On Thursday, the House of Representatives halted deliberation of the controversial bill on mass organizations, delaying it to the next sitting, only after mounting public resistance to the draft law to amend the 1985 law.

Lawmakers claim the old law needs to be adapted for the decentralized, democratic era and a new law is needed to "discipline" problematic organizations and if necessary, ban them. The thousands of foreign organizations should also be regulated, they say, to ensure accountability and state security.

Both human rights groups and religious organizations have objected to the bill, evoking the repressive past when vague rules were used to trample dissent. Lawmakers have made changes but have not converted the critics who still question loopholes that could be used against any organization.

Changes to ensure, for instance, that all organizations have basic principles "which do not contradict" the state ideology of Pancasila and the Constitution, still leave questions as to how this could be interpreted by authorities.

In short, the New Order's creeds of monoloyalitas, single loyalty to the state, and azas tunggal, the compulsory adherence to Pancasila and only Pancasila, have brought back the trauma experienced by many, whether Islamist groups or those labelled secular and liberal.

These groups are among those who were spied on and arrested, tortured, kidnapped and even murdered on the grounds that they were suspected of treason or jeopardizing stability.

We agree with the protesters – the latest rally against the bill was held on Friday – that the mass organizations bill should be dropped altogether, and the 1985 law annuled.

The law has lost its relevance with progressive amendments to the Consitution, which guarantees freedom of assembly and association. The excuses of regulating the financial affairs of problematic organizations regarding will overlap with other laws such as the laws on foundations and corruption.

The 28-year old law on mass organizations showed a state bent on controlling every sign of dissent. The New Order maintained power for so long by at least a veneer of compliance to the rule of law; it also succeeded in fostering mutual suspicion in society. We see remains of this legacy to this day – like the inability to have a healthy debate to resolve differences – contributing to a fragile democracy. Continuing to have a law regulating which organization is acceptable and which is not, will only strengthen mutual distrust.

In the reformasi era, ideas to amend the 1985 law followed calls to disband religious vigilante groups. People were fed up of violence perpetrated in the name of God, such as those involving the Islam Defenders Front (FPI).

But as others pointed out, disbanding any group would pave the way straight back to state authority to ban any organization or group – while the FPI and similar groups simply rely on the glaring lack of simple law enforcement by the police.

Firm law enforcement, fostering freedom, encouraging independent thought and nonviolent debate, will strengthen society and reduce the remaining distrust in the state.

And as Indonesians are steeped in the teachings of Pancasila, some pointed out, not everyone who looks religous should be suspected of plotting treason. In a healthy society, people must live with the conviction that they are not distrusted.