would give overseas investors a blank check to do whatever they like in our economy. We have laws and regulations to ensure sound business practices and direct businesses into the goals of our national development.

After all, we should not forget that it was our corrupt, collusive national conglomerates, and not foreign companies, that were partly responsible for our current economic troubles.