Opposition mounts over new security bill

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)