Govt needs to come through on promises for autonomy

Govt needs to come through on promises for autonomy

Economist Ken Thomas teaches Third World issues at La Trobe
University in Melbourne, and has done research work on Indonesia
since the early 1960s. He recently talked to The Jakarta Post in
Melbourne on cries for self-determination in Indonesia. The
following are excerpts from the interview:

Question: Would you agree that economic disparity is behind
the main trend toward regional self-determination?

Answer: It is always mentioned nowadays that three areas have
been strongly pushing for self-determination: Aceh, Riau and East
Kalimantan. I read that other regions are not content, but they
have been quiet, until recently.

When I was researching for the paper we gave recently, I began
looking at regionalism, and the only one I could find most
information about was Aceh. They have been having trouble there
right through the 1970s and 1980s. But I have never been really
sure which group has been discontented in Aceh.

When we look at the region as a whole, most of the people are
farmers with very small plots of land. So they would not have
benefited much from the green revolution and the new seeds (of
rice).

These people who are advocating the referendum in Aceh, are
they concerned about these farmers? With the discovery of oil and
natural gas, there has been an industrial zone in Lhokseumawe
(North Aceh). The skilled people come in from other areas,
because there are not enough of skilled personnel in
Aceh itself. So those benefiting directly from employment in the
industrial zone are not necessarily Acehnese.

What made me wonder is, under the New Order, why did they not
develop the rural areas? Before they discovered the natural gas,
there was a plan to make Aceh the breadbasket of the region.

Apparently that would have required a lot of controlled
irrigation for the new seed varieties, transport and other
related facilities. Nothing has been done.

My question is, those who want referendum, if they got it, and
had more control of the revenue from the export of oil and
natural gas, would they go in the direction of industrialization,
forgetting the little people? Or would they have a combination of
rural development, small-scale industrial development, as well as
larger scale development?

So what do they want? Autonomy? More autonomy? Federal state?
Or complete independence? Whichever one they choose, what will
they do?

So the current problems will not be solved by giving greater
autonomy to the regions?

May I go back to the 1950s? It was always felt that the center
got everything and the regions were left out. And apparently
that was one of the causes of the civil wars in the late 1950s.
Then the New Order repressed this sentiment in all regions by
military might. The discontent was probably there but no one
dared say anything, because they did not want to be branded
communist.

After the demise of the New Order, when we talk about this
discontent, Java seems to be left out. I don't think that the
majority of people in Java benefited too much from the excesses
of the New Order.

It saddens me to see that, here we have a new government, yet
the people cannot seem to wait to see what it will do. Why can't
you wait a bit, and see what they are going to do. If they go the
same way as the New Order, then complain. If the House of
Representatives (DPR) is independent and free, you can complain
to the DPR. If you cannot wait, there is another problem.
What do the Acehnese want with the referendum? Autonomy? Autonomy
within a unitary state, or federalism?

Aceh became a province in 1957, and in 1959 it became a
special territory (daerah istimewa), where it was given greater
autonomy. But if you look back, while it was given greater
autonomy legally, in practice it was never implemented.

So I can understand the suspicion on the part of some people
if President Abdurrahman Wahid says, "You can have greater
autonomy", because the Acehnese can say, "Well, you (the central
government) gave us that in 1959, but we never saw it happen".

Thus, whichever they choose, it is going to be a long time
before they know it will be implemented.

You seem to see problems even if provinces gain wider
autonomy.

My fear is, if each province has autonomy, would the elite in
these individual provinces do the right thing?

Would they push for industrialization like the New Order did,
put emphasis on growth first, then hopefully the people can
benefit later? It will take a long time.

Or would they put more emphasis on development at the grass
roots, on small and cottage industry, improving the conditions at
the bottom, as well as going for larger industrial projects?

The interesting thing about the New Order is, it always said
the right things. If you look at the concept of populist economy
(ekonomi kerakyatan) it embodies what the New Order said it was
going to do. But the people who champion the populist economy
never saw it implemented.

Everything that should be done was always talked about from
the Old Order to the New Order. There was continuous talk about
helping the poor. But it was only talk.

What was actually done?

They emphasized economic growth, and rapid industrialization.
And the little people remained poor and left out of the benefit
of the development.

Weren't the little people were left out because of the
practice of monopoly?

Monopoly is part of rapid economic growth. In countries where
rapid economic growth has been recorded, there is also evidence
of monopoly. The most recent example is South Korea. The tragic
thing here is, the economy grew, only benefitting those involved
in the monopoly, while the bulk of the population were left
out. ...(In Indonesia) they did create growth. They increased
rice production three times. However, 50 percent of Indonesian
people are casual workers, they do not have long-term employment,
they do not have good jobs that are consistent with human
dignity. Monopoly was the dominant unit of economic growth if you
look at Europe, Asian miracles and Latin America. It is
inevitable in rapid economic growth.

And the practice of corruption, collusion and nepotism?

And the accompanying practice of corruption, collusion and
nepotism.

So where is the answer? Is it not in the fairer distribution
between the center and regions?

Provinces in Java all have populations of over 25 million,
while the outer islands are sparsely populated by comparison. For
instance, 18 of the provinces have under five million people.
Eleven have fewer than three million.

If you look at the development of more autonomy in the
regions, some would be better off than others. The regions that
have voiced the most discontent, such as Aceh, Riau, East
Kalimantan, are rich provinces.

In the early days, a lot of the discontent in Aceh was related
to religion. Since the discovery of the oil and natural gas, the
issue became economic. The bulk of the export earnings go
straight to the center. It is the responsibility of the center to
redistribute.

If you look at Section 3 of Article 33 of the Constitution, it
says, "The earth and water and natural riches therein are
regulated by the state and shall be used for the greatest
possible prosperity of the people".

So what the center did in taking the export earnings from Aceh
was not illegal, the tragic part is, they did not use it for the
greatest possible prosperity of the people. This is where
corruption comes in.

To start with, the regions responsible for the export income
should have got more than they did.

Then you are going to have a big debate. What is enough, when
you take into account that some 20 provinces are poor? They
should also get the benefit from the exports. How do you divide
it fairly?

If you break up the country, then Aceh will have its big
income and they do not have to worry about anybody else. If you
have a federal state, you still have to work out how you
distribute the resources. How do you make sure that the poorer
provinces are looked after?

The new law on fiscal balance and regional autonomy will give
the natural-resource rich provinces 15 percent of oil revenue, 30
percent of gas revenue and 80 percent of forestry and fishery
derived revenue. What do you think of these arrangements?

To be honest, I would have to know what each region wanted to
do with its resources. But it certainly is better for the rich
regions that it was before. If it was done in the old DPR, it
will have to be put to the new DPR, and ask these regions if they
are satisfied with this distribution.

However, given the representation of the provinces in the DPR,
they may not have a strong enough voice in the DPR. They might be
outnumbered.

We must also face the fact that the poor provinces outnumber
the richer provinces. How would you come to an agreement between
the rich and the poor?

Now that we move toward democracy, where decision making
involves people, it is a terrible dilemma.

If you keep a unitary state with greater autonomy, you need
money to finance the things in which you have been given
autonomy. Then you have the debate over the finances.

You cannot avoid the problems of distribution of finances by
moving into a federal state. The same questions arise.

So you think the answer to the current problems is not in
giving them greater autonomy, but in how each province would
manage its economic growth if given autonomy?

That is only one of the problems to solve. Now you have more
resources to distribute within your province, what are you going to do?
The first question is going to be, how much each province is
getting, then how you are going to use it.

In the meantime, in the center they have to deal with
distribution problems.

Yes. They have to ask questions like, how much is Aceh going
to give us? How much will we get from Riau? How much will we give
to Flores?

Is it any easier with the federal system?

If you look at the federal system in Australia, you see the
gradual increase in the federal power for allocation of money.

So forming a federal state is only the beginning. Then in the
power struggle, either the federal government becomes stronger or
the state governments become stronger. It is a very difficult
balance. As the economy grows stronger, the main source of
taxation is income tax. The question is, who controls income tax?
In Australia, it is the federal government. It was given the
power in 1942.

If the present government can derive a lesson from the
previous ones, what do you think is the most important?

Do all the things that all of the previous governments
promised to do. Implement the rhetoric. (Dewi Anggraeni)