Ridwan Max Sijabat, Jakarta – Skepticism and uncertainties are haunting the planned implementation of five mandatory social security programs in 2014 and 2015.

Questions have arisen over whether the government and employers will be able to improve the condition of those requiring assistance.

Social security practitioners and insurance law experts have been confused by the newly-endorsed law on social security providers (BPJS), which they said would be a time bomb for the next government.

The law mandated the implementation of the national healthcare program by state-owned PT Askes by January 2014, and occupational accident, old-age risk, pension and death programs by state-owned PT Jamsostek by July 2015.

They criticized the fact that the law was enacted in haste, as lawmakers attempted to appease thousands of workers and students without thinking further on whether the next government would be able to implement the law. The students were rallying to demand social security for all.

"To avoid the present fiscal burden, the government proposes the implementation of these programs in 2014 and 2015, through political lobbying during the law's endorsement. Then the House of Representatives will accept the proposal to have the government co-endorse the bill and will simultaneously win the public's confidence and empathy," said Ali Gufron Mukti, a professor at the medical school of the Gadjah Mada University in Yogyakarta.

Bambang Purwoko, a social security expert at the University of Indonesia, argued that PT Askes, which would be transformed into a public company, would have too many tasks to undertake, including preparing databases, infrastructures and bilateral ties over the next two years, as not all regencies outside Java had hospitals with standard medical care, specialists and equipment.

"Besides, Askes has to classify participants based on their economic status to set their different contributions as a consequence of the programs' segmentation. It will be difficult to do this for 237 million people," Bambang said, adding the progams' segmentation would be applicable in a city state like Singapore, with a population of 7 million.

Hotbonar Sinaga, former chairman of the Indonesian Insurance Companies' Association (AJSI), and Romli Suriatmadja, insurance expert at Padjadjaran University in Bandung, questioned the House's political commitment to social protection for all because the House had been reluctant to investigate the government's violation of the 2004 national social security system law, and even had justified the violation until 2015.

According to them, the House should have impeached the President for violating the law and for his disobedience of the Constitution, as was decided by the Central Jakarta District Court, but the violations had been neglected, apparently for political reasons.

Bomer Pasaribu, former manpower minister and executive director of the Center for Labor Development and Studies (CLDS), expressed pessimism that the government would be able to implement the 2004 social security system and the 2011 social security providers law, mainly because of poor labor conditions.

"Despite the various groups of participants, the five mandatory national programs will not reach universal coverage, because the majority of people are employed in the informal sector and paid as high as the minimum wage level. They are not able to pay 7 percent of their monthly payroll while employers will object to paying 8 percent of their workers' monthly payroll in their contributions to the five programs," he said, citing that the social security system was actually a mix between social assistance and social insurance.

The participation of civil servants who have been paid by the state cannot be integrated into national programs, while police and soldiers should not pay contributions (taxes) to programs for their public and military service, he added.

According to him, the key solution to the problem was that the government had to reform the minimum wage system by intensifying its training programs to improve workers' skills and productivity as well as to generate more jobs to lower the high employment rate (8 percent).

Djoko Sungkono, a member of the National Social Security Board (DJSN), regretted the new law, which he said showed the House's incompetence in the insurance business and an ignorance of social security problems in the country.

"The two laws' contents would be different if they understood the insurance business and the weak law enforcement of the 1992 social security programs for workers," he said.

Jamsostek's coverage has remained low because law enforcement has been in the hands of the Manpower and Transmigration Ministry, which can no longer lend its hand for labor supervision to regional heads under regional autonomy.

"To reach universal coverage, the two laws carrying no sanctions to violators should be revised to have the government delegate its law enforcement authority to the two providers, Askes and Jamsostek," he said.

Unlike commercial insurance, he added, law enforcement is a crucial point in the compulsory social security programs' attempts to pursue universal coverage of all people.

The House admitted loopholes and flaws in the social security providers law that could be brought to the Constitutional Court for judicial review, but this could not be taken by the government as an excuse not to implement long-awaited national social security protection.

"The government as an executive body must be able to interpret the two social security laws and implement them in derivative regulations in the field," Deputy House Speaker Priyo Budi Santoso said. He added the government should continuously generate good jobs so that more and more workers would enjoy decent pay, enabling them to contribute to all programs.

Ferdiansyah, deputy chairman of the ex-special committee responsible for developing the social security provider law, said the government should coordinate with the DJSN and the two providers to identify the law's loopholes and flaws, since it was endorsed without any consultation with the public.

"The two laws are only public policies which the House has to take account for but their implementation is in the hands of the government and the two providers," he said, adding the government had to implement the national social security programs not only to improve people's social welfare but also to raise a huge amount of funds that could be used as bonds to reduce Indonesia's dependence on foreign debts in financing the national development programs.