TNI seeks way back through security bill<\/p>\n
The controversial government-proposed state security bill
\nfound its way smoothly to the House of Representatives and is
\nscheduled to be passed on Thursday. State administration legal
\nexpert M. Mahfud MD of Yoygakarta's Islamic University talked
\nabout the issue with The Jakarta Post.<\/p>\n
Question: Why do you think the government and the House of
\nRepresentatives insist on deliberating and approving the state
\nsecurity bill in such a short time despite mounting calls to drop
\nit?<\/p>\n
Answer: That's indeed been everybody's question and there are
\nat least two reasons why such a question emerges. First, we have
\nlimited time to discuss a bill affecting human rights. Second, we
\nalready have a law to anticipate a state of emergency.<\/p>\n
The government probably considered the existing law obsolete.
\nAlso, I am afraid it is getting ready for the upcoming People's
\nConsultative Assembly's General Session (which will elect a
\npresident).<\/p>\n
Q: What preparation do you mean?<\/p>\n
A: The government thinks that the General Session needs a legal
\ninstrument to silence all accumulated aspirations that may
\ndisturb the continuity of the existing government.<\/p>\n
My concern is that if different aspirations accumulate,
\nfollowed by a chaotic situation, the military could step forward
\nand take control and announce that the country is in a perilous
\nsituation.<\/p>\n
Yet if the government and the House acknowledged (the interest
\nof) the people, it would certainly drop the bill. Approving the
\nbill is of no use; the people have rejected it.<\/p>\n
Q: What is your opinion of the bill?<\/p>\n
A: In the long term, the bill certainly threatens human rights.
\nIt allows the authorities to take any measure in which the
\nmilitary is given a dominant role.<\/p>\n
If the House (DPR) approves it, I can assure you that all the
\nprogress we have achieved both in political laws and democracy
\nwill be useless (e.g. the law on composition of the legislative
\nbodies gives fewer House seats to nonelected military members).
\nThis is the danger of which we all should be aware.<\/p>\n
In other words, we can say that the military's dominance in
\nthe country's social and political life, which has been gradually
\nreduced through various laws, would be restored through the state
\nsecurity bill. The military is trying to make an even wider
\nentrance for itself.<\/p>\n
What is also my concern is the use of \"state terrorism\";
\ntheory has it that in trying to get a powerful hold of the
\ncountry, a state sometimes makes a law that can be used as a
\nlegal instrument to take an action.<\/p>\n
To be able to take the action, however, it creates riots
\nwithin a community through intelligence operations. Certain
\ngroups of the community are incited to riot and then it (the
\nmilitary) can announce that the state is in a perilous situation.<\/p>\n
Q: Could you elaborate on that?<\/p>\n
A: Such a theory is commonly used by developing countries. I am
\nworried Indonesia is going to apply this theory.<\/p>\n
If it has no intention of doing so, the government (and the
\nmilitary) should forget the bill. If it insists on doing so, we
\ncan say that it will certainly apply the above theory.<\/p>\n
Q: Legislators have said they have changed the clause regarding
\nwho the president can consult, which they said would have to be
\nthe DPR...<\/p>\n
A: That would be good... The DPR should be given the right to
\ngive advice should the president need to announce that the
\ncountry is in a perilous situation.<\/p>\n
At least, there should be an institution, it could be the
\nSupreme Court or others, to do the job. An ad-hoc institution (as
\nmentioned in the previous draft) is completely unacceptable.<\/p>\n
But much more needs to be tackled. The law will leave little
\nspace for citizens; among other things, travel could be banned.
\nAnything can be done by the authorities without legal process.<\/p>\n
Q: What should we do about the bill?<\/p>\n
A: The best thing to do would be for the House to stop
\ndeliberating it immediately.<\/p>\n
The present situation is not conducive. Let the new
\nlegislators discuss the matter. We realize that a state needs a
\nlegal instrument to take an emergency action. But we already have
\none.<\/p>\n
Why should we be rushing in to make a new one? It would be
\nmore comprehensive if it was left to the new legislators. They
\nwould have plenty of time.<\/p>\n
Besides, I also see that the previous law (based on a 1959
\nrule) was generally more benevolent than this bill ... The
\ncurrent bill gives authority to the effect of security personnel
\nmeddling in labor conflicts. For instance a clause says a strike
\ncan be prohibited.<\/p>\n
The existing law also requires the president to spend a longer
\ntime contemplating matters, and to listen to more varied
\nconsulting institutions, before declaring a state of emergency.<\/p>\n
Q: What if the House approves the bill regardless of the calls to
\nreject it?<\/p>\n
A: That would be a bitter reality we'd be forced to swallow for
\nthe umpteenth time from the current \"government of reform\".
\nIf that were the case, I suggest the new legislators convene as
\nsoon as possible to cancel the law. Let's just hope that it won't
\nbe too late to do so. (swa)<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/tni-seeks-way-back-through-security-bill-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}