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 Those who take the time to read the draft will find that it differs significantly from earlier withdrawn draft or the security laws of previous regimes.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A strength of the current draft is that unlike the withdrawn draft it does not define terrorism as a political crime based on political motives.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.