Font size: 
Although the student demonstrators killed at Trisakti and Semanggi in 1998 and 1999 were honored as national heroes by the president a few years ago, their relatives have failed to attain justice against grave crimes committed by government forces during those demonstrations. This is despite the fact that the violence in these two Jakarta communities culminated in the resignation of President Suharto and was seen as a crucial historical moment in the march toward democracy in the country.
The findings of the National Human Rights Commission, which investigated the incidents, were spurned by the government and relegated to filing cabinets to gather dust. However, a number of civil society organizations, such as Kontras -- whose founder was poisoned onboard a flight to Amsterdam in September 2004 -- vowed to continue to fight for justice.
During the violence in Trisakti and Semanggi, in which 33 student protestors were fatally shot by the police and the army, a group of determined people kept pricking the conscience of those in authority. They knew that legality is not the same as morality. While the basis for moral standards can be debated, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which summarizes the yearnings, inspirations, values and experiences of generations, can serve as a foundation. Can Indonesia, which has subscribed to the UDHR, deny its moral obligation of granting redress to the victims of innumerable massacres and alleged gross human rights violations beginning with the so-called communist purges of 1965 and 1966?
Does a nation have a conscience, just like an individual? The history of Indonesia is plagued with instances where the conscience of a nation seeking to uphold the highest values has been sacrificed on the altar of politics. The killing of thousands of Indonesians was justified in the mid-1960s on the pretext of saving the country from communism. Can the conscience of a nation be warped by legal technicalities and the power hunger of its leaders? These are some of the questions that Indonesia, and the new attorney general in particular, must examine in its march towards the establishment of the rule of law.
Our present concern lies with the appointment of a new attorney general, for the attorney general is the last line of defense in defending an ordinary person's rights and dignity. It is up to the attorney general to ensure an adequate remedy when the rights of citizens are violated, and through this defense of people's rights to uphold the highest moral standard. This is done either by enforcing existing laws, by amending current laws or by introducing new and more suitable laws. In a sense, the attorney general is the advocate par excellence of the people.
It is the general perception among the general public that when a violation occurs the police can be approached to lodge a complaint. There is also an underlying trust in the prosecution system that such complaints are probed and prosecuted by the prosecutor general through a fair trial. But this trust has been deeply undermined by the day-to-day experiences of ordinary people in Indonesia, who are not able to a lodge a complaint, particularly when the crime was committed by agents acting on behalf of the state, as in the case of torture, or simply the denial of a fair trial.
Roni Ronaldo Rachditya was tortured to death by several police officers of the Banjarsari District Police Station in Surakarta in Central Java. Although torture is recognized by the Indonesian state as one of the highest crimes, even a crime against humanity under certain circumstances, the prosecutor recommended two and a half years of imprisonment for two people and an even milder punishment for the others. It is hard to imagine on what grounds the prosecutor recommended such a punishment that in no way is commensurate to the crime. The panel of judges awarded this lenient sentence to the officers on May 14.
In Indonesia, the punishment for murder is imprisonment for 15 years. Why, when the same crime of murder is committed by the guardians of the law representing the state, were they given a lesser sentence? Can the rights of citizens be protected, the rule of law upheld and crimes effectively prevented in such a context? Rather, it is just the opposite: The breach of the law by law enforcement officers is detrimental to the rule of law in the country. It is this anomaly that the newly appointed attorney general must quickly address.
A change of personnel will not automatically ensure a change in the system, where entrenched habits stand to counter any genuine effort at thorough investigations and proper prosecutions leading to convictions. A person with the best of intentions can easily be trapped by the prevailing systems, procedures and personalities. It is up to members of civil society to keep a vigilant eye, monitor the performance of the newly appointed attorney general, remain critical and call relentlessly for the good intentions of the new attorney general to be translated into action.
This is not just a legal but a moral imperative. It is only a watchful civil society that can contribute to the emergence of a new prosecutorial mechanism aimed at establishing and maintaining the rule of law and preserving the dignity of Indonesia's people.
--
(Philip Setunga is a staff member of the Asian Human Rights Commission in Hong Kong, responsible for the organization's research on Indonesia. He has a doctorate in sociology.)
