This refers to the letter titled “the Dutch Fantasy” (Oct. 8, p. 8). The
writer apparently fails to recognize the fact that unlike our own legal
system, the Dutch system recognizes and defends individual citizen’s
rights.
We should not forget that the Netherlands is not some Third World
country where the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution can
be disregarded. In this case, equality before the law and freedom of
speech can be bent or changed overnight to serve individual or group
interests.
Therefore, even a petty claim filed by an obscure group should still be
heard in court, even if it might inconvenience the head of state. It was
regrettable that the President (or his advisors) took it personally,
and perhaps even expected the Dutch government to intervene and stop the
(Republic of South Maluku) filing, but apparently that is not how
things are done in the Netherlands.
The same condition applies to the case of Geert Wilders and his party,
which I understood the writer referred to as a significant Dutch
political party with neo-colonist views towards Indonesia.
It’s just fortunate for Wilders that he could fully enjoy his
fundamental rights as a Dutch citizen in his country, no matter how much
controversy he incites, unlike the minorities in Indonesia where the
constitution is often bent and twisted to violate the rights of
religious minorities and allow rogue groups to roam free. At least the
Dutch courts went out of their way and tried all possible means, though
in vain, to prosecute Wilders in 2009 on account of inciting hatred by
his discriminatory remarks and hateful rhetoric targeting Muslims.
The President has every right to cancel his visit based on a sense of
national pride, and at the expense of whatever comes out of the
cancellation, and we should respect that, just like we should respect
the Dutch court’s decision to hear the case.
Though personally I feel the cancellation was highly regrettable because
SBY has missed (hopefully temporarily) a chance at a milestone event in
Dutch and Indonesian histories — one that might have showed that he was
a visionary leader who would not be deterred by adversity.
Lastly, to the readers in general, it is indeed not easy for us to
understand or get used to how constitutions and individual rights are
upheld in real democratic countries, but let us not be carried away by
emotions and make unfair and biased remarks that could make sensitive
situations even worse.
Reflection is always a healthy practice.
Sasha
Jakarta
