The fight between the military and police

The following are excerpts of an interview with Adnan Pandupraja a lawyer and founder of Police Watch, an organization dedicated to observing the Indonesian police. Police Watch has launched a number of studies on the force, and is affiliated with the University of Indonesia's Law School.

Question: The police have been in hot water, most recently because of their clash with the military in the conflict area of Sampit, Central Kalimantan. Do you have any comments on this matter?

Answer: I believe there were two reasons for the clash between police and military troops in Sampit -- the first was classic while the second was formal in nature. The classical reason for the clash was a contest for territory.

In various conflict areas, as many of us have heard, the police often subject refugees to extortion because police officers know that they are one of the few people who can directly help victims escape the violence.

This has happened in every conflict site such as Jakarta during the May 1998 tragedy, in Ambon (Maluku) and in Sampit. This situation of desperation is manipulated by some police officers.

We have been questioning police headquarters about this. We find it difficult to accept the police spokesman's statement that the police have never heard of such practices, and that the police need to wait for reports before they can start analyzing the issue.

Really, that's not an answer we are looking for. What we want is action -- to show that police are aware of public demands, but also (responsive) to errant officers.

So what were the military and the police really fighting over in Sampit?

There were many opportunities more available to the police than to other state apparatuses -- opportunities to amass money and use their power to control a critical situation.

On the other hand, the military, which was not supposed to be in direct contact with the public, probably felt that they were being left out. It's like they were saying, "Why should we tire ourselves out like this while you (the police) are collecting all the money."

Had there been better coordination ... I am sure the clash would not have occurred.

The second, formal reason for the conflict?

The absence of coordination between the Indonesian Military and the Indonesian Police resulted in miscommunication.

Tension between the police and the military became so bad that they had to be confined to different locations in Sampit. What is your comment on this?

Such measures are acceptable in resolving conflict -- it was meant to prevent another clash from occurring. Maybe the option was taken because neither party wanted their authority to be infringed upon -- the police could then (be allotted) a certain site while the military could "hold on" to another.

The option also helped avoid mismanagement. (It seemed) the authorities distanced conflicting parties to enable them to cool down before reconciling them. Or may be it's because the military really wanted to keep their distance because they did not want to get trapped in such conflict.

Normal as it was, the option was not what we wanted. Overall, we want the police to take firm action against their errant members. We want action from Jakarta. If this practice of extortion is really as commonplace as we are being led to believe, then the police should replace all their units with new personnel.

We want action, not classic excuses.

But conflict between the police and the military did not occur only in Sampit. How severe is the tension between the two institutions?

We can see this from a legal constitutional point of view. The People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) have decreed a separation of the police from the military, and delineated their different realms. The military is in charge of defense while the police are in charge of security and order.

The military is subjected to military laws but in cases of general crimes the military must adhere to the police. This is a change -- the military previously adhered to martial law only, but they are now subject to police laws for "light" violations.

An adjustment is needed for this new regulation -- and the military is finding it difficult because for many years they have not been trained to obey the police. (The difficulty is even greater for members of the lower ranks) although Indonesian Military (TNI) leaders have welcomed the new policy.

In addition, the police have yet to free themselves from their "military pattern" (of actions).

Such as?

Police are part of a civil society. The current draft law on police (for instance) has no provisions for elements of good governance such as accountability and transparency despite principles having been stipulated in the MPR Decree No. 11/1998.

The draft law shows the police are still "contaminated" by a militaristic approach. They have failed to accommodate principles (upheld) in a civil society.

You mentioned that TNI leaders have welcomed the new policy. So where has the conflict been occurring?

The conflict has been taking place at the lower ranks. However, we need to evaluate whether what's been exposed to the public has actually taken place inside the military. TNI leaders have so far always given diplomatic answers to the public, but we will never know whether there were acts of insubordination because the leaders have failed to show (steps to uphold their public) commitment.

Are you saying the military leaders might have their own, psychological, objection to the new rules of the game?

Exactly. Especially in Sampit where I have heard of the existence of a "shadow unit" which is wreaking havoc. The presence of such shadow units preceded (unrest) in Ambon or Jakarta in May 1998. I believe there is a grand scenario behind (the unrest) that we should be careful of.

I think the House of Representatives (DPR) should form a special committee on the unrest in Sampit. The DPR members should stop talking about problems concerning members of the political elite such as (their conflict) with Gus Dur, and start voicing real problems such as this.

What can we learn about police-military relations from other countries?

In developed countries, the police are part of civil society. In developing countries however, the military dominates to such a degree that people often tend to take militaristic action. It will be very difficult to remedy this situation.

Do you think conflict between the police and military is a necessary transitional stage?

Conflict often occurs in Indonesia because we apply new regulations in such a drastic manner. Take regional autonomy, for example. Japan needed dozens of years to educate the public about the policy, while in Indonesia we wanted it to be successful in such a short time. As a result, there's bound to be conflict. The same goes for our wish to change security arrangements -- neither the police, the military nor the public is ready for this.

How do you suggest Indonesia manages its domestic police- military conflict?

Constitutionally, it's over. The police and the military have their own territories which are now regulated (according to MPR Decree No. 11/1998). What we need to do is to... (carry out suitable) policies. (Herry Nurdi)