KPPU helps reduce unfair business practices: Chairman

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.