On police and military

On police and military

From Rakyat Merdeka

Why should we be in a rush to enact the bill on Police affairs, which is part of the enforcement law of the 1945 Constitution, while the amendment to the constitution itself is not yet finalized?

I think there is something fishy about the intentions of some officials in relation to the extended tenure of the National Police Chief as well as the postponed pension for members of the police force.

My suggestion is that it is much better to finalize the defense bill prior to the police bill for a clearer distinction between the roles of the military and the police.

It is difficult to expect the police officers, who are clearly "non-military troops", to secure the country's hot spots, like Aceh, as they are more used to gunning down unarmed robbers most of the time. Instead of arresting members of the Aceh Freedom Movement, they build posts to collect fees from passing trucks. No wonder the unsympathetic locals drive them away.

Further confusion abounds in interpretations of competence. A Brimob (mobile brigade police corps member) regards the armed rebellion as an internal security matter and thus it is within his jurisdiction, while a military officer states that it is his duty as it is closely connected with national integrity.

Before bills on Police affairs and defense are enacted, I also suggest that the contents of both be widely communicated to the public for inputs and opinions, so that no more doubts will arise in the future.

MOH. RASUL T

Jakarta