Right time for House reform

Frank Feulner, Jakarta

The recent heated public discussion about the planned increase in salaries of legislators has once again made apparent the necessity of reform of the House of Representatives. Similar to the eminent reduction of fuel subsidies, it is clear to many observers and House members that such reform is vital.

However, both the timing and the way to introduce these changes have to be chosen carefully. While the increase in fuel prices could be introduced in stages, parliamentary reform is needed immediately.

Discussions concerning the operational expenses of legislators are just the tip of the iceberg in relation to reforms needed for the House. Other critical issues include internal House budget allocations, organizational structures, and operating practices and procedures. Most current practices have so far survived almost unchanged Indonesia's democratic transition, and are no longer appropriate for the assembly's change in role from a body merely approving government decisions to its new role as an independent legislature tasked with both law-making responsibilities and acting as a counterweight to the executive.

The planned increase in salaries for house members comes only five months after the newly elected legislature started its session. This is quite unusual for a new parliament that has had little time to build up a positive track record in the field of effective deliberation and decision-making.

To the contrary, in the public view, members of the new parliament seem as self-interested in personal gain as members of the previous one. This perception was created earlier by the political fighting between party factions for the leadership of various House commissions and committees.

Discussing the allowances of legislators is never an easy matter, whether in Indonesia or elsewhere. Every country with a democratically elected parliament experiences similar controversies. The public should be entitled to clear accounts as to how the House uses its funds, as well as complete transparency concerning legislators' wealth and finances. In some countries, independent auditors and consultants are even used to determine salaries and allowances for parliamentarians.

Yet, in Indonesia, the salary debate has served to shed light on many other House practices and procedures which deserve immediate attention. Among the issues frequently mentioned by House members is the issue of inadequate staffing. To date, members only have one personal assistant helping with mainly administrative and clerical tasks. Regardless of the magnitude of their tasks, members can not rely on additional professional experts or public relations specialists.

In addition to the lack of personal support for each member, the House also suffers from a very limited number of around 120 qualified experts. These experts are divided into two groups: Some are political appointees working for the party factions; others are independent experts working for the eleven commissions, whereby each commission has only three experts assigned. This total is risible if one considers the large portfolios of some of the commissions. House Commission I, for example, covers issues as diverse as defense, foreign affairs, and information.

Another issue of concern among members is that of access to information concerning matters of the house itself, in particular regarding the operating budget. So far, members are unable to answer questions regarding their own salary breakdown because their salary slips do not provide sufficient detail. Equally, the current operating budget of the House seems a mystery to most members, even though, ironically, it is the legislators who are tasked with passing the overall state budget.

The most recent financial note prepared by the Ministry of Finance on the planned state budget for 2005 allocates around 0.25 percent of the planned state budget for the House. By international comparison, this is a figure within the range of budget allocations to elected legislatures in other countries. It must be noted, however, that the use of these funds can vary widely.

In countries like Canada or the United States, the majority of the operating budget is used to finance the work of the members and expert services, with only a minority of the budget being used on administration and building maintenance. Yet, little is known about the allocation of funds within the House, and as no data is available, it is a matter open to much speculation. Information and transparency are the keys to the building of trust and good relations with the public.

Many critical issues are connected to the internal rules and procedures of the house, and so therefore, particularly attention is needed in this area. Procedures are intended to regulate how members can perform their work effectively and efficiently. However, recent events, with legislators in heated debates with guests from the government and judiciary, reveal the extent of unclear regulations regarding procedures for speaking at plenary sessions and questioning of those requested to appear at commission meetings.

Existing house procedures state that the chair of a meeting is charged with seeing that the sitting proceeds in conformity with House rules and procedures. However, various articles of the rules are open to interpretation, and the provisions on speaking times, and mechanisms of enforcement, are unclear. A clear set of reformed and revised rules could detail all these issues, including from how a meeting or plenum should be organized and conducted, to the announcement of the meeting and the setting of the agenda, and to the organizing of the debate and the timeframe.

An amendment of the House rules is currently being prepared by the House's Legislation Council, but it remains to be seen if the discussion will be conducted in a transparent manner with an eye to the establishing of effective guidelines for parliamentary business, or if political and party interests will hijack the agenda.

The time is right for House members to start building a track record of efficient and effective work. This includes reforming outdated and outmoded institutional structures and practices. Democratic parliamentary practices need to be established, with a focus on transparency and performance. The public will then be more appreciative of the work of their legislators, and debates on salaries and allowances will be less acrimonious.

The writer is an expert on parliamentary reform and can be reached at ffeulner@cbn.net.id