Compensation Fuel Price

INCREASE fuel prices (fuel oil) has now become a necessity. After the subsidized fuel limitation program and conversion to gas fuel protests barrage, the government seems strapping step immediately raise fuel prices.

If initially there are two price options, with a more simple reason it was decided the price. Magnitude below the roughly 6,500 per liter. According to government calculations, the rate of increase of the subsidy will save Rp21 trillion and Rp30 trillion. The government does not want to fuel subsidies this year so 53 million kiloliters collapsed from the ceiling of 46 million kiloliters of such year (increased from 40 million liters to 45 million liters).

Beyond that, as they had done before, rising fuel prices to save state budget of bleeding. From the government's version of the data, the subsidy distorted. According to the government, subsidies enjoyed by the haves, not the poor. Aware of the negative impact of rising fuel prices on the poor, the government gives compensation. Do not want criticism, the government abolish the Direct Cash Transfer (BLT) as last year. This time there are three compensation.

First, the addition of subsidies to poor students. Second, increasing the number of distribution Raskin. Third, the Family Hope program and the National Program for Community Empowerment (PNPM) Mandiri. The government is confident, with three forms of compensation, the increase in the number of poor people from 0.8 million to 1 million could be avoided.

The government believes there are opportunities to poor people by September 2012 totaled 28.594 million (11.66 per cent) can be suppressed. Government as stated by the Head of Fiscal Policy Office Ministry of Finance Bambang Brodjonegoro states, rising fuel prices raise Rp 2,000 per liter only 0.8 percent inflation. Academically, the data is open for debate.

However sophisticated an analysis of the knife, he could not represent objective reality. Its output depends on the assumptions that are built and the "tools" of analysis used. In 2005, the government raised fuel prices twice for a total increase of 87 percent. By utilizing LPEM-FEUI calculations, the government believes that accompanied the rise in fuel prices will reduce the amount of the compensation programs of the poor from 16.43 percent to 13.87 percent. In fact, the increase in fuel boost inflation to 17.1 percent and the number of poor actually rose, from 15.97 percent to 17.75 percent (BPS, 2007).

Once again, this kind of calculations performed with a number of assumptions which may not represent the actual reality. The result could be misleading. Trusting the results of technical-mathematical calculation is the same kind we believe that in this country there is no corruption, bureaucracy is ready and capable to run a compensation program, NGO activists are fully self-contained and the weak, and the bureaucrats and the business community also has political far left stance as rent seekers.

In fact, socio-economic, political, and culture we barely changed. Thus, the results of the calculations may be true on paper. But, not necessarily empirically according to the conditions in the field. Moreover, fuel compensation program experience in the past is not convincing enough to make us believe that the capacity of the government bureaucracy and the executive had enough competent supervision. They are far from mentally corrupt and opportunist.

For example, from Rp 4, 4 trillion fuel compensation fund in 2003, only Rp2, 94 trillion (66.3 percent) is useful for the target group. The rest RP0, 939 trillion (21.2 percent) is useful, but the wrong target because the target audience is not acceptable. By RP0, 553 trillion (12.5 percent) should not have even entered the fuel compensation program (Indef, 2003). If the calculation is correct, use this as a judgment of the fuel price hike is misleading and deceptive camouflage the public.

Not much is known publicly, the compensation fund rising fuel prices was sourced from debt. That means, no compensatory increase in fuel prices more than "political bribery" ruler of the people. "Political bribery" policies given that no protest fuel price hike. People flushed with compensation Rp20 trillion to Rp30 trillion, while the popularity of the ruling party increasingly degenerate modes reinforce the notion "political bribery" it. Moreover, using the above calculation as a judgment clearly misleading.

Because it appears as though the impression social benefits, access to education, health care, and low rice can only be done if the fuel subsidy cut. In fact, is not really so. Is a constitutional mandate to provide a decent living, residing, and earn a good living environment and healthy as well as the right to health services (Article 28h, paragraph 1), access to education (Article 31ayat1 and 2), and the right to be maintained for the poor and children -displaced children (Article 34 paragraph 1).

People also have the right to work and a decent living for humanity (Article 27 paragraph 2), the right to social security in order to develop oneself fully as a human being with dignity (Article 28h, paragraph 3), the right to an adequate public facilities (Article 34 paragraph 1), and the right of self-development through fulfillment of basic needs (Article 28c paragraph 1). There is no reduction in the fuel subsidy or not waive the state to meet its people's basic rights.

During this obligation is not fulfilled properly by the state. With clung neoliberalism, the state had no reason not involved anymore in public affairs. State intervention in various public sector is considered as a source of distortion. Believe the market is very strong and can even regulate themselves. Policy "unwilling to state" that is constantly propagated by the collaboration of bureaucrats, intellectuals, aktivisLSM, kaumprofesional, clergy, journalists, businessmen, politicians, and academics into public spaces.

It was all done for a hands-on responsibility. What really happened? The heart of the problem is the lack of seriousness of state officials to fulfill normative obligations to its people. Compensate by reducing the fuel subsidy as if it was the only state solution to the obligations and responsibilities to the people. Never tried the solutions may not be ad hoc, reactive, and short-term renegotiate mining contracts, optimize the processing of domestic fuel, massive investment in the discovery of new oil and gas reserves, memasifkan conversion to gas, and the development of alternative fuels.

Without the program long-term dimension, this country will always be stuck in the vortex without a concrete solution as fuel prices are variables that are not wholly within the control of the government.