'Pakpahan's critical remark is neutral'

'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)