In the Indonesian public sector, an unqualified opinion is often considered a gold standard for measuring accountability.
he reputation of Indonesia’s Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) was recently put to the test after the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) named two of its senior auditors as graft suspects. The two allegedly received bribes from officials of the Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration Ministry for the issuance of an unqualified opinion (opini WTP).
In relation to this allegation, the KPK raided several offices at the BPK as well as at the Villages, Disadvantaged Regions and Transmigration Ministry. In addition to the two suspects from the BPK, the commission also named the inspector general and a high-ranking official at the ministry as suspects.
In the complex world of accounting and auditing, an unqualified opinion is the highest level of audit opinion in which an auditor states that an entity’s financial statements are fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Essentially, such an opinion indicates the soundness of an entity’s financial statements, i.e. free from material misstatements.
External parties such as investors and creditors often rely on audit opinions in their decision-making processes as independent views on an entity’s financial statements. In the Indonesian public sector, an unqualified opinion is often considered a gold standard for measuring accountability.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.