Subversion law has long history in RI

Subversion law has long history in RI

While most of the suspects detained after the recent riots in
Jakarta face criminal charges, at least one will be tried for
subversion. Social scientist Ariel Heryanto explores the history
of the country's subversion law.

SINGAPORE (JP): Early this month the government made the
allegation that subversive elements were responsible for the July
27 rioting in Jakarta.

According to officials, these elements intended to topple the
government. Accordingly, the government hinted that it would
employ the subversion law to detain, question, and bring certain
activists to court. This draconian law carries the maximum
penalty of death.

Outsiders unfamiliar with the history of the New Order and its
subversion law might be shocked by the government's reaction.
However, it is not the first case of the law being turned into a
tool of retaliation against "undesirable" elements.

During the New Order period, there have been an average of
91.6 subversion cases brought to trial every 10 years. An average
of 500 people have been jailed under the law in the past decade.

The subversion law is notorious not only because of the
maximum penalty it carries, but for the extent to which it has
been put into use by the present government.

The most recent use of the law was in a little reported trial
that concluded last May in Banjarnegara, West Java. Five youths
aged between 20 and 25 were accused of trying to establish an
Islamic state. But how? They did not engage in any armed struggle
or "terrorist" activities. Instead, the evidence of their crime
was their alleged involvement in a series of religious
discussions and some proselytizing.

What made the case even more remarkable was the additional
charge that certain communist underground forces had sponsored
the defendants, who were labeled "rightist extremists".

The New Order is one of the two most durable regimes in the
world today. Dissidents come and go, and none have come close to
challenging the government at the polls. Government officials
regularly speak of "subversive" threats. When they do so, they
may mean what they say, though what they are referring to remains
unclear.

But New Order Indonesia has never encountered anything
comparable to the rebels that undermined the Sukarno, Corry
Aquino or successive Thai governments. The five poor youths in
Banjarnegara essentially personify the profile of subversive
elements in contemporary Indonesia; they were found guilty by the
local state court.

In 1974 four student leaders were sentenced under the law to
six years imprisonment for allegedly inciting an anti-Japanese
riot. In the 1980s a group of undergraduate students were given
severe sentences for minor offenses. In 1986 a 23-year-old
student in Yogyakarta was sentenced to 13 years in prison for
publishing a campus bulletin called Ar Risalah that aired hostile
statements against the government.

Between 1989 and 1990 two students in their late 20s and
another NGO activist were sentenced to between 7.5 and 8.5 years
for circulating banned novels and engaging in intellectual
discussions that supposedly smacked of Marxism and questioned
government-sponsored development projects.

While the legality of the subversion law has been questioned
by many groups and provoked much public resentment, the law does
have its defenders. Last year the minister of youth and sports
recommended using the law to prosecute anyone believed
responsible for the unrest caused during a Dunhill League soccer
match in Jakarta. In 1991, certain members of the House of
Representatives suggested that it be invoked to penalize
Indonesians who made foreign loans without reporting to Bank
Indonesia.

In 1990, at the attorney general's discretion, a number of
individuals wanted for pirating pesticide in Garut and Bandung
were tried under the same law. A year before the President
endorsed using the law to penalize several individuals found
guilty of running an illegal lottery operation in Semarang. In
1988 gamblers and smugglers became the targets.

The official definition of "subversion" is far-reaching and
without clear boundaries, as is the territory covered by the
subversion law. So much so that even certain government officials
have expressed their concern with its scope, including Attorney
General Singgih and former Directorate General for Corrective
Affairs Baharuddin Lopa.

The extent to which the meaning of subversion has expanded is
more glaring if we consider the original intention behind the
penal code and its early uses.

The New Order did not create today's penal code. Rather, it
adopted the code from Sukarno's Guided Democracy government.
Sukarno issued the subversion decree during a volatile period
when there were armed separatists movements in several regions as
well as regular attempts on his life. All of this was taking
place in the broader context of the Cold War.

Even in such turbulent times, it remains unclear if the
Sukarno government actually made use of the subversion decree to
put down opposition. Ironically, members of his cabinet became
the first targets of this repressive penal code some 30 years
ago. Today, those who sympathize with his daughter may face the
same draconian law.

The writer is a graduate of Monash University in Australia.