It has been a while since I have bothered to write on any Indonesian laws. I continue to read them regularly, perhaps daily might be a more accurate description. I read for two reasons: to keep up-to-date and to keep my language skills up to speed. However, I figured I might jot down a few points about the new immigration law. I thought that I would do this for no other reason than having a vested interest in the subject matter. But, then again, it is 15 Chapters and 145 Articles long, I can think of a whole lot of other things that I might enjoy more now that I am writing for fun rather than income.
To say that the new Immigration Law was a long time in the making, or a long time in coming, is an understatement in the extreme. The previous immigration law was passed and enacted way back in 1992. Nevertheless, the House of Representatives (DPR) finally got their collective heads around the idea of needing to pass new legislation in this area. So, on 7 April 2011, the DPR passed the Immigration Bill into Law and the rest is history, sort of.
The new law goes some ways towards resolving a number of outstanding issues that directly impact upon foreigners living or wanting to live in Indonesia. However, there are other really critical and substantive issues that will determine whether foreigners opt to live in Indonesia that remain unaddressed, and as such unresolved. A prime example of this is property ownership in Indonesia by foreigners. This is apparently going to be addressed in separate legislation, presumably a revised agrarian law, at some later date. The "some later date" is problematic as it still creates present problems for foreigners and their Indonesian families that might not wait until some later date.
The idea that the new immigration law is solely to satisfy concerned foreigners and their agitating Indonesian spouses who lobbied for some of these changes is a furphy. The reality is that after 19 years with the same legislation while other laws and regulations were enacted and implemented around it meant that the old immigration law was no longer fit for the purpose it was originally enacted for. Furthermore, there was little point in going about the process in an ad hoc or piecemeal manner making the odd amendment here are there. Common sense dictated that the best, perhaps preferred, approach was to draft and enact a whole new law.
Yet, it must be noted that there are plenty of provisions in the new law which are pro-foreigner, particularly pro-mixed marriage families. However, once again, this is not the sole reason for the new law.
In any event, it must also be noted that the enactment of the law constitutes less than half the process. The proof of the pudding, so to speak, is in the implementing regulations. Quite clearly, the new law will require new implementing regulations in order for the new law to work and to be enforceable. If these provisions are not forthcoming, then the law will be difficult to apply and the 'guarantees' that many think the new law provides will fall by the wayside.
In fact, the statement that all current implementing regulations remain in force while they do not conflict with the new law and until such time as they are repealed and replaced does not provide any increased or enhanced certainty for those individuals that are likely to come under the full force of the law.
For example, a dilemma that presents itself is how much should foreigners be paid. The dilemma is whether foreigners as defined under the new immigration law are the equivalent of expatriates, particularly if they are being sponsored by their Indonesian spouse. The salary ranges for expatriates are set out in explicit terms in Director General of Taxation Decision No. KEP-173/PJ/2002 which requires expatriates (nationalities are listed in the decision) to be paid specific amounts in USD for certain jobs. An example, an Australia Manager in the trade business is to be paid USD 10,756 per month. Funnily enough it sets out that I should have been being paid USD 8,900 per month, but that was certainly not happening!
The guessing game here is one of whether a foreigner recruited locally in Indonesia as opposed to a foreigner recruited in their home country and brought to Indonesia are classified differently in the expatriate sense. Unfortunately, Article 61 and the elucidation is silent on the salary / wage front. However, it would certainly seem to make for an interesting discussion at the immigration office if an Indonesian spouse of limited means was seeking to sponsor a foreign spouse into Indonesia, particularly if they were looking at a small start-up business operation that might not even turn over USD 10,000 per month.
Maybe, this immigration law deal needs to be a series of posts?
Musings about the law, politics, culture, people, education, teaching and life. An independent voice and an independent perspective - Carpe Diem!
Showing posts with label Wages. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wages. Show all posts
22 April 2011
21 January 2011
"Poor" SBY...
The President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono or "SBY" to those in the know, has gone on the record (Kompas) intimating to high-ranking police and military officers that he understands their suffering on the salary front because he has not had a salary rise in more than seven years.
However, this is the kicker, what the president did not say is that his salary is already twenty-eight times the GDP per Indonesian.
One of the fundamental questions with respect to eradicating corruption in Indonesia is whether or not a significant rise in the level of salaries of police and other officials of state will reduce the reliance on illegal fees to supplement those meager salaries, and thereby reduce corruption. It was within this framework that the president was promising to reinvigorate the government's commitment to improving the prosperity of members of the Armed Forces and Police.
Now, most people would not begrudge a salary increase to those who have earned one. Simply, where performance justifies a salary increase then it is fair that an increase occur. Yet, in situations where performance is poor or promises have been broken, then it is not only hard to justify a pay rise but it is the height of arrogance to be suddenly crying poor, particularly when it would seem that one's workload is not so extreme that there is no time to put out an album of favourite songs to entertain the masses rather than feed them.
A survey by The Economist highlighted that SBY was enjoying a salary that ranked him third highest from twenty two countries surveyed. So, what is this in dollar terms? The president enjoys a salary of more than USD 124,000 per year. Interestingly the two leaders in front of him were Kenya (240 times GDP) and Singapore (42 times GDP). It is worth noting that this is the basic salary of the president, according to The Economist. Therefore, it does not include all the fringe benefits that the Head of State enjoys.
The sad truth of the matter is, Mr President, that you have not earned a pay rise. Even more telling in your attempt at empathy is that you really have lost touch with what it is like to be poor in Indonesia and living on or below the poverty line in a nation with vast national wealth and huge potential for growth but with a leadership that has no commitment to anything other than preserving itself. Mr President, perhaps it is time to worry about doing your job, the one you were elected to do and the one that has nothing to do with singing, rather than how long it has been since you have had a pay rise!
Ho hum...
Labels:
Armed Forces,
Corruption,
Economy,
GDP,
Indonesia,
Kenya,
Police,
Poverty,
Poverty Line,
Salary,
Singapore,
Singing,
Wages,
Wealth
07 July 2008
World Youth Day -- A Transportation Nightmare

Traffic congestion was expected to be heavy, but not outrageous as many people were expected to fore go the car and take public transport, either train or bus. A strike on this day would make it impossible to leave the car at home. The alternative would be for employers to just write the day off and make it a holiday.
One of the feature events of the WYD is the Pope taking a dinghy ride from Rose Bay across the harbour to the Opera House foreshore and then legging it up George Street in the Pope Mobile (I have always preferred the Bat Mobile myself) with the trusty faithful literally legging it up George Street in hot pursuit. The idea would have been for the pilgrims and other interested onlookers to train and bus it down to the Circular Quay. A strike makes this impossible. I guess people will be doing a lot of walking on 17 July.
The RTBU is striking because they feel that after 11 months of haggling with the government and RailCorp that the 2.5% cap on wage rises is an insult. There is no doubt that the enterprise bargaining agreement that employees are on now needs updating. The question that remains is whether 2.5% is an adequate response to the demands of employees.
I would figure that after 11 months morale is low, staff are probably looking for alternative employment where their efforts are more adequately rewarded, or they just really cannot be bothered working in any meaningful way than just going through the motions which would see a significant drop in service standards (some might already argue that rail and bus service was already poor).
The intention to strike on 17 July really does up the ante as the pending transportation nightmare is sure to get a lot of airplay not only locally but internationally. This sort of image is hardly one NSW wants to be putting out to the world.
Some might consider this to be blackmail, others might consider it to be a good negotiating strategy, I think it shows that the union is in desperation mode and that this is the only conceivable way that they see in ending this negotiation. I have a sneaky suspicion that the NSW government will ride out the strike no matter what.
The pressures on the Premier are already immense and if he lets this slide then this is certain to cement the image of a "do nothing bloke" not worthy of the State's top job.
The fun continues!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)