The controversial Sisdiknas bill
A Management issue with regard to low public participation is also reflected in the controversy surrounding to the National Education System (Sisdiknas) bill. This controversy concerns both formal and material dimensions. First, there was minimal public participation in the drafting of the bill. Kemdikbudristek did invite several teacher communities, but their voices had rarely been heard in public, so they may not be able to contribute their thoughts to the bill’s contents. In fact, if we learn from the drafting of Law 20/2003 on the national educational system, the public has been involved since the discussion of the academic text. Prof. Dr. Suyanto, as head of the National Education Reform Team who prepared the academic text and drafted the Articles of the Sisdiknas bill at that time, conducted a roadshow to a number of regions to familiarize the academic text and the bill. Meanwhile, in the current bill, the academic texts and draft Articles have not been widely inculcated in the public by involving multiple stakeholders. Kemdikbudristek officials assume that when they are uploaded on their website or social media the public would know about them automatically. In fact, not all citizens who care about the state of education in the country are tech literate.
The Sisdiknas bill needs to be addressed critically because there are many Articles that will put teachers, lecturers and the general public at a disadvantage, so instead of bringing improvements to the quality of education, it actually worsens it. According to plan, the Sisdiknas bill will merge three laws – Law 20/2003 on national educational system, Law 14/2005 on teachers and lecturers, and Law 12/2012 on higher education. The three laws have 261 Articles but the Sisdiknas bill will only contain 150 Articles. This means that there will be 111 Articles that will be removed or perhaps regulated through Government Regulation (PP).
One of the crucial issues in the Sisdiknas bill is the abolishment of Articles that regulate teachers’ professional allowance in Law 14/2005. This has faced resistance from teachers. Article 145 of the bill stipulates: (1) Every teacher and lecturer who has received professional allowance, special allowance, and/or honorary allowance as stipulated in Law 14/2005 on teachers and lecturers prior to the promulgation of this Law will continue to receive allowances as long as they meet the requirements as provisioned by the legislation; (2) Every teacher and lecturer other than teachers and lecturers referred to in paragraph (1) will receive the amount of income/remuneration at least equal to the income/remuneration received when this Law is promulgated as long as they meet the requirements as provisioned by the legislation.
The addition of caveat clause in Article 145 does not provide certainty, especially honorary teachers. This is a multi-interpretable Article. It is likely that honorary teachers will be paid according to standard used in the Manpower Law, which will be determined by the provincial minimum wage (UMP).
Read: Jokowi: Indonesia committed to be at the forefront of creative economy
With regard to compulsory education, the bill is not clear about the extent to which the state is responsible to fund compulsory education program. Law 20/2003 Article 34(2) clearly states that “The central government and regional administrations guarantee the implementation of compulsory education at the minimum level of basic education without charging a fee” while Article 7(1) of the bill only stipulates “The central government and regional administrations shall administer compulsory education in accordance with their respective authorities” and Article 57(1) states “The central government and regional administrations shall provide funding for the implementation of compulsory education.” These Articles do not say how much is the government’s share of funding – 100 percent? 90 percent? 50 percent?
The presence of a number of vague articles in the bill has galvanized public opposition. Thus, if the bill is passed, it can actually threaten access by the impoverished to education and demoralize teachers, which will eventually impact their performance. These Articles emerged because there was an absence of broad public participation, so the community has no control of it. Thus, public participation is absolutely critical in the formulation of the Articles in the Sisdiknas bill that can be accepted by the public. The government should stop playing cat and mouse with the public! (Ki Darmaningtyas)