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