Obama, Indonesia, and Egypt...

I like Barack Obama. If I was an American I would have voted for the man. But, Mr. President, you are letting your 3 plus years in Indonesia go to your head and cloud your judgment. Indonesia is not a shining example that Egypt must follow as an example of how to transit from a dictatorship to democracy.

Perhaps you and your team need to revisit some of your perceptions of Indonesia. The reform process in Indonesia has been slow and very drawn out. There are still huge swathes of the population living on or below the poverty line. Religious fundamentalism and extremism continues to rear its ugly head. And, Mr. President, this is in spite of your claims back in November that Indonesia was a shining example of religious tolerance and pluralism in the Islamic world. Seriously Mr. President how do you think Indonesia's religious minorities such as the Ahmadis and the Christians are feeling about that in light of the recent violence that has been perpetrated against them?

Corruption is still rife in Indonesia. So rife, in fact, that it is almost an every other day occurrence. The scourge is pervasive and persistent. So much so that the president of Indonesia opts to stand idly by and claim professional distance while the primary platform of his mandate is eroded from around him by those who put him into power in the first place.

Nah, if the citizens of Egypt have the sense, and I am sure that they do, then they will not be looking towards the world's largest Muslim nation for any serious substantive pointers regarding a transition to democracy. Hopefully the Egyptian people will not suffer the same fate as Indonesia's long-suffering citizens.

On a final note, Indonesia has not successfully managed the aspirations of the people. In fact, the persistent pandering to special interests and Muslim fundamentalists has meant that extremism is on the rise. The military and police, and perhaps the whole law enforcement apparatus, are nervous. So, if success is gauged by the fact that Muslim groups are now openly canvassing the idea that it is time for the democratically elected president to resign and move out to pasture, then, yes, Mr. Obama, Indonesia is the shining example that Egypt needs to follow.

Then again, this might be why SBY is claiming responsibility for getting Hosni Mubarak to resign for the good of the Egyptian people...

SBY Orders an Investigation...So What Gitu Loh!

Uh huh!

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, or SBY as he is affectionately known to the masses, has ordered investigations on the recent arson attack on the offices of Tempo Magazine and the brutal beating (and stabbing) of Tama Satrya Langkun of Indonesian Corruption Watch.

The Tempo attack was a couple of Molotov cocktails thrown at their offices by unknown assailants. The attack follows hot on the heels of an edition of the magazine which reported police corruption. The whole print run was allegedly purchased by police as a means of keeping the edition of the streets. It must be noted that the police deny any role in purchasing the magazines. The Langkun beating and stabbing also comes hot on the heels of some whistleblowing on alleged police corruption and the funneling of very large sums of money into the private accounts of police officers.

Funnily enough (in that sad and perverse kind of a way) The Jakarta Globe is reporting that the president has been following these incidents through the mass media! Really? The president is relying on the mass media for his security and political updates. Now that is funny, and sad!

SBY has proven to be a real disappointment to many Indonesians. He is a man who came to power and the presidency on claims that he was a corruption fighter and a change maker, the undeniable game breaker. He was going to change the way politics was done in Indonesia. This has sadly not been the case. His legacy will be one of not meeting the expectations of the Indonesian public. History will not necessarily judge him in a positive light even after the passage of much time. Too many bad things have happened on his watch. He will be remembered for failures such as the Munir case. In the Munir case he assured Munir's widow that justice would be done and the perpetrators would be brought to justice for their crimes.

So, it is little wonder when SBY comes out and states unequivocally that it is important that law enforcement capture the perpetrators of these two crimes and then prosecute them to the full extent of the law that most people start to shake their heads and go "whatever!" This is particularly so when the president goes on record to say that it is a third party that is responsible for these crimes, and this party is taking advantage of the situation to further sully the police force's good name. Huh?

Should the above be construed as the president is in the know, and he in fact knows that the perpetrators are a third party? Or could this be construed by those cynics and conspiracy theorists among us as a deliberate attempt to deflect attention away from the police and parties related to the police?

The onus is on the police and other law enforcement agencies to see all these cases resolved. The onus is on the president to do everything within his legal power to ensure that these cases are resolved. There must be accountability across the board. This is not just accountability for the perpetrators of these crimes but there must also be full accountability for those people tasked with uncovering the perpetrators and then prosecuting them.

In many ways, Indonesia's future depends on it!

Underage Gambling in Indonesia -- Big Time Crime?

Gambling is illegal in Indonesia. This does not mean it does not happen. There is probably a case to made for instances of gambling and then gambling. The point here is that organized gambling is clearly against the law and any attempt to regulate it into existence has met with fierce opposition. Then there is gambling that kids partake in like having a flutter on the outcome of a coin toss. The first one sees hundreds of millions of Rupiah change hands and the other is lucky if it sees tens of Rupiah change hands.

A recent case that was heard in Tangerang District court has ended with ten children being convicted of gambling. Their punishment to date is that they have been sent home with their parents. The result is clearly not the right one. The case should never have even seen the light of day. But, it did and it highlights the lunacy of the law enforcement system in Indonesia. Anyone who argues that reform is taking hold is kidding themselves.

The lawyer of the children intends to appeal the decision. If I can help out from afar, then I would be more than willing to do so. The idea that these children were ever in detention was outrageous. The fact that they have been convicted is just as outrageous. The Attorney General should have instructed prosecutors to drop the case. The fact that he did not indicates where the priorities lay. I would also suggest that the masks provided hardly are sufficient to conceal the identities of these children, so the Tangerang prosecutors have failed in this regard as well.

There must be something in the water out Tangerang way. These are the prosecutors from the same Tangerang office that placed a young mother of two, Prita Mulyasari, in jail for writing a letter complaining about the service she received from the Omni International Hospital. There must be absolutely no serious crime in Tangerang that these prosecutors have nothing better to spend their time on than jailing young children and mothers.

This is a case that must capture more people's imagination and not just in Indonesia but further afield. An excellent piece, some might call it an enlightened and educated rage against the machine was written by a resident expat in Indonesia, Patrick Guntensperger, and can be found here.

The stupidity of the whole affair is that there are hardened criminals and organized criminal activities continuing to go about their ways without any concern at all about being arrested or brought to justice. Now, whether this is because they have connections to the right people or pay the necessary "fees" to avoid trouble, I will leave to you and your imaginations. However, the lawyer for the ten children, Kristin Tambunan, has a point when she asks, "since when is playing a crime?" This becomes even more absurd when one considers that these children are currently convicted criminals because they were tossing coins to fill in time between shoe shining gigs.

The conviction of these children is, plain and simple, wrong. The appeal must be accepted on the grounds that the judges erred in allowing the case to proceed, as the prevailing laws and regulations clearly state that the prosecution of children is a last resort. The verdict must be vacated and these children need to be allowed to get on with their lives without the noose of convicted felon hanging around their neck.

What is the Office of the Public Prosecutor thinking?

Travel Warning

The imminent execution of the murderous trio of Amrozi, Mukhlas, and Samudra has prompted the Australia government to issue a travel warning (People's Daily Online and Inquirer.net) asking Australians to reconsider their travel plans to Indonesia. And, if Australians insist on traveling to Indonesia, then they should avoid all locations that are likely to be targets of attack.

The idea that there will be a backlash (Gulf News) is dependent on so many things, particularly whether the extremists that the travel warning refers to, have the capability of carrying out an attack. It is wise to never underestimate your enemy, but there has not been a terrorist attack in Indonesia for a number of years.

This suggests one of two things; the terrorists are being patient or their capabilities of organizing and carrying out an attack have been severely compromised by law enforcements efforts in rounding them up and prosecuting them.

It is highly likely that there might be demonstrations over the executions and there will undoubtedly be large turnouts at the funerals of the three, and perhaps there may even be skirmishes at these events.

However, the best advice I have to offer is to have some self-awareness regarding the places you are in and where possible avoid putting yourself in harms way. So, if you think a likely target is a pub or a club, then do not go there. If you think it is a shopping mall then do not go there.

Bali Bombers Appeal Rejected

The latest appeal for the Bali Bombers; Amrozi, Imam Samudra, and Mukhlas, have been rejected. This means that these three gentlemen are one step closer to meeting their maker and finding out whether there really is 72 virgins waiting for them and handsome little waiters to serve all their needs.

The only recourse left now is to seek clemency from the President. It would seem unlikely that the President would entertain such an idea. Yet, then again who knows for sure.

The shenanigans that have gone on here delaying these executions is an embarrassment. The Poso Three whose alleged crimes were committed around the same time as the bombings in Bali have already been executed for killing fewer people and in spite of "evidence" being put forward at the last minute which was claimed to show that they were not the masterminds as alleged. This evidence was summarily dismissed and the three were executed.

It is sad that the Bali Bombers are being afforded opportunities that were not made available to others. It begs the question, are they being treated differently because the law allows them to be or are they being treated differently for some other reason such as they are Muslims in a predominantly Muslim country?

I am anti-death penalty and feel these three terrorists should not be given what they claim to want, martyrdom. On the contrary, they should be afforded the opportunity to rot in prison. From a purely legal standpoint with respect to enforcement of the law. It is time that these men were executed to ensure that the standard remains the same for all.

Judgment Day is edging ever-closer!

Art or Child Porn -- Some More Thoughts

The art vs. porn debate is likely to rage on for a while and then perhaps disappear until the next time someone wants to run an exhibition with provocative images. However, I have been following this debate because of the legal implications and because I enjoy looking at how the debate is characterized considering art is such a subjective area of study.

I was forwarded a link to a discussion thread at a place called "net-model" which has some interesting stuff about Bill Henson and others who have produced similar images in the name of art over the years.

Nevertheless, I do want to throw something else into the fray here, and that is; assuming that Henson did all the right things and asked for and was granted the consent of the parents for the photographs, then where should the blame be apportioned in this case?

If these images are in fact classified as pornography then why is no one talking about the parents who allowed these photos to be taken? Has the child been removed from the family home because she is at risk from sexual exploitation by her parents?

When is too young for nude modelling work? Not a question I can or want to answer at this point in time or one that I need to answer. However, before a child reaches legal age to make decisions for themselves (legal capacity) then these decisions are made by the parent(s) and as such the parents must also be responsible for the consequences of the decisions made on behalf of their child.

Will these images do any irreparable psychological harm to the teen models that are the subject of these pictures, who knows? Only time will tell, won't it?

I wonder would we be having this debate if the pictures in question were the happy snappies from the family album and included photographs of kids in the bath, frolicking on the lawn or at the beach, or doing any other myriad of things that kids do and that their parents photograph them doing? What would be the arbitrary line in the sand that we as a community would draw to determine when a naked picture has a sexual context and when it is nothing more than an innocent family happy snappy?

Art is such a subjective thing and I guess this is why this debate had to happen...one person's art is another person's porn!

More to follow...

Site Blocking & Fitna

Fitna is the flavour of the month it seems and blog worthy developments just keep on coming...

MUI, the Indonesian Council of Ulemas, has decided to call for a boycott of Dutch goods in protest of the film. Interestingly, the MUI has not issued a Fatwa about this but rather has decided to make its views known through statements to the press. Two questions: "Is the film not offensive enough to warrant a Fatwa?" and "Is it true that the reason that a Fatwa was not issued was because that Fatwas issued by the MUI have no legal standing and hence a waste of time and paper?"

The MUI plays a role in assisting with policy development and to provide insight as to what religious implications there are in policy or law from the perspective of Islam. Therefore, it has an advisory function but the MUI seems to be a lightweight wanting to fight in the heavyweight division. It simply is not a constitutionally defined law making or adjudicative body.

Now, onto the main point of this blog entry, the blocking of Internet sites and bloggers. The Minister of Communication and Information in his infinite wisdom has issued a letter demanding that all Internet Service Providers (ISP) and Network Access Points (NAP) block the film Fitna in order that it cannot be downloaded by Indonesians in Indonesia.

There are a couple of points to be made here. The call to ban and block comes a little too late as the film has been released on the Internet already and those Indonesians with an interest have probably already downloaded it. Those that haven't will find that it is destined to appear on locally hosted sites that ISPs will have much more difficulty in dealing with. Furthermore, the letter left too much discretion to the imagination of ISPs and NAPs in how to deal with this.

This discretion has seen XL (Indonesian phone company - apologies link is in Indonesian) decide to ban access completely to You Tube, My Space, Meta Cafe, and Rapidshare. This is a somewhat extreme maneuver to ensure that one single film does not enter the jurisdiction of the Republic of Indonesia. It also sets a bad precedent on which the government can capitalize on later when it want to restrict access to other objectionable material. Indonesia seems to be returning to an era of the New Order ++ where information and communication restrictions are potentially more repressive than ever.

So, anyone that relies on access to You Tube, My Space, Meta Cafe, or Rapidshare needs to find an ISP or NAP that is yet to block these sites in their entirety or as some have already done find ways of bypassing the blocks instituted by the ISP or NAP.

The current letter was issued under Article 21 of the Telecommunications Law and not the recently enacted Information and Electronic Transactions Law. However, the provisions in both are similar in the manner in which they intend to deal with issues of religious relations, harmony, gambling, threats of violence, and public order.

More on Fitna...

The Dutch government is making all of the right moves in trying to appease the dismay that Geert Wilders' film ever managed to get released. As an aside here, one should never underestimate the power of the Internet. If you have an agenda and an Internet connection you can find yourself an audience without any trouble at all. Mobile phones with cameras and video capabilities mean that the budding film maker in all of us has a chance to find a forum for expression!

The point though of this post is to explore in very little detail the calls by Muslim leaders in Indonesia for the Dutch government to take legal action against Wilders for the film which is described as being anti-Islam. The film is anti-Islam and that is the point of the film. The question of whether free speech has limits, is an interesting one, and the simple answer here is; yes! But just because a section of the community, in this case the world's followers of Islam, feel that the film is offensive still does not mean that there has automatically been a breach of the limits to free speech.

I am not an expert of Dutch law however on face value these are some of the problems that litigation may encounter in the prosecution of Wilders. I must confess here that I still have not watched the film, so what is said from here is based on a more general idea of film content overall.

If it is true that the film contains recorded images of actual events and the selected Suras of the Al-Qu'ran that are inserted are accurate translations of those Suras, then the obvious issue is whether putting images and words together in a particular way is a breach of the limits of freedom of speech? It is clear that it may be a propaganda call or whatever but my question would be does the film call for any explicit violence to be directed back to Islam? If the film incites violence then this might not be a free speech issue but a much more mundane criminal matter. Any additional commentary aside from the images and the various Suras might indeed take the film to a level where it breaches the prevailing Dutch laws and regulations.

However, the fact that the Dutch have yet to make a pronouncement about whether there has been a prosecutable offence committed suggests that it might be a little more difficult than just drawing up an indictment and running with that alone.

However, another interesting point will relate to what happens if the Dutch cannot find a suitable provision under which to pursue Wilders in the legal sense. If he has broken no Dutch laws then what is the response to be? Are calls for Wilders to be killed representative of tolerance for divergent opinions even where those opinions are offensive? Also interesting is the question of whether these Muslim leaders in Indonesia are overplaying their respective hands?

If you demand that the Dutch take action against Wilders for his film (which by most accounts is of relatively poor quality and where most people understand that Wilders has an agenda here so much so that it is being reported that Dutch TV stations won't air it) is the Indonesia Muslim community also committing to a position of upholding the law in Indonesia and demanding the same standard of their own government when it comes to objectionable or offensive films and commentary from Indonesian citizens?

An example would be are these individuals also prepared to come out and criticize Abu Bakar Bashir when he calls for all the khaffirs to be beaten because they are nothing more than maggots, worms, and snakes?

Just a thought about law enforcement in general! But my point is that if Bashir is to have a right to exercise his freedom of speech even where a good section of the broader community and perhaps the world's community of people who fall into the khaffir section find the call and the associated description objectionable and offensive, then why is the same standard not applied across the board. Is this simply a case of wanting your cake and eating it too? Or a case of the pot calling the kettle black? or what is good for the goose also having to be good for the gander as well?

What strikes me is the similarities here between the idea of anything that questions the fundamentals of a religion or religious practices is written off as being anti-whatever and suppressed rather than people engaging in constructive and active debate about the merits of the various and relevant positions. If Wilders film is as poorly constructed as it has been alleged then I am certain the Muslim community could counter the Wilders film with one that is designed to set the record straight as the Muslim communities sees it. The similarities here relate to claims that certain positions are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-whatever...

The idea of suppressing debate and writing things off as simply being anti-something seems to belittle human intelligence and the free will and ability to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong!

Hypothetically, if a Muslim was to put together a film that questioned the underpinnings of Christianity and highlighted Christianity's penchant for violence from the pre-Crusade days until the present and this film was then released concurrently in Holland and Indonesia would we be having the same freedom of speech debates?

My apologies for the long and winding nature of this post...