Questions about amnesty<\/p>\n
As the government releases 50 more political prisoners, the
\nfreed activists will leave behind not only the rest of the
\nconvicts but also a question about why the authorities have
\napplied unaccustomed criteria in granting clemency.<\/p>\n
The government's action, which falls under the principle of a
\ngeneral amnesty, appears to have been made using standards
\nunfamiliar and not popular in international circles. Although the
\nbasic reason behind the decision is in line with similar policies
\nof other countries -- to push for greater democracy -- the
\nrelease is clearly marked by hesitation and skepticism.<\/p>\n
In other countries, general amnesties encompass all political
\nprisoners, mainly prisoners of conscience. This was very clear
\nwhen President Corazon Aquino released political prisoners in the
\nPhilippines in 1986; President Kim Dae Jung in South Korea and
\nPresident Gen. Abdul Salam Abubakar in Nigeria this year.<\/p>\n
Aquino's list of political prisoners also included a communist
\npolitical architect, while Kim, in his fantastic show of
\nabsolution, also forgave his despotic predecessors Kim Young Sam
\nand Chun Doo Hwan. The latter had been sentenced to death for his
\nrole in the 1979 coup d'etat and 1980 Kwanju massacre.<\/p>\n
Aquino and Chun seemed to be strong and self-confident in
\ntheir decisions. Aquino believed that, despite releasing the
\nhard-core leftist leader, she was strong enough to face any
\nconsequences ensuing from the policy because the decision to
\ncrush the communist rebellion was based on the military's
\noperational capability, economic stability and social justice.<\/p>\n
And Kim Dae Jung, who was not personally touched by Chun's
\nbloodbath, and gained nothing from the clemency he offered,
\nbelieved that his nation would live in greater peace if it was
\nwilling to forgive the dictators although it could not yet forget
\ntheir atrocities.<\/p>\n
Although one cannot expect Kim's compassion to be practiced
\nhere, we should not fail to take note that the South Korean
\nleader is perhaps the most merciful and compassionate statesman
\nthe world has known.<\/p>\n
Here, while the authorities have made it clear that those
\ninvolved in armed rebellion and communist activities will not be
\nreleased, the new list still misses several prisoners of
\nconscience. The most notable of those still in prison are Budiman
\nSudjatmiko, leader of the banned Democratic People's Party (PRD),
\nwho is serving a 13-year jail term, and Dita Indah Sari, leader
\nof a workers right association (PPBI) who was jailed for six
\nyears. Both were convicted for \"subversive activities.\" There are
\nstill more than 120 political prisoners in Indonesian jails
\ntoday.<\/p>\n
The authorities' argument that Budiman's case needs further
\nconsideration does not reflect the seriousness of his case but
\nrather their indecisiveness. As in many other similar situations,
\nsuch as the political activities of Megawati Sukarnoputri, the
\ndeposed leader of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), the
\ngovernment is clearly divided. There seem to be so many parties
\nwho have their own opinions on political cases here and President
\nB. J. Habibie still appears to be vacillating about what to do .<\/p>\n
This current state of affairs will not help the government in
\nits effort to make the world believe that Indonesia is moving
\ntoward greater democracy because the degree of freedom is also
\nmirrored in the number of prisoners of conscience cooped up in
\nour jails.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/questions-about-amnesty-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}