|
The passing of the consumer protection law seven years ago
was lauded as a landmark step toward allowing public recourse against
poor and negligent service.
But it would be hard to say today that the public is much better off.
Confusion and ignorance on all sides continue to plague its haphazard
implementation, and legal experts point out it is riddled with flaws.
In one case, where children became ill after eating donated cookies
that were past their sell-by-date, the police turned to the Criminal
Code in their investigation.
In another, a consumer who felt cheated after purchasing a cellular
phone card sued for Rp 500 million compensation, despite a loss of only
Rp 9,000 (a little less than US$1).
And doctors and lawyers have refused to be tried under the law, saying
their practices are not business oriented.
Consumer activist Agus Pambagio said indifferent businesspeople,
permissive consumers unaware of their rights and law enforcers
similarly ignorant about consumer protection regulations all
contributed to its unsatisfactory implementation.
"In the case of the expired cookies, for instance, the police should
have used the consumer protection law," he said in a discussion Friday.
Johannes Gunawan, a law professor from Bandung's Parahyangan Catholic
University and a member of National Consumer Protection Agency, said in
the discussion that branches of the agency should be available in every
city and regency.
"There are only eight active branches all over the country. Even these
have poor facilities and human resources."
Johannes said the real problem was the rushed drafting of the law,
which he believed was in need of immediate amendment, particularly to
divide the areas of consumer goods and consumer services.
He also faulted courts in consumer cases for opting for criminal
sanctions, instead of considering penal or administrative measures.
"Criminal sanctions should be the last resort. However, the move is
understandable because the penal sanctions stipulated in the law are
too light and unattractive to consumer. And the administrative
sanctions have no clear regulations."
The definition of businesses, he added, must be revised because
economic activities could encompass both profit-oriented professions
and livelihoods.
"Doctors and lawyers who have refused to be included in this law fall
into the latter category. They do indeed provide services to patients."
Both men urged the public to study up on the law's tenets and use it to
their benefit while awaiting its amendment. They noted that Article 18
bans standardized contracts, but that these were the norm for parking
agencies and insurance companies.
|
