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)