Tuesday, 15 January 2013


The Ministry of Trade saw that there was no clause le in The Law of Consumers’ Protection [UUPK] No. 8/1999 which could harness evasive business players in the event that ignore call by The Board of Consumers Dispute Settlement [BPSK] where business players tend to ignore call by the BPSK by consumers’ request. The most thinkable solution was that the Indonesian Police Head and the Ministry of Trade made a joint decree [SKB] related to that matter. “But the Police do not see any legal base which may justify compulsory call on business players because the Police saw that matters related to consumers protection was in the domain of Civil Law Suit not Criminal Law “Aman Sinaga, Consumer protection Consultant of the Directorate General of Consumers Empowerment [DJPK] the Ministry of Trade disclosed to Business News [24/9].

DJPK admitted it was difficult for BPSK to summon businesspeople. The calling was justified by Article 52 of BPSK, but in realty it was not easy to realize. The Police persisted that the case was in the domain of Civil Law Suit. “ So it is most urgent to make a BPSK-Police joint Decree, unless business people have the good intention to come for mediation session; nearly all business players see matters within legalistic context, so they refuse to respond to BPSK’s call.”

Meanwhile BPSK of the Jakarta Province saw that Article 52 of UUPK was accommodative to serve consumers’ complaint who felt they were mistreated by business players. But the calling procedure must be three times. If business players failed to be present at first and second call it was still tolerable to BPSK; but at third call the businessperson just have to be present at the session. “We can call them by force, we can involve the investigator of public servants for consumers’ protection or PNS PK” Yohannes Tobing of BPSK of Greater Jakarta disclosed to Business News [24/9].

Nevertheless BPSK felt the need for operational guidelines [juklak] of the Consumer Empowerment [PK] Plan, but such was not realized, just the way it was with signing of the Min. of Trade-Police Joint Decree. In the event that the businesspeople persisted not being present the Board of BPSK comply to consumer who reported the businessperson.” The verstek decision is commonplace not just in the domain of UUPK but also other laws” Yohannes said.

In the event that the businessperson was not present, verdict was made temporarily. If the businessperson was present at agreed time, the verdict could not be made without investigation, because in principle the said person was the one who was reported by the consumer. BPSK also saw the tendency of increasing number of stubborn business players, especially developers of housing and apartments. “At the moment BPSK is trying to arrange default (verstek) on a certain developer somewhere in West Jakarta, because we are legally rightful to call that particular person. Verstek could serve as initial indication to the investigator, especially PNS PK Consumer Empowerment to make investigations” Yohannes remarked.

Meanwhile Parliament’s Plenary Meeting had designated the special Committee for Bill of Migrant workers Protection [TKI] Abroad as improvement of Law no. 35 year 2004 on Placement and Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers Abroad. Formation of the Special Committee of Bill for TKI Protection was a commitment to fully protect TKI abroad.

Workers deserved protection of their rights because very frequently they were treated as dairy cows being milked by officials or institutions who were involved in the process of TKI placement. Article 68 of Law no. 39/ 2004 stated that in every placement of TKI it was mandatory to include TKI in insurance programs.

Among the aspects very frequently untouched was insurance protection for TKI. This TKI insurance was regulated in Regulation Permenakertrans no 7/2007 which was essentially an effort to protect TKI before placement, during placement or after placement.

“Philosophically protection of TKI could be done in many ways. Insurance plan is one way commonly known and understood by the public, but whether or not the execution was to really protect TKI, this was the one point to be attended to by us all” this was stated by Peompida Hidayatulloh, member of Commission IX of House to Business News sometime ago.

Permen no. 7 /2010 clearly elaborated that whatever happened in time when they working as migrant workers [TKI] it was the responsibility of the consortium and insurance agencies to pay claims. The fact was it was hard for TKI to claim their right although they had fulfilled all the requirements to make their claim.

Some insurance policies were evidently very disadvantageous to TKI. Among the insurance policies were the ex Gratia mechanism i.e. company’s obligation to pay claims which was in fact not company’s responsibility. Such practices was some sort of “Keep silent” [be quiet] policy given by the insurance company to claimer to keep them raising.

Business News - September 28, 2012

No comments: