The bill has to go

The bill has to go

Perhaps no countries on this planet are as busy as Indonesia
is today. However, our hustle-and-bustle activities here have
nothing to do with a killer earthquake or inhumane acts of ethnic
cleansing, but the administration and the House of
Representatives controversial efforts to make the best use of the
last weeks of their terms by their flurry of precarious
activities.

For months the House, the term of which will end in late
September, has been in great haste to pass as many
administration-sponsored bills into law as possible, as though
its members think doomsday is imminent.

Lately the House has become the target of public resentment
for refusing to cease deliberation of the controversial state
security bill, or to reject it outright. On the contrary, it has
devised some tricks to ensure that it is seen as vital to the
nation.

Many paragraphs of the bill scare members of the public,
notably legal experts and political and military observers. Many
have questioned why the present government -- which has
repeatedly vowed to work for political and economic reform,
respect the supremacy of law, human rights and has supported
freedom of the press -- is so adamant to have the bill passed.

The bill clearly paves the way for military dominance because
it clearly stipulates that the regime, without consulting the
House, has the right to declare martial law whenever it deems it
necessary. Consulting only security agencies set up by the
government is considered sufficient by the bill.

Under martial law, the regime would also enjoy the freedom to
curtail people's basic rights and introduce press censorship.

The bill is considered so flawed that 58 experts from the
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and four parties that did
well in the June general election have opposed it.

The question for us is: How can a regime which has supported
freedom of the press do such an about-face and betray this
admirable achievement by even considering endorsing a bill that
so undermines democracy?

Former minister/state secretary Moerdiono even admitted the
bill had been kept on the back burner in his office for a decade
because it was considered too controversial for the House to
deliberate. But the present regime picked it up and sent it to
the legislative body.

This turn of events begs one question for President Habibie to
answer: which is more authoritative, the present regime which
calls itself the development and reform government, or Soeharto's
which has been branded a corrupt administration with no respect
for human rights?

In full view of the whole nation, the naked truth in Indonesia
today is that the country is being run by a minority transitional
regime which is supported by a legislative body which represents
only a minority of the people. They plot to secure their place in
the future. The controversial bill will be used by the military
to crush any public opposition during the November General
Session of the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), the
country's highest constitutional body which will elect a new head
of state during the session.

Although the House must realize its lack of legitimacy, it has
refused to show political ethics and social sensitivity by
conducting hearings with genuine law experts or political
observers, let alone leading political forces which will lead the
future government. Had House members done this, they may have
been brought to their senses and realized that the bill is a
threat to democracy.

At the moment, very little can be expected from members of the
House. The legislators seem to be heavily influenced by the
regime's promise to reward each of them Rp 150 million (US20,000)
for their "meritorious deeds" in acting as servants of the
administration.