TNI seeks way back through security bill
The controversial government-proposed state security bill found its way smoothly to the House of Representatives and is scheduled to be passed on Thursday. State administration legal expert M. Mahfud MD of Yoygakarta's Islamic University talked about the issue with The Jakarta Post.
Question: Why do you think the government and the House of Representatives insist on deliberating and approving the state security bill in such a short time despite mounting calls to drop it?
Answer: That's indeed been everybody's question and there are at least two reasons why such a question emerges. First, we have limited time to discuss a bill affecting human rights. Second, we already have a law to anticipate a state of emergency.
The government probably considered the existing law obsolete. Also, I am afraid it is getting ready for the upcoming People's Consultative Assembly's General Session (which will elect a president).
Q: What preparation do you mean?
A: The government thinks that the General Session needs a legal instrument to silence all accumulated aspirations that may disturb the continuity of the existing government.
My concern is that if different aspirations accumulate, followed by a chaotic situation, the military could step forward and take control and announce that the country is in a perilous situation.
Yet if the government and the House acknowledged (the interest of) the people, it would certainly drop the bill. Approving the bill is of no use; the people have rejected it.
Q: What is your opinion of the bill?
A: In the long term, the bill certainly threatens human rights. It allows the authorities to take any measure in which the military is given a dominant role.
If the House (DPR) approves it, I can assure you that all the progress we have achieved both in political laws and democracy will be useless (e.g. the law on composition of the legislative bodies gives fewer House seats to nonelected military members). This is the danger of which we all should be aware.
In other words, we can say that the military's dominance in the country's social and political life, which has been gradually reduced through various laws, would be restored through the state security bill. The military is trying to make an even wider entrance for itself.
What is also my concern is the use of "state terrorism"; theory has it that in trying to get a powerful hold of the country, a state sometimes makes a law that can be used as a legal instrument to take an action.
To be able to take the action, however, it creates riots within a community through intelligence operations. Certain groups of the community are incited to riot and then it (the military) can announce that the state is in a perilous situation.
Q: Could you elaborate on that?
A: Such a theory is commonly used by developing countries. I am worried Indonesia is going to apply this theory.
If it has no intention of doing so, the government (and the military) should forget the bill. If it insists on doing so, we can say that it will certainly apply the above theory.
Q: Legislators have said they have changed the clause regarding who the president can consult, which they said would have to be the DPR...
A: That would be good... The DPR should be given the right to give advice should the president need to announce that the country is in a perilous situation.
At least, there should be an institution, it could be the Supreme Court or others, to do the job. An ad-hoc institution (as mentioned in the previous draft) is completely unacceptable.
But much more needs to be tackled. The law will leave little space for citizens; among other things, travel could be banned. Anything can be done by the authorities without legal process.
Q: What should we do about the bill?
A: The best thing to do would be for the House to stop deliberating it immediately.
The present situation is not conducive. Let the new legislators discuss the matter. We realize that a state needs a legal instrument to take an emergency action. But we already have one.
Why should we be rushing in to make a new one? It would be more comprehensive if it was left to the new legislators. They would have plenty of time.
Besides, I also see that the previous law (based on a 1959 rule) was generally more benevolent than this bill ... The current bill gives authority to the effect of security personnel meddling in labor conflicts. For instance a clause says a strike can be prohibited.
The existing law also requires the president to spend a longer time contemplating matters, and to listen to more varied consulting institutions, before declaring a state of emergency.
Q: What if the House approves the bill regardless of the calls to reject it?
A: That would be a bitter reality we'd be forced to swallow for the umpteenth time from the current "government of reform". If that were the case, I suggest the new legislators convene as soon as possible to cancel the law. Let's just hope that it won't be too late to do so. (swa)