Supervising freedom

Without any significant changes, the House of Representatives (DPR) last week passed into law a draft regulation on the freedom of expression. The document had earlier been angrily rejected by the House when it was first submitted in the form of a government decree.

The state and its institutions must be regarded as a governing body that serves to prevent conflicts from turning into catastrophes. It is in this context that we try to read the new law regulating the freedom of expression in public places. Indeed, we cannot possibly allow demonstrations to grow and end entirely out of control. For the sake of safeguarding our collective liberties, freedom does indeed need to be managed.

Demonstrations that cause traffic congestion infringe on the freedom of others. Demonstrations that lead to the destruction of public facilities deprive other people of their right to enjoy certain comforts. The basic philosophy underlying the new law is that any exercise of freedom that leads to the discomfort of others is wrong.

The problem is that people who are aware of the right to freedom are forever inclined to be suspicious of any measures taken by the authorities to regulate freedom. And indeed, governments that are unaccustomed to democracy do tend to view civil liberties as gifts from the state that can be revoked at any time. It is a fact that in many countries that are still in a process of learning about democracy, laws are not made to facilitate judgmatic enforcement, but to legitimize oppression.

-- Media Indonesia, Jakarta