(HRW/IFEX) – In a major new report released on 04 September 1998, Human Rights Watch warns that if the current political opening in Indonesia is not followed by legal and institutional protections for basic rights, the entire reform effort could unravel. HRW has warned that if the current political opening in Indonesia is not followed […]
(HRW/IFEX) – In a major new report released on 04 September 1998, Human
Rights Watch warns that if the current political opening in Indonesia is not
followed by legal and institutional protections for basic rights, the entire
reform effort could unravel.
HRW has warned that if the current political opening in Indonesia is not
followed
by legal and institutional protections for basic rights, the entire reform
effort could unravel. The new report, “Academic Freedom in Indonesia:
Dismantling Soeharto-Era Barriers,” is a study of the legal and
institutional mechanisms used by the Soeharto government to silence campus
critics, arbitrarily limit public debate on pressing social issues, and
stymie intellectual inquiry.
According to the report, most of those controls are still in place. “If
there is to be lasting reform in Indonesia, the government must confront
Soeharto’s authoritarian legacy head on, and this is the place to begin,”
said Human Rights Watch researcher Joseph Saunders.
Although the New Order government was not uniformly hostile to the academic
community, it was always suspicious of students and academics. The social
role of the university as a center of inquiry and debate made it an
important target of military and government controls. Noting the eruption of
long-suppressed voices since Soeharto’s resignation, Mr. Saunders cautioned:
“There was a similar opening during the last political transition in
Indonesia in the late 1960s, but it didn’t last because it wasn’t followed
by legal and institutional change. Our goal in releasing this report is to
encourage the government to do things differently this time.”
The militarization of Indonesian society under Soeharto had devastating
consequences for free inquiry and expression. The report calls for an end to
military intervention in campus affairs, including intelligence gathering on
campus, the use of campus-based “Student Regiments” to monitor and
intimidate other students, and indiscriminate and punitive attacks on
student demonstrators. It urges continued investigation into the military’s
role in the abduction, torture, and possible murder of student activists
earlier this year and calls on the government to punish to the full extent
of the law military officers found responsible for the abductions. The
report also calls for formal repeal of ministerial decrees known
collectively as “Normalization of Campus Life – Coordinating Body for
Student Affairs” (Normalisasi Kehidupan Kampus – Badan Koordinasi
Kemahasiswaan or NKK/BKK) and all other decrees that prohibit students from
expressing political views on campus, forbid autonomous student
organizations, or make university administrators answerable to military
authorities for enforcement of political controls. With the success of the
student protest movement in 1998, these controls now have little practical
effect, and Juwono Sudarsono, Indonesia’s new minister of education, has
indicated that they are under review. The report urges that they be
abolished altogether.
A number of continuing ideological and institutional controls in Indonesia
date back to the rise of Soeharto to power in 1965-66, when an estimated
one-half million people were killed in anti-communist pogroms. The report
urges repeal of so-called “Special Investigation” (Penelitian Khusus or
Litsus) regulations which require that new teachers and entrants to a range
of other strategic professions undergo mandatory ideological and political
background checks to determine if they are “tainted” by political
affiliations that they or members of their extended family had over thirty
years ago. The report also calls for an end to controls that impede national
reexamination of the events of the mid-1960s, including censorship of
memoirs, literary works, and a wide range of foreign and domestic studies. A
handful of previously banned books have been allowed to circulate by the
Habibie government, but hundreds of other works are still banned and
regulations giving the government broad powers to censor books and other
printed materials remain in place.
Although the new government has released a number of political prisoners,
existing laws and long-established institutional practices continue to give
authorities the power to imprison or censor individuals who express
dissenting views. The report calls for repeal of laws often used by Soeharto
to silence dissidents, including student and faculty critics: Presidential
Decree
11/1963 (subversion); Article 154 of the Criminal Code (spreading hatred
toward the government); and Articles 134-137 (insulting the head of state).
It also urges the Social and Political Affairs Directorate in the Ministry
of Home Affairs to end the practice of blacklisting government critics from
attending seminars and appearing in major media, and calls for abolition of
research permit procedures that give government and military officials
effective veto power over proposed academic field research.
The recommendations of Human Rights Watch reflect its analysis of seven
continuing barriers to free inquiry and expression in Indonesia, set forth
in separate chapters of the report. The report also includes a discussion of
academic freedom as a global human rights concern, and a long background
chapter that both outlines the history of campus controls under Soeharto and
details the rise of the nationwide student protest movement that earlier
this year successfully pressured Soeharto to resign. The historical survey
shows the far-reaching impact that crackdowns on the academic community have
had in limiting the free flow of information and ideas in Indonesia. As Mr.
Saunders emphasized, however, “the Indonesian example also shows that the
academic community’s principled resistance to authoritarian controls can
help open
the door to democratic reform.”
