A question of legality

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.