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stated that the subversion law has been revoked and it could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