Public vs private good<\/p>\n
The current debate over the government's plan to close down
\nthe Ministry of Information and Ministry of Social Services has
\nneglected the philosophical argument of \"public versus private
\ngood\" originally put forward by President Abdurrahman Wahid. In
\nannouncing his Cabinet last week, which omitted these two
\nministries, Abdurrahman said the government's task was to guide
\nand lead the nation, and not so much to execute policies. The
\nPresident also emphasized the need to encourage more initiatives
\nfrom within society.<\/p>\n
The debate since then has focused on the fate of over 70,000
\npeople who work in these two ministries, the relevance of these
\nagencies, and the pros and cons of abolishing them. If we return
\nto the philosophical argument however, there is no doubt that
\nthese ministries must go, as must one or two other ministries.<\/p>\n
With regards to the Ministry of Information, the President
\nsaid his government only needs a small office to help disseminate
\nand explain its policies to the public. TVRI and RRI -- the
\nstate-run TV and radio stations currently under the Ministry of
\nInformation -- will remain at the government's disposal, but they
\nwill be fully incorporated as state companies once the ministry
\nceases to exist.<\/p>\n
There is no need for the government to retain an entire
\ndepartment for the purpose of public information needs. The bulk
\nof that task is already being carried out by newspapers,
\nmagazines, private TV and radio stations, and now, thousands if
\nnot millions of Internet websites. The public has plenty of
\nchoices for selecting the most appropriate and suitable medium
\nand message; some are supplied by the government, but the
\nmajority originate from private organizations. The Ministry of
\nInformation may be performing vital functions, but these
\nfunctions could be much more effectively and efficiently carried
\nout by the private sector.<\/p>\n
Most government agencies, including local administrations,
\nalready have their own public relations offices to disseminate
\npolicy information from their agencies. The Ministry of
\nInformation has become redundant.<\/p>\n
The same argument could be used about the Ministry of Social
\nServices, whose tasks include caring for socially and
\neconomically disadvantaged groups, and for victims of natural
\ndisasters. While there is a compelling argument to have a
\nnational agency for the management of natural disasters, other
\nsocial services could be handled by regional administrations,
\nwithout the need for an entire ministry at the national level.<\/p>\n
Many of the ministry's functions in caring for socially
\ndeprived people have already been taken over by private charity
\norganizations. Massive fund-raising campaigns and the
\ndistribution of staple foods by private groups to the needy
\nduring the economic crisis of the last two years attest to our
\nsociety's ability to combat hardship, with little government
\nprodding. Since these private charity organizations are freed
\nfrom bureaucratic constraints, they are often much more effective
\nand efficient than the Ministry of Social Services could ever
\nexpect to be. Too much government intervention may even be
\ncounterproductive because it can drain money away intended for
\nprivate charity organizations.<\/p>\n
President Abdurrahman's philosophical argument in abolishing
\nthe two ministries is not that they no longer serve any purpose,
\nbut that most of their functions could be performed much more
\neffectively and efficiently by the people. In fact, in the
\ncurrent search to streamline the administration, we could stretch
\nthis argument to apply to a number of other government
\nministries.<\/p>\n
If the President had been consistent, he should also have
\nabolished the Ministry of Religious Affairs which has no real
\npurpose in society. This ministry unnecessarily duplicates work
\ncarried out by mosques, churches and temples, and by the national
\ncouncils representing the various religions in the country.<\/p>\n
The existence of the Ministry of National Education, (the
\nformer Ministry of Education and Culture), should also be
\nreviewed, abolished, or at least substantially pared down. For
\ntoo long, bureaucrats have taken the task of educating our
\nchildren out of our teachers' hands, with devastating
\nconsequences for the quality of their education. The time has
\ncome to leave teaching to the real professionals.<\/p>\n
The President has shown courage by taking tough political
\ndecisions at the outset of his term in office. It is very easy to
\nget distracted in the current polemic about whether or not to
\nkeep the two ministries. But we must not lose sight of the
\nphilosophical reason behind this decision. The quicker we accept
\nhis decision to close down the two ministries, the less painful
\nit will be for those civil servants whose professional careers
\nare affected to adapt to their new jobs. The sooner we resolve
\nthis problem, the sooner we can discuss the abolition of other
\ndysfunctional ministries, but this time, giving those concerned
\nmore time to prepare themselves.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/public-vs-private-good-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}