Civil society organizations are protesting the ongoing closed-door deliberation of a bill on terrorism, demanding for a transparent discussion in order to allow the public to be involved in monitoring the bill that aims to comprehensively regulate counter terrorism efforts in the country.
The legal think tank the Institute for Criminal Justice (ICJR) has questioned the reasons for the House of Representatives to close off the deliberation process from public, arguing that the "ongoing inaccessible discussion violates the right to information, especially when it is related to a policy that will impact on the life of many."
ICJR executive director Supriyadi Widodo Eddyono cited the problem of the fate of victims of terror attacks as one of the crucial issues that the group had been monitoring. "But a closed-door discussion will lock out victims as well as rights campaigners from ensuring that the bill will accommodate the rights of those who suffer from terror attacks," he said on Tuesday (24/1/2017).
A special working committee tasked with discussing the contours of the bill resumed discussion on Jan. 10 and Jan. 13 after a month of recess in December last year. Both meetings were restricted from the public, a decision that also raised protest from other civil society groups that focus on security sector reform such as Imparsial, the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence, the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy and the Setara Institute.
Close off the deliberation process
The step of the House of Representative to close off the deliberation process of a bill on terrorism hasn’t protested, because a bill on terrorism is one of a strategic bill related to the next Indonesia national security. Because discussing or deliberating about a bill on terrorism may discuss some of a strategic issues and a plan of how Indonesia will be handled terrorism threats.
If a deliberation process will open for public, un-expected "stake holders" will know the strategy of Indonesia to handle terrorism threats. Furthermore, we don't know other purposes of Indonesia's civil society groups in the context of a bill on terrorism process.
I think our the House of Representative will be discussed about several strategic things including the right of those who suffer from terror attacks. We must believe in the intention of our country to protect and to serve suffer terror attacks person or communities, because our government has been understanding about their sadness.
However, we have judged that a terror groups with their terror actions are an extra-ordinary crimes which must be tackled with an extra ordinary rules. Talking and discussing about these strategic issues, we shall take a close of meeting.
As far as, Indonesia's government had been understanding about civil society groups concern. Voicing a similiar concern, our government have a common intention to eliminate a terror attacks and their potential cells which had been grown at several residence and province in Indonesia. State National Agency (BIN), Terror Eliminating National Agency (BNPT), National Police and Indonesian Army (TNI) had been predicted that the next potential terror threats were still as "national dangerous situation" especially after the end of Syria's war and a number of mujaheeden will e returned to Indonesia. Besides that, Islamic State had been declared that Southeast Asia regions specially Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Southern Thailand and Singapura would be their next target to build "an international caliphate".
The urgency of Terrorism Bill
Eventhough Indonesian security and an intelligence apparatus efforts to eliminate a terror threats are taking "maximal outcome", the revision on terrorism bill has been doing because the next terror threats had been predicted its would be done with a several new strategies and tactics and have a huge random target.
Basically, terrorism bill will be needed by every country to counter and to eliminate terror threats to each their country. Without close cooperation and the same common idea about these issues, the process of terrorism bill discussion will be tangled-up by unstrategic will and purpose. If these situation will be happened, we might loose a chance to prepare our national readiness to counter and to fight against terrorism.
I think eliminating terror threats in Indonesia should be needed a close relation and close coordination among national stakeholder such as BIN, National Police, BNPT, Foreign Ministry, Homeland Ministry, Defence Ministry, Religion Ministry, National Uelama Council, the House of Representative, academia, non-Muslim organization, civil society organization and last but not least national mass media. Once more again, without close cooperation, relation and coordination among them, a terror threats always might be happened in Indonesia.
Because of that, the suspicious among national stakeholder must be eliminated. We must believe in to our government and our House of Representative will be discussed bill on terrorism with prudential and for our national interest related to eliminate a potential terror cell and the next of terror threats.
In the new of terrorism bill, I think BIN will choose as "a coordinator" because of that, every an intelligence bodies in Indonesia should be made strong coordination and cooperation with BIN and they must be sent a daily information related to a terror groups plan, the current location of terror groups in Indonesia and abroad etc.
Do not forget, one of the urgency of terrorism bill which must discuss is a deradicalization process and how to make "national situation room" about the dynamics of a terror issues at the Presidential Palace/Offices. From "national situation room", President will be known about terror groups information and other strategic issues related to our national security situation.
*) The writer had earned his master title at the University of Indonesia (UI). One of founder Center of Risk and Strategic Intelligence Assessment (Cersia), Jakarta.
COPYRIGHT © ANTARA News Megapolitan 2017
The legal think tank the Institute for Criminal Justice (ICJR) has questioned the reasons for the House of Representatives to close off the deliberation process from public, arguing that the "ongoing inaccessible discussion violates the right to information, especially when it is related to a policy that will impact on the life of many."
ICJR executive director Supriyadi Widodo Eddyono cited the problem of the fate of victims of terror attacks as one of the crucial issues that the group had been monitoring. "But a closed-door discussion will lock out victims as well as rights campaigners from ensuring that the bill will accommodate the rights of those who suffer from terror attacks," he said on Tuesday (24/1/2017).
A special working committee tasked with discussing the contours of the bill resumed discussion on Jan. 10 and Jan. 13 after a month of recess in December last year. Both meetings were restricted from the public, a decision that also raised protest from other civil society groups that focus on security sector reform such as Imparsial, the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence, the Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy and the Setara Institute.
Close off the deliberation process
The step of the House of Representative to close off the deliberation process of a bill on terrorism hasn’t protested, because a bill on terrorism is one of a strategic bill related to the next Indonesia national security. Because discussing or deliberating about a bill on terrorism may discuss some of a strategic issues and a plan of how Indonesia will be handled terrorism threats.
If a deliberation process will open for public, un-expected "stake holders" will know the strategy of Indonesia to handle terrorism threats. Furthermore, we don't know other purposes of Indonesia's civil society groups in the context of a bill on terrorism process.
I think our the House of Representative will be discussed about several strategic things including the right of those who suffer from terror attacks. We must believe in the intention of our country to protect and to serve suffer terror attacks person or communities, because our government has been understanding about their sadness.
However, we have judged that a terror groups with their terror actions are an extra-ordinary crimes which must be tackled with an extra ordinary rules. Talking and discussing about these strategic issues, we shall take a close of meeting.
As far as, Indonesia's government had been understanding about civil society groups concern. Voicing a similiar concern, our government have a common intention to eliminate a terror attacks and their potential cells which had been grown at several residence and province in Indonesia. State National Agency (BIN), Terror Eliminating National Agency (BNPT), National Police and Indonesian Army (TNI) had been predicted that the next potential terror threats were still as "national dangerous situation" especially after the end of Syria's war and a number of mujaheeden will e returned to Indonesia. Besides that, Islamic State had been declared that Southeast Asia regions specially Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Southern Thailand and Singapura would be their next target to build "an international caliphate".
The urgency of Terrorism Bill
Eventhough Indonesian security and an intelligence apparatus efforts to eliminate a terror threats are taking "maximal outcome", the revision on terrorism bill has been doing because the next terror threats had been predicted its would be done with a several new strategies and tactics and have a huge random target.
Basically, terrorism bill will be needed by every country to counter and to eliminate terror threats to each their country. Without close cooperation and the same common idea about these issues, the process of terrorism bill discussion will be tangled-up by unstrategic will and purpose. If these situation will be happened, we might loose a chance to prepare our national readiness to counter and to fight against terrorism.
I think eliminating terror threats in Indonesia should be needed a close relation and close coordination among national stakeholder such as BIN, National Police, BNPT, Foreign Ministry, Homeland Ministry, Defence Ministry, Religion Ministry, National Uelama Council, the House of Representative, academia, non-Muslim organization, civil society organization and last but not least national mass media. Once more again, without close cooperation, relation and coordination among them, a terror threats always might be happened in Indonesia.
Because of that, the suspicious among national stakeholder must be eliminated. We must believe in to our government and our House of Representative will be discussed bill on terrorism with prudential and for our national interest related to eliminate a potential terror cell and the next of terror threats.
In the new of terrorism bill, I think BIN will choose as "a coordinator" because of that, every an intelligence bodies in Indonesia should be made strong coordination and cooperation with BIN and they must be sent a daily information related to a terror groups plan, the current location of terror groups in Indonesia and abroad etc.
Do not forget, one of the urgency of terrorism bill which must discuss is a deradicalization process and how to make "national situation room" about the dynamics of a terror issues at the Presidential Palace/Offices. From "national situation room", President will be known about terror groups information and other strategic issues related to our national security situation.
*) The writer had earned his master title at the University of Indonesia (UI). One of founder Center of Risk and Strategic Intelligence Assessment (Cersia), Jakarta.
Editor : M. Tohamaksun
COPYRIGHT © ANTARA News Megapolitan 2017