Tony Sitathan, Jakarta – Indonesia is in the midst of a political storm over the implementation of a comprehensive anti-terrorist bill or even an Internal Security Act (ISA) modeled after Singapore and Malaysia ever since the latest terrorist attack ripped through the heart of the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, killing at least 14 people and injuring close to 150 others.
Several prominent Indonesians warn against turning back the clock when it comes to protecting individual freedom and democracy that had been so painfully won after the fall of Suharto. Fears of a repetition of the atrocities committed by that regime under its anti-subversion laws have added fuel to the criticism of those opposed to the plans of the current government to restrict and censure individual freedom in the name of maintaining the peace and security of the state.
Already under pressure to clean up its anti-terrorist act by several Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries as well as the United States and Australia, and to tighten its grip on security, Defense Minister Matori Abdul Djalil mooted the idea of the controversial ISA. At the time he was backed by the coordinating minister for political and security affairs, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, and military (TNI) chief General Endriartono Sutarto as well as several other members of the conservative wing of the national assembly.
Scenes of past abuses under the New Order regime still haunt many Indonesians. "In the past the security institutions had a legal authority to act against those suspected of disturbing security and order," recalled Dodiet Temmengong, a lawyer and human-rights activist based in Indonesia. "We had an organization called the Kopkamtib [Operational Command for the Restoration of Security and Order] that enforced this law. It was found to be repressive and counterproductive as it led to kidnappings and even the political assassinations of those opposed to the New Order regime."
Even an executive party leader and chairman of the Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI Perjuangan), Roy B B Janis, was quoted after an internal party meeting as saying there was no need for full-scale anti-terrorism regulation. Instead, there was a call to enforce the existing anti-terrorism law strictly. More important, he pointed out that there was a need for greater coordination among the various security agencies, a flaw he blamed for allowing the terrorist attack on the Marriott to happen.
Several analysts and security experts also blamed the lack of coordination among the various intelligence and state security agencies. "There is growing evidence that with so many intelligence agencies controlled by the police, the army and the different state ministries, there appears a lack of coordination and overlap of responsibilities as well as lack of sharing of resources to counter the terrorist threat," said a former officer of the State Intelligence Coordination Agency.
"Terrorism is not something new in Indonesia. But it seems to have an added dimension now, where it requires working with other intelligence and security agencies in neighboring countries as well as getting specialized training in counter terrorism," he said. "So far only Kopassus [Special Forces Command] of the TNI has proven counter terrorism abilities. But its previous human-rights record has somewhat spooked the rest of the intelligence and security agencies in Indonesia to maintain an awkward distance."
Since the public outcry against the proposed ISA, the government has proposed to study carefully the pros and cons in implementing its approach to tighten security. Of all its options, the government favors revising its anti-terrorism law to give the security agencies more sweeping yet not totally unrestricted powers to act proactively rather than reactively to the terrorist threat.
According to Susilo, who was responsible for pushing amendments of the terrorism bill through parliament, what was of concern was Article 26 of the anti-terrorism law. It states that the security forces cannot arrest terror suspects immediately unless they produce prima facie evidence, and they are not allowed to detain suspects for more than three days without the approval of the district court. He said this severely hampered the government's efforts to take preemptive measures and prevented the security forces from establishing an early-warning system.
He also reassured the public that there was no intention to adapt a Singaporean- or Malaysian-style ISA to replace the current anti-terrorism law. "We will not adopt an internal security act like Singapore's or Malaysia's. Our situation is different from that of Singapore or Malaysia. The ISA does not provide guarantees for political freedom," he said.
The ISA was seen as an important component for nation-building for both Singapore and Malaysia. Its roots can be traced back to 1948 when the British, then the colonial masters of Singapore and what is now Malaysia, passed a bill calling for a "state of emergency" in response to the threat by the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM). It was lifted only in 1960, three years after independence. Realizing that the subversive threat was not over, the Malaysian government quickly passed a bill to encompass the elements of the ISA into its national constitution. Singapore, which was once part of Malaysia, also realized the importance of the ISA and made it a permanent feature in its national laws.
It was similar fears of communism that prompted the United States to pass the anti-communist McCarran-Wood Act in 1950. But the president at that time, Harry S Truman, was vehemently opposed to the act, which he deemed un-American and a mockery of the US Bill of Rights. He argued that it "would betray our finest traditions" as it attempted to "curb the simple expression of opinion". Truman went on to argue that the "stifling of the free expression of opinion is a long step toward totalitarianism".
Dr Leonard C Sebastian, a senior fellow at the Institute of Defense and Strategic Studies (IDSS), mentioned in an article in an IDSS publication last August that the Indonesian Criminal Code does not classify or label terrorist acts and gives limited powers to law-enforcement and intelligence agencies to take action. He mentioned that the new regulations, in the short term, cover the loopholes in the Indonesian legal system, providing the government with the measures necessary to combat terrorism until deliberations in parliament for a formal anti-terrorism bill are concluded.
"The regulations allow for the death penalty for those convicted of committing or threatening to commit acts of terrorism resulting in mass destruction and deaths," Sebastian said. "The laws also provide important protection for the rights of the suspect and the accused through the involvement of the judiciary. More important, the regulations could not be used to arrest someone who articulates different views or supports a different ideology."
Susilo concurred that a team formed by the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and several other governmental and non-governmental departments would look closely at several articles of the law, especially those on preemptive measures against terrorist attack. "So far the implementation of the law has not brought any satisfactory results," he said. He also maintained that the revised anti-terrorism law would accommodate political freedom, since it would be apolitical in nature and would not fall under the anti-subversion law that mirrored the ISA and, more important, it would not in any way impede the democratization process of Indonesia.
Several religious leaders and human-rights activists are opposed to the severity of the anti-terrorist bill, which some say is an excuse for trigger-happy factions to impose state controls in the name of national hegemony. "The coming of the regional autonomy laws is an expressions of the democratization process of Indonesia. By reversing tracks, it would once again push Indonesia into the dark ages," said Abhimanyu Dewangsih, a former student leader and protester from the reformasi era.
"There is no room for a police state today. The government should well heed the call of its rakyat or people before doing anything contrary to the 1945 constitution that protects individual rights and freedom of opinion."