Defending
our money : A lesson from Ahok
J Danang Widoyoko ; The writer is
with the Indonesian Corruption Watch NGO, currently researching corruption
and the construction sector for his PhD
at the Australian National University in Canberra
|
JAKARTA
POST, 07 Maret 2015
Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahaja Purnama sent a different
version of the capital’s public budget to the Home Minister for approval.
Ahok did not send the City Council (DPRD) version because expenses of Rp 12
trillion (US$930 million), which an official dubbed dana siluman (sneaky
budget), were included in the budget without his consent, he said.
In the budget deliberation the governor alleged that the council
inserted many programs without proper planning and comprehensive information,
by cutting 10 to 15 percent from other well-planned programs.
In retaliation the council raised its right of inquiry (hak
angket), which theoretically can lead to impeachment. Actually, this is a
common practice in the budgeting process at the national and local levels.
People and government units often receive goods and services
that differ with their requests or are even useless. What makes the latest
Jakarta case special is because Ahok is fighting openly while other mayors,
regents and governors tend to solve such conflicts behind closed doors.
A public budget is different from a household or corporation
budget, particularly given the involvement of many parties in the budget
process. Every citizen can be involved in the budget planning through
participatory development deliberation or Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan
(Musrenbang), organized at the village, subdistrict, regency or municipality,
province and national level.
At the same time, the government bureaucracy organizes a similar
process in all public service units and government institutions. The
education ministry or education office at the local levels, for instance,
organizes budget planning annually by collecting input from schools, teachers
and lower education offices on what the government has to spend in the next
budget year. Indonesia’s fiscal year runs from January to December and the
budgeting process formally starts in January of the previous year.
However, the public
budget is not only a document listing government expenses. It is an arena of
political contestation among various interests in government and society to
decide the budget’s top priorities. Since revenue is likely lower than
spending, priorities need to be decided — which programs should be financed
or delayed to the next year.
The contestation involves ordinary citizens, mass organizations,
political parties, the national and local bureaucracies and politicians. In
the end, the public budget is the outcome of political compromise at the
city, regency, province and national level.
The budgeting process is closely related to corruption and
rent-seeking. The government can design a particular project to be funded but
in the end it could easily enrich their business cronies and particular
interests. The policy to formulate development priorities to be funded by the
public budget can favor certain business groups. In return, businesses can
contribute political funding to policy makers in government or legislative
bodies. In other cases, businesspeople could run for office themselves and
then allocate projects for their own interests.
Ahok’s struggle to save the public budget is a real fight
against corruption in the nation’s capital. As an example, the council has
allocated a huge amount of funds to buy uninterruptible power supplies (UPS)
for schools and government offices. Jakarta’s officials say they had never
planned to buy UPS units as it was not considered the real need of schools
and government offices.
If the City Council version of the public budget is accepted,
the Jakarta government would not only have to buy UPS at a very expensive
price, the units would be useless. The Governor thus suspects the budget
allocation to buy UPS and other items are for marked up prices, higher than
the normal market price. However, we need further investigation to identify
all interests and all suspected useless facilities.
Ahok happens to be the first governor fighting openly against
the council on the budget issue with the consequence of impeachment.
Fortunately, the impeachment procedure for a governor is not easy; it
requires presidential approval.
Many provinces are late to submit their public budget to the
Home Ministry; municipalities and regencies also often hand in their budgets
late for the governors’ approval. This reflects clear evidence of the
contestation in the formulation of government budgets.
The Home Minister can issue a regulation to withhold salaries of
governors, regents, mayors and also local councilors until the public budget
is sent. Public servants and government expenses can be disbursed but the
longer process to formulate the public budget will obviously delay government
programs.
Nevertheless, the conflict between Ahok and the council gives an
important lesson to us. The conflict is expected because the budget is a site
of power contestation. Today’s conflict is all about how Governor Ahok
defends public resources from the predatory interest of the City Council — if
his allegations prove true.
On the contrary, we should suspect a smooth process of public
budget deliberation. If there is no conflict between competing interests,
citizens should worry about collusion between the executive and legislative
branches in looting public resources. Jakarta has to bear the high costs of
the current conflict, particularly the delay of development programs.
But letting predatory interests steal the public budget without
resistance is tantamount to welcoming robbers into our home.
Ahok is teaching us a real lesson to defend our money and to
fight corruption. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar