A question of legality

There has been a lot of fuss lately about business activities conducted by the offspring of government officials. There have been accusations that the way in which those young people conduct their activities is not always very ethical. And some have defended the right of every human being, including the children of officials, to do business.

One may ask why the topic, which started rolling during a recent meeting between members of the House of Representatives and Attorney General Singgih, has become such a heated issue at this particular moment.

The reason, clearly, has its roots in the sensitivity on the part of the majority of our people, a phenomenon which is nothing strange in a country where the social gap remains unbridged.

Our people, especially small-scale businessmen, who have difficulties keeping their nose above the water's surface, have long been at a loss as to why children of certain high-ranking officials have suddenly become so affluent and live so opulently that foreign magazines have included them among Asia's richest.

There are, of course, similarities between those small-scale business people and the children of the officials in question. They both started from scratch. However, within a relatively short time the latter have ended up as the nation's wealthiest people, while the former are still laboring under great difficulties.

Stories are told of children of officials winning huge projects with no open tender ever having been announced. Also, some state-owned businesses have been privatized and handed over to certain young people without an open tender. In those cases, business has not been conducted in a transparent manner.

It is held to be a fact that many of our nouveau riches have little to be proud of. They have no experience, being still so young, and certainly no MBA degree from some prestigious university in the West. The only plus they have is the position of their parents in government. In these cases people can hardly be blamed for being sensitive or even jealous of their more privileged fellow citizens.

Many of us may remember how in the 1950s officials -- even those who had acquired their wealth in a legal manner -- tended to live modestly. There were almost no children of officials involved in business. Many a cabinet minister did not feel it below his or her dignity to ride in a becak (pedicab) when he or she had to go out. Prime minister Mohammad Natsir owned no private car, either before or after he took the post at the helm of the government.

Now it seems that values have changed. Petty officials no longer hesitate to flaunt their overabundant wealth by riding in luxury cars (outside office hours, of course) and living in posh residential areas. Many of our citizens have adapted themselves to those new values. Many, however, have not and still ask how some people could have become so rich in so short a time.

Those who are now defending the newly rich young people tend to ask for proof of the latter's wrongdoings in business, although they know very well that it is all but impossible to come up with any.

The position of the House of Representatives is still weak. Legislators have neither the courage nor the budget to exert their constitutional rights, such as the right to inquire. What they can do at present is only to pose questions to law enforcement officials. So the problem has become a topic of heated public debate, which, unfortunately, will probably simply fade with time.

As in corruption cases, the problem here would not be difficult to solve if the authorities were truly sincere in applying the law: Any person suspected should prove himself clean and show that he has amassed his wealth from legal sources in a lawful manner.

However, the old question remains: Who will be brave enough to hang the bell around the cat's neck? Until such a courageous person can be found, the show is most likely to go on as it is now.