No losers in the Assembly Annual Session: Amien<\/p>\n
Contrary to people's expectations, the 2002 People's Consultative
\nAssembly (MPR) Annual Session which took place from Aug. 1 to
\nAug. 11, ran smoothly with significant results achieved on 13
\ncontentious Articles of the 1945 Constitution. MPR Speaker Amien
\nRais spoke with The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto and gave some
\ninsight as to what was behind his success in leading the session.<\/p>\n
Question: How do you feel now that the Assembly's Annual
\nSession is over with the notable results?<\/p>\n
Answer: I am very satisfied, happy and even excited. None of
\nthe gloomy predictions for the session materialized at all. I
\nhave led five Assembly sessions -- The General Session in 1999,
\nthe Special Session in 2001, and three other Annual Sessions --
\nbut the latest Annual Session was the toughest on me.
\nWhy?
\nThe mass media had said that there were different opinions about
\nthe amendment of the 1945 Constitution both in the Assembly and
\noutside. We knew that opposition from the Indonesian Democratic
\nParty of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan) had been demonstrated by their
\nrefusal to support the amendment by collecting more than 100
\nsignatures. Outside the Assembly, a group of retired generals led
\nby former Vice President Gen. (ret) Try Sutrisno had expressed
\ntheir objection to the amendment. They demanded that the MPR
\nannul the three previous amendments and cancel the fourth
\namendment. This was an effort to make the man-made Constitution a
\nsacred thing. Meanwhile, groups of non-governmental organizations
\nwere demanding a completely new constitution.
\nMany said that you deserve credit for your achievement in
\nhandling your fellow legislators' vigor in voicing their
\ninterests during the session. Somebody has even said that you
\ndeserved a gold medal for this. What do you think?
\nWhat the Assembly did was take the middle path and remained
\nneutral. The MPR accepted the amendment on one side, but on the
\nother side, the basic principle of the 1945 Constitution itself
\nhad to be properly preserved and secured. The state ideology of
\nPancasila (which is mentioned in the preamble) is well secured,
\nand the concept of a unitary state -- which is not negotiable --
\nwas not touched. The new constitution will still have 37
\narticles, 10 paragraphs and 16 chapters. The changes in the
\nArticles on the presidential system will be put on as an
\naddendum.<\/p>\n
Some said that you were acting more like a statesman, not a
\npolitician, when leading the session. You didn't make any
\ncontroversial statements, and acted as an honest broker in the
\nsession. What do you think of those views?<\/p>\n
I just took the middle path. If I had allowed all participants
\nto interrupt, the session would have become a chaotic forum, but
\nif I had just pounded the gavel, they would have branded me an
\nauthoritarian. I was always in between (the two \"opposing\"
\ngroups). However, there were times when I had to be very tough.
\nDuring the negotiations on the last day, I was very tough and
\ndecided to put it to a vote, (instead of continuing the debate).
\nI am sure that in leading such an Assembly session, one must be
\nneutral. Be at the center and the ultra radical and ultra
\nconservative groups will all be represented. I was very touched
\nwhen the parties, with their own \"colors\", were finally aware
\nthat there were colors which must be an umbrella for all of us:
\nRed and white, the colors of our national flag.<\/p>\n
Soon after the session was closed I got handshakes from almost
\nall participants, Muslim and non-Muslims, militarymen and
\ncivilians. I could feel their sincerity. We all felt that no one
\nhad lost and the victory was for all. I could feel that all 12
\nfactions with their own political backgrounds finally had a very
\nsimilar goal. Deep in their heart there is a commitment that they
\nwill never ever make any effort which may cause the Republic to
\nbe torn apart or fall down. The debate over Article 29, in which
\nsome groups wanted sharia put in, was an example. The discussion
\non that matter was ended in a very elegant manner. Things were
\nvery simple. All factions finally accepted the fact that the
\ndebate would never end and would just be a waste of time. And a
\nreturn to the previous (existing) Article was seen as the best
\ncompromise.<\/p>\n
Even Pak AM Fatwa of the National Mandate Party (PAN) faction
\nsaid that the existing Article 29 could be adopted as a
\ntheological statement, not just a political statement.
\nHow do you see the Assembly after the 2002 Annual Session?<\/p>\n
There must be evaluation of all decrees produced by the
\nAssembly, including the provisional Assembly in the era of late
\npresident Sukarno. This current Assembly is heading for its
\ngrave. And, like a dying man, the MPR will issue a testament for
\nthe country. There must be a recommendation for those decrees
\nthat should be eliminated (because they are obsolete) and what
\ndecrees must be retained and developed into laws. The other
\nagenda in 2003 will be hearing the progress reports from the
\nPresident and other high state institutions. In 2004, if the
\nGeneral Election is held in June, the current MPR will be
\npractically disbanded.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/no-losers-in-the-assembly-annual-session-amien-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}