by Parliamentary Center | Oct 27, 2016 | National
Gorontalo Gubernatorial Decree No. 323/11/VIII/015 Violates Public Information Disclosure Law (UU KIP)
Statement of Position
Civil Society Coalition
Freedom of Information Network Indonesia (FOINI)
Manado, Monday, November 23, 2015
[Manado, November 23, 2015] Central and Provincial Information Commissions were established In order to ensure fulfillment of rights to information which is protected by UU KIP. The Central Information Commission has entered its second period as are the Information Commissions in 13 regions, out of 28.
In Gorontalo, the first period of Information Commission (KI) ended in December 10, 2014, but there was no selection and fit and proper test for the second period, which is in 2015-2019. The Gorontalo government left the KI vacant and eventually issued Decree No. 323/11/VIII/2015 about Appointment of Gorontalo Information Commission Period 2015-2019.
The decree violated UU KIP and UU State Administration because first, KI members from the first period were re-appointed for the second time without going through selection process and fit and proper test at Gorontalo DPRD as mandated in Article 30, 31, 32 and 33 of UU KIP. Second, the decree was signed in August 2015, but has been applied retroactively since January 2015. Third, the decree contradicts the principle of openness because it is not conducted with the recruitment mechanism regulated in Article 30 which states the recruitment is conducted transparently
The re-appointment of KI members in Gorontalo set a bad precedent in the filling of positions in provincial KI and could be followed by other provinces.
Based on above conditions, Plaintiff with FOINI Coalition and LBH Manado YLBHI, calls for Manado Administrative Court to resolve the dispute to fulfill the rights to information in Gorontalo.
Contacts:
- Hendra Baramuli (LBH Manado) : 0812 8905 5966
- Desiana Samosir (IPC/FOINI) : 0813 6928 1962
- Hendrik Rosdinar (YAPPIKA/FOINI) : 0811 1463 983
Source: http://kebebasaninformasi.org/2015/11/23/surat-keputusan-gubernur-gorontalo-no-32311viii2015-melanggar-undang-undang-kip-dan-uu-penyelenggaraan-negara-yang-bersih-dan-bebas-dari-korupsi-kolusi-dan-nepotisme/
by Parliamentary Center | Oct 27, 2016 | National
Misinterpretation of Article 33 Hampers Public Information Services
19 October 2015
On Friday, October 16, 2015, FOINI held a press conference to address the problematic implementation of Provincial Information Commission. Below is the transcript of the press conference:
Desiana Samosir:
Welcome, fellow journalists. Today, we invited you all to hear our statement regarding the implementation process of Information Commission in the provincial level.
Previously, the Gorontalo government appointed incumbent Information Commission members without a selection process. It is against the regulations. Present among us are fellow FOINI Coalition members: Dessy Eko Prayitnno from the Indonesia Center for Environmental Law (ICEL), Hendrik Yosdinar from Yappika and Bejo Untung from the Regional Research and Information Center (PATTIRO). The floor is yours.
Desi Eko Prayitno:
Why does FOINI concern about this? Because there is a tendency from Information Commission to grammatically interpret Article 30 that says “can be re-appointed for the next one period”. They interpreted this article without knowing the obligation to undertake fit and proper test. Many Provincial Information Commissions made that interpretation and asked for support from their governors at the national coordinating meeting.
The interpretation of Article 33 was not right. It should have been read together with Article 30, 31, 32 and 34. This wrong interpretation must be prevented so that other commissions would not follow.
The government was negligent and let this condition continue which resulted in Information Commission taking advantage of the situation to preserve their power.
Hendrik Rosdinar:
Based on the sequence of events since the national coordinating meeting in Lombok, there are systematic attempts by Information Commission to hijack the interpretation of Article 33 to maintain incumbent members. First, they made mistakes on purpose. This is a terrible example set by state institutions which were establish with the spirit of openness. This also took away opportunities for the best people to become members of Information Commission because there was no selection process.
Second, there were deliberate unlawful acts. What happened in Gorontalo was illegal because it violated UU KIP.
Third, this is bad precedent for the selection mechanism for Information Commissions. This precedent can be used as an example for other state institutions and politicians to be implemented in other quasi-state institutions.
The presence of quasi-state institutions such as Information Commission must be the spearhead of democratic acceleration in Indonesia. However, with the implementation that is far from democratic principles, democracy will take a step back.
Fourth, Information Commission is now having national coordinating meeting in Aceh. The Gorontalo case should have been a serious topic. I am afraid that if this issue is not discussed, my allegation that the Information Commission planned to preserve their power might be true.
Bejo Untung:
The interpretation of Article 33 restricts the term in KI to only two periods. They are allowed to be re-appointed by undertaking fit and proper test. With the current interpretation, we need to question the capacity of Information Commission members. If they misinterpret this one, they could also misinterpret the other. If they made such narrow interpretation, how could they promote information openness in Indonesia?
Q&A session
What will happen after this press conference? What will Information Commission do?
Desiana Samosir:
FOINI, whose one of the members is the Gorontalo Research and Development Institute (LP2G), has met with the legal bureau of the Gorontalo government and pointed out the mistake in the appointment decree. They realized it was wrong and ask for a meeting. We would like to urge the Central Information Commission to pay attention to his. We will write letters to the governor, DPRD, the Home Affairs Ministry and the Central Information Commission and give time for 30 days to all parties to revoke the decree. If not, we will file a lawsuit.
Dessy Eko Prayitno:
We need to file a lawsuit to give a message to other provinces not to repeat this mistake. If what happened in Gorontalo happens in other provinces, it will negatively impact transparency. There are two schemes of lawsuit: Citizen Lawsuit and lawsuit in the administrative court. The plaintiff is FOINI members who can register to select members of Gorontalo Information Commission.
What are the public interests that are hampered in this case? What is Information Commission’s response?
Desiana Samosir:
Gorontalo Information Commission has been problematic since the beginning. Their secretariat is under the authority of regional research council while other provinces have their secretariat under the Communications and Information Agency. Their secretariat does not perform well, which results in many disputes not being handled well. That condition, added with no selection to choose the best candidate, will further threated the performance of Gorontalo Information Commission.
Hendrik Rosdinar:
The re-appointment of incumbent commissioners is a deliberate attempt to provide bad information services. Gorontalo Information Commission could made a mistake by re-appointing members that did not do their job well. This is an attempt to preserve status quo. Information Commissions in other regions are well-known and respected. This is not a baseless suspicion. They clearly cannot fight for themselves.
There are several blunders done by the Information Commission. First, they postponed the selection in East Nusa Tenggara and now they still have no Information Commission. Second, they postponed the appointment in West Kalimantan by one year. Third, they re-appointed commission members in Gorontalo without any selection process.
Readin of Statements
Based on conditions above, FOINI urges the following:
- Gorontalo Governor and DPRD to revoke Decree No. 323/11/VII/2015 and conduct selection of Gorontalo Information Commission members in accordace with Article 31, 32 and 33 of UU KIP and Information Commission Selection Guidelines.
- Central Information Commission to monitor and be actively involved in the selection process of Gorontalo Information Commission members.
- The Home Affairs Ministry to monitor Governor and DPRD in conduction selection of Provincial information Commission members as mandated by UU KIP as there have been violations in the selection process in several provinces, such as South Sulawesi and West Kalimantan.
Source: http://kebebasaninformasi.org/2015/10/19/salah-tafsir-pasal-33-menghambat-pelayanan-sengketa-informasi-publik/
by Parliamentary Center | Oct 27, 2016 | National
Transparency as Tool to Eradicate Corruption
10 December 2014
International Anti-Corruption Day is observed annually on December 4. Indonesian President Joko Widodo will attend the commemoration of International Anti-Corruption Day held by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in Yogyakarta on December 9-11, 2014. The anti-corruption day momentum should be used to improve and evaluate corruption eradication in Indonesia.
Corruption comes from the Latin word “corruption” and “corrumpere” which means to damage, destabilize, bribe. Transparency International defines corruption as abuse of power by public officials, either politicians or civil servants, to enrich themselves or those who are close to them.
Corruption is identical to abuse of power. However, the culture of corruption can become a virus in all elements of society, such as boss of a company that commits corruption by lowering employees’ salaries, a school teacher that neglects their students and even students who cheat on their tests.
It is interesting to look at the results of research by Transparency International Indonesia (TII) about integrity and anti-corruption among youths that was published in 2013. Almost all respondents disagreed with corruption, but at the same time, they were permissive to corruption in the society. For example, 15-20% of youths chose not to report if corruption was being committed.
When asked if respondents would report when faced with corruption, such as teacher that asks for money if they want to past the test, 40% of rural and urban respondents chose not to report, while only 10% of respondents admitted they had reported corruption.
From the research, we can conclude that most people are passive when it comes to anti-corruption and they are reluctant to become an active in anti-corruption efforts. Their reluctance to report corruption could be caused by safety concerns or other reasons.
In another research, TII also reveals that Indonesia has high rate of bureaucratic or political corruption. In corruption perception index, Indonesia is ranked 107 of 175 countries, much lower than neighboring countries, such as Malaysia which is ranked 50 with 52 points and the Philippines which is ranked 82 with score 38 points. Meanwhile, Singapore is ranked 7 with 84 points.
Our country still has a lot of homework in eradicating corruption. Policies in the top and bottom level are needed to eradicate corruption that is becoming more complex.
It is also important to cultivate integrity and transparency in the society, which is in accordance with KPK’s corruption prevention and eradication national strategy. The strategy stresses the importance of transparency and accountability in the government as they can encourage state employees to be more responsible.
Fortunately, Indonesia already has Law No. 14/2008 about Public Information Disclosure (UU KIP) which is important in promoting a clean and an open government and an instrument for the public in monitoring the government.
The implementation of UU KIP still has a long way to go to be fully implemented. Let’s utilize UU KIP to improve our government.
Source: http://kebebasaninformasi.org/2014/12/10/memberantas-korupsi-dengan-budaya-transparansi/
by Parliamentary Center | Oct 27, 2016 | National
Corruption and Information Asymmetry
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Minister Susi Pudjiastuti’s desire to open access to information about ffish catching to all stakeholders shows that there is a problem of information asymmetry in the issue of maritime affairs and fisheries.
Information asymmetry problem means that there is a gap in information mastery. One party enjoys surplus while the other party suffers from information deficit. In the public policy process, for example, decision makers have surplus of information while the public suffers from information deficit.
However, there is also information asymmetry among decision makers. For example, not all government officials or DPR members know about development project budget. Budget Agency is the only one that knows more about the budget. However, the people in the Budget Agency also have different levels of information mastery. It is likely that the head of Budget Agency knows more about the budget compared to other members.
We owe intellectuals Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, George A. Kerlof and A Michael Spance, for having provided better understanding of information asymmetry, especially masker with asymmetrical information. They created the base concept, analysis tool and empirical evidence about market with asymmetrical information. In 2001, they were awarded Nobel Prize in economy.
Dangers of Information Asymmetry
The term “information asymmetry” has been used to explain many symptoms in politics, culture, defense, security, etc. Information asymmetry is a pathological condition as it gives rise to various types of crime: corruption, timber theft, illegal fishing, etc. Incidents such as religious teachers who deceived their followers, witch doctors who harassed their patients, financial managers who fooled investors, sellers who cheated their buyers and producers who deceived consumers were also caused by information asymmetry.
Information asymmetry is a persistent problem in Indonesia. It exists in the process of policymaking, legislation and judicial as well as is management of budget, natural resources, radio frequency, etc. The harm caused by information asymmetry is much more systemic, structural and massive.
One example is the change of administration from Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono-Boediono to Joko Widodo-Jusuf Kalla that already revealed several serious problems. First, the problematic oil import mechanism. It was revealed that importing oil through Sonangol (an Angolan company) was much cheaper than Petral, subsidiary of Petral which had handled oil import.
Second, oil import could not avoid the involvement of mafia as trade in almost all strategic commodities has been dominated by mafia.
Third, the efficiency and effectiveness of allocation and use of budget. The change in oil import mechanism was claimed to be able to save state budget up tp Rp 8 trillion per year, which was only a quarter of oil import total. The state had suffered losses of trillions for years from the oil import even though that large amount of budget could be allocated to build roads, bridges, ports, power plants, hospitals, schools, traditional markets.
Three Implications
What are the implications of Minister Susi’s move to widen access for stakeholders to information about maritime and fisheries management? There are at least three important implications. First, re-actualization and revitalization of implementation of UU No. 14/2008 (UU KIP) about Public Information Disclosure. Second, strengthening of Indonesia’s role in multilateral cooperation scheme about Open Government Partnership (OGP). Third, the need to immediately end secretive regime.
Countries that have effective laws on freedom of information usually have low prevalence of corruption. Indonesia must improve the implementation of UU KIP both in supply and demand. From supply, Minister Susi’s desire for information openness can be seen as both an energizer and prime mover.
Minister Susi’s can be viewed as unusual as most Indonesian officials tend to be conservative and protective towards the information asymmetry in their ministries. This conservative and protective behavior is also the cause of the reluctance in disclosing of ‘fat accounts’ of several police generals.
From demand, Minister Susi’s move may not be welcomed by fishermen, NGOs, etc. The public demand for data and information on maritime and fisheries management is still low and weak. This is different from the mainland community (cities, forestry) whose public demand is relatively strong. The weak public demand could cause UU KIP to be less effective.
Minister Susi’s desire for information openness can also resonate with the importance of strengthening Indonesia’s role in OGP, which is an international cooperation platform that aims to promote openness, accountability and fast response for the public. Indonesia is one of the eight initiators of the partnership. OGP now has 65 state members. The practice of information openness developed by Indonesia, especially by the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Ministry, can be an example for other countries.
Above all those implications, the most substantial is the political message that will be conveyed which is secretive regime must end. It is time for us to solve information asymmetry in the process of policy, legislation and judicial. It can only be achieved if we are committed to take these two actions.
First, strengthening the public demand so that people and civil societies demand not only data, but also better regulations on information openness. Institutionally, UU KIP and other related regulations need to be reviewed and revised so that they respond to challenges. Information Commission and Information and Documentation Managing Officer also need to improve their performance.
Second, empowerment and involvement of people in the management of public resources and policy process so that information openness does not stop at just one period of government and continue to be the norm.
By carrying out both actions, a world with more symmetrical information is highly possible.
Dedi Haryadi
Deputy Secretary General of Transparency International Indonesia
Source: kompas.com
Source: http://kebebasaninformasi.org/2014/11/27/korupsi-dan-asimetris-informasi/
by Parliamentary Center | Oct 27, 2016 | National
KPU Drafts Elections Transparency Roadmap
21 February 2016
Bogor (19/2) – The General Elections Commission (KPU) is drafting a 2016-2017 transparency roadmap which is divided into three steps: UU KIP implementation, data digitization and open data implementation.
“This is KPU’s commitment to openness. We saw high public enthusiasm to utilize information for 2014 general elections and 2015 regional elections. We also need to adapt to the current development of open data,” said KPU spokesman Roby Leo.
The drafting of the roadmap is a cooperation between KPU and Indonesian Parliamentary Center (IPC). Arbain, Head of Information and Campaign at IPC, said that the roadmap was a response to the public needs and rights for elections information. “We hope hope for more transparent and accountable elections,” he said.
UU KIP implementation will be a strong foundation in implementing transparency. KPU is already able to filter between public information and exempted information and has the tools or infrastructure to implement transparency.
The next step is promoting data digitization. “Digitization is more than just converting hard files to soft files. It is also meant to keep up with current technological development so that the data can be read by the public using machines,” said Arbain.
After digitization, KPU will implement open data in 2018.
The roadmap will be conveyed to KPU leaders to be used as guidelines for KPU General Secretariat in formulating working programs.
Source: http://kebebasaninformasi.org/2016/02/21/kpu-susun-roadmap-transparansi-pemilu/
