SIAPA LAGI KORUPTOR YG AKAN DITANGKAP PAK? MENTERI KEUANGAN OKE GA PAK? (MAHFUD MD)

The result of the result yesterday, what do you think? Great! The Chief of Police said in the DPR, you are the General of Police, TNI, and the Chief of Police, anyone can face you. How are you, Sir?

I'm fine.

Yes. Sir, I see that there are a lot of people who want to give an explanation, but they haven't come here yet. Yes. Have you seen it? I was just invited. What was invited?

Yesterday it was invited.

Wait, I'll see the situation.

It's safe, sir.

In your opinion, is it conducive now?

Yes, it's already conducive. But we want to summarize a little bit of what happened yesterday. According to your observations, yesterday when the demonstration finally exploded on August 30-31, what did you actually see, sir? For me, there is the term, what is it called, Dalang, the term of the supporters.

If I agree more, it is organic, original from the community, as a form of protest because of the accumulation of issues that have been going on for 10 months. The government, Pak Prabowo, has appeared but has never received a serious response. So there are provocateurs, the provocateurs are events in the DPR. People sing, sing, even though they sing, sing, dance, they are used to it everywhere. I'm not sure if I can say that. I'm not sure if I can say that. I'm not sure if I can say that. I'm not sure if I can say that. I'm not sure if I can say that. I'm not sure if I can say that. I'm not sure if I can say that.

I'm not sure if I can say that. I'm not sure if I can say that. It's okay. After the ceremony. Yes, this is also after the ceremony. So in my opinion, this is organic, temporary. But then there is a delay. The delay happened at the time, yes, it should have been disbanded. The resulting movements, the delay appeared, which is somewhat organized. That's why there is a conflict that is like it's arranged.

The goal is the same, the codes are the same, where the time of gathering is according to the witness from Intel, it is always marked by the fire. Fire, fire twice. Yes, right? That's always it.

That means there is an organizer. As a support, actually. Not as a dalang. Except it is called as a dalang for the conflict. But if the dalang demo itself is purely aspirational. I also follow.

You go down there, it's good. The one to the DPR. Yes, the one to the DPR. Then, pray, state that the people must deliver their aspirations well, the DPR must do that, right? That's good. That's the real purpose of the demo. Yes, the purpose is actually not to was finally stopped and turned to where?

Where that thing was then viewed on social media as if we were heading towards a military emergency. Is there any indication there, if you look at it at that time? Well, it should be known first, the country's emergency law in an emergency situation that there are three kinds of emergency laws in a country. One is a civil emergency.

It applies to a certain area. Two is a military emergency. If the government has started to collapse, then it's a war emergency. If the enemy is from another country. And those kinds of emergencies can be done, but with certain procedures.

If it's a military emergency, it must be agreed upon by other institutions. It can't be made public. For example, it must be discussed with the DPR. Is there any indication on that? Maybe some people or some officials

think that it is necessary. Because the situation at that time was extraordinary, from city to city. Because it started from the party, right? Yes, it started from the party. The community has started to rise, then there are the DPR's supporters. So, the military is indeed an instrument of law.

Can it be used? It has never been used so far. In some areas in Aceh, for example, the military operations area, and so on. Then in 1998. But what is happening now, actually, there is no decision yet. But indeed, the issue is spreading from sources that can also be trusted. That the official discussion in a forum is indeed there, but it is not decided like that.

That's it actually. Assuming, sir, if yesterday it happened, until finally ... Yes, the point is that the military emergency is to reverse the situation from chaos to normal again. And I imagine if that happens, we will be in trouble. Actually, all of this started from the problems of democratic state implementation.

Why do we have to deal with the military? Because if you imagine, the military needs, where do you want to go, you have to have permission. With whom, until what time, where are you going, can you be allowed or not. Life is like that.

But where does the Nunggang's influence want to go, actually, if you look at it from your perspective? I don't know exactly, but the analysis that appears outside is a fight for political domination. There are people who want to...

There are many theories. Some say that it's because TNI wants to move forward. But there are also these groups who want to take political opportunities. These groups. There are these gangs, those gangs, and so on. Then they gather there.

But it looks more trained. There is a core lab, sir. There is a core lab, so there are signs of the time they gathered here, doing this. It was recorded in the media coverage, the media coverage, that there is a control. But I still think that the control that there is a control. But I still think that the control is just a ride.

The main problem is the demand, which is actually an ordinary aspiration, which accumulates, accumulates, then gets a source. Yes, that's right. At first, it was only from one thing that was actually pure, then finally it started to be polluted with things that have other purposes, because the agenda has changed. Yes, why is the purpose of the police office in Indonesia?

As if there is an effort to delegitimize the police's ability to secure the situation, to protect the people. There are also many kinds of analysis. The analysis is difficult to prove, but we can read from the symptoms. It seems that there is an effort, a strength, so that the police are bad in the eyes of the people.

The police are weak. Don't just be the police who are safe, but we should be safe too. That's what it's all about, right? The proof is that the police can't secure their own offices. I believe in that analysis. Yes, maybe.

There is an effort to weaken the police in the public eye, so that there will be a reason for a new political configuration to emerge, for example, about the role of the police, for example, what should be balanced, put it, many people are worried that this is TNI, there are many, the analysis is like that,

analysis is okay, and we have to process it so that the product is proportional. But don't make it an accusation. Yes, that's right. Yesterday, the direction of the narration finally started to become thick when finally there were a lot of videos circulating,

there was a snitch caught in the demonstration, who then has KTA. Well, actually, this is still a bias, in my opinion. Is he really from the union whose task is to follow the SOP, which I know from the union itself, when there are conditions that endanger the security of the country, they can put people there, right? Now, the question is, when arrested, does this person commit a riot or does he not commit a riot

and he is on guard? This is a bias, sir. If I, especially those who are arrested, yes, some people, if I see him doing his usual job. He's a Ba'is, right? Ba'is must observe, especially when he's arrested, he's behind the Brimok group, not the mass group. So he's there, then he's arrested. Who are you and all that, then he's introduced.

Right? He's introduced, the membership card. In my opinion, it's not part of the rioters. It's just normal. In my opinion, every time there is a riot, we spread all the intelligence forces.

I once played Pokol Bukalapak. So, for example, tomorrow is the day of the ceremony,

there will be a demonstration. A week before that, we already knew,

the meeting was usually at the office, at the office, what is it called, the office of the Panglima, which is near the palace, there is an office. The meeting was there one who can monitor the whole of Jakarta, usually, it's Ben Paparan. Sir, the power of the demon, for example, there will be 30,000 people. From here, so many of the corlapses, the funding, it's known. From here, there are only 30 people, sir.

Enough, Polsek, it's Enough for a polsek. That has been known to everyone. If the post is big, like the demonstration of Buruh, which then sacrificed, a demonstration in the DPR, which then sacrificed an activist who was beaten to death. Well, at that time, we then divided the tasks.

Later, Baez will take this role, Ben will take this role, Paul Ri will take this role, TNI will take this role, Kominfo will take this role, all of them. So, I saw that what was caught yesterday was a normal job. Okay. So, when there is finally a side that narrates that, wow, TNI is inside, is that a accusation,

sir?

It's okay if it's an analysis, don't TNI. Don't, don't. Yes, don't TNI. Why is the pattern like that? The person is like that. No matter how, it cannot be hidden. Now there is a, what is it called,

a movement about the policy planning, what is the role of the Polri and TNI? The rules are already there. But now it is being discussed again about that. So there are people who accuse that this is TNI

this is BRIMOV, what is this? and the rest is just normal analysis like that the important thing is everyone is protecting themselves TNI must also remain in position

BRIMOV is also in position in facing that case that outsiders analyze, that's just normal in my opinion. That's democracy. People can analyze. And it can't be called an accusation.

If every person is accused of slander, of eating, this country will not move forward. It will become a society that is afraid in the end. Just to talk, right? Just let it be, if not, just explain it.

Yes, but we as a society don't all understand about freedom of speech. Most of us feel that freedom of speech is their right to speak, it's up to me. As long as I want to talk, I talk. The difference in opinion, well, it's okay. But I have read, sir, that freedom of speech also actually has a rule, right?

Where the rule does not violate the constitution or the law of the country. Is that true or not? Yes, that's the new law when the 1998 incident happened. That was the law number 9 in 1998 about the rule of stating the right to state the opinion of the community. Yes, convey aspirations. There is a rule of what can be discussed, what time to what time, where and so on.

If in the government offices, how, everything must be arranged. And anything can be discussed as long as it's an aspiration. Well, every aspiration is determined, yes, aspiration, right? It can't be included in slander or accusation.

What is slander or accusation? For example, something that hasn't been concretely accused. Moreover, mentioning the name of the person, mentioning the name of the perpetrator, usually if it is confused, it can be a violation of the law, even though it is answered in the forum, delivering an opinion. If to the institution itself, for example, I protest TNI, where is the limit to my freedom of opinion?

What is being protested against by the TNI? Yes, if I say, don't do it, the TNI is involved in the last riot. Oh, if that's the case, it's okay. If you say that, it's okay, don't do it. Don't do it.

Like the pattern of the TNI model, it's okay. Later, it will be answered, no, it's directed at someone, then it's called something. The indication. If it's a slander, then it's still acted upon legally. If it's a slander, if it's just spreading an issue, and so on. But if it has indications, and the general nature of what is said, then it's like the pattern that's usually done by, for example, the Kopassus,

or what is usually done by the Marines, people usually say that to be careful, right? Yes, but a narration like that is a reference, right? Yes, it could be, if it could be created by the Prime Minister himself when the indication is strong. If the indication is not strong,

it is best to explain where it is not there. And indeed, the law is strong. If the indication is not strong, it is best to explain where it is not there. And indeed, the law is every violation of the law that is not known, even though it happened, is not known and there is no evidence, it cannot be acted on either.

So you have to provide evidence. Yesterday, one of the generals, finally went to the police station to report an influencer named Ferry Irwandi. Yes. You already know that, right? to He said something in a forum that was broadcasted publicly, that we were lucky to be able to fail the military emergency plan. He was considered to have slandered that the military was going to impose an emergency law.

Then he was reported to the police, but not reported. It was discussed. Oh, it's still being discussed? Yes, it's not reported yet. How does it work? If it's provoking and fitnah, how do we deal with it?

It hasn't been officially reported.

Okay.

So, what was said by Ferry, in my opinion, is just part of the public's aspiration. Because besides Ferry speaking like that, the public already knows the issue. You also started with the term. Right. Yes, because the issue has already spread.

And it's better, in my opinion, if it's not prolonged, not continued to the legal process. Because if it continues, it can appear in court. There is indeed a discussion in one place, the witness is this, the officer is this, it becomes a case of this country. Right? It's better to just finish it.

But if you have proof, please, I don't stop you. Yes, it is the freedom of every individual or institution to hold a court according to their own version. Yes, the issue of every individual or institution to enforce justice according to their own version. Yes, the issues of the military have spread everywhere. Even there are people who have taken up positions, who are talking about this, where and so on. People already know.

Okay, this is what I want to ask you. Yesterday, the issue was quite popular on social media. Assuming, for example, when the time of the demo and finally became a rebel, then I uploaded an information. I got an offer, sir. An offer to promote a campaign where the campaign invites people to make peace by offering a certain amount of money. Okay?

While the offer still cannot be proven whether it is true or not. If I see it, an event for peace, in other words, there is a offer to make peace, it's not a criminal act. The offer?

Yes. Come on, peace, not a criminal act.

Right.

Then you cause suspicion.

Later, there is only the evidence. Then you start to doubt.

Then there is the proof. The proof in the trial is mainly the serious act. The serious act is a real act. You do this, it's already proven. But there must be something more basic than that, called the menstruation. Are you intending to provoke people

to make them angry, to make them dissatisfied? If that's not possible, then there's nothing. It's not a criminal act. Let's say I don't know, sir. I'm being honest, sir. I know, but I don't know anyone.

This is not right.

If you don't know, you can't. If you don't know, people who don't know can't be punished. So there's a reason. There can't be a punishment for those who don't know. That's why it's said that the Ministry has four elements. First, they are willing to do it.

Second, they know that it will cause that. Third, they are not careful. They are not careful. Even though he should have guessed that. And then, he is a slob. A slob?

Yes, a slob because you are not careful at all. That can be proven later in court. For example, you say, I am not a slob because

according to my belief, I am not jealous of those who do it. Because according to my belief, people cannot be swapped in that way. Because it is not a crime when people say that. Moreover, if people ask for peace, then they are given money. That is also not a criminal act.

The second, in a criminal act, it must be clear who the subject is, who the object is. If you say that the government money is used to feed people, to invite people to peace, that's wrong. As far as you don't mention who the the government, who is being swapped, it's okay, it's an opinion. If in the law, the victim is called a subject.

The institution is the one who decides who is the victim. Unless you mention a concrete institution, like the police office there, which is led by this person, then it's okay.

Oh, the institution.

Yes, because there is a subject there. No, the institution is not fair, where do you divide the money? It's okay, DPR and so on. And that usually becomes a public opinion. Well, if I, as an influencer, then I make a video, I see that my country's condition is not good, I ask for help outside without asking for permission from the country.

I do it spontaneously. Can I get into trouble? Maybe you can. You can't get permission. But it will usually be resolved in a restorative justice way. As long as you are clear.

The help, if it comes in, it's up to whom. What is the number of the account? How is the purchase. Because if you are considered a liar, many people do that. They say to build this, build that, it turns out for themselves, many people are imprisoned for that. The donation flow must be clear.

You say this, in Indonesia it is like this, I want to help the people, please send it to this account number. Then this account number can be checked later, whether there is a fraud or not. It depends on the minister. If you see this, you see it spoiling the name of the country or not.

If it spoils the name of the country, it can be in the fake news. Right? But if you are sincere, I see there are poor people here, hungry in this village,

in this disaster. I collected this much donation. Not only in other countries. Now there is a big figure who is now being suspected. In the past, he collected a lot of donations, up to billions, for an disaster in East Indonesia.

But?

But then there is no accountability. Where is the money going? Even though the money that comes in is announced every day. But the money is not going to the money? The spending is where and when, there is no doubt. Oh, that's because of the flow of funds.

Yes.

That's the problem. If the narration is proven by the speakers. The speakers. Is there any mystery or not? Yes, this opens our mind about democracy and freedom of opinion in Indonesia so we can learn together. That's the point.

Yes, that's right.

If we make a photo, a caricature of the president, for example, this can also be a discussion. I tried to ask Mr. Mafut. Then, it was edited. The mask was covered. Then, what was the face? Then, there was a writing that

we felt like it was a risk. It was written like that. Do you still remember in 2004? There was a photo of Mr. Akbar Tanjung. He was a citizen of Madekah. He was a citizen of Mr. Akbar Tanjung, he was a famous person, he wrote a lie, he reported it to the police.

Can you do that? Yes, it was an insult to me. I was written as Pinukiu, but then I was called Damai. RJH? Yes, RJH. So I can do that. So you can do that? I was offended.

Because that person was offended, so the person was Yes, it can be done. Okay. Because it's the person who is offended. So the person who is offended can report it. If the flag, our flag is put on the bench, sir. Sorry, this is for the people who are interested, I just ask. On the bench, sir, for example, the park bench. Because this is also pro-contra. Some feel that it lowers our flag.

Some feel that there is no place here. We, in this country, cannot put a flag anywhere because we are in a demo. How is the wisdom? Actually, if the flag is there, is it okay? The wisdom is just be careful because there is a article in the 24th Constitution, the Constitution on the State Flag, the Constitution of the State, the language, Article 24, states

who is the one who lowers the flag with tearing, trampling, and insulting. The way it is called, insulting, later the evidence will be brought to court. That is threatened with a four-year sentence. There is indeed. So that's why you have to be wise. If for example you eat, why is there no fork?

Then it is made into a fork, it is not allowed.

That's it, that's it.

That's it, that's it. If you just put it on like this, it's okay. Well, if it's on a garden chair, it's gray, right? Yes, it's gray. Okay, now we're going to discuss, this is all clear, so we can all learn the law, Mr. Mabuti. I'm also remembering. Yes, who knows you'll be called again, right?

While it's empty, Paul Hukam is empty, guys. If you're offered back, have you been called yet? Who knows, maybe quietly there's a call. I never thought about it. Yes, yes. So because I never thought about it, the answer was never thought of. you If there's a call, are you ready to do your job? I'll answer later if there's a call.

If there's a call.

That's funny.

Because you're known as a person with integrity. And then the way you dream is also liked by the public. Yes, many times. No, it's like this. Dany, whatever my answer is, it will definitely cause controversy. Because a figure must have a supporter, there must be someone who doesn't like it either. I don't want to answer that. I will answer to the winner. The winner will ask questions. This is public speaking. This is public speaking.

This is public speaking. This is public speaking. This is public speaking. This is public speaking. I don't want to be given a task. That's why I don't answer. I'll answer to the winner. The winner to ask. This is public speaking.

But our concern towards our office with public speaking especially one of the ministers who just replaced the minister. According to you,

public speaking is... But we can't judge someone just by their impression, right? We have to see how they work. Yes, we'll see. We'll see. There are still 100 days ahead of the program that we will see.

But if we look at it, it's not just him, but some of our officials who are really criticized about public speaking. You were in there, right? were in the office, right? There's no PR, right? PR that regulates, don't say that, don't say that. There is, but there are also those who usually, even though there is a

humus, usually they like to speak for themselves. But if people have experience, that's in office must have a track record too. Competency is okay, maybe a minister has good competency. But if you don't have a track record of leading, a track record of facing the community, it can be wrong. Then there is integrity, right? Three, that's the only requirement if you want to be an official. With their own rules, right? Track record, integrity, and competence.

The problem is, a lot of people don't have the competence, don't have the track record, and then they get bullied. But sometimes there are also people who don't listen to the problem, and they spontaneously talk. Back to their own personnel, right? Yes, back to each of our own personnel.

Okay, yes.

So, what do you think of the reshuffle? It was great. Great? Okay. Two thumbs up. Two thumbs up.

You like it? Yes, I like it. Because I think it's part of the initial step. Initial step. from the initial steps. When the extraordinary riots happened everywhere, we shouted, this is an accumulation because we never assumed

the voices of the people for 10 months. I said that everywhere. Therefore, to solve this, two steps must be taken. One, quick win. The step to solve the, two steps must be taken. One is the quick win. The step to solve the problem in a short time.

Then the second is the medium and long term. The quick win is to do anything to normalize the situation. And that was immediately done by the president. I told him, Mr. Polri, Mr. Tendi, finish it there. Finish it. It didn't take a day,

everything was already done. It could be controlled. After that, the second quick-win was I ordered a reshuffle. Reshuffle. And it was done immediately.

We all ordered a reshuffle because it was not professional. And politically, some are considered problematic, some are considered to have a criminal act indication, and it has to be reshuffled. Well, the reshuffle was done.

So I think this is good. Maybe there will be the next reshuffle. This is not yet confirmed. Yesterday, as a step in the first week, I think it's good. Maybe there will be a reshuffle in the next week, maybe in October we hope, because there are still many, right? The second and third clusters. There are still many offices that do not meet the requirements of competencies,

the requirements of integrity, the requirements of integrity, so that it is further eliminated by the president. This is a country, not a coffee shop, right? It can't be like that. Well, that's it, the long-term steps have been promised by the government. Political reform. There will be changes in the election laws, the DPR law, the party law,

the asset abduction law, that has also been... According to Semula's plan, the asset abduction law will be in 2026. But I read today, it will be postponed. Balek has already issued it yesterday. It will be postponed this year. Good, because it's been a long time.

It's been a long time. 2015 has entered the prolegnas, 2018 the draft is finished, then as it has been delivered to the DPR, it has never been discussed. Yes, I understand that there is yesterday actually had a good effect. Yes, that's why. It is necessary for the community to have the right to speak,

to have the right to propose aspirations like that, so that the country runs, there are those who protest, there are those who regulate, right? Like this, it has become normal, in my opinion yes, so this country is running its democracy well but democracy will not run well if the door is not opened yes, that's right

if the door is too wide open, it's messy too messy too that's why there is a law there there is a law, right? so democracy is its friend must be the law because democracy, if there is no law there. So democracy has a law.

Because if there is no law, democracy is anarchy. People will do whatever they want. So there is a law there. There is an institution that gives the winner the right to

give the weapon if the opponent is a winner. And it's already started. It's already started. work. It's already working well. I see it's already starting to flow. Permission, sir. The right to seize assets in this law.

If in terms of the path, what I heard the narration, it must go through ABCDE. So that in the end, this law can be used to punish. Where does it go, Pak? I follow the discussion on the abduction of assets.

Many people commented but didn't know. For example, they said, the law on the abduction of assets is dangerous. Your property can be stolen just because you are suspected. No. So, the theft of assets in criminal acts

is one criminal act that cannot be done immediately. But if it is allowed, the asset is lost. For example, there is a criminal act. For example, this house is indicated as a criminal act.

Yes. Where did Denny go? He didn't go anywhere. He was robbed first, so he could go back. But the theft of assets was not a police robbery. It was a court decision.

So, I'm a contractor. I have a house that needs to be robbed. There is a suspicion of corruption.

You have to secure it first.

Then he asked the Ministry of Justice, so that the Ministry of Justice asked the head of the court to rob this asset. Oh, it has to go through there. Yes, it can be robbed right away. Well, the suspect was found. Accompanying.

Yes, accompanying. But this is safe. Because there are so many assets. So, there's a criminal act, the person hasn't been found, the assets have been shared. It's been certified before it's been caught.

How can that be?

There are many. Like this, the BLBI. The BLBI insurance. So, it's another violation of the law.

It's a violation of the law.

So, look.

There are many cases like this.

So, he committed a crime. Then, he took the house of the people. Because he committed a crime, he took the house and certified it in the name of another person. Even though this must be confiscated again by the state. But the one who certified it, the perpetrator of the crime ran away, didn't find him.

It is not allowed if there is no law on the theft of assets. If there is a law on the theft of assets, let the person run, I will bring this. Later, if you go home, it will be counted again. The court decision says, sir, you are the one who has a house, the theft of the 7 hectares of asset that was stolen is only 6 hectares that you can take, the rest is returned as long as there is a decision from the judge on the crime. If the asset was stolen, it is done in a legal way.

This is a criminal case, but it is solved in a legal way. It is taken first. Okay. Okay, I understand. If the Hacet's Corruption Law applies, the property that he got with the indication that he committed corruption will be confiscated.

Not only corruption, but also criminal acts. So, any criminal acts, for example, civil society, civil citizens, because corruption is usually an office, for example, the people society. The civil society, the corruption is usually the officials. The people, for example, take other people's property, then they run away. They are searched everywhere and just take their property.

They steal. If they want to be judged, they return. They will be counted. But this theft is done by the court. Not by the court, not by the plaintiff. People are afraid that they will be pressed by the police.

There must be a decision from the court. Yes, they ask the court. And people can intervene there. For example, my property was robbed. I ran, but I didn't find it. My house was robbed. Mr. Denny didn't accept it, my house was robbed. Mas Denny didn't accept it, it wasn't

Mr Mahfud's house, it was my house. You can go to court, it was a theft. It can be. It's legal. Yes, it can. So that's actually the logical consequence of us ratified the UN Convention on Corruption in 2003. In 2006, we ratified it. There are four things that must be included in the framework of the corruption eradication. One, people who are influential. You have an office that influences someone to make a decision.

There are officials in Indonesia who go to jail. This is an example, a senior official. He called the Ministry of Trade to give him a license to import sugar for hundreds. That influences a business. If he's not an official there, he can call there.

Then, he gets 3,000 rupiahs for every kilogram of sugar. That's a business. That's a business. Then, the second one is to enrich. Not just himself, but to enrich everyone. Everyone.

That's it. That's a waste of assets. It's a mess. That's why I think Mr. Nadiem can be in there. Can you be in there, Mr. Nadiem? Yes, I can be in there. Then the third one is to recruit foreign officials. Or recruit international officials who are on duty in Indonesia

or people who are abroad because a business with a company, sorry for that. Well, not everything is regulated in our laws, among other things, the way it is regulated is the corruption crime, the money laundering crime. Well, asset theft, this is not yet. This is what we want to realize.

Yes, that's what has been proposed, Mr. Dede. I'm confused, is this asset theft, means Teh Teopo, means only take the asset for a while, later it will be calculated which asset after it corruption and before corruption,

or is it really made poor? This is what I'm confused about, sir. I feel like this, sir. At the same time, it is also made poor, This is what I'm confused about, sir. I feel like this, sir. At the same time, it is also made poorer because the suffering of corruption was taken first. But later, the final decision whether this asset really has to be stolen or only part of it or

it has to be returned as long as the main criminal act, the criminal act of corruption, has been justified if it involves corruption. So there is a potential not to be made poorer. Yes, there is. There is a potential. The point is, those who are not the result of corruption cannot be.

For example, you become an official in 2015, even though you already have a lot of wealth before 2015. Then there is an increase in wealth, what was already there before cannot be disturbed. It must be returned. Therefore, in the asset theft law,

what assets must be stolen? Among other things, if the input is not in accordance with the profile, not in accordance with the profile, not in line with the source. Mas Denny became an official in 2015 to 2020. How much is his salary per month? His salary per month is 150 million.

So, after 5 years, his income, if all of it is saved, is only 7.5 million. Why do you suddenly have 10? Where did it come from? Ah, this is a question.

Where did you get it from? Where did the 2.5 billion come from? Where did the 2.5 billion come from? It can be explained. It can be proven. Proven.

Oh, my father passed away, I inherited this much.

Yes.

Right? In 2015, the NGOP was only 2 billion, now it's 3 billion. There's proof for everything. It can be proven, right? It can be proven. So the rest of it won't be taken if it's illegal, it will be stolen. Yes.

What if, sir, I, as someone who has authority, I make a law, where the law of the theft of assets, when it is known that the asset that he got is the result of corruption or criminal activity, it exceeds what he had before. I'm poor, I take everything. No, you can't take the previous one, it's a breach of the law. Just take the excess, it must be given the opportunity to prove it. It's a breach again. If people have assets from the beginning, then they are made poorer, then they can't. If they take everything, then they are a burglar.

It can give a higher effect of divorce. But this alone has already made people afraid. If people already have it before, then they take everything, then there will be no one to be a officer. If possible, don't be an official if you want to be corrupt. Because the point is, don't make people want to be an official. Because in some countries, where people become officials,

like in Switzerland, where I went, the job of being a senator there, even the president I heard, is a side job, they said. They work as a side job there. So it's a form of slavery for the country. Because their salary is not that high.

But how do they contribute as citizens to develop the country? In Indonesia, we still have a lot of people who are looking for money. Looking for power. That's what we have to shift.

That's why the rule was made to shift the minds of people to think, I'm a public servant, I have a lot of money, a lot of power. That's what it means, sir, with that right. Yes, that's the ideal. The desire of clean people.

But we are objective. If people become public servants, before becoming a public servant, they already have a wealth of 10 billion, then they become public servants in 2 countries, which is above 10 billion, and has become an official in two corruptions, which is only above 10 billion. Yes, it's a problem.

So I can't add a new article, right? I just thought of it. If the person is proven to have committed a corruption crime, he will be arrested. First, he will be arrested. This cannot be done because of the law.

Second, the family, the child, cannot be an officer. Well, that's not...

Is it possible?

If that's not allowed, because if you can't be an officer, it's administrative law. If it's not, it will be another law later. But can it be? Yes, it can. So, in the past, in the Dutch era, in the Dutch era, in the Dutch era, in Indonesia, people in the office were not allowed to employ people and give projects in their offices to their relatives.

One to the top, one to the bottom, one to the side. So, the father, the son, the relative, were not allowed to participate in projects in the office. You mean that? You can say that. It was the case in the Dutch era. It was a trick for the people.

Add it in.

It makes them think more. Yes. And we reduce the number of people and families so that when their father has a problem,

their son can become a janitor.

That's right. That's not a violation of the law. It's just a agreement. Because if people are in office, they can get facilities here and there. If it's already there, it's okay. That's the basic right. And that's a moral consequence in my opinion, without covering their fortune.

Because they can find a job. We can make that arrangement, because there was already an arrangement like that, proposed by Mr. Arias Rasid. Okay. It's called the National Ethics Law. Yes. People can't be officials, can't join projects,

can't join those things. There are rules, it can be made. In Indonesia, not yet. Wow, that's a good idea. I agree. So, try to make it, so that in the end,

we reduce the tendency of there are gangs. Yes. There is a gang, that's not good. Then, sir, the problem about death penalty, sir. Yes, sir. I mean, people are corrupt with a total value of several trillion.

If some people think, why not just be sentenced to death if it is proven? Why can't it be, sir? It's not that it's not allowed. The judge is not brave enough. The judge is not brave enough. But there are many people who are sentenced to death by drugs.

Why can't this be done? Those who are sentenced to death are one of the planned murders. Is this a death sentence or a life sentence? A life sentence, wait a minute. A death sentence, a planned murder, drug trafficking, rebellion against the country, and corruption.

Corruption has a death penalty, but it has never been demanded. Only in that corruption, death penalty can be imposed, whereas corruption is done in a country in a crisis. There is no judge or judge who dares to determine the crisis of a country that can be linked to corruption. Now there is no one who dares to implement it. Well, in the future, starting in four months,

the death penalty is no longer be allowed. The new criminal law states that the death penalty can only be carried out in a very forced situation, and the mother is not executed. The death penalty can be imposed, but it is not executed for 10 years. If for 10 years she does not commit any crime, he's fine, he doesn't need to be executed, the sentence will be reduced to life imprisonment.

That's why Sambo was sentenced to death. But now he's been reduced to life imprisonment. He can't get out. That's a maximum sentence, life imprisonment. Because, for example, Sambo's sentence was not reduced. maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Because if you want to be sentenced, you have to be sentenced. On January 1st, 2026, it has changed.

He can ask for life imprisonment. I can only ask for life imprisonment. Oh, he can request it? Yes, he can request it. And the police can also request it. The head of the prison can request it.

This is my question. Why is the death penalty so difficult to enforce? The country that is doing this is in danger. This is my question, sir. And the people too. Why is the death penalty so difficult to enforce? Because the message I always get is it's against the law. Whereas in some countries, I see

they are executing the death penalty. Especially in China, sir. During the 90s reformation, it was not a death penalty anymore, sir. It was very severe. At that time, it was not a death sentence anymore, it was already a lot. Yes, a lot. When I went to China, there was an execution of death sentence by a mayor.

He was sentenced because he gave building permits on the green line. The line where there should be no buildings, he gave permits there. Oh, here it's still a step. After that, he was sentenced. There is another one in China. The head of a high-ranking provincial government came to Europe.

Oh yes.

Under the invitation. Yes, I know. He was brought to Ongkos from his office. It turned out that he had come there, he was brought to Ongkos by the owner of the house. The owner. The owner.

And he was invited there. He was invited. He was invited again. He went home and died. I go home, I'm dead. In Indonesia, it's like that. Even a two-day trip, written down as 10 days, is already common. You get there, you get here. You get there, you get here.

It's good, right? Yes, every country is different. How to describe it. In the US alone, 50 countries, not all countries have death sentences. But there are some countries that still have a death penalty. The countries that are divided.

We can't do that, sir. Based on demography and other things. We just have to agree. I have always agreed to the death penalty. So it's an agreement, right? An agreement.

Law is the result. It's an agreement between the makers, the DPR and the government. If the DPR is afraid, then don't punish them to death. That's not going to happen. What is the fear, sir, if it's usually like that? What is the fear?

If people are wrong, then they should be punished to death. Yes, there are people who are pure, who have an opinion, that is a waste of time, because the life of a human being can only be taken away by God's decision. There are those who think like that. God uses us too. God also told us to do justice.

Yes, if we do it. That's the reason. That's the reason why people have a universalist understanding of human nature. There are universalist and particularist understandings. the human sense. There is the understanding of the universal, there is the particular. The particular can be different in various countries. We can use it, and we can use it for several criminal acts, right?

Yes. As a conclusion, this is an amazing discussion, there are so many meat, according to Netizen. Do you see, in the past 5 years, Mr. Prabowo has become president. In the next 5 years. In the next 5 years, yes. I have a concern, sir. I don't know if you are the same. I see that Mr. Prabowo has a very different. There are many cases of the strongest corruption. One of them is the RC case.

You know about the RC case, right? You've talked about it before.

Yes.

What do you think, Gunter? The principle is, if a country wants to be safe, the law must be enforced without a first look. That's one. Yes. Because the theory is, according to the World Bank, the directiveness of a country in maintaining and using its assets is 44% law.

If the law does not reach 44% of its enforcement, it means 44% is not 40% of the case, 44% is determined by the law, 43% is determined by others, and 23% is determined by natural resources. So the natural resources will run out, it's useless, investors don't dare to enter if the law doesn't apply. That's why cases like Reza Khalid are many, that Before the back-and-forth by the apparatus in various mining management in various areas. Not many foreigners working whose appearance is questioned.

Where did the permit come from? And all kinds of things. But the law must be enforced. And I see that Mr. Prabowo has an intention for this. Just because there are too many, like Rizal Khalid, for example. Then there is Agwan in the second peak,

who mentions the name Agwan and so on. It was all firm before, but now it's backwards. That's because the problem is very complicated. Involving the officials, involving many people, I'm not going to go back. That's because the problem is very complicated. It involves the officials, it involves many people,

it involves the administration that has been spread out, and so on, if it is removed, new things will arise. So I see that Mr. Prabowo has a good intention, but it is still in order. What does it mean to be in order? If I take action, the problem is this. If I can solve this, the problem will be solved.

So, in my opinion, the first year is still in a state of chaos. But the declaration of war against corruption has been stated many times. And it has started. The new corruption is almost no new corruption. When there is new corruption, the old remnants are caught, the network is not too strong,

such as Nadim, Menak, and so on. It's processed all the time. I always talk funny when talking about Hajj funds. If an Islamic person goes to Hajj or Umrah, there's a place where we have to run. It's called Sa'i.

We run from here to there, seven times. Then there's an Indonesian officer from the Ministry of Religion. He's already in Indonesia, but he keeps running. Why are you still running? You're already in Indonesia. I said, I'm chasing the police.

He said, you're funny.

The audience is funny.

He said, you're funny.

That kind of thing can be solved. And Mr. Prabowo can solve it. Yes, but it takes time. Yes, but the big ones, the big ones, to be honest, Pak Prabowo said in the DPR, you are a general, a police general, a TNI, an officer, whoever I face.

Because indeed in my report, there are many mining activities, forest activities, activities against traditional wealth, it was backed by people with stars. That's it. That's why Pak Prabowo said that, and I'm saying it now. That's true, Pak Prabowo, because there are a lot of reports.

And you were there. I was there. You knew. I knew. You even said that if the mining was going well, that one person, one head's one person per head.

20 million per head. Per person in Indonesia. Per person. No need to work. As long as it's in Indonesia. We have a lot of things.

Gold, nickel, hot earth, coal, all kinds. If you ask me, what does Indonesia have in common with other countries? We ask each other. I have everything, what do you have?

Is that how it should be?

Is bargaining power stronger in us? This is even the opposite. That means every day there are 20 million rupiahs from us that are taken by people. So that, so that, that's Mr. Mahfud, he's a great calculator. I will say that this calculation is an official KPK calculation.

Okay. But not many people quoted it back then. It was Abraham Samad who announced it in 2014. Yes. That was what Abraham Samad said in 2014. After he invited experts from Russia, America, and other countries, if mining alone cannot be covered by corruption, it's easy. 20 million per head.

Every day, sir? Every month. Every month. Why do you ask for a salary every day? Hopefully, Mr. President, this is consistent, firm, like since the end of August until now, it seems to have shown its firmness, consistency, and listening to the aspirations of the people. Before that, every input seemed to have never been heard.

Maybe it didn't reach, maybe the subordinates didn't understand. This is the result of an official academic discussion on campus. Why is Pak Prabowo like a low-ranking official? He never gets the chance to speak. Because every time he speaks, the problem is different from the subordinates. Yes, it's like there's a delay in his speech.

Yes, there's a delay in his speech. It's about data, poverty data, this and that data. Why is it different from people's calculations? For example, growth data. It's different. Apparently, this doesn't go in here. Especially protests.

Now, these protests have entered. Interesting. This is the last one. Today there is news. Minister, Chairman of the National Economic Council, Mr. Den Pak Luhut, said, Hey, officials, don't give false data to the president. This is a country, said Pak Luhut.

It is available in various media. So, one, the information must be correct, clean. Then, the enforcement of the rules and laws must continue. And Mr. Prabowo has started this, in my opinion, hopefully. Yes, that's what we all hope for, so that information and communication to you becomes fast, fast response, so that you can make the right decision.

And the decision that is taken is, the words that come out are not fried. Yes, that's right. That's the most dangerous. So that's not my message, it's our message and the people of Indonesia. So that's not my message, it's our message and the people of Indonesia. Always healthy. Thank you very much, Mr. Mahmud.