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.