PRD sentences

When the Supreme Court of the United States makes important judgments and interpretations of the U.S. Constitution and national ideals, they are viewed as matters of great national importance reflecting the very substance of national identity. In that context, I would like to comment on the significant rulings made by the Indonesian courts on April 28, 1997 that touched on the interpretation of the Pancasila national ideology when sentencing Mr. Budiman Sudjatmiko to a term of imprisonment of 13 years along with lengthy sentences for another eight PRD (Democratic People's Party) members.

The effects of the rulings, if I am not mistaken, was that Mr. Budiman and his party's non-violent advocacy of multi-party political democracy, social democracy, political reform and criticism of the government were subversive actions that are inherently inconsistent with the Pancasila ideology, therefore meriting term of imprisonment that are comparable with similar sentences handed down in China to activists there who attempt to "undermine" that country's state ideology with pro-democracy activities.

If we are to take the Indonesian judiciary seriously, the above judgments carry extremely serious consequences that, I believe, appear to depart from the achievement of the New Order government in ridding Indonesia in the 1960s from the specter of totalitarian.

Events in Indonesia are now being watched, perhaps more closely than at any time in its history, by international experts, academics and investors; while the subversion trials themselves are being scrutinized by observers from International Commission of Jurists, the International Bar Association and other respected international bodies. Indonesia can ill afford further damage to its good name, especially in this increasingly- competitive era of globalization.

However, surely if the criticism of these young pro-democracy activists is unfounded and wrongly-targeted, is it not preferable for the government to use its unlimited human resources and media facilities to counter their arguments, rather than resorting to draconian double-digit imprisonment terms that appear to run contrary to article 28 of the 1945 Constitution and to the resolve of the New Order administration to realize a "just and civilized humanity?"

ROGER SMITH

Jakarta