Robert Go, Jakarta – Jakarta is now armed with tougher anti-terror decrees, but the question remains whether it can aim and pull the trigger at the right targets as it tries to prevent a repeat of the tragedy in Bali.

For the first time in the country's history, there is a clear and legal definition of the crime of terrorism. Stiff penalties have been laid down, including death by a firing squad and life imprisonment for those convicted.

Police and other security agents also get more leeway in investigating terrorism-linked cases, including the right to arrest suspects based on intelligence information and before a crime is committed. Prosecutors will also get to analyse evidence and tie in motives.

If, for example, anybody gets caught with explosives and a blueprint of a hotel's basement, the government can now charge them with intent to blow up the hotel – an act of terror – instead of just possession of explosives.

On paper, the new laws are tough enough. But the big test will be in how the government of President Megawati Sukarnoputri and its agencies use these laws. That is because in many instances, issued here are coloured by personal or organisational politics and rivalries.

Take the cases of the armed forces, police and intelligence agency. Earlier this month, army chief Ryamizard Ryacudu was forced to apologise to the police rank-and-file in North Sumatra and discharge 20 soldiers, after his troops attacked a police station last month and killed eight people in a nine-hour gun battle.

The clash was apparently triggered when soldiers demanded the release of a soldier detained on drugs charges and police refused. This was just one of the most recent flare ups.

Serious rivalry exists between the two services since their formal separation in 1999. The problem on the field is caused by turf wars for control of businesses – including protection rackets – that provide additional income for men in the police and military.

But it is not just an operational problem. The splits also exist among the top brass for more ideological and strategic reasons.

Armed Forces chief Endriartono Sutarto was said to be unhappy that the new emergency anti-terror decrees handed control of anti-terror operations to the police. Sources said that during the week, he had lobbied hard for an anti-terror taskforce under the supervision of the Armed Forces.

Analysts said that the military, police and the intelligence agency do not share information and do not brief one another about their operations because there is a strong sense that they are competing against each other.

"It is a matter of prestige," an intelligence specialist said. "One guy doesn't want the other two guys know about his information because he wants the credit. There is little cooperation, which is also why government officials often make conflicting public statements, depending on which security unit had fed the information."

Clearly, this kind of a rift has hobbled the country's intelligence-gathering operations and will hamper efforts to nab terrorists before they strike. The police cannot go it alone and need all possible information from the military and intelligence bodies.

Another factor that could take some of the bite out of Indonesia's anti-terror strategy has been raised by human-rights groups and activists. They have warned the government that flexing its new-found muscle could spell a return to the tough days of the Suharto-era – and anger the public at large.

As Mr Kusnanto Anggoro, an analyst from the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Jakarta, saw it: "These laws can be misused to arrest those considered to be problem cases by the government. This group includes critics, activists and secessionists, among others."

While such arguments are worth airing, given the political atmosphere here, they could also hamper the ability of security agencies as as they try to track down anarchists and terrorists who have no respect for the rule of law. Justice Minister Yusril Ihza Mahendra, whose office drafted the two decrees that were signed into law late on Friday night, said that human-rights issues were at the top of his list of concerns.

A government source said that the lengthy Cabinet discussions on Friday focused on human-rights concerns, and that adjustments were made to "tone down some of the language and terms" of the new laws as a result.

Indeed, US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a former ambassador to Jakarta during the Suharto era, had noted that terrorists had been successful in Indonesia because "the Suharto regime fell and the methods that were used to suppress them are gone".

So is the bark of the new laws going to be louder than the bite? The arrest of Abu Bakar Bashir, alleged head of Jemaah Islamiyah, is an important test case for the government.

Already, lawyers are engaging in well-practised stall techniques, aiming to delay as much as possible the official questioning and possible declaration of their client as a terrorist.

In the minds of many foreign officials and analysts, this is a clear-cut case. Too many fingers have been pointed in Abu Bakar's direction. Indonesia must get its act together and show whether it is tough enough to point that way too.