Why is the government so slow? 

Elwin Tobing

My curiosity did not end there. I asked him why most departments are so passive and why there has not been any strategic policy comes up from the government to tackle our current problems. As a government official who lived for quite sometimes in the US to get his higher education degree, he could only say that nothing has really changed lately in our bureaucracy and cultural environment. The old and non-creative people are still there and the new heads of departments (ministers) seem reluctant or do not know how to make significant changes.

He is right. The bureaucracy machine that Suharto created more than 30 years ago is not easy to be reformed and revitalized even at some top positions. The machine is so strong and sturdy that a small change in the surface will not bring any important effects. The machine is famous for its corrupt behavior, lazy attitude and non-creative approach for meeting challenges. As people always say, "it's hard to keep a good behavior, but it's harder to change a bad behavior." That's exactly what we are witnessing. Our bureaucracy machine, no mater who is the president or who are the ministers, will still possess those bad qualities unless there are serious and fundamental changes to it.

The situation becomes worse when we have also incapable ministers and other top government officials. At least, with a capable and a fully strategic mind minister, he/she could formulate his/her strategic plans for the next 2, 5 or 10 years and would recruit or appoint competent people that could help him/her implement the plans. At the same time, he/she would attach moral or ethical issues to every program. Changing at the top level will then be followed by subsequent changes on the lower levels. It starts from the top to the bottom, not the other way around. How can we expect a low level government official with a salary that can not support his family will perform his duty well when the top officials are still busy piling up resources for themselves and less enthusiastic in doing their jobs?

It will not take more than 3 months to complete a formulation of strategic plans and a reposition of important personnel. The new strategic plans, fresh and capable people and the commitment on high ethical standard will reform the corrupt and slow bureaucracy.

Let's take the education department for example. What are the head of the minister's strategic plans about the development of education in Indonesia for the next 2, 5 and 10 years? Does he really know what are the problems with our educational system today? What are the challenges ahead? How is to connect the industry and education sectors? How to boost the development of research universities? What about the development of our basic education? And what about the challenge of the Internet era to the development of education? What are the fundamental changes in curriculum so that the formal education can contribute to the making of Indonesian people who are not only capable intellectually but also morally? How to attack the high unemployment in higher education degree? There are tons of issues but there could only be a few which are really strategic and urgent to be developed.

In his campaign theme in 1996, one of the strong points that Clinton has made was the statement that all schools in the US would be connected to the Internet before the end of the second millennium. It's practical, yet clear. We are certainly not expecting our government to have such plan but until to day, we haven't heard any strategic or practical plans about the development of our education.

Why do the heads of departments and other top government officials seem reluctant to make significant changes or perhaps do not know what to do in today's circumstances?

There are a number of possible reasons. One is they are overwhelmed with the current problems. This clearly can be seen from the way the top government officials are handling the BCA crisis. The Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency proposed to extend the deadline for local banks to repay approximately US$13 billion in emergency loans extended during Asia's 1997-98 financial crisis to prevent bank runs and closures. The National Development Planning Minister, Kwik Kian Gie strongly rejects the plan which embarrassing his Cabinet colleagues like State Enterprises Minister Laksamana Sukardi, who are supporting the plan.

Another case is in handling the domestic public debt. The following is a part of the ministry of economic and finance's remark in Washington recently:

Hal itu terungkap saat Djatun ramah-tamah dengan masyarakat Indonesia di KBRI Washington, Senin malam lalu
"Lha, sesudah itu diharapkan mereka sukarela menjual aset. Sudah
dibuktikan, kita dimaki: 'Itu harga Indomobil, Indosiar Pak Djatun dan sebagainya.' Eh, itu bukan aku yang jual! Itu pemilik lama yang jual. Itu kewajiban dia. Kenapa nggak dipenjarakan saja, seperti dibilang nyonya saya (isteri Djatun, Red). Nggak bisa! Sebab, itu perdata perjanjiannya. Mungkin barang buktinya sudah susah dicari, duitnya sudah lama ke mana, owners-nya lari ke luar negeri semua. Kalau saya panggil, kan mesti pakai red notice interpol. Makanya, jangan mau gampang jadi Menko," tukasnya di akhir kalimat seolah menetralisir tegangnya pembeberan soal obligor itu.

This statement describes that there is a complicated problem in solving the domestic public debt and the government cannot do much about it.

The motivation to keep their jobs is also another possibility why ministers and other top government officials are so reluctant to initiate significant changes. It is a sad reality that in today's circumstance, in order to keep one's job, one better does nothing.

Another possible reason is they in fact do not really know what to do. This is due to their qualifications, skills and political background. Even a layman like me knows that some of the top government officials do not meet qualifications for their jobs both intellectually and morally. They are there because of non-constructive political process and nepotism.

If the head of the department and other top government officials are supposed to be the ones who do the thinking and the work, the top executives, the president and the vice president, are the ones who think. They are the ones who also lead and inspire their Cabinet and the nation. The first and the last word are from her and him. However the problem is further worsened when the top executives seem do not really perform as what we expect from the heads of the government and national leaders as well. This brings the nation in to a limbo (indeterminate state). The first and the last word are from her and him. But, we hardly hear the strategic and inspiring words from them.

As a result, the country is just going from one issue to another. We lack guidance, and more dangerously, we lack direction and goals. Where do we go from here? No one can give us a clear answer, even the government itself.

Your comment