MPR and President's accountability

The 2003 annual session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) has just been closed. Altogether four decrees were produced, among other things Decree No. 5/2003 on suggestions to state institutions (the President, House of Representatives, the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK), and the Supreme Court (MA)). However, being a decree and merely a recommendation, as agreed upon by the assembly, it is not binding. The President can just ignore it without penalty.

This is evidence of how difficult indeed it is to practice the ideals of good governance in this country, and how remote the materialization of a clean government is. The ideals which have been framed since the fall of the New Order regime in 1998, are still concepts. They have become lingo and rarely implemented.

The recommendations given to the President by the MPR, should be the starting point for her to begin the campaign toward the eradication of corruption, collusion, and nepotism (KKN). This has been demanded by the majority of people and the results should be reported during the MPR annual session, in September 2004, as also agreed to by the assembly.

A one year period, by ordinary people's standards, is more than enough time for her to bring big corruption cases to court, in her role in public accountability and supremacy of law. This process and its timing will be beneficial to her campaign in next year's direct presidential election.

The President's public accountability should ideally be verified by the BPK in order not to invite criticism from the people. The minister's, governor's, regent's and mayor's annual accountability reports should also be verified by the BPK.

If such regulations are not yet in place, one of the articles of the new bill on the Supreme Audit Agency (which is still in process) may insist upon them. Besides which, there must only be one single national audit standard, applicable to both internal as well as external auditing. This must be urgently set up by BPK as the sole auditor of the state.

Bearing this in mind, there is no reason for state officials, including the President, to refrain from making an annual accountability report in coordination with the BPK. The government should move quickly -- if reports of malfeasance or the deviation of state budget are made -- so that corruptions cases may be dealt with accordingly.

M. RUSDI Jakarta