Awas RKUHP. Semua Bisa Kena, kecuali “Tuannya” | Catatan Najwa

Summary

The script discusses the controversial draft of Indonesia's new Criminal Code (RKUHP), which has faced widespread opposition due to its lack of transparency and potential infringement on free speech. Key problematic clauses in the draft criminalize insulting public officials or institutions, raising concerns about stifling expression. The speaker emphasizes the need to balance protecting the dignity of authorities with upholding fundamental human rights, including freedom of speech, under a democratic system. It also critiques the vague definitions and unequal application of laws, urging a more transparent and proportional legal framework.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Indonesian government and DPR are planning to pass a controversial draft of the Criminal Code (RKUHP), which is facing significant opposition due to a lack of transparency in the drafting process.
• 😀 The draft of the Criminal Code is criticized for not being publicly available, with citizens only aware of some aspects through unofficial sources or leaks.
• 😀 There is concern over the increasing secrecy surrounding the creation of laws in Indonesia, which has led to widespread confusion and frustration among the public.
• 😀 The RKUHP includes controversial provisions such as articles that criminalize insulting public authorities or state institutions, which could limit freedom of expression.
• 😀 Articles 353 and 354 propose penalties for publicly insulting the state or public institutions, such as fines or imprisonment, which raises concerns about limiting freedom of speech.
• 😀 The law’s focus on protecting the 'dignity' of public authorities is criticized as unnecessary, with the argument that if officials perform well, their dignity should naturally be respected.
• 😀 A key concern is balancing freedom of expression with the protection of authority. The draft law raises questions about the protection of human rights and whether it would be disproportionate.
• 😀 The concept of 'insulting' public authority in the draft law is vague, which could lead to widespread abuse and arbitrary legal actions against citizens.
• 😀 There is a potential contradiction in how the law applies to citizens and government officials, with concerns about whether officials could be held accountable for insulting the public or engaging in corrupt practices.
• 😀 The overall sentiment is that the draft of the RKUHP, if passed, could create a legal framework that stifles public dissent, turning the law into a tool for controlling criticism rather than fostering democratic principles.

Q & A

What is the main issue being discussed in the transcript?

The main issue discussed is the controversy surrounding the Indonesian government's plan to pass a new draft of the criminal code (RKUHP), particularly concerning provisions that restrict freedom of expression and could potentially penalize individuals for insulting government institutions or officials.

Why is the draft of the new criminal code controversial?

The draft is controversial because it is being developed in secrecy, without public access to the latest version. It includes problematic articles, especially those that threaten freedom of speech by criminalizing acts of criticism against government institutions or officials.

What specific articles in the draft criminal code are being highlighted as problematic?

Articles 353 and 354 are highlighted as problematic. These articles propose penalties for public insults against government powers and state institutions, including up to one year and six months in prison or fines, which raises concerns about the potential suppression of free speech.

What is the intended purpose of these controversial articles according to the government?

The government claims these articles are meant to protect the honor and respect for state institutions, such as the government, police, and judiciary, ensuring that they are respected in public discourse.

How does the speaker view the justification for these provisions?

The speaker questions the justification, suggesting that if state institutions perform well, their honor will naturally be protected. The speaker argues that the proposed restrictions may disproportionately limit freedom of expression, which is a fundamental human right.

How does the speaker relate this issue to human rights?

The speaker highlights the importance of balancing the protection of state institutions with the right to freedom of speech, which is protected under the Indonesian Constitution. Limiting free expression could undermine democracy and violate human rights, particularly in a democratic state.

What legal principles are discussed regarding freedom of speech?

The transcript references the principles outlined in the Indonesian Constitution (Article 28c) and international human rights standards. It emphasizes that any restrictions on freedom of speech must be reasonable, necessary, and proportional to the aim of protecting public order or state interests.

What is the problem with the definition of 'insult' in the proposed criminal code?

The speaker criticizes the vague and unclear definition of 'insult' in the proposed criminal code, which could lead to arbitrary interpretations and inconsistent enforcement of the law. This ambiguity creates uncertainty about what constitutes an insult and could potentially lead to abuses of power.

How does the speaker view the role of government officials in relation to these laws?

The speaker suggests that government officials and institutions should be held accountable for their actions. If officials criticize the public or act in ways that undermine the state, they should be subject to scrutiny and penalties just as citizens are for insulting public institutions.

What concerns are raised about the lack of transparency in the lawmaking process?

The speaker expresses concern about the secrecy surrounding the drafting of the new criminal code. The public has been kept in the dark about the latest version of the draft, which is being developed without proper consultation or transparency, leading to fears of undemocratic decision-making.