Indonesia: Debate Over a New Intelligence Bill
Jakarta/Brussels, 12 July 2011 - Indonesia should put the passage of a controversial intelligence bill on hold until
there is a more comprehensive assessment of its security needs.
Indonesia: Debate Over a New Intelligence Bill, the latest briefing from the International Crisis Group, looks at the debate that the draft law has produced over the
role of the intelligence services in a democracy, many of whose citizens are still sceptical that once repressive
institutions have actually changed. It also examines the process that led to the bill’s moving to the top of Indonesia’s
legislative priorities.
“The idea of giving a formal legal basis to the intelligence agencies is a good one, but a concept paper on national
security strategy should have come first, with an assessment of the challenges the country faces and the appropriate
roles for different agencies in addressing them”, says Achmad Sukarsono, Crisis Group’s South East Asia Analyst. “The
drafting process was backwards”.
Prepared in late 2010, the draft was originally scheduled for enactment in July 2011 but has been delayed by differences
among four major constituencies: lawmakers, the administration of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, civil society and
the State Intelligence Agency (Badan Intelijen Negara, BIN).
The controversy centers around three issues: whether BIN should have arrest and detention powers; whether wiretapping
and other intercepts should require a court order; and how to ensure oversight and accountability mechanisms consistent
with democratic governance. The government is arguing for more powers and less oversight than even BIN itself sees as
desirable, while civil society organisations fear a return to abusive practices of the past. In the middle are the
legislators, who wanted to give a legal mandate to the only part of the security structure that still lacks one, as well
as to put in place better intelligence coordination and more safeguards against rogue activities.
The debate has been further complicated by plans for other security-related legislation, including a broader national
security bill and proposed amendments to the anti-terrorism law. Failure to consider these as a package or coordinate
discussion around them may increase the possibility of inconsistency, overlapping mandates and unclear division of
labour among security agencies.
The lack of legislative coordination may be an inevitable consequence of the fact that these bills are being drafted by
different institutions in a new democracy. “Some democratic messiness is better than authoritarian precision, but a
little more strategic direction would be useful”, says Jim Della-Giacoma, Crisis Group’s South East Asia Project
Director. “Working out a solid national security agenda is worth a few more months of discussion”.
ENDS