Reform movement will affect political elite<\/p>\n
The fall of president Soeharto five years ago resulted in a
\nnational commitment to reform. The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto
\ninterviewed noted lawyer and human rights activist Todung Mulya
\nLubis on law reform, the main objectives of which are eradication
\nof corruption and the resolution of human rights violations
\nallegedly committed by government agencies. Below is an excerpt
\nof the interview.<\/p>\n
Question: The reform movement is five year old now. In
\ngeneral, do you see that much has changed in the last five years?<\/p>\n
Answer: If you look at the five-year-old reform movement you
\nbecome aware that nothing significant has been achieved in the
\ncountry. It is true that we have produced new legislation on
\ngeneral elections, with an open and proportional system. We have
\nalso amended the article on presidential election in the 1945
\nConstitution and we have also produced legislation on an
\nanticorruption commission, which is very powerful, plus some
\nother laws. But, frankly speaking, there are more things the
\ngovernment has failed to achieve.<\/p>\n
To some extent, we've had setbacks because the government is
\nacutely aware that reforms would affect the political elite.
\n Could you give an example?<\/p>\n
Freedom of information. The concept of freedom of information
\noffered by many has been sabotaged by the intelligence body. This
\nis one blatant example.<\/p>\n
Political parties, which were expected to bring political
\noptimism, have had their chances to participate in the general
\nelection severely circumscribed. The result is that only
\nestablished political parties will be eligible to participate in
\nthe election.<\/p>\n
However, the economy is now more stable than it was in the era
\nof Gus Dur (former President Abdurrahman Wahid). However, things
\nshould be even better in the economy, because we still lag behind
\nour neighbors, Korea, Thailand and Malaysia.<\/p>\n
What about law reform? Could we say it has been a failure?<\/p>\n
There are two main areas of focus in the scenario of law
\nreform: Eradication of corruption, including judicial corruption,
\nand respect for and upholding human rights, which means the
\nresolution of rights violations allegedly committed by the
\ngovernment in the past.<\/p>\n
The government (the executive), the House of Representatives
\nand law enforcers have all failed to deal with corruption
\nappropriately.<\/p>\n
Many people have allegedly stolen state funds, but few have
\nbeen brought to court.<\/p>\n
Transparency International (an independent organization
\nfocusing on corruption) has named Indonesia as one of the most
\ncorrupt countries in the world, yet we have failed to make
\nserious moves to punish corruptors.<\/p>\n
Let's not look at the People's Republic of China, where those
\nfound guilty of corruption receive the death penalty. I just want
\ncorruptors to be dealt harsh punishment. If necessary, the courts
\ncould send them to Nusa Kambangan prison (in Central Java). Why
\nnot? Only Mohamad "Bob" Hasan has been sent to the notorious
\nprison for corruption. (Bob Hasan was one of Soeharto's closest
\ncronies, and former minister of industry and trade).<\/p>\n
Law enforcement has also been inappropriate, as the legal
\nelite, including prosecutors, judges and lawyers, has manipulated
\nthe term "presumption of innocence". Those found guilty (of
\ncorruption) by the courts should go to jail. Many have, however,
\nrejected court verdicts simply due to abuse of the term
\n"presumption of innocence".<\/p>\n
Once the verdict is handed down -- if the provincial court has
\nupheld it -- a defendant has no option but to go to prison. The
\nverdict could be changed after another, stronger legal decision
\nis issued to annul it. Recently, we have failed to follow the
\ncorrect legal procedure.<\/p>\n
Now, let's talk about human rights violations. We are holding
\nan ad hoc human rights trial on violations in East Timor. But we
\nshould not stick only to violations in East Timor. We should also
\nask if the ad hoc trial is proceeding according to international
\nguidelines or it's just some kind of engineered effort to restart
\nmilitary aid from the U.S. It's not that easy to get the right
\nanswer to that.<\/p>\n
Worse still, the verdicts have all been more lenient than
\nthose required by the law. Given this situation, the next
\nquestion is how serious is the government in dealing with human
\nrights violations.<\/p>\n
If the East Timor ad hoc trials fail to conform to reasonable
\nlegal standards, we shall also fail in other cases, such as Aceh,
\nPapua and others.<\/p>\n
Do you think that legislation produced during the reform era
\ncontains the spirit of reform?<\/p>\n
There are two problems here. First, too few legal instruments
\nhave been produced within the last five years. This is because
\nthe House of Representatives has been unproductive. Second, the
\nfew legal instruments produced have not lived up to reform agenda
\nexpectations.
\nThe anticorruption law is an exception.<\/p>\n
We have to acknowledge that the (new) legislation on political
\nparties and general elections is better than what existed
\npreviously.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, horse-trading has occurred during the passage
\nof other legislation through the House.<\/p>\n
The other serious problem is that institutional reform within
\nthe police, prosecutor's offices, the courts and lawyers'
\norganizations has totally failed. This happened because the
\nPresident did not have the political guts to make drastic change.
\nI see there is a fear that law reform could backfire on the
\npolitical elite. This has hindered national reform. There are too
\nmany political and economic interests obstructing the reform
\nagenda.<\/p>\n
What have the political parties done in their attempt at law
\nreform?<\/p>\n
Political parties should have become the agents of change:
\nPioneers. Unfortunately, the parties have not demonstrated their
\ncommitment to the reform movement. In summary, we have political
\nparties that are no better than those in the New Order era.<\/p>\n
What about the role of the public?<\/p>\n
Part of the reason for optimism lies with the media. We have
\nthe communities of the media, non-governmental organizations and
\ncivil society. I think they have been very active and vigorous
\nover the last ten years. This is our political modality as a
\nnation, although, in reality, they have always bowed to the
\npolitical elite. But, at least, our civil society and the media
\nare strong enough to force the political elite to behave more
\nresponsibly.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reform-movement-will-affect-political-elite-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}