JAKARTA - Indonesian communicator Emrus Sihombing assesses the reporting of the perpetrators of the laser shooting with an inscription "Dare to be honest, fire!" What appeared at the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) building to the Indonesian Police was correct.
According to him, the KPK's reporting on Greenpeace Indonesia to the police cannot be interpreted as anti-criticism at all. However, it is more about respecting freedom of expression, upholding democratic values and respecting criticism based on positive law. "Therefore, there is nothing strange, it's lebay and even some parties seem confused if the KPK reports Greenpeace Indonesia to the Police. Just deal with it from a positive legal aspect. at every stage of the legal process. Therefore, the parties 'fight' in court until the judge finally makes a final decision," said Emrus from a statement received by VOI, Wednesday, July 21. According to Emrus, reporting to the police is a natural thing. Instead, it was an ordinary legal event, legal maturity, and democratic intelligence carried out by the KPK. At the same time, it shows that the KPK is not anti-criticism, but respects criticism with a normative approach as its basis. Emrus assessed that there were four substantial things from the legal and communication aspects carried out by the perpetrators of 'shooting' the laser beam at the KPK building on June 28, 2021. Namely, the content of the message. communication in writing, the time (at) the act of communication, exposed to the KPK building and the KPK is not anti-criticism. First, from the aspect of the content of the communication message. The inscription "Dare to be Honest, Fire!".
"Against this sentence, a critical question arises, who dares to be honest? Is that 'who', has his moral honesty been tested in the public or in the courtroom. Honesty is related to integrity, so who dares to mention himself or the other party? others have consistent integrity about something in their every behavior? Is there a guarantee that even the person who produces the message is always at the highest level of honesty in his life? That's why, let's leave it to the court to test it, "explained Emrus.
In addition, he continued, they must explain with strong legal evidence that "who" has received the dismissal treatment. "Furthermore, who fired? Mentioning who was the 'fireman' and the 'fired' must be accompanied by valid positive legal evidence, such as a letter of dismissal of a person by another party. . Isn't slander cruel in human relations? Be careful," he continued. Some of these questions, said Emrus, absolutely must be deciphered by those who produce messages in court as moral and legal responsibility. Second, as a form of demonstration of delivering statements. The shooting of a laser beam that reads, "Dare to be Honest, Fire!", was it carried out within the time range (at) permitted by the law related to demonstrations. If it is done at 19.05 WIB, then it can be tested in court. Third, a laser beam with the words "Dare to be Honest, Fire!" hit by the KPK building. From the aspect of communication, one of the targets of the message was addressed to the KPK institution. This means that the message producer must be held accountable before the law why the target is the KPK building.
"What are the legal and communication motives, for example what image the KPK wants to build in the public sphere," said Emrus. Fourth, the KPK is clearly not anti-criticism. When the KPK reported GI to the police, Emrus explained, it showed that the anti-corruption agency simply wanted to test the criticism in court based on positive law.
Because by reporting to the police, said Emrus, the KPK has upheld democratic values, including freedom of expression. This means that differences of opinion should be resolved in the legal process. Because, as a democratic country, the "jury" is a law enforcement institution based on positive laws that apply as a mutual agreement. "When the stages of the legal process take place because they are related to the communication process, it is very good to ask for opinions from communicators as expert witnesses to reveal the holistic meaning of all stages of the communication process carried out by the message producers," he said. Thus, Emrus added, the KPK report must end with a judge's decision. If a permanent decision has been received from the court, the parties must respect and accept it and stop polemics in the public sphere. At the same time, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) provides an example of correct and good law in public discourse," said Emrus
The English, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and French versions are automatically generated by the AI. So there may still be inaccuracies in translating, please always see Indonesian as our main language.
(system supported by DigitalSiber.id)
