Behind the Glitz of the 2010 Budget
-8-
relief Rp 6.4 trillion. Only 2.3 of the 2010 APBN was dedicated to health – well short of the
5 required by law. And for a country as prone to natural disasters as Indonesia the funding allocated for disaster management was also far from sufficient. Moreover, given that funding was
dispersed across several ministries and agencies, much of it was consumed by bureaucratic costs. The government regards the National Community Empowerment Program PNPM
as the cure all for poverty. But in reality it has become a political football and used to curry favour with the
populace without having a significant impact on poverty numbers. A PNPM funding boost of Rp 1.3 trillion in 2008 lifted just 2.2 million people out of poverty and additional funding of Rp 4.9
trillion in 2009 only enabled the program to help 2.4 million to escape from poverty. In the area of education funding, which was also spread over various ministries and agencies and included funds
for SEA Games-related activities, the BPK also found that 80 regional governments has misapproprated funds amounting to Rp 900 billion.
4. Secretive Budgets in an Era of Freedom of Information
FITRA’s attempts to obtain copies of Budget Implementation Checklists DIPA from government ministries and agencies have demonstated that most public institutions approached still regard
budget documents as ―state secrets‖. Of the 69 public institutions approached, 54 or 84 did not make copies of their DIPAs available. Half of the 15 that handed over the documnts did so ony
after FITRA had filed a follow letter of compaint. Ironically, many institutions proffered the excuse that that they were seeking confirmation from the Ministry of Finance and the BPK,
whereas in fact those two institutions do not have carriage of such freedom of information issues. This exercise has shown that, as of 2010, the consitituional requirement that the budget be
implemented in an open manner is not being met.
5. Annual Ritual of National Audit Board BPK Reports
If it dared to, the government could take pride in the fact that, after receiving a ―disclaimer opinion‖ no opinion offered from the BPK for five years in a row, it finally received a ―
qualified opinion‖ on its Government Financial Statement in the BPK’s report for the first semester of 2010.
But the problem is that national audit reports are really only annual rituals, because few of their
findings are followed up. Audit opinions also tend to be subject to negotiation. When BPK reports come before the DPR, they do not receive the serious level attention which is accorded to the
budget. The DPR’s National Finances Accountability Committee is a new addition to the DPR’s establishment and has not yet carved out a role for itself on BPK reports. Although the BPK’s
opinion on the Government 2010 Financial Statement was an improvement, it remains the case that the BPK pointed to more problem areas in 2009 than it had in 2008. In 2008 it had identified
378 cases of misappropriation of funds totalling Rp 3.7 trillion, but in 2009 the number of cases jumped to 650 with revenue lost totaling Rp 4.98 trillion.
6. A “Fail” for the DPR for Budget Management
