T

his is a comment on an article titled 'How to think about the fuel price rise in Indonesia?' (The Jakarta Post, June 3, p6) by Edward Teather, London.

This article was written by a foreign banker in London, distant and detached from the average Indonesian vendor, house cleaner, farmer, shop clerk or handyman; people who depend on the fuel subsidy for their very existence.

He mentions nothing about the Constitution and its assurance under Article 33.3 about the right Indonesians have to the very resources beneath their feet, and how this is reflected in the fuel subsidy. Without the subsidy (love it or hate it) most Indonesians will then be separated from this right.

Foreign bankers and economists demonstrate a certain amount of hubris. They enjoy telling the rest of the world, especially the developing world) which way is up, and 'do as we say, not as we do', in part to protect their extravagant and resource consuming lifestyles.

The article only talks about exchange rates, basis points and what foreigners want to see for their own benefits in Indonesia's economy. It mentions nothing about the tough life poor Indonesians face, and just casually mentions the fact that 'inflation may increase, and the currency may turn to toilet paper' under either scenario. In other words, there are no guarantees that cutting the subsidy will accrue to any benefits for the man in the street.

I have stated before that under the Constitution, consumer fuel subsidy is an imperfect way of sharing the resources that will be taken away and replaced with nothing. Cash transfers have proven in the past not to work.

Will Hickey
South Korea