Clear-cut separation needed between police and military
JAKARTA (JP): Observers have called for the prompt issuance of regulations to clearly define the respective functions of the military and police so as to avoid the kind of overlapping that has frequently sparked conflicts between the two organizations.
Koesparmono Irsan and Munir joined the chorus on Thursday saying that the conflict between the military and police had reached an alarming level, not only because of the increasing number of clashes, but also because of the increasing number of personnel at all levels involved in the clashes.
Koesparmono Irsan, a lecturer in the Police College (PTIK), and Munir, a founder of the National Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), urged the military to improve its defense capabilities and renounce all its long-held territorial functions.
"The soldiers should go back to the barracks and the police shed their militaristic image so as to end the smoldering conflict between them," Koesparmono said.
Koesparmono, a former police general, stressed that a back-to- the-barracks policy would help the military to improve its professionalism and would also be able to prevent a worsening of the conflict between the police and the military.
"The presence of soldiers in districts and sub-districts is questionable as the territorial function is no longer relevant," said Koesparmono, who is also a member of the National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).
Sharing his view, Munir, who is also a human rights activist, told The Jakarta Post that it was high time for the Indonesian Military to abandon all its territorial functions "as this has been the root of the problem so far."
Both Koesparmono and Munir, however, said that the police should also consider their own failings, abandon their militaristic style and start to focus on efforts to improve their professionalism as public servants.
Munir also said that at the present there was no clear cut division of functions between the police and the military although officially they had been separated for two years.
He said Indonesia needed several legislative provisions, including laws on the national police, the military, and on national defense, so as to institute a clear separation between military and police functions.
He said that after the official separation of the police from the military, the police should have become fully responsible for security affairs, while the military, to some extent, should back up the police.
But in reality, the military personnel were always more dominant than the police officers in most operations, he added.
"Therefore, clashes between military and police personnel often take place when they are involved in joint security operations in troubled areas," explained Munir.
Koesparmono stressed the need for police officers to abandon their militaristic style. "In this way they could adjust themselves to the new paradigm where they serve the people in security matters."
"We still often see police officers using a militaristic approach when dealing with the public," he said.
Meanwhile, National Resilience Agency (Lemhanas) Governor Ermaya Suradinata said his organization had also discussed the future of the national police after its separation from the Indonesian Military (TNI).
Discourses developed during the Lemhanas discussions included the possibility of the National Police coming under the auspices of the Ministry of Home Affairs, as in China, Russia, and Thailand.
Ermaya further said that in line with the implementation of regional autonomy, there was also a possibility that the police could come under the authority of the regional administrations.
Koesparmono, however, said that the question of whichever institution was responsible for the National Police was not of major relevance in resolving the conflict between the police and military.
"The most important thing is that both sides consider their failings and sort out their own internal affairs," he added. (02)