Diplomatic lessons from bali boy case

Diplomatic lessons from ‘Bali Boy’case



The safe return last week of the young NSW boy - now known as the ‘Bali Boy’- after being held in Indonesia for three months would have been welcomed by his parents, the Australian government and most fair-minded Australians.

But there are some diplomatic lessons to be learned from this case that captured the headlines not only in Australia but throughout Indonesia.

Fourteen years ago, the arrest of this boy could probably have been resolved through the ‘appropriate channels’ very quickly. Under the totalitarian regime of President Suharto who ruled Indonesia for 32 years, it was not only business that was faced with a ‘one stop-shop’ solution to their desired outcomes in Indonesia. Most criminal cases could also be ‘resolved’ with a little incentive and the right contacts through the Jakarta ‘head office’.

The Indonesian police force was also little more than a front for the military who interfered in every aspect of policing throughout the country.

Since the fall of Suharto and Indonesia’s breathtakingly successful transition to democracy, Australia has played an important role in assisting our northern neighbour to embrace the democratic process; this included the concept of separation of powers, particularly between the role of government and the judiciary. This has been a good thing, as previously the role of the courts and police were dominated by the president and the national government. It was a completely corrupt process where ‘money talked’.

Under the leadership of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono – affectionately know as SBY – the police and judiciary has become far more independent. Judges have felt confident to make decisions based on evidence and the interpretation of the law. Australia, and most countries, has applauded this process as a critical step in Indonesia’s rise to a regional and respected world power.

Indonesia’s government now fully embraces this separation of power and also for all countries to respect each other’s right to apply their laws to nationals and foreigners alike without external interference. We saw just how affective this process could be through the co-operation between Indonesia’s police force and the AFP who worked jointly to bring the ‘Bali Bombers’ to trial despite considerable internal pressure from fanatical religious groups within Indonesia. It was an important and critical outcome to demonstrate how a police force and independent judiciary can and should work.

This may in some way explain why Indonesia has been reluctant until now, to complain about the treatment of its children caught-up in the people smuggling racket that has resulted in some 50 minors being incarcerated in Australian jails.

It may also explain why Indonesia was bewildered and concerned when our foreign minister and then prime minister directly intervened in the Bali Boy case.

Here is their neighbour who has, for many years, lectured Indonesia for a lack of independence between government and the judiciary, suddenly changing their mind when one of their own nationals is arrested and charged for drug possession. Irrespective of Indonesia following their due legal process we had our foreign minister intervening directly (and our prime minister telephoning the boy) pronouncing that Australia would make the boy’s case, and his release, its ‘number one priority’.

This may have been ‘good politics’ within Australia, but these were very mixed messages for a young and emerging nation wanting to have its laws and judicial processes respected in the same way as we - in Australia - take for granted.

Despite the pressure being applied by the Australian government, Indonesia allowed its courts and judiciary to follow establish legal process. The police and public prosecution team acted with considerable grace and dignity to ensure the boy’s welfare was always considered given his age, and that he was kept out of an adult prison pending the court case and verdict.

Fortunately, the presiding judge felt that the boy was a ‘user’ rather than a ‘trafficker’ and that he and his parents had conducted themselves appropriately, leading the court to rule that the boy should be released after serving a three month sentence retrospectively.

Despite Australia’s inappropriate behaviour, Indonesia had allowed this case to be resolved exactly how we should have wished; with judicial independence and without political influence.

The case also highlights another issue where politics needs to be involved: for both countries to review their respective laws to ensure we avoid the judiciary having to automatically lock-up foreign children in our respective jails.

Such a review would be totally appropriate. But for our most senior politicians to interfere in the judicial process of another country - and in particular a country such as Indonesia who is striving to allow its judiciary the freedom to follow the established legal process - sends out not only confusing, but dangerous signals at a time when we should be assisting our close neighbour build on the great progress already achieved.

The other and hopefully more obvious lesson that should be learned from this issue is that we, as Australians, need to stop treating Bali as our own private piece of real estate, and that when holidaying there we need to be respectful of Indonesian laws and culture - and try to behave ourselves.



Ross B. Taylor is the chairman of the WA-based Indonesia Institute Inc.

12th December 2011

Post a Comment

1 Comments

Please feel free to comment on any article. Please be respectful.