KPPU helps reduce unfair business practices: Chairman

When the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) was established in 2000, hopes were high that it would clamp down on the shady business deals flourishing in Indonesia that time. Observers wanted the KPPU to curb monopolistic behavior and scrutinize the often dubious processes for tendering jobs. Five years on, with the present tenure of most KPPU members reaching an end, The Jakarta Post's Urip Hudiono talked with the watchdog's chairman Sutrisno Iwantono on Friday about what the commission had done to reform business in Indonesia. The following is an excerpt of the interview:

Question: After five years, how is the KPPU doing?

Answer: If we look at it from the number of cases that KPPU has handled since its establishment on June 7, 2000, the commission has received a total of 265 reports, with 172 of them related to indications of unfair competition.

However, of the 172 cases, only 41 had strong grounds for the KPPU to further investigate, of which 23 were later ruled on by the commission and 10 more that went to the courts. Eight other cases, meanwhile, are still being investigated.

Furthermore, out of those earlier 23 cases, six are now being reviewed in the courts, and one of the cases the Supreme Court has decided upon.

Apart from the KPPU's enforcement of the country's antimonopoly law through its investigations and rulings in these cases, the commission has also conducted studies and given its recommendations on several government policies in the telecommunications, transportation, mining, power and retail sector that could potentially create an unfair business competition environment. So far, we have submitted a total of 23 recommendations to the government.

This is speaking of KPPU's accomplishments "by quantity". What about the commission's achievements "by quality", in terms of its accomplishments in creating a better business competition environment in the country?

Well, the KPPU's performance will in fact be measured and assessed quantitatively, but of course, the commission has always been committed to improving business competition in the country.

In terms of this, we can say that ever since the presence of the KPPU -- and though the cases that the commission has handled have only accounted to some 40 cases so far -- its effect as a deterrent has been palpable.

The country's business community now pays more attention to the involvement of firms in any possible unfair business practices, and it has adjusted its conduct according to the antimonopoly law. Many firms have left their improper "business- as-usual" habits behind.

Many companies now offer projects through a fair and open bidding process and also consult with the KPPU on how to conduct such offerings.

Therefore, I think we can say that KPPU has made a contribution to eradicating unfair business practices in the country.

Without the presence of the KPPU, many companies would continue with their bad habits of non-transparent and discriminatory tenders.

So can we say that the KPPU is so far satisfied with its achievements?

As humans, we are never satisfied, and the same goes for the KPPU. The commission still has a lot to do to improve its performance in the future.

But I think in relative terms, as compared to other antimonopoly watchdogs in other countries, the KPPU can be said to be among the better performers, having achieved quite significant results even during its infancy.

And what are the problems that the KPPU still faces?

There are still a lot of problems the KPPU must address so that it is able to function better.

These problems include internal ones, such as how the KPPU can improve its human resources and institutional capacity, as well as strengthening our administrative and budgetary status.

Meanwhile, externally, problems also lie in our relationship and cooperation with other stakeholders regarding the issue of business competition, including the country's business community and other law enforcers, particularly the courts.

Not all in the country's business community have fully understood and accepted the antimonopoly law, while the courts sometimes have a different perception than us on what the antimonopoly law constitutes.

The government too, continues to create policies that are not always in line with the antimonopoly law.

Concerning the problems the KPPU faces with the country's courts, does this have much to do with the fact that many cases that the KPPU has ruled on have been challenged and then overturned by the courts?

We can't say it exactly like that, because out of the 41 cases that the KPPU has handled so far, 17 have been sustained in the courts.

Although several of the KPPU's rulings were overturned at the district court level, they were eventually sustained at the Supreme Court level.

However, in one recent ruling of a case that the Supreme Court had just decided on, it overturned the district court's decision, but also revoked the KPPU's ruling. That is what we call an "ambivalent ruling", which is quite a dilemma for us, as it implies our ruling cannot be enforced.

Again, in light of these problems, will the KPPU therefore push for an amendment of the antimonopoly law to better support its function in improving the country's business competition environment?

The amendment is actually in process of being submitted to the House. The commission is still finalizing its draft of suggestions for the amendment.

Among the issues the KPPU needs more clarification on, is which court has the authority to handle the objections and challenges to KPPU rulings, which at the moment can be registered at any district court. The problem lies in the fact that not all district court judges have the ability or capacity to handle antimonopoly cases.