The caning debate: More cons than pro
JAKARTA (JP): The caning of an American teenager as punishment by the Singapore court has provoked a lively debate among Indonesian's as to the ethical and moral validity of corporal punishment.
Many here in Jakarta were swept up in the discussion, a majority of whom being critical of the punishment but understanding Singapore's resolve to execute it's judicial sovereignty.
"I'm against caning ... I think you legitimize torture by upholding that kind of penal system," said Todung Mulya Lubis, president of the Jakarta Lawyers Club.
Michael Fay was caned at Queenstown Remand prison on Thursday after being found guilty of vandalism. He will also serve four months in jail.
The initial verdict of six lashes was reduced to four by Singapore president Ong Teng Cheong amid severe American criticism and a personal appeal from U.S. President Bill Clinton.
Speaking on the topic of human rights during the sixth ASEAN Law Students Conference here yesterday, Mulya told the multi- national participants that the punishment was in direct violation of human rights.
No person, he said, has the right to inflict pain and torture on another.
His comment received a damp reaction from the conference's participants, who were obviously unprepared for such a piercing statement.
Understandably, it was the Singapore students who gave a reply by arguing the punishment was valid since the boy received due process of law. Malaysian students also gave their endorsement to the Singapore action.
Mulya defended his remarks saying that there is no excuse for torture. "Once you talk about human rights, there is no justification whatsoever to uphold this kind of cruel and inhuman punishment."
At a separate event, Baharuddin Lopa, the Secretary-General of the National Commission on Human Rights, recognized the preventive qualities of corporal punishment but still regarded it as degrading to human dignity.
"Only horses should be whipped, not people," he told Antara.
He also said that corporal punishment was a human rights violation.
The Indonesian legal system does not recognize corporal punishment. Besides jail terms, certain crimes such as drug smuggling and subversion can carry the death penalty.
Meanwhile Chief of the National Police Gen. Banurusman Astrosemitro said he fully approved of the punishment, going so far as to enthusiastically advocate its adoption in Indonesia.
He told Kompas on Friday that punishment of that nature has proven to be extremely effective in Singapore and Malaysia and thus the possibility of its application here should seriously be considered.
Banurusman explained that whipping comes out of societal demands where in many places it is part of traditional punishment.
However Banurusman's statement was refuted by criminologist Adrianus Meliala who said that whipping was not found in any chapter of Indonesia's ancient history.
He noted that it was during the Dutch colonial period that whipping was used to punish the local people, who were either rebellious or refused to pay taxes.
Nonetheless, Adrianus held the actions of Singapore in high esteem for being resolute in their decisions despite the strong objections from the United States.
"The Singaporeans showed that they were consistent in applying their law even though they were protested by a superpower country," he said. "This is an attitude we must emulate."
He contrasted Indonesia's decision to drop charges of illegal trading in fossils against an American professor last year and in January to let go of two staff of the American embassy after they were caught selling drugs at a Jakarta discotheque.
"We should have been more consistent in applying our laws in spite of strong outside pressure and whatever political costs it entails," Adrianus said. (07)