Robert Go, Jakarta – One of the most amazing outcomes of the recent MPR session must be that the rupiah continued to strengthen even as legislators bashed President Abdurrahman Wahid's 10-month-old government over the sluggish pace of economic recovery.
Attacks on the economic team started on day one of the MPR session and continued unabated throughout the two weeks. "The progress report was actually a report of no progress," legislators complained of the President's first speech. He was a poor manager and had little grasp of economics, they said. "Conditions were better under the interim administration of BJ Habibie," one person claimed.
But for all their criticism, the legislators themselves offered little advice on how to solve the country's problems. To be fair to Indonesia's lawmakers, Mr Abdurrahman was long on generalities and short on concrete statistics in his progress report.
Eventually he provided figures on increased foreign reserves, an improving GDP and rising exports. Then, in mid-session, a frustrated top economics minister, Mr Kwik Kian Gie, resigned, and insisted criticism directed at his team's performance had been unfair, given the short time span and the high expectations.
Lawmakers offered few solutions, just platitudes. Examples include: On the rupiah's fluctuating exchange rate, the MPR wanted the president to "take the right step to help Bank Indonesia improve and stabilise the currency". On the ineffectiveness of debt restructuring, legislators advised the administration to "speed up restructuring of private and state debts".
On the privatisation of state-owned enterprises, the MPR members wanted him to "perform wholeheartedly and transparently the restructuring and privatisation programme". On the slack investment climate, the MPR suggested creating "political stability and security, and increase efforts to promote investment".
Instead of a laundry-list approach, why did legislators not try to formulate concrete recommendations that the new economic team could consider? The problem perhaps was that showing what is wrong is easier than actually coming up with an answer. Observers noted that legislators either catnapped, read newspapers or chatted on their cell phones during the commissions' deliberations on economic issues.
Ms Sri Mulyani Indrawati, secretary of Mr Abdurrahman's National Economic Council (DEN), said, there is "overwhelming pressure on the government to deliver real, tangible and public outcomes". Ms Sri, a university lecturer tipped to earn a Cabinet post next week, advocates focusing on the domestic market by privatising state-owned enterprises in addition to restructuring corporate structures and debts.
Economist Hadi Soesastro at the Centre for Strategic International Studies agrees, even though such an approach could mean that Indonesia would require up to ten years to reach its pre-crisis economic activity level. "This is not the time to expect miracles, but to focus on building the foundation for future growth," he told The Straits Times.
The process, he argued, involves encouraging banks to issue loans once again, concentrating on restructuring nationalised assets now managed by the Indonesian Bank Restructuring Agency, and renewing commitments to the International Monetary Fund's programmes. The key question is, why didn't the country's top lawmakers address some of these bitter options?