MPR and President'saccountability

MPR and President'saccountability

The 2003 annual session of the People's Consultative Assembly
(MPR) has ended. 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
fideals 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 BPK (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