Reviving the dead<\/p>\n
More than four years have passed since May 1993, when
\nMarsinah, a labor activist, died a gruesome martyr's death
\ndefending the rights of her fellow workers at a small watch
\nmanufacturing plant in Surabaya. As may be recalled, her death
\nand the tangled court procedures that followed it at the time
\ncaused great uproar among the public, both at home and abroad, as
\nfoul play was suspected.<\/p>\n
To briefly recount the case: On May 9, 1993, Marsinah's badly
\nmutilated body was found by villagers in an abandoned shack near
\nthe East Javanese town of Nganjuk. The labor activist had
\napparently been killed after she organized a workers' strike at
\nPT Catur Putra Surya, a watch manufacturing company in Sidoardjo,
\nSurabaya. Police charged nine people with the murder, including
\nthe company's owners, managers and security officers. All were
\nfound guilty and convicted by the Surabaya District Court
\nalthough all of them insisted they were innocent, claiming they
\nhad been framed.<\/p>\n
On appeal the next year, all of them were acquitted by the
\nSupreme Court, which ruled that the trial had been inconclusive
\nand that much of the evidence had been extracted from the accused
\nby force. After their release, however, police insisted that the
\nnine remained their chief suspects in the murder and that DNA
\ntests would provide the evidence to warrant a new trial. Police,
\nhowever, closed their investigation into the case in September,
\nafter their last lead -- the DNA test -- failed because the blood
\nsample had been contaminated.<\/p>\n
With Marsinah's murder still unresolved to this day,
\ncontroversy continues to linger. During the course of these four
\nyears, however, new events have pushed the Marsinah case into the
\ndim periphery of public memory and the case was more or less
\nforgotten. Nobody surely could have expected that, suddenly, in
\nthe past few days the case would be so strongly revived.
\nIronically, it was the police who triggered the renewed debate by
\nbanning a play on Marsinah in Surabaya and Bandung in a bid to
\nprevent the controversy from cropping up once again.<\/p>\n
The ban, on the pretext that no permit had been obtained by
\nthe organizers, is difficult to understand for a number of
\nreasons. First, the same play has already been staged in four
\nother cities without causing any trouble whatsoever. Indeed, with
\nthe scant publicity it had been given by the media, few people
\nwould even have known it had been performed had the present
\nclamor not started.<\/p>\n
Second, the banning of plays is in violation of a directive
\nissued by the chief of the National Police in 1995. The directive
\nstipulates that no police permit or prior notification is
\nrequired for cultural events -- including musicals, dance,
\npoetry, opera, pantomime performances and plays. Indeed, the very
\nlegality of the police ruling which requires an official permit
\nfor such performances is questioned by many.<\/p>\n
Third, one might question the point, or the wisdom, of banning
\nplays at this stage of our society's intellectual development. In
\nthe present case, obviously the measure has been
\ncounterproductive. Rather than keeping the Marsinah case buried,
\nit has once again put the spotlight on this unfortunate case.
\nSurely, though the truth must be sought in each and every case,
\nthe last thing we need in our present condition is to be
\nunnecessarily troubled by nagging incidents from the past. The
\npointless banning of the Marsinah play only helps to make an old
\nwound that has not totally healed more painful.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/reviving-the-dead-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}