Anti-blasphemy tool a diplomatic blunder

Thursday, October 11, 2012

The following is my op-ed piece in today’s Jakarta Post.

 

 

At the 67th session of the United Nations General Assembly, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) called on world leaders to “enact an international instrument to effectively prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on religions or beliefs”. These words are a verbatim citation of SBY’s speech.


Thus, SBY – in his official United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) speech — did not state that he demanded the international community enforce an international blasphemy law. The term “blasphemy” is found nowhere in his speech. What he officially pushed for is the enactment of an international instrument that could prevent incitement to hostility or violence.


This is where the move constitutes a blunder. First, there is a big difference between a blasphemy law and a law that punishes incitement of hostility. Second, laws which restrict incitement and hate speech are actually part of international law and have been practiced in by international courts. Third, the Innocence of Muslims movie, which SBY also referred to in his speech, may not necessarily qualify as an “incitement to hostility or violence”.


Let us now discuss the first blunder. The media have quoted statements from ministers and other government officials who hinted at Indonesia’s quest for an international blasphemy law, which contradicts SBY’s remarks at the UNGA forum. So what exactly is Indonesia’s diplomatic position concerning blasphemy? Does it seek to restrict free speech which incites hostility or violence or does it aim to enact a blasphemy law?


A blasphemy law protects religion, although in practice this usually translates into the “dominant” religion and its symbols. Thus, irrespective of whether something is intended to provoke violence or not, to the extent that it is considered denigrating of religion and religious symbols it can be restricted and punished.


Such an international blasphemy law would be absurd and inconceivable. Every founder of a new religion has been accused of blasphemy by the society they served. Thus blasphemy is required for a religion to exist. The Indonesian Shiite cleric Tajul Muluk, for example, has been convicted of blasphemy and jailed for it.


It would thus be unthinkable for diplomats from predominantly Shiite Iran to sit together with their Indonesian counterparts and agree on an international blasphemy provision as it would mean that they approve of persecution of Shia followers.


The second blunder is that SBY’s call for a restriction of free speech that incites violence is already part of the existing international law. The Civil and Political Covenant provides clauses that restrict freedom of expression on the grounds of public health, public order and morality. Now, why would SBY say that we need such a law when we already have one?


Third, SBY relating the international uproar surrounding Innocence of Muslims to the requirement for “an international instrument” to effectively prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on religion shows a level of disconnect. The movie does not directly incite hostility or provoke violence. Rather, hostility and violence are an indirect result of the movie.


There is a clear line separating these concepts. In order for an act of expression to incite violence, it must provoke people to commit violence. In the famous case of Radio-Télévision Libre des Milles Collines (RTLM) in Rwanda, it is clear that the radio incited Hutus to kill the Tutsis. Thus, the RTLM was held responsible for its role in the genocide. The Tutsis were therefore the direct victims of RTLM hate speech.
The RTLM case is different from the Innocence of Muslims movie. The latter does not contain any incitement for people to physically hurt Muslims and indeed no Muslims have been killed or hurt as a result of the movie’s provocation. What happened is rather the contrary. Some people — who happen to be Muslims — got angry and then killed others or got themselves killed in the process.


Undoubtedly, the movie is indeed disparaging and could lead to wrong perceptions about Islam and Muslims. However, to argue that such incorrect perceptions cause physical violence to Muslims would be too far-fetched. Because of this, SBY’s argument linking the recent uproar caused by the movie to his proposal for an international instrument to prevent incitement to hostility is unsound. Recently reports have abounded that Indonesia will lead the formulation of a roadmap towards a so-called international anti-blasphemy protocol. Whosoever gets involved in the process of drafting such roadmap will have to deal with these blunders.


Perhaps Indonesia is trying to play its card as the world’s largest predominantly Muslim nation to gain sympathy from the Organization of Islamic Conference countries. Or perhaps, this is a maneuver to send a signal to the UN Human Rights Council that Indonesia’s bad marks on the freedom of religion have some “roots” in the international arena.


Nevertheless, this whole anti-blasphemy protocol, instruments and road map is a waste of Indonesia’s diplomatic resources. This manuevering does not present a good image to the world of Indonesia as a moderate Muslim nation that succeeds in reconciling democracy and human rights with Islam. It also does not send a good signal to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) countries because there are inconsistencies in Indonesia’s diplomatic stance. It appears to me that Indonesia doesn’t really know what it wants.

 

OECD Regulatory Review on Indonesia

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Background reports which supports recent OECD’s review on Indonesia can be downloaded using the following links from OECD’s website.

 

 

Economy: Indonesia should improve governance, productivity and tax collection to promote inclusive growth

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

OECD  - Paris, 27 September 2012

Indonesia should improve governance, productivity and tax collection to promote inclusive growth

Indonesia has improved its macro-economic and structural policies over the last 15 years. Its economy, with strong and stable growth rates of 5-6.6%, is catching up with other countries in the region and allowing it to focus on a development agenda.

To reach the objective of becoming one of the world's 10 largest economies by 2025, the government's next step must be to move ahead with reforms that will take full advantage of this progress and unlock the country's full potential, says OECD 2012 Economic Survey: Indonesia.

"Indonesia has made substantial economic, institutional and social progress. It has weathered the economic crisis quite well and poverty has come down markedly," said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. "The government's challenge now is to boost productivity, reduce energy subsidies and raise tax collection to finance key infrastructure, social and environmental programmes. Investing in an effective social safety net and improving education and skills will make higher living standards accessible to all and ensure that future growth will be inclusive and sustainable."

Investing in innovation and boosting productivity, particularly in small and medium enterprises (SMEs) should be a priority. They employ 97% of the workforce but produce only 57% of value-added. This could be achieved through comprehensive reforms, including facilitating the formalisation of economic activity, easier access to finance and expanding the pool of qualified workers. The Survey suggests that policy reforms could focus on improving banks' access to information on the creditworthiness of potential clients and developing alternative financing sources, such as venture capital or micro-finance.

Regarding labour markets, the Survey suggests a balanced approach: easing regulations to make the formal labour market more attractive and aligning minimum wage increases to productivity growth in provinces where it is already high; while at the same time introducing unemployment benefits, coupled with individual unemployment-insurance accounts, and investing in people's skills.

To finance wider coverage of its social security system and develop its infrastructure, Indonesia should increase its unduly low  12% tax-to-GDP ratio, by removing tax exemptions on employer-provided fringe benefits, many VAT exemptions and tax holidays for specific sectors or investment projects. It should also increase taxes in the resource sector. Improving tax compliance of high-income individuals could increase public revenue and raise the fairness of the tax system. Overall, increasing tax revenues can best be achieved through broadening tax bases and improving tax administration.

OECD's first Review of Regulatory Reform for Indonesia looks at the changes to the regulatory framework which will be necessary to implement the development and growth agenda of the Indonesian Government, including the recommendations of the Economic Survey.

The report recommends that the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs implements a government-wide policy to strengthen institutions, optimise co-ordination among ministries and improve regulations, based on international best practice. In particular, measures to further develop the Indonesian market and increase private investment in infrastructure need to be fostered by coherent policies.

All new regulations, the Review stresses, should serve the public interest and not restrict trade, particularly in the priority areas of major infrastructure investment in the ports, rail and shipping sectors.

The 2012 Economic Survey and the Regulatory Reform Review of Indonesia have been developed through policy dialogue between OECD committees and officials of the Government of Indonesia.

To receive a copy of OECD's Economic Survey: Indonesia and Review of Regulatory Reform for Indonesia, journalists should e-mail news.contact@oecd.org or telephone: + 331 45 24 97 00. For further information, please contact Helen.Fisher@oecd.org


 

,

Review on Indonesian Regional by Law on Community-based Water and Sanitation

Friday, September 21, 2012

Mr. Al'Afghani has recently completed a review of a draft by-law on community-based watsan. The review is a collaboration between dropbydrop, Watsan Working Group of the East Nusa Tenggara Province, UNICEF and the Sikka Regency.


Most of the challenges found are due to ambiguities of the legal framework at the national level. The review highlighted the lack of acknowledgement towards community based watsan in national legislation.

Assets ownership is one of the major issue during the review. Neither the national policy nor the national legislation provide clarification as to the actual owner of the assets. There is a general understanding that the assets "belong to the community" but what "community" actually means is not clear in the legal framework.

One of the aspirations that develops during the review is that the assets should be owned by villages but operated by the communities. The review provide recommendation as to how this could be translated into provisions in a regional by law and also provide solution for ownership arrangements for entities other than villages.

The lack of clarification on assets ownerships would affect the sustainability and security of community based watsan, which is developed mostly through fundings from the World Bank, AusAid and various other institutions.

Some of the findings from the review is currently being discussed at the national level.

For further information please contact dropbydrop's senior water lawyer Mohamad Mova Al'Afghani: mova(at)alafghani(dot)info

 

Right to Water: Learning from Indonesia’s Struggle

Wednesday, August 1, 2012


By Jackie Dugard, Katherine Drage and Madeleine Bélanger Dumontier – July 28, 2012

The privatization of water services over the past 30 years has generated a counter-wave of popular resistance that is still growing strong, with activists at times invoking rights or using litigation to reverse private deals and fight for public provision. On the second anniversary of the United Nations recognition of the right to water, many will put down their swords for a moment to take stock of the efficacy of such legal battles in challenging privatized water services.

The Municipal Services Project research Shields and Swords: Legal Tools for Public Water finds that their success has been mixed, with some legal actions managing to get the right to water written into law or banning private water provision altogether, while others have met with partial success. Among others, it analyzes at length the campaigns that unfolded in Indonesia and draws lessons for other water movements around the world.

Indeed, in 2004-2005 a group of legal aid foundations and NGOs lodged a request for a judicial review of Indonesia’s Water Resources Law widely seen as advancing water privatization, and as contravening the Constitution which establishes that the water sector shall be controlled by the state. Although the Constitutional Court rejected the petition, the litigation did establish various water service regulatory safeguards and conditions, thus creating some space for future action by civil society.

The decision was silent on pre-existing private water concessions, however, which remains a vexed issue.

Jakarta’s resounding call for public water
Some lasting civil society networks emerged from the struggle and continue to mobilize around the right to water and public control over this essential service. On June 10, the Jakarta Globe told the story of the People’s Coalition for the Right to Water (KRuHA)’s year-long effort to access information on Jakarta’s water management, as guaranteed by law. The citizen group is asking for disclosure of data used to calculate water tariffs, such as capital and operational expenditures as well as financial projections.


KRuHA’s request set the scene for a theatrical exchange between private providers and publicly owned PAM Jaya, eachtrying to make the other carry the can for the release of the key documents. PAM Jaya is supposed to be publicly accountable for the concession contracts but has been hiding stubbornly behind a “confidentiality clause” that protects “all commercial and technical information” to justify its hesitancy.


So the citizen group launched legal action in late 2011 to end the deadlock through Indonesia’s Public Information Commission (KIP). In early June 2012, the process entered adjudication. And KRuHA will keep up the pressure.

Legal avenues for reform

In short, litigation campaigns have proven to be an effective way to tap into widespread public opposition to reverse or challenge privatization and, as a counter-strategy, appear to be growing in popularity around the world. Where they have been less successful is in defining alternative models of public water services; this next step will be crucial to ensure that sustainable models fill in the vacuums left by private providers.

These cases demonstrate that privatization can be challenged on its own legal terms, exposing it to closer public scrutiny. But using or creating a new law is only the first step in what must be a longer political struggle to provide genuinely democratic forms of public water provision. As such, legal campaigns must also strive toward building frameworks for regulating, maintaining and monitoring progressive management of services after they become public. For that reason dedicated and committed activism is more critical to the success of campaigns than the legal tools themselves.

Finally, whether or not ‘rights’ frameworks are invoked, pro-public activists derive authority, legitimacy and solidarity in their legal campaigns from the international recognition of the right to water of July 28, 2010. From leftist perspectives there is much debate about whether this vision of law can ever be useful for radical social and economic change, many arguing it is ideologically biased toward the status quo and private interests; as such, legal tools are seen as potentially harmful to radical movements.

Notwithstanding, our research shows that the right to water can be viewed as an enabling framework that, although potentially friendly to privatization, can be used along with other laws to build, mobilize and legitimize campaigns opposed to privatization.

Two resounding victories in Berlin and Italy – two other cases explored in our study –are marking the right to water’s first anniversary at the UN. In Berlin, the city administration recently announced it was buying the shares of private company RWE in the water utility, raising its stake to 75.05% from 50.1%. In February 2011, Berlin residents had voted by a margin of 98.2% after a Berlin Water Table campaign to pass a draft bill to force the municipal administration to disclose secret agreements on the partial privatization of the city’s water services. Some months later, hopes for remunicipalization are coming true.

In Italy, after the Berlusconi government went ahead with its privatization agenda despite a citizen-led referendum that rejected by 96 per cent the proposed privatization of the country’s water supply in June 2011, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled this month to uphold the people’s will to keep water in public hands. The unrelenting efforts of the Forum Italiano dei Movimenti per l’Acqua have no doubt gone a long way to safeguarding what had been gained from hard mobilization work.

Let’s keep building on these foundations, everywhere.

Jackie Dugard is Executive Director of the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa (SERI) and visiting Senior Fellow, School of Law, University of the Witwatersrand.


Katherine Drage is a former Intern at SERI and is currently an articled clerk at Withers LLP (London).  


Madeleine Bélanger Dumontier is Communications Manager for the Municipal Services Project (MSP), a global research initiative that explores alternatives to the privatization and commercialization of service provision in the electricity, health, water and sanitation sectors.

 

Call for candidates Summer School on Women, Peace and Security 2012

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

 
[Attachment(s) from Faisal Akbaruddin Taqwa included below]




 

Tapping the water market? The US Water Partnership

Sunday, March 25, 2012

A few days ago Secretary Clinton announced the formation of US Water Partnership. Details are sketchy at the moment but we all know that state’s involvement in water networking is nothing new. Netherlands are quite active through their alliance with the world bank (BNWP), French through Coalition D' Eau/World Water Council and Stockholm through their World Water Week.

 

It seems that the US are now joining those list of states which mobilizes their resources on the water sector. From any angle, politics, economics and technology, the potential is huge. Read more here.

 

image