Opposition mounts over new security bill

JAKARTA (JP): More opposition has been voiced against the bill on state security, currently being deliberated by the House of Representatives (DPR), with some observers calling it a trick to return to military rule.

Observers interviewed separately in Jakarta Yogyakarta and the South Sulawesi capital of Ujungpandang, insisted that the bill, which was initiated by the Ministry of Defense and Security, would trample on civilian's rights if endorsed.

"The bill would effectively kill freedom of the press," Leo Batubara of the Association of Indonesian Publishers (SPS) told the media after attending a session on a new bill on a free press.

Batubara argued that by introducing the bill on state security, the government nullified whatever good it was doing by launching the press bill. "The press bill promises freedom of the press, which the bill on state security would again take away," he said as quoted by Antara.

He demanded that chapters in the bill on state security that seek to grant the government and the military the ability to gag the press in the event of perceived threats to state security be abolished.

The existence of such chapters would allow the power holders and the military to do whatever they wanted to do, whatever they deemed was right, without any control from the media, Batubara said.

"What would then emerge is a fascist country with power holders and the military tending to violate human rights," he said. "We are effectively returning to the New Order era."

Human rights activist Bambang Widjojanto said in Ujungpandang the House should drop the bill altogether, or run the risk of endorsing a document which would only justify past and present atrocities by the military, be they in Aceh or elsewhere in the country.

"I have the feeling the military is consolidating its forces with and through this bill. Therefore, we must reject the bill," Bambang urged.

"Many people don't understand the content of the bill, which will actually lead to more repression of the people," he said.

The bill stipulates the president has the authority to declare a state of emergency in troubled territories. The president also is allowed to delegate his or her authority to the military, which is given a free rein to handle threats to state security.

It allows the military to carry out investigations and raids, and take over all mail, telecommunications and electronic facilities. An emergency also allows a ban or limitation on demonstrations and public exposure through print and electronic media.

In the event of a state of emergency, the bill says, the military chief would be permitted to resort to any measures, such as barring demonstrations, which violates existing laws.

The military would have the full authority to prevent individuals from entering or leaving the country, isolate "troubled individuals and areas" and set curfews.

Also in Ujungpandang, legal expert Achmad Ali at the Hasanuddin University agreed the public should be united in their stance and reject the bill.

"We should establish a People's Security Bill rather than a State Security Bill which clearly does not side with the people's interests," Achmad said.

Minister of Security and Defense/Indonesian Military (TNI) Commander Gen. Wiranto argued on Monday that state security acts are common in many other countries including the United States, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Pakistan, Japan and China.

Military observer Samsu Risal Panggabean of the Gadjah Mada University's Center for Peace and Security Studies said in Yogyakarta on Tuesday the bill was irrelevant to the current social and political developments.

"People are talking about the need to reduce military intervention in politics, and to place the military under the control of the democratic accountability principle," he said. "Now why would they talk about giving greater authority to soldiers? This is really disappointing."

He speculated the bill was introduced more because the House was racing to reach a certain target before its tenure expires. "If the bill later becomes just another addition to the existing stack of papers, that's another problem."

He said people should not expect unrest and social conflicts to be solved by mobilizing greater numbers of military personnel, backed by legislation. The problem, he said, was more complicated than a mere security problem.

"Look at the unrest that took place over the past two years. The military has not even been able to control its soldiers who may have been 'playing games' during the unrest," he said. "What's the use of establishing a bill on state security when the real matter is not the military but the succession of a regime."

Support

The Indonesian Military's assistant for general planning, Maj. Gen. Agus Wirahadikusumah, defended the bill as a replacement for the 1959 Law on Subversion, which was revoked by the People's Consultative Assembly.

"The military needs a legal umbrella to protect the troops deployed to areas of unrest or conflict," Agus said, acknowledging there were differences of opinion between the government and public on the matter.

"Don't assign troops with uncertain duties to areas of unrest," Agus said. Once deployed, he said, the soldiers only had two options: to kill or be killed.

Munir, of the independent Committee for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) said he did not oppose the bill, as long as limitations were clearly defined in the bill.

"The use of violence in a martial law condition is approved by international conventions, with clear limitations," Munir said, adding that the conventions also regulated the military's responsibility in the event of martial law being imposed. (05/27/edt/swa/swe)