Analysis implementation system control internal government in Indonesia

Tia Novira Sucipto *

Accounting Study Program, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universitas Pembangunan Panca Budi, Indonesia.
 
Research Article
World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2024, 24(03), 590–597
Article DOI: 10.30574/wjarr.2024.24.3.3701
 
Publication history: 
Received on 18 October 2024; revised on 02 December 2024; accepted on 05 December 2024
 
Abstract: 
Law No. 1 of 2004 concerning the Treasury of the State shall preserve the President as the Head of Government regulating and organizing the Government's Internal Control System in Indonesia. In 2008, the Government of Indonesia issued Government Regulation Number 60 of 2008 concerning the Government's Internal Control System to implement the provisions of Article 58 paragraph (2) in Law Number 1 of 2004. The internal control system adopted in Indonesia was adopted from the concept of internal control was made by the 1992 Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Since the enactment of Government Regulation Number 60 of 2008 counted for 10 years the regulation has come into force. However, the policy contained in Government Regulation Number 60 Year 2008 has not been fully implemented in government governance in Indonesia. This can be seen from the results of the government internal control system maturity evaluation conducted by BPKP until March 2018 which shows the maturity level of SPIP which is still far from the target with the majority of Institutions still below level 3 or far from level 5 (optimum level) and weaknesses of the Internal Control System The government found by the Supreme Audit Agency in the examination of 2015-2017. Factors that can hinder the implementation of the government's internal control system in Indonesia include: (a) Weakness in terms of content and context of the Policy, (b) Absence of sanctions, (c) Inadequate judgment (d) Errors in translating orders, (e) Management neglect, (f) Collusion.
 
Keywords: 
Internal Control; Government Internal Control System; Environment Control; Evaluation Risk; Activity Control; Information and Communication; Monitoring
 
Full text article in PDF: 
Share this