'Pakpahan's critical remark is neutral'

JAKARTA (JP): An expert witness testified yesterday that comments made by labor leader Muchtar Pakpahan, being tried for subversion, should be regarded as neutral personal statements.

Political scientist Ryaas Rashid, a witness for the prosecution, told the South Jakarta District Court that Pakpahan's statements were neutral unless he threatened to conduct a revolution.

Pakpahan, leader of the unrecognized Indonesian Prosperous Labor Union (SBSI), was charged in December with subversion through activities which the prosecution said undermined the government.

The prosecution claimed that he spread hatred against the government in a book he wrote and other statements he made between August 1995 and July 27, 1996.

The prosecution introduced evidence yesterday of Pakpahan's speech in Lisbon on Feb. 23, 1996.

Pakpahan reportedly said there were two ways to bring about political change in Indonesia. One was through reform by constitutional means and the other was by a "people's power revolution".

Pakpahan stopped short of saying he would prescribe a revolution saying only that he believed in reformist ways. But he warned that if reform failed, a revolution would come.

While describing Pakpahan's statement as neutral, Rashid, the head of the Institute of Government Administration Science in Bandung, West Java, said that critical speeches of one's own country delivered abroad could raise "ethical problems".

"From a political ethics point of view, the purpose of the remarks could be questioned," he said.

The trial entered into heated debate yesterday when prosecutors entered a written statement by Pakpahan which they said undermined state authority.

"The avenue of people's sovereignty in our statehood has been blocked, killing off democracy," read the statement signed by Pakpahan on June 1, 1996.

Pakpahan's lawyers rejected the prosecution's evidence saying that the statement was never publicly distributed. They maintained that the statement was only presented to the House of Representatives.

"What is your evidence that the letter was distributed?" Judge Djazuli P. Sudibyo asked the prosecutor.

"The evidence is that the mass media quoted it," prosecutor Moekiat replied.

When Rashid was asked to comment on this, he said that as long as the letter was only sent to the House, it was ethically acceptable.

"If it was then spread to the mass media then they were responsible," Rashid remarked.

Yesterday's hearing was adjourned after Pakpahan was asked if he was able to continue. The labor leader said he was not able to due to his health.

The trial was adjourned until next week when the court will hear a new witness. Rashid will again be called to testify on Sept. 25. (05)