Freedom of expression remain in the back seat: Experts
Freedom of expression remain in the back seat: Experts
Hera Diani, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
After last year's landmark direct presidential election, the
upcoming direct election of local administration chiefs may
further lead Indonesia toward being a full-fledged democracy.
But activists and experts have cast doubt over the country's
adherence to democracy, so far as freedom of expression remains
restricted and in some cases is criminalized.
The first government in the reform era passed Law No. 9/1998
that regulates airing opinions in public. The law has since
served as justification for arresting and taking demonstrators to
court, and for dispersing public gatherings in the name of
security concerns.
Protests, which sometimes ended in violence, marked the
drafting of the legislation, a process that took the House of
Representatives only 20 days to complete. President BJ Habibie
enacted the bill on Oct. 23, 1998, just one day after the House
endorsed it.
Ignatius Mahendra, who at the time chaired the Yogyakarta
branch of the National Democratic Student League (LMND), and Eko
Widodo, a leader of the Street Singers Union, were among the
first to fall prey to the law. Both were convicted of insulting
the president and were sentenced to three years in jail.
Under the same law, protesters who staged a demonstration in
front of the State Palace were jailed in July 2002.
There are other examples of this law being use against people
who protested against the government in a way deemed illegal.
Rights campaigner Johnson Panjaitan from the Indonesian Legal
Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) urged that the law be
repealed as it had been misused and wrongly interpreted.
The law requires people to notify the police in writing at
least three days in advance of any demonstration or public
gathering.
Article 6 of the law stipulates that opinion expressed in
public must respect other people's rights and the unity and
diversity of the nation.
Johnson said the articles had been misused by security
personnel to impinge on freedom of expression.
"Recently a meeting between activists who planned a
humanitarian mission in Aceh was dispersed. Police said they
didn't have permission to hold the meeting, while the law does
not stipulate that it is necessity to obtain a police permit,"
said Johnson recently.
Political observer Arbi Sanit viewed the law as
incomprehensive and open to interpretation.
"People are arrested for burning or stepping on the
president's pictures, or on symbols of state ideology Pancasila.
They are said to have insulted the state. That's ridiculous and
narrow-minded, as well as abusing people's rights," Arbi said.
All this time, he said, collective freedom is above
everything, with state security becoming the priority.
"But that ideology has failed, and people are not becoming
more prosperous. So, freedom must be based on an individual's
rights," Arbi said.
He therefore insisted that Law No. 9/1998 be repealed as
freedom of expression was guaranteed in Article 28 of the
Constitution.
"Just follow the Constitution, then establish an ability to
express an opinion in a good manner, while state institutions
serve to prevent conflict resulting from it," Arbi said.
Law expert Romli Atmasasmita, however, said the law remained
relevant to regulating demonstrations, but he agreed that it
needed amending.
"If the law were repealed, who would determine that an
aspiration is right or wrong, or whether police actions are
right?" Romli said.
He called for improvement in implementation of the law
instead.
"No matter how good legislation is, the problem lies in the
implementation. The Anticorruption Law, for instance, stipulates
confiscation of assets (for the guilty), but the police just
never use it," Romli said.
He said even in developed countries, there are regulations
governing freedom of expression.
"Now, the problem is the professionalism and the mentality of
state institutions," he said.