Are we paying too much for Freedom?

With a population of 240 million living in 17,000 island, with 6 major religions and different cultures, Indonesia is one the most plural country in the world.

Most of the people are Moslems living side by side with Protestants, Catholics, Hindu, Buddha and Confucian.

Since independence on 17 August 1945 until May 1998, Indonesia was governed by authoritarian regimes, where everything, including freedom of expression, should be based on social-political-economical stability and order. People in general and the news media in particular must speak, write and/or do things which are according to the regimes' rules of the games. Otherwise there would be severe consequences.

As a result, social, inter religion, political life seemed to be normal, and the economy grown quite stable.

Then came the so called "Reformasi" after the late President Soeharto stepped down from 32 years of authoritarian rule on 21 May 1998. The Constitution was amended several times, all members of parliament must be elected directly by the people - no more 20% seats for hand picked military representatives - the economic system changed from socialist planned system into a free fight liberal system, people are free to create political parties and organizations, the news media are free to write, talk, show almost everything, etc. etc.

As a result, religious hardliners who were banned in other countries were allowed to return, thereby causing so many problems like years of violence between Moslems and non Moslems in Ambon-Maluku and Poso-Sulawesi. Although the inter-faith violence have ended in both regions, many smaller scale problems happened in other regions.  Beside that I should also mention the series of suicide bombings in Bali and Jakarta carried out by people who were "brainwashed" by hard line religious fanatics that have killed so many innocent people.

As I write this post, there are two disputes reported by the media, first one is Moslems violent rejection on the construction of Christian churches and religious activities, and the second one is Moslems rejection on the existence of a Moslem Sect i.e. Ahmadiyah. 

Beside that, there are people who died because of other causes, like the Speaker of North Sumatera Parliament who died of heart attack after an angry mob ransacked a plenary meeting. There was also human right activist Munir who was poisoned to death by who knows who? Violence in Papua caused by various reasons including Freeport, regional election campaigns, etc. etc.

Moreover, the concept of free fight economy has made the owners of financial capital to prosper from imports of products in stead of producing locally, causing the closing down of factories : textile and garment, floor and roof tiles, furniture, steel products. Even fruits and vegetables are imported.

With the China-Asean Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that started on 1 January 2010, that created the Free Trade Area between China and 10 ASEAN countries, things are getting more worst every day.

If no serious efforts is made to protect local industry, including postponement of the CAFTA for 3-5 years, high unemployment rate can be expected to increase in the years to come. As a logical consequence, crime rates would inevitably increase.

But now that the water is already flowing under the bridge, there is no need to regret for what we have chosen. The most important thing right now is that the leaders (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary) should have strong and consistent will to adopt and implement all the laws based on the concept of Rule of Law i.e. Supremacy of Law, Equality Before the Law, Presumption of Innocence, Respect of Human Rights. For that purpose, we need strong, smart, honest, fair and firm leaders who are willing to do his/her very best efforts only for the very best interest of the people of Indonesia.

If we can have all that, we can expect that freedom will bring much better things, and I am sure that Indonesia will prosper continously in the future.

Punishment by Caning in Singapore

The news media all around the world has reported cynically when lawmakers in the Province of Aceh issued a by-law which carries a sentence of Caning.

I wonder whether those news media would report similarly about a Swiss Citizen who has committed an offense punishable by Caning in Singapore. Please find below an article on this case that I quoted from The Jakarta Globe

Swiss software consultant Oliver Fricker tries to avoid the media as he walks to the Subordinate court in Singapore on June 24, 2010. Fricker pleaded guilty to spray-painting a Singapore metro train with graffiti, an offence punishable by caning. (Photo AFP)

 

Swiss Man Admits Vandalism, Faces Caning in Singapore

Singapore. A Swiss expatriate pleaded guilty on Friday to vandalism and trespass after he was arrested for spray-painting a Singapore metro train, a crime which carries a sentence of caning and jail.

Oliver Fricker, 32, is to be sentenced later for the two crimes, which alarmed Singapore officials because he was able to break into a subway system that is believed to be a potential terrorist target.

Fricker, a business consultant, is out on a bail of 100,000 Singapore dollars (71,000 US) although his passport has been impounded after prosecutors argued there is a risk he may abscond.

His employer, Zurich-based Comit AG, which specialises in software for the financial industry, confirmed he had been suspended from work pending the outcome of the trial.

Fricker was about to return to Switzerland from his Singapore posting when he was arrested for the May 17 incident. A Briton who has left Singapore is also being sought as an alleged accomplice in the incident with the help of the global law-enforcement group Interpol.

Vandalism is punishable by up to three years in jail or a maximum fine of 2,000 Singapore dollars (1,440 US dollars), plus three to eight strokes of a wooden cane, a punishment dating from British colonial rule.

For trespassing into a protected area, Fricker faces two years in jail or a fine of 1,000 dollars, or both.

Singapore considers the intrusion a serious offense because its metro system is believed to be the target of Southeast Asian Islamic extremists, and the graffiti incident exposed security lapses.

Singapore’s vandalism laws became global news in 1994 when an American teenager, Michael Fay, was caned for damaging cars and public property despite appeals for clemency from the US government.


Agence-France Presse

A judge proposed the barring of online links

In the last few months, the new media like Blogs and Facebook have been seen as some sort of a threat by certain people and/or group of people.

For example, one month ago a Moslem Ulama organization in East Java have issued Fatwa which forbid the excessive use of Facebooks. Although a Fatwa is not legally enforceable according to our national legal system, however it would create moral bond among people living in rural area.

Further, I have also read an article by Carolyn Elefant in Legal Blog Watch about a U.S Judge that proposed the barring of online links to Copyrighted materials without the consent of the Copyright owners. Here is the controversial article :

Judge Posner's Proposal: Save a Newspaper, Kill a Blog

Sure, the newspaper industry is in trouble. But not even old-guard media companies have proposed as extreme a remedy as what Judge Richard Posner recommends. In a recent blog post, Posner proposed barring online links to copyrighted materials without the consent of the copyright owners as a way to help revive the failing newspaper business.

Not surprisingly, Posner's proposal has drawn criticism from bloggers, as well as conventional media outlets. Dan Froomkin, of Discourse.net, asks: If links are banned, why not footnotes? (That should give lawyers pause!) Erick Schonfeld at The Washington Post deemed the scheme "misguided," asserting that the Web works via free and unregulated linking. Moreover, linking to a newspaper post is not all that different from engaging in conversations, Schonfeld points out. He continues:

Much of what Posner wants to outlaw is public discourse. Why is it okay for people to talk about the day's news in a bar or barber shop, but not online? People should be able to discuss the day's news on the Web without fear of violating copyright law. The natural way people discuss things on the Web is by quoting and linking to the source. (Except maybe Posner, he doesn't seem to link to much of anything in his blog posts).

David Donoghue, of Chicago IP Litigation, makes the point that newspapers in fact benefit from added links to their stories. And while Donoghue acknowledges the existence of "free-riding" aggregators that do nothing more than point to links, Donoghue argues that newspapers are free riders in a way, getting the benefit of links in the form of traffic from visitors who otherwise would not view the site.

Donoghue also emphasizes that even without a consent policy in place for linking, copyright holders have significant protection. He points out that direct copying of stories is prohibited. Moreover, Congress could choose to revisit copyright laws if it deems that additional protection is necessary.

I can't even imagine how I could possibly write Legal Blog Watch if I needed to obtain consent every time I linked to a news article. Even if requiring consent for online links would help newspapers -- and I doubt this is true -- the tradeoff would the death of blogging.