Indonesia yet to see triumph of people's rights

By T. Mulya Lubis

JAKARTA (JP): Literature about people's rights contain many debates on individual rights, rights of groups, rights of the state and rights of the people. Most often debated are, indeed, individual rights.

However, nowadays debates concerning group rights are often held, in particular on the rights of minority groups, also women's rights, children's and workers' rights. Besides that, debates about people's rights have made their presence felt since the onset of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, also known as the Banjul Declaration, after its inception in 1981 in Banjul, Gambia.

From paragraph 19 to 24 of the Banjul Declaration we may observe the stipulations of the people's rights which have been widely covered such as the right to economic equity, the right to live, the right to use natural resources, the right for social and economic development, the right for national and international peace, and the right to live in a healthy environment.

Along these lines, the Banjul Declaration has also formulated the duties of a state to promote and guarantee the implementation of the people's rights.

From the aspect of the people's rights, the Banjul Declaration is quite progressive, although implementation of these rights border on impossible. The crux is that consistent implementation of people's rights would often clash with the rights of individuals and group rights. For example, do property rights (individual rights) have to make way for people's rights?

If that should be the case, how to create an economic development which is supported by a free market system upholding individual rights and at the same time instill growth? It is more crucial now that the world, including China, Vietnam, Myanmar and Tanzania, is implementing a market oriented economic system.

A social economic system, once the obsession of the intelligentsia, has been abandoned since it was regarded a failure, especially when international competition is called for.

A social economic system may not increase poverty but it fails to raise the economic standard of the people.

Thus, is further debate on people's rights necessary? The answer is a definite yes since the ideals to fulfill these rights have to be kept alive, and to a certain extent they should go together with individual rights. Our raison d'etre for establishing a nation and country is our commitment to the people as minutes of our 1945 Constitution testify.

Sukarno, Hatta, Soepomo, Yamin and others talked about a better future of prosperity and social justice for the Indonesian people. The Constitution, brief as it is, already nourished the seeds of the people's rights as referred to in its Introduction (Mukadimah) and paragraph 33 of the Constitution.

We read in the introduction about the commitment to "realize social justice for all the people of Indonesia", while paragraph 33, verse 3 reads, "Land, water and the natural resources are controlled by the State and should be used mainly for the people's welfare."

The two matters do not, indeed, explicitly mention that "the people's rights would bring forth social justice" nor that "the people's rights would materialize prosperity", but we may draw the conclusion that the essence of what was written in the Introduction and in paragraph 33 of the Constitution, acknowledged the existence of the people's rights to obtain justice and prosperity (welfare) from the ongoing economic development.

Our question now is: have these rights been implemented in Indonesia which has been independent for 50 years?

It is sad to say that the people's rights have not been realized. In fact, the social gap has grown wider. The gap between Java and other regions, and between the western and eastern part of the country is still wide open while concentrations of economic resources are in the hands of a small group.

Such affairs are cause for worry, even if on the other hand we should be thankful that the total number of poor has declined to 26 million and the country's per capita income has reached US$920.

This is certainly a considerable achievement in a country with 190 million people, but this feat is weakened by the increasingly widening economic gap.

Studies of many farmers reveal a sorry state since many have lost their land, and in turn have become farm workers, laborers, or worse, unemployed. It is unfortunate that the law in most cases does not side with these poor farmers. The law is literally applied without referring to history, or from social backgrounds. And because the laws are made by urbanites, often the laws are not applicable to rural areas. And even worse, our legal officials often take sides with authorities and business people in demonstrative ways.

This is what happened in the East Java town of Jenggawah and Timika in Irian Jaya. Farmers, who used to farm for generations in Jenggawah, lost the only livelihood they had -- their land. The right of the farmers was obliterated by the law so that their land rights were transferred to a state company.

In Timika, the case was the same in essence, for the farmers lost their land and living environs due to a gold mining expansion program by PT Freeport Indonesia.

There were no casualties in Jenggawah, except a few who were identified as "puppeteers" are facing arrest. In Timika, it is reported, a number of people died and others went missing.

Does economic development have to be at the expense of people's lives? Should it not be the other way around, economic development feeding the people?

While we celebrate 50 years of Indonesian independence, it would be appropriate if we ask ourselves: How much of the people's rights, which the founders of the nation committed in the Constitution, have been implemented?

Or should independence spell the reverse to what was suffered by those in Jenggawah and by those buried in Timika?

The writer is a human rights activist based in Jakarta.