Obsolete laws

Although the same grievances have been aired many times before with little or no effect, the renewed interest in the need for a review of old and obsolete regulations certainly deserves a warm welcome. This is particularly true since the voices for reform are now being joined by high ranking government officials.

Judging by news reports of the last few days, this time it was the National Commission on Human Rights which started the ball rolling. In a statement given to reporters earlier this week, the commission said it was examining a number of laws which might contain provisions which, in their execution, could open the door to human rights violations in Indonesia. At the top of the list for assessment was the anti-subversion law, which is officially known as Law N. 11 of 1963.

Objection to this particular law is of course nothing new. Civil rights activists, including students, have long since opposed it on the grounds that it muzzles freedom of opinion and expression. The same argument has been repeatedly -- and infallibly without avail -- made by defense lawyers in trials of undesired opponents of government policies.

The difference this time is that an admission of the need for such a review has also come from high officials such as Minister of Justice Oetojo Oesman and Attorney General Amin Singgih. In remarks made to reporters on Wednesday, Oetojo Oesman said the anti-subversion law should be reviewed in light of the more sophisticated techniques being employed by criminals. "The improvement of criminal methods using the latest technologies and the increase in transnational crime will require a better anti- subversion law," he was reported as having said.

While that statement may leave one wondering whether the minister and our human rights proponents share the same ideas and are speaking the same language with regard to the issue, nevertheless this is the first time we can remember the need for a review being officially admitted.

In principle, laws are there to protect the community and provide justice. However, hard reality is that "positive" law -- that is to say, laws as they exist in government gazettes and other official documents -- is of necessity always one or more steps behind the social dynamics that are at work in the community. Law-making, after all, is a process that must go through various stages.

Considering all this, it is surely not difficult to see that the need for such a review is especially appropriate in a country such as ours, where the same laws have been in use for close to decades or longer, despite the dramatic changes that have occurred and transformed our society over that period.

With all that said, and now that agreement apparently exists on the basic need for review, the next logical step to take is to put the word into action. That, we fear, may be easier said than done. Aside from the possibly tough task of agreeing on what kind of reforms to initiate, there is the matter of procedure.

We are, of course, pleased that an agreement seems to exist on the basic need for a review. But whether this agreement will lead to the conception of new laws that will satisfy most if not all the proponents of reform, both inside government and out, is a different matter. For that to happen, a meeting of minds must first be achieved. Then a proper mechanism that can smooth the way for such a reform must be ensured. Good intentions alone, we are afraid, won't yield much.