Police bill passed

After months of debate, the House of Representatives passed a controversial police bill on Monday along with three other security and defense-related laws.

The government, which sponsored the bill, has responded to criticism expressed by legal experts and concerned citizens during the months of public debate that preceded the final deliberations in the House. It has apparently agreed to drop a number of controversial articles related to police use of force and arms, with the exception of those concerning self-defense.

Another article that was dropped was one that critics felt would give police inordinate authority to disperse mass gatherings. In its present form, police will have the authority to issue permits and watch over mass gatherings, but not to disperse them, unless, presumably, they turned disorderly or violent.

Obviously, the changes that have been incorporated in the new police bill constitute an improvement over the earlier draft. As Gunardo, a Golkar representative in the legislature, described the new law, the bill, as passed by the House on Monday, does not give police excessive powers since its provisions are entirely in line with current existing laws and regulations.

Still, in spite of improvements, the new law has not entirely removed the public's anxieties. One particular stipulation contributing to the lingering feeling of uneasiness is the provision that allows the police, whenever necessary, to take measures based on their own considerations and in accordance with prevailing laws and the police code of ethics. Some lawyers have criticized the new bill for being ambiguous. The bill still legitimizes the use of excessive force by the police by giving them 36 different kinds of authority, as lawyer Mulyana W. Kusumah sees it.

Indonesian Bar Association secretary-general Djauhan Djauhari, no doubt expressed the feelings of many others, lawyers and lay members of the public alike, by saying that some clauses in the bill were too vaguely worded, such as for example the one which allows the police to get the support of "special apparatus" or "autonomous civilian security bodies". Though offered in jest, Djauhan's point is well made by his question, asked in an open discussion on the new bill held on Monday, whether "autonomous security bodies" are "equivalent to gangs or bodyguards who are sometimes hired by discotheques or shops."

Despite the remaining objections, the new bill can be expected to formally become law soon, after it gets the endorsement of President Soeharto. Until the time comes when the bill's remaining weaknesses can be corrected, the best that the public can hope for is that our police force, and especially its leaders, will let themselves be guided by the principles of fairness, justice and humanity, which are after all among the pillars of our state philosophy.

As for the three other security and defense-related bills passed on Monday, there is much less controversy surrounding these laws, which deal respectively with military tribunals, military discipline and mobilization. Still, in these cases as in any other case of law-making, it is well to remember that laws are made to protect people as well as to serve the good of society as a whole.

As long as this basic principle is kept in mind and carried out, there should be little reason for excessive feelings of anxiety, whatever weaknesses any piece of legislation may contain. Here, however, lies the challenge, especially for the enforcers of the law.