State safety bill means security for whom?

By Lukas Luwarso

JAKARTA (JP): During the New Order era, people were stifled in speaking their mind, while the government tightly regulated public expression for the sake of preserving its power. Freedom was fettered through various intimidation, including media censorship and ban.

As a result, political turmoil broke loose, resulting in the fall of the New Order government, which was followed by the establishment of B.J. Habibie's transitional administration.

From this new administration, the public are strongly demanding total reform to guarantee the restoration and honor of their basic rights which have been shackled for so long.

Habibie's administration saw the light of day after over 1,000 people lost their lives in fire or were intentionally burned, tortured and shot to death in May 1998. Initially, the transitional government showed its intention, though feigned, to uphold democracy. In regards to the media, for example, the regulation on media publication permits was revamped, journalists were allowed to set up independent associations and the mass media were allowed more freedom of reporting.

However, this administration seems to be impatient. Waves of protests and demonstrations have been dealt with in the easiest way -- by banning them. At first, the Habibie administration issued a government regulation in lieu of Law No. 2/1998, which seeks to regulate the freedom of expression. However, as people still adamantly refused to have their freedom of expression regulated, the government replaced it with Law No. 9/1998 on the freedom to express opinions publicly. But the Law has proven to be an instrument to take action against and not regulate the manifestation of this freedom.

The new administration has also followed in the steps of the New Order government's habit of setting up new institutions while ignoring the functions of existing ones whenever it was incapable of handling problems at hand. The establishment of the Council for Consolidation of Resilience and Law (DPKH), for example, was not only an act of contempt against the existing security institutions, but has also stunted them. Yet the DPKH has not only failed to serve its purported function but its activities have also been unheard of since its establishment.

In a recent hearing on the bill for the state's safety and security with the House of Representatives, Minister of Defense and Security/Indonesian Military (TNI) Commander Gen. Wiranto said that the President reserved the right to declare an emergency without any approval from the House. The bill, in fact, states that preventing and overcoming threats to the state's safety and security constitutes, in essence, the protection of the state and the public's safety and security and that the entire Indonesian population should be responsible for this (point c of the consideration part of the bill).

Ignoring the involvement of the House in determining whether the state is in danger is tantamount to the public's logic and common sense in terms of defending the state. Leaving it fully to the President without seeking the opinion of the House members clearly shows what the state security bill really leans on.

Instead of gathering public opinion on matters pertaining to the state's security, this bill, on the other hand, relies on the opinion of extraconstitutional institutions. Subarticle (3) under article 8 of the bill stipulates that it is enough for the President simply to hear and take into account the opinion given by the Council of National Defense and Security and the Council for the Upholding of Security and the Legal System. These extraconstitutional institutions are not yet established but their embryo, the DPKH, was set up soon after Habibie became President and comprises personnel close to the power holder. Therefore, it is very obvious that the bill was proposed to perpetuate the present regime.

Gen. Wiranto is insistent that the drawing up of the bill was in no way intended to give excessive power to the government or to maintain its power. He has also denied that the bill was drawn up in the context of military domination in the country's social life.

However, it must be noted that the substance of this bill has all the potential to realize what Gen. Wiranto denied. One example is sub-article (3) under article 21, which says that if the President declares a military emergency, the authorities may control and regulate postal, telecommunications and electronic equipment, prohibit or restrict the expression of opinion in public and other forms of meeting, or prohibit or restrict shows and reports by the print and electronic media.

The people really understand what it is like to be in the fetters of the ruling elite. Therefore, it is only natural that they face the bill with consternation. It is not that Indonesians do not see the need to maintain the safety of their country, but rather that they are doubtful that this legal product is indeed drawn up with sincere intention. It is always likely that this bill will be a legal shield for the government to maintain power and legitimize repressive policies. Such worries are not baseless because the General Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) will be convened shortly, and also because there is a huge potential of conflict during and after the process of the presidential election.

In fact, in the present transitional era, laws and regulations should be beefed up to ensure the strengthening of people's sovereignty and the advancement of a civil society. Besides, the present transitional government and the military must show their discipline and obedience in implementing the prevailing laws and regulations.

The public, unfortunately, has got an indelible impression that government officials often abused their authority and they are immune to the law. Government and military officials must show people that they are really capable of consistently implementing the laws.

The shelving of a recent case involving a junior officer of the Army's Special Force (Kopassus) for drug charges simply because his father is an army leader shows the extent of the credibility of the government and its military. If the officials are incapable of taking disciplinary action against themselves in enforcing the law, how can they ever serve as good law enforcers. Only when the government and military officials show seriousness in law enforcement will the proposal to promulgate the law on state security be more easily acceptable to the public.

What is most urgent now is to actually draw up bills on popular safety and security, on the safety of state assets, on power restriction and the like. It does not take a genius to see that if the people are secure and strong, the state will be safe. If legal certainty is yet to be guaranteed while the security and safety of the people are still threatened by the state, the state security bill will only be a legal instrument to legitimize arbitrary behavior. It is highly likely that this bill will protect rampant practices of corruption, collusion and cronyism. So who is this bill really for?

The writer is chairman of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI).