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.
Discourse: A thin-skinned government is a danger to all
This is a government that is very thin-skinned, and does not understand the limitation of executive power. The government is on a path that is really alarming.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Students hold a rally titled Indonesia Gelap (Dark Indonesia) to oppose budget-cutting policies by President Prabowo Subianto on Feb. 17 in Jakarta. (Antara Foto/Sulthony Hasanuddin)
O
ver the past decade, many countries across the globe have experienced a gradual backsliding in their democracies, a trend parallel to the increasing popularity of authoritarian practices. Amnesty International secretary-general Agnés Callamard, who was in Jakarta for several engagements with the government, sat with The Jakarta Post’s Yvette Tanamal to discuss the “alarming” trend of authoritarianism, its impacts in Indonesia and the importance of robust civil societies.
Below are excerpts from the interview.
Question: How would you describe the human rights landscape in Indonesia, and what did you discuss with government officials during your visit?
Answer: I had a meeting with the governor, the attorney deputy general, and I had a constructive and long meeting at the Supreme Court. At the Court, we discussed four things: The independence of the judiciary, death penalty, anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) protection of environmental activists and finally, the conversation on non-judicial measures vs. accountability, which led to the rehabilitation and amnesty of the 1965 political genocide.
I would certainly not describe the process of Indonesia’s reconciliation of its past abuse cases as a success. The original sin, which was the massacre of 1965, has not been dealt with. There is still gross impunity for the massive killings that took place, and not only that, people who participated in the protests, some of them are still political prisoners.
The inability of successive governments to confront the violations at the time, and to find a way forward, is poisoning the present and will continue to do so for many years to come. It is a heavy burden, a stone that is attacking Indonesia's democratic experience.
The government has argued for the case of non-judicial means to reconcile with its past. Do you see non-judicial means as inherently incompatible with accountability?
