Critics agree that law on subversion tough to revoke

Critics agree that law on subversion tough to revoke

JAKARTA (JP): "Let's be realistic", legal expert Loebby Loqman said when asked if the controversial subversion law would be revoked.

"I'm not pessimistic or optimistic, but I doubt if it will happen in the near future," he told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.

Loebby, a law professor at the University of Indonesia, was commenting on the National Commission on Human Rights' proposal to revoke the law, which it feels could be interpreted to encourage the violation of human rights.

After reviewing the law for more than a year, the commission concluded that the law contradicts the universal norms of human rights and is incompatible with the Criminal Code.

The law, for example, allows the Attorney General's Office to detain for up to a year anyone suspected of plotting against the government. The Criminal Code allows detention for 20 to 40 days.

Debate of the proposal has split into two camps. A number of legal experts as well as legislators support doing away with the law, which the government passed in 1963 without House approval.

In the opposing camp, government officials and members of the ruling Golkar cite the law's protection of the state ideology Pancasila. Relying on the Criminal Code, they say, is not enough because it requires evidence.

"If we have to wait for proof, we would have to wait until the country was destroyed," Attorney General Singgih said recently.

Sudomo, chief of the Supreme Advisory Council, opposes the proposal, saying without it the country would not have any other means of coping with threats of subversion.

Other proponents of the law, such as Golkar legislator Soesanto Bangoennagoro, say the proposal is unnecessary because the Soeharto government rarely applies the law and that arbitrary arrests are not made.

The maximum penalty of death, as the law mandates, is still relevant, he said, adding that even the United States has similar laws.

Muladi and Charles Himawan, both members of the human rights body, continued with the campaign over the weekend, calling for the abolition of the law.

Himawan said revocation will produce many gains legally and diplomatically.

"By scrapping the law, Indonesia will improve its image in the international forum," he told the Post. Many anti-Indonesian government campaigners have criticized the country's human rights record because of the existence of the law, he added.

There are domestic benefits to be gained as well. "Our people need peace of mind in order to develop (the country) which can be provided by abolishing the law," said Himawan.

Muladi said the law is no longer relevant and runs counter to the public's demand for democratization. "If the law is maintained, I'm afraid there will be more violations of human rights."

Muladi also said that the law is a reflection of "over-criminalization". "The law is not proportional because it creates greater leeway for violation of human rights than for its protection," said the professor of law from Diponegoro University in Semarang.

Muladi, however, is optimistic that the government will heed the calls for change. A compromise might have to be sought to satisfy all parties, he said.

Instead of being revoked, the law could be revised or supplemented with the various international legal instruments to protect human rights, he said.

Soesanto is one supporter of revising the law, adding that the law's chapters on economic crimes should be dropped because they are no longer relevant in today's global economy.

Soesanto was Indonesia's first prosecutor to successfully demand the death penalty for a man charged with subverting the state economy in 1964.

Loebby and Muladi also believe the Criminal Code should be revised. The existing Criminal Code, Loebby said, adequately deals with the activities of underground organizations or attempts on the President's life.

"But there is always room for improvement," Loebby said, adding that the government is likely to replace the law before revoking it.

Himawan said he remains optimistic the government will eventually revoke the law. "If the argument is that (political crimes such as subversion) are not covered by other laws, it's not true," he said. (swe/har)