INDONESIAN CIVIL SOCIETY GROUPS expressed concern over their government’s implementation of its commitments to the Open Governmetn Partnership (OGP) program, saying Jakarta’s international image of transparency and openness is not consistent with its actions on the domestic level.
A network of Indonesian CSOs has released to the media an independent report on the progress of the Indonesian government in implementing its commitments under the OGP. The report was produced by the groups MediaLink, Yappika, ICW, IPC, and the Indonesia Budget Center (IBC).
“There has been a huge paradox between Indonesia’s image of openness in the international arena, and the real implementation and commitment of the UU KIP (Indonesian Public Information Openness Law) in domestic level,” the groups said in a statement released to media agencies. “The Indonesian government wants to gain international positive image while in domestic level, reality shows the opposite.”
For instance, the groups said that Jakarta has “gone as far as cutting up the programs to carry out the OGP, weakened the concept of an open and transparent government as the source of information.” The groups said that while the government committed to accelerate the implementation of the Public Information Openness Law or UU KIP, “only a few (institutions) have implemented the regulation.”
For example, only a third of the Central Public Agencies in Indonesia now have a Center of Information and Documentation Management in their organizational structure, according to data from the Central Information Commission.
In addition, “nearly all Ministries/other government agencies” have not adjusted their website contents “to meet the standards for regular information types as is stipulated in the UU KIP.”
“Only nine ministries/government agencies were able to obtain more than 50 percent score in the assessment of regular information release,” the CSOs said in a statement. “In the level of local government agencies/institutions, only seven of total 33 provincial government administrations in Indonesia were able to obtain more than 50 percent score for the categories of regular information release and establishment of Provincial Information Commission.”
The groups noted three Indonesian government agencies that had were lagging in the implementation of Indonesia’s information laws. These were the National Police, the Directorate General of Taxes, and the National Land Agency.
The groups pushed for a fuller implementation of the Public Information Openness law, saying this would be “more than enough to create an open and transparent governance.”
“We must not let people think that UU KIP (Public Information Openness law) is all about creating information portals,” the groups said. “remember, portal is one of the many media to distribute information, not the only media, and it must always comply with the information type and classification as is ruled out in the UU KIP.”