By: Testriono*
29/03/2011
The Moderate Muslim Society (MMS) and the Wahid Institute brought the year 2010 to a close by releasing the outcomes of their monitoring of religious existence in Indonesia in the past year. MSS came across 81 cases of religious intolerance throughout 2010, 63 of which (80 percent) were attacks against places of worship. The Wahid Institute on the other hand monitored 13 provinces all through 2010 and found 63 cases of violations against freedom of religion of which 19 of them (30 percent) were related to the revocation of permit or prohibition to run or build a place of worship.
This report substantiates on today’s reality which has time and again witnessed an escalation in the forced closure of places of worship for religious minorities in Indonesia in the past several years. Hiding behind the pretext of “causing public anxiety” as justification, several Islamic community organizations in particular have taken it upon themselves to undertake such “social regulatory actions”.
It is an undeniable fact that throughout 2010 the nation saw a significant upward trend in the number of cases related to the prohibition to exercise religious beliefs and the forced closures of churches. This is illustrated in the Setara Institute report carried out in mid-2010. According to the report, at least 17 cases were reported in 2008 which rose to 18 cases in the following year and soared to 28 cases on rejections against and attacks over places of worship in the first half of 2010.
This is indeed a paradoxical situation that given today’s democratic climate which underscores the values of freedom, religious freedom instead is under serious threat. Based on findings of the Jakarta Christian Communications Forum (FKKJ - Forum Komunikasi Kristiani Jakarta), there was a sharp rise in the frequency of attacks against churches during the post-New Order regime. Between 1998 and 2010, some 700 cases were reported on church attacks, an alarming development compared to 460 cases during the New Order era (1969-1998).
The right to the freedom of faith, religion and to worship is in fact plainly guaranteed in the Constitution and state regulations. This guarantee is embodied in Article 28E clause (1) and Article 29 clause (2) of the 1945 Constitution, as well as Article 22 of Law No. 39/1999 concerning Human Rights. A similar assurance is also enshrined in several international laws ratified by the government such as Article 18 of the International Covenant concerning Civil and Political Rights, and Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Discrimination
With regard to places of worship, the government has issued specific policies through the Joint Regulation between the Religious Ministry and Home Affairs Ministry in 2006 concerning the establishment of places of worship. Certain groups have taken advantage of this Joint Regulation to obstruct and oppose the establishment of churches.
The enactment of the 2006 Joint Regulation carries the potential of being discriminatory. This among others is evident in one of its provisions which make it compulsory to submit a list of names along with their ID card number of 60 local residents endorsing the establishment of a place of worship when applying for permit. This list must be validated by the village chief or head of the village-level administrative unit.
In certain regions where the local population has a more tolerant attitude, this requirement would not be an issue. But in less forbearing societies, this may hamper the establishment of houses of worship. Furthermore, according to a survey conducted by Indonesia’s leading pollster, Lembaga Survei Indonesia (LSI)-Lazuardi Birru in 2010, the majority of Muslims in Indonesia are typically intolerant towards places of worship of other faiths, whereby 64.9% of them have objected to the setting up of such religious houses. In addition, the precondition to show proof of public support before a place of worship can be established can be commercialized by promises of giving support in exchange for monetary compensation. If such demands are denied, plans to establish the house of prayer shall indeed be made into an issue.
The government’s enactment of such state regulations is indeed a legitimate course of action, particularly when it is intended to cultivate harmony among followers of different beliefs. Unfortunately, such regulations are more often inclined towards becoming discriminatory to the extent that a significant proportion of minority groups feel that these policies are in reality more favorable toward the Muslim majority. Regulations should in fact be created to guarantee justice and protect all layers of society including minority groups.
This however, does not imply that freedom of religion should not be restricted through regulations. According to Nicola Colbran (2010), a Norwegian human rights expert, the right to freedom of religion encompasses two forms of liberties: internal and external. Internal freedom refers to the right of every individual to embrace a religion based on his or her own choice. This is a constitutional right that is both non-derogable and indivisible.
External freedom on the other hand, relates to the liberty to observe religious beliefs and bowing to limitations. Based on the International Covenant concerning Civil and Political Rights, the freedom to practice religion shall only be subject to limitations prescribed by law in order to protect (1) public safety, (2) public order, (3) public health, (4) public morals, and (5) the fundamental rights of others. As such, riding on the pretext of “causing public anxiety” does not constitute as justification to inhibit freedom of religion, as meant by the Covenant which essentially refers to the safety and order of individuals or society.
Amendment to the Joint Regulation
Given the intensified conflict over the establishment of churches, the government should seize upon this momentum to revise policies on the establishment of places of worship as regulated in the 2006 Joint Regulation. The government must be fully cognizant of the fact that the Joint Regulation is indeed one of the disabling factors that contribute to the fuelling of friction related to the establishment of places of worship. An evaluation on religious life practiced within the last four years is indeed the most appropriate method to assess on whether the Joint Regulation contributes to or instead counterproductive for a harmonious coexistence among believers of different faiths.
In addition, it is indeed an incongruity to adhere to the Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion and to worship when the establishment of places of worship requires the consent of believers of other faiths, and not from the religious need of the worshippers concerned. Furthermore, the establishment of and allotment for places of worship between different faiths is subject to different legal procedures. Hence the government needs to formulate a more neutral, flexible, and just regulation for all religions based on the need of followers of different faiths.
Finally, in addressing the discord over the establishment of places of worship, we once again urge that the government stands firm, acts in a non-discriminatory manner and positions itself above all religions as mandated by the Constitution. President Barrack Obama’s defense over the controversial plan to construct a mosque in proximity to Ground Zero, the former site of the decimated World Trade Centre (WTC), indeed serves as an exemplary act. Based on the Constitution and the freedom of religion, Obama stated that Muslims who are a minority group in the United States are equally entitled to the right to establish a place of worship like any other religion in the country. And Obama was prepared to be criticized by parties in opposition of the plan for the construction of the mosque.
In today’s democratic transition, faith-based conflict is easily ignited. We sincerely hope that the government particularly the Ministry of Religious Affairs can appropriately deal with such conflict by leaning on the Constitution at all times, and not be caught in the narrow-mindedness of fanaticism, sectarianism, or favoritism towards a certain religion.
*Testriono, researcher at the Centre of Islamic and Community Studies (PPIM - Pusat Pengkajian Islam dan Masyarakat), UIN Jakarta
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar