Key to win war on terror

Key to win war on terror

Ridwan Max Sijabat, Staff Writer, Ridwan@thejakartapost.com, Jakarta

Unlike Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore seem to have obtained
good lessons on social order and legal certainty from their
British colonizers. Indonesia, some historians reveal, inherited
a corrupt and permissive culture from the Dutch colonial rulers
who frequently colluded with the local bureaucracy and Chinese
businesspeople to further their political and business interests.

For the people and governments in Malaysia and Singapore, law
enforcement and legal certainty is absolutely necessary to
maintain social order and achieve advancements while for
Indonesia legal certainty still depends on the situation.

The two countries have so far remained fairly safe from any
terrorist attacks and they are cautious in taking preventative
measures against the increasing terror threat in Southeast Asia.
This is not so much thanks to the established formal legal and
security system in Malaysia and Singapore, but more because of
the people's common awareness of the importance of law
enforcement and of public order for their own sake.

Is it necessary for Indonesia to adopt an Internal Security
Act (ISA) or to revise the newly enacted Law No. 15/2003 on
terrorism? The answer lies in how far Indonesians have a common
awareness of security issues, not merely by giving the police or
military more power in fighting terrorism, as officials and
legislators have suggested.

Basically, the antiterrorism law, to some extent, is better
than the ISA in Malaysia and Singapore because it is, in legal
terms, lex specialis, one which applies to specific persons. On
the other hand the ISA in these countries is a lex generalis that
could be abused for the benefit of an authoritarian regime.

This in effect means that the law gives power to security
personnel (police, intelligence agencies and attorneys) to arrest
suspected terrorists for 20 days, which could be extended for
another six months, without any evidence. As it requires strong
evidence, the new Indonesian law cannot be abused by the
government to arrest political dissidents or to "kill" its
political rivals.

Comparably, the ISA gives the authority to the security
authorities to arrest all those suspected of disrupting security
and political stability or jeopardizing the state -- the
interpretation of which lies in the hands of those in power.

The problem is actually not the ISA or the legal system but
that Indonesia seems less confident about its own law and in
seeking to revise the new law, as always, seeks a scapegoat
outside itself.

Building common awareness of national security issues requires
the government including the security authorities and the House
to empower the existing system by involving as many parties as
possible.

Yet adopting the Soeharto model of a military-supported
security system would not be the answer; it created stability and
security on the surface only, but people were victimized.

While the House is revising the legislation, the government
should start deploying people to maintain security and public
order by reviving for instance the neighborhood security system
that requires visitors to report once in 24 hours when they enter
a certain area and/or village. This system was very effective in
strengthening the Japanese defense against the allied forces and
its three-year-and half occupation in the country from 1942 to
1945.

Under this system, all housing areas and villages are required
to have direct contact and coordination with security authorities
in maintaining security and public order and providing
preliminary information on potential disturbance.

Jamaah Islamiyah's suspected members who were recently
arrested by the police would not have been able to rent a house
in Semarang, Central Java, if such a security system was in
place. Likewise suspected terrorists could be detected if such a
system is revived.

In revising the antiterror law, the House should play a
strategic and important role to empower the National Police in
handling security and public order and not the Indonesian
Military.

Terrorism is a serious threat, which falls under police
jurisdiction as stipulated by the amended 1945 Constitution.
Therefore, the police should be given a larger budget to train
terrorism experts and detectives and to purchase more equipment.

The House and the government could lobby the military
leadership to discuss a possible transfer of the military's
experts and trained personnel who are not fully utilized, to
strengthen the police in its counterterrorism program as well as
to maintain the military's professionalism.

Such a move was conducted by the United States when a number
of its soldiers formerly deployed in the Vietnam war were
transferred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Reinforcing the authority of the police and the military is
part of building a civil society. Giving the military more power
in handling security, including counterterrorism, could lessen
the role of the police and bring the military back into politics,
since the security approach could be politicized for its
political interests. The House should play a central role in
ensuring that the main role of the police in domestic security is
strengthened.