Police walk thin blue line in responding to protests

Imanuddin Razak ,  The Jakarta Post ,  Jakarta   |  Wed, 05/28/2008 11:30 AM  |  Headlines

Commentary

A series of street protests and rallies in opposition to fuel price increases have been held in major cities across the country over the past few days. Most protests have received similar treatment by the police -- non-violent rallies have been allowed to continue peacefully, while violent ones have been prohibited, if not crushed, by the security apparatus.

Among the protests were two held on separate day in the capital, both of which turned violent. The police response to these two protests was very different.

In the first incident, at National University (Unas) in Pejaten, South Jakarta, on Saturday, police pursued students onto the campus, beating and arresting them.

In the second incident, on Monday afternoon, in front of Indonesian Christian University (UKI) in East Jakarta, police were much more lenient, not pursuing protesters onto the campus, but instead waiting outside.

But as the evening matured, the students came out and began protesting again, blocking the street in front of their campus and causing severe traffic jams in the Cawang area of East Jakarta.

It seems the police took extra care not to repeat the violent scenes from Saturday's incident at the Unas campus, following accusations by human rights groups of alleged violations by officers.

The UKI students continued to block off the street in front of their campus through Tuesday afternoon, relenting only after the university's rector ordered the students to remove the blockade.

So, were the police right in the first incident and wrong in the second? Or the other way around?

These are not easy questions to answer, and require careful examination of the decision-makers themselves.

In the first incident, the police did the right thing when they took firm action against violent protesters. And, to a certain extent, they have the right to pursue students onto a campus if violence occurs.

But in wrongfully arresting students not involved in the protest and damaging campus property, the police overstepped their bounds.

In the second incident, it was reasonable for the police to avoid pursuing the UKI students onto their campus and remain on guard outside.

However, the police should explain why they allowed the protest to continue through the evening rush hour, thus backing up traffic.

The decision-making process in responding to such incidents should be left to the police, but the police must be genuine in their pursuit and in taking firm action against violent protesters.

In the first incident, the police initially claimed they had found liquor, drugs and jerry can(s) of kerosene on the campus. However, National Police chief Gen. Sutanto later said police took action following complaints by surrounding residents that the protesters were preventing them from performing shubuh (dawn) prayers.

The two contrasting claims by the police reveal the disingenuous motives behind their actions against the students. As does the fact that if the police did find liquor, drugs and kerosene on the campus, they would have done so only after entering the campus; those items could not have been the reason for the police to charge the campus in the first place.

The public might be able to understand the police's actions if the protesters had committed violence and if their actions had indeed disturbed or violated other people's or parties' rights.

Otherwise, the police could be accused of violating Article 18 of the 1998 law on freedom of expression in public, which guarantees every citizen's right to express their opinion in public, including staging street demonstrations or rallies. Such a violation could be punishable by a maximum of one year in jail.

We are all for a professional police force, one able to act as wise law enforcers.

Copyright © 2008 The Jakarta Post - PT Bina Media Tenggara. All Rights Reserved.