"mediocre looks have always been a great spur to creative achievement and ugliness is the mother of genius."
-- david brooks
Consider this a formal complaint from me. The name of my childhood hero, the English folktale legend Robin Hood, has been recently brought up for comparisons with Rokhmin Dahuri, the former Minister of Marine and Fisheries, now embroiled in a graft case. The latter is accused of unlawful expenditure of departmental fund, most notably for presidential candidates of the 2004 general election.
Court proceedings revealed that Rokhmin's charity was not limited to the top political circle. Accounting book by his personal assistant at the ministry logs beneficiaries as diverse as lawmakers, community leaders, organizations, college administrator, highschool, alumni associations, corporations, associates, and family members. Rokhmin's generosity is so extraordinary that colleagues and critics hailed him as "Rokhmin Hood."
Well, I beg to differ.
The two men couldn't have been more different. Robin, the Earl of Locksley, steals from the rich to give to the poor; Rokhmin, as we now know, took public fund and gave it to the rich. To protect the weak and expose injustices, Robin Hood learned the techniques of archery. To protect his family and cover their expenses, Rokhmin learned the skills of treachery.
Robin of Locksley fights corrupt officials; Rokhmin of Foxly is himself a corrupt official.
Perhaps the only parallel between Robin and Rokhmin is that both are attached to equally devoted companions. In a play by Lord Alfred Tennyson, The Foresters, Maid Marian defends her lover as fighting to save England and for the liberty of his people. In her remarks to the media, Pigo Selvi Anas contends that her husband's carefree handling of the ministry's coffer can hardly be considered graft.
Her husband is a victim, Lady Pigo says, of an age-old tradition. Non-budgetary fund is customary in government ministries, and its lax expenditure is not unusual. Other administrators do the same and, Pigo volunteered names, ministers before Rokhmin did it too. Why then, she asks, is her husband the only one penalized? Because in the language of relativity, Pigo seems to argue, what Rokhmin did with the fund is not graft; it's graft-ness. It depends on how one looks at it.
Rokhmin's family, Pigo conveyed at another time, is disappointed with the way the fund scandal is being dealt with. In their eyes, the matter has been blown out of proportion and Rokhmin treated unjustly. He has been such an honest and devoted public servant that he often prioritized duty over spending time with family. It is, in other words, rather ungrateful of the Indonesian public now to chastise Rokhmin so mercilessly.
Thankfully, Pigo is not alone with her argument.
Among the presidential candidates who received contribution from Rokhmin, Amien Rais has publicly acknowledged the blunder. His admission earned him respect and praises from many corners as a gesture of honesty and integrity. Apparently, our expectation in stamping out corruption has been so severely compromised that we are ready to pay homage to just about anyone who would come clean.
Amien not only confessed, but gallantly declared that he would accept the legal consequence of the dubious donation. Yet, he put forward a condition -- that all other frauds be penalized accordingly. So if he is to get 10 years of jail time for the illicit 200 million rupiahs, big embezzlers must be locked up for centuries. Like Pigo, Amien adheres to the principle of relativity.
I have a feeling that this won't be the last time we hear such an argument. We should therefore counter this philosophy philosophically.
Though Rokhmin and Amien are not quite the legend of Nottingham, we need to introduce to them the theory of "nothingness." It postulates that every existence is due to detectability; things exist, because human perceptions can detect them. To be (to exist) is to be perceived, as the philosopher George Berkeley puts it. Rokhmin and Amien must be penalized simply because they have been detected with improper handling and consumptions of public fund.
In the principle of “nothingness,” big embezzlers that Amien alluded to cannot be penalized not because they don’t really exist, but because they are not yet detected. They will have to wait for their turn. In fact, it would be nice if Amien helps out to “detect” them.
In the end, for practical reasons, we just can’t put all embezzlers in jail. For one, we don't have enough rooms even if all our prisons were to be crammed to the roof. But more importantly, who’s going to run the government?
If only we can call on the real Robin Hood to save us too.
Court proceedings revealed that Rokhmin's charity was not limited to the top political circle. Accounting book by his personal assistant at the ministry logs beneficiaries as diverse as lawmakers, community leaders, organizations, college administrator, highschool, alumni associations, corporations, associates, and family members. Rokhmin's generosity is so extraordinary that colleagues and critics hailed him as "Rokhmin Hood."
Well, I beg to differ.
The two men couldn't have been more different. Robin, the Earl of Locksley, steals from the rich to give to the poor; Rokhmin, as we now know, took public fund and gave it to the rich. To protect the weak and expose injustices, Robin Hood learned the techniques of archery. To protect his family and cover their expenses, Rokhmin learned the skills of treachery.
Robin of Locksley fights corrupt officials; Rokhmin of Foxly is himself a corrupt official.
Perhaps the only parallel between Robin and Rokhmin is that both are attached to equally devoted companions. In a play by Lord Alfred Tennyson, The Foresters, Maid Marian defends her lover as fighting to save England and for the liberty of his people. In her remarks to the media, Pigo Selvi Anas contends that her husband's carefree handling of the ministry's coffer can hardly be considered graft.
Her husband is a victim, Lady Pigo says, of an age-old tradition. Non-budgetary fund is customary in government ministries, and its lax expenditure is not unusual. Other administrators do the same and, Pigo volunteered names, ministers before Rokhmin did it too. Why then, she asks, is her husband the only one penalized? Because in the language of relativity, Pigo seems to argue, what Rokhmin did with the fund is not graft; it's graft-ness. It depends on how one looks at it.
Rokhmin's family, Pigo conveyed at another time, is disappointed with the way the fund scandal is being dealt with. In their eyes, the matter has been blown out of proportion and Rokhmin treated unjustly. He has been such an honest and devoted public servant that he often prioritized duty over spending time with family. It is, in other words, rather ungrateful of the Indonesian public now to chastise Rokhmin so mercilessly.
Thankfully, Pigo is not alone with her argument.
Among the presidential candidates who received contribution from Rokhmin, Amien Rais has publicly acknowledged the blunder. His admission earned him respect and praises from many corners as a gesture of honesty and integrity. Apparently, our expectation in stamping out corruption has been so severely compromised that we are ready to pay homage to just about anyone who would come clean.
Amien not only confessed, but gallantly declared that he would accept the legal consequence of the dubious donation. Yet, he put forward a condition -- that all other frauds be penalized accordingly. So if he is to get 10 years of jail time for the illicit 200 million rupiahs, big embezzlers must be locked up for centuries. Like Pigo, Amien adheres to the principle of relativity.
I have a feeling that this won't be the last time we hear such an argument. We should therefore counter this philosophy philosophically.
Though Rokhmin and Amien are not quite the legend of Nottingham, we need to introduce to them the theory of "nothingness." It postulates that every existence is due to detectability; things exist, because human perceptions can detect them. To be (to exist) is to be perceived, as the philosopher George Berkeley puts it. Rokhmin and Amien must be penalized simply because they have been detected with improper handling and consumptions of public fund.
In the principle of “nothingness,” big embezzlers that Amien alluded to cannot be penalized not because they don’t really exist, but because they are not yet detected. They will have to wait for their turn. In fact, it would be nice if Amien helps out to “detect” them.
In the end, for practical reasons, we just can’t put all embezzlers in jail. For one, we don't have enough rooms even if all our prisons were to be crammed to the roof. But more importantly, who’s going to run the government?
If only we can call on the real Robin Hood to save us too.
By Teddy Wayne
IHT, May 29, 2007
The Cannes Film Festival annually brings out the brightest stars for a red-carpet barrage of photos, gossip and generally profound discourse. Was the pre-show interview always this glamorous?
Joan Riverus: Hail, Caesar! Over here! How are you?
Julius Caesar: Fantastic. Et tu, Joanie?
Riverus: Super. You look positively divine, Julius.
Caesar: Thanks - this is a really simple, elegant white toga and strappy sandals designed by my talented, dear friend for his label, Emporio Bruti.
Riverus: I love what you've done with your hair.
Caesar: It's a new style - I'm calling it "the Clooney."
Riverus: What are you up for?
Caesar: Best Rhetorician. But, truly, it's an honor just to be given laurels alongside classic orators like Cicero and Mark Antony.
Riverus: Any upcoming projects?
Caesar: I'm working with my collaborators - I've heard them call themselves "conspirators" for some reason - on a new oration for an Ides of March release. The tagline is: "Beware. Be very wary."
Riverus: Handsome, eloquent - and a dictator, too! You know, my daughter's a Vestal Virgin.
William Bushe: Shakespeare, eminent scribe and player of Stratford-upon-Avon! Verily, confer with me!
William Shakespeare: William Bushe, with a magnitude of meretricious laughter and back-slapping I greet thee.
Bushe: Thou art merely presenting an award tonight?
Shakespeare: Aye, for Best Stage-Play.
Bushe: Is thine heart sodden that "The Winter's Tale" was bereft of nominations whilst the Guild cited Ben Jonson's "Alchemist"?
Shakespeare: Jonson's comedy hast merit, if thou dost revel in that sort of thing. No further comment shall loose from my proud lips.
Walter Barbier: Napoleon, thank you for joining me on Walter Barbier's Académie Française Awards Special. You're receiving a General Achievement Award tonight, and you're truly a survivor: Russia, Leipzig, your complex.
Napoleon Bonaparte: My what?
Barbier: I said, "You're complex." So, how does Napoleon Bonaparte prepare for a role in an invasion?
Napoleon: When I strategize with military advisers, it's intense. Ha! I just made a double entendre, because we also strategize "in tents"! Oui!
Barbier: Walk us through your attacking process.
Napoleon: I completely immerse myself in the character of the country. What are its vulnerabilities, by land and sea? What does it really want, treaty-wise? Is my mission impossible or possible? Then I conquer and indoctrinate its citizens in the principles of the Napoleonic Code, such as eradicating postpartum ennui with exercise and citrus fruits and not the glib pseudoscience of leeches! Woo-hoo! Vive la France !
Ryan Hegelcrest: K-Marx! Whose suit is that?
Karl Marx: Mine, insofar as one can claim ownership over goods and not vice versa.
Hegelcrest: You're so dialectically funny! I meant, who made it?
Marx: My wife sewed it with materials we harvested ourselves. I do not participate in the unjust exchange-value relationship by which the alienated proletariat toils at subsistence levels as his factory owner reaps immense surplus value.
Hegelcrest: Turn around, let's see the back.
Marx: The only turning shall be from the worker's wheels of revolution, oiled by the blood of his superstructural oppressors.
Hegelcrest: Who did your beard?
Marx: My wife trims it.
Hegelcrest: Wow, you lovebirds can't get enough of each other! How does she feel about your spending so much time with Friedrich Engels, your producing partner?
Marx: That is a falsehood akin to the illusory dream of social mobility. We are not capitalist producers.
Hegelcrest: Sorry. Um, who's going to win Best Supporting Ideological Apparatus?
Marx: Awards ceremonies commodify art and opiate the bourgeoisie. And drag on way too long. Nevertheless, it is a historical inevitability that my book "Das Kapital, Volume I" will triumph. The rest of the trilogy is in development.
Hegelcrest: Well, have fun at the "Vanity Fair" William Thackeray tribute party.
Marx: Awards-show shirkers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your office pools.
Teddy Wayne is a lecturer in fiction writing at Washington University.
IHT, May 29, 2007
The Cannes Film Festival annually brings out the brightest stars for a red-carpet barrage of photos, gossip and generally profound discourse. Was the pre-show interview always this glamorous?
Joan Riverus: Hail, Caesar! Over here! How are you?
Julius Caesar: Fantastic. Et tu, Joanie?
Riverus: Super. You look positively divine, Julius.
Caesar: Thanks - this is a really simple, elegant white toga and strappy sandals designed by my talented, dear friend for his label, Emporio Bruti.
Riverus: I love what you've done with your hair.
Caesar: It's a new style - I'm calling it "the Clooney."
Riverus: What are you up for?
Caesar: Best Rhetorician. But, truly, it's an honor just to be given laurels alongside classic orators like Cicero and Mark Antony.
Riverus: Any upcoming projects?
Caesar: I'm working with my collaborators - I've heard them call themselves "conspirators" for some reason - on a new oration for an Ides of March release. The tagline is: "Beware. Be very wary."
Riverus: Handsome, eloquent - and a dictator, too! You know, my daughter's a Vestal Virgin.
William Bushe: Shakespeare, eminent scribe and player of Stratford-upon-Avon! Verily, confer with me!
William Shakespeare: William Bushe, with a magnitude of meretricious laughter and back-slapping I greet thee.
Bushe: Thou art merely presenting an award tonight?
Shakespeare: Aye, for Best Stage-Play.
Bushe: Is thine heart sodden that "The Winter's Tale" was bereft of nominations whilst the Guild cited Ben Jonson's "Alchemist"?
Shakespeare: Jonson's comedy hast merit, if thou dost revel in that sort of thing. No further comment shall loose from my proud lips.
Walter Barbier: Napoleon, thank you for joining me on Walter Barbier's Académie Française Awards Special. You're receiving a General Achievement Award tonight, and you're truly a survivor: Russia, Leipzig, your complex.
Napoleon Bonaparte: My what?
Barbier: I said, "You're complex." So, how does Napoleon Bonaparte prepare for a role in an invasion?
Napoleon: When I strategize with military advisers, it's intense. Ha! I just made a double entendre, because we also strategize "in tents"! Oui!
Barbier: Walk us through your attacking process.
Napoleon: I completely immerse myself in the character of the country. What are its vulnerabilities, by land and sea? What does it really want, treaty-wise? Is my mission impossible or possible? Then I conquer and indoctrinate its citizens in the principles of the Napoleonic Code, such as eradicating postpartum ennui with exercise and citrus fruits and not the glib pseudoscience of leeches! Woo-hoo! Vive la France !
Ryan Hegelcrest: K-Marx! Whose suit is that?
Karl Marx: Mine, insofar as one can claim ownership over goods and not vice versa.
Hegelcrest: You're so dialectically funny! I meant, who made it?
Marx: My wife sewed it with materials we harvested ourselves. I do not participate in the unjust exchange-value relationship by which the alienated proletariat toils at subsistence levels as his factory owner reaps immense surplus value.
Hegelcrest: Turn around, let's see the back.
Marx: The only turning shall be from the worker's wheels of revolution, oiled by the blood of his superstructural oppressors.
Hegelcrest: Who did your beard?
Marx: My wife trims it.
Hegelcrest: Wow, you lovebirds can't get enough of each other! How does she feel about your spending so much time with Friedrich Engels, your producing partner?
Marx: That is a falsehood akin to the illusory dream of social mobility. We are not capitalist producers.
Hegelcrest: Sorry. Um, who's going to win Best Supporting Ideological Apparatus?
Marx: Awards ceremonies commodify art and opiate the bourgeoisie. And drag on way too long. Nevertheless, it is a historical inevitability that my book "Das Kapital, Volume I" will triumph. The rest of the trilogy is in development.
Hegelcrest: Well, have fun at the "Vanity Fair" William Thackeray tribute party.
Marx: Awards-show shirkers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your office pools.
Teddy Wayne is a lecturer in fiction writing at Washington University.
