The affirmation of the government readiness to
supplement fuel subsidy has resulted in again issue related to mismanagement of
subsidized fuel oil (BBM). If the government has so far asserted repeatedly the
importance of budgetary saving in a bid to prevent state finance from running
out, the addition of the subsidy funds triggers the reverse stream.
A number of facts in the field show that subsidized
fuel is nit only a matter of state funds, which must be spent but also
distribution and supervision. The first two issues (amount and fund) are
relatively measurable but the two last issues always trigger problems in the
field. Smuggling of subsidized fuel by parties in a bid to reap economic
benefit should be considered as a factor causing subsidized fuel to run out
quickly.
Subsidized fuel management has so far not resulted in
an agreement. On one side, parties encourage actively the government to
increase the price of subsidized fuel because the measure is deemed necessary
to avoid the squandering in the state finance. In additional, the saved funds
may be allocated to finance the development in infrastructure. The opinion is
supported by assumption that most the subsidized fuel missed the target because
it’s enjoyed by wealthy people. However, on the other hand, groups reject
surreptitiously the plan to increase the price of subsidized fuel or withdraw
fuel subsidy on account that subsidy constitutes a right of the whole people.
Therefore, prohibition on wealthy people from using subsidized fuel is only
appeal.
Fuel management develops to become a complicated, even
extremely complicated issue because it’s driven intentionally or not into
political domain. However, it’s difficult to categorize parties encouraging the
reduction or abolition of fuel subsidy as parties not having political
interest. The government is encourage intentionally to take measures, which are
ascertained to draw reaction from the people but the government still
determined to supplement subsidy fund also has political interest. It has become
a public secret that fuel has strong political influence and the whole choices
always bring political implication.
If the government really supplemented fuel subsidy
funds (a choice extremely difficult to avoid), the state must withdraw around
Rp 6 trillion to purchase around 1.1 million kilo liter of fuel to fulfill the
need up to late this year. The amount is not surely few. If we talk about the
promise of the government to save state budget, the additional subsidy
amounting to Rp 6 trillion surely constitutes a kind of squandering even though
the increase is executed on account of protecting the public interest. However,
it may draw a question such as how much do the funds really fall on the hand of
the poor? Conversely, how much do the funds go to the hand of the wealthy
people urged to not use subsidized fuel so far and how much is the quantity of
the smuggled fuel due to poor supervision?
The appearance of politics as commander, intentionally
or not, causes the settlement of an issue categorized simple to be difficult to
realize. It’s taking place now. SBY administration known rather favoring image
building is determined to take the measure even though it would cause state
finance in tatters for political interest. Amid the rising criticism, SBY regime
and Democrat Party indeed must preserve their image to prevent their popularity
from decreasing the eyes of the people prior to 2014.
Supplementing subsidized fuel funds surely would increase
economic cost but raising the price must be paid by political cost. For a
political regime, political cost tends to b avoided, instead of economic cost.
Here, short-term political consideration closes the opportunity for the birth
of long-term policy alternatives. It’s taking place now.
Business News - December 5, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment