To be honest, I, and perhaps most other Indonesians, have not read the 812-page Job Creation Law that was legislated as an omnibus law.
By
By Yudi Latif
·5 minutes read
AFP/JUNI KRISWANTO
Activists gather during a nationwide strike against a controversial new law which critics fear will favour investors at the expense of labour rights and the environment, in Surabaya on October 8, 2020.
To be honest, I, and perhaps most other Indonesians, have not read the 812-page Job Creation Law that was legislated as an omnibus law. As a result, I am unable to provide a comprehensive assessment of its contents.
As far as can be understood from the explanations of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the government, as well as the criticisms on the law from critical elements of society, it contains material that can be used to reflect collectively. The aim of the House and the government may have a substance of truth in it, that the law was made with noble purposes and intensions. On the other hand, the perspective of its critics may also contain a substance of truth, in that it criticizes the legislative process that has caused doubt over the reliability of the formulation of the detailed articles.
In terms of ethics, the goal and methods (of legislation) are inextricably related. The goal we pursue and the method we use both have ethical consequences. Thus, both the goal and the method must be assessed constantly on an ethic level. To reach the right destination, we must be on the right path.
Moreover, a process to simplify dozens of laws into a single law must of course require careful reading and involve wider and more intense public participation.
Within this framework, each and every process of creating legislation or policy that affects the lives of many people must be inclusive in providing the widest possible room for public discussion and public consultation, especially in a pluralistic nation. Moreover, a process to simplify dozens of laws into a single law must of course require careful reading and involve wider and more intense public participation.
In the current circumstances of the coronavirus crisis, with several restrictions in place that prevent in-person meetings as well as inclusive and intensive discussions, the methods that were used to formulate the law have their own ethical consequences: it might not accommodate the voices of marginalized groups. In other words, a product of legislation that was originally intended to serve the public interest has becomes less responsive to the people’s aspirations as a whole.
A responsive political policy must pay attention to at least four key principles. It must consider public rationality without arbitrarily making policies, the ability of policies and political institutions to adapt to the circumstances (for example, in normal conditions or during a pandemic), responsibility is shared in terms of benefits and burdens, and public approval of government policies through an inclusive mechanism of deliberation.
This is especially so if we truly want to administer democracy and governance based on the Pancasila state ideology. In a consensus democracy, political decisions are said to be correct if they fulfill at least four criteria. First, they must be based on the principles of reason and justice, not only on ideological and subjective interests. Second, they must serve the interests of the many, and not benefit certain individuals or groups.
Third, they should be for the long term. and not for short-term interests that are made through harmful deals and transactions (negative tolerance). Fourth, they must be impartial in involving and considering the views of all stakeholders (even the smallest minority) in an inclusive manner to prevent tyranny of the majority as well as tyranny of the minority oligarchy.
Universally, a democratic decision-making process must meet the standard criteria, so the government can invite equal participation of all citizens. Robert Dahl outlined a minimum of five criteria for a country to be considered a democracy.
Kompas/Wawan H Prabowo
Coordinating Minister for the Economy Airlangga Hartarto handed over the government\'s response on the discussion of the Omnibus Law on the Work Creation Bill (RUU) to the Chairman of the Indonesian Parliament Puan Maharani at the DPR RI plenary meeting at the Parliament Complex, Senayan, Jakarta, on Monday (5/10/2020).
Effective participation: Every citizen must have an equal and effective opportunity to make their views known to other citizens. Voting equality: Every citizen must have n equal and effective opportunity to vote, and all votes must count equally.
Enlightened understanding: Every citizen should have an equal and effective opportunity to learn about the relevant policy alternatives and their possible consequences. Control over the agenda: Every citizen should have an opportunity to determine how and what should be on the policy agenda. Inclusion of adults: Every adult citizen must be given full access to all four criteria.
Apart from the issue of the decision-making process, it must be realized that every policy option has a sequential consequence. Therefore, attention to the details in the formulation of each article is very important. In the end, the devil is in the details. For example, how will the new law, which is intended to simplify licensing, avoid contradicting another item on the agenda of the Joko Widodo administration, which is determined to free Indonesia from the middle income trap by transforming the economy into a knowledge economy?
Thus, easing the flow of investment should not only pave the way for "development in Indonesia", but also "development of Indonesia".
If the licensing regime that eases the flow of imports and foreign investment is applied to the extractive industries, Indonesia will find it difficult to fulfill its economic transformation agenda. Thus, easing the flow of investment should not only pave the way for "development in Indonesia", but also "development of Indonesia".
No one can know for certain what the consequences of development will be in the future. Therefore, an individual, however powerful he may be, cannot guarantee the fates of all Indonesians. It is best if decisions that concern the people’s future involve a broad agreement made through inclusive mechanisms of deliberation and debate.
The rice has been overcooked and turned into porridge. But we can still make the best of it. Each side must be open to self-improvement and to finding the best way forward, so that good goals can bring good results.
/https%3A%2F%2Fkompas.id%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F05%2F57674064.jpg){kind=logo}
