Discussing bill openly not taboo for the sake of public interest
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.