Pressure mounts on Abdurrahman not to ratify security bill

JAKARTA (JP): Calls for President Abdurrahman Wahid not to ratify the controversial state security bill continued on Thursday with the Foundation of the Indonesian Legal Aid Institute (YLBHI) officially sending a letter requesting a review of the bill.

In its letter to the President, signed by chairman Bambang Widjojanto and executive Irianto Subiakto, the foundation warned that the bill's endorsement could impede the ongoing democratization process.

One of the primary concerns of the bill which was highlighted is that it allegedly grants excessive power to the government and the military to declare a state of emergency which would warrant the use of force.

Bambang urged the bill to be reviewed not only by the President but also by the House of Representatives.

"We agree that a security bill is necessary ... but we don't have to rush it. We are not in such situation that justifies the government to hasten its endorsement," he told journalists here.

"But it's better for the government to submit a new one and the House should hold a public hearing before its deliberation," he added.

House Speaker Akbar Tandjung called on the President earlier this week to immediately ratify the bill which was endorsed by the House in September.

Then president B.J. Habibie postponed enacting the bill due to wide scale public protests.

Observers have speculated that Akbar's sudden call for the bill's ratification is designed to anticipate the prospect of massive demonstrations in conjunction with the April 1 rise in fuel and electricity prices.

Akbar, however, has argued that there is no reason to fear the bill as a new government and political situation had dawned in the country and that much of the rejection in the past stemmed from a rejection of the Habibie government.

But Bambang chided the bill on Thursday as it propagated a militaristic approach to handling emergency situations.

"If the bill is needed to respond to security problems, such as those occurring in Maluku and Aceh provinces, then its not the proper measure.

"Moreover, it's inconsistent with the dialog approaches carried out by Gus Dur (so far) in handling the problems," he said, referring to the President's popular nickname.

The security bill was drafted and submitted by the Ministry of Defense and Security to replace the 1959 State of Emergency Law.

Proponents of the bill argue that it is less repressive than the 1959 Law.

However, its deliberation and eventual endorsement drew severe criticism and bloody protests which cost the lives of at least four people in clashes between security forces and demonstrators in September.

The bill stipulates that the president is allowed to declare an extraordinary status, a state of emergency or a state of war in a province, or nationwide, after consulting or obtaining approval from the House.

It stipulates that in an extraordinary status or a civilian emergency, authorities also have a mandate to close off an area.

Bambang said many of the stipulations and much of the authority under the bill should only apply under exceptional conditions, such as a state of war, and not an emergency status.

He added that the bill did not clearly cover the parameters for imposing a state of emergency for various possibilities such as natural disasters or economic crises.

"This bill only defines a domestic political crisis as an emergency situation, so it tends to put the community as a threat to the country," he reiterated.

Bambang warned that the bill, if passed into law, could be abused by the next government and the military for their own interests under the pretext of preserving national stability.

He also said that since there was something awry about the timing of the bill, which was submitted to the House just before the upcoming general session of the outgoing members of the People's Consultative Assembly, the President had the right to resist the calls for ratification.

Bambang also said that a rejection of the bill did not necessarily mean that the previous 1959 Law would then take precedence.

"If the law is no longer needed and irrelevant to the current situation, then just revoke it. If any emergency situation occurs ... then it should be handled through a presidential decree," he added. (01)