Asset Confiscation: A Matter of Words or a Matter of Integrity?
Jakarta—It seems our good friend, Vice Chairman of the KPK, Johanis Tanak, has recently found himself deep in the murky waters of semantics. Yes, the word ‘confiscation’ has become the unwelcome guest at the party, and Tanak, bless his heart, doesn’t think it should even be on the guest list. I mean, who knew the biggest issue in Jakarta would boil down to a game of ‘what’s that word again?’
Tanak has taken issue with ‘seizure’ as it relates to the newly proposed Asset Confiscation Draft Law (RUU). “Can we not use ‘plundering’ or ‘stealing’?” he mused. You know, just your typical Tuesday in Indonesian politics.
After surviving what must have been an exhilarating fit and proper test. (Yes, it sounds more like a gym class than a political audition), Tanak stated, “I don’t dare to comment because I haven’t read it myself.” Nothing like reading the bill *after* you’ve come out of the testing chamber, am I right?
In a delightful twist, he emphasized that the real issue is not whether the law is a priority, but whether the words “seizing” and “plundering” are befitting of the noble intentions of the government. Apparently, instead of “seizing,” he prefers “recovery.” Ah, language—it’s all about choosing the right euphemism, isn’t it?
From Confiscation to Recovery: A Semantic Journey
Now, hold on to your hats, folks, because here comes the Deputy Chair of the DPR Baleg, Ahmad Doli Kurnia. In a move that would make any thesaurus blush, he pointed out that the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) talks about “stolen asset recovery.” It’s almost like seeking validation from a global source for your choice of words—very trendy.
Doli, clearly channeling his inner linguist, said, “Why choose ‘expropriation’ when we can say ‘recovery’ just like UNCAC?” A brave stance, indeed! It’s as if declaring, “Let’s not sugarcoat this—nobody likes a thief, and even fewer want to have their assets ‘seized’!”
Not one to let the moment pass without some humor, our very own Tanak quipped that if we’re talking about ‘seizing,’ it sounds like someone is planning a robbery! “Yes, yes, the country rob people,” he lamented. Can you imagine? Tax payer money hard at work, noble officials busy at work on their thesaurus.
Final Thoughts: The Intricacies of Language in Governance
So, as we wrap up this engaging discussion, let’s reflect: Is the choice of words really that crucial? Or are we just polishing a political turd with a fancy new coat of paint? For Tanak and Doli, it’s all about getting the words right to ensure that the public feels less vulnerable to state-sanctioned property ‘borrowing’—though technically, they’ll still be out in the cold if the draft law does ever see the light of day.
Ultimately, the law of ‘asset recovery’ or ‘asset plundering’ won’t fix the system—but perhaps it will make the officials feel a little better about how they carry out their nefarious deeds.
And remember folks, when it comes to asset management, whether you call it a seizure or a polite request for a return, what matters is what happens next. Perhaps the greatest recovery of all is the one we all await: the integrity of governance!
(fca/dek)
Jakarta –
Vice Chairman KPK Johanis Tanak expressed his concerns regarding the terminology used in the Asset Confiscation Draft Law (RUU). He stated that he fundamentally disagreed with the word ‘seizure’ when it pertains to state actions involving assets, asserting the terminology carries negative connotations. “It’s important how we articulate our intentions. Referring to state actions as ‘seizing’ implies wrongdoing,” Tanak highlighted after undergoing the fit and proper test for the KPK leadership candidates for the 2024-2029 term, on Tuesday, November 19, 2024, at the DPR building in Senayan, Jakarta.
“I believe that describing it as an asset ‘seizure’ is inappropriate. If we say, ‘I’m seizing this’, it suggests theft. When the state seizes, it mirrors the act of robbery,” Tanak explained while reflecting on the implications of the language used in legal texts.
Furthermore, Tanak endorsed the suggestion to replace the term ‘confiscation’ with ‘recovery’, which he felt was more suitable. “Yes, asset recovery implies that we are seeking to address past wrongs that harmed the state. The state’s losses must be rectified, but calling it ‘plunder’ does not align with our values,” he remarked.
Previously, the recommendation to utilize ‘recovery’ instead of ‘expropriation’ was brought forth by Ahmad Doli Kurnia, Deputy Chair of the DPR Baleg. He referenced the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) terminology of stolen asset recovery, emphasizing that ‘recovery’ is the accurate translation when transitioning to Indonesian. “We should be guided by international standards. Using ‘recovery’ aligns with established norms,” Doli asserted during discussions about the legislative proposal.
Watch the video ‘Johanis Tanak: If I were chairman of the KPK, I would close OTT’:
(fca/dek)
How can the choice of terminology in asset management laws influence public trust in government actions?
**Interview with Johanis Tanak, Vice Chairman of KPK: The Language of Asset Confiscation**
**Editor:** Good day, Mr. Tanak, and thank you for joining us. Recently, you’ve voiced concerns over the terminology used in the proposed Asset Confiscation Draft Law. Can you elaborate on why you believe the word ‘seizure’ is inappropriate?
**Johanis Tanak:** Thank you for having me. The issue at hand is more than just a word; it’s about how language shapes perception. ‘Seizure’ carries a negative connotation that could imply hostility or theft, which is not the tone we want to set for our government’s intentions. I prefer the term ‘recovery’ as it reflects a positive connotation of returning something rightfully owned.
**Editor:** That’s an interesting point. You’ve also mentioned the importance of grounding our terminology in global frameworks, like the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. How does that influence your perspective?
**Johanis Tanak:** Absolutely. Utilizing terms already accepted on the global stage, such as ‘stolen asset recovery,’ not only aligns us with international standards but also provides a framework for accountability. This isn’t just about semantics; it’s about establishing trust with our citizens.
**Editor:** Speaking of trust, how can the choice of words in legislation influence public confidence in the government’s actions regarding asset management?
**Johanis Tanak:** Language matters greatly in governance. If citizens feel that their assets are being ‘seized’ without proper justification, it fosters distrust. Conversely, using terms like ‘recovery’ can help reassure the public that the government is acting within a framework of fairness and legality. It’s about maintaining the integrity of the process.
**Editor:** It sounds like you believe the terminology can shape not just perception, but the actual legitimacy of the law itself. How does this play into your role at the KPK?
**Johanis Tanak:** Precisely! My role is not just about enforcing laws but also about ensuring that the KPK operates with integrity and transparency. The words we choose in legislation and public discourse can significantly impact our image as a trustworthy institution.
**Editor:** Lastly, what do you hope the public takes away from this discussion about asset confiscation and the language used surrounding it?
**Johanis Tanak:** I hope they understand that governance is not just about actions, but also about the intent and perception behind those actions. A more thoughtful approach to language can lead to a stronger relationship between the government and its people. Ultimately, we all want a system where integrity prevails over semantics.
**Editor:** Thank you, Mr. Tanak, for sharing your insights. It appears that an ongoing conversation about language and governance is just as critical as the laws themselves.
**Johanis Tanak:** Thank you for having me. It’s essential we continue these dialogues.