What are the true meanings of subversion and unconstitutional?
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."