The Jakarta Post reported several months ago, that the State Audit agency (BPK) cease the publication of companies financial audit report due to blackmailing concerns. According to the article:

The Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) has stopped publishing online reports, to the dismay of freedom of information proponents. The agency said the state institutions it audited had complained that it was “too open”. BPK provided reports through the Internet even before the 2008 Law on Freedom of Information was implemented this year.

….

But reports of blackmail prompted the agency to close the online access, requiring information seekers to submit official letters to obtain a hard copy of reports. A public relations staffer of BPK, who requested anonymity, said, “The state institutions have been complaining that we were too open.” “[The institutions] said the reports had been used to blackmail them,” the source said recently.

Why fear blackmail if you are right? One of the possible reason is the corruption witch-hunt. The eradication of corruption in Indonesia is somewhat turning into a witch-hunt (a colleague in the UK is researching this for his Ph.D in Anthropology). Dealing with KPK and the Prossecutor office is cumbersome. This provides a disincentive for being transparent.

How do we handle this? Well, we need to provide more incentive for being more transparent. Transparency should not be used only for displaying the rotten apples of an organization, but also in highlighting the hidden jewels. This is what expert called a ‘targetted transparency’, which are conducted through, among other, publication of performance target benchmarked against certain a set of indicators.

 
Img source:mediaindonesia.com

In the wake of wikileaks, the Australian government recently issued a booklet titled “The Insider’s Threat to Business: A Personnel Security Handbook”. The booklet elaborate precautionary approaches that a business organization may employ in order to prevent the leak of confidential business information.

One of the legal method to prevent leaks (this is not explained in the booklet) is through the signing of employee confidentiality agreement. My research however indicates that the power of confidentiality agreements differs across jurisdiction. In the common law jurisdiction, confidentiality carries more weight due to the operation of obligation of confidence under the English equity law. The obligation of confidence protect the imparting of information in a ‘trust’ environment, such as between a doctor and its patient, or between a employer and employee. As such, the obligation may be enforced irrespective of agreement.

This is not the situation in continental legal system. I have yet to find any obligation to keep secret, independently of an agreement. Hence, an employee signing confidentiality agreement in a continental jurisdiction will be bound only to the extent of the agreement. When he decide to disclose the information one day, it would amount simply to a breach of (an employment) contract.

Determination of access level and the use of Digital Rights Management are therefore the most appropriate precaution. You will find some details about this in the booklet.

Ed note: this is a guest post by Suria Nataadmadja (suria[at]surialaw.com) and Selviyani from SURIA NATAADMADJA & ASSOCIATES. If you have further inquiry on this topic, please contact the authors directly.

As a matter of clarity, the term foreign direct investment is used here to distinguish it from the investment made by acquiring the shares of an Indonesian company from the stock market. Foreign direct investment can also be done by acquiring the shares of an established foreign investment company. The effect of foreign direct investment is to ascertain the share holding of foreign investors in a limited liability company as regulated by Law Number 40 of 2007 regarding Limited Liability Company, promulgated on August 16, 2007 in State Gazette 2007 Number 106 (“Law 40/2007”), and Supplement to State Gazette Number 4756.

Foreign direct investment in Indonesia has started as early as 1967 and the government has changed the law to Law Number 25 of 2007 regarding Investment, promulgated on April 26, 2007 in State Gazette 2007 Number 67, and Supplement to State Gazette Number 4724 (“Law 25/2007”). This Law supersedes Law No.1 of 1967 regarding Foreign Investment, and Law No.6 of 1968 regarding Domestic Investment. Compared to the 1967 Law, the new legislation is more accommodating to foreign investors, addressing important issues such as land rights. A presidential decree number 36 of 2010 regarding List of Business Open and Closed with Restriction for Investment (“Negative Investment List”) updated Indonesia’s Negative Investment List of December 2007 as regulated by presidential decree Number 76 of 2007. The main purpose of the new Negative Investment List are to implement the Indonesian government’s commitment to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations/ASEAN Economic Community but nevertheless it will encourage foreign direct investments from other countries as well. Only direct investments either foreign or domestic will be affected by the Negative Investment List. Indirect investment through the stock market will be exempted from complying with this Negative Investment List.

Certain investment that is meeting the requirement as stipulated in article 18 of Law 25/2007, entitled to be given tax incentives i.e. Income tax reduction; Custom exemption to machineries, capital goods and tools; Custom exemption on raw materials; VAT exemption; Accelerated amortization and depreciation; and Incentive on land and building tax. The government also recently issued Government Regulations No.1 of 2007 regarding the Facility of Income Tax for Investment on Certain Business Sectors or Regions (January 2, 2007). The certain business sectors amongst others are: food processing industries, packaging industries, plastic goods industries, cement industries, furniture industries, seafood processing industries, etc. Furthermore, the Government also issued the following regulations e.g. Ministry of Finance No.16/PML/03/2007 regarding Granting Income Tax Facilities for Investment on Certain Business Sectors or Certain Regions, Directorate General of Tax No. Per 67/PJ/07 of 2007 regarding Procedure of Granting Income Tax for Investment on Certain Business Sectors and/or Certain Regions.

Investments in Indonesia are coordinated by the Investment Coordination Board or Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal (“BKPM”); a nongovernmental department board leads by Head of BKPM, a position of ministerial level. BKPM’s policy has a very simple guidelines, forms, and requirements for filling applications of investment licenses as regulated by Decree of Head of BKPM Number 57/SK/2004 and Number 70/SK/2004. Latest regulation issued by BKPM is regulation No. 12 of 2009 regarding Guidelines and Procedures Application of December 23, 2009, that replaced the previous BKPM regulations on the guidelines and procedures for investment applications under domestic and foreign Investments. The latest regulation is sufficiently clear and self explanatory whereas it is attached with the necessary forms and guidance which are provided in Indonesian and English.

In practice, the process from the application to BKPM approval will take approximately between 3 weeks to 3 months. The most time consuming process is to translate foreign company documents to English, the language accepted by BKPM, and communicating Indonesian regulations to the foreign investors.

The approval from BKPM shall be followed by limited liability company establishment which for the foreign investment company shall be in form of a limited liability company under the foreign investment scheme (usually called “PT. PMA”). PT. PMA shall be formed by at least two share holders in form of a civil law notary’s deed (paragraph 1 article 7 Law 40/2007). Then, the deed shall obtain a statutory body status from the Minister of Law and Human Rights (paragraph 4 article 7 Law 40/2007) and published at the Supplement to State Gazette (article 30 Law 40/2007).

Although BKPM has been designed to be a “one stop services” institution, as regulated by a presidential decree Number 27 of 2009, which has given BKPM the authority to issue investment licenses, however, major specific licenses e.g. For Mining and oil and gas, plantation and forestry sectors still have to obtain licenses from other government related authorities. Certain permits will also be applied through the local government authorities e.g. Tax and related land permits and recommendations, etc.

Suria Nataadmadja, Partner

Selviyani, Associate

SURIA NATAADMADJA & ASSOCIATES

www.surialaw.com

Legislative Update 01/2010

Earlier this year, the House of Representative presented the academic draft on the Law on Public Accountants (download the academic draft here, in Bahasa). The current version of the draft law in its preamble does not seem to provide enough justification on why accounting services has to be regulated. It only states that at present, there is not enough regulation on the profession and that more rules are required to provide ‘legal certainty’ for clients and public accountants.

The academic draft does contain some justifications on why the accounting industry needs to be regulated, among other, that the profession attempts to reduce information asymmetry between principal and agents of an undertaking and provide them with financial information to back up their business decision. However, this is not adequately enshrined in the draft Law.

ILR’s sources at the House of Representative commented that the real aim of the draft law is to curtail the ever expanding growth of foreign accounting firms and provide opportunity for local firms to grow. Provisions regulating foreign accounting firms (Articles 17 and 13 of the current Draft) will become a contentious subject to be debated. On these articles, the number of foreign partners and foreign workers in an accounting firm is limited.

ILR will closely monitor the Draft Law on Public Accountant. If you require more information or tailor made service, please contact movanet@gmail.com

The ILR entered into agreement with Amazon yesterday to deliver the blog to Kindle devices through its Kindle Publishing program. If you subscribe to ILR through Amazon, the content will be delivered directly to your Kindle device through Whispernet. Note that Amazon impose a $ 1,99 monthly charge for this subscription and so far, the program will only work if your Kindle country setting is set to United States. Click here to go to ILR’s Amazon Page.

But, there is a workaround! You can directly download ILR in a mobi format to be used in your Kindle for free by clicking this feed in your Kindle browser. Once the feed goes to the library of your Kindle device, it will provide a link for you to update its content.

Enjoy reading ILR in your Kindle!

Press Release: Indonesia’s Attorney General Lost its Power to Ban Books

The Indonesian Constitutional Court in a 7-1 ruling pronounced last Wednesday, October 13^th, that the Indonesian Attorney General is stripped from its power to ban books. This ruling is an important breakthrough for the freedom of expression in Indonesia.

Last January, two lawyers from the Center for Law Information, Rahmat Bagja and Fatahillah Hoed submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court demanding the Court to revoke Law No. 4 PNPS 1963 which provides the legal basis to the Attorney General to ban books.

The lawyers successfully pleaded their case before the Constitutional Court. The Court decided in Wednesday that Law No. 4 PNPS 1963 was invalidated. In the future, banning of books will have to be conducted through a court proceeding.  

Indonesia is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and has therefore, the international obligation to protect the freedom of expression. In the past, book banning has been used by the New Order authoritarian regime to tackle political dissents.

Jakarta, October 14^th, 2010

Center for Law Information (CeLI)

Indonesia Law Report (ILR)                                                             

Picture: Mr Rahmat Bagja and Mr. Fatahillah Hoed at the Constitutional Court’s Judicial Review of Law No. 4 PNPS 1963