Michael
Another interesting item.
Rick
Monday, 20 January 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indonesia's natural wealth, who owns it?
Analysis by Kwik Kian Gie
As reported in the Kompas of 6 January 1997, Dr Amien Rais became angry at the government decision to concede 90 percent of the benefits derived from the Busang gold deposits to the foreign exploitant. Through the government, the state only derived 10 percent.
Previous news information concerning exploitation of the Busang gold mine indicated, that the 90 percent bequeathed on the foreign party also included Indonesian citizens. But the division of benefits between Bre-X, Barrick and their Indonesian partners was not clearly stated. But, no matter what, only 10 percent reaches the people through their government. The Indonesian partners of the foreign company are individuals, while the gold contained in the soil of Busang is the property of all our people, and the benefits thereof must be for the greatest possible prosperity of the people in a fairly distributed manner.
The anger of Dr Amien Rais is very understandable. So the problem of how to distribute the benefits of the Busang gold deposits invites us to think along even broader lines which encompass how the entire wealth of our nature, land and islands must be managed to reflect the message of the 1945 Constitution.
Article 33 paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution states that: "The earth, water and the natural wealth contained therein are controlled by the state and utilized for the greatest prosperity of the people." The government has once stated that what is meant by "controlled" is not necessarily "owned", but "regulated".
The exploitation of all of Indonesia's natural wealth is indeed touched by regulation by the government. What remains at issue is whether the regulating already reflects "for the greatest prosperity of the people"? The government may state that the people who get that 10 percent, get indeed already the greatest, because the people have neither the capital nor the technology to exploit the Busang gold mine.
People may even possibly say that the Indonesian people should feel happy that free Indonesia is a republic. In former times, before colonization by the Dutch, its political form was a monarchy, At that time, those who had a right to the natural wealth of Indonesia were the kings, their family and relatives, and their friends who got the boon of gifts from the king. Then came the colonizers, who got all the rights to the natural wealth through the colonial government.
With independence, which turned Indonesia into a republic, all the natural wealth of Indonesia became property of the people, so its benefits should be for the greatest prosperity of the people. But as we know, as we see and as we experience each day, between what is written in the constitution and reality, a difference is possible. Not only in the form of how the natural wealth is managed, but, closely tied in, in the political context concerning the principle of the sovereignty of the people and democracy.
Something that is already written down in the 1945 Constitution and the National Direction Outlines, is not yet completed. There must be an interpretation, a plan and an operational work program, so that the utilization of the natural wealth is truly for the greatest prosperity of the people. This is what is unclear, while we have representatives of the people whose calling and task is to furnish operational formulation and supervision over its implementation.
To interpret what is stated in the Constitution in operational terms is indeed not easy. As I said earlier, our tradition of long standing is that of the kingdom, and then becoming servitors to the colonial master. So although on paper and politically we are already independent, this does not mean that overnight we have mentally become free. This factor plays an important role in the imbalance between constitutional ideals and practice in the field. As an example of a still dominated mentality, we are not too ready to trust experts who are our compatriots. It happens not infrequently that Indonesian consultants who graduated from top universities abroad, work in Indonesia under the flag of foreign consulting companies. Their fees are very high. But the same people, should they become independent consultants under Indonesian flag, would become laughingstock should they dare to demand the same fees. Just to access various departments and state enterprises would be difficult. So we see many cases where Indonesian experts who have studied abroad, hire foreigners to open the doors to bureaucrats who are mentally still colonized by foreigners.
So in order to be able to extract, process and utilize our natural wealth for the greatest prosperity of the people, we must first of all learn how to think and to behave like people who are indeed already free.
Free does not only mean to be free of the foreign colonialist oppressor. But we must also be mentally free from feudalism and nepotism. The principle is, the sovereignty of the people, and not plutocratism, which considers the natural wealth to be the property only of those who are already rich.
The principle that the people collectively are sovereign and own the natural wealth, is not yet comprehended by the country's elite. Its reflection is the disparity between constitution and reality.
Other factors are venality, corruption and opportunism, which have been spotlighted by many people. So the abundant natural wealth is indeed there to be exploited. But there is no need to be overanxious, if the share which falls into the hands of the people is minimal. We should use the exploitation of our national wealth as addition of the creating of national revenue. The main thing is how to render our human resources capable of creating added value without extracting our national wealth? That a nation can become rich without natural wealth has already been proven by many other countries.
Should we desire to involve private business, foreign or domestic, the crucial thing is the making of a complete feasibility study by the government. On the basis of this the government decides on the appropriate share for the private exploitant. The government should also not make the decision on its own, but jointly with the House of Representatives. So, not a decision for its own sake, but depending on who will do the managing.
No less important is the management of land. Is it reasonable for a real estate company to control thousands of hectares of land in one location? That certain land plots be turned into residential areas can be justified and is good. But control over land with practically no limitation on size and freedom of disposal, results in highest profits being made not from cultivating the land, but from speculation. So no matter how much competition increases, there is no lowering in the price of land! In connection with this land, ecological violation also happens often. Still fresh in our memory is the dispute between the Minister of Environment and some other ministers concerning the Kapuk land in Jakarta.
All the abovementioned is a large agenda on how to manage our natural wealth in the coming era. Is it not redundant? No. The most important thing is to be ready with its concept. Should the moment for reformation arrive, we need not be thrown into turmoil again. Those experts who care about the existence of this nation should individually be ready with a blueprint for reformation that needs to be carried out.
Meanwhile, we must stop wholesaling our natural wealth to private business, both foreign and domestic, as charged by Dr Amien Rais.(*) |
