Life without protection
The Constitution stipulates the state’s responsibility for protecting its people and their rights, but for many, the supreme law has appeared simply as a historical document that is not workable.
For the whole week, the government was made busy defending itself from constant media attacks over last week’s beheading of an Indonesian domestic worker in Saudi Arabia for murdering her employer. In the more liberal social media, the government has become easy prey for critics who accuse it of doing little, if anything, to save Ruyati binti Satubi.
Indeed, the media hype surrounding Ruyati overlooks the statistics of the government’s successful attempts since 1999 to spare more than 100 citizens from the death penalty overseas, not to mention ongoing negotiations to secure clemency for dozens of citizens facing capital punishment.
But do not blame the media, which has never lost faith in its long-held credo, “bad news is good news”, for the nation-wide outcry. Blowing out the bad news about Ruyati and millions of other Indonesian citizens who are employed in working conditions vulnerable to abuse across the world should instead push the government to fight for improvement.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono finally announced a temporary suspension of Indonesian migrant workers’ placement in Saudi Arabia starting on Aug. 1, pending the kingdom’s signing of an accord on the protection of Indonesian workers.
Compared to the President’s previous but much-criticized suggestion that each migrant worker be given a cellular phone to call for help in cases of abuse, the latest policy shows the government’s firm will to stop the plight facing Indonesian overseas workers.
It will require herculean efforts to convince Saudi Arabia to sign such a bilateral agreement that may be incompatible with its legal system, let alone to make sure the accord will come into effect.
The path to the negotiating table looks difficult, as both Indonesia and Saudi Arabia will have to settle diplomatic rancor stemming from Indonesia’s protest of a lack of transparency on the part of the Saudi government concerning the execution. Riyadh later accused Indonesia of lying after Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said the Saudi Arabian government had apologized for the beheading.
With no quick fix expected in the Ruyati saga, Yudhoyono and whoever succeeds him in 2014 will have to brace for the complicated state mandate to protect the foreign exchange heroes and heroines as well as other citizens who are embroiled in legal cases abroad.
There are fears, however, about the government’s reactionary, fire-brigade attitude in dealing with the Ruyati case. The government’s focus on the case may distract its attention from the approximately 2.6 million domestic workers at home who have been left unprotected and therefore prone to injustice.
It is ironic, as a matter of fact, that while proclaiming success in protecting migrant workers, the government has yet to prove its commitment to protecting domestic workers at home, evident in the absence of a law that promotes the rights of people employed as housemaids.
While putting pressure on recipient countries of Indonesian migrant workers to provide decent protection to the unskilled workforce, the government and the House of Representatives continue delaying deliberation of a bill on domestic workers. This is despite the House’s decision to include the bill among priority draft laws under the national legislation program last year.
The bill was proposed to the House during the 2004-2009 period, but it has so far failed to win political support from both the legislative and executive powers, probably because it concerns the poor or because millions of employers — including the politicians and government officials — are reluctant to recognize the rights of their maids.
International human rights group Amnesty International warned last February of protection that remained elusive for Indonesian domestic workers and only preserved the old practice of slavery. Many of the workers have experienced slavery since an early age, although employers would refuse to call it child labor.
Housemaids, according to Amnesty International, do not benefit from the labor law, as they are not covered by the legislation and therefore vulnerable to exploitation. Their well-being is dependant solely on the generosity of their employers.
There are many employers who provide decent wages, holiday allowances during Idul Fitri, leave and days off and perhaps a health allowance, but we cannot turn a blind eye to physical and mental exploitation of defenseless domestic workers.
Indonesia has frequently lashed out at other countries for abusing its citizens, but left the practice unabated at home.
When it comes to the war on corruption, protection is also elusive for whistle-blowers, as in the case of Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) politician Agus Condro. He confessed to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) last year of accepting Rp 500 million (US$58,000) in bribes to help Miranda S. Goeltom win the Bank Indonesia senior deputy governor post in 2004.
A total of 30 politicians from various parties, including Agus, were convicted in the bribery case this week. The judges, however, displayed no mercy for Agus and refused to give him leniency despite his key role in revealing the vote-buying scandal.
In the past, a number of whistle blowers were brought to court and convicted of defamation, while the people they named in graft cases were left untouched.
No doubt, the absence of protection for Agus and other whistle-blowers has dealt the country’s anticorruption drive a big blow.
— Dwi Atmanta
For the whole week, the government was made busy defending itself from constant media attacks over last week’s beheading of an Indonesian domestic worker in Saudi Arabia for murdering her employer. In the more liberal social media, the government has become easy prey for critics who accuse it of doing little, if anything, to save Ruyati binti Satubi.
Indeed, the media hype surrounding Ruyati overlooks the statistics of the government’s successful attempts since 1999 to spare more than 100 citizens from the death penalty overseas, not to mention ongoing negotiations to secure clemency for dozens of citizens facing capital punishment.
But do not blame the media, which has never lost faith in its long-held credo, “bad news is good news”, for the nation-wide outcry. Blowing out the bad news about Ruyati and millions of other Indonesian citizens who are employed in working conditions vulnerable to abuse across the world should instead push the government to fight for improvement.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono finally announced a temporary suspension of Indonesian migrant workers’ placement in Saudi Arabia starting on Aug. 1, pending the kingdom’s signing of an accord on the protection of Indonesian workers.
Compared to the President’s previous but much-criticized suggestion that each migrant worker be given a cellular phone to call for help in cases of abuse, the latest policy shows the government’s firm will to stop the plight facing Indonesian overseas workers.
It will require herculean efforts to convince Saudi Arabia to sign such a bilateral agreement that may be incompatible with its legal system, let alone to make sure the accord will come into effect.
The path to the negotiating table looks difficult, as both Indonesia and Saudi Arabia will have to settle diplomatic rancor stemming from Indonesia’s protest of a lack of transparency on the part of the Saudi government concerning the execution. Riyadh later accused Indonesia of lying after Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said the Saudi Arabian government had apologized for the beheading.
With no quick fix expected in the Ruyati saga, Yudhoyono and whoever succeeds him in 2014 will have to brace for the complicated state mandate to protect the foreign exchange heroes and heroines as well as other citizens who are embroiled in legal cases abroad.
There are fears, however, about the government’s reactionary, fire-brigade attitude in dealing with the Ruyati case. The government’s focus on the case may distract its attention from the approximately 2.6 million domestic workers at home who have been left unprotected and therefore prone to injustice.
It is ironic, as a matter of fact, that while proclaiming success in protecting migrant workers, the government has yet to prove its commitment to protecting domestic workers at home, evident in the absence of a law that promotes the rights of people employed as housemaids.
While putting pressure on recipient countries of Indonesian migrant workers to provide decent protection to the unskilled workforce, the government and the House of Representatives continue delaying deliberation of a bill on domestic workers. This is despite the House’s decision to include the bill among priority draft laws under the national legislation program last year.
The bill was proposed to the House during the 2004-2009 period, but it has so far failed to win political support from both the legislative and executive powers, probably because it concerns the poor or because millions of employers — including the politicians and government officials — are reluctant to recognize the rights of their maids.
International human rights group Amnesty International warned last February of protection that remained elusive for Indonesian domestic workers and only preserved the old practice of slavery. Many of the workers have experienced slavery since an early age, although employers would refuse to call it child labor.
Housemaids, according to Amnesty International, do not benefit from the labor law, as they are not covered by the legislation and therefore vulnerable to exploitation. Their well-being is dependant solely on the generosity of their employers.
There are many employers who provide decent wages, holiday allowances during Idul Fitri, leave and days off and perhaps a health allowance, but we cannot turn a blind eye to physical and mental exploitation of defenseless domestic workers.
Indonesia has frequently lashed out at other countries for abusing its citizens, but left the practice unabated at home.
When it comes to the war on corruption, protection is also elusive for whistle-blowers, as in the case of Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDIP) politician Agus Condro. He confessed to the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) last year of accepting Rp 500 million (US$58,000) in bribes to help Miranda S. Goeltom win the Bank Indonesia senior deputy governor post in 2004.
A total of 30 politicians from various parties, including Agus, were convicted in the bribery case this week. The judges, however, displayed no mercy for Agus and refused to give him leniency despite his key role in revealing the vote-buying scandal.
In the past, a number of whistle blowers were brought to court and convicted of defamation, while the people they named in graft cases were left untouched.
No doubt, the absence of protection for Agus and other whistle-blowers has dealt the country’s anticorruption drive a big blow.
— Dwi Atmanta
0 comments:
Post a Comment