Back to the Soeharto years?

Back to the Soeharto years?

The government has shut down one foreign non-governmental
organization (NGO) in Jakarta and is closely monitoring 19
others, including local ones, citing that reports they have made
could disrupt stability.

The news came to light during a House of Representatives
hearing on May 25 when the National Intelligence Agency (BIN)
chief said the NGOs had been working to disrupt the presidential
election on July 5. The police are now gathering evidence to
support the government's action. Until such evidence is revealed,
the public is left guessing as to the real reason behind this
unprecedented move.

Official statements regarding the news have been too general
and, at times, intimidating. It was said that the NGO reports had
provoked people, caused public disturbance, sowed hatred against
the government and sold out the country to foreigners. BIN chief
Lt. Gen. (ret) AM Hendropriyono did not rule out the use of "old
measures" against dissenting elements, a vague reference to the
capital punishment or elimination that existed during the 32
years of Soeharto's iron-fisted rule.

Only two of 20 NGOs have been identified by the government so
far: the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM) and
the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG). Both have
denied the charges, with Ifdhal Kasim of ELSAM saying that his
NGO had never broken the law. "Our criticisms are based on
scientific analysis, because they are intended for policy makers,
not the general public," he told this newspaper. Sydney Jones, a
respected human rights activist who is the director of
Indonesia's ICG, said that the government had effectively forced
her NGO to close down on May 10 and refused to extend her work
permit, as well as those of other foreign staff. She said the
government had not given any specific reason for the closure.

To many, the crackdown on NGOs is both something disturbingly
familiar and a worrying sign. Should such a thing have occurred
during the Soeharto years, no eyebrows would have been raised
because the suppression of critics or dissidents was all too
common at that time. Critics were labeled as communists or
antidevelopment or subversive and faced possible detention or
elimination. Indeed, some Soeharto critics are still unaccounted
for even today. The intimidation and rhetoric used, like "selling
out the country to foreigners", harks back to the New Order
government.

We are not against attempts to establish stability. Indeed,
the government's efforts in this respect should be supported,
especially as the presidential election is looming. What we are
against is the manner in which this whole affair has been
handled. Too many examples in the past have showed that what was
being aired by critics during the Soeharto years turned out to be
true. In stamping out critics, the New Order government was very
often trying to maintain its own grip on power. Similarities with
the current episode are therefore worrying.

Governments in the past had a poor track record in revealing
the truth. What really happened and who was responsible for the
May 1998 riots, for example, the Tanjung Priok killings in 1984
or the 1965 pogroms? It is still unclear. Too many dark episodes
in this nation's history remain unresolved.

It is debatable how dangerous the reports by an NGO can be. If
they are biased or untrue, could a more elegant response not be
offered, such as a meeting with the NGOs concerned? Can truth not
be achieved via a concerted effort? Isn't the tireless pursuit of
the root causes of sociopolitical problems an attribute of a
modern nation?

Indonesia is a large country facing huge challenges. The
government is ill-equipped to rebuild this battered nation. In
any democracy the role of NGOs cannot be ignored. In many ways
they help the government to shed light on a lot of issues -- a
role that should be assumed by the press. However, the press has
to deal with too many issues at any given time, and until it can
focus on particular issues it cannot replace the contribution
made by NGOs. They are good at drawing attention to specific
issues and usually do so relentlessly.

What is worrying in this whole affair is the tendency of the
authorities to claim a monopoly on the truth, a trait not
uncommon in authoritarian states. Should the government fail to
respond to this issue in a more appropriate way, it would be very
difficult to deny that we were returning to the practices of a
former, repressive government. Civil liberties are under dire
threat.