Legislators split over idea to scrap subversion law
Legislators split over idea to scrap subversion law
JAKARTA (JP): Legislators were split into opposing camps
yesterday over the National Commission on Human Rights' proposal
to scrap the controversial subversion law.
Advocating the law is Soesanto Bangoennagoro of the Golkar
ruling political organization. But he emphasized that the law
should be open for revision.
Marcel Beding of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI)
supports the idea that the law, which the government passed in
1963 without the House of Representatives' approval, must be
dumped because it encourages violations of human rights.
Soesanto said the law has proven effective to suppress moves
to undermine the state ideology Pancasila. "To scrap it would
represent too radical an action," he told The Jakarta Post.
He attributed the "success" in putting down the well-known
1965 coup attempt by the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) to the
disputed law.
The human rights commission recommended last week that the
government drop the law because it hampers democratization,
increasingly demanded by the Indonesian public.
After reviewing the law for over a year, the commission
concluded that it contradicts the universal norms for human
rights and is incompatible with the Criminal Code.
Numerous government and military officials have voiced their
objection to the commission's proposals while human rights
campaigners are voicing their support.
Soesanto said he would agree if the law's chapters on economic
crimes be dropped because they are no longer relevant to
increasingly liberal global economic activities.
"But there are no other laws which deal with matters like
attempts to topple the government or undermine Pancasila," he
said.
Soesanto is Indonesia's first prosecutor whose demand for the
death penalty for a man charged with subverting the state economy
in 1964 was accepted by court.
In his opinion, the demand to drop the subversion law does not
have a sound basis because the Soeharto government rarely applies
it and arbitrary arrests are not made.
The maximum penalty of death, as the law mandates, is still
relevant. "Even countries which have abolished the death penalty
are contemplating reinstatement. The U.S., which claims to be the
champion of democracy still has it," he said.
Meanwhile, Marcel pointed out that the subversion law shows
that the government does not have self-confidence in safeguarding
the nation's integrity.
"The republic is a lot more stable nowadays than it was when
the law was made," he said. "Every government and military
official takes pride in assuring the public of its stability."
He argued that the Criminal Code is a sufficient legal base
for the government to maintain security and order.
Sudomo, chief of the Supreme Advisory Council, implied that
the law is no longer relevant when he said that the law could be
revised but not scrapped, Marcel said.
Sudomo, a confidante of President Soeharto and a former chief
of the Internal Security Agency (Kopkamtib), said Tuesday he was
opposed to any idea to drop the subversion law.
Marcel, a House member from Commission I overseeing security
and defense, said it is unlikely that Indonesia will face a
military threat from another country in the next 20 years.
Human rights commission activists have found fundamental
weaknesses in the subversion law, which encourages violations of
people's basic rights.
For example, the law allows the Attorney General's Office to
detain anyone suspected of subverting the government for up to
one year.
It also empowers the authorities to seize objects whether or
not they belong to a suspect, a ruling considered contradictory
to the principle of presumption of innocence guaranteed by the
Criminal Code. (pan)