State safety bill means security for whom?

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).