A

sian governments should develop a specific and accountable definition of national security to prevent abuses, activists and academics say.

Around 60 freedom of information activists, human rights defenders, advocates and academics from 15 Asian countries gathered in Jakarta from Nov. 9 to 11 to share their experiences in keeping the balance between security and freedom.

Speaking at a press conference on Friday, Yap Swee Seng, the executive director of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, said that the current definition of national security was too vague and was hence was prone to abuse.

In practice, Yap explained that there were many cases where national security was used as a reason for government elites to repress their citizens and violate human rights. “All of these [power abuses and human rights violations] were done in the name of national security.”

Indonesia’s Central Information Commission (KIP) commissioner Alamsyah Saragih said that so-called “confidential operations” in the name of national security should be conducted in the interest of human rights and law enforcement, not in the interest of the elites.

“If [national security operations] are conducted in the interest of the elites, they actually threaten the country’s national security itself,” Alamsyah said.

Besides urging the development of a clear definition of national security, the participants of the regional forum also urged the Asian governments to regulate private companies performing public services so they were publicly transparent.

The meeting cited the importance of the public having access to information so that such companies’ operations could be assessed and evaluated.

The meeting also stated the need for the establishment of independent oversight bodies to oversee intelligence agencies or national security councils.

The intelligence and national security issue came under the spotlight in Indonesia as it is now devising legislation on national security that critics say may jeopardize freedom of expression and access to information.

The House of Representatives passed the controversial intelligence bill into law on Oct. 11, ending eight years of prolonged deliberation.

The intelligence bill, which is currently being reviewed by the Constitutional Court, has been criticized by many due to the absence of clauses that would require intelligence agencies to uphold human rights principles in its operations.

The lawmakers and the government are now deliberating the national security bill and state secrecy bill. Activists said the bills’ deliberation should be monitored to prevent the insertion of passages that could hinder freedom. (sat)