A

pparently confident of its substance but cognizant they have '€œoverlooked'€ the mass organizations, the subject of the bill on mass organizations, the House of Representatives (DPR) agreed on Tuesday to postpone the passing of the bill into law until July 2.

The postponement of the endorsement of this controversial bill will not provide any room for substantial changes, especially as the one-week delay is only for the House to inform mass organizations of the bill'€™s substance, particularly those articles deemed '€œcontroversial'€ by the latter.

The bill has received strong opposition from an amalgamation of rights groups, who argued that if endorsed it would threaten the '€œfreedom of expression and association'€ of the people. They allege that the bill was '€œobviously'€ aimed at those critical of governmental policies.

Din Syamsuddin, chairman of the Muhammadiyah Muslim organization, said the bill was antithetical to the Constitution as it would endanger the freedom of association, which is guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution. Muhammadiyah is part of the opposition groups.

The bill, if endorsed, could impose administrative requirements on all mass organizations '€” registered and unregistered '€” and could grant the government the authority to control their activities.

These groups said the draft bill contained loopholes that could enable '€œunfair subjective interpretation that would legitimize oppression toward undisciplined organizations'€.

Specifically, the rights groups are particularly concerned with Article 60 of the bill, which stipulates that mass organizations are banned from conducting hostile acts against ethnic, religious, racial and interest groups. The article also stipulates a ban on blasphemy against established religions by mass organizations; activities that promote separatism; and disruption of public order.

As the article does not provide clear definitions of the actions it targets it would pave the way for subjective interpretation, which would likely revive the authoritarian leadership of the past New Order government.

'€œOnce enacted, the bill would only target those critical of the government or business, including human rights, anti-graft and labor groups,'€ a statement from the activists'€™ read.

Home Minister Gamawan Fauzi, whose ministry supervises the livelihood and activities of all registered social and mass organizations, defended the bill'€™s substance. While insisting that the House and the government conducted hearings with related mass organizations and accommodated their views and concerns into the final draft of the bill, the minister also ensured that the government, i.e. his ministry, would not arbitrarily dissolve any mass organization violating the law-to-be.

It took the House and the government nearly two years to complete the process of deliberation for the bill. Apart from all its shortcomings, we should just let the House pass it into law. Once enacted and if there are flaws still apparent the necessary corrections can be made via the proper means;
a judicial review at the Constitutional Court.