Background
According
to the article 11 Law No. 22 (1999), local government’s authority has increased
drastically. This article states that: “Local
authorities cover all of governmental authorities with exception as determined
in article 7 and 9”.[1]
There
are, at least, two consequences resulting from the new regulation. Firstly, expanding
the discretionary power i.e, the local power to arrange everything which is
considered as house-hold affairs. These affairs include both mandatory and un-obligatory
ones, and also encompass parking affairs.[2]
It means that either central or provincial government will be unable to
interfere intensively toward the local domains. Secondly, dilating the rights
to explore their own financial sources in order to finance the implementation
of their affairs or programs. This right is likely successful because fiscal
decentralization acts have been issued, such as Law No. 25 (1999) about
Financial Sharing Between Central and Local Government; No. 34 (2000) about
Local Tax and Retribution; Government Regulation No. 16 (2000) about Land and
Housing Tax; and No. 104 (2000) about Balance Funds.
Unfortunately,
the conceivable tax and retribution from parking sector did not incorporated in
fiscal decentralization acts.[3]
Indeed, funds that can be collected from this sector is less sizeable than
other sectors such as income tax, land and housing tax, hotel and restaurant
tax, amusement tax, advertising tax, and so forth. However, what local
government was able to get is only a tiny quantity of income. They have more
vast unexplored sources.[4]
So
far, parking fee contribution to Local Revenue (PAD) and to Gross Domestic
Product (PDRB) was relatively low. In other words, its roles in supporting the
local autonomy was considered to be improved. In this case, there is a mutual
relation between enlarging local government’s authority and improving or
maximizing the role of parking affair. By their new authority, local government
is able to legally determine the parking policy, including regulating either
parking tax or parking retribution. Meanwhile, an ample financial contribution
from parking affairs would increases the local government’s ability in
succeeding the autonomy policy as is mandated in Law No 22 (1999).
On
the other hands, non-economic phenomena also indicate that government’s performance
is under the standard. It can be observed that town traffics are generally
massy, while people’s satisfaction is relatively low.
Considering
above, it is imperative to research the impact of immense authority on
formulating parking policy, and at the same time, the impact of parking
contribution on succeeding autonomy implementation as a whole.
Problem
Statement
The
previous description designates that there are two main problem in regard to
enhancing the roles of parking matters. The first problem is that local
government has not determined the new parking policy as an organic regulation[5]
from the higher level (in this case Law No 22 (1999)). This condition will lead
to stagnancy of both parking performances and parking contributions to local
revenue. The second problem is that parking services can not be expected as a
significant source in producing financial contribution to Local Revenue (PAD).
As a result, the Local Government’s capacity or ability on implementing
decentralization policy is not profoundly increase.
Good Governance, Autonomy, and Public Service
There
are a logical relation between good governance, autonomy[6],
and public service. One characteristic of good governance is participation,
which can be improved by giving autonomy to the local people. In other words,
autonomy is one of important principles of good governance. Next, the impetus
of decentralization is to increase public services. It can be assumed that
wider decentralization will effect to the better public service delivery.
Mustopadidjaja[7]
wrote that nowadays around the world, there is a shift from conventional
governmental paradigm that focused on maintaining law and order, provisioning
public service, collecting tax and retribution, and centrally regulating
governmental affairs, to good governance paradigm that, according to Ghambir
Bhatta, focused on the following four attributes: Accountability, Transparency,
Openness/Participation, and Rule of Law. When a state has all attributes of
good governance, there is no reason not to delegate most of its power or
authority to the lower level institution, in this case local government.
The New Paradigm of Local
Autonomy in Indonesia
The
replacement of Law No. 5 (1974) with Law No 22 (1999) is motivated by an
expectation to modify the operation of local government.[8]
From a macro perspective, the major ground of making Law No 22 (1999) is to
accelerate the paradigm shift in governmental practices. In this case, the new
paradigm that will be furthered is democratization, empowerment and public
service revitalization values.
Democratization
value means that Law No 22 (1999) gives local people a larger opportunity to
express their aspiration through DPRD (the local representatives). Empowerment
value means that there is a larger delegation of power from the higher level
institution to the lower ones. As a result, City or District as “the lowest
hierarchy” of autonomous government has the biggest power to determine their
own policy. Eventually, public service revitalization value means that there is
a strong hope to make governmental services faster, cheaper, better, and closer
to the public.
Similar
to the description above, Researcher Team from LAN and Local Autonomy Bureau of
West Java Provincial Government Office mentioned that the following are six
grounds of establishing Law No 22 (1999), which differs from previous law.[9]
·
Promoting
the local democracy model.
·
Increasing
equity and equality, especially for the local people.
·
Confessing
local potency and diversity.
·
Encouraging
people’s creativity and participation.
·
Empowering
local independency.
·
Strengthening
local institution, especially local representatives, by enlarging its roles and
functions.
On
the subject of good governance paradigm, what Law No 22 (1999) contained is in
the line with. It means that there is a concordance principle between Law No 22
(1999) and the efforts in promoting good governance in Indonesian governmental
practices.
Enlargement of Authority and Local Government’s Efforts in Implementing
Law No. 22 (1999)
When
Law No 22 (1999) was issued, the most prevalent questions among the local
government officer are: how to break down the article 11 about local
authorities?, and, what figures of institution that is the best in conducting
its local authorities?
In
order to response to those questions, most local government formulate two kinds
of local regulations (Peraturan Daerah), they are, Local Government
Authorities, and Organizational Structure and Mechanism (SOTK – Struktur
Organisasi dan Tata Kerja). Generally, after a year of the effectiveness of the
law, either provincial or district/city governments have finished with the
first stage.
The
next crucial step is formulating regulation products[10]
as a legal basis in determining every policy they have to make. Unfortunately,
this effort has not utterly completed, so that what local government did after
the launching of Law No 22 (1999) is mostly the same with the previous
policies. In other words, Law No 22 (1999) makes minute changes in terms of
policies, so far.
Existing Parking Policy and Its Problems in Bandung City
It
is undisputable that parking is one of people’s basic needs, especially in the
urban areas. Therefore, it becomes a philosophical reason why local government
should regulate the parking affairs effectively in order to fulfill citizen’s
demands. Basically, there are three main functions of parking affairs which
local body, in this case Parking Management Board (Badan Pengelola
Perparkiran), are expected to improve, i.e.: 1) assisting government to further
traffic disciplines, 2) promoting public service, particularly to car owners
and pedestrians, 3) increasing contribution to local revenue.[11]
Empirical
phenomena indicate that Parking Management Board has not showed the best
performance on those three functions. It means that people can easily find the
traffic jump as a widespread reality, while the street users never completely
satisfy with the services. In addition, its contribution to local revenue still
in a low grade due to the mismanagement of parking affairs or other factors.
In
order to leverage its performances, some aspects need to be improved. In this
case, the most important aspect is tax / retribution management that entails
three things such as retribution gathering methods, retribution management and
submission mechanism, and revenue / retribution sharing agreement with private
sector. These three things should be considered as vital aspects in the next
policies produced by local government.
On
the other hand, after Law No 22 (1999) runs into effective, some consequences
will occurs. There are, at least, four aspects that is influenced by the
implementation of Law No 22 (1999). Those four aspects are: main tasks and
functions (authorities), administration of tax / retribution, internal
structure and interrelation with other institutions, and politic aspect (its
effect on societal behavior). Unfortunately, there are no serious studies about
these implications.
[1] Article
7 constitutes the central government’s authorities that cover 6 areas of
authorities. Meanwhile, article 9
constitutes the provincial government’s authorities that cover 6 areas of
authorities also.
[2] Referring
to the article 11 Law No. 22 (1999), there are 11 mandatory authorities in
local area: public works, health, education and culture, agriculture,
transportation and telecommunication, trade and industry, investment,
environment, land affairs, cooperation, and labor. Apart from the 11
authorities, there are un-obligatory authorities whose quantity is different
between one region and another, depending on the need and capabilities.
[3] Law
No 34 (2000), that substituted by Law No 18 (1997), only mentioned that one of
many Local Taxes is Parking Tax. This is a new type of tax which is never
constituted in the previous regulations. However, Law No 34 (2000) did not provide
further information to realize it.
[4] As
an illustration, International Transportation Association (ITA) had showed that
parking money which could be picked from vehicle users in Jakarta Jakarta , June
29th, 2001, Jakarta
[5] Organic
regulation is a technical term that is used to addressed to a lower level
policy that spells out the upper one.
[6] The
term “autonomy” in this paper is the same meaning with other terms such as
decentralization, political decentralization, devolution, discretionary power.
Some experts use them in different way, but I prefer to use them in the meaning
of entrustment or delegation of power from central government to local
government or from higher institution to lower institution.
[7] Mustopadidjaja
and Desi Fernanda, Building Public Accountability in order to Achieve Good
Local Governance, Wacana Kinerja Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, March 2001, p.16,
Bandung: LAN West Java Regional Office.
[8] Elis
Kantiningsih, The Prediction of Provincial Authority and Institution Through
The Effectiveness of Local Autonomy, Wacana Kinerja Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2,
September 2000, p.1, Bandung: LAN West Java Regional Office.
[9] LAN
and Local Autonomy Bureau Researcher Team, Local Government Institution and
Authority Arrangement in the Implementation of Law No 22 (1999), Wacana
Kinerja Journal, No. 5, June 1999, p.3, Bandung
[10] There
are two common type of local regulation, i.e. Peraturan Daerah
(Province/District/City Regulation that is made by Governor/Regent/Major
together with Local Representatives), and Keputusan Kepala Daerah
(Governor/Regent/Major Decree).
[11] Interview
result with Chairman of Parking Management Board of Bandung City, June 26th,
2001.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar