Qodari Questioned Competence of BUMN Commissions: Emphasis on Common Sense and Good Faith

In Indonesia, discussions regarding the management structure of state-owned enterprises, BUMN, and the competence of commission members have reignited. Evaluating the issue, Qodari insisted on the necessity for BUMN commission members to possess various competencies. The criticisms indicate that not only technical knowledge but also managerial skills are an important criterion for being in these critical roles. Qodari's approach is based on the idea that management teams should include people not just from a specific group but with diverse backgrounds. This situation points to a desire for a transition to a more transparent and effective structure in BUMN management.

One of the most critical points raised by Qodari is the emphasis on not only the professional backgrounds of commission members but also on moral qualities such as 'common sense' (akal sehat) and 'good faith'. While the concept of common sense is interpreted as maintaining basic logic and healthy thinking ability when making complex business decisions, good faith expresses the obligation to prioritize the interests of the company over personal interests. These traits can be described as a challenge to break the often-seen administrative bureaucracy or status quo approaches in state institutions. Qodari draws attention to the fact that without these qualities, even the most competent individuals could lead the company with wrong decisions. Therefore, it is argued that instead of narrowing the criteria sought in BUMN commissions, these human values should be central.

Another dimension of the debate is whether 'diversity' has a creative effect on the boards of directors and commissions of BUMNs. Qodari, using the expression 'latar belakang yang beragam', notes that bringing together people with different educational and professional backgrounds will give companies a new perspective. The participation of people from different sectors in the structure not only saves the company from being an insular closed circle but also facilitates the development of more flexible and innovative approaches in relations with the outside world. It is emphasized that a uniform mindset can enfeeble the company, whereas different perspectives can produce more inclusive strategies in solving problems. Therefore, to increase the performance of BUMNs, it is argued that diversity in management should be seen as a necessity.

Considering the role BUMNs play in the Indonesian economy, the management quality of these companies directly affects the country's economic performance. BUMNs are found in key points of economic life, from infrastructure to energy, mining to finance, and therefore a disruption in their management can lead to significant social costs. The debate on competence and character brought up by Qodari brings with it the search for an answer to the question of how such a great economic power is administered. In these institutions where public resources are managed, accountability and transparency require commission members to be impartial, intelligent, and conscientious. If these criteria are ignored, BUMNs may face the risk of turning into tools serving political interests.

In conclusion, the issues brought up by Qodari regarding BUMN commissions also bring a wider demand for reform regarding the management understanding of state companies in Indonesia. Basing human 'mental health' and 'intent' alongside technical qualifications stands out not only as a recruitment criterion but also as a vision for improving corporate culture. How these values will be reflected in the future strategies of BUMNs and whether commission members will meet these expectations remains a matter of curiosity. It will be seen over time whether the regulations and appointments will make BUMNs more transparent, efficient, and institutions working for the public benefit by taking these criticisms into account.