Social Pact Discussion
The Third Round Discussion of the Social Pact Discussion Group (Resume)
Acacia Hotel, 4 September 2007
Pengantar:
Seingat saya, acara diskusi ini diselenggarakan oleh Demos sebagai rangkaian untuk menyusun semacam Pakta Sosial. Diskusi dipimpin oleh Mas Stanley, anggota Komnas HAM. Ringkasan hasil diskusi di bawah ini saya temukan—tak sengaja—sewaktu melakukan pencarian dengan “Starware Search”. Karena praktis seluruh isinya merupakan paparan saya, mungkin ada baiknya untuk ditampilkan. Maklum, sangat sulit rasanya untuk menuliskan kembali pemikiran yang telah saya sampaikan itu.
***
The Social Pact Discussion Group, in the third round FGD, attempted to explore the fundamental condition of national economy both from business perspective and labour interest. The orientation of this discussion is the same with other previous discussions, e.g. creating understanding between the economy actors and decision makers, particularly The Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration and IX Commission of DPR to search for proportional joint solution for industrial relationship matters.
An economy expert, Faisal Basri acted as the key resource person during the discussion. Representing businessmen group, Gilbert Wiryadinata, Yusuf Santo (The General Secretary of Plastic Association) and Hasanuddin Rahman (Indonesia Businessmen Association) also attended the discussion. Felikson Silitonga (KOPBUMI), Lilis Mahmudah (SPN) and Timboel Siregar (OPSI) represented labour group, while some activists of non-political organizations such as Demos, LIPS and TURC also participated in the discussion. Unfortunately, there was no representatives of decision maker groups (such as The Ministry of Manpower and Transmigration and IX Commission of DPR) attending the discussion. Even since the first round discussion, this group has not yet sent their representatives. “It should be them who actively make efforts to create such a forum like this, and it is very unfortunate for them not to use this forum well,” said Faisal Basri before initiating the discussion.
According to Faisal, an intense debate has been occurring between free-market oriented economy with people oriented economy perspective. As the former was supported by big, systematic campaigns, it leads the score with, for example, its flexibility market concept. According to Faisal, if accepted, the concept will be the opposite of labours’ interests. The government seems to lose perspective; which is reflected through the poor socialization of 2025 vision. In addition, the state has failed to run its serving function.
Referring to the purpose of state as implied to the country’s basic constitution, the perspective has actually been clearly stated. In political matters we have to set our orientation to social democracy and in economical matters to social market economy. The most ultimate principles are no subordination by capitalists, social welfare not for individual interests, and means of productions must be handled to the people. Instead of production, social market economy suggests the existence of regulations, stabilization and social security in many aspects, including in the matter of manpower. The basic philosophy of the concept is that there will be no suffering people. The concept also gives birth to national social security system. Unfortunately, a lot of problems occurred, hampering its implementation. Therefore, the concept stays as a concept. The model has been applied in several Scandinavian countries, particularly in Norway, where a collective bargaining between businessmen and labours has occurred.
The experiences of various different countries cannot be easily adapted in Indonesia, because the country has different basic economy and manpower structure. In industrial countries such as Norway and Korea, manufacture labours have strong position, while in Indonesia, they only number 12% of the whole manpower. Around 42% of Indonesia’s labours work in agrarian sector, reflecting the fact that our economy structure has moved to industry while our manpower still work in agrarian and informal structures. Of the 12% manufacturer labours, 70 % work in informal sector, where no labour organizations are established. Among the whole number of labours who work in formal sector, only 2% being the members of labour organization. Therefore, in the context of establishing social pact in Indonesia, it will be better if labour groups attempt on multi-sector linkage and synergy with, for example, peasants to create inter-sector solidarity.
The businessmen also suffer from acute New Order disease. Most of Indonesian businessmen have broker characteristics rather than true businessman. They exist because of their collusion with those in power. The economical foundation thus becomes fragile, unhealthy and full of artificial protection so that our businessmen become uncompetitive, trapped in interest oriented economy. With cheap labours, great numbers of materials and government’s full protection, investors easily infiltrate Indonesia’s economy during the New Order era. The investors’ paradigm, however, now changes. They do not only consider variable costs (cheap material and labours), but also fixed cost.
Hence, it is difficult for Indonesia to compete with, for example, China. Why? Because most companies are not efficient in Indonesia as the fix cost is considerably high. In China, there is no toll fee; all high ways are free to pass, while harbours, airport and electricity generations are provided by the state. Indonesia shows almost different fact: poor infrastructure provision by the state. Even to request for electricity generator, businessmen who come to State Electricity Company (PLN) are charged three times of the normal price. Such situation triggers some companies, such as Sudamek Group, an enting-enting (a kind of traditional snack) producer, to move its company to China, because of the cheap fix cost in the country. The future competition will probably not be between companies with other companies but between one country with other to create lower fix cost. Then, what are the state’s functions today? Therefore, we have to define the role of the state first.
The state often creates troubles, as in the case of the increase of toll fee. Here, the New Order interest oriented economy is still applied by some interest groups. The system persists, the actors change (during the new Order were Soeharto’s cronies, now what we call as B-3 (Bosowa, Bukaka, Bakrie)). Worse, their economic interests are often camouflaged with politicizing dangerous ethnic sentiments (between native and non-native groups).
Labour movements are often taken by the political intrigues and fragmented by their political affinities. Some organizations are busy to rally in front of the President’s Palace, some in Senayan. Unfortunately, such division is not based on systematic role division, but because of friction that makes labour organization more fragmented and elitist. Therefore, labour movements must be more thoughtful, to avoid them being divided by politicians’, businessmen’s, and even labour elites’ political-economy interests. Critical attitudes, solid organizations and solid cooperation with other organizations from other sectors, are, thus very important. In addition, labour organizations also need to increase their ability to conduct productive negotiations, so that the organizations are not trapped in ceremonial agendas anymore.
