The advantages of the antiterrorism bill

The advantages of the antiterrorism bill

Romli Atmasasmita, Chairman, Team on Anti-Terrorism Bill,
Jakarta

Terrorism presents a difficult challenge for all democracies,
including Indonesia. Those who would try to achieve political
change through violence offend democracy. At the same time,
repressive anti-terrorism or security laws also offend democracy.
The challenge is to devise anti-terrorism laws that can prevent
and punish terrorism while respecting democracy, including strong
political and religious dissent.

The difficult process of drafting an anti-terrorism law is
well underway in Indonesia. We have not taken the course of some
western democracies which enacted anti-terrorism laws quickly in
the immediate aftermath of events of Sept. 11, 2001. We have also
not taken the course of Singapore and Malaysia which rely on
security laws that allow years of preventive detention without
trial. Rather, we have started a difficult but necessary process
of drafting an anti-terrorism law that respects international law
and democracy.

It is important that the current draft Anti-Terrorism Bill be
evaluated on its own merits. Those who take the time to read the
draft will find that it differs significantly from earlier
withdrawn draft or the security laws of previous regimes. This,
of course does not mean that the current draft is perfect. Indeed
it is important to have a wide democratic debate about its
strengths and weaknesses.

A strength of the current draft is that unlike the withdrawn
draft it does not define terrorism as a political crime based on
political motives. Indeed the intent of the law is that it would
not apply to freedom of expression before the public through
demonstration, protest or advocacy. A person who strongly speaks
his mind should not be considered a terrorist.

Another strength is that the bill is based on the principle of
non-discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, race of
groups. People should only be suspected of terrorism because of
their own actions and not simply because of their membership in
any group.

The draft also provides important protection for the rights of
the suspect and the accused by the involvement of the judiciary
-- the head of the local district court -- in determining the
adequacy of preliminary evidence in a timely manner and in
authorizing bugging or electronic surveillance. Suspects strongly
suspected of committing criminal acts of terrorism can be held 24
hours with the head of the local district court being able to
decide to extend this period for a further 48 hours.

This provision is more moderate than provisions in British or
proposed Australian law; but more or less is inspired by Canadian
Legislation. Moreover, it is a far cry from Singaporean or
Malaysian internal security acts that allow preventive detention
for renewable 2-year period with minimal judicial involvement.

The draft bill is not perfect and laws in a democracy can
always be improved by public debate and reflection. Nevertheless,
this debate should be based on what the draft bill actually says
and not on inaccurate perceptions that it is a hastily drafted
version of a new repressive internal security law.

Prof. Dr. Romli Atmasasmita, S.H., LL.M. also heads the Agency
for National Legal Development (BPHN) under the Ministry of
Justice and Human Rights.