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.