T

he title of this editorial may understandably antagonize Indonesia'€™s staunch critics of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), but we need first to clear the air before stirring up further misunderstanding about the seemingly '€œtesty'€ relationship between Indonesia and the IMF, especially after President Joko '€œJokowi'€ Widodo himself last April demanded that this multilateral body be reformed to design and create a new and better world economic order.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde'€™s two-day visit, the second to the country after her first in early July 2012, has nothing to do with the financial market turbulence and the steep rupiah depreciation Indonesia has been experiencing for the past few weeks. This visit has been in preparation since last year in light of a high-level international conference on the future of Asia'€™s finance that the IMF jointly organizes with the central bank, Bank Indonesia.

The full-day conference on Sept. 2 will present panelists from Japan, China, India, Singapore and the international banking industry, in addition to senior executives of the IMF and the World Bank and Indonesia as the host.

The visit nevertheless may tempt Indonesia'€™s critics to bash the IMF and recite the list of mistakes and misjudgments the multilateral body made in handling Indonesia'€™s economic crisis in 1997 and 1998, especially because the staunchest of the detractors include Rizal Ramli, who is now coordinating maritime affairs minister, and Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan, the coordinating political, legal and security affairs minister.

But we think it would be futile to again bash the IMF for its mistakes and mishandlings in the economic crisis. Most studies and analyses have firmly concluded that the Indonesian crisis was a series of stories of errors being piled atop mistakes of both the IMF and the Indonesian government, causing one of the world'€™s biggest destructions of wealth.

It will be much more fruitful if President Jokowi and the economics ministers seize this opportunity for sharing views about the current turbulence in the global financial market and reiterate the urgent need for the IMF to be more responsive to regional needs. They should bring home a stronger message to Lagarde that three major emerging Asian economic powerhouses should be given a greater share of the spotlight in managing the multilateral agency.

Blaming the IMF for most of the failings in the handling of Indonesia'€™s 1998 economic crisis would simply be an act of self-delusion. Whether we like it or not, whatever the IMF shortcomings may be the market still trusts this institution more than the Indonesian government when it comes to economic, especially monetary, management. The IMF remains an opinion leader for creditors and investors. This is the market perception, however painful it may appear to the country'€™s political leaders.

We cannot simply disregard market perception and acceptability of our economic management. The credibility of the government'€™s policy making and implementation capability has yet to be tested. This has nothing to do with national dignity or nationalism.

In fact, we would blatantly act against our national interests if we unnecessarily took the risk of losing market confidence.