Boosting directors’ performance with leave allowances

15
Timboel Siregar
Advocacy Coordinator of the Social Security Organizing Agency (BPJS) Watch

The Minister of Finance’s deci­sion to increase leave allowance for Directors and the supervisory board of the Health and Manpower Social Security Organizing Agency (BPJS) certainly came under the public spot­light recently, considering problems in both BPJS and especially BPJS Health have also not been well and systemically resolved.

The Minister of Finance’s reason for increasing leave allowance is to boost the performance of the BPJS Directors and supervisory boards. I considered the Minister of Finance’s decision is incorrect. My reasons are:

First, the wages and incentives of the Board of Directors and the second Supervisory Board of BPJS are already high. Let’s take BPJS Health as an example. According to the Health BPJS Monthly Report Book, the Health Directors Incentive for one year which is budgeted in the 2019 Annual Activity Plan and Bud­get (RKAT) is Rp32,886,000,000 for 8 BPJS Health directors.

This means that the average per director gets 32,886,000,000/8 = Rp. 4,110,750,000 per person.

So in average, every director re­ceives Rp.4,110,750,000 / 12 months = Rp342,562,500 per month.

The incentive burden for the BPJS Health board of supervisors a year is Rp17,736,000,000 for 7 BPJS Health supervisory boards.

This means that the average per director gets Rp17,736,000,000/7 = Rp. 2,533,714,285 per person.

So, on average a supervisory board member receives Rp.2,533,714,285 / 12 months = Rp211,142,857 per month.

From the above data, we can conclude that compensation to the board of directors and supervisory board of BPJS Health is already very large. And with that value, I think the Board of Directors and the Superviso­ry Board can take a leave very easily and happily, without the need for an increase in leave benefits.

Secondly, if the Minister of Fi­nance’s reasons to increase this will improve the performance of the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board, I don’t think that’s right. Isn’t it true that all this time the Board of Directors and the Supervisory Board and their families have been enjoying a very pleasant leave? But has their performance improved? Not really.

In fact, there are still many targets that have not been achieved. For ex­ample, in BPJS Health, contribution of debts is still huge, participation in reaching the UHC target is still over­shadowed by failures, supervision of hospitals related to the provisions in cooperation agreements (PKS) with hospitals is still weak, and so on. Likewise, investment achievements in BPJS Employment have also not been maximized. The investment re­turn and managed funds in 2018 are not achieved.

If the allowance raised is for train­ing and education allowance or to book purchase allowances, it has rel­evance to performance.

Third, that all operational funds of the two BPJS, including the incen­tives of the Board of Directors and Supervisory Board are from contri­butions. A large deficit with a larger debt claim to the hospital should be the main focus to be overcome by in­creasing fees. But contributions have not yet risen … instead they are used to increase the welfare of a handful of Directors and Supervisory Boards. This is a very counterproductive thing that will cause distrust among our people.

Fourth, that the National Social Security System (SJSN) is held with 9 principles, one of which is non-prof­it. Therefore, the Board of Directors and Supervisory Board should have a sense of belonging with a social pas­sion to work with a non-profit spirit.

Based on this argument, I urge the President to reprimand the Minister of Finance, so that the Minister of Fi­nance Decree must be immediately canceled.

Then the President must imme­diately conduct an evaluation of the performance of the Directors and the second Supervisory Board of the BPJS. The people must be informed about the performance evaluation. An objective performance evaluation will encourage improvement in the performance of Directors and Super­visory Boards, not by increasing leave allowances.