The trauma remains<\/p>\n
The new ruling on freedom of expression announced by the
\ngovernment on Wednesday removes some of the excessive obligations
\nplaced on the people's shoulders by the now obsolete Criminal
\nCode. But as a whole, the new policy falls far short of meeting
\nthe public's expectations. People from many circles are
\ndisappointed by the new policy in which police retain the
\nauthority to curtail constitutional rights.<\/p>\n
People now have the freedom to hold wedding parties or similar
\ngatherings without police permits even though this kind of basic
\npersonal freedom should have been provided to them five decades
\nago. Another awkward element of the new policy is the freedom
\ngiven to political groups to hold meetings without a permit as
\nlong as \"they do not discuss how the state is being governed and
\nhave no intention of influencing the way that is done\".<\/p>\n
In fact, the people have a genuine constitutional right to
\ndiscuss politics, including the way they are being governed and
\nwhere the government will take them.<\/p>\n
The question remains: Who has the authority to judge the
\nnature of the meeting? The police officers? What a comedy that
\nwould create if such a thing were to happen.<\/p>\n
The new policy also stipulates that anyone wanting to hold a
\npolitical demonstration is obliged to request a police permit
\nseven days beforehand. According to the new ruling the police
\nstill have special authority to break up any gathering if \"there
\nis foregoing evidence showing intent or activity which disrupts
\nthe public order or breaches the law\".<\/p>\n
These stipulations leave us wondering what the policy change
\nreally means.<\/p>\n
People who wish to demonstrate against any unlawful acts by
\npower holders will automatically lose momentum if they have to
\nwait for a police permit.<\/p>\n
To make a long story short, in a country where the
\nadministration is very strong, with no sound system of checks and
\nbalances, the authorities tend to look for loopholes between
\nevery comma and period in any ruling in order to justify their
\nuse of power.<\/p>\n
The authorities have broken up so many gatherings that our
\npeople are dogged by trauma. The police have manufactured
\nevidence time after time to come up with the charge of
\n\"disturbing public order\" as a reason to break up meetings.<\/p>\n
A recent meeting of an unauthorized labor union was banned
\nbecause of \"a public disturbance\" caused by demonstrators
\nrenouncing its existence. Instead of banning the meeting, the
\npolice officers should have dispersed the mysterious protesters
\nwho were demonstrating outside the place the gathering was held.
\nThis is a blatant example of well planned abuse of power.<\/p>\n
When Coordinating Minister for Political Affairs and Security
\nSoesilo Soedarman announced in August that the government planned
\nto relax the permit policy, many people welcomed it as the
\ndawning of a new era of openness because they believed there
\nwould be a significant change in the old policy. But what was
\nexpected as a great salvo of freedom on Wednesday has turned out
\nto be a small firecracker.<\/p>\n
There is no substantial change. The authorities still seem
\nintent on controlling the people's political activities and
\nforcing them to toe the government line. The new ruling has
\nfailed to return the basic rights stolen from them so long ago by
\nthe Dutch colonial authorities. Neither has it opened the way
\ntowards the pure implementation of the freedom of expression
\nguaranteed by the 1945 Constitution.<\/p>\n
By issuing the new ruling, the government seems to be saying
\nit is willing to give the citizens political freedom bit by bit.
\nThis means the rigid political situation is here to stay for the
\nforeseeable future.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-trauma-remains-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}