Definition of terrorism opens to abuse: Experts
Yogita Tahilramani, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
The definition of terrorism currently being promoted by the government in its antiterrorism bill opens the door to abuse through the potential labeling of any political activity considered a threat by the state as terrorism.
Noted rights activist and lawyer Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara said on Monday that the bill, which defines terrorism as the "use of violence or threats of violence for political purposes or with a political background," opens the door to a range of damaging interpretations.
Apart from destruction of property and threats to life, Article 1 of the bill also describes terrorist acts as those which create fear among the general public.
There are worries that such a loose definition could easily be exploited to incriminate opposing political movements that are deemed "threatening".
In his written presentation at a seminar on the draft bill, Hakim said Indonesia's definition of terrorism was as ambiguous as the Arab convention on terrorism eradication, which, he said, also had the dangerous potential of "repressing innocent people whose only sin would be, for instance, to have an affiliation with an opposition party, which incidentally uses violence."
The Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States have served as a rallying cry for many governments around the world to act against terrorist movements and introduce measures which would give the state additional powers to swiftly deal with suspected terrorist elements.
The Indonesian government in recent months has often cited its lack of such a powerful law as grounds for not acting against alleged terrorist elements in the country.
Under the current bill, a task force -- comprised of the police, the military, the Attorney General's Office and the National Intelligence Agency-- would be formed to fight terrorism.
Those suspected of terrorist activities could be detained for up to 360 days.
During investigation, a suspect could also be denied the rights common in regular legal proceedings such as the right to a lawyer and outside contact, including with family members.
Hakim urged further clarification in the bill on the roles of the primary perpetrators, the accomplices, supporters and funders.
The definition must not lead to multiple interpretations that could confuse law enforcers, he said.
Coordinating Minister for Political and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who opened Monday's seminar, conceded that there was debate over "security interests versus civil liberties".
However, this did not change the fact that Indonesia was a nation state and was obligated in every aspect to maintain its national security, he said.
"We must be careful not to place human rights in the context of drafting this bill, as an absolute ... and therefore allow the nation to be reduced to chaos or instability," Susilo argued.
Criminologist Mulyana W. Kusumah, who also spoke at the seminar, suggested that Indonesia compare similar antiterrorist laws in other democratic nations, citing India, which had just passed one last week, as a possible example.
The Indian Prevention of Terrorism Act allows the police to detain suspects for questioning for three months without charge and an additional three months with approval from a special court.
The act also allows anyone suspected of giving money, shelter, transportation or other support to terrorists to be tried on terrorism charges.