Bali tragedy the last wake-up call for govt

Bali tragedy the last wake-up call for govt

While the credibility of President Megawati Soekarnoputri's
administration is at stake both abroad and at home, Cabinet
members have yet to be united in dealing with further threats of
terror. Human rights activist Todung Mulya Lubis shares his
opinion with The Jakarta Post's Soeryo Winoto.

Question: Has the Cabinet shown enough of a response as yet to
the tragedy in Bali?

Answer: The response is virtually invisible. We have empirical
evidence that terror is in front of our eyes. Some people's
statements, that there is no terrorism in Indonesia, ignore the
facts. In a lawless country like Indonesia political
determination and poor law enforcement have contributed much to
the growth of terrorism. There is much space for terrorism (to
grow) in the country. We are living in fear, finding it difficult
to get a safe place to stay. Bali, previously dubbed as the most
tranquil and peaceful area, was finally destroyed by the
catastrophic bombs, so was Manado (North Sulawesi).

Couldn't the government rebuild its image and credibility
through its response to the tragedy?

The tragedy was the last wake-up call for the government. If
the government fails to take proper action to deal with this it
shall pay a very high price. The government will pay all the
political, economic, security and other social costs if the last
wake-up call is ignored. The government (Cabinet members) must be
more unified and solid or else history and the people will blame
them as being guilty by omission. The Cabinet members must take
this all into account.

The government has vowed to be united to fight against
terrorism. But reports said that the Cabinet was fragmented. How
do you see this?

In such incidents we are usually deluged by a mind-set to
blame certain parties, such as the CIA, al-Qaeda etc. This is
just the reflection of the country's failure to produce
statesmen, meaning that all leaders are just politicians who put
their own and their political parties' interests above the
nation's concern. They do something and speak for the sake of
themselves and their parties. No wonder the people are splintered
into groups.

Shouldn't Cabinet members have examined their respective
positions and reached an agreement before claiming their united
stance against terrorism?

According to common assumptions, a government is united. A
government is one. Therefore, the Cabinet meeting decision must
be one. Thank God we are now living in a democratic climate,
however, democracy must not create or produce a destructive
outcome. We must shun such a fragile and damaging democracy.

To be able to claim a unified stance against terrorism it
seems the results reached by the Cabinet meeting should be taken
to the House of Representatives for approval before being
introduced to the people. Only then could the government claim a
unified move to fight terrorism at all layers of society. What do
you think?

The (ideal) procedures should be like that. But we are talking
about a weak government. The executives are weak and fragmented.
The executives are a mixture of (political) party people. (In the
House) political fragmentation and polarization has been dominant
so far. Our election system has not produced qualified leaders
which could produce strong and stable government.

The ideas on a direct presidential election will give us new
political stage. The President will no longer depend on the
(political) party. He or she can set a Cabinet without "flirting"
with political parties. So far the general election has yet to
produce good leaders.

You mean that the people have always been victimized?

The people have become the victims. In the last four years
people have just been overjoyed with free press, freedom in
setting up political parties and freedom of speech. The rest are
suffering.

Will the antiterrorism bill curb terrorism in the country once
it is passed into law by the House?

I think we all agree on having an antiterrorism law. But the
human rights and legal achievements should not be victimized once
we apply the antiterrorism law. Antiterrorism moves must still
respect civil rights and individual legal rights. There must be a
careful effort to combine the two interests.

Do you see any priority in rehabilitating Bali after the
carnage?

The impact of the blast is not only at the regional level. The
macro economy and the share prices were rocked by the tragedy.
The impact is at the local, national and global level. Bali has
magic and exclusiveness. However, it needs time and high
investment to mend the world confidence on Bali.

The economic growth of Bali must have been stricken. The
government must make a clear stance and plan on the disaster or
else the government will lose more of its credibility.

Bali, heaven for tourists, was one of our "last bastions" in
such an economic crisis. An observer once asked whether Indonesia
would still exist in the next one or two decades while we would
have nothing left to be sold or to be proud of. Is such a
question still relevant?

The question is still very relevant. Public dissatisfaction
could turn into a motion of no confidence (against the
government). This would lead to a very dangerous move which could
tear the country apart. The ineffective government is our
problem.

The government has always failed to solve the problem because
it is the government which is the main problem.