W

ithout fanfare, the House of Representatives endorsed on Dec. 19 the much-anticipated bill on the civil service to replace the 1999 Civil Service Law. The new legislation, if enacted, will mark a restart to bureaucratic reform after years of half-hearted, if not quasi, restructuring.

Surprisingly the public response to the legislation has so far been muted, probably because many are not aware of the strategic law, which is expected to overhaul the long-held mentality of '€œif you can do it slowly why should you rush it?'€ '€” a mentality that has turned the bureaucracy into a foot-dragging institution, prone to abuse of power.

Some of the drastic changes to the bureaucracy include implementation of the merit system in filling posts in the civil service structure and the choice for civil servants to pursue functional jobs. The civil service corps will comprise civil servants who are regularly recruited and government employees whose recruitment depends on the specific needs of each institution. The latter will have to sign contracts of work for a period of at least one year, which can be extended.

The newly passed bill also stipulates progressive ideas which eluded the old law, such as the dismissal of civil servants for poor performance, criminal conviction or political affiliation. In turn third-echelon posts and below will be eliminated as a consequence of the streamlining of the bureaucracy mandated by the legislation.

To uphold the drive toward meritocracy, the selection of senior government officials will be conducted by the Civil Service Commission (KASN) in an open and competitive way, replacing the current Final Appraisal Team (TPA). The President as the chief supervisor of the bureaucracy may set up a supporting team, but has to give priority to recommendations from the commission.

In a nutshell the new legislation envisions a professional bureaucracy that works based upon integrity, specific competencies and requirements. Better remuneration is offered in exchange for the good governance resulting from the bureaucratic reform.

This restructuring of the bureaucracy is exactly what Indonesia needs due to the uphill challenges facing the nation'€™s bid to become one of the world'€™s major economies, but here also lies the yawning gap between the aim and efforts to reach the goal. Had policymakers been committed to this noble vision, they would have drafted and endorsed the legislation 15 years ago or even earlier. The bureaucracy has remained infested with corruption and political interference despite the enactment of the 1999 law, a previous product of reform.

The fact that the Administrative Reforms Ministry and the Steering Committee for National Bureaucratic Reform chaired by Vice President Boediono held dozens of meetings between 2011 and 2013 to discuss the draft bill demonstrates resistance from within, which has the potential to persist and jeopardize the enforcement of the new law.

But there should be no reason to doubt the prospect of real bureaucratic reform if only the President spares no time in signing the regulations to implement the new law.