A truly express law

The Law on Freedom of Expression which was approved by the House of Representatives on Thursday has at least lived up to part of its name. It was indeed an express law. Whether or not it guarantees people's freedom of expression as it is purported to do is highly debatable; the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It took the House exactly 20 days to deliberate and pass the government-drafted bill. In spite of the public controversy the bill generated, the law must go down as one of the fastest pieces of legislation the House has ever churned out. Most bills usually take months or even years to become law.

From the very beginning, the government of President B.J. Habibie has been bent on regulating demonstrations, the very force that drove his predecessor Soeharto out of office in May, and by default, put the country's former technology czar where he is now. Drafted by the Ministry of Defense and Security, the government pushed the bill into the House's tight agenda which is running behind schedule to deliberate the political bills the country desperately needs to enact in time for next year's election.

The government initially invoked a state of emergency, permitted by the 1945 Constitution, to introduce the bill as a regulation in lieu of a law. This was a shortcut to secure its swift passage, but the House rejected it. Two days later, on Oct. 2, the government resubmitted the bill, this time in accordance with the proper procedures. And after only 20 days of deliberation, the House unanimously endorsed it.

The honorable members of the House may pat themselves on the back for toning down the bill from its original, somewhat draconian, form. They succeeded in deleting the government's proposal that street demonstrations involving more than 100 people must have a police permit. The final version of the law simply says that the police must be notified of all demonstrations at least three days in advance, and that there is no limit on the number of people allowed in any protest.

House members never questioned the real motive behind the government's obsession to push the bill down their throats. They uncritically accepted the argument that the law was needed because many recent protests had turned violent and undermined confidence in the nation, particularly on the part of the business community, and therefore hampered the nation's recovery efforts. To accept this line of argument is tantamount to blaming demonstrators, particularly students, for the current crisis.

We cannot think of any other motive for the government's obsession with this law other than that ministers will use it to prevent a repetition of the "people's power" revolution that swept Soeharto from power. Although the final version has been heavily watered down, past experience suggests that any law in this country can be twisted and corrupted by those in power to serve their interests. The police for example may come up with its own interpretation of the clause requiring demonstrators to notify them in advance.

The biggest objection to the Law on Freedom of Expression is that in the current political environment, public expression through protests is the only effective means for people to channel their aspirations. If existing political institutions, particularly the House and the People's Consultative Assembly, had functioned effectively, there would be no need for any one to endure scorching heat or run the gauntlet of torrential rain and lightning to express their aspirations in street marches.

The change of guard from Soeharto to Habibie has not made these political institutions effective overnight. The House and the Assembly are both still filled with people of the old political mentality. The way the House succumbed to government pressure to allow the bill's swift passage, in spite of its own tight agenda and strong objections from outside, only reinforces the widespread belief about its impotence.

Although the Law on Freedom of Expression is mandated by the 1945 Constitution, it is a piece of legislation whose time has not yet come. Irrespective of what the law says, people will find ways of expressing their aspirations. Deprive them of this inalienable right and they could be provoked into venting their frustrations in a more violent way.