|
Draft national security bills
have been deliberated by the House of Representatives for a long time.
However, they have continued to be rejected by lawmakers, principally on
fears that the bills might trigger human rights violations if enacted.
Meanwhile, according to the government, a bill is needed to establish a
comprehensive and integrated national security system that supports the
nation’s development agenda.
One of the most
recent drafts of the bill calls for the central government to establish a
National Security Council (NSC), to be chaired by the President and with a
ministerial-level official as its chief executive. The NSC would have the
authority to determine strategy and national security policy, which would
overlap the current remit of the National Police, the Indonesian Military
(TNI), and the National Intelligence Agency (BIN) and violate the
independence of the judicial system.
The draft also
calls for the national security system to be decentralized to governors,
regents and mayors. Regional head would be given the opportunity to respond
to various threats to national security. A liberal interpretation of what
constitutes a threat will lead to biased interpretations that might favor
certain social, economical and political groups in the region. Moreover, in
the era of regional autonomy, almost all local heads come from political
parties that pursue their own economic and political interests. Further,
too many local leaders have been convicted of corruption.
The bill
defines a threat to national security, in part, as things threatening
sustainable national development. The definition and elaboration of
sustainable national development provided in the bill is broad, subject to
multiple interpretations and prone to exploitation by biased people. If
enacted, it could be used by the central and regional governments to
repress civil society groups and political parties for the sake of national
development.
National
development is a vague term. The problem is that policy at national and
local levels remains politically motivated and lacks transparency and
community participation. As a result, national development very often
conflicts with the interests of society.
One national
development program that has been aggressively promoted by the government
is the Master Plan for the Acceleration and Expansion of Indonesia’s
Economic Development (MP3EI), which aims to make the nation an advanced
country and propel it into the ranks among the 10 largest economies in the
world by 2025. Many projects under the MP3EI in fact collide with the
interests of society and might adversely impact environmental
sustainability, such as the Trans Papua highway.
As of November,
the government has realized 84 MP3EI projects with a total investment of Rp
536.3 trillion (US$55.86 billion). These projects comrpised 38 private
projects valued at Rp 301.6 trillion, 20 projects run by state-owned
enterprises worth Rp 90.3 trillion, 15 projects run by the government worth
Rp 66.2 trillion and 11 projects jointly funded projects run by various
agencies worth Rp 78.2 trillion. MP3EI projects are spread across multiple
“corridors” under the plan in Java, Sumatra, Sulawesi, Kalimantan,
Bali-Nusa Tenggara and Papua-Maluku Islands, with adjustments made for the
potential and needs of each region.
Furthermore,
the law grants the regional governments of Aceh wide authority to mobilize
local resources to increase their revenues to self-finance their
development programs. Exploitation of natural resources has since proceeded
without controls and without considering the sustainability of social,
economic, cultural, environmental and human rights. Thousands of investment
permits in the mining, plantation and forestry sectors have been issued by
regents and mayors all over the country, without any control and
accountability from the central of provincial governments or from the
community (downward accountability).
As a result,
agrarian conflicts have arisen everywhere, causing violations of social,
economic, cultural rights and even human lives, as occurred in Lampung and
South Sumatra. If the central and local authorities are free to determine
what constitutes threats to national security, then any form of opposition
and any action considered deleterious to the local investment climate, especially
in the extractive industries, plantations, and infrastructure, could be
criminalized due to disturbing the national development agenda.
Therefore,
opposition to the national security bill is justified for various reasons.
The bill will legitimize involvement of security forces in order to sustain
national development by violating the civil and political liberties of the
people.
Before the
current draft national security bill is endorsed, the government should
guarantee the right of participation and the public’s access to information
through public consultation at the central and local levels. In addition,
the government must ensure accountability of the state security system
based on human rights with reference to the Constitution, national laws and
international laws that protect human rights. Thus, instead of violating
the enjoyment of human rights, the national security bill would reflect the
state’s obligation to respect and protect human rights. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar