Human rights and terrorism

Although deliberations in the House of Representatives on the government-proposed draft law on terrorism are far from over, fears currently circulating among the Indonesian public that the new law, if or when it is passed and enacted, will to some lesser or greater degree herald a return to the days of military- dominated authoritarian rule are difficult to quell. And little wonder.

It was little more than three years ago that Indonesians managed to throw off their shackles after more than 32 years of authoritarian rule under president Soeharto's New Order. Having paid the price in much bloodshed and suffering, Indonesians seem to find little consolation in the fact that the revised draft currently being debated in the national legislature promises that "local" terrorists -- that is to say, Indonesians involved in activities defined as acts of terrorism but with no political motives and with no links to foreign or international networks -- will be tried in accordance with the stipulations of the Indonesian penal code.

The stark reality, however, is that acts of terrorism are difficult to define with precision, although the effects are tangible enough, and Indonesians are understandably reluctant to delegate too much power to the government, given their experience of the recent past.

In the draft currently before the legislature, the definition of terrorism includes endangering or threatening the lives of others, destruction of property, depriving others of their personal freedom and creating widespread fear in the community.

Abductions are punishable with prison terms ranging from four to 12 years. Spreading fear in the community for political purposes is punishable by five to 15 years in prison, and politically motivated acts of violence that cause the death of others or the destruction of property are threatened with prison terms of five to 20 years or in extreme cases with the death penalty.

Another reason for much concern and misgivings is the proposed establishment under the law of a so-called anti-terrorist task force with wide-ranging powers. This task force would be formed by presidential decree and led by the chief of the national police. Among other things, the task force would be empowered to tap telephone conversations of suspected terrorists and detain people, without due legal process, for up to 90 days, extendible to three times that period. In short, for many Indonesians the proposed task force is an unwelcome reminder of Kopkamtib, that all-powerful security agency of the Soeharto era.

On the other hand, Indonesians hanker after a return to the old days of peace and tranquility, when sectarian violence was as good as unknown and life for the majority of people was by and large easy. Most Indonesians do see the need for some kind of legislation to enable the authorities to keep troublemakers in check -- but not at the price of losing their newly acquired democratic reforms once again.

Besides, Indonesia is a signatory to the UN anti-terrorist convention and is therefore obliged to take concrete actions in the global fight against terrorism. Indonesia, in short, is caught in the same dilemma being faced by most other countries in the civilized world. It must find the right balance between democratic freedoms and national security.

This is not an easy task. The one thing we can hope for is that wisdom and good statesmanship will prevail among both our legislators and the authorities in order to arrive at a formulation that benefits both the nation and the individual citizens of this country. Let us not forget that the fight against terrorism is an extension of the fight to uphold the most basic of human rights of the population as a whole.