Lawyers question internal security bill
Lawyers question internal security bill
JAKARTA (JP): A group of human rights lawyers and activists
urged the House of Representatives yesterday to take the lead
from the military in drafting the proposed internal security
bill.
The activists, led by lawyer Adnan Buyung Nasution, met with
two members of the Armed Forces (ABRI) faction, to present a
statement which also called on the House to review the 1963
Subversion Law.
But the discussion focused on the military's plan to introduce
the internal security bill, with the activists questioning the
objective of such legislation.
Buyung said such an act was not needed in a democratic state.
He questioned whether the purported objective of the
legislation was really to empower the government to deal with
major crises that could endanger national unity.
A crisis for the government was not necessarily a crisis for
the nation, he said.
The government also has the potential of becoming a threat to
the people, he said, citing authoritarian government and
dictatorships as examples.
ABRI Sociopolitical Affairs Chief Lt. Gen. Syarwan Hamid
disclosed in September that the military was preparing a draft an
internal security bill. He said the military had been drafting
the legislation for 10 years.
It is not clear whether the proposed law is intended to
replace the subversion law, currently the subject of mounting
opposition, including from the National Commission on Human
Rights.
The 1963 law has proved effective in stifling government
opponents and critics.
Syarwan did not disclose the content of the proposed internal
security bill, but many experts believe it will be similar to the
ones used in Singapore and Malaysia, where the government is
empowered to detain a person for up to two years without trial in
the name of national security.
Syarwan argued that the proposed legislation was deemed
necessary in anticipation of escalating security disturbances.
Buyung and his colleagues said that if Indonesia was to have
an internal security act, then its drafting should be transparent
and not infringe on human rights.
They said the House should take the initiative rather than
leaving it to the government to draft the bill.
ABRI faction representative Brig. Gen. Moeljono A.R. declined
to comment on the proposed bill, saying that he had not received
the draft.
Lawyer Dadang Trisasongko was appalled at the lack of
transparency in the way the bill is being drafted, by even
excluding members of the House of Representatives.
"Where is the people's participation?" he asked. (05)