Customs officers back

Is it reasonable to expect customs officers to work more efficiently and effectively than their colleagues in other government offices? This is the basic question implicitly raised by businessmen's concerns over the resumption of import inspection by the customs service in April. Most businesspeople do not see any flaws in the technical concept prepared for the implementation of the new customs law. But they remain apprehensive of how import flows would run when customs officers regain their inspection authority, which was stripped in mid- 1985.

Customs and Excise Director General Soehardjo and his key staff members have tried to assure the business community that customs officers who are to resume their full inspection authority in April would not be the ones who before 1985 were notoriously known for their corruptibility and bureaucratic inertia.

But the customs chief's assurances, however well intended they may be, are hollow when set against general bureaucratic performance in the country. To be fair to the customs officers, we should magnanimously acknowledge that they are by no means more corrupt than their colleagues in other government offices. But businessmen should not be blamed for their high expectations either because the comparison is the highly professional performance of state-owned PT Surveyor Indonesia and its foreign subcontractor, the Geneva-based Societe Generale de Surveillance (SGS).

There is another reason behind the great concern. The attitude of customs officers and work behavior always comes under international scrutiny due to the crucial role it plays in facilitating international trade and economic development.

But we regret to assert that the court of public opinion is not sympathetic towards the customs service because many businessmen have continued to complain about customs officers' performance. It should be noted that when the customs service was stripped of its import inspection authority in mid-1985, it retained its authority to inspect imports worth up to $5,000 per consignment. It has also been authorized to inspect imports through air freight since mid-1995.

But would customs officers be motivated to work more efficiently and more effectively than other civil servants for the same amount of money? It is not difficult for businessmen to see that the general climate is not conducive for helping customs officers deliver their promises. Businesspeople suspected the customs officers might go all out to demonstrate excellent performance during the first few months to end concerns. But they would eventually return to their old habits and practices.

Since-mid 1985, imports have been flowing smoothly, thereby slashing port-handling costs and the costs of inventories, which before 1985 were quite large due to uncertainty about clearance from the port areas. Moreover, since the inspection service covers not only prices but also quality and volume, importers can rest assured that what they receive is precisely what they signed in their contracts. All these benefits will go when the current system is ended. The government, though, will no longer spend money on inspection fees.

On the other hand, costs might be even bigger. Slower import flows would mean additional costs to both the production of industrial goods and the implementation of investment projects. Additional costs would be detrimental, especially to labor intensive industries which are required to meet higher minimum wages in April.

Some business leaders have suggested that it is economically more viable to enforce the new customs law gradually and to subcontract some technical works required by the law to the third party to allow enough time for customs to grow well on the job. It is not politically wise to extend what the customs officers see as "their period of humiliation". Denying customs its full inspection authority much longer would amount to a government admission that it could not impose discipline on its own agency. The customs deserve another chance.

This is really a tough question. The government may risk slowing down import flows if the new system is outrightly and fully implemented because so many major changes will be introduced at the same time.

Preparations for law enforcement also seemed much slower than planned. The electronic data interchange, which Soehardjo has claimed to be the life or death for the new system of customs clearance, has not even started trial operations yet. Even countries like Singapore, with better physical infrastructure and skilled manpower, needed several years to prepare and try out EDI for customs purposes.

But however the new system is introduced, it would not be efficient and effective in the long run without additional pay incentives to customs officers. They would look around other government agencies and would eventually decide to behave like most other civil servants do.