Discussing bill openly not taboo for the sake of public interest

Bayu Wicaksono, Association of Public Attorneys, (P3I), Jakarta

Why is it that people here almost always reject a bill? Such rejection seems to have become a social habit. This may reflect democracy among the grass roots level -- yet often those joining such movements are found to be in the dark about why they are rejecting the bills.

This condition further reflects the performance of the legislature at the national and regional levels. Public ignorance of the process of drafting a bill also explains such objections. Many know that the drafting of the bill involves other parties than the House, such as ministries.

Two current examples are the bill on public participation and the bill on freedom to access information. These bills, if passed into law, will become the main basis of all bill-drafting processes. Every bill will have to go through public discourse.

Frequent rejection of a number of bills such as the bills on the Indonesian Military, intelligence and the national educational system, sometimes involving large rallies, has become a problem in itself.

Protesters say the bills have yet to accommodate their aspirations -- while public participation is still low and while we have yet to have legal access to documents of public offices.

This high level of rejection of bills is not seen in countries where public participation is high. This also suggests a strong reluctance among legislators to discuss bills openly with the public.

A democratic nation is not identical with one that intensively holds protest rallies. Democracy is based more on the capacity of the legislative body in absorbing public aspirations by discussing matters that will become the subject of a bill. Unfortunately, the legislative body is sadly lacking in this particular capacity -- even reporters are often not allowed to attend legislative meetings discussing bills and people are often taken by reports that a bill is ready for ratification.

In a recent discussion on globalization and terrorism, which was held by the Socialist Democratic Association (PDS) in cooperation with the Imparsial non government organization, one speaker, Abdul Gani of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, said that the state and information (controlled by the government) could be described to a human being and his or her genitals.

To reveal them would induce others to think one was crazy, he said. There might be some truth in this analogy in the event of officials having to cover up state secrets in the face of "enemies" during wartime, for instance.

Yet in principle, the freedom to access information is not intended to allow people to access classified information. Rather, it refers to the freedom to access general information.

If the right to such freedom and also public participation are guaranteed by law, there should be much less rejection of the bills deliberated at the House of Representatives.