State security bill must be halted: Experts

JAKARTA (JP): Experts agreed here on Tuesday on the need to halt the state security bill being deliberated in the House of Representatives, which they claimed was a violation of human rights and press freedom.

Speaking at a seminar held by the Institute for Social and Economy Research, Education and Information, military observer Hasnan Habib said the bill was "similar to the existence of the KGB and PID."

The KGB was the former Soviet Union's secret police, while the PID existed during the Netherlands colonial rule of Indonesia.

"We don't need the law. There are no foreign threats to Indonesia," said Hasnan, who maintains that the country's police force is adequate to counter internal threats.

Lawyer Adnan Buyung Nasution concurred, saying that the existing Criminal Code was sufficient.

"Articles in Book II on Crimes, Chapter II on Crimes to the State are sufficient," he said.

"The military has vested interests (in the bill), to maintain the privileges they've had all these years," Nasution claimed.

The state security bill, along with a press bill, is among several contentious legislations currently being deliberated in the House.

Leo Batubara, of the Association of Newspaper Publishers, acknowledged that the press bill provided adequate freedom to the press. "I'll give (a mark of) 85 out of 100," he said.

However, he had nothing but censure of the state security bill which, if applied, allows for a censure of media coverage.

"There were gross human rights violation in Aceh which were uncovered by media reporting. Can you imagine what will happen if the media are barred from covering an area during a state of emergency?" he asked.

"Once the bill is passed, they will do this (a media coverage ban) in Aceh, Ambon, Irian Jaya and East Timor," Batubara said.

In Semarang, Central Jakarta, about 50 students from the Indonesian Law Students Association staged a protest on Tuesday, rejecting the bill on state security.

Gathering in front of the Central Java provincial council building, they charged that the bill would grant excessive power to the military and the government in the event of perceived threats to the state.

Group coordinator R. Kristiyanto said, "We reject the bill because it violates civil and political rights. It will also grant huge powers to the military to dominate civilian life."

He pointed out that the 1945 Constitution already rules on the President's right to declare a state of emergency in Article 12 and to proclaim war in Article 11.

Therefore, he said, such a bill would be redundant, except for the military being able to wield greater power. (05/har/edt)