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.