by Al Makin , Heidelberg, Montreal | Thu, 10/16/2008 10:46 AM |
Our honorable members of the House of Representatives seem to put "personal bravado" above long-term national interest in their intention to pass "the already softened version" of the anti-pornography bill -- and are undeterred by the mounting protests from numerous societal groups.
The legislators have made blatant mistakes in the deliberation of this bill. I just want to mention some of the major ones.
The first grave error rests on the perception built by those who defend the bill that the critics have not carefully read the draft. The truth is that the bill's draft has been circulating around many Indonesian mailing lists for a long time.
Have the honorable members of the House read any of the many high-quality op-ed pieces penned by our "pundits" and published by numerous Indonesian newspapers on the bill?.
Do they also carefully listen to what the protesters -- marching on the streets across many cities of Indonesia -- have demanded? If so, why did these members then held their own version of a public hearing? Don't they regard these voices as those of the public?
There are concerted efforts to silence the voices of these critics by meeting only people who support the bill.
Moreover, the philosophy behind it is truly misleading, with regard to our commitment to democracy education in Indonesia. The proposed bill implies a form of old fashioned power control, which sounds very New Order-style. In other words, the government will keep the morality and ethics of the Indonesian people under surveillance.
True democracy should run to the contrary. It means the Indonesian people should keep their eyes on the government -- legislative, judicative, and executive -- with respect to their morality and work ethics. Thus, in a democratic country where the government performs its duties and responsibilities, people watch the government officials and grade their performance -- not the other way around, i.e., the government spying on the people.
There are legislators who said passing the bill would be a "Ramadan gift" to Indonesian Muslims.
Vice President Jusuf Kalla -- who already hinted he may run again as the running mate to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in the next election -- said the anti-pornography bill is not religiously motivated. This is only half true. The other half is that not only is this bill "religiously motivated", but it is also "politically motivated" by using religion as a lethal weapon to threaten the public critics.
The arguments, contained in the anti-pornography bill, originally resonated with the aspiration of "Islamism" in Indonesian politics. Due to the resistance of the Indonesian public against this ideological trend, however, its elements have gradually been softened.
Indeed, Islamism is currently receiving less and less sympathy from many Indonesian Muslims. The public, in this vein, exactly knows how this kind of ideology has sneaked around to find a place in Indonesian politics.
Another major flaw of the bill lies in the title itself -- "anti-pornography bill". This fake subject seems to address some fake issues and fake morality. How much impact on our morality will this bill will make by banning porn images? If we are honest enough we are currently faced with much more serious and real issues, such as rape, domestic violence, migrant workers who are raped by their bosses and other sexual harassments -- themes which the even "softened version" of the anti-pornography bill doesn't even touch.
For example, if a certain sexual crime happened, the police -- holding the proposed "anti-pornography bill" -- would either arrest the one who posted the porn pictures on the Internet or blame the women who are then accused of showing their body in a sexual manner which could lead to their being raped. The perpetrator, in turn, would be arrested, after public pressure mounted. Of course this sounds ridiculous. Yet that is what the "anti-pornography bill" will lead us to.
Thus, if our honorable members of the House have any good will to revise the current proposed bill, they should fundamentally change its title. "Anti-sex under age bill", "anti-sexual violence bill", "anti-rape bill", or "protecting the victims of sexual violence bill" are subjects which are much more relevant in today's Indonesia than "anti-pornography bill". The content of the bills should then follow the proposed titles.
The writer is a lecturer at State Islamic University Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta. He can be reached at nabiy13@yahoo.com
