Much ado about bill

Much ado about bill

The controversy over the National Police bill, which erupted
on the eve of its passage into law by the House of
Representatives on Wednesday, suggests that the public has never
been given a chance to thoroughly scrutinize the legislation.
However, this lack of public debate is typical of other laws
previously passed by the House.

Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), in urging the
House to refrain from endorsing the bill, have warned that the
new legislation would virtually turn the National Police into an
omnipotent force without democratic checks and balances.

The fact that these NGOs, who are active in the promotion of
human rights, have only become aware of these inadequacies at
this very late stage, suggests that their comments were never
sought by the House during deliberation of the bill.

The NGOs, to some extent, could plead ignorance because they
were not consulted. In retrospect, however, they could have been
more proactive and made themselves heard, even if their opinions
were not solicited by the House.

The 23 House members who have promised to block passage of the
bill when it is taken to a plenary session on Wednesday, however,
could hardly plead ignorance about something that was going on
right under their noses. Four of these honorary members even sat
on the special committee deliberating the bill, meaning that they
were involved from start to finish.

While it is heartening to see that they are responding
positively to the calls by the NGOs to oppose the bill's passage,
their action suggests the poor caliber of our elected politicians
in drafting and producing the laws of the country.

The media, including yours truly, should also take some of the
blame for failing to keep the public abreast of the bill's
deliberations until it was almost ready for endorsement. This is
another one of those controversies that could have been avoided
if everyone, including the media, had done their jobs properly.

There is certainly a strong case for the House to postpone
passage of the bill into law.

The final version of the bill stipulates the various
authorities and powers of police in conducting essentially police
tasks. But where it is lacking the most is in mechanisms designed
to place checks and balances on police power. And with the
National Police chief solely accountable to the President, to
whom he or she also reports, the prospect of the police being
turned into a personal tool of the President becomes all too
real.

The bill calls for the establishment of a National Police
Commission, but its powers are limited and, since it also reports
to the President, it will not be an independent institution that
can control the powers of police.

The bill's other major point of contention concerns the
mandatory retirement age for police officers being extended from
55 to 58 year of age, and to 60 years for officers with rare
expertise. This supports the deep suspicions that many people in
this country hold regarding the present police leadership.

Critics argue that the clause was inserted to extend the terms
and powers of the existing leadership. Police argue that since
they are severely understaffed, with a police-to-population ratio
of 1:850, against the minimum ideal of 1:450, extending the
retirement age would ease the problem while the force beefs up
its personnel in the coming years. This deep mistrust of the
existing police leadership is deeply disturbing. If you can't
even trust the law enforcement agencies, who can you trust?

There is no doubt that we need a new regulatory framework now
that the National Police are no longer part of the Indonesian
Military. The police bill rightly recognizes the need for
Indonesia to move toward a strong civil society and the need to
protect human rights. Sadly, this spirit is not reflected in the
substance of the new legislation.

The bill needs further adjustment to take into account the
objections of the NGOs. If the House endorses it as it stands on
Wednesday, we hope President Megawati Soekarnoputri will not sign
it and instead send it back to the House for revision.

This exercise in democracy has not been a complete waste of
time as long as we have all learned a lesson: that everyone do
their job properly next time -- House members, NGOs and the
media.