Ismira Lutfia – Analysts have urged the government to shelve a contentious bill on state secrecy that they argue is both open to interpretation and redundant.

Agus Sudibyo, a member of the Press Council and deputy director of the Science, Aesthetics and Technology (SET) Foundation, said on Sunday that the bill should be withdrawn because its provisions on information deemed state secrets were already included in the 2008 Freedom of Information Law.

He also criticized the punishment stipulated in the bill for those leaking sensitive information.

Under the bill, the disclosure of highly classified material is punishable by four years in prison and Rp 100 million ($11,000) in fines, while for classified material it is three years and Rp 50 million. For leaking material categorized as restricted, the prescribed punishment is four years in prison and a Rp 1 billion fine.

Agus pointed out that the punishments were the same for ordinary citizens and for state officials. "What the bill fails to accommodate is protection for those who disclose the information in the interests of the public," he said.

He added that another problem with the bill was the fact that its definition of what constituted a state secret was far too broad and thus open to interpretation.

Agus said it also "misunderstood" the public's right to information, and even infringed on that right by making access to information an exclusive privilege of state officials. "Is the state secrecy bill meant to protect private interests? If so, whose interests?" he said.

Toby Mendel, executive director at the Center for Law and Democracy, said a study by his institute and SET showed that the problems with the bill were not limited to its content alone, but also extended to its innate dependence on a host of other legislation to give it any context and legal basis.

He said that rather than try to push through the state secrecy bill, the government should do more to implement and enforce the Freedom of Information Law.

"That law was only recently passed, yet already there's this push to get the state secrecy bill passed too," he said. "The priority now must go toward implementing the Freedom of Information Law, and only later when there's a need for separate legislation on state secrecy should we consider another bill."

Mendel said that although there was a clear need for steps to safeguard state secrets, the current bill fell far short of internationally recognized standards for transparency and openness. As such, he said, it needed to be revised in keeping with democratization and good governance efforts in the country.