Efficiency Loses Its Meaning

The intensified call for efficiency is resounding once again. The global energy supply crisis, caused by the US-Israel versus Iran war and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, serves as the trigger.

However, as often happens, efficiency frequently stops at the level of a slogan and does not fully materialise into actual practice in our government’s governance, both at the central and regional levels.

The polemic surrounding the renovation of the regional head’s official residence in the East Kalimantan provincial government, valued at tens of billions of rupiah, provides a concrete example of this paradox.

On one hand, the government urges all elements of the state to economise. On the other, non-urgent public spending continues as if unburdened. This is where the issue of governmental ethics regarding what is appropriate or not becomes relevant.

Administratively, the renovation of the official residence is not something wrong. Such facilities are indeed provided to support government officials’ performance.

When the public faces economic pressures—purchasing power declining, prices of necessities rising—the use of large budgets for non-priority interests becomes difficult to accept.

Good government leaders must not only comply with rules but also be sensitive to the conditions of the people.

This is where the importance of a “sense of crisis” comes in. Government leaders are required not merely to execute budgets already designed by the bureaucracy, but also to dare to evaluate and adjust priorities.

Budgets are not dead documents; they must prioritise the interests of the wider public over self-interest.

Indeed, in many cases, budgets such as those for renovating official residences and work spaces of regional heads or their deputies have been planned long before they are inaugurated.

However, this fact does not automatically erase moral responsibility. Leadership is truly tested by the ability to read situations and take stances, rather than merely following procedures.

This polemic also highlights the gap between technocratic rationality and public perception.

In politics, public perception is a reality that cannot be ignored. Once the public deems a policy insensitive, trust in the leader will erode—and it is difficult to restore.