All the best, Lin Che Wei!<\/p>\n
Yanuar Nugroho, Director, The Business Watch Indonesia, Surakarta,
\nyanuar-n@unisosdem.org<\/p>\n
A short message service (SMS) on the morning of Feb. 25 read,
\n"Please help invite as many economists, stock and market analysts
\nand other professionals as possible, to come to the Attorney
\nGeneral's Office this Tuesday, March 4 at 1 p.m. to support Lin
\nChe Wei." Being aware of what business would likely do to protect
\nits interests, I spontaneously circulated the message among my
\ninner circles and colleagues.<\/p>\n
Some of Wei's analysis, apart from others, have confirmed the
\nneed for business accountability, since business (though
\nprivately owned) is now being practiced, mainly, in the public
\ndomain.<\/p>\n
Such notions of "good corporate governance" would be cliche if
\nthe understanding of the underlying concerns were absent. This
\nconcerns the fact that the "power of capital" has escaped from
\nthe criteria of public accountability. This is because it is
\nembodied in business, whose only responsibility is to accumulate
\nprofit.<\/p>\n
When gaining profit has become the highest value in business
\npractice, everything seems to be legitimate as long as it is
\naimed at accumulating profit, and it could be very vicious.
\n"Double dating" in its financial report as indicated in case of
\nthe Lippo Bank, is only one instance of how business practices,
\nhiding behind its interests, can do anything "as usual" -- as if
\nit is commonly done without having to be scrutinized -- and
\nwithout regards to other possible implications.<\/p>\n
First, in such a view where business success is only marked by
\nfinancial and profit gain, other consequences indirectly derived
\nfrom the Lippo case, like predicted obstacles in divestment for
\nrecap banks (as denoted by Sri Adiningsih, in Bisnis Indonesia,
\nFeb. 25), which is actually important, becomes irrelevant.<\/p>\n
Second, although a public authority like the Capital Market
\nSupervisory Agency (Bapepam) has formally announced it will
\ninvestigate Lippo for manipulating the market, the penalty is
\nstill unclear. Many are skeptical whether Bapepam would have
\nenough power to touch, let alone to execute sanctions against
\nsuch business practices.<\/p>\n
It is worse when such public institutions lack the necessary
\nsupport like a recommendation from Jakarta's Stock Exchange or a
\nrequest from the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), or
\ncomplaints on transaction, etc, since such forms of support might
\nbe considered unusual in resolving disputes.<\/p>\n
Does the stock market authority have real power over business
\npractices, by giving harsh penalties like heavy fines for those
\nwho commit malpractice?<\/p>\n
Make no mistake. The law, which looks immense before "small"
\npeople, seems always inferior in front of capital in business
\ndisputes. Because the processes do not go one way. Many would
\nconsider fines or penalties as harsh, but business surely can
\nafford to at least sway such decisions.<\/p>\n
We need to recall the distinction between the public
\ncharacteristic of public authorities ("state") power and
\n"private" nature of capital or business power. State power is
\nrooted in its control over the state and its resources which
\ncannot be attributed as "private property", but the immense power
\nof business is rooted in its private ownership of capital.<\/p>\n
Thus property and power cannot be separated since there is no
\nproperty which does not involve power, and vice versa.
\nAnd here comes the very basic argument on any efforts intended to
\nmake business practice accountable: (1) Since there are no
\ndominant factors that determine the dynamics of our shared life
\nexcept power, and (2) since any power practice should be
\naccountable when it affects public domain, (3) then the exercise
\nof private power which is publicly influential should also be
\nmade accountable.<\/p>\n
Any socially consequential exercise of power based on the
\nprivate property should therefore not escape accountability. The
\nuse and abuse of private property in the Lippo case, for example,
\ncertainly has deep implications for stock market governance in
\nIndonesia in the future.<\/p>\n
Learning from Wei's case, we should pay more attention that
\nwhat is most influential in our life nowadays is not only the
\ndictatorship of the state (as suggested in the case of another
\nwhistle blower, Kwik Kian Gie), but rather oligarchic domination
\nof capital which clearly proposes that everything is just a
\nbusiness function and capital performance.<\/p>\n
At the Attorney General's Office on Tuesday we may witness how
\npowerful business power is when its interests are being
\nscrutinized. The old saying goes, there is no smoke without fire.<\/p>\n
We may have to swallow the bitter fact that public authorities
\nwould probably surrender and fail to protect and side with
\nindependent analysts like Lin Che Wei.<\/p>\n
A circulated email from Wei says, "Hopefully I stay on
\ntrack ... and not be used and turned in other directions." We now
\nlive in a time where everything can be bought easily. I am sure
\nthat Lin Che Wei will not be cheaply and easily bought. But for
\nthe rest of those who are involved in such cases, who knows?<\/p>\n
The writer also lectures at Sahid University in Surakarta and is
\na researcher at the Uni Sosial Demokrat organization in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/all-the-best-lin-che-wei-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}