T

he intelligence bill is currently being deliberated by the House of Representatives. The bill, which was drafted in 2003, will grant the National Intelligence Agency (BIN) the authority to arrest, detain, wiretap and monitor media channels including social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter. The human rights activists are the frontline groups who oppose the articles, since it will make BIN a superbody with the authority to abduct people who are critical of government. This may be based on our traumatic history under an authoritarian regime.

Are we, the Indonesian people, worried about this too? It is not because I am not pro-democracy, but frankly, considering an escalation of the violations, terrorism, and threats to civil society nowadays, these articles in the draft bill deserve to be considered. We should see any threats toward some figures as equal to threats against the state that was founded as a home for all. The last cowardly act was the terrorism whereby bombs were sent in packages disguised as books.

Although the draft bill would allow the intelligence agency to intercept the communications of anyone deemed a threat to the state without a court order, including tapping their telephone cells, text messages, emails and even to monitor social networking websites such as Facebook and Twitter, we don’t need to panic, reactive or quickly accuse the state of violating the freedom of expression.

With everyone now so freely opening their mouths to speak anything and write anything, whereby the people can no longer distinguish the appropriateness of content, any measures to drive our democracy’s journey back to the right line is needed. Some people only take the freedom as one of elements of democracy as the base to speak loudly, harshly and even, if necessary, to threaten others who are not in the same position as them.

Of course, not every criticism or outspoken statement is dangerous, because the healthy democracy breathes checks and balances to achieve the matured democracy. However, to understand any statements containing threats to the state is very tangible.

A conversation on radio recently on the discourse of BIN monitoring on Facebook and Twitter received support for the plan, considering the tendency of netters to use unhealthy and provocative words and statements posted on the social networking media. If a Twitter accountholder has thousands of followers, can we guarantee that these followers are able to filter such provocative words?

Some of us may feel inconvenienced that our account could be watched, or our cellular phones tapped. But, as the radio broadcaster asked, “Who are you to be so worried about being monitored by BIN? Don’t be [fool yourself into thinking BIN would care about you].” It made sense. Why would BIN monitor you if you don’t pose any threat to the state? The public reaction to the plan may too excessive, when usually we only post such comment about our petty daily routine.

BIN surely needs an umbrella law to shelter any measures that deal with threats against the state. Sadly, the democracy and freedom of expression has tightly roped the state apparatus. Several times the government has received threats, but the state always shows indecisiveness. It is not clear whether the government is too weak, or afraid about violating human rights.

Recently, there have been rumors about an alleged movement planned by retired military generals using Islamic hardliner groups to overthrow President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

As reported by Al Jazeera, the group would amass millions of Muslims on May 20 (coinciding with National Awakening Day) in a protest to topple the President.

Whether or not this was just a rumor, one thing is for sure: The weaker the government in upholding law and order, the braver they will be.

Titus Jonathan
Serpong, Banten