Constitution needs reviewing

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