1) Legalizing arbitrariness: The human rights cost of Indonesia’s rushed criminal procedure code revision

2) Controversial decision: President Prabowo appoints Suharto as National Hero

3) Good Neighbors: Australia, Indonesia Sign Security Treaty

-------------------------------------------

https://humanrightsmonitor.org/news/legalizing-arbitrariness-the-human-rights-cost-of-indonesias-rushed-criminal-procedure-code-revision/

1) Legalizing arbitrariness: The human rights cost of Indonesia’s rushed criminal procedure code revision

Human Rights News / Indonesia / 18 November 2025 

On Tuesday, the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) unanimously passed the revision of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) into Law. While the plenary session was marked by applause and claims of “modernisation,” Indonesia’s civil society has raised deep concerns regarding the new Law. A coalition of legal aid organizations and human rights defenders warns that the new KUHAP officially opens the door to a police state, legitimizing arbitrary detention, invasive surveillance, and unchecked investigative powers. Designed to accompany the new Criminal Code (KUHP) taking effect in January 2026, the revision was meant to overhaul Indonesia’s outdated 1981 legal framework.

Despite claims by the Commission III Chair. Mr Habiburokhman, that “99% of the content comes from civil society,” the final text reflects a disregard for due process and the presumption of innocence. One of the most alarming shifts in the new KUHAP is the expansion of investigative techniques that were previously restricted to narcotics cases. Article 16 of the new KUHAP permits “undercover buy” and “controlled delivery” techniques for all types of crimes. The Civil Society Coalition warns that this unsupervised expansion encourages entrapment, allowing officers to essentially fabricate crimes to meet targets.

Articles 7 & 8 of the law stipulate that all Civil Servant Investigators (PPNS) are now placed under the coordination of the National Police. Critics argue this centralizes excessive power, turning the police into a “superpower institution” without adequate external oversight.

Erosion of Habeas Corpus

Most significantly, the revision fails to address the chronic issue of long, arbitrary detentions. This practice has historically plagued the Indonesian justice system for decades. Instead of tightening judicial oversight, the Law appears to loosen it. The new detention scheme offers an “alternative” where a detention warrant can be issued by the investigator or a judge. The Coalition warns that the revised law encourages investigators to avoid judicial scrutiny and bypass the authority of judges.

According to Article 5, authorities are granted broad powers to arrest, search, and detain individuals under vague “security” pretexts before a criminal act is even confirmed.Article 99 of the Law extends the maximum detention period to 60 days for suspects with severe physical or mental disorders, treating them unequally before the law.

Privacy under siege

While government officials deny that the Law enables a surveillance state, the text suggests otherwise. Authorities are permitted to conduct warrantless searches, seizures, wiretapping, and data blocking without court permission under Articles 105, 112A, 124, and 132A, with the provision that they can justify “urgent circumstances.” This places the definition of “urgency” entirely in the hands of law enforcement, allowing the state to enter private civilian spaces freely. There are currently no clear mechanisms detailed in the Law regarding how obtained personal data will be protected.

Failing vulnerable groups

Despite claims of protecting the vulnerable, the Law contains ableist provisions. Article 137A allows for the indefinite imprisonment of persons with mental and intellectual disabilities. The Law legitimizes the deprivation of liberty without clear time limits or monitoring mechanisms by implicitly viewing these individuals as lacking legal capacity.

Furthermore, provisions regarding legal aid are criticized as ambiguous. While described as an obligation, clauses suggest legal aid can be “refused or waived,” creating loopholes that police often exploit to interrogate suspects without counsel.

A legacy of violence

These legal changes arrive against a backdrop of police impunity. Data from KontraS and Amnesty International Indonesia reveal a disturbing pattern of wrongful arrests and torture. This is highly concerning given that Amnesty recorded 30 cases of torture involving 49 victims, predominantly by police, between 2023 and 2024 alone. From 2021 to 2024, there has been a surge in the number of cases of torture by law enforcement officials, predominantly police officers, by around 75%.

The new KUHAP does not fix these systemic flaws; it codifies the very powers that facilitate them. Moreover, this legislation threatens to “forcibly take away personal freedom.” As the Law moves toward its January 2026 implementation, human rights organizations must prepare for a legal challenge and increase monitoring of police conduct.

-----------------------------------

https://humanrightsmonitor.org/news/controversial-decision-president-prabowo-appoints-suharto-as-national-hero/

2) Controversial decision: President Prabowo appoints Suharto as National Hero

Human Rights News / Indonesia / 18 November 2025 

In a move that has ignited a fierce national debate on historical memory and justice, President Prabowo Subianto officially bestowed the title of National Hero upon Indonesia’s second president, General Suharto, during a ceremony at the State Palace on 10 November 2025. The award was accepted by Suharto’s children, Siti Hardiyanti Rukmana (Tutut) and Bambang Trihatmodjo. Political analysts understand the decision as a calculated maneuver to utilize his current dominance over political parties before his influence potentially wanes, while also appealing to a significant demographic that views the New Order era with nostalgia.

The government justified the appointment by highlighting Suharto’s contributions to the struggle for independence and his role in stabilizing the nation’s economy during his 32-year rule. Culture Minister Fadli Zon defended the decision by publicly dismissing allegations of Suharto’s involvement in the 1965 anti-communist purge, challenging critics to provide “historical facts” linking the former dictator to the genocide. This narrative is bolstered by recent data from the Populi Center, which indicates that a majority of Indonesians across generations associate Suharto with strong leadership and low inflation, largely overlooking the authoritarian aspects of his regime.

The ceremony was marked by a stark historical irony. Alongside Suharto, the title of National Hero was also awarded to Marsinah, a labour activist murdered in 1993 under suspicious military-linked circumstances, and Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), a reformist leader who helped dismantle the New Order. Critics and historians argue that grouping these figures together is a confusing attempt to rewrite history. Historians warned that this move signals the “death of the spirit of Reformasi,” fearing it legitimizes past state violence and obscures the human rights violations investigated and documented by the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).

The decision has triggered immediate backlash across the archipelago. Protests led by student groups and human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and the “Jogja Memanggil” coalition, erupted in Indonesian cities including Yogyakarta and Gorontalo. Demonstrators condemned the appointment as a betrayal of the 1998 Reform movement and an insult to the millions of victims of the New Order regime. Activists argue that by elevating the perpetrator of serious human rights abuses to the status of a National Hero, the Government challenges the very foundations of Indonesia’s modern democracy.

——————————————————————————

https://thediplomat.com/2025/11/good-neighbors-australia-indonesia-sign-security-treaty/

3) Good Neighbors: Australia, Indonesia Sign Security Treaty

The efforts the Australian government has made to build a cooperative and friendly relationship with Indonesia have been significant and important. But there’s more to be done.

By Grant Wyeth November 17, 2025

Last week Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto visited Sydney, where he and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese signed a landmark new security agreement. The agreement commits the two countries’ leaders to meet regularly to discuss issues of common security, and to consult with each other on any threats to either country’s security. 

An agreement to “consult” may not seem like a great advance in relations, but it is a significant step toward both countries recognizing their own security in the security of the other.  

The weight of the Australia-Indonesia Treaty on Common Securitycannot be overstated, given that Indonesia has no formal alliances with any other country, and has no similar agreement to consider such a military response with any other country. It is a sign that Jakarta sees some flexibility in its nonaligned policy when it comes to its immediate security needs.  

The development forms part of a recent major regional push for new security agreements from Canberra, which has resulted in pacts with Papua New Guinea (PNG), Nauru, and Tuvalu, with agreements with Vanuatu and Fiji still being negotiated. Importantly, Australian government officials confirmed that Jakarta was “brought into the tent” during the development of the Pukpuk agreement with PNG. Given PNG’s border with Indonesia, it was critical that the Indonesians didn’t think this agreement was about protecting PNG from Indonesia. 

Australia has made it a diplomatic priority to move the relationships with Indonesia from being one of simply living next door to each other, to embodying the ethos of neighborliness. This was highlighted by Prabowo himself in Sydney when he described the new agreement as a “good neighbor policy,” adding, “Good neighbors are essential. Good neighbors will help each other in times of difficulties.”

Relations between Australia and Indonesia became strained during the independence process for Timor-Leste. Since then, Canberra has put considerable diplomatic resources into moving the two countries toward this neighborliness. While Australia’s primary security partner is the United States, and China is overwhelmingly its largest trading partner, it is Indonesia that is arguably Australia’s most important relationship. 

As a giant of 285 million people that is advancing toward being a major power, Indonesia is an essential relationship for Australia. Good relations buy Australia considerable security, economic opportunity, and the great rewards of cultural exchange. 

Yet, while the relationship at the elite level has never been better, below that the two countries still struggle. While Australians might flood onto Bali’s beaches, on average, their knowledge of Indonesia wouldn’t go far beyond the currency exchange rate and Bintang beer. 

This presents a problem. While elite cooperation is essential, the real measure of a relationship between countries is in people-to-people exchange. This is the platform on which genuine neighborliness is built, and it is what is required to weather any political changes that might disrupt elite cooperation. 

Yet this people-to-people exchange is easier said than done. Arguably, no two neighbors are as culturally dissimilar as Australia and Indonesia. This means that efforts that are needed to build understanding and trust are far greater than, say, between Sweden and Norway. Despite Australia becoming a far more Asian country in the past few decades, the dominant culture remains distinct for its region. 

While Australia’s diplomatic efforts have been great, there haven’t been broader initiatives to take the country’s geographic reality seriously. Asian literacy skills are given no strong commitments in the country’s curriculums. The number of students learning Indonesian keeps declining, and state and federal governments have no appetite to make it a compulsory subject. The country still expects Indonesians to engage with Australians in English. 

This is the real signal of Australia’s intent. To invest in regional literacyis a way of demonstrating a commitment to the relationship at a fundamental level. It is a sign of respect and a sign of cultural outreach. To make Indonesian a compulsory language at Australian schools would be an outstretched hand that would make last week’s security agreement diminutive by comparison. 

There may be sections of the Australian population who would resist greater cultural immersion into the region. Yet it is a responsibility of governments to explain the importance of such initiatives. Successive governments, frightened to have the national conversation, have dismissed this as too difficult. The current federal government’s commanding position should lead it to overcome this fear. 

The efforts the Australian government has made to build a cooperative and friendly relationship with Indonesia have been significant and important. But the next stage of being a good neighbor needs to be cultural, not diplomatic. 

--------------------------------------