Jakarta as capital of Indonesia again has celebrated its birth of the four hundred and eighty sixth. It’s a relatively an old ages. Jakarta is the pride of Indonesia.
This city has become a barometer of Indonesia development and progress. This anniversary of Jakarta is unique since it opened with flood problem that brought the Indonesian people figure out on how to improve Jakarta’s city management. Ahead of the preparation of celebration, we all were treated by “jokes” that come out from DKI Parliament member who intend to interpellate the governor Joko Widodo.
But, the suppleness of governor in dealing with this issue turned out to melt the intention of interpellation efforts. We’re also treated to the chaotic flood that requires extra power from Jakarta officials, particularly the Vice Governor Mr. Ahok that attracted public attention. Seems, this is what needs to brood over seriously for the sake of management development in order to further progress of Jakarta Indonesia
Special Autonomy Breakthrough
Jakarta now is lagging behind from Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok in many ways which the two cities were even behind Jakarta. This fact has not changed the nation’s willingness and ability to manage Jakarta Indonesia better. Should Indonesia wait to all ASEAN countries become “standing in the front” and then we are in haste after them? Sure, that’s not our choice.
We are very proud of the democratic values that exceed other nations within ASEAN. But we are mired, even with just one barometer, which the progress of its capital. Jakarta is a window for Indonesia and other nations to see overall Indonesia . If Jakarta seen worse, other nations will see of Indonesia tend to be bad, if not worse.
Speed of decision making and implementation, which is the response of the dynamic environment is required keywords for Jakarta’s Improvement. Jakarta city is still relatively slow in the matter. Although it was regulated with specificity, this city was no more than other provinces because it is made with a degree and form of the provincial autonomy.
Provinces with specificities, that’s a decision-making process packs and its implementation for the Jakarta citizens who live in. Packs of specificity only a pack only. This city still headed by the governor that was almost the same with other governors in all provinces in Indonesia although the challenges and dynamics of the city is very contrasting. This city also equipped with state financial system and the state civil service system similar to other provinces in Indonesia.
What made it special, only one, namely the counties and municipalities in the autonomous alias below are not placed in the province of its autonomy. So the bigger autonomy. However, the design and behavior of the same autonomy as other provinces. Joko Widodo desperately to overcome a matter of flooding, traffic, and trash with autonomous behavior as above. Maybe before serving as governor, he already knew those problems. However, because of the mandate, it must still be lived.
Also the governor of Jakarta is no different from any other governor, even with doors direct election Jokowi successful entry into governor of DKI. There is no relationship between the improvement in the state of Jakarta with direct election mechanism. Jakarta needs that fast-paced and accurate process. Jakarta cannot be 100% independent in dealing with it’s problems.
Jakarta also need a breakthrough not just an institution that is still preserved. Although not just autonomy, does not mean no government. Jakarta still has the typical as city government. Jakarta is the resultant desire of Indonesia, not just people with domicile in Jakarta. Jakarta residents will not be able to overcome the city problems alone.
Jakarta does not need to be a leader drawn from the process of direct election. Jakarta need with figure countervailing power between the various parties desires nationwide. Direct election only makes Jakarta’s financial burden and swell. Jakarta now only become the butt of barons and will continue to be a stage for transactional. Direct election is only a measure of national political players that want to be presidential contest.
Jakarta sooner or later it will be forgotten by those players. If it remains stick with direct election, Jakarta will continue to suffer. Political process and the city administration will remain sluggish and not strong enough to face national and international players. Mafia city is increasingly powerful. The moment of Jakarta‘s anniversary this year should become the size of Indonesia, we should think out of the box in order to be rated as a nation to overcome the complexity of the problems that slow its capital. (Koran Sindo Saturday, June 22, 2013 http://www.koran-sindo.com/node/322973)
IRFAN RIDWAN MAKSUM
Guru Besar Tetap Ilmu Administrasi Publik FISIP-UI dan
Anggota DPODRI, Board dari PATTIRO
Now days parliament is discussing the various drafts of the law (bill/RUU). There are five bills related to the implementation of the decentralization policy. Namely, the local government bill, village bill, the election bill, bill of financial ties between regional and center (HKPD), and Bill of civilian state apparatus (ASN).
Ideally, those five bills run harmonious, compact, and synergistically so that each policy can be effective, especially in the implementation of regional autonomy, the spearhead of the government of Indonesia. If not, the effectiveness of government could be disrupted.
Of academic observations, each has a different paradigm. In local government, for long time Indonesia has adopted an integrated the prefectures system. The system was adopted throughout the period of the Dutch colonialism era then continued during the Japanese occupation. The system was not adopted during independence period. It’s only implementation period of the enactment of Law No. 1/1957 which is replaced by Law No. 18/1965. At that time, Indonesia has adopted and implemented direct election that sparked the tension relation between Bung Karno and Bung Hatta. Outside this period, Indonesia adopted a prefecture that recognizes the existing of government representatives.
Prefectural system was not accompanied by direct election. Election, either directly or indirectly, the system was only adopted by the Japanese during the 60’s, to ascertain whether the head of the region accepted by the public or not, other than that they have to meet other criteria in order to be elected as head of the regional (Kepala daerah)
From this point of view, there is a conflict between the local government bill and the election bill. Academically, the conflict is predicted to cause doubt and uncertainty in the level of government legislation and praxis. Countries which not adopt the prefectural system also not all adopt direct election as the sole criteria for determination of regional head (kepala daerah)
Related to the village, a local government is a formal building of state structure which is clearly accommodated organizationally. Village, in the concept of the founding fathers is informal autonomy (feet). Draft material of bill has systemized the village as state structure through the village Secretary. The clash between the local government bill and the village bill was not “sounds” in the village level paradigm, but bring the formal structure becoming more complicated, even overwhelmed. The clash happened is inconsistent with the view of the village what was contained in the two bills. The complexity also makes the realm of praxis problematic later.
The next clash on paradigm issues is ASN Bill. In this world, human resource management and regional center always concern on the organ state of big box that taken separately because of decentralization. A box organ of state to consider is the organ of political authority holder. Human resources into two separate states, namely local and national.
As a result, there are three major paradigmatic system of human resource management area. Namely, first, separated system, full power of HR management (from A to Z ) is under autonomous region. Central government to make a code of conduct to be obeyed and overseeing.
In these systems, local officials are not allowed to be moved between regions and especially center employees. There is no central unit that manages the technical human resource management area. All human resources management matters regulated and managed by autonomous regions. Human Resource Management in the center of this system, therefore, has its own path. ASN bill seems does not adopt this system.
The second system is a unitary system (unified). In such systems, there is a central unit that is independent and autonomous regions established to manage the technical management of all employees of autonomous regions in the country concerned. Employees allowed moving between regions autonomous region, and not a center employee.
A to Z affairs managed by that unit. The central government re-made code of conduct and supervision. A center employee has separate management and has its own governing body. Apparently, ASN bill also does not adhere that system.
The third system is the integrated system. In this system, the central and sub-national civil servants governed and administered by an agency under the central government. Autonomous regions have very little authority in the area of personnel management.
Again, ASN bill seems not clearly embrace the system. Human resources box area and the center is not firm. It doesn’t consider who the top level in human resource management is. The extent to which the authority of the autonomous region is not clear. It can be said, ASN bill does not have any paradigm of the interest of the autonomous region. Really can confuse local autonomy.
Related to HKPD bill, which embrace a mix between a paradigm that should strengthen its own financial resources in the autonomous regions (financial balance) and the paradigm that relies on the ability of the management of public services regardless of where financial resources (financial relations).
If the government slammed the bill, it appears the problem is more technical in government instruments pathways. Therefore, all the instruments that made sense, could be expected to encourage harmonization and synergy between the two bills.
So the problem is the system affairs distribution is not clear in the government bill, while HKPD embrace “money follow function”. It can predicted the difficulties arise measuring a real regional budget needs to obey the second material of the bill later if implemented.
The biggest clash will happen in implementation of UU (Act) . The clash of the bill still can be discussed in the House of Representatives. The clash will happen in the implementation of act would make an ineffectiveness of government and lawlessness. The victim is a public. The clashes become systemic nature.
Seeing these clashes, harmonization measures should be conducted, It’s not about the article, but its done since the fifth paradigm of the bill. The Government and Parliament must sit together so that decision not create problem in the future. (Prof. Irfan Ridwan Maksum; Professor of Public Administration- Faculty of Social Sciences-UI, Member of the Regional Autonomy Advisory Council (DPOD) RI. JAWA POS, May 28, 2013)
MAY 27, 2013
CEPU –We just went through the central Java gubernatorial elections. But unfortunately during candidate debate (Wednesday, May 22 or 4 days before election day) none of the three candidates was talking specifically about oil and gas issues in the Central Java province
Also during campaigns, the candidates did not mention oil and gas management. All candidates much more to offer public service improvement programs, education, and health. Though Central Java has potential reserves of oil and gas. There are several blocks of oil and gas reserves are in the exploration stage, but there are some that have been exploited.
Reserves blocks that have been exploited include Randugunting block where some part of its hollow included in Blora and Rembang district area , Gundih block Grobogan district and Cepu block (partially it’s hollow belong to Bojonegoro district East Java). The problem is, It’s non-linear with a contribution to the Central Java budget, which in 2012 was more than Rp 10 billion.
Currently, there are at least two blocks that have oil and gas considerable to be exploited in order to provides a significant contribution to provincial budget. First; Proyek Pertamina Pengembangan Gas Jawa (PPGJ) in Kradenan Blora district
The exploitation by PT Pertamina to supply gas through a pipeline grid from Desa Sumber Kradenan Blora District until to Tambaklorok Semarang, the distance about 140 km. The project is claimed to be the largest gas projects in Southeast Asia with a value of Rp 12 trillion. Maximum capacity of gas production wells in the village an estimated 65 million cubic feet per day.
Second, Cepu Block. Different than PPGJ, all elements in central Java still need work harder to improve Cepu block management. Because until now Government official of Blora Regency as the owner of mining area (WKP) Cepu Block together with Central Java Provincial Government official has not got revenue-sharing (DBH) of oil and gas managed by PT Mobil Cepu Limited (MCL), a subsidiary of ExxonMobil.
The Causes, Law No. 33, 2004 on Fiscal Balance between the Central Government and Local Government mandates for the distribution of funds should be based on the Mouth Location of oil and gas. Currently the only wells in Kalitidu east Java exploited by MCL. Although Blora and Central Java has 36% mining area (WKP), those two government officials have not received revenue-sharing (DBH) yet.
Though we only have the 36% of WKP, Cepu Block is not a small. Research by the Indonesian Geologists Association (IAGI) mentions Cepu oil reserves reached 830.778 MMBOE or half of Bojonegoro reserves reached 1566.282 MMBOE.
In 2012, with production of approximately 22 thousand barrels per day from the Cepu Block, Bojonegoro regency already gets revenue sharing funds of Rp 70 billion. Compare with Blora district that got nothing yet”, given the contribution of oil and gas in the same year” only” Rp 3.5 billion. Looking at the reality of it, It needs urgent advocacy works, either by Blora regency, Central Java Provincial Government, and other regency / city government official in the province.
There are several strategies in order Central Java soon get revenue-sharing (DBH) from Cepu Block. First; To push PT. Mobil Cepu Limited (MCL) as operator of the Cepu Block, to immediately exploit oil and gas fields in Blora region. Automatically through this affirmation , Blora regency and Central Java Provincial Government will get revenue sharing.
Second, to force PT. Mobil Cepu Limited (MCL) to hand over oil and gas fields that has been explored but not exploited to another operator, in this case to PT Pertamina. It could be a pretext of MCL activities that until now still focus on Banyuurip Bojonegoro field. Now, there are 4 fields in Cepu Block map, so-called A, B, C, and D field have not touched by MCL.
Third, To allocate special allocation fund (Dana Alokasi Khusus- DAK) of oil and gas to the most affected area. This impulse as compensation to areas that do not receive funding based on the regulation but these areas negatively impacted by Oil and gas exploitation
Fourth, To revise Law No. 33, 2004. Options related to the revision of the law consisting of regulation that revenue-sharing is given based on the mining area (of WKP), not the location of the wells mouth of extracted oil and gas.
Besides DBH issues, participating interest (PI) of Cepu Block remains a problem that must be guarded. Participating interest (PI) of Cepu Block, Central Java agreed to have 1. 09% of share, and it managed by Regional state owned Company (BUMD) PT Sarana Pembangunan Jawa tengah (SPJT). Of this participation first; public must involve in guarding SPJT transparency in conveying information and data. Second, to establish new Regional state owned Company (BUMD) to manage participating interest, separating it from SPJT management.
However, the effectiveness and efficiency of this plan should be reviewed carefully considering which new enterprises are not burdened for the development of business profit. The oil issue has now become the responsibility of the new governor of Central Java, and deserves to be a priority if province programs really want to promote prosperous society.
Mohammad Khamdun, Activist of Lembaga Penelitian dan Aplikasi Wacana (LPAW) Blora – Central Java
(quoted from suaramerdeka.com Monday, May 27, 2013)
Special Autonomy Grant Effectiveness in Papua and West Papua
by: Didik Purwandanu, PATTIRO’s Senior Program Manager of Social Accountability
“..However, PEPERA is not our final destination. The most important thing is the development of West Irian simultaneously and within the context of REPELITA implementation… Like any other regions, West Irian will get its place as a level I Region with autonomy that is real and broad…”
(part of state speech by the President of the Republic of Indonesia General Soeharto in front of House of Representatives Gotong Royong on 16 August 1969).
Forty-three years since referendum (PEPERA or Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat) held, autonomy that was promised by the Government of Indonesia eventually implemented after the enactment of the Law No. 21/2001 on Special Autonomy (Otonomi Khusus/Otsus) for Papua Province. In the law, Otsus is defined as a special authority that is recognized and granted to Papua Province (Previously named West Irian) to manage and administer the interest of local community according to its own aspiration and basic rights of Papua community.
Based on this regulation, Otsus includes several things particularly: firstly, authority arrangement between the Government of Indonesian and the Papua Provincial Government and its implementation that is done distinctively; secondly, recognition and respect for basic rights of the native Papuans as well as strategic and fundamental empowerment; and thirdly, to establish good government that is characterized by:
a. participation as much as possible in planning, implementing and monitoring the government through active participation of tribe/community elders, religious leaders and women;
b. development implementation that is directed to fulfill the needs of native Papuans in particular and Papua Province residents in general and still adhered tothe principles of environmental conservation, sustainable development, fairness and directly beneficial to the community;
c. furthermore, a transparent and responsible government and development implementation.
Fourthly, firm and clear separation of authority, duty and responsibility among the legislative, executive and judicative bodies, and also the Papua’s People Representative (Majelis Rakyat Papua/MRP) that is granted specific authorities to represent the culture of natives.
The source of funds for Papua and West Papua Provinces (West Papua Province was originally part of Papua Province) is regulated in Law No. 21/2001. Firstly, in the case of fund balance, as mandated by Law on Otsus, Papua and West Papua Provinces will receive preferential treatment in profit-sharing from natural resources of oil and gas, which is 70%. Meanwhile, for other natural resources, both provinces receive the same percentage as other provinces. For profit-sharing from Property Tax (Pajak Bumi dan Bangunan/ PBB), both will receive 90%. From Customs Revenue of Right of Property they will receive 80%, and from Personal Income Tax (Pajak Penghasilan Orang Pribadi/ PPh) they will receive 20%.
Secondly, there is a special revenue for Otsus implementation that amounts to 2% of National Intergovermental Transfer Grant, as we know is called Otsus grant. Thirdly, there is an additional grant of infrastructure development. Second and third revenue is valid for twenty years and will be zero thereafter. Specifically for preferential treatment of oil and gas profit-sharing, it will be 50% after twenty-five years.
Throughout 2002 and 2012, Papua Province received IDR 28.445 trillion of Otsus grant and IDR 5.271 trillion of infrastructure grant. West Papua Province, which has been established since 2008, has received IDR 5.409 trillion of Otsus grant and IDR 2.962 trillion of infrastructure grant.
Fourthly, Intergovernmental Transfer Grant as a block grant from central government is used to equalisation scheme between regions. Analysis conducted by the World Bank shows that in addition to preferential treatment with the existence of Otsus grant, special infrastructure fund, and fund balance, Papua’s Intergovernmental Transfer Grant itself is already large. In 2005 for example, its amount reached 25.5% of national revenue or about IDR 88.8 trillion. So it is not surprising if compared to other regions, Papua at the time already received five times more than that of East Java and four times more than that of West Nusa Tenggara.
Otsus grant effectiveness
What is the impact of Otsus grant for the welfare of the community in Papua and West Papua? In terms of implementation, there is an increase in school enrollment rates, literacy rates, average enrollment in school, addition of health infrastructure and medical personnel, and also a decrease in poverty rates. In 2011, there was 31.98% of poor people in Papua, and 28.2% in West Papua. But according to West Papua Governor Abraham Atururi, even though there is a decrease in poverty rates, West Papua is still the second poorest province in Indonesia. Open unemployment is still around 5.5%, even though it has decreased compare to 7.73% in 2009. Looking at the trend of poverty rates at table 2, it can be seen that Otsus grant did not give any significant impact.
Table 2 Poverty Percentage in Papua and West Papua 
Aligned with the graph explanation, Director General of Regional Autonomy – Ministry of Home Affairs, Djohermansyah Djohan said that evaluation result from the ministry’s research showed that at least there are two levels of weaknesses in Otsus implementation that need revision. First is at the policy level which has no technical guidance as interpretation for Law on Otsus. There is no Special Local Regulation (Peraturan Daerah Khusus/Perdasus) yet regarding profit-sharing, management and revenue as part of Otsus implementation, and nonexistent cooperative work relationship among executive and legislative bodies and Papua’s People Representative ((Majelis Rakyat Papua/MRP).
Meanwhile, the second one is at the policy implementation level. According to Djohermansyah, it is seen in the lack of public understanding for Otsus implementation, limited Otsus’ quantity and quality implementation, MRP that is still loosely interpreted, and the minimal effort by Local Government in implementing Otsus. Therefore, in the future the Ministry of Home Affairs through Directorate General of Regional Autonomy will evaluate Otsus implementation annually.
Initially, Otsus was very supported by policymaker in Papua, as reflected from Papua’s Governor at the time, JP Salossa, “about 75% of Papuans is believed to still live under the poverty line as a result of a limited sea, land and air transport facilities and infrastructure in the area. Transportation facilities and infrastructure in Papua greatly affect the lives of people in Papua.” The Governor is optimistic that the implementation of Law on Otsus, that it can improve the people of Papua and reduce its poverty rate.
Source: Data compiled from BPS and Directorate General of Regional Finance – Ministry of Home Affairs.
Unfortunately, as explained in table 3 that compares Otsus grant allocation with poor residents and human development index, the allocation is not capable to lift them up significantly. Instead of improving, the number of poor people is still high and human development index is still far below the national average, which is 72.
Why ineffectiveness happen?
We summarized from several evaluation and research results, and concluded three main factors for ineffective management:
1. Lack of public participation. One of the indicators is civil society access to public document related to planning and budgeting in Papua and West Papua. On the one hand, Otsus gives chance for the MRP, but they must be given more role in facilitating civil society to get their rights to public information. Transparency principle in good governance supposed to be giving chances for the community to be involved in monitoring public service to be better. This participation will verify public service quality and to increase the sense of belonging of the community to the development result. Nonexistent data that can be accessed by civil society and even the central government will result in follow up question of how Otsus grant is managed by the Papua and West Papua government and can it be accountable? It has been indicated that there is a mismanaged Otsus grant of IDR 4.12 trillion as found by National Audit Board (Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan/BPK), therefore, transparency aspect needs to be prioritized.
2. Transfer mechanism without specific pre-conditions. Finance Minister Regulations regarding the amount of annual Otsus grant for Papua and West Papua does mention its priority to be used for education and health, but it does not mention specific preconditions to prevent local government getting easy transfer of fund. In total, it also shows a significant increase. Experience in various places and both in developing and developed countries show that non-preconditions transfer tend to be disincentive because it makes local government to depend on that fund rather than on local revenue. Further impact is the condition of fiscal illusion, where this special transfer fund is unable to improve local economy and until its twenty-five years time, it has the potential that both provinces will still depend on the budget from central government.
3. Coordination across Ministries or Agencies in monitoring needs to be improved. One indication is that each ministry or agency to do separate monitoring and evaluation for different interest. Ministry of Home Affairs regularly evaluates Otsus implementation, cooperates with non-government organization. Other example, monitoring and evaluation for Health Minimum Service Standard (MSS), where the number of regency in Papua and West Papua that submits report is less than 15%, far below other provinces where the majority of them already reach 100%. Data shows that for several years up until 2010 and 2011 there is no significant improvement, even then the validity of data cannot be guaranteed. In a logical framework, it is expected that achievement at the HDI level can be reached if medium achievement, which is MSS achievement target, can be reached.
Law No.21/2001 Chapter I General Provision Article 1 verse b.
 Agustinus Fatem, “Sebelas Tahun Implementasi Kebijakan Otsus di Tanah Papua: Isu, Target, dan Upaya
Perbaikan”, Jurnal Ilmu Sosial, Vol. 10, No. 3 Desember 2012.
 Law No.21/2001 Article 33 verse 3a and 3b on Fund Balance of Papua Otsus.
 Papua Public Expenditure Analysis: Regional Finance and Service Delivery in Indonesia’s Most Remote
Region, World Bank, 2005.
 Evaluasi Otsus Papua dan Papua Barat: Refleksi Sebelas Tahun Pelaksanaan UU No 21 tahun 2001, Ditjen
Otoda Kemdagri, Kerjasama Kemdagri, Lembaga Administrasi Negara, dan Partnership for Governance
Reform, 2012, hal. 95.
SERANG – Center for Regional Information and Studies (PATTIRO) Banten assess the productivity of members of parliament to make regulations in the form of regional regulations were considered low. Not to mention, the ones that are judged not to fit the needs of the public service.
“In producing regulations, Banten Parliament since 2009-2012 only produced 21 regulations. Annual average Banten Council produced five regulation. This indicates productivity Council issued a regulation in very low,” said Chairman of the Division of Public Services and Parliamentary PATTIRO Banten, Panji Bahari Noor Ramadan in a press release late last week.
In addition, he said, there is still draft regulations that are inconsistent with the needs of the public service and still only copy of the rules on it. This, raises outlook as a waste of the budget committee only. Not only from a regulatory function, of supervision and budgeting functions, roles and functions that are not maximal is coupled with elements of delinquency in the legislature is always absent in the meeting.
As is known, as many as 13 in the draft legislative program area (prolegda) 2013. Of the 18 draft, the draft is a proposed five initiatives proposed parliament and eight governors. Five draft Council initiative, the establishment of the draft Financing Reserve Fund for Regional Development Bank Establishment Banten, Empowerment, Protection of Women and Children Victims of Violence, Land Transfer Function, and the village government.
While the draft proposal of the governor, the formation of Limited Liability draft Regional Credit Guarantee Banten, Equity To Regional Credit Guarantee Company Limited Banten Province, Operation of Transport, Groundwater Management, Implementation of the Regional Disaster Management and establishment of PT Banten Regional Development Bank.
Earlier, Chairman of the Local Legislation (Balegda) Banten Sanuji Pentamarta Council promised, in 2013 these 13 incoming prolegda 2013 draft could be discussed thoroughly and passed into regulation. “I’m optimistic that can be achieved. Provided, no delay in the submission of the draft draft,” he said.
Head of Legal Banten province Samsir said the governor’s draft proposal that will be submitted to Parliament, the draft Establishment of Regional General Hospital Banten, Banten Levy Health Service hospitals. “Hopefully we submitted in February already. Draft draft legislation was prepared. However, the discussion draft also related to the budget,” he said. (H-32) ***
The Semarang Education Agency is relaunching its School Operational Aid (BOS) online program to increase transparency in how the funds are used at local elementary and junior high schools. Agency head Bunyamin said that the program was first launched three years ago and would be relaunched on Jan. 16 to prevent misuse of BOS funds. “We have disseminated information on the program and on the technical supervision of the BOS online program,” he said on Wednesday. Bunyamin said that the program would cover all 346 state-run elementary schools and 41 state-run junior high schools in the municipality as well as hundreds of private schools.
The online service will contain information such as a recapitulation of each school’s BOS proposal, decrees approving the proposals and details on the funds received by each school. Bunyamin said that the mechanism for BOS fund distribution had been restored to the system initially put into place three years ago, when funds were sent directly to recipient schools. “The policy was previously changed so that the BOS funds were sent through respective regency or municipal administration budgets so that the online program was also halted,” he added.
The BOS online program, according to Bunyamin, can be accessed through the website of the Semarang Education Agency, disdik-kotasmg.org, as stipulated in Law No. 14/2008 on public information openness (KIP). Dini Inayati, the director of the Center for Regional Information Studies (PATTIRO), welcomed the education agency’s plan, saying that it would be a good support for budget transparency. “But please be aware that such transparency efforts will not be effective if the people do not actively participate in it,” she said. Dini also said that not every parent had the access to the Internet, so that the impact of the program might not be that effective. She suggested that other forms of participation, such as direct interaction and consultation on BOS funds between the education agency, schools and parents, would open the door for wider public participation and would increase transparency. “Parents must participate for the sake of BOS transparency. Continuing communication is also urgent so that all stakeholders will be able to make sure that BOS funds are channeled effectively,” Dini said.
Sudibyo, the parent of one local Semarang student, said that he had not yet heard about the online program that the municipal education agency is to launch this month. He also said he did not know how to access the Internet and thus, he would not try to look for information about the program. “But I do expect that the BOS funds will be channeled honestly.”
MERAUKE – Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation (AIPD) hold-up activities to the formation of coalitions (network) Civil Society Organization (CSO) activists for 22 people in Merauke. Activities facilitated by PATTIRO (Center for Regional Information and Studies) was held in the meeting room Bappeda Merauke, Friday (7/12) yesterday.
Facilitator BK CSO, Bastian Hendro Wibowo, said the coalition formation allows the CSO to be involved in the planning, budgeting and monitoring the use of public funds. Involvement of it in order to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of regional autonomy for the improvement of public services and the development of Merauke district government.
“CSOs need to be strengthened in terms of budget allocation in order to guard public service and service to satisfy it from time to time increase. They can not walk alone, the CSO that there was need in the wake of the coalition or networking. One thing that the work was escorted by the crowd, it will be a lot of things are controlled and coordinated, “he said.
It is said Hendro, capacity and knowledge of CSO participation in the planning, budgeting and monitoring the use of public funds needs to be improved and technically assisted. Need for CSO provision pngetahuan source for understanding the regional income, shopping areas and local finance mechanisms.
“There is a paradigm shift, first as a separate between government and CSOs tend to be in opposition, but what is done is the same for the benefit of society. Now the government and CSOs need to build synergistic coordination in improving public services. Synergism not mean CSO co-opted by the government, but there is a spirit of checks and balances or control joint effort and strength, “he said.
He added, mapping and strengthening of CSOs in the district focused on capacity building and mentoring. CSO networks in the district is representative of the community on planning, budgeting and monitoring of development in the area. The establishment of a coalition of CSOs to advocate, especially budget advocacy as a social movement of people.
“Local CSOs are encouraged to focus on issues in key sectors of development so as to increase its role and become partners of local government and parliament. Networking is done through advocacy coalitions in order to engage in any development planning, “he said. (Lea/achi/LO1)
JAYAPURA – A total of 13 Civil Siciety Organizations (CSOs) in Papua following the Workshop Build Coalition of CSOs in Papua and agreed to declare the Alliance for Budget Transparency Papua or Aliansi untuk Transparansi Anggaran Papua (ATAP). The alliance will focus on monitoring and advocacy for the use of public funds, especially with regard to education, health and infrastructure in the province of Papua.
This activity is facilitated by PATTIRO (Center for Regional Information and Studies) and the support of the Australia Indonesia Partnership for Decentralisation (AIDP), takes place in Swimming Fishing Purnama, Kampung Yoka Sentani, Wednesday (5/12) has managed to board of management by choosing Hans Paiki as ATAP Chairman and Board, chaired by former Deputy Mayor Jayapura, Sudjarwo.
Hans Paiki said to be a follow-up plan in order to perform the task at the beginning of January 2013.
“I think this task is very precious and important to mengawas and advocate the use of a transparent budget,” said Paiki who is also the Director of the Papua Corruption Watch (PCW).
He hoped that all members who have formed ATAP participants can support each other in the success of the work program will be prepared according to the vision and mission of this institution.
Meanwhile Clift Ohee representing AIDP said the event was aimed to formulate a consensus in the network, socialize existence of CSOs to the stake holders, strengthening CSO networks to play an active role in the process of planning, budgeting, and monitoring the use of public funds, and the formation of networks.
“I hope the networks that have formed the Alliance for Budget Transparency Papua (ATAP) can encourage the next public budget transparency Papua can be more open and better,” he said. He also congratulated to Hans who is willing to perform the task as Chairman of ATAP. (Jubi / Dominggus A Mampioper) Source: http://tabloidjubi.com/?p=5439