(Other) People's money

(Other) People's money

The scandal over the allegation that PT Jamsostek paid money
to House of Representatives' members who deliberated the manpower
bill this year has opened a whole Pandora's box. Many House
members now openly admit that such contributions from sponsors
are normal, and at times even expected. Those who are doubting
the validity of the Manpower Law because of the alleged Jamsostek
payment are effectively questioning the validity of most, if not
all, the laws that have been passed by the House dating back to
the time taking money from sponsors became acceptable.

The question then becomes why stop at the Manpower Law? Going
by the admission of past and present House members, most other
bills that came their way were similarly funded. The only
difference is that Jamsostek's alleged financial contribution has
become public knowledge because someone in the state-owned social
security company decided to leak the documents to the media.

The one thing that makes Jamsostek stand out, if the
allegation is true, is that it used money entrusted by millions
of workers who subscribe to its social security program. But it
would not surprise us at all if other government agencies or
state companies have also made similar payments in the
deliberations of other legislations, which effectively means
using the people's money.

In Indonesia's context, it is very easy to see how the
honorary members managed to absolve their guilt of accepting
money from sponsors, in spite of their oath against taking money
or gifts from anyone in the course of their work. The practice,
after all, is common in our society, as if everybody, or the
majority at least, is doing it. What the House members call uang
lelah (sweat money), is known elsewhere as uang rokok (cigarette
money), uang jalan (transport money), amplop (envelope), uang
pelicin (grease money), hadiah (gift), and many other names.

They are ready to call it anything but bribe money. But we all
know that nobody gives anything away for free. Those who give
money always expect something in return. The officer at the
district office therefore dutifully speeds up the ID application
process; the journalist will write positive coverage; and the
House members will pass the bill. These are examples of what is
regarded as a normal practice in our country. It is not difficult
to see why Indonesia has been tagged as a very corrupt country.

Of course, no one will admit that they have sold their soul
down the drain. The ID card would have been issued, the news
story would have been printed, and the bill would have been
deliberated and passed whether money had been paid or not.

We have no doubt that some of these claims are true, but they
nevertheless undermine professional integrity, whether from civil
servants, journalists or legislators. And integrity is a very
important -- if not the most important -- quality for a House
member who is privileged to represent the people. The moment they
accept money, no matter how little, they are compromising their
integrity, never mind violating their oath of office.

It is pointless to dispute the validity of the hundreds of
legislations that the House has helped to enact. To insist on
this would destroy the very fabric of our society which is
founded upon these laws. We should give the benefit of the doubt
that those legislations, including the new Manpower Law, were
passed by the House members with the best of intentions in mind.

The practice of financially sponsoring legislative bills
however must be stopped at once. If we accept that the Jamsostek
scandal is not an isolated incident, then we need to review the
way that bill deliberations at the House are financed. The House
has already earmarked a huge budget for that purpose. If that is
still insufficient, then it simply has to allocate more funds.

The House must never accept, let alone solicit, sponsorships.
Given that all the bills that reached the House these last 30
years had been sent and drafted by the government, accepting
money from the government or any of its agencies must be barred.

The honorary members have already had their salaries hiked in
recent years precisely to prevent the kind of pay offs we are
talking about. Like other members of society, they should live
within their means. They cannot live off taxpayers' or people's
money, or in Jamsostek's case, live off other people's money.