When the Indonesian House of Representatives announced in mid-March that it would soon put the freedom of information bill on its agenda, local journalists and reformists of all political stripes were beside themselves with excitement.

After all, they have long been waiting for a freedom of information law that would guarantee the peoples access to public records, become a tool to promote transparency and good governance and be yet another step toward political reform.

And should the bill pass Parliament, Indonesia would become only the second country in Southeast Asia to have such a law, Thailand having gotten its own Freedom of Information Act in 1997.

But now the House, known by its Indonesian acronym DPR, says it will first deliberate on a state secrecy bill. This has all but burst the hopeful bubbles of the reformists and the media, many of whom suspect that the relatively new bills true purpose is to undermine the freedom of information bill.

Indonesian Newspaper Publishers Association executive chairperson S L Batubara says, There have been so much corruption and human rights abuses, as well as manipulation on public information. We need the (freedom of information) bill to minimise them.

But, he laments, many political leaders still adopt the old paradigm. They still think that people are not ready yet for freedom to know.

Broad spectrum

Lawmaker Tumbu Saraswati himself observed in a House plenary meeting that while a freedom of information law would give the public access to data on a broad spectrum of subjects including debt and human rights abuses, the proposed state secrecy act would essentially allow state personnel to deny such access.

Djoko Susilo, head of the House Commission I media and information team, also says that even in the absence of a state secrecy law, the Indonesian public has always had difficulty obtaining information from government institutes.

Lukas Luwarso, Indonesian Press Council executive director, remarks,During the Suharto regime, there was an idea of having state secrecy law, but at the end they didnt really need it because everything was already state secrecy then.

He adds that it is ironic that in this reform era, the governments mentality is still the same as that of the repressive regime.

Since Indonesian strongman Suharto was forced to step down in 1998 after three decades of iron rule, the country has been trying to piece together a working democracy.

Crucial signals

Many had considered the freedom of information bill, which NGOs, journalists, various activists and even legislators had worked on for a year and a half, as among the crucial signals of the governments sincerity in bringing about real political change.

According to the draft bill, all public institutions are not only to keep all information about the matters they are responsible for, they are also to provide such information to the public, albeit with some exceptions.

These include data that could interfere with law enforcement, property rights, or endanger state security or infringe privacy.

A freedom of information commission would also be established to oversee its enforcement process. As an added measure, failure to comply with the law could mean a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.

The state secrecy bill, meanwhile, gives the heads of state institutions and ministries, enterprises and the military the discretion in deciding which document should be classified as state secret. These heads can also delegate such power to subordinates.

Maximum penalty

The bill, which was hammered out in a matter of a few months, also provides for a maximum penalty of nine years imprisonment for those who violate it.

As with the freedom of information bill, it would also be the first time for the Indonesian parliament to debate on a state secrecy bill, although the countrys Criminal Code Act has provisions touching on state secrets.

Luwarso and Batubara agree that some state information do need to remainsecret in order to national interests in areas such as trade or international affairs. But they argue that such concerns can be covered as well by a freedom of information law.

While the main emphasis of such a law is the publics right to know, they say, the provisions covering exceptions to access can include those on state secrets.

The idea among civil society is that we dont need state secrecy bill, says Luwarso. We have proposed that the government put state secrecy bill as a part of freedom of information bill. But the situation is now very different from what we hoped because of the priority on DPR list.

Conflicting provisions

Some legislators and activists had wanted the freedom of information bill to be deliberated on before the state secrecy bill, to prevent the context of the latter from being used to manipulate the debate on the former.

Right after the proposal of state secrecy bill was announced on March 20, several DPR members also suggested that the two bills be deliberated together to avoid conflicting provisions between them.

The deliberation of the bills has to be made simultaneously to avoid contradicting articles, House Commission I deputy chairperson R K Sembiring Meliala told the press.

As things stand, though, the state secrecy bill is still number 17 among the 80 bills to be debated on, while that on freedom of information is number 30.

Activists have grumbled that the DPRs sense of priority seems to be flawed, with some pointing out that the bills on political parties, the composition of the House and general election that are seen as in urgent need before the 2004 election have wound up in the list as 40, 41 and 42 respectively.

But lawmaker Djoko Susilo is urging the public to pay close attention to debates on the information and secrecy bills. Batubara and Luwarso in the meantime say that civil rights groups will not give up pushing for a full-scale freedom of information law.

Promises Batubara: We will fight. (IPS)