Subversion law has long history in RI<\/p>\n
While most of the suspects detained afer the recent riots in
\nJakarta face criminal charges, at least one will be tried for
\nsubversion. Social scientist Ariel Heryanto explores the history
\nof the country's subversion law.<\/p>\n
SINGAPORE (JP): Early this month the government made the
\nallegation that subversive elements were responsible for the July
\n27 rioting in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
According to officials, these elements intended to topple the
\ngovernment. Accordingly, the government hinted that it would
\nemploy the subversion law to detain, question, and bring certain
\nactivists to court. This draconian law carries the maximum
\npenalty of death.<\/p>\n
Outsiders unfamiliar with the history of the New Order and its
\nsubversion law might be shocked by the government's reaction.
\nHowever, it is not the first case of the law being turned into a
\ntool of retaliation against \"undesirable\" elements.<\/p>\n
During the New Order period, there have been an average of
\n91.6 subversion cases brought to trial every 10 years. An average
\nof 500 people have been jailed under the law in the past decade.<\/p>\n
The subversion law is notorious not only because of the
\nmaximum penalty it carries, but for the extent to which it has
\nbeen put into use by the present government.<\/p>\n
The most recent use of the law was in a little reported trial
\nthat concluded last May in Banjarnegara, West Java. Five youths
\naged between 20 and 25 were accused of trying to establish an
\nIslamic state. But how? They did not engage in any armed struggle
\nor \"terrorist\" activities. Instead, the evidence of their crime
\nwas their alleged involvement in a series of religious
\ndiscussions and some proselytizing.<\/p>\n
What made the case even more remarkable was the additional
\ncharge that certain communist underground forces had sponsored
\nthe defendants, who were labeled \"rightist extremists\".<\/p>\n
The New Order is one of the two most durable regimes in the
\nworld today. Dissidents come and go, and none have come close to
\nchallenging the government at the polls. Government officials
\nregularly speak of \"subversive\" threats. When they do so, they
\nmay mean what they say, though what they are referring to remains
\nunclear.<\/p>\n
But New Order Indonesia has never encountered anything
\ncomparable to the rebels that undermined the Sukarno, Corry
\nAquino or successive Thai governments. The five poor youths in
\nBanjarnegara essentially personify the profile of subversive
\nelements in contemporary Indonesia; they were found guilty by the
\nlocal state court.<\/p>\n
In 1974 four student leaders were sentenced under the law to
\nsix years imprisonment for allegedly inciting an anti-Japanese
\nriot. In the 1980s a group of undergraduate students were given
\nsevere sentences for minor offenses. In 1986 a 23-year-old
\nstudent in Yogyakarta was sentenced to 13 years in prison for
\npublishing a campus bulletin called Ar Risalah that aired hostile
\nstatements against the government.<\/p>\n
Between 1989 and 1990 two students in their late 20s and
\nanother NGO activist were sentenced to between 7.5 and 8.5 years
\nfor circulating banned novels and engaging in intellectual
\ndiscussions that supposedly smacked of Marxism and questioned
\ngovernment-sponsored development projects.<\/p>\n
While the legality of the subversion law has been questioned
\nby many groups and provoked much public resentment, the law does
\nhave its defenders. Last year the minister of youth and sports
\nrecommended using the law to prosecute anyone believed
\nresponsible for the unrest caused during a Dunhill League soccer
\nmatch in Jakarta. In 1991, certain members of the House of
\nRepresentatives suggested that it be invoked to penalize
\nIndonesians who made foreign loans without reporting to Bank
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
In 1990, at the attorney general's discretion, a number of
\nindividuals wanted for pirating pesticide in Garut and Bandung
\nwere tried under the same law. A year before the President
\nendorsed using the law to penalize several individuals found
\nguilty of running an illegal lottery operation in Semarang. In
\n1988 gamblers and smugglers became the targets.<\/p>\n
The official definition of \"subversion\" is far-reaching and
\nwithout clear boundaries, as is the territory covered by the
\nsubversion law. So much so that even certain government officials
\nhave expressed their concern with its scope, including Attorney
\nGeneral Singgih and former Directorate General for Corrective
\nAffairs Baharuddin Lopa.<\/p>\n
The extent to which the meaning of subversion has expanded is
\nmore glaring if we consider the original intention behind the
\npenal code and its early uses.<\/p>\n
The New Order did not create today's penal code. Rather, it
\nadopted the code from Sukarno's Guided Democracy government.
\nSukarno issued the subversion decree during a volatile period
\nwhen there were armed separatists movements in several regions as
\nwell as regular attempts on his life. All of this was taking
\nplace in the broader context of the Cold War.<\/p>\n
Even in such turbulent times, it remains unclear if the
\nSukarno government actually made use of the subversion decree to
\nput down opposition. Ironically, members of his cabinet became
\nthe first targets of this repressive penal code some 30 years
\nago. Today, those who sympathize with his daughter may face the
\nsame draconian law.<\/p>\n
The writer is a graduate of Monash University in Australia.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/subversion-law-has-long-history-in-ri-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }