What are the true meanings of subversion and unconstitutional?
By Sirikit Syah
SURABAYA (JP): Legal expert J.E. Sahetapy insisted recently that the Democratic People's Party activists currently on trial for subversion should not have been accused of treason because they did not initiate an armed struggle.
The Airlangga University lecturer has never shied away from expressing his disagreement with the numerous people who believe the activists, charged with undermining the government, should be punished for subversive activities.
The outspoken professor spoke to The Jakarta Post over the weekend about various social, legal and political issues.
Question: What are your thoughts on politician Sri Bintang Pamungkas, who is being detained for the unconstitutional act of sending seasonal greetings containing antigovernment and antielection messages?
Answer: What do people exactly mean when they say "unconstitutional?" Do they mean that everything must be legalized by the House of Representatives? If so, I completely disagree. Everybody has the right to express his or her opinion, as long as they don't harm other people, don't threaten anybody with guns and don't initiate riots.
Besides, how could people express their opinions through the House? As we all know, the House members do not represent us. They represent social political organizations.
Q: Are you saying that Bintang's action did not violate the Constitution?
A: What he did was just express his opinion. He has not slandered anybody, and he is not against the Constitution. Voting is not obligatory, it is a right which anybody can choose to either exercise or not.
Poet Emha Ainun Nadjib stated publicly that he wouldn't vote in the upcoming general election. Why are there so many excessive comments on Bintang's statement about not voting? So what if people choose to follow or not follow Bintang's call (not to vote)?
Q: Megawati Soekarnoputri, the ousted leader of the Indonesian Democratic Party, prefers to take legal action against her rivals. Some of her actions have also been called unconstitutional. Is this justified?
The government is not consistent in what it brands unconstitutional. It is also discriminative. I don't think celebrating a party's anniversary is unconstitutional. It is an overreaction.
Q: When you gave evidence at the trial of the Democratic People's Party activists recently, you said you pitied the prosecutors because they were only "following their bosses' orders."
A: Prosecutors must follow their bosses, it's almost the same in the military. As a lecturer I can disagree with my boss and am allowed to argue with him.
Q: Do you think this is the typical face of the Indonesian legal system?
A: If this is the typical face, it is very sad. The face of our legal system is scarred. Justice is not easily attainable.
Q: How do you see our legal system faring in the future?
A: It is too early to say. It depends on who the leaders are.
Q: Various regions in Indonesia have experienced unrest recently. Do you see the rioting as purely criminal or something deeper?
A: It is gado-gado, a mixture. Political factors, the economy, religion, race and crime, all come into play. It is complicated.
Q: How do you suggest Indonesia solve the problem of rioting?
A: The Armed Forces chief must reveal the identity of those who masterminded the riots. If he really knows, as he has often told the public, why won't he just tell the people?
If the so-called intellectual actors behind the rioting are never caught, then the whole thing is a lie. People will find it difficult to trust the Armed Forces anymore.
Q: You were one of the witnesses in the trial of the Democratic People's Party activists who organized labor strikes in Surabaya last year and were charged with subversion. Do you think the government really has a case?
A: I don't believe those young people planned treasonable or subversive activities. To be accused of that, four criteria must be met, and if even one is absent, they can't be accused of subversion. The criteria are: a conflict of interests, a political movement and clandestine activities all culminating in armed revolt. The youths hadn't done any of these, had they?
Q: But they involved a great mass of workers in their activities.
A: The problem is not whether the Democratic People's Party involved workers or not. My question is, why did the workers follow these youths? If they hadn't been hungry and if their basic needs had been met, they wouldn't have bothered with those young men's protests against the government and conglomerates.
Q: What charges should these men have faced?
A: The prosecutor asked me, "Mr. Sahetapy, these young men called the military members watchdogs of the conglomerates. How would you punish them?" I said, "Certainly not with subversion. It's an insult to charge them with that."