I’d suggest this is simply not the case. Most government functionaries at nearly all levels have side businesses and side business partners. The primary function of their jobs is to divert contracts and resources to these side business. Sometimes this is directly in line with their government responsibilities, but more often it is not (as with the example of the gynecological clinic buying inappropriate items) or even in direct opposition to it (more than half the census budget disappearing).

It also presupposes that these officials are actually putting any effort into their jobs anyway, instead of treating them as a just reward for political loyalty which entitles them to the side benefits they avail themselves of.

There seems to be a lot of undue attention paid to this new law, asking again if this is indicative of real efforts against corruption. Where is the evidence of that? Where is the evidence that this is anything other than the usual political infighting, with the financial police the instrument of one camp against another?