Public vs private good

Public vs private good

The current debate over the government's plan to close down
the Ministry of Information and Ministry of Social Services has
neglected the philosophical argument of "public versus private
good" originally put forward by President Abdurrahman Wahid. In
announcing his Cabinet last week, which omitted these two
ministries, Abdurrahman said the government's task was to guide
and lead the nation, and not so much to execute policies. The
President also emphasized the need to encourage more initiatives
from within society.

The debate since then has focused on the fate of over 70,000
people who work in these two ministries, the relevance of these
agencies, and the pros and cons of abolishing them. If we return
to the philosophical argument however, there is no doubt that
these ministries must go, as must one or two other ministries.

With regards to the Ministry of Information, the President
said his government only needs a small office to help disseminate
and explain its policies to the public. TVRI and RRI -- the
state-run TV and radio stations currently under the Ministry of
Information -- will remain at the government's disposal, but they
will be fully incorporated as state companies once the ministry
ceases to exist.

There is no need for the government to retain an entire
department for the purpose of public information needs. The bulk
of that task is already being carried out by newspapers,
magazines, private TV and radio stations, and now, thousands if
not millions of Internet websites. The public has plenty of
choices for selecting the most appropriate and suitable medium
and message; some are supplied by the government, but the
majority originate from private organizations. The Ministry of
Information may be performing vital functions, but these
functions could be much more effectively and efficiently carried
out by the private sector.

Most government agencies, including local administrations,
already have their own public relations offices to disseminate
policy information from their agencies. The Ministry of
Information has become redundant.

The same argument could be used about the Ministry of Social
Services, whose tasks include caring for socially and
economically disadvantaged groups, and for victims of natural
disasters. While there is a compelling argument to have a
national agency for the management of natural disasters, other
social services could be handled by regional administrations,
without the need for an entire ministry at the national level.

Many of the ministry's functions in caring for socially
deprived people have already been taken over by private charity
organizations. Massive fund-raising campaigns and the
distribution of staple foods by private groups to the needy
during the economic crisis of the last two years attest to our
society's ability to combat hardship, with little government
prodding. Since these private charity organizations are freed
from bureaucratic constraints, they are often much more effective
and efficient than the Ministry of Social Services could ever
expect to be. Too much government intervention may even be
counterproductive because it can drain money away intended for
private charity organizations.

President Abdurrahman's philosophical argument in abolishing
the two ministries is not that they no longer serve any purpose,
but that most of their functions could be performed much more
effectively and efficiently by the people. In fact, in the
current search to streamline the administration, we could stretch
this argument to apply to a number of other government
ministries.

If the President had been consistent, he should also have
abolished the Ministry of Religious Affairs which has no real
purpose in society. This ministry unnecessarily duplicates work
carried out by mosques, churches and temples, and by the national
councils representing the various religions in the country.

The existence of the Ministry of National Education, (the
former Ministry of Education and Culture), should also be
reviewed, abolished, or at least substantially pared down. For
too long, bureaucrats have taken the task of educating our
children out of our teachers' hands, with devastating
consequences for the quality of their education. The time has
come to leave teaching to the real professionals.

The President has shown courage by taking tough political
decisions at the outset of his term in office. It is very easy to
get distracted in the current polemic about whether or not to
keep the two ministries. But we must not lose sight of the
philosophical reason behind this decision. The quicker we accept
his decision to close down the two ministries, the less painful
it will be for those civil servants whose professional careers
are affected to adapt to their new jobs. The sooner we resolve
this problem, the sooner we can discuss the abolition of other
dysfunctional ministries, but this time, giving those concerned
more time to prepare themselves.