121 Institutions Classified as Non-Informative Ignored the KIP Law

Https://birokesra.babelprov.go.id/

JAKARTA - The Central Information Commission (KI Pusat) noted that there were hundreds of Public Agencies that had not met the information service standards, including 121 institutions that were designated as non-informative. Interestingly, there are five ministries that fall into the non-informative category.

English:

Among them, the Ministry of Human Rights (Kemenham), the Ministry of Housing and Settlements (PKP), the Coordinating Ministry for Food (Kemenko Pangan), the Coordinating Ministry for Community Empowerment (Kemenko PMK), and the Ministry of Hajj and Umrah.

English:

In response to this, Jamiluddin Ritonga, a political communication observer at Esa Unggul University, emphasized that public bodies, including ministries that fall into the category of not being informative, can be interpreted as institutions that are not transparent.

English:

"This kind of institution means that it has not served the request for information that is the public's right. There is an impression that the institution is hiding what should be known by the public. Institutions like this seem to hide many problems," said Jamiluddin in Jakarta, Tuesday, December 16.

English:

According to him, an uninformative institution means not delivering or providing information that should be accessible to the public periodically or at any time. "Or it could also be because the information service is slow, inaccurate, or the procedure is complicated for the information applicant," he said.

English:

In short, said Jamiluddin, the institution means ignoring legal obligations in implementing the principles of transparent and accountable government. In fact, the institution has ignored the Public Information Disclosure Law (KIP).

English:

"An institution that is not transparent is certainly not in line with the principles of democracy. In fact, Indonesia since the reform era has been proclaimed to have agreed to democracy in the life of the nation and state," he said.

English:

Therefore, Jamiluddin emphasized that public bodies like this should adapt themselves to suit the will of democracy and the KIP Law. He emphasized that the ministry must set an example in implementing information openness as mandated by the KIP Law.

English:

English:

English:

"This example is an indicator of compliance with the KIP Law. If not, the president should have removed the heads of ministries and public agencies who do not comply with information openness as stipulated in the KIP Law. Because, such leaders are not suitable for leading public bodies in the era of openness," he concluded.