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.