Human rights commission regains society's favor

Human rights commission regains society's favor

The government recently charged the human rights body with
having overstepped its boundary by becoming directly involved in
investigating cases it is probing. However, a minister retracted
the accusation this week to the relief of many. Sociologist
Mochtar Mas'oed shares his view.

Question: How do you read Coordinating Minister for Political
Affairs and Security Soesilo Soedarman's statement retracting his
previous allegation to the National Commission on Human Rights?

Answer: It means that the commission now has another
legitimization, a more substantial one besides the presidential
decree by which it was founded: the society's trust. This is what
has led the government to retract its allegation. It realized
that if it didn't, it would give the impression that it doesn't
support the commission's task. The government, therefore, will
think twice before making critical remarks.

Q: What about the minister's allegation itself? Do you think
it's reasonable, since the commission is in fact flooded by
thousands of cases?

A: What the commission is doing now is only bridging the gap
created by inefficient government institutions. They are losing
their credibility among the society. As a result, more and more
people are turning to the commission to seek justice. Therefore,
we cannot say that the commission is doing something beyond its
authority.

As we all know, problems faced by our society are mostly legal
cases concerning land and labor disputes. In responding to such
complaints, the commission carries out investigations and gives
recommendations to related government institutions.

Critical remarks do not indicate that the commission has not
done its work properly. It shows that there is something wrong
with the people's trust toward government institutions.

Q: Some said the allegation could have been a "warning" from
the government ...

A: If it was, it should have been given by a higher government
institution, because the commission was founded through a
presidential decree. The fact that a presidential decree, not a
law, happens to be the commission's legal basis is a weakness in
my opinion. If it was founded through a law, the commission would
not be dependent upon the issuer of the decree.

I couldn't say whether Soesilo's remark was meant to be a
warning. What was obvious to me is that he didn't seem to be
happy with what the commission had been doing. It
seemed that he had wanted "less vocal" people to play a more
significant role in the commission than the "more vocal" ones.

Actually, there was no need for him to do so, because the
commission is supposed to be an independent monitoring body.

Q: Some others said the critical remarks addressed to the
commission might indicate a feeling of jealousy toward the trust
the commission has won ...

A: If it's true, I don't blame those who are jealous. But
there's no need to be jealous over such a thing. The commission
has no power to execute. It only makes recommendations to the
government. That's all. They should learn from the commission how
it won so much trust from the society.

Q: Basically, what undermines people's trust toward the
judiciary institutions?

A: The final judgment of a legal process is what is called the
"sense of justice". Every society has it. It's something we
cannot manipulate. We cannot just ignore it either.

That's why a case can't be considered closed by simply giving
an official police statement, for example. That's not enough.

The commission, therefore, can hopefully motivate other
institutions like the police department, prosecutor's office, the
justice department and others to work as they are supposed to be
working.

Q: Why do those institutions fail to fulfill people's sense of
justice the way the commission does?

A: Legal officers are usually not flexible in taking actions.
There are many things obstructing their moves, like their sense
of solidarity as members of the civil service corps, the
bureaucracy, etc.

Commission members, on the other hand, are very flexible in
doing their job. They are free from bureaucracy. They can work
efficiently, the way they wish to. They are independent thinking
public figures. These are their added values.

Q: About the allegation itself, what do you think?

A: Differences of opinion are common in a democracy. Everyone,
including Soesilo, has the right to state his or her opinion.
It's still constitutional to do so, as long as it does not
involve suggestions that the commission should be liquidated. If
it does, it's no longer a remark, but an interference.

Criticism is also part of a process toward maturity. Although
it seems it's been very hard for us to grow up. People tend to
cover anything up because they are afraid of creating a public
conflict. They still think that a public debate is bad.

Q: How can we socialize such a thing?

A: Children should be made familiar with that culture as early
as possible. Let everyone state his or her own opinion. In that
way, people will be able to know what is actually happening
around them.

This can serve as a public service to the outside world. It
will show that there is a political openness in Indonesia, that
there is a freedom of expression. In other words, there is a
"democracy" here. It's important, isn't it?

Q: The government is now conducting a bimonthly meeting with
the commission, what do you think of this?

A: It is good, as long as it doesn't become a forum to achieve
"harmony" between the two parties, since it could drive the body
to be less independent. (swa)

Dr. Mochtar Mas'oed is a lecturer of political science at
Gadjah Mada University.