Pressure mounts on Abdurrahman not to ratify security bill
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)