Tanak Soroti Diksi ‘Perampasan’ dalam RUU Aset: Is the State Seizing Control?

"Tanak Soroti Diksi 'Perampasan' dalam RUU Aset: Apakah Negara Mengambil Alih?"

KPK Vice Chairman Johanis Tanak criticized the term 'seizure' in the Asset Seizure Bill, preferring 'recovery' instead for its negative connotation.

Siti Rahmawati19 November 2024Last Update : 2 weeks ago

Tanak Soroti Diksi 'Perampasan' di RUU Perampasan Aset: Masa Negara Rampas?

news.detik.com

On November 19, 2024, KPK Deputy Chairman Johanis Tanak raised concerns about the term ‘perampasan’ in the Asset Forfeiture Bill. He questioned whether the state should use such a strong word as ‘seize’ when referring to asset recovery. Is there a better way to express this idea?

6 Key Takeaways

KPK Vice Chair Johanis Tanak critiques 'perampasan' term
Tanak prefers 'pemulihan' over 'perampasan'
Concerns about the negative connotation of 'perampasan'
Doli Kurnia references UNCAC terminology
Discussion on asset recovery legislation ongoing
No final decision made on the RUU yet

Fast Answer: KPK’s Johanis Tanak criticizes the use of ‘perampasan’ in the Asset Forfeiture Bill, suggesting ‘pemulihan’ (recovery) as a more suitable term. This discussion highlights the importance of language in legal contexts.

Johanis Tanak Questions the Language in Indonesia‘s Asset Forfeiture Bill

Why does the choice of words matter in legal discussions? Johanis Tanak’s critique of the term ‘perampasan’ emphasizes the need for careful language in legislation. He believes that using ‘seize’ implies a negative connotation that could misrepresent the government’s intentions.

Warning! The choice of language in legal documents can significantly impact public perception and trust in governmental actions.

Importance of Terminology in Legal Frameworks: A Closer Look

Tanak’s comments come amid discussions to amend the Asset Forfeiture Bill. He prefers the term ‘pemulihan’ (recovery) over ‘perampasan’ (seizure), arguing that it better reflects the goal of restoring assets lost to corruption. This debate highlights the broader implications of language in legal contexts.

Understanding the Context: Asset Recovery vs. Seizure

In legal terms, the distinction between ‘recovery’ and ‘seizure’ is crucial. Here are some key points to consider:

‘Recovery’ suggests restoring lost assets to rightful owners.
‘Seizure’ implies taking away property, which can evoke negative feelings.
Public perception can influence the effectiveness of legal measures.
Clear language fosters trust between the government and citizens.

The Role of International Standards in Legal Terminology

Tanak’s preference for ‘pemulihan’ aligns with international standards set by the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). This highlights the importance of adopting terminology that resonates globally, ensuring clarity and consistency in legal frameworks.

In conclusion, the language used in laws can shape public understanding and trust. By choosing terms carefully, lawmakers can enhance the effectiveness of their policies and foster a more positive relationship with the public.