Freedom of expression decree comes under fire

Freedom of expression decree comes under fire

JAKARTA (JP): Activists again urged the House of
Representatives (DPR) to reject the controversial government
decree which purports to limit freedom of expression -- a call
which was promptly supported by some legislators.

In a hearing with House Commission I on security, defense,
foreign affairs and information here on Tuesday, legal expert
Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara from the Institute for Policy
Research and Advocacy (ELSAM) and Sebastian Salang from the
Association of Indonesian Catholic Students (PMKRI) both spoke
out against the decree.

At least three legislators shared their view that the
government ruling in lieu of a law, known as Perpu No. 2/1998, on
freedom of expression should be dropped.

"There is no justification whatsoever for such a ruling to be
endorsed," Hakim said.

The 1945 Constitution only permits the government to issue
regulations in lieu of laws in a state of emergency.

"Let's not go into the substance of the bill just yet, let's
first judge whether the government's argument that the ruling was
issued in a state of emergency is a valid one," he said.

"If the House disagrees with the government over what
constitutes a 'state of emergency', simply reject the ruling,"
Hakim said of the document submitted to the House for
deliberation on Sept. 11.

He warned the legislature of the danger of "falling into the
trap" of producing a law which would plunge the country into a
state of "de facto emergency" similar to the way it was during
the 32 years of former president Soeharto's rule.

Hakim cited nine conditions recognized by the United Nations
as conditions which must be met if a government wants to declare
a state of emergency.

One condition is that the head of state makes an official
declaration and sets out a time frame for the emergency
situation, he said.

"President B.J. Habibie, in this case, never made any such
statement," Hakim added.

Sebastian warned the House against committing a "sin" the way
it did when it endorsed a seventh consecutive presidential term
for Soeharto in March.

The legislators who agreed with the activists were Ginting
Sutradara and Iqbal Assegaff from the Golkar faction and Muslich
from the United Development Party (PPP) faction. Golkar's
official line was that the bill should be deliberated rather than
be rejected immediately after it was submitted.

Ginting said he would vote against the bill if a ballot was
held. "I think there should be a vote on the bill, but I am not
optimistic there will be one," he said.

Iqbal said all Commission I legislators felt inclined to
reject the bill. "Unlike the PPP which has rejected the bill
altogether, we will, however, move to the next stage of
deliberation," he said.

Iqbal agreed with Ginting that the current House has only two
tasks -- to produce a law that will ensure a fair and free poll
next year, and to reject the ruling on freedom of expression.

Muslich said the suggestions put forward by ELSAM, PMKRI and
law expert Soenaryati Hartono on Monday only "gave more weight"
to the faction's case against the bill.

He also used the occasion to urge other factions represented
on Commission I to cancel the third reading of the bill, which is
scheduled for Sept. 28.

"If a third reading goes ahead, it means you will endorse it,"
he said, adding that the PPP faction had decided not to attend
the session.

The bill, drafted by the Ministry of Defense and Security,
proposes to regulate street demonstrations.

It seeks to ban protests near presidential palaces, other
strategic locations and places of worship.

If enacted, it would also mean the police must be informed in
advance of any demonstration involving up to 50 people. Protests
involving more than 50 people would require a police permit.

Another clause in the bill states that the broadcast and print
media must obtain police permission to report demonstrations.

If passed by the House, the document drafted by the government
would become a regulation in lieu of a law.

The government insists the regulation is necessary to maintain
law and order and has pointed out that similar regulations
already exist in other countries, including the United States.
(aan)