Revoking the subversion law

Revoking the subversion law

The recommendation of the National Commission on Human Rights that the government rescind Law No.11/NPS/1963 on the Suppression of Subversive Activities has received widespread attention. Although the Commission's suggestion was not the first to have been made in the past 15 years, the very fact that this time it was proposed by an institution which was established by presidential decree obviously gives the recommendation a greater weight than one made by a private organization.

For more than a year the Commission has studied the subversion law which is generally considered to be incompatible with the government's current democratic legislation policies as well as with the aspirations of the people. Apart from being regarded as irreconcilable with universal norms for human rights, the subversion law is also considered to be in conflict with the codes of both criminal and civil law.

In addition, the subversion law -- which was decreed by President Sukarno at a time of emergency without debate in the House of Representatives -- contains specifications which the Commission considered to be incongruous with current conditions. For instance, there are references to the "unfinished revolution" and "socialism".

In the Commission's recommendation to the government no mention is made of the mechanism with which the law should be revoked. Legal expert Albert Hasibuan offers three alternatives. First, the government could enact a government regulation to replace the subversion law and request the approval of the House of Representatives. Second, the government could submit a draft law to revoke the subversion law to the House of Representatives. The government could submit a draft code of law in which it is stated that the subversion law has been revoked and it could propose a draft national security law.

A third alternative is for the government to issue a political statement to the effect that it will no longer apply the subversion law. Of course, this alternative is the least desirable because, in reality, the subversion law would still exist.

-- Kompas, Jakarta