These are questions for E-QUIZ in “ENGLISH FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE (LAW)” subject. You only have to  answer questions according to Your written name. Your answer must be based on the reading text.  Please write Your name and Your identity student number on Your answer. And please write Your suggestions/criticism due to my lecture methods on your answer reply. Your answer should  be submitted before 09th December 2015. Your score will be given by lecture directly below on Your answer. Any further informations, students may contact on my personal mobile: +6281396534624. Good luck and thank you.



Following the issuance of controversial Chief of National Police Circular Letter Number SE/6/X/2015 on the Handling of Hate Speech (Circular) on 8th October 2015, all eyes are now focused on the National Police, as the circular continues to draw criticism from various sectors of society.

The Circular itself comprises of four points, including the kinds of acts that are to be classified as of hate speech and other related crimes. The Circular starts by defining hate speech as a crime that is incorporated both within and beyond the Criminal Code, including insulting acts, defamation, plasphemy (penistaan), objectionable acts (perbuatan tidak menyenangkan). provocative acts, instigation, and the dissemination of false news.

The Circular then outlines the various types of media most commonly used to propagate hate speech, including campaign speeches, banners, social-media networks, demonstrations and religious sermons, as well as electronic-media and mass-media forums.

Furthermore, the Circular also sets out several directives which are to be allowed by all members of the National Police force. These directives include preventative measures, intelligence (including the gathering of information or investigations). Regarding sanctions, the Circular instructs police officers to resort to the full enforcement of the law, if preventative measures fail to mitigate the impacts of so-called hate speech.

The Circular refers to several laws and regulations which are to be the basis for law enforcement in this area, such as The Criminal Code (Articles 156 to 157, and Articles 310 to 311) on Electronic Information and Transactions (Articles 28 and 45 (2)), as well as Law Number 20 of 2008 on the Eradication of Ethnic and Racial Discrimination (Article 16).

In a press release obtained by one mass media, LBH Pers, a prominent legal-aid institute, criticized the Circular for applying narrow interpretation of Article 311 of the Criminal Code as regards hate speech. The LBH Pers press release points out that Article 311 of the Criminal Code is often wrongly used to charge those whose choose to exercise their right to freedom of speech.

The application of the law here could result in” wrongful arrest”, as those who will end up being arrested will not be the actual perpetrators, and this will ultimately prove to be a source of tension. It is better to separate defamation from hate speech, so that police officers don’t end up abusing their authority as they attempt to handle such an obscure provision, “states the LBH Pers press release.

The LBH Pers warns the National Police that as an institution they have to be prudent when deciding whether an action constitutes hate speech or represents a legal expression of freedom of speech. This is vitally important so that those expressing their opinions or criticizing someone else’s work do not end up being prosecuted as perpetrators of hate speech.

The LBH Pers release also outlines some specific concerns regarding the potential effects of the Circular on Indonesia’s minority communities. According to The LBH Pers records, most hate-speech cases end up victimizing these minorities through prohibitions on the religious activities practiced by minor religions, or the relocation/excommunication of those wishing to express different opinions from those held by the majority of the population.

Commenting on these matters, Inspecton General Anton Charliyan, head of the National Polices’s Public Relations Division, affirmed that the Circular was not seeking to impair freedom of speech. Rather, the Circular was issued as a response to several recent cases involving hate speech relating to differences in ethinicity, religious beliefs, race and culture (suku, agama, ras dan antargolongan –commonly abbreviated in Indonesia as “SARA”). Such hate speech, according to Mr. Charliyan, is being disseminated by actions looking to sow the seeds of internal discord within Indonesia society.

Take two of the most recent cases as examples. In the Tolikara case, they (the local community)disseminated their hatred via online groups, while on the Singkil case, encouragements to burn down churches were also spread via the internet. We cannot afford to let these new technologies and digital tools to be misused and abused,“ stated Mr. Charliyan firmly.

According to Mr. Charliyan, the Circular only seeks to remind all parties that when speaking or expressing their opinions – both in public or online – they should think carefully about the social implications of what they are saying.

“A tongue can be like fire. Do not speak rashly. Reflect your culture through a positive use of words and language, and show that we are a well-mannered nation,” concluded Mr. Charliyan.

Questions based on Reading One

  1. Isti Wijayanti

a.Why did the public attention focus on the National Police force?

b.What actions can be classified into “hate speech” according to The Circular itself?

c.What types of media can be used to perform “hate speech” ?

d.How does the National Police force investigate the “hate speech” crime?

e.According to reading one, what does “wrongful arrest”  infer?

      2. Risky Shadad

a. What are the basis regulations for the “hate speech” crimeWhat does “obscure provision” refer to?

b.  How does the “hate speech” crime cause potential negative effects to Indonesia’s minority communities?

c.  Please explain with real facts how did the online speech can cause “hate speech” and resulted in internal discord within Indonesia society?

d. What does “A tongue can be like fire” mean?



(reading source: Republika post)

The government is set to issue a revision to Government Regulation Number 77 of 2014 on the Third Amendment of Regulation Number 23 of 2010 on the Implementation of Mineral and Coal Business Activities (“Revision”). The Revision is a part of the government’s current series of economic-policy packages, as they relate to the energy sector. TheRevision will supposedly alter the provision relating to contract-renewal times.

The government is planning to offer businessmen a little leeway in terms of contract-extension applications through the new Revision. Bambang Gatot, acting as Director General for Minerals and Coal at the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources, has stated that the proposed Revision will allow for contract extensions to be applied for long before a contract actually expires.

In accordance with Government Regulation Number 77 of 2014, holders of a Contract of Work (Kontrak Karya – “KK”), as well as a Coal-Mining Agreement (Perjanjian Karya Pengusahaan Pertambangan Batubara – “PKP2B”) may currently apply for a contract extension two years before their contract expires. However, the draft Revision proposes that this be extended to a full ten years before a contract’s expiration date.

According to Mr. Gatot, the proposed ten-year period set out in the Revision is based on detailed data and research. The thinking behind the move is that there will not be enough legal certainty if any regulation relating to this matter only allows for an extension to be processed two years prior to a contract’s expiration date. Such legal certainly is vital, however, as mining-company investments can be immense.

Mr. Gatot further stated that companies will first have to meet two requirements in order to be considered eligible to apply for contract extensions ten years prior to their expiration dates. Firstly, a metallic mineral company looking to secure such an early extension should possess major investment value and be considered high risk.

“If the mining regulation is successfully revised, then mining companies which are already in possession of a KK will be assessed based on their investment values,” explained Mr. Gatot on Monday, 2 November 2015.

In addition to altering the contract-extension application period, the Revision will also deal with matters of divestment. Currently there are no clear rules and directions regarding any divestment mechanism, thus Mr. Gatot believes that more specific rules are necessary.

“Hitherto, there have been no technical rules on the implementation of divestment, which has led to confusion in some cases,” Mr. Gatot stated.

Currently, a provision only exists which regulates the divestment obligations of foreign mining companies which have already been operating for a period of five years under Government Regulation Number 23 of 2010. Furthermore, the amount of divestment was also set out in Article 97 of Government Regulation Number 23 of 2010. However, no specific provision currently exists regarding exactly how any divestment is to be implemented.

A detailed provision regarding the divestment mechanism will thus be set out in the Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources regulation. Moreover, this regulation will also set out what should occur in the case of any divestment share not being taken up by the government. According to Mr. Gatot, it is important that these matters are specifically regulated and have a clear legal basis.

The proposed Revision has already been submitted to the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, and it is hoped that it will be ready this month. This provisional timeframe is dependent however on the results of deliberations which are currently taking place at a ministerial level.

Mr. Gatot also wished to stress that the proposed Revision to the timeframe for contract extensions and to divestment mechanisms was not specifically related to any of the huge mining companies currently working in Indonesia. Gatot asserted that these steps were not being taken with the intention of placating PT Freeport Indonesia, which some have alleged, and instead emphasized that the Revision will apply to all mining companies across the board.

“The Revision is not intended to simply please Freeport,” Mr. Gatot asserted emphatically. Current development showed that the plan to execute the Revision is postponed by the government.

Questions based on Reading Two

  1. Heldy Hardani

a. What is the government policy in energy sector regulation?

b.What is the prominent revision in Government Regulation Number 77 of 2014?

c.What was the “legal reasoning” for revision of Government Regulation Number 77 of 2014?

      4. Achmad Rajib Subekti

a.How can the mining companies be considered eligible to apply for contract extensions according to Government Regulation Number 77 of 2014?

b.Why is the contract-extension application period confused?

c.Why is The Revision not intended to simply please Freeport?


READING THREE: Banks Urged to Stop Investing in Fossil Fuels

(reading source: Republika post)

Over the course of the past decade, the total amount of investment in the coal sector by banks has increased. Loans or assurances granted to fossil-fuel companies rose to nearly ten times that of comparable investment in renewable energy sources at a global level. Specifically, investment in renewable energy reached just USD 120 billion between 2004 and 2014, while in contrast, fossil fuels received more than USD 1 trillion.

These figures are the result of research conducted by Fair Finance Guide International (“FFGI”) into energy-sector financing by banks and various financial institutions. This research was carried out by analyzing financial trends across 75 financial institutions. The institutions in question finance heavily in the fossil-fuel sector, including coal, oil and gas, as well as in renewable-energy technologies such as solar panels, solar-powered electric generators, wind turbines, and geothermal engineering.

Eleven of the financial institutions surveyed by FFGI are Indonesian: Citibank, UFJ Mitsubishi, OCBC NISP, HSBC, CIMB Niaga, BNI, BRI, Bank Mandiri, BCA, Bank Danamon and Bank Panin. Additionally, eight local companies currently engaged in the coal mining industry were also integrated into the research.

Questions based on Reading Three

  1. Denny Rahmadani

a.What research has been conducted by Fair Finance Guide International (“FFGI”) in energy investment?

b.How was the FFGI research carried out?



The existence of the presidential pardon, either in form of remissions or sentence reductions, is essentially aimed at protecting human rights and justice. The right of citizens to be treated justly should not be subject to any time limits, especially when a convicted felon has filed for a presidential pardon.

Andi Muhammad Asrun, a law lecturer at Bogor’s Pakuan University, delivered his expert opinion on the recent judicial review of Law Number 5 of 2010 on Presidential Pardons in the courtroom of the Constitutional Court on Monday, 2 November 2015.

During his address, Mr. Asrun stated that time restrictions, as regards the filing of requests for presidential pardons, fundamentally restricted, obstructed, and contradicted the constitutional right of the president as head of state to grant presidential pardons.

Mr. Asrun explained that the underlying rationale behind allowing for presidential pardons related to notions of human rights and justice. In the context of justice, a presidential pardon should be granted if an unfair criminal verdict has been delivered. As for matters pertaining to human rights, a pardon can be granted if a convicted party has fallen seriously ill, for example.

These factors should be the basis upon which the president can grant presidential pardons, according to Mr. Asrun. A judge presiding over a given case should prioritize matters of justice and set aside legal certainties when these two domains clash, Mr. Asrun stated.

Mr. Asrun further argued that the protection of human rights in the form of justice is an essential element of the rule of law in any state. A presidential pardon also represents a form of human-rights protection from any mistreatment by law enforcement officers that occurs during the judicial process. For example, judges may ultimately rule unfairly on a given case owing to external pressures deriving from outside of the relevant judicial authorities. Such pressures may be political or social in nature.

Mr. Asrun thus believes that it is wrong to mandate any time limits as regards the filing of requests for presidential pardons. As a consequence of this belief, it was reasonable to declare that Article 7 (2) of the Presidential Pardon Law ran contrary to the spirit of the 1945 Constitution.

In Asrun’s view, Law Number 22 of 2002 regarding Presidential Pardons should be reinstated, as the setting of any time restriction regarding the filing of requests for presidential pardons was unreasonable and, ultimately, unjust.

Mr. Asrun explained that many countries around the world do not set out such time limitations in their laws or constitutions. India, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the USA, and Malaysia, for example, are all countries that do not regulate presidential pardons in this way.

“The Constitutions of India and South Korea do not set any time restrictions as regards the filing of requests for presidential pardons,” explained Asrun.

Also present at the constitutional court on Monday was law expert Firman Wijaya, who expressed his agreement that it was unnecessary to limit the filing of requests for presidential pardons in either space or time. In Wijaya’s view, the filing of a presidential pardon represents a substantive means of justice and is the absolute right of the president, who can exercise this right in order to maintain the welfare and harmony of society in general.

“How can the president preserve justice if the filing of presidential pardon is limited in both space and time? It has already been proven that a presidential pardon cannot be sued in the State Administrative Court,” Wijaya stated on Monday.

Wijaya asserted that a presidential pardon should not be associated with a judge’s ruling against a convicted party, but should instead be seen as the inalienable right of a citizen who is asking for forgiveness from the president in his role as head of state.

The judicial review itself was submitted by Su’ud Rusli, who has been sentenced to death for the murder of the President Director of PT Asaba, Budyharto Angsono. Mr. Rusli is accompanied by Marselinus Edwin Hardian, a law student at At-Thahiriyah University.

The reviewed article sets a time limit for the filing of requests for presidential pardons at a maximum of one year after a legally binding court decision. This article is believed to be an injustice, as the filing of a request for a presidential pardon more than one year after an inkracht decision would result in failure and rejection, as the mandated time limit would have already expired. In this case, the presidential pardon filed by Suud Rusli in 2014 was rejected by President Joko Widodo on 31 August, 2015.

The applicant argued that the right to file a request for a presidential pardon was the inalienable right of every citizen and was guaranteed by the country’s constitution. Thus, the right to file for a presidential pardon from the head of state should not be limited in time, as this would contradict the spirit of justice guaranteed by the 1945 constitution.

According to Mr. Rusli, presidential pardons are not included as a part of the “open legal policy”, which allows lawmakers to set various limits and restrictions. Rusli has thus demanded that Article 7 (2) of the Presidential Pardon Law be removed, as it contradicts the 1945 constitution.

Mr. Rusli has been serving out his sentence in Porong Sidoarjo prison since 2008 and has now been behind bars for approximately 12 years. The former Marine, who once held the rank of Corporal Two, was sentenced to death by Military Court II-08 Jakarta in February of 2005. Rusli was found guilty of the 2003 premeditated murder of the head of PT Asaba, Budyharto Angsono. The guilty verdict was upheld by High Military Court Decision II Jakarta in August of 2005, as well as by Supreme Court decision No. PUT/34-K/MIL/2006Pid/2010, dated 7 July 2006.

Questions based on Reading Four

  1. Isfanny Soeaswinita

a.What was the reason for judicial review of Law Number 5 of 2010 on Presidential Pardons?

b.How is the connections between human rights and presidential pardon?

c.Why did Article 7 (2) of the Presidential Pardon Law run contrary to the spirit of the 1945 Constitution?

d.How does the Presidential Pardon limitation set out at some foreign countries?

e.What does the “open legal policy” mean?

Print Friendly