Private vs state charity

Private vs state charity

Barely two weeks into her job, Siti Hardijanti Rukmana has
plunged into her post as minister of social services doing what
she is probably best known for: organizing a massive fund-raising
campaign for charitable causes. She is entrusted with collecting
the annual salaries of President Soeharto, Vice President B.J.
Habibie, the entire Seventh Development Cabinet, all 27
provincial governors and first-echelon and other top government
officials. She has also made a direct appeal to those in the
private sector to jump on the bandwagon.

Hardijanti is preparing various programs to channel the money
she is collecting to good use. The first of these, launched this
week, is the distribution of free food to the needy, through
Warung Tegal (inexpensive food stalls run by people from the
Central Java town of Tegal) in Jakarta and other major cities.

In the past, the Ministry of Social Services has traditionally
been a low-profile, technical department whose main tasks were
rehabilitating and aiding socially deprived people and organizing
disaster relief operations. Now, the ministry has suddenly become
a high-profile government agency. This may be due to the call of
time: the economic crisis has given greater cause for the
ministry to be more proactive than in the past. But there is no
doubt that the presence of Hardijanti -- the eldest daughter of
President Soeharto, a politician, a businesswoman and a charity
activist -- at the helm has contributed to the added sparkle.

While the government running its own charity movement is all
well and good, even noble, we hope this will be an exception to
the rule, say, until the economic crisis is over, if not before.
At a time when many people are being deprived of their basic
needs, the nation needs some symbolic gestures of solidarity from
those who are better off. It is in this light that the campaign
should be looked at.

In the long run however, the official campaign to collect the
salaries of highly paid executives, from both the private and
public sectors, will divert funds that traditionally have gone to
privately run charities. Many of these groups have long existed
to channel funds from donors to the needy. Most work quietly, as
all charity groups should, but their work is no less noble.
Private groups offer flexibility and work more effectively as
they are not subject to bureaucratic constraints.

A sustained nationwide fund-raising campaign on the scale
being run by the Ministry of Social Services could endanger the
existence of these private groups. It could lead to unhealthy
competition between private charity and state charity for the
same pool of funds. In such a situation, in the Indonesian
context, state charity will crowd out private charity.

While the official campaign is voluntary, the state has been
known to be forceful, even overzealous, in managing such programs
in the past. The recent "Love Rupiah" drive, for example, was
twisted by some people into a campaign to paint those who did not
participate, for whatever reasons, as unpatriotic.

Most people are charitable by nature. They cannot bear to see
fellow human beings suffer. This is why many charity
organizations have flourished in Indonesia. Without government
prodding, many people already willingly donate part of their
spare wealth to charitable causes, either through religious and
charitable organizations or directly to beggars and street
collectors. While many may not have any qualms about donating
money to government-run charitable causes, this begs the
question: whatever happens to the money people pay in income
taxes and sales taxes?

If the government intends to raise more money from the public,
for charity or other purposes, it should do so through taxes, and
not by setting up a separate fund. The objection to a separate
fund is clear: there is a high likelihood of poor administration
and accountability. The scandal over the use of public money to
finance last year's SEA Games should serve as a warning that
government accountability for extra-budget funds is sorely
lacking in this country.

Without intending to diminish the noble intentions of the
ongoing official campaign, we feel Minister Hardijanti would be
better off focusing her energy on helping and coordinating the
work of the existing privately run charity organizations. There
are many others deserving our charity in the present crisis and
the private groups are often better equipped to act. Starving
Irian Jaya villagers, for example, are as much in need of our
helping hand, if not more, than the urban poor that the official
free food campaign is targeting.

Given her immense experience in philanthropic activities in
the past, Minister Hardijanti no doubt knows where and how the
government can assist these groups. As a former activist herself,
her voice in the cabinet will carry weight in lobbying for tax
breaks for donors and charitable organizations.