Constitution needs reviewing

An article by Romo Mangun (noted intellectual), Toward an all brand new Indonesia (Kompas, June 4, 1998)), can broaden our horizons of thought in that the 1945 Constitution is not absolute and that it may be subject to revision. Historically speaking, the founding fathers of our nation intentionally made it very flexible in view of the emergency then prevailing.

Our fault is that we have seemingly sanctified the Constitution. We have considered it a sort of God. Even elementary school pupils are indoctrinated with the Constitution. Tinker with the 1945 Constitution, and you may end up being labeled a communist or suspected of harboring subversive ideas.

In fact, the Constitution is open to improvement for the sake of a better and more democratic life of the nation and the state. Articles concerning human rights may be supplemented to the body of the Constitution (In his dissertation, Adnan Buyung Nasution discussed the fact that the 1945 Constitution contains fewer articles on human rights than the Provisional 1950 Constitution).

According to Romo Mangun, the 1945 Constitution enabled the two former presidents to wield a very strong position. The flexibility of the 1945 Constitution enabled president Sukarno to be an all-powerful president. Pak Harto could serve as a sole ruler for over 30 years also thanks to the flexibility of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, Romo Mangun argues, as long as the 1945 Constitution serves as the framework of the activities of the Republic of Indonesia, the result will be just the same whoever is elected Indonesian president.

The flexibility of the 1945 Constitution makes it easy for anyone, particularly the powers that be, to interpret it to suit their purpose. In his article, Romo Mangun takes as his example paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the 1945 Constitution. "The economy made up as a joint undertaking on the basis of the principle of togetherness" can be easily and obviously interpreted and validated as "a collusive undertaking on the basis of the principle of nepotism and cronyism".

Another example is that paragraph 3 of Article 33 has been interpreted in a way that brings suffering to the people. The paragraph reads: "Earth and water and the natural resources contained therein shall be controlled by the state and utilized for the maximum benefit of the people."

Deviation from the stipulation in this paragraph is evident in Kalimantan. Forests have been divided into lots by the businesspeople and the ruler. As the division of these forest areas into lots is sophisticatedly conducted through a satellite, even villages are included in this forest plotting as areas for oil palm estates. The traditional communal land titles of land owned traditionally by villagers is not recognized.

Rubber estates are said to be rubber forests while fruit trees in orchards are said to grow by themselves out of dung. Local people are often persuaded to give up their estates to estate companies. if they refuse they will be intimidated and accused of opposing development. They have to surrender their land and their estates in the interest of the public and the nation. "Land is controlled by the state." Refusing to surrender your piece of land will mean going against the 1945 Constitution, particularly paragraph 3 of Article 33.

The use of this paragraph as self-justification has brought plight to most Dayaks in the hinterland of Kalimantan. The presence of forest concessionaires and oil palm estates have driven away the economic system of the Dayak people, which is a combination of rice cultivation without irrigation and rubber planting. The Dayaks are helpless against businessmen who are hand in gloves with the ruler and use paragraph 3 of Article 33 as their means of self-justification. To the Dayaks, land ownership is legalized only on the basis of their customary law. In this respect, the 1945 Constitution is considered the be-all and the end-all.

AMON STEFANUS

Ketapang, West Kalimantan