All the best, Lin Che Wei!

All the best, Lin Che Wei!

Yanuar Nugroho, Director, The Business Watch Indonesia, Surakarta,
yanuar-n@unisosdem.org

A short message service (SMS) on the morning of Feb. 25 read,
"Please help invite as many economists, stock and market analysts
and other professionals as possible, to come to the Attorney
General's Office this Tuesday, March 4 at 1 p.m. to support Lin
Che Wei." Being aware of what business would likely do to protect
its interests, I spontaneously circulated the message among my
inner circles and colleagues.

Some of Wei's analysis, apart from others, have confirmed the
need for business accountability, since business (though
privately owned) is now being practiced, mainly, in the public
domain.

Such notions of "good corporate governance" would be cliche if
the understanding of the underlying concerns were absent. This
concerns the fact that the "power of capital" has escaped from
the criteria of public accountability. This is because it is
embodied in business, whose only responsibility is to accumulate
profit.

When gaining profit has become the highest value in business
practice, everything seems to be legitimate as long as it is
aimed at accumulating profit, and it could be very vicious.
"Double dating" in its financial report as indicated in case of
the Lippo Bank, is only one instance of how business practices,
hiding behind its interests, can do anything "as usual" -- as if
it is commonly done without having to be scrutinized -- and
without regards to other possible implications.

First, in such a view where business success is only marked by
financial and profit gain, other consequences indirectly derived
from the Lippo case, like predicted obstacles in divestment for
recap banks (as denoted by Sri Adiningsih, in Bisnis Indonesia,
Feb. 25), which is actually important, becomes irrelevant.

Second, although a public authority like the Capital Market
Supervisory Agency (Bapepam) has formally announced it will
investigate Lippo for manipulating the market, the penalty is
still unclear. Many are skeptical whether Bapepam would have
enough power to touch, let alone to execute sanctions against
such business practices.

It is worse when such public institutions lack the necessary
support like a recommendation from Jakarta's Stock Exchange or a
request from the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency (IBRA), or
complaints on transaction, etc, since such forms of support might
be considered unusual in resolving disputes.

Does the stock market authority have real power over business
practices, by giving harsh penalties like heavy fines for those
who commit malpractice?

Make no mistake. The law, which looks immense before "small"
people, seems always inferior in front of capital in business
disputes. Because the processes do not go one way. Many would
consider fines or penalties as harsh, but business surely can
afford to at least sway such decisions.

We need to recall the distinction between the public
characteristic of public authorities ("state") power and
"private" nature of capital or business power. State power is
rooted in its control over the state and its resources which
cannot be attributed as "private property", but the immense power
of business is rooted in its private ownership of capital.

Thus property and power cannot be separated since there is no
property which does not involve power, and vice versa.
And here comes the very basic argument on any efforts intended to
make business practice accountable: (1) Since there are no
dominant factors that determine the dynamics of our shared life
except power, and (2) since any power practice should be
accountable when it affects public domain, (3) then the exercise
of private power which is publicly influential should also be
made accountable.

Any socially consequential exercise of power based on the
private property should therefore not escape accountability. The
use and abuse of private property in the Lippo case, for example,
certainly has deep implications for stock market governance in
Indonesia in the future.

Learning from Wei's case, we should pay more attention that
what is most influential in our life nowadays is not only the
dictatorship of the state (as suggested in the case of another
whistle blower, Kwik Kian Gie), but rather oligarchic domination
of capital which clearly proposes that everything is just a
business function and capital performance.

At the Attorney General's Office on Tuesday we may witness how
powerful business power is when its interests are being
scrutinized. The old saying goes, there is no smoke without fire.

We may have to swallow the bitter fact that public authorities
would probably surrender and fail to protect and side with
independent analysts like Lin Che Wei.

A circulated email from Wei says, "Hopefully I stay on
track ... and not be used and turned in other directions." We now
live in a time where everything can be bought easily. I am sure
that Lin Che Wei will not be cheaply and easily bought. But for
the rest of those who are involved in such cases, who knows?

The writer also lectures at Sahid University in Surakarta and is
a researcher at the Uni Sosial Demokrat organization in Jakarta.