'Spinning' care
'Spinning' care
It all sounds very good, but what does it all mean? The
government's recent announcement that it would "allocate" savings
from the discontinuation of the fuel subsidy to provide free
basic education and health care for the country's poor sounds
wonderfully appealing.
Too appealing in fact. After overcoming the initial
excitement, the message increasingly resonates more like a
rhetorical campaign slogan than a concrete policy.
Sri Mulyani Indrawati, chairperson of the National Development
Planning Agency, announced that at least Rp 20 trillion, money
reallocated from fuel subsidies, would be used to fund welfare
programs like free schools under the nine-year mandatory
education drive and health care for Indonesia's poorest. The
government, she added was also looking at other initiatives to
channel the money into, such as the provision of cheap rice.
The government has also identified some 32 million
disadvantaged people who are eligible to receive such assistance.
Any initiative, intent or even remark aimed at improving the
welfare of millions should be welcomed. But a discerning eye
should be directed at whether it was divulged with the objective
of truly addressing the pressing problems of the poor, or as
window dressing to appease a potentially disgruntled public.
Free education and health care was one of the most common
campaign slogans both in the legislative and presidential
election. In fact, it was even a standard campaign blurb in the
elections of 1999.
Basic education and decent health care should be a right, not
a privilege provided by the ruling government of the day. The
right to basic education is clearly stipulated in Article 31 of
the 1945 Constitution, while the responsibility to provide
adequate health care is stated in Article 34.
Furthermore, much of what was announced was really a
repetition of programs and initiatives that were in place even
during the Soeharto era.
With varying degrees of success, the nine-year education
program was in existence long before President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono even entered government. During Indonesia's economic
heyday education was officially free, even though unofficial fees
were routinely collected by the schools.
Since the 1970s thousands of elementary schools -- commonly
referred to as SD Inpres -- were built using special funds
accorded from the presidential office.
Similarly, small community health centers were setup to
provide health care in villages and remote areas. To this day,
even major referral hospitals like Cipto Mangunkusumo General
Hospital in Central Jakarta charge very little for patients
treated in their third-class wing.
A letter from the local subdistrict chief certifying that one
is poor often helps to alleviate further basic health care costs
in state hospitals.
That certainly does not mean that Indonesians get the optimum
available care, but at least there are provisions, albeit less
than sufficient, which may help to ease certain burdens.
Hence the government's recent announcement should be seen as
nothing more than augmentation, at best, and continuation, at
worst, of programs already in place. While it is encouraging, it
is not something to boast about yet.
Apart from a larger allocation of funds, the best that can be
hoped for is that the system is made more effective and the
bureaucracy that complicates things for the uninformed poor is
made more efficient.
Cynics may question the timing of the announcement, pointing
to the fact that the government will inevitably revoke subsidies
and raise fuel prices in the near future. Subsidy reductions are
a politically sensitive issue and have produced the most
significant street rallies in recent years. In fact president
Soeharto resigned in 1998 in the wake of mass rioting in Jakarta
triggered by subsidy reductions.
The present administration has always maintained that fuel
subsidies are unsustainable and that only a small portion of the
public, usually the affluent, enjoy the benefits of such a
subsidy. Through various advertisements in the mass media, the
government has launched a campaign to sway public opinion on the
necessity of reducing the burden of subsidies.
It would be a pity if the declared intent to provide free
education and health care was designed more to cushion possible
anger at rising fuel prices.
The art of "spinning" is common practice in politics. But what
our elected officials should realize is that with or without the
"spin", there can be no better investment in their political
careers than ensuring the welfare of voters.