In 2007 law enforcement has failed to ensure security as well as resolve major cases from the past. Azis Syamsuddin, a criminal law expert and deputy chairman of the law commission at the House of Representatives talked to The Jakarta Post's Ridwan Max Sijabat on this issue recently. Question: How do you evaluate law enforcement in 2007? Answer: I would like to tell President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono that, as in previous years, there was no rule of law this year (2007).
We have government, but it has failed to enforce the law at all levels in public life. Why do you say that? The law can't enforce itself, it must be enforced by the government. The President as the head of the government wasn't able to ensure Police and the Attorney General enforced the law, thus leaving us with legal uncertainty. We see the President and law enforcers do not take actions against groups who use violence against the Ahmadiyah sect and other religious groups who use their houses for worship. The public sees the President hasn't brought former aides involved in corruption to justice and has no political commitment to create good governance or settle unresolved past human rights and major corruption cases. Everyone sees the government violating the 1945 Constitution, which requires it to allocate 20 percent of the state budget for education, but no move is made.
People know that the President knows that the Police and Attorney General's Office are nests of corruption, but he doesn't do anything. He also knows the court has issued controversial verdicts going beyond a sense of fairness. The police see school-age children smoking and selling cigarettes in public places, but no action is taken. The law is often broken in public but now one does anything. All this means the government is committing a serious legal violation by way of omission. Why is the law unenforceable? The President and law enforcers do not set a good example. The people will follow suit if public figures keep the law. Law enforcers are not sufficiently aware of the importance of ensuring security, maintaining the political and economic stability and achieving advances in all fields. Indonesia will not see significant progress unless a guarantee is given to ensure pluralism, protect hard work, prevent the use of violence and punish those violating the law. What major unresolved cases does the government have before it? Too many, in human rights, corruption and banking.
If the government is committed to legal certainty it should immediately follow up on unresolved human rights cases in Jakarta, Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Papua and Central Sulawesi. It has to confront the alleged corruption of former president Soeharto and also former Bank Indonesia officials and conglomerates known as the Bank Indonesia Liquidity Support (BLBI) scandal. Why hasn't the House used its supervisory powers to press the government to settle the major cases? The House is not only home to numerous political factions but also many political brokers. Many legislators, it is believed, sit in the parliament to make money and to fight for partisan interests which aren't those of the public. The House has also been shaken by several humiliating scandals this year, including the Bank Indonesia and arms procurement scams being investigated by the House ethics body. The executive has frequently ignored recommendations made after House inquiries, because factions and legislators are fighting their own political battles instead of doing their job, which is to channel the people's interests and aspirations. What is your comment on the performance of the House's law commission in enforcing the laws? The law commission has the Police, the Anticorruption Commission, the AGO and the Supreme Court as its working partners. But we have talked too much and the authority to enforce the law is in the hands of the President and law enforcers. We don't need talk but rather an unbiased law enforcement effort that isn't biased on the basis of position, status and education. Why do you frequently go beyond your faction's policy in the House? I am representing the people and my constituents more than my party. I am paid not by the party but by the people through the state budget. Therefore, the party's policies shouldn't contravene the people's interests. I do not fear being recalled at any time if I am considered too outspoken. I have a lot of work to do for people outside the parliament. But my party (Golkar Party) has been more democratic in such cases with the emergence of young leaders in the party and the parliament. Why have you made the meetings of the commission's illegal logging working committee open to the public? As chairman of the working committee I have no reason to keep the meeting closed to the public. Illegal logging is a high-profile issue and the public has a right to know why the government can't stop it.
Comments