Stop Corruptive Payrolls

KOMPAS/DIDIE SW

.

I was an undersecretary at the Law and Human Rights Ministry (2011-2014) under Amir Syamsudin. Guess who among us had a higher income? The logic was, of course, that the law and human rights minister because he was my boss. However, that was not the case.

My monthly income was more than Rp 27 million, while the law and human rights minister earned less than Rp 19 million. Of course, there was no logical explanation as to why the subordinate\'s earnings could was higher than the boss.

The framework of misconception is what we should use when paying attention to the polemic about the payroll of the Pancasila Ideology Development Board (BPIP). Unfortunately, the election contest climate that tends to knock each other causes the main issues to be blurred. Finally, we only succeed in making a list of problems without successfully finding solutions, let alone executing them into policies that bring benefits to many people.

Complicated and without standards

The payroll system in this republic is indeed miraculous. If the salary is intended to prevent corruption, then the payroll system for state organizers in Indonesia clearly has failed to perform its functions. Strictly speaking, our payroll system is mistakenly designed because it even further encourages corruption.

By law, there is no single reference to the law on how the payroll system should be managed. This is a complicated system. Like tangled spider webs, they spread in various laws and regulations under them, up to the ministerial regulations. As a result, our payroll system is implemented without clear standards. The term being used is relatively confusing as well. Law No. 7 of 1978 related to the payroll of the president uses the word "financial/administrative rights", while Presidential Regulation No. 7/2018 regarding BPIP uses the term "financial rights and facilities".

The difference in terms is important to be explained because the ambiguity becomes the entrance to conceal the actual amount of state organizers\' incomes. For example, because raising the state official\'s salary is an unpopular policy, the basic salary of the president and state officials has not been raised for a long time. However, that does not mean the income does not increase. Because, then there appears a variety of additional incomes, not through salaries, but various types of allowances.

For example, the salary of the minister, even though it has already been 18 years, is still more than Rp 5 million, but legal engineering has been done by adding a performance allowance component to the minister, which on average reaches 150 percent of the highest performance allowances in their respective ministries. Actually it hast to be strict that the salary of the minister goes up without having to perform various acrobats of the law. We must also fairly acknowledge that the basic salary of a minister of Rp 5 million is far from reasonable.

Similar to the minister, the president\'s salary of Rp 30.24 million per month should also be raised. Article 2 of Law No. 7/1978 regulates that the basic salary of the president is six times the highest salary of officials in Indonesia other than the president and vice president. Without raising the presidential salary, then the basic salary of other high-ranking state officials will remain Rp 5.040.000 per month.

Acrobatic and corruptive

The illogical payroll system must be stopped immediately. Donald P Warwick in his article, The Effectiveness of the Indonesian Civil Service, in 1987, more than three decades ago, had questioned the absence of a payroll reference for our civil servants. This causes each element of the state to take their own acrobatic steps to supplement their incomes. Finally, the strong one can get much. Do not be surprised if the income of employees of Bank Indonesia or the Finance Ministry exceeds other state institutions.

Our payroll system must be fundamentally revamped. Not only in regard to its magnitude but also the manner in which calculations are carried out. Obviously, the small salary magnitude causes our state organizers, including civil servants, to do bureaucratic acrobatics to earn side incomes. There used to be non-budgeter funds, which were collected with the justification to finance expenses that do not have budget. After the non-budgeter funds were colored by many corruption cases, there emerges operational funds, which later become cases being handled by the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Another type of acrobat is the emergence of various types of benefits. There are generally two types of allowances, job allowances and other benefits. These other benefits then further grow, such as into the performance allowances, honor, housing, transportation, communication, insurance, old age, rice, family, and security. It is a common practice that the benefits eventually turn into additional incomes. When I became the deputy minister of law and human rights, I got a house renting allowance, but there were state officials who even offered their official homes for rent. Or, with a variety of intrigues, they turned the official home into private residences.

Various payroll system acrobats by the state officials become a culture that is also prevalent among civil servants. The examples are the practice of SPPD (letter of official travel assignments) and activity allowances. Still in my experience as an undersecretary,  I repeatedly returned the SPPD money because it was not in accordance with reality. For example, attending an event only for a few hours, but I got SPPD for a few days. On other events, I just wondered why activities needed to be held in Bekasi, not in Jakarta. It turned out that the value of SPPD in Bekasi was greater because it was part of the West Java Province. This is a negative bureaucratic innovation because it tends to be corruptive.

Still related to SPPD\'s negative innovation, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo\'s intention to simplify the travel assignments (SPJ) from tens to only two sheets needs to be appreciated and consistently implemented in the field. However, as described above, the root of the problem is not the number of SPJs, but the absurdity of our payroll system.

A single payroll system

There are many other anomalies and irrationalities of our payroll system, which must be ended  soon. The solution has been frequently disclosed, namely: a single payroll system.

With this single system, payroll of state officials and civil servants should be ensured to lead only to one door. Currently the draft government regulations are being discussed on salaries, benefits, and civil servant facilities, which are essentially close to the single payroll system. Under the plan, civil servant incomes will only have three components, namely salary, performance allowances, and expensiveness benefits.

Not only for the civil servants, the payroll system for state officials must also be fundamentally changed. It should be considered to replace Law No. 7/1978 regarding the payroll of the president, which is already four decades old. It is also necessary to adopt the single payroll system to be applied also to state officials at the central and regional levels.

In this case, consideration and political calculation must be the inhibiting factor. Moreover in the days leading up to the elections as it is today. This is the time for the importance of leadership, a leadership to decide something difficult, for long-term benefits.

In term of the administrative law, ahead of the presidential election, this is the right time to make decisions regarding the improvement of the system and the increase of the presidential salary, which will affect the feasibility of salaries of other state officials. Because, during the election, the principle of conflict of interest can be increasingly avoided. The decision taken is not to be enjoyed by the incumbent president because it is enacted for the presidency of the next period although there is always the possibility that the incumbent president can be re-elected.

KOMPAS/FERGANATA INDRA RIATMOKO

Denny Indrayana

In the United States, the issue of presidential salary is regulated in the constitution. With regard to the principle of anti-conflict interest, the implementation of a presidential salary increase is strictly prohibited when the president is in office. With regard to the salaries of Parliament members, based on the 27th Amendment of the American Constitution, known as The Madison Amendment, it is stipulated that parliamentary wage increases will only take effect after new elections. It means that those who will enjoy a salary increase will be new parliament members, the results of the elections which will take place.

In the run up to the 2019 Presidential Election, Indonesia should be able to reform the payroll system of state officials that are now irrational and corruptive, of course by also firmly  holding the basic principle of the anti-conflict interest. Do not let the polemic of the salary of  BPIP happen again so that we are again stuck on endless debates without any solution. Do not let irrational and corruptive payroll systems continue to be eternal.

Denny Indrayana, Professor of Constitutional Law of UGM; Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne