Bali, Drugs, and Australians...

When will Australians learn that carrying drugs in Indonesia is a serious criminal offense? The odds are such that it really is only a matter of time, sooner or later you will get caught out. The penalties that attach to drug offenses reflect the seriousness that Indonesian law enforcement view this issue. If one has any doubts, then have a look at the Schapelle Corby case or those of the Bali Nine. Or, if you are more interested in seeing how you can do as little time as possible for indulging in your excesses, then have a look at the Michele Leslie (or Lee) or Robert McJannett cases (McJannett has indicated that he is petitioning for bankruptcy as his freedom, after a short jail stint, cost him AUD 71,000+).

An Australian, Angus McCaskill, was arrested in the Tuban district in Bali with five packets of cocaine in his possession.

The police have not said whether MCaskill was dealing or whether the cocaine was for personal consumption (red: addiction). This determination will be important in determining how much jail time McCaskill is likely to do. Having not seen the fact sheet it is difficult to say which way his legal representatives should go, but my guess is that if a guilty plea is the option chosen then this will be accompanied by relevant supporting documents to suggest that the fellow is an addict and the drugs were for personal consumption.

This would fall within the gambit of a Supreme Court Circular which directs District Courts to sentence offenders to rehabilitation type facilities or to shorter jail terms where the offenders can get the rehabilitation treatment that they need to be re-integrated into the broader community.

Indonesian Supreme Court Circular - Drugs

In an interesting move the Indonesian Supreme Court has issued a Circular that directs courts to place drug addicts and users into rehabilitation rather than sending them to prison. The rationale is that the Indonesian prison system is not conducive to the rehabilitation process and will likely result in recidivist behaviour in offenders and this is apparently not the objective of sending someone to prison.

I am all for second chances and rehabilitation.

Essentially, the Circular directs all Chief Judges at the High Court and District Court level to consider placing addicts and users into rehabilitation centres or other acceptable places and into programs such as detoxification (1 month), a primary program (6 months), and a Re-entry Program (6 months).

However, there are strict conditions on the ability for District and High Court judges to place addicts and users into a rehabilitation situation. These conditions include that the addict or user is caught red-handed and their "stash" does not exceed proscribed limits. These limits are:
1. heroin - 0.15 grams;
2. cocaine - 0.15 grams;
3. morphine - 0.15 grams;
4. marijuana - 1 joint or 0.05 grams;
5. ecstasy - 1 tablet;
6. crystal meth - 0.25 grams; and
7. other narcotic drugs in classes I through III and psychotropic drugs in classes I through IV.

It will also require a statement letter evidencing that the individual is in fact using and that the supporting evidence does not indicate that the individual is in fact a dealer or trafficker.

If the addict or user meets these conditions then it is likely that they will now get a slap on the wrist and sent to rehabilitation rather than go to jail.

The Circular is No. 07 of 2009 and is current as of 17 March 2009.

If anyone is interested in a copy of the Circular you could ask hukumonline.

Shifting the Electricity Burden from Weekdays to Weekends

Something to ponder if your working conditions are changing as a result of the following.

The Minister of Labor and Transmigration has issued Circular No. SE.304/MEN/PHI-KPHI/VII/2008 which follows on from the recent Joint Ministerial Regulation issued on the same subject. The Circular is addressed to all Governors, Regents, Mayors, and Provincial / District / City officers from the various agencies that have responsibility for labor issues.

The basic premise of the Circular is to ensure that the provisions of the Joint Regulation are implemented. All industries and companies, except those specifically noted in the Joint Regulation, who work a 5-day week from Monday to Friday are required to allocate at least two work days per month to either a Saturday or Sunday. It is expected that this will ease the burden on the electricity network during the peak periods from Monday to Friday.

For industries and companies that are already working a 6-day week, then these industries and companies are deemed to have already satisfied the provisions of the Joint Regulation and the Circular.

The Circular also stipulates that the provisions of Article 77 of the Labor Law (Law No. 13 of 2003) still apply and that the days off do not have to be construed as being either a Saturday or Sunday. Furthermore, if any company regulations or other agreements between employers and employees mandate that the days off are to be Saturday or Sunday, then these agreements are to be read as meaning that any day from Monday to Sunday may be an agreed day off.

In light of the above, Saturdays and Sundays are now deemed to be regular working days that do not attract any special allowances. However, where an employee is required to work on a day that has been deemed as a day off then that employee is entitled to overtime for any hours worked.

The relevant officers of the agencies responsible for labor issues are to facilitate the implementation of the Joint Regulation and the Circular.

The Circular is current as of 25 July 2008.

Minister of Communication and Information, Fitna, and Circulars

A rather innocuous looking letter from the Minister of Communications and Information regarding the blocking of sites and blogs that host and show the film produced by Geert Wilders, Fitna, is a letter that has serious consequences for those of us that use the Internet as a means of communication.

The letter itself is based on Article 21 of the Telecommunications Law (No. 36 of 1999) which prohibits the broadcasting of material that impacts negatively on relations between religions and harmony (in the public order sense). Article 21 permits the government to suspend telecommunication providers activities if they broadcast, or continue broadcasting, after being informed that certain material is objectionable.

The Telecommunications Law itself does not explicitly state how the government is to do this and whether a Circular is within the scope of the provision. There is probably a sustainable argument that Circulars in the legislation sense are not binding or would require other legislative instruments to give full force and effect to the intent of the Circular. The cynics among us might just view this as appeasement of those clamouring for Fitna to be banned and for Wilders to be punished for his alleged blasphemy.

This letter was not issued based on any of the provisions of the recently passed Information and Electronic Transactions Bill.

It is beyond the scope of this post to debate the merits or lack thereof of Fitna. However, the Minister of Communication and Information has established a precedent of how it intends to respond to objectionable material, and that is to restrict it as far as possible.

Unfortunately, it seems that some Internet providers and network access points have decided to completely block access to certain sites. Some has gone as far as to completely block access to You Tube, My Space, Meta Café, Rapidshare, and other sites in order to comply with the Minister’s letter. This seems a little extreme as by completely blocking access to a site means that ‘all” the material is prohibited from entering Indonesia and this is clearly not the intent of the original instruction from the Minister.

It seems that businesses have decided that there is less impact on their bottom lines by blocking the whole rather than putting in place a filter that potentially could slow down their system functions and capabilities.

The other consideration is that those with a real interest in the film have already downloaded it and could conceivably host it locally or attach it to a mass email in order to distribute it. The letter and response from a number of telecommunications companies highlights the difficulties that the government and providers will encounter in selective blocking of sites and material.

For subscribers of providers that have blocked access completely to certain sites it is unclear what recourse they might be able to follow in order to restore partial access to material that has no relationship to the banned film.

This may not be enough to stir serious debate on future censorship of the Internet in Indonesia but it is certainly food for thought for those businesses that conduct or rely heavily on the Internet in the performance of their respective businesses.

The letter was issued on 2 April 2008.

As a postscript to this issue.

The government has already backed down with regards to the generalized blocking of sites. However, it would seem that some providers are still trying to work out ways in which to block material. I know from personal experience that Telkom speedy has been tinkering with its services as I am periodically blacked out from blogspot.com. However, the last few days the tinkering has resulted in not much more than overall bad service as Friday and Saturday have seen sporadic connectability!