Sinar Harapan, 3 September 2007
By Rafael Sebayang
Sinar Harapan, 3 September 2007
By Rafael Sebayang
JAKARTA - RECOGNIZING the weak performance of parliament, the House of Representatives plenary meetings, in February 2006 and, eventually forming a special team whose goal improving the performance of DPR, after getting the spotlight of criticism from various circles of society. As the function and its main role as legislators (Act), the House considered barren and often do not take sides in the public interest when ratifying a Bill (the Bill) into law.
Legislation stolen money from donors, either from a government agency or a deposit from the private sector, often cited to be the main issue affecting the performance of MPs. Latest evidence and then confirm allegations that the Indonesian Corruption Watch (ICW) reported to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) Happenings flow indication with Rp 4.5 billion from Bank Indonesia (BI) to the House Finance Committee the period 1999-2004, in the discussion a bill at the time.
Without denying some hard work on the House committee that is devoted heart and mind for the benefit of the community at large, the fact remains that the Parliament as an institution representing the people, it has not populist. "ICW's report is not impossible as evidence of where the money into consideration factors in the discussion of a bill," said Executive Director Center for Legal Studies and Research (PSHK) Bivitri Susanti to SH, the weekend (1 / 9).
Real money "illegitimate" in the legislative process is not the only problems that undermine the performance of Board members. Based on the study of the performance PSHK during this parliament, there are two main issues that surround and must be improved, namely the procedures related to the Act and the creation of human resources in the Parliament.
Talking about the legislative procedure, according to Bivitri, means talking about the formation of legislation from beginning to end. Starting from the planning, design, discussion, until the enactment, as stipulated in Law 10/2004.
In connection with this, no one cause for the achievement of targets Prolegnas this is the result of the workload piling discussion of the bill on a number of members of the House. This is evident from the results of performance in the House of Representatives passed a new quantity of new Act 77 of Act 184 Prolegnas targeted for the period 2004-2009. These results were much as the continuation of Law last year, and partly also to copy-paste the previous Act.
The root cause of congestion on the workload of the members of the grouping system based on fractions. Fraksilah considered to give opinions, negotiate, and agree on the substance of the law.
The law enacted when approved by the factions and the government. Individual objections recorded and only be termed as mijnderheidsnota which literally means "minor notes", notes that are not important. Not to mention, often meeting a quorum is not too often due sinkronnya no meetings scheduled between the Board fittings.
Also, human resources (HR) support the implementation of the legislative function are also experiencing problems. In the Secretary General of the House Rules No.400/SEKJEN/2005 and when viewed in practice, there are at least three important subjects that act as pross support the legislation. Deputy for Legislation, Center for Assessment, Data and Information Processing (P3DI), and the expert staff of the Commission / Staff Expert Baleg, plays a role in this process.
The problem is there is no plan or a comprehensive concept of human resource development support in the House legislation. Still not really clear workflow and cooperative relationship between the designer, researcher and expert staff P3DI Commission / Baleg / faction that often overlap or ineffectiveness. These problems which he later became the basis of the performance menudiang parliament.
Seeing this, the analyst constitutional law Padjadjaran University Firdaus Arifin revealed that the reality of poor performance in the field of legislation the House provides a very valuable lesson to us. Apparently, by strengthening the role and functions of the House legislation, are not able to change the performance of the Parliament Act to institute a good maker. Want proof? Look at how legislation diujimaterikan by the Court. Supposedly, this law makers aware of the cost is not a determinant of everything.
Members of Parliament in honorarium Formation Act
Program Activities / Members Who Engage Honorarium
The formulation stage in the House (for the House bill proposed initiative)
Completion of the formulation of the Bill Committee
(25 members fittings / Baleg) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Thymus (15 members fittings / Baleg) @ 2s / d 2.5 million
Submitting the draft to the Plenary Meeting
fittings / Baleg (50 people) @ 5 s / d 6 million
Leader of the House 4 @ 5.5 to 6 million
10 Chairman of the Faction @ 5.5 to 6 million
Harmonization, rounding, and stabilization of conception BILL
Committee (25 members Baleg) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Thymus (15 members Baleg) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Completion of the bill according to the changes mandated by the plenary
Committee Meetings / konsiyering
(25 members @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
fittings / Baleg) Meeting of the thymus
(15 members fittings / Baleg) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Discussion draft of the DPD Panja
(25 members tools
completeness / Baleg) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Thymus (15 members fittings / Baleg) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Committee (25 members of the Special Committee / Commission) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Thymus (15 members Special Committee / Commission) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Timsin (15 members Special Committee / Commission) @ 2 s / d 2.5 million
Discussion Level II:
Plenary Meeting (honoraria bill into law)
Members of the Special Committee / Commission (51 people) @ 5 s / d 6 million
Leadership of the House (4 persons) @ 5.5 to 6 million
Chairman Faction (10 people) @ 6 million.