Will House try to improve its image?<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Since Soeharto resigned from the presidency on
\nMay 21, many have jumped on the bandwagon of political opening,
\ncontributing opinions or actions to make a change for the better.<\/p>\n
Can legislators of the House of Representatives, bearing the
\ndecades-old image of being the government's rubber stamp, make a
\ndifference too? Skepticism looms but there is a glimmer of hope.<\/p>\n
Legislators, observers and activists have pointed to a few
\nopportunities that now lie open to the House to improve its
\nimage: rejection of a government regulation in lieu of a law on
\nfreedom of expression (Perpu 2\/1998), and the issuance of a law
\nensuring fair and free elections.<\/p>\n
Sutradara Ginting of the Golkar faction said in hearing last
\nTuesday that both issues are \"test cases\" for legislators to make
\na \"respectable exit\" after the elections, which are slated for
\nMay 1999, and after which new members would enter the House.<\/p>\n
The hearing discussing the regulation, at Commission I
\nfor security and defense, politics, law and information, involved
\nrepresentatives from National Police Headquarters, the
\nAssociation of Indonesian Catholic Students (PMKRI) and the
\nprivate Institute of Policy Research and Advocacy (Elsam).<\/p>\n
At the House's second reading of Perpu 2\/1998 on Sept. 17,
\nGolkar, along with the Armed Forces faction, decided to accept to
\ndeliberate it further; the United Development Party faction was
\nthe only one to reject it. The government-recognized Indonesian
\nDemocratic Party faction said it neither rejected nor supported
\nit.<\/p>\n
Ginting complained that as an individual legislator he had no
\nsay in rejecting Perpu 2\/1998. \"The say is with the faction,\" he
\nsaid. In a similar tone, another Golkar legislator said: \"Our
\nconscience rejected the regulation.\"<\/p>\n
According to the House's internal rule, a legislator only has
\nthe right to ask questions but factions have the last say.
\nHowever, in the House's internal rule on decision-making process,
\nvoting is possible -- theoretically.<\/p>\n
Should there be a secret ballot in future decision-making on
\nthe regulation, Ginting predicted the outcome would likely be to
\nreject Perpu 2\/1998.<\/p>\n
In the last and only decision-making in the House through
\nvoting, on Sept. 17, which was on candidates for the chairmanship
\nof the Supreme Audit Board, voting was done by requiring members
\nto stand up for their preferred candidate -- after which Golkar
\nmembers were questioned by their faction leaders. \"With a voting
\nmethod like that, no one would dare (to oppose the faction),\"
\nGinting said.<\/p>\n
Given such helplessness of faction members, the public has
\nbeen generally apathetic about the House, but the many recent
\ndemonstrations held there raising various demands point to
\nexactly the opposite, an activist said in the hearing.<\/p>\n
Riza Primahendra, chairman of PMKRI, said that PMKRI was among
\nthose who still had \"a little trust\" in the House.<\/p>\n
In the case of Perpu 2\/1998, drafted by the Ministry of
\nDefense and Security, the House, Riza said, could contribute an
\n\"elegant\" role by rejecting it.<\/p>\n
Among the regulation's controversial articles are those
\nstating that demonstrations should be limited to 50 people and
\nthat such actions need a police permit. Police permits regulated
\nin clause 9 refers to all forms and methods of conveying
\nexpression to the public in clause 8, which includes media
\ncoverage. This has led to the interpretation that media coverage
\nof a demonstration would also need a police permit.<\/p>\n
Minister of Justice Muladi has argued that a large part of the
\nregulation actually defends human rights, including the right to
\nsecurity in the midst of so many \"uncontrolled\" demonstrations
\nthese days.<\/p>\n
But Muladi, a former member of the National Commission for
\nHuman Rights, also said that it would be \"no problem\" if the
\nHouse rejected it, provided it had good reason to do so.<\/p>\n
Elsam and PMKRI submitted to Commission I what they said were
\nsolid reasons to reject the regulation: one was that the
\ngovernment's argument justifying the issuance of a government
\nrule in lieu of law -- that Indonesia was in a state of emergency
\n-- was wrong.<\/p>\n
Among 19 conditions entailed to a country's state of
\nemergency, as cited by Elsam director, lawyer Abdul Hakim Garuda
\nNusantara, the first was an official proclamation by the
\nPresident of such a situation, which, he pointed out, did not
\nhappen before the announcement of Perpu 2\/1998.<\/p>\n
According to the 1945 Constitution's article 22, \"a condition
\nof pressing importance\", interpreted by many as a state of
\nemergency, justifies the government's issuance of a regulation in
\nlieu of a law if endorsed by the House.<\/p>\n
Ginting said now was the House's chance to play the strategic
\nrole of dropping the regulation, besides carefully deliberating
\nthe political laws next month.<\/p>\n
The laws -- the structure and position of the People's
\nConsultative Assembly\/House of Representatives and the regional
\nlegislature and political parties, besides the elections, -- were
\nscheduled by the government to enter public debate at the House
\nearly this month but it has been delayed until October.<\/p>\n
Ginting warned that if the House failed to produce the widely
\nexpected outcome, the image of the House would be shattered once
\nand for all.<\/p>\n
\"Golkar must change its paradigm from being a ruler's party to
\nbecome a real ruling party,\" Ginting later told The Jakarta Post.
\n(aan)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/will-house-try-to-improve-its-image-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}