Anti-terrorism bill fails to impress legislators

Kurniawan Hari, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Legislators rejected on Thursday some articles in the government-sponsored antiterrorism bill which, it was widely feared, would justify human rights abuses.

They said they would call for a revision of those articles as soon as the bill was submitted to the House of Representatives (DPR) for deliberation.

"The articles will have to be revised," said Burhan Djabir Magenda, a member of House Commission I for defense and security affairs.

Fellow legislator Chozin Chumaidy added, "We will scrap any articles that are not in conformity with human rights values," in a telephone interview with The Jakarta Post.

The legislators were commenting on the antiterrorism bill, which is currently being drafted by the justice and human rights ministry. The bill will be presented to the House for deliberation next year.

A controversial article in the bill stipulates that a suspected terrorist does not have the right to be represented by a lawyer, to refuse interrogation, to be freed on bail or to establish contact with any other person, including relatives.

The team is working on a second draft, which would require differentiation in the treatment between local and foreign terrorist suspects. Indonesians would be prosecuted in accordance with Criminal Code procedures and foreigners under the strict antiterrorist law.

Head of the law-drafting team Romli Atmasasmita has acknowledged the team was aware that the article infringed basic rights but was necessary to deter terrorism.

The team wished to protect the basic rights of potential victims of terrorism in preference to the rights of terrorists themselves.

Burhan said, however, that a suspected terrorist still needed advice from a lawyer to ensure that his rights were being respected.

He emphasized that application of the law should be the same for anyone, as with any other law.

Critics say that the bill was reminiscent of the now-defunct law No. 23/1959 on subversion. In 1999, the government prepared a bill that dealt with states of emergency. The bill, considered just as repressive and passed into law by the House, was suspended due to public pressure.

Among the articles in that bill was the authority granted to the military in a state of emergency to ban public access to communications and information media for the sake of national unity.