TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - THE National Consumer Protection Agency (BPKN) has recently come under the spotlight following its report of the findings on acute kidney failure cases. Last year, at least 159 children died due to toxin-laced cough syrups. The BPKN had proposed several recommendations to the president, from institutional audits to compensation and apology to the victims. Regrettably, most of the recommendations fell on deaf ears of the ministries and government institutions.

BPKN Chief Rizal Edy Halim views the snub as a direct consequence of his agency’s weak stature. The Consumer Protection Law gives BPKN the mandate to give advice and recommendations only. “We don’t have the executory rights,” he said during an interview with Tempo reporters, Abdul Manan and Iwan Kurniawan.

Over two separate interviews on February 28 and April 1, Rizal explained some of the cases that the BPKN had handled, from the suspected initial public offering (IPO) related crimes at the Indonesian Stock Exchange to housing frauds, and consumer protection models in some countries. He added that the planned revision of the Consumer Protection Law currently deliberated at the House of Representatives (DPR) should include articles to buttress the agency’s institutional strength. Excerpts:

How will acute kidney failure cases be resolved?

We’ve given four recommendations. First, to award damages or compensation. Second, to audit the pharma sector because there might be other drugs that might have slipped past BPOM’s (Food and Drug Monitoring Agency) watch. Third, criminal prosecution of perpetrators, whether companies or regulators. Fourth, given the nature of the healthcare sector that impacts lives, consumer protection in this sector should be beefed up.

Has the government complied with them?

After we gave them to the president, Pak Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan (Maritime Affairs and Investment Coordinating Minister) at the time advised the BPKP (Finance and Development Supervisory Agency) to audit BPOM. But there was no follow-up as regards apology and compensation.

Why?

The law gives the BPKN very limited authority. When it gives advice to the government, in this case, the president, he must respond, study, evaluate, and make decisions. That did not happen. BPKN’s mandate is weak. We don’t have executory power.

What actually are the primary findings of the BPKN as regards acute kidney failure cases?

The fatal catalyst was poor coordination between the health ministry and BPOM. Many things have not been going well in the healthcare sector. The acute kidney failure disaster is a bad precedent that should serve as a reminder for the government to overhaul the healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors. This is about human lives.

Is it because our consumer protection is bad?

Very bad. The acute kidney failure disaster was a climacteric event as it claimed lives. Other cases had been mostly about material losses. Lives could not be saved because of the weak consumer protection system. Very bad.

Wasn’t the BPKN established to protect consumers?

First, we don’t have executorial rights. Second, the agency should be independent but it is under the secretariat-general of the trade ministry. We are restricted. But in terms of functions, we adhere to Clause 1 of Article 1 of the Consumer Protection Law which says that providing consumer protection means making all efforts to give legal certainty (to consumers). We adhere to ‘all efforts’.

Read the Full Interview in Tempo English Magazine