Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules:
“the use of unlawful violence”
“they claimed the ban was unlawful”
In light of the media coverage regarding the drama surrounding a minister’s decision to ban online order style “ojek” (consider it as a kind of taxi, but with motorcycle instead of car), I am interested to speak out (or write out) my opinion on that matter. First of all, rather than promoting the banal inquiry of whether online ojek is good or bad for the people as the only central point in the discussion, I deemed that it is a lot more necessary to point the discussion to cover a more diverse aspects relating to the topic; aspects that might include the enactment of the ban itself.
Legal Basis of the Ban
You can check the aforementioned documents of law and you will find that the reason of the ban is sound; these online ojek providers are generating profit by providing transport service without complying to existing rule regarding public transport provider. You might argue that the law is outdated and lagged behind current technological advancement, but such argument points out that the object of scrutiny are the sources (UU and PP), while the ban itself is a rightful derivative.
The Manner of the Repeal
And suddenly outrage occurred. To say it was a public outrage might be inaccurate; only online ojek-s and users of such sophisticated service were affected, which means the complaints came mainly from big cities and people with access to social media, which I believe did not represent the public. What an ignoble display of ignorance! They ignored the fact that, at that moment, those providers were violating the law, notwithstanding the absence of immediate victim. They lashed out because their convenience was bothered, even at the expense of everyone else. Instead of choosing the more rightful, though more onerous, path of revising the legal basis, they sued for the lifting of the ban; a lazy shortcut providing fast fix without curing anything. Eventually, the ban was repealed.
Am I overblowing this matter? I do not think I am. This phenomenon is a symptom of something worse; it is jeopardizing the integrity of rule of law. The few but loud are capable to influence the enforcement of law, with dubious ground and dubious means. It might be virtually victimless in this case, but when such pattern continues to emerge in other cases, larger consequences might follow.
And about the providers? Remember Q*ntas airline case in 2011? Beware! When this kind of service grabbed a bigger slice of our national economy, they might turn into our Q*ntas; forcing the government to comply with their terms with impunity. This case may serve as a presage for such future.
Will this post helps in doing justice to Mr. Jonan’s decision? Fat chance the answer is no. It is nothing but an opinion of an individual with minuscule influence. Nevertheless, for what it’s worth, it will be a note that this individual will not blindly adhere to the voice of the multitude, especially when that voice is in discord with his voice. The ban is lawfully enacted, and the manner it was forced to be repealed is perverse.
Vox populi, vox dei…but which populi; which people? which God?
P.S totally didn’t have time to check the grammar and structure. Life has been really hectic lately. Please help check it and report it through comment. Thank you!