Decline in human resources quality worries government
Decline in human resources quality worries government
By Hermawan Sulistyo
JAKARTA (JP): Over the past 20 years, there has been a
complete reversal of attitudes toward wealth and money. Until the
mid-1970s, critics of the state still discussed whether our
strategy should follow capitalistic or socialistic modes of
development. Since then we have been on the path toward
capitalist and liberal courses of development.
Free market and McWorld phenomena take the forms of malls,
cafes, retail networks and others. Under these circumstances, we
extol money and other enjoyment coming from material culture.
One implication of this course of development is the changing
attitudes of youth toward employment. Commercial sectors, which
promise the best career development, attract the best talents
coming out of universities. Students are now talking about
entering commercially strategic positions in private businesses
rather than securing more traditional job markets. There is a
transformation in perceptions toward occupation and work ethics.
Job seekers in the 1970s used to perceive "a job" in a
traditional sense. A job was expected to offer a permanent
position in a finely structured hierarchy, regardless of how
lowly the job was. A job with a monthly salary and other fringe
benefits, however insufficient these remunerations were in
meeting subsistence level, was the ideal. Moreover, the sought
job would give "non-material rewards". Prestige and stature
played a prominent role in the process of selecting and securing
a job. In all, positions with permanency and security in the
long-term were favorites.
Under the above framework of perceptions, state bureaucracy
offered the most secure and prestigious positions. In effect, the
best talents entering the workforce favored state bureaucracy
rather than the private sector.
Although I have no data, and I doubt that such data ever
existed, it seems that prior to the job market in the late 1970s
the most favorite profession was in the military. The military
academy attracted the best of the best from high school
graduates; it was the center of excellence of post-secondary
education, measured from the quality of the students.
Now, tough competition in the job market on the one hand has
limited the choice of job seekers. On the other hand, this
situation opens up a wider range of variations in employment.
Money and the degree of mobility from one job to another are the
decisive factors of a job seeker rather than long-term security
and permanency. Therefore, the dynamics of the private sector,
which now offers more possibilities for advancement has become
more attractive than the relatively inert bureaucracy.
Again, there is no data on the quality of high school and
university graduates, and especially on their preparation for
future careers. But it's not hard to guess that becoming a
bureaucrat or civil servant, as well as military officer, these
days is the least attractive career. The private sector offers
almost unlimited opportunities to economically move upward. In a
McWorld condition, it only means to place oneself in a socially
better position.
Within the state bureaucracy, a graduate of elementary or
middle school can only secure a position in the first grouping of
civil service (Golongan I); a graduate of high school and academy
(three-year college education) secures second grouping; and a
university graduate receives third grouping. With the first
monthly salary ranging from US$30 to $100, civil service now
attracts only the least talented job seekers. Only they who lost
in the competition to enter "proper" employment will enter the
ranks of bureaucracy.
The highest level that a bureaucrat can achieve is first
echelon (Eselon I). A cabinet minister leads a department. Under
his or her leadership there are several first rank bureaucrats,
most of them politically appointed; the high-ranking officials
are not career bureaucrats. Therefore, within the next 20 to 30
years, the civil service's lower ranks will be filled by
incompetent civil servants, as a result of today's changing
attitudes of job seekers. The state apparatus will face a
difficult task overcoming these structural deficiencies.
Otherwise, in the long run, we will face not a politically weak
private sector and House of Representatives but a weak civil
service and a strong business sector.
The writer is a researcher with the Indonesian Institute of
Sciences, and is a fellow with the Program for Southeast Asian
Studies, Arizona State University, United States.