Questions about amnesty

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.