Another draconian law

If the government of President B.J. Habibie has its way, its new National Security Law will be even more repressive, draconian and all encompassing than the 1963 Subversion Law it seeks to replace. Judging by the way the government is jamming this bill down the throat of the House of Representatives, it is obvious Habibie is bent on getting the law enacted before his tenure ends later this year.

Although introduced by Sukarno, the subversion law became the primary tool the autocratic Soeharto and his military used to crack down on political opponents and dissidents. He used it so effectively he could silence people who only gave the slightest hint of dissent. Hundreds, or more likely thousands, of people felt the brunt of the subversion law under Soeharto. Anything which resembled a threat to the state, or more precisely to his rule, was considered subversive. Thus he stayed in power for 32 years.

The bill on national security, which had its first reading in the House on Monday, goes even further. If enacted in its present form -- and we have no reason to believe the current House has the will, let alone the power, to alter or reject it -- the law would invest in the president and the military the power not only to declare a state of emergency, but even more frightening, to define what constitutes a national threat which requires the chief executive to make such a declaration.

The bill, at least according to the scant details available to the public so far, states that the president can declare a state of civil or military emergency after consulting with the National Security Council. As pointed out by human rights groups and legal experts, the president would effectively be "talking to himself" since the council is filled with his appointees. Under a state of emergency, the government will have overriding powers, including the power to arrest people considered threats to the state. In the wrong hands, this law will give the government carte blanche to do whatever they feel necessary to maintain their hold on power, including clamping down on anyone and everyone they feel is a threat to them.

Going by the comments of Coordinating Minister for Political Affairs and Security Gen. (ret) Feisal Tandjung during the first reading of the bill, proponents of federalism would be the first targets of the law. According to Feisal, federalism, like communism and Marxism, is a threat to the security of the nation and the state. Amien Rais and his National Mandate Party, all the students in Aceh and current Aceh Governor Syamsuddin Mahmud would, under the new law, be considered threats to the state for openly suggesting a federal system of government as an alternative to the current over-centralized unitary system. One hates to think what punishment would await these people for simply airing their view of an alternative system of government.

Since defending the unitary state is one of the main objectives of the legislation, we can expect no change in the way the government and military approach the problem of regional discontent. So we can look forward to more repressive measures in the regions. The lessons of East Timor, Aceh and Irian Jaya have obviously failed to make an impression on our leaders, who still do not understand that not only is their brutal approach to dissension ineffective, it is also counterproductive. The military, through its violent operations in these regions, is as, if not more so, culpable for sowing the seeds of disintegration and separation.

Like the dozens of pieces of legislation being deliberated by the House, the national security bill will be steamrolled through with little or no public debate. Yet, as the provisional results of last month's elections show, the House has lost all legitimate claims to represent the people. Its authority in deliberating and endorsing all pending bills is questionable. All the House is doing is rubber-stamping the policies of a government which has even less legitimacy and credibility than it does.

The government's obsession with rushing this particular bill through the House raises the question of its real motive in drafting this bill. If it foresees an imminent danger to the nation which would require the drastic powers this bill grants the president, then certainly the public deserves an explanation.

Deliberating the national security bill may seem a pointless exercise since it will be among the first laws to be repealed by the next, democratically elected House. But it is not necessarily an exercise in frivolity for Habibie and his administration.

The urgency with which the government is treating this bill raises speculation that there is a more immediate goal behind the national security law than investing power in the next president, who will not necessarily be Habibie. If approved and enacted during the remaining days of Habibie's tenure, the legislation would place immense power in the hands of Habibie and Indonesian Military Commander Gen. Wiranto. They will be, if they wan to, in a position to subvert the entire democratic process in the name of national security. That is a very scary thought.