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.