Eka Nugraha Putra – Ahead of Indonesia's Independence Day, viral photos and videos of people waving the Jolly Roger cartoon pirate flag from the popular Japanese anime 'One Piece' broke the internet.
The trend was reportedly initiated by a group of truck drivers to protest a new rule on truck loading. It was then picked up by social media users and used as a symbol of resistance against the state. Murals depicting the symbol have now been spotted in several areas in Indonesia. People even hoisted the 'One Piece' flag under the Indonesian red-and-white flag, as the country commemorated 80 years of independence from Dutch colonialism on the 17th of August.
The Japanese anime is not the first piece of pop culture to be appropriated by Indonesians to express their political views (and Indonesians are not the first to use it). Indonesians have often referred to their country as 'Konoha' (from another Japanese anime, Naruto) or 'Wakanda' (from Marvel's The Black Panther) to highlight everything that is wrong with the way their country is governed.
But the government has reacted strongly to the 'One Piece' trend, with many officials calling it treasonous and an attempt to polarise society. Government officials have repeatedly invoked the notion of makar (treason) to crush political dissent. It would not be surprising if the state again uses treason prosecutions as a draconian way to put an end to the pirate flag protests.
The unclear meaning of 'makar'
One of the reasons why treason prosecutions are so problematic in Indonesia is that the legal term for it, makar, is in fact a loan word from Arabic, which means 'a deceitful plan'. As a plot, it is, therefore, not a fully completed act. This definition informs the legal applications of the makar provisions in the current Criminal Code, which are far from coherent.
All the relevant provisions of the Code (Articles 104 to 107) refer to makar with the intent to do a particular act. In Article 104, the act includes the intent to harm or kill the Indonesian President and Vice President or prevent them from ruling. Article 105 was revoked by Law No. 1 of 1946 on Criminal Law Regulation. Article 106 refers to makar with the intent of causing part or whole of the country to fall into the hands of enemies or part of it to split off. Article 107 refers to makar with the intent of toppling the government.
But it is not clear whether intent to perform these acts – the plot – is enough, or whether the actual act is required too. Government interpretations usually rely heavily on mere intent to perform the acts, and interpret 'intent' very broadly and loosely to make it possible to prosecute individuals for simply expressing dissent.
One notable case occurred in 2007, when Johan Teterisa and 21 other activists were arrested for waving the 'Benang Raja' flag of the Republic of South Maluku (RMS) separatist movement. However, unlike the original RMS rebellion, which used violence, Johan was only guilty of hoisting a flag – there was no evidence of involvement in any plot, let alone a violent one. His actions clearly did not incite any imminent threat and, on its own, raising a flag can hardly be said to be a plot to topple the government, split part of the country off, hand the country to enemies, or kill the president. It therefore should not be classified as treason. Despite this, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Another case in 2016 involved three leaders of the Gafatar religious movement. Gafatar had been known for a plan to establish an Islamic State, but the organisation had transformed and refocused on religious values. The leaders were nonetheless accused of treason and blasphemy for their religious teachings. They were acquitted of treason, but convicted of blasphemy.
These two cases highlight how the makar laws can be used to criminalise peaceful expressions of opposition or even of unconventional beliefs.
Unfortunately, the new Criminal Code, set to take effect in January 2026, does not resolve these problems. Although Article 160 of the Code defines makar as intent that is complemented by preparation for an actual attack, it lacks clear limits on what constitutes such intent to attack and preparatory action. Article 160 maintains the vague meaning of makar, and thus the possibility of criminalising mere political expression, such as flying the 'One Piece' flag.
Reforming the makar laws
Threats of makar prosecutions made by officials reacting repressively to the 'One Piece' flag protests reflect two big problems. First, many public officials do not understand the distinction between protected and unprotected expressions of opinion, which leads them to call any opinion they dislike illegal.
Second, freedom of expression is still under threat from laws that can be used to overly restrict freedom of expression. 80 years after Indonesia's independence and 27 years after Reformasi, Indonesians continue to face the risk of unnecessary prosecution for simply expressing their opinions.
The current draconian treason laws do not reflect the Indonesian government's obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of the people. Rather than tracing the cause of dissenting expressions and taking steps to resolve the underlying problems, the government too often simply chooses to prosecute those who express them.
Treason should be clearly redefined as a specific and actionable offence and restricted to situations with imminent impact. It must meet the highest threshold of national emergency or threat. Mere critical expressions of opinion – waving a cartoon Jolly Roger flag for example – should not meet the threshold.