Indonesian Parliamentarians -- More Perks, Less Work...

Politicians will do and say just about anything to get into office. Cynical, maybe. Yet, a cursory bit of number crunching to get a basic overview of the performance of Indonesian parliamentarians since they were sworn into office in October last year is revealing in the most unflattering of ways. Simply, performance to date of these individuals elected to one of the highest forms of public service has been extraordinary for the lack of any performance.

Parliamentarians in the Indonesian system get to set their legislative workloads. Common sense would surely dictate that you set yourself a target that you can achieve. This target needs to be reasonable. It cannot be so low that there is no challenge in meeting it, and nor can it be so high as to be unrealistic and never met. The reality is that considerable thought went into selecting 70 Bills that the parliament assured constituents that they would be able to do. To date just seven have passed. There is little point in noting that some of these were nothing more than a rubber stamping exercise that required negligible effort from parliamentarians.

In contrast, the performance of parliamentarians in rewarding themselves for their shocking performance is now the stuff of legend. What is even more bizarre is that there seems to be no end to the gluttony. Some recent examples of expedited debate have seen parliamentarians get laptops and other white-goods. These 'bonuses' are on top of an allowance that is 60% of a parliamentarians salary for travel expenses. This money is supposedly to be used to get back to their electorates and meet the people who elected them to office. Needless to say, parliamentarians are spending their travel allowances but are not spending much time meeting constituents. It is not rocket science to work out why a parliamentarian would not want to meet a constituent struggling below the poverty line in a futile attempt to make ends meet.

It has really become a five-year feeding frenzy where members see how much they can conjure out of the State coffers. It is little wonder that Indonesians are feeling disenfranchised and resigned to the gluttony of their representatives.

The litany of woe continues with a recent spate of news noting that the parliamentarians were trying to get a vote happening to allocate themselves IDR 200 million to build "aspiration houses" in their electorates. An aspiration house is being sold as a "people's house", a place where local constituents can come to meet their local members. All up the aspirations of parliamentarians to further reward themselves was to cost the State IDR 112 billion. In reality, this is just another chunk of cash that would be whittled away (red. embezzled), or perhaps in more colloquial terms "pissed up against the wall".

What is truly funny in that most perverse kind of a way is that the 'aspiration' fund follows closely on the heels of a IDR 15 billion per member constituent development fund that had next to no oversight of any kind. Thankfully, that silliness was voted down. Although, it has seemingly been resurrected in this proposal albeit at a sizable reduction in the amount of cash being bandied about per member.

The first hurdle in making this allocation has been cleared. However, once this became publicly known there has been some pretty significant public backlash, and rightly so. Now, some parliamentarians are having a second thought about selling this slush fund to Indonesians. Currently, the discussion suggests that the plan might not get up at a plenary session. Well, if it does not happen, then perhaps members could use the 'spare' time to pass some legislation.

Then again, it is likely parliamentarians are day-dreaming about a new 36-floor parliamentary office building believed to be budgeted at some IDR 1.8 trillion. This is so clearly a waste of money that it is not funny, not even in a perverse kind of a way. The reality is that parliamentarian attendance records highlight that a good proportion of members are never in their offices nor the plenary sessions to do the parliamentary business that is expected of them.

As to the non-attendance of members, I nearly choked on my lunch when I read Muhammad Romahurmuziy, Secretary General of the United Development Party (PPP), say in no uncertain terms that parliamentarians are busy people and that sometimes they have to prioritize their time and representing their constituents is what falls to the wayside.

The Romahurmuziy reasoning is that parliamentarians were very busy professionals - lawyers, businessmen, sports people, and public figures (red. celebrities). For my mind, when one is elected to public office they remove themselves from any potential conflict of interest. For example, a business person who maintains control over their business whilst a parliamentarian and then votes on legislation or develops policy that impacts on that business is clearly in a position of conflict.

It truly is time that the parliamentarians elected to public office behave in a manner commensurate with the faith that the Indonesian populace has shown in them by electing them to office. It might be true that you get what you vote for, but most Indonesians would argue that they did not vote for this or these shenanigans.

Positive Economic News -- Indonesia...

The economic outlook and news associated with Indonesia for most of this year has been positive. In many respects, this is not surprising. How much one attributes this to SBY personally or good policy remains a subject of debate among some. There is little doubt that the figures are looking up compared to a few years ago. For the New York Times view on Indonesia and the future economic outlook, and where this graphic was lifted from, go here. It makes for interesting reading.

According to the NYT, Indonesia is Asia's new "Golden Child". This is high praise indeed. Yet, it might be putting the horse before the cart in the sense of being a little premature. Remembering that many thought the fundamentals of the Indonesian economy were pretty solid back in 1997 and 1998. History tells us that these fundamentals were not so solid after all. 

There is also the issue of corruption. SBY came to the presidency with an overwhelming mandate to fight corruption and rid Indonesia of this scourge. He has largely been unsuccessful. So, despite concerns about corruption and confusing local legislation, investors are returning in force, sort of. This is more an indication of businesses / investors recognising the huge upside potential of a market of some 250 million consumers, particularly where the vast majority of these are under 30s and a little more carefree on their consumptive ways.

It is always interesting, at least it was when I lived in Indonesia, to listen to people talking about financial crises, global meltdowns, and other tidbits of economic woe and mayhem. This was because walking the malls of the greater Jakarta metropolitan area, one would be forgiven if they could not fathom where the crisis was. Quite simply, people were still out and about, still shopping, still drinking coffee, still going to movies, pretty much living as they always had. The only concession might have been there were less people in these places, but they were not empty. 

It would also be remiss of me not to note that as soon as you walked out of the luxury of the malls you could see first hand what sort of destruction the financial crises had wreaked on the lower middle classes and the poor.

Nevertheless, the point is that it is not all that surprising that Indonesia has "rebounded" as strongly as it has.

Let's hope that the fundamentals are strong, the government is able to make some serious inroads into the battle against corruption, and the parliament can actually pull the collective fingers out and pass some legislation that will support the fight against corruption and convince investors that the risks they take are not with the applicable legislation.

My apologies to any readers who have more economic sense than me for any shortcomings in my cursory analysis!

Legislation Targets in Indonesia...

The Indonesian way with legislation is for the parliament to set targets regarding how much legislation it is going to pass in a five year parliamentary term.

This is then broken down into annual targets. Within these annual targets there is some flexibility to ensure that the parliament has the ability to deal with emergency legislation that might arise as a result on an emerging and urgent happening, such as a global financial crisis for example.

The system also allows for the parliament to prioritise certain pieces of legislation where there is a specific need to ne met.

This system is known as the National Legislation Program (or Program Legislasi Nasional / Prolegnas). The 2010 legislation target was 70 bills. Yes, 70 pieces of important legislation were listed for passage throughout the parliamentary sittings designated for 2010. It is now July 2010, the Indonesian parliament has successfully managed to pass 0 of those targeted bills.

Yes, that is right readers, the Indonesian parliament has not managed to pass a single piece of legislation in 2010. The prolegnas for 2010 has been revised to just 17 pieces of legislation to be passed in 2010. Of these 17 pieces of legislation the two biggest priorities for the parliament are supposedly defense related; a defense cooperation bill with Russia and a ratification of a MOU with Brunei on similar defense issues. Meanwhile, the other priority legislation that the parliament wants to pass in what is left of this year include, among others, bills on immigration, fund transfers, money laundering, clemency, and public accountants.

There is little wonder that the parliament is roundly criticised for its work ethic and being nothing more than a junket where members seek to exploit the public purse in any way that they can. Based on this alone, it would be reasonable to argue that the current members are not earning their salaries, they are an embarrassment to themselves and to their constituents and to the country.

However, in that funny in a perverse kind of a way, the return of the parliament on Monday amid renewed calls for better and more consistent performance nearly did not get underway. The parliament barely managed to meet quorum in terms of members present. The failure of so many members to attend the session was written off to post-World Cup Final fever. Yet, like anything else, staying up late to watch football is hardly an excuse to skip work the next day!

Quite simply, the Indonesian people want better and they deserve better. Members of the Indonesian parliament shame, shame, shame on you as your performance record is a sad joke and a poor reflection on you!

This final image was just one that I found while searching the internet for images of the DPR. Unfortunately, it the place where I located it did not say what year it was taken, but it looks like it is an old one. If anyone who reads these rants of mine has any idea on when this picture might be dated, feel free to leave a comment with what you know.

Censorship...

This is something I have seen around the traps a number of times. However, the most recent sighting of it has been over at my good friend the Treespotter's work-related blog, (you can find it here) and his blog is well worth a visit or ten.

Censorship is something that rears its ugly head every now and then in just about all countries.

Indonesia has had a recent bout with censorship relating to the screening of the film Balibo. This bout of censorship failed miserably as some organizations defied the ban. The ban has really been a bit of a non-event because pirated copies of the film are readily available in just about every roadside stall that sells disks.

Australia is also under the censorship gun as the government seeks to legislate internet filters that are supposedly designed to prevent certain types of nasty information and sites from every seeing the light of day in the land downunder. Unfortunately, those in the know have shown how silly this piece of legislation is as the filters are easily bypassed by using proxy servers that 10-year-olds can master. A bit fraudulent in that sense seeing the claim of the government is that this legislation and filters are needed to protect our children from the seedy side of the internet.

Oh well. Enjoy the picture!

Child Pornography and Artistic Merit...

It would seem that NSW is about to introduce legislation that removes artistic merit as a defense for images of children that are determined to be pornographic. The NSW Attorney-General, John Hatzistergos, has said that a working group tasked with making recommendations on this matter has recommended that a defense of artistic merit must lapse once an image has been deemed to be pornographic.

Simply, whether the 'artist' in question produced the image as art or not becomes irrelevant with respect to the charge of producing, possessing, or distributing child porn material.

The question then becomes what about images that are not produced for artistic purposes, but rather are nothing more than personal family photos. For example, what if the Attorney-General had a happy snappy of one of his children or his grand children taking a bath. Is this producing or possessing child porn? What if in his apparent pride he shows the photograph to a colleague or places it on his computer as a screen saver and it is seen by members of his staff? Is this distributing child porn?

I am totally against child pornography. I find it objectionable in the extreme, abhorrent. I am certain that my views on this topic and subject have hardened since the birth of Will. The thought of him being exploited for child pornography is repugnant in the extreme. However, I really do not see what harm there is in either his mother, his grandparents, or his aunts and uncles having a picture of the little fella swimming but naked in the pool. I cannot fathom how I could be investigated, arrested, and prosecuted for producing, possessing, or distributing child pornography.

On the artistic front. I am not an artist and cannot make the arguments for artistic expression that an artist might need in producing images of children that may or may not push the boundaries of art and child porn. However, I do accept that artists have a right to that freedom of expression. An artist who takes a semi-naked picture of a child with the full consent of the parents of that child for the purposes of creating art that may later be exhibited should not lose the right to claim artistic merit as a defense because someone, probably a bureaucrat, has deemed the image to be child porn. The current recommendation would see a panel created to determine whether or not the image was a valid image of a child.

I am wondering whether in the common law there is a requirement for the commission of a crime to include not only the actus reus or the act, but also a requirement for mens rea, the intent. Before a crime can be proven is there not a need to determine the intent of the alleged offender to commit the crime charged?

It would seem to me that the removal of artistic merit as a defense removes a right to create art. Clearly, Bill Henson's work is not everyone's cuppa tea, but all the same neither is what Picasso or Rembrandt produced either.

Interestingly, many are arguing that this working group was set up in response to the furore surrounding Bill Henson and the closing down of an exhibition of his work. If this were true, then it seems a little silly considering his work was assessed by the relevant classification authorities in this area and determined to not breach any standards with respect to images involving children (including the photograph above).

There is certainly a need to tighten child pornography laws and to eliminate this scourge from the community. However, it seems that artists who produce images of children are the softest target available for the government on this front. The idea of removing the artistic merit defense for artists is evidence of the government's inability to deal appropriately and comprehensively with the scourge of child pornography.

There will undoubtedly be more to follow once the legislation is introduced to the NSW parliament.

Logical Fallacies...

1. The best place for a child to live is with his or her biological parents.

2. Unless gays are banned from the military, no heterosexual military personnel will be safe.

3. Making condoms available in high school is like giving a thief a license to steal.

4. His repeated failure to find a job indicates that he lacks ambition.

5. Either you support anti-abortion legislation, or you're not Christian.

Just a few logical fallacies as thought provokers. Adapted from the Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers (1995).

Can Rape Be A Joke? -- The Follow-Up...

In a follow-up to an earlier post that discussed this particular case and whether or not rape could be a joke, the jury has come back with a verdict. The rape itself might not have been a joke, but it seems that the jury has been convinced that it was accidental. The jury consisted of six men and six women and they took just shy of two hours to reach their verdict of "not guilty".

The prosecutor, Kieran Gilligan, instructed the jury that they must be satisfied that there was penetration, that is was deliberate, that there was no consent, and that Naggs knew that the man was not consenting to any penetration.

The man who claimed that he had been raped was a willing participant in the events and had said something to the effect of "Be gentle. Don't do it too hard." I am guessing that probably sealed it for most of the jurors.

The jury acquitted Naggs and she is free to return to what she has apparently been doing for the past thirteen years, and doing quite well by all accounts.

So, the lesson from this case would seem to be that rape is not a joke, but in a very particular set of circumstances a rape could be accidental and therefore not rape. I think.

Nuclear Power, Accidents, and Compensation for Losses -- Indonesia

There are many people who question the viability of nuclear power in Indonesia, such as Jakartass. And, there are those that cannot seemingly get enough of it. For this particular post I am not arguing one way or the other but the photo amuses me. I am merely relaying that the government has updated the regulatory framework in this area to reflect the change in value of the Rupiah from when the law was first enacted through to today. It is in that sense an amendment of a pre-krismon figure to that of a post-krismon reality.

The Government has issued Regulation No. 46 of 2009 to increase the maximum liability for a nuclear accident to IDR 4 trillion from the previous maximum level of IDR 900 million. The legal framework for this government regulation is Law No. 10 of 1997 on Nuclear Power. The losses that are subject to compensation payments are those that arise as a result of an accident at a nuclear power facility or as a result of an accident that occurs in the transport of nuclear fuel and materials.

In essence, the government regulation amends Article 34(1) of the Law.

Interestingly, the increase in the maximum liability payments are not indicative of any realization on the part of the government that there are dangers in the use of nuclear power and energy that are costly to rectify in the event of an accident. To the contrary, the maximum liability has been raised to IDR 4 trillion only to reflect the change in the value of the Rupiah against the United States Dollar.

In fact, the regulation would suggest that the Indonesian government is keen to develop a greater nuclear power capacity, as nuclear power is seen as a power that can bring great benefits to the broader Indonesian community.

The regulation has been in force since 11 June 2009.

At least one might be reasonably compensated, if there is such a thing, for their radioactive glow even though the chances are they won't live long enough to spend it.

Child Abuse Material -- Australia to Set a Precedent

It seems that this is a perfect test case to to determine the reach of child abuse legislation as it relates to the uploading / downloading, publishing, and sharing of child abuse material. More specifically, the case also has the potential to establish exactly what kind of material can be classified as child abuse material for the purposes of sustaining a charge of publishing and sharing such materials online.

I have written about this case before, here. The case of Chris Illingworth is set for a committal hearing in Maroochydore Magistrates Court on 8 July 2009. The purpose of a committal hearing is to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. Essentially, whether there is enough being put forward by the prosecution regarding guilt that a jury could make a determination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.

What is interesting is that he has hired a silk (a term given to barristers who have been appointed Queen's Counsel / QC or Senior Counsel / SC) as this is unusual for a case like this and at this stage.

This suggests that the big guns (this is not to suggest that there are not solicitors out there who could not do the job) are being brought in at the start of the legal process, and rightly so, as this is a case where the implications extend way beyond the case itself. If the prosecution gets up in the Magistrates Court, then the definition of what constitutes child abuse material is considerably broader than what many had considered it to be previously.

The charges that Illingworth is facing could see him sent to prison for a maximum of ten years for each of the two charges that he is facing.

The offending video shows a Russian circus performer tossing his child around. The video does not show that the child has been harmed and in fact the child does not seem too bothered by the treatment and seems to enjoy it. Now, would I throw and swing my my son around, probably not at the moment seeing he is only just a touch over six months old.

However, I remember when I was a kid I liked to be swung around in circles by my arms and tossed up in the air (and caught again). So, it is probably just as well my folks did not record this and then in a moment of reminiscing I posted that video online.

Michael Byrne QC is going to argue that the video is a Russian circus training video. I probably would have argued something similar and probably would of tossed in a few videos of the Chinese training their kiddie gymnasts for comparison. I would have figured that any video that shows children undertaking strenuous physical activity at a very early age after having been removed from their homes and taken to a training facility would be tantamount to child abuse as well, even if the parents approve.

I might also be arguing whether this was the intent of the legislation in the first place. I have not looked at the parliamentary debate on the bill when it was proposed. However, I am guessing the focus was probably much more on the sexual exploitation and abuse of children.

The other question I would be asking is why is Illingworth being targeted considering that the video is widely available and has supposedly been shown on Australian TV? I have not seen it on TV and I am not going to admit to having watched it (as that would be tantamount to saying I have downloaded it / accessed it).

There is good reason for this as any Australian who views the video (and it is still available online) can be charged and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment not to exceed 10 years simply for accessing material that the police determine to be child abuse material.

The case would seem to be weak as the police's brief of evidence relies on a witness statement by someone who has not had any interaction with the family or the child in the video. Susan Cadzow, specialist pediatrician at Royal Brisbane Children's Hospital, made a witness statement to the effect that the baby was being swung vigorously but ends with the baby laughing and smiling. But, nevertheless, this does not mean, according to her expert opinion, that the laughter and smiles do not mask some hidden damage to the child. Therefore, and once again, according to Cadzow's expert opinion the video constitutes child abuse material.

I guess this is why I wouldn't want to be a police officer or public prosecutor on this one. No disrespect to the skills, experience, and expertise of Dr. Cadzow, but a witness statement about the possible harm done to a child based on the viewing of a video when having never examined the child seems to be a stretch.

What this case does mean at the moment is this. If you are a parent, then do not toss your child in the air and have someone else film it. Then in a moment of pride in your child having fun do not be tempted to upload this video to your blog or Facebook or other online location. If you do, then the next knock on your door might be the police looking to arrest you for dealing in child abuse material.

Big Brother is watching!

Sexual Barrier Protection Devices.

The Internet is a great repository for all kinds of stuff that can be used as base materials for teaching. I teach the odd legal drafting, plain English legal writing, and English for Lawyers courses, and have found some more material for this subject.

A bill to be entitled

An act relating to state inmates; authorizing a nonprofit or public health care organization to distribute sexual barrier protection devices to inmates in the state correctional system; requiring the Department of Corrections to develop a plan to properly dispose of used sexual barrier protection devices; providing an effective date.

I have the Silent Majority to thank for the link.

This is a piece of legislation that is on the cards for Florida. I am actually not so much against the legislation and do not have any moral or ethical issues with the provision of sexual barrier protection devices to inmates of correctional facilities. There are good reasons for the provision of these devices, such as seeking to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases in jails, including HIV, among others.

I was intrigued by what a sexual barrier protection device is. Unfortunately, the bill does not specify in the limited extract I have as to what might be included. It does mention condoms, but I get the distinct feeling that there is more to this than just condoms. Nevertheless, it is still a good lesson in legal drafting.

When one wants legal certainty then it pays to be specific or in this case explicit. It is worth noting that a simple Google search turns up a lot of hits for the term but not a lot of definitive answers.

The Law and Online File Sharing -- An Australian Example

This case is really interesting for a number of reasons, but paramount among these is that of a law being designed for a particular purpose being literally interpreted and nabbing an unlikely victim. Law enforcement in Australia is generally pretty good. Like all other places there are times when one shakes their head in disgust or disbelief at how laws are interpreted and applied. This might just be one of those occasions where statutory interpretation goes a little bit awry.

Chris Illingworth, a seeming harmless 61-year-old from Maroochydore in Queensland has been charged with distributing child abuse materials over the internet (video capture of the event and inset of Illingworth from here). Illingworth came across a video of a man swinging a child by the arms and thought it worthy of being republished on Liveleak (video sharing site). The man and child in question are part of a circus troupe form Russia (or at least that is the belief) and perhaps this is what the Russians do, start the training of their youngsters and future circus performers at a very young age.

It must be noted that Illingworth has no criminal history relating to child abuse of any kind. An extensive search by police of his home and his computers turned up no images that would violate any provisions of current law.

The video certainly shows the child being swung around. There are probably arguments to be made for and against how violent the swinging is. However, the video ends with a smiling and laughing child.

Where this gets a little scary is the involvement of "experts" who get to offer opinions based on watching a video and through no interview of the alleged victim. In this case the police called in a specialist pediatrician, Susan Cadzow, from Royal Brisbane Children's Hospital. Now, in Cadzow's expert opinion this video represents child abuse and although no injury appears apparent this is irrelevant as there might be hidden injuries that will not manifest until some later time.

If police are going to charge people for this and then the Office of Public Prosecutions is going to proceed with a prosecution, then Australians should be forewarned and thus forearmed that the long arm of the law is gunning for you with seemingly endless powers of interpretation. The law though is helpful to the police as child abuse material "is, or appears to be, a victim of torture, cruelty or physical abuse" where the victim is appears to be under the age of 18.

What is helpful to police about this definition is that it does not require actual abuse to be taking place, it just has to be perceived as abuse and the police can take action.

This begs the question, would a video of say a child contortionist undergoing training and being videoed and then this video is uploaded to the internet constitute child abuse? Or even where the contortionist is performing for money, wouldn't this be child exploitation and subsequently abuse?

So, what were the police thinking in this case and why did they decide to proceed?

It seems that Illingworth is going to become an interesting test case. Although, I am sure Illingworth would rather not be the centre of any test case. Unfortunately, for him this is what he has become.

The case will certainly set a precedent, at least in the Australian jurisdiction, as to what constitutes child abuse and the enforcement of the provisions as they relate to viewing and uploading child abuse material. If the prosecution succeeds on this, then Illingworth is potentially looking at doing up to a maximum of ten years in prison for uploading a couple of circus performers, one of who was under the age of 18.

Scary.

Durex -- Get It On!

Get it on indeed!

This is very funny (and no apologies if any of you, "my readers", are offended). In this day and age where abstinence is clearly not working, then a very funny condom ad is worth posting. There are a whole series of outtakes to the commercial which you can also find on You Tube.

I wonder if this would breach the provisions of the Indonesian Pornography Law?



Enjoy!

Breastfeeding - An Obligation for / on Indonesian Women

In order to increase the numbers of mothers who breast feed their children, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Labor and Transmigration, and the State Minister for the Empowerment of Women have issued a Joint Ministerial Regulation that sets out the provisions for women who are wanting to breast feed their children at the office and during office hours. This addition to the legislative framework was not entirely unexpected.

Interestingly, the regulation states that every mother is under an obligation to provide breast milk to their children. It is not entirely clear as to whether the government intends to sanction women who do not or cannot breast feed their children. I am guessing that they won't. Even more interesting is that the regulation states that there is a period of time where children are to be fed exclusively breast milk.

My understanding is that some mothers just do not produce enough milk themselves to satisfy the voracious appetites of their newborns or just are physically incapable of breastfeeding. For this reason the characterization of the need to breast feed and to do so exclusively would seem to unnecessarily stigmatize those that cannot.

The premise of the regulation is that breast milk and breast feeding are crucial to the physical, mental, spiritual, and intellectual development of children. The spiritual angle is an intriguing one. I guess if breasts are your thing then it is possible that the experience might be a spiritual one for you. However, I am not sure that it is all that spiritual an experience for a new born.

Furthermore, it seems that the Ministers have collectively realized that most Indonesian office environments are not very new mother or family friendly. And, if the government is going to characterize breast feeding as an obligation on women then it makes good sense to put into place legislation that allows for this obligation to be met.

Under the regulation each of the Ministers is tasked with specific functions. For example, the State Minister of Women's Empowerment is tasked with socializing and providing knowledge to new mothers regarding the benefits of breast feeding. The Minister of Labor and Transmigration, for example, is tasked with working with employers and employee representatives with a view to establishing guidelines and agreements to facilitate the opportunity for nursing mothers to breast feed at the office and during office hours. The Minister of Health is tasked with creating and implementing training and education programs for new and nursing mothers.

For employers and employees the impact of this regulation conceivably has some wide-ranging and long-term impacts on office life in Indonesia. Initially, it would seem that employers are going to have to incur some costs in setting up designated spaces in order for employees who are new or nursing mothers to fulfill their breast feeding obligations.

Therefore, it seems a foregone conclusion that work environments are going to become increasingly more family friendly. This might lead to the establishment of in-house child care facilities so that mothers do not have to take considerable chunks of time out of the office to go home and feed their newborns. With Jakarta's notoriously nasty traffic it is likely that for a mother to leave the office, go home, feed their child, and get back to the office, maybe three or four hours have been lost.

Employers, rather than incur the expense of a more family friendly environment, will be more likely to marginalize female employees who get pregnant by restructuring the work environment so that when the period of maternity leave is finished there is no position for the new mother to return to. It will be interesting to see how the Ministers and the government deal with this kind of eventuality.

So, in that sense the regulation is interesting on a number of different levels, as it opens the doors to all sorts of possibilities. Some good and some not so good possibilities could arise in the future. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that there might be more legislative developments in this area before the year is out.

Finally, this post lends itself to the gratuitous posting of a picture.

Damaged Roads

It is being reported that the Public Works Agency of Jakarta is planning to repair some 211,000 sqm of roads in the capital in the first six months of this year. This gets me wondering about just how many sqm of roads are damaged and in need of repair. This is because records state that the Public Works Agency reported repairing more than 400,000 sqm of roads during the past 12 months.

It seems that the priority is going to be the main thoroughfares first. This is probably a good idea. However, it is of limited value to someone like me who lives in the suburbs.

But, I guess if the Public Works Agency manages to fill in some of the potholes and prevent accidents then this has got to count for something. Nevertheless, it is a case of doing it right the first time in order not to have to repeat the same shenanigans over and over again after each rainy season. It is a simple philosophy really!

I have also been wondering of late, how many accidents are attributable to roads that are in a state of disrepair and whether this constitutes negligence on the part of the government of Jakarta? And, if it does can citizens sue the government for this negligence?

Life in Jakarta.

Domestic Servants -- Legal Protections?

Overview

The Draft Bill on the Protection of Domestic Servants intends to formalize a type of work that was always a part of, and currently remains, the informal employment sector. The rationale is that while these types of domestic service remain a part of the informal employment sector then these workers are potentially subject to abuse and have little or no protective mechanisms to support them when their employment situation turns bad.

Human Right to Work
The government characterizes work as a human right and one that is to be protected. Work is to be a situation where you are paid in accordance for the value of your work and at a level equal to your skills and capabilities. The Draft Bill is explicit that this is to happen without discrimination. The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia after amendment includes a basic “Bill of Rights” and among those rights is a right to work.

Therefore, this Draft Bill is intended to give some effect to that right and to ensure that adequate protections are in place for this right to work to be fully realized. The relevant articles of the Constitution are:
· Article 5(1);
· Article 27(2);
· Article 28A; and
· Article 28D(2).

Two Concurrent Versions of the Draft Bill
There are currently two versions of the Draft Bill in circulation. The first is a Non-Governmental Organization version and the second is a Government version. The version here is the government one.

The government version provides an explanation in the Elucidation as to why the term “pekerja” has been chosen in preference to “pembantu”. Generally, in the context of the home, pekerja would translate to domestic servant. In contrast, pembantu would translate to maid or more specifically, house maid. It is clear from the title of the Draft Bill that the term is intended to be the broader and all encompassing pekerja rather than the more restrictive pembantu.

Features
The most striking feature of the Draft Bill is that it will require all domestic servants to be employed based on either a written or oral work contract that guarantees some basic rights such as:
· to be treated humanely;
· welfare;
· health;
· work safety; and
· any other rights included in the work contract.

This is a striking feature because it is rare if not unheard of that domestic servants are employed on anything other than a basic verbal agreement. These oral contracts are difficult to enforce and general offer little or no protection for domestic servants. This very much leaves a domestic servant at the whims and discretion of their employer. It is interesting that the Draft Bill maintains these oral contracts.

However, in terms of contracts between the end user and domestic servant placement agencies, these contracts must be written and clearly set out the rights and obligations of each of the parties.

These features are contained in Article 3 and unfortunately the Elucidation to this Article states no more than it is “self-explanatory”. For example, is the entitlement to health to be evidenced by the employment taking out health insurance on behalf of the domestic servant?

It is clear that the socialization process needs to address some of the specifics of the protections to be afforded. Simply, without greater clarity in terms of what health, welfare, and work safety entail then both compliance and enforcement will be subjective and difficult.

Scope
The scope of the bill is all domestic servants and not just house maids. The provisions cover the following individuals, among others:
1. house maids;
2. caretakers;
3. baby sitters;
4. nannies;
5. governess;
6. gardeners;
7. personal drivers;
8. private security; and
9. private tutors.

The types of employment covered are both live-in and live-out, but all have some relationship to the maintenance of the home or a home environment.

Direct and Indirect Recruitment
The provisions of the Draft Bill cover both privately recruited domestic staff and those recruited and placed through agencies.

Article 5 expressly states that the employment of a child requires the written permission of the parents or guardians of the child. In difficult economic times it seems very likely that this permission will be easy to obtain as parents and guardians will see their 15 – 17 year old children as a source of income. This particular provision appears to run counter to Indonesia’s stated commitments to the protection of the interests of children through to the age of 18.

The Draft Bill sets out the minimum requirements that must be met during the recruitment process in order for an individual to be employed as a domestic servant. These requirements, among others, include:
· possess a self-identity;
· be at least 18 years of age;
· where the age is between 15 and 17, recruitment is for specific purposes;
· the existence of an agreement between the employer and the domestic servant; and
· possess the requisite skills for the work envisaged.

Minimum Age and Child Labor
Interestingly, the Draft Bill seems to set the minimum age limit for domestic servants at 15. Article 6 explicitly states that it is prohibited to employ anyone under 15 as a domestic servant. At 15 one is still a child and this would seem to be legislating positively for the legitimizing of child labor.

Although the Draft Bill seems to modify the work that 15 – 17 year olds can do to “specific tasks” and be limited to four hours of work. And, as noted previously the child can only be employed after the permission of the parents or guardians of the child has been obtained.

Rights and Obligations
The Draft Bill sets out the rights and obligations that domestic servants must enjoy. These rights include:
· the right to a reasonable wage;
· a right to know the type of work that they will be doing;
· an allowance of one month’s salary for their relevant religious holiday;
· weekly and annual leave;
· a right to add knowledge and a right to access information within the framework of improving work productivity;
· a right to communicate and to receive communications from their family;
· an opportunity to organize or unionize;
· breastfeed any children that they have;
· an opportunity to practice their faith;
· a right to maternity leave;
· a right to occupational health and safety (inclusive of reproductive rights);
· a right to not be subject to violence; and
· a right to three sets of clothes annually.

The obligations include:
· to perform their work in accordance with the work contract;
· maintain morality and security in their place of work;
· maintain the good name of the family and protect any confidential family information that they may obtain;
· notify within at least 15 days of any intent to resign;
· complete all work properly; and
· assist in the maintenance of the peace, harmony, and security of their place of work.

The Draft Bill also sets out the rights and obligations for both the employer of a domestic servant and also the rights and obligations for domestic servant placement agencies. For example, the employer of a domestic servant has a right to obtain information on the domestic servant employed. Unfortunately, the Elucidations to this Article provide no insight as to what this information might be. Nevertheless, this information presumably includes such things as the name and age of the domestic servant as well as such information as a home address and previous work history (if any), among other information.

Domestic servant placement agencies have a right to receive payments for their services in providing domestic servants to an end user or employer. The size of any fee is to be stipulated in the written agreement that is to be signed by both the placement agency and the employer.

Termination of Work Contracts and Wages
A work contract can terminate for any number of reasons. However, some specifics are listed in the Draft Bill. These include the death of the domestic servant (and presumably the employer), the period of the work contract has expired, a situation arises that is outside the ability of either party to overcome, and by mutual consent, among others.

If the domestic servant wishes to sever the employment contract, then the domestic servant is to provide 15 working days notice of their intention to do so.

The Draft Bill envisages that the minimum wage for domestic servants is to be set by Provincial Governments, Municipalities, and Cities in accordance with the economic conditions of the respective locations. In addition, the Draft Bill provides that the employer and the domestic servant can agree to any other incentives that they wish.

Work Hours and Leave
The drafters have realized that setting any specific times for work negates the reality that is domestic work; simply the only way to regulate time is on a flexi-time schedule with a maximum number of hours per day that may be worked. The maximum number of hours per day has been set at ten.

In terms of leave, a domestic servant is entitled to one day off per week. Presumably this day is by mutual consent of the domestic servant and the employer. This is in addition to a mandatory minimum six hours of rest per day. Interestingly, this six hours of rest does not seem to be a continuous six hours but potentially it could be in one hour lots or similar.

A domestic servant becomes eligible for 12 working days annual leave once they have worked for the employer for 12 consecutive months.

Dispute Resolution
Any dispute is to be resolved by negotiation between the parties in conflict. If this negotiation does not reach a settlement that is mutually agreed by the parties, then the dispute is to be resolved by involving the Neighborhood Head (Rukun Tertangga / RT) and the Community Head (Rukun Warga / RW). If the involvement of the RT and RW fail to get the parties to reach a mutually acceptable settlement, then the parties can then escalate the dispute to the courts.

The reality is that these provisions as they relate to dispute resolution seek to redress the power balance between the employer and employee (domestic servant). Traditionally, domestic servants have had very little power and have generally been at the whim of their employer. The option of alternative dispute resolution and, if need be, the courts mean that domestic servants will have some legal protection from arbitrary actions of their employers.

Supervision
It is expected that primary supervision will be by the relevant service division of the Department of Labor and Transmigration. It is also envisaged that the RT and RW will play a role in the supervision on a much more local level.

Sanctions
The basic sanctions in the Draft Bill are administrative in nature and cover breaches of Articles 11, 13, and 17. The sanctions include written warnings, temporary suspension of the activities of placement agencies, cancellation of licenses, and the cancellation of work contracts, among others. However, it is expected that additional sanctions will be included through specific Ministerial and Regional Regulations.

Enactment
The Draft Bill will come into immediate force on its enactment.

Conclusion

It is clear that the government is intent on providing enforceable protections for domestic servants. It is also clear that in order to achieve this there is a need to formalize the employment situation from its current informal nature.

However, there appears to be some serious shortcomings if the intended purpose is to take these types of work from the informal to the formal. For example, it would make sense that the work contract between the domestic servant and the employer is in the written form. This would ensure that there are better prospects for enforcement in the event that the employment relationship breaks down.

Nevertheless, the intention is an honorable one.

The Draft Bill is currently in the socialization phase. It is expected that there will be considerable input from various stakeholders and therefore the final version of any bill that reaches the House of Representatives to work through the Commission and Committee processes prior to any enactment is destined to be quite different from the current versions.

Postscript

By way of explanation. This is a revised copy of something I have written for some other purpose. Perhaps some will be interested in the substantive matter that it covers and some won't be interested at all. Nevertheless, I guess if you live in Indonesia and have the luxury of any of these domestic services such as a house maid or two, drivers, gardeners, and the like then the draft bill is likely to be of some interest to you.

We have a domestic servant, a house maid. She is excellent. She works hard and is reliable. however, having read through the provisions she seems to be on a pretty good thing already working for us. Her salary is above average and once she has done the obligatory chores then her time is pretty much her own. Like for example tonight, she asks if she can stay the night with some family who live near by. We have no problem with that and so off she goes.

Provided there are no significant changes to the basic provisions of the draft bill then we are already in compliance. So, perhaps we can tighten the screws a little and make the conditions our house maid works under to comply with the absolute minimum.

Just kidding!

Racial and Ethnic Discrimination -- Reviewed and Updated

Overview

The House of Representatives (DPR) passed the Bill on the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination on 28 October 2008. The law has been in the process of being passed since 2005 when it first arose as a DPR Initiative. Indonesia already has a racial discrimination law, Law No. 29 of 1999, which is the enactment of Indonesia’s responsibilities and obligations as a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The premise of the law is that everyone is born the same in the eyes of God and that everyone is equal before the law irrespective of their ethnicity or race. Nevertheless, these aspirations now have a little more gravitas as they have been codified into law. The need for the codification is that all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination are contrary to the principles contained in Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Therefore, it is the Government’s view that this provides a mandate that demands that Indonesia take all steps necessary to remove racial and ethnic discrimination from the Republic of Indonesia.

Challenges of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination
Indonesia as an archipelagic nation faces many challenges on the race and ethnicity front. These challenges stem from the bringing together of many racial and ethnic minorities under the flag of a unitary republic. Nevertheless, the differences between the multi-racial and multi-ethnic constituent parts of the Republic are often the trigger for violence.

The law simplifies this to one of differences or imbalance in social, economic, and power opportunities which ultimately lead to substantial losses to the communities where they occur. The violence that accompanies these conflicts is usually extreme and involves not only rioting and looting and destruction but rape and murder as well.

Basic Impacts
Aside from the suffering of the local communities, it is also clear that the suffering extends way beyond the local communities and negatively impacts on the short, medium, and long term development of the nation as a whole. These impacts arise because of many factors, for example, a reluctance of investors to invest in areas that are prone to racial and ethnic conflicts.

What’s Covered
The law stipulates that it regulates issues such as the following:
· The basis for the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Actions that satisfy the elements of discrimination;
· Provide protections for those citizens that have suffered racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Protect citizens from racial and ethnic discrimination that arises from central and regional government actions and actions of the broader community;
· Supervision to ensure the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination by the National Commission of Human Rights;
· The rights of citizens to receive equal treatment with respect to their civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights;
· Obligations and the role of the community in ensuring the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination;
· Claims for compensation for losses sustained as a result of racial and ethnic discrimination; and
· Criminalizing discriminative behaviour.

Definitions
The definition of what constitutes discrimination is broad and can be civil, political, economic, social, and cultural. Race and ethnicity are also defined. Race is defined simply as physical characteristics that distinguish one group of people from another and lines of ancestry. Ethnicity is defined as a group that can be distinguished based on beliefs, values, norms, cultural traditions, language, history, geography, and kinship.

The point of eliminating discrimination is to promote and ensure harmony, peace, and security, among others. Therefore, discrimination is defined as any action that seeks to distinguish or differentiate individuals or makes exceptions for individuals thereby holding the potential to upset the harmony, peace, and security apple cart.

The law and the Elucidations are either silent or less than clear on what impact this might have on any affirmative action programs that may arise in the future.

Objectives
The objectives of the law are to ensure the elimination of racial and ethnic discrimination. However, simultaneously the law is also seeking to establish equality, freedom, justice, and universal human norms.

The idea of establishing universal human norms is an interesting objective for many reasons. Most notably among these is that many have tried to distinguish between Asian and Western values and that some norms are not universal, particularly in the context that “Asian cultures” favour the group over the individual right. The former Prime Minister of Malaysia, for example, was a staunch advocate of the Asian values systems. One could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the law is Indonesia’s attempt to repudiate this point of view by codifying that there are universal human values with respect to race and ethnicity that must be protected irrespective of where one resides in the world, as this does not seem to be the case.

The reality is that the above claims to universal values worthy of protection are moderated in Article 2(2) with the requirement that the values of equality, freedom, justice and universal human norms be determined within the contextual frame of prevailing religious, social, cultural, and legal norms of the Republic of Indonesia.

Discriminative Actions
The law broadly lists what a discriminative action entails as anything that:
· Differentiates;
· Provides exceptions;
· Restricts; or
· Chooses

The above would require that each of these actions was undertaken within the parameters of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, this would also require that the consequences of these actions include the revocation, or reduction in acknowledgment, or the inability to obtain, or implement a human right in any civil, political, economic, cultural, or social sense.

Racial and Ethnic Vilification
The law also regulates hate speech and vilification in Article 4(b). The provision states that the promotion of hate or feelings of hatred through the use of the following, among others, is strictly prohibited:
· Writings or graphic depictions (pictures), and
· Speeches.

Supervision
The supervision of the provisions of the law is to be done by the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM). Supervision will be undertaken through means such as monitoring and evaluation of government policy, investigation and examination of available facts of alleged discrimination, provision of recommendations to government, monitoring and evaluation of programs designed to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination, and the provision of recommendations to the House of Representatives (DPR).

The Role of the Community
The provisions as they relate to the role of the community also address matters related to citizen’s rights. Simply, every citizen has a right to not be discriminated against based on their race or ethnicity. Every right gives rise to an obligation. Therefore, every citizen is also under an obligation not to make racial and ethnic distinctions and as such play a positive role in preventing racial and ethnic discrimination, and ultimately play a significant role in the process of eliminating racial and ethnic discrimination altogether.

Compensation
The law provides for compensation claims in the event that a citizen has been discriminated against. The claim can be either as an individual or as a class action where there are multiple claimants. Claims are to be lodged at the District Court.

Criminal Provisions
The criminal sanctions in the law allow for terms of imprisonment of between 1 and 5 years and fines of between IDR 100 million and IDR 500 million. The penalties for corporations attract a premium of 1/3.

Closing Provisions
Once the Law enters into force all current racial and ethnic discrimination laws remain in place unless they contradict the provisions of this law. If they do, then the provisions of the law will prevail.

Operation
The Law came into immediate force once it is enacted.

Conclusion

It is clear that the government through the enactment of this bill into law is intent on removing the scourge of racial and ethnic conflict and violence from the Indonesian scene. The law will clearly be complementary to other existing discrimination laws and consolidates and strengthens the overall anti-discrimination regulatory framework.

Nevertheless, there are parts of the law that need further work to clarify matters such as affirmative action programs to ensure balance where natural balance does not occur.

The reality is that enforcement will be the key. If there is lax enforcement of the provisions, simply the government refuses to take action where it can to eliminate racial and ethnic discrimination then the underlying issues that trigger racial and ethnic conflict will remain, and remain unchecked.

Blasphemy in Indonesia

Blasphemy is an issue that is always interesting to write about as the possibilities are endless, at least in terms of the hypotheticals - the what ifs? This is even more so the case in Indonesia where even the slightest hint of blasphemy leads to violence and the destruction of private property and the desecration of religious property in some instances, it is fair to say there is nothing funny about blasphemy in Indonesia.

Indonesia is still not at the point of trying, as Malaysia has, to ban the use of certain words and restrict their usage only to Muslims. Malaysia decided that "Allah" was a Muslim term to refer to God and because it was a Muslim term then no other religions had a right to refer to their God as Allah. I would guess that to do so would amount to blasphemy.

Nevertheless, Indonesians, at least in some instances, have voiced extreme opinions on the issue of apostasy. The demand is for death for all apostates. The issue has come to the fore yet again as the government is set to continue its pursuit, some might say persecution, of Lia Eden, the leader of a messianic cult, who by all accounts is as mad as a two bob watch, for blasphemy. The most recent arrest is hot on the heels of the arrest of a teacher for supposedly scorning the Prophet. For some background on the Eden cult you can go here, here, and here.

The teacher, Welhelmina Holle, sparked a violent protest that led to the burning of churches and homes on Seram Island in the Moluccas. It remains unclear exactly what she said but obviously for some it did not matter. The fact that the allegation was made was enough for some to set out on a violent protest.

The actual law on blasphemy was a Presidential Decree that was enacted into law in 1965 (No. 1/PNPS/1965) and the key elements have in essence been extracted and included in the current Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Pidana / KUHP) as Article 156(a). The combination of these laws is designed to prevent "deviant interpretations" or any challenge to the long-standing norms particularly with respect to Islam, and to prevent any public discourse on religion by outlawing any utterances that can conceivably be deemed hostile or abusive or insulting of any particular religion.

This is problematic in a secular state as it gives the government or its appointed proxies the power to make subjective interpretations of what constitutes blasphemy or heresy. In many ways the power is a similar one to what has been seen before, as granted to the Roman Catholic Church during the Inquisitions. For many this might be a difficult concept to digest. However, it is as simple as recognizing that there is not the same separation of Church and State or in this case Mosque and State that many of us from a Western democratic tradition would recognize.

Yet, there is some separation in Indonesia as the Indonesian Ulema Council (Majelis Ulema Indonesia / MUI) has the power to issue fatwas (edicts) on all things Islam but these fatwas are not legally binding. In that sense it is a toothless tiger whose growl is much bigger than its bite. Although, it is a brave government that aligns itself against the MUI as to do so would expose it to charges of being anti-Islam or not sensitive to Muslim issues and needs.

I guess the point of this little musing was that on a personal level I have a real problem with people being jailed for their non-violent religious beliefs no matter how crazy and left or right of mainstream they might be. For example, if a shaven-headed woman wants to claim that she is the Archangel Gabriel and people want to believe that and follow her then so be it. Similarly, if someone wants to claim that there was another prophet after Muhammad and there are people prepared to belief that then so be it.

I leave you with these random thoughts.

If God sends his only son, Jesus Christ, to earth to die for our sins, then doesn't this suggest that Jesus is the most likely candidate to have been the last prophet (at least until the second coming of Christ)? And, therefore, would it be blasphemy to suggest that God got it wrong by sending his only son and decided to have another go at getting it right by selecting some random fella, who in this case just happens to be a fella named Muhammad, to be his final prophet on earth and to bring Islam to the world?

Then, if it is to be accepted that Muhammad followed Jesus as a prophet, then why is it not possible that God could have had second or third thoughts and decided that another prophet was necessary in order to perfect any imperfections that may have arisen?

Would it be blasphemy to suggest that Buddha never really reached enlightenment by suggesting that the Buddha has been reincarnated for another stint back in the real world?

Oh well! As Uncle Ned once said, "such is life"!

Rape or Porn or Both?

Common sense would suggest that if you are going to commit a crime, then do not film yourself doing it. This might be even more so if you are going to commit a rape and then distribute it amongst your friends via your mobile phone. That said, the footage might also be significant in proving that the sex was consensual and that no rape had taken place.

The gist of this case is that a teenage boy invites a girl to meet and then goes to a friend's house for some reason, presumably to have sex, the sex occurs and the friends that the boy has invited decide that the whole sex scene is worthy of some mobile phone footage and that this footage is worth sharing with others.

The boy's story is that he called the girl and invited her for the rendezvous and she willing agreed to the encounter. However, the parents of the girl have gotten wind of the rendezvous, the encounter, and perhaps even the footage and reported the boy to the police for allegedly raping the daughter.

This is the classic "he said, she said" scenario with a twist, video footage from a mobile phone.

There are a couple on interwoven issues here. Underage premarital sex, sexual violence in the form of rape, privacy issues, pornography, and crime, to name but a few. Perhaps cases like this interest me as it would allow for an exploration of the legal issues and the "how" the law is to be enforced (or implemented).

Indonesian Supreme Court News

The Parliament appears destined to pass the new Supreme Court Law which will set the retirement age of Justices at 70 years of age. It is expected that the bill will be passed into law in the next Plenary Session on 17 December 2008. The raising of the retirement age was particularly controversial earlier in the process as many saw it as a not too covert attempt by the then Chief Justice to maintain his stranglehold on the leadership of the Court. Personally, I always thought it was making a mountain out of a mole hill, but that is just me.

The beauty of the debate though was that it got people talking about the Court and regeneration and particularly the appointment of new blood to the Court as a means of reinvigorating it not just in terms of the human resources present but also in terms of the Court's intellectual vigor.

Past is prologue and as such Bagir Manan is history. He is retired. The intrigue now is who will become the next Chief Justice of the Court. The Justices get to make this decision amongst themselves, at least, in so far as they choose from among their own.

It seems that the most likely candidates are all around the 67 age and as such any appointment might last a mere three years before the Court is once again looking for a new Chief.

Is It Just A Cartoon?

I am not going to re-post the offending cartoons here. For no other reason than I did not bother to save them. I did not find them particularly funny and I did not see them as making any real political statement worthy of debating.

The issue for me is one of how seriously must this matter be dealt with? When does a cartoon cease being a cartoon and become something else that is worthy of this much debate? What are the legal implications and ramifications considering the government seems certain to pursue this to its conclusion?

The cartoons that were hosted on the Wordpress hosted blog depicted the Prophet and his wives. The accompanying text was written in Indonesian. Therefore, the assumption is that the blogger is Indonesian and that they are based here. I am not sure how this conclusion has been reached. Perhaps there is more information that has not been released to I have yet to see on this matter. I know quite a few non-Indonesians that can read, write, and speak in Indonesian.

The response to the cartoons has seen Wordpress close off the link. There has been demands that Wordpress divulge the identity of the blogger or perhaps information that might lead to the uncovering of the identity of the mysterious and currently anonymous blogger. There have been claims that if Wordpress does not provide this information that the Indonesian National Police Force's digital forensic squad will get in on the act and find the information itself.

However, it is the responses from others that are worthy of some consideration.

Muhammad Ismail Yusanto, spokesman for Hizbut Tahrir, has declared that shutting down access is not enough. The government must conduct a full investigation and when the blogger is uncovered he must be punished according to Islamic law and that the death penalty must apply once the blogger's guilt has been determined.

Hidayat Nur Wahid, who maintains a significant affiliation with the Prosperous Justice Party which he once chaired, has described the cartoons as "an act of terrorism against the Muslim people," and something that the authorities must deal with firmly.

So, I guess my question is, "when is a cartoon not just a cartoon?"