Minister's right to hold public funds queried

Minister's right to hold public funds queried

By Didik J. Rachbini

The recent controversy over a Rp 50 billion transfer to the
Minister of Mines and Energy I.B. Sudjana's bank account
horrified many people. Economist Didik J. Rachbini argues that a
direct transfer of public funds to a ministry account is a
procedural mistake.

JAKARTA (JP): The widely publicized cash transfer to the
Minister of Mines and Energy's bank account indicates there is
increased government control of many matters.

The role of the House of Representatives has also grown in
importance but its influence is governed by individuals'
initiative. And as the legislators' term is approaching its end
any vocal legislator will risk being replaced.

Thus, deviations in the procedure for handling public budget
revenues and allocations will continue to occur.

To prevent them happening too often the state's sources of
revenue should be planned and submitted by the government to the
House. Any budget revenues and allocations outside this procedure
should be considered illegal.

Nevertheless, the House cannot do much to influence the
government's proposals on account of House members' lack of
expertise. Thus, the question of procedure and control is not
adequately addressed.

Apart from procedural aspects, the Sudjana case shows that the
government's dominance of the legislators is still very
pronounced. However, this cannot be maintained indefinitely
because the demands for transparency and implementation of good
governance are growing stronger. A more advanced community is
demanding improvements in the government's performance in
implementing its public policies.

There are a number of interesting lessons to be derived from
this case:

First, the government's dominance of public policies has been
going on for quite a while. Various decisions are made by public
officials without considering the people's aspirations.
Therefore, the existence of public budget revenue accounts
directly under the minister is not considered a deviation from
standard procedure.

Second, the transfer of public funds into the hands of the
government is an error which can lead to further deviations. The
private sector is a different story. Control of private budgets
is not needed because if a director of a private company makes a
decision-making error, the risks and consequences will be borne
directly by the company concerned, not the public. However, if a
government official makes a mistake, the risks and consequences
will be borne by the whole community.

Therefore, the process and mechanisms of public budget
decision making require an element of public control and must be
based on the principles of transparency and accountability.

Public control of the Minister of Mines and Energy's account
budget is difficult because the mechanism for revenues and
allocations is outside the existing procedure. A procedural error
like this should not occur if public officials and decision
makers are aware that the budget is a public budget which
requires an element of public control.

According to Tadjudin, the legislator who blew the whistle on
Sudjana, "what is orderly can still be corrupted, let alone what
is non-procedural like this."

I share his opinion because any order in budget control is
hard to apply. Apart from the account of the Minister of Mines
and Energy, there are many more procedures of public budget
revenues and allocations which are not accountable.

Third. So far the House's right to modify the budget has not
been used because of the government's domination of decision
making. Therefore, the House needs to be strengthened as an
institution by having more experts.

Although standard procedures in public budget planning are
applicable and pass House scrutiny, the budgets submitted by the
government are not changed much. Although the legal procedure is
accountable, deviations in implementation often take place.

Fourth, the process of decision making regarding the public
budget is part of the implementation of good governance and
transparency where the government must be held responsible.

This principle is difficult to carry out as long as the people
and the House's control over the government is weak.

Moreover, an ineffective legislature hampers efforts to
improve national governance. If this continues an opaque public
policy will persist, characterized by strong corporatism,
nepotism and cronyism.

The writer is a lecturer at the University of Indonesia.