(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.