TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Reciprocity in Corby’s case
From July 2-4, 2012 President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) will visiting Darwin, Australia for a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Julia Gillard
Change Size
F
rom July 2-4, 2012 President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) will visiting Darwin, Australia for a bilateral meeting with Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The two-day event is the second annual Australia-Indonesia Leaders’ Meeting, the highest bilateral forum between the two countries.
One pertinent issue to be discussed at the meeting is, arguably, Schapelle Corby’s case. On Australian side, its public might have been delighted few weeks ago to hear the news from Indonesia regarding Corby. Corby, who was sentenced in 2004 to 20 years in Kerobokan Prison, Denpasar for the smuggling of marijuana, was granted a five-year sentence reduction by President Yudhoyono.
Nevertheless, if the Australian public follows the continued news after the clemency, they would be surprised how Yudhoyono is very much under fire. One strong accusation against him is that Corby’s sentence was relatively on-par with what she deserved.
Indonesia’s Minister of Law and Human Rights, Amir Syamsuddin, as quoted in media, said that the clemency was part of Indonesia’s diplomatic deals with Australia. On the other hand, Australian Foreign Minister, Bob Carr stated that there was no such bargain, even though he very much appreciated Indonesia’s decision on Corby’s sentence reduction.
The so-called “deal” struck between Indonesia and Australia was rumored to be an exchange for the release of Indonesian fishermen accused of people smuggling as well as underage detainees.
The release of three underage Indonesians from detention centers in Albany and Pardelup, West Australia, adding to a total of 10 Indonesians who have been released from Australian detention centers in 2012, was seen by many as proof of the “deal”. (The Jakarta Post, June 20, 2012). According to the Post, “most of them left prisons after President Yudhoyono decided to grant the 5-year clemency to Corby.”
Nevertheless, Indonesia should not be too quick to be pleased. Even in Australia, there are views that it is actually obligatory to release fishermen accused of people smuggling, as well as children, particularly if it is juxtaposed with the controversial mandatory detention policy.
The policy has been criticized as being out of line with the so-called “due process of law” that underlines the necessity of “administration of justice according to established rules and principles”.
Furthermore, if it is linked with international norms on refugees, it is argued that “the dominant law enforcement paradigm of people smuggling is based on often false assumptions and contributes to systematic breaches of the rights refugees.” (Michael Grewcock, HRD, Vol. 19).
Occasionally, stories surface about of how “easy” it is to drop of charges against Indonesian fishermen accused of people smuggling, even though they have been in detention for a long time. One recent example showed that the case against three men (aged 34, 38 and 46), who had been in detention for 21 months, was finally withdrawn (ABC, May 3, 2012). In other words, the demands that all convicts must be processed with appropriate rules and principles are sensible, and are a must.
As for the issue of diplomatic reciprocity, perhaps it is high time for Australia to do some serious thinking. Not only shall Australia release a number of the detainees it plans to let go anyway, but it should consider a similar, yet little-known case to Corby’s.
Currently, three Indonesian fishermen are detained in an Australian jail on charges of heroin stemming from in 1998. The three men are Kristio Mandagi (captain of the ship), Saud Siregar (chief officer), and Ismunandar (chief of engineer) who were sentenced to spend between 20-25 years in Australian prisons.
The three men have argued that they were merely victims of the ship’s owner (a businessman from Hong Kong who has also been jailed). But they were proven guilty in Australian court.
Nonetheless, their requests to be sent to Indonesian jails so they could be visited by their families have not been granted by Australian authorities. These requests are not even on par with Corby’s case, which resulted in a sentence reduction.
One thing for sure, even though in the Corby’s case President Yudhoyono exercised his sole prerogative to grant a remission, the Indonesian public is still criticizing him. A prominent lawyer, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, and an NGO have already filed a lawsuit against the President, demanding a revocation of the clemency.
Thus, if Australia can show reciprocity as early as possible, the Indonesian public might be convinced. Otherwise, Corby’s remission would be at stake.
The writer is a PhD candidate at the School of Politics and International Relations, ANU.
