Hukum Untuk Rakyat: A Sceptic's Inquiry into a Populist Slogan

Is It Really For The People?

The phrase "Hukum Untuk Rakyat" (Law for the People) resonates with an undeniable, almost visceral appeal. It promises a legal system that is not an abstract, distant entity but a tangible tool for justice, wielded in the direct service of the common citizen. This narrative has become a powerful mainstream sentiment, championed by activists, politicians, and cultural figures alike, often framed as an unequivocal good—the final, righteous alignment of power with populace. But as a sceptic, I must ask: is this framing as straightforward and benevolent as it appears, or does it contain inherent contradictions and potential perils that deserve rigorous scrutiny?

Let us first deconstruct the core assumption: that law can be simplistically "for" one homogeneous group called "the people." Who constitutes "the people"? In any diverse society, this term is a political abstraction, not a legal reality. The interests of urban entrepreneurs clash with those of rural agricultural communities; the priorities of one ethnic or religious group may conflict with another's. A law that is fervently "for" one segment of the rakyat may inherently be "against" another. The mainstream discourse often glosses over this inherent conflict, presenting "the people" as a monolithic bloc with unified interests—a logical fallacy that serves to sideline minority viewpoints and complex, competing rights. When a government or movement claims to exclusively champion "law for the people," it implicitly—and dangerously—defines who belongs to that privileged category and who sits outside it.

Furthermore, the slogan's emotional pull often bypasses critical analysis of mechanism and consequence. History is littered with examples where populist legal movements, initiated in the name of the people, eroded the very foundations of impartial justice. The demand for laws that reflect popular sentiment can swiftly morph into tyranny of the majority, where procedural fairness, protection of the accused, and the rights of the unpopular are sacrificed at the altar of public opinion. The celebrated "will of the people" can be manipulated through misinformation, becoming a blunt instrument that weakens the independent institutions—like an autonomous judiciary—designed to protect all citizens, especially from the passions of the majority. Is a law truly "for the people" if it dismantles the checks and balances that prevent the law from becoming a tool of arbitrary power?

Another Possibility: Law as Process, Not Product

If we challenge the mainstream "Hukum Untuk Rakyat" paradigm, what alternative framework exists? Perhaps we should advocate not for "Law *for* the People" but for "Law *by* and *of* the People through Just Process." The crucial shift is from seeing law as a deliverable product—a specific set of rules that favours a particular outcome—to valuing it as a robust, impartial, and accessible *process*. This alternative possibility emphasises equal application, transparent procedure, and universal access over emotionally satisfying but potentially divisive results.

Consider the realm of music and entertainment, a universal cultural touchstone. A populist "law for the people" in this sector might demand censorship of artistic content deemed offensive by a vocal majority, directly linking law to prevailing cultural tastes. The alternative, process-focused approach would prioritise protecting artistic expression through clear, consistently applied standards, ensuring that both popular and niche artists have the same right to create and critique. The law's role is not to be "for" pop music or "for" traditional music, but to guarantee a framework where all musical expression can compete and coexist fairly. The UK's complex history with music censorship (e.g., the "BBC ban list") versus its strong legal traditions of free expression illustrates this tension vividly.

The evidence from various jurisdictions suggests that societies with the strongest rule of law are those where the legal system is respected for its neutrality and predictability, not for favouring a specific group. This requires a culture that values sometimes-unpopular legal principles: the presumption of innocence, the right to a defence, and the independence of the judiciary from political and popular pressure. These are not laws "for" the defendant or the elite; they are laws for the *system's integrity*, which in the long run protects every citizen from capricious state power. A law passed in a fit of popular outrage, bypassing scrutiny, is often a law that can later be turned against the very people who cheered it.

Therefore, I encourage independent thought on this matter. Rather than accepting the seductive simplicity of "Hukum Untuk Rakyat," we must ask more demanding questions: Does this legal proposal enhance procedural justice for everyone, or just deliver a desired outcome for some? Does it strengthen institutional checks or concentrate power? Does it protect the minority voice as diligently as it enacts the majority's will? The true test of a legal system is not how it treats the popular cause of the day, but how it safeguards the rights of the most vulnerable and unpopular individual. That is a more difficult, less slogan-friendly ideal, but it is the bedrock upon which lasting justice for all—truly for *all* the rakyat—is built.