Public input in bill's deliberation

Public input in bill's deliberation

The tug-of-war between the government and the House of
Representatives Commission V deliberating the bill on the Free
Trade Zone (FTZ) on Batam island has reached a draw. No
compromise was reached, as each side insisted their respective
proposals were right.

Minister of Justice and Human Rights Yusril Ihza Mahendra,
said that there was significant disparity between the government
and the House over several articles, so both sides agreed to drop
the bill (The Jakarta Post, Sept. 14). On the contrary, in the
House's plenary meeting on Sept. 14, the bill was passed by the
House, without the government's endorsement (the Post, Sept, 15).

To a great many people, this kind of act shows how "arrogant"
the House is. However, both sides are far from practicing good
governance, a term which has become a daily political slogan.

For such an important bill, which will determine future
certainty in business, especially on Batam -- and, as with other
bill deliberations -- public input should have been sought.

The bill, which is said to have been hanging in the balance
since 2001, could have been prepared better with public input,
especially in the discussion of controversial articles.

This country has many brilliant economists that could have
contributed, why weren't their opinions called for?

Everyone knows that community or public participation is a
principle of good governance. Together with transparency and
accountability, they are part of democracy.
Ignoring these principles is to invite criticism, particularly
in terms of controversial articles.

The House should be transparent in its activities, if it does
not want to invite suspicion. It had agreed with the government
to drop the deliberation, so why was the bill endorsed? Such a
turn around -- to a certain extent -- could make the public
wonder whether the House members tasked to deliberate the bill
were bribed.

The government, on the other hand, has nothing to lose because
under article 20 of the 1945 Constitution, the endorsement of a
law must be agreed upon by both the House and the government,
meaning it is not binding, and most importantly, it is
unconstitutional as Yusril said (the Post, Sept. 16).

M. RUSDI
Jakarta