The government's business

The government's business

he business of government is too important to be left to
government alone. True.

But neither should government be used as a vehicle for
business to make profits.

We welcome President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's plans to issue
clearer guidelines that would avoid the abuse of government
privileges for personal business interests.

Nepotism is as improper and wrong as embezzlement and other
acts of corruption. It is part of the cancer that afflicts
Indonesia's body politic and creates an inequitable government
geared toward self-interest rather than public service.

As we are now learning, this system of patronage has also
stifled business creativity by producing cronies who reap success
from favoritism rather than entrepreneurship. Consequently, at a
time when we desperately need a class of ingenious plutocrats to
help the economy back on its feet, we find that many of our major
entrepreneurs do not have the business acumen of true
industrialists.

Apart from a code of ethics, internal and external oversight,
along with a strict system of punishment, a strong internal
mechanism should be adopted to avoid the pitfalls of cronyism.

No matter how honest a man, the temptations of power can
sometimes be too great, even with a clear system of checks.

Unscrupulous individuals and businesses have for too long been
left unchecked to pursue these unholy relationships. Susilo's
desire to impose more stringent rules on such abuses of authority
is extremely overdue.

But the President does not have to 'reinvent the wheel' in
formulating a system to help curb these abuses. Several examples
can be found in other democratic nations that Indonesia can adopt
to its own needs.

For example, in the United States, a Blind Trust is used to
diminish potential conflicts of interest by appointed high
ranking Cabinet officials and elected representatives.

The system essentially places the assets of the official,
while in office, in a trust in which a fiduciary third party has
complete management discretion.

There are, of course, no perfect systems. Even in the United
States the unscrupulous find ways around them. The latest
allegedly involves a U.S. Senate Majority leader who allegedly
used inside information to sell stocks supposedly held in a Blind
Trust.

Nevertheless, there is a system in place that presents clear
guidelines to deter misconduct. The key will be, and has always
been, a belief in upholding the system. As the case in the United
States shows, while misconduct can occur, oversight allows for a
vigorous investigation that can be conducted when suspicions of
abuse arise.

It is much better than the passive rumor-mongering that goes
on here today.

If we want the military to refrain from abusing its authority
to conduct business, then civilian politicians should also be
held accountable to the same rules.

While we support this new initiative, we are, however, suspect
as to the motives and timing of the President's remarks.

If Susilo is truly concerned about officials misusing their
positions and wants to impose a new code of ethics, then the
whole nation is undoubtedly behind him.

But suspected cases of nepotism have persisted in all
administrations, not just Susilo's; from the upper echelons of
government down to the lowest-ranking officials.

So why is the President speaking now? Did this problem just
occur to him?

If he is honestly committed to ending graft -- as he often
claims in his anti-corruption rhetoric -- then these ideas should
have been part of an initiative at the beginning of his term.

What is even more confusing is why the President chose so many
businesspeople for his Cabinet. Susilo should have imposed these
guidelines in November 2004, not be contemplating them in
November 2005.

Furthermore, if he does find such evidence of abuses of
authority, the President should dismiss the individuals concerned
immediately.

No system will be effective if the top executive dallies over
taking disciplinary action.

We are fearful that these important and virtuous notions are
simply being aired for political ends in the midst of talk of a
Cabinet reshuffle. Once the behind-the-scenes objective has been
reached, the debate will wilt meaninglessly away like so many
other worthy ideas.

May we remind the President that he was ushered into office
with an overwhelming mandate. He should act if he deems it
necessary without trying to get the public politically involved
in a principle that it already believes in.

Pak Susilo, it is time to take responsibility for your
choices.