Indosat demonstrations will only hurt workers

Indosat demonstrations will only hurt workers

Wimar Witoelar, Public Communication, Specialist, Jakarta

If PT Indonesia Satellite Corporation (Indosat) employees
continue in their militant actions, the odds are that they will
hurt themselves. If the Indosat share sale to Singapore
Technologies Telemedia Pte. Ltd (STT) is canceled, employees will
be the first victims of the ensuing crisis. If the divestment
succeeds, employee activists will be marked as troublemakers.
They might well be given negative marks in their files.

Politician Amien Rais and other politicians accuse government
officials of getting illegal gains for themselves. State Minister
for State Enterprises Laksamana Sukardi defends himself and
issues a lawsuit. They may both be right, or they may be wrong.
But both could profit from the Indosat sale, either financially
or politically.

The losers are the employees who take part in the
demonstrations. Militant action to "defend the nation's assets
against foreign domination" are not in the interests of the
employees. Protection of national assets, national security and
the prevention of foreign domination are political issues. If the
government is seen to neglect these duties, citizens should raise
their voices politically. They can go to the legislature but
should stay away from politicians with hidden agendas. Labor
unions will not benefit from mobilizing thousands of workers on
nationalist issues. They should, in fact, beware of the maneuvers
of the political elite and state enterprise managements who are
defending their vested interests.

In his article Privatization, the golden chariot with two
horses, economist Faisal Basri writes, "In their journey to
deliver precious crystals, the golden chariot of privatization
will climb hills of vested interests. Employees, managers,
suppliers and other stakeholders will worry about being cast
aside as a result of privatization. They will oppose
privatization strenuously for fear that they will not be able to
enjoy the facilities of the past."

Faisal Basri continues: "It is quite possible that certain
interest groups might do certain things such as provoking
employees to conduct demonstrations. After the hills of vested
interest, the golden chariot has to negotiate the sharp curves of
xenophobia."

The issue of xenophobia appears also in the cases of Semen
Gresik, PLN and other state enterprises. State enterprises need
serious efforts to improve their performance. Privatization is
one such effort. But privatization is obstructed by slogans
attacking foreigners. The purpose of this obstruction is clearly
linked to the interests of company officials who are now free to
engage in corrupt practices.

It is quite possible that some cases of privatization are
tainted with corruption. In the Indosat case, legislature members
are doing the right thing in demanding accountability from
government officials as regards alleged corruption. But there is
no call for sweeping condemnation of the principle of
privatization. Quite the contrary, state enterprises were always
major victims of corruption before privatization moved in.

That does not mean that the government should be adamant in
its position. It has stated they it not reconsider the Indosat
sale of shares. "If we reverse this decision our name will be
ruined," says Laksamana Sukardi. True, reputations must be
preserved, but a closed attitude can be, in fact,
counterproductive.

If the government is indeed innocent then it should show
sincerity and the humility to be communicative. Government
officials should be accessible to the media, analysts and the
public. Sticking stubbornly to the law and formal decisions does
not impress the public. The government has the duty to educate
the public and it should not be arrogant. The public has a right
to know.

With the smell of corruption in the air, transparency becomes
extremely important. For instance, it would help if the
government would explain that the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)
is not a cover for kickbacks. The public is not clear on how the
SPV entered the deal. There is compelling need for the government
to provide information in a user-friendly format, keeping away
from bureaucratic language.

The worst problem comes from politicians who pretend not to
understand the need for privatization. They do not only sow
discontent but also mislead the public. The legislature, which is
supposed to empower the public, should not take people back to
outdated notions of nationalism without common sense.

Actually, the political rhetoric of Amien Rais often conceals
some truths. Take the line where he says that the sale of Indosat
shares to foreign parties has serious and dangerous implications.
That makes sense. The regrettable part is where he executes a
logical jump to condemn privatization in its entirety. The evils
of corruption are clearly undesirable, in this case an alleged
commission to government officials and political party leaders.
But privatization itself can and must be executed under
principles of good governance.

Government officials and the House of Representatives members
must change their behavior if they still want the respect of the
public. This change is not possible without the pressure of the
media and political groups.

Labor unions have their own important role in maintaining
company productivity by improving the condition of workers. The
negotiations between Indosat and STT actually came out with
promises of better conditions for the workers. This is the time
for workers to pressure the new Indosat/STT management about
their commitment to the workers.

Should the demands regarding the workers' interests not be
met, then the workers should stage mass protests. Not now, not
when demonstrations only serve the vested interests of
politicians. Workers who hope for better conditions may well be
used and sacrificed.