JP/4/Express
Freedom of expression remain in the back seat OR State of RI's democracy reflected in lack of freedom
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campaigner Johnson Panjaitan from the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) urged that the law be repealed as it had been misused and wrongly interpreted.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.