Legal Literacy - In Indonesia, uniforms often possess an almost magical power. They can transform ordinary people into figures who feel “unworthy of questioning.” Upon seeing official attributes, our reflex is almost always the same: believe first, ask later. We often tell logic to wait in line, outpaced by reluctance. So when the public hears that a woman disguised herself as a flight attendant until she was caught and questioned by the police, it's natural for us to chuckle and then fall silent.
It's funny because it sounds reckless. It's disturbing because it actually succeeded.
This phenomenon reveals a social habit that we rarely realize. We over-rely on symbols. Uniforms, identity cards, and professional appearances are often regarded as the final truth. But symbols are merely packaging. They can be neat and convincing, but they still need to be tested. What we often forget is the procedure.
In the collective imagination, flight attendants are symbols of discipline and part of an official system. When that symbol is used, it works like a social shortcut. Not much explanation is needed. Not much verification is needed. Those who see it feel uncomfortable asking questions, those who pass through feel it's reasonable to be let through. This is not merely a matter of individual ingenuity, but a culture that is too friendly to appearances.
From a legal point of view, impersonation is not automatically a criminal act. Criminal law It does not punish the costume, but the intent and consequences. In law, there is a principle known as mens rea, which is malicious intent. If the impersonation is carried out to obtain benefits, access restricted areas, or cause losses, then the potential for fraud or identity falsification articles is open. However, if there is no intention to cause harm, the law does not automatically turn into a tool of coercion. The matter can stop at clarification and guidance.
Even so, the law does not only look at the perpetrator. There is another side that is equally important, namely the oversight system. Airports are vital objects with high security standards. When someone can get through simply by wearing a uniform and having confidence, administrative law should also ask questions. Are procedures being carried out consistently? Is verification actually being done or only assumed? In state governance, procedural negligence is not a trivial matter because it concerns public safety and trust.
This case also touches on public legal awareness. We often expect officials to always be vigilant, but forget that legal culture lives from shared habits. Asking for identification is not impolite. It is precisely a sign of maturity. The rule of law does not stand on reluctance, but on caution.
A simple analogy is this: We diligently admire the beautiful packaging of food, but are too lazy to read the label. When we have stomach problems, we get angry at the kitchen, even though we ourselves don't want to check the contents. The law is present not to kill trust, but to make it healthier. Trust without verification is just overconfident optimism.
In the end, this story of the flight attendant's disguise is not about one person and one uniform. It's about how we interpret authority, procedures, and collective sanity. Hopefully, after the virality passes, what remains is not just laughter, but a new habit: not easily fascinated, not quick to judge, and not lazy to check. Because a strong country is not one that is fierce, but one that is orderly.
Comments (0)
Write a comment