Having A Value Asset Is Only IDR 70 And Becomes BPK's Finding, PAM Jaya Gives An Explanation

DKI DPRD Commission B Meeting/PHOTO: Diah Ayu-VOI

JAKARTA - Perumda PAM Jaya explained the causes of problems in the 2022 financial report records which became the findings of the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK). From these findings, BPK also put Disclaimer or did not provide an opinion on its financial statements.

A number of problems that BPK found ranging from inadequate asset value, unproductive inventory management, inadequate asset management, and recording of subscription guarantee debt (UJL) are not supported by a complete list of details.

In the meeting of Commission B of the DKI Jakarta DPRD, Arief Nasrudin admitted that currently PAM Jaya did not have details on the acquisition of asset value until 1986 after the revaluation. This caused the asset value at that time to be only IDR 70.

Then, Arief admitted, on PAM Jaya's fixed asset list, there was a 1997 project with a total value that did not have details with a book value as of December 31, 2022 of Rp40.

"Indeed, this is our acknowledgment that we are not strengthened by the fact that we have tried to check but were not found, because it is quite old," said Arief at the DKI Jakarta DPRD Building, Tuesday, June 13.

Arief also explained that BPK's findings regarding the unproductive availability of PAM Jaya with an acquisition value of IDR 30.4 billion were not believed to be reasonable.

According to him, this is a supply of pipes and accessories before the 1997 water privatization cooperation with partners that were no longer used and then transferred to unproductive assets.

Meanwhile, the current book value is IDR 2.9 billion after the 19-year shrinkage since 2003 so that according to the public accounting firm, this value is not included in the material.

"PAM Jaya once submitted a request for abolition to the Supervisory Board in 2003, but it has not been followed up for the removal process. Since 2009, PAM Jaya has carried out an account policy to carry out an acquisition for the decline in unproductive availability," explained Arief.

Furthermore, in the findings of the management of an environment account by PAM Jaya that was inadequate and the PAM Jaya report had not yet presented the balances and transactions of funds which were jointly managed by PAM Jaya and partners.

Arief said that his party did not present all the receipt and expenditure transactions in thebow account which were recorded as only part of PAM Jaya from the beach revenue and offshore revenue.

"Although it is not presented, all data related to anchor account mutations resulting from cooperation with the two private partners are maintained and monitored," he said.

In addition, Arief also explained that BPK's findings regarding the presentation of customer guarantee debt worth Rp53.3 billion were not supported by a complete and accurate list of details.

He said, the guarantee money (UJL) was formed since PAM JAYA was established in 1922 until now. Thus, there are several phases in recording UJL, namely before the cooperation period with Palyja and Aetra partners, during the water privatization period, and after the end of water privatization.

During the water privatization period, PAM JAYA's UJL data for AETRA only started from 2009, while PALYJA started in 2017.

Meanwhile, the complete customer database can only be accessed after the transition period and at that time PAM JAYA has identified a detailed difference from UJL. Currently, management has carried out the reconciliation process.

"From the UJL value of Rp 53.3 billion, detailed data has been supported for 505,467 customers with a total of Rp. 39 billion, a match that cannot be detailed in the amount of Rp. 14.2 billion. The cause of the difference is that there are customers who have been evicted, there are disconnsections, and there are inactive customers," he added.