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.
Before Jokowi, House Speaker Puan Maharani highlights need to replace 'colonial' laws
She said legal products must be based on Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution and provide justice for all citizens.
Change Size
House of Representatives Speaker Puan Maharani (right) delivers a speech during a joint meeting to commemorate Indonesia's 75th anniversary at the House complex in Jakarta on Aug. 14. (Antara/Akbar Nugroho Gumay)
H
ouse of Representatives Speaker Puan Maharani has said it is high time for Indonesia to replace its legal products inherited from colonial times with new sets based on the country’s ideological values.
In a speech delivered in a joint meeting to commemorate Indonesia’s 75th anniversary, she said the country should have legal products that matched Indonesia’s very own cultural, social and sociological values.
"It is time to replace legal products inherited from the colonial era with independent Indonesian laws,” the ruling Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) politician said at the House compound on Friday before President Joko "Jokowi" Widodo gave his state of the nation address.
She further said legal products must be based on Pancasila, the 1945 Constitution and provide justice for all citizens.
Lawmakers have insisted on passing the Criminal Code bill into law before the end of the current sitting period, concluding a decades-long attempt to revise the 1947 Criminal Code, which itself is based on Dutch colonial law.
Jokowi last September called on the House to delay the deliberation of the bill following massive public protests across the country. However, lawmakers in June urged the government to resume deliberation of the revisions to despite the ongoing COVID-19 epidemic.
Protestors, spearheaded by students and activists, have demanded that the government and lawmakers put an end to the deliberation of the controversial bill, arguing that if passed, it would be a threat to democracy on the grounds of contentious articles in the draft.
