Let public know about Y2K readiness

By Franciskus Antonius

JAKARTA (JP): The time remaining to the year 2000 (Y2K) is less than 60 days, and there is not much that can be done, except to focus on emergency planning by the government and the business sector.

No doubt this constitutes their first priority. What is felt to be still greatly lacking is information made available to the public at large as service users: Will they feel the impact? If yes, to what degree? Is there anything that they can do? To what extent is it possible for the public to understand and take a stand in respect of emergency planning by the government, in this case the crucial industry sector? In our opinion, now is the time to be totally open toward the public: are we ready or not ready?

There is no use in postponing giving out information because this will only lead to "guessing", that could cause irrational action, like hoarding basic necessities.

What we have seen so far is the efforts of several companies, in particular sellers of computer hardware and software affixing the statement "Y2K compliant" as an attribute that their product is able to operate well in the change over from 1999 to 2000, but this does not mean that as an organization they are guaranteed to be free of the inability to carry out their services.

For example, in the event that there is a power outage for any length of time, a situation where a company cannot continue running smoothly, would it be possible for that company to operate? What if at that time we are in urgent need of after sales services? So, does the statement "Y2K compliant" in the papers have an overall meaning? And can it be understood by all consumers? Or, do people consider it another type of advertising which they do not have to bother with.

Let us take another example: several banks have stated they are "Y2K compliant" and others say they are "Y2K ready". What is the difference? What does it mean? Is it those banks' promise that they will not fail in carrying out their banking services?

Or is the statement merely limited to saying that they have replaced their hardware and software in such a way that it is free of Y2K problems, but it does not constitute a guarantee not to fail in carrying out their banking services (in a situation like this, we say the company has achieved the position of being "internal Y2K compliant").

As another example, if there is a failure of one or more infrastructure, let us say with PLN or Telkom, for a period which those banks cannot solve independently, will they still be able to operate? What about their telebanking?

What about absenteeism if personnel cannot obtain gasoline for their cars because several gas stations in their area are not functioning properly. Not to mention the failure of implanted chips; perhaps during testing it was considered all right, but at the time (needed) it does not function perfectly. So we can see that it is very risky to wholly accept that, with the above statement, we have the guarantee that services and products of the parties involved would continue uninterruptedly.

That is why we very much hope that companies that already have and plan to make a statement to the public regarding their Y2K status and readiness, give significant information outlining all the possibilities that might still occur, and how to solve this.

Give dimension to the meaning of "Y2K compliant", and the meaning of "Y2K ready". With respect to companies that are, actually, not ready, and will not be ready, it is advisable that they also give adequate information to the public. It is not a disgrace to say one is not ready because one, in fact, does not have the capacity to be ready.

This is different from not being ready and just keeping silent in the hope that people won't care, because this will result in disappointment by the users of those services/products in case of a failure.

The worst is to say that one is Y2K compliant or Y2K ready but one is, in fact, not ready, and no adequate action has been taken in one's organization. * For the government, it is hoped that in the short time remaining, it starts giving regular information via the mass media regarding the readiness and alertness of the crucial industry sector in respect to Y2K.

The more information and the more accurate it is, the more useful it will be to all parties, either in the event that the government is ready or not.

The business actors, perhaps, do not have to make unnecessary investments, for example buying generators just to face Y2K, and the public at large does not need to panic because electricity is guaranteed to continue.

If there is a power outage, the mental condition of the already-informed public will be much more prepared, rather than taken by surprise. We feel that this is, in fact, one of the subjects of accountability of the relevant minister for disseminating information to the public.

Widespread dissemination of information would, indirectly, also be monitored by the international community, who still considers Indonesia to be lagging in the preparation and alertness toward Y2K, one of the reasons also being the lack of formal information.

* For the business sector, providing adequate information regarding their preparedness. It must not just be a matter of promotion but more a fulfillment of their duty to provide true information (transparent) to the public. In this case, it is an urgent obligation for public companies listed on the Jakarta Stock Exchange.

* For the public, do not be misled by the attitude and extreme views regarding Y2K, but neither be indifferent. Be more active in finding information and carrying out rational preparations. It is the right of the public to get information, so use this right in the best possible manner.

* For all parties who might be involved in Y2K litigation aspects, either business actors, consumers or legal practitioners, do consider the Y2K problem not as a new platform to look for chances to mutually sue one another, but better consider it a common problem that must be solved together.

For that purpose, understanding the Y2K problem is also an urgent matter for legal practitioners so that they can look at everything proportionally and from all related dimensions.

To that end, the most important matter for the government and business actors is not to give intentionally wrong information and mislead to the public; they should also be able to prove that they have done the best (have not been negligent) in facing Y2K.

As an Indonesian proverb goes, be ready with an umbrella before it starts to rain, likewise we must decide our stand on the preparedness and alertness in view of Y2K.

The writer is the chairman of Y2K Communication Forum.