Questions about amnesty

As the government releases 50 more political prisoners, the freed activists will leave behind not only the rest of the convicts but also a question about why the authorities have applied unaccustomed criteria in granting clemency.

The government's action, which falls under the principle of a general amnesty, appears to have been made using standards unfamiliar and not popular in international circles. Although the basic reason behind the decision is in line with similar policies of other countries -- to push for greater democracy -- the release is clearly marked by hesitation and skepticism.

In other countries, general amnesties encompass all political prisoners, mainly prisoners of conscience. This was very clear when President Corazon Aquino released political prisoners in the Philippines in 1986; President Kim Dae Jung in South Korea and President Gen. Abdul Salam Abubakar in Nigeria this year.

Aquino's list of political prisoners also included a communist political architect, while Kim, in his fantastic show of absolution, also forgave his despotic predecessors Kim Young Sam and Chun Doo Hwan. The latter had been sentenced to death for his role in the 1979 coup d'etat and 1980 Kwanju massacre.

Aquino and Chun seemed to be strong and self-confident in their decisions. Aquino believed that, despite releasing the hard-core leftist leader, she was strong enough to face any consequences ensuing from the policy because the decision to crush the communist rebellion was based on the military's operational capability, economic stability and social justice.

And Kim Dae Jung, who was not personally touched by Chun's bloodbath, and gained nothing from the clemency he offered, believed that his nation would live in greater peace if it was willing to forgive the dictators although it could not yet forget their atrocities.

Although one cannot expect Kim's compassion to be practiced here, we should not fail to take note that the South Korean leader is perhaps the most merciful and compassionate statesman the world has known.

Here, while the authorities have made it clear that those involved in armed rebellion and communist activities will not be released, the new list still misses several prisoners of conscience. The most notable of those still in prison are Budiman Sudjatmiko, leader of the banned Democratic People's Party (PRD), who is serving a 13-year jail term, and Dita Indah Sari, leader of a workers right association (PPBI) who was jailed for six years. Both were convicted for "subversive activities." There are still more than 120 political prisoners in Indonesian jails today.

The authorities' argument that Budiman's case needs further consideration does not reflect the seriousness of his case but rather their indecisiveness. As in many other similar situations, such as the political activities of Megawati Sukarnoputri, the deposed leader of the Indonesian Democratic Party (PDI), the government is clearly divided. There seem to be so many parties who have their own opinions on political cases here and President B. J. Habibie still appears to be vacillating about what to do .

This current state of affairs will not help the government in its effort to make the world believe that Indonesia is moving toward greater democracy because the degree of freedom is also mirrored in the number of prisoners of conscience cooped up in our jails.