Tactical funds wide open to abuse, say legislators, experts

Ridwan Max Sijabat, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Despite all the talk about good governance, government institutions continue to maintain so-called "tactical funds" that are prone to abuse due to a lack of accountability and are often little more than slush funds.

Theodorus J. Koekerits, a legislator from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) and a member of the House of Representatives' budget commission, said that although the government and the legislature had agreed to phase out off-budget funds by including all government expenditures in the state budget in an attempt to uphold good governance, the House had also approved the inclusion of tactical funds in the state budget.

"Based on this approval, the President, Vice President, ministers and senior government officials all maintain tactical funds ... that are usually used to cover unanticipated contingencies and emergency expenditure.

"But their use has become complicated and they are often the target of manipulation by government officials due to a lack of accountability," he told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.

Another legislator, who requested anonymity, said ministries and senior officials could be very "creative" in employing various illegal means to raise money for their tactical funds.

"Ministries maintain tactical funds whose contributors include state enterprises under their respective jurisdictions, and private sector firms that win development projects or contracts to supply goods and services," he said, pointing as an example to the way in which the General Elections Commission (KPU) managed to raise around Rp 20 billion for its tactical fund from private sector firms that won contracts to supply election materials during last year's elections.

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is currently investigating alleged corruption at the KPU, which included the collection of kickbacks from suppliers.

Both legislators said that the maintaining of tactical funds by state institutions had continued unabated since the end of the New Order.

A. Dillon, coordinator of the Partnership for Governance Reform in Indonesia, criticized the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, which had not yet shown a strong commitment to creating clean and good governance, and eliminating corruption.

"The running of tactical or operational funds is clear evidence that the government is not committed to the principles of clean and good governance, and transparency," he said, adding that the President should phase out tactical funds not only in his Cabinet but also in the bureaucracy at large as part of an initial step on the road to eliminating the culture of corruption in Indonesian society.

Ngadisah, rector of the Institute of Public Administration (IIP), said the maintenance of tactical funds in the way this was done by government offices and state institutions in Indonesia was not recognized in the science of public administration.

She added, however, that the maintaining of such funds to cover unanticipated contingencies was tolerable.