1963 Subversion Law still needed: Singgih

JAKARTA (JP): Attorney General Singgih said yesterday the controversial 1963 Subversion Law would be needed until Indonesia introduced a substitute law to deal with political crimes.

But he agreed the subversion law should be enforced carefully so that it was used only against political crimes that threatened the state.

Singgih said he was opposed to any proposals to revoke the law because crimes related to state security could be handled through the Criminal Code.

"The criminal code is appropriate to deal with common crimes but not for political crimes that could undermine the state," he said.

Critics say the law, which carries a maximum penalty of death, is inhumane because it is easy to manipulate and gives the government sole authority to define what constitutes a subversive act.

The law was first used in the late 1960s against leaders of the now-banned Indonesian Communist Party for attempting a coup. It was also used to deal with activists involved in antigovernment demonstrations in the late 1970s.

It is currently being used to prosecute labor leader Muchtar Pakpahan and Democratic People's Party activists on trial for sowing hatred against the government.

The National Commission on Human Rights has also called for the abolition of the law but the government has failed to respond to its demand.

The latest debate on the controversial law was triggered last week when Armed Forces Commander Gen. Feisal Tanjung reportedly told the commission he would agree to its abolition and replace it with an internal security act.

Military officials said that Indonesia needs an internal security act in anticipation of escalating threats to national stability.

The Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation said Monday that if the security act was aimed at replacing the subversion law it would merely duplicate the existing law.

"The duplication will reduce people's trust in the laws," the foundation said in a statement.

"The commander touched on the existence of internal acts in Singapore and Malaysia which give the government wide authority to control their people. The act is criticized by democracy campaigners in the two countries," it continued.

The Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association said the subversion law was intended to ward off opposition, "Basically it violates human rights," it said. (05)