Observers disappointed with MPR's Annual Session

Observers disappointed with MPR's Annual Session

JAKARTA (JP): Numerous political observers were disappointed
with the People's Consultative Assembly's (MPR) 10-day Annual
Session which concluded on Friday, saying it paid more attention
to power bargaining than the economic crisis afflicting the
country.

Arbi Sanit, a political expert from the University of
Indonesia, told The Jakarta Post by phone that he was not
impressed with the Annual Session because it looked like an arena
of power bargaining among the political parties.

"I'm very disappointed with the Annual Session and its
results," he said.

He said during the Annual Session, there were too many
compromises among the factions. They were trying to discredit
each other instead of looking for solutions to the economic
problems hurting the country.

He said the Assembly's results and possible impact to people's
lives did not equal the high cost paid to finance the Annual
Session.

"It was too costly for the results it yielded. And the
Assembly should be pressed to be more productive in the next
Annual Sessions," he said.

The Annual Session absorbed some Rp 25.7 billion (US$3
million) and nearly half of it was used to cover hotel expenses
for its 700 members.

Arbi also criticized the Assembly for not giving enough
attention to the reform agenda, especially for a direct
presidential election and a two-house legislative system.

"The Assembly's failure to adopt the direct presidential
election system and to accept the presence of a regional
representative faction is an indication that factions and
legislators are interested in their own political interests and
are ignoring people's economic hardships," he said.

Factions should be involved in lobbies and political
bargaining but it should be done for the people, not for their
parties or power, he added.

Arbi also questioned the Assembly's ignorance of people's
grievances in Aceh, Maluku, North Maluku and Irian Jaya.

"There are serious problems in the provinces where locals are
killing each other and are no longer confident in the government
and I did not see any recommendations being made during the
Annual Session to solve the problems," he said.

Johannes Kristiadi, the deputy director of the Centre for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), concurred and said
the Assembly was pressed to be hasty and not professional in
amending the Constitution.

"To me, the amending of the Constitution was conducted hastily
and the Assembly looked unprofessional and this could be seen
from the overwhelming flow of protest and criticisms fired at the
Assembly during the Annual Session," he said.

He suggested the Assembly set up an independent expert team to
help amend the Constitution so that the amendment process was
free from short-term political interests.

"The Assembly could not hastily amend the Constitution to
avoid an annual amendment to it. An expert team is also needed
because most members of the Assembly lack skill and expertise in
constitutional discipline," he said, citing for example the
sudden change in the definition of Indonesia's territory.

Kristiadi also regretted the Assembly's political compromise
in maintaining the military/police faction's presence in the
highest legislative body until 2009.

"I'm sure the decision didn't come from military headquarters,
but from political guerrillas or civilian politicians who staged
an all-out battle for power," he said.

Overall, Kristiadi questioned the necessity of having such a
session annually as it overlaps with the House of
Representatives' function in controlling the government.

Political activist Mulyana W. Kusumah also criticized the
various amendments saying that many articles sounded similar to
laws.

"The Constitution should contain substantial or fundamental
things necessary for the state system and democracy, while the
details should be made into law. With the current amendment, the
Assembly is trying to write everything in detail in the
Constitution," he said.

He also said the decree regulating the delegation of duty from
the President to the Vice President was a constitutional coup
because it meant the Assembly could interfere in the executive's
internal affairs.

Andi A. Mallarangeng, an expert staff member of the state
minister for regional autonomy, said the Assembly failed to make
a policy on regional administration in line with the planned
implementation of regional autonomy.

"The Assembly should adopt the proposed direct presidential
election because it is in line with regional autonomy. If not,
the Assembly should recommend a direct governor and regent
election," he said. (rms/nvn)